A historical survey of certain aspects of music management in America

Citation preview

A HISTORICAL SURVEY OP CERTAIN ASPECTS OF MUSIC MANAGEMENT IN AMERICA

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Music The University of Southern California

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

by Daniel Levine June 1950

UMI Number: EP61860

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Dissertation Rubi shang

UMI EP61860 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

uest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

T h is thesis, w ritte n by

..........Dani el _Leviiie........... under the guidance of h

F a c u lty C om m ittee,

and a p p ro ved by a l l its members, has been presented to and accepted by the C o u n c il on G ra d u ate S tudy and Research in p a r t ia l f u l f i l l ­ ment of the requirements f o r the degree of

Master of Arts

Faculty Committee

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ................................

1

II. INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD . .

5

III.

MUSICAL SOCIETIES IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD . . .

16

IV. MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF THE HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK PHILHARMONIC-SYMPHONY SOCIETY....

30

V. BARNUMISM IN MUSIC M A N A G E M E N T ..........

49

VI. MANAGEMENT TODAY . VII.

........................

S U M M A R Y ................................

BIBLIOGRAPHY

.............. * ...................

66 71 73

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This thesis is an effort to compile and interpret material drawn together as A Historical Survey of Certain Aspects of Music Management in America,

The work concerns

itself with the forces which organize and present concert music to the American public.

These forces are sometimes

individuals, sometimes organizations, sometimes combinations of both tied in with other managerial units such as labor unions or private sponsors.

It is the purpose of this thesis

to search out who were the music managers from colonial times to the present, and to present their activities.

The author

has limited himself to private organizations, and has not in­ cluded the relatively new aspect of governmental and civic sponsored concerts.

Such public enterprises are arising

throughout the country, and this phenomena should be observed as a special study.

Music management grew up in this country

as the industry of the country grew— from laissez-faire cap­ italism to large industrialism.

Within this scope this the­

sis treats music management. The available material for this subject is scattered throughout books and periodicals dealing with concerts and concert life.

There is no listed material in sources on

management as such, either in books or in management

2

periodicals.

So the author has gone to sources about con­

certs and artists to find his material there.

The compilation

value of this thesis, it is hoped, can be found in the setting down in one place of this scattered material on music manage­ ment. The author has also attempted to interpret the material herein presented.

A valid history of music management should

try to take the available material in the field and place some historical value upon it.

It is the object of this

thesis to treat all material in a historical context, and in this way provide an approach to music management giving it a treatment with historical perspective. Such a treatment, therefore, goes beyond a simple accounting of managers wherever found, and embraces their re­ lationship with their communities*

It has been felt that the

concert life resulting from their actions should be shown as it is connected to their actions, and as.it is connected to the sociological picture in which these actions take place. Discrimination as to selection of material was deter­ mined by the following of important ti*ends in this history. Trends were decided upon to be important if a few valid sources came to the same conclusion on an issue.

Wherever we

have found a similar situation in different places, we have placed emphasis upon it even though this might appear as an overemphasis when it is observed without relation to the

3 whole picture.

The author felt it most important in dis­

covering such a trend in music management to follow it through. For example, it would he an overemphasis to make an account of the first non-musical manager of the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Society if it were not for the fact that the contemporary trend at that time indicated that other organizations had started engaging non-musical manag­ ers.

It is such a recording of the same type of event hap­

pening in various instances that makes for historical sense,J and the author has tried to place material together whenever it did make sense historically.

Aside from the value of

assembling the material, the author hopes that the value can be realized wherein the information has been evaluated and directionalized historically wherever such direction was indicated. The author feels justified in setting out to make this study since there is no available compilation of this sort. It is important that such a function as music management have some basis of evaluation by the musical community.

The first

step in this evaluation is a historical knowledge of the mat­ ter.

We cannot make correct evaluations, without a knowledge

of the past and present situations. In Chapter II, the author surveys the activities of individual music managers in Colonial America.

Chapter III

treats musical societies starting in the Colonial period, and makes comparisons to the material in Chapter II.

In

Chapter IV, we trace the grov/th of one particular organiza­ tion through to the present in order to make continuous com­ parisons of what was happening in music management in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Chapter V discusses the

foundation of present day concert management practices, through an analysis of the managerial affairs of P. T. Barnum whose ideas seemed to affect the managerial picture after him Chapter VI gives a structural account of the present day commercial management system which grew out of the for­ mer periods. The information presented should enlighten the reader with ah insight into music management in this country, which, it is hoped, shall provide for an understanding of the nature of present day practices when they appear in the news of daily affairs.

CHAPTER II INDIVIDUAL MANAGERS IN THE COLONIAL PERIOD Historical background.

Secular musical activity in

colonial America to the end of the eighteenth century was marked by the settlersT Puritanical hostility to public en­ tertainment.

The century’inherited the moral code of the

Puritans which reluctantly permitted sacred music in the church, but hated and outlawed all forms of gatherings for entertainment, including music.

Boston enacted an anti­

theater law in 1750 with the stated purpose:

!tfor prevent­

ing and avoiding the many and great mischiefs which arise from public stage plays, interludes, and other theatrical entertainments (which) tend generally to increase immorality, impiety, and a contempt of religion.lI-*Aside from the unencouraging atmosphere provided the theater, the colonists did not have any impetus to encourage music either.

From sources available to him, Sonneck is led

to exclaim, nwe feel overawed by the motives prompting Provi­ dence to send to our shores out of all the millions who1in­ habited Europe just those few thousand beings who had no

**" Margaret Mayorga, A Short History of the American Drama (New York, Dodd Mead and Co., 1944)/ P* 25.

6 music in their souls.

Sonneck leaves the way open for

further research on this matter, concluding that it was lack of TTopportunity” which retarded musical development in the colonies,

Percy A. Scholes^; attempts a refutation of the

non-musical reputation of the Puritans, and an appraisal of their musical activities.

It is not within the function of

this thesis to weigh the value of the Scholes argument, hut it is evident from his hook that Puritan musical activity was not hroad enough to that extent which would include pub­ lic managed concerts.

(It is interesting to note that this

hostile atmosphere was hasic enough to our culture to have influenced all periods of American musical history.

We find

as late as 1927 that the city of Pittsburgh would not permit Sunday concerts of its symphony orchestra as this constitut­ ed "irreligious” entertainment.)^ In spite of these conditions, secular musical activity began to flourish in the latter half of the eighteenth cen­ tury, particularly in the southern states, where the customs and tastes of the colonists reflected the cavalier spirit of 2

0. G. Sonneck, Early Concert-Life in America (17311800) (New York, Musurgia Publishers, 1949), p. 7, ^ Percy A. Scholes, The Puritans and Music (London, Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford, 1934.)

^ Howard Kaye, ”The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra,” The Musical Forecast. 37:3,7, May, 1939.

7 the English landed gentry of the Stuarts*5

Sonneck claims

that "New England’s share in the development of our early musical life has been unfairly andundulyoverestimated to thedisadvantage of the Middle Colonies and

the South.

The concert life of this period was naturally primi­ tive, but its impetus largely was due to the energies and exploits of certain adventurous colonists who brought enter­ tainment and music before the public.

These scattered few,

with their simple methods, were our first music managers. Activities of individual managers.

