Scan 5
Musical Courier 1908-01-15: Vol 56 Iss 3, 1908
34 lines. Read by computer on 24 September 2026. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1ment, while the other matter, to which reference is made, was a criticism. We do not criticise Eames as singing, or Cavaliere as singing. However, it was one of those mistakes that are inevitable, and illustrates, as the writer says, that we are fallible, and so we are. Infallibility is the quality that should be understood on the part of the other papers also and is so understood, no doubt, although the music criticisms in the same do not read as if they were written by infallible beings, that is, if all of them are not read for comparison. The parallel columns of The Musical Courier illustrate that. However, there is this point that should be brought to the surface. This paper does not pretend, under any circumstances, to be a "court of last appeal in musical matters from which there is no redress." This paper merely constitutes itself a court of appeal to decide when the daily papers differ. As these daily papers constantly differ, as their critics are constantly divided in opinions regarding even facts, such as a full house or an empty house, much less off pitch and on pitch or other matters that come under direct observation of the senses, and as most of them are controlled by business motives in writing what they say, The Musical Courier constitutes itself, by natural induction, as the one institution that must decide the question in order to show, not only that something must be decided finally, particularly as there is no other court of appeal, but also to prove how these various interests and motives guide the music critics, who are known to be interested in the advocation of their personal, individual affairs, using music as their media.
3If this were an infallible paper, if The Musical Courier considered itself infallible, why, there would be no necessity whatever to criticise the critics or to illustrate their motives by showing why they differ. The mere statements of The Musical Courier, without bringing forward these evidences, would be sufficient if the paper were infallible, and, therefore, we frequently use the parallel columns. Does the writer believe that this paper would look upon the daily paper criticisms with any consideration whatever, so much even as to refer to them, if it considered itself an infallible institution that could decide questions on the strength of that infallibility? Certainly not. That would be sufficient for us to take a position not even to reply to any communications like the above. There would be no necessity for candor then. There would be no necessity for any of the many things we are compelled now to do because we are fallible. It is not a question of fallibility or infallibility; it is a question of journalism, and only that and that only. It happens to apply to music, and therefore it is music journalism.
5We do not put ourselves on a pedestal. We despise the journalistic "we." I am compelled to write articles under the journalistic "I." The writer of the above may ask why this is so. Simply because it is of journalistic advantage under certain conditions. We have received in this office here thousands of letters, asking that the editor himself should write over his signature—thousands of letters during the past twenty-seven years, in which it was charged that the editor, if he desires to show that he really means what he has to say or what he desires to utter publicly, should sign his name. We are answering a public demand, but we hate the personal pronoun in journalism, whether it be in the first person singular or the first person plural. The journalistic "we" is superannuated and should be abolished from every paper; so should the journalistic "I," unless it is considered a question of personal responsibility like in many of the journals in Europe. The men there are compelled to sign as a matter of custom. Here it has not reached that dignity yet, and a great many writers in this country refuse to sign their own utterances, and a great many of them refuse to sign their names because they do not express their own opinions. One of the reasons why this paper has grown is because it has published its own opinions and it has suffered a great deal by publishing them, but the gain has far outweighed the suffering.
7Necessarily we must admit and agree with our correspondent that our readers are not fools. By ratiocination we would be compelled to admit that if they were fools we would be fools also. As a matter of course, people who read this paper are the people of average ability, just as are those who read any other paper. Many intellectual people are not at all interested in music—not in the least. To some intellectual people of great prominence music is an unknown quantity, an art as dead to them as paleontology is dead to them as a science. There are some men who are poetically gifted, to whom music is a dead letter, and there is a large and abundant mass of literary people qualified to express authoritative opinions on the most abstruse literary problems, are not at all acquainted with the art of music as an art. To them it is sometimes unsympathetic and sometimes uninteresting and frequently a matter in which they have no capacity for assimilation; but a great many intelligent people, nevertheless, are interested in music and most of them read The Musical Courier. We are, therefore, under the constant microscopic examination on the part of people with brains and we are compelled to exercise caution in the editing of this paper, not only because it is a matter of self-respect to do so, but because the eyes of the multitude in music are upon us.
