THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

Evening Star, Issue 21632, 30 January 1934, Page 13

THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

[By L.D.A.]

Mu«ic give* tone to the unirer*e, wines to the mind, flight to the imagination, a charm to sadness, gaiety and life to everything.”—Plato. When doctors disagree, who shall decide? Of late there has appeared in the Press a remarkable divergence ol opinion among those to whom wo are entitled to look for guidance on musical matters. First, let us take Mr Lawrence Godfrey Smith, -a loading Australian musician, who has been engaged by the New Zealand Broadcasting Board to give pianoforte recitals from the YA stations. Jn passing, we might pause to wonder why the board in its wisdom should ignore the claims of the many excellent pianists in this country before seeking talent abroad. However, Air Smith has proved himself a capable artist; moreover, he has expressed views about music which have been considered of sufficient interest to form the subject of a recent leading article in the ‘ Star.’ The conclusion arrived at in that article may he summed up under three heads—(a) The surfeit of radio music; (b) the violation of classicism by broadcasting; and (c) the consideration of radio as an educational rather than an entertainment factor. * * * * All these aspects have been dealt with at various times -in this column. I have often emphasised the danger of a saturation point in musical appreciation: even a critical ear must become atrophied when forced to hear music from 7 a.m. to midnight, or even later. And I feel instinctively that the rare and precious quality of good music, which every musician recognises but cannot explain, is more or less debauched by indiscriminate and promiscuous aerial dissemination. But it is when we come to opinions concerning tho academic functions of broadcasting that wo find ourselves really and truly up against it. Air Smith gives utterance to -a p'ous maxim when he says that education of the listener should form the ultimate objective of the Broadcasting Board, and the general tone of his remarks leaves no room for doubt that, in his estimation, the present quality of local programmes is far from fulfilling that desirable ideal. But in his laudable zeal Air Smith entirely overlooks two very important questions that inevitably arise in this connection via.. (1) Are the masses capable of being musically educated? and (2) Do the people at largo really want such education? • * ft • Fortunately I am absolved from the responsibility of answering these questions, because a far higher authority has answered them already—to wit, Sir Thomas Beecham, whose latest public references to musical matters have received prominence in the Press. Sir Thomas did not mince his words. In effect, he said that there is no such thing as a cultured public, and that “ any man who tries to alter tho unalterable is a damn fool.” The attempt to educate the masses along musical lines “ is a hopeless task,” and “ people are happier when they are not being worried by reformers and uplifters,” were further illuminating remarks made by Sir Thomas. Finally, he said: “ Alusic has nothing to do with education; it is an entertainment: and if ijj .were divorml from the disgraceful tbe public mind, music would attract ten times larger audiences to-day.”

This is strong languajfb, but, coming from so eminent a source, iv'e cannot disregard it. Now here we have Mr Lawrence Godfrey Smith, on the one hand, who maintains that music should exert primarily an educative influence: and, on the other hand, there is Sir Thomas Beecham, a world-famous musical entity, who proclaims not only that music above all, an entertainment, but that it is hopeless to'attempt to educate the public, and any such attempt is disgraceful rot. They cannot both be right, and if Sir Thomas is wrong he has done an amount of harm to the causo of music which may be incalculable, besides placing his own reputation in grave jeopardy. It would be interesting if we could learn exactly in what circumstances and conditions he delivered himself of these startling opinions. We are told that the address was given'' at the Aldwyeh Club, out whether the occasion was strictly formal or semi-convivial is not made clear. And it is precisely on this vital point that everything hinges, for post-prandial utterance has ruined many an oracle. If Sir Thomas is correctly reported as having asserted, in cold blood and with deliberate intention, that music has no legitimate association with art, culture, and education, then I have not the slightest hesitation in hoisting him with his own petard, and accusing him of talking disgraceful rot, and dangerous rot. * * * * At the same time Mr L. G. Smith was, I think, guilty of a grave tactical blunder in so openly advocating the cultural side of music, lor the. whoje art and science of educating the public is to camouflage the process in the guise of entertainment. It is hardly politic to discuss whether this laborious deception is, in the long run, worth while. There are many who say that mankind as a whole was happier in the days of ignorance and pre-educa-tion; anti it may well be that the entire fabric of instructional endeavour is designed in the forlorn hope of implanting the seeds of knowledge here and there in fertile ground. Be this as it may, while human nature remains what it is, experience shows that the pills of avowed education must be sugar-coated before they can be swallowed by the populace; audiences are apt to be frightened away from concerts too ostensibly cultural in design, and perhaps this is partly what Sir Thomas Beecham had in mind.

But after all I may be doing Sir Thomas a grave injustice in imputing to him either after-dinner facetionsness or complete sincerity. There is still an alternative construction to be placed upon his astounding outburst—perhaps it was all a carefully-planned bluff. Who knows but that Jus scheme was devised to lull the public into a sense of security—to throw over the

bulk ol the people a cloak of alleged immunity, beneath which he might still, as ot yore, pursue his erstwhile and nefarious occupation as musical educator-in-chief? The more I ponder this possibility the more attractive and feasible it becomes. Sir Thomas Beecham is too deeply identified with British musical progress for us to draw any uncharitable deductions from a palpably humorous speech. For years he has been, and still is, an outstanding pillar of music, both in Britain and on the Continent of Europe. Is it thinkable that such a man would deliberately seek to endanger, much less destroy, the musical prestige of his native land, so lovingly and painstakingly built up by himself and innumerable dther artistic leaders in the years gone by? Perish the ideal Lastly, there is still another solution. 'Die diatribe may have been directed solely against the people who refused to support Sir Thomas in his operatic ventures, in which case it merely voiced the petulance of disappointed chagrin. Strange as it may appear, not every musician is a lover of opera, nor are all opera-lovers necessarily good musicians. But, m Sir Thomas Beecham’s mind, opera is the beginning and the end of all music—a factor that must never he forgotten when appraising his musical dicta.