THE WILLEM MENGELBERG SOCIETY

Newsletters on this page: #31    #32    #33    #34    #35    #36    #37    #38    #39    #40

NEWSLETTER NO. 31/SUBSCRIPTION YEAR TEN

     Mengelberg was a convivial man. He loved good food, good drink, good cigars, & good company.  In her book, Over Willem Mengelberg, page 93 & pages 98 & 99, Miss E. B. Heemskerk tells two stories, which I freely translate.

     "WHEN Mengelberg was invited out after a concert, it was embarrassing when he sometimes appeared very late.  Without regard for his hosts, he quietly used the time to bathe & dress. The most awkward occasion in this respect occurred at Paris, where the Dutch painter Kees van Dongen (who painted Mengelberg’s portrait) had organized a reception in his studio.  Many of the guests had already left when Mengelberg finally arrived.  But those who waited were well rewarded: the party was an absolute 'smash.’"

     "WE GAVE concerts every year in Paris, where our ambassador, Jonkheer J. Louden, & his wife always cordially welcomed us & organized a reception in the splendid embassy in honor of the orchestra.  After the concluding performance of a Beethoven cycle the ambassador & his wife went with Mengelberg & a privileged few of us to celebrate the cycle’s great success.  In the Caves Caucasiennes, near Place Pigalle, where we eventually found ourselves, Mengelberg exchanged warm greetings with the cymbalist of the string orchestra, Nisza Kodollana, a Romanian, whom Mengelberg had once heard in the United States.  The evening closed with a merry dance party: Mengelberg played the piano & Gerard Hekking, our solo cellist, the cello; Ilona Durigo, the Hungarian alto, gave a csardas; & Mia Peltenburg, the Dutch soprano, sang an aria from La Bohème.  Everything was extemporaneous: what better proof that they were born musicians all!"

     HENRY Z. STEINWAY (of the piano family) tells the following story. "When Mengelberg came in the 1920s to the United States, prohibition was on here. He would bring in a bottle of real Dutch GIN for my father, Theodore E. Steinway, who would reciprocate with a genuine jug of Dutchess County (New York) apple jack, which he always received as a Christmas present from my mother s brother Howland Davis.  He would then share the gin with Davis, who as a young man had worked in Amsterdam for a bank."

     IN THE past two issues of NEWSLETTER we introduced ourselves to the newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung, its newly appointed chief music critic, Paul Bekker, & to their "continuing campaign against the person of Willem Mengelberg." In the last issue, page 2, we read the critic’s singularly malicious welcome to the new season of Friday Concerts, 1912/1913.
     UNKNOWN to Frankfurt’s increasingly disturbed music lovers, the Museum Association & the Frankfurter Zeitung had already exchanged letters on the subject of Paul Bekker’s reviews.  The Association opened the correspondence with a letter dated December 8, 1911, addressed to the "Management of the Frankfurt Society Press, Inc.," the publishers of the Frankfurter Zeitung.  The firm answered late the same month that it had forwarded the Letter to the Editors of the feuilleton, which is that part of a newspaper, usually French, but in this instance German, devoted to concert reviews, newspaper commentary on cultural subjects, & the like.  When the Editors failed to reply, the Association mailed a second letter, dated February 12, 1912, with fresh contents.

     THE TWO letters make these points, among others.
     (1) For a period of some years the music critics [g. & Paul Bekker] of the Frankfurter Zeitung have subjected the Museum Concerts to criticism of a nature probably unknown elsewhere in Germany;
     (2) In his letter of resignation, Siegmund von Hausegger, the previous conductor of the Museum Concerts, described the unfavorable criticisms [of the critic g.] as “‘ persona1ly hateful’” & "'poorly informed on the subjecti’”; these criticisms, which Hausegger believed gravely endangered his reputation outside of Frankfurt, obliged him to seek his release from a position he had occupied for only 3 years;
     (3) Hausegger is a highly talented & widely praised musician;
     (4) Similar concerts in Frankfurt, given by other groups, are far more favorably reviewed;
     (5) The praise internationally bestowed on Mengelberg contrasts strangely tone of the critic’s
[Bekker’s] reviews;
     (6) It is to be feared that Mengelberg will be obliged to leave Frankfurt for the same reason that Hausegger did;
     (7) The newspaper cannot diminish Mengelberg’s reputation, secure as it is, but the Museum Association, "if it quietly tolerates, season after season, the calumnies inflicted on Mengelberg, exposes itself to the danger of losing the high esteem of its public & the respect it enjoys here & abroad"; and
     (8) The Association will no longer passively look on while the critic [Bekker] continues to disparage Mengelberg & the Association.

     THE feuilleton Editors finally answered in a letter dated February 20.  The reply denies any animosity towards Mengelberg; observes that "the conflict between praise & blame [of a musician] is a much noticed phenomenon of an artist’s life"; denies that the present critic [Bekker] or his predecessor [g.] was guided by Ill will; claims that the reviews of Mengelberg’s concerts are no more severe than those published elsewhere in Germany by other newspapers of other concerts; & concludes: "We greatly regret that the Frankfurt Museum Association has come to the view that our criticisms -- not 'calumnies’ as you choose to express yourself -- should have the power to diminish the public’s high esteem for the Association & the respect It enjoys here & abroad; but the undersigned Office of the Editor is quite unable to conceive of steps able to remedy this grievance.  It has the faith in its music critic that he, when composing his reviews, will, as ever, be guided by the strictest sense of justice."

     ALTHOUGH the Frankfurter Zeitung was reluctant to enter into a dispute the existence of which it was constrained to deny on the grounds that Bekker was only honestly exercising the undeniable rights of the critic, it was also true that so long as the Museum Association confined itself to private remonstrances, the newspaper’s position was impregnable.  The newspaper could safely carry on the argument in public through Bekker’s busy pen, which scribbled behind the camouflage of "music criticism," just as did later the pen of Olin Downes (NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED, p. 3), while the Association modestly, & fruitlessly, contented itself with letters to the editor.  The disreputable nature of Bekker’s reviews is not completely apparent even from the reviews themselves, for all their brutality & conceited posturing; a full understanding of their true nature is possible only when they are considered in the light of his reviews of a coincident series of orchestral concerts at Frankfurt, conducted by Max Kaempfert (1871-1941).  We shall do this in the course of this series.

     IN THE last NEWSLETTER, page 2, we read Paul Bekker’s greeting to the new season of Friday Concerts, 1912/1913.  Bekker certainly had read the correspondence of the previous Winter between his newspaper & the Museum Association, a correspondence we have just reviewed; perhaps he had even helped to compose the reply.  Bekker’s review can be understood as his furious answer to the Association’s complaints & to the Association’s hope, raised in its second letter, that "the Editors will take the steps to remedy the grievance . . .”: Bekker might understandably have looked upon this hope as a veiled request for his dismissal; if not for his dismissal, then certainly as a scarcely veiled request that the Editors should assign another critic to the Museum Concerts.
     THE SECOND Friday concert was held a few weeks later, October 18, 1912.  The program booklets placed on the seats for the concert goers comprised not only the customary contents of a concert program, but more, as well: the complete correspondence between the Museum Association & the newspaper (which we have just reviewed), & a lengthy open letter, dated October 12, 1912, addressed to the concert goers, from the Board of Directors of the Frankfurt Museum Association, Incorporated.
     THE OPEN letter begins with the brief explanation that the critic’s latest review [NEWSLETTER, #30, p. 2] obliges the Association to bring the affair before the public; refers to the newspaper’s long standing hostility towards the Association; explains the great difficulty the Association had in finding Hausegger’s successor, in view of his reason for leaving & also in view of the difficulties presented by the lack of a true symphony orchestra [NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED, p. 3]; coments on the arrogant tone of Bekker’s reviews; analyzes his latest review; continues with the observation: "The watchword  . . . of the Editor of the feuilleton is clearly: 'Get rid of Mengelberg!’ & on the foundations of this watchword are constructed the 'aesthetic valuations’ [quoted from the newspaper’s reply].  Earlier, the watchword ran: 'Get rid of Hausegger!"; & the open letter concludes: "Whoever has not closed his eyes over the years, who has noticed how the Frankfurter Zeitung’s feuilleton columns have repeatedly & enthusiastically disparaged our Association, who has not failed to hear the crescendo, begun this past year, in the attacks on Mengelberg, he must conclude: these events belittle the artistic reputation that the Association enjoys; they prevent the Association from winning conductors of a very distinguished quality, or from keeping them.  What reveals itself here is the tendency to destroy."

     THE Frankfurter Zeitung published no review of the concert, but this bulletin appeared in the newspaper.
     "[Frankfurt Museum Concerts.] Demonstrative applause greeted the conductor, Mr. Mengelberg, upon his appearance at yesterday’s Museum Concert.  At the same time there appeared on the podium a deputation of several gentlemen who, in the words of its spokesman, assured Mr. Mengelberg of their unshakeable attachment & presented him with a laurel wreath on behalf of 'wide circles.  The programs lying on the seats enclosed an open letter from the Board of Directors of the Museum Association addressed to the concert goers; the letter dealt at length with the Frankfurter Zeitung & its music critic.  Accompanying it was an exchange of letters between the Board of Directors, on the one hand, & the Management & Editors of the Frankfurter Zeitung, on the other.  The content of the open letter of the Board of Directors & the manner in which the affair has been made public oblige us to refrain from a review of the concert & to return the tickets that the Board of Directors had placed at our disposal.  The Editors."

     THIS IS the first time that the Frankfurter Zeitung mentions the scandal.  So accustomed are newspapers to act as the sole & arbitrary determinant of what shall be the daily news in print, & how this news will be worked & shaped to support the editorial views on controversial questions, that the Museum Association’s simple move -- unforeseen & unorthodox -- , to make public what the newspaper had assumed would remain private, must have greatly disconcerted the Editors, for their answer is unexpectedly mild, the presumed mutual hatred notwithstanding.  Their answer is also the soul of brevity.  This is an instance, it must have occurred to the Editors, when it is wiser to mark an event, suddenly made public, with as little attention as possible.  The  Museum Association unexpectedly had the advantage in the ever more bitter controversy, which for a year had been completely one sided.  The hate campaign had also sown anger among Frankfurt’s music lovers, who manifested their indignation by demonstrating against the newspaper.  But the latter did not lack for allies.  As though to disprove the saying "There is no honor among thieves," the Association of Journalists & Writers in Germany agreed not to review any future concerts of the Museum Association.  The newspaper, having voluntarily returned its free tickets to the Association, signalled its lack of further interest in the Museum Concerts.  The Association, we should therefor remark, did not close its door on the newspaper: the newspaper slammed the door shut on itself.  But there still remained the concerts of the Cecilia Society, which Mengelberg also conducted: here, Bekker & his newspaper could continue to practice their "tendency to destroy." --  TO BE CONTINUED.

     J. W. NEVE. "Did Mengelberg conduct much Bruckner?" [This question is asked now & then, perhaps with Mengelberg’s incomparable brass in mind.  During the 10 seasons that he conducted the New York Philharmonic (-Symphony) Orchestra, Bruckner appeared on his programs just 4 times: the symphonies Nos. 2 & 9, twice each.  My impression is that he seldom conducted Bruckner in Europe, as well.]

