In spite of the work done by the Euterpean Society, the Musical Fund and the Sacred Music Society, New York in the first decades of the nineteenth century did not possess an orchestral organization capable of interpreting adequately the compositions of the great masters. As we have already pointed out, the city was suffering from musical expansion when it really needed concentration. It was suffering also from too much amateurism. Many clear-headed New York musicians realized the needs of the situation and eventually there arose a healthy agitation in favor of a strong permanent orchestra of professional musicians. The agitation found an energetic leader in Uriah C. Hill, conductor of the Sacred Music Society, and chiefly through his efforts the Philharmonic Society was formed in 1842. In many respects the Philharmonic differed from all the societies which preceded and most of those which have followed it in America. It was simply a coöperative association of professional musicians organized for the purpose of giving concerts of the highest class. Amateurs were excluded and the society enjoyed neither patronage nor guarantee. Its first concert took place at the old Apollo Rooms on December 7, 1842, with Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as the pièce de résistance. The list of symphonies performed by it during the first ten years of its existence illustrates the consistence with which it carried out its dignified purpose. Among them were Beethoven's Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth; Mozart's 'Jupiter,' G minor and E flat; Haydn's Third and B flat; Mendelssohn's Third and Fourth; Schubert's C major; Schumann's First; Spohr's D minor, Die Weihe der Töne and Double Symphony; Kalliwoda's First; Gade's in C; and Lachner's Prize Symphony. Among the other interesting features of its early seasons were Mendelssohn's 'Fingal's Cave,' Sterndale Bennett's 'The Naiads,' and Berlioz's Francs Juges overtures.
But the Philharmonic, in spite of its splendid efforts, failed to win unanimous endorsement from musical New York and in 1854 there was a revolt of several of its own members, headed by G. Bristow and by Fry, musical critic of the 'Tribune.' The grievance was that the Philharmonic had made 'a systematic effort for the extinction of American music.' Mr. Bristow was especially wroth. During the eleven years of its existence, he complained, the society had played only one piece of American composition, preferring to devote itself to the works of German masters, 'especially if they be dead'—meaning Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, and others. By these and similar remarks we may gauge the mental calibre of Mr. Bristow. Whatever grain of justice may have been in the movement which he headed, it could not possibly succeed under his leadership and, after threatening for a time the very existence of the Philharmonic, the American revolution petered out. It was not the last time, however, that the society suffered from the pernicious activity of stupid and bigoted incompetents.
The orchestra of the Philharmonic during its first season numbered fifty-three performers, divided as follows: seventeen violins, five violas, four violoncellos, five contrabasses, three flutes, one piccolo, two oboes, two clarinets, three bassoons, four horns, two trumpets, four trombones, and one pair of kettle drums. In the beginning there was no permanent conductor, but at different times between 1842 and 1849 the orchestra was led by Uriah C. Hill, H. C. Timms, W. Alpers, G. Loder, L. Wiegers, D. G. Etienne, and A. Boucher. Theodore Eisfeld was conductor from 1849 to 1855 and from the latter year until 1866 he alternated with Carl Bergmann. From 1866 until 1876 Bergmann was sole conductor and his services to music in New York during those years were of the highest value. He was especially instrumental in bringing before New Yorkers the compositions of Liszt, Wagner, Raff, Rubinstein, and the romanticists generally. Dr. Leopold Damrosch conducted the orchestra in 1876-77, and then came Theodore Thomas, who signalized his entrance by performing the First Symphony of Brahms. Thomas probably did more to cultivate the taste of New York concert goers than any other orchestral conductor who ever worked in that city. Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, over and over again, formed the burden of his musical message, and for variety Tschaikowsky, Wagner, Liszt, and Rubinstein. He was an idealist—an uncompromising idealist—and, as he would not descend to the concert-going public, the concert-going public perforce ascended to him. His work was of incalculable value. In 1891 he was succeeded by Anton Seidl, another big figure and the best possible successor of Thomas. Seidl was more tolerant than Thomas and more modern in spirit. He laid less emphasis on the classics and more on Liszt, Wagner, and Tschaikowsky. And he was much more generous of novelties, which included the first performance anywhere of Dvořák's 'New World' symphony. Admirably did he build on the solid foundation his predecessor had laid. After his death in 1898 Emil Paur succeeded to the bâton and reigned until 1902, when Walter Damrosch conducted for a season. Then for three years the society presented a series of guest conductors, including Édouard Colonne, Wassili Safonoff, Gustav Kogel, Henry Wood, Victor Herbert, William Mengelberg, Max Fiedler, Ernest Kunwald, Fritz Steinbach, Richard Strauss, Felix Weingartner, and Karl Panger. Safonoff was then engaged for three years and after him came Gustav Mahler, one of the greatest and most individual conductors of recent times. Mahler's interpretations and technical innovations stirred musical New York to its depths and aroused a storm of critical commentary both favorable and otherwise. His sudden resignation in 1911 was wrapped in a cloud of mystery, not free from a black tinge of scandal, the onus of which, however, did not rest upon him. He was succeeded by Josef Stransky, who still remains (1915).
