The Washington times., 1920-01-11
MAKES OUT CASE
AGAINST PROGRAM
Music Was Enjoyed as Interpre-
tiev Until Error Disclosed
II Was Not.

A foreign correspondent OF Musical
America brings up the question OF
the use, and the abuse OF program
music. in an amusing anecdote. He
writes:
Enthusiastic concert-soers OF mod
ern tendencies are invited TO take
warning from a distressing incl
dent" that happened. TO Francis Toye,
the London musician, who gives the
narrowing details In The Nation by
way OF making out case against
program music.
IL SO chanced that Mr.. Toye. ac-
companied by q friend likewise Well
known to the London music world,
went to hear the Stravinsky Quartet
on the occasion OF Its initial per-
formance In England. But let him
tell the story In his own words:
Pscuiiariy Effective.
I'VE listened with some pleasure
and a great deal OF care to the vari-
Gus movements. and both decided
that the second movement was oecu-
Ilarly effective. More especial. we
thought, was the movement an ad-
mirabie representation OF what the
program informed us was the SUB
ject.' To wit, 'an unhappy tuggler
who is distraught with grief that
he must hide while he does his iittie
feats before the watching crowd ono
hears in certain glinting tones the
flash OF his tricks, and as piercing
contrast the sorrow that tortures MN
while he Is at his seeming play
the story of 'Pagliacci' In essence, II
one may be allowed to shock the elect
by such a vulgar reminder. Al any
rate, we were genuinely enthusiastic
We agreed on the mastery skin with
which the composer had painted the
jugglers loathing OF his environment.
his complete discordance with his
surroundings. In particular, re-
member, we admired the translation
OF the sorrow that tortured him
into music. / am not sure we ala
not even, momentarily, share IT,
Imagine. IL you can. our surprise
and indignation when, a couple OF
days later. we learned that the order
of the movements had been changed
tan announcement to this effect was,
as a matter of face. in the program,
but we had overlooked it) and that
the movement we had so conscien-
tiously and so proudly admired was. in
reality. the third, which represents
priests chanting in a church. now in
plain song, now with a hint or the
Dies Irae.' More than once the chant
Ing is discordant, and now and again
the organ has to support them in
their uncertain tones. Good-by. Jug
gier! Goodbye. torturing sorrow!
Goodbye, almost everything except
the inevitable discord! That. at least,
remains unaffected. Plus ca change,
plus c'est Ia meme chose.
Guess what Ii Was.
cTo bring this painful story to a
close, II should be noted further that,
we purposely refrained from reading
the explanation of what We took to be
the third movement (that is to say
what was in reality the second or
.juggler' movement) because we want
ed to try to guess what II was. We
failed entirely. 1t conveyed nothing
to us al all. The most we can say for
ourselves Is that even when we later
referred (wrongly, of courseD to our
programs we could make very little of
Il, either, though we tried very hard.
That. at any rate, rebounds to oui
credit--and Stravinsky's. What a re-
ductio ad absurdum of the philosophy
Of program music"
This incident, ridiculous and trivial
as 1t, admittedly, may be, does raise
q question OF real importance, as Mr..
Toye sees 1t, and he asks. How far Is
the modern composer entitled to rely
upon q program? Presumably, he is
expect the audience to know the title
OF his work. But how much more may
he demand?