MUSIC?

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 181, 1 August 1936, Page 8

MUSIC?

Can a man who can listen to more than one record of modern "rhythm," "syncopation" or "crooning," with any degree of enthusiasm, term himself a lover of music ? To mv mincl there is no more appalling pandemonium of sound in all the noises ot a city than the socalled music of the present day. One would almost wish for the return of the "silent" films, when, on going to a theatre, one is presented with a deafening conglomeration of noise and asked to accept it as music. These gangs, of youths who form the orchestra and with much gusto—and actually with smiles as of enjoyment—sft and slaughter a good composition with their tuneless instruments, are enough to make the gods weep, but when they "present a new number)" expressly modern, and proceed apparently to each play a different string of notes (there seems to be 110 tune), and to do so, one behind the other, being all the time in direct opposition to one another, one wonders if even among the audience there can be an "ear for music." Will there in the next generation he any real musicians? Quicn sabe? It is a positive tragedy to see a small child who is musical fed on "Honey, All Luv Yooo," etc. How is that child ever to learn the beauty and peace and harmony of music when every day the radio bellows "Ah Can't Live Without Yooo," stamp, stamp, stamp (apparently the feet* of the orchestra keeping time) ? Modern music and modern youth seem to be very akin —no high aims, no soul, no beauty. This seems to he the mark of civilisation. The other day an acquaintance of mine told me that if people didn't like good music they shouldn't buy records. The best of his collection were as far as I could see one song by Richard Tauber and one by Paul Robeson. The others I should have been delighted to tell him what I thought of, and then light the fire with —or arc modern records "too tough to burn"? PAX.