Music criticism |

from fr. critique from ancient Greek κριτική τέχνη “the art of parsing, judgment”

Study, analysis and evaluation of the phenomena of musical art. In a broad sense, classical music is part of any study of music, since the evaluative element is an integral part of the aesthetic. judgments. Objective criticism. evaluation of a creative fact is impossible without taking into account the specific conditions of its occurrence, the place it occupies in the general process of music. development, in societies. and cultural life of a given country and people in a certain historical period. era. In order to be evidence-based and convincing, this assessment must be based on sound methodological principles. bases and accumulated results of the historical. and theoretical musicologist. research (see Musical Analysis).

There is no fundamental fundamental difference between classical music and the science of music, and it is often difficult to distinguish between them. The division of these areas is based not so much on the content and essence of the tasks facing them, but on the forms of their implementation. V. G. Belinsky, objecting to the division of lit. criticism of historical, analytical and aesthetic (i.e. evaluative), wrote: “Historical criticism without aesthetic and, conversely, aesthetic without historical, will be one-sided, and therefore false. Criticism should be one, and the versatility of views should come from one common source, from one system, from one contemplation of art … As for the word “analytical”, it comes from the word “analysis”, meaning analysis, decomposition, to -rye constitute the property of any criticism, whatever it may be, historical or artistic ”(V. G. Belinsky, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 6, 1955, p. 284). At the same time, Belinsky admitted that “criticism can be divided into different kinds according to its relationship to itself…” (ibid., p. 325). In other words, he allowed the allocation of any element of criticism to the fore and its prevalence over others, depending on the specific task, which is being pursued in this case.

The area of ​​arts. criticism in general, incl. and K. m., it is considered to be Ch. arr. appraisal of contemporary phenomena. Hence the certain special requirements placed on it. Criticism must be mobile, quickly respond to everything new in a particular area of ​​art. Critical analysis and evaluation dep. arts. phenomena (whether it be a new product, a performance by a performer, an opera or ballet premiere), as a rule, are associated with the protection of certain general aesthetic. positions. This gives K. m. the features of a more or less pronounced publicism. Criticism actively and directly participates in the struggle of ideological art. directions.

Types and extent of critical works are diverse – from a brief newspaper or magazine note to a detailed article with a detailed analysis and justification of the opinions expressed. Common genres of K. m. include reviews, notographic. note, essay, review, polemic. replica. This variety of forms allows her to quickly intervene in the processes taking place in the muses. life and creativity, to influence societies. opinion, to help affirm the new.

Not always and not in all types of critical. activities, the judgments expressed are based on a thorough preliminary. arts. analysis. So, reviews are sometimes written under the impression of a single listening to a work performed for the first time. or a cursory acquaintance with musical notation. Subsequent, more in-depth study of it may force to make certain adjustments and additions to the original. assessment. Meanwhile, this kind of critical works the most massive and therefore rendering means. influence on the formation of the tastes of the public and its attitude to works of art. To avoid blunders, the reviewer who gives grades “by first impression” must have a fine, highly developed art. flair, keen ear, the ability to grasp and highlight the most important thing in each piece, and finally, the ability to convey one’s impressions in a vivid, convincing form.

There are different types of K. m., associated with decomp. understanding of its tasks. At 19 and early. 20th century subjective criticism was widespread, which rejected any general principles of aesthetic. evaluation and sought to convey only a personal impression of the works of art-va. In Russian K. m. V. G. Karatygin stood in such a position, although in his practical. music critical activity, he often overcame the limitations of his own. theoretical views. “For me, and for any other musician,” wrote Karatygin, “there is no other last criterion, except for personal taste … The emancipation of views from tastes is the main task of practical aesthetics” (Karatygin V. G., Life, activity, articles and materials, 1927 , p. 122).

The unlimited “dictatorship of taste”, characteristic of subjective criticism, is opposed by the position of normative or dogmatic criticism, which proceeds in its assessments from a set of strict mandatory rules, to which the significance of a universal, universal canon is attributed. This kind of dogmatism is inherent not only in the conservative academic. criticism, but also to certain trends in the music of the 20th century, acting under the slogans of a radical renewal of muses. art-va and the creation of new sound systems. In a particularly sharp and categorical form, reaching sectarian exclusivity, this tendency is manifested in supporters and apologists of the modern. music avant-garde.

In the capitalist countries there is also a type of commercial. criticism for purely promotional purposes. Such criticism, which depends on the conc. enterprises and managers, of course, does not have a serious ideological and art. values.

In order to be truly convincing and fruitful, criticism must combine high principles and depth of science. analysis with combat journalism. passion and demanding aesthetic. ratings. These qualities were inherent in the best examples of Russian. prerevolutionary K. m., who played an important role in the struggle for the recognition of the fatherlands. music lawsuit, for the approval of the progressive principles of realism and nationality. Following the advanced Russian. lit. criticism (V. G. Belinsky, N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov), she sought to proceed in her assessments from the urgent requirements of reality. The highest aesthetic the criterion for it was the vitality, truthfulness of the claim, its compliance with the interests of wide circles of society.

Solid methodological grounds for criticism, evaluating the arts. works comprehensively, in the unity of their social and aesthetic. functions, gives the theory of Marxism-Leninism. Marxist K. m., based on the principles of dialectical. and historical materialism, began to develop even in the period of preparation for the Great Oct. socialist. revolution. These principles have become fundamental for owls. K. m., as well as for most critics in the socialist. countries. The inalienable quality of owls. criticism is partisanship, understood as a conscious defense of high communist. ideals, the requirement of subordination of claims to the tasks of the socialist. construction and struggle for finishing. the triumph of communism, intransigence against all manifestations of reaction. bourgeois ideology.

Criticism is, in a certain sense, an intermediary between the artist and the listener, spectator, reader. One of its important functions is the promotion of works of art, an explanation of their meaning and significance. Progressive criticism has always sought to appeal to a wide audience, to educate its taste and aesthetics. consciousness, to instill a correct view of art. V. V. Stasov wrote: “Criticism is immeasurably more necessary for the public than for authors. Criticism is education” (Collected works, vol. 3, 1894, column 850).

At the same time, the critic must carefully listen to the needs of the audience and take into account its requirements when making aesthetic. assessments and judgments about the phenomena of claims. A close, constant connection with the listener is necessary for him no less than for the composer and performer. Real effective force can only have those critical. judgments, to-rye based on a deep understanding of the interests of the broad audience.

