Sonneck Society for American Music
Bulletin, Volume XXIII, no. 1 (Spring 1997)
Communications
Letter from Canada
Carl Morey
University of Toronto
Two things about Canada that seem guaranteed to catch the attention of the U.S. government in
Washington is our friendly trade relationshipo with Cuba, and culture. I have written before in this
letter about border disputes over television and the influence of U.S. interests on Canadian
television reception and services. The North American Free-Trade Agreement has never, we have
been told, included "culture," but culture and entertainment have become increasingly congruent in the
minds of many entrepreneurs on both sides of the border, and in recent weeks the strom has again blown
up around U.S. commercial interests and Canadian cultural protectionism. This time it is over magazines
and the decision of the World Trade Organization to disallow Canada's use of excise tax against split-run
editions of U.S. magazines. (A split-run is a "Canadian" edition of a U.S. magazine that is printed in
Canada with mainly U.S. editorial content that is literally beamed over the border.) With still a
small population (about thirty million) in a huge territory, Canada has depended on various forms of
protection and financial assistance for cultural products, such as films, books, magazines, and
recordings. While the market is small in comparison to the U.S.A., it can still yield profits and
Washington has a sharp eye to securing a still greater presence in this market.
What, you may ask, has this to do with music? I noted in another Letter how little reciprocity
there is between our countries when it actually comes to serious programming of concert works, but in the
ambiguous area of culture/entertainment, the situation is quite different. The export/import of popular
music is clearly commercial, but it is equally true that much popular music relates to a particular
culture. Because pop music has become so dominated by American materials, there is a tendency to think
of it primarily in commercial terms and to forget that it is also American culture. Outside the
U.S. this raises concerns that are not only commercial, but which touch on questions of maintaining
cultural identity.
To this end, for about the past twenty-five years, about thirty per cent of recordings broadcast
by domestic radio stations in Canada must be produced by Canadian artists. Without question, this has been
a boon to performers and producers of music of all kinds. However, as the field of specialty
radio grows with pay audio systems and the commercial potential increases, there will be
greater pressure from foreign (i.e. U.S.) interests for access, and content regulations will
be under attack. It is for this reason that the success in overcoming the Canadian restrictions
on split-run magazines is being viewed with alarm.
All of this is happening at a time when governments everywhere are looking for things to cut, and in
Canada funding to all cultural sectors is diminishing. This is especially true of broadcasting,
where the government-financed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is being forced to sustain massive
reductions. Celine Dionne, Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette, and Ben Heppner are among our latest
contributions to international music, but the fear is that they will be among the last if the
indigenous conditions in which they grew and developed are engulfed by commercialized global
culture.
On a cheerier note, I wrote about a year ago on the astonishingly succesful du Maurier New Music Festival
in Winnipeg. At the end of January the sixth Festival presented eight concerts over nine days, and
presented composers from twenty-one year-old Heather Schmidt, to the ninety-three year-old
Berhold Goldschnidt (who died last October). There are alsways "visiting guest artists" who this
year were R. Murray Shafer from Canada and Aaron Jay Kernis from the U.S.A. Randolph Peters, the
composer who was the curator of this year's festival, aimed for a balance in the programs in the kinds of
innovative music that was performed, including music that is new without necessarily being
radical. As he put is, "New Music ... should be energetic and fun, without any guilt or fear if
it instantly gratifies."
Peters himself is working on a new opera to be performed by the Canadian Opera Company in Toronto in
the Spring of 1999. The text is by the novelist and dramatist Roberston Davies. Peters has already
had a successful opera performed by the COC, his "Nosferatu" in 1993. The COC is planning a
second premiere in the same season of a work by composer Alexina Louie, now of Toronto and
originally from Vancouver, to a text by David Henry Hwang, the author of the play "M. Butterfly."
And as I write, the COC is sponsoring with Tapestry Music Theatre of Toronto a five-day
workshop for aspiring composers and librettists. Despite the bleak prospects that some see in
a culture under attack, there are still some who look optimistically to the future.
