Page 185 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2020. Konservatoriji: profesionalizacija in specializacija glasbenega dela ▪︎ The conservatories: professionalisation and specialisation of musical activity. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 4
P. 185
the establishment of the conservatory of the glasbena matica in ljubljana ...
I suffered, because studies in my homeland were not to Viennese
standards. The complementary subjects were fit for dilettantes. Re-
quirements were minimal.33
Given the considerable number of violin and piano students, the time
available for individual lessons was initially limited to just three 20-min-
ute sessions per week, which was far from adequate for good-quality work.
Despite criticisms of this type, which draw attention to certain inadequa-
cies in the initial teaching provided by the Conservatory, it should never-
theless be pointed out that requirements differed and that in any case they
were always dependent on the individual teacher. Emerik Beran, for exam-
ple, frequently offered extra lessons to his most gifted students – such as
Oton Bajde and Bogo Leskovic – and in this way succeeded in training a
large number of first-class cellists.
The late 1920s was also the period in which the first public criticism
of the work of the Conservatory began to be heard. The harshest critic of
some of the perceived inadequacies was the art historian and critic Stanko
Vurnik, writing in the monthly Dom in svet (“Home and World”). He ad-
vocated the modernisation of the Conservatory and a thorough overhaul
of its curriculum, teaching methods and teaching material that would
enable a development from “artisanal” skills to the training of “musi-
cal intelligence in the higher sense of artistic education.” In his view: “The
Conservatory should train young composers of modern orientation and
thought!” Vurnik also frequently addressed questions of musical aesthet-
ics and observed that “the Croats are already ahead of us”.34 The Glasbena
Matica did not expect such words, which caused considerable indignation
and sparked a well-known newspaper controversy between the compos-
er and Conserv atory professor Lucijan Marija Škerjanc and Vurnik, who
was joined by the composer Vilko Ukmar and France Marolt, the direc-
tor of the University’s Academic Choir. In the end the Glasbena Matica’s
prime mover A nton Lajovic intervened with a conciliatory piece in Jutro
(“Morning”).35
Vurnik reproached the Conservatory’s management with the fact that
students were insufficiently prepared for their end-of-year performances,
33 Vida Jeraj-Hribar, Večerna sonata. Spomini z Dunaja, Pariza in Ljubljane 1902–1903,
as told to Marijan Kovačevič (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1992), 58–59.
34 Stanko Vurnik, “Glasba: Slovensko glasbeno življenje l. 1928,” Dom in svet 42, no.
1–2 (1929): 63–64.
35 Anton Lajovic, “Kulturni pregled: Naša glasbena kritika.” Jutro 10, no. 155 (6 July
1929): 6.
183
I suffered, because studies in my homeland were not to Viennese
standards. The complementary subjects were fit for dilettantes. Re-
quirements were minimal.33
Given the considerable number of violin and piano students, the time
available for individual lessons was initially limited to just three 20-min-
ute sessions per week, which was far from adequate for good-quality work.
Despite criticisms of this type, which draw attention to certain inadequa-
cies in the initial teaching provided by the Conservatory, it should never-
theless be pointed out that requirements differed and that in any case they
were always dependent on the individual teacher. Emerik Beran, for exam-
ple, frequently offered extra lessons to his most gifted students – such as
Oton Bajde and Bogo Leskovic – and in this way succeeded in training a
large number of first-class cellists.
The late 1920s was also the period in which the first public criticism
of the work of the Conservatory began to be heard. The harshest critic of
some of the perceived inadequacies was the art historian and critic Stanko
Vurnik, writing in the monthly Dom in svet (“Home and World”). He ad-
vocated the modernisation of the Conservatory and a thorough overhaul
of its curriculum, teaching methods and teaching material that would
enable a development from “artisanal” skills to the training of “musi-
cal intelligence in the higher sense of artistic education.” In his view: “The
Conservatory should train young composers of modern orientation and
thought!” Vurnik also frequently addressed questions of musical aesthet-
ics and observed that “the Croats are already ahead of us”.34 The Glasbena
Matica did not expect such words, which caused considerable indignation
and sparked a well-known newspaper controversy between the compos-
er and Conserv atory professor Lucijan Marija Škerjanc and Vurnik, who
was joined by the composer Vilko Ukmar and France Marolt, the direc-
tor of the University’s Academic Choir. In the end the Glasbena Matica’s
prime mover A nton Lajovic intervened with a conciliatory piece in Jutro
(“Morning”).35
Vurnik reproached the Conservatory’s management with the fact that
students were insufficiently prepared for their end-of-year performances,
33 Vida Jeraj-Hribar, Večerna sonata. Spomini z Dunaja, Pariza in Ljubljane 1902–1903,
as told to Marijan Kovačevič (Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1992), 58–59.
34 Stanko Vurnik, “Glasba: Slovensko glasbeno življenje l. 1928,” Dom in svet 42, no.
1–2 (1929): 63–64.
35 Anton Lajovic, “Kulturni pregled: Naša glasbena kritika.” Jutro 10, no. 155 (6 July
1929): 6.
183