The origin of K. m. refers to the era of antiquity. A. Schering considered it the beginning of a controversy between supporters of Pythagoras and Aristoxenus in Dr. Greece (the so-called canons and harmonics), which was based on a different understanding of the nature of music as an art. Antich. the doctrine of ethos was associated with the defense of some types of music and the condemnation of others, thus containing, in itself, a critically evaluative element. In the Middle Ages dominated by theologian. understanding of music, which was considered from a church-utilitarian point of view as a “servant of religion”. Such a view did not allow freedom of criticism. judgments and evaluations. New incentives for the development of critical thoughts about music gave the Renaissance. His polemical V. Galilei’s treatise “Dialogue on Ancient and New Music” (“Dialogo della musica antica et della moderna”, 1581), in which he spoke in defense of monodich, is characteristic. homophonic style, sharply condemning the wok. polyphony of the Franco-Flemish school as a relic of the “medieval Gothic”. Irreconcilably deny. position of Galilee in relation to the highly developed polyphonic. the lawsuit served as a source of his controversy with the outstanding muses. Renaissance theorist G. Tsarlino. This controversy was continued in letters, prefaces to Op. representatives of the new “excited style” (stilo concitato) J. Peri, G. Caccini, C. Monteverdi, in G. B. Doni’s treatise “On Stage Music” (“Trattato della musica scenica”), on the one hand, and in the works opponent of this style, an adherent of the old polyphonic. traditions of J. M. Artusi – on the other.

In the 18th century K. m. becomes mean. factor in the development of music. Feeling the influence of the ideas of enlightenment, she actively participates in the struggle of the muses. directions and general aesthetic. disputes of that time. Leading role in music-critical. thoughts of the 18th century belonged to France – classic. country of the Enlightenment. Aesthetic French views. Enlighteners also influenced K. m. countries (Germany, Italy). In the largest organs of the French periodic prints (“Mercure de France”, “Journal de Paris”) reflected the various events of the current music. life. Along with this, the polemical genre became widespread. pamphlet. Great attention was paid to questions of music by the largest French. writers, scientists and encyclopedic philosophers J. J. Rousseau, J. D. Alambert, D. Diderot, M. Grimm.

Main music line. disputes in France in the 18th century. was associated with the struggle for realism, against the strict rules of classicist aesthetics. In 1702, F. Raguenet’s treatise “Parallel between Italians and French in relation to music and operas” (“Parallé des Italiens et des François en ce qui regarde la musique et les opéras”) appeared, in which the author contrasted liveliness, direct emotional expressiveness ital. opera melody pathetic. theatrical recitation in French lyrical tragedy. This speech caused a number of controversies. responses from adherents and defenders of the French. classic opera. The same dispute broke out with even greater force in the middle of the century, in connection with the arrival in Paris in 1752 of the Italian. an opera troupe that showed Pergolesi’s The Servant-Madame and a number of other examples of the comedy opera genre (see Buffon’s War). On the Italian side Buffons turned out to be the advanced ideologists of the “third estate” – Rousseau, Diderot. Warmly welcoming and supporting the inherent opera buffa realistic. elements, they at the same time sharply criticized the conventionality, the implausibility of the French. adv. operas, the most typical representative of which, in their opinion, was J. F. Rameau. Productions of reformist operas by K. V. Gluck in Paris in the 70s. served as a pretext for a new controversy (the so-called war of glukists and picchinnists), in which the sublime ethical. pathos of the lawsuit of Austria. the master was opposed to the softer, melodically sensitive work of the Italian N. Piccinni. This clash of opinions reflected the problems that worried wide circles of French. society on the eve of the Great French. revolution.

German pioneer. K. m. in the 18th century. was I. Mattheson – versatile educated muses. writer, whose views were formed under the influence of the French. and English. early Enlightenment. In 1722-25 he published music. magazine “Critica musica”, where the translation of Raguene’s treatise on the French was placed. and ital. music. In 1738, T. Scheibe undertook the publication of a special. printed organ “Der Kritische Musicus” (published until 1740). Sharing the principles of enlightenment aesthetics, he considered “mind and nature” to be the supreme judges in the lawsuit. Scheibe emphasized that he was addressing not only musicians, but a wider circle of “amateurs and educated people.” Protecting new trends in music. creativity, he, however, did not understand the work of J. S. Bach and did not appreciate his historical. meaning. F. Marpurg, personally and ideologically connected with the most prominent representatives of it. enlightenment G. E. Lessing and I. I. Winkelman, published in 1749-50 a weekly journal. “Der Kritische Musicus an der Spree” (Lessing was one of the magazine’s staff). Unlike Scheibe, Marpurg highly valued J. S. Bach. prominent place in it. K. m. in con. 18th century was occupied by K. F. D. Schubart, a supporter of the aesthetics of feeling and expression, associated with the Sturm und Drang movement. To the largest muses. German writers at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. belonged to I. F. Reichardt, in the views of which the features of enlightenment rationalism were combined with pre-romantic. trends. Music-critical was of great importance. the activities of F. Rochlitz, the founder of the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung and its editor in 1798-1819. Supporter and propagandist of the Viennese classic. school, he was one of the few German. critics who at that time were able to appreciate the significance of L. Beethoven’s work.

In other European countries in the 18th century. K. m. as independent. the industry has not yet formed, although otd. critical speeches on music (more often in the periodical press) of Great Britain and Italy received a wide response outside these countries as well. Yes, sharp-satiric. English essays. writer-educator J. Addison about Italian. opera, published in his magazines “The Spectator” (“Spectator”, 1711-14) and “The Guardian” (“Guardian”, 1713), reflected the ripening protest of the nat. bourgeoisie against foreigners. dominance in music. C. Burney in his books. “The present state of music in France and Italy” (“The present state of music in France and Italy”, 1771) and “The present state of music in Germany, the Netherlands and United Provices” , 1773) gave a wide panorama of Europe. music life. These and his other books contain a number of well-aimed criticisms. judgments about outstanding composers and performers, live, figurative sketches and characteristics.

One of the most brilliant examples of musical and polemic. lit-ry 18 century. is B. Marcello’s pamphlet “The Theater in Fashion” (“Il Teatro alla moda”, 1720), in which the absurdities of Italian are exposed. opera series. Criticism of the same genre dedicated. “Etude on the Opera” (“Saggio sopra l opera in musica”, 1755) Italian. educator P. Algarotti.

In the era of romanticism as muses. critics are many. outstanding composers. The printed word served for them as a means of protecting and substantiating their innovative creativity. installations, struggle against routine and conservatism or superficially entertaining. attitudes towards music, explanations and propaganda of truly great works of art. E. T. A. Hoffmann created the genre of music characteristic of romanticism. short stories, in which the aesthetic. judgments and evaluations are clothed in the form of fiction. arts. fiction. Despite the idealism of Hoffmann’s understanding of music as “the most romantic of all the arts”, the subject of which is “infinite”, his music-critical. activity was of great progressive importance. He passionately promoted the J. Haydn, W. A. ​​Mozart, L. Beethoven, considering the work of these masters the pinnacle of music. lawsuit (although he erroneously claimed that “they breathe the same romantic spirit”), acted as an energetic champion of the nat. German opera and, in particular, welcomed the appearance of the opera “The Magic Shooter” by Weber. K. M. Weber, who also combined in his person a composer and a talented writer, was close to Hoffmann in his views. As a critic and publicist, he paid attention not only to creativity, but also to practical. music issues. life.

