generalisation.

In regard to the sadly vexed question of musical nationalism,
especially in its relation to America, his position was definite and
positive. His views on this subject may well be quoted somewhat in
detail, since they have not always been justly represented or fully
understood. In the following excerpt, from a lecture on "Folk-Music,"
he pays his respects to Dvorák's "New World" symphony, and touches
upon his own attitude toward the case as exemplified in his "Indian"
suite:

"A man is generally something different from the clothes he wears or
the business he is occupied with; but when we do see a man identified
with his clothes we think but little of him. And so it is with music.
So-called Russian, Bohemian, or any other purely national music has no
place in art, for its characteristics may be duplicated by anyone who
takes the fancy to do so. On the other hand, the vital element of
music--personality--stands alone. We have seen the Viennese Strauss
family adopting the cross rhythms of the Spanish--or, to be more
accurate, the Moorish or Arab--school of art. Moszkowski the Pole
writes Spanish dances. Cowen in England writes a Scandinavian
Symphony. Grieg the Norwegian writes Arabian music; and, to cap the
climax, we have here in America been offered a pattern for an
'American' national musical costume by the Bohemian Dvorak--though
what the Negro melodies have to do with Americanism in art still
remains a mystery. Music that can be made by 'recipe' is not music,
but 'tailoring.' To be sure, this tailoring may serve to cover a
beautiful thought; but--why cover it? and, worst of all, why cover it
(if covered it must be: if the trademark of nationality is
indispensable, which I deny)--why cover it with the badge of whilom