Scan 4
Musical Courier 1892-08-03: Vol 25 Iss 649, 1892
75 lines. Read by computer on 23 September 2026, twice; the two readings disagreed in places. Printed page 5. See the scan on archive.org.
1The Musical Courier.
2PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY
3—BY THE—
4MUSICAL COURIER COMPANY,
5(INCORPORATED)
619 Union Square W., New York.
7ESTABLISHED JANUARY, 1880.
8No. 649.
10EDITORS:
11MARC A. BLUMENBERG. OTTO FLOERSHEIM.
12JAMES G. HUNEKER. HARRY O. BROWN.
14BUSINESS DEPARTMENT:
15SPENCER T. DRIGGS. R. S. MAXWELL.
16A. T. KING. FRANK M. STEVENS.
18WESTERN OFFICE: Chicago, 226 Wabash Ave., John E. Hall, Manager.
19BOSTON OFFICE: 157 Tremont St.
20BERLIN, GERMANY: PHILIPP ROTH, 84a Lützow St.
21LEIPZIG, GERMANY: GEORGE HUG, Königstrasse 16.
22LONDON AND PARIS: BRENTANO'S.
24Subscription (including postage) invariably in advance.
25Yearly, $4.00; Foreign, $5.00; Single Copies, Ten Cents.
27RATES FOR ADVERTISING.
28PER INCH.
29Three Months………….$20.00 Nine Months………….$60.00
30Six Months……………..40.00 Twelve Months…………80.00
31Special rates for preferred positions.
32Advertisements for the current week must be handed in by 5 P. M. on Monday.
33All remittances for subscriptions or advertising must be made by check draft, or money orders, payable to the MUSICAL COURIER COMPANY.
35American News Company, New York, General Distributing Agents.
36Western News Company, Chicago, Western Distributing Agents.
38NEW YORK, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1892.
40SOME one in introducing the late Leo Delibes to a Pesth audience about fourteen years ago transposed his name to Leo le Dieb. This amusing slip of the tongue would suit some composers whom we could mention.
42MR. UHLER, of the Peabody Institution of Baltimore, is said to profess anxiety that the Conservatory of Music should be awakened from its apathy and be made to accomplish some practical results. We suggest to Mr. Uhlert to pay visits to New York, Boston and Chicago conservatories, as well as those of neighboring Philadelphia, and study the operations of these institutions. The Conservatory of Music of the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, is a disgrace to the institution and a reproach to all musical Baltimore. one of two readings
43MR. UHLER, of the Peabody Institution of Baltimore, is said to profess anxiety that the Conservatory of Music should be awakened from its apathy and be made to accomplish some practical results. We suggest to Mr. Uhler to pay visits to New York, Boston and Chicago conservatories, as well as those of neighboring Philadelphia, and study the operations of these institutions. The Conservatory of Music of the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, is a disgrace to the institution and a reproach to all musical Baltimore. one of two readings
45HOME VERSUS FOREIGN TALENT.
46SOME time ago THE MUSICAL COURIER received the following communication, the name of its writer being withheld by his own request. It was during the Paderewski visit, and the American pianist, who received but a pittance for his playing, naturally felt aggrieved when he heard of his brother artist getting $1,000 for a performance in private. But let him tell his own story:
47I cannot refrain from making public a fact regarding the treatment extended to two brother American artists by an American lady of great wealth and contrast that with the courtesy extended to a European pianist who is now playing in concerts in this country. The American pianist plays all the classical and modern piano literature, and as he is an artist he plays it well. He is at home in the classical school from Bach to Schumann, and is a most delicate performer of Chopin's music, while to Liszt's compositions he gives a union of splendid technic and poetic dash that brings out their inmost meaning. Some time since this American pianist, with a brother violinist, was invited to give a program of musical numbers at a wealthy lady's home before her society friends. At the close of the evening, after the artists had delighted the guests for two hours with their skillful interpretations, the lady of wealth and culture handed a dainty envelope to one of the musicians as he bade her good evening.
48The exchange of compliments was most courteous, and was expressive of good feeling and fine culture, but the envelope contained simply two $5 bills.
49What an expression of the value of artistic services! In contrast to this, another lady has invited a European pianist to her home to meet her friends, and to make sure of having his presence inclosed with her card of invitation a check for $1,000. The European musician plays the same piano literature as the American, but is at present the musical "fad." The difference in the ability of the two pianists is not to be contrasted for a moment, for each is great in his own particular way. But the relative difference of value placed on their services by "cultivated society people" is so marked that it is worthy of comment.
50When will Americans of wealth take some interest in the development and extension of the art and talents of their own countrymen?
52AN AMERICAN MUSICIAN.
53There are two sides of this much vexed question. Certainly the lack of taste and patriotism on the part of the first lady is greatly to be deplored, but then the idea that naturally occurs to one is, why should Mr. American Pianist put himself in such a position where he can be thus insulted?
