21
MUSICAL COURIER
tributed so liberally to establish these concerts and retain them as a permanence. First among the donors must be mentioned John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who, for the fourth time, contributed sufficient funds to defray the expenses for a series of four concerts. The Juilliard Musical Foundation for the advancement of popular musical education in New York City, which recently began its active work, was another large contributor. In addition there were several contributors whose names have been withheld.
-----<S>--
HENRY EDWARD KREHBIEL
There is no need of appraising here the position which the late Henry Edward Krehbiel had made for himself in the profession of musical criticism nor of enumerating the musical books of permanent value which had come from his pen aside from his journalistic work. His completion of the Thayer-Krehbiel Life of Beethoven—in truth even more his work than Thayer’s by the time the American edition was finished—is in itself an imperishable monument to his name. The international musical world knows of him through these works. It was only his colleagues and his friend■ who were fortunate enough to know the genial nature of the man himself. Commanding in stature, with a face of marked refinement and a head crowned by a great plume of hair to the last; he was a man of striking appearance. In the old days Lilli Lehmann, who survives him, always called him “Jung Siegfried;” in recent years he was always to his younger colleagues “Pop” Krehbiel, which of itself speaks of the love and esteem in which he was held. A veritable walking encyclopedia of music, never an appeal for information was made to him that was not promptly, courteously and accurately responded to. He was a lover of congenial company, the pleasantest of companions. He died full of honors at the end of a long life that had been rich in usefulness. His pen, always employed on the side of sanity, will be missed; and he himself will be missed, by none more than by those who were privileged to be associated with him in the last quiet, ripe years of his life.	-----------
UNUSUAL MEMORY
The human mind is capable of astonishing things. This is a belated reflection brought forth by happening to run across the list of concertos which Ernest Schelling played at his three recitals with orchestra in Town Hall this season. The recitals were given one week apart and in them Mr. Schelling played no less than eleven major works for the pianos, as follows: January 23, Beethoven (Emperor), Chopin (F minor), Liszt (E flat) ; January 30, Schumann (A minor), Franck (Variations Symphoniques), Paderewski (A minor), and Liszt-Busoni (Spanish Rhap-sodie); February 6, Chopin (E minor), Mozart (A major), Liszt (A major) and Paderewski (Polish Fantasy). What a prodigious feat of memory is the mere learning of so many lengthy compositions, added to which is the fact that Mr. Schelling played them with the fine musicianship that always characterizes his work and with a complete mastery of their technical problems. This series was a notable event in the New York season.
----«>---
SINCERITY
In the London Times is the story of a musician of some repute attempting to do a pot-boiler, which was promptly refused by the publisher, who said, “You’ve written that with your tongue in your cheek; it won’t do for my public. The Times critic adds: “So even in the making of shop-ballads a certain low grade of sincerity is essential.”
How “low grade”? Is there any such thing as high grade or low grade sincerity ? A composer may surely be just as sincerely impelled to write popular ballads, or jazz, or rag-time, as any serious writer.
Certainly, the publisher above quoted was quite right. The man was not yet born who could write a successful pot-boiler if he did not feel pot-boilerish. The serious composer who tries to write down to the public always fails—though it must be acknowledged that some would-be serious composers never succeed until they find their own level.
After all, art is not high or low. It is sincere or insincere, good or bad in its class, whatever the class happens to be. The terms high and low, serious and popular, are merely conveniences of speech. The only terms that are really worth while are successful or unsuccessful, and that is all that matters.
----<$>-—-
WHY?
It is suggested to us that we make some comments upon “those who laughs at sincere efforts.” Why? What has sincerity to do with it? If a thing is funny it is funny and we have a perfect right to laugh at it. Laughter is oftentimes the very best sort of criticism. There is no weapon like ridicule.
Opera House, for instance, because people keep coming in during almost the entire first act, and sometimes after the intermissions as well, as there are among the late comers at the Town Hall because they are forced to wait behind closed doors for an intermission when they can enter and take their seats.
