The belief that for them only is the pure and high vision of Truth,
and that the world should look with their eyes and abide by their
interpretation, is the folly of many of the wisest reformers.
Over-enthusiasm inflames the minds of such, and disturbs their sanity
of judgment. The reformer in art is usually a philosopher pledged to
some system into which, as into a mould, he pours at fluid heat his
artistic imaginings. Because no system of philosophy yet elaborated
finds general acceptance, or because, as Schopenhauer intimates,
one discovers in any philosophy only what his capacity permits, our
reformer will appeal chiefly to those whose minds are akin to his own.
For the comprehension of Beethoven and his great predecessors, little
more than a trained ear is necessary; but, for the comprehension of our
latest composers, one must habituate himself to abstruse metaphysical
thinking. To endorse Wagner, both wholly and understandingly, one
should assent to Schopenhauer's theory of music. To endorse in like
manner the attitude of Strauss, one should assent to the «Super Man» of
Nietzsche, and his crowning qualities «evolved good and evolved evil.»
If, as Whitman says, perfect sanity characterizes the master among
philosophers, how can more than a cult accept that topsy-turvy of
ethical values, that quack mixture of Scientific Materialism and
Comtism run mad, the system of Nietzsche? It is probably that but for
his «Beyond Good and Evil,» Strauss, the foremost exponent of musical
ultraism, would have hesitated at more than half-way measures.
In the morning, ere he attempted creative work, Wagner was wont to say,
«If we could keep our hearts pure this day, untainted and untempted by
the false values of the world, what visions of Infinity itself were
possible to us!»
Surely the heart, indispensable to the creation of a masterpiece of
art, cannot be stimulated by a philosophy brutal because without pity;
a philosophy shallow because ignorant of the essential nature and
ultimate end of what it deems mere weakness; a philosophy which would
crush that symbol of weakness, the falling sparrow, and quench all love
for the neighbor if in him appear no promise of «Super Man.» Now who is
this «Super Man,» this ideal of Nietzsche and his tonal interpreter?
Is he not a being fashioned much after the model of what the race no
more desires, to wit, the outworn gods of Greece and Rome? Is he not an
ideal compounded of mutually destructive qualities?
Because of the serious shortcomings we have indicated, and because of
others which will be pointed out, the art of Strauss may never reach
the highest levels; his chief office as composer, like that of Whitman
as poet, may be to explore a domain wherein the superlative genius
of the future is to expand his ample powers. That genius, and in our
opinion he only, can reveal the legitimate possibilities of sound. In
his tonal creations the cacophonious, as well as the euphonious, must
be employed in such way that every mood of man and every shade of human
feeling shall be faithfully portrayed, and the world itself epitomized.
His must be a sane equipoise, an unfailing sense of fitness, the
consummate ability to adjust to a nicety, so that always the end
justifies the means. Already his predecessors in the great acknowledged
schools have developed the art of euphony. It will be his even more
difficult and exacting task to develop the art of cacophony, and fuse
the two in such way that they over-picture not the totality of man and
nature.
Notwithstanding Wagner's belief that instrumental music could not
further develop unless fused with the sister arts of poetry, painting
and dramatic action, the modern outlook discovers in the art of sound
almost limitless possibilities as yet unrealized; but, judging from the
past, the stupendous tonal edifice created by the coming master will
not overshadow the erections of composers from Bach to Wagner.
Still the divine Mozart will turn us to the never-to-be despised beauty
of form chaste and classic. Still Beethoven's temple of music will
reveal that form's complete and glorious development and crowning.
Still at heaven's very gate will Schubert, spontaneous and impassional
lark, outpour the melody he learned beneath that temple's overhanging
roof, or else in the sacred limits of its inmost court.
Always we shall have with us those who in the name of progress turn
the back on whatever is behind. Ignoring Aristotle's profound dictum
that the real test of art is not originality, but its truth to the
universal, these no doubt will ridicule as immature attempts, necessary
to the adolescence of art, all that is greatest in German and Italian
music. In addition to these we shall have that class of temperamental
individuals who, from the extravagant and bizarre, derive that thrill
of rapture which they mistake for appreciation: however, these fickle
followers of fads and fashions cannot be reckoned among the adherents
of legitimate art. Now as to the public, the great overwhelming body
of the people; can they be educated to enjoy the new art of sound?
Will they not refuse, aye, obstinately refuse to appreciate cacophony
however judiciously employed? A difficult question this unless one
remembers that, as the race advances, the foremost, coming into new
vistas of Truth, bequeath to those next in line, and so on to the very
rear, their own rare and high discovery.
