Page 239 - 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. 239
“a cr itique of cr iticism”: an attempt to outline “mor e appropr iate” ...
In this passage, Aškerc mentions how the lord of the manor oppress-
es his serfs by having them beaten. It is, of course, possible that one of the
party grandees present at the concert saw an allusion to themselves in this
section of the cantata. It should be pointed out that the memory of post-
war revolutionary violence was still very much alive, particularly in Catho-
lic circles.
In reply to Vošnjak’s “critique of criticism”, Tomc intended to write
that the controversial passage, supposedly a “manifestation of reactionary,
anti-popular tendencies,” was actually marked in the score with the words
“ironically” and “mockingly”. In the last three bars of this passage, in fact,
the choir – representing the peasants – sings a recitative in mocking imita-
tion of the lord of the manor. Tomc later thought better of it, however, since
writing such a letter, which in all likelihood would not have been published
anyway, may only have made matters worse.46 The view that Vošnjak’s arti-
cle was a milder version of Zhdanovite cultural-political score-settling was
clearly expressed by the composer Marijan Lipovšek in his own reply in
Slovenska glasbena revija (“Slovenian Music Review”).47 Lipovšek was the
only member of the musical, Catholic and intellectual elite who dared pen
a public condemnation of what he considered a questionable attempt at po-
litical interference in the daily press:
Critics failed to evaluate this work correctly. Those who reviewed it un-
fortunately included journalists who attempted, with amateurish ob-
servations, not only to belittle the composition but also to impute “re-
ligious” intentions to Tomc that he undoubtedly did not have. In doing
so, they uttered such nonsense that it was, of course, clear as day to us
musicians where all this was going. The general public, however, which
has respect for the musical problems of composition but also, of course,
for journalists, particularly when the journalist is the editor-in-chief of
one of the country’s two biggest newspapers, likes to believe that things
are as the journalist says they are, especially when it is easier and saf-
er to put one’s tail between one’s legs. And that is what the majority of
our critics did. 48
In an earlier edition of Slovenska glasbena revija, Lipovšek wrote:
It is my understanding that Tomc is not employed in a position that
corresponds to his talent, his industry and his past achievements
46 Kmecl, “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi,” 38.
47 Lipovšek, “Koncertna sezona 1955/56,” 15.
48 Ibid.
239
In this passage, Aškerc mentions how the lord of the manor oppress-
es his serfs by having them beaten. It is, of course, possible that one of the
party grandees present at the concert saw an allusion to themselves in this
section of the cantata. It should be pointed out that the memory of post-
war revolutionary violence was still very much alive, particularly in Catho-
lic circles.
In reply to Vošnjak’s “critique of criticism”, Tomc intended to write
that the controversial passage, supposedly a “manifestation of reactionary,
anti-popular tendencies,” was actually marked in the score with the words
“ironically” and “mockingly”. In the last three bars of this passage, in fact,
the choir – representing the peasants – sings a recitative in mocking imita-
tion of the lord of the manor. Tomc later thought better of it, however, since
writing such a letter, which in all likelihood would not have been published
anyway, may only have made matters worse.46 The view that Vošnjak’s arti-
cle was a milder version of Zhdanovite cultural-political score-settling was
clearly expressed by the composer Marijan Lipovšek in his own reply in
Slovenska glasbena revija (“Slovenian Music Review”).47 Lipovšek was the
only member of the musical, Catholic and intellectual elite who dared pen
a public condemnation of what he considered a questionable attempt at po-
litical interference in the daily press:
Critics failed to evaluate this work correctly. Those who reviewed it un-
fortunately included journalists who attempted, with amateurish ob-
servations, not only to belittle the composition but also to impute “re-
ligious” intentions to Tomc that he undoubtedly did not have. In doing
so, they uttered such nonsense that it was, of course, clear as day to us
musicians where all this was going. The general public, however, which
has respect for the musical problems of composition but also, of course,
for journalists, particularly when the journalist is the editor-in-chief of
one of the country’s two biggest newspapers, likes to believe that things
are as the journalist says they are, especially when it is easier and saf-
er to put one’s tail between one’s legs. And that is what the majority of
our critics did. 48
In an earlier edition of Slovenska glasbena revija, Lipovšek wrote:
It is my understanding that Tomc is not employed in a position that
corresponds to his talent, his industry and his past achievements
46 Kmecl, “Vrtičkarjevi zimski dnevi,” 38.
47 Lipovšek, “Koncertna sezona 1955/56,” 15.
48 Ibid.
239