9It is the very reverse, therefore, of the theories suggested in the above letter that we might possibly consider our readers fools. I myself consider no person a fool who is interested in music and who sends $5 to get this paper every week in the year. I should subscribe myself, if I were not placed in the delicate position of a privileged person who is allowed to take a copy from the office without paying for it. It seems at times as if this were not exactly fair either, for there are many things in this paper which I never read until I see them in print, and they are very interesting and help to instruct me. Therefore, I should pay for it also. It is worth it. This cannot be done under the present conditions, because there is no one who will accept the money from me. I should not consider myself a fool if I were a subscriber of this paper, reading everything which I do not write myself and not reading a thing I write. I still would not be a fool for purchasing this paper every week, because I would be then doing what the above correspondent says every person should be doing who wishes to keep abreast of the musical times. Many of our readers tell the same thing to me, and, therefore, I have written this, not only because this letter comes under my observation, but because I am destined to reply to it. I hope that this explanation will, to some extent, explain why the conditions are as they are represented in the columns of the paper.
11Another Letter.
13The following, dated two days later, reached this office in due time and deserves space also:
15No. 52 West Twelfth Street,
16New York City, January 8, 1908.
17Editor Musical Courier:
18In reading your Musical Courier recently I noticed that you invite letters from your readers. I do not thoroughly agree with all of your ideas, but I must commend the attitude you take in reference to the pianists and the Kneisel Quartet. You are certainly on the right track in trying to advance the interests of American artists. I wish you success in this work.
20I really do not think the critics are really as bad as you paint them; there may be some bad ones, but I do not think they are all as bad as you would have us think them. I cannot believe (and have never been able to find one who does) that the articles in your paper are always square about musicians. The idea seems to prevail with all musicians I meet that any article appearing in your paper is paid for, either directly or by advertising. I have yet to find a person who will say a kindly word for your paper. This unfairness in your paper seems to have been quite prominent in the case of Mr. Heinroth. Although he was an organist in this city for many years and gave quite a few really artistic and interesting recitals, I never found one of them reported in your paper. However, I have frequently read notices about Mr. Carl. As Mr. Carl's organ school is an extensive advertiser in your paper one would naturally expect this. I have never yet found a musician or person of proper judgment who would consider Mr. Carl anywhere near as great an organist as Mr. Heinroth.
22The foregoing is not intended as a personal rebuke to you. I am interested in your paper and read it regularly and wish you all success possible in your efforts in behalf of the American musicians. I mention what I have to show you that while you are attacking the newspaper critics most bitterly, very few have any confidence in you, and in some respects it appears to me that this lack of confidence is warranted by articles in your paper.
24When I started out with this letter it was not my intention to write what precedes, but to bring up the question of Miss Pinkert, who sang at the Manhattan Opera House last season. I heard Miss Pinkert sing at the opera house a number of times last season, and she always received more applause than any other artist—certainly more than Mr. Bonci received. Yet this little artist received hardly any praise from the critics. She gave me more pleasure in listening to her than Sembrich, or any other present day singer. I never heard Melba. Quite a few musicians have said that to them she was a great pleasure; in fact, one of the greatest musicians in this country told me that she was the greatest colorature soprano he ever heard, and he has heard opera in Europe. I do not recall any criticism in your paper on this artist, though doubtless mention was made of her work at that time.
26What was the trouble with Miss Pinkert and the critics of the papers? Could not she afford to hand out as much as the others? What is your opinion of her as a singer?
28Yours respectfully,
29M. B. Johnson.
31The critics are not bad. There may be some bad ones, as the writer says, but they are not bad as a general thing. Some of them are very good. Some of them are so good that they know it. When a person reaches that elevation of mind that enables him or her to feel that they are good and know that they feel that they are good, it constitutes a great compensation for the drudgery of living, particularly as a critic of music, because if there is one profession in this world—if we may call it a profession—that deserves commiseration it is that of a critic on a daily paper. Nothing in life has so many harrowing and unpleasant features as the duty of music criticism on a daily paper, from the mere fact that the people who edit the paper, who own the paper and publish the paper, are in nearly every instance absolutely in the dark as to the very terminology or language used by the critic. If he were to speak in the terms in which he addresses those with whom he usually fraternizes, the people with whom he is discussing it would not understand him—the people on the daily paper.
33The daily paper in this country consists of a few special articles on politics, some foreign cablegrams on politics chiefly, city news on politics or political chicanery, and the rest is nearly all a compendium of the daily sewage that emanates from the police
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.