Page 218 - 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. 218
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
Weingartner in Basel, Škerjanc was the conductor of the Glasbena Matica
Orchestral Society in Ljubljana. This was a relatively modest, non-profes-
sional ensemble consisting mainly of string players and supplemented by
students from the conservatoire. The ensemble performed works suitable
for its instrumentation and level of skill, for the most part drawn from the
classical repertoire, and works by current Slovene composers, which did
not yet include pieces incorporating the latest compositional trends being
followed in Europe at that time. Occasionally it would perform larger-scale
orchestral works, for which it would have to engage members of the Ljublja-
na Opera Orchestra and the band of the Drava Division.16 Škerjanc himself
composed a number of works for string ensemble which he then performed
with the Orchestral Society. These works did not go beyond his traditional
compositional technique, which was typically a blend of romantic, impres-
sionist and more modern compositional characteristics, and except in a few
rare instances – as already mentioned – never overstepping the boundaries
of tonality.
He was convinced that Slovene musical creativity, despite its numeri-
cal disadvantage, could hold its head up in culturally more developed con-
texts. This was also a view he advocated publicly in a heated discussion with
the composer Anton Lajovic, who was of the opinion that the music of such
a small nation as Slovenia did not have wider prospects. In a 1928 piece on
the latest issue of Nova muzika (“The new music”), a review edited by Emil
Adamič that covered themes from the wider European context, he wrote:
I believe that civilised nations do not generally consider artists to be
representatives of nations and that the success of a composer is his own
personal success, regardless of what nation he belongs to, unless he is
merely a collector of folk songs. [...] We cannot expect to one day ‘con-
quer’ other nations with our musical culture; it is merely a matter of
carving out a little space for ourselves, perhaps at the very back. As one
of the Europe’s least populous nations, we will never be able to compete
with others in terms of quantity, but the quality of an individual com-
poser is not, I believe, dependent on the nation or country he belongs
to.17
We have already mentioned that Škerjanc did not think much of some
of the Ljubljana musical public, which he believed to be unsophisticated
16 For more on the activity of the Orchestral Society, see: Andreja Pernuš, “Ustanovitev
in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945”
(Master Thesis, University of Ljubljana, 2009).
17 L. M. Š., “Nova muzika št. 3,” 10.
218
Weingartner in Basel, Škerjanc was the conductor of the Glasbena Matica
Orchestral Society in Ljubljana. This was a relatively modest, non-profes-
sional ensemble consisting mainly of string players and supplemented by
students from the conservatoire. The ensemble performed works suitable
for its instrumentation and level of skill, for the most part drawn from the
classical repertoire, and works by current Slovene composers, which did
not yet include pieces incorporating the latest compositional trends being
followed in Europe at that time. Occasionally it would perform larger-scale
orchestral works, for which it would have to engage members of the Ljublja-
na Opera Orchestra and the band of the Drava Division.16 Škerjanc himself
composed a number of works for string ensemble which he then performed
with the Orchestral Society. These works did not go beyond his traditional
compositional technique, which was typically a blend of romantic, impres-
sionist and more modern compositional characteristics, and except in a few
rare instances – as already mentioned – never overstepping the boundaries
of tonality.
He was convinced that Slovene musical creativity, despite its numeri-
cal disadvantage, could hold its head up in culturally more developed con-
texts. This was also a view he advocated publicly in a heated discussion with
the composer Anton Lajovic, who was of the opinion that the music of such
a small nation as Slovenia did not have wider prospects. In a 1928 piece on
the latest issue of Nova muzika (“The new music”), a review edited by Emil
Adamič that covered themes from the wider European context, he wrote:
I believe that civilised nations do not generally consider artists to be
representatives of nations and that the success of a composer is his own
personal success, regardless of what nation he belongs to, unless he is
merely a collector of folk songs. [...] We cannot expect to one day ‘con-
quer’ other nations with our musical culture; it is merely a matter of
carving out a little space for ourselves, perhaps at the very back. As one
of the Europe’s least populous nations, we will never be able to compete
with others in terms of quantity, but the quality of an individual com-
poser is not, I believe, dependent on the nation or country he belongs
to.17
We have already mentioned that Škerjanc did not think much of some
of the Ljubljana musical public, which he believed to be unsophisticated
16 For more on the activity of the Orchestral Society, see: Andreja Pernuš, “Ustanovitev
in delovanje Orkestralnega društva Glasbene matice v Ljubljani od leta 1919 do 1945”
(Master Thesis, University of Ljubljana, 2009).
17 L. M. Š., “Nova muzika št. 3,” 10.
218
