Music Trade Review
Issue: 1922 Vol. 74 N. 4 - Page 3
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
MUSIC TRADE
4
^^5=^4.
PLAYER SECTON
NEW YORK, JANUARY 28, 1922
More About Standard
Classification
Article Which Appeared in This Section on the Subject of a Better System of Classification Has Evoked a Great Deal
of Discussion—Comments Have Been Varied, Some Favorable, Other Critical—
Classification Further Explained—Answers to Objections
The suggestion which was made in a lead-
ing article of the Player Section which appeared
in our issue of November 26 toward a better
system of classification has evoked a great deal
of discussion. Not all comment has been ap-
proving. Some gentlemen have apparently sup-
posed that we wish to impose classificatory dis-
advantages upon certain types of player-pianos
in favor of others. In a word, some appear to
think that there is something of a magical qual-
ity about the term "reproducing piano," and to
feel that to be denied its use is tantamount to
being degraded in the scale of values.
Science, Not Squabble
Now, nothing could be further from the facts
of the case, in our opinion, than this. We are
strongly of the opinion that what this trade
needs is a scientific classification of types. And
we are equally certain that what this trade
neither needs nor ought to have is a squabble
about values and merits. It is the old story.
Some one conceives a new idea, and, after a
sufficient expenditure of time, labor and money,
succeeds in getting it practically embodied. If
the embodied idea turns out to be valuable there
is a rush to see how nearly its value can be
duplicated without encroachment on legal rights.
The result is that the original idea becomes
mixed up with many others often quite as meri-
torious, but always more or less divergent from
the direction of the original. Yet, if so be it
the originator has managed to coin, and give
publicity to, some apt name for his embodi-
ment, those who follow will usually want to
appropriate that as well, thus throwing the
whole matter into confusion.
Some History-
Such a situation confronts us in the player
business. If we go back to the days of 1907,
when the Welte interests established an Ameri-
can agency to display and sell their reproducing
mechanism, we shall find that the march of in-
vention for some time thereafter was conducted
very quietly and that the trade at first paid little
attention to what was afoot. When great houses
like the American Piano Co., the Aeolian Co.
and the Wilcox & White Co. began to see the
great possibilities of a genuine reproducing in-
strument they in due course produced mechan-
isms based on distinct mechanical principles
and possessed each of its own individuality for
performing the same kind of musical service.
This was in every case the reproduction,
as nearly to perfection as possible, of the play-
ing of an artist, made under the supervision of
that artist. Their instruments, then, were, and
are, "reproducing pianos," and so are any others
which are built upon the same musical princi-
ple and which use music rolls edited under
parallel conditions. One may be better than
another. The claims made for each may all be
reconcilable with fact, making due allowance
for the enthusiasm of advertising men, but that
will have nothing to do with the classification.
A reproducing piano, in our judgment, is a piano
whose construction and use satisfy certain rules.
It may be a successful or an unsuccessful speci-
men, but if its construction and the conditions of
its use satisfy the canons we have laid down,
then it is entitled, in our judgment, to be
called a "reproducing piano."
Distinction, Not Privilege
But if and when a certain instrument has ob-
tained this designation, according to the stand-
ards proposed in our article of November 26,
no one has the slightest right to claim that
merely because of its satisfying certain condi-
tions and attaining to a certain classification
il is any better than another which fits into a
different classification. Speaking personally, we
feel convinced that the player business ought
to give equal attention and equal applause to
at least four types of player-piano: (1) repro-
ducing piano, (2) automatic expression player-
piano, (3) personal expression player-piano, and
(4) coin-operated player-piano. Each has its
own place. Each is as good in its class as any
other. Each has its uses. It takes all four to
fill the requirements-of the music-loving people
of this great country. Therefore no one should
be pulled down to set up another, and each
should be kept separate and apart. There is
abroad among salesmen an absurd and wholly
wrong notion that the aim and end of salesman-
ship in the piano trade is to confuse the prospec-
tive purchaser, so that he or she shall lose all
power of discrimination beneath a flood of
"talking-point" nonsense. That is why you
hear one salesman sneering at the instrument
sold by another. That is why you hear one
man asking, "Do you want to spend your life
pumping?", ignoring the fact that foot-work is
merely an incident in the question of personal
expression. That is why you hear another man,
in an effort to sell the personal-expression
player-piano, sneer at or deny the just claims of
the makers of automatic-expression or reproduc-
ing pianos. That is why the mind of the trade
is in confusion from beginning to end.
Truth vs. Lies
What we want, in a word, is truth. There is
more than enough room for all. The surface
of the player business is not scratched, and yet
we find our trade crying out that they must have
something new, and again something new, be-
cause the established types no longer please.
They have never yet been fairly tried!
