Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE 7VtVSIC TRHDE
REVIEW
EDWARD
LYMAN
BILL,
EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
J. B. S P I L L A N E , MANAGING EDITOR
EXECUTIVE STAFF :
THOS. CAMPBELL-COPELAND
WALDO E. LADD
GEO. B. KELLER
EMILIE FRANCES BAUER
GEO. W. QUER1PEL
A. J. NICKLIN
y? Published Every Saturday at 1 Madison Avenue, New Y o r k . *
SUBSCRIPTION (including postage), United States, Mexico and Canada, f 2.00 per
year; all other countries, $4.00.
ADVERTISEMENTS, $2.00 per inch, single column, per insertion. On quarterly or
yearly contracts a special discount Is allowed. Advertising Pages $50.00 ; opposite
reading matter, $75.00.
REMITTANCES, in other than currency form, should be made payable to Edward
Lyman Bill.
Entered at the New York Post Office as Second Class Matter.
NEW YORK, JANUARY 3J, J903.
TELEPHONE NUHBER, 1745-EIQHTEENTH STREET.
On the first Saturday of each month The Review contains in its
"Artists' Department" all the current musical news. This Is
effected without In any way trespassing on the size or service
DEPARTMENT of the trade section of the paper. It has a special circulation, and
therefore augments materially the value of The Review to advertisers.
THE
ARTISTS
DIRECTORY
The directory of piano manufacturing firms and corpora-
te- Diiiurt
tlons found on page SI will be of great value as a reference for
MANUFACTURERS ^ ' - a n d others.
EDITORIAL
A SSOCIATED press reports last week conveyed the intelligence
* * to the public that a superb grand piano constituting
in itself a work of art and a gift to the American people, was placed
in the White House.
While a brief description of the rare beauties of this instru-
ment, which contained a series of superb paintings on its panels,
showing the shields of the thirteen original States, accompanied
the report, yet every reference by which the name of the instru-
ment or its donor could be traced was carefully expunged.
The papers show an unfair discrimination in this respect
towards products of industrial art. Had this magnificent work
been a painting by Verestchagin, or some other noted modern
painter, every newspaper in the country would have referred to
the name of the distinguished artist in connection with his work.
ND here is a great industrial institution allied with the high-
est type of art, which produces a veritable triumph of manu-
facture as applied to pianos, upon which the paintings alone are esti-
mated to have cost many thousands of dollars, and still the name
of Steinway is religiously withheld from all press reports.
A
This distinguished concern has shed lustre upon industrial
art, and by eliminating the name of the donor the newspapers only
show how narrow their treatment is of a great subject. The fear
that a little advertisement for the house might creep in caused
them to refrain from giving credit to a notable house for ?, princely
gift
It is indeed a prejudicial spirit which rules the newspapers of
to-day, and were it not for the existence of trade journals the
greatest inventions and notable art creations would even go unrec-
ognized through the petty spirit which rules the great daily papers
pi our times. In their desire to cater to the sensational they refuse
proper recognition to that which makes a nation great in the broad-
est sense.
TTHERE are some people, happily few, who are prone to crit-
•* icise the conductors of trade papers in almost every move
which they make which is out of the ordinary. They suspect some
concealed motive other than that of justice and right, and too fre-
quently men are suspected of insincerity in their acts.
We believe, however, that it is generally conceded that The
Review has been honest in its attitude towards the industry. We
have endeavored at all times to give indisputable evidence that a
trade newspaper, rightly managed, advances the general welfare
of the industry which it represents. It should be helpful and not
destructive in its tendencies.
When our attention was first called to the communications
from the attorneys of Theodore P. Brown, asking for settlement
for alleged infringement on the "kicker" patents, we investigated
the matter, as it was our right because there were large interests
involved. In the first place, it seems to us unusual that the patentee
should permit his patents to be used a long term of years without
the slightest objection on his part—but, passing this aside, our
knowledge of practical trade history, or of that part of trade his-
tory which relates to inventions, told us that essentially the same
system had been in vogue years before patents were granted to
Mr. Brown. A careful search of the patent office records revealed
some interesting facts which were impartially presented in The
Review. We presented illustrations showing the early patents and
comparing them with the Brown patents,. That we were able to
bring to bear evidence which had hitherto remained undiscovered
is conceded by those who have made settlements with the attorneys
of Mr. Brown.
A S the result of our investigations further settlements ceased
* * and at that time letters-from the attorneys representing Mr.
Brown had reached a threatening stage, which had induced some
well-known firms to settle.
Our individual opinion in this matter has been supported by
practical trade experts as well as patent attorneys whose opinions
were voiced through this paper. We were urged by some to call
a meeting of manufacturers, but this we considered outside of the
legitimate province of a trade newspaper. Having produced suffi-
cient evidence to show that there was excellent ground for refusing
further settlements until the validity of the patents were tested
in court, it remained for the trade itself to act.
The Manufacturers' Association through its president then took
up the subject and suggested the pooling of interests in a test case.
Some twenty-five manufacturers have already signified their will-
ingness to contribute to the defense of the first suit which may-
be brought by Mr. Brown.
From the time since the manufacturers were warned of their
alleged infringements The Review has been the only publication
which has taken up the side of the manufacturers and devoted
time and money to investigate the basis of the Brown claims. A
number of editors have urged manufacturers to adjust the matter.
Some have remained silent, and it is stated, by one manufacturer
who settled that he was urged to do so by the representative of a
trade publication.
_
. . . . .