Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-10

argument which was stirred UP
- by Leopold Stokowski, conductor
of the Philadelphia Symphony
Orchestra, playing ultra modern music.
Not only Mr. Stokowski's audiences,
but particularly the radio listeners anu
critics, seem to be excited about first
class symphony organization playing
this kind of music. Although I am
neither q musical critic nor q con-
ductor, have received many letters
asking me what think about it.
1t is as a rank outsider that I ven
ture timidly to state my owE purely
personal views. First of all. can't see
the reason for all this shooting. M.
Stokowski is an artist of fine mu-
steamship and great distinction. If he
warts to play Stravinsky's "Sacre du
Printemps" there is no reason why he
shouldn't, and probably he could offer
a great many valid reasons why he
should. There is no irreverence to the
classics in this. have made Eote of
this as possibly pertinent to q radio
column on account of the fact that
think that, for some reason, which they
do not state, radio broadcasters and
program directors ought to take de-
terfnined stand against what one Boa
ton friend calls the drowning of the
great music of the world in a din OF
wild-eyed cacophony." 1t doesn't seem
to me to be as bad as all that. One
fine thing about radio Is that 1t has
been wide open, not only for the great
est possible freedom of speech. but for
all modernistic and experimental VEN
lures in the arts. I'm bit old-tasn-
Toned about music myself, but, in my
opinion, the Stravinskys and all the
others ought to be allowed to have
their say, particularly when they gam
the attention Of such a fine and capa-
BILE musician as Leopold Stokowsfd.
About Dressing for the mike"
Replying to letter from Reginald
C. Burgess of Binghamton, N. Y, ] am
able to supply to a breathless world
some authentic news of how radio an
nouncers dress. Mr.. Burgess inquiry
probably was apropos of q newspaper
story which reported most of the slaves
of the mike as changing their clothes
three or four times q day. The IDEA
of this yarn, IL any, seemed to be that,
for psychological effects, a man must
be dressed perfectly to suit the hour
and the mood of his broadcast, II ne
is to do his best work. For this reason
he was supposed to be busy climbing
in and out of business suits, morning
clothes and evening clothes.
While I know one or two announcerS
who are somewhat given to this sort OF
thing, on the whole, the dress OF both
artists and broadcasters conforms 10
the surface requirements OF the occa-
sion at the studio. Once in while
with some unusually distinguished art
lists contributing touch OF extra for
mality, we members of the working
crews take to morning coats, and 1t is
not unusual to dress for evening broad
casts. But all this is more for the simple
reason Of not being conspicuous, rather
than in the hope of steaming up the
broadcast through sartorial excellence.
In one radio drama recall that one
actor, playing the part OF . rich broker,
in q drawing.room scene, which, OF
course. would call for evening dress on
the legitimate stage, had been fishing
and rushed in at the last moment in
ruugh-and-tumble outing costume. AS
we viewed the action, 1t was bit In
congruous, but the actor was not in the
least embarrassed by his failure to dress
the part. Women, on the whole, seem
rather more fussy about having just
the right clothes than men, including
both artists and announcers. suppose
there is some slight psychological eff
feet In correct attire. I have sometimes
thought it would be interesting to
broadcast the stock market in pajamas.
Roper:s Views on Victory. "a
Radio addresses by Bill Roper,
Princeton coach, remind me Of an i'm
promptu address by Mr.. Roper several
years ago which made me wish at that
time that he could have the whole
country for an audience. A rich patron
of sports, living near Philadelphia, gave
a poSt-season dinner to number OF
foot ball coaches, sports writers and
radio announcers. There were num-
Der Of addresses stressing details of win
ming technique, whooping UP college
spirit and all that, all in the stereotyped
undergraduate vein. Then Mr.. Roper
spoke. His speech was astonishingly
different. He frankly admitted that
any foot ball coach should, and of ne
cegsity must, go out to win, but he drew
the line between the do-or-die winning
psychology and the prime reason or ex-
cuse for college sports-to do something
for the boys themselves. This sounds
like an easy and obvious point, but Mr..
Roper made it mean a lot. He showed
that he had given a lot Of intelligent
thought to the bearing Of sports on the
general physical and moral development
of the entire student body. This adj
dress remained wildly in my memory,
and now, as Bill Roper tells his big
radio audiences how to enjoy foot ball,
his hearers may know that they are
listening not only to man who Is tech
nically informed, but who sees college
sport in all its larger and wider impli-
cations.
In broadcasting many foot ball games.
it has been my observation that large
sections Of the general run of audiences