Modern music through books and their reviews!
In 1935, Richard Aldrich wrote a review on a book named, Music Ho! A Study of Music in Decline written by Constant Lambert. The title of the article is “A Slashing Criticism of Modern Music.” From the title, it’s apparent that Aldrich’s opinion of Lambert’s book is a severe criticism. From reading the first paragraph Aldrich doesn’t subtly hide his attitude towards a then, “young musician…[with a] stern temper.”
Aldrich says of Lambert’s book, “His first chapter on ‘impressionism and Disruption’ makes some destructive comments on Debussy: ‘Pelléas’ is ‘one of his weakest and most mannered works’ — what Jèse-majesté [a crime, such as treason]in the view of some of our elder modern critics!” He goes on to say, “The first compositions of Stravinsky and Schoenberg now show ‘stuffy and faded academicism’ [quoting Lambert]; it was the disruptive element in Debussy’s impressionism that provided the liberating force leading these composers to their own revolutionary style….It is Mr. Lambert’s contention that present-day composers have entered paths that lead nowhere.”
Now, why is this so significant? The entire time I was reading the article I had to ask myself; “Why is a young, snooty, nobody musician’s opinion about modern music so note worth of Aldrich’s criticism? Is it because Aldrich was just doing his job?” It didn’t sound that way to me. From the quotes above, it sounds as if Aldrich is taking this personally…but why?! He was a fronted by the language and called Lambert a fancy name for a traitor. It’s almost funny to me that such a reaction was derived out of a grown man from what he saw as a kid...a twenty-nine-year-old kid.
But I digress, why is this significant? Simply, because “modern music” was all the rage. Young people now tend to keep up with the times and go with the flow, so why wouldn’t they have done the same then? Lambert’s opinions about different composers like Debussy and Stravinsky are controversial, I think because he is so young. Wasn’t Debussy and Stravinsky and Schoenberg the new hot thing?
He goes against the grain and plays down the accomplishments of great composers. It’s almost like that phase that teenagers go through when they feel like everything is either “boring” or “lame.” However, something that Albrich doesn’t mention in his article about the book is what it is truly intended to say. “The theme of the book is modern music in relation to the other arts and in relation to the social and mechanical background of modern life. It is a study of movements rather than musicians and individual works…” (Lambert, Preface) So, Lambert was perhaps claiming to be a voice of the people, of the societal life? So, would that make Albrich the voice of the musicians and concert-goers? From my own understanding and research, I know that “modern music” wasn’t as popular with plenty of people. There were many reported concerts with people getting up and walking out because it was just too different or ugly. I would say that Lambert has a reason, if not a right to criticize since he is speaking socially. Lambert even knows the music! Alberich comments on how Lambert does have a “first-hand acquaintance” with the music so I would argue that since Alberich isn’t a musician himself, Lambert would be more of an expert on the matter.
My whole point derives from the fact that it’s ok not to have a high opinion of Debussy or Schoenberg. Pelléas may have been unimpressive to some and brilliance to others. Schoenberg could be cultivated genius but to others a messy bag of random notes.
Till next time. TTFN!