On the new historical stage of the romantic tradition. K. m. continued R. Schumann. Founded by him in 1834, the New Musical Journal (Neue Zeitschrift für Musik) became a militant organ of advanced innovative trends in music, uniting a group of progressively thinking writers around itself. In an effort to support everything new, young and viable, Schumann’s journal fought against petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness, philistinism, passion for external virtuosity to the detriment of contain. side of the music. Schumann warmly welcomed the first productions. F. Chopin, wrote with deep insight about F. Schubert (in particular, he first revealed the significance of Schubert as a symphonist), highly appreciated Berlioz’s Fantastic Symphony, and at the end of his life attracted the attention of muses. circles to the young I. Brahms.

The largest representative of the French romantic K. m. was G. Berlioz, who first appeared in print in 1823. Like him. romantics, he sought to establish a high view of music as a means of embodying deep ideas, emphasizing its important education. role and fought against the thoughtless, frivolous attitude towards it that prevailed among the philistine bourgeoisie. circles. One of the creators of the romantic program symphonism, Berlioz considered music to be the widest and richest art in its possibilities, to which the whole sphere of phenomena of reality and the spiritual world of man is accessible. He combined his ardent sympathy for the new with fidelity to the classic. ideals, although not everything is in the heritage of the muses. classicism was able to correctly understand and evaluate (for example, his sharp attacks against Haydn, belittling the role of tools. Mozart’s work). The highest, inaccessible model was for him the courageous heroic. the lawsuit of Beethoven, to-rum consecrated. some of his best criticisms. works. Berlioz treated the young nat with interest and attention. music schools, he was the first of the app. critics who appreciated the outstanding art. the meaning, novelty and originality of M. I. Glinka’s work.

To the positions of Berlioz as a muses. criticism was similar in its orientation to the literary and journalistic activity of F. Liszt in the first, “Parisian” period (1834-40). He raised questions about the position of the artist in the bourgeoisie. society, denounced the dependence of the lawsuit on the “money bag”, insisted on the need for a wide music. education and enlightenment. Emphasizing the connection between the aesthetic and ethical, truly beautiful in art and high moral ideals, Liszt considered music as “a force that unites and unites people with each other”, contributing to the moral improvement of mankind. In 1849-60 Liszt wrote a number of great muses. works published prem. in him. periodic press (including in Schumann’s journal Neue Zeitschrift für Musik). The most significant among them are a series of articles on the operas of Gluck, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Wagner, “Berlioz and his Harold Symphony” (“Berlioz und seine Haroldsymphonie”), monographic. essays on Chopin and Schumann. Characteristics works and creativity. the appearance of composers are combined in these articles with detailed general aesthetic. judgments. So, the analysis of Berlioz’s symphony “Harold in Italy” Liszt prefaces a great philosophical and aesthetic. section dedicated to protection and substantiation of software in music.

In the 30s. 19th century began his music-critical. activity of R. Wagner, articles to-rogo were published in dec. German organs. and French periodic print. His positions in the assessment of the largest phenomena of the muses. modern times were close to the views of Berlioz, Liszt, Schumann. The most intensive and fruitful was lit. Wagner’s activities after 1848, when under the influence of the revolution. events, the composer sought to understand the ways of further development of art, its place and significance in the future free society, which should arise on the ruins of a hostile art. the creativity of capitalism. building. In Art and Revolution (Die Kunst und die Revolution), Wagner proceeded from the position that “only a great revolution of all mankind can again give true art.” Later lit. Wagner’s works, which reflected the growing contradictions of his socio-philosophical and aesthetic. views, did not make a progressive contribution to the development of critical. thoughts about music.

Creatures. of interest are statements about music by some prominent writers of the 1st floor. and ser. 19th century (O. Balzac, J. Sand, T. Gauthier in France; J. P. Richter in Germany). As a music criticism was made by G. Heine. His lively and witty correspondence about the Muses. Parisian life in the 30s and 40s are an interesting and valuable document ideological and aesthetic. controversy of the time. The poet warmly supported in them representatives of the advanced romantic. trends in music – Chopin, Berlioz, Liszt, enthusiastically wrote about the performance of N. Paganini and caustically castigated the emptiness and vacuity of the “commercial” art, designed to satisfy the needs of a limited bourgeoisie. public.

In the 19th century significantly increase the scale of music-critical. activity, its influence on the music is enhanced. practice. There are a number of special organs of K. m., to-rye were often associated with certain creative. directions and entered into polemics among themselves. Music events. life find wide and systematic. reflection in the general press.

Among prof. music critics in France come forward in the 20s. A. J. Castile-Blaz and F. J. Fetis, who founded the journal in 1827. “La revue musicale”. An outstanding lexicographer and connoisseur of early music, Fetis was a reactionary. positions in the assessment of contemporary phenomena. He believed that since the late period of Beethoven’s work, music had embarked on a false path, and rejected the innovative achievements of Chopin, Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt. By the nature of his views, Fetis was close to P. Scyudo, who, however, did not possess a fundamental academic. the erudition of his predecessor.

In contrast to the conservative direction of “La revue musicale” by Fetis, in 1834 the “Paris musical newspaper” (“La Gazette musicale de Paris”, from 1848 – “Revue et Gazette musicale”) was created, which united a wide range of muses. or T. figures who supported advanced creativity. searches in the lawsuit. It becomes the fighting organ of progressive romanticism. A more neutral position was occupied by the journal. Ménestrel, published since 1833.

in Germany since the 20s. 19th century a controversy unfolds between the “General Musical Gazette” published in Leipzig and the “Berlin General Musical Gazette” (“Berliner Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung”, 1824-30), which was headed by the largest muses. theorist of that time, an ardent admirer of Beethoven’s work and one of the most energetic champions of the romantic. program symphonism A. B. Marx. Ch. Marx considered the task of criticism to be the support of the new that is born in life; about production claims should, according to him, be judged “not by the standards of the past, but based on the ideas and views of their time.” Based on the philosophy of G. Hegel, he defended the idea of ​​the regularity of the process of development and renewal that is continuously taking place in art. One of the prominent representatives of the progressive romantic. K. F. Brendel, who in 1844 became Schumann’s successor as editor of the New Musical Journal, was the German composer of music.

