Page 223 - 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. 223
lucijan marija škerjanc: critic of the jutro newspaper from 1927 to 1942
period in question. With his critical ear, he informed and educated audi-
ences, both professional and amateur, and, through the application of his
own aesthetic and professional criteria, helped shape public attitudes to-
wards artistic creativity and performance.
I would like to end by mentioning Škerjanc’s published letters from
Paris, where he spent several months at the end of 1936 and the beginning
of the following year. He attended numerous concerts during his stay and
duly informed the readers of Jutro about them, focusing on the performers,
the programme and the response of the audience, and comparing all this
to the musical life of Ljubljana. His reports reveal that not everything was
first rate even in Paris, although the programmes of concerts in the French
capital were incomparably weightier and more modern than those in Lju-
bljana.28 Škerjanc’s “Third Letter from Paris”, containing as it does a trium-
phant report of numerous performances of his own compositions in Paris
concert venues and on the radio, is particularly interesting. He is at pains
to point out that he himself would be appearing alongside his Parisian col-
leagues, as pianist (he was known to be a good pianist). He notes, somewhat
sarcastically and cynically, that all these events “will only interest a hand-
ful of my friends who have dared to defend my views despite cruel pressure
from all sides […].”29 We know that there were quite a number of disagree-
ments between Škerjanc and other Slovene musicians. Aspects of his criti-
cism and certain other characteristics had made Škerjanc a rather unpopu-
lar figure and he frequently engaged in heated public discussions in which
he used harsh and even insulting language.
He ends this letter, after giving a long list of performances of his works,
with a triumphant fling at his enemies:
Is this enough? Here is something else for those who will understand: I
have been elected – the first Slovene to be so honoured – to the ‘Société
française de musicologie’, whose publications are a model of modern es-
sayistic and aesthetic musical style, as a corresponding member, on the
strength of my submitted lectures on the French and Yugoslav musical
repertoires.30
28 L. M. Š., “Glasbeno pismo iz Pariza,” Jutro 17, no. 297 (23 December 1936): 7, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QCTTC6FC.
29 L. M. Š., “Tretje pariško pismo,” Jutro 18, no. 15 (19 January 1937): 7, http://www.dlib
.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-0FJLTNEW.
30 Ibid.
223
period in question. With his critical ear, he informed and educated audi-
ences, both professional and amateur, and, through the application of his
own aesthetic and professional criteria, helped shape public attitudes to-
wards artistic creativity and performance.
I would like to end by mentioning Škerjanc’s published letters from
Paris, where he spent several months at the end of 1936 and the beginning
of the following year. He attended numerous concerts during his stay and
duly informed the readers of Jutro about them, focusing on the performers,
the programme and the response of the audience, and comparing all this
to the musical life of Ljubljana. His reports reveal that not everything was
first rate even in Paris, although the programmes of concerts in the French
capital were incomparably weightier and more modern than those in Lju-
bljana.28 Škerjanc’s “Third Letter from Paris”, containing as it does a trium-
phant report of numerous performances of his own compositions in Paris
concert venues and on the radio, is particularly interesting. He is at pains
to point out that he himself would be appearing alongside his Parisian col-
leagues, as pianist (he was known to be a good pianist). He notes, somewhat
sarcastically and cynically, that all these events “will only interest a hand-
ful of my friends who have dared to defend my views despite cruel pressure
from all sides […].”29 We know that there were quite a number of disagree-
ments between Škerjanc and other Slovene musicians. Aspects of his criti-
cism and certain other characteristics had made Škerjanc a rather unpopu-
lar figure and he frequently engaged in heated public discussions in which
he used harsh and even insulting language.
He ends this letter, after giving a long list of performances of his works,
with a triumphant fling at his enemies:
Is this enough? Here is something else for those who will understand: I
have been elected – the first Slovene to be so honoured – to the ‘Société
française de musicologie’, whose publications are a model of modern es-
sayistic and aesthetic musical style, as a corresponding member, on the
strength of my submitted lectures on the French and Yugoslav musical
repertoires.30
28 L. M. Š., “Glasbeno pismo iz Pariza,” Jutro 17, no. 297 (23 December 1936): 7, http://
www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-QCTTC6FC.
29 L. M. Š., “Tretje pariško pismo,” Jutro 18, no. 15 (19 January 1937): 7, http://www.dlib
.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-0FJLTNEW.
30 Ibid.
223
