It is extremely questionable whether
Virgil Thomson, Copland, or Barber,
whatever their shortcomings may be,
would become better composers by
switching over to atonal polyphonic
music. They would,
in
all likelihood,
become much worse. To urge or insist
that composers write in a style entirely
foreign to them is neither the role of
a critic, or the way in which mu–
sical creation is fostered or developed.
Shostakovich, on orders from Stalin to
produce music which could be whistled,
then proceeded to comply.
If
his music
previously had been difficult to whistle,
the music that he produced subse–
quently wasn't worth the price of a
whistle. In spite of List's strictures,
composers will continue, I hope, to
write as they please.
Donald Tovey, the well-known Brit–
ish writer on music, says that this type
of critic was disposed of once and for
all by Plato (would that it were sol)
by referring to an artist who, arguing
that purple is the most beautiful of
all colors and the eye the most beauti–
ful of human features, proceeded to
paint the eyes of all statues purple.
Your critic surveys the entire field
of music looking for purple eyes–
that is, for polyphonic passages. For
example, the. adherence to polyphony
by Mozart in the last movement of the
Jupiter Symphony
and by Beethoven
in his last quartets, receives his com–
mendation. Does Kurt List think that
the first three movements of the
Jupiter
Symphony
are any less extraordinary
than the last movement, or that
Don
Giovanni,
which is written in non-poly–
phonic style, is any inferior to Mozart's
polyphonic works? Does he think that
the
C Sharp Minor Quartet
of Bee–
thoven which opens with a magnificent
fugue, then declines in the other six
movements into "romantic cliches"? ...
Another feature of your Music
Chronicle is the peculiar type of
pseudo-Marxist "profundity" which al–
ways attempts to explain some move-
390
ment in art or music by referring to
a presumed economic basis from which
it is supposed to stem. List points out
that the rise of industrialism coincided
with the romantic movement in music.
Just how much of a rise of industrial–
ism there was in Austria in the first
three decades of the nineteenth cen–
tury, a nd just how much this had to
do with the romantic music created
by Weber and Schubert is extremely
debatable. And why the same industrial
progress produced such vastly different
composers as Brahms, Wagner, Verdi,
and Franck simultaneously is impos–
sible to discern.
To argue from the artistic move–
ment to the so-called economic basis is
bad enough, but when List, in addition,
argues from the economic substratum
to the type of music which ought to
result therefrom, then we go into the
realm of fantasy twice-compounded. It
is thus that he polemicizes for atonal
polyphony as adequately expressing
"the neurotic aspects of modern life."
Just why the complicated character
of modern life, including its neu–
rotic aspects, cannot be expressed by
many different styles of musical com–
position is not at all clear. Moreover,
neurotic aspects are not peculiar to
our times alone, but are to be found in
all periods, although our statistics and
our awareness of the problem are bet–
ter today than they once were. I would
sincerely urge all music critics to stay
away from industrial and economic in–
terpretations of art that interpret noth–
ing in actuality, no matter how tempt–
ingly profound they may appear to
be...•
Bernard Herman
Forest Hills, N. Y.
REPLY
Sirs:
Mr. Herman seems to make three
basic points: (I) I reject all music of
any age and any style that is not poly–
phonic, (2) I link social with musical
