This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-04-23T20:30:31-07:00 Reviewer of the Émigré Community 12 "Walter Arlen, Music Critic," by Mary Enid Pinkerson (4 of 4) plain 2018-04-24T20:12:48-07:00 Arlen always retained a strong pride in his continental roots and took pleasure in being part of the émigré artistic community. Despite arriving in the U.S. as a teenager and making a life in Los Angeles’ developing music scene, Arlen’s critical voice remains openly attached to the richness of European culture in comparison to that which America has to offer. It is clear that Arlen’s greatest pleasure was in covering music performed and/or written by the local community of German and Austrian musicians who had, like himself, fled the Nazis and found refuge in Los Angeles.
  
  Clippings from the LA Times in March 1952 record an exchange with composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco who would later become a close friend. Arlen was called on to review the Hungarian Quartet at the Pasadena Playhouse where they were joined by Castelnuovo-Tedesco playing the piano part in a premiere performance of his Second Quintet, Memories of a Tuscan Countryside. Arlen, writing as “W.A.” suggests the composer rework the composition into a symphonic poem to give it more color.
  
  Since Arlen used his own compositions to process difficult wartime memories, he finds it surprising that Castelnuovo-Tedesco does not. Convinced this would be truer to the “stuff that memories are made of” and would enhance the music, he adds, “If it is only pleasant memories with which the artist deals he runs the risk of falling prey to a shallow sentimentality devoid of that depth of expression which he can project into his work only if he allows himself to come to grips with the full range of his emotional experience.”¹ The comment apparently struck a nerve. In response, Castelnuovo-Tedesco sent a letter to the paper to ask who wrote the review and request that the editor give the critic a message:

  Tell him that from Italy I have also many unpleasant memories: Mussolini, the Fascists, misery, ignorance prejudice... (and even some music critics!) But these things don't inspire me to write music and I prefer to forget them.²

  Their exchange here captures a tension with which all emigres struggled—was it better to dwell on the past or move on with their lives?
  
  Igor Stravinsky, the world's most famous composer, was drawn to Los Angeles in part by the convivial group of European refugee musicians who became his close friends. When covering the music of Stravinsky which comprised the opening night program at Mermaid Tavern in Topanga Canyon in August 1976, Arlen points out that Stravinsky's music has a "living local tradition." He notes approvingly that the present conductor, Lawrence Foster is keeping that tradition going, even with his own flair. As it happened, Stravinsky made his conducting debut with this Octet (in Paris in 1923) and Foster made his conducting debut with L'Histoire in a Sunset Blvd. club (not far from Stravinsky's house, in 1958). Stravinsky’s music has a living local tradition and the trick is to follow in his footsteps. Foster was the right man for it. Even his specific gestures and general conductorial demeanor on this occasion proved reminiscent of Stravinsky. (Stravinsky, however, never conducted in an embroidered muslin peasant shirt.)³
  
  Five years later, in 1981, Arlen again promoted the Los Angeles angle in his review of a performance of Stravinsky’s Symphony in C (1940) by the USC Orchestra. Calling the concert a “handsome down payment on the upcoming Stravinsky centenary (he was born on June 17, 1882),” Arlen urges Los Angeles to “go all out for Stravinsky,” noting that he lived here for more than 25 years.⁴ Arlen was equally in his element at a concert of Viennese music conducted by Eugene Ormandy (a Hungarian), to which he gave a warm review:

  It was a treat to hear waltz music conducted by a man born and raised in a city by the Danube (it also flows through Budapest). With subtle rubatoes in the right places, carefully molded instrumental solos and effervescent tempos that felt inevitable, there was no mistaking the genuine article.⁵

  On the other hand, impressive artistry could also provoke Arlen to criticize lack of opportunity in this country, as in a review of Patricia Brinton, a lyric soprano who he points out, has spent several years studying and concertizing in Europe. For Arlen, her recital demonstrated

  ...the kind of professionalism and artistry which is strictly the product of fine training and wide experience, and that we deprive ourselves of a great deal of pleasure by not providing the kind of activity which would keep a performer of her attainments on our side of the Atlantic.⁶

  
  As an émigré himself, Arlen was keenly aware of this perceived lack of opportunity in America. His editor, Albert Goldberg had covered some of this territory in a series of three columns written in 1950 called “The Transplanted Composer” in which Goldberg asked a number of the émigré composers who fled the Nazis to comment on their situation and how it affected their music. In his response to Goldberg’s question, Eugene Zádor pointed out the vast difference in the sheer quantity of high culture on the two continents:

  Before the war we had about 160 orchestras in Middle Europe, playing nine to ten months a year. Often the ink was not yet dry on your score before you had a performance. In this country about 30 regular symphony orchestras play four or five months a year, and believe me the ink is very definitely dry before you hear a work performed. The road from finished score to performance is often longer (and harder) than the road from empty paper to finished score. And—believe me again—there is no greater inspiration for a composer than to know that he will be performed in the near future.⁷

  While America may have denied Arlen the career as a composer he dreamt of as a child in Austria, his status as an émigré helped him to get these assignments as a critic. Using his gifts in the setting in which he found himself, Arlen was able to assist the careers of other transplanted composers as well as students, and in the process helped to make his own contribution to Los Angeles' music scene.
  
  
  
  ¹ Arlen, Walter, “Memories Re-created by Quintet,” Los Angeles Times, March 24, 1952.
  ² Castelnuovo-Tedesco's letter was printed in the Times as "Music Mail Box," April 6, 1952.
  ³ Arlen, "Music Review: Stravinsky Opens Mermaid Season," Los Angeles Times Aug. 24, 1976.
  ⁴ Arlen, "USC Orchestra in Modern Program," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 16, 1981.
  ⁵ Arlen, “Music Review: Ormandy Leads L.A. Philharmonic,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 1976
  ⁶ Arlen, "Soprano Shows New Artistry," Los Angeles Times, June9, 1958.
  ⁷ Goldberg, Albert, "Music: The Sounding Board," Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1959.
• 1 2018-04-23T19:54:18-07:00 A Critic for All Seasons 12 "Walter Arlen, Music Critic," by Mary Enid Pinkerson (3 of 4) plain 2018-04-23T23:16:29-07:00 Exile from Vienna before he was even able to prepare for a composing career devastated Arlen's youthful dreams.  Nevertheless, though only 18 when he arrived alone in America, Arlen had absorbed enough of European culture to make a lasting impression and his personality was already imbued with traits that he was able to draw upon in other ways. In America he took degrees in music education and gained psychological insight. As a critic and teacher, Arlen called upon these resources to make notable contributions to the Los Angeles music scene and find a community in which he felt at home.
  
  At the start of his writing career, Arlen searched to find his voice as a critic, trying out various approaches. He took a society pages angle in a 1953 piece headlined “Boston Orchestra’s Flawlessness Thrills Distinguished Audience."¹ He even used sports writer’s jargon in another, comparing the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra to a “thoroughbred rearing to be taken through its paces,” and conductor Georg Solti to an “enthusiastic jockey confident of the outcome of the run ahead."² Soon, however, he settled into a characteristic style that is marked by emotional sensitivity and uncompromising standards. Thoughtful and a bit professorial, Arlen often provided historical context as well as often humorous critiques. 
  
  Uncompromising Standards
  The contrast between Vienna's highly refined culture and the provincial music scene in Los Angeles was stark. Moreover, since Arlen was not the paper’s primary music writer, he had plenty of exposure to less than stellar performances. Nevertheless, Arlen took his role as critic seriously, listening very attentively for the strengths and weaknesses of each composition and performer. In early reviews, Arlen can seem hypercritical, even condescending in his evaluation of a performance, such as the case of a Russian pianist whose stocky build makes him appear to have "the strength of a wrestler which enables him to dispose of notes by the fistful, but not always with complete accuracy."³
  
  Arlen's wry wit helps keep his reviews entertaining. His not unreasonable expectations are on display to humorous result in a review headlined “Concert has Flaws.” He observes that the fairly large audience at the politically progressive Ashgrove Cabaret indicates the attraction of listening to good music while enjoying the café's menu: "But factors other than musical and culinary are at least equally important, among them acoustics, an adequate piano, a printed program, and prompt starting time. None of these was noticeably present, and any sketchiness in this account is entirely due to circumstances beyond our control.”⁴ When occasionally, Arlen has nothing but praise for a performance, the piece is much less memorable.
  
