that it
is well to remember that they are practically all cast in
the same mould, that of the most simple song form, with one,
and sometimes two more or less similar verses, preceded by a
short introduction and ending with a coda.

We may say then, broadly, that Beethoven invested instrumental
music with a wonderful poignancy and power of expression,
elevating it to the point of being the medium of expressing
some of the greatest thoughts we possess. In so doing, however,
he shattered many of the great idols of formalism by the sheer
violence of his expression.

Schubert, let me say again, seemed indifferent to symmetry, or
never thought of it in his piano music. Mendelssohn, possibly
influenced by his early severe training with Zelter, accepted
symmetry of form as the cornerstone of his musical edifice;
although he was one of the first in the realms of avowed
programme music, he never carried it beyond the boundary of
good form. And, as in speaking a moment ago of the so-called
canons of musical art, we compared them with the shadows that
great men have cast upon their times, it may be as well to
remember that just this formalism of Mendelssohn overshadowed
and still overshadows England to the present day. On the other
hand, Beethoven's last style still shows itself in Brahms,
and even in Richard Strauss. Schumann was different from
these three. His music is not avowed programme music; neither
is it, as is much of Schubert's, pure delight in beautiful
melodies and sounds. It did not break through formalism by
sheer violence of emotion, as did Beethoven's; least of all
has it Mendelssohn's orthodox dress. It represents, as well as
I can put it, the rhapsodical reverie of a great poet to whom
nothing seems strange, and who has the faculty of relating
his visions, never attempting to give them coherence, until,
perhaps, when awakened from his dream, he naively wonders what
they may have meant. It will be remembered that Schumann added
titles to his music after it was composed.

To all of this new, strange music, Liszt and Chopin added the
wonderful tracery of orientalism. As I have said before, the
difference between these two is that with Chopin this tracery
enveloped poetic thought as with a thin gauze; whereas with
Liszt, the embellishment itself made the starting point for
almost a new art in tonal combination, the effects of which are
seen on every hand to-day. To realize its influence, one need
only compare