M u s i c
PERSONAL REACTIONS IN CRITICISM
ANYTHING that Mr. Ernest Newman writes is certain to command respect, even when it provokes a contrary argument. Reading him, it is always possible to sense a passion for truth. That is why he is regarded by English musicians of all schools as a kind of national institution. There is no other music critic who is so indifferent to public opinion. His articles speak of self-determination in every sentence. r think he has never struck that monastic note so forcibly as in the series of articles which recently appeared in the-Sunday-Times under the title " A PhYsiology of Criticism." These articles are important because they are the confessions of a man who has given up his whole life-to the serious consideration of music and musical performance. He declares that Music criticism, as he understands it, does not exist. He writes : " Musical criticism, as we all tend to practise it, is simply a naive expres- sion of A's individual reaction to a work or a composer, coupled with the equally naive assertion that- anyone, from B to Z, who does not react precisely • as he does to that par- ticular work or composer is wrong:, ' • . •
Now, such a declaration 'as this is very disturbing for those who, like Mr. Newman; have elected to devote their lives to the practice of music criticism.. It looks as if they are con- demned to spend the rest of their days in writing about their personal reactions, an occupation which, however important it may appear to be under the cloak of journalism, is never- theless, according to Mr. Newman, a waste of time.
Doubtless, the music criticism of the past was often mere dilettantism, but there can be no doubt that during the last twenty years or so it has reached a much higher standard. This, however, does not satisfy Mr. Neiman, since he is corn- Plainiiig not of standar& but of methods. ' He wants us to work out some system by which "we can understand the minds of the composers and the workings of those minds. Obviously this should be the quest of music criticism, but how we are to eliminate the personal eleinent *bile making: the search is not immediately clear. Even- assuming that it is possible to discover a scientific basis for the criticism of any art, we have still to face' the fact that a physical law has but little signifi- cance until it- is interpreted- by the human mind ; and it is this question 'of interpretation which is the chief business of criticism. Dr. Odier has divided those who react to musical stimulus into groups which he has -labelled according to the nature of the reaction. ACcording to him, the reaction is governed by technical judgment, by sentiment; by images-, by ideas or by purely musical emotion. The disturbing fact that two or more of these types of reaction may-be-combined in any given subject is left out of account. As I understand him, Mr. Newman is demanding the Inclusion of a new group ; for it is surely misunderstanding his argument to say that he is under- lining-the importance of the " techniciens." " By a physiology of a composer," he writes, " I mean an analysis of his mind not so much in respect of what it has done but of how it works." This sentence reveals that Dr: Odier's list, as well as being too tidy and regular, is also incomplete. A new group must be added, the members of which are those whose reactions to music are guided by a more or less intimate knowledge of the composer's mind and its workings: As far ai we know, only a few living critics can be included in this company, but the fact that Ivan liryzhanovsky„ in his Biological Bases of (he Evolution of Music, followed a similar line of argument shows that Mr. Newman is not alone in his contention. There can be no doubt that the group which Dr. Odier labels imagines/ifs " has had too long an innings, especially in continental music criticism. It has become the fashion to use a work of music as an excuse for the writing of rhapsodical prose. Hitherto a certain section of the public has been only too willing, to devour this kind of criticism. For this reason We may welcome Mr. Newman's protest. The tendency of criticism of ail-kinds at the present time is to exploit a work of art, not for its own sake, but for the purpose of advertising the writer's personality. It is no longer necessary to know anything about a subject in order to be qualified to write Upon it. Sometimes it is considered a distinct advantage for the writer to know less than nothing about this or that branch of art, so that he may begin with a clean slate, so to speak. Editors consider that it is great fun for their public to read how a fainoits poet reacts to a Wembley Cup Final, how a literary critic reacts to a boxing match, and how a cricket expert reacts to Schonberg's Gurrelieder. So it comes to pass that for the moment the reactions are considered to be of greater importance 'than the cause thereof.
. All this is'a pity. Inevitably the public will soon grow tired of this sanctification of ignorance. and especially where music is concerned. For music criticism carries with it a wider margin for incoinpetent specithitio'n than that carried by any other kind. Having adniitted all this with Mr. Newman, I find that at this point we part company. By all means let us welcome the pioneer critic who will show us by his practice the Scientific process which-Mr. Newman advocates. In the early stages he will make serious mistakes. Trial by error is almost a condition of the nature of his work, but any critic who can bridge the gulf_which exists between us and the mental work- ings of Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner or Stravinsky will be readily forgiven for any false assumption which' at first was made. Let us imagine that this bridge has been built in certain cases, and that the critic has passed safely over. Is he, then, to be allowed no room for. imaginative flights now that his ground is more safe, his foothold more secure, and his Sense of direction more certain ? Will not the earlier period of discipline have equipped him for further adventures in which his own personal feelings may conceivably play a part ? For, however much we may deplore the riotous behaviour of contemporary music, criticism, we are compelled to admit thai in human affairs personality cannot be entirely eliminated. There is a personal quality even in a scientific invention; nor is it desirable that this quality should be wholly suppressed. In a debate where the positions are definitely fixed, the personal reactions of a, qualified protagonist are never without value. And even if music criticism had already reached a plane in which composers' minds could be definitely fixed in position, we Should still need the quickening- influence of the " ideals " to make those positions significant.
BASIL MAINE.
Previous page
