Music

Coterie Sings a Poetic Dirge

Published by Michaela Mechlovitz on July 2nd, 2009 in Poetry, Music, Post-War, Coterie Conrad Aiken, Death

In the year following World War I, a great deal of darker themes became apparent in various poems published in the magazine Coterie. 1920 brough about a new freedom to discuss more sordid topics, as the world had just been affected by a great war. There are many poems that depict images of loss and death quite literally from the battleground, as well as figuratively, (as in lost love, and such); however, several of these poems in particular have something beyond that in common, and that is that they allude to references of music in the poetry.

In the April, 1920 issue, a poet named Conrad Aiken had a set of peoms published which are both reminiscent of life and ponder on death. Both exhibit a strong sense of music within their context. The first poem, "Portrait of One Dead" tells the somber story of a woman caught between life with and without her lover, who had gone for reasons that are unexplained. Her life at both stages is contrasted by a world with music and without: "This is her room: on one side there is music-/ On one side not a sound./ At one step she could move from love to silence..." The halls and the rooms of the house itself are described as "sonorous," the love letters she receives are "fragrant with music," which ignites a sense of reverberance in the reader; one can almost feel the vibrations of the music. The sensation of sound is so prominent, it becomes metaphorical for the girl's life. In the poem she dies, which is best described in the lines, "You do not know how long she clung to the music,/ You did not hear her sing," as if the playing of the music runs parallel to her physical life. The poem that follows directly after, "Coffins", again describes life as music: "We are like music, each voice of it pursuing/ A golden separate dream, remote, persistent,/ Climbing to fire, receeding to hoarse despair." The poem depicts a winter night in a town where death looms, inevitable, to take its inhabitants. Aiken is adament about using music as a metaphor for life. When death is in the eyes of someone, it is as thought the music runs out: "They are blown away like windflung chords of music;/ They drift away; the sudden music has died." It puts music in the light of being merely a span of time; It glissandos, crescendos, carries through the wind and is gone, fleeting, like life. He goes so far as to personify music as "sinister" and "troubled."

These themes are apparent again in the same issue and in later months. Further into the issue, a poem by C. B. Kitchin called "Requiem- July 17th, 1919" alludes to music in its very title. A requiem being a prominent musical piece that is sung as a mass at a funeral or in time of death, the work depicts a gruesome scene of death that disturbs the scenario of a peaceful, quiet night. In the September, 1920 issue, a poem called "An Unreturning Thing," by Gerald Gould describes the death of a child like "the hush before the orchestra begins." These poets not only describe music as an essential factor of life, but it is to them, as though, it is life in itself.

Maintenant nous permettre de discuter la musique et la poésie...

Published by Michaela Mechlovitz on June 4th, 2009 in Illustration, French, Art, Music, Le Petit Journal des Refusees Performance Art

At the turn of the twentieth century, the world of classical music, much like the rest of the literary and artistic world, was undergoing revolutionary change in regard to what was considered tasteful and acceptable. If one were to review a basic timeline of the eras in classical music, they would note the very separate structure in these various eras, as well as particular attributes pertaining to the music of those respective times. To the connoisseur of classical music, identifying a musical work's historical origin is as simple as listening to a piece. When considering classcial music as has been made known to the world, France was never particularly prominent in producing great works until towards the end of the classical era. Its height is certainly noted to be within the Romantic era, while music's earlier roots held stronger in the Italian and Germanic world. The Romantic era spread throughout Europe in the nineteenth century, giving France the breadth to exhibit its emotional musical granduer; therefore, it is no suprise that when music began to break from its classically structured roots into the contemporary, experimental realm, France was once of the first nations to take the leap. French composer Claude Debussy is renown today for his contributions to the world of music. A genuine iconoclast, he was one of the first composers to break from the necessity of establishing melody: heresy to the old pricks at the conservatoire! Debussy had, in his mind, a genuis that not only revolutionized the world of music, but the critical way musicians use their inner ear. By experimenting with cacophany and the structure behind music theory, what was generally and concensually considered pleasing to the ear, Debussy delved into the world of music. His concern and attention to overtone was inclusive in his delicate musical practice. (An overtone is a rung tone that is audible as a result of the virbrations produced from a chord that is played; however the overtone is not actually struck on the instrument.) In 1911, amidst the most unusual of Debussy's experimental phase, towards the end of his life, Rollo H. Meyers, published an essay, "The Art of Claude Debussy" in Rythym. It is quite obvious that Meyers' held Debussy in high regard as a misunderstood genius conveying his radical "hip new beat" to the old conservative musical ear. Debussy's work in the field today has claimed its place in it's genre, along with the works of his progressive thinking contemporaries such as Maurice Ravel and Cesar Franck. His career marks the turn of the century and rite to the Impressionist, Modern music throne. Composers such as Britten and Vaughn- Williams in Britain were next to follow, and a great deal of what is know of American music by composers like Barber, Menotti, and Copland fall under this field; however, none of these said composers truly made their statement until after World War I. In the Germanic world? Contemporary music did not hit Germany or Vienna until even later! France led this race for certain.