54Why should he be angry at Mr. Foreign Pianist if the latter's pianistic pigs bring a better price in the market? There is such a thing as sitting down, wringing one's hands and crying aloud, "I am an American pianist; why don't you listen to me and pay me for being an American pianist?"
55The nationality vein is being overworked. Music has no country, and if there are (and we are informed so every day, that there are) a score of native pianists who can play the technic out of Paderewski's hide, well, why don't they do it?
56Come, come, be fair, be just. If you can't make a hit don't cry like a whipped baby and say that the cause of your failure was due to your being an American and that your hair was not Paderewskian. If Paderewski's hair was fifty times more intense in coloring and electric in energy he would not have made a success if he had not played the piano superlatively well. Mr. American Pianist should have made a bargain before playing at the house of Mrs. Hog. No pay, no play, a good motto; therefore, don't blame the foreign rival for having made a better bargain, for leaving aside the nationality nonsense; that is precisely what it amounts to.
58A SCIENTIST ON MUSIC.
59PROF. AUGUST WEISSMANN, a distinguished scientist and lecturer at the University of Freiburg, has recently delivered a series of lectures, which have been published in essay form by the Clarendon Press, Oxford, England. One of these essays touches so intimately on the scientific basis of music that the review which was made by Mayo W. Hazelton in the Sunday "Sun" is here willingly reproduced:
60In a paper entitled "Thoughts Upon the Musical Sense in Animals and Man" Professor Weismann discusses the question whether any increase in musical talent has as a matter of fact taken place in the course of ages. He carefully distinguishes between the perfection of the auditory apparatus and the possession of another factor equally indispensable to the appreciation of music, viz.: A mind sensitive, impressionable and highly developed. A further distinction is drawn between musical talent and music the product, and the author's conclusion is that, notwithstanding the vast improvement in music considered as an invention and built upon tradition, there is no ground for assuming any advance in musical talent since the times of the Greeks and Romans. This is undoubtedly a paradox, and the grounds for its assertion are set forth in some detail. It is in the first place pointed out that our auditory apparatus consists of two parts—first, the auditory organ proper, viz., the outer, middle and inner ear, by which the various sounds become nervous stimuli, each producing a corresponding nerve impulse; secondly, that part of the brain which transforms the impulses conveyed to it by the auditory nerve into sensations of sound; this is the auditory centre of our brain. The first part of this twofold organ, the auditory organ proper, is, so far as we know, not much higher in organization than that of many animals, and it does not possess any peculiarity of construction which would justify us in the assumption that the power of hearing music is much greater than in animals. It is probable that our most remote ancestors possessed an auditory organ similar to that which we possess to-day, for in the living caricatures of men, the apes, it reaches almost the same degree of perfection. It is easy to understand in a general way how in all the mammalia the ear could have been elaborated and raised to a high pitch of excellence by natural selection. Wild animals stand in need of a very fine ear; it is absolutely essential to them to know with certainty whether any particular sound proceeds from an enemy or from their prey. While a single mistake might be fatal to them, one often repeated would be punished inevitably with death.
61If they mistook the sound made by an enemy for that of their prey they would of course go to certain destruction, but the opposite mistake might also be fatal, for the food of a beast of prey is nearly always scarce, and if many opportunities were missed the animal would die of starvation. If, however, the mammalian auditory organ must attain so high a pitch of perfection, lest it should be inadequate in the struggle for life, it is clear that the part of the brain by which notes are perceived, the auditory centre, must possess a corresponding degree of organization. Professor Weismann assumes it to be certain that a corresponding degree of development is found in those layers of nerve cells and nerve fibres in the auditory centre, the so-called field of memory, which serve as the material basis of the memory of auditory perception. The perfection of this twofold auditory apparatus must have been more extensively diffused among primitive men than it is now, because an exquisite capacity for hearing was then more indispensable in the struggle for life. So far, then, as musical talent is dependent on the excellence of the auditory apparatus, we have no reason to think that it has increased with the progress of civilization. There are, of course, many contemporary examples of as close an approach to auditory perfection as were ever made in the past; but, on the other hand, there are many more instances of a defective auditory apparatus than could have been exhibited under the trying conditions of a primitive existence.
62But because primitive man possessed an auditory apparatus as perfect as our own it does not follow that his musical talent was the same. The understanding of our highest music needs not only an auditory organ and an auditory centre, together with the lifelong training of these, but something behind them, namely a sensitive, impressionable and highly developed mind. A comparison between the musical perception of a parrot's brain and that of a man convinces Dr. Weismann that one and the same auditory organ, together with its auditory centre, must produce an entirely different effect upon the mind according as this is more highly or lowly organized. The "soul," is, as it were, played upon like an instrument by the musical nerve vibrations of the auditory centre. The more perfect this instrument is, the greater is the effect produced. If, then, primitive man did not possess a mind like that of his descendant, if his intellect and every dependent power became far keener and deeper as the struggle for life went on through the course of ages, it follows that the faculty of perceiving music must always have been augmentive.
