conviction that Meyerbeer had brought them "great music." Auber was little music, pleasant and "very French." But Meyerbeer was high art, with its depths and mysteries. Now it was especially by these big chunks of false symphony (the solemn presentation of which did not alter the fact that they were failures), that he had created this illusion. The remainder of my criticism will show the drift of that remark.
It is only fair to add that Meyerbeer's musical culture considered in its other aspects was rich and substantial. His harmony is often massive, and for that reason too Germanic for my taste; but it is strong, and close and firm. He excels in musical construction within the peculiar limits of operatic airs and stage settings. He handles his ideas firmly. He has vivacity, pageantry, and sometimes elegance. He has a variety of form which lends itself to criticism on the ground that the forms are obviously borrowed from all sorts of musicians, but which yet has its value. He is a master of instrumentation.
Let us dwell upon this last merit, though even that cannot be praised without reserve. The illustrious Gevaërt is no doubt justified in saying that "the most passionate detractors of Meyerbeer cannot deny that he has an exquisite tact in the choice of sounds."[1] But in the eyes of sound scholarship this talent has no true worth except by the quality of the inspiration in the service of which it is employed, and of the ideas which it illustrates. The tones of the different instruments are a wonderful means of expression, but of all the means of expression at music's disposal they are the most material, and therefore they are really only valuable through the nobility
- ↑ Traité d'instrumentation p. 261.