  Nor did Arlen hide his dismay at the shocking lack of decorum shown by an audience attending an informal concert in Plummer Park in December 1960. As an aside, Arlen noted that acclaimed singer Marni Nixon found a place on the program. “Since she can sing most anything and always sings well, her counterpointing in parts within the range of her flexible soprano had properly quaint and highly pleasant results. This in spite of the fact that the audience smoked in the room (it was not Fiesta Hall) and was rude enough even to blow smoke right into her face.”⁵
  
  Even musical stars could be subjected to Arlen's prickly side. He panned a performance of Baritone Robert Merrill, noting that it was hard to determine “whether Mr. Merrill dispensed with some of the vocal niceties and subtleties of which he is surely capable because he thought the vastness of the Bowl required constantly loud singing, or whether he just had an off night." While generally a fan of Igor Stravinsky, Arlen called each performance as he saw it, and he did not see much of interest in a concert of Stravinsky’s “The Flood.” The critical review provoked a letter defending the work from Lawrence Morton, then curator of music at Los Angeles County Museum of Art as well as the director of the Monday Evening Concerts. But another letter writer shot back, “No matter how [Morton] explains it, the work is weak, as Walter Arlen pointed out in his review.”⁶ However, Arlen is generous when praise is well deserved. Arlen gives a rave review to a young California pianist named John Browning performing at the Hollywood Bowl, noting that the musician’s “technical equipment is, of course, faultless, as could be discerned from his beautiful and effortless control of even the smallest detail. Nothing was left to chance, yet everything--from the most dramatic to the most lyrical passages--had spontaneity, sweep and conviction.” One evening, attending an “electrifying” performance of the LA Philharmonic at the Hollywood Bowl, conducted by Eduard Van Beinum, Arlen was so riveted by Hector Berlioz's expansive 'Symphonie Fantastique' that occupied the second half of the program, that he wistfully confesses having "to leave before it was over in order to meet a deadline was the sort of punishment which fortunately only reviewers have to take.”⁷
  
  Reviews of the (Uncompromising) Reviewer
  Music editor Albert Goldberg wrote that if a critic could be everything his readers would like him to be, "he would be a paragon of human virtues dwelling on heights unattainable by the rest of fallible mankind. But since few of us ever soar to this lofty level, the constituents never hesitate to remind us of the fact. Don't think we object: How else would we know we had readers?"⁸ So too did Arlen recieve the occasional rebuke of his work. In a review of Mozart's opera "Cosi Fan Tutte," for example, Arlen was clearly trying to be diplomatic by focusing on the charming cast and the clear enjoyment of the audience, noting “it may not have been one of the most spirited and sparkling interpretations from the pit, but it had spunk and drive.” One reader, however, took issue with this gentle approach toward the conductor:

  "Opera tickets being as expensive as they are, it seems to me that the least one can expect is an adequately rehearsed performance. The function of the critic, among other less specific ones, should be to point out the obvious technical transgressions of a performance, not only for the education of the public but for the information of the performers as well."⁹

  Other readers responded with encouragement for Arlen's perspective, as with his review of a performance of Puccini's "Madame Butterfly" starring Dorothy Kirsten which Arlen concluded, "would have made even better sense in English. Every word would have been guaranteed to come across and every man, woman, and child would have had a yet fuller share of pleasure." In a reply that Arlen's editor Albert Goldberg described as "the kind of letter we really like to get," one reader wrote:

  "I came upon another example of your continual harping on opera in English... The point I wish to make is that I hope you keep it up. As a music major planning on going into college teaching, one who became acquainted with classical music by way of opera, I find no valid reason for singing it in a foreign language."¹⁰

  Clearly, some readers agreed with Arlen's "continual harping," sharing his attitudes about the future of classical music in Los Angeles and across the world.
  
  Reviewer as Educator
  Arlen’s at times grouchy tone may have derived in part from frustration with being a second-string reviewer. But he also seems motivated by an educational purpose, offering comments he thought would be instructive to his readers. As frequently as he scolds veteran performers, he uses reviews to recognize and encourage young talent. And he enjoys when an assignment offers a new musical experience. 
  
  His instructive intent comes through most obviously when reporting on student recitals and performances, a regular part of his beat. For example, a piece headlined “Youthful Pianist Formidable,” praises the 15-year old's technique and interpretive shadings, and Arlen notes that the student's program was "carefully designed and wisely scaled to show his every ability without overtaxing him. The single instance of bravura and virtuosity was Kabelevsky's Sonata No. 2, Opus 45.¹¹
  
  On the other hand, Arlen observes in more than one critical review that a program was too difficult for the performer to do it justice. Indeed, some performers (and their mothers) must have cringed to have Arlen in the audience. All he can grant a hapless UCLA student is that "if one of the purposes of a public performance is to demonstrate that one can play all the notes a composer wrote into his compositions, then the piano recital…was passing fair." In fact, even that grade might be too generous, since according to Arlen, the pianist produced quite unrecognizable music including a sonata by Beethoven in which "the powerful fugue crumbled as though it was about the collapse in a landslide."¹²
  