In skimming these documents, it is more than apparent that French appears quite often as a device. Often the title or an epigraph can be found in French, while the rest of the piece is in English. It seems as though France, or the French language held an enigmatic claim to the bohemian tendencies of the Modernist movement. Le Petit Journal des Refusees carries it in its title, as do many poems and works in the archives. "Abstrosophy" is a short poem that discusses present struggle in its progressive state towards becoming reward; what seems negative now, will be held positive forthcoming, (much like the rebuke of Debussy's compositions). The first half of the poem is somewhat illegible, if it is even part of the poem. It seems to be set to music, but the staff it is written on is artistically curvy, and askew, which seems relevant to the ideas expressed about Debussy's musical style, although one would never attempt to read music off such a staff, so it must be meant as an artistic statement about music. Written in 1896, years before the article on Debussy's later work, the poem seems to foreshadow the Modernist movement that is coming. The word abstrosophy is not in the dictionary, nor is it a French word. I am plagued with curiosity: what does abstrosophy mean?

Music, Criticism and Cynicism in The New Age

Published by Miriam Wallach on July 9th, 2008 in Music, Criticism, Essay, The New Age

Charlene Nicholson, Cecilia Robles, Miriam L. Wallach

“I used to think there must be a kind of prearranged consensus among musical critics; that is to say, that with advertisements to consider, and the public always paying to be flattered, the ordinary newspaper critic had to be a consistent professional liar. It appears, however, that he has still considerable scope wherein to vent his genuine opinions, his little personal prejudices, his little spites, and his little enthusiasms, and that he may really lie as much as he likes, or flatter as much – within the “policy” of his paper.” – Herbert Hughes, “The Jury Disagreed”, The New Age, Volume 4, Number 26

The development of British music in Modern times was of great interest to a group of writers who consistently contributed to the New Age. Whether their contributions were through the regularly published “Music”, “Music and Musicians”and “Recent Music”columns or of articles that were used in the body of the journal, much of the writing was concerned with criticism of the composers, the audience, and the quality of the performed music, both in performance and quality of composition. The general tone of the writing concerning music during the time in which Orage was editor, from 1907 to 1922, was highly acerbic and critical.

In a cross-sampling of articles and reviews concerning music, a few common threads emerged. Many came from the writings of Herbert Hughes, who began under the pseudo name “X”. He was the primary contributor to music reviews and pieces of music criticism from 1907 through 1911, covering the first nine volumes of the periodical. His sentiments, however, were echoed in the contributions of other contributors as well. Hughes seemed to set the tone for music criticism in The New Age during the time that A.R. Orage was editor of the publication

One concern was the quality of music that was being produced by the British composers of the time. In an article entitled, “Nationality in British Music”, Hughes begins with a scathing overview of the British School of musical art which he feels is lacking in “divine fire” (N.A. 1:9, 134). He criticizes modern British composers, in which he includes those from Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, for having a lack of sentiment and personal expression. Hughes firmly believes that great art can never be impersonal and that this is the greatest flaw in the music of the United Kingdom.

The only composer that seems to escape his wrath is Edward Elgar, known for his composition of military marches. He feels that Elgar delves into his true self through his compositions, which Hughes considers to be nationalistic. He believes that the nationalism shown through Elgar’s music is the path that all British composers should be taking. This belief of the importance of nationality corresponds with the build up of this sentiment in Europe prior to World War I. Hughes’s goal for British composers is for them to create a controlled individualism so that they will be able to create a well-ordered and truly musical nationhood, which will “voice the best characteristics, the best traditions, the best thoughts, and the best feelings of the English race” (135).

