Page 242 - 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. 242
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
granting of travel permits and more or less emphatic warnings – that art-
ists exercised a sufficient degree of self-censorship. Accordingly, it did not
take much, in a small and provincial environment like Slovenia, to imprint
a fear of sanctions in the minds of the vast majority of the population. Not
even artists, performers and in some cases critics were immune to this fear,
and all were careful not to cross the various red lines.
Although the socialist reality of Slovenia at that time did not see artis-
tic liquidations, deportations or censorship such as those endured by artists
in the most brutal dictatorial regimes of the period, especially in the Sovi-
et Union and Nazi Germany, the tendencies were essentially identical – the
subjection of all segments of society, including music criticism, which with
its broader social role, as one of the more important influencers of public
opinion, was evidently seen by the regime as not insignificant.
It seems that Tomc and Aškerc were thus less disreputable in a musical
or literary context for the authorities of the time than Shostakovich and Le-
skov (the author of the powerful and brutal novel Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk)
were in Russia. In the second half of the 1950s, the new authorities in Slove-
nia managed to give the impression that musicians took quite autonomous
decisions. This “soft regime” deliberately used more or less covert methods.
This was a deliberate accommodation to preserve power and ensure strong-
er support from the West. Ostensibly, the authorities thus washed their
hands and, at the same time, strengthened their faultless self-image. The
scope of society’s ideological supervision was thus seemingly withdrawn
from the directly creative sphere, although it remained everywhere else,
both at the institutional level in culture and education and, of course, in the
policy towards individuals.
It is worth emphasising that Tomc certainly had no intention of using
coded language, as Shostakovich did in some of his symphonies, to sub-
tly draw attention to evident injustices and repression on the part of the
regime. As part of a cantata lasting more than two hours, the controver-
sial section of the Tlaka movement passes practically unnoticed and can-
not have been a reason for anyone to feel genuinely scandalised. Howev-
er this seemed enough for the incident to have consequences in the field
of music criticism. Following its notorious premiere, Tomc’s Stara pravda
would not be performed again until 1980,54 when it was sung by the choir
54 The cantata was not performed again until 16 May 1980 at a concert given by Con-
sortium musicum under the baton of Mirko Cuderman, (Concert for the 80th birth-
day of the composer Matija Tomc, 16 May 1980, Ljubljana, Consortium musicum So-
ciety) and then on 14 May 2006 as part of the Slovenian Philharmonic’s Vocal cycle.
242
granting of travel permits and more or less emphatic warnings – that art-
ists exercised a sufficient degree of self-censorship. Accordingly, it did not
take much, in a small and provincial environment like Slovenia, to imprint
a fear of sanctions in the minds of the vast majority of the population. Not
even artists, performers and in some cases critics were immune to this fear,
and all were careful not to cross the various red lines.
Although the socialist reality of Slovenia at that time did not see artis-
tic liquidations, deportations or censorship such as those endured by artists
in the most brutal dictatorial regimes of the period, especially in the Sovi-
et Union and Nazi Germany, the tendencies were essentially identical – the
subjection of all segments of society, including music criticism, which with
its broader social role, as one of the more important influencers of public
opinion, was evidently seen by the regime as not insignificant.
It seems that Tomc and Aškerc were thus less disreputable in a musical
or literary context for the authorities of the time than Shostakovich and Le-
skov (the author of the powerful and brutal novel Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk)
were in Russia. In the second half of the 1950s, the new authorities in Slove-
nia managed to give the impression that musicians took quite autonomous
decisions. This “soft regime” deliberately used more or less covert methods.
This was a deliberate accommodation to preserve power and ensure strong-
er support from the West. Ostensibly, the authorities thus washed their
hands and, at the same time, strengthened their faultless self-image. The
scope of society’s ideological supervision was thus seemingly withdrawn
from the directly creative sphere, although it remained everywhere else,
both at the institutional level in culture and education and, of course, in the
policy towards individuals.
It is worth emphasising that Tomc certainly had no intention of using
coded language, as Shostakovich did in some of his symphonies, to sub-
tly draw attention to evident injustices and repression on the part of the
regime. As part of a cantata lasting more than two hours, the controver-
sial section of the Tlaka movement passes practically unnoticed and can-
not have been a reason for anyone to feel genuinely scandalised. Howev-
er this seemed enough for the incident to have consequences in the field
of music criticism. Following its notorious premiere, Tomc’s Stara pravda
would not be performed again until 1980,54 when it was sung by the choir
54 The cantata was not performed again until 16 May 1980 at a concert given by Con-
sortium musicum under the baton of Mirko Cuderman, (Concert for the 80th birth-
day of the composer Matija Tomc, 16 May 1980, Ljubljana, Consortium musicum So-
ciety) and then on 14 May 2006 as part of the Slovenian Philharmonic’s Vocal cycle.
242
