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 beneficentTeutonic 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 theopportunitybut 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 mentionthe 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 inChapter 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.
(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 ofopera. 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]
Buck(1839) is conspicuously identified with the evolution of American church music. As a composer he is at his best in religious composition in smaller forms. On the other hand, his important contributions to the branch of larger choral works with orchestral accompaniment must not be overlooked. His scenes from Longfellow's "Golden Legend" were deemed worthy of winning one of the coveted prizes at Cincinnati. The cantata for male chorus "Columbus" displays masterly command in the deployment of men's voices, whereas the "Light of Asia" is one of the standard works of America. Buck has rather neglected the field of purely orchestral music, but the scoring of his choral compositions reveals the firm hand of a master.
Foote(1853). Turning to a younger generation who have sturdily maintained the high standard set before them, one naturally recalls the name of one who may perhaps be regarded as the most satisfactory exponent of the efficiency of two American teachers, Paine and Lang, the most significant representative of an exceptional class of musician—the native trained composer, Arthur Foote. It is generally conceded that Foote is possessed of unusual powers in writing for men's voices. Widely known is his "Skeleton in Armor" with its forceful utterance, as well as his poetic setting of "The Farewell of Hiawatha." Again, in the field of song lyrics he has endeared himself to the worthy army of singers by virtue of a notable series of exceptional and widely contrasted productions. His true strength would, however, appear to reveal itself in the noblest vehicles of musical thought—the quartet and the orchestra. Foote does not aim to produce sensational effects, in fact his orchestral canvas has, on the whole, a grayish hue. The seriousness of his purpose, the serenity of his ideals, and the unmistakable impress of a cultured University training are faithfully reproduced in the nobility, thebreadth, and the sober though appropriate coloring of his artistic conceptions. The present writer is inclined to regard him as the Brahms of this country.
Chadwick(1854). In contrast to Foote's domestic education, Chadwick stands among the first of that memorable list of students who served a rigorous apprenticeship under Rheinberger in Munich, and thereby helped to perpetuate his name in America. A mighty throng followed in Chadwick's footsteps, among whom were the composers Parker, Huss, Bullard, Atherton; the educators Lewis and Spalding; the organists and teachers John White, Howland, and Bertram Henry. Not only did Chadwick with one stroke make his individuality felt upon returning to his native land,—an individuality that has since been strengthened rather than lessened,—but his appointment to the directorship of the New England Conservatory of Music was a choice so opportune that that institution has since been raised to a standard of excellence it never before had enjoyed, and is becoming one of the recognized arbiters in the musical affairs of the country. Like Foote, Chadwick has tried his hand in divers fields of composition, being particularly successful in writing part-songs as well as songs with pianoforte accompaniment. Large choral works have, however, also claimed his attention, and are represented by his cantata "The Pilgrims," and again by "The Viking's Last Voyage" for barytone solo, male chorus and orchestra. It appears to be the fortune of American composers to become known primarily by their vocal compositions. This is also true of Chadwick. Nevertheless, he has given expression to his loftiest inspiration in a series of chamber and orchestral pieces that stamp him as a keen judge of those essentials required for large instrumental works. His form, though conservative, is well rounded. His orchestration is chaste and refined rather than sensational and glowing. His music is above all manly and energetic. Personally, Chadwick may not regard his operetta "Tabasco" with all too favorable eyes; yet the step taken was assuredly in the right direction. It is to be regretted that our contemporary American composers seem unable to take a firm stand in imperceptibly educating the public with a light yet artisticgenreof music such as characterizes Chadwick's "Tabasco" or the earlier operettas of Victor Herbert and de Koven.
MacDowell(1861). In venturing the assertion that MacDowell stands apart on his exalted pinnacle of fame, there is not the slightest danger of incurring disparaging comparisons between him and his eminent contemporaries who have been classified under this heading. Paine's monumental achievements are unassailable. Buck occupies an honorable position as one of the foremost of our writers of church music. Foote and Chadwick have each of them established their respective individuality as composers of exceptional ability. Parker holds undisputed sway in his particular domain. What separates MacDowell from his colleagues is the difference between his perspective and theirs. His conceptionsbetray certain tendencies that are foreign to their Anglo-Saxon ruggedness with its Teutonic substructure. MacDowell's Scotch ancestry, his intimacy with Raff, his contact with the artistic life of Paris,—all these circumstances helped to mould his exceptional genius into a form distinctly original and unique. It is natural that the influence of his teacher, Raff, should predominate. But whereas Raff's programmatic expositions deal in the romance of enchantment, of the supernatural, of the fantastic, MacDowell pins his faith to the romance of poetic imagination symbolic of emotional realities. Lawrence Gilman, in a persuasive essay on MacDowell, eulogizes, together with other works, his symphonic poems "Hamlet and Ophelia," "Lancelot and Elaine," "The Saracens" and "Lovely Alda" as "the works of a master of imaginative expression, a penetrative psychologist, above all, an exquisite poet." The same writer further remarks that "MacDowell has chosen occasionally to employ, in the realization of his purposes, what seems at first to be precisely the magical apparatus so necessary to the older romanticism. Dryads and elves inhabit his world, and he dwells at times under faery boughs and in enchanted woods; but for him, as for the poets of the Celtic tradition, these things are but the manifest images of an interior passion and delight. Seen in the transfiguring mirror of his music, the moods and events of the natural world and of the incessant drama of psychic life are vivified into shapes and designs of irresistible beauty and appeal. Both in theory and in practice, MacDowell stands uncompromisingly for music that is, of intention, persistently pictorial and impressionistic.... It is as much in his choice of subjects as in the peculiar vividness and felicity of his expression, that he is unique among tone-poets of the external world." The above citations present a faithful picture of MacDowell's philosophical reasonings. His chord formation, harmonic progressions, thematic treatment and structural form are all in accord with the psychological subtleties to be expressed.
