Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-05-01
THE CRITIC TALKS
TO MUSIC LOVERS
Weekly Comment on Things Musi.
cal in Discriminating
PhiiddeIphia

was obliged to resort to certain "exne.
dents to fill the Academy of Music
at all of its concerts, there prevailed /,
distinctive and most interesting custom
the same being request program;
which was given at the last concert NJ
the season. In the official program of
the last concert but one, each season
beginning with that Of 1904 1905 (so
far as the personal records of the wr;tor
extend) and continuing for n numbcr
OF years thereafter, were printed aI
the orchestra numbers performed duriny
that season, divided into symphonics
overtures and miscellaneous. :" tho nj
tendant being asked to vote for one of
each. The three winning numbers. to.
gethcr with solo work, selected ~
course by the conductor. made up the
concluding program Of the season.
Naturally this plan is artisticallv
false and is not to be considered for
moment In such q scheme of programs
as Mr.. Stokowski has outlined nj lcast
for the close of the present season. Wc
are to have the Beethoven Ninth SYM.
phony at the last concert, the work
which, with the Pach B minor Mass
and the Brahms Requiem (both religious
compositions and therefore unsuitable
for concert performance). stands Mt thc
very head of all musical conception in
grandeur of thought as well MS in tech
meal and artistic expression. When
works such as these close the season
the request program becomes little
short of an absurdity.
THE fallacies and the dangers Of the
l. request program" are almost foo
numerous and too self evident to he
necessary to point out. Nevertheless
the request program" had a distipc,
value. The principal danger lay in tho
conflict OF the numbers chosen by the
audience with the solo selection made
by the conductor, necessarily weeks bs.
fore Nv
The soloist for the last concert might
have elected. with the consent of Tho
conductor. to play the Franck sym
phonic Variations and the audience
might have chosen the Franck ID minor
symphony, for the symphonic choice and
the Chase Maudit' for the miscel
laneous number. This would have re-
suited In program of unutterable mo.
notony. for Cesar Franck. great as he
is, is not Bach. a Beethoven. a Mo-
zart or Brahms, of which composers
alone 1t is possible to select n completc
and yet diversified program for n sym.
phonic concert. even admitting the fact
that Bach composed no symphonies. His
| genius, however is so monumental that
nc. can get away with this little de-
tail which would bar any other com.
poser, even Mozart.
THE most interesting point Of m.
request programs is that, though
they continued from 1904 -O5 TO 19131I
tagain according to the recollection Of
the writerl. the Tschaikowsky SYM
phony Pathetique received very much
! the largest vote every year. In fact.
1t virtually doubled the vote given 70
any other symphony every season.
Inc only works which approached II
in popularity were the Schubert "JIn.
finished" and the mighty Fifth of Rec.
thoven. This last is composition which
In every element which goes to make IN
work of all time exceeds Tschni-
kowsky's "Pathetique" as much as an
! arc light exceeds n candle.
Nevertheless. the fact remains that,
SO far as popularity is concerned.
Ischaikowsky' "PathetIque" was the
Babe Ruth of the Symphonic League.
because when it came to "show down"
the 'PathetiQue" had about $50 votes
every year to about 320 for the nearest
competitor. Then the conductors be.
came tired Of giving it at the close of
every season after having performed il
at one of the regular concerts. So, for
four seasons, we did not hear the most
popular symphony of the year.
various reasons were advanced,
well balanced programs" unity of
performance" ct cetera. and although
the Tschaikowsky No. "came across
at least three times with the votes, the
Schubert B minor was given twice and
the Beethoven G minor once. The last
| loo at,r a.
the writer) the vote was not published
in the program notes, although a "re-
quest program" was given.
THE other numbers Of the "reouest
L programs were about evenly di.
yided. The "Sakuntala" overture Of
Carl Goldmark, and the ''Tannhaeuser"
overture of Wagner ran about evenly.
although occasionally an "outsider"
such as the Lconore No. 3 of Beethoven
laneous' numbers Liszt's "Preludes"
was one of the most consistent winners.
! The main interest, however. lay in
the choice Of the symphony. The "ra-
thetique' was the only modern sym
phony to be chosen. although the Cesar
franck ID minor symphony and, one
year, the Strauss Symphony Domestica
ran we'll toward the top. AS general
thing. however, the Schubert "Unfn-
ished" and the Beethoven No. were
the second choices. The Brahms sym
phonies, works which have come tnr,
their own in the last few seasons, were
never anywhere near the top.
THE interesting feature In a possible
- resuscitation of the old "requcst
program If even for single year,
would stand today. IL is more than
likely that the Tschaikowsky No. q
would be again returned as the winner,
for. while its popularity is not what it
was ten or even five years ago, II is still
one of the strong cards of the sym
phonic year, and is good for "standing
room only every time it is performed.
However, il is certain that it would
not poll today double Tee numper OF
votes cast for the other great sympho-
MES, as it did for so many years. The
Beethoven No. would certainly coms
very close to the highest number, and.
to judge by the reception it received
this year. Tschaikowsky's own No.
would poll very heavy vote. The Cesar
Franck symphony would probably show
a little falling off in popularity. while
two. and perhaps three. of the four
Brahms symphonies would show enor'
nous gains. These would be the sec
ond and third surely, and possibly the
first The fourth is. perhaps, still
little deep" in its meaning.
However, there would be good reason
for the slowness Of the public to accept
the fourth symphony of Brahms, for. the