MUSIC AND MORALS

Evening Star, Issue 19666, 20 September 1927, Page 5

MUSIC AND MORALS

HOT ALWAYS AH “ UPLIFT " Is music moral? America has been taught that it is; that “more and better music would uplift us spiritually, morally, mentally. A proper appreciation of ‘ good ’ music was to transform us from lamentably imperfect lowbrows into superior and infinitely more desirable citizens.” For ten years the high-priests of the art have been preaching their doctrine, until now—with the tremendous amount of money spent on music, the numbers of, symphony orchestras, opera companies, and concert-goers in the U.S.A. —America ranks as the most musical in the world. Righteous millionaires subsidise music as they once subsidised churches and other moral welfare movements. But they are now demanding results. Where is this moral “ uplift ” —where these better citizens? INCREASE OF CRIME!

They are answered in au amusing article by Alma Whitaker in the New York ‘Musical Digest.’ “On all evidence,” she says, “ we should certainly begin showing signs of that moral and spiritual regeneration that good music was to achieve for us. Nigh a decade of regeneration has been ours. “ And yet—oh, dear! Can it ho possible that music is just another emotional delight, and not necessarily moral uplift at all? How does it happen that crime has increased by leaps and hounds during that very same period, and that sinners flourish so alarmingly? “How can it have possibly happened that it should become necessary for the Women’s Clulb Federation to undertake the rescue of the American homer How can it possibly have happened that so many speakers, and lecturers, and preachers, and college presidents consider our young people are going straight to the Devil? How has it happened that during that musical regeneration period wo hear such a, frightful lot about the ‘ failure of the American parent’?

NO BETTED THAN PROHIBITION. “Good heavens, this musical regeneration doesn’t seem lo he working any hotter than Prohibition! Something or other seems to be making us naughtier than over. “‘Oh! but you cannot blame Prohibition,’say the Drys. “‘Oh! hut you cannot possibly blame music!’ protest the high-priests of the cult. “ All the same, someone, something ought to he blamed. 1 don’t think it is quite nice, to go on blaming mother. No one would think of blaming the teachers and compulsory education. Quite unthinkable to blame the preachers. It isn't even quite fair to blame motion pictures and automobiles. _ “Besides, music, like Prohibition, was going to correct all our ills, anywav. If wc supported good music it was understood wo could safely ho motion picture fans, too, because we should have become spiritually superior to demoralisation. Providing we appreciated good music, it ought to be quite all right to drive in automobiles. And the mother who loved good music couldn’t, possihlv no such a. lanky parent, Even the churches started introducing higli-hrow music in (ho firm conviction that it would fill their pews and turn sinners lo repentance. “Bo here wo arc, musically regenerate as only an efficient nation like the United States can tackle a rclorm and behold the country proclaimed as more sinful than ever before. Oh, dear I ..... “ If it wasn’t such a ridiculous idea one might suppose that music could be immoral just like everything else. One might suppose that it would he stimulating, intoxicating, emotional, enjoyable —without necessarily being a great moral uplift medium at all. “BOOTLEG” MUSIC. “ And, of course, there is evidently bootleg music as there is bootleg liquor even in a reformed nation. One did sort of realise in 1 Hie Miracle, ioi instance, that the music was capable ol interpreting all the wicked scenes rather well. It helped us to understand exactly what was happening to the nun’s innocence. ... So music evidently can be a little improper. Alma Whitaker goes on to consider music’s place m the Bible, and loinis the opinion that its status is about that of wine—'' admissible, you understand, but not completely a superior moral influence. It can make us more interesting, more genial, more lively, perhaps, but we must not put too much faith in its lasting and elevating influences. “ Music can do a-plcnly to our emotions, Even those Kaffir duels m Africa, with but two notes to wield, could arouse their tribes to Ircnzy with tlm rhythmic tom-tom. J.hus did the Kaffir make war. “And the cannv Germans recognised that Wagner’s 1 Bhineguld ’ was reprehensible revolutionary music, aiiaiclustic music—and so took agnci in hand. . . ■” LURKING SINS IN WAGNER. How were good Americans to know about the lurking sms possible in even such highbrow music as Wagners? Alma Whitaker continues; “ Ot course, we were warned that our seeming taste for jazz was responsible, hut such crusaders implied that jazz was not ‘ music,’ never could be ‘ music.’ But even jazz has its defenders, who likened it to the rhythmic syncopation of the old-time workmen, singing at their anvils, sailors singing as they haul a rope, the Volga boatmen singing as they drag a barge. Jazz, we were told, merely expresses the tempo of the new age, modern, hut by no means vicious. Still, behind all that, we could not help realising that musicians themselves conceded _ that there could be such a thing as vicious music. “And. alas, sometimes musicians can be found who have the poorest, possible opinion of other musicians. I onco filled in a couple of weeks as a music critic for my paper. Being conscientiously ignorant, I endeavored to base my reviews upon tho expert opinions of other musicians in the audience. It got me into a lot of trouble.” . . So the righteous nullionaues spent their money in vain. But Alma Whitaker consoles them, “if we are not saints, at least we are most interesting, attractive, cultured, and versatile sinners.”