It is particularly in orchestration that MacDowell discloses certain French characteristics. Many of his pages might have been written by Saint-Saëns himself, but the "solid" foundation inoculated by the exacting requirements of his German training is never entirely absent. As a result, MacDowell's scoring frequently surpasses even that of his illustrious French contemporary. MacDowell proves no exception to the rule in that his popularity is due not so much to his more significant orchestral works as to his smaller offerings such as his attractive and highly ingenious pieces for the pianoforte. He has still many years before him, and gives promise of ever increasing power and versatility. America may well be proud of him![110]
Parker(1863). In several respects Parker's orchestral and choral stylebears some affinity to that of both Foote and Chadwick. His subject-matter, like theirs, is serious—at times even severe; his formal structures are conservative; his command of vocal forces is supreme. Again, his orchestral colors, like theirs, are accused of being cold and gray,—devoid of scintillating tints and glowing hues. This may be true to a certain extent. But when one considers thegenreof choral composition to which these three composers are addicted, it will be readily seen that a radical readjustment of their orchestral pages in favor of warmer coloring would be inconsistent with the nature of their oratorical settings. Among the most conspicuous of Parker's productions are the overtures "Regulus" and "Count Robert of Paris," the ballad for chorus and orchestra "King Trojan," and, of course, his masterpiece "Hora Novissima." Parker shares with MacDowell the good fortune of having already won enduring recognition in foreign lands,—Parker in England, MacDowell in France, Germany and Russia. Yale University was one of the first institutions of this country to follow Harvard's lead in establishing a chair of music, and showed sound judgment in selecting so eminent a composer as Parker to occupy that chair.
As already intimated, the country is further represented by a dignified array of American born composers for the orchestra, who are working against fearful odds in behalf of improved conditions for native art. Gilchrist (1846) was, like Arthur Foote, trained in this country, and is identified with the city of Philadelphia. His forte is choral and religious music, being, moreover, a remarkably successful prize winner. His symphonic attempts show sound scholarship, but are conservative and non-programmatic. The name of F.G. Gleason (1848) is highly respected in Chicago. His works display harmonic rather than melodic strength, and were frequently performed by Theodore Thomas. In Pittsburgh, Adolph Foerster (1854) has done fine work in both large and small forms. Of unusual interest are the scores of J.H. Beck (1856) in consequence of their novel effects and warm coloring. His early success in Germany justified the hope that he would become widely known, but he seems to have so far intentionally avoided the publishers. Arthur Bird (1856) cannot be blamed for preferring to live in the midst of the generous artistic encouragement of a European city. Of especial merit are his symphony in A and the ballet "Rübezahl." The representative composer of San Francisco is Edgar S. Kelley (1857). He was a pupil of Clarence Eddy, but studied also in Stuttgart. He is essentially a programmatic writer, possesses considerable originality and humor, orchestrates with skill and daring, and has been especially successful with his melodramatic music to "Macbeth." Henry Schoenefeld (1857) was a pupil of both Reinecke and Lassen, and was identified with Chicago. His undertakings are worthy of consideration in consequenceof his adaptation and idealization of negro melodies in his Suite for string-orchestra, op. 15, before Dvořák's experiments of similar nature. Schoenefeld has since written an overture entitled "In the Sunny South." San Francisco can boast of yet another orchestral composer of repute—Frederick Zeck Jr., who has written, among other things, several symphonies, a symphonic poem, and even a romantic opera.
Frank van der Stucken (1858) cuts a large figure in the evolution of American music. He is frequently though erroneously regarded as a German, but he was born in Texas, and studied not only in Leipzig but under Benoit in Antwerp as well. He first rose to prominence as director of the Arion Male Chorus Society of New York. In 1885 he instituted a series of "Novelty Concerts" that opened up new possibilities to America's neglected composers. Since undertaking the directorship of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra in 1895, van der Stucken has made himself a national benefactor by encouraging and repeatedly performing American productions. He is himself a composer of no mean ability, possesses decidedly modern tendencies, and orchestrates with unerring certainty. His compositions cover a wide field and include an opera "Vlasda," a symphonic prologue "William Ratcliff," and a Suite on Shakespeare's "Tempest."
Walter Damrosch (1862) has acquired the right to be ranked with America's orchestral composers on account of his grand opera "The Scarlet Letter," and Reginald de Koven (1859) knows how to enhance the scores of his comic operas with a lightness of touch and some clever devices. "Robin Hood" and "The Fencingmaster" are sprightly and refined even though guilty of occasional plagiarism.
Mrs. Beach is rightfully looked upon as an eminent leader among the women composers of America and is fully entitled to equal rank with her fair contemporaries in France, Cécile Chaminade and Augusta Holmès. Her "Gaelic Symphony" has been performed not only by the Boston Symphony Orchestra and by Theodore Thomas, but has been granted numerous performances by other representative organizations as well. Mrs. Beach's scores are exceedingly elaborate—possibly too much so. Nevertheless, her command of orchestral resources is remarkable, and in her Mass in E flat, op. 5, she has obtained impressive effects, rich colors and dramatic climaxes.