A decisive opponent of the romantic. music aesthetics was E. Hanslick, who occupied a leading position in Austria. K. m. 2nd floor. 19th century His aesthetic views are set out in the book. “On the Musically Beautiful” (“Vom Musikalisch-Schönen”, 1854), which caused polemical responses in different countries. Based on the formalistic understanding of music as a game, Hanslick rejected the principle of programming and romanticism. the idea of ​​synthesis of art-in. He had a sharply negative attitude towards the work of Liszt and Wagner, as well as towards composers who developed certain elements of their style (A. Bruckner). At the same time, he often expressed deep and true criticisms. judgments that contradicted his general aesthetic. positions. Of the composers of the past, Hanslik especially highly appreciated Bach, Handel, Beethoven, and of his contemporaries – J. Brahms and J. Bizet. Enormous erudition, brilliant lit. talent and sharpness of thought determined the high authority and influence of Hanslik as a muses. criticism.

In defense of Wagner and Bruckner against the attacks of Hanslik, he spoke in the 80s. X. Wolf. His articles, sharply polemical in tone, contain a lot of subjective and biased things (in particular, Wolff’s attacks against Brahms were unfair), but they are indicative as one of the manifestations of opposition to conservative Hanslickianism.

In the center of the music disputes 2nd floor. 19th century was the work of Wagner. At the same time, his assessment was associated with a broader general question about the ways and prospects for the development of muses. lawsuit. This controversy acquired a particularly stormy character in the French. K. m., where it lasted for half a century, from the 50s. 19th century until the turn of the 20th century. The beginning of the “anti-Wagner” movement in France was the sensational pamphlet of Fetis (1852), which announced the work of German. composer by the product of the “morbid spirit” of the new time. The same unconditionally negative position in relation to Wagner was taken by authoritative French. critics L. Escudier and Scyudo. Wagner was defended by supporters of the new creativity. currents not only in music, but also in literature and painting. In 1885, the “Wagner Journal” (“Revue wagnerienne”) was created, in which, along with prominent muses. critics T. Vizeva, S. Malerbom and others also took part in many others. prominent French poets and writers, incl. P. Verlaine, S. Mallarmé, J. Huysmans. Creativity and arts. Wagner’s principles were evaluated apologetically in this journal. Only in the 90s, according to R. Rolland, “a reaction against the new despotism is outlined” and a calmer, soberly objective attitude towards the legacy of the great operatic reformer arises.

In Italian. K. m. controversy revolved around the Wagner-Verdi problem. One of the first propagandists of Wagner’s creativity in Italy was A. Boito, who appeared in the press in the 60s. The most far-sighted of the Italian critics (F. Filippi, G. Depanis) managed to reconcile this “controversy” and, paying tribute to the innovative achievements of Wagner, at the same time defended an independent national path for the development of Russian opera.

The “Wagnerian problem” caused sharp clashes and a struggle between decomp. opinions in other countries. Much attention was paid to it in English. K. m., although here it did not have such relevant significance as in France and Italy, due to the lack of developed national. traditions in the field of music. creativity. Most of the English critics ser. 19th century stood on the positions of the moderate wing of it. romantics (F. Mendelssohn, partly Schumann). One of the most decide. Wagner’s opponents were J. Davison, who in 1844-85 headed the magazine “Musical World” (“Musical World”). In contrast to the prevailing in English. K. m. conservative tendencies, pianist and muses. writer E. Dunreiter spoke in the 70s. as an active champion of new creativity. currents and, above all, the music of Wagner. Of progressive importance was the music-critical activity of B. Shaw, who wrote in 1888-94 on music in the journal. “The Star” (“Star”) and “The World” (“World”). An ardent admirer of Mozart and Wagner, he ridiculed the conservative academic. pedantry and bias in relation to any phenomena of the muses. lawsuit.

In K. m. 19 – early. 20th century reflects the growing desire of peoples for independence and the assertion of their nat. arts. traditions. Started by B. Smetana back in the 60s. struggle for independence. nat. Czech development path. music was continued by O. Gostinskiy, Z. Neyedly and others. The founder of the Czech. Musicology Gostinskiy, along with the creation of fundamental works on the history of music and aesthetics, acted as a musician. critic in journal “Dalibor”, “Hudebnn Listy” (“Music Sheets”). Outstanding scientist and politician. figure, Neyedly was the author of many music-critical. works, in which he promoted the work of Smetana, Z. Fibich, B. Förster and other major Czech masters. music. Music-critical. has been operating since the 80s. 19th century L. Janacek, who fought for the rapprochement and unity of the Slavic muses. cultures.

Among Polish critics, the 2nd half. 19th century means the most. figures are Yu. Sikorsky, M. Karasovsky, Ya. Klechinsky. In his publicist and scientific and musical activities, they paid special attention to the work of Chopin. Sikorsky osn. in 1857 journal. “Ruch Muzyczny” (“Musical Way”), which became Ch. body of the Polish K. m. An important role in the struggle for nat. Polish music was played by music-critical. activities of Z. Noskovsky.

Colleague of Liszt and F. Erkel, K. Abranyi in 1860 osn. the first musical instrument in Hungary. magazine Zenészeti Lapok, on the pages of which he defended the interests of the Hungarians. nat. music culture. At the same time, he promoted the work of Chopin, Berlioz, Wagner, believing that the Hungarian. music should develop in close connection with the advanced general European. music movement.

The activities of E. Grieg as a musician. criticism was inextricably linked with the general rise of the nat. arts. Norwegian culture in con. 19th century and with the approval of the world significance of the Norwegian. music. Defending the original ways of development of the fatherlands. lawsuit, Grieg was a stranger to any kind of nat. limitations. He showed the breadth and impartiality of judgment in relation to everything truly valuable and truthful in the work of composers of various kinds. directions and different national. accessories. With deep respect and sympathy he wrote about Schumann, Wagner, G. Verdi, A. Dvorak.

In the 20th century before K. m. there are new problems associated with the need to understand and evaluate the changes that are taking place in the field of music. creativity and music. life, in the very understanding of the tasks of music as an art. New creatives. directions, as always, caused heated debates and clashes of opinions. At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. a controversy unfolds around the work of C. Debussy, reaching a climax. points after the premiere of his opera Pelléas et Mélisande (1902). This controversy acquired particular urgency in France, but its significance went beyond the nat. the interests of the French music. Critics who hailed Debussy’s opera as the first French music drama (P. Lalo, L. Lalua, L. de La Laurencie), emphasized that the composer goes on his own. in a way different from Wagner’s. In the work of Debussy, as many of them claimed, the ending was achieved. French emancipation. music from him. and Austrian influence that has gravitated over it for several decades. Debussy himself as a musician. critic has consistently defended nat. tradition, coming from F. Couperin and JF Rameau, and saw the way to a true revival of the French. music in the rejection of everything imposed from the outside.

