MUSIC
The Neo-Romantics LONDON has recently been given performances of Nielsen's fifth symphony and flute con- certo, Pizzetti's cello concerto and Rach- maninov 's second symphony. None of these works has had a regular place in the reper- tory ; and the resurrection of music by composers of roughly the same age-group (these three were born between 1865 and 1880) is, I think, symptomatic. It was to be expected that the neo-classi- cism fashionable between the two German Wars would be followed by something like a neo-romantic revival ; and some of our arbiters of musical elegance—especially those who have not yet reached middle age—are now proclaiming the beauties of just that music which was anathema to their fathers twenty or thirty years ago. Strauss and Mahler are wholeheartedly admired, Bruck- ner and Reger are up for revaluation and even the once despised Rachmaninov is enjoying a new vogue. New names, of the same vintage though very different in character, are Carl Nielsen and—at least as an operatic composer—Ildebrando Pizz,etti.
The search is perhaps for music less solipsistic than Stravinsky 's and wider in range and appeal than that of Schoenberg and his disciples. It would be a mistake to consider this roughly homogeneous, though much sub-divided movement as a revolution of academics and bien pennants against the true 'progressives,' although this is the impression that a superficial observer might receive. Many of those who might qualify for the name of neo-romantics by their championship of Bruckner, Mahler or Nielsen are also warm admirers of Berg, and nearly all accept the phenomenon of Stravinsky with respect, many with enthusi- asm. In fact there is a greater catholicity of taste and much less denigration of the recent past than were to be found generally a quarter of a century ago ; and this in itself is a great gain. On the other hand, it may well be that this greater latitude of opinion and generosity of appreciation are the marks of a generation no longer possessing any positive musical faithArm enough to become militant, still less exclusive. An eclecticism of taste and the submitting of the art of the past to rigorous scholarly investigation are the marks of an age of stock-taking and consolidation rather than of creative activity. We are living in such an age today—the age of the scholar, the performer and the critic rather than of the composer. Analysis, historical research and 'realisation' are being carried out on a scale hitherto un- known, and much of the best and most characteristic new music is really synthetic in character. We have only to think of Stravinsky, Britten, Poulenc and Menotti to realise _ how widespread this tendency has become and on what different levels it can be traced. None of these composers is simply an eclectic, for each has a recognisable style of his own ; but in each case the style has been formed by amalgamating an extra- ordinarily heterogeneous collection of past 'styles.' These composers have a knowledge and understanding of the music of the past enjoyed by very few, if any, composers of earlier days ; and their own styles are largely a function of their historical knowledge. Imagine Puccini evolving his style from, say, Monteverdi, folksong, Mozart and Mussorg- sky. The result might have been unmistakably individual but, like the syntheses of our con- temporaries, it would have interested and attracted other musicians rather than cap- tured the public.
Previous page
