Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1928-10)

October, 1928 The Phonograph Monthly Review 17 Correspondence Column 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 CORRESPONDENT COLUMN, Editorial Department, The Phonograph Monthly Review, 47 Hampstead Road, Jamaica Plain, Boston, Mass. THE ORCHESTRAL BATTLEGROUND Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: I have curbed my occasional disposition to comment or to contribute to this department, but perhaps this is a good time to make an exception. My thoughts run on thus: what is the true problem of conductors, when they approach an orchestral composition? Primarily, there must be considered, not only the composer, but his time, and the attributes significant of that time, even if he is generally accepted as “before his time.” If one then approaches, say, Haydn, Mozart, Rameau, or Donizetti, the outlook is comparatively clear and void of any great daunting qualities. The fact is, that these men and others whom they represent, as a type, wrote extremely in the fashion, stylistic- ally. Any exceptions which could be quoted would not change this general truth. Beethoven did something to evolve freedom from this restriction, though he by no means attained it. The grand architectural structure of his music was merely a step toward plasticity, and that he did not achieve a greater measure of it than can be discerned in his personality, is not his fault, but because his life was not long enough, not to mention the lamentable loss of his hear- ing. When I comment on his shortness of life, I do not limit the years to a possible seventy, or eighty, but rather to some time above the one hundred mark. Even though this age is not common, the obvious conclusion is the various types of dissipation set against it. Now, to assume the above men as representing the music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the problem of the conductor is mostly routine, technical. His reading can not be highly personal, if he remains on the good side of orthodoxy. A peculiar case is existent in Wagner. He is more than is usually admitted to be of his time, but nevertheless, his invertive personality is hypnotic; the very force of the plas- tic line in his musjc carries with it the necessity for strict adherence to what many call “tradition,” meaning (if they do not mean it, they should) that the passion which insepar- able from his arpegii and chromatics limits the interpretative temperament to a narrow band of color. Passing with broad chronological consecution on to the composers of this time, we may note an enlargement of the mechanics of technic, although the same old human “earth- bound” traits remain, and shall always be as long as we are human. But now we may see that much of our music is cap- able of being read with variants on the plain markings in the score. A passionate symphony of Miascovski might be a much different work in two different hands. An English symphony of Vaughan-Williams, with its architecture and dances, may receive the corresponding sympathetic treatment which those two arts could happily obtain separately. The dry color of Honegger is adaptable to multi-personality. The modest sensuosity of Sowerby’s music is built on a tremen- dous technic, and may remain very personal to the inter- preter, despite the meticulous markings of the score. It is noticeable that the readings of contemporary music hardly become stereotyped. If desired, even, it is not pos- sible, fortunately. One may say that these compositions are not performed often enough to become so. The Cleveland Symphony Orchestra is to be commended on its bringing forth the Rachmaninoff Second. Not merely because of whose work it is, but the fact that it is a large work of this day. One wishes that the Bax E flat minor symphony would be recorded. Whether or no Mr. Stock has the sympathy for this work which it has been stated by sev- eral that.he lacks in the last part of his Tschaikowski, he did an excellent job in the performance this last season. The Bax is warlike and utterly unlike the composer as he is known in most of his previous works. The Miascovski Seventh Symphony in one movement is impressive and would be much liked by many record buyers. If the Pastorale d’Ete of Honegger is not recorded, it should be. It would probably take two sides of a ten inch record. His Two Pieces for Organ (Fugue and Choral) are lovely and organis- tic, although he is not an organist himself. The organ works of Sowerby present several fine opportunities for recording, preferably by the composer. His orchestral music is of a type which records well. To pass over the symphonies, we may take his Suite, From the Northland, Ballad on the legend of King Estmere (two pianos and orchestra), and Medieval Poem (organ and orchestra). Several lighter works from the same man would be very popular. It is to be hoped that someone will record some of these younger things, following in the path now being blazed by Mr. Sokoloff. In completion of the above arguments, it is encouraging, that, though the master of composition tells his pupils to mark his music thoroughly with agogics and dynamics, the tendency of all this same music is to be plastic, making a field for the discussion of the difference in certain conduc- tor’s readings. The discussion shall never end. It is good. Chicago, Illinois. Ernest Brooks. THE TCHAIKOWSKY TRIO AGAIN Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: Apparently it is not safe to write to correspondence col- umns; but, as my letter in the July issue has given one Karl S. a false impression, I must write once more for the benefit of those who may be interested in and who are not familiar with the score of Tchaikowsky’s Trio, Op. 50. First let me make it perfectly clear that I had no intention of “condemning” this set as incomplete or even criticizing the Columbia Company for making the cut or omissions. I consider the set satisfactory in every way and it is long enough for anyone. I do not wish to appear pedantic and I do not expect records to contain every note in a com- position, especially extended works. I do, however, and so does every serious student, like to know whether phonograph records represent the complete score, and if not, of what the cuts consist. This is a point of interest which the re- viewers sometimes overlook, as they did in this case. It is true that the pages omitted are usually omitted in a concert presentation; but, I am at loss to know what Mr. Karl S. means when he says that a repetition may not be observed and a performance escape being branded cut. If he means a “repeat”, i.e., a section enclosed with repeat marks, he is perfectly correct; but if he is familiar with the score, he knows that the cut to which I referred does not constitute a repeat. My use of the word “repetition ’ may have been misleading. What I meant is that the eight measures cut are exactly the same as the eight measures just preceeding. Phases repeated in other parts of the Trio, sometimes to the point of monotony, escaped the blue pencil, therefore. I could see no logical reason for this particular cut, as there is plenty of space on the record. However, it is a small matter and of interest only to stu- dents or music-study clubs who use phonograph records for study purposes, and I trust that this time I have made my- self clear enough for all degrees of intelligence. Schenectady, N. Y. R- G. Waite. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RACHMANINOFF SET Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: With my last letter of a few months ago, I thought I had gotten off my chest all I wanted to say for a while, but new developments cause me to come out of my retirement. I shall begin by giving three cheers and a tiger for Brunswick, following the release of Rachmaninoff’s 2nd Symphony. Other readers will be expressing themselves in like manner, and I think that Brunswick should know that they have done some- thing out of the ordinary and should feel encouraged to keep up the good work in the future. Had Victor or Columbia, with their large catalogues, issued an unhackneyed work of such length, it would not have occasioned so much surprise, but for Brunswick, only a beginner and with all the incentive in the world to stock up with old war-horses, to take such a step calls for commendation, though I suspect that they knew what they were doing. I bought the set and find my-