Scan 5
Musical Courier 1892-08-03: Vol 25 Iss 649, 1892
40 lines. Read by computer on 23 September 2026. Printed page 6. See the scan on archive.org.
1prose. Theophile Gautier, whose salons form a no inconsiderable bulk of his newspaper work, started in life as a painter, but failed, so that he cannot be properly denominated a layman. He knew something at least about the technic of painting. Now, as to musical criticism, Dr. Hueffer (in whose demise England lost a valuable critic) argues that a happy mean should be struck between the ultra-technical criticism, bristling with a formidable terminology, and that free and easy style which labels every composition with a meaning and attempts to fill every symphony with a poetical content.
3But just here is the rub. The average reader knows nothing of the scientific side of music, cares less and wishes the performance criticised. That is his chief concern. He knows at once whether he likes or dislikes a new composition (differing thereby greatly from some music critics who are never sure of their convictions). He is principally interested in the singers and instrumentalists and not the work interpreted. Consequently the average critic lavishes his attention upon the performances and a new work usually goes begging some time before it gets its just critical deserts.
5This explains much of the tiresome quality of the daily newspaper criticism. Journals devoted to music usually err in the opposite direction. While presumably their readers assume a more earnest attitude toward music, yet it stifles even a professional musician to read the awful analytical rubbish about music that appears in them. It would not be a bad idea at all if standard works on the theory and practice of the art were given serially to musical readers, and thereby stop the publishing of queer, crazy cranks who simply bewilder and befog musical students with their theories. But then the golden mean was never observed in this mundane sphere, and if professional musicians think that they are the best critics of their art it is only necessary to adduce two famous names—Hector Berlioz and Robert Schumann. Both these justly celebrated men, celebrated alike in music and letters, hated and misunderstood Richard Wagner. Now, by all the laws of sympathy and logical judgment, what you will, Wagner was the one man who should have appealed to their critical sympathies, yet he was their particular detestation. Nor was it jealousy that dictated their feelings. Berlioz frankly declares his inability to comprehend the introduction to "Tristan and Isolde." To him it was a musical sphinx, and Schumann everywhere shows his ignorance of Wagner's aim and of his music. Like Schopenhauer, Schumann boldly declares Wagner no musician, else how could he, &c.
7This about sums up the question of musician critics, unless Wagner himself is preferred as an "awful example."
9He simply banished the claims of other musicians, with the possible exception of Beethoven. Certainly none of his contemporaries were seriously considered. And yet—and yet one cannot help thinking that a music critic should know more about music than his readers.
11But does he?
13Echo answers, Celtic-wise, "He does not" in a majority of instances; so have we not the spectacle of men on the daily press and even in musical journalism who were graduated from the ranks with no previous technical training, but with a "plentiful lack" of modesty and a superabundance of impudence. These be our teachers, save the mark, and no wonder the public has rebelled, pays little attention to newspaper criticism and judges for itself.
15Dr. Hueffer always declared that the public could, if it but knew, make the better critic; as for the others, the worthy doctor humorously declared that they exemplified perfectly "how not to be music critics." To all of which THE MUSICAL COURIER says "Amen."
17THE music at the Chicago exposition should be universal, cosmopolitan and not limited to any particular taste under the dictation of personal prejudice. All the more prominent American and resident musicians should, if for no other reason than as a matter of courtesy, be called upon to participate in forming the great musical scheme, and it should not devolve upon Messrs. Thomas and Tomlins only. We acquit Mr. Geo. H. Wilson from any connection with this tendency toward self aggrandizement; as we understand it, Mr. Wilson accepted the position of secretary of the Bureau of Music with the understanding that he was to act merely as a recording functionary and that he was not to be consulted in the technical and artistic features of the work. In such decision Mr. Wilson exhibited his usual tact.
19THE BOSTON "MUSICAL HERALD" AND MR. ARENS.
21NUMEROUS inquiries which reached the office of THE MUSICAL COURIER from various sources show that our remarks referring to the violent attacks of the Boston "Musical Herald" on Arens, the American conductor, have attracted considerable attention throughout the country. Having thus given wide circulation to the article in question, which but for our allusion thereto it never would have secured, we feel in duty bound to look into the matter more closely.
23It is, indeed, of grave import whether or no Mr. Arens be an impostor without musical ability or the brilliant conductor and enthusiastic champion of American music which he is said to be. In the former case THE MUSICAL COURIER will join the "Musical Herald" in repudiating him; in the latter, any attempts at handicapping him mean harm, not only to a capable and deserving musician, but also to the development of musical art in America.
25The article in question contains a sweeping assertion to the effect that Mr. Arens secured bushels of favorable criticisms because he is a good mannered fellow. While this would almost place Mr. Arens on a level with the chevalier d'industrie of suave manners and brilliant accomplishments who at regular intervals infests these shores, it also means a direct insult to the music critics the world over. It furthermore strikes a severe blow at the "Musical Herald" itself, for if bushels of favorable criticisms are at the call of any good mannered fellow the world over, how are the readers of the "Herald" to know whether its favorable comments on artists are due to good manners or to real artistic merit? We are afraid that whatever Mr. Wilson's susceptibilities to good manners may be, his associate editors, Messrs. Elson, Philip Hale, Krehbiel, Henderson and Cutter, will seriously object to any insinuations of this nature. THE MUSICAL COURIER for one wishes to enter an emphatic protest against the wholesale slur hurled at the entire guild of music critics the world over. That a journal of the standing of the Boston "Musical Herald" should thus denounce musical journalism is more than we can comprehend.