     J. H. NORTH. "I have been a great Mengelberg fan since the Capitol-Telefunkens were first released here (was it 1949?), and have since even been in the Mengelberg archives, looked through his own scores, talked with Miss Heemskerk, etc. etc. (this to show you I am not just a 'casual’ Mengelbergite) -- even written a scholarly monograph and a few record program notes!
     "How did we all miss the 1978 Japanese Philips issues?  I too first heard of them in your newsletter and I assume it s too late by now: if you know of any source, I’d be glad to pay plenty for some of them: I have the previous Japanese 'Fontana’ series (1968?); some good, some bad."  [At least one other member has also asked about a source for these Japanese Mengelberg issues. The firm ANZ at Tokyo, whose address I published some years ago in NEWSLETTER, at least used to accept mail orders; but 2 inquiries I mailed them within the last 9 months were not answered.  I inquired of the Japanese Consulate at Chicago, but their answer was not helpful.  If someone who knows of a mail order source for Japanese records will please write to the Society, I shall publish the information in the next issue of NEWSLETTER.]
     J. W. NEVE. "I still think his [Mengelberg’s] old Columbia, Tchaikovsky - Romeo & Juliet the finest performance on record (disc) I have heard; the Bruno Walter Society transfer seems better than the Dutch EMI.  I still have the original 78s, but the background hiss is somewhat excessive.  Van Kempen, also with the Concertgebouw, & Koussevitzky with the Boston Symphony are also exciting, but lack the inner tension and polish and brilliance which M. brings to the performance of the work.  Some of the more modern interpretations seem less exciting to me."

     DR. ROBERT W. HAYDEN sends David Hall’s enthusiastic review (Stereo Review, April, 1982, p. 96) of the contents of Pearl GEMM 212/3 (NEWSLETTER, #30, p. 4), the transfers being superb except for the Fourth Symphony, which is "amateurishly botched."  American Record Guide (March, 1982, pp. 54 & 55) publishes Peter J. Rabinowitz’s favorable review of Past Masters PM-34, the transfers of which he finds more satisfactory than did Mr. Seth Winner (NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED, p. 7).  American Record Guide is under new editorship
(as is High Fidelity) in the future perhaps we can expect from these 2 magazines the same unbounded delight in Mengelberg reissues that they have always taken in the reissues of certain other conductors, most notably Toscanini.  Robert Layton’s review of GEMM 21 2/13 & IMP 2 (NEWSLETTER, #30, p. 4) in the English monthly Gramophone (February, 1982; p. 1174) is more generous than we have now come to expect.  The playing is "glorious," "incandescent,” but the Paul Bekker Sneer makes its entrance when Mr. Layton complains of Mengelberg’s "agogic posturing" in Tchaikovsky’s Fourth & Fifth Symphonies.  Unbeknown to Mr. Layton, Wilhelm Furtwängler had answered that accusation over 4 decades earlier, in 1939, to be precise, when he noted down: "Tchaikovsky, or the mistrust of one’s own instincts.  We even refuse what is good in Tchaikovsky, because we fear the kitsch in our own hearts."
     BERKSHIRE Record Outlet, Inc. (428 Pittsfield-Lenox Rd., Lenox, Mass. 01240, U.S.A.), in its most recent catalog, dated July, 1982, lists 2 Mengelberg issues. On p. 36, Bartók’s Violin Concerto #2 (Hungaroton LPX 11573, $4.99); on p. 65, R. Strauss’ Ein Heldenleben (RCA AVM1-2O19, $2.99).  The Strauss needs no praise from this quarter, for it is universally admired.  The Bartók is a marvellous performance, with a warm & human face that we seldom find in the rendition of modern music.  Unless my memory plays me tricks, sentiments somewhat of this nature were, as a matter of fact, expressed at the time in Gramophone’s review of the disc. The performance is historically important, for it is the first one of the piece, & played by Zo1tán Széke1y, the violinist for whom Bartók wrote the concerto.  Shipping charges: domestic orders, $2.50 for first disc & 10 cents for each additional disc; foreign orders, $4.00 for first disc & 75 cents for each additional one.
     PAST MASTERS has published two omnibus sets of 3 discs each, each set including at least one recording by Mengelberg.  The set PM-36, published January, 1982, entitled Overtures & Preludes, comprises recordings by a large number of conductors, among whom are Mengelberg, Frederick Stock, Albert Coates, Carl Schuricht, Paul van Kempen, Fritz Lehmann, Clemens Krauss, Erik Tuxen, & Sir Henry Wood.  Further details unknown.  The other set, PM-37, published May, 1982, is entitled Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam.  Mengelberg conducts Zoltán Kodály’s Variations on a Hungarian Folk Song ("Peacock Variations") in its first performance, November 23, l939.  The set also includes Paul van Kempen’s recording of Sibelius' S. #5 & van Beinum’s of Haydn’s S. #101, among other conductors & pieces.

     Pleasant listening & a mild fall wished to everyone.

     Miss E. B. Heemskerk, in her book, Over Willem Mengelberg, page 65, tells this story, which I freely translate.  "Although Mengelberg did give piano & singing lessons, he never gave conducting lessons.  Musicians who were interested in learning from Mengelberg something about how to conduct had to attend his rehearsals.  In this way, the Italian conductor Vittorio Gui, in Florence, considered himself to have been Mengelberg’s  student.  In Paris, Mengelberg once noticed at rehearsal a young man in the cello section who appear to be absorbed in a book.  Angered, Mengelberg demanded: 'Give me that book!’ To his amazement, the book the young cellist gave to him was the conducting score of the work being rehearsed.
     "’Since you are so interested,’ said Mengelberg pacified, 'come to me after the rehearsal.’
     "Maurice Gendron, for he was that young cellist, thereafter frequently visited Mengelberg to borrow scores, . . ." [Another musician who attended Mengelberg’s rehearsals was Arturo Toscanini, but he did so, in Carnegie Hall, New York City, secretly, & unknown to Mengelberg.]

     BEGINNING  with the Double No., 28/29, we have reviewed the campaign that Paul Bekker  & his newspaper, Frankfurter Zeitung, mounts against the Museum Association an & the Cecelia Society, both of whose concerts Mengelberg conducts.  The campaign begins with the season of 1911/1912, which sees Bekker write a succession of increasingly malicious criticisms.  The Museum Association protests in two letters to the newspaper, but Bekker brazenly climaxes the campaign with his review of Mengelberg’s first Friday concert of the season of 1912/1913.  In reply, the Association distributes at the following Friday concert an open letter to the concert goers & the complete text of the correspondence between the Association & the newspaper.  The latter spurns to review the concert & returns its free tickets to the Association.
     BEFORE we continue the narrative, we should pause for the length of a paragraph to consider g.’s reviews of the concerts of Siegmund von Hauseggger.  We may remember (NEWSLETTER, #31, p. 1) that he was Mengelberg’s predecessor; he had described these reviews as personally hateful," "poorly informed on the subject"; they drove him from his Frankfurt podium.  As so often happens, the reviews were something of this & something of that.  The review of Hausegger’s first concert, October, 1903, concludes in these warm tones: "It was a first rate beginning to his activity, a beginning that us with hope for the future."  Some reviews thereafter were favorable, some unfavorable.  During Hausegger’s three seasons, g. at his worst show the irritability & pettiness common to his tribe: Mozart’s Symphony No.39 is adorned with too many interpretative details, tempo contrasts in the first movement of the Brahms Symphony No. 2 are somewhat exaggerated, the coarse realism of the brass in the first movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 “is too much of a good thing," the first movement of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 6 is too slow & the second movement is too fast, “good fortune did not always smile" on Hausegger’s “choice of new music,” & so on. It is also true that g. not infrequently praised the conductor without reservation.  Although g.’s most carping tone bears no comparison to Bekker’s malice, Hausegger asked the Museum Association to intercede for him with the Frankfurter Zeitung; the Association declined the request, & Hausegger resigned.  We can reasonably object Hausegger was too easily offended; justified though our objection may be, the Museum Association still faced the unpleasant task of seeking Hausegger’s replacement, & this after only three seasons.  Six years later, the season of 19l1/1912, Bekker, g.’s successor, fresh from Berlin, 29 years old, greedy with ambition, began his amazingly coarse campaign.  If the Association did not defend itself, would it lose its second conductor in just six seasons?  A reply was essential.

     THERE was a further event that obliged or inspired the Association to reply.  Max Kaempfert, who was born at Berlin in 1871 & died at Frankfurt on the Main in 1941, was now conducting at Frankfurt a series of six orchestral concerts, which Bekker also reviewed.  These concerts were played by the Frankfurt Symphony Orchestra, composed of 80 instrumentalists, & newly formed for the season of 1912/1913.  Because Kaempfert had for some seasons led the Palm Garden Symphony Concerts, he was not a new face in Frankfurt; what he what he could not, were perfectly well known in the city.  He bore the honorary title of Royal Music Conductor, & was also a composer.  His wife, Anna, a soprano, had sung under both Mengelberg & her husband.
     IN his reviews of the previous season, 1911/1912, Bekker had argued for the necessity of Frankfurt’s having its own symphony orchestra, an orchestra solely for the concert hall.  Indeed, It was generally recognized how desirable this would be; but, as the Museum Association observed in its open letter (NEWSLETTER, #31, p. 2), there was the even more important question of excellence, for "in the present circumstances it was impossible in Frankfurt to recruit a second orchestra of equal quality . . . ," which is to say, an orchestra as competent as was the Opera Orchestra, which Mengelberg conducted for the Friday Concerts.
     KAEMPFERT conducted the maiden concert of the new orchestra September 30, 1912, just four days before Mengelberg’s first Friday Concert, which precipitated Bekker’s violent reply (NEWSLETTER, #30, p. 2).  Bekker greeted the new orchestra with the greatest apparent enthusiasm.  I say "apparent."  Although nearly the entire review is devoted to a description of the orchestra situation in Frankfurt, to praise of Kaempfert, & to the conviction that the new orchestra is the first step in the rectification of the "orchestra question," Bekker’s brief remarks on the playing of the orchestra are severely unfavorable.  But having concisely described the shortcomings of the strings, the woodwinds, & the brass, these faults, Bekker reassures us. should not dampen our hopes for the future because they are mostly a question of development.  An orchestra cannot be conjured up, it must be slowly trained & shaped."  Bekker’s warmth, sympathetic understanding, & forebearance betray an odd and entirely misplaced trust in Kaempfert.   The bizarre contrast between this review & Bekker’s violent Bekker’s violent criticism four days later, October 5, 1912, of Mengelberg’s first Friday Concert must have played a decisive role in the Museum Association’s decision to counterattack publicly at te next Friday Concert, October 18 (NEWSLETTER, #31, pp. 2 & 3).

     WAS Kaempfert’s orchestra any better at the end of the season, March 1913, five concerts later?  It will be worth our while to inspect Bekker’s review.  The season’s end, writes Bekker, brought us "Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, the sole work, in a performance, considering the prevailing conditions, that merits sincere appreciation & bears very honorable witness to the conductor’s diligence & good judgment, as well as the orchestra’s proficiency & reliability.  Even the feared wind solos in the Adagio were surprisingly well done.  Although the tone & freedom of the performance elsewhere sometimes left much to be desired, this cannot belittle the merit of the work’s being performed cleanly & its important features executed with pertinent clarity.  Indeed, the purpose of these concerts really is not to produce virtuosically polished performances.    These concerts should offer, & are intended to offer, to those music lovers who desire good music & could not satisfy that desire since the loss of the of the Opera House Concerts (as a consequence of a short sighted financial policy), the chance to fulfill their wishes.  In the second place, they should demonstrate, in a practical way, how useful & necessary it is that Frankfurt should have its own symphony orchestra; those who wish to see Frankfurt returned in the foreseeable future to the status of a noteworthy & artistically productive music city cannot shut their eyes to the fact that the achievement of this goal depends in no small measure on a favorable solution to the orchestra question.   To have pointed this out, & simultaneously to have shown that the interest of the public is very active when correctly stimulated, is a no small service of the concerts of the Frankfurt Symphony Orchestra.  The extent to which only six concerts could stress this need was admittedly limited; the individual programs, well & aptly put together, were necessarily confined to the classical & older romantic composers.  Nonetheless, the presentation of the concerts suited their popular & educational purpose; more is accomplished overall in this manner than if one has neglected artistic goals to expand the concerts into social gatherings.”  This is the entirety of Bekker’s review.
     BEKKER’S words are a masterpiece of deceitful reasoning & invented enthusiasm. The conductor, Max Kaempfert, has "good judgment" & "diligence" -- in other words, he is a  mediocrity; the orchestra is "reliable" & "proficient" (it, too, is a mediocrity?), but plays “stiffly” & frequently with an unpleasant tone (the orchestra less than a mediocrity?); the wind solos are “surprisingly successful,” for Bekker has expected the winds to bungle them (yes, orchestra less than a mediocrity).  After six concerts the orchestra still plays badly.  But this is of no consequence, Bekker tells his readers, because, in one of several references to Mengeiberg, we ought not to expect "virtuosically polished performances."