Letter from Britain
David Nicholls
Keele University
In previous letters, I have attempted to convey something of the various ways in which American
music manifests itself on this side of the Atlantic. On this occasion, however, I thought it might be interesting
to combine a description of some of my own activities with a timely reminder of 1997's most
important anniversaries: the centenary of the birth of Henry Cowell (1897-1965). I have argued
elsewhere (for instance in a presentation at the 1994 Sonneck conference, published in revised form
in the ISAM NEWSLETTER, vol. XXIV/1) in support of my belief that Cowell's significance in
the history of twentieth-century music -- both American and European -- has been at best overlooked
and at worst completely forgotten. But, as I often say to my students, actions speak louder than
words; and consequently much of my research time during the last three years has been spent in various
Cowell projects, several of which will reach fruition during March 1997, the month of Cowell's
centenary. (I should add, incidentally, that none of these various endeavors would have been
possible without the extraordinary support and encouragement of other "Cowellers" -- as Bill
Lichtenwanger calls them -- most notably H. Wiley Hitchcock and the late Sidney Cowell, to both of whom
I am hugely indebted.)
On the publications front, a new printing of Cowell's pathbreaking book New Musical Resources
(Cambridge, 1996) has already appeared. During 1997, we can look forward to a collection of Cowell's
writing, edited by Dick Higgins, Henry Cowell: American Composers in Their Own Words, #1 (Schirmer),
and The Whole World of Music (Harwood) a symposium of essays I have had the privilege and
pleasure of editing. The symposium includes contributions from Sonneck members Steven Johnson,
Wayne Shirley, and William Lichtenwanger, plus Kyle Gann and 1993 Honorary Member Lou Harrison. We can
also expect a book of Cowelliana which will form part of hte official centenary festivities taking
place in New York City during the week following our Seattle conference. These events include a
conference "Henry Cowell's Musical Worlds," 12-15 March, with sessions at the New York Public Library
at Lincoln Center and at the New School, plus concerts and a major Cowell exhibit at NYPL. The festival
is being organized by the Institute for Studies in American Music and has resulted from an admirable
selfless investment of time and energy on parts of Wiley Hitchcock, ISAM director Carol Oja, and her
associate Ray Allen. I hope as many Sonneckers as possible will be able to attend this important
celebration of Cowell's life, work, and continuing relevance to American music.
While I am looking forward enormously to participating in the New York festival, this enthusiasm is
tinged ever-so-slightly by my regret at not being back home in order to hear "live" the five hours
of Cowell's music which will be broadcast when he features as BBC Radio 3's "Composer of the Week."
It has again been my privilege and pleasure to have been asked to devise and present these
five programs; and at the time of this writing (in early January) I am anticipating a forthcoming
four-day visit to New York, during which producer Alan Hall and I will record interview material with
several prominent Cowellers, which will be excerpted in the series, as well as the hectic
subsequent weeks during which the programs will be put together.
There will no doubt be many other Cowell events, both larger and small, taking place during
1997, and there will also be new scores and recordings to look foward to. But can I end this letter
by making a special plea to readers who are involved in performance, whether as amateurs or
professionals? Cowell produced a huge body of work during the half-century of his compositional
life. Indeed, Bill Lichtenwanger's Descriptive Catalog (published by ISAM in 1986) lists
well-nigh a thousand separate pieces, ranging from short, simple works for solo instrument,
through to long, complex symphonies. These works are written in a plethora of syles, from the
popular to the recherche, Cowell's conscious and intentional polystylism forming an important
part of his legacy to our post-modern world. It would make 1997 very special if each of us could
program at least one Cowell item in a concert during this centenary year. (And if anyone wants advice
ast to what to program, I for one am happy to provide it; you can contact me via fax or e-mail.)
Let's go for it, and give Henry the birthday he deserves!
Letter from Frank Manheim
Some years ago Elizabeth Borroff wrote a stirring editorial about the under-representation of
American music in our school systems. As a grateful non-professional member of the Sonneck
Society, I should like to contribute the following open letter to Dr. Robert Freeman, the incoming
director of the New England Conservatory of Music, to the Bulletin. The letter is a
contemporary followup to Dr. Borroff's piece and a wakeup call to Sonneck members.