Why should any honest man be affrighted or
angered by the announcement of an attempt at
honest classification? The remedy is not to set
up one class as the Al, the best, the supreme
(which no one is or can be in truth), but to
discuss the classificatory scheme till the best
and most equitable definitions have been devised
and adopted. Then when we have to sell re-
producers we shall not say that one cannot get
good expression out of a personal-expression
player-piano, for that is a lie. We shall say
that the reproducer gives the listener the nearest
possible reproduction of the playing of an in-
dividual pianist. When we are selling an auto-
matic-expression player-piano we shall not sneer
about spending one's life pumping, for that is
as big a lie as the other, though slightly dis-
guised under a specious appearance of candor.
We shall say, on the contrary, that the auto-
matic-expression player-piano has its own wide
field of usefulness, in that it gives, without
mental or physical effort, the opportunity to en-
joy, at a moderate price, good, expressive, artis-
tically rendered music of every class and kind
that may be adaptable to the piano. If we are
selling a personal-expression player-piano we
shall not apologize or talk about low prices.
We shall, on the contrary, insist that the most
natural and pleasing effort in the world is the
effort to interpret music as one wills, and that,
furthermore, one need not be either a "strong
man" or a musical genius to play this instru-
ment artistically. We shall call attention also
to the wonderful new school of composition for
the personal-expression instrument, which is now
coming into being, and which bids fair to revo-
lutionize the whole present aspect of the case.
We shall, that is to say, abandon pretenses,
hesitations, falsehoods, and we shall stick to the
facts. Then we shall find that the truth is the
most powerful weapon any cause can have.
The Conclusion
Classifications are set up in order to classify,
to distinguish, to prevent confusion, to estab-
lish the collective honesty of purpose and serv-
ice-giving potency of the industry. They are
not set up to elevate one class above another
or to hurt the interests of any one. No interests
can be hurt by the adoption of a scientifically
founded classificatory scheme.
There are those who say that the best inter-
ests of the piano trade have for years been
obscured by the clash of personalities, the strife
of interests and the persistence of the odious
belief that pianos and player-pianos cannot pos-
sibly be sold on their pure merits, but must
be bolstered up by exaggerated claims, ridicu-
lous terms and profit-stealing throw-ins. Very
well, then, if this be so it is time to reform.
The beginning of reform is open discussion. If
this be so, then the last objection to a scien-
tific classification scheme thereby and imme-
diately vanishes into thin air.
MUSIC TRADE
4
^^5=^4.
PLAYER SECTON
NEW YORK, JANUARY 28, 1922
More About Standard
Classification
Article Which Appeared in This Section on the Subject of a Better System of Classification Has Evoked a Great Deal
of Discussion—Comments Have Been Varied, Some Favorable, Other Critical—
Classification Further Explained—Answers to Objections
The suggestion which was made in a lead-
ing article of the Player Section which appeared
in our issue of November 26 toward a better
system of classification has evoked a great deal
of discussion. Not all comment has been ap-
proving. Some gentlemen have apparently sup-
posed that we wish to impose classificatory dis-
advantages upon certain types of player-pianos
in favor of others. In a word, some appear to
think that there is something of a magical qual-
ity about the term "reproducing piano," and to
feel that to be denied its use is tantamount to
being degraded in the scale of values.
Science, Not Squabble
Now, nothing could be further from the facts
of the case, in our opinion, than this. We are
strongly of the opinion that what this trade
needs is a scientific classification of types. And
we are equally certain that what this trade
neither needs nor ought to have is a squabble
about values and merits. It is the old story.
Some one conceives a new idea, and, after a
sufficient expenditure of time, labor and money,
succeeds in getting it practically embodied. If
the embodied idea turns out to be valuable there
is a rush to see how nearly its value can be
duplicated without encroachment on legal rights.
The result is that the original idea becomes
mixed up with many others often quite as meri-
torious, but always more or less divergent from
the direction of the original. Yet, if so be it
the originator has managed to coin, and give
publicity to, some apt name for his embodi-
ment, those who follow will usually want to
appropriate that as well, thus throwing the
whole matter into confusion.
Some History-
Such a situation confronts us in the player
business. If we go back to the days of 1907,
when the Welte interests established an Ameri-
can agency to display and sell their reproducing
mechanism, we shall find that the march of in-
vention for some time thereafter was conducted
very quietly and that the trade at first paid little
attention to what was afoot. When great houses
like the American Piano Co., the Aeolian Co.
and the Wilcox & White Co. began to see the
great possibilities of a genuine reproducing in-
strument they in due course produced mechan-
isms based on distinct mechanical principles
and possessed each of its own individuality for
performing the same kind of musical service.
