In undertaking to set forth the present conditions of American musical art it is realized that little can be said beyond that with which professional American musicians are already perfectly familiar. But the future of indigenous American music gives promise of a significance so wide that the reader will concede the indispensability of embodying in this book at least a bird's-eye view of an evolution that is destined to lead to glorious results. Moreover, to refrain from repeating well-known facts for fear of presenting trite material would indeed appear as an inexcusable and glaring omission should these pages ever come into the hands of a foreigner.
In order to cover the entire ground, it would be necessary to touch upon the rather doubtful experiments of our forefathers during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries:—to examine into the tardy emancipation of religious music from the dogmatic fetters of Puritanism, to follow the gradual development of American hymn-tunes, and to ferret out the initial encroachments of beneficent Teutonic influence. Such preliminaries may here be dispensed with. America has no native folk-tunes. The experiments of our illustrious guest, Dvořák, to adapt so-called negro melodies as the basis for future operation are certainly masterly,—nevertheless illogical. MacDowell's poetic "Indian Suite" draws upon still another source for the same purpose. Racial characteristics and local coloring are indeed suggested,—but the desired objective is not attained. Of similar purport are the exhaustive researches of Farwell. His deductions are intensely interesting, frequently picturesque,—but again prove that the primitive tunes of the American Indian do not meet the requirements for a national form of melody. It is evident, therefore, that American composers are obliged to rely upon their own individual efforts. What is more, no marked individuality displayed itself before the nineteenth century. Anyone desiring detailed information pertaining to the infancy of American music may be referred to Ritter's book on that subject as well as to Louis C. Elson's "History of American Music." Furthermore, since the main theme of this discussion is orchestration, it will not be possible to more than touch upon the sterling achievements of the already large list of nineteenth and twentieth century composers who are so worthily furthering the artistic cause of their country. Detailed biographies of these men are also to be found in Elson's work as well as in Rupert Hughes' "Contemporary American Composers."
During the nineteenth century America produced no less than some hundred native born composers, conductors, performers and pedagogues who are worthy of unstinted praise and enduring recognition. It is, however, an extremely difficult matter to single out those who may be looked upon as America's representative writers for the orchestra. At the present moment one might suggest the names of six men who have been exceptionally fortunate in being granted the opportunity of showing the world what they can do. These fortunate ones are Paine, Buck, Foote, Chadwick, MacDowell, Parker, of whom no less than four are claimed by New England. The word "fortunate" is used advisedly, for without detracting in the least from the hard-earned and well-merited laurels of these conspicuously successful composers, many another American could be pointed to who even now is worthy of being classed in the first rank and who would undoubtedly rise to epoch-making greatness were the opportunity but granted him. Selecting a few names merely at random, the present writer has had occasion to peruse the orchestral pages of such men as Father Bonvin (a Jesuit priest of Canesius College, Buffalo, N.Y.) and Professor Leo R. Lewis of Tufts College,—the breadth and power of whose scoring would command wide-spread admiration were the authors natives and residents of Continental Europe. Further proof of native independence and strength is revealed in the deplorably rare opportunities of listening to the orchestral works of our younger aspirants such as F. Converse, H.H. Huss, H.K. Hadley, Rubin Goldmark, not to mention the scholarly productions of the older and reputed leaders of the country such as Gilchrist, F.G. Gleason, Foerster, Beck, E.S. Kelley, Schoenefeld, Zeck.
No country in the world makes such unreasonable demands upon the range of professional capacity as does America when begrudgingly bestowing her patronage upon her musicians. To be an "all-round" musician one is supposed to be a proficient organ and pianoforte player, a vocal teacher, a trainer of boy choirs, of solo quartets, of denominational church choir singing, and a choral as well as an orchestral conductor; one is supposed to be familiar with all matters pertaining to church services, to have some knowledge of orchestral stringed instruments, to be versed in subtleties theoretical and pedagogical, to have business executive ability, and to be—incidentally—a composer! It is therefore not easy to classify our contemporary musicians into distinctive branches of activity. John Knowles Paine, for example, is first and foremost the pioneer of America's great composers. On the other hand, were he to be deprived of this tribute, there would still remain divers possible classifications under the headings of organist, of pioneer educator, of theorist, lecturer, and teacher. Consequently, the following group must, like that of the French composers in[ Chapter XII], be accepted with considerable reserve; for, as in that chapter, the different composers are but arbitrarily classified under the particular branch in which they would appear to have excelled. It is also to be understood that where no statement to the contrary is made, the composer under discussion is a native born American.