A special position in French K. m. at the beginning. 20th century occupied by R. Rolland. Being one of the champions of the “national musical renewal”, he also pointed out the inherent French. music features of elitism, its isolation from the interests of the broad people. wt. “Whatever the arrogant leaders of young French music may say,” Rolland wrote, “the battle is not yet won and will not be won until the tastes of the general public change, until the bonds are restored that should connect the elected top of the nation with the people … “. In the opera Pelléas et Mélisande by Debussy, in his opinion, only one side of the French was reflected. nat. genius: “there is another side of this genius, which is not represented here at all, it is heroic efficiency, drunkenness, laughter, passion for light.” An artist and humanist thinker, a democrat, Rolland was a supporter of a healthy, life-affirming art, closely connected with the life of the people. Heroic was his ideal. the work of Beethoven.

In con. 19 – beg. 20th century becomes widely known in the West, the work of Rus. composers. A number of prominent zarub. critics (including Debussy) believed that it was Russian. music should give fruitful impulses for the renewal of the whole of Europe. music lawsuit. If in the 80s and 90s. 19th century an unexpected discovery for many app. musicians were produced. M. P. Mussorgsky, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, M. A. Balakirev, A. P. Borodin, then two or three decades later the ballets of I. F. Stravinsky attracted attention. Their Parisian productions in the beginning. 1910s turn out to be the biggest “event of the day” and cause a heated debate in magazines and newspapers. E. Vuyermoz wrote in 1912 that Stravinsky “occupied a place in the history of music that no one could now dispute.” One of the most active promoters of Russian. music in French and English. The press was M. Calvocoressi.

To the most prominent representatives of foreign countries. K. m. 20 century. belong to P. Becker, X. Mersman, A. Einstein (Germany), M. Graf, P. Stefan (Austria), K. Belleg, K. Rostand, Roland-Manuel (France), M. Gatti, M. Mila ( Italy), E. Newman, E. Blom (Great Britain), O. Downes (USA). In 1913, on the initiative of Becker, the German Union was created. music critics (existed until 1933), the task of which was to increase the authority and responsibility of K. m. Propaganda of new trends in music. creativity were dedicated. magazine “Musikblätter des Anbruch” (Austria, 1919-28, in 1929-37 appeared under the title “Anbruch”), “Melos” (Germany, 1920-34 and since 1946). These critics took different positions in relation to the phenomena of the muses. modernity. One of the first propagandists of the work of R. Strauss in English. Print Newman was critical of much of the work of composers of the younger generation. Einstein emphasized the need for continuity in the development of music and believed that only those innovative searches are truly valuable and viable, which have a strong support in the traditions inherited from the past. Among the representatives of the “new music” of the 20th century. he valued P. Hindemith the most. Breadth of views, the absence of group bias with a deep muz.-theoretical. and historical erudition characterize the activities of Mersman, who was the leading figure in it. K. m. in the 20s and early. 30s

Means. influence on music-critical. thought of a number of European countries in ser. 20th century T. Adorno showed that in the views of which the features of vulgar sociologism are combined with an elitist tendency and deep social pessimism. Criticizing the “mass culture” bourgeois. society, Adorno believed that true art could only be understood by a narrow circle of refined intellectuals. Some of his critical works are distinguished by great subtlety and sharpness of analysis. Thus, he faithfully and penetratingly reveals the ideological basis of the work of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern. At the same time, Adorno completely denied the importance of the largest muses. masters of the 20th century who do not share the positions of the new Viennese school.

The negative aspects of modernist K. m. their judgments are for the most part biased and biased, often they resort to deliberately defiant, shocking attacks against otd. persons or points of view. Such, for example, is Stuckenschmidt’s sensational article “Music Against the Ordinary Man” (“Musik gegen Jedermann”, 1955), which contains an extremely sharp polemic. sharpness is an expression of an elitist view of art.

In the socialist countries K. m. serves as a means of aesthetic. education of the working people and the struggle for the establishment of the principles of high, communist. ideology, nationality and realism in music. Critics are members of composers’ unions and take an active part in the discussion of creativity. issues and mass art.-educational work. Created new music. magazines, on the pages of which the events of the current music are systematically covered. life, published theoretical. articles, discussions are underway on topical problems of the development of modern. music. In some countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Cuba) special. music the press arose only after the establishment of the socialist. building. Main The organs of the K. m. Poland – “Ruch Muzyczny” (“Musical Way”), Romania – “Muzica”, Czechoslovakia – “Hudebhi rozhledy” (“Musical Review”), Yugoslavia – “Sound”. In addition, there are magazines of a specialized type dedicated to the department. music industries. culture. So, in Czechoslovakia, 6 different music magazines are published, in the GDR 5.

The beginnings of K. m. in Russia belong to the 18th century. In the official government. gas. “Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti” and its appendix (“Notes on the Vedomosti”) since the 30s. printed messages about the events of the capital’s music. life – about opera performances, about celebrations accompanied by music. ceremonies and festivities at the court and in the houses of the noble aristocracy. For the most part, these were brief notes of purely informational content. character. But larger articles also appeared, pursuing the goal of familiarizing Russian. public with new types of art for her. These are the article “On shameful games, or comedies and tragedies” (1733), which also contained information about the opera, and J. Shtelin’s extensive treatise “Historical description of this theatrical action, which is called opera”, placed in 18 issues of “Notes on the Vedomosti” for 1738.

In the 2nd floor. 18 century, especially in its last decades, in connection with the growth of muses. life in Russia in depth and breadth, information about it in the St. Petersburg Vedomosti and the Moskovskie Vedomosti published since 1756 becomes richer and more diverse in content. The performances of “free” t-ditch, and open public concerts, and partly the field of home music-making fell into the field of view of these newspapers. Messages about them were sometimes accompanied by laconic evaluative comments. The speeches of the fatherlands were especially noted. performers.

Some of the democratic bodies. Russian journalism in con. 18th century actively supported the young Russian. composer school, against neglect. attitude towards her noble-aristocratic. circles. The articles by P. A. Plavilytsikov in the journal published by I. A. Krylov are sharply polemical in tone. “Spectator” (1792). Pointing to the rich opportunities inherent in Russian. nar. song, the author of these articles sharply condemns the blind admiration of the high-society public for everything foreign and its lack of interest in its own, domestic. “If you wanted to delve decently and with due consideration into your own,” Plavilshchikov asserts, “they would find something to be captivated by, they would find something to approve; would have found something to surprise even the strangers themselves. In the form of a fictionalized satirical pamphlet, the conventions of Italian opera, the standard and empty content of its libretto, and the ugly sides of noble dilettantism were ridiculed.

