Page 214 - 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. 214
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
ed by the professional and lay public. In them, he shows the right amount
of knowledge, expresses himself in understandable and terminologically
appropriate language, and at the same time maintains his professionalism
with well-argued comments that offer the reader a broader insight into mu-
sical art, its content and its interpretation. Despite their concise nature, Šk-
erjanc’s critical writings are complementary accounts of musical life, art
and performance and a record of the reactions of the public (and the crit-
ic) to artistic achievements. Daily newspapers such as Jutro did not publish
really in-depth texts with reflections on artistic events. Cultural reviews
were a part of the newspaper’s desire to be topical and relevant in a range of
fields, from politics and the economy to culture.
Škerjanc’s critical writings in the period in question usually include a
presentation of the performers and their credentials, including their formal
training and their artistic achievements to date. He explains to what extent
an individual concert was interesting to the general public, highlights pre-
miere performances of individual compositions in Ljubljana, and offers ex-
pert comments on the cogency of the concert programme. Quite a number
of his reviews mention the reaction of the audience, although it is appar-
ent from his comments that he did not have a very high opinion of Ljublja-
na audiences. He considered them to be too traditional and unwilling to
accept innovation with an open mind and accused them of unfairly giv-
ing performers a cool reception and responding to them in an uninformed,
even condescending manner. His comments on concert programmes re-
veal his broad erudition and his knowledge of the Slovene and internation-
al musical repertoire. He does not omit to give his views on the originality
of the programme and on the suitability of the order in which the individ-
ual works are performed. He also comments on the quality and suitability
of the programme, considers the extent to which a Ljubljana audience – ex-
pert or otherwise – might have found it interesting and, above all, focuses
on the technical and artistic qualities of the performers, while also pointing
out their shortcomings. He is always respectful towards the performers and
is restrained in his choice of words even when giving a negative assessment.
I will now offer some examples of Škerjanc’s critical writings that clear-
ly illustrate his views on the role of criticism, its content and the attitude of
the critic towards performers and audience. He was as attentive to young
performers as he was to established musicians and he afforded the same at-
tention to solo, chamber, choral and symphonic concerts. This is demon-
strated by his review of a concert by the young Triestine pianist Karmela
214
ed by the professional and lay public. In them, he shows the right amount
of knowledge, expresses himself in understandable and terminologically
appropriate language, and at the same time maintains his professionalism
with well-argued comments that offer the reader a broader insight into mu-
sical art, its content and its interpretation. Despite their concise nature, Šk-
erjanc’s critical writings are complementary accounts of musical life, art
and performance and a record of the reactions of the public (and the crit-
ic) to artistic achievements. Daily newspapers such as Jutro did not publish
really in-depth texts with reflections on artistic events. Cultural reviews
were a part of the newspaper’s desire to be topical and relevant in a range of
fields, from politics and the economy to culture.
Škerjanc’s critical writings in the period in question usually include a
presentation of the performers and their credentials, including their formal
training and their artistic achievements to date. He explains to what extent
an individual concert was interesting to the general public, highlights pre-
miere performances of individual compositions in Ljubljana, and offers ex-
pert comments on the cogency of the concert programme. Quite a number
of his reviews mention the reaction of the audience, although it is appar-
ent from his comments that he did not have a very high opinion of Ljublja-
na audiences. He considered them to be too traditional and unwilling to
accept innovation with an open mind and accused them of unfairly giv-
ing performers a cool reception and responding to them in an uninformed,
even condescending manner. His comments on concert programmes re-
veal his broad erudition and his knowledge of the Slovene and internation-
al musical repertoire. He does not omit to give his views on the originality
of the programme and on the suitability of the order in which the individ-
ual works are performed. He also comments on the quality and suitability
of the programme, considers the extent to which a Ljubljana audience – ex-
pert or otherwise – might have found it interesting and, above all, focuses
on the technical and artistic qualities of the performers, while also pointing
out their shortcomings. He is always respectful towards the performers and
is restrained in his choice of words even when giving a negative assessment.
I will now offer some examples of Škerjanc’s critical writings that clear-
ly illustrate his views on the role of criticism, its content and the attitude of
the critic towards performers and audience. He was as attentive to young
performers as he was to established musicians and he afforded the same at-
tention to solo, chamber, choral and symphonic concerts. This is demon-
strated by his review of a concert by the young Triestine pianist Karmela
214
