59
MUSICAL COURIER
February 1, 19 2 3
¿ווIוו•וו•וו■וl■וו■וו■ווווו■וו■וו■וו■ווIוו■ווווו■וו■ווווו■וו■мו!ו■וו■וו■וו■וו■וו■וו■ווlUi
$
I THE INSTRUMENT \ I OF THE IMMORTALS I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIII5
lllllllllllllllltllllllll
. . There is something in the history of the Steinway family to bring joy to the heart of every one who is devoted to his profession. The Steinway piano is an unmistakable product of love of profession, and to it I pay my tribute of high esteem and admiration.”
From a letter to Steinway & Sons
by Ignace J. Paderewski
Paderewski’s tribute to the Steinway is echoed in the preference of every great musician. The Steinway is the piano of Hofmann and of Rachmaninoff. It is the companion of Fritz Kreisler and Mischa Elman; an inspiration to the songs of Schumann-Heink and Gad-ski. To Damrosch and Stokowski the Steinway “stands unequaled.”
Does not your every inclination tell you that you can find permanent musical happiness only in the Steinway? Need you delay this happiness when you know that the Steinway price is a reasonable one? And when the terms of payment are so generous that your purchase is relieved of any inconvenience?
Any new Steinway piano may be purchased with a cash deposit of io%, with the balance extended over a period of two years. Used pianos accepted in partial exchange.
PRICES: $875 AND UP.
Steinway & Sons
STEINWAY HALL
109 E. Fourteenth St., New York
I am really not such an insufferable bounder as to decry the admirable work of my compatriots! Who and what am I to do such a thing!? What an awful thought! The sentence I wrote is as follows: “Setting forth the deadly and lethal character of American compositions, an opinion entertained by many Americans and most foreigners residing in America.” It is against this unjust verdict of many Americans and most foreigners in America that I protest as far as my feeble powers permit. I shall be happy to concede to them that I and my work are of no importance whatever, but I am unwilling to admit for an instant that the work •of our young composers is unworthy of not only one hearing, but also of reiterated hearings (as you so truly observed in your excellent criticism of Mr. Griffes’ Poem for Flute), for it is only after repeated hearings that the qualities of a serious work can be fairly judged.
You and such authorities as Leonard Liebling, Deems Taylor and others have done and are doing noble work in our behalf which, I am sure, we all keenly appreciate.
Begging you to forgive the inordinate length of this letter, also its probable weaknesses, in a measure due to hurry and my natural obtuseness, please believe me very gratefully yours,
(Signed) Templeton Strong.
Kenneth Clark Takes Exception
To the Musical Courier:
To at least this one of your readers the editorial in your issue of January 18, captioned Vanity and Greed, seems based upon a misconception of the true facts concerning the fake music publishers who are the subject of the editorial. The undersigned does not share the complacent feeling of the editorial writer as expressed in his opening statement: “It is difficult to get up any very strong sympathy for the song writers who get into the clutches of fake publishers and get swindled out of their good money.” He adds: “If those people were not animated either by vanity or greed they would not get stung.”
I do not believe that the susceptibility of amateur song writers to the blandishments of the fake publishers is due to greed. Certainly not, unless we are to take that words as meaning merely “eager desire or longing” instead of “greediness” (Webster). It may be true that amateur song writers, reading of the immense royalties earned by Irving Berlin - et al, aspire to convert their lilting lyrics into cash. One can scarcely call this avarice. That the aspiring amateurs are impelled by •vanity is, in most cases, true. ,We must give many of them the benefit of the doubt, however, as to their having a certain aspiration towards self-expression.
Granting that these amateurs are urged on by vanity, are they none the less to be protected from exploitation by “song sharks?” The man who is victimized in the shell game at a county fair may be animated by a gambler’s spirit. Are we therefore to deny him protection against sharpers? The dope fiend may have acquired the habit through curiosity as to a sensation as yet inexperienced by him. Are we for that reason to refrain from stamping out the drug traffic?
These melodramatic examples are used because the fake publishing traffic is so sensational in its extent. William’ Arms Fisher stated in his address before the Music Teachers’ National Association that 577-10 per cent, of the music copyright entries at Washington for the first half of 1922 was made up of compositions (?) entered by the fake publishers. He estimated the amount of the annual swindle as $640,000.
The present writer was drawn by accident into the campaign against these fake publishers which is being carried on by the Better Business Bureau of the Music Industries Chamber of Commerce. His contact came about through the writing of articles on the work of the Committee on People’s Songs. This brought to the undersigned a flood of letters from would-be song writers, many of whom enclosed examples of their talents and some of whom gave instances of actual defrauding of them by fake publishers. The latter facts were referred to the above bureau, which is now investigating the charges. For instance, one man wrote that he was working fifty hours a week for forty-three cents per hour and had a wife and two children to support. He mentioned a firm of publishers who, he said, had contracted with him for the publication of three songs on a payment by him of $36. When the songs did not appear he wrote to them, but they kept putting him off with an excuse, and up to the time of writing he had had no satisfaction from them.
One could not describe as “greed” the aspiration of a woman from a small middle western town who wrote to the undersigned as follows: “Will you be kind enough to read those songs over and if they are worthy of your notice will you in charity to an invalid in a wheel chair tell me how to dispose of them as I myself cannot have music set to them or published. I can’t earn one dollar crippled up so. I depend on a daughter who has two small children herself to provide for and am a burden. If I could get a few hundred for all how grateful I would be to you and would ask God to reward and bless you and yours every day of your lives. I suppose you are a professor and would be an honest judge to know the value of them or you could tell me they were useless. I trust in God you can give me some hope, and for reading them I will thank you now and wish you every happiness of the New Year.”
