Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1927-12)

84 The Phonograph Monthly Review *6 t 1 — arranged again and the old works were still in their honored positions, he smiled broadly, and I knew as well as he that I could never do away with those old friends. Recent contributors to our columns have dis- played an attitude toward the old recordings that has ranged from slighting to almost contemptu- ous. It is easy to term them antequated now, but just think for a moment of what courage and far- sightedness it took in those days to issue sym- phonic works. Think of the Columbia Company's daring to make the investment that paved the way for the historic first batch of seven master- work albums. Remember what a furore these now “obsolete” records did to lead the way to the master recordings of today. I, for one, shall al- ways unashamedly treasure those seven old sets and honor them as the real pioneers of the new era we now enjoy. The new Victor version of the Franck Sym- phony shows a progress that is almost unbeliev- able. But it also reminds me of several years ago when I bore home the old acoustic Columbia set, the first recorded version available. It was on a Saturday evening and I remember distinctly the discreetway in which I smuggled it into the house, as there were certain commodities which friend wife considered more necessary than “more rec- ords” to augment an already fairly complete li- brary. On Sunday I coaxed her to go for an all day visit to a friend in order to leave the field clear for the new symphony, which I first put on the phonograph at eight in the morning and which I was still playing half an hour after mid- night. How I did enjoy that recording! All the splendors of the new one cannot make me forget the enjoyment of the old. Or take for example the acoustic masterworks set of Dvorak's New World Symphony, conducted by Harty, and compare it with any other record- ed version of that work released since. As far as interpretation is concerned it is impossible to sur- pass. Even in the new version issued this month, the marvellous improvements in many ways can- not blind us to the fact that even Sir Hamilton himself cannot better his old reading. The Sto- kowski set of this work, issued over a year ago, was most useful in opening the eyes of some of those unaware of the phonograph's mechanical powers. Of course Sir Landon Ronald's sets, both old and new, are out of the question. I have always given our English cousins credit for their good musical taste, but I am surprised at the pro- test several of my British friends made over my recent comment on the new Ronald version (Gen- eral Review, October issue). I still maintain the justice of my estimate of the demerits of the work and am willing to analyze the composition with all comers. If nothing else, I know my Dvorak No. 5 bar by bar and note by note, and from conversations with the late composer after his return to Europe from America, I know ex- actly the “program” he had in mind when he composed this symphony. Three years ago when the first Columbia ver- sion was released, I bought a set to send to my December, 1927 n sv father in Copenhagen. Being aware of his great admiration for the composer, I burned the mid- night oil for several nights to write what I con- sidered a through and through annotation of the entire work. As Dvorak said himself,“ No one but a foreigner who has lived in these great United States can read my innermost thought through this music.” He must have learned to realize that regardless of how well he does ma- terially, there is always (and always will be) the longing for those dear at home where he was born and reared.” Indeed that is the truth! At one time the New World Symphony was the subject of heated discussion and debate; it aroused antagonism there, but now, as the anno- tator to the Victor set rightfully says, it “has been assimilated into the collective body of mus- ical works which we have come to regard as prop- erly in the repertoire of every symphony orches- tra; old prejudices and opinions are forgotten in the extraordinary charm of the music itself.” My father, who had admired the work from the very first, found it almost impossible to be- lieve me when I informed him that one of our leading American critics—internationally known —had claimed that the New World Symphony was not even worthwhile music. In my annota- tion to the work I mentioned this critic by name and referred to him further as a “jackass!” It so happened that my father read the paper (which was written in the Danish language of course) at a concert he was giving for the old orchestra men in the hall of the Copenhagen Musicians' Union, and that the Editor of a lead- ing music publication was present. He asked my father for permission to look over the paper, with the consequence that I received an in- describable shock of surprise a month or so later when I received an issue of this Editor's maga- zine containing the annotation which I had writ- ten, not for publication, but simply to convey my personal impressions of the New World Sym- phony to my father who, as I knew, shared my admiration for it. Without either my father's or my approval or knowledge the Editor had pub- lished the paper intended for my father alone. Evidently the Editor took my caustic epithet, “jackass” for an American compliment, for it was preserved untranslated in the published ar- ticle and also in the translation into seven or eight other languages which were made from it. My embarrassment can easily be understood when I met the critic so designated in New York later and was thanked for my “compliment” to him! Well, I'm glad it happened, since it may have given some learned critics and would-be critics a little lesson against writing about works which they do not understand and know nothing about. P. H. please take notice!