The writer of a thumb-nail biography of Richard Strauss finds himself
confronted with a troublesome assignment. Strauss lived well beyond the
scriptural age allotted the average man. He would have been 86 had he
reached his next birthday. There was nothing romantic or sensational
about his passing, for he died of a complication of the illnesses of old
age. There was not much truly spectacular about the course of his life,
which was most happily free from the material troubles which bedeviled
the existence of so many great masters; and he was not called upon to
starve or to struggle to achieve the material rewards of his gifts. He
had not to pass through the conflicts which embittered the lives of
Wagner or Berlioz, and he was never compelled to suffer like Mozart or
Schubert. There is no record of his ever humiliating himself or
performing degrading chores for publishers in return for a wretched
pittance. He had wealth enough without compromising his art to keep the
pot boiling—and for this one can only feel devoutly thankful. What if he
was taxed with sensationalism? How many of the masters of music has not
had at one time or another to endure this reproach? If “Salome” and
“Elektra”, “Ein Heldenleben” and “Till Eulenspiegel” were in their day
scandalously “sensational” did not the whirligig of time reveal them as
incontestable products of genius, irrespective of inequalities and
flaws? However Richard Strauss compares in the last analysis with this
or that master he contributed to the language of music idioms,
procedures and technical accomplishments typical of the confused years
and conflicting ideals out of which they were born. His works are most
decidedly of an age, whether or not they are for all time! In a way he
was almost as fortunate as Mendelssohn. Need anyone begrudge him this?