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

The Phonograph Monthly Review 181 ^ai i 1 ' 1 ■■ —— a musical composition in his interpretation through the eyes oj the composer? After all, doesn’t music have ambiguous meanings just as words, and doesn’t it therefore follow that no two conductors can interpret a composition in exactly the same way ? “It seems to me that the conductor who can interpret with such expression as Stokowski has achieved really achieves the ultimate, and, perhaps, reaches greater heights than the composer had ever dreamed. To me, it is as true of music as of speech that the same words spoken by two equally intelligent individuals may be vastly different in their interpretation and in their impressiveness. Woodrow Wilson may have been a brilliant writer. However, his speeches could not be compared to those of William Jennings Bryan from the interpretative point of view. A speech written by Wilson and delivered by Bryan, to my way of thinking, would approach perfection. You will recall that Gladstone was a great speaker, but when his speeches were read from the printed page, they were found to be mediocre. Their entire force lay in the dominant personality of the man and his manner of delivery. “Beethoven, in his time, perhaps never conceived of a Symphony Orchestra of more than fifty instruments. In our present day, when Symphonies more than double this figure, it is natural that the interpretation should achieve greater brilliance. It is also quite possible that could Beethoven hear one of his famous Symphonies by any one of the most famous of our organizations, he would exclaim, ‘they have exceeded my fondest hope in the art of interpretation.’ The art of interpretation is more than technical excellence, it also implies correct emphasis. “You must remember that my point of view is that of an average individual who has no musical schooling other than through the ear. To me, the majority of English Symphony recordings seem flat, unexpressive, lacking in balance, and with scarcely more emphasis on the more dramatic parts than in those descriptive of mild scenes or action. “I know that I have taken up a lot of your time, and all that I have tried to express is simply this: can any musician say that a composer intended that this composition should be played in this or that way? If brilliance in music, just as vocal tones in oratory, within reasonable bounds, create a clever picture or make a point better understood, isn’t it most desirable that our music be so interpreted, or that the spoken word be delivered with force?” There is not the space here for an extended reply to the points brought up in this letter; I can confidently predict that this is the beginning of a most helpful discussion to which I hope many readers will join in. However, for the present there are a few questions I wish to propose to match the questions my friend asks in his letter. First, does not the merit of a conductor grow in proportion to the degree he endeavors to and succeeds in “looking at the composition through the eyes of the composer,” insofar as possible? Can “expression” that is not in harmony with the spirit of the composer and his work lift the work to “greater heights than the composer had ever dreamed?” Would not the ideal mentioned be the combination of the composing ability and the interpretative ability in one man? Admitting that a Beethoven Symphony may be improved by judicious “doubling,” does not the titanic character of the music give a warrant for this? On the other hand, does the character of a Strauss waltz demand or even allow expansion? Can the writer listen to the last movement of Tchaikowsky’s Fifth Symphony ( Victor ) reviewed in this issue or to Mozart’s Symphony #35 in D {Columbia), also reviewed this month, and "still say that he finds English Symphony recordings “flat, unexpressive, and lacking in balance?” Cannot a trained musician familiar with other works of a composer judge from the score of a given work the com- poser’s intention of the way it should be performed? Isn’t brilliance in music desirable only as it “creates a clearer picture or makes a point better understood?” I hope that these questions on the subjects which my friend has brought up—and for which ~~~ ' — - — ■- ' ■ . -ii sy- I am very grateful to him—will arouse thought and discussion among many music lovers. The relationship of the interpretative artist to the creative artist is one of the most important things in all art. Every one should give thought to it. In conclusion I should like to add that I con- sider the Blue Danube oj Strauss as played by Stokowski for Victor to have had a truly wonder- ful influence in waking up many people to the attraction of orchestral music. I repeat, the rec- ord is more Stokowski than Strauss, but it is Stokowski that we need most today in educa- tional work. The orchestral and interpretative brilliance seizes the attention of thousands of persons who would be untouched by another reading. The value of this record cannot be over- estimated. It may not be remembered a few years from now, but it will have played a large part in bringing about the advance in music apprecia- tion over that of today that will exist then. Axel B. Johnson . ^e-Reviews VICTOR (Music Arts Library) Nos. 55281-6 Tchaikowsky: Symphony No. 5 in E Minor. 6 D12s Al. Price $9.50. Symphony Orchestra conducted by Albert Coates. (Recorded without cuts.) Tchaikowsky’s Fifth, although less familiar to the average concert-goer than the Fourth and the Pathetique, is ranked as the finest of all the melancholy, self-tortured composer’s works. It finely represents all that is highest and best in his uneven genius and is marked by an artistic restraint and strength unequalled in any of his other compositions. The themes are simple, vigorous, and rich with possibilities. And here Tchaikowsky has made the most of the possibilities- which so often he discloses only to fail to realize. Here every opportunity is firmly, seized and the work is developed with an ever-increasing wealth of orchestral imagination and ingenuity. And for. once the emotional and psychological effect left on the listener is unified, powerful, and of true nobility and character. Albert Coates who has conducted this recording has a remarkable list of records to his credit. As perhaps no other conductor has done so consistently, he has succeeded in getting the spirit and the . very dramatic life of the actual performance into his recordings. Strangely enough, one never thinks of the mechanical side of his works, because they are always perfectly adapted to the performance and never obtrude their merits to the detriment of the music itself. Whether the electrical process is used (as in the recent Wagnerian works) or the old process (as in this case), Coates always concentrates the attention and admiration of the hearer on the composition played. This recording is a remarkable monument not only to the genius of Tchaikowsky, but also to the genius of Mr. Coates and the Victor recording. This particular set happens to have been made at least two and a half years ago, but it is more valuable and even more desirable today than it was on the date of its issue when it was hailed as the last word in symphonic recording. In spite of all the improvements and further “last words” since that time, and in spite of all the imposing splendor of volume and clarity of the new process recordings, it is hard to comprehend anything ever surpassing this work. Even in the tone coloring there is a beauty and naturalness that will outlast all the changes in processes of today and tomorrow. The old method at its best, as it is here, has something that will never be obtained by any other method. He is poor indeed who does not own a set like this by which to set his standards. The difficulties of both performance and recording make- excessive demands on orchestra, conductor, and recorder. The earth-shaking last movement—surely one of the highest