Page 241 - 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. 241
“a cr itique of cr iticism”: an attempt to outline “mor e appropr iate” ...
mittee, both went on to occupy key positions in the former regime. Vošn-
jak, for example, became the director of the Government Information
Office, while Ziherl became the Minister for Science and Culture of the So-
cialist Republic of Slovenia. The affair did not, of course, only involve these
two individuals, but the entire broad spectrum of apparatchiks who con-
trolled almost all the key positions in the former regime.
Tomc’s artistic liquidation was, in the first place, about settling scores
with the clergy,52 which, with its criticism of communist ideology, was a
thorn in the side of every socialist regime. It was also about imposing dis-
cipline on the critical sphere by presenting “more appropriate” sociopoliti-
cal guidelines for critical writing. The critics who announced the premiere
of Stara pravda were considered incapable of showing sufficient insight into
the social uselessness of merely “aesthetic” writing and, consequently, un-
able to offer an adequate political condemnation of “deviant” social phe-
nomena. As a result, these critics, who before the premiere came for the
most part from professional circles, were forced to give way to anonymous
“sociopolitical workers”53 otherwise second-class critics who, taking into ac-
count above all the “social usefulness of the work”, gave a “more correct” as-
sessment of the event in question. In this case, then, effective agitation also
required the setting of new, more appropriate evaluation criteria.
It should be stressed that the main music critics at the time (including
Danilo Švara, Pavel Šivic, Uroš Prevoršek and Valens Vodušek), who cov-
ered concert and opera performance extensively in the daily newspapers
Slovenski poročevalec and Ljubljanski dnevnik, did not cover the above in-
cident and thus did not tread on the slippery surface of socialist-realist so-
cial demands.
On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that the treatment of
Tomc represents one of the rare examples of direct, public interventions
by the socialist regime in the sphere of music. For the most part, the au-
thorities preferred to avoid public controversy in this regard. Maintaining
its quasi-Western appearance of democratic socialism, the regime gave the
outward impression that the decisions of artists, including musicians, were
entirely autonomous, while at the same time ensuring via various mech-
anisms – including ideological commissions, the allocation of funds, the
52 At least two of his peers found themselves in a similarly unenviable situation as
Tomc soon after the end of the Second World War: Stanko Premrl and Alojzij Mav.
Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” 141–2.
53 Journalists were perceived by the socialist regime as being primarily cultural and
political workers.
241
mittee, both went on to occupy key positions in the former regime. Vošn-
jak, for example, became the director of the Government Information
Office, while Ziherl became the Minister for Science and Culture of the So-
cialist Republic of Slovenia. The affair did not, of course, only involve these
two individuals, but the entire broad spectrum of apparatchiks who con-
trolled almost all the key positions in the former regime.
Tomc’s artistic liquidation was, in the first place, about settling scores
with the clergy,52 which, with its criticism of communist ideology, was a
thorn in the side of every socialist regime. It was also about imposing dis-
cipline on the critical sphere by presenting “more appropriate” sociopoliti-
cal guidelines for critical writing. The critics who announced the premiere
of Stara pravda were considered incapable of showing sufficient insight into
the social uselessness of merely “aesthetic” writing and, consequently, un-
able to offer an adequate political condemnation of “deviant” social phe-
nomena. As a result, these critics, who before the premiere came for the
most part from professional circles, were forced to give way to anonymous
“sociopolitical workers”53 otherwise second-class critics who, taking into ac-
count above all the “social usefulness of the work”, gave a “more correct” as-
sessment of the event in question. In this case, then, effective agitation also
required the setting of new, more appropriate evaluation criteria.
It should be stressed that the main music critics at the time (including
Danilo Švara, Pavel Šivic, Uroš Prevoršek and Valens Vodušek), who cov-
ered concert and opera performance extensively in the daily newspapers
Slovenski poročevalec and Ljubljanski dnevnik, did not cover the above in-
cident and thus did not tread on the slippery surface of socialist-realist so-
cial demands.
On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that the treatment of
Tomc represents one of the rare examples of direct, public interventions
by the socialist regime in the sphere of music. For the most part, the au-
thorities preferred to avoid public controversy in this regard. Maintaining
its quasi-Western appearance of democratic socialism, the regime gave the
outward impression that the decisions of artists, including musicians, were
entirely autonomous, while at the same time ensuring via various mech-
anisms – including ideological commissions, the allocation of funds, the
52 At least two of his peers found themselves in a similarly unenviable situation as
Tomc soon after the end of the Second World War: Stanko Premrl and Alojzij Mav.
Stefanija, “Totalitarnost režima in glasba,” 141–2.
53 Journalists were perceived by the socialist regime as being primarily cultural and
political workers.
241