63We may, therefore, regard it as impossible that a lost Beethoven ever existed among primitive men, and it is even doubtful whether one could be found among existing Australians or negroes. For the production of a Beethoven there is needed not only a highly organized auditory apparatus, but also a rich, great and intensely sensitive soul, and we know by experience that such a nature is only to be found among the very highest intellects. Professor Weismann goes further, and denies that the child of primitive man, if he were alive to-day, could be raised by education to the same level of musical understanding as that reached by our own children. He would fail, it is averred, for want of inherent power of mind.
64Have we, however, any ground for assuming that our musical talent is superior to that of the Greeks and Romans? Our musical product is superior, but is that fact due to a difference of innate capacity or to a difference of external conditions? We have seen, indeed, that susceptibility to music must have increased during the intellectual evolution of mankind; so long, in fact, as the essential nature of the human mind was capable of being raised. But at what precise period in the history of a certain nation, or group of nations, shall we hold that the climax of intellectual evolution has been reached? As a mere suggestion, without any pretense to exactness, Professor Weismann suggests that the people of "antiquity," viz., the ancient civilized nations of the Mediterranean, had already at the very dawn of their history attained the highest level of intellectual development. If any further growth has occurred since then in European nations it has certainly been so imperceptibly small that it could cause no sensible difference in the susceptibility of the human soul to music. The times which produced such legislators as Moses and Solomon, poets like Homer and Sophocles, philosophers and men of science like Aristotle, Plato and Archimedes—the times which created the Egyptian temples and pyramids and the statues of Greek gods—most undoubtlessly display the achievements of the human intellect at its best. And an age which produced the gentle and forgiving Christian philosophy shows us that, as regards character and feeling, the human mind had attained the highest development. It is therefore assumed by the author of these essays that the nations of "antiquity" possessed a capacity for music equal to our own, and that the times during which the human intellect can be said to have been in process of elevation lie far behind them.
65How, then, did it happen that the music of antiquity was, by comparison with ours, so poor? If the mental instrument with which we make—i.e., invent and enjoy—music has existed for so many ages, why did not man perform symphonies and oratorios in the age of the Pharaohs? The reply depends upon a recognition of the distinction between music and musical talent; the latter is due, and due only to the nature of the individual body and mind, while the former is also due to a slow process of development by means of tradition. Music considered as a product is an invention and rests upon tradition, the power on which depends the entire growth of culture, the development of language, of the sciences and their practical application and of every kind of art.
66It does not fall within Dr. Weismann's province to follow the slow and gradual evolution of music since the era of the building of the pyramids. The aim of his essay is fulfilled when he demonstrates that the evolution of music, considered as a product, has not depended upon any increase of the musical faculty or any alteration in the inherent physical nature of man, but solely upon the power of transmitting the intellectual achievements of each generation to that which follows it. This power of transmission, more than anything else, is the cause of the superiority of man over animal—this, and not merely human faculty, although it may be admitted that the latter is much higher than that of animals. Even if we were compelled to believe that human faculty has reached its limits and can be no further increased, even then we need not despair of the almost boundless progress of mankind. For each generation always starts from the acquirements of the preceding one, and the living child placed from the outset by tradition upon a somewhat greater height of intellectual achievement than that occupied by his predecessor, is then able with the same powers to climb still higher upon the steep slope of the most advanced civilization. Hence, even if our intellectual powers have attained the highest possible stage, human civilization will nevertheless progress, and however far we may look forward the conquests of the mind of man will never cease.
67Music, the latest of the arts to be developed, needed a higher civilization, a more universal culture than other arts to bring it to any degree of perfection.
68Music is at once the oldest and youngest of the arts, and who shall say that its last word has been said?
69We are but on the threshold of the art.
71HOW NOT TO BE A MUSIC CRITIC.
72IN a lecture delivered before the Royal Institution, London, some years ago, Dr. Franz Hueffer had some very germane and interesting things to say about musical criticism. Of course he pitied the unfortunate music critic, always between the devil and the deep sea, and he took occasion to say what criticism should not be.
73The subject is indeed an inexhaustible one and every new critic throws fresh light upon it. That Nihilistic critic, Anatole France, sneers openly at his profession, and Edmund Rod, a Frenchman of letters, declares in effect that the less a man knows about his theme the better his critical work.
74The frankness of Mr. Rod is refreshing, if not altogether convincing. He does not pretend to be a critic of music, but criticises painting and sculpture. Although a literary man, he has criticised the Paris Salon for some seasons and has had no technical education as an artist. Yet his criticisms are excellent, readable, and above all intelligible. He disdains indulging in the argot of the Parisian atelier; nevertheless avoids what might be termed picturesque
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.