Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 1, No. 5 (1927-02)

220 The Phonograph Monthly Review The Editor does not accept any responsibility for opinions expressed by correspondents. No notice will be taken of un- signed letters, but only initials or a pseudonym will be printed if the writer so desires. Contributions of general interest to our readers are welcomed. They should be brief and writ- ten on one side of the paper only. Address all letters, to CORRESPONDENCE COLUMN, Editorial Department, The Phonograph Monthly Review, 64 Hyde Park Avenue, Boston, Mass. Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: In your “General Review” for last month I note with surprise the old topic of “Creative vs. Interpretative Artist” brought up. I had thought that question abandoned long ago as utterly unanswerable. The composer writes as he wishes to write, as the spirit within him demands, and the conductor or performer interprets the composition in accord- ance with the spirit of the work as he feels it. Consequently there are two personalities involved. When these two har- monize the work is completely and adequately expressed. If one or the other predominates or clashes with the other, there is left a feeling of dissatisfaction. Of course no conductor can see through the eyes of the composer or any two conductors interpret a composition in exactly the same way. But that is no excuse for playing a Mozart symphony, for example, like a Strauss tone poem. Intelligence and musicianship are aH that are needed. There can be no general rule; every interpretation must be considered on its own merits. In the harmonious marriage of interpreter and creator is the true perfection. In other words, debate and discussion are futile. Go to the performance or buy the records; hear and ponder. There is something in every performance, in every work, to make us feel the smallness, the inanity of mere words beside the eternal living flame of the music itself. J. 0. B. New Haven, Conn. Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: Perhaps I may be permitted to answer the questions regarding conductors and composers in January’s General Review. 1. The conductor certainly should try to “look at the composition through the eyes of the composer,” but once he has got the composer’s idea, there is no reason he should not elaborate upon it with the resources now available that were not available to the composer. Otherwise, how could any progress be made? 2. “Expression” must be in harmony with the spirit of the work, but not necessarily with the spirit of the composer. Strawinsky is supposed to have accused Koussevitsky of play- ing the Symphony for Wind Instruments with expression when he had particularly requested that there should be no varia- tions other than forte and piano. That is nonsense. Straw- insky finished his part when he wrote the score and marked his fortes and pianos. When played, the conductor was per- fectly at liberty to use “expression” in harmony with the spirit of the work, even although it conflicted with the spirit of the composer. Without expression, it would be a perfor- mance, not an interpretation. 3. The composing ability and the conducting ability do occasionally appear in one man, but always unevenly. Mahler, Berlioz, and Strauss might be mentioned and they are hardly “ideal.” 4. A wise distinction is drawn between elaborating upon a Beethoven Symphony and a Strauss Waltz. Surely the nature of the music is the thing to be considered. 5. The Editor’s friend must surely be convinced of his mistake in considering English Symphony recordings “flat and inexpressive” on hearing the works mentioned. Of course, balance was harder to achieve with the old process, but it can hardly be said to be lacking in the works referred to. Coates’ Tchaikowsky’s Fifth has color also, but it is rather a remarkable exception. 6. Certainly a trained musician can “judge from the score of a given work the composer’s intentions of the way it should be performed.” But does he always want to conform to those intentions? And why should he? A realistic com- poser like Weingartner might, where a romantic one like Nikisch wouldn’t. And both are right and the latter is often more interesting! 7. It doesn’t seem to me that brilliance in music is valu- able only for the sake of “creating a clearer picture or making a point better understood”; it’s exciting and admirable many times for its own sake. Virtuosity, if it isn’t mere “showing off,” is very valuable, I think. Personally, like the Editor’s friend, I am unschooled musically, and what is authentic and “correct” is of little value to me if it doesn’t move me and make me feel the real dramatic bigness of the work. It is said that Rubin- stein made many mistakes, but played with such inspiration that no one noticed them. Most of us can judge only by ourselves and if after we come from a wonderful concert or hear a great recording the critics tell us it is all wrong and the conductor didn’t know his business, etc., then so much the worse for the critics! When we know as much as they are supposed to know, perhaps “incorrectness” will hurt us, too. But till then let us enjoy while we may! John Robertson. Lcs Angeles, Calif. Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: My dear Sir: Thanks to your magazine, our troubles are now coming to the surface. Mr. Schwartz and V.F., and I suppose a thousand more of us have an opportunity now of giving an idea of the utter ignorance on the part of the salespersons of the average record stores on their own products. They want sales, and the “Jazz Customer” coming in every week for two or three snappy numbers is the one they are after, but they forget that when one of us “pestiferous” customers comes in, the symphony or suite we take out will balance ten of the popular numbers they sell. And you know the fascination the gramophile has in each new delight coming from the companies. One instance, to be specific, may serve well to illustrate just one of the many annoyances we are up against. We ask for a number just a little out of the ordinary. As a reply we get two stock answers, “Out of it just now” or else “We do not carry it; there is no demand”. In a store here in Cleveland that prides itself on its “Record Service” I asked for the Columbia Masterworks, set No. 5. Rum- maging around through a miscellaneous mess of packages the clerk brought out a package marked 5 in red in the corner. Opening it I discovered it to be the 5th (New World) of Dvorak recorded by Stokowski and the Philadel- phians, a set that I had no previous knowledge of. Telling her I wanted the Columbia No. 5, I handed it back to her. “Isn’t that it? No. 5 is what you asked for wasn’t it?” was the rather pert reply. Patiently explaining that No. 5 Masterworks—Tchaikowsky’s Pathetique Symphony Colum- bia was quite different from symphony No. 5 of Dvorak, I left, and Columbia and Victor both lost a sale. Now the point to this tale is that this clerk sold me three or four previous masterworks sets and knew I was interested in such things, but did she let me know there was a release of the New World by Victor? She did not! I found it then acci- dentally, and no doubt would have heard of it sooner or later, but no record salesperson would have given me the informa- tion. Now I deal with another company that gives me better service but still most of it is because I know in advance what I am after. One poor old down-at-the-heel dealer I stopped in with one evening informed me the record business had gone to Hades. Had only sold two or three 12 inch records in the last six months. All ten-inch business, and not much of that, so the sooner he gets out of the business the better will the ones profit that do make an effort to sell. Now a word of praise for your magazine. It is the thing I have looked forward to for years, after the musty old treatises in the library, etc. May we have our day after the radio has opened a path for the thousands who have never had a chance to hear the great orchestral works of the masters, and that are now being recorded by the Columbia, Victor, and Polydor. Success to you in the New Year and if you can get some advertisers to take some of the financial load off the mechanical end of producing the magazine, “here’s to your very good health.” Yours sincerely, R. J. B. Cleveland, Ohio.