The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-04-09

SN''Sa " PlVttS SNDt-
oialiy the third. he made his bold and
ingenious reproduction OF externals
create n poetic atmosphere and sur
round the mind with symbolic thought
The little pieces could hardly have
prepared hearers for the two ballet
scores which have been played here.
The Bird of Fire. does not nv so far
into the world of realistic impression
ism as does the "Petrouchka." 1t is
moro conventional in it's tendencies,
although the melodic and harmonic
idioms belong to the new school. Still
there is much of old type in it. But
what is to he said of this opulent and
yet marvellously simple score of
"Petrouchka":
There are pages which battle ear
analysis. Yet are perfect in their
achievement Of ~delineative purpose.
The confusion of sounds which is
heard in the street before the show
booths is a masterpiece of orchestra
ton. 1t is impossible to seize upon it's
constituent elements; but the result il
precisely what the artist intended II
should be, that of two or three musical
instruments or collections of instru-
'"c"'s' 'ne c.'es anu tax OF n street
and the fundamental roar of the city.
one hears music which delineates all
this adequately. What else can we
demand?
Now II such music is played in a
concert hall IL becomes sheer discord.
The mind now fastens itself upon the
music as music. whereas the composer
ues'sneu IL as '"e auuioie pFoduct OF
u visible ACTON. 40 other
"a sLeMn~ rea'er skill man straVin-
sNs AZ WINS Suol music.
"a' N"'e''s''"S Anu >o"he''Hies
~ ""'e '"o ueino-ioT Oh
toa - .p''s VINO
W '''HV
W. W.. ",o''"i"S's p,"-
t,e,at,.|" w"
"'' p''.'' n,u my
!N-, W. w. i"'S "'e
- ey"'7 " NV op.'a
80 - n.t,, ma.
80
80 "e.he !"
49,, -, 80
"
a. -, ,So. art o., In
-" N S
i0 IAN"
T., a., ..,, -.
''.t NJ
nr,,"s 49, ,otn, ,,.",
aai cr,.,,;,. >o..n" W..
e,i,.Ln .Ln NJ ,ha, ~ ..i
cisr is wrong th,t ali ~cri,ics nv. TO-.
ror,r, owl ,b,, ,,oro och, 20 he :.
rew science az NJ m I'm, ebe s,ys
sor,o adnir,hlo ,bir,s Eor ev,mnia
rcbo, .ha docI,ros ,h,, r,rsic b,s No
,cal con,oc,inn vi,b .o,,rd che 10
c,iI,r ~, nrocis.ly IN. kind If s,on-
sho, ora rnsoion,i6c cri,i,isr, a. ~
hurr;od scr;ho, =, ,bo am. r~ousn,ror,
,rh.n, 80 oor.i,. ni,ios
pr, vb,n ebo ou,lioes bor NUN
s,o,.m.r, IN. .sser,;rc TIA, "Nrsic 10
not tho so,nd i,sorf, i, is behind tho
eornd". ,hor sba damorstr,,es TIM,
she IL conable of real insight and ,bot
she nosscsses a richt c~oncention of tho
Fundamental nature of art. She is.
hoveyer most when sha g.
shooting directly at the incompetent,
now engaged in writing the passing
Of the daily nress. For in
stance:
THE modern critic. writing in the
. pcrs about Yesterdays performance
of a new symphony, is likely to give
an impression of exaggerated bore
dom, as if he had entered the con-
cert hall late and left il early. The
two main types of praise he can be-
stow on a work are that il was i'm
teresting' and that it was we'll ap-
plauded by the audience. Search
through criticism after criticism and
you will find remarkably few times
the womanish comment that a thing
was beautiful. The modern critic Is
apparently not looking for beauty"
Oh, Is he not? Here Is n who
asks permission to proclaim himself
a pilgrim ever seeking the shrine o!
the beautiful. II the writer OF the
article quoted would come to New
York and do a months tour OF the