March 22, 1923 MUSICAL COURIER 20 FREE SPEECH A curious new feature seems to be developing in art circles, a feeling that freedom of spoken criticism should be curtailed. No question has ever been raised as to the perfect right of the critics who appraise art works for the benefit of readers of the public press to air their views. It is even felt in some quarters that the more adverse the criticism and the more outraged the critic the better advertisement it will be for the ivork under discussion. But a contrary view is taken of talk. One has to fear that even quite a harmless remark will cause offense with adherents of one or other of the almost innumerable new fads or schools or whatever they ought to be called that are springing up about us to enjoy a longer or shorter career according to the energy and plausibility of those back of them. Particularly is offense to be feared when one fails to take these new art categories seriously. Whatever else they may be, they are held by their inventors to be deeply serious. Go to the salons of the cubists or whatever they now call themselves, and you will soon discover that if you are inclined to be a scoffer you will be far from welcome. Laugh at free verse and you will sooner or later be surprised to learn that what seems to you pure fun and of no importance whatever is deadly earnest to others and that you are causing as great hurt as if you ridiculed a man’s religion or his most sacred traditions. It is easy to assume that such things cannot possibly be a matter of personal importance, that, at least, even propagandists must be able to look upon them as impersonal. But that is far from being the case. From Gone to the Eighteenth Amendment we find on all sides people who will become just as angry about laughing comment or serious criticism as if you were stepping on their individual toe$. To people who have no such feelings—and there are many such—this attitude is almost incomprehensible. They cannot tinder stand that things of this nature can be taken so to heart. And this is especially true when it comes to matters pertaining to the arts. Why a cubist painter or a futurist musician, an Expressionist or a Dadaist, should take it as an affront when a bystander laughs or sighs or protests, is something that the average person of cool, impersonal vision fails to grasp. It would seem that any artist, any producer in any line, animated by a serious desire to advance, would be glad to get any point of view of his efforts. If he knows he is right it can do him no harm to discover at what point and to what extent he is misunderstood. If, as is nearly always the case, he is only partly right, surely comment and criticism, even the reaction of ignorant observers, can only be helpful. The same must also apply to artists of all sorts who must, if they retain an open mind, observe what particular portion of their work gets over best, what pieces get the most hearty applause, what the critics have to say about it, and how much the various critics are in accord. After all, critics do agree in some things, and artists must gradually become aware of this and could, one would think, accept such criticism as constructive and build upon it. Of course, as has already been said, if they are sure they are right they will go right ahead until they are understood. A Wagner, to cite a proverbial example, will not change his methods to please anybody, and, in fact, criticism both spoken and written, only strengthened his purpose and united more closely the friends who gathered under his banner. Something like that should be the reflection of all pioneers. If they are right neither laughter nor criticism can do anything but cement more firmly party allegiance. If they have constructive minds and a sincere purpose to arrive at the truth they will not be disturbed at opposition. And, anyhow, it is better to be talked about to your face than behind your back. Polite and insincere applause is the most deadly thing in the world of art, especially when the very people who politely applaud politely whisper their scornful comments so as not to give offense. People will talk, whatever we may say or think about it, and since it is impossible to control opinion or to silence its expression, why not get the benefit of it by encouraging free speech? by him, might be followed by certain makers of music program notes. There are several men writing program notes in this and other cities whose work is of the first rank. But, on the other hand, there are a great many more who, to judge from what they produce,. are neither writers of good English, nor pos-sessed of a thorough knowledge of music. ——»------— The Evening Telegram says that musicians are slowly invading the halls of legislation in Washington and mentions some of the Senators and Congressmen who sing. The Evening Telegram does not seem to know that singers seldom are musicians. -------- A music lover is one who enjoys a concert because he is fond of music. A musical enthusiast is one who mobs the performer. A musician is one who scowls and picks flaws in the conception, interpretation, and execution. -----^-----7 Admitting that Moscow now is the largest Russian city, certainly a look at a Carnegie Hall audience whenever a Mascha, Hascha, Kascha or Rascha plays the violin there, must lead one inevitably to believe that New York is a close second to the Soviet capital in point of Russian population. -----<$>--- This is the day of experimenting and combinations. Arthur Bliss, the English composer, has produced a concert for piano, strings, percussion and tenor voice, which is to be tried out for the first time at the Bournemouth English Festival that begins on March 24. -----S>----- After the Boris Godunoff performance at the Metropolitan last Wednesday afternoon, Michael Bohnen, the new German baritone, himself a singer and actor of quite unusual ability, went behind to tell the great Russian how much he had been moved by his performance. Bohnen begged Chaliapin to accept as a souvenir a ring which had been presented to him by some admirers several years ago, and Chaliapin, in return, pressed his gold watch chain upon Bohnen. The referee called the affair a draw, and his decision was sustained by the judges. --------- Day by day, in every wayi Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn, and Rubinstein are getting deader and deader. -----«>------- Singers are praised when they are in good voice, whereas the greater art of the vocalist is to sing well when in bad voice. --------- The literary critics really are more original than the music critics, for they do not keep telling young authors to write like Shakespeare, Dante, Schiller, Goethe, and Voltaire. --------- Many persons seem to be able to imitate pictures by the classical masters, but no one has as yet imitated successfully a symphony by Schubert, a sonata by Beethoven, a nocturne by Chopin, or an opera by Wagner. -----$------ In the Vancouver Daily Province, J. Butterfield wonders why Liszt, an abbé, could write such a wonderful Liebestraum (Dream of Love). Another abbé, named Prévost, wrote one of the most tender and exciting love stories ever told, that of Des Grieux and Manon Lescaut. -----<3>---- An Austrian scientist announces that he has discovered a new electro-musical magnetic treatment. When informed of the great news, the head of a music class in this city remarked : “I wish he had invented instead a treatment wherewith I could make delinquent pupils pay their bills.” -----®------ When Ermingarde asked the composer, “What is the meaning of sonata,” he answered gloomily, “Poverty”; and when she tried to cheer him with her opinion that “Composing is a noble calling,” the brute commented pessimistically: “Yes, calling at the publisher’s.” -----®------ From “Peltastes” comes the following postcard : “I read in your last issue, ‘There is plenty of room to stand behind the seats at the Town Hall.’ Und immer fragt der Seufzer: Wo?!” We shan’t tell Peltastes where this space is; but we do ask him, next time he goes to the Town Hall to enter by either of the side doors, instead of the center door—and then use his eyes. ____. -----<£----- At the Moscow Art Theater the other evening, reading the explanations in English of the plays and characters, written by Oliver M. Sayler, we were struck by their completeness and lucidity and wished in our hearts that the example of clear English and exhaustive (though not very long) explanations set