However much may be said in sympathy for those who have to stand outside, there is certainly also a great deal to be said for those who have arrived in time and who have a perfect right to demand undisturbed enjoyment of the music. There is also much to be said as to the rights of the artists, to whom it must be very distracting to have the doors opening and shutting, letting in the noise of the street and the talking of people in the lobby.
----------
LEAGUE OF COMPOSERS
A society to further the production of modern music is now being incorporated, bearing the name League of Composers. Its immediate purpose is to present music to the New York public which shall be representative of contemporary tendencies in the broadest and best sense. During the season of 1923-1924 an opening series of concerts will be offered at the Klaw Theater, devoted to the work of modern composers of every school and nation.
The league has been founded and is directed by a small board of composers and laymen. Six of this number have been members of the International Composers’ Guild during the present season. A year’s active association convinced the seceding members that a broader interpretation of the Guild’s original purposes was imperative if a permanent public for modern music was to be found in this country. Owing to irreconcilable differences as to policy, they have formed a new medium, the League of Composers, which shall present programs of such disinterestedness, impartiality, and significance as to place the sincerity of its purposes beyond question.
The League is being incorporated with the following objects: To encourage, support and make possible the production of music representative of the present time; to present the best of such music regardless of the nationality or school of the composer; to enable new composers to achieve production and publication; to further the publication of modern music; to promote co-operation among composers of all nations and encourage the formation of similar groups in other countries, and finally to present, not for profit, concerts which shall represent and encourage the new tendencies in music.
This League holds no brief for the left or the right wing of the so-called radical movement, nor for the safe middle road. Nor will a selective emphasis be placed on any one kind of experiment, whether with instruments, tones, form or whatsoever. Finally, the League is not organized with any intent, expressed or tacit, of promoting the work of the composers on its board. The five musicians who are directors represent the widest range of modern tendencies. Together with four laymen they will act as a program committee on whose unanimous decision will depend the choice of works.
While “first performances” are expected, by the very nature of the organization, to be a feature of the programs, there will be no exclusive dedication to such an idea. The League chooses to make its criterion one of merit rather than to rely on the more bizarre element of experiment. Modern works which are important and in need of a hearing will be scheduled at the concerts, regardless of the number of previous auditions. The concerts given this coming season will be in a subscription series. Lectures will be offered to subscribers by eminent musicians, scholars and critics.
An advisory committee of sympathetic composers, musicians and laymen is being formed by the board of directors. Affiliations have been established with eminent musicians abroad who will facilitate the exchange of manuscripts, appear as guests at the concerts and lecture here, and endeavor to found similar groups in their own countries. The following is the executive board: Emerson Whithorne, Leo Ornstein, Louis Gruenberg, Lazare Saminsky, Arthur Bliss, Steven Bourgeois, Miss Lederman, Mrs. A. M. Reis, Mrs. Wertheim. The office will be at 29 West Forty-seventh street.
----«>---
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM CONCERTS
On March 24, David Mannes closed his fifth successful season of orchestral concerts at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. These concerts have afforded pleasure to hundreds of thousands of serious music lovers. The interest displayed by the large audiences, estimated as approximately 8,000 at each concert, proved gratifying to the sponsors. In selecting so capable a musician and idealist as David Mannes, results have been achieved which surpassed the most sanguine expectations of those who con-
March 29, 1923
AMATEURISH
The following letter from Harriet Lanier, president of the Society of Friends of Music, appeared in the New York Times, March 18. While we do not feel with Mrs. Lanier that the presentation of Bach cantatas by the Friends of Music (rather an antiquated and unnecessary sport nowadays) calls for assistance from the Juilliard Fund, there may be some truth in her criticisms of the plans of the Foundation as announced by its director:
The ״wisdom of the provincial has been only too aptly shown by the decision of the Juilliard Foundation to espouse the cause of the itinerant journeyman of music, rather than to put this great gift in the form in which the greatest amount of good might be achieved. It seems that now is unquestionably the moment, and unquestionably the opportunity to found a conservatory of music which, richly endowed, would gather under its roof the greatest talents in the world, the greatest minds musically endowed, and the greatest pedagogues devoted to the art of music.
