Martinů’s posthumous reputation has advanced more slowly than many people feel it deserves. He was a more successful composer in his American years than fellow refugees like Bartok and Schoenberg, although he now lags behind them in critical esteem. One of the reasons for this situation is a remarkable laziness in musical journalism, a willingness to label a composer with particular words or phrases, often with derogatory intent. In Martinů’s case, the relevant words are ‘prolific’ and ‘uneven’. He frequently stands accused of writing far too much music, much of which is second-rate, the assumption being that his untiring industry directly caused the variability in quality. In an age where the Internet has become a primary source of information, and where anyone can become a reviewer, it is tiresome to find these two accusations peddled relentlessly by people who have nothing original to say about the composer. Some examples follow:

Not all of these reviewers are ill-disposed to the music, yet each, alongside many others, feels it necessary to use the two indispensable buzzwords of casual Martinů criticism, in vogue long before the Internet spread them even further. This consistent portrayal of his music has had a damaging effect upon his advancement in general esteem. Many people will be daunted by the alleged enormity of his output, and will therefore rest content with knowledge of a few works or, more likely, none at all. Even if they like what they know, the widespread perception of variable quality may discourage further exploration.