Scan 6
Musical Courier 1908-01-15: Vol 56 Iss 3, 1908
56 lines. Read by computer on 24 September 2026. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1courts, from the police headquarters and the station houses and from the court records in cases that are of a scandalous nature, and all this is then appropriated by the daily papers, turned into still more sensational articles with large headings, so that the eye at once falls upon them when the man or the woman at the breakfast table begins to look into a paper. Now, one can very well understand what kind of men these must be who are handling this material 365 times a year and this year 366 times. They cannot very well have time to be interested in a question of music.
3To write for such papers on an abstruse and scientific question like music is, therefore, from the start a very ungrateful task. To do so for a small salary as a part of livelihood makes it still more ungrateful. Thus, the critics are compelled to resort to all kinds of devices, and this entangles them with musical enterprises that utilize their services and with the various institutions and with the various individuals that control the finances of these institutions, and these critics therefore become biased, sometimes unconsciously, for their own protection and their own future and their own pockets. It is only the hypocrisy that denies these facts and that tries to present itself to the public and the musical world under the guise of purity and holiness that is exposed in the columns of this paper—that is all. The critics have been compelled to do things which they naturally would, as men, resent, but they are not able to meet the situation because of the financial condition. That is the thing that this paper is bound to show up to its readers and the world of music; but we do not consider them bad men as men go. There are sometimes, some of them, very narrow-minded, very small, and some of them are even contemptible and do things, as I said before, they must regret if they have any hearts or any brains or any ordinary common sense.
5Now, as to the question of articles being paid for that appear in this paper, I desire on this occasion, in the beginning of the year, to make a few statements. We know nothing about Mr. Heinroth because we have no opportunity to ascertain anything about him, whereas about Mr. Carl we know a great deal, as his activities come before us in the natural course of journalism. If we were compelled to publish everything that occurs in music, we would be also compelled to have about a thousand members on the staff to report. In the City of New York alone we would require twenty reporters for Greater New York. That would make a paper of at least 120 pages a week. The printing of such a publication, which is to appear on Wednesday, would be required to begin at least ten days ahead. As it is now we begin six days ahead for publication. We begin with this paper on Wednesday and it is published the following Wednesday. Considering the half day on Wednesday before we begin and the half day on Wednesday after we are published, it makes six days in which it is necessary to apply all our forces and all the printing facilities to produce this paper every week. To produce a 120 page paper would take ten days and twenty persons to report alone, leaving aside a still larger office force.
7No one would pay for this.
9As no one would pay for it, it is impossible for me to suggest how it should be published. It could not be published for 10 cents.
11The people who take no interest in this publication can, necessarily, not be attended to, because we can take no interest in them. We cannot send anybody to the Heinroth recitals, as Mr. Heinroth does not take care of that matter himself. The people who give performances see to it that this paper receives its proper instructions and credentials and necessary means to attend them. Otherwise this paper and no other paper has ever yet devised any means for reporting any events except such events as are on the regular calendars of occurrences; for instance, an obituary or the production of a new opera. Matters of this kind are flashed across the wires and are accessible, but when they are not of such moment that the press facilities of the world will pay attention to them, it is impossible for a paper to do so unless the parties interested themselves adjust the matter according to the modern methods of journalism in order to have the facts published. How can anybody seated in this office here, among the fifty-two people that are at work, devise a system that will bring to him or her the opportunity for ascertaining what is to take place in the case of a gentleman like Mr. Heinroth or others, when those persons themselves offer no opportunity? If it is valuable enough for Mr. Carl to do, necessarily it must follow that it would be valuable for others to do so. Mr. Carl has found that through THE MUSICAL COURIER he has virtually perpetuated his name among the great organists of the United States.
13We do not tell our correspondent anything about the difference between the quality of the performance on an organ by Mr. Carl and Mr. Heinroth. If there are any musicians or persons who prefer Mr. Heinroth, it is their privilege. If there are any persons who prefer Mr. Carl, it is their privilege. The probability is, as the things usually take place, if a half dozen critics went to each recital there would be a diversity of opinion regarding both of these organists. I doubt very much whether Mr. Heinroth would publicly state that he is a better organist than Mr. Carl. At least, Mr. Carl has by this time played before multitudes of people, because he has understood how to introduce his music to them, whereas Mr. Heinroth, until I received this letter, was an organist little known to me, and I think I occupy a position in the musical world that justifies me in assuming that if I do not know a musician by reputation, that he certainly cannot be as prominent a musician as a musician known to me by reputation, everything else being equal.
