Page:Pratt - The history of music (1907).djvu/663

 subject, however distant from the standpoint of the observer himself. The instrumentalist cannot say to the vocalist, "I have no need of you," nor the operatic singer to the critic, nor the theorist to the maker of instruments, nor the genius in composition to the promoter of interest among amateurs. The world of music is a cosmos, or, to change the figure, a living organism. Its magnitude and multiformity are appalling, but, happily, historical thought may learn so to regard it all that it shall seem to have vital unity and coherence.

Again, all thoughtful study of music involves endless questions about the worth of styles and works, especially those now current. In the process of the ages certain artistic convictions have been reached and the most ambitious artistic effort is now put forth in some accord with them, while formal criticism stands by to utter opinions for or against these 'tendencies of the age.' Now, criticism and history are not interchangeable terms. They certainly are mental products arising from distinct operations, even when concerned about the same objects of thought. But they cannot be dissociated with safety. This is plainly true of formal criticism, which expresses itself authoritatively in writing. It is also true of the infinitely more abundant exercise of private judgment and taste, which is apt to be unreflective and irresponsible. The critical attitude, however adopted, should not be the slave of history in that it should seek to impose upon to-day the rules and standards of some bygone age. But, on the other hand, in judging the present it should be fully aware of the process by which what now exists has been reached, so as to appreciate it not simply as it seems, but as it is historically. Sudden judgments from momentary impression are valueless, and so-called culture which is merely based upon such judgments is at least shallow, if not false. The vast majority of musicians and amateurs are incessantly viewing music from some critical standpoint. It could be desired that more of them had gained enough historical sense and perspective to know that some 'novelties' are not new, some 'triumphs' not unprecedented, that specialties—even the greater ones—are not the whole of musical art, and that musicianship is not only many-sided, but deep. What is thus true of the social and public judgments that go to make up 'popular interest in music,' is still more true of the judgments and aspirations