NO FIXED RULES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 106, 31 October 1931, Page 12

NO FIXED RULES

(To the Editor.) Sii*, —It was a graceful gesture on the part of Mr. L.' D. Austin to deliver a benevolent pat on the editorial head as a preliminary to the work of demolishing me. .At the same time, I regret that he begrudged me the opportunity of baring my bosom to his eversharp sword. Perhaps you should have obtained -his prior approval. It was my first look, even if a lingering one, through the editorial door, but the aggregate of my friend's appearances must by now amount to almost a stay that outwears its welcome. Tha.t is where the custodian of chronic cacoethes scribendi has an advantage over an amateur purveyor of olla podrida (whatever that is) like I am. lie can think of such things to write, right' off. As I stagger up from the .ground, all covered in the blood of battle, with no sign of victory in sight, I am given the opportunity to answer one question. Mr. Austin would be most interested to learn whence I derived this fantastic idea of "no fixed rules" in harmony. I would refer to Matthew Shirlaw's work, "The Theory of Harmony." The author, a Mus.D., F.R.C.0., is, or was, lecturer in music, University of Edinburgh, etc. In his preface he writes: ". ■ . The real object of .the present work, however, is not to give a mere colourless exposition of the most important and representative, systems of harmony, but rather to ascertain, as far as possible," what constitutes the true basis of a theory of .harmony, and especially whether, or to what extent, harmony can properly be said to have a physical basis. Ever since the time of Pythagoras, music and harmony haye1 been related to mathematical science. But in all times, there have also been found theorists who were sharply opposed to' the view that the underlying principles of harmony are j natural or mathematical principles; music, they point out, is the expression of man himself, that is, it is ' man-made, and has nothing to do with anything external to man, nor, especially with any natural phenomena accoustical or otherwise. . .

11l this country, the well-known system of harmony of Dr. Alfred Day has long held a foremost place, notwithstanding that it was vigorously opposed by such a musician as Sir John Stainer, who himself proposed a new 'theory of harmony based on tho tempered scale.' Of late years, however, the ,Day system lias fallen into discredit'; at least tihe number of those who still place their faith in it is daily diminishing. The 3ate Professor Prout, who at first closely adhered to Day's system of harmony, finally discarded aeuoustical phenomena as the basis of the theory of harmony, without, however, being able to find for it any other adequate basis, or to evolve any independent theory. The examination of the numerous works in existence reveals the fact, not only that these tend to contradict each other, but that they exhibit, more frequently than not, decided inner contradiction, as well as contradiction with the facts of musical experience. It is not surprising that at the present day tile greatest uncertainty and misgiving exist, not only with respect to the theory of harmony itself, but even as to what constitutes the proper basis of such a theory. On reconsidering the matter, I may be wrong in asserting that there are no fixed rules. The rules may exist, b_ut apparently there is just some little difficulty in discovering them. It says much for the erudition of Mr. Austin that he has emerged from the weltqr of wonder "with the goods." It is really not surprising that with an unmusical travelling companion he would prefer the journey to be short. That is tho sort of highbrow hauteur of which I complained.—l am, etc., s.o.s. 30th October.