just quoted, that the _other_ works of Mozart and Beethoven--their
symphonies, operas, quartets, etc., "will not only continue to live,
but will, perhaps, remain unequalled by anything of the present day."
This is genuine discriminative criticism, which renders unto Cæsar
what is Cæsar's due: whereas, Mr. Bennett is guided by the vicious old
habit of fancying that because Mozart and Beethoven are great masters,
therefore they must be superior to everybody in everything. Is it not
about time to put an end to this absurd Jumboism in music?

The fact is, we are living in an age of division of labor and
specialism; and those who, like Robert Franz and Richard Wagner,
devote themselves to a single branch of music have a better chance of
reaching the summit of Parnassus than those who dissipate their
energies in too many directions. Chopin was the pianoforte genius _par
excellence_, and in his field he stands above the greatest of the
German composers, whatever their names. Mendelssohn once wrote to his
mother that Chopin "produces effects on the piano as novel as those of
Paganini on the violin, and he performs marvels which no one would
have believed to be possible." Mendelssohn benefited to a slight
extent by Chopin's example, but he did not add anything new to the
treatment of the pianoforte. Nor does even Liszt mark an advance on
Chopin from a purely pianistic point of view. Paradoxical as it may
seem, Liszt, the greatest pianist the world has known, was really a
born _orchestral_ composer. He was never satisfied with the piano, but
constantly wanted to convert it into an orchestra. His innovations
were all in the service of these orchestral aspirations, and hence it
is that his rhapsodies, for example, are much more effective in their
orchestral garb than in their original pianoforte version. The same is
true of many of Rubinstein's pianoforte works--the Bal Masqué, for
instance, which always has such an electric effect on Mr. Theodore