New-York tribune., 1920-11-21

doxical feeling towarf Mr.. Scott, be-
cause they have heard practically none
Of his compositions: pianoforte So
nata a. a recital, perhaps song or two
that is all. Why assume them to
have been prejudiced in advance
against the pianoforte concerto and
Passacaglias? Hereafter they may
know what 10 expect if his name ap-
pears on program; they did no, know
three weeks ago.
But all this is inconsequential. The
only really interesting thing in the
communication is the infantile echo
Of the old CRY, as shallow when it
was written centuries, perhaps millen-
niums, ago, We fancy. a. it is nov that
criticism is written for The purpose of
staying progress in art or science or
anything in this world If it be writ
ten with any purpose at all, and inteli-
gently, the purpose as well a. the effect
Of criticism is to advance art and
science and the other subjects with
which it deals. The contrary assertion
mediocrity, impotence and arrogant
pretenaion-an honest and Intelligent
artist should be ashamed to have it ad-
vanced il connection with his work.
We spoke out our mind on this subject
in an article printed IN The Tribune
long ago from which we row print an
excerpt which appears to US Apostle:
"To the objection constantly urged
against musical criticism that progress
in me art has Uniformly disclosed its
fallacy since one generation of me.
frequently accepts what d preceding
generation had rejected reply that no
man has right to an opinion in q
Question Of art who is afraid to ex-
press it; ana the foolishest course that
q critic, lay or professional, can follow
is TO withhold his Judgment for fear
that at some future time it may be
found that his opinion was erroneous.
After that the next most foolish thing
Is for the critic to sneer at the honest
writer OF the past from whose views the
majority Of his SUCCESSORS have turned
The men who could not approve Of all
that Beethoven wrote were not dishon-
est fools; nor were they all imbecleS
who objected TO Schumann or Wagner
OF Brahms. /. is not idlocy to-day TO
question the artistic validity Of a
phrase penncd by Richard Strauss, or
Roger, or Debussy, or Sch0nbere. Hon
est AntagOnlsm to innovation Is benc-
fcia. ani necessary to sound progress.
1t provides the rcgulativc fywhcel
without which the engine would go rae
ing to destruction. It cannot stop
progress, and there never was q critic
honestly concerned about his art who
wished tnat it should. There is more
cant about everything new being good
,han Iherr is IN the proclamation that
old things are good because they are
old. The coward in criticism who
has no opinion unfnvorable to the
artist who Is his friend or affects
friendship, who pronounces everything
good which the god Of bis idolatry ad
mires, screening his Ignorance behind
an imposing name, Will lie in no dan
ger Of being oVerruled by posterity, for
ne Will give postcrlty no reason Tor
rcmcm bering him. The spirit which
acclaims everything ncw il the spirit
Of ignorance or cOwardIce. The things
which ohall be great IN the future
because they differ from the things
which are great now can wait for the
future Better to fail now to hear thc
future ovauRcl Of beauty than TO pro-
claim that to be beautiful which shall
not be recognized as such hereafter.
We cannot wrong the future we can
wrong the present.
"How long shall VIC wait? 1t il not
ear us TO give heed TO time Speak out
the thoughts Of to-day and that Of to-
morrow when to morrow comes. BE
not aTriqhtcd by the noise Of shoutcrs.
He is d very young or an unobscrvant
critic who has not Seen many medi-
! ocrities hailed as geniuses ~ he has