The scores of Bonvin and Lewis have already been referred to. The former evolves his conceptions by means of the most intricate polyphony and with an opulence of orchestral effects. Lewis has branched out into lines distinctly his own. A Brahms background of grayish orchestration is in evidence, but his rhythm is absolutely unfettered, his harmonies are bold, and his mastery of thematic treatment is unusual.
Of the younger composers born after 1860, much may be expected from F.S.Converse of Harvard,[111]who is in close touch with the ultra-modern school of composition with all its attending freedom of form and emancipation from stereotyped pattern, for he has already excited attention both in this country and in England.[112]A promising pupil of Rheinberger is Henry Holden Huss, who is essentially a dramatic and lyric composer. The healthy and above all optimistic tendencies of Henry K. Hadley's compositions, as exemplified by his symphony "Youth and Life," stand out in sharp contrast against the morbidness and pessimism that have apparently won the upper hand in musical art during the last fifteen years. Rubin Goldmark was born in New York and is living at present in that city. He is possessed of a thoroughly artistic nature and has inherited much of his eminent uncle's originality and ability to impart luscious tone-colors to his orchestral tableaux.
Before concluding this classification of orchestral composers it is desired to remind the reader of the vast significance attached to the labors of Dvořák and X. Scharwenka during their sojourn in the United States. Again, other foreigners who have cast in their lot with us, such as Loeffler[113]and Victor Herbert, are now practically regarded as loyal American composers. Both these men are possessed of sovereign command of orchestration. The one uses his art for portraying vivid realism, the other for the purpose of clothing his pleasing conceptions as evolved in daintier vein.
There are undoubtedly a number of important American composers whose names have been omitted from these pages. The present writer desires to apologize for any such unintentional omission under the plea that it has not been his good fortune to have his attention called either directly or indirectly to their compositions in larger forms.
(3)Orchestral and Choral Conductors.The progress of a country's musical art rests largely in the hands of its orchestral and choral conductors. America has been exceptionally fortunate in this respect, for her history presents an army of luminaries who are unexcelled the world over. The concert and operatic stage of New York owes its very existence to such indefatigable workers as Carl Bergmann (1821), Dr. Leopold Damrosch (1832), Theodore Thomas(1835), Anton Seidl (1850), all four of whom were Germans. And at the present day, there are a number of eminent conductors in New York.
To Theodore Thomas more than to anyone else is due the present high standard of musical taste in America. At the head of an excellent virtuoso orchestra, he traversed the country in his earlier years, and revealed for the first time the value and meaning of the thoughts of the great masters, while toward Wagner, Tschaikowsky, Dvořák, etc., he performed the same mission. These were the days when the New York Philharmonic Society and the Harvard Musical Association in Boston were the only permanent institutions devoted to orchestral music. Theodore Thomas not only established a new standard of interpretation in this country, but so catholic was his taste and so far reaching his purpose that the debt to him can never be paid. During his entire career, his attitude toward the American composer was that of a helpful ally and friend. It was as conductor of the Philharmonic Society of New York for a term of years and particularly as conductor of the Cincinnati May Music Festivals and of the Chicago Orchestra that Thomas' maturer and later years were passed; and it is especially in these cities that his memory and influence will remain ineradicable.
In Boston prior to the establishment of a permanent symphony orchestra in 1881, Lowell Mason's initiative was zealously fostered by the two foreigners, Carl Zerrahn (1826), Bernhard Listemann (1839), and by B.J. Lang (1839), together with other tireless enthusiasts. The Boston Symphony Orchestra has since attracted the best the world can afford—Henschel, Gericke, Nikisch, Paur.[114]Inland, public-spirited citizens have made it possible to establish local symphony orchestras and have almost invariably been exceedingly fortunate in their choice of conductors. Theodore Thomas migrated to Chicago. Franz van der Stucken was called to Cincinnati, Frederic Archer, Victor Herbert, Emil Paur to Pittsburgh, Fritz Scheel to Philadelphia. Perhaps one of the greatest services to the education of the country has been rendered by that vast brotherhood of German Singing Societies which flourish from shore to shore. The high standard of their performances has been constantly sustained by men of splendid attainments such as, for instance, van der Stucken while in New York, John Lund while in Buffalo, Franz Bellinger in Indianapolis. In recent years American Choral Societies have forged to the front. Chicago owes much to Tomlins. Frank Damrosch and his colleagues are doing good work in New York; Mollenhauer, J. Wallace Goodrich and others in Boston. Similar conditions prevail in almost every large city in the Union. Neither may the beneficent influence of our military bandmasters upon the masses be overlooked. Considering the conditions that have existed in the past, no one can censure them for catering to the demands of the public. Nevertheless, they have little by little managed to interpolate numerous transcriptions from works of recognized merit. Such men as Gilmore, Sousa and Innes have done more for the cause of good music than is popularly supposed.
(4)Songs and Smaller Forms.One of the most favorable opportunities open to modern composers in their struggle for recognition is found in the field of songs and salon music. This is particularly the case in America. Consequently, all of our representatives produce such offerings, and that with success. A few composers, however, have made a special study of song writing and pianoforte pieces in lightergenre. Conspicuous among these are G. Templeton Strong, J.H. Rogers, Clayton Johns, Neidlinger, Ethelbert Nevin, Margaret Ruthven Lang, Fred Field Bullard, and Percy L. Atherton. Especial mention is due to Clayton Johns for the charming lyric quality of his songs; to Nevin for the fascination of his lighter pianoforte pieces, that nevertheless avoid triviality; to Miss Lang for the fairy-like daintiness of many of her conceptions; to Bullard, whose promising career was prematurely cut off at the very moment when the rugged simplicity of his inspiring songs and choruses had won the hearts of his countrymen; to Atherton, who is, perhaps, the most talented of contemporary song writers in the realm of subtle psychological reasoning.