Instead of which, money is given to those who apply for an education, not through competition, but. as objects of charity, which it is easy to see means that the money is merely thrown away. For among the applicants chosen, not one in a thousand will probably be worth while as an artist, nor even as a pedagogue, nor one in tens of thousands a genius.
Who makes the choice among these applicants? Are the persons chosen fitted for this task? The general consensus of opinion among artists and pedagogues is that they are not. Inexperience means wastej and such, it appears, is what has befallen a great and magnificent gift, aristocratic in design and intention, ׳a princely gift such as has never before been donated to a people.
The Foundation has not formed any plan which can be called one after four years of ponderous thinking; four years of hard labor have brought forth only a wisp of hay.
Is it not permissible to suggest a few of the really great needs of our country to the men who are trying to think of what is to be done with the income from a capital of ten to fifteen millions? The needs are crying out to all those who think or hear.
A great conservatory would bring the worth while students from all over the country to a great city, where,_ aside from the opportunity for work under magnificent conditions, they would have the opportunity to hear music in all its branches, and much of it splendidly performed, as well as to be able to study the other arts, which is as necessary a part of the education of an artist, musician though he may be, as the musical side, and a side totally overlooked in this country.
Next in importance is to give yearly aid to the different organizations, the best only of their kind, so that the best may in its branch, uphold the standard necessary for artistic accomplishment. For instance, to the best orchestra or to the best choral society, as a means to enable them to maintain the fine standard reached, the judgment upon these organizations being pronounced by great artists, not by laymen. It seems to me that this would strengthen artistic effort and stimulate to fine performance. But to dribble away a great income, to give to amateur efforts, to organizations whose work is in the hands of self-seeking mediocrities and to inexpert students, to make life easy for themselves, leads nowhere.
Having given my time exclusively to musical work during the last ten years, and having been in contact with all that is best in the musical life of the city, I feel I may be permitted these criticisms of the plans so far known of the Juilliard Foundation, as expressed in Dr. Noble’s article. I have asked for money to put Bach’s cantatas, well done, and with the best forces available, before the public at very low prices, and for other fine works, only to be refused. Is the Foundation acting in all sincerity? We are supposed to be a crude, uncultured people. Be that as it may, I am convinced we are not so uncultured, so crude as to accept such a plan without voicing publicly our disapproval of Dr. Eugene Noble’s expression of opinion as to how the American people !are to be educated musically.
A more fallacious document, from every point of view, was never compiled. It is possible to attack the opinion therein expressed from every angle; it can be torn to pieces, as it has not an inch of ground to stand upon, nor does it interpret Mr. Juilliard’s will, as all of us who readmit when it was published, know very well. Is it only unsophisticated, not to suggest ׳a lamentable lack of knowledge, or it is a bid for popularity? It is difficult to decide.
The Foundation should be magnificently administered— first of all with heart and feeling, for without them understanding of the needs of the musical world, high standards, and above all, vision, are not possible. Mr. Juilliard’s gift was plainly a gift for art and through art to the people. Is it possible to conceive of it as a benefit, if administered according to Dr. Noble’s plan?
March 13, 1923.	Harriet Lanier.
-----«>----
THOSE LATE-COMERS
Comments have from time to time been made about the habit of the Town Hall management of closing the doors and keeping late-comers waiting in the lobby. The most pronounced occasion upon which this custom was noted was at a recent concert by the Friends of Music when Mahler’s Lied von der Erde was given—a lengthy work which some people preferred rather to forego than to await the pleasure of the management to gain admission.
It appears, however, from recent information received, that it is not the Town Hall management that is to blame for these annoying regulations but the individual concert givers. The Town Hall rents its hall to the artist or association giving the recital and ushers have orders to carry out the wishes of those on the stage.
And certainly for those on the stage the closed-door regulation is a very great advantage, and to the audience, except the late comers, it is equally so. There are just as many “kicks” at the Metropolitan