Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 2, No. 7 (1928-04)

The Phonograph Monthly Review 245 April, 1928 isolated middle movements, badly cut, with a few of the most popular lieder and piano and violin pieces, were the extent of their departure from the arias and ballads which they believed most people wanted. Worse still, when the Brunswick company did allow the Elshuco Trio to record a middle movement from Brahms, some- thing on the order of (Drink to Me Only with Thine Eyes) had to be coupled with it, so that everybody was unhappy.” Did you see that delightful play, “Captain Applejack”? If so, then you know the appropriate comment on the foregoing: “A statement of fact, but its application eludes me.” For Mr. Haggin blandly chooses to overlook so much. (It is from motives of charity that I say “chooses to overlook”; he cannot be so un- informed.) His unfairness is not in what he says but in what he implies. He implies that fifty years after its invention, all the phonograph had to show by way of repertory was a few badly mauled excerpts from the more popular classics. Surely Mr. Haggin knows that until 1925 there was in universal use the old, now discarded system of acoustical recording, which could record no tone lower than middle C; that in 1925 the new system of electrical recording was invented, whereby it has become possible to re- cord in proper proportion all musical tones; that in consequence of this revolution in the phono- graph industry the leading companies have thrown overboard their entire record catalogues representing a quarter century of effort and have undertaken the tremendous task of recording de novo the major musical works. Though first intro- duced in 1925, it was not until February, 1927 that the Victor Talking Machine Company con- sidered electrical recording sufficiently perfected to justify the introduction of its new series of Musical Masterpiece albums. Any fair estimate of recorded music must recognize all these facts; but especially the fact that modern recording be- gan only the day before yesterday. Before we consider what recording already has done, let us remark in passing that the phono- graph companies did not record the major musi- cal works more extensively in the old days be- cause there was then only a limited market for them. Phonograph companies, like every busi- ness, are necessarily conducted for profit; and the market was limited because of the short- comings of acoustical recording. Once the ability of electrical recording became known a huge de- mand for the better class of records came into existence almost over night. Why Mr. Haggin chose to single out, for special mention, the Brunswick record of which he speaks, I cannot imagine. For reasons of its own the Brunswick did not until quite recently go in extensively for recordings of complete musical works. Historical accuracy, however, compels one to say that, at the very time of which Mr. Haggin speaks, there were in the catalogue of the Columbia Company a number of complete recordings of string quar- tets and other chamber music. . . 1 " L - —J! !=■ 1 -H " In the fourteen months that have passed since it began the issue of its new series of Musical Masterpiece recordings the Victor Company has released twenty-six works, besides a great num- ber of shorter pieces; not to mention the field of celebrity recordings, in which it continues with distinction to maintain the position it has enjoyed for twenty-five years. Further, as stated in its announcement in the March issue of The Review, the Victor Company “has undertaken the task of recording, in its entirety, every outstanding opus of the great composers. It has called upon the most renowned artists and orchestras of the world to interpret these compositions.” Have these facts, perhaps, escaped Mr Haggin’s atten- tion? Then he is greatly the loser thereby. Does Mr. Haggin not know that the Columbia Phonograph Company has contracted to record performances of the Wagner Festival at Bay- reuth over a period of years, and as its first release has just issued eleven magnificent records from Parsifal, Siegfried, Das Rheingold, and Die Walfmre ? Or perhaps these are merely “among the more popular or ordinary concert perfor- mances” ! Has Mr. Haggin—and others of like opinion— never read a catalogue of the Columbia Master- works series; and does he not know that although modern (electrical) recording is less than two years old this library already contains more than forty major musical works, completely and elec- trically recorded? Does he not know in this brief space of time Columbia has not only recorded symphonies, sonatas, trios, quartets, and mis- cellaneous works by composers from Haydn to Ravel; but has actually done in imperishable form the nine symphonies of Beethoven, together with ten of his string quartets, five sonatas, and a trio! Year before last the leading companies began to plan their new record repertories. Science had at last made it possible to record and re- produce music as performed by great artists and organizations. Knowledge of this achievement had begun to awaken a strong demand for re- cordings of the best works. Confronted by the problem, what to record first, what did they chose out of “all the music of all the world”? Naturally, recording artists and engineers alike are only human; and but a fragment of this great under- taking which will require decades for fulfillment, could be accomplished immediately. The com- panies, it seems to me, chose the path of wisdom. They decided to render honor where honor was due; they decided to record first the outstanding works of the greatest composers, from Bach to Strawinski. That first march in the long cam- paign of achievement is still under way; but what milestones mark its course: Stokowski with his Brahms First and the Cesar Franck; Coates and the Eroica; Fritz Kreisler playing the Beethoven Concerto with the State Opera Orchestra of Ber- lin; Karl Muck conducting Parsifal! Each month brings to us—much faster, alas! than the average purse can keep pace—new addi-