21
MUSICAL COURIER
January 11, 1923
LICENSING MUSIC TEACHERS
28, 1882, with the same work. Since then it has been almost uninterruptedly the home of light opera. Within its walls took place the famous runs of Erminie, The Belle of New York, San Toy, The Gondoliers, Florodora, and other more recent favorites. At the Casino, too, the first New York performance of Cavalleria Rusticana was pitchforked onto the stage on the afternoon of October 1, 1891, Rudolf Aronson, founder and director of the theater for many years, anticipating the performance of the opera which Oscar Hammerstein presented at the Lenox Lyceum on the same evening.
What a list of famous light opera stars have been connected with the Casino—Pauline Hall, Edna May, Madge Lessing, Minnie Ashley, Lillian Russell, Lulu Glaser! And how the survivors of former days enjoyed themselves as they participated in the bill on Tuesday evening! Carrie Behr, the Casino’s very first chorus girl of The Queen’s Lace Handkerchief day, was there; Nahan Franko, who conducted that show for awhile; Gus Kerker, who wrote the immortal Belle of New York; Edward E. Rice, of Evangeline fame; Edgar Smith, Sidney Rosen-feld, William Norris, Frank Doane—and many others.
Another interesting fact is that the first meeting of the board of directors of the Metropolitan Opera was held in the foyer of the Casino on May 23, 1883, and that the men who constituted this first board had all backed Aronson in building the Casino, which was (and still is) right across the street from where the new Metropolitan was then going up. Here are their names: William K. Vanderbilt, Robert Goelet, Adrian Iselin, George F. Baker, Henry Clews, James L. Breese, A. Cutting, J. W. Drexel, R. T. Wilson, D. O. Mills, George Peabody Wet-more, H. McK. Twombly, James A. Roosevelt and George G. Haven.
Also it is interesting to remember that Josef Hofmann, who is playing at Carnegie Hall next Saturday afternoon, began his New York career in recital at the Casino, when he was eleven years old, and wore a velvet suit and lace collar, with his hair cut . straight across that big forehead in a bang. Another great pianist, Leopold Godowsky, also made his New York debut there, way back in 1885.
we cannot let this discoverer of gods hide his light under a bushel, although he does not give his address and we have no idea who he is or who the sixty New Yorkers are whom he represents.
As for his statement that there is “something deeply personal and resentful” behind our remarks, we must very positively state that there is nothing of the kind. There is nothing personal about it. Mr. Isaacson took upon himself the blame (or credit) of having “fired the first gun” in the campaign to license music teachers. He then denied categorically, in writing, ever having been in favor of the license. In view of those contradictory statements it has seemed to us no less than a duty to the art we represent, to the teachers among our readers who are opposed to the license, and to the authorities at City Hall, to publish as complete and exact a statement as possible of Mr. Isaacson’s attitude (or, rather, attitudes) in so far as it (or they) apply to the question of public or private license or approval of the teachers.
The fact is, as we have already stated, that if Mr. Isaacson had confined himself to the giving of concerts and lectures and the selling of advertising and had left the licensing of music teachers alone there would never have been any ground for this particular controversy. Our only hope is that we have succeeded in silencing Mr. Isaacson in the matter of the license. And we believe we have, for we can hardly think that, after the contradictory statements he has been shown to have made, he will again set himself up as champion of this particular form of oppression. It is now out of his hands and in the hands of the Mayor’s Committee and of the music teachers themselves where it properly belongs.
-----------
FORTY YEARS!
On Tuesday of this week was celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the opening of the Casino, which began its long life on October 21, 1882, with Johanns Strauss’ operetta, The Queen’s Lace Handkerchief, but was closed again to permit completion of its construction and had its formal opening on December
And Etc. New York.
To the Musical Courikr:	January l, 1923.
As a reader of the Musical Courier, I hereby protest against the lampooning of Mr. Isaacson and his musical activities in connection with the Evening Mail.
