Radio Broadcast (Nov. 1925-Apr 1926)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

JANUARY, 1926 MUSIC JUDGES FOR BROADCAST STATIONS 327 vasions are self-limiting in their nature. Invariably the investigators and research men improve the equipment to such an extent that the most artistic interpretations become possible, and the aid of men with an artistic background becomes essential for the best possible results And in broadcasting we are not going to be satisfied until we get to the point where a man listening to a loud speaker will not be able to tell for the life of him whether he is hearing the original performance or a reproduction. That point we may not be able to reach, but we shall certainly aim at nothing less. And anybody who can help us, whether he is a musician or a streetcleaner, is welcome. The musician who undertakes work in broadcasting should realize, on his part, that he must add something to his technique, as the operators have added something to theirs. I have myself seen competent orchestra leaders and soloists — competent, that is to say, as leaders of orchestras or performers on special instruments — whom I would not trust on the musical end of a 10-watt station with an audience of two dozen. They were incapable of listening closely, in the first place. Have you ever seen a good broadcast technician listening to the output of some piece of equipment? He goes into a kind of trance. If Miss America came and pirouetted before him in a one-piece bathing suit, it is doubtful if he would pay any attention to her. Frequently he stops breathing. With such concentration one is likely to know what one is hearing, These musicians I am writing about did not go to all this trouble. They would listen for a few seconds, snatch the phones off their ears, rush over to the orchestra, and make some change. After touching the telephones to their ears once more, they found it necessary to alter something else. With the third trial, the orchestra — the men by now in active rebellion, was returned to the first position. This was now pronounced, "Excellent!" "Wonderful!" which it was not. After a few minutes the virtuoso realized this, although he was quite incapable of making the correct diagnosis. Once again he began making changes. By this time every man in the ensemble was ready to come to blows with him. In another minute the tension would have risen to that point, but at this juncture the operator took charge, moved the microphone a foot back in the right direction, getting rid of the violin blasting which was causing all the trouble, and ended the argument. Why should some musicians, who are perfectly competent to read a score, give their individual interpretation, control an orchestra, and play a few instruments, be unable to listen to a loud speaker t ' giving a fairly faithful reproduction and -\ tell how it can be improved? 1 don't know, but presumably they overlook the differences between even the best repro i duction and the original in the present state of the art, and, in an unfamiliar situation, they are unable to concentrate to the necessary degree. There are also 1 temperamental obstacles. I am not one of those who look on all artists, writers, poets, and musicians as subjects for the psychopathic ward; I believe that as a class they do not go crazy much oftener than manufacturers of corrugated ashcans and cheese-paring machines, and that in any state they are more interesting to talk to. But I presume that the average musician is somewhat more nervous than the average engineer, because in his profession nervousness is not discouraged as much as in engineering. And there is not much room for nervousness in broadcasting. The business itself contains enough tension without any contributions from the participants. One needs sharp ears and a cool head. It is to be hoped that no personal rancor will enter into any readjustments that must be made. It is merely a matter of doing the best possible job. There is room enough for everybody involved. If it were not for music and musicians there would be little use for radio broadcasting, and if it were not for broadcasting some musicians would be out of jobs. There is also dignity enough to clothe everyone, it is to be hoped. The operator's function can never be relegated to a place of unimportance. Some people seem to think that the term "operator" is applied only to persons of no great consequence or skill. This is a mistake. The term is a very broad one, applied to a variety of workers. Some are unskilled and others must be extremely intelligent and capable. It is not generally known that in medical literature the surgeon who performs an "operation" is referred to as the "operator." If a man who daily holds the lives of other men in his hands does not mind being called an "operator," surely there is nothing invidious about the expression. But why dwell on such trivialities? Radio men are more interested in radio. Credit Where Due MANY a time and oft I have felt called upon to comment sourly on the contents, make-up, and editing of the newspaper supplements devoted to radio, especially those in New York, which meet my dour eye most often. As a whole, they seem to me to foster superstition, sensationalism, and questionable information, to emphasize all that is transitory, childish, and unoriginal, and to neglect the substantial and scholarly elements in the art. There are, of course, some exceptions. Mr. Zeh Bouck's weekly column, "What Are the Air Waves Saying?" in the New York Sun, stands out in this group. But it is an oasis in the desert. Most of the sheets are dull, obvious, full of unchallenged press agents' concoctions, "i swear— with my hand on a copy zenneck" and perhaps dubious advertisements. Heaven knows I have a lot to learn about radio, but, with my right hand raised and my left laid solemnly on a copy of Zenneck, I declare that 1 have never learned anything from newspaper radio sections, with lamentably few exceptions. It is with the more pleasure, therefore, that I would call attention, somewhat belatedly, to the New York Times Sunday Radio Section of September 13, 1925. It was a first class journalistic job. It was brought out during the week of the two big radio shows in New York, with, presumably, the same fundamental objects as those of other radio sections and supplements. But this one set about its task by filling the space not occupied by advertisements with useful information, authoritative articles, and good sense. Among the authors who contributed were Orrin E. Dunlap, Jr., A. Hoyt Taylor, E. F. W. Alexanderson, E. E. Free, J. A. Holman, David Sarnoff, Alfred N. Goldsmith, Kolin Hager, C. B. Popenoe, E. H Jewett, Lee De Forest, J. H. Dellinger, E. C. Mills, Martin P. Rice, H. P. Davis, W. H. Priess, David Grimes, J. D. Freed, and J. H. Morecroft. I spent several hours reading it, and they were profitably spent. I have never met the editor of the Times weekly radio section, nor does the paper subsidize me, but, having knocked radio newspaper supplements in general, I feel bound to congratulate that editor and that paper for their achievement Among the Broadcasters WHAZ ACCORDING to all accounts and evidence ZA on hand, whaz, the broadcasting station / V of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute at Troy, New York, has started its fourth year on the air without showing the effects of age. Whaz, it will be remembered, is under the direction of Prof. W. J. Williams, who defended the low power side in the super-power debate which lately raged in these columns. Mr. Rutherford Hayner is program director and announcer. Station whaz is housed in the Russell Sage Laboratory of the Institute, with the towers on the roof. The location overlooks the Hudson River at the head of tidewater navigation, 1 50 miles north of New York, and it appears to have electrical as well as scenic advantages, for the station has attained enviable ranges for a standard 500-watt installation. No doubt a part of this is also due to the operating personnel and management, which, in an engineering school, may be expected to turn out a top-notch technical job. As early as February, 1923, the station was heard in New Zealand, two-fifths of the way around the earth. It has also been picked up repeatedly in France, Belgium, Scotland, England, Alaska, Panama, South America, the Pacific Islands, the Far East, and of course all over the United States and points near by. The R. P. I. station is on the air but once a week, on Monday evenings. It is the gift of the Roebling family to the Institute, and is operated naturally, on strictly, non-commercial lines, in contrast to the blatant advertising of some of the smaller and irresponsible stations in the state. There are popular monthly programs by the students' symphony and dance orchestras, and musical clubs. The first minstrel show is said to have been broadcast from whaz's studio. One of its programs that is well and favorably