The Art of the Musician, a Guide to the Intelligent Appreciation of Music
Paula Winter, H. G. Hanchett · The American Journal of Psychology · 1906
MUSICIANreproduced or closely imitated "tune" that occurs without thought or study to one who has had his ears in the way of hearing similar ditties since his birth ?Surely no high art, no fine art is ijavoived in such music.For our thought of art is hardly so compre- hensive as would be implied by the docile accept- ance of the dictum of the lexicographers.The artist unquestionably possesses "the power or skill of doing something not taught by nature," but we hesitate to give so prized a title to the maker of cemetery urns and angels, to the designer of senseless caricatures in the daily press, even to the photographer.These are undoubtedly workers in art, yet no person of judgment would be likely to call them artists, or their productions art works.That widely accepted definition of the Fine Arts (for our discussion, of course, makes no account of useful arts) which distinguishes them as man's effort to give pleasure by his power or skill, is also somewhat beside the mark.The mechanical toy of the street fakir is not a natural product; it is not useful; it often shows much inventive and mechanical skill and does ART AND MUSIC 3 not necessarily offend the OBsthetic sensibilities; its object is unquestionably to give pleasure, but who would call it an art work?And on the other hand, is the Laocoon, or some great picture of battle carnage, intended primarily to give pleasure?Pleasure we certainly find in appre- ciating the mastery of the tools, material, models, conception and expression, displayed by the artist, but the earliest emotion produced by such works in the mind of a cultured beholder can hardly be pleasure, nor can one think that the artist intended otherwise.Another difl&culty about defining art in terms of pleasure applies especially to music.Whose pleasure in a style or specific work of music, is to rank it among the art treasures of the race?Time, of course, will settle the matter, but we want a standard that can be apphed promptly.It will not do to say that that music is to rank as art that gives pleasure to persons of culture, for those whose instant admission to the jury on that qualification is assured, would render such variant opinions as could decide nothing.Nor would it greatly help matters to admit the 4 THE ART OP THE MUSICIAN verdict of those only wlio are possessed of musical culture, for such have not agreed as yet among themselves as to whether Franz Liszt was a great composer or a great charlatan, although his career began as far back as those of Chopin, Schumann, and Wagner, and he now has been already some years with the silent majority.Many who read these lines will doubtless recall the struggle for recognition by critics and musicians, through which Schumann, Wagner, and Richard Strauss have been required to pass.In music one man's meat is another man's poison.One lover of the beautiful can appreciate the charm of the speaking voice, full, rich, and well modulated, or the solemn peahng of a distant deep- toned bell, but has no ear for sonatas or cantatas.Of two souls fuU of high thoughts and noble aspi- rations, loving to dwell upon lofty themes and poetic imagery, one will revel in a " Gospel Hymn " and loathe " Plain Song " ; the other will find inspira- tion and delight in a Gregorian tone, and wonder how anybody can tolerate flippant rhythms in or out of church.Clearly the artistic value of music cannot be settled by the pleasure it gives.sway the multitude of listeners.