Ironically, one of Hughes’s greatest complaints about British composers is their use of folk tunes in orchestration. He claims that this is a weakness, and indication of a composer’s inability to create original music. He finds the use of folk tunes highly offensive and not nationalistic. Hughes believes that “Nationality in art can only be attained when the utterance itself is the expression of a sincere individualism, regardless of idiom and obvious other characteristics.” (134). This perspective seems to belie the idea of nationality in that it encourages individuality rather than unification of the masses, which could be accomplished by pride for heritage through the use of folk tunes.

At some level, Hughes’s view of folk music as base, gives the impression of classism. This was another thread that seemed to appear in the music writing of The New Age during this time. In a contribution by Arthur Rickett entitled “Musicfor the People,” a dialogue between three gentlemen is created as a way to show that the appreciation of “great” music is beyond the means of the lower class. Through the dialogue, Ricketts creates a sense of elitism and the uselessness of trying to “educate” the masses on musical appreciation in that they are not capable of distinguishing between what is quality music and music that just has mass appeal. In the end, after the gentleman eavesdrop on the conversations of the serving and lower class, there is a sense of defeat, “Smith (looking self-satisfied): What did I tell you? Now, old chap, I know you’ll drop that educational bunkum., Dodson: At any rate, they knew what they ought to like” (158).

This criticism of the audience is one that is reflected in the weekly music columns such as “Recent Music” and “Music” that reviewed performances. Often, the critic is focused not just on the quality of the performance, but as to how the audience reacted to it. Often the audience’s reaction to a piece of music is qualified as “deafening” and “indiscriminate” (N.A. 9:20, 468). Overall, the reader gets the sense that most audiences, particularly those made up of the lower class, are void in the ability to appreciate music. It is up to the music critics to set the masses straight on the quality of music and the performance of said music.

These threads, or themes, carried through to other editions of The New Age. In Vol. 20, No. 8, Bernard Gilbert writes his own fictitious dialogue in “Where is Music?” in which two characters, William and Henry, bemoans the state of music in London. Henry, having recently moved to London from a rural area, is “disgusted” and “more than disappointed” in the music that he has found in the city. He takes great offense with the way in which people interact with and enjoy music – not as participants, but as spectators. While he was attending Glee Clubs and seeing the finest operas, Henry likens those who watch music taking place to “spectators who watch others play football, deceiving themselves all the while.” He mentions that the performers are the only “honest folk” and that “music is a personal matter – a thing to be done.”

The criticism that evolves here is not of the quality of the music, for Henry claims to have seen only the finest performances. It is the actual experience and the way in which high society interacts with this art that Gilbert finds most offensive. Through Henry, Gilbert applauds the intimate and one-on-one interaction the appreciator of music has with the art (like Henry and William seem to have done in their rural community) and is offended by those who treat it like a spectator sport. One cannot assume that because Henry and William come from rural areas that they are necessarily of a lower class. That would then cause a ‘splitting of the thread,’ so to speak, as it would seem that Gilbert is actually applauding the lower class for it’s personal and apparently appropriate relationship with music while criticizing the upper class, thus breaking the trend to criticize the lower class. Gilbert avoids that potential pothole by leaving Henry and William’s class status deliberately vague and merely stating their geographic backgrounds. Interestingly enough, however, the criticism of the classes in The New Age seems, therefore, to extend to the upper class as well, criticizing its members for their removed and distanced approach to what should be a hands-on and intimate experience with an art form.

Further research through issues of The New Age also shows a continuation of the harsh and often acerbic criticism of Modernist music in England during this era. Philip Heseltine’s article entitled “The Condition of Music in England”, in Vol. 21, no. 7, critically reviews the composers of his time, pulling no punches and mincing no words. Even the title of his article, using the word “condition” instead of ‘status’ or ‘situation’ implies some kind of malady or illness worthy of an update. Heseltine remarks that when considering the most influential composes of his time, all of who are renowned and whose music lives on today, their music is superficial and lacks depth. To produce music from the soul, past the materialistic aspects of the art, is beyond their ability. “As for the moderns,” he writes,” they seem, with very few exceptions, to be wandering in a mist, oblivious alike of their destination and of their purpose of journeying.” Their works are unguided, have no shape, lack depth and are even compared to an inferior bottle of scotch. Heseltine does, however, seem to provide a disclaimer for his article, ending with the idea that the era of Modern music in England is still very young and should only be considered in its adolescent stage of life. Nevertheless, his biting criticism of English music continues the thread that has already been sown.

