THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

Evening Star, Issue 21708, 1 May 1934, Page 3

THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

[By L.D.A.]

“ Uunic jit«i tons to ths ■■LTarts, wiaf* to tha mind, flight to tho iiou, a charm to sadneii. jaietj and life to •rerything.”—Plato. “ L’audace, et toujonrs do i’audaco,” lias always been the slogan of those who seek notoriety oven in the cannon’s mouth; but it is open to question whether that high priest of audacity, George Bernard Shaw, in his wildest and most irresponsible fits of iconoclasm, has ever come within measurable distance of Percy Grainger, the well-known Australian musician, who—according to recent Press reports—seems to have run amok, turned berserk, gone off his rocker, or taken plain leave of his senses—whichever simile you prefer to apply to the case. A few weeks ago 1 drew attention to some remarks made by Grainger about jazz, of which lie expressed himself a profound admirer. I wrote then that if the Australian had been correctly reported ho ought to be ashamed of himself. But Grainger’s latest utterances have exposed him to much graver rebuke—unless, perchance, he is tho pioneer of what he deems a new form of humour. Briefly stated, the matter stands thus: In tho current number of ‘ Tho Australian Musical News ’ Percy Grainger has written an article entitled ‘ Sublime and Frivolous Elements in Music,’ wherein he demonstrates, entirely to his own satisfaction if to nobody else’s, that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, and Schubert were all mainly frivolous and debilitated composers, quite devoid of dignity and spirituality, let alone sublimity, which latter attribute is shared about equally by medieval and modern jazz composers—sez Grainger. The article, unfortunately, is much too long for complete reproduction, _ consequently 1 can only quote the gist of it, even though this involve the usual accusations of wilful divorcement from tlie context. As far as is possible within the limited space at my disposal I will cite Grainger’s essential contentions without knowingly doing him any injustice—“be assured, he shall have justice, more than he desiroth,” perhaps, as Portia did not say. It will be my endeavour to show that the quality of Percy is very much strained, and that he is by no means a Daniel come to judgment. * * * * I will begin by giving, in full, the concluding paragraph of Grainger’s amazing effusion; — “ There is something distressing in tlie thought that, while the comparatively frivolous and spiritually empty compositions of the ‘ Viennese classics ’ (i.e., the works of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert) are performed and re-performed with more than yearly regularity, the far snblimer master works of infinitely greater geniuses (x - anging from the Worcester church music of the thirteenth century to the ‘ Song of the High Hills’ of Delius) are still awaiting their first performance in Australia.” ¥ 'i' ¥ That’s pretty good for a start, isn’t it? Note the “ far sublimer master works of infinitely greater British geniuses ” —meaning, of course, that several British composers have written music infinitely greater than anything penned by Haydn, Mozart, Beetlioven, or Schubert! True, Franz Schubert is nowhere expressly mentioned as coming within the Grainger ban, but he cannot possibly be excluded from the category of “ Viennese classics.” In fact, so ambiguously is this precious paragraph constructed that we would be quite entitled to add Brahms to the black list hut tor the circumstance that, earlier in the article, Johannes is tlie humble recipient of P.G.’s lordly condecension. * * * * .Turning back now to a consideration of his article as a whole we find Grainger’s chief premises to be as follow : 1. All music is divisible into three types—(a) the sublime or contemplative, (b) the intellectual or imaginative, (c) the frivolous or active. 2. To the first division belong all true “ slow movements,” of which the first essential is a continuity of mood that eschews “ comic relief,” dramatic contrast, bravura passage work, and other irrelevant distractions. 3. Grainger then gives a list of such allegedly “typical ” slow movements, too many for enumeration, but including examples of Javanese, Zulu, thirteenth and fourteenth century English music, and sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish ditto; also examples from the , works of Baeh, Wagner, Chopin, Brahms, Cesar Franck, Scriabin (the ‘Poem of Ecstasy’), Debussy, Faure, Sandby, Cyril Scott, Rachmaninoff, and Hindemith. 4. Such music, says Grainger, is not only the most spiritual type of musio known to us, it is also the most “ musical,” in the sense of being “ absolute music,” while it is in extreme contrast with the other types of music which appeal to the physical and intellectual side, respectively, of man’s nature. 5. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven [also, presumably, Schubert], because they knew no traditions other than those of “ active ” music, were seldom able to sustain a solemn or spiritual mood for more than a few brief moments at a time, therefore they couid not write a typical slow movement. They are, therefore, “ jaza classic ” composers, because their music embodies the ideal of “ popular simplicity.” 6. In the thirty-two pianoforte sonatas by Beethoven there is only one genuine slow movement—viz., the first movement of what is termed the ‘ .Moonlight ’ sonata. All the other socalled slow movements are interrupted by phrases, either frivolous, irrelevant, flippantly brilliant, violent, noisy, or dramatic. 7. Goethe’s estimate of Beethoven's music was that it contained only violence, brutality, and anger, and that it represented the sentimentality and pcsthetic disintegration of the age. 8. Beethoven’s slow movements may be compared with the behaviour of a spoilt pnma donna i.e., his music therein is unstable and spasmodic. 9. William Lawes, an English composer, who died in 1645, was a transcending genius whose music is deeper and grander than that of J. S. Bach (!!!). ]O. The last movement of Beethoven’s violin concerto is tiresomely repetitive, appallingly monotonous, and pitflingly empty. 11. The final movement of his ninth symphony reminds the hearer irresistibly of ‘ Yankee Doodle.’ 12. Modern “ jazz ” has unfolded subtleties of chamber orchestration never before known. 13. The love of noisy, coarse, ami brilliant effects—the love of brilliance at all costs—disfigures nearly every score by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven [Schubert, too. by implication.] 14. Henry Purcell, in his priceless four-part string fantasies, wrote the world’s snblimest string quartets. 15. “ My attitude [N.B., Grainger’s attitude] towards Beethoven voices the usual opinion of composers of my generation. I [P.G.] do not know a

