Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 1, No. 4 (1927-01)

The Phonograph Monthly Review 174 ” - ■ ■ 1 " 11 IK S* Editor, The Phonograph Monthly Review: Dear Sir: As enthusiastic as I was about the first two issues of your magazine, I am still more so over the current one. I have shown it to various dealers whose clientele is made up largely of music lovers, and they have promised to recommend it to their customers. Unfortunately, the number of this class of store is small; most shops are jazz-parlors, and little else. I should like to be permitted a few comments on Dr. Mead’s interesting letter and to your note. No notice seems to have been taken of Polydor’s “Fantastic Symphony” of Berlioz. I have not heard this set, therefore can not venture any comparison with the other three versions, but it should be mentioned for the sake of completeness. There may be little to choose between the “Jupiter” of Coates and that of Polydor, but the rendition of the slow movement should decide anybody in favor of the latter, which is most poetic, while Coates’ is most prosaic. He has hurried the tempo, moreover, in order to observe the repeat, a most unnecessary and unwonted procedure. Does no one know of the superb Parlophone records of the G minor of Mozart? It is far superior to the Vocalion version. I cannot agree that Dr. Morike is not his best in Beethoven’s Seventh. To me it is fully up to the standard of the others, and the Coates’ records can not hold a candle to it either as regards recording, interpretation or complete- ness. Nobody seems to have noticed a cut of four bars in the Odeon “Unfinished” at the end of side 1. They are a serious and most inexplicable omission, and deterred me from purchasing the set, which is otherwise excellent. Dr. Mead mentions that Haydn’s Symphony No. 13 is misnumbered. Perhaps he is unaware that Haydn’s works have been variously catalogued by different bibliographers and publishers. For the convenience of those who may be interested, I am appending a table showing the different designations of the six works already recorded: Old B. & H. No. No. 6 (Surprise) No. 11 (Military) No. 13 No. 16 (Oxford) No. 18 (Farewell) New York City, N. Y. New B. & H. No. No. 94 No. 100 No. 88 No. 92 No. 45 Yours very truly, Henry S. Gerstle. Peters No. 4 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9 (not publ.) P. S. One more thing—Dr. Mead has made one serious omission in his list of standard symphonic works yet to be recorded, and, to me, an importnat one, as it is one of my favorite symphonies. You have probably already guessed it—the “Rhine” Symphony of Schumann (No. 3). This has been superbly reorchestrated by Dr. Stock, but I suppose that it would be too much to expect to have this version recorded by Victor, as the work has never attained any great popularity. In fact Schumann’s lack of skill in orchestration has militated against any wide popularity of his orchestral works, beautiful as most of them are. To me, there are few things as heavenly as the slow movement of his Second Symphonjr. H. S. G. Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: Occasional remarks in some of the reviews of orchestral recordings have caught my attention as they deal with a subject in which I am particularly interested. I am a firm believer in the almost invaluable assistance of the phono- graph in the study of orchestration, the structure of music, and the art and science of conducting. Often I notice that a reviewer mentions records which are especially helpful to music students and to others interested in grounding them- selves in the technical side of music. I hope that these remarks will be continued and even stressed to a greater extent, in order that more and more people may be made aware of the abilities of the phonograph in this part of educational work. The art of score reading seems to be almost lost among Americans other than those making a special study in a conservatory or university. The vast majority of concert- goers, while often willing and eager to attend appreciation lectures, make no effort to study or to learn the actual music of orchestral works before going to hear them performed. A concert hall performance cannot be appreciated or estimated unless one knows the work played thoroughly: that is only common sense. Yet what effort is usually made to know the works? My experience with the phonograph in bettering my own and other’s knowledge of musical works is of course but one out of thousands. While as yet there is no Phonograph Society in this city, for some time a few of my friends and I (for the most part music students) have made a systematic practice of meeting one evening every other week and study- ing recordings of symphonic works with the miniature scores. Works which are being studied by the members of our group or which are being played by the Symphony Orchestra are given first choice, and of course we are further restricted to recordings which are in the libraries we own or have access to. One person, well acquainted with the work to be played, studies the score carefully beforehand and points out to the others the significant details of the orchestration and the con- struction. Points of unusual interest are played over several times and carefully analyzed. It must not be thought that there is anything formal or pedagogical about this. The group is small, often only three or four, and the primary purpose is enjoyment. But we be- lieve that one enjoys more by knowing more. Certain works meant little or nothing to me until I had heard them played over and over and the principal points of the form and the instrumentation discussed and debated over. We had a pleasurable time doing this and also learned something of real value. May I advise the readers of The Phonograph Monthly Review who do not already use the Philharmonia or Eulen- berg miniature scores of symphonies, etc., in connection with the recordings to begin doing so. The art of score reading, for all its complexity, can easily be learned, at all events enough to “spell through” a work and get something new from it. Books on orchestration and score reading are num- erous and many of them are intended for the beginner The score without the performance is only an abstract thing and the performance without the score is only a more or less confused mass of sounds. But the two together, especially in the comfort of one’s own home with the opportunity to hear and enjoy in leisure, is music in all its fullness and completeness. Phonograph owners have the sounded music available; they should not neglect the written music. J. K. Martin. Detroit, Michigan. Editor, The Phonograph Monthly Review: Allow me to ask why you devote attention to Polydor and other foreign records which are not easily obtainable in this country? R. F. Field. Cleveland, Ohio. Editor’s Note : Polydor records are sent to us for review and they have been and constantly are being purchased by the leading record collectors in this country. American re- cordings always deserve our first attention, but the musical and mechanical virtues of the others forbid that we ignore them. We feel that they do not receive more consideration than they are entitled to. ^hono^raph Activities Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: I am inclosing a program which I * presented here in my studio on the evening of December first. You may care to publish it as you are calling for such programs. This locality unfortunately does not present possibilities for organizing a gramophone society. I regret it very much, but can not help it. I can only play what little I have for those few who are interested. Accordingly, only a small number of auditors attended this program. Enthusiasm was strong among those present.