Page 272 - 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. 272
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
ing for something that is merely a personal whim on the part of the
critic, since there is no such thing as an organized body of knowledge
called ‘musical criticism’. The entire history of musical criticism can be
summed up as a struggle to forge itself into a suitable tool for coming to
grips with the art of music.37
Various authors have elaborated mechanisms of critical judgement,
but none of these attempts has become generally accepted. Despite con-
stant striving for “objective” criticism, it is clear that there is no objective
criticism, since criticism is always dependent on variables such as historical
context, the critic’s education and training, the critic’s personality and oth-
er circumstances. In the words of Ernest Newman:
The duty of music critic is to judge correctly and to write well. He treats
objective things subjectively. And subjective things objectively. A work
remains a value or non-value for reasons beyond the state of mind he
is in when he comes into contact with it. It is desirable that in criticism
there should be a basic technique, just as there is also a technique of
composition.38
In his work Studies in Modern Music, the musicologist Sir William
Henry Hadow claimed to have found “the permanent principles of criti-
cism which may enable us to discriminate good from bad.”39 In this coun-
try, Stanko Vurnik attempted to introduce a “scientific” approach to arts
criticism in the article “Umetnostna kritika kot družabna vrednota” (“Arts
criticism as a social value”), which appeared in the magazine Dom in svet
in 1926. In it, he attempted to reduce the questions of criticism to the sim-
plest possible formulas. He was answered in the same magazine by Anton
Lajovic, who was doubtful of the efficacy of simple formulas in the field of
the arts and of the ability of rational scientific thinking to address the prob-
lems of art. Time has proved Lajovic right, or, as Calvocoressi puts it: “Oth-
erwise, even if we refuse to admit that musical criticism entirely reduces it-
self to a matter of opinion, we shall remain unable to show that it does not.”40
To sum up: most authors agree with Calvocoressi that “sensibility and
a formal musical training are imperative conditions for a critic.”41 In the con-
37 Walker, “Musical Criticism.”
38 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?,” 99.
39 Ibid., 102.
40 Ibid., 101.
41 Ibid.
272
ing for something that is merely a personal whim on the part of the
critic, since there is no such thing as an organized body of knowledge
called ‘musical criticism’. The entire history of musical criticism can be
summed up as a struggle to forge itself into a suitable tool for coming to
grips with the art of music.37
Various authors have elaborated mechanisms of critical judgement,
but none of these attempts has become generally accepted. Despite con-
stant striving for “objective” criticism, it is clear that there is no objective
criticism, since criticism is always dependent on variables such as historical
context, the critic’s education and training, the critic’s personality and oth-
er circumstances. In the words of Ernest Newman:
The duty of music critic is to judge correctly and to write well. He treats
objective things subjectively. And subjective things objectively. A work
remains a value or non-value for reasons beyond the state of mind he
is in when he comes into contact with it. It is desirable that in criticism
there should be a basic technique, just as there is also a technique of
composition.38
In his work Studies in Modern Music, the musicologist Sir William
Henry Hadow claimed to have found “the permanent principles of criti-
cism which may enable us to discriminate good from bad.”39 In this coun-
try, Stanko Vurnik attempted to introduce a “scientific” approach to arts
criticism in the article “Umetnostna kritika kot družabna vrednota” (“Arts
criticism as a social value”), which appeared in the magazine Dom in svet
in 1926. In it, he attempted to reduce the questions of criticism to the sim-
plest possible formulas. He was answered in the same magazine by Anton
Lajovic, who was doubtful of the efficacy of simple formulas in the field of
the arts and of the ability of rational scientific thinking to address the prob-
lems of art. Time has proved Lajovic right, or, as Calvocoressi puts it: “Oth-
erwise, even if we refuse to admit that musical criticism entirely reduces it-
self to a matter of opinion, we shall remain unable to show that it does not.”40
To sum up: most authors agree with Calvocoressi that “sensibility and
a formal musical training are imperative conditions for a critic.”41 In the con-
37 Walker, “Musical Criticism.”
38 Şuteu, “Is there a theory of musical criticism?,” 99.
39 Ibid., 102.
40 Ibid., 101.
41 Ibid.
272
