Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 6, No. 5 (1932-02)

84 Vaughn-Williams, Ravel, Elgar, Strawinski, and many others.) Mr. Holst asserts that he is too old to ad- just himself with ease to the phonograph, that he is like a painter of the last century when photography first came in—he recog- nizes the remarkable possibilities of the new medium and watches with approval steady technical and artistic development, but he is too busy working in other media to take great active interest. Nevertheless, Mr. Holst himself has contributed a significant page to phonographic history, a significance that I am sure he vastly under-estimates. And if he is not a proponent of the phono- graph his freedom from active prejudice sets The Phonograph Monthly Review an example to many more hide-bound musi- cians of his era who refuse to contribute in any way to phonographic progress. Whatever may be the last word on Gustav Holst’s own music (and many of us feel that the lusty humor and abounding rhythmical life of such works as the St. Paul’s suite, Jupiter, and Hammersmith have contributed an invigorating and healthful strain to mod- ern music), no one coming into contact with the man can fail to note and admire his can- dor, open-mindedness, passionate distaste of self-exploitation and showmanship,—quali- ties that are as rare as they are admirable in the musical world of today. Some Reflections —and a Monograph on a Discovery By HARRY L. ANDERSON T HE glamor of the phonograph has lain very largely in its ability to reproduce the art of great interpreters for those who have admired them deeply in the flesh, or by repute. But no less remarkable is the part the phonograph plays in spreading the work of such artists far beyond the bounds where their visits, or their fame, have reached—a function that brings to mind the extent to which sound-recording, and sound-reproduc- ing devices have had effect on the creating of reputations. One is reminded, for instance, of the ad- vance popularity built up for Galli-Curci and Tauber in this country largely by their rec- ords; of the fact that most Americans can know more of the caliber of work of the Ber- lin, Paris, London, Manchester, or Amster- dam orchestras, than they can know about most of their native orchestras; of the es- teem enjoyed by the Cortot-Casals-Thibaud Trio in a country where they have never played as an organization; of the recogni- tion that many individual European artists, many not widely traveled even in their own countries, have won in this country through their records. Possibly the radio is an even more effec- tive press-agent. During the last year or so, to cite an example close at hand, I have witnessed the widespread vogue in Southern California—among layman, flaxen-haired ad- mirer, and professional musician alike—that a series of weekly broadcasts created for the young Danish pianist, Gunnar Johansen.* Both media should work a lasting effect on interpretative art which, deprived of the visual, must rely entirely on the aural to stimulate the emotions. But the more pro- found effect should come from the phono- graph. Through it, interpretative art, given the chance of unlimited and exact repetition, can eschew the obvious, and develop more on lines of subtlety and finish. And freed from the limitation of being ephemeral, it must be stimulated by the thought that, like •Admirers of Johansen will be pleased to know that he has recorded already for Danish Columbia, and may appear shortly in domestic releases. 8 A very limited supply of back files of THE § § PHONOGRAPH MONTHLY REVIEW is still g; 8 available: §: § Volume I (Oct. 1926-Sept. 1927) 9 issues only— 8: ; Nov. *26, March and May ’27 are out of 8 8 print—#6.00 8; 8 Volume II (Oct. 1927-Sept. 1928) Complete— g; 8 #6.00 g § Volume III (Oct. 1928-Sept. 1929) Complete— c g #5.00 § More recent issues at regular subscription rates. 8 8 Address 8 8 A. J. FRANCK | 8 Postal Box 171 Richmond Hill, L. I. ;5;