An Argument Which Only Goes To Prove... Nothing

Radio Record, 1 April 1938, Page 6

An Argument Which Only Goes To Prove... Nothing

N the North they fave begun to argue ebout the "greatest musicel instrument’ again. So "SARI" tekes a hand with this lightly-told tale ef a musical argument and its conclusion.

AST week I. heard --. two. musicians. ar- :¥ . guing the motor"talk doldrums aw ay. Most evenings they dial-twist happily from station to’station, pulling

ten minutes of Kreisler out of the ether here, five five minutes of Nikish there. Between times they sit and smack their lips and murmur: "Oh boy, oh boy, oboy! What wouldn’t we do to scrape those strings and tickle those ivories thus!" But this night something at dinner sat heavily on their stomachs. One said: "Anyway, who are vou, giving yourself airs; There’s only one instrument to express the greatest in music-the vioJin." The other snarled: "Beethoven would agree with you, of course." "Boys," I said, "save your breath. Yot’re both wrong. The King of Instruments is the organ." Being the only man who is ever right in a musical argument, I harangued them thus: "The greatness of an instrument depends on its expressive power. For the convenience of this argument let us break this vague qualification into its component parts and call them: (1) Basic tone!

quality, (2) variety of pose sible effect, and (3) directness of expression. Which of you nitwits are going ta argue with me about the basic tone quality of the o1gan, the piano, and the vio-}

lin?... The simple, honest beauty of an open dia-° pason... Why, the dynamic range of an organ is one of the wonders of the,world. It can whisper so } soft you can only feel it or it can shake buildings. Its variety of tonal timbre is almost as awe-inspir-ing, for the staple diapason tone has received so many additions in the form of related hues-or of more or less successful imitations of the sound of other instruments-that organs have actually been built which eliminated the diapason entirely or confined it to the pipes controlled by the pedal keyboard. "Here the piano is a poor, second, and the violin a wretched third. True, all start at the lower end of the dynamic scale on almost even terms, but the violin abandons the hopeless contest before it is ‘well begun and the piano drops out just as the master-instrument is warming up! "In variety of tonal effects the piano and the violin are again hopelessly outclassed. You pianists may claim that the number of tonal effects at your command equals almost that of the organ, and that the roofshaker is only pre-eminent when the subtler (Continued on next page.)

(Continued from previous page-) differences of timbre are ruled out. Admit that... and still the organ is the most versatile, the most impressive, the most magnificent of all instruments." The fiddler wiped his brow and the strummer clenched his fists. "What about your third qualification," demanded the violinist in a strangled voice. "What would an organist give for the privilege of tucking his instrument under his chin and making it talk? My key-thumping friend here would give his eye teeth tor the power to do what I can dochange the quality and quantity of a tone even after it has begun to sound. The violin may not have circus-variety, but it at least manages to keep out of the way and let the music imagined and the music performed be one. In directness of expression my _ instrument leaves the piano a bad second and the organ nowhere at all. Who can proher What his heart feels over a hunwed feet of cable and through the most complicated mechanisms?" There was something in what the fiddler said. While I was thinking the neglected pianist piped up. "¥ wonder," he said, "if you fellows aren’t overlooking something, The violin whacks my instrument in directness of expression and the organ can shout or whisper. But I wonder if it’s really not better to score two seconds in a band contest, rather than just one first?’ Just then there was that long, long puuse for the eight o’clock chimes. . . What did the argument prove? Nothing ut all, except that such diseussiong are foolish. The problem itself is a fundamentally insoluble one.