Page 212 - 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. 212
nova glasba v »novi« evropi med obema svetovnima vojnama
space, although again without Schönberg’s dodecaphonic system. In a let-
ter to Osterc dated 25 March 1934 Šturm himself writes: “Hába said that I
have […] arrived at a composition that resounds, and that I am to be con-
gratulated.”29 He admits that he struggled for an entire year with this com-
position, without achieving much else. Hába’s influence is also evident in
numerous quarter-tone compositions, among them the Četrttonski godalni
kvartet (Quarter-tone String Quartet) that he submitted for his diploma ex-
amination.30 Another interesting work written in Prague is his suite in four
movements for quarter-tone piano entitled Luftballon, to which he gave the
opus number 3. In Šturm’s case, just as with Osterc, it is possible to detect
an intention to renounce his pre-Prague works.
Another factor that seems extremely important with regard to the con-
tinuity of Šturm’s later focuses as a composer is that his creative ideals were
more or less clearly developed during his time in Prague. If in the afore-
mentioned letter to Osterc he had expressed a negative view of the neo-
classicism he previously espoused, in the article Glasba kot socialni činitelj
(Music as a social factor), which appeared in Sodobnost (Modernity) in 1935,
he is an adherent of anthroposophy – something Hába had constantly pro-
moted – and claims, with the system’s founder Rudolf Steiner: “Music is the
inner image of man.”31 Thus he accepts the view of living and organic mu-
sic that the listener primarily experiences at the emotional level, where it
“configures his soul”.32 Like Steiner, he is aware that all social, existential
and spiritual processes of the age are reflected in art, so the social aspect is
important to him – hence the need for such music to be addressed to “the
broad masses”.33 In accordance with his left-wing views, which were inci-
dentally shared by Osterc, he aimed at a working-class audience, while the
bourgeois audience was considered less than ideal in that it was “burdened
by the partial, frequently inadequate knowledge of music theory and [...] a
mass of personal prejudices.”34 Subjectivism is thus no longer the exclusive
basic emotion. Here Šturm distances himself from Schönberg, in whom the
idea and execution of a composition was a matter of intuition and inspira-
29 Cvetko, Fragment glasbene moderne, 337.
30 At the end of the year he was given the overall assessment “highly capable”. Šebesta,
“Slowenische Studenten am Prager Konservatorium,” 171.
31 Franc Šturm, “Glasba kot socialni činitelj,” Sodobnost 3, no. 11–12 (1935): 581.
32 Ibid., 582.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
210
space, although again without Schönberg’s dodecaphonic system. In a let-
ter to Osterc dated 25 March 1934 Šturm himself writes: “Hába said that I
have […] arrived at a composition that resounds, and that I am to be con-
gratulated.”29 He admits that he struggled for an entire year with this com-
position, without achieving much else. Hába’s influence is also evident in
numerous quarter-tone compositions, among them the Četrttonski godalni
kvartet (Quarter-tone String Quartet) that he submitted for his diploma ex-
amination.30 Another interesting work written in Prague is his suite in four
movements for quarter-tone piano entitled Luftballon, to which he gave the
opus number 3. In Šturm’s case, just as with Osterc, it is possible to detect
an intention to renounce his pre-Prague works.
Another factor that seems extremely important with regard to the con-
tinuity of Šturm’s later focuses as a composer is that his creative ideals were
more or less clearly developed during his time in Prague. If in the afore-
mentioned letter to Osterc he had expressed a negative view of the neo-
classicism he previously espoused, in the article Glasba kot socialni činitelj
(Music as a social factor), which appeared in Sodobnost (Modernity) in 1935,
he is an adherent of anthroposophy – something Hába had constantly pro-
moted – and claims, with the system’s founder Rudolf Steiner: “Music is the
inner image of man.”31 Thus he accepts the view of living and organic mu-
sic that the listener primarily experiences at the emotional level, where it
“configures his soul”.32 Like Steiner, he is aware that all social, existential
and spiritual processes of the age are reflected in art, so the social aspect is
important to him – hence the need for such music to be addressed to “the
broad masses”.33 In accordance with his left-wing views, which were inci-
dentally shared by Osterc, he aimed at a working-class audience, while the
bourgeois audience was considered less than ideal in that it was “burdened
by the partial, frequently inadequate knowledge of music theory and [...] a
mass of personal prejudices.”34 Subjectivism is thus no longer the exclusive
basic emotion. Here Šturm distances himself from Schönberg, in whom the
idea and execution of a composition was a matter of intuition and inspira-
29 Cvetko, Fragment glasbene moderne, 337.
30 At the end of the year he was given the overall assessment “highly capable”. Šebesta,
“Slowenische Studenten am Prager Konservatorium,” 171.
31 Franc Šturm, “Glasba kot socialni činitelj,” Sodobnost 3, no. 11–12 (1935): 581.
32 Ibid., 582.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
210