(5)Organists and Church Composers.It may be boldly asserted that America concedes the palm to none in the art of organ playing. Such is the skill in registration demanded in these days that that art is practically assuming the dignity of orchestration. This demand has been largely brought about by the need of finding an adequate substitute for concert orchestras. As a result, not only the large cities but almost every town in the Union possesses one or more modern organs presided over by executants of marked ability. In most cases these men devote themselves to church composition as well. Almost all the composers whose careers we have just been reviewing count church playing and church composition among their accomplishments. The only notable exception is MacDowell, who is, instead, a virtuoso pianoforte player. This is not the place to examine into the work of our many excellent church organists and composers. One is confronted by notable names wherever one turns. In Boston, Warren A. Locke has for many years held undisputed authority in matters pertaining to church services and boy choirs. Whitney and Whiting have done similar good work. Of the younger men, J. Wallace Goodrich displays an astounding technique, unexcelled either in this country or in France. The high standard of Episcopal church music in New York is due to such men as Samuel P. Warren, Richard H. Warren, Stubbs, Hall, etc. Among the prominent soloists are Eddy, Archer,[115]and Gerrit Smith. Shelley (1858) is widely known for his church compositions. He has also written large works such as the oratorio "The Inheritance Divine," but owes his popularity primarily to pleasing though rather conventional songs. Anotherprominent church composer is Jules Jordan of Providence, whose interest is centered chiefly in oratorio. N.H. Allen, Marston, Hanscom and Coombs should also be mentioned under this heading.
(6)Teachers and Theorists.Teachers and theorists have found a fertile field in the United States, and in scientific educational matters the native American easily takes the lead. Already a dignified array of theoretical and pedagogical books have been added to the literature of music by such authors as A.J. Goodrich, A.R. Parsons, Goetschius, Wilson G. Smith, Matthews, Chadwick, Benjamin Cutter, Spalding, Norris. American teachers have won recognition in Europe as well. Goetschius found occupation in Stuttgart; Boise was for years an authority in Berlin.
(7)School and College.Of late, increased attention has been bestowed upon the study of music in the college curriculum. Harvard's lead is being followed, and chairs of music have been established on every hand. Harvard has been obliged to increase its staff of musical instructors, so that Paine is now assisted by Spalding and Converse.[116]Excellent work is being done by Parker at Yale, Lewis at Tufts, Gow at Vassar, Macdougall at Wellesley, Chadwick at the New England Conservatory, Pratt at the Hartford Theological Seminary. At Columbia, MacDowell has been succeeded by Rübner, who is ably seconded by McWhood. Smith College was one of the pioneers in musical affairs, being represented until recently by Blodgett, who was possessed of a peculiarly magnetic power. One of his prominent lieutenants, who is still in active service at Smith, is the pianoforte teacher and pedagogue, Edwin B. Story. He is one of the most fluent accompanists in the country. The enterprise of these college professors is making itself felt in the preparatory schools of the country, whereby the entire artistic morale of the public at large is being elevated. Credit is also due to the sound principles inoculated into the teaching of music in the public schools by such men as Frank Damrosch in New York or Tomlins in Chicago.
The writer has intentionally overstepped the bounds of orchestral composition for the purpose of emphasizing the prodigious activity displayed by our professional brethren on every hand. Throughout these pages there runs an undercurrent of discontent provoked by the listless attitude of the American public taken as a whole. The fickleness of their support seems to be at the root of our troubles. Everything conceivable is being done for this public. Music in the schools is encouraged. The colleges are alive to the needs of the hour. Many of our composers are sacrificing their inner convictions on the altar of patriotism with the determination to write simply. Music lovers and philanthropists are enlisted in the cause. A high musical standard for religious worship is maintained. Orchestral performances can be listened to at moderate cost. Such renditions are as good as, frequently better than, those in Europe. How is it, then, that so many choral societies flourish for a few seasons, only to eventually die a lingering death? Buffalo's Symphony Orchestra is no more. Other cities have allowed similar mortifying conditions to come to pass.
On the other hand, the singer or the instrumental virtuoso reaps rewards that are out of all proportion to the tardy recognition and modest remuneration awarded to their colleagues—the composers, conductors, and organists—who are almost invariably possessed of an artistic education far superior to that of the soloist. A Rossinian era would appear to have reasserted itself! The larger number of these soloists are themselves rarely patriotic, for only with difficulty can they be persuaded to sing or perform even the finest of American productions. Orchestral conductors who come to our shores from abroad soon perceive that the public does not support home talent in a whole-hearted manner, and adjust their programs accordingly. With a few notable exceptions, they too are disloyal. Again, the worthy efforts of our comparatively few eminent newspaper critics in behalf of the American composer are constantly counteracted by the superficial and bombastic criticisms of their lesser brethren.
The American composer is to-day ready to enter the lists against the entire world. His own countrymen are impeding him. It is high time that the American public awake out of its lethargy!
(Summaryonpage 180.)
The German composers of the nineteenth century are for convenience classified in three general groups: "The Romantic School," "The Classical Romanticists," "The New Movement." The so-called founders of the Romantic School, Spohr and Weber, were followed by such representative composers as Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann. The evolution of orchestration was conspicuously advanced by Weber. He stands at the head of modern instrumentation, for with him a new period began.
