Page 228 - 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. 228
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
example, Niall O’Loughlin, the author of a comprehensive historical over-
view of 20th century Slovenian music, does not use the term “socialist art”
in his description of the post-1945 period, unlike some other authors.2 Lo-
jze Lebič speaks of “normative aesthetics”,3 while Ivan Klemenčič speaks
of the “prescribed model”.4 The latter is supposed to mean primarily the
abandonment of autonomous aesthetics and the developmental discon-
tinuity of Slovenian music. Although socialist realism prescribed things
on a formal level, the model of this ideologically conditioned art was nev-
er clearly defined in Slovenia or anywhere else. Indeed, as Marina Frolo-
va-Walker demonstrated at the recent online conference organised by the
University of Leipzig and the University of Cambridge,5 a uniform mod-
el of socialist realism cannot even be detected in the Soviet Union of that
period.
Slovenian policy with regard to cultural questions was almost entire-
ly autonomous, even with respect to the Yugoslav authorities, and politics
did not involve itself in concrete musical or aesthetic issues. Composers and
musical institutions in Slovenia were, of course, dependent on certain ap-
paratchiks in the institutional hierarchy who were responsible for distrib-
uting money. The regime did not prohibit contacts between Slovenian com-
posers and their foreign counterparts, although in practice it was extremely
difficult for Slovenian composers to systematically establish personal con-
tacts with the West, since financial assistance for trips abroad was limited
and carefully allocated. During the first decade after the war, cooperation
with some Western European musical cultures was virtually impossible.
More or less carefully selected delegations of Yugoslav composers were sent
to contemporary music festivals.6 In a similar way, in the difficult condi-
tions following the Second World War, Slovenian choral creativity as well
2 Niall O’Loughlin, Novejša glasba v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000).
3 Lojze Lebič, “Glasovi časov (II). O slovenski glasbeni ustvarjalnosti,” Naši zbori 45,
no. 5–6 (1993): 114.
4 Ivan Klemenčič, “Glasba in totalitarna država na Slovenskem,” in Temna stran me-
seca: kratka zgodovina totalitarizma v Sloveniji 1945–1990, ed. Drago Jančar (Ljublja-
na: Nova revija, 1998), 325.
5 Marina Frolova-Walker, “Socialist Realism in Music, Globally,” (a Royal Musical As-
sociation-affiliated one-day conference hosted by the University of Cambridge and
Universität Leipzig, July 1, 2022, virtual).
6 Leon Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” in In memoriam Danilo Pokorn,
eds. Nataša Cigoj Krstulović, Tomaž Faganel and Metoda Kokole (Ljubljana: Muzi-
kološki inštitut ZRC SAZU, 2004), 139.
228
example, Niall O’Loughlin, the author of a comprehensive historical over-
view of 20th century Slovenian music, does not use the term “socialist art”
in his description of the post-1945 period, unlike some other authors.2 Lo-
jze Lebič speaks of “normative aesthetics”,3 while Ivan Klemenčič speaks
of the “prescribed model”.4 The latter is supposed to mean primarily the
abandonment of autonomous aesthetics and the developmental discon-
tinuity of Slovenian music. Although socialist realism prescribed things
on a formal level, the model of this ideologically conditioned art was nev-
er clearly defined in Slovenia or anywhere else. Indeed, as Marina Frolo-
va-Walker demonstrated at the recent online conference organised by the
University of Leipzig and the University of Cambridge,5 a uniform mod-
el of socialist realism cannot even be detected in the Soviet Union of that
period.
Slovenian policy with regard to cultural questions was almost entire-
ly autonomous, even with respect to the Yugoslav authorities, and politics
did not involve itself in concrete musical or aesthetic issues. Composers and
musical institutions in Slovenia were, of course, dependent on certain ap-
paratchiks in the institutional hierarchy who were responsible for distrib-
uting money. The regime did not prohibit contacts between Slovenian com-
posers and their foreign counterparts, although in practice it was extremely
difficult for Slovenian composers to systematically establish personal con-
tacts with the West, since financial assistance for trips abroad was limited
and carefully allocated. During the first decade after the war, cooperation
with some Western European musical cultures was virtually impossible.
More or less carefully selected delegations of Yugoslav composers were sent
to contemporary music festivals.6 In a similar way, in the difficult condi-
tions following the Second World War, Slovenian choral creativity as well
2 Niall O’Loughlin, Novejša glasba v Sloveniji (Ljubljana: Slovenska matica, 2000).
3 Lojze Lebič, “Glasovi časov (II). O slovenski glasbeni ustvarjalnosti,” Naši zbori 45,
no. 5–6 (1993): 114.
4 Ivan Klemenčič, “Glasba in totalitarna država na Slovenskem,” in Temna stran me-
seca: kratka zgodovina totalitarizma v Sloveniji 1945–1990, ed. Drago Jančar (Ljublja-
na: Nova revija, 1998), 325.
5 Marina Frolova-Walker, “Socialist Realism in Music, Globally,” (a Royal Musical As-
sociation-affiliated one-day conference hosted by the University of Cambridge and
Universität Leipzig, July 1, 2022, virtual).
6 Leon Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” in In memoriam Danilo Pokorn,
eds. Nataša Cigoj Krstulović, Tomaž Faganel and Metoda Kokole (Ljubljana: Muzi-
kološki inštitut ZRC SAZU, 2004), 139.
228