The first man to

introduce a theatrical musical performance to the American public was the actor-adventurer Anthony Aston, who wrote and produced the "Fool’s Opera,11 a ballad opera, in Charleston, South Carolina in 1703.7

Although he leaves us little

account of his theatrical activities, in his "Sketch of the Author’s Life Written by Himself,"^ he gives us a good pic­ ture of his adventures, revealing that management of drama 5 Mayorga, op. cit., p. 23.

6 Sonneck, pp. pit., p. 10. 7 0. G. Sonneck, Early Onera in America (New York, G. Schirmer, 1915), p. 7. Mr. Sonneck emphasizes the correct­ ness of this date, disputing previous research. ^ Included in the publication of the Pennsylvania Society of the Colonial Dames of America; Church Music and Musical Life in Pennsylvania in the Eighteenth Century, (Philadelphia: The Society, 194757 Vol. Ill, p. 104.

8 and opera was just one of his many functions and not any more prominent than the rest.

He states himself as TTGentle-

man, Lawyer, Poet, Actor, Exciseman, (and)

P u b l i c a n .

5f a scene from TFidelio,T a Mozart aria, and other great works.3 We may take Mr. Elson to task in implying that the remaining works of the program were great works, inasmuch as, aside from the questionable greatness of a scene from "Oberon” by Weber, and a duet from "Armida” by Rossini, we find the remaining numbers a "Quintette” by Hummel and a "New Overture in D" by Kalliwoda.4 The organization of the Philharmonic Society was largely due to the activities of M. Ureli Corelli Hill, an American musician.

Henry Krehbiel has attributed to Mr. Hill

the qualities of "Yanky Tpush,T energy, enthusiasm, industry, pluck, self-reliance, and endurance," also adding, "He could plan and could organize.

Obstacles held no terror for him;

he thought that patience and industry would surmount them. He was continually looking for new fields to conquer."5 — -

~

—

Elson, op. cit., p. 55. ^ James Gibbons Huneker, The Philharmoni c Society of New York (New York, no publisher, 1917), p. 5. Ewen, op. cit., p. 21, citing a quotation made by

Krehbiel.

32 Mr. Hill called a meeting at the Apollo Rooms, April 2, I842 for the purpose of forming an orchestral society in New York.

The name of A. P. Heinrich, -whose significant experi­

ence in Boston we have traced, was listed as chairman of the meeting, although he was not elected an officer of the society.^ The history of the New York Philharmonic as told by John Erskine,? brings out many points about managerial as­ pects of the orchestra, as well as its problems of concert producing.

We shall abstract here the salient points in

Erskine’s work]; and comment on them as they pertain to this investigation.

Viewing the development of this orchestra

will provide us with a mirror which well reflects the nine­ teenth century situation in concert giving. The constitution of 1842 limited the membership of the organization to seventy.

Of these, fifty-three were active

performers, but all members were professors of music.

An as­

sociate membership allowed for thirty people at $5 dues a head, with the privilege of attending rehearsals and concerts, and serving as a waiting list to fill vacancies in the orchestra. Meetings were held for rehearsals and business purposes. 6

Huneker, op. cit.. p. 3.

^ John Erskine, The Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1943;.

33

(The separation of "business and musical functions had not taken place as yet in this organization.)^ Dates of the meet­ ings were set for alternate Saturdays from October 1st to June 1st.

Fines were administered for absences from concerts

or rehearsals.

(The budget chart on page 26 indicates that

such fines brought in $157.50 the first year.

There is no

statement of what an individual fine amounted to, but since the total salary for each musician Ts participation in the season of four concerts was $25.00, the fines must have been small enough to indicate to us a correspondingly significant amount of absenteeism to net over $150.00r±n fines.) The principle of profit sharing was carried out for fifty years with these figures given as examples: Individual dividend for 1st season Individual dividend for 49th season Smallest dividend (1878) Largest dividend (1886)

$25.00 $200.00 $17.50 $225.00 ^

Erskine comments that even if musicians were to be paid the low salaries given to actors at the time, symphony concerts would involve a tremendous cost.

”The Philharmonic

Society,” he adds, ”was possible only because the players g

Of. ante p. 44* 20 9

Erskine, on. cit.. p. 7

34 organized for love of the music, expecting, and for decades receiving no adequate or even respectable recompense in money.11 We find no non-musician as an officer of the Philhar­ monic until 1867.

In that year, and until 1879* Dr. B. Ogden

Doremus served as president while the function of conductor was taken by Carl Bergmann.

Doremus was a Professor of

Chemistry at New York University with an ability for manage­ ment and a Y/ide reputation in the city.

At the time of his

presidency there was a growing indifference in New York to music.

Doremus fought to counter this indifference by aug­

menting the size of the orchestra to one hundred, and arrang­ ing that the society put its concerts on at the Academy of Music, which was the best hall in the city.

Other rules im­

posed by DQremus Y/ere that the players perform in formal dress, and that only the most important soloists should be engaged for appearances, and should be paid their customary fees.

nHe (Doremus) must have been a forceful leader to

wangle regular fees for soloists out of a society of pro­ fessional musicians who were not yet themselves adequately paid.,!^

In connection with the relationship between

orchestral salaries and payments to soloists, we see DoremusT methods of high payments to soloists being a definite boon to 10

Ibid., p. 12.

11 Ibid.. p. 16.

the society and a definite step in its progress.

What has

happened, due to the continuance of an exaggerated form of this policy, can he seen later-*-2 when the whole management system of the orchestra was taken to task by its members in

The Philharmonic Society grew constantly and boasted an imposing list of conductors.

The early conductors were

U. C. Hill, H. C. Timm, and George Loder.

The era of more

impressive virtuoso-conductors started with Theodore Eisenfeld in I84.8 followed by Bergmann.

Then Leopold

Damrosch was engaged in 1877 to be followed by Theodore Thomas, who remained conductor until 1891.

(This was with

the exception of the thirty-seventh season, 1878-1879.) When Thomas left Hew York, Anton Seidl was engaged and served until I89S. The twentieth-century conductors of this orchestra are too numerous to list here, but it should be mentioned that the list includes the names of many great conductors. These were hired very much as great soloists were hired, and many great names would conduct only part of a musical season. This century brought about a merger between the New York Philharmonic Society and the New York Symphony Society of Dr. Leopold Damrosch.

The organizations were functioning

Cf. post p. 43

36 successfully in competition with each other, but rising wage scales and other increasing costs brought the competition to an end in 1928, when the orchestras merged to form the Phil­ harmoni c-Symphony Society of New York,

Carnegie Hall became

the !,homen of the society where it has performed ever since. A phenomena of orchestral societies this century, and one that is a constant challenge to efficient management, is the annual deficit caused by the unusually high expenses of running a modern orchestral society.

There follows a compari­

son of the budget of the first season of the Philharmonic (184-2-184,3) with the season of 1941-1942-

All the minute de­

tails of expenditures are given here in order to account.for the budget as closely as possible. BUDGET FOB 18A2-18A3 Beceipts: 139 Subscribers at $10 e a c h ......................... $1,390.00 Taxes upon M e m b e r s ................................ 192.00 Taxes upon Members who from leaving the City or other causes, ceased to be s o ............... 3.75 Extra Tickets— Subscribers to First Concert . $ 15*00 Extra Tickets— Subscribers to Second Concert 66.50 Extra Tickets— Subscribers to Third Concert . 67.50 Extra Tickets— Members to the Three Concerts 305*50 464-50 Fines for Absentees from Behearsals ........ 117.50 Fines for Absentees from Performances . . . . 40-00 157*50 Use of Orchestra on five occasions— Mr. Scharfenberg, Mr. Otto, Mr. Hosier andthe Euterpean Society twice.

