It has been generally supposed, and even publicly stated, that the only purpose behind the boxes which have run over my signature is a kind of aimless invective, a form of egocentric iconoclasm. Within these limits, the adjectives applied have attained the bulk of a thesaurus.

The purpose of this particular box is to show the continuity and motivation of the various columns. All madness has a method, and the popular denunciation which has greeted these remarks has shown that the method is not clearly understood.

The first position taken in this space was that the programming of the Boston Symphony was inadequate for the presentation of a sufficiently varied season. As the season continued, however, the programs have shown some slight improvement, and the reason for the previous deficiency has been demonstrated.

On various evenings Dr. Koussevitzky has attempted the presentation of the Bach E Minor Violin Concerto, the Second Brandenburg Concerto, and the Third Suite; the Mozart D Major Symphony and the Adagio and Fugue in G. Minor. With the exception of the Adagio and Fugue, which performance I was unable to attend, none of them has been interpreted in a satisfactory manner.

Behind my dissatisfaction with the performances lies an acquaintance with other recorded interpretations, and a knowledge of the scores. In the Bach works, the recordings of Adolf Busch have been generally accepted in definitive. When he Busch interpretation is supported by the Pro Arto performance of the Brandenburg, and the Paris Conservatory's tradition on the Suite, there are reasonable grounds to suspect any great departure from them.

In addition to this, Leopold Stokowski has been highly criticized by the musical world for his expansion of Bach chamber works to the facilities of a Wagnerian orchestra. When Koussevitzky follows, the same criticism must be applied to him; when he allows his large string section to drown out the Brandenburg soloists, he is clearly guilty of a breach in taste.

Beecham is certainly the recognized authority in Mozart; only Bruno Walter is ever compared to him today. Koussevitzky's divergences from Beecham are emphatic; while Mozart's scores are not perfectly annotated and allow much leeway, he appears on several occasions to have violated the composer's instructions. Get the scores, compare recordings, and notice Koussevitizky's distortion of dynamic balance, listen carefully to his general phraseology.

It is probably for these reasons that Koussevitzky rarely plays classical music, and never pre-classical. Little Haydn, no Handel, and no Schubert is heard in Boston. Koussevitzky's selections among Romantic composers are generally restricted to that Virgil Thomson calls "the symphonists that descend from Brahms'--Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, etc.

Even in this, his particular specialty, Koussevitzky has not been considered above criticism. While his performances of Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, and Franck are highly regarded in many circles, there is also a school which claims that their main virtues, their contemplative qualities are sacrificed to effect by Koussevitky.

The Boston Symphony is justly famous for its constant presentation of new music, and criticism of Koussevitzky's selections is mostly a matter of taste. It is to be noted, however, that many of the composers played have not been entirely happy about the honor; Roy Harris especially registered several objections to the interpretation.

All of this is not to deny the important place held by the Boston Symphony in American music. It has a finer tone and greater consistency than any other major ensemble. I do wish, however, to blast the cult of unintelligent Koussevitzky-worship which has become a blight upon the city. The week after week performances of almost any important orchestra are more satisfactory to this viewer and to many others. pro