THE FORERUNNERS OF SCARLATTI, BACH, AND HANDEL

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21415, 6 March 1935, Page 7

THE FORERUNNERS OF SCARLATTI, BACH, AND HANDEL

TO TAB EDITOR OT THE PfIESS. Sir, —I am afraid a discussion between two musicians on the finer points of seventeenth music must be rather tedious to your readers; but I can hardly be expected to take Dr. Bradshaw's last letter lying down. He first objects to my describing his letter as "an extension" of my article. Now the first third of his letter deals with the genius of Henry Purcell. In the second third he goes on to discuss what E have called the "overlappings" of the periods, and how there were tentative beginnings of the new style to be found in the works of the later sixteenth century composers. He mentions Couperin, Corelli, Byrd, Morley, Gibbons, the Restoration composers, Elizabethan "Ayres," and Vaughan Williams, and how the Church Modes developed into our major and minor scales. Is it unfair to describe all this as an extension? Your correspondent "Sense" goes further and suggests that I should have included Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Haydn, and others in parts. I did not touch on this material, partly because I took as my principal theme the work of the pioneers and initiators of the "New Music" and partly because within the limits of a thousand words, a great elaboration of dc-'/il is not possible. But I submit that the omission of all this, however interesting it may be in itself, cannot reasonably be described as "a gross injustice to English music," nor, I think, is it reasonable to suggest that I "deliberately ignored the work of one of the greatest English composers. I had in my mind principally the events of the early part of the century. Henry Purcell belongs to the latter end, and to the period when the technique was nearing its maturity, rather than of its beginning. I trust I am not behind Dr. Bradshaw in my appreciation of Henry Purcell's genius, nor in my appreciation of the English school of music; but I see no reason to drag his name into an article where he does not fitly belong, simply because he is English. All this I would thankfully pass over in silence, although I cannot but regard it as a misrepresentation, unintentional, I am sure, but still a misrepresentation of the sense in which I wrote. But Dr. Bradshaw m his last accuses joaei pf amazing

misstatements," of failing to "discriminate between the truth and the false," and of the distortion of the accepted facts of history; and I am compelled to examine what these misstatements of historical fact? amount to. First, Dr. Bradshaw rejects my description of the seventeenth century as a "dark and gloomy valley," etc. It is, of course, figurative writing; but it is essentially an expression of opinion and not a misstatement of historical fact. In the "Oxford History of Music,"' Sir Hubert Parry writes:

Tlio scveiitennth century is musioally almost a blank, even to those who take more than the average interest in the art; and barelv a score of composers' names during tlio whole time suggest anything more than a mere reputation to modern ears. . . . Lovers of the art were quite under the impression that the music of their time would comparo favourably with that of other times, and impress those that came after, as much as it impressed themselves. The event proved it singularly short-lived: and intrinsically most of it "seems to casual observers little better than an archaeological curiosity. Dr. Bradshaw evidently differs from this opinion, and while I highly appreciate some of the qualifications which he has suggested, I am still inclined to think that broadly speaking Sir Hubert Parry's opinion is not far wide of the mark. Next, Dr. Bradshaw objects to my description of the "dramatic suddenness with which the old purely choral modal music died out." I stated that "Palestrina died in 1594, and within the first three decades of the new century, all the foremost exponents of the old school had died." Those are almost the only statements of historical facts contained In my essay, and that they are not serious misstatements, a reference to any Dictionary of Music will show. That there was a very stupendous change in method may be seen by anyone if they will place the score of a Palestrina Mass alongside the Bach B minor Mass, and I venture to think that I am not guilty of any serious misstatement of historical fact when I sav that the change took place "within the space of a man's lifetime." Let us again refer to Sir Hubert Parry: The change in the cliaracier null methods of musical art at the end of Ihe sixteenth centurv was so decisive and abrupt lhat il would" be easy to be misled into thinking that the laws by which progress or regrc-s invariably pror.-d; were abrogated. o:\fur,l JMetnry. Vol. 111., p. 1. This again is a statement of opinion rather than of historical fact, with which Dr. Bradshaw evidently disagrees: but after tbw deliberation 1 am still inclined to think flint there is much to be said for Sir Hubert Parry's view. There are other points I would like to deal with: but I trust I have said enough to convince at any rate some of your readers that such terms as "amazing misstatements," "a gross injustice to English music." "failure to discriminate between the truth and the false." and "distortion of the accepted facts of history" are a little beside the mark. It is more a question of viewpoint than of historical fact, and it is not wise to be too violent on questions of opinion.—Yours, etc., L. CLIFFE STANFORD. March 5. 1935.