This was in every case the reproduction,
as nearly to perfection as possible, of the play-
ing of an artist, made under the supervision of
that artist. Their instruments, then, were, and
are, "reproducing pianos," and so are any others
which are built upon the same musical princi-
ple and which use music rolls edited under
parallel conditions. One may be better than
another. The claims made for each may all be
reconcilable with fact, making due allowance
for the enthusiasm of advertising men, but that
will have nothing to do with the classification.
A reproducing piano, in our judgment, is a piano
whose construction and use satisfy certain rules.
It may be a successful or an unsuccessful speci-
men, but if its construction and the conditions of
its use satisfy the canons we have laid down,
then it is entitled, in our judgment, to be
called a "reproducing piano."
Distinction, Not Privilege
But if and when a certain instrument has ob-
tained this designation, according to the stand-
ards proposed in our article of November 26,
no one has the slightest right to claim that
merely because of its satisfying certain condi-
tions and attaining to a certain classification
il is any better than another which fits into a
different classification. Speaking personally, we
feel convinced that the player business ought
to give equal attention and equal applause to
at least four types of player-piano: (1) repro-
ducing piano, (2) automatic expression player-
piano, (3) personal expression player-piano, and
(4) coin-operated player-piano. Each has its
own place. Each is as good in its class as any
other. Each has its uses. It takes all four to
fill the requirements-of the music-loving people
of this great country. Therefore no one should
be pulled down to set up another, and each
should be kept separate and apart. There is
abroad among salesmen an absurd and wholly
wrong notion that the aim and end of salesman-
ship in the piano trade is to confuse the prospec-
tive purchaser, so that he or she shall lose all
power of discrimination beneath a flood of
"talking-point" nonsense. That is why you
hear one salesman sneering at the instrument
sold by another. That is why you hear one
man asking, "Do you want to spend your life
pumping?", ignoring the fact that foot-work is
merely an incident in the question of personal
expression. That is why you hear another man,
in an effort to sell the personal-expression
player-piano, sneer at or deny the just claims of
the makers of automatic-expression or reproduc-
ing pianos. That is why the mind of the trade
is in confusion from beginning to end.
Truth vs. Lies
What we want, in a word, is truth. There is
more than enough room for all. The surface
of the player business is not scratched, and yet
we find our trade crying out that they must have
something new, and again something new, be-
cause the established types no longer please.
They have never yet been fairly tried!
Why should any honest man be affrighted or
angered by the announcement of an attempt at
honest classification? The remedy is not to set
up one class as the Al, the best, the supreme
(which no one is or can be in truth), but to
discuss the classificatory scheme till the best
and most equitable definitions have been devised
and adopted. Then when we have to sell re-
producers we shall not say that one cannot get
good expression out of a personal-expression
player-piano, for that is a lie. We shall say
that the reproducer gives the listener the nearest
possible reproduction of the playing of an in-
dividual pianist. When we are selling an auto-
matic-expression player-piano we shall not sneer
about spending one's life pumping, for that is
as big a lie as the other, though slightly dis-
guised under a specious appearance of candor.
We shall say, on the contrary, that the auto-
matic-expression player-piano has its own wide
field of usefulness, in that it gives, without
mental or physical effort, the opportunity to en-
joy, at a moderate price, good, expressive, artis-
tically rendered music of every class and kind
that may be adaptable to the piano. If we are
selling a personal-expression player-piano we
shall not apologize or talk about low prices.
We shall, on the contrary, insist that the most
natural and pleasing effort in the world is the
effort to interpret music as one wills, and that,
furthermore, one need not be either a "strong
man" or a musical genius to play this instru-
ment artistically. We shall call attention also
to the wonderful new school of composition for
the personal-expression instrument, which is now
coming into being, and which bids fair to revo-
lutionize the whole present aspect of the case.
We shall, that is to say, abandon pretenses,
hesitations, falsehoods, and we shall stick to the
facts. Then we shall find that the truth is the
most powerful weapon any cause can have.
The Conclusion
Classifications are set up in order to classify,
to distinguish, to prevent confusion, to estab-
lish the collective honesty of purpose and serv-
ice-giving potency of the industry. They are
not set up to elevate one class above another
or to hurt the interests of any one. No interests
can be hurt by the adoption of a scientifically
founded classificatory scheme.
There are those who say that the best inter-
ests of the piano trade have for years been
obscured by the clash of personalities, the strife
of interests and the persistence of the odious
belief that pianos and player-pianos cannot pos-
sibly be sold on their pure merits, but must
be bolstered up by exaggerated claims, ridicu-
lous terms and profit-stealing throw-ins. Very
well, then, if this be so it is time to reform.
The beginning of reform is open discussion. If
this be so, then the last objection to a scien-
tific classification scheme thereby and imme-
diately vanishes into thin air.
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).