1880.] Mr. Francis Hiieffer on Musical Criticism. 437 



WEEKLY EVENING MEETING, 



Friday, May 28, 1880. 



Warren De La Eue, Esq. M.A. D.C.L. F.R.S. Secretary and 

 Vice-President, in the Chair. 



Francis Hueffer, Esq. 



Musical Criticism. 



The lecturer presumed his audience were in a certain sense musical 

 critics, but he would not say they were good critics, for if they were, 

 there would be no need for those persons who made musical criticism 

 a profession, and undertook to tell the public what they should and 

 what they should not like. There were many functions of criticism 

 which they were infinitely better able to fulfil than any writer. In- 

 deed, if the public only had courage to show what they thouf^ht of a 

 singer, player, or composer, in spite of the reputation he might have 

 established in foreign parts, a great many things would be impossible 

 which now might be witnessed every day. 



However much weight a criticism might have, judicious applause, 

 or hissing, or significant silence was much more felt by performers. 

 But in our moderate clime both censure and enthusiasm seldom ex- 

 ceeded certain limits. Foreign singers coming to this country never 

 failed to praise our kindness, and from a sentimental point of view 

 there was nothing more satisfactory. But audiences ought to remember 

 that every time they applauded incompetency or mediocrity they in- 

 sulted true merit. When foreign singers praised our kindness they 

 perhaps often meant our ignorance. 



Culpable leniency had led to the establishment of fixed customs, 

 one of which was the Encore nuisance. At a ballad concert this 

 mattered little, apart from the fact that most entertainments of that 

 class were much too long without such repetitions. It was much less 

 excusable to repeat a single movement of a sonata or a symphony, for 

 that implied a want of reverence towards the composer. A sonata or 

 symphony was an organism the component parts of which were care- 

 fully balanced by the writer to produce a harmonious impression. If 

 one of the movements was repeated, this was naturally disturbed. The 

 encore nuisance was even more insufi'erable in an opera. Mr. Huefier 

 mentioned striking instances of the impropriety of scenes being 

 repeated and artists being recalled to the stage. Eepctitions, he said, 

 were unfair towards the performers, and if they knew their interest 

 they would never comply with the request. It was well known that 



