New-York tribune., 1921-02-20
Bv II. E. krehhiel

Whether popular" music is neces-
sarily good" music or bad" music
and what may be it's effect upon the
taste Of the rising generation are
questions which have recently been
discussed in some of che London news
papers. Quite naturally, persons of
musical education are ranged in a dis
sussion Of this kind against those who
have no particular culture in that di-
rection, but who are very positive that
they know the kind Of music thew
like" and like that kind of music
very much. If they like it, it is good
nusic-and there you are. About the
most dangerous weapon which can be
put into the hands of these persons is
the admission that tune (never
riece of music or q composition which
may have attained a temporary popu-
iarity may be a good tune. In many
minds that settles the case at once.
Any popular tune is a good tune, and
any person who refuses to recognize
it as an artistic thing and its creator
twho is generally not creator at all,
Tut only compiler, or an adapter OF
some ones else original thougtt) as
an artist Is q conceited "highbrow /"
This attitude is promoted by the
plausible but specious argument that
the wider the admiration felt for any
popular form of musical activity the
better that kind of music and Che
greater the love and appreciation of
the people for music as an art.
If this were true it would seem to
follow that the truest type of music
soulo be that of our cabarets and dance
halls; and the greatest composers would
be the men who make the popular-for
the day--songs and dances, which juat
now are Of the "jazz" type.
Sum it up in memory; Is it refec-
ton upon the genius of Beethoven as
musician that his earnings for ten
years never amounted to what some
song writer (who probably can only
whistle tune or pick it out on the
panofoEte with one fnger) receives
from his publisher for a single song?
VI course It Is nothing of the kind. One
might as well measure the artistic merit
Of the writer OF the trashiest "best-
seiier" In the field of fiction to-day with
'aAs Of Thackeray by the monetary
standard. But haven't we read some
reviews Of this kind?
Ne know that all this sounds like in
1sntile talk, but, unhappily, it is called
'or' even justified, by the encourage
nent which "the masses" are receiving
1eom great many writer's in the news
papers to whom they have been taught
10 look up for guidance in cultural mat
Nfs' Which reflection brings Us back
our starting point. In the London
discussion referred to at the outset Mr..
a. d. Walkley, the dramatic critic Of
Aae Times came out in defence of what
- isast may be called vulgar music"
a least" we say, because there is not
a'cessarily sting in the adjective), on
a' ground that it is a popular evoc&-
~sa OF to-day and he argues that it is
'aef to cultivate il than to attempt
- make the public acquire a taste for
a'e iolk songs and folk dances Of Old
1agiand. But let him speak for him
he is certainly brave in utterance:
sszz tunes are our folktunes, the
aug, ass that the folk" of to-day have
soWeo .eo for themselves. They may be
say inferior TO the old sort, but,
s.so as they are, they are live
seSsn, whereas the others would sbe
tea archaism. The efforts Of
"a, musicians TO revive ! uneS.
ao,l's dances, etc. always strike me
IS ene same kind of forlorn hope as
D., gallant attempts OF Mr.. William
sts ss, 70 revive the Elizabethsn manner
presenting Shakespeare. You
on.anno no more do it than you can revive
Sasen Elizabeth herself. There
Veing back in history.
"A hls first utterance Mr.. walkley is
sssadsmentally in error, but his Ia the
paiaf speech and ought to be set
sA'sht jazz tunes are a degraded
OF tunes which were derived from
a'y oae of the characteristics of the
Sa4s' Of the former slaves of our own
.s'n 1,a' They were not evolved from the
A OF today" unless the folk OF to-
: are The small talents who know how
ppfopriata tune (which has
aa Kernel In it, and "rag" it or
jazz" Ii into the 4oyr, vvh;eh .~;vns IL