In overcoming the tremendous difficulties contingent on the success of his educational work of free-concert giving and the management of the musical department of the Evening Mail, Mr. Isaacson has, no doubt, made mistakes, and, evidently, not a few enemies; nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr. Isaacson, by his untiring efforts, has become the strongest single factor in the spreading of musical culture.
The Evening Mail concerts and lectures have made thousands of people into confirmed opera and concert “fans”; have brought music into homes where it was not cultivated previous to his propaganda. In this way musical organizations, artists, teachers, musical instrument makers, and etc., have profited alike.
The work has been fostered and endorsed by the Board of Education, leading piano houses, publishing houses, opera companies, musical managers and etc. Many of the best artists, conductors and teachers have donated their services to help the good work along.
Therefore, should not Mr. Isaacson and his good works be encouraged?	(Signed) Louis Aschenfelder.
This letter states that we have been “lampooning” Mr. Isaacson. That is not a fact. All that we have done or have intended to do is to point out certain of Mr. Isaacson’s contradictory statements with regard to the plan to license music teachers.
This letter further defends Mr. Isaacson’s concerts and lectures as if we had made some objection to Mr. Isaacson’s concerts and lectures. But that has not been the point or objective of our contention. We have only wished to support the music teachers of New York against efforts to license them.
This letter says, too, that Mr. Isaacson’s work has been fostered and endorsed by the Board of Education. That is not a fact. We are informed by -Dr. William L. Ettinger, Superintendent of Schools of the City of New York, that “Mr. Isaacson has been given the use of high school auditoriums for musical concerts under conditions identical with those that make the school auditoriums available for any organization that cares to use them. Such use implies no approval on the part of the Board of Education of any propaganda in which Mr. Isaacson may be engaged.” Dr. Ettinger further writes: “I understand that in the past Mr. Isaacson did give some musical concerts to elementary school pupils on the request of several school principals. When Mr. Isaacson recently asked for authorization to revive such work, permission was denied him on the ground that concerts by outside persons or agencies must be given subject to the approval of the Director of Music.”
* * ־1־
“The Most Sacrificing and Beneficent Musical Missionary the World Has Ever Known.”
To the Musical Courier:
I am asked to write you, on behalf of some sixty New Yorkers, gathered from various parts of this city, and in themselves representing the sentiment of many thousands.
We wish to say that the nasty, unconstructive attacks you are making upon Charles D. Isaacson are hurtful only to yourself, and that, instead of hitting him, like a boomerang they are returning straight to your paper. It is not necessary to use an X-ray to see that there is something deeply personal and resentful behind your pernicious and persistent broadsides. And after all is said and done, the question arises, “Why the warfare? For what good in art is your weak effort to point some blemish in the most sacrificing and beneficent musical missionary the world has ever known ?”
You are like other journalists of other eras; you are incapable of recognizing the god when he appears; or, if you do sense him, you seek to kill him.
Charles D. Isaacson is a great and good and kind man; we know what he has done for us, and for the whole of humanity; we know how he has shown us the light to better things. Do you not think that you are making more difficult the difficult way he has chosen to make his contribution to life? Do you not think you are turning the savage teeth upon one who Is the truest friend and advocate . the musical world can boast today?
We wish to state that we are in no way acquainted with the particular controversy which you now hold with Mr. Isaacson, to wit, the music teachers’ matter. But we do know that it is one of many things which he seeks to carry through for the good of the people and musiciaris._ We do not know Mr. Isaacson, except through his writings and his concerts, and we cannot speak with anything but our impressions, but surely our impressions lead us to believe that Mr. Isaacson is utterly unable to give birth to a single unworthy motive or impulse. And lest you feel that this is inspired by the subject of our discussion, let us assure you that this is done wholly without his knowledge or consent and in the belief that he would prevent us from mailing this letter to you, if he were aware of it.
