MUSIC AND CRITICS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 44, 22 February 1937, Page 6

MUSIC AND CRITICS.

NEW GERMAN RESTRICTIONS

In December it was reported that "an immediate ban on all forms of criticism of art and literature throughout German had been announced by Dr. Goebhels, in a speech at the annual meeting of the Reich Chamber of Culture. ... It was announced that every writer on art must be at least 30 years of age and possess a certificate showing that he had sufficient knowledge of hit? subject. In future, only the objective description and analysis of works of art would be permitted." According to another report. Dr. Goebbek said that "it cannot be tolerated that youngsters of 22 or 23 shall go on criticising in the Press the work of men of 40 or 30. without having themselves the least idea of the art which they are criticising. . . . Generations after us shall not be able to say that the real genius of our days has been tortured by criticising 'mayflies' and has been completely crushed."

In commenting in the "Sunday Times" on this decision, Mr. Ernest Newman, the musical critic, said: "I attach little importance to all this talk about 'crushing' musical genius. I attach considerably more importance to Dr. Goebhels indictment a? regards 'torture.' It is monstrous that a pang of ignorant or prejudiced men, or even weii-meaning men of infirm judgment, rdioukl he allowed to pnrsije a genius like Wasrner throughout practically tlie whole of liis creative life with abuse. mi<iepiesentation and currish personal hatred. A man of genius has the right to go about his work without having his phvsical and moral forces weakened bv this kind of thing.

Will It Work? "Against tlie general principle of the new German ruling, then, there is nothing to be said. But will it work in practice, or, if it work* at all, how will it work? What guarantee is there that a man will be anv better judge of a particular form of art at *52 than he in at 22? It is a matter of common knowledge that certain people are constitutionally incapable of appreciating certain composers or certain kinds of music, just as some stomachs cannot digest apples or others strawberries. I lie repugnances of these latter people are not dignified with the name of 'criticism' of apples or strawberries; they are merely a physical reaction. Xor is the man who goes through his whole life unable to see what most other people see in the art of a Bach, a Wagner or a Wolf, let ns say. to be dignified with the title of a 'critic* of these composers; what lie imagine* to l>e superfine taste on his part is really only the unfavourable reaction of a weak or deranged stomach. If the mail has tjje misfortune to have been put together by N"ature like this, no possible addition to the tale of his years can save him.

"I can see no saving grace, then, in Dr. fioebbels' aie limits. T ran see. in fact, a grave danger in them: assuming the Cciman people to be infinitely capable of suggestion from high quarters, as would seem to be the case, there is positive danger in training them to believe'that once a critic has attained the age of riO and has been given his certificate by some supposed authority or other, he is to be listened to respectfully" as one fully qualified to speak on all subjects connected with music. He may still be as incompetent to apprehend certain styles or respond to certain creative mentalities as he was in his vouth.

The Critic's Reactions. "Dr. OoeWjels. I am afraid, has not taken sufficiently into account the fact that our judgments, however scrupulously we may phrase them, are only instinctive reactions which we try to justify by reason. The reaction, of course, is a product of the whole mind and body of tlie man; and, other thincrs being equal, the reaction« of a critic who is accustomed to self-searching will have a smaller margin of error than those of a critic who never gets beyond the naive belief that his taste is. or should be, the norm for all mankind. But however hard the critic may work at the technique of his trade, he stiil cannot evade the general law that he can react to art only in accordance with his constitution. In the last resort he simply says, in effect, 'T like this.' or 'I don't like that'; and if his nature happens to be a narrow one. and liis mind a simple one. he is capable, in nil good faith, or the most colossal absurdities of so-called judgment.

'"ft seems to lue that Dr. floebbels* new regulations for criticism may in the long run do more harm than pood, for if unfavourable criticism of composers is not permitted the result will be that much bad music will have a freer run than it deserve*. . . . When people talk of the bad treatment a genius receives from his contemporaries they forget that for every composer of the first ri»nk who lias been underpraised at first there have been ten composers of the second or third rank who have been greatlv overpraised. . . . Tt seems to me that while criticism may have a frreat many sins on it«< conscience, to suppress or repress it will in the long run do far more harm than good to music."