lower or the more or less raising of the palate, that the singer need only follow natural effects, and larynx, palate and the rest will take care of themselves. Do not complicate it with theories.

A new pupil went into the studio of a well-known teacher for a hearing. She took with her a popular song—the only song which she knew. The teacher cried "Trash," and would not even talk the matter over. This was foolish, selfish and unreasonable.

Every voice which comes under our care includes the personality behind the voice, and is of distinct and special interest. This pupil's environment had undoubtedly been such that she was not further developed and could hardly be expected to love and understand the music, which the teacher was accustomed to perform or teach. However, many a singer, who first brought the popular song, has developed into a successful church and concert singer. This was not brought about by reprimands and unkind criticisms of their short-comings, but by patient consideration and gradual development. Give the pupil a chance to learn to perform good music before you demand that they should appreciate it. A good teacher will encourage questions. If there are any questions pertaining to the study of voice culture that he cannot answer it is time he should know.

Unless a teacher is a perfect accompanist, so that he can keep his eyes away from the keyboard, he should employ an accompanist, for the teacher should see as well as hear the pupil sing the finished numbers.

And last, but not least, select a teacher who tries to understand you, who makes you feel at ease, and who shows as much interest in your voice as in your pocketbook.

ART FOR ART'S SAKE.

HOW MANY musicians live up to this much-abused term? In my travels here and abroad I have found just two whose lives were entirely devoted to "art for art's sake". They both reminded me of the last act of Beau Brummell, and certainly did not suggest happiness. To fully live up to "art for art's sake," one must necessarily have means, and you would be surprised to know how few of those who are in position to live up to it, do so. Singers, in whom you would expect to find a demonstration,—real musicians, to whom the whole world has bent its knee,—will stand up before an audience and sing a little popular waltz song, a la "After the Ball,"—a song we would consider too inferior to allow one of our pupils to sing. Is this "art for art's sake?" Where then should we look for a demonstration, if not in the finished singer or artist?

Do not these singers know better? Certainly, but they study their audience, give the few their best, and the masses what they want. In search for "art for art's sake," we turn to the "artist," and we find him trying to please the audience.

We are living in a very material age. If you can afford to do so, live art for art's sake in your home, but if you have to make your living, and cope with the world to make a success, you must study your audience; they paid their money and want to be entertained. You can strike a happy medium, where you will not lower your dignity, as a singer and an artist.

I notice that those who "rant" and "storm" on the subject of "art for art's sake" seldom live it, of which we were given a fair demonstration when one of our disciples of "art for art's sake" went on a "concert" tour and was so anxious to "please" his audience, that the program was a perfect vaudeville performance. It is needless to say that the "artist" was severely criticised. Don't bill yourself as a concert singer and then give a vaudeville performance. Use judgment. Watch the teacher who is constantly talking "art for art's sake." Note to how many struggling musicians he holds out a helping hand and how much of his time and life he devotes to "art for art's sake."

We teachers charge enough for our lessons to make it possible for us to devote an evening a week "to art for art's sake"; invite our pupils, talk, sing, take up the biographies of the old masters, do ensemble work; study the oratories and operas. I am sure this would help create a greater love and understanding of the better things in music, for the more we hear it, the more we love it. This would go further in helping to create a love and understanding of "art for art's sake," and would be a greater test of our sincerity.

Debussy, the well-known composer of Peleas and Melisande, says in an article on "Art for Art's Sake": "Don't talk to me about elevating public taste. That is the greatest 'bluff' one can din into your ears. Just think for a moment what the public is composed of. How many in the audience understand music? How many devote themselves to music during the day? An infinitesimal number. The rest, where do they come from? From offices, stores, business houses of some kind, or they come from teas and gossip, and then they go to hear the opera. Most of them are tired after a day's work or idleness, and such people you expect to take an interest in serious music. Impossible! No; the only thing you can do for the public is to lift it, for one moment, out of its daily thoughts, and with that we have to be content. Under such conditions, what difference does it make whether you have German, Italian or French opera? There is no immovable truth in art. You cannot say this is so or so, and what difference do the means make as long as the end is accomplished? If Italian opera is more effective than German opera, what does it matter? All art is untruth. You may have been told that art is eternal because it is true, but there you are mistaken."