     BEKKER’S further argument -- that the purpose of these concerts is really nothing more than to enable music lovers who had earlier attended the now discontinued Opera House Concerts to satisfy their longing for music once again -- originates in his capacity as a mouthpiece for malcontents opposed to the Museum Association.  The "short sighted financial policy," which engenders Bekker’s resentment, was an admission that the Opera House Concerts had lacked sufficient public support.  His complaint that Frankfurt has no symphony orchestra -- that there is this "orchestra question" -- is exaggerated & falsely premised.  Bekker, always inclined to hysteria, lacked the sober judgment to know what the better informed of his readers had known from the start (& what he as a sometime conductor & a former violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra should have known): Kaempfert & his orchestra were no answer to the "orchestra question," which, moreover, was not as serious as Bekker wanted his readers to believe: there was the enlarged Bad Homburg Spa Orchestra, which Mengelberg conducted for the Sunday Concerts, a far better concert ensemble than the Frankfurt Symphony Orchestra.  And  the Opera Orchestra was a better instrument than Mengelberg’s Spa Orchestra, although it was just this fact -- that it was specifically an orchestra for opera, not for concert -- that Bekker objected to.  We could comment in greater measure on the nature of Bekker’s arguments, but the foregoing gives us an adequate understanding of how dishonestly Bekker habitually argues his case.  The fundamental inspiration for the review is his animosity towards the Museum Association.
     AFTER six concerts, Kaempfert had not been able to train the musicians into a decent orchestra.  Would things improve the next season?  Bekker’s reviews tell us they did not. Bekker never attacked Kaempfert; what he did not like he either ignored or described in tones so sweet as to mislead the reader.  At the concert of December 15, 1913, Kaempfert conducted the Frankfurt Symphony Orchestra in Mozart’s Symphony No. 40, the Brahms Violin Concerto, & Beethoven’s Leonore Overture No. 2.  Bekker’s review, which is characteristic of his method for the Kaempfert concerts, comprises 45 lines, of which only these five refer to Kaempfert & the orchestra: "Under Mr. Kaempfert’s direction the orchestra played the accompaniment [of the Brahms] with a most commendable reliability; the dangerous Trio of the introductory G Minor Symphony of Mozart was also remarkably successful. The Leonore Overture was listed as the closing number." Bekker excused mediocrity, but he could not excuse genius (or whatever was the superabundant quality that Mengelberg as the merely re-creative musician possessed).  The Frankfurt Symphony Orchestra vanished after a few fitful seasons.

     ALTHOUGH the Frankfurter Zeitung had angrily refused to review future concerts of the Museum Association, there still remained those of the Cecilia Society, which Mengelberg also conducted; here, Bekker & his newspaper could continue to work their "tendency to destroy."  The Cecilia Society’s first concert for the new season was held November 20, 1912, at which Mengelberg conducted Verdi’s Requiem Mass ("Manzoni Requiem").  Three days before the concert, the Frankfurter Zeitung published this notice.
     "[The Frankfurt Cecilia Society & the Critic.]  As of today we have received no tickets to this Winter’s concerts of the Frankfurt Cecilia Society.  We have learned from circles within the Society that the omission rests on a decision made at the last extraordinary meeting of the Society s members.  We are informed that a motion of the Board of Directors was under discussion at that meeting: namely, that a pass to the concerts should be placed at the disposal of the Frankfurter Zeitung only on condition that it send some critic to review the concerts other than the gentleman with the initials P. B. (our music critic Paul Bekker is meant).  After lengthy discussion, to which the Board of Directors of the Museum Association contributed forcefully, this motion was tabled & instead a motion that came from circles in the Membership was voted on: namely, to send no critic’s tickets at all to the Frankfurter Zeitung.  This motion was accepted by a vote of 89 for & 49 against. -- According to prevailing custom in the concert world, this decision is not only an intentional rudeness, it expresses the wish that in the future the concerts of the Cecilia Society, which are conducted by Mr. Mengelberg, as are those of the Museum Association, are to be closed to public review.  We take note of this exclusion, which directs itself against the freedom of criticism in a manner even harsher & factually as equally groundless as the recent action of the Museum Association.  Thus, the concerts of the Cecilia Society henceforth are to have the character of closed Society Evenings.  We shall respect this wish."

     CONTRARY to the Frankfurter Zeitung’s claim, the Cecilia Society had not suggested that its concerts were "closed to public review."  But the Society, by continuing to p1ace free tickets at the disposal of the newspaper, aided & countenanced the sordid affair of Bekker & his newspaper; the Society became a party, willy nilly, to its own public humiliation.  Neither the Museum Association nor the Cecilia Society had questioned the newspaper’s freedom to publish whatever it desired, however irresponsibly & dishonestly it exercised that freedom or whatever the hidden motives that inspired its conduct.  The Cecilia Society had decided by popular vote on a motion from the Membership to send the newspaper no pass.  The Frankfurter Zeitung, which habitually favored democracy in its news columns, oddly failed to understand the fitness of the Society’s democratic decision.  The hypocrisy is, perhaps, understandable: what the newspaper preached it never practiced: Bekker had not polled his readers before he launched his hate campaign, nor had the Editors polled the subscribers.  Their decisions were autocratic & motivated by reasons known only to themselves.  As the Frankfurter Zeitung undoubtedly did believe in "freedom of criticism" (to exploit as it saw fit), it should have bought, for Bekker, the tickets that the newspaper in past years had received free of charge.  But aside from their common "tendency to destroy" & the rich opportunity the Mengelberg concerts offered to this tendency, neither Bekker nor his newspaper took an especial interest in these concerts or in the musical health of Frankfurt.  Indeed, one can reasonably conclude from the newspaper’s behavior that the newspaper, freed of the obligation to review the Mengelberg concerts, was relieved to extricate itself from a quarrel of its own making, a quarrel in which it had become an object of public disgust.

     THE following season, 1913/1914, the Museum Association & the Cecilia Society withdrew their advertising from the newspaper.  After Bekker’s review published October 5, 1912, the Frankfurter Zeitung henceforth ignored the concerts of the two organizations.  Mengelberg continued as their conductor until the close of the season of 1919/1920; Bekker remained with the Frankfurter Zeitung until 1925.  Mengelberg conducted at Frankfurt the only orchestral concerts of notable merit.  If Bekker in the future wanted to attend one of them, he was obliged to pay his own way -- & had not even the satisfaction of publishing an abusive review.
     AN Amsterdam newspaper reported the conclusion to the Bekker scandal.  "As a consequence of the resolution of the management of the Cecilia Society at Frankfurt -- namely, to discontinue the invitation to a critic of the Frankfurter Zeitung -- passed by a slim majority of votes [notice the discrepancy between the two newspapers!], the Association of Journalists & Writers [in Germany] has decided, with respect to the choral society conducted by Mr. Mengelberg, to apply the same measures as are already practiced against the Museum Concerts conducted by him.  Thus, the most distinguished expressions of Frankfurt's music life are now ignored."

     AT the beginning of this series this question was asked (NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED,  p. 3): "Did the same worm crawl in Bekker that did later in Olin Downes, who called Wilhelm Furtwängler 'swine’ & wanted him removed from New York City to make way for Toscanini, as we know from Daniel Gillis' Furtwängler & America [p. 27], & whose personal hatred, incorporated in his 'music criticism,’ necessarily found a warm home in his reviews, published in the New York Times of Furtwängler’s concerts with the New York Philharmonic Orchestra for the years 1925 to 1927?"  The reader can now answer the question himself.
     THE Museum Association, the Cecilia Society, & Mengelberg had rid themselves of the Frankfurter Zeitung.  The Museum Association & the Cecilia Society had also rid themselves of Bekker.  But had Mengelberg? --- TO BE CONCLUDED.

     DR. ROBERT HAYDEN. "Jim Svejda of KUSC, Los Angeles, has produced an hour long program on Mengelberg’s Kodaly, to be aired over Minnesota public radio at 5 P.M. on 12 December [1982]."  [The program presumably consisted of the Hary János Suite (concert performance of Dec. 12, 1940) & the Variations on a Hungarian Folksong ("Peacock Variations": world first performance, November 23, l939).]

     ANDREW B. McALLISTER. "On Don Tait’s program 'Collectors Item’ over WFMT-Chicago on September 28th [1982] he played recordings with the New York Phil. Orchestra conducted by Mengelberg.  They were 'Air On The G String’  (Bach) 'A Victory Ball’  (Schelling) and 'Symphony No. 1' (Beethoven).  He also made some very fine comments about Mengelberg, and his connection with the New York Phil., and also his playing of the music of Beethoven.  I will write him and urge that more future programs be devoted to Mengelberg’s records as it has been some time since any, to my knowledge, have been broadcast in this area.  WFMT did broadcast the Philips set of all of the Beethoven symphonies shortly after they were released, but we have heard very little since then.  Perhaps in your bulletin you could suggest that others write their local F.M. stations and request that his records be played."

     JOHN W. NEVE. "Interested to read [NEWSLETTER, #31, p. 1] that Mengelberg enjoyed the good things of life, like other great conductors -- Beecham & Weingartner for instance, and I believe Josef Krips used to dine at Vienna’s most expensive restaurant."

     ANDREW B. McALLISTER. "I did write to Don Tait about future Mengelberg programs, hope that it is productive of favorable results.  I know that he likes Mengelberg’s recordings.      "Just played the recording of the Mahler 4th Symphony by Mengelberg that I got from you some years ago.  What a really wonderful presentation it is."

     SAMUEL CHAPMAN. "The Dvorak-Vlc. Concerto w. Gendron & the Paris Radio issued by Past Masters [NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED, p. 6] is a most important contribution to the art of musical interpretation.  I hesitate to call it definitive.  That term has been debased.  Also,  with works that really cannot in every aspect be played well enough, 'definitive  comes only to reflect the prejudices of individual hearers hypostatized to universality.  The only conductor I know of who gives 'definitive’ performances is -- God.  A little more humility before the score would improve all stick-wavers of the present day.  Mengelberg had such humility.  Before the altar of truth, all vain willfulness falls away.  A comparison of his recordings with those of his great colleagues (and even with the travesties of the present day) clearly show which performances transcended personalities & became artistry."

