Page 30 - 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. 30
glasbena kritika – nekoč in danes | music criticism – yesterday and today
tion. Even the world of art painting, though it is no less a victim than
that of music to Appreciation rackets based on the concept of gilt-edged
quality, is more penetrable to reason in this regard, since such values,
or the pretenses about them advanced by investing collectors and mu-
seums, are more easily unmasked as efforts to influence market prices.
But music in our time (and in our country) seems to be committed to
the idea that first-class work in composition is separable from the rest of
music-writing by a distinction as radical as that recognized in theolo-
gy between the elect and the damned. Or at the very least as rigorous an
exclusion from glory as that which formerly marked the difference be-
tween Mrs. Astor’s Four Hundred and the rest of the human race. This
snobbish definition of excellence is opposed to the classical concept of
a Republic of Letters. It reposes, rather, on the theocratic idea that in-
spiration is less a privilege of the private citizen than of the ordained
prophet. Its weakness lies in the fact that music, though it serves most
becomingly as religion’s handmaiden, is not a religion. Music does not
deal in general ideas of morality or salvation. It is an art. It expresses
private sentiments through skill and sincerity, both of which last are a
privilege, a duty, indeed, of the private citizen, and no monopoly of the
prophetically inclined.14
With a slight hint of Marxist cultural theory – Thomson admired Hanns
Eisler and read Adorno with interest – the critic lays out the fundamental
problem at the heart of American classical music: its overweening venera-
tion of a European heritage that the Europeans themselves had learned to
treat more skeptically. In my own work, I have attempted to challenge at
every turn the excessive dependence on the musical past, even as I venera-
te its achievements.
Thomson memorably defined criticism as “the only antidote we have to
paid publicity.”15 Critics can push back against the power of the star system,
which exercises its influence in the classical-music world as in every other
cultural field, even if the sums of money changing hands are not compa-
rable to what goes on in the pop world. Critics can encourage listeners to
think for themselves and not to accept the consensus choices that are set be-
fore them by leading institutions and the agencies that feed the star system.
The New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, in his 2017 manifesto Better Liv-
ing Through Criticism, writes:
14 Ibid., 278–9.
15 Virgil Thomson, Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson, eds. Tim Page and Vanessa
Weeks Page (New York: Summit, 1988), 222.
30
tion. Even the world of art painting, though it is no less a victim than
that of music to Appreciation rackets based on the concept of gilt-edged
quality, is more penetrable to reason in this regard, since such values,
or the pretenses about them advanced by investing collectors and mu-
seums, are more easily unmasked as efforts to influence market prices.
But music in our time (and in our country) seems to be committed to
the idea that first-class work in composition is separable from the rest of
music-writing by a distinction as radical as that recognized in theolo-
gy between the elect and the damned. Or at the very least as rigorous an
exclusion from glory as that which formerly marked the difference be-
tween Mrs. Astor’s Four Hundred and the rest of the human race. This
snobbish definition of excellence is opposed to the classical concept of
a Republic of Letters. It reposes, rather, on the theocratic idea that in-
spiration is less a privilege of the private citizen than of the ordained
prophet. Its weakness lies in the fact that music, though it serves most
becomingly as religion’s handmaiden, is not a religion. Music does not
deal in general ideas of morality or salvation. It is an art. It expresses
private sentiments through skill and sincerity, both of which last are a
privilege, a duty, indeed, of the private citizen, and no monopoly of the
prophetically inclined.14
With a slight hint of Marxist cultural theory – Thomson admired Hanns
Eisler and read Adorno with interest – the critic lays out the fundamental
problem at the heart of American classical music: its overweening venera-
tion of a European heritage that the Europeans themselves had learned to
treat more skeptically. In my own work, I have attempted to challenge at
every turn the excessive dependence on the musical past, even as I venera-
te its achievements.
Thomson memorably defined criticism as “the only antidote we have to
paid publicity.”15 Critics can push back against the power of the star system,
which exercises its influence in the classical-music world as in every other
cultural field, even if the sums of money changing hands are not compa-
rable to what goes on in the pop world. Critics can encourage listeners to
think for themselves and not to accept the consensus choices that are set be-
fore them by leading institutions and the agencies that feed the star system.
The New York Times film critic A. O. Scott, in his 2017 manifesto Better Liv-
ing Through Criticism, writes:
14 Ibid., 278–9.
15 Virgil Thomson, Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson, eds. Tim Page and Vanessa
Weeks Page (New York: Summit, 1988), 222.
30