Spohrwas instrumental in awakening a keener interest for the supernatural, and he aimed to illustrate certain definite ideas by means of musical expression. He contributed to the evolution of orchestration proper but little that was actually new, but his development of violin technique stimulated at least a freer and more elaborate manner of employing the strings. The equilibrium of his orchestra is admirably preserved and the general color-scheme enriched by frequent use of soft harmonies for the brass.
Weber'strue greatness lay in the power of orchestral portrayal and in rare appreciation of instrumental effects. Few composers contributed more than he to the independence of the wood-wind. He showed particular predilection for the clarinet as well as for horns, and was exceedingly modern in the use of small combinations. Weber's scoring is above all dramatic, and serves as a model for all later composers.
Schubertdisplayed rare skill in the handling of orchestral instruments, whether in solo passages or in combination. His was the hand of a master who without hesitation knew what effects he desired and how to obtain them. Novel was his manner of writing for trombones, and the contrast of solo wood-instruments in dialogue.
Mendelssohn'scontributions to the details of instrumentation are both original and varied. The suavity of his melody, the purity of his form, and the delicacy of his scoring have been excelled by none. His orchestration is buoyant, transparent, and perfectly balanced.
Schumannholds the unusual position of being one of the few great masters who did not excel in orchestration.
The representatives of classical romanticism are Raff, Rubinstein, Goldmark, Brahms, Bruch, Rheinberger. Although all of these men displayed rare skill in the application of orchestral resources, none of them can take rank with the more conspicuous exponents of instrumentation.
Raff.Striking insignia of absolutely original scoring are not conspicuous in Raff's orchestration, but its entire character gives evidence of fertile imagination and sound judgment.
Rubinstein.The instrumentation of the Russian, Rubinstein, is not of distinctive significance.
Goldmark, on the other hand, owes his reputation primarily to his gifts as an orchestrator. He atones for a certain lack of musical inspiration by mastery of material effects and power of vivid portrayal.
Brahmsconsidered glowing orchestral color and sensational dramatic effect of secondary importance. In spite of his otherwise comprehensive and titanic achievements, one cannot point to him as a model for invariably felicitous instrumentation.
Bruchpossesses supreme command of modern orchestral resources, but is at his best in the art of accompaniment, which displays perfect taste, genuine expression and an abundance of energetic force.
Rheinberger'sorchestral works cannot be regarded in the light of important contributions to musical literature. The instrumentation is thoroughly refined, marvellously smooth, and perfectly rounded in every detail; but the essential elements of individuality and novelty do not enter into the orchestral scheme to any appreciable extent.
The "New Movement" dates from the innovations simultaneously introduced by Berlioz in France and by Liszt and Wagner in Germany.
Berliozwas practically the first representative of the New Movement, but contrary to the natural course of evolution, he was not only its founder but at once its most radical exponent as well. The laying out of his musical scheme was inseparably connected with aseriesof events or ideas. As the chief French representative of romantic musical art, he combined dramatic and symphonic effects. His contributions to the development of "program" music and to modern science of orchestration loom up in gigantic proportions. One of the primary objects of his orchestral conceptions was to display tone-color in its own right, an object that was foreign to the more æsthetic ideals of the classicists. The distinctive features of his orchestration are power of musical description; new combinations, new effects, new treatment; insight into the characteristics of the instruments whereby their possibilities both individual and collective are demonstrated; excessive polyphony and complicated rhythm. Berlioz must be accredited with having anticipated many effects subsequently elaborated upon by Wagner, as discovered, for example, by his frequent use of homogeneous tone-color in independent three and four part harmony. Berlioz represents the ultra-realistic school of instrumental music and was the most daring orchestral writer that has ever lived.
Liszt.The importance attached to the rich and heavy orchestration of Liszt consists of the bearing it has upon the unfettered form, the freedom of tonality and the novelty of treatment that characterize the New German School. His scoring is masterful, highly colored and ingenious, but contains nothing conspicuously new. He was led to modify the cyclic form of the symphony which became transformed into the symphonic poem with its continuity of music, monothematic principle and absence of conventional formulas.
Wagner.The highest ideals of German opera culminated in the music dramas of Wagner. He aimed to substitute a noble form of art in the place of mere pleasure-giving and sensational fabrications. Music, poetic ideas, action and stage setting were all to be worthy of the subject intended for presentation. By developing the so-calledLeit-motiv, Wagner discovered a most potent factor for recalling past events, for emphasizing those present, and for anticipating those of the future. To-day Wagner stands forth as the accepted champion of dramatic reforms, as the most eminent composer of the nineteenth century, and as the greatest master of orchestration in the annals of the world. Although at first susceptible to tone-color as an end to itself, he learned to subordinate it to the demands of the musical and poetic ideas of the immediate dramatic situation. He emphasized solidity, made the orchestra firm and supple, increased its melodic as well as harmonic force, and used it for two definite purposes: to render emotion andto portray action and situations. His orchestration does not deviate from well-established and approved traditions, but the grouping and treatment of instruments are entirely new. Every phase of his inexhaustible variety in string writing is of surpassing beauty. The use of deep, sonorous basses never interferes with harmonic clearness or with the outline of melodic and rhythmic movement. The modern extreme development of unsupported wood-wind and their numerical distribution are entirely due to Wagner. The most radical changes are those affecting the brass. Of incalculable value was the permanent employment of valve-horns and valve-trumpets, the immense development in horn writing, the discarding of opheicleides, and the introduction of a complete group of tubas. Much of Wagner's warm and rich orchestration is due to a substratum of soft brass harmonies that are apparently not audible at all. No composer knew better than he how to obtain the best effects from instruments of percussion without overstepping the bounds of artistic refinement. Greatest of masters for the orchestra, Wagner brought that organization to its highest point of evolution.
