Scan 4
Musical Courier 1908-08-05: Vol 57 Iss 6, 1908
26 lines. Read by computer on 23 September 2026. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1REFLECTIONS
2ON MATTERS TEMPORAL AND TRANSATLANTIC.
3BY THE EDITOR.
5PARIS, July 14, 1908.
7HERE is a paper in London called the Sunday Times, which, despite its insinuating title, has no relation with the London Times, the Nestor of English daily papers. I do not know if it is a Nestor in age, but it is one in journalistic wisdom, with the exception of its cumbrous and unpropitious music criticism. In one of its recent numbers this Sunday Times, in discussing the latest volume of Grove's "Dictionary of Music" states, among other things, the following:
9It is, of course, the article on Richard Strauss that has been the most anticipated feature of the new volume, particularly as it was known that the new editor had undertaken it himself. Mr. Fuller Maitland has maintained such a hostile attitude toward Strauss in his Times criticisms that it would have been better if he had followed the example of Grove in the case of Wagner, and handed over the article to more sympathetic hands; but he was evidently not able to resist the temptation to launch a quasi-Papal bull against his arch-heretic. It may be said at once that the article is quite out of place in a work which should, above all things, aim at what the Yorkshire umpire called "fairation" in its estimates. That it is a piece of polemical journalism, which utterly fails to understand, or attempt to understand, the composer's ideals and artistic methods, is perhaps not surprising, but it is lamentable that Mr. Maitland should have adopted throughout so petty a tone and should have been guilty of such flagrant bad taste as is conveyed in such paragraphs as these—
11At this point the composer seems to have fully realized the fact that his eccentricities of style were a great attraction to the public, and to have considered it his duty to startle his hearers with some new piece of independence (not to say impertinence) with each successive production.
13and
15For the present it would seem as if the composer's wish to startle the frequenters of concerts was in abeyance, and he has turned his attention to the possibly harder work of shocking Continental operagoers.
17Even Mr. Maitland himself seems to have a strong suspicion that he has gone too far, for towards the end he hedges a bit with the platitude that "it is, of course, too soon to guess what Strauss' position among the musicians of the world may ultimately be," which consideration should have at least moved him to hark back with an editorial blue pencil.
19Maitland is the critic of the London Times and the editor of the revised Grove's, which is aiding as much as possible in inculcating the English reader on music with retrogressive theories.
21Really it requires little more than the mere reproduction of this review to illustrate the critical tendency of the editor of Grove's, yet it may as well be said that he represents not only the hostile spirit towards the works of Strauss, but also a vitriolic anger against the man Strauss. As I have frequently stated in these columns, and I feel it to be true, the individual habits or the personal pecadilloes of artists must not be considered in any estimate upon their creations if we desire to secure a correct view of art. There are people who, in their adoration of the works of Michael Angelo, would lose sight of all that is noble and magnificent in the artist if they were acquainted with some of his personal habits. Those are the people who fail utterly in the ability to separate the creation from the creator, and hence cannot be accepted as fair or competent judges. The private life of Richard Strauss, said to be irreproachable in many directions, is, however, represented as a commercial speculation in its relation to his compositions, and therefore his works, instead of being permitted to stand or to be heard strictly on their merits, are heard with the jingle of pounds, dollars and marks; but any one listening to them with such an accompaniment cannot hear them. Maitland goes far beyond the area of criticism by attempting to expose the motives of Strauss; not the musical motives, for I believe that to be beyond Maitland's capacity, but the personal motives. Strauss wants to "shock Continental operagoers." How can any one know whether Strauss wants to shock at all? Years ago Mozart wanted to shock, they said; and English critics asserted that Beethoven wanted to shock, and naturally Wagner and Liszt wanted to shock. Every time a composer showed a desire to leave the beaten path he wanted to shock. And he usually shocks. He shocks the whole universe; gets people into a realization that there is progress in Art. That is the shock. Delacroix shocked. The English Pre-Raphaelites are not through with the shocking yet. Turner shocked as soon as Ruskin drew him out of obscurity. Giotto shocked. Leonardo da Vinci shocked the Italian peninsula and then the balance of Europe. Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin did a little shocking that will be felt until life ceases. Every time some one appears who can succeed in showing that there is something new in the human mind, which is Art, he shocks. But the tedious, uninteresting, unimpressionable critic is not shocked because he cannot be affected; he is shock proof by profession.
23In his defense of the Esprit de Lois, Montesquieu said:
25Nothing stifles knowledge more than to put upon all things a professor's robe. Such critics come and clap a child's cap on our heads, and tell us
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.