Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 3, No. 6 (1929-03)

March, 1929 The Phonograph Monthly Review 185 Recording Conductors By ROBERT DONALDSON DARRELL Some American Conductors A LTHOUGH the leading conductors in this country are with very few exceptions American by residence rather than by birth, they have none the less closely identified themselves as integral parts of our musical life. A majority of them have conducted at one time ori another for recordings. Many have done so only in Europe, how- ever, and their records are more or less unfamiliar here. It may be of interest to make a brief survey of the con- ductors actively practising in this country and to determine at least approximately their phonographic significance or potentialities. Stokowski, Koussevitzky, Mengelberg, Stock and Soko- loff have already been the subject of considerable discus- sion in these pages. For the present it is needless to dwell upon them further. Among the older men are Toscanini, Damrosch, and Herz, all of whom are familiar figures in American concert halls and by no means strangers to the recording studios. Yet the first—and I think it will be taken for granted also the greatest—of them, Artur Toscanini, the incomparable, is represented in electrically recorded works by only a single disk, the memorable Brunswick record of the scherzo and nocturne from Mendelssohn’s Midsummer Night’s Dream music. Granted its many merits (I have yet to hear a superior performance of the scherzo), it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said truly to reflect Toscanini’s artistic stature. Nor do the acoustical recordings in the Victor historical list indicate the full panorama of his genius. And yet they were treasure trove in the old days of the phonograph. It is still impossible to play his versions of Ihe finales of Beethoven’s First and Fifth, the Galilei Gagliarda, or the excerpt from Pizzetti’s La Pisanella without a thrill of pleasure. Toscanini has suddenly grown old of late. He is by no means a well man, nor the easiest in the world to “get along” with his orchestras. Small wonder that the phonograph companies should contemplate the prospect of his playing for recording with anticipations that. could hardly be termed pleasurable. But without at least one major work from his baton recorded literature is historically and artistically incomplete. Toscanini’s range is wide, but his Beethoven merits first phonographic con- sideration : The Ninth, the Eighth, the “Eroica,” or even the slight but charming First come immediately to mind. Or for the second choices, a Mozart or Haydn symphony, the love scene from Berlioz’ Romeo and Juliet; possibly Respighi’s Pines of Rome. The last would be the most practicable financially, for it would be sure of a large sale, but I hope that someone other than Toscanini will do it,— his gifts are too rare, the opportunities for his recording too limited, for his efforts to be devoted to works other than those of permanent worth. Like the brook, Dr. Damrosch seems to go on his genial, flower-bestrewn way forever and forever. The New York Symphony lives no longer as a separate organization, but he conducts ever and anon the combined Philharmonic-Sym- phony forces, and he is the official conductor ' of their children’s concerts. His broadcast work occupies more and more of his time as he devotes his increasing attention to the field which he has made so inimitably his own. In doing so he has escaped the bounds of critical evaluation into a sort of fourth dimensional realm of benign music making and “explanatory lecturing.” Undoubtedly his future record- ings will be of this nature—educational and descriptive— rather than “straight” concert performances, with which, as his Brahms’ Second demonstrates, he is less suc- cessful. (All Dr. Damrosch’s recordings are Columbia.) His set of Ravel’s Ma Mere l’Oye is his best phonographic achievement, although there are those who esteem highly his lecture disk on the slow movement of the “Eroica.” Nor are his acoustical disks in the old Columbia catalogue to be forgotten entirely: the excerpts from Mozart’s G minor and Beethoven’s Eighth, the Grieg Norwegian Dances, and the Roses from the South waltz have by no means lost their olden charm. It is by these works and the Ravel, rather than by the ineffectual symphony set of more recent issue, that Dr. Damrosch is to be most gratefully remem- bered. Dr. Herz first recorded for the German H. M. V., con- ducting the Berlin Philharmonic in the Vorspiel, Charfreitagszauber, and Verwandlungsmusik from Parsival. These works are listed in the old Victor catalogue of records imported from the affiliated European Victor com- panies ; I doubt if they are procurable today. Possibly Herz made other records at the same time. Later he began his series with the San Francisco Orchestra (recording always for Victor) in acoustical versions of the Parsival Vorspiel and Charfreitagszauber and Massenet’s Phedre overture, followed by electrical versions of the Tristan Vorspiel und Liebestod, Mendelssohn’s Midsummer Night’s Dream music, Rimsky-Korsakow’s Caprice Espagnole, the Freischutz overture, Liszt’s Les Preludes, the Third Leonora overture, two Hungarian Dances of Brahms, Glazounow’s Valse de Concert, excerpts from Delibes’ Sylvia and Coppelia ballets, and lighter fare by Schubert, Gounod, Moszkowski, Auber, and Kreisler. Herz’s Wagnerian tal- ents are generally recognized but his success is notable with lighter works of the delightful nature of Delibes’ ballets and the Brahms dances. The Caprice Espagnole and the Mid- summer Night’s Dream overture are perhaps his most effective achievements, although the Third Leonora overture has moments of rare beauty. The Freischutz overture is so abbreviated as to negate the many music merits he brings to the work. And Les Preludes— but surely that work has received its due need of discussion! It is obvious that Herz is being groomed to take Stokowski’s role as a recorder of the lighter war-horses of the symphonic repertory. He is admirably adapted for the performance of many of these works, but with others he fares hardly as well. Invariably his performances are “sound”, characteristic of the thorough musician he is. But there is a certain elan, sensationalism if you will, lacking from his make-up. The lack is hardly a discreditable one. In fact, it is a somewhat inverted compliment we pay him in castigating his version, of Les Preludes. Herz’s straightforwardness and unbending sin- cerity prevent him from succeeding as a virtuoso of the type necessary to give full play to the sensationalism innate in such works. Carefully selected, his lighter works will be valuable additions to the recorded repertory. But his Wagnerian potentialities should not be forgotten; nor the fact that although he has one album set to his credit he has not as yet been heard in a full length major work. George Schneevoight, formerly of Helsingfors, Finland, now of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, is also among the older generation of conductors, although he is more recently come to this country. Schneevoight has recorded only two works, neither of great consequence: Grieg’s Norwegian Dances, Op. 35, and Sigurd Jorsalfar suite, Op. 56. Both are with the London Symphony Orchestra for Columbia; the former only is issued in this country. I have heard Schneevoight but once in concert and the memory of his superb performance of the second symphony of Sibelius is an unforgettable one. His programs at Los Angeles are very tempting; surely he will have the opportunity before long of recording with his orchestra there. When that opportunity presents itself some work of Sibelius should take first consideration. An intimate friend of the com- poser, Schneevoight is peculiarly fitted to conduct his works for recording. The range of choice is wide: the first or second symphonies head the list, but we have not yet a Finlandia that by any stretch of the imagination could be termed adequate, and the lovely Swan of Tuonola and many shorter works have never been recorded at all. Schneevoight is a great dramatic conductor born to the true grand