Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 5, No. 12 (1931-09)

September 1931, Vol. V, No. 12 327 Correspondence The Editor does not accept any responsibility for opinions expressed by correspondents. No notice iwll be taken of unsigned letters, but only initials or a pseu- donym will be printed if the writer so desires... Contri- butions of general interest to our readers are welcomed. They should be brief and written on one side of the paper only. Address all letters to CORRESPON- DENCE COLUMN, THE PHONOGRAPH MONTH- LY REVIEW, Box 138, Cambridge, Massachusetts. A Searching Analysis Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: There was much good news contained in a very small space in the July announcement: the assurance that the P. M. R. would continue; the welcome ti- dings that Mr. Johnson has fully recovered his health and will again actively interest himself in the maga- zine (more power to him!); and the reduction in the subscription rate, not unusual course in these par- lous times, even though it necessitates a more modest format. Disappointing is the continued absence of Victor’s and Columbia’s advertising. In his survey of the book situation, entitled “Books,” R. L. Duffus says “ ‘Publicity’, which includes reviews, is more impor- tant than advertising, though it is closely linked with advertising. Certainly few book reviews would be published if book publishers did not support literary magazines and departments by purchasing advertis- ing space.” Victor and Columbia might well take this to heart because it applies no less to the phono- graph. Unless they intend to give up the phono- graphic ghost completely it behooves them to realize that the P. M. R. is vital to their prosperity and they must do their bit to support it. This fact they must somehow be made to realize. The letters in the July issue blame some old ac- quaintances for present phonographic ills. The neces- sity for advertising was emphasized by “Observer” over a year ago, while lower prices have been de- manded, and poor service complained of periodically as far back as my file reaches—four years. Today these points unquestionably assume greater impor- tance than ever. Last summer the New York “Times” summarized an article from the Berlin “Vorwarts” analyzing the re- ports of several phonograph companies which had declared 20% dividends. The “Vorwarts” was quoted as follows: “the big companies in Germany, like those abroad, did not consider it necessary to lower the extortionate prices in 1929, and exploited the culture hunger of the masses to the limit. . . . But the disk manufacturers, who are still riding a very high horse today, ought to know that every bow drawn too taut is bound to break!” The bow has broken. To what extent high prices are responsible is of course a debatable question. Mr. Franck, on the basis of 20 years’ experience, including that of accounting specialist, recommends purchase of modern reproducing equipment and the buying of records almost to the bounds of extrava- gance, in short generous support of the trade in a financial way. Does Mr. Franck give this sort of advice to the companies for which he acts as ac- counting specialist? I doubt it. It isn’t sound. It is Mr. Franck the dealer, not Mr. Franck the ac- countant speaking. Mr. Darrell in the June issue well stated that the public is discouraged by the con- stant parade of “perfect” machines, not only ren- dered obsolete so quickly by “super-perfect” models but also turned into white elephants for the pur- chaser by radical price reductions shortly after their introduction. And is it not perhaps because when phonography was on the crest of the wave we bought too generously that now the inevitable reaction has come? The remedy is in extending the market, not in taking more from the same pockets. In this con- nection “Observer” was on much solider ground in the April 1930 issue, wherein he advised more care- ful purchasing rather than increased purchasing. What phonography needs more than anything else is stability, whereas Mr. Franck’s advice points in the opposite direction. As to the remainder of his letter as well as those of the other contributors one can only remark, “sad but true.” The chief cause of the present plight of the phono- graph is certainly the radio. Eliminate it (an im- possibility of course) and the phonograph would again come into its own, depression or no depression. That must be faced first of all. The radio’s big ad- vantage is its ease and simplicity of operation. Turn a knob or two and then—one doesn’t even have to listen to it! It makes such an ideal accompaniment to a game of bridge, to conversation, dinner, or what not. The public is lazy. It takes the line of least resistance. This a dealer tells me is an important cause of the decline of interest in the phonograph and it sounds plausible. All the petty annoyances of the phonograph are eliminated: needles, handling, dusting and filing records, not to mention selecting and buying them, etc., etc. And right here some inventive genius should be applied. Is it impossible to devise a simple, semi- permanent needle? The latest, the Burmese Colour Needle, requires the greatest attention of any. The Edison-Bell needles, excellent as they are, cannot be used indiscriminately, and even slightly warped rec- ords soon put an end to their usefulness. Cannot a record be produced that would be, if not unbreak- able, at least non-warpable ? How about a practic- able long-playing record? The phonograph, tech- nically at least, is not keeping up with the times. What has aggravated the situation is the unholy alliance between the radio and the phonograph. From the standpoint of the latter, it may have been a case of “united I stand, divided I fall,” but actually the interests and aims of the two are far from identical. Mr. Franck undoubtedly has placed his finger on a sore spot in suggesting that the powers controlling radio are not giving the phonograph end of their business a square-deal. The latter has become mere- ly a by-product, and probably an annoying one. The attitude of the companies is showing a dangerous tendency towards that which was so roundly berated