25.00 $ 2 ,2 3 2 .7 5

37 Expenditures:

Cost of Orchestra and Forty Music Stands .......... $ 173.49 Advertising . . . . . . . ..................... . . 45.061Rent of Room, Rehearsal and Performance . ......... 135.25 Printing.......................................... 35.50 Purchase and Copying of Music . .................. 60,504Professional Aid, Mrs. Loder, $25; Mrs. Otto, $25; Mr. Horn $25; Mr. ¥/eise, to...................... Si.00 Charity to Mr. C_______, by vote of theSociety . . 20.00 Mr. Fecher, Porter and Messinger ................ 122.00 Fifty-eight Members received $25 each . . $1,450.00 Two Members received $6 each 12.00

1462.00 41*75 IS.75 20.874

In favour of the S o c i e t y ...............

61.37 16.56 $2232.75

BUDGET FOR 1941-1942 Receipts:

From the subscription and single sales for the regular Thursday, Friday, and Sunday Concerts . . . $332,654*00 From the popular-priced Saturday evening concerts, the Young People?s Series, and 3 out-oftown concerts and the Beethoven Festival

........................

From broadcasting, phonograph re­ cording, advertisement in pro­ grams and program subscriptions .

126,250.00

121,987.00

$582,891.00 Income from Investments ......... From contributions toward operations, such as the Guarantors Fund, Women’s Auxiliary Board dues, Junior Auxiliary Board dues, Radio Membership, Student Ticket Fund ............

22,387.00

61,466.00 $666,744*00

W|HWiH

Engraving Ticket Plate and Printing Tickets Books and Stationery.................... Sundries, Sordini, Cartage, Tickets, Box Lock for Music Closet, &c., &e., &c., .

38

Ex p endi ture s : For the payment of salaries to con­ ductors and 106 orchestra players (also to extra musicians frequent­ ly required by the performance of modern music) and (for extra re­ hearsals and overtime) . . . . . $414*298.00 For the rental of the hall for 147 rehearsals and the 104 regular subscription concerts at Carnegie Hall and the use of the. boxoffice and staff . . • • • • . . 78,882.00 For the program annotators and the program printing; for printing tickets, subscription notices; advertising and publicity; for soloists, choruses and musical forces for special works,' rent of new music and royalty fees, rent of library, music stands .purchase; for all expenses for Young People*s ;concerts and for transportation and other charges for 3 out-of-town con­ certs and for the Beethoven Festival . . . . . . . . . . . . $134*410*00 For expenses incurred by the con­ ductors and orchestra, ?\rorkmen*s compensation, insurance of musical .instruments, rental of the musician*s room .............. 10,763.00 $638,353.00 For the manager, associate manager, auditor and staff of twelve peo­ ple, for rent of offices and for telegraph, telephone, postage, and incidental expenses .......... For expenditures on behalf of the 1 Woman1s Auxiliary Board, the Sub­ scription Activities Committee, Hadio Memberships, Committee on Ensemble Musical Training and Scholarships, Committee on Music Contacts inJPublic Schools, Cen­ tennial Medals and Cards, Phono­ ......... . graph Expenses . .

51 ,229.00

.

,

23 826.00

Total expenditures . . . . $713,408.00 Total receipts ........ 666. ILL .00 n ~ Deficit . . . . . . . . . $ 46,664.00 ^ ^

Erskine, op. cit.. pp. 55,56,57.

39 Let us pay particular attention to those items in­ volving the cost of conductors, the cost of renting a hall because the Society does not own one, and the cost of the program annotators for the Sunday afternoon radio series. At the present time, the Society continues to rent Carnegie Hall, which contributes considerably to its expenses, but the Society has solved its expense problem with respect to radio expenses by obtaining a commercial radio sponsor, this situ­ ation also solving many other of the organizations financial problems.-^ The 1943 situation presented by Mr. Erskine is one that is common in the management of all large symphony orchestras operating in America today: In an orchestra like the Philharmonic there is at every desk a highly trained and experienced artist, who well earns every cent he receives. So long as conductors are now paid annually far more than the thousand dollars Yjhich the Philharmonic voted to its first permanent con­ ductor, there is no obvious reason why the earnings of the players “should not be increased in proportion, but all these increases taken together add up to a formidable budget, and for an honest record of the Philharmonicfs history we must note here that the years which have pro­ duced for the public the best musical entertainment have given the directors their worst headaches. We still lack concert halls large enough to accommodate at moderate prices all who would come if they could afford it, but even if we had such halls there is no hope that the revenue would balance the cost. Symphonic music of the highest quality is now in the same plight as opera. It

Cf. post p. 44-

40 cannot be appeal is doubtless should be best w a y .

financed on any economic basis,, and yet its to a large and growing public who feel, and rightly, that somehow and somewhere they able to hear the best music performed in the

The most recent managerial problem of the Society was that of a struggle between the management and the men in the orchestra, which came to a crisis in 1943.

We take the

matter up in detail, because it has proved to be one of the outstanding events in the history of music management.

It

also provides examples for, and solves some of the problems Oust presented, in running a large symphony orchestra. On February 18, 1943> Marshall Field, president and chairman of the board of directors of the New York Philharmonic-Symphony Society announced a drastic shake-up in the personnel of the orchestra.

Seventeen musicians were dropped

from the orchestra by the simple expedient of not renewing their contracts for the coming year.

Among those thus removed

was Michel Piastro, coneertmaster of the orchestra since 1931, who originally joined the orchestra at the invitation of Toscanini.

On the evening of the 18th at the regular sub­

scription series of the Society, the arrival of Mr. Piastro on the stage to take his place at the first desk, was greeted i

with an ovation from both the orchestra and audience. — Ibid., p. 21.

This

4-1

ovation continued even after the arrival of John Barbirolli, the conductor, who was finishing his last season with the Society* Marshall FieldTs announcement explained the firings as being made in line with specific recommendations made by Dr. Artur Rodzinski, the orchestraTs newly-appointed musical director This announcement was the starting point for a major feud between the management of the Society and its perform­ ing musicians.

The next day, February 19* Michel Piastro

made a statement that he was being used as a 11scapegoat for the magement*s past mistakes,” and added that Rodzinski had made the dismissals ”for reasons of intrigue and politics, and not for the good of the orchestra.”

Dr. Rodzinski

answered from Cleveland, stating, ”1 am discharging my pre­ paratory duties as the musical director of the New York Philharmonic to the best of my ability in conformity with musical conscience and artistic integrity.” The orchestra members, using what strength they had, not being part of the management of the Society, voted unanimously to refuse to renew contracts at the end of the season unless an arbitration board were set up to reconsider the cases of the fired men.

16

“

The New York Times. February 19* 1943, p. 16, col. S.

42 Representing the men in this serious split between them and the management, was Local 802 of the American Fed­ eration of Musicians.

Both Mr..Piastro and Arthur Judson

(business manager since 1921)-^ agreed that the orchestra was slipping in quality of performance.

Piastro attributed

the cause to the Tfparaden of conductors, as he put it, which were assigned to lead the orchestra, as well as a strenuous s c h e d u l e . W e have here a picture of a dispute common in large '.industry where large forces are pitted against each other.

