Last year a CRIMSON editorial expressed the popular dissatisfaction with the acoustics of the Memorial Church and pointed out the necessary improvements, of which only a bare minimum has been carried out. Beside the insoluble difficulty of the architecture itself, the original problem was twofold; heavy carpets and rough plaster finish both absorbed sound, prevented resonance, and generally marred the performances of a capable choir. Some of the carpet has now been taken up, but conditions remain so bad that cushionless pews must be resorted to for the Sunday service, and still it is impossible for the choir to realize its potentialities.

To remedy this inexcusable situation experts have agreed that large areas of the wall and virtually the whole ceiling must be refinished, but that the desired smooth surface could very probably be obtained with several coats of inexpensive paint. The only conceivable argument for neglecting this work is the claim that increasing the resonance would injure the speaking acoustics. This objection is no longer valid, since Dean Sperry has admitted that the speaker now has an excessive advantage, most of which he could well afford to lose. There remains no plausible reason why the wall area should not be done over at once, even if the ceiling must be left until Christmas vacation.

Why the University has hesitated so long in correcting the situation has never been explained. It has aready seen a vast sum go into the installation of a particularly fine organ. It is constantly laying out more money for the maintenance of a full-sized choir. If there are absolutely no funds on hand to make the slight improvements suggested, some statement to this effect should be forthcoming. But for the University to continue to ignore this problem is equivalent to its refusing to make the most of the opportunities which are offered by the facilities and the choir.