In the beginning. 19th century significantly expands the total amount of critical. literature about music. Mn. newspapers and magazines systematically publish reviews of opera productions and concerts with an analysis of the productions themselves. and their execution, monographic. articles about Russian and zarub. composers and artists, information about events abroad. music life. Among those who write about music, figures of a large scale, with a wide range of music, are put forward. and general cultural outlook. In the 2nd decade of the 19th century. begins his music-critical. activity of A. D. Ulybyshev, at the beginning. 20s appears in the press B. F. Odoevsky. With all the differences in their views, both of them approached the assessment of the muses. phenomena with the requirements of high content, depth and power of expression, condemning thoughtlessly hedonistic. attitude towards her. In the unfolding in the 20s. In the dispute between the “Rossinists” and the “Mozartists”, Ulybyshev and Odoevsky were on the side of the latter, giving preference to the brilliant author of “Don Giovanni” over the “delightful Rossini”. But Odoevsky especially admired Beethoven as “the greatest of the new instrumental composers.” He argued that “with Beethoven’s 9th symphony, a new musical world begins.” One of Beethoven’s consistent propagandists in Russia was also D. Yu. Struysky (Trilunny). Despite the fact that Beethoven’s work was perceived by them through the prism of romantic. aesthetics, they were able to correctly identify many of its creatures. sides and significance in the history of music.

Main issues facing the Russian K. m., there was a question about nat. music school, its origins and ways of development. As early as 1824, Odoevsky noted the originality of A. N. Verstovsky’s cantatas, which had neither the “dry pedantry of the German school” nor the “sugary Italian wateriness”. The most acute question is about the features of Russian. schools in music began to be discussed in connection with the post. opera Ivan Susanin by Glinka in 1836. Odoevsky for the first time with all decisiveness declared that with Glinka’s opera “a new element in art appeared and a new period begins in history: the period of Russian music.” In this formulation, the world significance of Rus was shrewdly foreseen. music, universally recognized in con. 19th century The production of “Ivan Susanin” gave rise to discussions about Russian. school in music and its relation to other nat. music schools N. A. Melgunov, Ya. M. Neverov, to-rye agreed (mostly and most importantly) with Odoevsky’s assessment. A sharp rebuff from progressive figures in Rus. The K. m. was caused by an attempt to belittle the significance of Glinka’s opera, which came from F. V. Bulgarin, who expressed the opinion of the reactionary. monarchic. circles. Even more heated disputes arose around the opera “Ruslan and Lyudmila” in the beginning. 40s Among the ardent defenders of Glinka’s second opera was again Odoevsky, as well as the well-known journalist and orientalist O. I. Senkovsky, whose positions were generally contradictory and often inconsistent. At the same time, the significance of Ruslan and Lyudmila was not truly appreciated by the majority of critics as a Russian. Nar.-epic. operas. The beginning of the dispute about the superiority of “Ivan Susanin” or “Ruslan and Lyudmila” dates back to this time, which flares up with particular force in the next two decades.

Western sympathies prevented a deep understanding of the nat. the roots of Glinka’s innovation to such a widely educated critic as V. P. Botkin. If Botkin’s statements about Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt had an undoubted progressive significance and were insightful and far-sighted for that time, then in relation to Glinka’s work his position turned out to be ambivalent and indecisive. Paying tribute to Glinka’s talent and skill, Botkin considered his attempt to create Russian. nat. failed opera.

Famous. period in the development of Russian. K. m. were the 60s. 19th century The general upsurge of music. culture, caused by the growth of democratic. societies. movement and near burzh. reforms, to-rye was forced to carry out the tsarist government, the promotion of new bright and means. creative figures, the formation of schools and trends with a clearly identified aesthetic. platform – all this served as an incentive for the high activity of music-critical. thoughts. During this period, the activities of such prominent critics as A. N. Serov and V. V. Stasov unfolded, Ts. A. Cui and G. A. Laroche appeared in the press. Music-critical. The computer was also involved in activities. P. I. Tchaikovsky, A. P. Borodin, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov.

Common to all of them were educational orientation and consciousness. defending the interests of the fatherlands. music lawsuit in the fight against will be neglected. the attitude of the ruling bureaucrats towards him. circles and underestimation or misunderstanding of the outstanding historical. Russian meanings music school critics of the conservative camp (F. M. Tolstoy – Rostislav, A. S. Famintsyn). Combat publicist. the tone is combined in the K. m. of the 60s. with the desire to rely on solid philosophical and aesthetic. basics. In this regard, the advanced Russian served as a model for it. lit. criticism and, above all, the work of Belinsky. Serov had this in mind when he wrote: “Is it possible, little by little, to accustom the public to relate to the field of music and theater with that logical and enlightened measure that has been used in Russian literature for decades and Russian literary criticism has been so highly developed.” Following Serov, Tchaikovsky wrote about the need for “rational-philosophical musical criticism” based on “solid aesthetic principles.” Stasov was a staunch follower of Russian. revolutionary Democrats and shared the principles of realism. aesthetics of Chernyshevsky. The cornerstones of the “New Russian School of Music”, continuing the traditions of Glinka and Dargomyzhsky, he considered folk and realism. In the music controversy in the 60s faced not only two DOS. Russian directions. music – progressive and reactionary, but the diversity of paths within its progressive camp was also reflected. Solidarizing in assessing the importance of Glinka as the founder of Rus. classical music schools, in recognition of Nar. songs as a source of nationally unique features of this school and in a number of other fundamentally important issues, representatives of the advanced K. m. of the 60s. disagreed on many points. Cui, who was one of the heralds of the “Mighty Handful”, was often nihilistic. relation to foreign music classics of the pre-Beethoven period, was unfair to Tchaikovsky, rejected Wagner. On the contrary, Laroche highly appreciated Tchaikovsky, but spoke negatively about the production. Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and was critical of the work of many others. outstanding zarub. composers of the post-Beethoven period. Many of these disagreements, which became more acute at a time of intense struggle for something new, smoothed out and lost their significance over time. Cui, in his declining life, admitted that his early articles “are distinguished by sharpness of judgment and tone, exaggerated brightness of colors, exclusivity and peremptory sentences.”

In the 60s. the first articles of N. D. Kashkin appeared in print, but systematically. the nature of his music.-critical. activity acquired in the last decades of the 19th century. Kashkin’s judgments were distinguished by calm objectivity and balanced tone. Alien to any kind of group predilections, he deeply respected the work of Glinka, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and persistently fought for the introduction into the conc. and theater. music production practice. these masters, and at the turn of the 20th century. welcomed the emergence of new bright composers (S. V. Rachmaninov, young A. N. Skryabin). In the beginning. 80s in moscow Rimsky-Korsakov’s student and friend S. N. Kruglikov spoke to the press. An ardent supporter of the ideas and creativity of the Mighty Handful, in the first period of his activity he showed a certain prejudice in assessing Tchaikovsky and other representatives of the “Moscow” school, but then this one-sidedness of positions was overcome by him, his critical judgments became broader and more objective.

