THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

Evening Star, Issue 25849, 20 July 1946, Page 11

THOUGHTS ABOUT MUSIC

(By L.D.A.) There seems to be no doubt about the high rates of pay received by musicians who play in American film studios. Agreement was reached, in May last, according to a New York message, between the eight major motion picture companies and tho American Federation-of Musicians, as a result of which 44 per cent, more of the latter will be employed in the studios, while their fees are to be one-third higher. The union's demand was for a minimum wage of 20 dollars per hour, and not less than a 10-hour week. This works out at 200 dollars per player per week—or, roughly, about £6O, unless I am very much mistaken in tho rate of exchange. Not bad pay, even allowing for the terrific cost of living in the United States.

The first reaction of the . film "bosses" to the musicians'.demands was characteristic. They said the proposals Were fantastic, and could not be mot; that, in fact, to concede them would cripple the motion picture industry. But in the midst of the hubbub, Nicholas M. Schenek, of Metro-Gold-wyn-Mayer, acting as spokesman for the producers, caused a sensation by saying: " We can pay it without hardship." So once again the autocratic president of the A.F.M., James C. Petrillo, compelled employers to pay the piper according to his own tune — and a pretty tune it is. Just what American broadcasting orchestral musicians are paid I do not know, but no doubt Petrillo has had several fingers, if not a whole hand, in that pie, too, and good luck to him. When one stops to consider the immensity of the listening audience and the high standard of performance required, a correspondingly lofty scale of remuneration seems but fair and logical. Other broadcasting concerns might do worse than take a leaf out of the American book.

By her splendid performance of Schumann's ' Carnaval ' at the Town Hall last Tuesday evening, Madame Lili Kraus made ample amends for the manner in which she broadcast Beethoven's Sonata, op. 26, on the previous Sunday. Her conception of the ' Marche Funebre ' in that sonata reminded me of Bernard Shaw's description of an Irish funeral —partaking more of jollity and fun than of solemnity and sorrow. But perhaps Madame Kraus has experienced enough sadness in her life,* -and prefers _ not to give it' expression in music. I cannot in any other way account for a funeral march being rendered so happily and skittishly. After her playing of the 'Carnaval,' the radio announcer said this' was the first time the work had been giyen in public here since Ignaz Friedman played it during his tour of New Zealand in 1938. As a matter of fact, he included it in his programmes here in 1940-41, and I believe I am correct' in stating that it was also played last year by Pnina Salzmah and Isador Goodman. The announcer then vouchsafed the opinion that "Ignaz Friedman, as listeners know, is the world's greatest exponent of Chopin." May I ask whose opinion that may be? What an absurd statement! Friedman is, or rather was, at his best, a very fine artist, and I have frequently expressed the utmost admiration for him. But he was never at any time comparable, as a performer of Chopin, with such pianists as Horowitz, Cortot, Sauer, de Pachmann, and many others, living and dead—not for.getting;Paderewski, who, in his. prime, surpassed them all. ;

Next Friday will be the ninetieth anniversary of the birth of George Ber-

nard Shaw, who came into this world on July 26, 1856. Not long ago I devoted considerable space in this column to a review of his life as it was affected by music, so I cannot say very much more on that head now. But such an event as Shaw's ninetieth birthday must not pass unnoticed. He did a most useful job for music whilst acting as music critic on a London newspaper in his younger days, if only by reason of the ridicule he poured out upon those solemn musical big-wigs, whose ideas of criticism were invariably expressed in technical jargon,- and who wrote analytical notes on concert programmes which bored everyone and nobody understood. Shaw laughed this sort of thing to scorn—and with ample justice. It is a thousand pities he relinquished the critic's pen far too soon, for nowadays his corrective influence is again urgently needed. In every magazine and in the majority of articles devoted to music we read variations on the same old jargon; critics are not content to enjoy music but must needs pull it to pieces, parse it, dissect it, in the irritatingly superior pedantic style which does more to kill interest in good music than anything 1 1 know. It is just this deterrent atmosphere that makes many people say they " Can't stand the classical stuff."

Let listeners hear the music and form their'own judgments of it; don't frighten them with long preliminary analyses, which are over their heads, and which only bore cultivated hearers. Heifetz had the right idea when he advocated anonymous broadcasts of good music—no announcements of titles or performers until afterwards. People would then, perhaps, be caught listening and might even, to their own surprise, find themselves enjoying the • standard repertoire of " classical stuff," as distinct from the mostly hideous output of contemporary composers. Here again the caustic pen of G.B.S. could be wielded lustily in a good cause. How he would smite these cacophonic moderns, hip and thigh! I have never read ] < his views on present-day musical output,' but can well imagine # how his healthy mind would it. Here's wishing him many happy returns.