In the comprehensive art of sound, the euphonious epitomizes the
major, better half of man and nature. From this it appears that the
cacophonious must epitomize the minor, baser half. Why, heretofore, was
this half well-nigh denied tonal utterance? Was it not largely from the
old and inadequate theological conception which made the existence of
evil an abortion of the Divine plan?
Conceding the answer implied, and granting that the attitude of the
time is one of invitation, let us consider certain factors necessary to
the realization of the art of sound.
Orchestral music and orchestral accompaniment, as understood by Bach
and Handel, betray a paucity of resource and a lack of color then
inevitable. Since that era of small beginnings, and in late years
especially, orchestral instruments both numerous and valuable have been
invented, and the capacity of brass and wood-wind much enlarged and
their quality greatly improved. Desirous of utilizing to the utmost
all additions and improvements, orchestral composers sought effects
the most novel both in solo and in symphony. As result the orchestra
grew from infantile to gigantic proportions and capabilities. Thus
was produced a full, flexible and characteristic means of expression,
one peculiarly suited to the speculating and philosophizing musician
who, already due and now appearing, added his contributions to those
productive of a rounded art.
In examining the factors which make for Strauss and his works, we shall
find that his native originality could never have raised him to what
he is, and that the art of sound would still be an undiscovered one,
had not Chopin already exemplified, most eloquently, the flexibility
of the laws of chromatic progression, and had not Wagner, that great
emancipator, stricken from musical form the cramping bonds of a narrow
convention.
If, as we contend, the minor half of dual man and nature has
legitimate place in all art, then let the musician beware lest, as
final impression, he make evil seductive, and so identify himself with
decadence as have those who denounce in every form of art any purpose
consciously moral; those in fact who announce as their dictum, «Art for
art's sake.» When for specific ends the musician weaves around evil a
flowery spell, he somehow should make us feel that death and corruption
lurk in every petal of those all-too-enticing blooms.
Moreover, when by means of cacophony he lays bare the true nature of
evil, he should avoid an excess which would identify him with the moral
pervert whose delight is in the abnormal. Let him understand that in
this world's great school where, only amidst the lure of opposites,
character can be formed and wisdom gained, the true office of evil and
the secret of its permission is that eventually its inner hideousness
will turn from itself, forever, those who, through ignorance of the
essential nature of evil, have yielded to its manifold seductions.
Of all arts, music is accredited to be the highest and purest. The
supreme art of the beautiful, it rests on a mathematical basis. Its
notes and intervals and chords progress in compliance with defined, or
at least definable laws corresponding to the great laws which, moving
with mathematical precision, brought order from chaos and so created
the world. Concerning the art of sound, this problem confronts us; what
are the laws if any which govern the ugly? Or, to put it differently,
to what extent does the ugliness of evil correspond to chaotic
conditions?
If what the composer would depict is not governed by mathematical
law, then is he warranted in the use of unresolved and unresolvable
dissonances. Judged by this rule, Debussy has perhaps so transgressed
that a wiser generation will pronounce his efforts to be a passing
phase of æstheticism. But the difficulty of determining just what is,
or is not governed by mathematical law, must lead to a deal of error
ere we attain the true art of sound.
To illustrate the vast unlikeness of method in the descriptive
instrumental works of the classical and those of the ultra-modern
school, two examples will suffice. The representation of Chaos in
Haydn's «Creation,» gave to the composer full opportunity for every
liberty of harmony and form tolerated in his time. Now, while a rather
frequent use of the diminished seventh chord lends to this composition
somewhat of needed vagueness, still there are no modulations to distant
keys, no abrupt transitions, no unresolved or unresolvable discords,
no consecutive perfect fifths, and, in fact, there is nothing in the
chord progression which the critic of to-day would deem daring or
even unusual for, always and wholly, the harmonic scheme conforms
to conventional rules. Here and there is somewhat of concession to
established musical form, for, in this picture of Chaos, the employment
of anything radical either in form or harmony, would have provoked
censure the very harshest and even have proved the author guilty of the
unpardonable sin of producing what could never be called music.
With this attempted realism of Haydn, compare now that portion of
«Don Quixote» wherein Strauss delineates the gradual and complete
disordering of the mind of Cervantes' hero. Wholly sure of his novel
method, one, by the way, peculiarly adapted to the subject, Strauss
avails himself of every conceivable liberty of tone and form. Euphony
and cacophony mix in an astounding realism, while the rational sequence
of sanctioned form gives way to the illogical and wholly fantastic, in
fact the chaos of dethroned reason.