Radio Broadcast (May 1928-Apr 1929)

The Listeners' Point of View HOW TO IMPROVE BROADCASTING By JOHN WAIT IN THE January number we unburdened our soul of some ingrowing and irate convictions in an article, "Are Radio Programs Going in the Wrong Direction?" They were, we said, and the general tenor of our hymn of complaint may be recalled by quoting: "Whatever roseate promises radio may have seemed to have held in the past, we are at present thoroughly convinced that things have reached a sorry pass, and that radio is standing still — smug, self-satisfied, and unutterably banal. ... In fact standstill is putting it mildly; the state of affairs is more exactly a retrogression. All the money, all the ingenuity, all the labor that is being devoted to the designing of programs is being diligently devoted to efforts in the wrong direction — with the result that radio is going to the dogs at a breakneck speed, so rapidly, in fact, that to check it will require no little effort." During the four months which have elapsed since publishing this diatribe we have had an unusual number of communications, ranging all the way from heartiest endorsement to bitterest denunciation. One commentator says: "The writer is one of those humans who inordinately admires a 'kicker' if, and when, said kicker registers his kick with some accuracy and a lot of eclat. That is preparatory to a 100 per cent, endorsement of your kick in the January Radio Broadcast — 'Are Radio Programs Going in the Wrong Direction?' Every word in this article is pregnant with common sense and as true as Gospel." (Such perspicuity! J. IV.) Another correspondent states: "You are just like all the rest of the tribe of critics — 'smug and self-satisfied.' What good do you expect to effect by such destructive criticism as is contained in your article in the January Radio Broadcast? Here thousands of people throughout the country have been putting in eight hours a day for the last five years to make radio what it is today and then you come along and in an article that couldn't have taken two hours to write, presume to set at naught all this accomplishment." (O my, O my, it sometimes takes us twenty hours to write one of these! J. IV.) Such was the run of lay comment. We quote two other replies, both from members of "the profession." These retorts were not addressed directly to us but were forwarded to "Pioneer" of the New York Herald-Tribune who quoted our unkind remarks in his column. One is from the president of two small stations and the other from the president of the National Broadcasting Company. Mr. Donald Flamm, president of stations wmca and wpch, in a lengthy open letter said, among other things: "It is to answer Mr. Wallace, as well as the radio critic through whose courtesy Mr. Wallace's remarks were presented, that this is written. I don't propose to speak for all the broadcasters. I am simply giving my own opinion, based upon three years of association with the radio industry and particularly with the broadcasting end of the business. ... I, too, have come to the realization that radio is at a standstill and ... it is not within the province of the radio impresario to do very much about it. And, furthermore, it is going to remain at a standstill unless some very remarkable change occurs in the very art of radio broadcasting itself — a change that is entirely beyond; . . . Let us consider . . . the plight caster. "He can appeal to his audience only through sound — nothing else. . . . There is nothing in the world he can add to his 'tools' with which to accomplish so-called showmanship. There is another angle that we cannot overlook . . . the fact that the broadcaster is constantly doing something different. In writing a play, the author takes weeks and sometimes months . . . the stage director continues the job and shapes and changes the play . . . until it is finally ready for a long, or perhaps a short, run on Broadway. The same play is repeated performance after performance without the slightest variation of a line or a movement. The author's job is done, the director's job is done, the producer's job is done. How different is the task of the broadcaster! Every program must be different. And as in the case of wmca, which goes on the air at 9 o'clock each morning and continues broadcasting right through the day and evening until sometimes as late as 2 a. m., what opportunity have we for observing these rules of 'showmanship'? "After all, what is there that we can present to the public that will display good 'showmanship' and 'intelligence'? Radio impresarios have presented almost every great living artist available. There is not a musical organization in the country whose services have not been utilized at some time or