Philadelphia Pother

Philadelphia elders whispered behind closed doors last week. Philadelphia's youth shouted its grievances in the sedate old Academy of Music (see col. 2). Conductor Leopold Stokowski made sad little speeches, appeared deeply hurt. Curtis Bok, president of the Orchestra Association, asked the entire orchestra board to resign. When the board objected, Mr. Bok and his very rich mother, who is the daughter of the late Cyrus H. K. Curtis, quit.

Philadelphia had never known such a musical pother, such tongue-wagging and intrigue which appeared to lead nowhere. Stokowski was resigning, he said, because of "deep-lying differences'' with the board and its failure to appoint a suitable successor to Manager Arthur Judson (TIME, Dec. 17). Since the board seemed to be the cause of the trouble, Curtis Bok wanted to create a new one which would be more sympathetic to Conductor Stokowski. "By sympathy," said Mr. Bok. "I mean more than acquiescence. I mean an understanding and awareness of what he is trying to do."

Bok-less, the board attempted a reconciliation with Stokowski. It asked him to return and conduct whatever concerts and operas he wished, implied that the "deep-lying differences" would not be insurmountable. Stokowski's friends felt that so great a conductor should have complete command. His critics felt that he was lacking in gratitude for all Philadelphia had done for him. Though the board issued no formal statement on the subject, the views of some of its members were reflected in the Philadelphia Record, partly owned by Samuel Pels (Fels-Xaptha Soap), one of the board's vice presidents.

The Record editorialized on Stokowski's debt to Philadelphia: "He forgets that the directors not only have made him the highest paid conductor in the world, but have given him a greater degree of artistic freedom than is enjoyed by any conductor of any orchestra anywhere."

The world's "highest-paid conductor" was enraged to find the Record boldly recording many of his earnings: "When he came to Philadelphia, he got $600 a concert. In 1922 he signed a contract for 10 years, to conduct 90 concerts a year at $800 a concert. . . . But after signing the 10-year contract, he began raising doubts each spring as to whether he would return in the fall, contract or no contract. So, each spring, the board, agreeing he was a great artist, gave him more money, despite the contract, until in 1929 he was getting $2,000 a concert for 55 concerts a season or $110,000 a year. . . .

"In addition, he gets, without hindrance from the board, all the money he can from radio broadcasting, which one year was $70,000. Then there is the matter of royalties from phonograph records. The year he got $110,000 from the board, and $70,000 from radio, he also got $60,000 from record royalties, or a total of $240,000. . ."

In an open letter crammed with visionary hopes and aims Stokowski criticized the board for not having made the most of radio. With a good contract, he said, "It should be possible to finish the season without any deficit and it might even be possible to reduce the price of concert tickets."

The Record said: "This year the radio advertisers were chary of dealing with Stokowski. They decided he was too expensive. For a series of nine Friday afternoon concerts in the fall of this year, a broadcasting chain offered $10,000 the concerts to be broadcast purely as sustaining programs since no commercial sponsors could be obtained. Of this sum Stokowski got $5,000 and the orchestra $5,000."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.