To the Editors:
Your September issue carries a piece entitled “The pupils of Clara Schumann and the uses of tradition” by Samuel Lipman. It has been drawn to my attention as I am the compiler of the records referred to and the writer of the set’s notes. As the “review” aspect of the piece is entirely dismissive, I will request the courtesy of your columns for a considered answer.
What does Lipman mean by “the uses of tradition”? In the body of his article he tells us: “the great pianists of the past have rarely been scholars, have always been supreme egotists, and have invariably made styles, not reflected them.” In other words, “the uses of tradition” for him are precisely zero. He is self-confessedly unqualified to understand these records.
From this contradiction flows his entire piece. He cannot perceive, he tells us, the stylistic similarities shared by all the Schumann pupils. These similarities have been clear to every other reviewer whose opinions have so far come to our notice—eight in all.
He confuses rhythmic security with dullness. This may be because the playing on these records represents a style unfamiliar to him. He ignores entirely the remarkable tonal balancing and voice leadings everywhere apparent in these records.
He grossly exaggerates Adelina de Lara’s mistakes. Her occasional slips never come anywhere near obscuring the music’s proportions. And her rhythmic control—especially in the Brahms Haydn Variations, in which he finds only “a certain weak-kneed sentimentality”—is of the
