Page 185 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2018. Nova glasba v “novi” Evropi med obema svetovnima vojnama ?? New Music in the “New” Europe Between the Two World Wars. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 2
P. 185
slavko osterc’s compositional jour ney and his assimilation of new techniques
ters received by Osterc have been preserved.21 These give a fascinating pic-
ture of Osterc’s activities, not only in promoting his own music, but also
in the way that he encouraged the adoption of modernism in one form or
another in new music. The list of composers with whom he corresponded
was extensive. From outside Yugoslavia there were Luigi Dallapiccola, Karl
Amadeus Hartmann, Arthur Honegger, Alois Hába, and Karel Boleslav
Jirák. Within Yugoslavia but outside Slovenia, Osterc received letters from
the composers Krešimir Baranović, Petar Bingulac, Dragutin Čolić, Jakov
Gotovac, Fran Lhotka, Ljubica Marić, Miloje Milojević,22 Krsto Odak, Boris
Papandopulo, Milan Ristić, Josip Slavenski,23 and Vojislav Vučković. With-
in Slovenia itself he corresponded with Marjan Kozina, Gojmir Krek, Bogo
Leskovic, Marjan Lipovšek, Karol Pahor, Risto Savin, Pavel Šivic, Lucijan
Marija Škerjanc, Franc Šturm, Danilo Švara and Demetrij Žebre. There are
many more performing musicians, conductors especially, and some mu-
sicologists with whom he had significant contact. In all these letters it is
clear that Osterc was fully conversant with new developments all over Eu-
rope and was very keen to encourage them wherever he could, but especial-
ly in his native Slovenia. The dedicatees of his works also give an indica-
tion of his contacts; the important ones are Prokofiev for the ballet Illusions
(1937–41), Hába for the Concerto for piano and wind instruments of 1933,
Hermann Scherchen for Plesi (‘Dances’) for orchestra of 1935, Karel B oleslav
Jirák for Mouvement symphonique of 1936 and Arthur Honegger for the
Nonet of 1937.
Conclusion
Finally, while Osterc did encounter opposition to his music from some
quarters, he did not become estranged from the Slovene musical centre
ground. He made many musical friends in Slovenia, in the rest of what was
then Yugoslavia, as well as abroad to help his cause and was able to influ-
ence a number of his pupils to adopt an adventurous line of composition.
21 See the definitive collection of the most important letters in Dragotin Cvetko: Frag-
ment glasbene moderne iz pisem Slavku Ostercu – A Fragment of Musical Modernism
from Letters to Slavko Osterc (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnos-
ti, 1988).
22 The correspondence is fully documented by Dragotin Cvetko, “Kontakti Slavka
Osterca z Milojem Milojevićem,” Muzikološki zbornik 22 (1986): 39–52 and “Kontakti
Slavka Osterca z Milojem Milojevićem,” in Miloje Milojević kompozitor i muzikolog
(Belgrade: Udruženje kompozitora Srbije, 1986), 173–203.
23 See Dragotin Cvetko’s article “Veze Josipa Slavenskog sa Slavkom Ostercom,” Arti
Musices 3 (1972): 63–76.
183
ters received by Osterc have been preserved.21 These give a fascinating pic-
ture of Osterc’s activities, not only in promoting his own music, but also
in the way that he encouraged the adoption of modernism in one form or
another in new music. The list of composers with whom he corresponded
was extensive. From outside Yugoslavia there were Luigi Dallapiccola, Karl
Amadeus Hartmann, Arthur Honegger, Alois Hába, and Karel Boleslav
Jirák. Within Yugoslavia but outside Slovenia, Osterc received letters from
the composers Krešimir Baranović, Petar Bingulac, Dragutin Čolić, Jakov
Gotovac, Fran Lhotka, Ljubica Marić, Miloje Milojević,22 Krsto Odak, Boris
Papandopulo, Milan Ristić, Josip Slavenski,23 and Vojislav Vučković. With-
in Slovenia itself he corresponded with Marjan Kozina, Gojmir Krek, Bogo
Leskovic, Marjan Lipovšek, Karol Pahor, Risto Savin, Pavel Šivic, Lucijan
Marija Škerjanc, Franc Šturm, Danilo Švara and Demetrij Žebre. There are
many more performing musicians, conductors especially, and some mu-
sicologists with whom he had significant contact. In all these letters it is
clear that Osterc was fully conversant with new developments all over Eu-
rope and was very keen to encourage them wherever he could, but especial-
ly in his native Slovenia. The dedicatees of his works also give an indica-
tion of his contacts; the important ones are Prokofiev for the ballet Illusions
(1937–41), Hába for the Concerto for piano and wind instruments of 1933,
Hermann Scherchen for Plesi (‘Dances’) for orchestra of 1935, Karel B oleslav
Jirák for Mouvement symphonique of 1936 and Arthur Honegger for the
Nonet of 1937.
Conclusion
Finally, while Osterc did encounter opposition to his music from some
quarters, he did not become estranged from the Slovene musical centre
ground. He made many musical friends in Slovenia, in the rest of what was
then Yugoslavia, as well as abroad to help his cause and was able to influ-
ence a number of his pupils to adopt an adventurous line of composition.
21 See the definitive collection of the most important letters in Dragotin Cvetko: Frag-
ment glasbene moderne iz pisem Slavku Ostercu – A Fragment of Musical Modernism
from Letters to Slavko Osterc (Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnos-
ti, 1988).
22 The correspondence is fully documented by Dragotin Cvetko, “Kontakti Slavka
Osterca z Milojem Milojevićem,” Muzikološki zbornik 22 (1986): 39–52 and “Kontakti
Slavka Osterca z Milojem Milojevićem,” in Miloje Milojević kompozitor i muzikolog
(Belgrade: Udruženje kompozitora Srbije, 1986), 173–203.
23 See Dragotin Cvetko’s article “Veze Josipa Slavenskog sa Slavkom Ostercom,” Arti
Musices 3 (1972): 63–76.
183
