The San Francisco call., 1905-01-01

What was the little tale one used to
read about the bear with-like Mozart
Weakness for dancing? Did not the
sgile monkey swear at his efforts and
The pig praise Ard went the bear sor-
rcwfuliy away. Sorrow is also my
portion. Net for me to say the monkey
has commended my dance, but the pig
has praised. / must own to having held
not hurubly the power given me here
for the furtherarce CT the art musical
emoEg Cs. i must confess to believing
that power not srtaIi--ard claim, fur
ther. that it has basr used with some
competence. discretion. an entire hon
esty Of purpose and without fear or
favor. But such 2 vastress CT sway as
I am credited with in The Call edition
OF the Musical Review of last week.
Really, no. 1t is too, too much. In my
hands, says afr. aretzger, who edits
the aforementioned sheet. lie the reiRs
or local musical e.npire-all, that is,
not held by my almost equally iilustri
Gus confrere of the Examiner Ashton
stevens In proof of this Mr.. Metzger
devotes much space and more gram
mar-uniaue and delightful until, like
one OF the earlier pagans, one is almost
persuaded to the faith. Then one re-
members the preacher and returns a
lowly and cilas.ened reviewer
But seriously, for the few coed peo-
pie that take seriously this llysteTlcai
and uninportant little person (to the
rest ] apologize for his obtrusion here):
In his New Year sheet. among
other sins, Mr.. Metzger accuses
The Call critic OF signing criti-
cisms not written by her and of a
wanton breacl; of professional eti-
Guette. There ere other accusations
chiefly one of a policy of destruction
rather thar OF construction. and aiei
Why not somelhing new if not true
but these, coming from this source, are
beneath even philanthropic attention.
To take Mr.. Metzger's first accusation.
He says: THE sweeping denunciation
of the excellent Kopta quartet and
Mrs. Oscar Mansfield which appeared
in The Cali under the name of it's au-
thoriZed critic was written by Oscar
We'll, who has taken unto himself the
censorship of music in this city for
quite number of years. The criti-
cism appeared under the signature OF
The Calls critic, and there has not
been case in the history of music in
the world (sicD where such a breach
OF the etiquette of the profession has
been made"
AS the quotation best serves to show
the calihey of the article in question 1
do not apologize for it.
The Kopta criticism did appear
under my name. AS my signature
If anywhere upon this page, is at the
have appeared "over" it. The implica-
tion is another story. Twice certainly
and IL my memory serves me faithfully
three Hmes---the fact that the article
was written by another person than
myself was deliberately insisted upon.
This makes Mr.. Metzger what. Either
of two quite unpleasant things It seems
to me- Mr.. MetZger. Take your choice.
You have here stamped yourself as a
person OF phenomenally careless and
incompetent reading; or, worse, as a.
WELL as one in whom the truth is not.
/ am unfortunate in ore regard,
whereby hangs this tale. have always
found 1t necessary to attend concert
in order to criticize it. Here I bow to
Mr.. Metzger-who has not. Not unin-
teresting in this connection. and as
evidence of the value of the Musical
Reviews criticisms, is the fact that
Mr.. Metzger's critique of the last Mi
netti concert was written and in type
hoforo the conrorf tnoL nlooof