     G. JAN ZWART. "For your information, in France there has been an important programme [of Mengelberg’s recordings] (totalling 9 hours) on the radio [France-Musique] early this year [1982] and the French television is preparing a Mengelberg-movie which will be broadcast next year [1983].  To this purpose, a crew of cameramen has visited Chasa Mengelberg in Switzerland."  [Mr. Zwart accompanies his letter with an article from a Swiss regional newspaper.  There follows my free translation & adaptation of parts from the article.]
     "IN 1910, while visiting a friend in the Unterengadin, Switzerland, Mengelberg came upon the green fields of Zuort & decided to have a house built there.  As the son of a German family of artists -- his father had carved the doors of the CCologne cathedral -- he sketched the plans himself for the chalet, with a music room & a library.  Here, Mengelberg spent his Summers.  At the height of his career, in the year 1920, he bought the entire piece of land, Hof Zuort, & a year later had a chapel constructed out of gratitude that The Netherlands & Switzerland had been spared the ravages of World War I.
      AFTER Mengelberg s death in March, 1951, Hof Zuort -- with its farming operation (which is leased) & its chalet& chapel -- was converted into the Stiftung Mengelberg [Mengelberg Foundation], where musicians from all over the world, particularly from The Netherlands & from Germany, spend their vacations.  Elly B. Heemskerk, 93 years old, who for 37 years played first violin under Mengelberg, has up to the present time acted as the lady of the house.  Last Thursday, September 30, 1982, she said good by to Hof Zuort, probably for good.  Ever since 1952 she has always spent four months each year in the Engadin, but now, she says, she is too old: 'I am not coming back next year.  I no longer can do anything in the house, & actually am only in the way.  She was 13 years old when she came to know Mengelberg.  She was born in Shanghai, China, & visited the Chasa for the first time in 1917.  As soon as she begins to talk of Willem Mengelberg her face lights up, for she loves to remember him.  Famous people visited the Chasa: among them, Prince Hendrik, the husband of the late Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands; Richard Strauss; & the piano manufacturer Steinway.  Just as Mengelberg is missed in these parts, so will be missed Tante Elly [Aunt Elly], as Miss Heemskerk is called by her acquaintances.  Until her return to Amsterdam on Thursday, she played the carillon in the chapel every day, as Mengelberg had always done before his death.  Her playing could be heard throughout the Brancla Valley.  The Chasa Mengelberg, which today is in need of repair, continues as a vacation resort for musicians, although the foundation is now managed by a Swiss board.  In America & Japan, as well as in Europe, music lovers have 'rediscovered  Mengelberg.  Numerous radio & television broadcasts have been produced in the last years about the famous conductor, & his recordings -- which exceed 230 in number -- are again very popular."

     The PAST MASTER three disc omnibus set, Overtures & Preludes, PM-36 (NEWSLETTER, #31, p. 4), has two recordings by Mengelberg: the overtures to von Suppé’s Poet & Peasant (recorded May 11, 1932) & to Cherubini’s Anacreon (June 10, 1927).  Mr. KENNETH DeKAY writes: "Of the 2 items conducted by Mengelberg my ears & set tell me that the Suppe is better sounding in the Discocorp set [RR-443: NEWSLETTER, #19, p. 2] while the Cherubini is infinitely better in the PM set than on the Odeon C047-01298 [NEWSLETTER, #5, p. 4; & #7, p. 3) which I have."

     CORRECTIONS. In NEWSLETTER, #28/29 REVISED, published Dec. 10, 1981, there are two errors. Page 3, line 1: "Tchaikovsky’s Symphony #4" should read "Tchaikovsky’s Symphony #5"; page 4, line 2: "By the critic’s third Mengelberg concert" should read "By the critic’s second Mengelberg concert."  The corresponding parts of NEWSLETTER, #28/29, published Aug. 2, 1981, are similarly in error.  My praise (NEWSLETTER, #21, p. 3) of the quality of the transfers of PM-9 (Mengelberg’s Telefunken recordings of Dutch music) was regrettably excessive.  The treble grates fiercely on the ear, which quality cannot owe to the original 78 rpm discs. [Further correction: NEWSLETTER, #3, p. 1, last paragraph, line 2: Mengelberg never studied in Berlin.]

     BACK issues of NEWSLETTER are $1.00 for a single number & 85 cents each for two or more iumbers.  These pricesinclude postage for domestic & foreign surface mail.  Many issues are available only as photocopies.
     IN its most recent catalog, January, 1983, Berkshire Record Outlet offers the Székely & Mengelberg recording of Bartók’s Violin Concerto No. 2.  For price & other details, see NEWSLETTER, #31, p. 4.  Even those who do not like modern music should have this gem of a erformance. (But is Bartók still modern?)
     WE thank Mr. J. W. NEVE, who provided the photocopy of the Germany Telefunken leaflet, reproduced herewith.  The German text reads: "Telefunken Records for July & August, 1943. Professor Willem Mengelberg conducts the Concertgebouw Orchestra, Amsterdam. Symphony #7 [9], C Major, Franz Schubert.  SK 3341 to 3346, each disc RM 4.50."  As a Reichsmark (RM) was worth a trifle less than 24 cents in United States currency, each disc cost about $1.08.

     Pleasant listening & an early spring wished to all!

     The following paragraphs are translated from Elly Bysterus Heetnskerk’s invaluable book, Over Willem Mengelberg (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Heuff, 1971), pp. 82 & 83.  Miss Heemskerk, who played in the first violin section of the Concertgebouw Orchestra for nearly four decades & was a close friend of Mengelberg & his wife, Mathilde, marked her 94th birthday on November 24, 1983.
     Mengelberg "was always extremely exacting of the orchestra, but even more unsparing of himself.  Before he began to rehearse the orchestra he had so pored over the score as to form a consummate picture of the composition, which he then endeavored to realize with the orchestra.  He did not rest until all of the musicians were perfectly sympathetic to his intentions.  Nothing was left to chance.
     “‘That 's not at all what I have in mind,’  he would tell us, whereupon he explained the technical means by which to obtain the desired effect.  "Kettledrum, you must strike closer to the rim. Snare drum, try it with the other end of your sticks.  Strings, no draggy 'te-de,’ but a clearly separated 'ta-ta’; play exactly on the beat (this last command earning him the name 'Tiktator’ [tik  meaning beat]); you must be perfectly ready at the upbeat, so that the sound is there just when my stick stops.  Winds, you must anticipate just a trifle; otherwise, the tone sounds just a fraction late in this hall.  It seems I have no choice but to pull the cart out of the mud: there must be much more tension.’"

