Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 4, No. 12 (1930-09)

398 The Phonograph Monthly Review and far-ranging editor of the record review de- partment appearing regularly in the New York Times, attacks it in his article August 3rd. “The complaint of more than one correspondent dealing with the matter of prices or records is thoroughly appreciat- ed. As has been frequently stated, it requires a small for- tune to establish and maintain anything like a comprehen- sive library of records. Nor is an attempt in this direction made any easier by the frequent additions. This has been even more accentuated recently since foreign pressed records have come out of the class of rareties. Present conditions have resolved the question into one of what to take out of a large list. But this does not settle the difficulty of price. As there is no immediate likelihood of there being any re- duction in the better class of records, two companies hav- ing only recently raised their rates, the only outlet that can be suggested is in another direction. A search through the catalogues without going to the celebrity selections will dis- close a surprising amount of good music, creditably played, at half and less than the more elaborately featured num- bers. “In this regard an article in the June number of The Na- tional Phonograph Review (sic), a Boston monthly, gave a comprehensive list of records bearing black and other lower priced seals, which could be included in the collection of the most demanding and require no apology.” (The article referred to is “Bargain Counter” by Roy Gregg in our June 1930 issue. Mr. Paken- ham is a little vague concerning our title, but his comment is nonetheless appreciated.) Searching the black lists, however, is only one method of practicing judicious record investment. There are bargains in $2.00 and $2.50 discs as well as in those for 75c and $1.25. There are some musical works and some recorded performances that would be cheap at any price. Many record buyers are singularly self-cen- tered, often to the extent that they are violently annoyed by the manifestoes of other wings of the phonographic party. One of the letters in this month’s correspondence column touches on the whims of “phono-cranks,” although the “histori- cal fanatics” at whom D. H. D. smiles are no less sincere than he, nor do they derive less pleasure from their discs. Yet his amusement is not entire- ly unjustified, for surely there is no extreme to which the connoisseurs of “out-of-print” discs will not go. The fanatical quality—and particu- larly the exhibition of purely collecting manias— is a tremendous handicap to the general develop- ment of phonography. The faddists are a very small minority today (fortunately, I think), and if they oftentimes command more attention than their forward-looking bretheren it is because they are more energetic and voluble. Among the better balanced element of the phonographic public there is still small common ground of interest and taste. A few days ago an enthusiast of the old school visited the office and talked needle track aligment, dynamic levelling of instruments, and such points, all of which would probably be so much Esperanto to the average Amercan record buyer. In this country there is too little emphasis on technical points; I am in- clined to believe that in England there is too much. One collector buys discs almost’ wholly on their recording qualities; another on their purely mu- sical qualities. The manufacturer is confronted with an almost incalculable variety of demands to take into consideration. A glance at the releases of a single month—those reviewed in this issue are quite typical—shows how well the diversity of tastes has been recog- nized. The Phonograph Monthly Review at- tempts to cover the same range of interests, with news value, musical significance, and the num- ber of persons likely to be interested the bases by which the proportionate attention paid to each interest is to be determined. A publication of this kind and at this stage of progress must be primarily expository. The best articles are those which are confined strictly to a certain portion of the recorded repertory, classify it, analyze it, and give the novice some indication of what enjoyment and cultural values it holds for him. In reviewing current releases of any significance it is not sufficient to make a flat state- ment that the record is good or bad. The music, its form and qualities, information on the com- poser and incidents of its composition, anything that gives a better understanding of the work is pertinent. In a larger work, if it is to be given the attention it merits, there is a bulky cargo of material bound up with the piece and its recorded performance,—material which an endeavor is be- ing made to embody in the “longer reviews” as distinct from the notes of briefer mention. The staunchness with which the sale of the bet- ter class of records weathered the recent general business depression, and the elasticity with which it is already anticipating the banner season to come, is convincing testimony to the soundness of the demand for fine recorded music. But as yet the vast bulk of material available is only ore— essentially rich, but often crude. The nature of the public’s support will determine the quality of the refining process. In the end the public gets very much what it wants. If those who are inter- ested in the highest musical types and qualities fail to make tangible expression of that interest, they have no one to blame but themselves if the brave experiments already made are not repeated. Contributors To This Issue R. P. Blackmur, Cambridge, Massachusetts, was formerly an editor of the Hound and Horn. He is a frequent contributor to the New Republic and New Freeman, and is the author of one of the articles in the recently published anti-Humanism symposium, Critique of Humanism. Richardson Brown, Waban, Massachusetts, is the editor of a new record review column in the Musical Leader. W. S. Marsh, Providence, Rhode Island, is the prin- cipal American authority on recorded Spanish and Spanish-American music, and the author of Musical Spain from A to Z. Peter Hugh (Reed, Kew Gardens, Long Island, is one of the leading phono-musical critics. His articles and record reviews have appeared in Musical America, the Etude, Disques, and many other journals. He was one of the first, if not the first to broadcast record re- views. William Henry Seltsam, Bridgeport, Connecticut, reviewed the Stokowski recording of Strawinski’s Sacre in the June 1930 issue. His article on Petrouchka was published' last month, and his notes on Apollo will appear in an early issue.