, —.\/—“\_.-

.. ’

“'31:!“ 7 C‘fi‘lk'Wf'fgrh

3

.l-I“

4.3..

 

 

 

 

, w~a_______ _

 

‘\

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM NOTES
OF SELECTED SYMPHONY

ORCHESTRAS

by Harold F. Brown

The annotation of symphony orchestra programs
is such a common and costly practice that it behooves
managers and annotators to consider the effectiveness
of this educational device. That was the purpose of
this study--to investigate the contemporary status of
annotation and its reception by concert-goers. Such
concerns as the methodology, the content, the length,
the complexity and the rationale supporting the pre-
sentation were investigated. Eleven annotators (seven
with major symphonies) were interviewed; many others
were questioned by mail. Questionnaires were sent to
managers in all parts of the country. Finally, eleven
orchestras (Classes A-D) c00perated in the distribution
of questionnaires to twelve audiences for the purpose
of discovering program reading habits, degree of appre-
ciation of the annotations, and such personal informa-

tion as musical background and educational level.

Harold F. Brown

Hundreds of programs were collected and analyzed; and
such contributing factors as program format, auditorium
lighting and advance mailing were investigated.

Although program annotation had its incipiency
in EurOpe in the eighteenth century, its establishment
as a regular practice can be traced to England c.
1850. In its early days its function was to offer
musical analysis, and this practice still continues.
Gradually, however, a more informal popular style be-
came acceptable; so today program annotations vary from
pure analysis to anecdotal entertainment, from poor to
very good, from a few short paragraphs to essays of
over 6,000 words. But no matter which, 95% of the au-
dience respondents indicated that their program notes
do enhance their enjoyment and understanding of the
music. It was discovered, surprisingly, that 84% al-
ways read the notes (62% in toto), and 87% read them
before hearing the music. This is encouragement to
those writers who have questioned the influence and
acceptance of their efforts; and it is cause for more
serious and careful concern on the part of the many
who have not recognized the erudition, SOphistication
and eagerness of their audiences.

While annotations are, as the study reveals,
rather thoroughly absorbed and appreciated, the chief

complaints were brevity and avoidance of emphasis on

Harold F. Brown

the music. The statistics reveal that 14% found their
notes lacking in comprehensiveness, 42% would like
simple musical examples, 30% would appreciate more
reading light. Only 12% were disturbed by the inter-
mingling of advertisements and program notes. 54% save
their programs for future reference.

Audiences today are well educated: 62% are
college graduates, 49% are active in music as students,
amateurs or professionals, 84% attend five or more sym-
phony concerts per year. They understand the common
musical terms. They appreciate the annotation that is
professional in content and interesting in style. Many
signs indicated the better acceptance of the well writ-
ten literary piece.

Indications are that program notes are more
likely to be read if 1) they do not exceed 2,000 words,
2) the type face is at least lO-pt. in size, with ample
Open spaces, 3) they are not spread out through the
program booklet, 4) they are interestingly written,
and 5) they are worthily informative.

The basic conclusion is that this device is
educationally beneficial and effective. However, the
degree of effectiveness varies enormously according to
the audience preparation and the quality of the anno-
tation. While there is good annotation (notably in

Class A orchestra programs), it is very random amongst

Harold F. Brown

the metropolitan, urban and community orchestras.
There is much room—-and ample justification--for im-

provement.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM NOTES
OF SELECTED SYMPHONY

ORCHESTRAS

BY

Harold Frederick Brown

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Music

1968

fiJCOpyright by
HAROLD FREDERICK BROWN

1969

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the many symphony orchestra managers and
program annotators who assisted in so many ways, es-
pecially in the submission of programs, questionnaires,
letters and related materials.

To the managements of the eleven symphony or-
chestras involved in a survey of their audiences.

To Dr. William R. Sur for his courteous, gen-
erous and considerate suggestions and guidance over a
period of three years.

To the following publishers for permission to
quote from their publications: Boston Symphony Orches-
tra, Inc., Dover Publications, Inc., B. P. Dutton &
Co., Inc., Meredith Press, Novello & Co., Ltd., Oliver
Ditson Co., Oxford University Press, Program Note Serv-
ice (Paul Affelder), University of Indiana Press,

University of Minnesota Press.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O C O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O 0

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O 0

Statement of the Problem . .
Justification for the Study
Survey of Extant Literature
Premise of the Study . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms . .
Order of Procedure . . .
Order of Presentation . .

PART I. HISTORY AND PRESENT
STATE OF ANNOTATION

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANNOTATION .

The Function of Program Notes
The History of Annotation . .
Who the Annotators Were . . .
Who the Annotators Are . . . .