     SOME of the Members are undoubtedly familiar with the book Conductors on Record, by John L. Holmes.  The book -- alas! -- confirms the general rule that of all of the prominent conductors of the past the most difficult one to write about is Mengelberg.  For reasons that sometimes elude simple explanation, the subject of Mengelberg in the English speaking world invites invented facts & confused thought.  Mr. Holmes needlessly makes his task insuperably difficult by giving what should be his private feelings unnecessary scope.  Where does Mr. Holmes go wrong?
     HOLMES: Mengelberg "toured Russia, Norway & Italy with the Concertgebouw (1898), . . ."   A pleasing story, but untrue.  Eduard Grieg invited Mengelberg & the orchestra to the music festival at Bergen, Norway, 1898; but the orchestra never toured either Russia or Italy with Mengelberg, although he did regularly guest conduct in Russia after the turn of the century & until the start of World War I, & also in Italy before & after the war, season after season.
     HOLMES: He "became a regular visitor [at London] . . . between 1913 &World War II, . . ."
Mengelberg began to conduct regularly at London at least as early as 1911.  World War I interrupted these visits, which he resumed sometime thereafter.
     HOLMES:  He conducted the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra until 1930, whereafter he "resigned & left the United States for good."   Mengelberg did not resign; to the contrary, the management of the orchestra, faced with Toscanini’s ultimatum that it choose either him or Mengelberg, chose Toscanini &, essentially at Toscanini’s insistence, dismissed Mengelberg by not renewing his contract.  The latter had truthfully complained in rehearsals in late 1929 that the orchestra was deteriorating under Toscanini’s influence, a complaint that enraged Toscanini, whose fury hardened into an implacable hatred.  (But there is good reason to believe that the hatred had been a festering sore in Toscanini for some years: see, for example,
NEWSLETTER, #12, P. 1.)  When concrete plans were first laid in late 1928 or early 1929 for the orchestra to tour Europe at the end of the season f or 1929/1930, Mengelberg was excluded from the start.  The reason this, & the role that Toscanini played in this exclusion, have never, to my knowledge, been divulged.  It was for the management of the a perverted recognition of the eight arduous seasons that Mengelberg devoted to training the orchestra into the country’s finest ensemble was for the musicians of the orchestra, who now sensed Mengelberg’s early departure, the liberty not to cooperate with Mengelberg, neither in rehearsal nor in concert.  It was for Mengelberg -- excluded from the tour, his rehearsals & concerts sabotaged by the musicians - - a bitterly unhappy season; it provoked in him an understandably peevish temper.  For Toscanini it was ugly behavior.  Mengelberg had been very generous to Toscanini, a generosity that Toscanini never returned.  Mengelberg in 1922 had sought to win Toscanini for the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.  At the end of Mengelberg’s last concert for 1925/1926 (Toscanini’s first season with the orchestra), Mengelberg turned to the audience to say au revoir & to hand over the orchestra to his "great & good friend, Arturo Toscanini," who was sitting in the audience.  There was to the controversy a further & darker side that nourished Toscanini’s hatred.  Attracted by Mengelberg’s reputation as the unequalled musical expositor of the score & trainer of the orchestra, Toscanini had spent surreptitious hours secretly attending Mengelberg’s rehearsals in Carnegie Hall, season after season, score in hand, as reported in NEWSLETTER, No. 15, p. 1. (If Toscanini was not there to learn from Mengelberg, then his intentions were purely malicious.)  Mengelberg’s criticisms of the orchestra s falling standards told Toscanini that he had learned nothing, his countless hours of listening, observing, & following the score wasted.  Mengeiberg did not know that Toscanini had sat in on his rehearsals, nor did he foresee that his complaints, justified as they were, would erupt in the row they did & provide the excuse for his dismissal.  (The presumption is that just as a faction in the orchestra management conceived the European tour so as to exclude Mengelberg, so there were those in the management who were now anticipating the day when they would remove him from the podium in New York City.  It should not be assumed, however, that either the management or the concert goer of New York City was of one mind about the strange bias of the tour or about the later controversy.  Mengelberg had staunch supporters in New York City, both within the management & among the music lovers, who were well aware of Mengelberg’s invaluable contributions to the orchestra & to the city.  Of those who wanted to remove Mengeiberg the most publicly conspicuous was Olin Downes, the music critic of the New York Times, who just three seasons earlier had helped to grease the skids for Wilhelm Furtwängler.)  Arthur Judson, manager of the New York Philharmonic (-Symphony) Orchestra from 1922 to 1956, privately admitted in later years that, as between Mengelberg & Toscanini, "The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mengelberg was the greater."
     HOLMES: Mengelberg’s "repertory [in the United States] was restricted by painstaking & slow preparation, ." Here & elsewhere Mr. Holmes is inclined to accept as fact opinions that are false.  As the subject of Mengelberg’s repertory apparently has never been discussed in print, it will be well worth our while to sketch the picture in some detail.  Mengelberg conducted for 10 seasons in the United States; his first season (1920/1921) he conducted the National Symphony Orchestra, the remaining nine seasons the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, which had absorbed the National Symphony Orchestra in 1921 & which later merged with the New York Symphony Orchestra, on March 20, 1928, to become the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra.  In these 10 seasons he conducted at least 323 pieces by at least 129 composers.  (If we count each excerpt from larger pieces, such as operas, as a separate piece, the number swells to at least 346.)  How do these numbers compare to those of other conductors?  It seems that only Toscanini’s repertory has been published: namely, in Harvey Sachs’ biography Toscanini, pages 341 to 349.  Over a period of 68 years (p. 3) Toscanini conducted pieces of about 190 composers & altogether some 600 works, in the concert hall & in the opera house (p. 341).  If we confine  Toscanini’s totals to the concert hail, they shrink to 175 composers & something over 480 works (p. 341).  Sachs describes Toscanini’s repertory as "one of the most enormous in the history of his profession" (p.3) & as "impressive & even overwhelming" (p. 341), but he fails to provide the necessary comparisons with other conductors to support his enthusiasm.  If Sachs’admiration is justified, how should we describe Mengelberg’s repertory which was incomparably larger?  In his 51 years (1893 to 1944) as conductor (compared to Toscanini s 68 years), Mengelberg must have conducted works of over 300 composers & goodness knows how many different pieces of music.  I base my statement on the long lists (compiled by Mr. Baggerman-Jaarsma) of Mengelberg’s first performances of Dutch, German, & French music at Amsterdam that Elly Heemskerk publishes in her book, Over Willem Mengelberg, pages 144 to 149. If we count only the composers that Mengelberg conducted at Luzern (1893 to 1895), in the United States (1921 to 1930), & at first performances in Amsterdam (1895 to 1944), the total surpasses 260.  This figure is 37% larger than Toscanini’s total for opera & concert during a career that was much longer then Mengelberg’s.  (Harvey Sachs might want to object that Toscanini was also an opera conductor, whereas Mengelberg was not, which fact reduces Toscanini’s totals; but Mengelberg’s repertory was so vastly greater than Toscanini’s that this consideration alters nothing.  Nor should we forget that Mengelberg conducted many concerts devoted to a single long work, such as the St. Matthew Passion, one or another of the oratorios of a Händel or Haydn, Verdi’s "Manzoni Requiem," & so on.  This fact worked to limit Mengelberg’s repertory, although perhaps not to an equal degree, just as did Toscanini’s career in the opera house.  And, what we should not overlook, Toscanini’s career was longer than Mengelberg’s by 17 years!)  We have sketched the background.  Now, what of the foreground?  Mr. Holmes asserts that Mengelberg’s repertory in the United States was "restricted."  What he asserts is contrary to fact, as the following percentages show.  Using the cited statistics, Mengelberg in his ten American seasons conducted 68% as many composers & 54% as many pieces as did Toscanini during his entire concert & opera career of 68 years.  We should remind ourselves that Sachs describes Toscanini’s repertory as "enormous" & "overwhelming."  If we limit our comparison to Toscanini’s concert career, as Mr. Holmes might want to insist we should do, the results are even more startling.  Mengelberg in his 10 American seasons conducted 74% as many composers & 65% as many pieces as did Toscanini during his entire concert career.  But even these considerations scarcely tell the story.  The essential question Mr. Holmes raises is this: how does Mengelberg’s repertory during his nine seasons with the orchestra (1921/1922 to 1929/1930) compare with Toscanini’s 11 seasons (1925/1926 to 1935/1936)?  To make the comparison we can draw on the programs of the New York Philharmonic (-Symphony) Society as published in John Erskine’s The Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York: Its First Hundred Years.  The programs in this book comprise those concerts sponsored by the Society; he includes the concerts of the European tour of 1930, but not the concerts played on the yearly American tours.  Mengelberg in nine seasons conducted pieces by 101 composers, Toscanini in 11 seasons pieces by 77 composers.  Mengelberg in a shorter period of time conducted pieces by almost one-third again as many composers as did Toscanini.  Why did Mr. Holmes not inform himself of the facts?  As we shall see, this is not the only instance in which he betrays a marked lack of fairness in his feelings toward Mengelberg.
     HOLMES: Mengelberg "presented festivals of Dutch music in 1902, 1913 & 1915."  The second festival was held in June, 1912.
     HOLMES: "But Mengelberg believed that the true meaning of the piece was revealed uniquely to him & he was at perfect liberty to present this meaning as he found it.”  Is the author intentionally malicious or is he the victim of his own twaddle?  So little did Mengelberg believe that "the true meaning  . . . was revealed uniquely to him" that (as a correspondent who had been his student once wrote to me) he was wont to say that since the same people come to my concerts time after time, they have a right to hear different vers ions of the same piece.  Nor did Mengelberg believe that he was more at liberty to express his views musically than was another musician.  Neither does any self-respecting musician believe any less than Mengelberg did that he is free to compose or play music as he sees fit.
     HOLMES: Mengelberg is a "romantic" musician, von Karajan a "literalist."  Had Mengelberg lived when Carl Maria von Weber did, he would have been an entirely different musician &, by definition virtually, a romantic one.  Nor does the "literalist" exist, because any performer, willy nilly, incorporates his personality into his performances.  The distinction Mr. Holmes wants to make is between the dull & the bright: the dull, whose reply to music is relatively slight, & tightly bound by the conventions of the time; the bright, whose reply to music is explosive & markedly idiosyncratic.  This distinction is the same throughout all ages of music & marks the difference between the musician who is spiritually dead & the musician who is spiritually alive & rooted in the soil of his people.
     HOLMES: "Listening to a Mengelberg performance one is astonished at the remarkable skill used to achieve the distortions he imposed on the score."  A notorious figure of the nineteenth century expressed the same sentiments, Mr. Holmes will be interested to learn. May 12, 1872, Wagner conducted Beethoven’s Symphony No. 3 at Vienna.  The critic Eduard Hanslick, who was present to review the concert, used the event to advance his attack on the composer, while dressing his animosity in a pretended air of disinterested observation & solicitous concern for the future of music.  Hanslick in his review complained of the "distortions Wagner imposed with remarkable skill on the score" (to paraphrase the critic in the language of Mr. Holmes).  Fifty  three years later, 1925, Lawrence Gilman, the music critic of the New York Herald-Tribune, described Hanslick as "that famous example of musical bigotry, . . ."
     MR. HOLMES concludes his entry on Mengelberg with a summary of his recordings.  Members of the Society know all that Mr. Holmes knows, & more.  What information he reports he must have gathered from R. H. Hardie’s Mengelberg discography, & from the NEWSLETTER, but nowhere does Mr. Holmes acknowledge his indebtedness.
     READING Mr. Holmes  book, not only under his entry for Mengelberg, but under entries for other conductors, as well, one is reminded of Richard Strauss, who, when castigated by a critic
who complained of Strauss’ "wrong" tempos at the previous night’s concert, mailed the critic a note that asked when he had last spoken with God. What Mr. Holmes lacks, perhaps more than all else, perhaps even more than mastery of the facts, is thoughtfulness & modesty & common sense.

     DR. ROBERT W. HAYDEN sends the announcement, High Fidelity, Sept., 1983, p. 77, of Mengelberg recordings on cassette tape, published by In Sync Laboratories, Inc., 2211 Broadway, N.Y. City, N.Y. 10024.  The two Mengelberg cassettes are 4129 ("Turkish March" & the overtures Coriolan, Leonore #1, Alceste, Tannhäuser, & Oberon: all from the Columbia/Odeon series, except the Gluck, from the Decca series) & 4138 (Tchaikovsky’s symphonies #4 & 5: from Col./Odeon series).

     ACCOMPANYING this number is a replacement page 4 for NEWSLETTER, #32, of which the original p. 4 was not everywhere clearly reproduced.
     BACK ISSUES of NEWSLETTER are available at the following prices: #9 to 23 are $3.00 each; #1 to 8 & 24 & higher are $1.50 each.  These prices include postage for surface mail to any address, home or abroad.  Many numbers are available only as photocopies.

     WITH THIS NUMBER ENDS SUBSCRIPTION YEAR 10, WHICH COMPRISED #31 (Sept. 8, 1982), #32 (March 9, 1983), & THE NUMBER YOU NOW READ.  THE COST OF MEMBERSHIP FOR SUBSCRIPTION YEAR 11 IS $4.50 FOR MEMBERS IN THE UNITED STATES & $6.00 FOR MEMBERS ABROAD.  WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE MEMBERS’ CONTINUED & FAITHFUL SUPPORT .

     A FRUITFUL SUMMER, BOUNTIFUL HARVEST & PLEASANT LISTENING WISHED TO ALL.

     The following paragraphs are translated from Elly Bysterus Heemskerk’s Over Willem Mengelberg, pages 77 & 78, 84 & 85.
     [p. 77 & 78.] "At that time [when Miss Heemskerk, who was born in 1889, was still a youngster studying the violin] some of the musicians who performed in the concerts of the Amsterdam St. Cecilia Society [conducted by Mengelberg] were not members of the Society. These guest performers included students who were enrolled in the orchestra class of the Music Conservatory at Amsterdam.  When I learned of this arrangement, I asked if I might be considered as a candidate for the orchestra class.  My wish was granted.  After I had passed the audition & had attended the training rehearsals under the direction of J. Martin S. Heuckeroth, I was allowed to play in the orchestra [this being before World War I] to which I had so often listened with an almost religious awe & respect.
     "I shall never forget the first performance.  At the full rehearsal Mengelberg looked at me with his sharp & penetrating eyes.  I stared back.  Luckily, I knew the passage practically by heart.  But how much longer would this continue?  Would my fingers betray me?  Would I know the following passage, as well?  I played mechanically, without averting my gaze, but I was inwardly uncertain & mortally terrified.  Then, Mengelberg suddenly had to laugh; smiling, he turned his all seeing eyes away, & I could now read my part in peace.  I had carried the day, for I had not let myself be intimidated.  Only later did I realize that I had made a good start.  He could so stare at beginners that some became nervous & made a poor impression"
     [Pp. 84 & 85.] "In those days [during & after World War I] we prepared for the Winter Season by rehearsing the new repertory -- in section rehearsals, as a rule -- during the month of September, when there were few concerts.  But the old repertory was rehearsed punctiliously, just as well.  I remember one rehearsal in which nearly the entire morning was spent toiling over just one page of Weber’s Oberon Overture.  That the orchestra became irritable is perfectly understandable; we itched to play without stopping, the more so because that evening’s music still lay unopened on our music stands.  It was Mengelberg’s way to ensure that we dotted our Is & crossed our Ts.
     "'The gentlemen know the notes well,  Mengelberg would say, 'but here it concerns the principle according to which you play.  You must listen to each other much more closely. It would seem that your ear drums are calloused.’
     "Once, when I presumptuously said something to Mengelberg about his sarcasm, he replied: 'Who gets the results, you or me?’  And there I stood, struck dumb, because the results were always there at the concerts.  Forgotten were all of the petty irritations & clashes -- the performances gave all of the musicians the greatest personal satisfaction; the musician was transported above his usual level.  Years & years later, after Mengelberg no longer conducted the orchestra, I heard Haakon Stotjin, oboist in the Concertgebouw Orchestra, tell a younger colleague after a performance of Mahler’s Song of the Earth: 'You ought to have done that under 'The Old Man’!  That was the day when every little symbol, every note, was important, & you got home worn to a frazzle -- but completely gratified: every concert was an event! "

     RICHARD L. BENSON sends Will Crutchfield’s news story, published in The New York Times, May 13, 1984, Section 1, p. 50, that the Willem Mengelberg Foundation sold to an American, Gilbert E. Kaplan, the autograph score of Mahler’s S. #2 ("Ressurection") for an unstated sum of money.  It appears from the story that the price may have been as high as $500,000.  "The funds realized through the sale of the symphony score will be used for maintaining the Mengelberg collection of scores & memorabilia & the late conductor’s 17th century farm & villa [Chasa Mengelberg] in Switzerland, according to a spokesman for the foundation. " Mahler’s widow, Alma, gave Mengelberg the manuscript in 1920, the news story continues, when Mengelberg led the Mahler Festival, May 6 to 21.  (The Foundation has been impecunious, the Chasa, where musicians may stay for several weeks in the Sumer, being in need of repairs, & having been closed the Summer of 1984.  It will reopen for the Summer of 1985.  The news story contradicts Alma Mahler, who writes in her book And the Bridge Is Love, p. 147, that she gave Mengelberg the manuscript of Mahler’s SEVENTH at the time of the Mahler Festival.)