In 1912 the Philharmonic was the fortunate recipient of a bequest of $500,000 from Joseph Pulitzer, late owner and editor of the New York 'World.' Under the conditions of this bequest the society was reorganized from a coöperative association into a membership corporation. The results in many ways have been advantageous. While the coöperative idea had some good features, it had the great drawback that in unprofitable seasons the members sought more lucrative engagements, with a consequent reduction of rehearsals and loss of homogeneity in the work of the orchestra. Under the new system a stricter discipline is possible and in consequence the orchestra shows a great improvement in technique.
The Philharmonic Society of New York, with Joseph Stransky conducting.
From a photograph (1914) taken in Carnegie Hall, New York
The Philharmonic, of course, was never long without a rival in New York. Brooklyn made the first serious effort at competition when its own Philharmonic was established in 1857 with Theodore Eisfeld as conductor. During its initiatory season it produced Beethoven's Third and Seventh Symphonies, Mendelssohn's Fourth, and Gade's C Major. Carl Bergmann succeeded Eisfeld and after him came Theodore Thomas. The early history of the Brooklyn Philharmonic was brilliant with achievement and promise, but unfortunately that achievement was not sustained nor that promise fulfilled. The indefatigable Theodore Thomas maintained a lively rivalry with the New York Philharmonic off and on between 1864 and 1879. He gave annual series of what he called symphony soirées, and for a few years he also gave garden concerts in summer. In 1879 he went west as director of the newly established Cincinnati College of Music, but two years later he returned as conductor of the Philharmonic.
Meanwhile Dr. Leopold Damrosch in 1878 founded the Symphony Society of New York with the avowed purpose of breaking away from the established conservatism of the Philharmonic and exploring newer fields of musical composition. Dr. Damrosch conducted the orchestra until his death in 1885, when he was succeeded by his son Walter. At first the society gave only twelve concerts yearly but its activities gradually increased until it was giving about one hundred—its average for the last ten years. These include extended tours throughout the United States and Canada. The career of the Symphony Society has not been without vicissitudes. For many years after the death of Dr. Damrosch it had to fight a discouraging struggle against lack of interest and of financial backing. In 1899 Walter Damrosch retired from the fight and devoted himself to composition; but in the following year he went to the Metropolitan as conductor of German opera, and apparently the experience revived his ambitions as a conductor. After he retired from the Metropolitan he succeeded in obtaining a subsidy for the Symphony Society from a number of prominent New York citizens. Since then the fortunes of the organization have been in the ascendant and they were definitely assured in the spring of 1914 when its president, Mr. H. H. Flagler, announced 'that in order to further its artistic aims, he was prepared for the future to defray any deficit of the society up to the amount of one hundred thousand dollars annually.'
Though the prime purpose of the New York Symphony is to produce important novelties, it has always rested its program on the foundation of the classics. Dr. Damrosch was a devoted lover of Beethoven, and it was entirely in accordance with his ideals that the society, in 1907, gave the first Beethoven festival in America. Many of the symphonic works of Brahms, Tschaikowsky, Sibelius, and Elgar were given their first performances in America by the Symphony Society and the first Brahms festival in this country was given by it in 1912. As if to complete the society's identification with the trio of immortal 'B's,' Mr. Damrosch has shown lately a large devotion to the works of Bach. Since 1907 the society has given much attention to the modern French school and has introduced New York to many compositions of Debussy, Dukas, Enesco, Chausson, and Ravel.