single distinguished modern composer who places Beethoven high among the great composer-geniuses.” • • • • 16. “ Delius recently said to me: ‘ When a man tells me he admires Mozart 1 know in advance that he is a bad musician.’ ” 17 “ My own view is that Beethoven has been 'placed on an absurd pedestal; he was not a musician of the first rank.” 18. “ 1 have the deepest reverence for some of Beethoven’s works.” 19. The great creative musical minds of yesterday and to-day have nourished themselves on a vast mass of myriad musics:—Oriental, folk, and primitive, mediaeval and renaissance, jazz and classical, modern and futuristic. Of this vast niass the musical public know only a tiny corner well—viz., European art music from 1700 to 1900. 20. Why shall the musical public for ever be denied contact with musical experiences that have long proved inspiring to cur greatest musical minds? The foregoing twenty excerpts present the pith of Grainger’s arguments. As far as possible I have given his exact words, and certainly 1 have nowhere distorted his meaning. I shall now make some attempt to deal with these twenty points, though it must ho obvious that to cover the whole ground adequately would require much more space than is at my disposal. However, let us proceed: 1. For argument’s sake the three divisions of music may stand. 2. Note the definition of a “ slow movement ” —one that contains continuity of mood, and is devoid of dramatic contrast and passage work. 3. In the list of such ideal slow movements Grainger cites the ‘Largo’ from Chopin’s B minor sonata. This movement begins with a pronouncedly dramatic outburst, succeeded by fourteen bars of melody which, while undeniably beautiful, is of a decidedly jerky and restless nature. Not until the “ Sostenuto ” section is reached do we find the dreamy type of music prescribed by Grainger for his conception of a perfect slow movement. On the last page of this ‘ Largo ’ the first theme recurs, interrupted at the fourth bar by an example of the “passage work ” to which Grainger takes exception. 1 quoth this instance at some length merely to show that Grainger’s illustrations of his theory are not to ho depended upon for consistency. His citation of Scriabin’s ‘ Poem of Ecstasy ’ as an ideal specimen of a slow movement is simply ridiculous, but is •in consonance with his general ambiguity. 4. Such music . ~ . is “ absolute music,” says Grainger. Well, Grove’s 1 Dictionary ’ defines absolute music thus: “Absolute music, in its purest form, is music . . . which depends on structure alone.” Please note this. 5. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven—also, of course, Schubert, since he is a “ Viennese classic ” too —“ could not write a typical slow movement ” —i.e., a movement which for its identification with .“ absolute music ” demands perfection of structure. Ergo, these four great masters, according to Grainger, had little or no knowledge of musical construction; they were ignorant of the rules that govern harmonic form. Can any other inference be drawn froln the contention? 6. Grainger says Beethoven wrote only ONE genuine slow movement in all his thirty-two sonatas—viz,, the opening of the ‘ Moonlight.’ This is positively contrary to fact. One of the finest slow movements known in musio occurs in the Sonata in D major, op. 10, No. 3, in which there arc no “ irrelevances ” that cannot also be urged against Chopin’s ‘ Largo ’ and other examples in Grainger’s list. A beautiful slow movement is also found in the well-known ‘ Pathetic ’ sonata, whilst tlio magnificent ‘ Molto Adagio ’ of the tin-called ‘ Waldstein ’ sonata, though comparatively short, speaks volumes foi its creator’s powers in this direction. Other instances could be cited, but space forbids. Here 1 must not forget to point out Grainger’s definition of a jazz classic‘(see 5, above) —it embodies the ideal of “ popular simplicity.” I will return to this later. 7. Grainger quotes Goethe’s alleged estimate of Beethoven’s music, giving Bettina Brentano as his authority. This lady, in a letter to Goethe, wrote: “ No king or emperor is so conscious of his power as Beethoven . . . who made me forget the world, and even you, O Goethe. 1 do not think I am wrong in saying that Beethoven is very far ahead of modern civilisation.” The date of this letter is 1812. Soon afterwards Goethe felt himself impelled to make Beethoven’s acquaintance. They met at Toplitz, but, we are told, “ did not agree well; Beethoven admired Goethe’s genius,” but the poet was offended by the musician’s independence and his contempt for forms and conventions. The story is well known that Goethe and Beethoven, walking together one dajy, met the Imperial family; but whereas Goethe retired to the side of the road and stood, hat in hand and bowing low, until the retinue bad passed, Beethoven walked on, serenely and proudly. “ The princes and courtiers stood aside to allow him free passage. while the Empress bowed and Duke lludolph raised his hat to the illustrious composer.” We learn, further, that Beethoven rated Goethe soundly afterwards for the latter’s servility, and that “ Goethe never forgot the humiliation.”' It is quite in ac; eordance with human nature, therefore, that he should subsequently have belittled the composer’s works. But against this wo have the, testimony of Felix Mendelssohn, who in a letter to his sister Fanny, thus describes Goethe’s attitude ia 1830: “ At first Goethe did not want to hear Beethoven’s name mentioned, hut, after - a time he was persuaded to listen to some of that master’s music, which evidently moved him deeply. After a time he said: <Tt is really grand ’; then sat pensive and absorbed for a while, until nresentlv he began to cmestion me about Beethovens music. 1 saw quite cleavlv that a clout impression had been made upon him.” So that disposes of Goethe. * * * • 8. This point may be passed over as the utterance of the petulant pnma donna’s utile equivalent. 9. I thiik we can couple this point with that raised in No. 14. According to Grainger, William Lawes was a greater musician than Bach, that mighty genius w - ho, by the consent ot every reputable musician, alive or dead, was the most surpassing composer of all time. But in 14 we are told that Henry Purcell wrote the world’s subimest string quartets. 1 can find no substantiation for either ot these preposterous claims in any authoritative musical treatise or iv ork of reference; 10. T this be true ot Beethoven s ‘ Violin Concerto,’ it is strange that to play it veil has always been the fond ai? hitiou of every great violinist. 11. L. t us suppose Beethoven had ‘ Yanke* Doodle ’ in his mind when he wrote 1 s I Vi nth Symphony ’; well, what of t? He would not be the first composGi tc glorify comparatively trivial r. aterinl, and the Americana should c; lionise him for so doing. 12 Mo lern j“ jazz,” says Grainger, has unfolded subtleties of chamber orchestration never before known. But