Further prominent representatives of the "New Movement" are Cornelius, Bruckner, Lassen, Ritter, Draeseke, Weingartner, Nicodé, Richard Strauss. The masterful and ingenious instrumentation of Cornelius proves him a worthy follower of Wagner. Bruckner's orchestration, though clever, lacks buoyancy and warmth. That of Lassen, Ritter, Draeseke and Weingartner contains many sterling qualities, but has not advanced the evolution of orchestration to any perceptible degree. Nicodé's methods present some of the most interesting specimens of modern orchestration.
Richard Strauss.The greatest cosmopolitan master of orchestration after Wagner is Richard Strauss. He has progressed step by step through various stages of development. Conforming at first to the conservative romanticism of Mendelssohn and Schumann, he soon came to admire and emulate the doctrines of Brahms, but eventually leaned more and more upon Liszt and Wagner for the dominating thought of his conceptions. With "Till Eulenspiegel" and "Also sprach Zarathustra" Strauss inaugurated a permanent and ever advancing method of procedure distinctly individualistic and unprecedented that has so far culminated in the vast realistic conceptions of "Don Juan" and "Ein Heldenleben." His works embody flowing cantilena, intricate polyphony, freely used chromatic harmony, daring harmonic combinations, complex rhythm, startling contrasts, monumental climaxes, clever orchestral devices, and extreme realism. In order to grasp the true significance of the contrapuntally synthesized harmonic Melos it is of utmost importance to trace the complicated melodic delineations as independent factors flowing in a horizontal direction. His orchestral conceptions are vast color-pictures and display a wealth of melodic utterance in all the principal orchestral voices, a prolific number of themes and sub-themes, and the most intimate acquaintance with the specific characteristics of the various instruments as well as with orchestral combinations and the resultant mixture of tonal tints thereby to be obtained. Like Berlioz, Strauss secures dramatic effects by means of vivid orchestration, and displays an insatiable craving for the discovery of novel combinations. His themes are arrayed in a kaleidoscopic sequence of instrumental color rather than being subjected to elaborate thematic treatment, and climaxes are reached by means of dynamic effects instead of by melodic evolution. An elaborately conceived program justifies the requisition for vast orchestral resources. There is further evidence of genuine inspiration, of a true gift for thematic development forming a marvellous filigree of contrapuntally interwoven leading motives, of intellectual power, philosophical reflection, poetic revery, and naïve humor.
Germany still leads the van in the art of orchestration, of which she possesses many eminent exponents such as Max Shillings and Cyrill Kistler,—slavish imitators of extreme Wagnerism,and Humperdinck, Thuille, Kienzl, Georg Schumann, Mahler,—less extreme in their views but more successful in their results.
During the nineteenth century a small group of men were especially instrumental in transplanting the daintiness and refinement of modern French light opera into indigenous German productions. Conspicuous among these is Lortzing, supported by Nicolai, Flotow, Suppé and Johann Strauss junior.
(1)France.The French composers of the nineteenth century may for convenience be divided into several distinctive groups. After Berlioz, a number of representative writers devoted themselves with signal success to the development of orchestral concert music. Conspicuous among these are David, Franck, Lalo, Godard, d'Indy.
Davidpossessed, in addition to the characteristic feature ofclearness, a highly developed talent for artistic disposition of his plans, for poetic picture-painting, and for rich and descriptive orchestral color, especially when portraying Oriental subjects. Like Berlioz, he introduced certain scenic qualities into his orchestration, which is ever buoyant, supple, and varied.
César Franckdiffers from his French contemporaries by reason of what might be termed the masculine severity of his inspiration, together with monumental mastery of polyphonic design, exhaustless command of orchestral resources.
Lalo.In antithesis to Franck's severe and somewhat solemn style of writing, that of Lalo betrays a fund of spontaneous invention, curious rhythmic effects, charming and sprightly instrumentation, and great aptitude for imbuing his works with the necessary local coloring.
Godard.In France, Godard occupies a conspicuous position on the programs of orchestral concert music. His musical ideas and instrumentation are both graceful and charming.
d'Indy.In earnest endeavor and in faithful adherence to high ideals d'Indy has proved himself a worthy successor to his teacher, César Franck, whom he copies in exceedingly complicated development of subject-matter. Not content with incorporating in his works the most advanced tenets of Wagner, he further has explored the pathway opened up by Brahms. He is essentially a symphonist, evolves his conceptions on broad and dignified lines, and displays a masterful deployment of orchestral resources.
A little coterie of Frenchmen—Adam, Maillart and Delibes—have distinguished themselves by almost exclusive devotion to the lightest of operatic forms. Conspicuous among these is Delibes by reason of his naïve descriptive powers and clever instrumentation.
Thomas, Gounod, Saint-Saëns, Bizet, Chabrier, Massenet may be regarded as the foremost French composers of the nineteenth century and the greatest French orchestrator after Berlioz is Saint-Saëns.
Thomas.The orchestration of Thomas is clear inensemble, ingenious in detail, polished, refined and never overloaded. Characteristic tone-color and poetically conceived combinations reveal the skilful hand of a competent master.
Gounodstands as the most illustrious recent representative of lyric opera and exhibits the unusual attribute of attaining excellent results without apparent effort. His scoring follows the general path indicated by Auber and Meyerbeer, but it further shows that he possessed a considerable knowledge of the German science of instrumentation.