Dear Dr. Freeman:
I heard your interview hour with Christopher Lydon tonight. I regret I wasn't able to contribute to
this importnat forum. I'm the father of a NEC graduate and a lifelong music enthusiast. I have been a
local impresario and small-town music reviewer, and in recent years have gotten intrested in music
research. I honor the fine training given by schools like Eastman and NEC to their graduates, and the
skills of their faculties. But I believe that serious non-professional music lovers and amateur
performers have insights about the state of music as a whole that are either not known or are
ignored by the professional music establishment.
I have agonized about what I regard as underappreciated root causes of some of the declines spoken
about on The Connection (WBUR Radio, Boston). Even as a member of an advisory council at NEC, it
seemed impossible to get a hearing for ideas and concerns other than fundraising. We nonprofessionals are
appreciated when we lionize performers and performing groups and support them financially. But otherwise
we seem to be regarded as the great unwashed by the establishment, unqualified to participate
seriously in musical culture.
This is not an undocumented idea. A few musicians like John Harbison, Gunther Schuller, and Richard Taruskin
have acknowledged the situation. A striking example of the elitism of musical leaders was provided in an
interview by radio host Robert J. Lurtsema with Pierre Boulez on Morning Pro Musica (WGBH Radio, Boston).
When asked about his thoughts on musical audiences, Boulez replied that for him the role of concerts was mainly
to provide an opportunity to review his musical conceptions in a live performance! Though unusually candid,
Boulez's view are quite common among contempoary composers. But if music is just Selbstzweck, why
should the public support an establishment that fosters it?
You spoke of musical education. Curious paradoxes in musical education trends appear when one looks at the
U.S.'s last 100 years. By 1900 most urban and many rural school systems in American had musical literacy
among their curricular goals. The majority of elementary school graduates knew the rudiments of sight reading
and music theory. Except for choral, orchestra, and band directors, elementary school music was taught by
regular classroom teachers. It was taken for granted that every classroom teacher would know enough music
to at least teach the basics. With the revolution in education in the 1960s and 1970s music became the
exclusive province of professionals. But the results were not all positive. Fashoinable and politically
correct musical ideas, including teaching styles like Orff and Kodaly methods, which had no root in American
culture, were "in." Simultaneiously, the goal of musical literacy for all was abandoned. Not
surprisingly, musical literacy has dropped precipitously, and with it a knowledge of the former common heritage
of American music (about which Elizabeth Borroff has written eloquently). I don't imply that it is good to have
poorly-trained people teaching music, but important positive features in the earlier systems have seemingly been
ignored.
I see evidences of overprofessionalization of our music establishment. Fine publications like Etude once
catered to all music lovers, professional and amateur alike, and reached high circulations. They are gone, replaced
by professionals who speak down to readers of music and arts-oriented magazines from their lofty vantage points.
Our leading contemporary composers have largely ignored music for children, for amateur performers,
or for worship, each of which yielded some of the finest compositions of the past. Robert Schumann wrote
that hte strongest musical epochs were those when amateur performers and music lovers had a vital role in
music life.
Closely attuned to academic trends, Christopher Lydon mirrored typical contemporary professional viewpoints.
The financial dlemma affecting classical performance organizations and recording is met wiht a sense of
helplessness and confusion, or almost desperate reflection on ways to patronize the benighted public. Chris
talked about mongrelized mixtures of classical and popular music, but wondered what yet more preformances of
certified "crowdpleasing" warhorses could do. It never seems to occur to the public writers about these issues
that nonprofessionals whould have anything but stereotypical views to offer on these questions. Both
history and contemporary experience suggest that museum pieces -- no matter how well performed -- can't
form the core of a vibrant musical culture in the long run. The result is subsidized connoisseur concerts
for 100 or 200 people while orchid or dog shows draw 4,000 and rock music fills football stadiums.
Now that I surely made myself unpopular with you, I still hope that whereas you will equal your
predecessor (Lawrence Lesser) in his administrative skills, you will break out of his typical
extablishmentarian mold. If you should experiment with more than one-way communications with the
music-loving public I'll be glad to be one of those participants.
Cordially,
Frank Manheim
Updated 4/15/98