Page 123 - Weiss, Jernej, ur./ed. 2024. Glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes ▪︎ Music Criticism – Yesterday and Today. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 7
P. 123
e. b. lvovský or who was the harshest viennese cr itic of antonín dvoř ák’s music
either by Lvovský himself or by the hitherto unknown “Eusebius” – it can-
not be ruled out that this was Lvovský’s pseudonym.
The periodical included various free supplements, for example Illus-
trierte Literaturblatt, musical supplements, and subscribers to Volume X
received gratis the impressive Almanach der Österreichischen Musik- und
Theaterzeitung (Vienna 1897). The interesting design also won an award at
the World Exhibition in Brussels (1897) – a bronze medal and a certificate
of merit.74
There is no room in this study for a detailed assessment of the “Lvo-
vský period” of this journal.75 He managed to maintain its high reputation,
and the level of coverage of Czech music makes it a unique German-lan-
guage music periodical.
The dispute over the importance of Antonín Dvořák, one of the phe-
nomena of Czech music historiography, was also present on the pages of
ÖMTZ. Lvovský criticised Dvořák’s work quite harshly, but he was not
the only critic in this sense: see Franz Gerstenkorn (1834–1910) in Prague,
George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), John F. Runciman (1866–1912) and Fran-
cis Hueffer (1845–1889) in London, and James Gibbons Huneker (1857–1921)
in New York. Lvovský’s critical tone towards Dvořák’s compositions grad-
ually intensified. An example of this is the first concert of the new season
of the Slavic Singers’ Society (11 December 1897), which included two of
Dvořák’s compositions. Te Deum was performed for the first time in Eu-
rope, and Lvovský added: “And may it remain the last! Calculating in its
crude mass effect and very poor in its melodic invention, this work is a true
caricature of church music.”76 The criticism was mainly related to the me-
lodic aspect and the overall purpose of the piece, but the choir performed it
very well. In this, and in the praise of the mastery of dynamics by the choir-
master M. Hubad, there is a noticeable shift from Lvovský’s earlier reviews.
“The worst mistake of the evening was the performance of ‘Dumky’, a trio
for piano, violin and cello [...].”77 Lvovský reproached this composition both
for its very existence and for its performance. Unlike before, Lvovský did
74 Anon., “Laut Mittheilung der […],” ÖMTZ 10, no. 3 (October 1897): 3; Anon., “Ví-
deň,” 344.
75 Reittererová and Velek, “Die Rezeption der tschechischen Musik,” 152–80.
76 “Möge es doch auch die letzte bleiben! Dieses, auf grobe Massenwirkung berechnete, in
melodischer Erfindung höchst armselige Werk, ist eine wahre Caricatur der Kirchen-
musik.” Anon., “Der slavische Gesangverein,” ÖMTZ 10, no. 8 (15 October 1897): 6:
77 “Der ärgste Missgriff des Abendes war der Triovortrag für Clavier, Violine und Cello
der ‚Dumky‘ von Dr. Anton Dvořák.” Ibid.
123
either by Lvovský himself or by the hitherto unknown “Eusebius” – it can-
not be ruled out that this was Lvovský’s pseudonym.
The periodical included various free supplements, for example Illus-
trierte Literaturblatt, musical supplements, and subscribers to Volume X
received gratis the impressive Almanach der Österreichischen Musik- und
Theaterzeitung (Vienna 1897). The interesting design also won an award at
the World Exhibition in Brussels (1897) – a bronze medal and a certificate
of merit.74
There is no room in this study for a detailed assessment of the “Lvo-
vský period” of this journal.75 He managed to maintain its high reputation,
and the level of coverage of Czech music makes it a unique German-lan-
guage music periodical.
The dispute over the importance of Antonín Dvořák, one of the phe-
nomena of Czech music historiography, was also present on the pages of
ÖMTZ. Lvovský criticised Dvořák’s work quite harshly, but he was not
the only critic in this sense: see Franz Gerstenkorn (1834–1910) in Prague,
George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), John F. Runciman (1866–1912) and Fran-
cis Hueffer (1845–1889) in London, and James Gibbons Huneker (1857–1921)
in New York. Lvovský’s critical tone towards Dvořák’s compositions grad-
ually intensified. An example of this is the first concert of the new season
of the Slavic Singers’ Society (11 December 1897), which included two of
Dvořák’s compositions. Te Deum was performed for the first time in Eu-
rope, and Lvovský added: “And may it remain the last! Calculating in its
crude mass effect and very poor in its melodic invention, this work is a true
caricature of church music.”76 The criticism was mainly related to the me-
lodic aspect and the overall purpose of the piece, but the choir performed it
very well. In this, and in the praise of the mastery of dynamics by the choir-
master M. Hubad, there is a noticeable shift from Lvovský’s earlier reviews.
“The worst mistake of the evening was the performance of ‘Dumky’, a trio
for piano, violin and cello [...].”77 Lvovský reproached this composition both
for its very existence and for its performance. Unlike before, Lvovský did
74 Anon., “Laut Mittheilung der […],” ÖMTZ 10, no. 3 (October 1897): 3; Anon., “Ví-
deň,” 344.
75 Reittererová and Velek, “Die Rezeption der tschechischen Musik,” 152–80.
76 “Möge es doch auch die letzte bleiben! Dieses, auf grobe Massenwirkung berechnete, in
melodischer Erfindung höchst armselige Werk, ist eine wahre Caricatur der Kirchen-
musik.” Anon., “Der slavische Gesangverein,” ÖMTZ 10, no. 8 (15 October 1897): 6:
77 “Der ärgste Missgriff des Abendes war der Triovortrag für Clavier, Violine und Cello
der ‚Dumky‘ von Dr. Anton Dvořák.” Ibid.
123
