|
Year by year the strong position of the nationalists became even more entrenched, and the dislike for the music of the central European avant-garde that often accompanied an admiration for the nationalists reached excessive proportions. One of
Britten's experiences when he was a student at the Royal College in the early 1930s provides evidence for this. Britten explains:
I'd finished at College with a small travelling scholarship and wanted to go to Vienna [to study with
Berg] ... But when the College was told, coolness arose. I think, but can't be sure, that the Director, Sir Hugh Allen, put a spoke in
the wheel. At any rate when I said at home during the holidays, 'I am going to study with Berg, aren't I?', the answer was a firm, 'No dear'. Pressed, my mother said, 'He's not a good influence', which I suspect came from Allen.2 3
Bridge's attitude towards nationalism was clear:
You really cannot speak of nationality in music, since art is world-wide. If there is to be any expression of national spirit, it must be the expression of the composer's own thoughts and feelings, and must come from the promptings of his own inspiration; he cannot seek it, and any effort on his part to aim at it as a national expression must end in failure.4 5
Hence, faced with a choice between a nationalist or internationalist approach, Bridge adopted the latter,6 a decision that brought him isolation and to a large extent the disapproval of the critics.
They simply could not accept the fact that Bridge's stylistic development was an organic one rather than a deliberate attempt to up-date his music with some nasty noises.
Herbert Hughes, in a review of the first performance of the Second Piano Trio, took this view:
Mr Bridge's trio was a proposition of a different order. This was patently 1929 - owing a good deal to Scriabin and more to Schoenberg. As it proceeded one wondered whether Mr Bridge had not somewhat forced upon himself this style of writing, whether the greater part of this trio had any real meaning, even superficial, to the composer himself. We are, or so it seems to me, faced today, in this present international vogue of atonalism, with a new species of Kapellmeistermusik. Mr Bridge is not the only instance of a composer on this side of the Channel having suddenly adopted a manner (as he did in the recent piano sonata) that bears no recognizable relationship to his own natural development.7
|
|