     ANDREW B. McALLISTER: "On 'Collectors Item’ heard over WFMT [Chicago] on October 25th [1983], host Don Tait played the 1951 Philips recording of the live 1940 performance of the Symphony #1 of Brahms.  This has got to be one of the greatest recordings ever made of this work & also one of Mengelberg’s best."
     EDWIN R. DAVIS: "Do you know of anyone who has a really good copy of Mengelberg’s recording of Les Preludes with the Concertgebouw Orchestra that I could obtain a tape copy from?  My 78s are in bad shape.  I am always ready to buy good copies of all Mengelberg records."  Mr. Davis  address is 460 Tunxis Ave.; Bloomfield, Conn. 06002; U.S.A.
     RICHARD BARON: "It had been a long time since I last heard from you, I thought the Mengelberg Society had gone kaput!!  Anyhow, it was nice getting your latest Mengelberg Newsletter.  I will be looking forward to the next Newsletter, & in the meantime, you, too, have a nice summer."
     G. JAN ZWART: "January 23 to the end of March, 1985, France will organize a Mahler exposition & will pay MUCH ATTENTION to W. M. in this context."
     TOM VARLEY: "Thank you for remembering my interest in Frederick Stock.  I had no idea that he had ever conducted the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra [September 26, 1912, , Berlin, in a program of his own pieces], although I understand he did follow Theodore Thomas’ tradition of spending his sumers in Germany, talent-scouting.  This could have been a special appearance of the 'young’ (39) composer-conductor prior to his return to Chicago."
     ANDREW B. McALLISTER: "I am sorry to report that with the exception of one of Don Tait’s 'Collector s Item’ programs about six weeks ago [March, 1984] I have not heard any Mengelberg recordings broadcast over the air.
     "I have a complete file of the record review magazine Fanfare from Vol. 1, #1, to the present one for sale.  I hate to part with them, but space, or lack of it, makes it necessary.  The price is $500.00, including postage & insurance."  Mr. McAllister’s address is 5700 Magnolia Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60660.
     G. JAN ZWART: "Could you let me know what Dr. Mengelberg’s efforts were for Mahler in the U.S.A.??"  (Mengelberg conducted Mahler 25 times in the 10 seasons (1920/1921 to 1929/1930) that he conducted in America: The Song of the Earth (4 times), S. #1 (2), S. #2 (4), S. #2 (2nd movement only, 1 time), S. #3 (4), S. #4 (2), S. #5 (6), S. #7 (2).  Frederick Stock conducted the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in works of Mahler 20 or 21 times from 1914 to 1926.  If we put Stock to one side, Mengelberg in his 10 American seasons probably conducted Mahler more often than did all of his other American colleagues put together for the period beginning before World War I & ending with the season of 1929/1930, these colleagues being Muck, Stokowski, Monteux, Walter, Gabrilowitsch, & Bodanzky, who apparently are the only others who had conducted Mahler in the United States up to 1926.)
     KENNETH DE KAY: "What is your source for that marvelous Arthur Judson quote?" [Mr. De Kay refers to Judson’s statement that as between Mengelberg & Toscanini, "The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mengelberg was the greater" (NEWSLETTER, #33, p. 2).  Judson, who was manager of the New York Philharmonic (-Symphony) Orchestra from 1922 to 1956, said this to Elly Bysterus Heemskerk.]
     J. W. NEVE:    "I see from your latest Newsletter [#33, p. 1] that he conducted in Italy quite extensively, which rather surprised me as their tradition is more operatic than symphonic, & I don’t think Mengelberg ever conducted in the opera house, but I may be mistaken."  [Miss Heemskerk, in Over Willem Mengelberg, pp. 74 & 75: "Mengelberg conducted opera only twice in The Netherlands, Beethoven’s Fidelio & Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro, in April, 1917.  The orchestral parts were studied & rehearsed to the last detail, but as unsurpassed as Mengelberg was in choral & orchestral  performances, operatic conducting suited him less.  He was so painstakingly & scrupulously careful that the give & take that is often necessary on account of the acting sometimes bothered him; although both performances were enthusiastically received, he conducted no more opera."  It appears from her book that both performances took place in the opera house, presumably at Amsterdam.]
     DO you have something you want to say about Mengelberg?  The Society is always happy to publish suitable contributions. Dr. ROBERT W. HAYDEN sends us his thoughts.

(The purpose of this short article is to communicate to readers one aspect of my response to Mengelberg’s conducting, and to ask readers whether they have experienced anything similar. The author has no musical training.  [Dr. Hayden is attractively modest, but don t most of us find ourselves in his boat?])

     WHEN we listen to music, we usually have some sense of forward motion and continuity in the music.  How is this sense maintained by the musical performer?  To read record reviews, one might believe that this sense is maintained primarily by a steady tempo.  Mengelberg and other performers are criticized for interrupting the flow of the music with their shifts in tempo.  While the steady beat of a march or dance is certainly one way of providing a sense of forward motion, I suspect it is but one of many ways.  In fact, a steady beat alone is probably insufficient.  I doubt that playing the notes of the "Eroica" backwards in strict tempo would produce a sense of continuity and flow.  There must be other factors involved.
     Listening to Mengelberg’s recordings has led me to wonder if he used the patterns & rhythms of speech to hold music together, rather than the patterns and rhythms of bodily motion.  A good public speaker maintains continuity and flow in his delivery, yet in a speaker an absolutely steady rhythm would feel boring or downright annoying.  Of course, the meaning of the words provides part of the continuity of speech, but still there are good readings and bad of the same speech, and even an incomprehensible poem can sound magnificent when read by Dylan Thomas.  Even if Mengelberg did not use speech patterns, I find it hard to think of his style as a basic tempo with frequent fluctuations.  At times he never establishes a tempo -- the notes simply follow one after another, as do words.  Perhaps this is most clear in the final chords of the Academic Festival and Tannhäuser overtures, where the "tempo" seems to change between every pair of successive chords.  Do readers have any comments on these ideas?  I feel we don’t understand any more about great speaking than we do great music making.  Is there a link?  Does it vary from one language to another? Could it be used to help computers understand human speech, or translate from one language to another? -- DR. ROBERT W. HAYDEN.

Excerpts from BILL ZAKARIASEN’S review in  Musical America edition of High Fidelity, Sept., 1984 (p. 40 of Musical America) of Tchaikovsky’s S. #4 & 5 (In Sync/ Conductart 4138: see NEWSLETTER, #33, p. 4).

     ROBERT E. BENSON begins his review (High Fidelity, Sept., 1984, p. 70) of Bernard Haitink’s new recording of Mahler’s Seventh, with the Concertgebouw Orchestra (Philips 410 398-1), with a look backward.

     IN the British monthly Gramophone, Sept., 1983, p. 336, Harold Moores Record (2 Great Marlborough St., London, W. 1) advertised as "special pressings" the following Mengelberg issues that were originally published in 1978 by Japanese Philips: Brahms, S. #1 (HMR 5552) & A German Requiem (HMR 5557/8); Franck, S. in d (HMR 5556); Mahler, S. #4 (HMR 5553); & Schubert, S. #8 & Rosamunde music (HMR 5554) & S. #9 (HMR 5555).  The Japanese issues of 1978 bore the same numbers, but had the prefix PC: thus, Brahms S. #1, PC 5552.  I have not heard any of these records.  I assume that all are from the original Dutch Philips series that is catalogued in Dr. R. H. Hardie’s Mengelberg discography.

     CORRECTION OF A CORRECTION: Frank Lord, NEWSLETTER, #25, P. 2, wrote that Mengelberg conducted the NYPSO in Willem Pijper’s Six Symphonic Epigrams, the first American performance.  I replied he had not, the orchestral parts having come late.  But the printed program for the concert of Jan. 5, 1930, which M. conducted, does show the work, although the microfilm edition of composers played by the NYP(-S)O does not list Pijper,

     Radio Broadcasts in the Library of Congress 1924-1941, compiled by James R. Smart, published in 1982, lists recording of a Mengelberg broadcast concert.

     A pleasant & fruitful summer wished to everyone!

     In the mid-1920s a curious quarrel boils in the pages of the New York Times. It is curious not least because one of the protagonists is B. H. Haggin, whom we know today as the music critic who is Toscanini’s fiercest champion.  The instigator is one Charles L. Buchanan, whose first letter the Times publishes April 15, 1923, Part 7, page 5.  He is distressed that Mengelberg has cut "five or six pages of the last movement" in Tchaikovsky’s Fifth.  The Times publishes no answer to Buchanan, whose second letter appears November 29, 1925, Part 9, page 7.  The same symphony is in question.
     "Although I am one of your most emphatic admirers, . . . , I nevertheless fail to understand how a critic [Olin Downes] of your noteworthy fineness of perception can praise Mr. Mengelberg‘s flauntingly sentimental & insolently patronizing reading of this symphony [concerts of Nov. 19 & 20].  To mention a concrete instance: Mr. Mengelberg deletes a large section of the last movement of this symphony.  By what right does Mr. Mengelberg exercise his peculiar preferences to the extent of imposing an arbitrary censorship upon Tchaikovsky? . . . If he does not like Tchaikovsky let him not play Tchaikovsky."  (Mr. Haggin, N.Y. Times, Jan. 10, 1926, Section 7, page 6, mocks the last sentiment, which Buchanan repeats from his first letter.)  The foregoing, only a small part of what he has to say, is the gist of his annoyance.

     THE Times publishes two answers, December 6, 1925, Part 8, page 10: one from Arthur Judson, the manager of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, the other from B. H. Haggin.      JUDSON writes, in part. "'Mr. Mengelberg, complains Mr. Buchanan, 'deletes a large section of the last movement.’  The 'large section’ . . . consists of about nine pages in the orchestral score, beginning at letter 'N,’ & about three pages of repetition in the march movement, . . . .
     "This elision, however, is not original with Mr. Mengelberg.  When he conducted this symphony in Rome about twenty years ago he was visited by Modest Tchaikovsky, brother of the composer, who complimented him on his interpretation.  In a discussion of the symphony Modest Tchaikovsky suggested the elimination of certain passages, & on this authority Mr. Mengelberg made the cuts. . . ."
     (THE published concerts of the Santa Cecilia Orchestra, Rome, show that Mengelberg conducted Tchaikovsky’s SIXTH on May 17, 1908, & the FIFTH not until 1933.  Mengelberg never visited Italy with the Concertgebouw Orchestra; when he conducted at Rome, he presumably always conducted the Santa Cecilia Orchestra.  Judson is likely confused.)
     TO JUDSON’S trumpet Mr. Haggin adds his own.  "It may interest Mr. Buchanan ... that at a rehearsal of Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony a few years ago Mr. [S.A.M.] Bottenheim, Mr. Mengelberg’s secretary, volunteered the information that the cut in the last movement had been made with the collaboration or consent of the composer’s brother, . . .
     [LET us interrupt Mr. Haggin’s interesting letter to quote a third explanation, Mengelberg’s own, given in the course of a radio interview at Munich in February, 1938.  (The complete interview is published in NEWSLETTER, #22, pp. 1 & 2.)
     MENGELBERG, speaking of the Fifth Symphony: "Tchaikovsky himself wrote [changes] into the score that Modest gave to me.  The last two times he conducted this symphony in Moscow he made various changes.  Above all in the Finale.  The construction of the Finale was somewhat weak - the constructive lines.  He understood this & then shortened & strengthened the lines, & thus made the movement much more beautiful; & he asked me, Modest did, please to do it so, & his brother had stressed that one should do it so."