Beginning 20th century was for Russian music is a time of great change and intense struggle between the new and the old. Criticism did not remain aloof from the ongoing creativity. processes and actively participated in the struggle decomp. ideological and aesthetic. directions. The emergence of late Scriabin, the beginning of creativity. the activities of Stravinsky and S. S. Prokofiev were accompanied by heated disputes, often dividing the muses. peace into irreconcilably hostile camps. One of the most convinced and follow. V. G. Karatygin, a well-educated musician, a talented and temperamental publicist, who was able to correctly and insightfully assess the significance of outstanding innovative phenomena in Russian, was the defenders of the new. and zarub. music. A prominent role in the K. m. of that time was played by A. V. Ossovsky, V. V. Derzhanovsky, N. Ya. currents, against academic. routine and passive impersonal imitation. The significance of the activities of critics of a more moderate direction – Yu. D. Engel, G. P. Prokofiev, V. P. Kolomiytsev – consisted in upholding the high traditions of the classic. heritage, a constant reminder of their living, relevant significance, will follow. protection of these traditions from attempts to “debunk” and discredit them by such ideologues of muses. modernism, as, for example, L. L. Sabaneev. Since 1914, B. V. Asafiev (Igor Glebov) began to appear systematically in the press, his activity as a muse. criticism was widely developed after the Great October Socialist Revolution.

Much attention was paid to music in Russian. periodic pre-revolutionary press years. Along with the permanent departments of music in all major newspapers and in many others. magazines of a general type is created special. music periodicals. If arising from time to time in the 19th century. music magazines were, as a rule, short-lived, then the Russian Musical Newspaper, founded by HP Findeisen in 1894, was published continuously until 1918. In 1910-16 a magazine was published in Moscow. “Music” (ed.-publisher Derzhanovsky), on the pages of which they found lively and sympathetic. response to new phenomena in the field of music. creativity. More academic in the direction of “A Musical Contemporary” (published in Petrograd under the editorship of A. N. Rimsky-Korsakov, 1915-17) gave meaning. homeland attention. classics, but on their own. notebooks “Chronicles of the magazine” Musical Contemporary “” widely covered the events of the current music. life. Specialist. music magazines were also published in some cities of the Russian periphery.

At the same time, societies pathos K. m. in comparison with the 60-70s. 19th century weakens, ideological and aesthetic. Russian legacy. Democrats-enlighteners are sometimes openly audited, there is a tendency to separate claims from societies. life, the assertion of its “intrinsic” meaning.

Marxist capitalism was just beginning to emerge. Articles and notes about music that appeared in the Bolshevik party press pursued Ch. arr. enlighten. tasks. They emphasized the need for widespread propaganda of the classic. music heritage among the working masses, the activities of state muses were criticized. institutions and t-ditch. A. V. Lunacharsky, referring to dec. musical phenomena. past and present, tried to identify their connection with social life, opposed the formal idealistic. understanding of music and decadent perversity, denounced the pernicious influence on the art of the bourgeois spirit. entrepreneurship.

Owls. K. m., inheriting the best traditions of democratic. criticism of the past, is distinguished by a conscious party orientation and is based in its judgments on solid scientific. principles of Marxist-Leninist methodology. The value of art. criticism was repeatedly emphasized in the leading party documents. The resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) dated June 18, 1925, “On the Party’s Policy in the Field of Fiction” noted that criticism is “one of the main educational tools in the hands of the Party.” At the same time, a demand was put forward for the greatest tact and tolerance in relation to dec. creative currents, a thoughtful and cautious approach to their assessment. The resolution warned of the danger of bureaucracy. shouting and commanding in a lawsuit: “Only then will it, this criticism, have a deep educational value when it will rely on its ideological superiority.” The tasks of criticism in modern stage are defined in the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On Literary and Artistic Criticism”, publ. Jan 25 1972. Criticism should, as stated in this document, “deeply analyze the phenomena, trends and laws of the modern artistic process, do everything possible to strengthen the Leninist principles of party and nationality, fight for a high ideological and aesthetic level of Soviet art, and consistently oppose bourgeois ideology. Literary and artistic criticism is designed to help expand the artist’s ideological horizons and improve his skills. Developing the traditions of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, Soviet literary and artistic criticism must combine the accuracy of ideological assessments, the depth of social analysis with aesthetic exactingness, a careful attitude to talent, and fruitful creative searches.

Owls. K. m. gradually mastered the method of Marxist-Leninist analysis of art. phenomena and solved new problems, to-rye were put forward before the lawsuit. Oct. revolution and building socialism. There have been mistakes and misunderstandings along the way. In the 20s. K. m. experienced means. the influence of vulgar sociologism, which led to an underestimation, and sometimes a complete denial of the greatest values ​​of the classical. inheritance, intolerance towards many prominent masters of owls. music, which has gone through a period of complex, often contradictory searches, an impoverished and narrowed idea of ​​art, necessary and close to the proletariat, a decrease in the level of art. skill. These are denied. tendencies have received a particularly sharp expression in the activities of the Russian Association of Proletarian Musicians (RAPM) and similar. organizations in certain union republics. At the same time, the vulgarly interpreted provisions of the theory of historical materialism were used by critics of the formalistic. directions for separating music from ideology. Compositional technique in music was mechanistically identified with production, industrial technique, and formal technical. novelty was declared unity. criterion of modernity and progressiveness of muses. works, regardless of their ideological content.

During this period, the articles and speeches of A. V. Lunacharsky on questions of music acquire particular importance. Based on Lenin’s teaching on cultural heritage, Lunacharsky emphasized the need for a careful attitude to music. treasures inherited from the past, and noted in the work of otd. composers features close and consonant with owls. revolutionary reality. Defending the Marxist class understanding of music, at the same time he sharply criticized that “premature callous orthodoxy”, which “has nothing to do with either genuine scientific thought, and, of course, with genuine Marxism.” He carefully and sympathetically noted the first, albeit still imperfect and insufficiently convincing, attempts to repel the new revolution. themes in music.

Unusually wide in scope and content was music-critical. Asafiev’s activities in the 20s. Warmly responding to everything means anything. events in the Soviet music life, he spoke from the standpoint of high arts. culture and aesthetics. exactingness. Asafiev was interested not only in the phenomena of muses. creativity, activity conc. organizations and opera and ballet theaters, but also a vast, diverse sphere of mass music. life. He repeatedly emphasized that it was in the new system of mass muses. language born of the revolution, composers will be able to find a source of genuine renewal of their work. The greedy search for something new led Asafiev sometimes to an exaggerated assessment of the transient phenomena of zarub. lawsuit and non-critical. passion for external formal “leftism”. But these were only temporary deviations. Most of Asafiev’s statements were based on the demand for a deep connection between the muses. creativity with life, with the demands of a wide mass audience. In this regard, his articles “The Crisis of Personal Creativity” and “Composers, Hurry!” (1924), which caused responses in Sov. music prints of that time.

