Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 2, No. 10 (1928-07)

376 The Phonograph Monthly Review July, 1928 would discover that I made no attempt to excuse the prac- tice of one artist’s singing two roles on the same record (which I and every one will readily conceed to be truly inartistic). What I did try to do, and I am sorry if my purpose was not clearly evident, was to object most strenu- ously to Mr. Aleman’s condemnation of the record in that he gave a very one-sided impression of it to any one who had not heard the disk itself. If he had added to his expose of the dual role and his rightful indignation, a few words about the merits of Chalipan’s voice, his dramatic interpretation, and the magnificence of the recording, I should have had no occasion to write as I did. But he said nothing at all about these factors, and a person reading his letter would naturally get the idea that the entire record was altogether “rotten,” which I still think is a very unjust criticism, and which Mr. Aleman must think, too, for he now is careful to point out that such criticism applies only to Chaliapin’s taking a dual role, a distinction which he did not make before. Of course it is quite evident that we are arguing on en- tirely opposite grounds. But I believe that a record should rightfully be judged in all its aspects, its sins must be condemned vigorously, but not without due credit being given for its virtues. Chaliapin’s Don Quichotte Finale is admittedly ridiculous from the point of view of a single artist in two separate roles; the Victor Company should be censured both for* allowing this and for making no mention of it on the label. But, to stop there is to show oneself pre- judiced and unjust to the actual merits of the work, acclaimed by Herman Klein, whose eminence as an operatic critic even an expert like Mr. Aleman will grant, as “perhaps the finest piece of voice recording that H. M. V. has ever issued to the public.” Mr. Aleman is a little unkind in stating that I follow the general idea in opera, to care about the voice and nothing else. “A record is magnificent if the voice of the singer is loud, even if the artist is singing something quite different from that what is written on the label.” From what does he draw the conclusion? Certainly not from the actual words of * i my letter, whose purpose was, as I carefully pointed out, “to correct an impression which some of your readers may have been given of a true recorded masterpiece.” I regret as much as Mr. Aleman that such splendid singing and record- ing should not have been employed to more artistic advant- age (i. e. with another artist to sing Sancho), but, after all, when the fault is done, and the record issued, let us enjoy what we may of it. As to Mr. Aleman’s reference to my waiting six months to express my indignation, in justice to myself I must state that I had waited patiently for some one else to answer him. When no one else did, and when foreign reviews of the record became available, I reluctantly assumed the task myself. My letter was written two months before it appeared in print, and I was informed that owing to a large supply of material on hand for the Correspondence Column it had to be held back to await its turn for publication. Montreal, Canada T. M. W. A FACETIOUS VIEW Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: Chuckling over Mr. Aleman’s amusing conceit of an all- Chaliapin cast for Tosca, I recalled an old Buster Keaton film wherein the frozen-faced comedian gave a theatrical performance in which trick photography enabled him to play all the parts, to conduct the orchestra, sell programs, and constitute the entire* audience—which consisted of rows and rows of Buster Keatons, all alike! Chaliapin might try a similar trick on records sometime. On played piano rolls such feats are possible and are often performed. Percy Grainger, for example, will make a six-hand arrangement of one of his pieces, record first the lowest pair of hands, then the topmost, and finally give the whole affair in concert with the roll performing his recorded versions of four pairs of hands, and he himself (“in person”) playing the middle pair! What would Mr. Aleman say to that, I wonder? Roxbury, Mass. “Bystander” SUPPORT FOR MR. ALEMAN Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: “Chaliapin urges his audience to glance over the words of the song as he announces them if they wish fully to enjoy his singing. In his opinion no one should listen to a song sung in a foreign language unless he knows the motive that inspired the composer.” (from a Chaliapin program.) From November 1927 to May 1928 is 6 months and it has taken all that time for an indignant Montreal reader T. M. W. to reply to Mr. Ricardo M. Aleman’s letter. T. M. W. calls it a reply but it is no more a reply than a sow’s ear is a silk purse Mr. Aleman called Chaliapin’s Don Quichotte record un- artistic. It is. Mr. Aleman knows what he writes. T. M. W. does not. I have both November 1927 and May 1928 issues of your worthwhile magazine before me as I write this leter and have read again the leters of T. M. W. and Ricardo M. Aleman. Mr. Aleman wrote that it is difficult to tell whether Chaliapin is a Baritone or a Bass. That is true. Some few years ago in an article called “Roles,” in the Ladies Home Journal, Chaliapin said, “Basso though I am, my voice goes up to E above the tenor high C.” What a treat it would be for T. M. W. if Chaliapin had also attempted the Soprano part near the end of the record, and thus sung three parts instead of the two he did sing. The nonsense of it is what made Mr. Aleman write his splendid letter. I, for one, am thankful to him for writing and for you to printing it. As for T. M. W. pitying Mr. Aleman, pardon me while I laugh. Montreal is a bi-lingual city with street signs, railroad time- tables, etc., in English and French. I would suggest that T. M. W. make good use of his time if he lives there by learning the French language, and then he would know. (But maybe T. M. W. is one of the fair sex.) Better look out because Mr. Aleman knows his, and “plenteh.” Worcester, Mass. J. H. Brown RECORDS OF THE SINFONIA DOMESTICA Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: In the recent catalogue of a record shop I notice the following: Strauss —“Sinfonia Domestica” Opus 53, by the Symphony Orchestra. Berlin—Eduard Morike, director. Five Parlophone 12 inch double records—$7.50. This was a surprise to me, as I thought this was one of the unrecorded works of Strauss. However, I do not wish to send for the set until I hear your* comments on it. Will it be reviewed in a coming number of the “Review,” or can you advise me? Lakeville, Conn. F. Judd Cooke Editor’s Note: We have been informed that there is a recording of this work, made just before the era of electrical recording, and that it was an excellent example of the acoustical process. As it is not listed in any Parlophone catalogue we possess, apparently has never been given general distribution, and was never heard at the Studio for review, we have given no mention of it. There can be no question, however, that Morike would give an excellent performance. Can it be complete on only five disks? An electrical re- recording would be welcome, and possibly may be expected before long. A NOTE ON THE TCHAIKOWSKY TRIO Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: I have just reached the Tschaikowsky Trio, Op. 50, on my long list of “Records Which I Simply Must Have.” In the Oct. 1927 issue of Phonograph your reviewer states that it is the first complete recording of this work, and makes no other comment regarding the score. The recording is not complete. There is a short cut of 8 measures on side 8, on page 66 of the Eulenberg score. True, the measures omitted are a repetition of the eight measures just preceding, but I see no logical reason for the cut as there is plenty of space on the record. The other cut is in the final variation and is justified, I suppose, by a note on page 88 of the score. “On peut passer directment du signe au signe (page 104)”, which, no doubt, was recommended by the composer. This cut consists of the last two measures on page 66, all of pages 89 to 103, and the first 6 measures on page 104. I write in the belief that some of your readers, who are not familiar with the work, may be interested to know that the records do not represent the complete score. Schenectady, N. Y. R. G. Waite