XII.
(1) Pioneers and Promoters. Prominent among our indefatigable workers of the nineteenth century born prior to 1850 are: Lowell Mason, Bristow, Dr. William Mason, Gottschalk, C.C. Converse, Dr. L. Damrosch, Paine, B.J. Lang, Emery.
Lowell Mason (1792-1872) was for many years the president of the Händel and Haydn Society of Boston, where he founded an academy of music, and displayed untiring activity in initiating conferences of music teachers and in the cause of American musical art in general. Bristow (1825) deserves mention not only for his activity as a pianist, teacher, and conductor, but also for his ambitions as a composer in large forms. These works include two symphonies, two oratorios "Daniel" and "St. John," and an opera "Rip van Winkle." Dr. William Mason (1829) proved himself worthy of the heritage entrusted to him by his father, Lowell Mason, and is looked upon as one of the chief factors in the evolution of American music. His compositions, though clever, are conservative and somewhat pedantic, but his influence as an educator cannot be overestimated. Gottschalk (1829) devoted his exceptional talents as a concert pianist largely to the dissemination of his own salon music, which is brilliant though sentimental, being, moreover, unquestionably dominated by Spanish characteristics. Converse (1832) is recognized as a typical American and has won esteem as the author of a large number of hymn-tunes. Dr. Leopold Damrosch (1832) was among the earlier Germans who adopted the United States as their home. He left his indelible impress upon the artistic life of New York City and bequeathed the fruits of his labors to his sons, Walter and Frank, who have piously preserved and extended them. Paine and B.J. Lang are mentioned in this connection by virtue of their indomitable perseverance in behalf of improved musical conditions in the earlier period of their respective careers when the general attitude of the American public toward true musical art was even worse than it is at present. Emery (1841) owed his reputation originally to his talents as a pianist, but his primer of harmony has since made his name a familiar one in almost every household.
This list may rightfully include the name of a more recent benefactor of native composition—the pianist, Sherwood (1854), who was one of the first to insist that the American public should become acquainted with the slighted creative talents of her artistic sons. He put this noble resolve to practical test by devoting large portions of his programs to the compositions of his compatriots, and was able to command the attention and respect of his audiences not alone by his sterling technique and refined interpretation but by his charming personality as well.
Many other names such as Carl Zerrahn and Theodore Thomas could be added here. They have, however, been classified under their more pronounced specialities.
(2) Master of Orchestration. Paine (1839). As Hughes fitly expresses it, Paine is the venerable dean of America's truly great composers. Dr. Riemann also is not far wrong when he declares that Paine's earlier works breathe a classical, the latter ones a romantic spirit. This unwearying composer is at his best in large forms—indeed, his supreme devotion to large undertakings has left him little time for smaller works. His artistic career displays a steady growth not unlike that of Wagner or Verdi. Grounded in the conservative principles of sound Germanic classicism, as revealed in his powerful and dramatic oratorio "St. Peter," he has pressed onward through various stages of legitimate program music, represented by such works as the "Spring Symphony," the symphonic poem "The Tempest," the overture to "As You Like It," the setting of Keats' "Realm of Fancy," Milton's "Nativity," and, most important of all, the "Oedipus Tyrannos of Sophokles." Having reached the height of his power in these lines, Paine advanced yet further and concentrated his energies upon not only the music but the libretto as well of a dramatic conception that should head the list of a genuine American school of opera. The recent completion of "Azara," with its dramatic continuity, irresistible climaxes, dignity and beauty of musical contents, consistent and effective orchestration, is of epoch-making significance. The exasperating obstacles placed in the way of its performance both here and abroad are, alas, too well known to require additional comment. Until a production of this work shall have been an accomplished fact, our country justly merits the existing condemnation of foreign musicians who declare that America has not the slightest conception of her duties either to her artistic development or to her native composers who have sacrificed the best years of their lives in the hope of stimulating that development. Not without justice do the Germans declare that the American public at large possess no artistic instincts whatever, since they force their native composers to turn to foreign lands for encouragement.[109]