In that the Union stepped in to protect its

musicians, w;e see an identification of the musicians, com­ pletely separate from and opposed to the Society. In trying to ascertain the relationship of the con­ ductor of the orchestra to the purely managerial part of the Society, we have some evidence in the statement of Marshall Field as president of the Society rejecting any arbitration on the case: I regret that. I do not feel that I can interfere in any way. It y/ould be extremely unfa,ir if the new director of the Philharmonic (Rodzinski) is to be re­ sponsible for the management of the orchestra, not to follow his wishes in the matter of personnel.-*^ ~

T7 Erskine, ojd. cit.. p. 54. 18 The Mew York Times, February 20, 1943, p. 15. 19 Ibid.. February 21, 1943, p. 35, col. 5.

43 It soon became obvious that economic difficulties of the Society were involved.

The Society announced that it

intended to cut its thirty-Y/eek season to twenty-four weeks for economic reasons.

This suggestion was met by the

orchestra!s union representative, Caiman Fleisig, who pro­ vides for us a monetary account of the economic dilemma of the Society: The pay of the orchestra members for each concert is approximately $1200, while a prominent soloist gets as much as the entire orchestra and the same is true of famous conductors. Visiting conductors get from $1200 to $3000 a concert, while the men get $i6 a per­ formance. Arturo Toscanini has received as much as $100,000 for a ten-week program, or $10,000 a week— the weekly cost of the entire orchestra.^0 An evaluation of the relative strength of the American Federation of Musicians in this picture can be gotten from the fact that it set up a nine-man trial board to consider charges against Artur Rodzinski.

This board has the power

to deprive a conductor of his union card and thus bar him from conducting any orchestra in the United States. According to the Union*s statement, "Arthur Rodzinski was made the complete dictator and czar of an American insti— tution that had lived democratically for one hundred years. 20 Ibid., February 22, 1943, p. 1, col. 3. 21 Ibid., February 23, 1943, p. 1, col. 3. 22

Ibid., February 24, 1943, p. 23, col. 8.

pp

u

In the state legislature, a resolution was made deploring the dispute and declaring that the national reputation of the orchestra and the musical leadership of New York City were at stake. This dispute was suddenly and quickly settled when the Philharmoni c-Symphony Society signed a commercial agreement with the United States Rubber Company to sponsor its Sunday afternoon nationwide radio series.

This put the orchestra

on a fifty-two weeks-a-year employment basis, much to the satisfaction of both the union and the management, who im­ mediately signed a settlement contract.

Mr. Rodzinski re­

instated five members of the orchestra, and the union dropped its severe charges. A broad picture of the interplay between the sponsor­ ship of the Philharmonic *s broadcasts and its ability to function in the modern community is rather pointedly given in the New York Times editorial of May 13, 1943, entitled, TrPeasant Pays Piper,Tf which said: What does it mean when a big rubber company helps to wipe out the Philharmonic deficit and finances a yearround program of concerts over the air? It means that the patronage of great music is actually being taken in hand by the plain people. Like the big corporation money which sponsors broadcasts of the Metropolitan Opera House, the ultimate source is the humble customer of the special product which Beethoven and Verdi help to advertise. 23 Loc. cit.

45 For that matter, if one ivanted to he very logical and a hit Marxian, one might argue that the money which patronizes great art has always come from the plain peo­ ple. The kings and grand seigneurs who were so kind to the Bichard Wagners and the Mozarts get the wherewithal from their taxpayers and peasants. With this difference: the peasants never got a chance to hear Mozart or Wagner for their money, hut our ruhher and gasoline customers can listen all they w a n t . ^ 4 Before we leave the important matter of this Phil­ harmonic incident, let us consider some pertinent remarks made by B. H. Haggin, music critic of The Nation magazine. Mr. Haggin brings prominently into the situation the name of Arthur Judson, the business manager of the Society: By the management, I mean both the directors and-Mr. Judson, for I think it reasonable to assume that where the directorsT qualifications for their posts are their money, business standing, or social prestige, Mr. JudsonTs activity has not been limited to issuing stamps and petty cash.25 Haggin questions the desirability of the Society having a business manager who also manages soloists and conductors through his Columbia Concerts Corporation.

At the same time,

the critic indicates that the orchestral members maintain too much control over the conductors of the orchestra.

He

accuses them of running such conductors as Barbirolli, and

Ibid.. May 13, 19A3, p. 20, col. 4 . 25

B. H. Haggin, "Music," The Nation. Vol. 156, No. 12; 428, March 30, 1943.

46 in this particular issue,'trying to run Rodzinski.^ It has been the aim of this chapter to identify the various forces acting within a modern symphonic society:

the

orchestral players, the conductor, the managers, and the com­ mercial sponsor or patron, who, in this case, has recently saved the day for the Philharmonic. It is not surprising that such a distribution of managerial power led to the crisis described.

Perhaps one of

the faults in managerial organization of an orchestra such as this lies in the illusion that the board of directors are do­ ing the management ;job for which they are responsible.

There

is an analysis of this matter in AmericaTs Symphony Orchestras and How They Are Supported*^ which seems to indicate a laxity on the part of boards of directors to assume the managerial function which the structural system of their respective orchestras has allotted:to them.

There is a tendency to con­

sider such board membership as an honor rather than a re­ sponsibility.

This leads to a rubber stamping function for

for the board, allowing the decisions to be handled by others. The authors point out that, in such a situation it must then be hoped that where the real managerial power lies, there also

26 Loc. cit. 27 Grand and Hettinger, America *s Symphony Orchestras and How They Are Supported (Hew York, W. W. Horton and Company,

7

1940J “p. 137 f.

47 lies integrity.

Should it be otherwise, the personal in­

terests of the real managing force can alienate the good will of the community, or threaten the confidence the public has in the orchestraTs future, causing a resulting decrease in finances from the public. Grant and Hettinger suggest that the "board" be fashioned into a working organization with definite re­ sponsibilities assigned to its members.

However valid this

suggestion, the lack of its use certainly is evident from the facts presented. An unorganized splitting of the forces of management leads to dangerous repercussions that threaten the very foundations of the orchestra in question. It should then be taken into account that none of these managerial forces remains constant, and that all of them assume in some way the function of music management, which must thus be viewed in a collective sense to be ac­ curate..

This is an important matter, for, too often, the

casual observer or investigator puts his finger on a titled* ’ "manager,11 and assumes that his functions are the sole managerial ones with respect to his organizations.

In trac­

ing the managerial aspects of the Philharmonic-Symphony of New York, it is hoped that the above-mentioned diversion or breakdown of managerial power has been revealed.

Any

further investigs,tions should keep this situation in rnind.

CHAPTER V BAKNUMISM IN MUSIC MANAGEMENT This chapter intends to account for'some theatrical elements in music management which have become a part of the present-day concert-giving picture.

These elements— for

lack of a better name— can well be called nBarnumistic,” in that they encompass those bombastic and ostentatious fea­ tures of presenting entertainment before the American public which made up the nstock in tradeTf of Barnum. Before we examine these showmanship aspects of Barnum1s career, let us see what thread of connection exists 'today with the exploits of Barnum.

We find a complaint raised in

an editorial of Etude magazine-*- concerning the present-day effects of continued Barnumistic practices of music managers, starting in the late nineteenth century.

There seems to

have been a definite effect of BarnumTs method of using quantitative judgment in presenting concert artistry.

His

emphasis on the "greatness” and "largeness” of a production has had a lasting effect upon our concert attitudes today. Etude records the fact that it receives letters constantly, asking such questions as, "Who is the finest pianist?”

