Editorial

Author(s): Paul Henry Lang

Source: The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Apr., 1946), pp. 296-302
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/739138
Accessed: 20/08/2008 16:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
 EDITORIAL
AS THE HARVEST of music books of the year 1945 leaves the
shelves to make place for the new crop, it is fitting to
scrutinizethe few good ones that survivethe test of importance.
There are not many of them, although,happily,the numberof
good books on music in English is steadilygrowing. Perusing
them, we were struck by the great contrastexhibited by two
books, each of which is representativein its own way, the late
Donald FrancisTovey'sBeethoven,and Adele T. Katz's Chal-
lenge to Musical Tradition.Now, neitherof these two authors
belongs to the well-known fraternityof musicaldime novelists
who perenniallyappearwith their "new"products;Miss Katz's
challengewas basedon seriousmeditationand must have taken
yearsto prepare,while Sir Donald committedto paperthe dis-
tillate of rich experiencesgained in a life-long servicein the
cause of music. How can people so sincerelydevotedto music
be so far removed from each other? Tovey's delightful and
highly readablework was greeted in the press with friendly
and approving words, while Miss Katz's essay drew rather
moroseand unwillingacknowledgmentif not outrightrejection.
We noticed,moreover,thatmostreviewerstook exceptionto the
"obscurity"of Challenge to Musical Traditionand this gives
food for thought, especiallysince we were among those who
acquittedthemselvesof their task by thus taking a rathercon-
venient refuge.
There is no art criticismand estheticsthat is not at times
obscure; the question is only where and to what extent, why
and for whom. Is failure to understandcausedby the writer's
imperfectmannerof expressionor by the reader'sinability to
cope with the material?If the latter,it is not necessarilydue to
a lower order of intellect or undevelopedliterary or musical
sense.Art criticismis not purelya matterof intellect,or rather,
it is purelya matterof intellectin its meansof expressiononly;
its essenceis experienceand vision, thereforeto those for whom
296
 Editorial 297
a vision is not an experience,true art criticismwill remain in-
accessibleeven if throughmuch study and effort they have ac-
quired a knowledge of its mechanics.In music, however,such
studies inevitably lead to musicology, and even though this
dreaded term merely signifies a serious study of music and
everythingpertainingto it, and while as an intellectualdisci-
pline musicologydischargesessentiallythe samefunctionsas art
and literarycriticismand scholarship,it is still in bad odor in
some quarters.The abhorrenceof musicology,and of philoso-
phical thinking in mattersof art, is still so strongthat its quan-
titativedegreelends a qualitativeshadeto the Americanpublic's
stand in mattersof art criticism.This is the real reasonfor our
bringing up the whole question.For we think that the lack of
an American musical criticism of a literary-scholarlynature
(needlessto say, we are not referringto reportingas practiced
in the daily papers, but to musical criticism in the erstwhile
comprehensivemeaningof the term) is, to a considerableextent,
due to a fear of the exertions needed for attaining this end.
There are, however, extenuating circumstances,for we must
admit that the so-called"scientific"style of musicographyis
often a gate that bars the reader; its every sentenceis the sen-
tinel of a besiegedfort, and the sentineladmitsonly those who
know the password.This refusalto accept the same standards
that the reading public demandsin literarycriticismexplains
why the most platitudinousand commonplacewriters,or the
ones addictedto wisecracking,are acceptedas musical authors
and criticswhile the seriousthinkersand musician-writersare
ignored.
We commonly find today two extreme groups of serious
writers: the specializedtheoreticiansor technical experts,and
the esthetes.They representclear-cuttypes,each excludingthe
other with sharp distinction.The theoreticianis a personwho
pursueshis craft for its own sake; the solidity of achievement
is his final aim, often without regardto the valueof that which
has been treated.In his turn the esthetemakesexperienceinto a
metier.But the seemingcontradictionin the two typesbecomes
298 The MusicalQuarterly
merely formal if we realizethat at bottom there is a profound
similaritybetween them, for to theoreticianand esthete alike
the road to their goal becomesthe goal itself. The theoretician
wishes to arrive at his findings by purely technical means,
through interpretationsin which the externalworld is only a
hindrance,while the esthete endeavorsto conquerlife for art,
to abolish from it all that does not receiveits value from art.