To the active critics of the 20s. belonged to N. M. Strelnikov, N. P. Malkov, V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Bogdanov-Berezovsky, S. A. Bugoslavsky, and others.

Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of April 23. 1932 “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”, which eliminated groupism and circle isolation in the field of literature and art, had a beneficial effect on the development of the K. m. It contributed to overcoming the vulgar sociological. and other mistakes, forced a more objective and thoughtful approach to assessing the achievements of owls. music. Muses. critics were united with composers in unions of owls. composers, designed to rally all creative. workers “supporting the platform of Soviet power and striving to participate in socialist construction.” A magazine has been published since 1933. “Soviet Music”, which became the main. body of owls. K. m. Special music. magazines or departments of music in general journals on art exist in a number of union republics. Among the critics are I. I. Sollertinsky, A. I. Shaverdyan, V. M. Gorodinsky, G. N. Khubov.

The most important theoretical and creative. problem, which confronted K. m. in the 30s, was the question of the method of socialist. realism and about the means of the truthful and the arts. full reflection of modern. owls. reality in music. Closely related to this are issues of skill, aesthetic. quality, value of individual creativity. giftedness. Throughout the 30s. a number of creative discussions, dedicated as general principles and ways of development of owls. music, as well as types of music creativity. Such, in particular, are discussions about symphonism and about opera. In the last of them, questions were posed that went beyond the bounds of the operatic genre only and were of more general significance for owls. musical creativity at that stage: about simplicity and complexity, about the inadmissibility of replacing genuine high simplicity in art with flat primitivism, about the criteria of aesthetic. estimates, to-rymi should be guided by owls. criticism.

During these years, the problems of the development of the national economy become more acute. music cultures. In the 30s. the peoples of the Soviet Union took the first steps towards the development of new forms for them prof. music lawsuit. This put forward a complex set of questions that required theoretical. justification. K. m. widely discussed questions about the attitude of composers to folklore material, about the extent to which the forms and methods of development that have historically developed in the music of most Europeans. countries, can be combined with intonation. the originality of nat. cultures. On the basis of various approach to solving these issues, discussions arose, which were reflected in the press.

The successful growth of K. m. in the 30s. interfered with the dogmatic tendencies, manifested in the erroneous assessment of some talented and therefore. works of owls. music, a narrow and one-sided interpretation of such important fundamental questions of owls. lawsuit, as a question of attitude to the classic. heritage, the problem of tradition and innovation.

These tendencies intensified especially in owls. K. m. in con. 40s Rectilinear-schematic. posing the question of struggle is realistic. and formalistic. directions often led to the crossing out of the most valuable achievements of owls. music and support for productions, in which important topics of our time were reflected in a simplified and reduced form. These dogmatic tendencies were condemned by the Central Committee of the CPSU in a decree dated May 28, 1958. Confirming the inviolability of the principles of the party spirit, ideology and nationality of the owls. claims, formulated in previous party documents on issues of ideology, this decision pointed to the wrong and unfair assessment of the work of a number of talented owls that had taken place. composers.

In the 50s. in owls K. m. the shortcomings of the previous period are being eliminated. A discussion ensued on a number of the most important fundamental questions of the muses. creativity, in the course of which a deeper understanding of the foundations of socialist was achieved. realism, a correct view of the greatest achievements of owls was established. music that make up its “golden fund”. However, before the owls. There are many unresolved issues in the capitalist art, and those of its shortcomings, to which the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU “On Literary and Artistic Criticism” rightly points out, have not yet been completely eliminated. Deep analysis of creativity. processes, based on the principles of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, is often replaced by superficial descriptiveness; sufficient consistency is not always shown in the fight against alien owls. the art of modernist trends, in defending and upholding the foundations of socialist realism.

The CPSU, emphasizing the growing role of literature and art in the spiritual development of the Soviet person, in shaping his worldview and moral convictions, notes the important tasks facing criticism. The instructions contained in the decisions of the party determine the further paths of development of the owls. K. m. and increasing its role in the construction of socialist. music culture of the USSR.

References: Struysky D. Yu., On contemporary music and musical criticism, “Notes of the Fatherland”, 1839, No 1; Serov A., Music and talk about it, Musical and Theater Bulletin, 1856, No 1; the same, in the book: Serov A.N., Kritich. articles, vol. 1, St. Petersburg, 1892; Laroche G. A., Something about the superstitions of music criticism, “Voice”, 1872, No 125; Stasov V.V., Brakes of new Russian art, Vestnik Evropy, 1885, book. 2, 4-5; the same, fav. soch., vol. 2, M., 1952; Karatygin V. G., Masquerade, Golden Fleece, 1907, No 7-10; Ivanov-Boretsky M., Controversy about Beethoven in the 50s of the last century, in collection: Russian book about Beethoven, M., 1927; Yakovlev V., Beethoven in Russian criticism and science, ibid.; Khokhlovkina A. A., The first critics of “Boris Godunov”, in the book: Mussorgsky. 1. Boris Godunov. Articles and researches, M., 1930; Calvocoressi M.D., The first critics of Mussorgsky in Western Europe, ibid.; Shaverdyan A., The Rights and Duties of a Soviet Critic, “Soviet Art”, 1938, 4 Oct.; Kabalevsky Dm., About musical criticism, “SM”, 1941, No l; Livanova T. N., Russian musical culture of the 1th century in its connections with literature, theater and everyday life, vol. 1952, M., 1; her, Musical bibliography of the Russian periodical press of the 6th century, vol. 1960-74, M., 1-2; her own, Opera Criticism in Russia, vol. 1966-73, M., 1-1 (vol. 1, issue 3, jointly with V. V. Protopopov); Kremlev Yu., Russian thought about music, vol. 1954-60, L., 1957-6; Khubov G., Criticism and creativity, “SM”, 1958, No 7; Keldysh Yu., For combat principled criticism, ibid., 1963, No 1965; History of European Art History (under the editorship of B.R. Vipper and T.N. Livanova). From antiquity to the end of the XVIII century, M., 1; the same, First half of the 2th century, M., 1969; the same, Second half of the 1972th and beginning of the 7th century, book. XNUMX-XNUMX, M., XNUMX; Yarustovsky B., To approve the Leninist principles of party and nationality, “SM”, XNUMX, No XNUMX.

Yu.V. Keldysh