"What

I "Music and Barnumism," Etude, LXVII:9 (September, 1949), pp. 26, 64 .

49 soprano sings the highest note?11 and, "Which is the largest orchestra?11 Quotes the magazine:

"It reveals the somewhat

damning fact that the public is influenced by size or the lack of-it." This chapter shall include the manifestations of "displayism" in contemporary concert life in its appraisal of the present situation.

But first let us trace the be­

ginnings of the theatrical element as they are exemplified in their greatest exponent, Phineas T. Barnum. P. T. Barnum was born in 1810 and died in 1891. life spanned the nineteenth century.

His

His early activities in

the entertainment field concerned themselves Yd.th providing the public with "attractions” such as Joice Heth, a negro woman one hundred and sixty-one years old, purporting to be the nurse of George Y/ashington.

His following exploits in

this field lead to dealings concerning acrobatic troupes, animal tamers and their ?d.ld animals, a permanent exhibit called the American Museum, and the management of a cele­ brated midget, "Tom T h u m b . T h e s e were the activities of Barnum before he took the role of impresario in managing Jenny Lind. 2 "Barnum," Dictionary of American Biography. Allen Johnson, editor (New York, Charles Scribner!s Sons), 1 : 636,7 .

50 During this period, Barnum formulated some of the ideas that motivated his theatrical life.

He came to the

conclusion that the love of amusement was an fTinsatiable:want of human nature.”3

He also formulized an idea that the

common denominator of all entertainment, whether it be an exhibition of a monkey, or the presentation of the highest art in music or drama, was its commercial value.

11Such art

is merchantable,” he said, !Iand so with the whole range of amusements, from the highest to the lowest.114 In 1849 > Barnum conceived the idea of bringing Jenny Lind to America for a concert tour. Stockholm, Sweeden, In 1820.

Jenny Lind was born in

When she was only nine years

old, her unusual voice was discovered and her training started towards being a singer and an actress.

In 1838 she

made her first significant appearance in ”Der Freischutz” by Weber.

Stockholm did not satisfy her so she went to Paris

to study with Manuel Garcia.

After years of the finest train­

ing, she appeared in Meyerbeer!s Horma in Berlin in 1844* with great success.

She made a Viennese debut in I846 and

subsequently appeared at Aixla-Chapelle (Aachen) singing in 3 P. T. Barnum, Struggles and Triumphs of Forty YearsT Recollections of P. F. Barnum TBuffalo. H. Y., Warren, Johnson and Company, 1872), p. 71. 4

Ibid.,

p. 22.

51 Haydn’s ’’Creation” and Handel’s ’’Alexander’s Feast.”

In

she appeared for the first time in London and became identified with oratorio singing there.5 The personality of Jenny Lind was one reflecting goodness of heart and nobility of character.

Says biograph­

er Wagenknecht: The fact that Jenny Lind was brought to America by Barnum would be no excuse for treating her as if she were a side-show in a circus. She was a serious artist, a great artist, and...an impressive human being as well.® Here we have a picture of the two personalities, Barnum the manager, and Jenny Lind, the artist.

The manner in which

he ran her recitals was to set a precedent in America, and has had its effect upon concert management ever since.

The

advent of Barnum and Lind in America was the first engagement of this sort and it ’’started a long procession of European artists to America.”^ Jenny Lind’s long concert tour in 1850 has been ac­ counted for in many places.

We shall just look at the

managerial activities of Mr. Barnum and at his relationship to his artist, Miss Lind.

Edward Wagenknecht, Jenny Lind (Boston and Uew York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 193l),pp. 16-19.

6 Ibid.. p. 22. Johnson, op cit.« p. 638.

52 Barnum does not hide the fact that he saw quick financial gain in contracting Jenny Lind,

”1 had never heard

;her sing...(but) it struck me when I thought of this specu­ lation, that if properly managed it must prove immensely profitable,..”^

Let us keep the thought of this statement

in mind when we examine impressario S. Hurok1s remarks con­ cerning the potentialities he looks for in an artist.

For

Mr, Hurok in a more subtile way reveals’the Barnumistic sentiment that an artistrs value lies in her profit-produc­ ing ability, or, as Hurok states it, through success as a personality.^ The contract between Lind and Barnum had ten clauses: 1.

Jenny Lind agreed to sing nfor the said Phineas

T. Barnum one hundred and fifty concerts” within one year, or in eighteen months, Miss Lind having control as to the number of concerts each week, and the programs sung.

But Miss Lind

must not sing less than one recital per week nor less than four numbers at a recital.

In no case could she appear in

operas. 2.

Barnum agreed to completely manage the tour in­

cluding the obtaining of all.personal services for Miss Lind _

Barnum, op. cit., p. 271. 9 cf. p.

53 enroute, starting with the trip from Europe.

He further

agreed to pay Miss Lind one thousand dollars for each concert. 3*

The full amount of Miss LindTs payment for the

concerts was left as security in London before the tour. 4.,

Miss -Lind was provided with a bonus of one-fifth

of all profits after the seventy-fifth concert. 5.

This concerned the hiring of Julius Benedict for

Miss LindTs accompanist. 6.

This concerned the hiring of Giovinni Belletti,

baritone, to participate with Miss Lind in some concerts. 7.

Miss Lind was permitted to sing for charity at

her discretion, but in no case was it to be the first or second concert in any city, or, “wherever it shall appear against the interests of the said Phineas T. Barnum.” 8.

Any incapacity of Jenny Lind hindering the com­

pletion of the tour shall result in a full payment of the contract up to that time. 9.

All expenses in managing the concerts are to be

paid by Barnum. 10.

Jenny Lind agrees to sing exclusively for

Barnum.10 An additional clause added later allowed Miss Lind to

Barnum, op. cit.. pp. 275-279.

54 break her contract at the end of one hundred concerts, by paying Barnum $25.,000 for his loss that would be sustained in the remaining fifty concerts.-*--*The element of advance publicity worked out by Barnum brought offers from other managers for Barnum*s contract with Lind.

After the success of her first concert, Barnum says:

I think there were a hundred men in New York the day after her concert, who would have willingly paid me $200,000 for my contract.,!^ Barnum gives account of some of his managerial methods in the Jenny Lind affair: As a manager, I worked by setting others to work. Biographies of the Swedish Nightingale were largely circulated; TForeign Correspondence* glorified her talents and triumphs by narratives of- her benevolence; and *printer*s ink* was invoked in every possible form, to put and keep Jenny Lind before the people.-**3 With respect to Jenny Lind*s desire to arrive in a city quietly without ,!the excitement of the promiscous

crowds,

**-*--4Barnum

could not comply.

11

Ibid.. p. 296. 12

Ibid., p. 299. 13 Ibid., p. 302.

14 Ibid.. p.

307.

He states:

55 As a manager, however, I knew that the interests of the enterprise depended in- a great degree upon these ex­ citements. Although it frequently seemed inconceivable to her how so many thousands should have discovered her secret and consequently gathered together to receive her, I was not so much astonished, inasmuch as my agent always had early telegraphic intelligence of the time of her anticipated arrival, and was not slow in communicating the information to the p u b l i c . The somewhat angelic personality of Lind as contrast­ ed to that of her manager eventually lead to a parting of the ways before the contract was completed.