Has not one of the greatestesthetes declared: l'homme n'est
rien; l'oeuvreest tout? Both sides are, of course,operatingin
a vacuumif they insiston absoluteisolation.It is only when the
theoretician'sstudiesare victoriousover themselves,when they
developout of themselvesa moraland estheticconcept,that the
philologist becomes a thinker. Likewise it is only when the
esthete is willing to disciplinehis imaginationby a thorough
technical study of his material that his deliberationsacquire
concretevalues.
Of our two writersMiss Katz is almost the true type of the
theoretician,while Tovey, althoughlackingin a comprehensive
historicalschooling,and occasionallystrayinginto what to him
is no man's land, succeedsin striking a fair balance,being a
signallyhealthyand aristocratically artisticintellect.Arrivedat
this point we must confessthat we want to continuethis line
if
of reasoningwe shall have to turn from Miss Katz-whom we
have just qualifiedas an almost true type of the theoretician-
and substituteher master,Heinrich Schenker,who is a more
exaggeratedand thereforea more appropriateexample.With
the reader'sindulgencewe shall do so.
Tovey'sBeethoven,which is, unfortunately,the last work of
the eminent British writer, has been publishedposthumously
by the Oxford UniversityPress. It is the work of an English
music critic (again as always using this term in its original
meaning), from which it follows that it is clear and avoids
mysticismas well as ambiguoussubtleties.Such a criticis quite
differentfrom the strictexpert-philologistwho, like Schenker,
dispenseswith an emotionaland estheticbackground.He is not
the ideal researcher,but rathera man who brings enthusiasm
 Editorial 299
to understanding;he is not interestedin a formalpresentation
ruled in everydetailby logic but leans towardsa continuity
determinedby artistic-literaryexpression; he does not try to
grasptoo muchandrecommends to his readersslowand select
study,remindingthemthat thereis no surerwayto ruinthought
than to readand dissectall the time. He himselfwill avoid
systemsand systematizing and will preferintuitiveimmersion
to the sobrietyof graphic-visualabstractionsandcondensations.
Schenkermovesin a narrowcircleandseldom-and thenseem-
ingly almostagainsthis wishes-betrayswhat we call an idea.
To Schenkerthe composeris an entirelyamoralcreature,an
individualstill inhabitingthoseElysianfieldsthatour distant
forebears aresupposedto haveleftafterapprehending themean-
ing of good and evil. It is no wonderthen,thatwith the per-
sonalityof the composercompletelyneutralized,Schenkeris
untouchedby suchintangibleelementsas lyricism,and epicor
dramaticqualities,for theycannotexistin a systemthatrecog-
nizespureconstructional logiconly.Toveywas a greatreader,
anda goodreaderis madeof thesamestuffas the goodphilolo-
gist; he is characterizedby alertness,perceptionof all details,
apprehension of theessence,wealthof associations,patience,and
a certainhumility.Buttherewassomethingmorein himwhich,
unlike Schenkerand his disciples,he shareswith Einsteinor
Rolland,Engel or Sachs,to mentiona few of the illustrious
chroniclersof music:a qualityin which all this is rooted,a
sympathyfor humanthoughtwhich is becomingrarein this
world.The writersthemselves knowwhata whiteravena good
readeris; for to read meansto understandand receiveunto
ourselvessomeoneelse'ssoul.It mayseemstrangethatwe single
out in this excellentcriticalmind the discerningand loving
reader.But Tovey'swritingdiffersfrom that of manyof his
colleaguesnotablybecauseof theabsenceof polemicalcriticism.
He mayridiculethe apostlesof figuredbassphilosophyor un-
compromising philology,but his own conclusionsdependon
conscientious and open-mindedreading,whereasmanyother
criticsloosetheirshaftsfromthe bastionsof theirpreconceived
300 The MusicalQuarterly
notions.ThusSchenker-andhis ferventdisciplesevenmore-
attackall thosewhofindbeautiesthatcannotbeprovedby logic
or be reducedto theirconstituentatoms.Toveyis ableto ac-
knowledgethe virtuesof his adversaries withoutlosingsightof
theirmistakes,to searchout the errorsbut alsoto find the rea-
sonsfor theseerrors.All thisis not accidental, it is of thenature
of trueartcriticism.