27Having thus dismissed the favorable criticisms recorded of Mr. Arens and his works as being utterly worthless, the "Herald," with astounding logic, cites the Leipzic correspondent of a London paper as a final proof of the harm Mr. Arens did the cause of American music. If the enthusiastic comments of such papers lying before us as the "Leipziger Tagblatt," the "Leipziger Zeitung," the "Leipziger General Anzeiger," the "Neue Zeitschrift für Musik," the "Musikalische Wochenblatt," &c., on this self same Leipzic concert are worthless, why in the name of common sense should the unfavorable criticism of the London correspondent be of any value? After heartily praising Paine, Chadwick, Gleason, Herbert, Arens, Schönefeld, and, above all, MacDowell, these papers sum up by admitting that the American concert under the enthusiastic and magnetic leadership of Mr. Arens had changed the somewhat bad opinion prevalent as to musical matters in America into the exact reverse. Is this doing harm to the American composer?*
29Of course there must be some dissenting voices; the Americans share this honor with such well-known composers as Max Bruch, Rubinstein, Brahms and Bruckner. In fact, Hanslick, as critic of the "Neue Freie Presse," to this day utterly ignores Bruckner, and yet Bruckner is one of the greatest symphony writers of the day, who just now is being literally crushed with ovations whenever one of his sympho-
31* The critics of the papers cited above, after granting the assimilation of German and French elements, find that the Americans nevertheless had retained a remarkable beauty of instrumentation, youthful freshness of fantasy, daring vim and bold rhythms; that furthermore the subjects of the American compositions were of uncommon originality, qualities which are bound to meet with universal and sincere appreciation. Paine's symphony was pronounced to be one of the most noteworthy productions in its genre; Chadwick's overture "Melpomene" as bespeaking a mighty glow of passion and crushing heroism in tones; MacDowell's weird fairy tale (suite op. 49) a genuine masterpiece of fanciful descriptive music, &c. Space forbids further notice; let these specimens suffice.
33nies is produced at Vienna. If the "Musical Herald" would have the American composers bury their work in the privacy of their writing desks until there be not one unfavorable verdict the wide world over, the American composer must wait until doomsday. We hardly think Mr. Arens' enthusiasm ever led him to expect universal approbation; as far as we know, he only wished to prove that the American composer had come to be a factor in the musical world, and that he must be acknowledged as such. This being accomplished, Mr. Arens no doubt coincides with the "Musical Herald" when it holds that henceforth American compositions should be judged by European conductors simply as music. But to have directed the attention of Germany's musical public to the existence of the American composer, where, ere this, he had been an unknown quantity, that certainly is the undeniable merit of Mr. Arens. Mr. Wilson also speaks of performances through the medium of insufficient orchestras under the direction of a conductor who is not acknowledged a conductor in his own country. Now the simple truth of the matter is that Mr. Arens succeeded in securing some of the very best, if not the largest, orchestras Germany can boast of. At Sondershausen and Weimar he played with the court orchestras respectively; at Hamburg with the Laube orchestra, which is acceded to be exceptionally fine in every department; the Berlin and Dresden orchestras, while not being on a par with the court orchestras of these cities, are nevertheless fully able to do justice to compositions of the most advanced type, while at Leipsic Mr. Arens had the co-operation of the same band which assists at the Liszt concerts under the baton of such men as Rich. Strauss, Weingartner, Mottl and others of equal standing. Lastly, the Vienna Symphony Orchestra, especially organized for the Vienna Musical and Dramatic Exhibition, is composed of the best material the country affords. We gather from the papers lying before us that in each and every case the remarkable virtuosity, finesse and delicacy, &c., shown in mastering the difficulties of the American compositions were especially commented upon.
35Does this look like insufficient performances?
37This leads us to the other point raised by the "Musical Herald," as regards Mr. Arens' ability as conductor. The animus of the "Herald's" remarks is to the effect that since Mr. Arens is not as yet an acknowledged conductor in his own country he therefore inferentially cannot be fit to present American compositions adequately. Whatever Mr. Arens' abilities in this direction may or may not be the conclusions Mr. Wilson tacitly arrives at are rather peculiar, to say the least. Was there not a time when the talents of a Mottl, a Seidl, a Van der Stucken, Nikisch, Weingartner, &c., were comparatively unknown, save to the initiated few? Furthermore, musical conditions in the United States are peculiarly unfavorable to the young American conductor; no matter how great his abilities may be, it is for the time being utterly impossible for a young man from the West to gradually rise to the position of conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra or of the New York Philharmonic Society, since Europeans only are entrusted with those positions. Unless, however, the unanimous verdict of the European press be one huge preconcerted lie (which, according to the "Musical Herald's" theory, would stamp Mr. Arens as the most polished disciple of Lord Chesterfield on the face of this globe), he evidently seems possessed of quite extraordinary gifts as orchestral leader. Absolute control of orchestral forces, fire, passion, temperament, esprit, vivacity, circumspection and routine, fine sense for orchestral color and rhythm, swaying powers, fine conception and marvelous portraying of ideal contents, and, above all, a certain magnetic, electrifying enthusiasm—these, according to the European critics and musicians, are some of the attributes of Mr. Arens' conducting; all of which seems to indicate that Mr. Arens, although as yet not an acknowledged conductor in his own country, certainly was held to be an exceptionally fine leader by our European brethren, and they know a thing or two over there about conducting we dare say.
39The grave insinuation, however, that Mr. Arens is a pretender, and that therefore he ought to be repudiated, calls for special comment. The "Musical Herald" does not exactly state upon what ground it considers Mr. Arens a pretender. Does the "Musical
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.