Scan 4
Musical Courier 1908-01-15: Vol 56 Iss 3, 1908
27 lines. Read by computer on 23 September 2026. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1REFLECTIONS
2On
3REFLECTIONS AND DEFLECTIONS.
5HERE is no reason why a newspaper should not be candid with its readers, and I am always reminded of this by some of the early experience I had in journalism, even before I specialized in music, for it was then that I found a remarkable paper, published in San Francisco, called the "Argonaut," whose editor was a renowned man of the name of Frank Pixley, who did not hesitate to tell his readers exactly how the paper stood in circulation and otherwise, and who demanded more support from the fact that he thought that a publication as a literary product, as a representative of the public mind, deserved more support. That paper is still in existence and it is a remarkable paper today. But this was not only the case with Pixley; there were other great journalists who were also candid with their readers, particularly Horace Greeley and the original Joseph Medill, of Chicago, and such men as Yates, of London, and Girardin, of Paris. They are great models to follow—these editors, because they not only were men of tremendous force individually—that is, they had character as men—but they also were equipped with marvelous literary aptitudes, were profound generalizers, and, at the same time, men who could analyze the condition of communities, social life, political affairs, the finances and economies of nations and the drift of the times, and besides that, some of them, like Girardin and Pixley, were very artistic in their tastes. What the others lacked in art, they equalized in literature, and I must not forget the fact that Mr. Edmund Yates was a man of extraordinary artistic judgment.
7Whenever letters came to those papers that were not of the most agreeable nature, and yet which showed a neutral tint, not over-burdened with prejudices, these editors not only published them, but they published them, and told their side of the story in response.
9A great many letters that cannot be published are received by papers, and it would not be of any special benefit to the public to read them, as they do not contain a germ of an idea; these are the abusive and cowardly anonymous letters. They are meant also to protect or advance some personal interests. Every day brings letters of some kind, of approval or of disapproval of the policy or conduct of the paper, and in order to illustrate how they read on the average when they are of the higher type, I am going to print two in this issue of THE MUSICAL COURIER, chiefly because they are of this quality and because they are of recent issue.
11The first letter is dated, as will be seen, January 6th, and I publish it herewith:
13SUMMIT, N. J., January 6, 1908.
14To the Editor of The Musical Courier:
15Let me quote a paragraph from your January 1 issue. It explains itself:
16"The Herald says that Russ sang the part of Aida at the Manhattan on Christmas night, and all the other local papers state that Agostinelli was cast in that role. THE MUSICAL COURIER, by dint of its absolutely correct knowledge regarding all musical doings in this city, is able to decide the point at issue with certainty and dispatch. Agostinelli sang. The inference therefore seems to be that the Herald critic is unable to distinguish one singer from another or writes about performances which he does not attend."
17So far so good. Your inference is logical and wonderfully clever, but turn over to page 29, and, behold, the shoe seems to be on the other foot, and it ought to pinch. Your absolutely correct knowledge seems to be a little at fault, for your own critic, reporter or whatever you care to call him is unable to distinguish one singer from another, for on that page you state that:
18"On Saturday afternoon 'Fedora' had a repetition, with Caruso, Eames and the rest of the familiar cast."
19As a matter of fact, Cavalieri and not Eames sang, or at least attempted to, in that explosive opera of Giordano.
20I draw this to your attention simply to show you that we are all apt to make mistakes—yes, even THE MUSICAL COURIER—and I take much delight in so doing because your insufferable egotism is at times almost nauseating, and takes away much pleasure in reading your otherwise interesting columns.
21What is the sense of trying to fool the people all the time and attempting to make them believe that your word on musical subjects is always law, and that you are the court of last appeal in musical matters, from which there is no redress? All your readers are not fools, and they realize that you, as well as the critics of the daily papers, are human and liable to make mistakes. Why put yourself on a pedestal? Let others put you there; it would be much better taste. Your paper is interesting, and every person interested in music should read its weekly issues. Every person desiring to keep abreast of the musical times has to read your paper, for it has become the "chief musical organ of the contemporary times."
22This is all true, but let your readers tell you this and do not flaunt your eternal egotism in our faces and try to make us believe that in critical circles you always "exercise the dignified function of supreme judge."
23Yours very truly,
24KARL S. JASPER.
26That is true. That was an error. It was Cavalieri, as the writer says. The only difference is that it was merely a state-
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.