other. During the course of the year we have also presented hundreds of orchestras, numerous celebrities from all walks of life, interesting and informative talks by competent authorities, vaudeville programs, short programs and long programs; in short, we have availed ourselves of every possible form of entertainment. We have not left a stone unturned in our effort to bring to our audience the complete range of program material. Beyond that we can do no more." Mr. M. H. Aylesworth, president of the National Broadcasting Company said, in part: "I have read with considerable interest the various criticisms of broadcasting programs . . . which you recently quoted in your interesting column. It has occurred to me that a short resume of the talent which has been made available through the system of the National Broadcasting Company and associated stations by American industries who are sponsoring national programs, as well as those produced by the National Broadcasting Company, and associated stations in the last sixty days (January and December), shows something of the vast undertaking in arrangement and finance to make possible the feasible reception of these speakers and artists by the American radio public." The resume, which is entitled "A Partial List of Outstanding Broadcasts by the National Broadcasting Company," is given herewith: Artists, actors, and actresses — Ernest Hutcheson, Percy Grainger, Ohman and Arden, Irene Scharrer, Ethel Leginska, Robert Armbruster, Ignace Friedman, Herbert Carrick, George Gershwin, Josef Lhevinne, Adam Carroll, Richard Rodgers, J. Milton Del Camp, Richard Buhlig, Benno Moiseiwitsch, and Mme. Wanda Landowska, pianists; Mischa Weisbord, Paul chanski, and Arcadie Birkenholz, violinists; jel Hayden, Van and Schenck, Katherine Meisle, Editha Fleischer, Reinald Werrenrath, Maria Kurenko, Marie Tiffany, Elsie Baker, Arthur Hacket-Granville, William Simmons, Mary Lewis, Armand Tokatyan, Ann Mack, Mary Garden, Al Jolson, John Charles Thomas, Emilio de Gorgoza, Merle Alcock, Mario Chamlee, Duncan Sisters, Tita Ruffo, Fanny Brice, Claudia Muzio, Cliff Edwards, Rosa Ponselle, Giovanni Martinelli, Ezio Pinza, Richard Crooks, and Sophie Braslau, singers; "Chick" Sale, Joe Cook, Dr. Rockwell, Fred and Dorothy Stone, Leo Carilla, Weber and Fields, and Cornelia Otis Skinner, actors. Orchestras and orchestra leaders — Walter Damrosch, conducting the New York Symphony Orchestra; Fritz Busch, guest conductor; Roderic Graham, conducting G. M. Symphony Orchestra; Patrick Conway and band, Edwin Franko Goldman and band, Paul Whiteman and orchestra, Vincent Lopez and orchestra, and Ben Bernie and orchestra. Authors and explorers — Robert Benchley, Will Rogers, Irvin S. Cobb, Ford Madox Ford, Louis Golding, Glenway Westcott, Louis Bromfield, Commander George Dyott, Fannie Hurst, Helen Hull, Elmer Davis, Cosmo Hamilton, S. S. Van Dine, Dr. Ralph Sockman, John B. Kennedy, Homer Croy, Grantland Rice, and Bruce Barton. ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE IN VIEW of the foregoing we have a defense of our January remarks, and an enlargement of them. To those who objected that our stand was destructive, our retort is: It wasn't. We claim, constructively, that serious instrumental music should be the backbone of radio entertainment. We offered no constructive suggestions as to what should make up the balance of programs, not because we had no ideas on the subject but simply because of lack of space. Specific ideas along those lines follow. As for Mr. Aylesworth's reply — sorry, but we're going to quote again from the January squawk: "What is the right direction for program making to take? Program makers are too embroiled in their business to glance at the guideposts, too pressed by the strenuous and unceasing job of making programs to take a moment or two off for a little rational reflection on what their job is all about. They persist in refusing to take account of the fact that radio is a new medium, a unique medium and, like any other medium, endowed with its peculiar limitations and peculiar possibilities. Pig-headedly, they persist in attempting to reconcile with their duties the traditions of the drama, the opera, the music hall, and the vaudeville stage." In view of these remarks Mr. Aylesworth's rebuttal is seen to contain its own refutation. All the individuals he mentions are recruited from "the drama, the opera, the music hall, and the concert stage." However, we will not gloat over Mr. Aylesworth's self-confounding; our victory is merely a dialectic one. For the fact is that the programs he mentions are the very best that are at present discoverable on the air. But it is unfortunate that this is true for such programs represent not progress, but stand