     LET us also interrupt Mr. Haggin’s letter to quote his new opinion, published 13 years later, on this same question: "Mengelberg s recording of the superb Symphony No. 5 (Columbia Set 104) also is in the traditional style ('In Tchaikovsky everysing exaggéré,’ is Mengelberg’s announced principle [presumably heard by Mr. Haggin at a rehearsal]); & he makes an outrageous cut in the last movement."  (B. H. Haggin: Music on Records, 1938; p. 84.)  Where is Bottenheim’s instructive story?  The answer is that, Mr. Haggin having changed his mind, B.’s  story, once upon a time useful to cut down an adversary, is no longer helpful: why, it is even an embarrassment to his new opinion.  Now let us return to Mr. Haggin’s fascinating letter of December, 1925.]
     "As for the reading, one could no more infer from it that Mr. Mengelberg disliked Tchaikovsky than from Mr. Muck’s one could infer that he disliked Debussy.  Your own opinion of it was presumably favorable; to me it is a surpassing (not surprising) achievement in musical architecture ["shaping" of the music].  Hearing it again I felt anew the amazement & inarticulate delight with which some of us listened to Mr. Mengelberg’s performances with the National Symphony [January to March, 1921], e.g., of the 'Pathetic,’ of 'Ein Heldenleben,’ 'Don Juan’ & 'Tod und Verklärung,’ of a to all appearances totally barren work like Mahler’s First or Berlioz’s 'Fantastique.’ "

     IN 1984, writing in the Musical America edition of High Fidelity, November, pages 41 & 42, Mr. Haggin describes events of almost 60 years ago.  "Actually the Philharmonic’s modern history began in 1926 with Toscanini’s first guest engagement.  On Sunday afternoon, January 10 of that year, I heard the playing of a highly competent & well-disciplined orchestra under Mengelberg; & four days later I heard the astoundingly different playing of a seemingly different orchestra,  . . ."  And "The Philharmonic s astounding playing at its very first concert with Toscanini in 1926 . . . was what one continued to hear only when the orchestra played under the compulsion of that ["unique magnetic"] force - which is to say that one didn’t hear it when Furtwängler followed Toscanini in 1926, or when Mengelberg returned the next year, . . . ."  (The article is republished in Music & Ballet, 1973-1983,  pp. 40-42.)
     WHAT Mr. Haggin writes in 1984 may be true (although we shall want to refer to the recordings that the two conductors made with the Philharmonic (-Symphony) Orchestra, & insist that Mr. Haggin soberly do likewise); but how does Mr. Haggin’s present opinion of events 60 years ago harmonize with his enthusiasms at the time these events occurred & were vivid in his mind?  Though his letter to the Times, quoted on pages 1 & 2, gives us a notion, let us look further.

     MR. HAGGIN writes in The Nation, August 25, 1926, pages 180 & 181, about seven & one-half months after Toscanini’s concert of January 14, which Mr. Haggin describes today as beginning "the Philharmonic’s modern history," as producing "astounding playing" (which he now states he heard at that time, but apparently never described in writing at that time), & so on.  "But if the enthusiasm," writes Mr. Haggin in The Nation, "at Mr. Toscanini’s final concert last season [Feb. 7, 1926], an enthusiasm described as unprecedented, was a direct response solely to his competence, why was his first visit, in January, 1921 [with the La Scala Orchestra], a comparative failure?  As a matter of fact, there was just as great a demonstration at the final concert [Jan. 30, 1925] of Mr. Furtwängler’s first visit a year ago; . . . .  But the greatest tumult of all time occurred in March, 1921, at the final concert [on the 25th] of Mr. Mengelberg’s first season with the National Symphony; & if this was a response to competence, why has Mr. Mengelberg’s work since then, though of equal quality, been treated with indifference?
     "It depends usually on the reviewers: let them lose their heads, & the public will lose theirs."  And so on.

     THE reader should not suppose from the preceding & following quotations that Mr. Haggin in 1926 looks upon Toscanini as he today looks upon Furtwängler.  Nor should the reader suppose that Mr. Haggin’s enthusiasm for Mengelberg in the 1920s, which frequently resolves itself into a complaint, bears any likeness to his advocacy of Toscanini these past five decades.
     THERE is Mr. Haggin’s letter to the Times, Sept. 26, 1926, Part 8, page 6, which replies to Olin Downes’ article "New York’s Treatment of Conductors" (Times, Sept. 5, 1926, Part 7, page 7), which, in turn, answers Mr. Haggin’s article "The Emotional Trend in Performance," from which I have just quoted.  "And two months after Mr. Furtwängler," writes Mr. Haggin, "Mr. Mengelberg gave the finest performance of a Brahms symphony I have ever heard - of the E minor [March 26, 27, & 29, 1925] - without arousing any critical comment. . . .  Similarly, of Mr. Toscanini’s performances of Haydn, Mozart, Bach, Brahms, Wagner & Debussy only that of Wagner impressed me as being superior to performances of other conductors; & this was the impression of musicians whose opinions I should consider authoritative.  We could recall Mr. Mengelberg’s sparkling accompaniment of a Haydn 'cello concerto the year before [Feb. 26 & 27, 1925]; the arch, silken, exquisitely nuanced accompaniment with which he met Mme. Landowska point for point in a Mozart concerto [#20, Feb. 24, 1924; #22, March 5 & 6, 1925]; his performances of Bach, whom the aforementioned musicians had never heard given such stature (. . .); the performances of Brahms’s E minor, truly a surpassing achievement, . . . , . . . .  I could recall also his performance of 'La Mer’ in 1922 [Feb. 18 & 26, these being the first times the NYPO played the piece] as definitely superior to that of Mr. Toscanini [Feb. 7, 1926], who by sweeping through the composition caused it to appear superficial.  If, now, Mr. Mengelberg’s performances were ignored & Mr. Toscanini’s described as without precedent, then more was involved than the mere performances."  And so on.
     [THE reader can pursue Mr. Haggin in the same vein in The Nation (March 7, 1923, p. 276; & Oct. 12, 1927, pp. 405 & 406); & his letter to the N.Y. Times, April 3, 1927, Part 8, p. 8.]

     We notice that of Mr. Haggin’s arguments of 1925 & 1926 not a word supports his assertions of today.  What he writes at the time that these events occur & his recollections are vivid & detailed sets at naught what he wants us to believe 60 years later.  The reader may object that Mr. Haggin changed his mind sometime between 1927 & 1984.  Clearly, he did.  But what does he draw upon as support for changing his mind?  The recordings?  But Mr. Haggin does not mention recordings.  The opinion of someone who in 1926 held the view that Mr. Haggin wants to hold today & did not hold in 1926?  But he cites no opinion.  His memory?  Yes, apparently Mr. Haggin relies on his memory.  But what memory can he have in 1984 beyond the recollection that at the time these events occur his opinion is radically different from what he wants it to be today?  (What is the earliest date to which Mr. Haggin can point as having written that events in 1925 & 1926 were as he today asserts they were?)  Mr. Haggin can refresh his memory, & relive that early excitement, by reading what he published in The Nation & the New York Times in the l920s.

     JOHN W. NEVE. "I was interested to read Miss Heemskesk’s comment [NEWSLETTER, #34, p. 1] on Mengelberg’s spending a whole morning over a short passage from Oberon Overture.  It is certainly justified by the result, & I always think his doubling of the flute at bars 209 & 210 with the piccolo most effective.
     "The general verve & excitement goes for his performances of Euranthe & Der Freischutz as
well.  All my 78s of Mengelberg are in good condition with, unfortunately, the exception of those two, which I could only get secondhand & in badly worn condition.  Am still waiting for the day when they might be transferred to LP!"

     SIMON BUSH. "I thought that you would be interested to know that today [January 27, 1985] B.B.C. Radio 3, in a Listener’s Choice Program, broadcast Mengelberg’s Mahler Symphony 4 recording of November 1939.  The recording was introduced with a long & detailed tribute to Mengelberg’s contribution to Mahler’s music.
     "I shall be presenting a Mengelberg evening to the local record club next month with the Schubert 9th & Beethoven First."
     SIMON BUSH. "The Tiverton Gramophone Club evening went well.  I played the Schubert 9th & Beethoven 1st.  There was great enthusiasm particularly for the Schubert with the (now familiar) cry of a newcomer to Mengelberg - 'It s like hearing the work for the first time.   There was a more mixed reception for the Beethoven with some concern about 'unusual’ tempi.  (Seem to have heard that one before somewhere too!)
     "There have been some interesting musical items on BBC T.V. & sound radio recently, including a wonderful tribute to Sir Hamilton Harty.  Wonder if you have come across him - - conductor of the Ha1lé Orchestra in the late 20s/early 30s.  An incomparable Berlioz interpreter.
     "Melodiya, the Russian record firm have published a double album containing the Mahler 4th & Tchaikovsky 5th (Berlin P.O., 1940 studio recording).  I got a copy from Michael Thomas.  I think the quality of the pressings is excellent.  East bloc pressings seem to be altogether quite good.  I was in East Germany last October & bought a lovely record of the Leipzig Gewandhaus with Abendrot."
     SIMON BUSH. "I ve been away in Germany on holiday.  Didn’t find any Mengelberg discs but picked up a wonderful record of Wilhelm Backhaus playing encores at his 1954/56 Carnegie Hall Recitals.  Found at a street market on the Lake of Konstanz!
     "The Melodiya Disc Numbers appear to be M10-44435/8.  No other numbers are readily readable as the whole thing is in Russian!  I guess they have been published recently.  [In any case, not later than June, 1985.]  The transfers sound excellent.  I have a Japanese pressing of the Mahler 4th & the Russian one sounds just as good.
     "You will be delighted to hear that the B.B.C. (Radio 3) today [July 20] broadcast excerpts from the 1939 Mengelberg recording of the St. Matthew Passion."
     IN a later letter Mr. Bush gives these further details of the two-disc Melodiya album: the disc numbers of the Mahler Fourth (from the Philips series of AVRO broadcast concerts) are M10 44435/36, those of the Tchaikovsky Fifth (Telefunken recording of July 11, 1940, with the Berlin Phil. Orch.) are M10 44437/38.

     G. JAN ZWART sends a review (International Herald Tribune, Paris, Feb. 1, 1985, p. 1) of the Mahler Exhibit (NEWSLETTER, #34, p. 2), held in the Paris Museum of Modern Art, January 23 to March 31, which includes this paragraph. "The exhibition also includes an extensive sample of manuscript scores & annotated copies, . . . .  One of the most interesting is Willem Mengelberg’s copy of the score of the Fourth Symphony with detailed notes by the conductor.' All the changes in red ink are made in Gustav Mahler’s own hand.  Next to this, circled, is the notation, 'Guaranteed. W. Mengelberg.’ Below that: 'All those in red pencil are by me.’ An arrow points to the words 'Word of honor. W. Mengelberg.’"

