Further, these composers are not yet mature. Their works may ter-
minate in a technique altogether different from that of to-day--at least,
one hopes so, for no creative artist has ever stood still in this respect.
Quantity is not as important as quality, else were composers like
Camille Saint-Saëns and Samuel Coleridge-Taylor among the greatest.
It is only when viewed in retrospect that the position can be determined
and although there are some among the younger composers who make
their contemporaries look mere pygmies side by side with them, it
is still not safe to prophesy as to the ultimate result of their labours.

One may prophesy, however, that the second half of the century
will not witness as great a cleavage as that which divided the late
nineteenth and middle twentieth. The composers studied in detail
will be found to have led the progress which in turn will be continued
by their successors. On the other hand, it would be altogether wrong
to ignore many names which may be said to have been "in" but not
"of" the twentieth century in that their technical and musical expres-
sion bears too close an affinity with late nineteenth-century ideals and
aims. These composers are exceedingly important and cannot be
ignored or derided. Without them the present-day music would be
very different. The preliminary chapters, therefore, will concern them-
selves with setting the scene, which will in turn be followed by a
closing consideration of the situation up to date.

I would point out one fact which does not always strike the older
reader as forcibly as it should. The older generation was brought up
during an immense upheaval when cultures underwent a complete
change, and taste gradually took the place of judgement. Standards
altered rapidly--they are still altering, but not so rapidly. To that
generation a work like Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande is more than
a matter of a name. It is a reality. The same may be said of Stravin-
sky's Petrouchka and Le Sacre. To-day the young generation has
to take much of this period for granted. The first work, to the majority,
is only a name. There is no opportunity for hearing it in the theatre
and radio performances are few and far between. Even in my day
(and I write as one aged fifty-two) it was one of the most debatable
works ever written. We absorbed it avidly, as we absorbed L'Aprês-
Midi. We raved about the other two works--and, incidentally, how
long ago were they performed as ballets? Such is the passage of fashion
that few of the works which created furore after furore in the 1920's
are played to-day, and when one or two do make an appearance, one

-vii-