Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 1, No. 10 (1927-07)

414 The Phonograph Monthly Review «JB II ■■ I . i ■■ ' 111 . '1 ISV Is the Phonograph a Musical Instrument ? (Concluded from the last issue) T WO popular misconceptions of radio deserve to be debunked. The first is the notion that radio reproduction is “more real” than phonograph reproduction. The secretary to a prominent radio manufacturer—now, alas! in bankruptcy—said to me not so long ago: “I hate a phonograph; it's so dead.” The absurdity of this perjudice—whose origin would be a fas- cinating problem for the phychologist—becomes evident when the facts are considered. What comes out of the modern phonograph is nothing more nor less than an exact re-creation of the sound-waves produced before the recording micro- phone. These sound-waves have been held in abeyance by the record until the phonograph should revivify them and send them out into the air again. These sound-waves are the living voice of the artist or instrument originally pro- ducing them. The phonograph and record act in this instance as a system for suspending and transmitting, at the will of the phonograph owner, the music created before the microphone in the recording laboratory. The difference in the performance of the radio is that, the nature of a telephone and its limitations being what it and they are, reproduction is necessarily simul- taneous with the original performance. The radio has no power of capturing and suspending the music, of holding it in abeyance for future enjoyment; it can only “do its stuff” like any other telephone and transmit the fleeting sound cf the passing moment. As to the musical quality of the radio, the fol- lowing from a newspaper article of recent date expresses not only the writer's belief and experi- ence, but that of many noted scientists and musicians: “When amplification or electrical en- ergy is employed, there always is distortion.” The second of the two popular misconceptions mentioned above is the disproportionate sense of wonder which the radio evokes. As though sound transmission through space without wires were any more remarkable than the suspension of sound on a disc, subject for ever to re-creation at the will of the possessor of the disc! A friend who lives in Boston told me an amusing story of some acquaintances of his who on New Year's Day listened to the broadcast of the football game at Los Angeles (perhaps you remember the names of the teams). These good people asked my friend if he realized what a wonderful thing radio was. Wasn't it truly miraculous to think of this game being broadcast a distance of four thousand miles! Now, the joke is, the game was not being broadcast four thousand miles. On the contrary. It was reported into a microphone on the field at Los Angeles, carried by telephone wires to New York, again by other telephone wires to Boston, and there broadcast by a local station a distance of possibly four miles to the astonished ears of our marveling friends! Now, if you were to tell me that it is a wonderful thing to be able to telephone from Los Angeles to Bos- ton, I should heartily agree with you; but if you asked the average radio “fan” to listen to a telephone call from Los Angeles to Boston, and then become wildly enthusiastic about it, he would think you were a little “cuckoo.” Nevertheless, the analogy is perfect. Radio is a remarkable achievement, but like everything else it needs to be viewed sanely and appraised with common sense. Just at present some of our leading manufac- turers are making combination phonograph- radio sets, which seem to be enjoying substantial popularity. But not, I believe, with that large and growing class of record buyers who are in- terested in serious music. Nor, I am sure, will the sale of such instruments greatly increase; rather, it is likely to decline as time passes, and the notion that radio is a surpassing wonder fades somewhat. The phonograph is and will remain a musical instrument. Despite the remarkable advances of the past two years, no reasonable person claims that either recording or reproduction has reached perfection. On the contrary, the leading phonograph com- panies maintain costly research and experimental laboratories and conduct many other activities in order constantly to improve their products. Hence, it is only proper to conclude our article with a suggestion of physical improvements and changes in policy whose adoption the writer be- lieves most necessary at this time. On the me- chanical side, these things seem to me most im- portant. 1. The development of a long-playing record for the standard phonograph, i. e., for those phonographs (the vast majority) which employ the lateral-cut record. By a long-playing record I mean, one that shall contain at least twenty min- utes of music to a side. Any substitute for the long-playing record, no matter how attractive or seemingly convenient, is a makeshift. The exist- ing three—and five-minute records are far too short, and the necessity of cutting musical works up into such unnatural fragments is and will re- main a nuisance. The long-playing lateral-cut record will yet be perfected, and a fortune awaits the manufacturer who is first to produce it. 2. For mechanical phonographs—and the great majority of phonographs is and will likely continue to be mechanical—there is needed some new system of needles (by all means semi-per- manent if possible) capable of providing a flexi- bility of volume control equal to that of the elec- trical reproducing instruments. At present the