At the end of

the ninety-third concert, she broke her contract with Barnum and paid him $7000 in addition to the $25*000 forfeit*

trIt

must have been a strong impulse indeed,” says Edward B. Marks, ”which. caused Jenny to give up so much money, when she needed only to appear seven more times to satisfy her agreement. ”16 The incongruity in the essential concept of concert giving between Barnum and Lind is indicated in a letter to Hector Berlioz in Paris, from a Max Maretzek in the United States.1 The letter tells of Miss Lind!s anger at the real­ ization of Barnum1s methods in furthering her career. Jenny Lind happened to observe from her Hew York window the procession of Barnum1s great Asiatic travelling managerie 15 Ibid.. pp. 307, 308. 16 Edward B. Marks, They All Had Glamour (Hew York, Julian Messner, Inc., 1944)* P- 134*

56 with its cheap fanfare.

In the crowd, "she seemed to remark

the same faces...which had greeted her on her own arrival, the same enthusiastic crowds which had followed her carriage on that memorable occasion, and the same demonstrations which had taken place upon her advent to New York.11 MaretzekTs comment on the situation is the conjecture:

"Is it not

possible that upon this morning Jenny found out that in Barnum1s eyes she was no more than his woolly horse.or one of the monkeys?"-1-^ Jenny LindTs cancellation of the rest of her tour indicates a rupture of relations with her manager, which was possibly due to the wealth that Miss Lind had accummulated during the enterprise.

From the final tally of the receipts

of the ninety-five concerts given we find: Jenny Lind1s.receipts for 95 concerts.... $176,675.09 P. T. Barnum!s gross receipts, after paying Miss Lind....................

d $535,486.25^

The results of this stunning career in America brought other Europeans here whose managers had to borrow heavily from Barnum1s methods to make them a success.

The impresario

Maurice Grau brought the composer Offenbach to America in 1877 to conduct an .orchestra of sixty musicians in his own compositions.

The tour consisted of thirty concerts and the

17 Ibid.. p. 135. 18 Barnum, op. pit., p. “354.

57 terms for Offenbach were the same as Barnum*s for Lind: $1000 a night.

Grau used advance publicity which resulted

in Offenbach arriving here *Jamid excitement that has not been equalled- to this day, or at least not since Barnum had welcomed Jumbo to our,shores.”^9 Offenbach*s tour started off unsuccessfully in spite of the advance publicity, but manager Grau altered his plans to suit the situation.

He employed the singer, Mile. Aimee,

to appear in Offenbach*s La Vie Parisienne on the stage, while the composer conducted.

This immediately turned

failure into success as the crowds witnessed the two together. **(Offenbach) nimbly danced while directing in the pit as Aimee kicked rhythmically above his

h e a d . ff2 0

Such managerial stunts as the arranging of this dis­ play might have fit into the personality of the enterprising Offenbach, but let us observe the reactions of other Europeans to their American-managed tours.

It seems that the

qualities of the American concert audiences and those of the managers proved irritating to some of Europe*s greatest artists who were brought here.

In examining the points

.■available concerning the arrangements made by Maurice Grau in 19 Marks, op. cit.. p. 41* 20 Ibid.. p. 45.

58 managing the tours of Anton Rubenstein, pianist, and Henri Wieniawski, violinist, we find adverse reactions on the part of the artists. Grau made out a contract in Vienna \vhich called for one hundred American concerts at only $200 per concert for Rubenstein, and $100 for Wieniawski.

The first concert

took place at Steinway Hall, Hew York City, in September 1872 .21

Although this was only five years before Grau pre­

sented Offenbach, we find that he considered the pianist and violinist rather slim "attractions" considering the fees he paid them, compared to the $1000 per concert given the French composer.

And by way of further comparison, we ob­

serve that Grau considered Offenbach enough of a display that he should appear without the benefit of any other co-star. However, in the case of Bubenstein and Wieniawski, Grau not only considered that the two must appear together to draw a crowd, but he added to the bill a soprano and a contralto I This combination proved highly successful, and the box office receipts at the first concert were $1700, an amount unheard of at that time for that type of intimate recital.^ The success of this event prompted the arrangement of 21 Robert Grau, The Business Man in The Amusement World (New York, Broadway Publishing Company, 1910), p. 16. 22

Loc. cit.

59 a solo recital by Bubenstein which brought in $3100, the artist still receiving his promised $200.

This was the first

solo recital in this country in the grand style of great artist recitals we hear today.23 The whole tour of these two men completed, ”the enterprise” yielded a profit of $60,000 to the

m a n a g e m e n t . ^4

Both Rubenstein and Wieniawski bitterly resented the Ameri­ can visit, and both vowed individually never to return to America again. We have a picture of a similar situation in the first tour of Paderewski in America in 1891.

He goes into quite

an emotional account of his hostility to the way he was managed, and vents this hostility upon a Mr. Tretbar who was assigned by the piano manufacturer, Steinway, to arrange the tour.

Steinway!s interest in the affair was

solely that of advertising PaderewskiTs exclusive use of his pianos.

This arrangement was worked out in a contract

betv/een Paderewski and the Steinway

C o m p a n y ^

but some

doubt is given that any money was paid the pianist for this arrangement or that Paderewski felt any more than a moral 23 ,Ibid., pr 17. 24 Loc. cit. 25 Bom Landau, Ignace Paderewski (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1934) P- 67.

60

obligation to use Steinway pianos.

To the criticism that

he was nsold,f to the Steinway firm, Paderewski answered that he felt free to use any piano he wished.

However, he

used only the Steinway in America.^6 Mr. Paderewski was particularly angered at the cramming- of concerts that were arranged for him.

In one

week, the initial week of the tour in Hew York, he had to play six piano concertos.27

The task overwhelmed the

artistTs sensibilities, but another matter also bothered him greatly.

We quote the artist in the hope that the reader

can evaluate the emotional feelings as well as the content of the following complaint: The position of manager is quite a curious one psy­ chologically. You know in some cases, and it is natural enough, a manager often actually becomes the artist, at least in his own mind. He is so used to...speaking for the artist, "'that he even in his telegrams, also in con­ versation, sometimes speaks of himself as the artistI... Telegrams used often to come to me signed with my managerTs name saying, TI refuse to play on such and such a- date,T or TYes, I accept. I will play at such and such a concer-t....T When. I first saw one of these strange telegrams, I Y/as dumbfounded... .1 asked him (the managerJ what it meant. f0h, he said, rthat is just a custom;, we all do it....All managers do that.' It is a kind of habit they get into. They sign their own name for the artist. You know we managers feel that we own the artist, and sometimes,some of us even think we are the artist!*2$ 26 Algernon Baughan.Ignace Paderewski (Hew York, John Lane Company, 1908) pp. 28-30. 27

Ignace Jan Paderewski and Mary Lawton, The Paderewski Memoirs (New York, Charles ScribnerTs Sons, 1938), p. 1#9 28Ibid.. p. 203.

61

The familiar scene of low fees for the artist again presents itself in the Paderewski picture of this tour. Many of his concerts were recklessly sold for $200, and in Philadelphia he received the small sum of $300 for an orchestral concert !fwith the hall

packed.

”^9

Hostility to unconventional American managerial practices in the style of Barnum is also recorded by the great Russian Basso Feodor Shaliapin (1873-193B).

He ac­

cepted an offer to appear in the Metropolitan Opera House during the season of 1907-08, and looked upon the venture with T,the keenest

anticipation.

”30

His reaction to the

publicity arrangement of reporters plying him with personalinterest questions, was one of bewilderment.

