Articles on music criticism in New York

“To the Editor of the New-York Times:

 

For more than ten years I have been a reader, admirer, and in my small way a defender of your paper; have taken a real interest and a sort of personal pride in your success, and especially in your present huge fight with crime and corruption. ‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against thee.’ My present grievance, however, is not against you alone, but the daily Press generally, and it is this—the discriminate praise of certain candidates for public favor as artists, especially in the musical line of art. Now no one knows better than yourself, however thankless the task of saying so may be, that there is very little real critical judgment in community about music and musical performances; and that singers and players are to a very great extent simply affairs of fashion. The person who does not bow down and worship the reigning and fashionably indorsed musical favorite, or who fails to echo ‘exquisite’ and ‘divine,’ whenever the favored name is pronounced, is looked upon as a barbarian—a heretic and traitor to ‘good society.’ It is also true that this rage of popularity is often brought about by a certain position in society, or a lucky hit, rather than from any real artistic excellence, and often is simply a ‘gotten up’ thing. The heralding trumpet is blown in the most fulsome manner, regardless of either taste or truth; all the tricks of the trade are brough tinto requisition to secure a first success and loud applause, and, lastly, the candidate for favor must be ‘written up’ for the Press the next morning.

 

Now, Mr. Editor, the Press is becoming more and more the educator of the people. They look to it not only for information but also trust to a great extent its judgment in matters which are beyond their knowledge; and the Times has for the most part been found reliable and true to its mission as an instructor, but when it lends its editorial page to the unqualified commendation of such musical performances as the series of concerts which closed on Saturday afternoon at Steinway Hall, I think it misleads public sentiment, and does an injury to public taste.

 

I would not throw a straw in the way of the lady who made her debut in those concerts. I have no doubt she is an estimable lady, and entirely worthy of encouragement of her numerous friends; but she has placed herself before the public as an artist, and not only so, but she would have us believe that she presents to us the most finished specimens of musical art now to be found in the whole world, and the Press would lead the people to believe that she does it.

 

A qualified and unbiased judge would gladly accord to the lady a voice of considerable sweetness, power and compass, and that she executes florid passages with facility and grace; on the other hand, her style is crude and aimless, both her intervals and sustained notes are untrue, her pronunciation faulty, her manner upon the platform and some of her selections offensively ad captandum. The public may not be to blame for applauding such things, but the Press is certainly to blame for leading the public to suppose that it has listened to an artist; for it fixes a low and false standard in people’s minds, and leads them to admire and applaud the same thing again instead of desiring something better.

 

No such laudatory notices of Mme. Parepa-Rosa have ever appeared in the papers, and yet who that has any reputation as a musical critic would damage it by saying that he considered Mrs. Moulton the superior artist? The idea is too absurd to be entertained for a moment. And yet the trumpet is blown and the people invited to take notice that in hearing the one they are listening to an artist next in excellence to the renowned Malibran, and of course they should correct their standard of musical taste accordingly, while the other is spoken of in the ordinary terms of musical criticism, the marvellous perfection of her performances unnoticed in any detail, or the methods by which she achieves it.

 

The same might be said of the Dolby Ballad Troupe. They came almost unheralded, and gave a series of concerts which were perfection of their kind, to which musical people went, and which they thoroughly enjoyed. They heard beautiful voices, trained according to the best schools, producing as artistic results ‘marvelously sweet music’ without orchestral aid, or any buffoonery or clap-trap, by using just those means and methods which so few of our singers know how to use, or even know the necessity of. Yet the Dolby concerts, as a whole, were very little mentioned in the papers. Mr. Santley has a reputation, so it was incumbent to speak of him, otherwise people would not think the critics knew their business—but to point out anything by which people would be educated or guided in forming a just estimate of their merits—almost nothing of the kind appeared.

 

I beg pardon, Mr. Editor, for occupying so much of your valuable space, but thus much has been said because I think it needs to be said. I have no ax to grine. I never spoke a word with any one of the persons I have mentioned, nor have they given me tickets to their concerts, but as one who wishes to see a higher musical taste cultivated among our concert-going people, and one who believes the press can help to do it, I speak.

 

M.”

“We cheerfully made room on Monday for the long letter of our correspondent ‘M,’ on the subject of musical criticism in New-York, partly because of the temper in which it was written, and partly because our correspondent’s ‘wish to see a higher musical taste cultivated among our concert-going people’ is one to which we also are not altogether indifferent. We can hardly undertake to defend the entire press of New-York from the accusations our correspondent brings against it, but, having due regard to that difference between amateur and professional work, on which he lays stress, we are willing to examine the two instances wherein he charges that we have shown over-indulgence and insufficient appreciation.

 

The latter charge is brought against us in the matter of our treatment of Mr. Santley and his compaions; but we can scarcely velieve that any one who read our obersvations on these fine artists, in the Times of Oct. 15, would pronounce this allegation justified. We supposed that we had ‘pointed out some things by which people would be educated and guided in forming a just estimate of their merits.’ It is probable that our correspondent never read the criticism in question, perhaps because it did not appear on the exact day that he looked for it. He should know that a daily newsppaers, and especially one engaged in a task involving uncommon demands on its space, is sometimes obliged to defer artistic discussion because of affairs of more immediate public interest and gravity. It may further be suggested that the unsurpassed abilities of Mr. Santley did not, at the outset, command that full measure of attention here from either Press or public that is their due, because all minds were at the moment engrossed by the calamity at Chicago.

 

Our correspondent next complains that our columns have been occupied by accounts of the performances of Mrs. Moulton to the exclusion of detailed criticism on those of Mme. Parepa-Rosa. Surely this is unreasonable. Mme. Parepa-Rosa has now been before the American public for several years. She has sung in music of every style and every period, and not only have her merits become thoroughly known to the public, but criticisms and eulogiums innumerable have been written thereupon. The Times has repeatedly commented in detail on Mme. Rosa's efforts—the last time no later than the day on which our correspondent wrote his letter—and assuredly with no stinted approbation. Mme. Rosa's talents, then, are widely and appreciatively known. It is far otherwise with Mrs. Moulton. That lady is making her first essay in an arduous profession. She is in reality hindered rather than helped by the sort of drawing-room reputation she has already acquired, and by the kind of prejudice, in which our correspondent apparently shares, that a woman who is gifted, refined, and fair is rendered thereby unfit for serious artistic labor.

 

Beyond this we must disclaim having instituted any comparisons whatever between Mrs. Moulton and Mme. Rosa, and we must positively dissent from our correspondent’s opinion that Mrs. Moulton ‘sings false.’ It has appeared to us that her merits were amply sufficient to warrant her friends and herself in claiming for her a fair hearing; and, having heard them tested, we know them to be sufficient to justify those who would give every encouragement to American women when they honestly strive for bread, and have an honorable ambition to meet the requirements of a career thick with difficulties and prejudices in the interest of national art. Such an explanation as this ought, in general, to be superfluous; but in this particular case, for the intimated reasons, we thought proper to make it.”