Thousands upon thousands of people believe in Charles D. Isaacson and will fight for him. Are you his sworn enemy ? Is the Courier going to take its stand against him ? Let history be written and locked in the presses now.
It is needless to say that we hope that you will give publication to this, letter and that you will strike out the writer s signature. Very cordially yours,
New York	A Believer in the Real Truth.
December 30, 1922. (Signed) Brady Potter.
This writer asks us to strike out his signature. Under ordinary circumstances we would do so, but
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN’S CRITICISM OF MUSIC
letters, which he thought he was writing to Peter Franklin, but which he was really writing to the composers of America (and of the world) in the year 1922, he says: “I like your ballad and think it well adapted for your purpose of discountenancing expensive foppery and encouraging industry and frugality. If you can get it generally sung in your country it may probably have a good deal of the effect you hope and expect from it. But as you aimed at making it general, I wonder you chose so uncommon a measure in poetry that none of the tunes in common use will suit it. Had you fitted it to an old one, well known, it must have spread much faster than I doubt it will do from the best new tune we can get composed for it.”
“I think, too, that if you had given it to some country girl in the heart of the Massachusetts, who had never heard any other than psalm tunes ... or old simple ditties, but has naturally a good ear, she might more probably have made a pleasing tune for you, than any of our masters here. . .
“Do not imagine that I mean to depreciate the skill of our composers of music here; . .	. but,
in the composing of songs, the reigning taste seems to be quite out of nature־, or rather the reverse of nature.”
In a letter to Lord Kames he writes: “I only wished you had examined more fully the subject of music and demonstrated that the pleasure which artists feel in hearing much of that composed in modern taste is not the natural pleasure arising from melody or harmony of sounds, but of the same kind with the pleasure we feel on seeing the surprising feats of tumblers and rope-dancers who execute difficult things.”
It is not necessary to point out how all of this applies to our composers of present day America— except those that are scornfully called “popular.” It applies also equally to the modernists of all Europe. Where is the composer who is writing for the people or thinking of the people when he writes? The one idea seems to be the high-brow audience or the small audience gathered on the principle of mutual admiration.
Old Ben Franklin was wise in his generation, and so filled with the spirit of common sense and logic that what he said then is true now and will no doubt be equally true a hundred years from now. But, though it did not bring about a complete reform, it may have helped some few to see the light. And it may help some of our twentieth century composers to see the light too. Let us hope so! F. P.
As it has become the custom to hunt for American musicians early and late, far and near, high and low, good and bad, it may be just as well not to forget one Benjamin Franklin, who was born in Boston in 1706 and died in Philadelphia in 1790, in the fullness of fame and years. He is one of the few early American musicians who succeeded (though he cer-
FRANKLIN PLAYING HIS ARMONICA
tainly did not strive for it) in getting his name in the Dictionaries of Music, those repositories of immortality that we all seek to attain, that some careless reader may by chance glance at our name when even that is forgotten.
Franklin needs no dictionaries to keep his name and fame alive. But it does need an occasional mention to remind us that he was, besides being a statesman, printer, writer and philosopher, also a musician. His inventive mind turned towards the improvement of his favorite instrument, the Armonica, or musical glasses, and he perfected it to such an extent as to make it practical.
The musical glasses, as most people know, consisted of nothing more complex than a series of tumblers of various sizes variously filled with water so as to produce a musical scale. By the use of more or less water each note could be tuned exactly to pitch, and the player moistened his finger tips and rubbed them around the edge of the glass, producing a delicate reed-like tone which has come down to us in the modern orchestra instrument, the celesta, though the tone of the celesta is not sustained.
Franklin set the glasses on edge and arranged them to revolve continuously by the action of a foot pedal so as to produce a sustained tone. This is interesting, but by far more interesting is the comment Franklin made upon musical matters, the surprising part of which is that it applies today just as it did a hundred ar.d fifty years ago. In one of his