Said Shaliapin:

They plied me with questions as to how I had endured the voyage; where I was born; whether I was married or single; if married, whether I was happy with my wife; whether or not I had ever been in prison for some polit­ ical crime; etc., etc.31 He received the same type of interview on his second trip to America in 1921, but was more provoked by his managers1 insistence that he fulfill h i s .concert engagements 4

despite an attack of laryngitis.' The managers grew impa­ tient at his postponements and were not concerned with the quality of his performance as much as the fact that he would 29 Ibid.. 30

p.

215.

Feodor Ivanovitch Chaliapine (Shaliapin), Pages From My Life (Hew York and London, Harper and Brothers, 1927), p. 254* 31 Loc. cit.

62

make an appearance on the stages

TIThe New York public

realizes that you are not well and, even if you cannot sing your best, this will not count against you,11 they argued to Shaliapin.

He goes on to explain the artist’s viewpoint that

the quality of the performance is more vital than the date of. the performance.-^ The conflict between presenting an artist or a work of art for its value as art as against presenting it for its ”display1! value was not unique to the situation between Shaliapin and his managers.

We find an account of the effect

of display theatrics upon the presentation of operas as works of art, in the 1910 season of the Metropolitan Opera Association of New York.

The small deficit that year, rather

than an expected large one was ”due solely to the epoch created by a pair of agile Russian dancers who, in the last month of the season, presented the extraordinary spectacle of selling out the capacity of both houses (the Metropolitan Opera House and The New Theater).

The problem here'was-

one of deciding whether or not the dancers were well inte­ grated into the artistic production.

The sellouts occurred

at every performance regardless of the opera being performed 32 Ibid.. pp. 322, 23. 33 Grau, op cit., p. 39.

63 and regardless of the cast. Gatti-Casazza, the impresario of the Metropolitan at that time was against reengaging the dancers (Mile Pavlowa and Mr. Mordkin) as their fine performances were distorting the balance between ballet and opera in the productions. However, he reengaged them due to his desire to keep the productions in public favor.

Thus the impresario had to

sacrifice the artistic concept of the operas he produced and allow them to become shnwpieces to satisfy this particular desire for Barnumism in his audiences. As concluding evidence of the theatrical versus the artistic as a problem in music management, let us see what S. Hurok uses as his basis in selecting an artist to manage on the concert stage.

Mr-. Hurok, one of America!s leading

impresarios, claims that he has been listening to artists for more than thirty-five years, and that in this time he has heard thousands of young artists.

But he determined

their eligibility for the concert stage by their ability to "project (their) personality across the footlights," and "produce in (their) hearers a feeling of exhilaration." These general qualities give us an indication of what the impresario is looking for, but it becomes even more clear .as to his leanings when he says that he demands from his artists that they make their audiences1 spines tingle.

He continues:

64 That spine-tingling sensation is my guide in engaging artists. When I experience it, I know the artist has the quality I am always seeking. It •is the ability of the artist to convey beauty to an audience, to leave them touched, exalted, inspired. That quality produces in me a reflex action. When I hear it, I bring out my fountain pen and a contract.34He adds revealingly, TIIt may be heresy to admit, but I will generally choose an artist who makes music exciting over one who is a fine musician but lacks the indefinable spark." Just as indefinable seems to be Mr. HurokTs method of judg­ ment.

Says he:

"In appraising an artist, I will read re­

views, listen to the opinions of teachers and musicians; but in the final analysis, I must weigh all the known and un­ known factors in my own mind to reach a decision." The wide ramifications of Barnumism were partly caused by the practices of the managers and partly by the demands of audiences.

A comment on the situation in 1905*^ gives

the particular situation of theatrical "typing" of the European style of concert artist.

Hot only did the public

want to see musicians appearing with long hair and clothing "in the style of the eighteenth century," but managers were desirous of conforming to this type of theatrics. 34

S. Hurok, "Talent Isn't Enough!” (September, 1949), 5, 6.

Etude, LXVII: 9

35 Robert Schauffler, "The Musician and Society," Outlook. 81 (November 18, 1905), 674-77.

65

Paderewski1s manager insisted that he not appear in public until his hair reached a "certain long minimum."

American

artists were encouraged to adopt European names to enhance the atmosphere they created about themselves.

The article

concludes with a lament that perhaps is the basic causation for the activities we have observed in this chapter. the article, "Barnum was right. lights to be fooled.1"

Says

TThe American public de­

CHAPTER VI

MANAGEMENT TODAY The modern American phenomena of big-business enter­ prise dominates the present-day music management structure in this country.

Although music management had been carried

on by local managers since Colonial times, this method did not satisfy the needs of a greatly increasing music in­ dustry.

Olga Samaroff Stokoivski reminisced:

The pre-war (World War I) type of the individual local manager is rapidly disappearing. The World War, the depression, and certain changes in general musical conditions have been too much for him.!1-^She also points out that the individual manager before World War I was ITvery conservative in the number of artists he imported.

Mine. Stokowski fs own concert career brought

her in contact with music managers, and her personal ap­ praisal of her function as a pianist throws light on the relationship between the big-business manager and the small individual local manager.

She states it thus: T!I am the

Tgoods,!^Ellis (Charles A. Ellis, her manager) is the !wholesaler,! and the local manager is the Retailer1 from whom the consumer public purchases my concert.11 She goes on to Olga Samaroff Stokowski, An American Musician1s Story (New York, W. W. Norton and Company, 1939), p. 75-

“

2 3

. P. 73• Ibid., p. 65.

67 explain that there has to he a large Wholesale” manager to attend to managing an artist in many cities throughout the country. There is an established economic necessity for bigbusiness methods in concert management today and this neces­ sity has provided for the present day managerial system. Music management is now dominated by two large corporations: National Concert and Artists Corporation and Columbia Con­ certs Corporation.

Each of these companies has several

hundred musicians under contract, and both of them have an organization for providing communities all over the nation with concert series using their artists.4 Community Concert

S e r v i c e ,

Columbia controls

5 while National Concert and

Artists Corporation controls Civic Concert Service.^

Be­

tween these two corporations, with their allied community service organizations, lies a great deal of the control of AmericaTs commercial concerts. Even so big'an independent ) manager as S. Hurok is now tied in with National Concert and Artists Corporation.^

Likewise, the management of Arthur Judson

4

/

Howard Taubman, Music on My Beat (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1943), p. 237. 5 "Community Concert Service," Musical America. LXIX, No. 3, (February 1949), p. 109.

6

0. 0. Bottoroff, "The Average Concert Goer," Musical America. LXIX, No. 3 (February 1949)* P* 108. 7 "S. Hurok," Ibid.. p. 108. .

6a

is connected with Columbia Concerts Corporation.^ The major management organizations have their regular artists under contract, but a-lso have a service for managing single concerts, mostly debuts.

This is carried on as a

secondary operation of the managerial office since the ma­ chinery is already set up for managing the regular artists. This debut service regularly manages the opening recitals of Q many young artists who never go beyond their first recital.7 So we find the managerial function of presenting performing artists is not limited to that of the regularly contracted artists.

For a fee, anyone can be managed on one occasion

at a time by the large managerial offices. The manager!s problems with respect to the artist in­ volve considered judgment on the part of the manager concern­ ing the personality and capabilities of the artist.

An over­

anxious manager can so publicise a new artist that the hall will be filled to overflowing.

The new artist might find

this situation too demanding for him, and might not give a good recital.