     TOSHIO SHITAMOTO. "King Record Co., Ltd., Japan, issued the following discs in July, 1985.  Fresh masters were cut using a high power vacuum tube amplifier. The pressed discs are 25% heavier than is normal."  All of the following discs are transfers from the recordings that Mengelberg made for Telefunken. BEETHOVEN: S #1 (with STRAUSS’ Death & Transfiguration: K17C-9508) & S. #3 (K17C-9506) & S #5 & S #8 (K17C-9507); BRAHMS: S. #2 (K17C-9509) & S #4, (Kl7C-95l0); FRANCK: S. in d, (K17C-9511); TCHAIKOVSKY: S #5 (Berlin Phil. O., K17C-9512) & S. #6 (K17C-9513, recording of Dec. 21, 1937).  Price is Yen 1700 each disc.  This series is a limited, single pressing, edition.  Mr. Shitamoto believes that the transfers are superior to those that King Record Co. published in 1972 (NEWSLETTER: #5, p. 4; #7, p. 3).  He also writes that in 1984 King Record Co. published these two discs of transfers from the Telefunken series.  BEETHOVEN: S. #4 (K17C-9405, with TCHAIKOVSKY’S String Serenade & DEBUSSY’S Prelude to Faun’s Afternoon) & S. #6 (K17C-9404, with STRAUSS  Don Juan).
     MR. SHITAMOTO continues. "Nippon Phonogram will issue, on Compact Disc, using digital masters from Dutch Philips," the following Mengelberg recordings, the entire group, excepting the Beethoven Third, presumably drawn from the original Dutch Philips series of concert performances.  The Japanese announcement attributes to each recording a year & a month (but apparently no day).  I have quoted the attribution in the three instances that it differs from the date published in Dr. R. H. Hardie’s Mengelberg discography.  BEETHOVEN: S. #1 & 2 (30CD-301) & S. #3 (30CD-302, recorded Nov., 1940, presumably the Telefunken recording) & S. #4 & 5 (30CD-303) S. #6 & Fidelio Ov. (30CD-304, date for Fidelio is Nov., 1940) & S. #7 & 8 (30CD-305) & S. #9 (30CD-306); BACH: St. Matthew Passion (30CD-307 to 309); BRAHMS:  S. #1 (30CD-3l0, with parts from SCHUBERT’s Rosamunde, Dec., 1940) & A German Requiem (30CD-313); MAHLER: S# 4 (30CD-3l1); SCHUBERT: S. #8 & 9 (30CD-3l2, S. #8 recorded Dec, 1940); & FRANCK: S. in d (30CD-3l4, with STRAUSS’ Don Juan). Price is Yen 3000 each disc, the Bach costing Yen 9000 complete.  This publication, issued apparently in August, 1985, is the first appearance of a Mengelberg recording on Compact Disc.

     THE firm Music & Arts Programs of America, Inc., P.O. Box 771, Berkeley, California 94701, will publish in October or November, 1985, a 5-disc album, Curtain Call, No. 234, entitled "The Art of Willem Mengelberg: Concert Performances with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra."  Excepting the Rachmaninoff, none of the following, so far as I know, has appeared previously on disc.  BEETHOVEN, S, #3 (May 6, 1943) & Egmont Ov. (April 29, 1943); BRAHMS, Violin Concerto (Herman Krebbers, April 13, 1943; WAGNER, Tannhäuser Ov. (Oct. 27, 1940); BERLIOZ, Damn. of Faust (Sprites’ Dance, Sylphs’ Dance, Hung. March/March 21, 1943); BACH, Cantata, BWV 202 (To van der Sluys, soprano, April 17, 1939) & Suite #2, BWV 1067 (April 17, 1939); WEBER, Oberon: Overture (Oct. 13, 1940) & Act II, Ozean du Ungeheuer (Ruth Horna, soprano, March 18, 1943); MOZART, Flute Concerto, K. 3l4, Hubert Barwahser, solo flutist of the orchestra) & Piano Concerto #19, K. 459 (Willem Andriessen, Oct. 13, 1940) & Exsultate, jubilate!, K. 165 (Ria Ginster, soprano); DVORAK, Violin Concerto, Op. 53 (Maria Neuss, March 25, 1943); & RACHMANINOFF, P.C. #2, Op. 18 (Walter Gieseking, Oct. 31, 1940).  The performance date of the two undated Mozart works, according to my information, is March 5, 1942.  The printed notes that accompany the album, written by Bryan Crimp, are factually in error.  The set, which I have not heard, will be sold in retail shops.  It can also be bought mail order, surface post, insured, for $45.00 (addresses in the United States) or $50.00 (addresses abroad) from Music & Arts.  The set posted air mail to addresses abroad costs $75.00.  The firm intends a second album, which will include BACH’s Cantata, BWV 57 (Jo Vincent, Soprano, & Max Kloos, baritone; Toonkunstkoor), the BRAHMS S. #3 (Feb. 27, 1944), & BEETHOVEN’S Violin concerto (Guila Bustabo), & so on.  The presumed source of the recordings in these two sets is a series of remarkable programs of Mengelberg recordings, drawn largely from the archives of the Dutch national radio, broadcast on the domestic French radio service France Musique in late 1983.

     Pleasant listening & an early Merry Christmas & Happy New Year wished to the members!

     KENNETH DeKAY calls our attention to Claudio Arrau’s recollection of an event almost half a century ago.  "I liked Mengelberg.  Him I played with many times.  He was crazy.  In the Chopin E-minor Concerto, he followed beautifully.  All the rubatos. And when I changed something, he was always there."  (Joseph Horowitz: Conversations with Claudio Arrau, p. 86.)  The concert Arrau refers to was played November 9, 1936, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, Berlin.

     BEGINNING with this number of NEWSLETTER, & to continue in subsequent numbers, is a catalog of recordings conducted by Mengelberg.  Putting to one side the sound motion pictures (which will comprise the second part of the catalog), this compilation is confined to recordings that were never intended to be published & marketed commercially, although many have been in the last two decades.  Some of these were first catalogued by R. H. Hardie, in his The Recordings of Willem Mengelberg, A Discography, first published in 1972.  Since then, new recordings have come to light & corrected dates have been assigned to some of the others.

     FONOTHEEK MUZIEK BULLETIN, issue No. 5, (March, 1980), published by Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (Netherlands Broadcasting Corporation), included, pp. 30 to 51, a compilation of such of these recordings as are held by the Stichting.  The catalogers were Alexander Jansen, Evert Jan Nagtegaal, Jeanne Schollaerts, & Gerdien de Vries.
     ASIDE from Dr. Hardie’s general catalog, two other general catalogs have appeared. The Dane Bo Døssing published in 1975 his Willem Mengelberg: A Discography.  In 1976 he published a second, revised, edition.  The French monthly Diapason, #229 (June, 1978), published, pp. 48-54, Georges Zeisel’s catalog.  Dr. Hardie’s discography, in respect of the recordings that Mengelberg made for commercial issue, remains the standard reference work.
     THE present catalog draws on the preceding discographies, on information published in earlier issues of NEWSLETTER, & on information that is hitherto unpublished.  My compilation will include recordings, both genuine & spurious, never previously made public.

     (1).  THE ORCHESTRA, IF NOT NAMED, IS THE CONCERTGEBOUW ORCHESTRA, AMSTERDAM.
     (2).  IF NO SITE IS NAMED, THE PERFORMANCE PRESUMABLY OCCURS IN THE LARGE HALL OF THE CONCERIGEBOUW.
     (3).  THERE IS CONFUSION OVER THE PERFORMANCE DATES OF SOME OF THE ISSUES ON PHILIPS.  I ASSUME THAT ALL ISSUES ON PHILIPS OF THE SAME PIECE OF MUSIC HAVE A COMMON DATE.
     (4).  AS A CONSEQUENCE OF (3) THERE ARE ANOMALIES. ALTHOUGH ALL OF THE PHILIPS ISSUES (EXCEPTING BACH'S ST. MATTHEW PASSION) WHERE PRESUMABLY OBTAINED FROM THE DUTCH NATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION (AVRO), THE DATES ASSIGNED BY PHILIPS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONFIRMED IN THE CATALOG OF FONOTHEEK MUZIEK BULLETIN.

ANONYMOUS: Het Wilhelrnus van Nassouwe
(Dutch national anthem, arranged by Mengelberg). Sunday, Dec. 20, 1936. FMB.

BACH, JOHANN CHRISTIAN: Clavier Concerto, Op. 13, #4. Sunday, March 21, 1943
(Marinus Flipse, piano). FMB. [P].

BACH, J. S.: Cantata #57 (Selig ist der Mann), S. 57. FMB cites different dates on different pages for the same recording: Thursday, Nov. 7, & Saturday, Nov. 9, 1940. (Vincent, Kloos, Toonkunstkoor).

   Cantata #202 (Weichet nur), S. 202. Monday, April 17, 1939 (Sluys). FMB. [P].

   Clavier Concerto #5, S. 1056. Monday, April 17, 1939 (Agi Jambor, piano). FMB.

   St. Matthew Passion, S. 244 (incomplete recording of performance). Sunday, April 5, 1936  (Vincent; Durigo; Erb, Evangelist; Ravelli, Jesus; Schey; Zimmermann; Barwahser; Blanchard, listed as English horn in FMB; Piet van Egmond, organ; Johannes den Hertog, harpsichord; Toonkunstkoor; Jongenskoor). FMB.

   St. Matthew Passion. Sunday, April 2, 1939 (Erb, Evangelist; Ravelli, Jesus; Vincent; Durigo; Tulder; Schey; Toonkunstkoor; Jongenskoor). This is a sound-on-film recording using the hill-&-dale Philips-Miller System; for further details, see NEWSLETTER, #1, p. 3. FMB. [PP].

   Suite #2 for Flute & Strings, S. 1067. Monday, April 17, 1939. FMB. [P].

   Suite #3, S. 1068. Døssing states recording of unknown date, Amsterdam, COA, held privately in The Netherlands.  Zeisel repeats Døssing. Not listed FMB.

   Suite #3 ("Air" only, supposedly Mahler’s arrangement), 1941, orchestra not named; reputedly 'Broadcast Spring, 1985, over France-Musique, a domestic French state radio service. Not listed FMB.  I have from NOS a letter, August, 1986, which states that NOS does not hold this recording.  Report presumably false.

   IN the last NEWSLETTER, pp. 1 & 2, we read from B. H. Haggin’s letter, New York Times, Dec. 6, 1925, Part 8, p. 10.  He writes to rebuke Charles L. Buchanan, whom Mengelberg has greatly annoyed.  Mr. Haggin tells us in his closing paragraph that "As for the reading [of Tchaikovsky’s Fifth] one could no more infer from it that Mr. Mengelberg disliked Tchaikovsky than from Mr. Muck’s one could infer that he disliked Debussy. . . .; to me it is a surpassing (not surprising) achievement in musical architecture ["shaping of the music]. Hearing it again I felt anew the amazement & inarticulate delight with which some of us listened to Mr. Mengelberg’s performances with the National Symphony [January to March, 1921], e.g., of the 'Pathetic,’ of 'Ein Heldenleben,’ 'Don Juan’ & 'Tod und Verklärung,’ of a to all appearances totally barren work like Mahler’s First or Berlioz’s 'Fantastique.’"  Nearly 60 years later Mr. Haggin publishes in the Musical America edition of High Fidelity (Nov., 1984, pp. 41 & 42) his radically altered view of these years.  Not only does his new view contradict this one letter to the Times, it also contradicts, as we read in the last NEWSLETTER, pp. 2 & 3, other letters of his to the Times &, as well, his articles in The Nation, written in 1923, 1925, 1926, & 1927.
     THE absurdity of this Haggin-Phenomenon encouraged me to write to the Musical America edition of High Fidelity. (The absurdity rests on the fact that after nearly 60 years Mr. Haggin’s recollection can be nothing more than what he remembers having believed at that time.  And this remembrance Mr. Haggin can animate by re-reading what he wrote in those days.)  My letter appeared in the issue of March, 1985, pp. 2 & 40.  Someone on the magazine substituted, among other errors, the meaningless word management for Mr. Haggin’s very significant amazement in the paragraph I quote from his letter to the Times.  The reader can compare what the magazine published, reproduced below, with Mr. Haggin’s correct text, above.  The magazine refused to publish my subsequent letter of correction.