15The merits of a musician sometimes force his reputation before the public through journalism quicker than if he had no merits, but I have never heard much of Mr. Heinroth. Now, he probably will be come known, and that will show him what an error it is for a man who has qualifications to keep them, as we say, hidden under a bushel.
17I do not look upon this at all as a personal rebuke—this letter. I think it is interesting and I think it brings out a great many facts that people should know; for instance, this fact—the fact of Miss Pinkert.
19Nobody connected with THE MUSICAL COURIER has ever met Miss Pinkert, has ever spoken to Miss Pinkert, and has ever done more than to sit in the opera house and hear her sing. No agent of Miss Pinkert has ever called on this paper, and yet I submit here, with dates, etc., together with the names of the operas and what was stated in this paper regarding her singing when she appeared last time at the Manhattan Opera House:
21December 5, 1906, "I Puritani."
23Mlle. Pinkert is a coloratura soprano with a very light voice of agreeable quality and extreme flexibility. * * * She displayed considerable technical facility and much knowledge of interpretative nuance. In the famous mad scene her trills and roulades were tossed off brilliantly enough to win her a great ovation.
25December 12, 1906, "Rigoletto."
27Pinkert is a routine singer with a legitimate coloratura and excellent high tones. * * * Pinkert's trills and staccati are exceptionally brilliant. * * *
29December 12, 1906, "Puritani."
31Pinkert is a singer of splendid vocal skill and uncommon intelligence as an actress. She, too, had her moments of triumph.
33December 12, 1906, "Rigoletto."
35Pinkert gave a notably fine account of herself in the "Caro nome" aria.
37December 26, 1906, "Lucia."
39Pinkert's coloratura is a thing worthy of all praise.
41January 2, 1907, "Rigoletto."
43Pinkert's "Caro nome" made the house ring with thunderous applause.
45January 9, 1907, "L'Elisir d'Amore."
47Pinkert was vocally a fluent Adina, and in her acting revealed rare humor and piquant archness.
49This is only one case. Thousands of musicians have been treated similarly by THE MUSICAL COURIER. Does not the writer of the above letter see at once that if these articles were paid for—these criticisms—that this paper would have twenty critics to cover the ground, and that it would be 120 to 150 pages a week, and that the proprietors would be millionaires by this time? I could not say what the trouble was with Miss Pinkert and the critics of the daily papers. I only know that there was no trouble with Miss Pinkert and thousands and tens of thousands of singers and players and THE MUSICAL COURIER. I know that no one "hands out," as the writer calls it, anything to THE MUSICAL COURIER for any criticism, because that fact would become known. Now, then, this gives me another opportunity to explain methods.
51This paper has made many changes in twenty-seven years. We have had at least, under my régime here, a dozen writers in the critical department of the paper who are no longer associated with this institution, two of them deceased and the others still at large. Suppose under some system inaugurated by the paper it was understood that criticisms were to be paid for. These writers who have since been either dismissed, or who have resigned, or who have left for reasons best known to ourselves, would be able to testify and verify such a statement. It has never come from any sources that are reliable. Could the editor of this paper place himself in such a position toward the people who are working on the paper—a position which would place him at their mercy at any time? Is it suspected for one moment that a man can conduct a paper like this—and this company is publishing three papers—would a person, who is sufficiently balanced in intelligence to do this kind of work and do it for so many years, be capable of making such a fundamental blunder as to place himself in the hands of any one through a method or through a system of instructions, the face of which would indicate a radical dislocation of ethical laws, of which he would be the responsible promoter? It is a simple question. This paper has had numerous libel suits, and in not one of them has there ever been a suggestion, even discovered or projected, that the business of THE MUSICAL COURIER was otherwise than strictly correct, not only from a journalistic point of view, but from a view of legitimate business as it is considered the world over. Could an institution like this enjoy the extensive credit which it has—a credit which is virtually unlimited—if the head of it were in any manner inculcated with methods that were not as clean and as pure as those of any other well established, honest institution? These are simple questions.
53THE MUSICAL COURIER has succeeded, simply because it has been based upon the laws that are understood among fair, decent and honest people to be the proper laws that should guide any institution, whether public or private, that has dealings with the world at large, and in connection with this I am going to say something which has been frequently said in these columns—that is, that thousands of people have received the gratuitous service of these papers when only hundreds have paid for the insertion of articles advocating their business interests and their personal advancement, which is the same thing.
55But this paper is not at the service of everybody for the mere say so. There must be a limit, and if there were no limit there would be no paper. It is simply a well regulated business institution, just as is the London Times, the Paris Matin, the Berlin Allgemeine, or let us say the New York—I don't know what. I must admit that I become somewhat
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.