Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 4, No. 8 (1930-05)

May, 1930 The Phonograph Monthly Review 259 His music sounds a note so distinctive and so characteristic that a celebrated critic was moved to write:—“This Massenet who lives beloved in every French heart !” Massenet enjoyed the satisfaction of seeing his compositions played all over the world during his lifetime—an artistic compensation that is as rare as it is appropriate, in this instance. The same critic wrote, with en- tire truth:— “Massenet was master of his trade as few have ever been, and he possessed every secret of its technique. It was with the most exceptional judgment that he adopted, within the confines of reason, the novelties from abroad. These he assimilated when they blended harmoniously with the course he had laid out for himself. Hence, he offered to the world the spectacle of a thoroughly and consistently French artist whom neither the Lorelei of the Rhine nor the Sirens of the Mediterranean could lure away from his beloved France.” (The End) Phonographic Propaganda By “OBSERVER” Reverberations I must confess to being rather overwhelmed by the ex- tremely cordial reception of my article, “New Phonography for Old,” appearing in these pages last month. The interest it has aroused, as expressed in letters to the magazine, is very gratifying, and particularly so in that the first article of the series (“On and Off the Fence,” March 1930 issue) seemed to invoke comparatively little response. Even a vigorous expression of dissent is much to be preferred to a phlegmatic even if approving silence, for the former in- dicates at least that interest in the subject is highly alive and hot-blooded. I am forced to conclude—as in fact I had been warned in advance by the Editor—that in the United States there simply is not any widespread burning interest in the prob- lems of phonographs as machines. The merits of various types of needles may be debated with considerable fire; sound boxes and pick ups are occasionally the center of a flurry of discussion; but for the most part technical ques- tions are unstimulating. The man who owns a phonograph in this country is more intent on what is done with it rather than on what it can do and how it does it. An organiza- tion like the Expert Committee of our contemporary. “The Gramophone,” is inconceivable in America. We boast some of the finest acoustical and electrical engineers in the world, of course, but qne and all they seem to be allied with the research laboratories of the phonograph or talking film companies. The amateur technician of professional knowl- edge and skill is by no means uncommon abroad, but here he is either rare or quite inarticulate. At any rate I know for a fact that while The Phonograph Monthly Review has always welcomed contributions on technical subjects, and in fact has been particularly desirous of securing them, practically none of any consequence comes in nor does there seem to be any general anxiety on the part of its readers to have such material. But the moment one touches on the musical and psy- chological problems of phonography, there is an electrical tension of interest in the air and the readers of the maga- zine begin to write letters to the editor. The reaction to “New Phonography for Old” has been animated and almost without exception warmly favorable, even on the part of those at whom its fire was partly directed. I do not think that I overstep the bounds of decorous modesty in frankly stating my pleasure at so cordial a reaction, for I make no claim to the originality of the bulk of its material. It was not purely an individual utterance, and for that reason it and the other articles of the series are signed by a pseudonym. In it I endeavored to state as clearly and as vigorously as possible the problems of phonography and the attitude of the more experienced leading spirits of the movement to- ward these problems. The various points stressed were' those that have been discussed and formulated by the en- tire Studio staff. Their hearty endorsement by the readers of the magazine, and especially the more prominent phono- philes, gives them further weight and force. It will be remembered by those who read “New Phono- graphy for Old” that it had its genesis partly in an article submitted to the magazine by a man of considerable phono- graphic note, experienced both as an amateur collector and as a professional dealer, a man whose present state of mind —as revealed in his article—seemed to me to exemplify in part the defeatist psychology that I was attacking. The Editor has received a letter from this gentleman (the “Al- bertus,” by the way, who has contributed a number of brilliant letters to the correspondence columns), which I have requested to reprint as an interesting repercussion of my article, and as a proof of my contention that e!ven among the more pessimistic observers of the phonograph situation there is ample fighting spirit at heart. “I have just read with the greatest of pleasure ‘Observ- er’s’ exceedingly sound and encouraging article in the April number. Nothing better has ever been stated in your columns, and I say this in the face of the fact that it con- tains a rebuke which I recognize as intended for me. It was both forceful and diplomatic and is therefore fully ap- preciated. “I flatter myself that some of the facts and conclusions I had adduced were of considerable weight to draw down so prompt and energetic a refutation. So now we come in- to a clearer atmosphere. If we are wise people, we shall not fail to recognize that we must never cease to work for the phonograph. It is undeniable that the instrument has lost vastly in prestige as a common entertainer. It is our duty, collectors and dealers both, to re-popularize it now, not as a mere entertainment device, but as a cultural ad- junct to every home that would dare to call itself civilized. “We shall get ho place but on the rocks if we rest on/ our oars now. The tide leads to economic destruction. If we want to progress, we shall have to roll up our sleeves and row like ! “I am sure you understand me,” “Albertus” concludes. Yes, I think we both understand and concur. Reprise But to the subject at hand for this month’s article. Once we have realized for ourselves that “the phonograph is not merely an entertainment device, but a cultural ad- junct to every home that would dare to call itself civilized,” as “Albertus” puts it so vividly, our next step is to convince other people of this vital truth. In other words we must see to it that phonography is properly propagandized. Now the entertainment factor is a very significant and essential one to phonography. When “Albertus” states “the instrument has lost vastly in prestige as a common entertainer,” he is on very uncertain ground. I think what he has in mind is that the phonograph now has so much serious rivalry as a common entertainer that it must de-