The lyrics submitted by this woman were amusing in their ineptitude and pathetic in their futility. Fortunately she had not fallen into the clutches of the fake publishers. It is to warn just such people, however, that the above mentioned campaign is instituted.
Wherein your editorial writer seems to have an especial misconception as to the nature of the swindle is that he describes composers as being most frequent victims of the “song sharks.” Says he “For the poet they find a tune; for the composer they find a poem; and for those who have their works all complete they offer publication at a price.” Almost never is the product submitted (one cannot call it a “work”) a complete song. It is generally a set of verses which are frequently illiterate and have neither the poetic beauty of an art song nor the catchy jingle of a Broadway hit. The fake publisher advertises “song poems wanted,” or some such thing, and to the victims who reply he offers to have music set to these poems (!) and to (Continued on Page 66)
Letters from
MUSICAL COURIER READERS
Templeton Strong Makes a Correction
Geneva, December 26.
To Frank Patterson :
Many thanks to you for your little notice of my songs of an American Peddler in the Musical Courier just received here. Your taking the slightest notice of them was an unexpected honor and your silence as to their shortcomings was generous.
In writing them my main idea was to hypothetically admit that our American compositions (mine in particular, if you choose) are things of naught, deadly in their effects, melodyless, etc. But if there should be any degree of merit in our compositions the jokes and croaks and pronounced apathy of our American public with regard to them are vain, if the object be to deny the existence of that which may be of merit in them. Permit me to state our case as I see it—the unenviable position of our composers with regard to the American public, and by American public is meant that too large contingent of our musical public that discourages any form of serious music composed by Americans.
Today in America there are many bright, highly gifted young composers, rich in melodic and poetic gifts, replete with vitality, sincerity, sensibility and distinction, whose like I look for in vain in the youth of the nations of the Old World, men of whom America might be proud, bright young .fellows doomed to bitter discouragement; thanks to the voluntarily deaf ear of our musical public. It is generally admitted that finally the public is the supreme judge of the value of art-work and if the attitude of a public remains unchanged for fifty years with regard to the value of a class of art-work, the latter may be considered as definitely classed for its weal or woe. Able writers have repeatedly set forth in the columns of the Musical Courier (may its shadow never grow less!) the utter indifference and contempt with which serious works by our composers are received by our public. The result? Our composer, who has composed his work with his life-blood—who has felt the vitality of each and every note of it, never considering the terms success or fame, but only considering the possibility of contributing to the joy of the world by the creation of a new thing of beauty—his personality left unconsidered—I repeat, our composer, young as he is, loses heart, sure of his sincerity and equally sure of the apathy and probable contempt that will submerge him. Lucky if his work be not received as a joke.
Neither overweening nor self-satisfied as to his attributes, he may yet feel that there may be something of value in his work and this must be his sole consolation. But the American public has shown contempt for his kind for over half a century, and the knowledge of this fact, coupled with material considerations, may lead to his utter discouragement and cessation of any further musical activity. He lives and dies with the thought that he is a sincere but perhaps mistaken freak of nature, judged and sentenced by the unassailable Tribunal of the Public—convinced that his deeply felt art must indeed be poor to deserve such absolute ostracism on the part of his compatriots.
I do not hesitate to state that. I have the very greatest admiration for and pride in the work of many of our composers, believing them to be possessed of a keen, poetic insight into the meaning of music rarely found in the work of young composers over here, reminding me of the superior imagination of our illustrators, superior to all others.
What I have written above will, I hope, explain the text of the Crow, that symbolizes the American public, as does the bull in the Bull at the Picnic and the phantoms• in the Churchyard. Could these feeble little texts serve as a mirror to even a very minute fraction of our publjc, enabling it to see itself as our composers see it and as it is, some slight modification of attitude might be hoped for, i. e., the apparently somnolent Anglo-Saxon love for fair play might be awakened. (The footnote, “His bad art killed him,” etc., is supposed to be the dictum of our joyful public.)
You state in your kindly article that you do not suppose I am laughing, because neglect is not an easy thing to laugh at. I can assure you in all veracity that years ago I felt keenly the effects of this neglect, for I wished to be a credit to my country, even were it but in a small way. Time cured that and I can now smile at the naivete of my dream and can consider it as a joke on me. Had I not considered that my fifty years of effort have just about the value of a poor joke, I would never have dared write these unpretentious little songs: I can now laugh at it all, laus Deo, and do it as gracefully as I can. I wonder how much this blighting discouragement contributed to the too early departure of Mr. Griffes? _	....
Our anti-American public is one of two things: either its musicality is pure and abject fake and pretence or it is of the snobheaded order, only taking to its problematical heart that which is etiquetted “Made in Europe.” In taking either attitude, it is pronouncedly inferior to the public of any other civilized nation so far as standing by its compatriots is concerned. To this it may be replied that it is due to the inferior quality of the work of our composers. Is it? Have they had a fair chance to expose their wares sufficiently for just comprehension? Notour anti-American public, is a joke and so long as it maintains its present attitude, it is not to be taken seriously as having any other than a box-office value. This statement may mean a closed door for me in my country, but as I have one leg in the other world, this for me regrettable eventuality will not particularly touch me can I feel that I have perhaps helped to clear the road for my bright young colleagues, if they will permit me so to style them.	. .
A certain percentage of worthy American compositions should figure upon the programs of all our large orchestral concerts, and if the public demanded this, the leaders of the orchestras would surely acquiesce unless too lazy to examine unknown works.
If you can do so discreetly, do please correct ^ the little slip in your article where you state “If the American com-poser is as bad as Mr. Strong (himself an American) seems to think, what right has he to complain of neglect?’