After having read your “A Deeper Music” in the February issue I wondered whether you had ever heard Mr. de Pachmann play the piano. There is nothing in the world like it—nothing more wonderful. I am not speaking of an ebony Mason and Hamlin alone on a stage, but of any piano at all, with that madman bending his head over the keys of it. I feel sure that had you heard him you would have included him in your article and would not have put words into Bauer’s mouth. You would have known that it is possible to play the piano very badly and play it more beautifully than any one else; both of these in one afternoon. The design of sound! But he, too, is becoming passé like Paderewski. But there is little likelihood of a type arising from these two. Do you know of any one who plays the piano as Casals plays the ’cello? Have you looked at any of Scriabine’s later piano pieces? I wonder if he expresses any of the moods which you prophesy will be caught by some new composer. I knew a boy in Petrograd who went to the conservatory every day with a volume of Scriabine and one of Bach under his arm. We called him the “Scriabine chap.” He probably has had thirty-second quavers punched into him by a German machine gun, for I am sure he couldn’t or didn’t dare be as loyal to both Nicholas and Wilhelm as he was to Scriabine and Johann S. B. _Yes, I have heard Pachmann many times, and he was always wonderful. I meant, of course, to put him in the article, but at the last minute he slipped my mind ... perhaps because I was trying to write of a “deeper” music, and since Pachmann is “master of the small essential thing and master of absolutely nothing else” he doesn’t quite come into the realm of the new vision of the piano._ _Isn’t there a good deal of similarity between Casals’ playing of the ’cello and Bauer’s playing of the piano?_ _Scriabine’s later piano things have something of what I meant, and do you remember the piano parts of “Prometheus?” Stravinsky, too—you know how he uses the piano in “Pétrouchka.” But the new vision is beyond these—something more rich and shattering.... I can’t say it. Let’s just wait and see.—The Editor._ _Alice Groff, Philadelphia_: “Spirit can do” absolutely _nothing_, without body. Social spirit can do absolutely nothing without the means of life for the body. The social ego that would “start the revolution” must aim first to get control of the means of living—food, clothing, shelter, and the resources, natural and economic, back of these. Revolutions succeed only when they get such control; if they do not get it they are soap bubbles blown by a little child. Why waste time pelting with idle words the social egos that have such control, instead of going to work to _wrench_ it from them, _even with war_?