We mustnot forgetthatlegeredoesnot mean"toread"only,
it alsomeans"tocollect",and indeedthe philologisthas some-
thing in commonwith the entomologist;insteadof insectshe
collectsfor classification the fruitsof the humanintellect.This
can be a nobleprofessionin which the naturalhistoryof the
smallestbeetle,the smallestnote cannotbe missing.Yet the
musicalentomologist mustat all timesguardhis senseof values,
he mustnotpermithis zealto extendwithmechanical accuracy
to littleandlargewithoutdiscrimination, to buildsystemsand
establishgenerabasedon tentacles,or legs, or wings alone.
Toveywas not lackingin imagination;his mind, schooledin
humanisticandliterarystudies,waswell conditioned to attempt
-had he so desired-to eschewartcriticismfortheconstruction
of new hypotheses,and he was a resourceful enoughartistto
paint new vistas.But his originaltalentsand his temperament
predestined him to become an artcritic.He couldimmersehim-
self with devotioninto minutiae,stopat a chordor smallmo-
tive withoutlosingsightof the essenceof things.On the other
hand,the particularvirtueof his sharpeyeswas the facultyof
espyingfromthe richand complicated fabricof a composition
the vital details,the Urelementeas the Schenkerschoolmight
callit, or to find the commontraitsin a varietyof phenomena.
Borna musician,Toveybecamea writerthroughcircumstances,
buthe neverdeniedhis birthright.Evenhis style,whichis that
of a manof letters,is in its essencea musicianlyone. He could
write aboutmusic withoutleavingthe atmosphereof music
proper,forwritingwasonlya meansfor him to continueto do
music.He did not weighimponderables, andin his judgments
 Editorial 30I
he alwaysstartedfromthe premisesof the subjectandfromits
externalform; therewereno preconceived theories.
In a sincereapologyfor hermaster(The MusicalQuarterly,
July 1935) Miss Katz says: " .. the conventional theorists
taught that the styles of music differed in variousperiodsand
that the principleswhich underliethe art of Bach and Chopin
areas far removedfrom eachotheras the sociologicalforcesthat
dominatedlife in their two epochs.Schenker,however,proves
that the fundamentalprincipleswhich govern the music of all
great composersare the same."This may or may not be true,
but then, at the end of the article we read that Schenkerpre-
sents "thoseprincipleswhich govern the creationand founda-
tion of all music" (italics mine). This can not be true. It re-
minds one that althoughphilosophyregardsthe problemof the
realityof existenceas the paramountquestion,scienceis able to
proceed as if it were no questionat all. Similarly,art flowers
without the necessityof statingits generativeprinciples.Schen-
ker believes he has found the basic problemsthat determine
music.His workshave many illuminatingtechnicaldetails,and
his disciplesclaim that his method is more than theory,it is an
art. But even if this theory and philosophyof music were art
it would be only an art of abstraction.However,Schenker'sand
his disciples'musicaltheoryand philosophyis not art, its whole
outlook-at least as expressedin their writings-lacks feeling.
There was seldom a colderspiritthan theirs; the only warmth
one feels is the warmth of dogmatism.Music intereststhem
only insofaras it fits into their system,and large territoriesof
music admittedly are beyond the sovereignty of Schenker's
theory. This fact invalidatesthe claim for the discoveryof the
basicproblemsof music. In realitymusic servesonly to furnish
grist for the mill of their insatiabletheoreticalmind, not for
their heart or imagination.There is no art, no poetry, in this
remarkablesystemwhich dealswith the raw materialsof music
with a virtuoso hand. Schenker and his disciples play with
music as others play chess, not even suspectingwhat fantasy,
what sentimentalwhirlpoolslie at the bottomof everycomposi-
302 The MusicalQuarterly
tion.Theyseelinesonly,no colors,andtheirideasarecoldand
orderly.But musicis colorand warmth,whichare the values
of a concreteart.We mustnot permitthe studyof musicto be-
comethe historyof the materiaonly.At any rate,artcriticism
in its final notionsis a muchmoreprofoundthingthan Wis-
senschaft,and it has muchmoreto do with the physicaland
mentalrootsof humancharacterthanthe scholarsarewilling
to admit.And so ToveyandtheToveysseemto be muchnearer
the truth;theyaretheoneswho understand thewonderfuland
eloquentsimplicity of the medievalscribe
who, aboutto begin
the copyingof a manuscript, admonishedthe reader:"readit
with pleasure,for it is beautiful."
P. H. L.