I am not much of a believer in the purely mathematical approach to the art - and this is something which seems to be intriguing a great many of the youngsters nowadays. It is my belief that a composer has to have a real working knowledge of the various forms of the past, if only to understand better the music of those who used those forms. It may also happen that an intimate knowledge of one of these forms will suggest a new path which the composer will want to follow in his own work. Progress in music is made by following out some of the lower branches on the tree of music, as well as by trying to extend some of the more fragile twigs at the top of the tree. The old forms fail to satisfy the newly aroused sensibilities.
Contemporary experiences demand contemporary expression, and the old machinery is inadequate.
I am not speaking of the composer of lighter, popular and semi-popular music. These charming people have their own important place in the scheme of things, and are properly rewarded for any efforts that they may make. This is as it should be, but the loss of one of them, through lack of recognition or support would be unlikely to affect the progress of music. Otherwise there is the danger that he may dry up, become academic and unimaginative. The music is frequently crass, raucous and common-place, and could be dismissed without comment if it were not for the radio whereby hour after hour, night after night, American homes are flooded with vast quantities of the material.