Saint-Saënsis the greatest living French composer and the mightiest of her orchestral exponents. The fundamentals of his artistic principles differ but slightly from those of Thomas and Gounod, and the outlines of Meyerbeer's operatic forms are also in evidence in his works. Nevertheless, Saint-Saëns discloses involuntary leanings toward Wagner. His symphonic poems, though not of the same magnitude and significance, are nevertheless clearer and more compact than those of either Berlioz or Liszt. Admirable clearness as well as simplicity of treatment characterizes his chamber music. His orchestration is elaborate, rich and varied,—intricate, at times, without being obtuse. It invariably reveals the soundest of judgment in the deployment of large or small orchestral forces. It is alternately scintillating, impassioned, melancholy, heroic. Among other details, his scoring frequently makes requisition for triplets of wood and brass instruments, and embodies the best traits of all contemporary orchestral writers both native and foreign.
Bizetfollowed the prevalent custom of building upon French traditions, enhanced by German truthfulness of expression and interpretation. He possessed a rare talent for discovering novel traits of instrumentation together with variety of rhythm and tone-color.
Chabrier'srepresentative work "Gwendoline" may be rightfully looked upon as the most advanced exposition of existing Franco-German music dramas. Much of his orchestration suggests a progressive yet peculiar phase of Wagnerism enveloped by a tinge of melancholy and softened by the delicate touch peculiar to the French.
Massenetappears at his best as a dramatic writer. His endowments embrace highly developed feeling for sensuous charm, a style distinctly poetic, and a manner of orchestration both rich and varied.
French art during this era has been further assisted by the sterling achievements of many secondary composers such as Dubois and Paladhile; by the orchestral expounders: Gevaërt, Lavoix; by the literary champions: Vidal, Benoit, Joncières; by the organist-composers: Guilmant, Widor; by the representatives of the fair sex: Augusta Holmès, Cécile Chaminade; and by the most recent aspirants to fame: Charpentier and Debussy.
The attitude of the French public toward orchestral concert music has undergone a radical change in the last fifty years. During the first half of the nineteenth century Habeneck reorganized and developed the "Concerts du Conservatoire." This was followed by the establishment of Pasdeloup's "Société des jeunes artistes" and its offspring, the "Concerts populaires." The persistent propagation of both indigenous and exotic works of art is largely due to Pasdeloup's initiative. In recent years, concert performances in France have been brought to a high state of proficiency through the untiring efforts of Lamoureux and Colonne.
(2)Italy.For half a century Italy has now been represented by but one luminary of the first magnitude—Verdi. His earlier scoring is conventional and commonplace. The orchestration depends largely upon violent and frequently illogical contrasts. Gradually, however, Verdi acquired increased regard for judicious and more independent instrumentation, and that more particularly in the deployment of the wood-wind. An extreme advance is discovered in his Requiem and later operas. Here the functions of the orchestra become more important, and the tonal colors acquire a richer and warmer hue.
Verdi's followers have done practically nothing for the cause of orchestration other than to branch off into infrequented by-ways that have necessitated corresponding orchestral treatment.
The universal development of musical art during the nineteenth century is indeed unprecedented. Side by side with the rise and growth of the New Movement in Germany, side by side with the high development of French lyric opera enhanced by advanced Teutonic principles, side by side with the gradual unfolding of Verdi's melodious and impassioned conceptions stands the evolution of scientifically applied Folk-tunes belonging to the younger musical countries.
(1)Hungary.It cannot be said that Hungary possesses a national style of orchestration. Although Liszt and Goldmark were both Hungarians by birth, the former benefited his country not so much by developing an indigenous style of composition as by the propagation of those musical traits peculiar to his race. As to Goldmark's music, it is that of a German rather than of a Magyar. More faithful to native characteristics were the efforts of a small group of secondary composers. Their scores, like those of Liszt and Goldmark, contain plenty of variety and color, but owe their distinctive features to melodic and rhythmic novelty,—not to instrumentation. Hungary has, therefore, exerted no more than an indirect influence upon the art of orchestration.
(2)Bohemia.The development of orchestration in Bohemia affords a striking contrast to that in Hungary.Smetana, the pioneer, was content to employ comparatively simple means,—indeed, his scores occasionally reveal a suggestion of Mozart's naïve touch. On the other hand, his eminent successor,Dvořák, developed the art to a point excelled by none. The latter ranks among the four greatest orchestrators since Wagner. Like Smetana, Dvořák evolved his music from the native folk-song. He was on the whole, an adherent to strict forms, but subjected these to the utmost freedom and originality of treatment. His greatest powers displayed themselves in the colossal development of orchestral resources. His orchestration is appropriate and consistent, varied, warm and brilliant. It abounds in beautiful combinations. It is rich but never overburdened. Further distinctive features include clear and bright string writing, methods of employing the wood-wind similar to those of Schubert, and an occasional touch of the supernatural suggestive of Spohr and Weber. In a word, Dvořák was a master of vivacious and refined orchestration.
(3)Scandinavia.The music of Scandinavia is likewise evolved from native folk-melodies. The Northern composers are not particularly dramatic nor have they developed many novel traits of instrumentation. They resemble the Hungarians in having wielded but an indirect influence upon orchestration, this influence being restricted to the indigenous properties of their melody, rhythm and local coloring. Their chief representatives areGade, the pioneer, and his illustrious successor—Grieg. The former, under the beneficial influence of Mendelssohn, developed high efficiency in the art of orchestration. He appreciated both the possibilities and the limitations of each instrument, and revealed his nationality by the application of suggestive tone-color. Grieg's instrumentation is not conspicuously influenced by modern tendencies. Though he cannot be ranked as a great orchestrator, his writing for strings alone is of surpassing beauty, nor does his deployment of larger forces lack novelty and effectiveness.
