Page 222 - 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. 222
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
a year under a chosen conductor may not be much, but it is therefore
all the more welcome. [...] The development of our musical culture con-
tinues its slow and steady journey and the members of the Philhar-
monic will introduce the Slovene audience to important works of the
symphonic repertoire which they would otherwise never have the op-
portunity to hear in Ljubljana.25
Guest performances by leading conductors and orchestras served as
an encouragement to local musicians to tackle major projects themselves.
One such project was the performance of Handel’s Messiah in 1935. Once
again, practically all the musicians in Ljubljana, including the finest in-
strumentalists, solo singers, and choral singers, joined forces for the per-
formance. The ensemble was conducted by the Catholic priest, composer
and musicologist Anton Dolinar, a graduate of the University of Vienna’s
Faculty of Philosophy, where he studied under the renowned musicologist
Guido Adler, receiving his doctorate in 1927 and later dedicating himself to
musical aesthetics. Škerjanc praised the performance of the Messiah as an
outstanding achievement by local musicians and highlighted the need for
more thorough training for Slovene choir directors and conductors.26
Following a concert by the four Slovene “modernists”, as Danilo Švara,
Slavko Osterc and the latter’s pupils Franc Šturm and Bogo Leskovic were
known, Škerjanc offered the most positive criticism of Osterc’s works and
labelled him the most technically proficient. Taking a lead from then cur-
rent literature, he described Švara’s compositions as atonal works with the
characteristics of Schoenberg’s school, which had already had its day, and
emphasised that the new music was no longer satisfied with the intervallic
relationships between the individual tones of the dodecaphonic system, as
the simple instruction of the atonal composers would have it, and that com-
posers were “instead seeking different, ethical forces in music”27 – although
Škerjanc did not expand further on this topic.
Škerjanc’s critical writings in Jutro offer more than just comments on
the credentials of performers, concert programmes and the success of per-
formances. They are also an important contribution to our knowledge in
that they help complete our picture of the concert scene in Ljubljana in the
25 L. M. Š., “Dirigent Rhené-Baton v Ljubljani,” Jutro 16, no. 76 (31 March 1935): 3,
http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-G2804H3X.
26 L. M. Š., “Händlov Mesija,” Jutro 16, no. 129 (5 June 1935): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?UR-
N=URN:NBN:SI:doc-GG7U18L2.
27 L. M. Š., “Slovenska moderna glasba,” Jutro 16, no. 264 (14 November 1935): 3, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-NVZ2IFF6.
222
a year under a chosen conductor may not be much, but it is therefore
all the more welcome. [...] The development of our musical culture con-
tinues its slow and steady journey and the members of the Philhar-
monic will introduce the Slovene audience to important works of the
symphonic repertoire which they would otherwise never have the op-
portunity to hear in Ljubljana.25
Guest performances by leading conductors and orchestras served as
an encouragement to local musicians to tackle major projects themselves.
One such project was the performance of Handel’s Messiah in 1935. Once
again, practically all the musicians in Ljubljana, including the finest in-
strumentalists, solo singers, and choral singers, joined forces for the per-
formance. The ensemble was conducted by the Catholic priest, composer
and musicologist Anton Dolinar, a graduate of the University of Vienna’s
Faculty of Philosophy, where he studied under the renowned musicologist
Guido Adler, receiving his doctorate in 1927 and later dedicating himself to
musical aesthetics. Škerjanc praised the performance of the Messiah as an
outstanding achievement by local musicians and highlighted the need for
more thorough training for Slovene choir directors and conductors.26
Following a concert by the four Slovene “modernists”, as Danilo Švara,
Slavko Osterc and the latter’s pupils Franc Šturm and Bogo Leskovic were
known, Škerjanc offered the most positive criticism of Osterc’s works and
labelled him the most technically proficient. Taking a lead from then cur-
rent literature, he described Švara’s compositions as atonal works with the
characteristics of Schoenberg’s school, which had already had its day, and
emphasised that the new music was no longer satisfied with the intervallic
relationships between the individual tones of the dodecaphonic system, as
the simple instruction of the atonal composers would have it, and that com-
posers were “instead seeking different, ethical forces in music”27 – although
Škerjanc did not expand further on this topic.
Škerjanc’s critical writings in Jutro offer more than just comments on
the credentials of performers, concert programmes and the success of per-
formances. They are also an important contribution to our knowledge in
that they help complete our picture of the concert scene in Ljubljana in the
25 L. M. Š., “Dirigent Rhené-Baton v Ljubljani,” Jutro 16, no. 76 (31 March 1935): 3,
http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-G2804H3X.
26 L. M. Š., “Händlov Mesija,” Jutro 16, no. 129 (5 June 1935): 3, http://www.dlib.si/?UR-
N=URN:NBN:SI:doc-GG7U18L2.
27 L. M. Š., “Slovenska moderna glasba,” Jutro 16, no. 264 (14 November 1935): 3, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-NVZ2IFF6.
222