  Arlen has other teaching moments, as well. For example, the buildup to the opening of New York City Ballet’s presentation of the “Nutcracker,” offers an opportunity for a lesson on “one of the most famous, successful, and beloved ballet’s in history.” In another piece, Arlen provides some history on composer Franz Danzi (1763-1826) a contemporary of Beethoven whose works he claims “no longer appear in the repertoire.” Possibly that assessment was premature: a few weeks later Arlen expresses surprise at the “sudden reappearance of Franz Danzi, an obscure German contemporary of Beethoven” at a different wind ensemble concert, also at UCLA.¹³
  
  Arlen welcomed assignments that expanded his own knowledge of music and he exhibits a willingness to reconsider his apparent bias in a 1961 review, noting of a performance by Ravi Shankar at UCLA that, “virtuosity is not the exclusive province of western instrumentalists.” At other times, cultural differences clearly made Arlen uncomfortable. Describing a Caribbean Revue, Arlen writes, "The program was as torrid as the climate of those parts is said to be, and to keep cool the dancers wore as little as decency permitted. Modesty was certainly not involved.” ¹⁴
  
  Arlen's reviews also sometime reveal his bias regarding matters of gender and musical taste. Arlen finds it easy to praise female singers like Nixon and Dorothy Kirsten, but not female pianists. After applauding one singer's courage in offering a difficult program and finding her performance of Shubert sonatas impressive, Arlen takes the artist to task for interpretations and shortcomings in her technique, “although it was by no means incompetent.” Similarly, despite his lavish praise of a female pianist’s rendition of Chopin as “outright stunning” in a 1958 review, Arlen starts the review with sharp criticism. His response to composer and conductor Ethel Leginska was even more patronizing, implying that there is a reason that “women composers and conductors are practically nonexistent,” by noting that some of her pieces show “a certain charm at least, if not a great deal of professionalism.” ¹⁵ It is hard to imagine him giving a similarly gifted male performer such treatment, suggesting that Arlen may have been at his most uncompromising when reviewing women's work. 
  
  
  
  ¹ Arlen, "Boston Orchestra's Flawlessness Thrills Distinguished Audience," Los Angeles Times, May 5, 1953.
  ² Arlen, "Solti and Orchestra Give Masterful Performance," Los Angeles Times July 8, 1955.
  ³ Arlen, “Stravinsky Highlight of Russian’s Program,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 30, 1958.
  ⁴ Arlen, "Concert had Flaws," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 25, 1958.
  ⁵ Arlen, "Curious Works Revived by Early Music Group," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 3, 1960.
  ⁶ Arlen, "Novelties Keynote Bowl Concert of Kostelanetz," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 1, 1955; "Arlen Was Right," June 1, 1975.
  ⁷ Arlen, "Browning Faultless in Piano Artistry," Los Angeles Times, July 28, 1958; "Van Beinum's Last Bowl Concert Outstanding," July 29th, 1955.
  ⁸ Goldberg, Albert,"Alas the poor Critic! Readers Alert!" Los Angeles Times, Oct. 16, 1960.
  ⁹ Arlen, "Audience Delighted by 'Cosi Fan Tutte," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 11, 1960; reply from Odegard, Peter, "Critical Notes," Nov. 19th, 1960. Odegard was then a professor of music at UC Santa Barbara and later at UC Irvine.
  ¹⁰Arlen, “Miss Kirsten Superb in ‘Butterfly’ at Bowl,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 1960; reply in Goldberg, Albert, “Alas the Poor Critic! Readers Alert” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 1960.
  ¹¹ Arlen, "Youthful Pianist Formidable," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 13, 1961.
  ¹² Arlen, “Natasha Litvin Gives UCLA Piano Recital,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 1959.
  ¹³ Arlen, "Nutcracker will bow Wednesday," Los Angeles Times, July 17, 1955; "Wind Quintet Plays Rarely Heard Works," March 10, 1958; "Wind Quintet, Pianist in UCLA Performance," April 1, 1958.
  ¹⁴ Arlen, "Ravi Shankar Gives Dazzling Performance," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 21, 1961; "Lively Songs, Dances in Caribbean Revue," Aug. 11, 1958.
  ¹⁵Arlen, "Miss Kirsten Superb in 'Butterfly' at Bowl," Los Angeles Times Aug. 13, 1960; "Selma Kramer Plays Difficult Program," Nov. 6, 1962; "Leah Effenbah Gives Brilliant Piano Recital," Dec. 7, 1958; "Woman Conductor Presents Own Music," May 14, 1960.