The manager must be wary of too much boasting

about his new artist before the recital takes place, or the results might prove disasterous. It is interesting to note, from Mr. TaubmanTs vie?^ as ^ !lJudson, 0*Neill and Judd,” Ibid., p. 109. 9

Taubman, op. ext., p. 239.

69 a critic, that he has found managers desiring either a rave notice about, their new artistTs debut, or a complete renuncia­ tion by the critic.

But a mediocre review which is neither

exalting nor condemning is the bane of the managerTs existence. For this type of review keeps the artist demanding from the manager at least some scheduled recitals, which the manager no?/ finds impossible to arrange due to the lack of superla­ tive notices.

If the notices are condemning, then the artist

has no basis at all upon which to make demands upon his manager. How well this system just described satisfies the needs

of the concert going public is open to conjecture.

There can

be no considered judgments made at this time which will have any significance due to the close proximity of the situation. Nevertheless appraisals are made, and we should search for some attitude toward how music management affects the cultural picture of music in our time.

Paul Henry Lang attempts such

an appraisal in a. general sense.

We know his orientation

with respect to industrial collectivism in its inability to induce the individual expression of art.H

And we have seen

how music management has lost its individualism.

Do the mass

10 Ibid.. p. 241. Paul Henry Lang, Music in Western Civilization (New York, W. W. Norton and Co., 1941)* PP* 1027-1030.

70

production methods of this musical industry thwart the community!s individual expression in the realm of musical art?

Lang seems to think so.

day musical scene he remarks;

In his analysis of the present”0ur official concert and

opera life has been accustomed to revolve around the wellestablished international concert and theater industry....”-1-'2 And as a result* he concludes: ...there is still a long uphill fight ahead of us* for music is administered by executives who* like their colleagues in other industries* are mainly concerned with running an efficient and income-producing business enterprise.... Much will have to be done before music can become to American life what literature is today.1*3

12 Paul Henry Lang* ”Music in American Life*” Saturday Review of Literature. XXIX* No. 9 (March 2, 194&)9 p. 32. ^

Ibid., p. 3If*

CHAPTER VII SUMMARY A reflection upon the materials covered in this work has provided the author with a new understanding of music management from the historical viewpoint, an understanding which it is hoped the reader also gains.

The broad picture

of music management through the periods of American history indicates that the nature of the management was a product of the particular time it took place, and just as the times have continually changed, so has the type of management. It is hoped that the reader can observe the very different nature of management in the various chapters of this thesis. It is also hoped that the historical survey made here indicates new areas of research which can be investigated with respect to music management.

The matter can be approach­

ed by investigating comparisons between American and European methods, or by trying to determine how well music management serves its purpose, or yet by comparing it to governmental management wherever it now exists and determining a relation­ ship between community sponsored and privately sponsored concerts.

In any such work of investigation, the author

hopes that the history here presented will prove valuable as background material.

It is also hoped that the creative

72

approach to interpreting the material he carried on in any further work in this field. Since this work has indicated that music management reflected the social and economic situation of each period in American History, it is implied that the future of man­ agement in music will reveal a continued reflection of the situation of society at that time.

We have discovered that

music management is not a thing apart from the American scene, hut an integral aspect of it.

We have observed that

its policies were reactions to demands and tastes of the public, and where these reached low ebbs, there management reacted accordingly.

Thus we have tried to expose one area

of the growth of musical activity in America, and in doing so, have given it an accounting stating its historical existence, and placing upon it an importance which' it definitely deserves.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY A.

BOOKS

Barnum, P. T., Struggles and Triumphs. Buffalo, New York: Warren, Johnson and Company, 1072. Baughan, Algernon, Ignace Paderewski. New York: Company,’1908. Pp. 28-30.

John Lane

Chaliapine, Feodor Ivanovitch, Pages From My Life. and London: Harper and Brothers, 1927.

New York

Colies, H. C., editor, Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Fourth edition; London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1940Elson, Louis C., The History of American Music. Macmillan and Company, 1925.

New York:

Erskine, John, The Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York New York: The Macmillan Company, 1943. Ewen, David, Music Comes to America. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1942. Grant and Hettinger, AmericaTs Symphony Orchestras and How T, Are Supported. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1940. Grau, Robert, The Business Man in The Amusement World. New York: Broadway Publishing Company, 1910. Handlin,. Oscar, Bostonfs Immigrants, 1790 - 1865. Harvard University Press, 1941*

Cambridge

Howard, John Tasker, Our American Music. Nexv York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 194&. Huneker, James Gibbons, The Philharmonic Society of New York New York: no publisher, 1917. Johnson, Allen, editor, Dictionary of American Biography. New York: Charles Scribner!s Sons, Johnson, H. Earle, Musical Interludes in Boston. Columbia University Press, 1943.

New York:

75

Landau, Horn, Ignace Paderewski. Hew York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1934* Lang, Paul Henry, Music in We stern Civilization. W. W. Horton and Company, 1941* Marks, Edward B., They All Had Glamour. Messner, Inc., 1944-'

Hew York:

Hew York: Julian

Mayorga, Margaret, A Short History of the American Drama. Hew York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1944* Odell, George C. D., Annals of the Hew York Stage. Columbia University Press, 1927.

Hew York:

Paderewski, Ignace Jan, and Mary Lawton, The Paderewski Memoirs. Hew York: Charles ScribnerTs Sons, 1938. Pennsylvania Society of the Colonial Dames of America, Church Music and Musical Life in Pennsvlvania in the Eighteenth Century. Philadelphia: The Society, 1947. Scholes, Percy A., The Puritans and Music. London: Oxford University Press, Humphrey Milford, 1934* Sonneck, 0. G., Early Concert-Life in America (1731-18Q0). Musurgia Publishers, 1949. Sonneck, 0. G., Early Opera in America. Hew York: G. Scribner, 1915. Stokowski, Olga Samaroff, An American Musician1s Story. Hew York: W. W. Horton and Company, 1939. Taubman, Howard, Music on My Beat. Schuster, 1943.

New York: Simon and

The Musical Fund Society of Philadelphia.

Ho publisher, 1930.

Thompson, Oscar, and Slonimsky, Nicolas, editors, The Inter­ national Cyclopedia of Music and Musicians. (Fifth edition.) New York: Dodd Mead and Company, 1949. Upton, William Treat, Anthony Philip Heinrich. Hew York: Columbia University Press, 1939. Wagenknecht, Edward, Jenny Lind. Boston and Hew York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931.

76 B.

PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS

Bottoroff, 0. 0., "The Average Concert Goer,11 Musical America, LXIX, No, 3, February, 1949. "Community Concert Service,” Musical America, LXIX, No. 3, Fe bruary, 1949• Haggin, B. H., "Music,” The Nation, Vol. 156, No. 12, March 30, 1943. Hurok, S., "Talent Isnft Enough!” September, 1949.

Etude. LXVII:9,

"Judson, 0 TNeill and Jud,” Musical America. LXIX, No. 3, February, 1949• Kaye, Howard, "The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra," The Musical Forecast. 37: May, 1939. Lang, Paul Henry, VMusic in American Life," Saturday Re­ view of Literature, XXIX, No. 9* March 2, 194&* "Music and Barnumism," Etude, LXVII:9, September, 1949. New York Times. February 19-24, May 13, 1943. Schauffler, Robert H., "The Musician and Society," Outlook. 81., November 18, 1905. "S. Hurok," Musical America. LXIX, No. 3, February, 1949.