I do not think it is an exaggeration to assert that the majority of listeners at a high-class concert or recital are absolutely bored.  How can it be otherwise, when the composers represented are mere names to them?  Why should the general public appreciate a Bach fugue, an intricate symphony or a piece of chamber-music?  Do we professional musicians appreciate the technique of a wonderful piece of sculpture, of an equally wonderful feat of engineering or even of a miraculous surgical operation?  It may be argued that an analogy between sculpture, engineering, surgery and music is absurd, because the three former do not appeal to the masses in the same manner as music does.  Precisely:  it is because of this universal appeal on the part of music that the public should be educated to listen to good music; that they should be given, in a general way, a chance to acquaint themselves with the laws underlying the “Beautiful in Music” and should be shown the demands which a right appreciation of the Art makes upon the Intellect and the Emotions.

And, surely, such a “desideratum” may best be effected by a careful perusal of the manuals to be included in the present series.  It is incontestable that the reader of the following pages—­apart from a knowledge of the various musical forms, of orchestration, etc.—­all of which will be duly treated in successive volumes—­will be in a better position to appreciate the works of the several composers to which he may be privileged to listen.  The last essay, especially, will be read with interest to-day, when we may hope to look forward to a cessation of race-hatred and distrust, and to what a writer in the Musical Times (September, 1914) has called, “a new sense of the emotional solidarity of mankind.  From that sense alone,” he adds, “can the real music of the future be born.”

     CLAUDE LANDI.

MUSICIANS OF TO-DAY

BERLIOZ

I

It may seem a paradox to say that no musician is so little known as Berlioz.  The world thinks it knows him.  A noisy fame surrounds his person and his work.  Musical Europe has celebrated his centenary.  Germany disputes with France the glory of having nurtured and shaped his genius.  Russia, whose triumphal reception consoled him for the indifference and enmity of Paris,[1] has said, through the voice of Balakirew, that he was “the only musician France possessed.”  His chief compositions are often played at concerts; and some of them have the rare quality of appealing both to the cultured and the crowd; a few have even reached great popularity.  Works have been dedicated to him, and he himself has been described and criticised by many writers.  He is popular even to his face; for his face, like his music, was so striking and singular that it seemed to show you his character at a glance.  No clouds hide his mind and its creations, which, unlike Wagner’s, need no initiation to be understood; they seem to have no hidden meaning, no subtle mystery; one is instantly their friend or their enemy, for the first impression is a lasting one.