in point 5 he tells us jazz is the embodiment of “ popular simplicity. How does he reconcile subtlety with simplicity? And, further, what, may 1 ask, is “ chamber ” orchestration? If it has any relation to bedroom music 1 think we may concede a subtle family likeness between some jazz I have heard and tho laryngeal noises often emanating from sleeping quarters. But, after all, it is quite easy to confuse the respective activities of Orpheus and Morpheus. 13. I have yet to see or hear a single “ score ” by Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert, that is “ disfigured by coarse effects.” Perhaps P.G. here confuses “ score with “snore.” 15. Here Grainger professes to speak for his brother musicians. 1 should prefer their own utterances. 16. Some day wc may know what to think when a man tells ns he admires Grainger. . , 17. After asserting, , that, Beethoven was not a musician of the first rank,” Grainger ' evidently , got the wind up, so to speak, for in 18 he hastens to assure us that he has the deepest reverence for some of Beethoven’s works.” But 1 doubt whether Cerberus will accept tho sop. 19. Who are the “ great creative musical minds of to-day ” ? I do not know of any. But,, apart from this, tho statement contained in (19) is altogether too vague, ambiguous, and contradictory for analysis. This is seen by the lumping together of jazz and European art music, which latter category presumably covers Beethoven’s output. Thus Beethoven’s music is naively admitted to be “ art music. , 20. Percy Grainger, being inferentially one of “ our greatest musical minds,” is best qualified to ansivei the question lie asks. Personally, 1 think ho is capable of a much wider diatribe against Beethoven, and shortly 1 will give an outline of what he might yet write.