Continuing with this notion of music being in a state of immaturity, William Atheling, in a piece entitled “Music The Avoidable” calls for a greater uniformity and structure to English music (N.A 23:19). A rubric or criterion of sorts needs to be created by which one can determine what is and is not good music and by which musicians can develop their art with greater skill and accuracy, alluding to music being in a state of growth and confusion, e.g., adolescence. Although it is a short article, Atheling’s frustration at the lack of quality music is readily apparent and continues the already established sentiment within the journal. In contrast, however, Atheling is able to specifically articulate where music and Modern composers are going wrong, hence the aggravation. If a problem can be identified and solutions are provided, one should seemingly be able to make the necessary corrections, perchance they are not made and mediocrity continues to be produced. As such, his frustration is understandable and even more so, is consistent with previous sentiments.

There is a decided thrust for a change in the way artists view one another whether they are from the same country or not. According to the critic writing as H. R., “Music cannot be limited by geography or “schools”. The standard of excellence in music cannot be static; music is a fluid art and does not possess “eternal verities” (29:14, p 165). Unlike Atheling, H.R seems to be saying that excellent music cannot be subjected to a specific rubric since an artist may create a piece of music which is great but doesn’t comply with the rubric. Music is always changing in form and style and its effect on people will never be the same. He points to the fact that composers during his time were improving on what others did before them and the wheel of change continues.

Not only are the artists being criticized but the audience also. H. Rotham states, “There are two sorts of concert audiences; the audience which goes to listen to a performer, qua performer, no matter what music he or she may offer; and the audience which goes to listen to music, and has opinions on what is worth listening to” (N.A 30:21, p276). Though well attended, the majority of the audience is there as spectators. They have no interest in the music as an art form but as a source of entertainment. Such an audience may lead the performer into a false sense of security and his chance of becoming great may not be realized. The audience with opinions is important for without their critique the performer will not get a critique which will help him sharpen his skills. Both audiences are necessary for one helps the artist to seek to continually improve his efforts and the other supports him with their money and praises.

The critics do not escape criticism either. They receive the same harsh criticism, which they like to give. William Atheling in his article “Le Mariage De Figaro” blames the critics for not doing their job well and as a result artists and musicians are out of work and the opera closed off early. He reminds us of the prevailing crisis at the time, the war, but he also refuses to place the blame for the artists and musicians plight on the war. He believes that if the critics were presenting the works of these people to the public and there was much dialogue between critics then the public would have been adequately informed and they would have given their support. At that time the public was supporting those involved in “basket-work, peasant- industry, and dilettante pottery”(N.A. 22:10, p114). Atheling sums up by saying, “This is rather a serious indictment of the London public and of the London musical critics. It means either that the critics are stupid and have not urged the audience, or else that they have ruined their credit with the public by a long period of weak criticism, and are no longer believed” (113). The job of the critics is significant and that’s why so many criticisms permeate the pages of The New Age.

Within the numerous journals, the sentiment and trends set in the first issue clearly resonate through others. Ironic, however, is that each piece, opinions and attitudes included, seems to be weakly supported by proofs or documentation, if they have any support at all. A venerable “soap box,” The New Age presented a forum through which writers and cultural authorities could expound upon and discuss numerous issues that prevailed in society. By bringing matters to the forefront and into discussion, the opportunity was established for grievances and ills regarding issues in culture, specifically as per this discussion in music, to be discussed in hopes of rectifying the situation and producing a better and more consistent art, one more befitting England. Whether the criticisms were heard and used constructively by the artists is not part of the scope of this research. However, within the fifteen years sampled within this study and the growing frustration which seemed to intensify through the issues, one can be certain that the critics voices were loud, but not necessarily heard.