(4)Russia.The gradual ascendency of Russian music is one of the phenomena of the nineteenth century. Here again the native folk-song forms the basis for scientific development. Russian composers may be divided into three classes:—the old lyric school,—the new Russian school,—Rubinstein and Tschaikowsky in a class by themselves.
Glinka, pioneer of the old lyric school, accomplished for his country what Gade and Smetana did for theirs. His orchestration calls for but little comment excepting that it is clever and at times even brilliant.
The tenets of the "New Russian Movement" are closely allied to those of the "New German Movement." Chief representatives of this class areBorodin,Cesar Cui,Rimski-Korsakoff. The orchestration of these men and their associates is, on the whole, but the reflection of Tschaikowsky's style combined with the further progressive methods of German and French orchestration.
Rubinsteincannot be compared with Glinka as an operatic writer or with Tschaikowsky as an orchestrator. His instrumentation was hampered by his antagonism to the innovations of the New German Movement. In string writing, however, Rubinstein reveals fine appreciation of tone-color, and his full scoring at times displays superb power.
Tschaikowskystill reigns supreme as the greatest interpreter of Slavonic ideals. A remarkable feature of his scoring is the extreme modern effect secured with comparatively modest means. He expressed himself in a language of profound pathos which was in part due to the embodiment of weird and gloomy orchestration. He made prominent use of low wood-wind, which were constantly combined with the violas, and he evinced peculiar predilection for clarinets in their low range and bassoons in their upper range. On the other hand, many magnificent specimens of forceful writing are also in evidence in his scores.
(5)England.Of the ten men chosen as representative English composers of the nineteenth century, six are prominently identified with the evolution of English orchestration. The pioneer of these was Macfarren, whose cosmopolitan range of composition is particularly noteworthy. Bennett, a disciple of Mendelssohn, proved himself a worthy heir to Purcell, and is regarded as the founder of a new English School. Most widely known is Sullivan, who substantially aided the development of an Anglican style of orchestration. Sullivan based his methods of instrumentation upon those of Mozart, but occasionally copied Gounod and even Berlioz. He displayed sound musicianship, dramatic power, and a thorough command of orchestral resources. Mackenzie's conceptions are wholly orchestral. His scoring is powerful and effective, allowing also commendable freedom to the wood-wind, and suggests a mixture of Mendelssohnian and Wagnerian externals. Cowen is an exponent of both absolute and programmatic music. He shares with Stanford the rank of representative English symphonist.
The twentieth century gives promise of marked advance in English composition from an emotional and orchestral standpoint as discovered in the initial productions of Elgar.
(6)America.America and Russia are the two countries that have forged to the front in musical art during the past quarter century. Until the shackles of English conservatism and of Puritan dogmas were thrown off, little could be done in the way of preparing for a national school of composition. But with the ever increasing influx of German musicians, American composers were stimulated to extend their horizon, so that at the present day one can point to a host of cultured and highly educated musicians who are devoting themselves to the furtherance of national art. Many of them have displayed rare skill as orchestral writers, but comparatively few have as yet been sufficiently fortunate to acquire wide-spread recognition in this branch. The list of pioneer composers and promoters includes Lowell and William Mason, Bristow, Gottschalk, C.C. Converse, Paine, Lang, and Emery. A somewhat arbitrary selection of representative orchestrators includes Paine, Buck, Foote, Chadwick, MacDowell, Parker. The pioneer of America's great composers is Paine. His opera "Azara" may be regarded as hisrepresentative work, and is conspicuous for its dramatic continuity, irresistible climaxes, dignity and breadth of musical contents, consistent and effective orchestration. Buck is prominently identified with the evolution of American church music. The orchestration of his choral compositions reveals the firm hand of a master. Foote appears to best advantage when writing chamber and orchestral music. He does not aim to produce sensational effects, yet clothes his artistic conceptions in appropriate orchestral garment. Chadwick's music is above all manly and energetic. His form, though conservative, is well rounded. His orchestration is chaste and refined rather than sensational and glowing. He has proved himself a keen judge of those essentials required for large instrumental works. MacDowell's music possesses certain characteristics that distinguish it from that of any other American composer. His education has been thoroughly cosmopolitan. He aims to induce poetic imagination symbolic of emotional reality. His chord formations, harmonic progressions, thematic treatment, and structural form are all in accord with the psychological subtleties to be expressed. His orchestration is one of his strongest attributes; though founded upon that of Raff, it possesses also the charming touch of the modern French school. Parker has risen to eminence through his choral writings, and is the best known American writer in England. He wields his orchestral forces with no uncertain hand, but does not allow tone-color in its own right to predominate in his choral works. Further prominent writers for the orchestra are Gilchrist, Gleason, Foerster, Beck, Bird, Kelley, Schoenefeld, Zeck, van der Stucken, Mrs. Beach, F.S. Converse, Huss, Hadley. Until recently the larger number of orchestral conductors in the United States were foreigners, but the Americans are gradually taking the reins into their own hands. The present display of musical activity in America is unprecedented. The schools, the colleges, the churches, the concert hall, the dramatic stage are all preparing the way for the ascendency of the American composer.