At the close of my former "Anecdotes of Von Bülow," I wrote against the German conservatories in general, and against Stuttgart in particular. Here are a few sentences on the same subject taken from an article by John C. Filmore which appeared in the December issue of Music:
"Touch in general is of two kinds, that based upon the blow principle and that based upon the principle of pressure. The former was the kind of touch universally prevalent. It is exemplified in extreme degree in Plaidy's Technical Studies, and in Lebhert and Stark. Unmodified by other ideals, it produces a hard, rigid, unelastic touch, and a corresponding dryness and monotony of tone quality such as makes really expressive and artistic piano-playing impossible. This is the reason why the Stuttgart Conservatory, with its hundreds of pupils, yearly turns out no real artists. The pressure principle has found place in the playing of many European pedagogues without being adequately analyzed or explained. Julius Knorr and his pupils employed this kind of touch with beautiful effect; but if any of them even so much as mentioned the distinction between blow and pressure, I have never been able to hear of it.
"The two most valuable means of producing that condition of the nervous and muscular apparatus on which a sympathetic touch, based on the pressure principle, depends, are, so far as I am aware, the two-finger exercise of Dr. William Mason, and the up-arm touch. This latter is very lightly touched upon in the first volume of Mason's Touch and Technic; but it is of enormous value, as I have had occasion to know in the experience of the last years, and vastly more can be done with it than most players and teachers are aware."
I also stated in my last that Von Bülow was not a great pianist. But that he was a popular pianist there can be no doubt, though why he was popular it is hard to understand; for, according to Finck, Von Bülow was a pianist in whom the intellectual greatly overbalanced the technical and emotional; and so his playing, while it might be interesting in a certain sense, was really dry from its lack of the emotional quality. Perhaps if Von Bülow had been born half a century later he might have been a greater pianist, for at present the advantages for piano students are much greater than formerly.
I suppose that when Von Bülow was young Stuttgart and similar schools were in the lead, and from those his technic touch and emotional tendencies could not be as fully developed as at the present day—not in Germany, but rather in Paris, or even in the great musical centres of our own country. But the great advantage that the "Home of Music" has over us is in her concerts and opera; not so much quality as quantity, and at cheaper rates. We have good concerts, but so few, comparatively, and too high-priced for the average person to attend many. How can a violin or a piano student in this country hear many violinists or pianists? It is in this respect that Germany is far ahead of us; while it is in her system of piano teaching and playing that she is pedantic and behind the age; and the sooner she awakens to a realization of the unfortunate truth, the better it will be for our nevertheless ever dear beloved Germany.
Marie Thérèse Berge.
New York City.
The Helping Hand.
We are glad to announce that the sum for the Willie A. Grant memorial stone has been secured, the contributors being:
| A Friend, Maine | $1.00 |
| Grant Knauff | 1.00 |
| Sallie F. Hodges | .25 |
| Grace Pearl Richards | .25 |
| James F. Rodgers | .25 |
| Fred W. Baxter | 1.00 |
| Thomas W. Smythe | .50 |
| Helen Hunt Ermentrout | .50 |
| Fanny C. McIlvaine | .25 |
| James W. Gerard, India | 1.00 |
| ——— | |
| The amount needed | $6.00 |