CURRENT ANNOTATION RATIONALE AND
PMCT ICE 0 C I O O C O O C C C C

The Annotators' Questionnaires
The Managers' Questionnaire .
Some Generalizations . . . .
Specific Rationales . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Problems Facing the Annotator

iv

Page
iii

vii

10
13
14
14
16
16
21

23

23
32
53
55

58

59
65
70
78
112
114

Chapter Page

IV. ANNOTATIONS ON SPECIFIC WORKS . . . . . 121

 

 

Beethoven's Fifth Symphony . . . . . . 126
Brahms' Second Symphony . . . . . . . 146
Debussy's La Mer . . . . . . . . . . . 157
A Contemporary Work . . . . . . . . . 164
Vocal Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

v 0 COMMON PROBLEMS O O O 0 O O 0 O I O O O l 8 2

Writing Style . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
Extra Touches . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Borrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Unifying the Notes . . . . . . . . . . 196
Technical Language . . . . . . . . . . 198
Program Note Length . . . . . . . . . 201
Program Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Advance Distribution . . . . . . . . . 205
Balance of Emphasis . . . . . . . . . 206

PART II. AUDIENCE REACTION
TO PROGRAM NOTES

VI. THE AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . 210

The South Bend Symphony . . . . . . . 214
Eastern Connecticut Symphony . . . . . 219
The Asheville Symphony . . . . . . . . 223
The Green Bay Symphony . . .-. . . . . 226
The Evansville Philharmonic . . . . . 231
The Albany Symphony . . . . . . . . . 235
The Syracuse Symphony . . . . . . . . 239
The Phoenix Symphony . . . . . . . . . 242
The Louisville Orchestra . . . . . . . 248
The Seattle Symphony . . . . . . . . . 251
The Indianapolis Symphony . . . . . . 256
Single Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 260
VII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Further Avenues of Research . . . . . 283
Negation of the Hypothesis . . . . . . 290
Room for Improvement . . . . . . . . . 292
Additional Conclusion . . . . . . . . 297
Audience Comments . . . . . . . . . . 299
Suggestions for Writing th "Ide 1
Annotation" . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

V

Page
APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O 308

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O I O O O O 9 O O 9 O O O O O O 336

Vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Annotators' Occupations, 1967 . . . . . . 55
2. Annotators Interviewed . . . . . . . . . 59

3. Chief Functions of Program Notes as

Reported by Annotators . . . . . . . . 59

4. Panel Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5. Panel Criteria for a Good Annotation . . 125
6. Quotations in Annotations . . . . . . . . 195
7. Typical Special Program Articles . . . . 198
8. Technical Terms Found in One Program . . 200
9. Technical Terms in One Cleveland Program 201
10. Annotation Average Length . . . . . . . . 203

ll. Audience Questions and Average Percentages 213

12. The South Bend Response . . . . . . . . . 217
13. The Eastern Connecticut Response . . . . 222
14. The Asheville Response . . . . . . . . . 225
15. The Green Bay Response . . . . . . . . . 229
16. The Evansville Response . . . . . . . . . 234
17. The Albany Response . . . . . . . . . . . 238
18. The Syracuse Response . . . . . . . . . . 241
19A. The Phoenix Monday Audience Response . . 245
19B. The Phoenieruesday Audience Response . . 246

vii

Table Page

20. The Louisville Response . . . . . . . . . 250
21. The Seattle Response . . . . . . . . . . 255
22. The Indianapolis Response . . . . . . . . 259

23. Do You Read the Program Notes: Always?
Sometimes? Never? . . . . . . . . . . 261

24. Do You Read the Program Notes: Par-
tiallY? TOtallY? O O O O O O O O O O O 262

25. Do You Read the Program Notes: Before
the Concert? During the Concert?
After the Concert? . . . . . . . . . . 264

26. Do You Follow the Texts of Vocal Works? . 265

27. Would You Like More Reading Light During
the concertS? o ' o o o o o o o o o o o o 266

28. Would Simple Musical Examples Be
Helpful? 0 O O O C I O O I O O I O O O 269

29. Are You Disturbed by the Position of
Advertisements amid the Program
NoteS? O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 270

30. Do You Save Your Programs for Future
Reference? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

31. Do Our Program Notes Help You to Under-
stand and Appreciate the Music? . . . . 272

32. Do You Find the Program Notes? Too
Complex or Technical? Too Light-
weight? Too Brief? Too Long? . . . . 273

33. Do You Find the Program Notes Compre-
hensive Enough? . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

34. Do You Attend Five or More Symphony
Concerts per Year? . . . . . . . . . . 276

viii

Table Page,

35. Which of These Applies to You? 1) A
Music Lover with No Formal Music
Study. 2) An Amateur Musician with
Some Formal Study. 3) A Professional
Musician or Music Teacher. 4) A Music

Student. 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 278
36. Are You a College Graduate? . . . . . . . 279
37. Audience Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

APPENDIX I: LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRES USED
A. Letter to Annotators . . . . . . . . . . . 308
B. Annotators' Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 309
C. Letter to Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
D. Managers' Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 311

E. Audience Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 312

APPENDIX II: COOPERATING PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS
A. Orchestras Solicited . . . . . . . . . . . 313
B. Annotators Questioned . . . . . . . . . . 315
C. Managers Questioned . . . . . . . . . . . 316
D. Orchestras C00perating in Audience
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
APPENDIX III: RESULTS OF PERSONNEL QUESTIONNAIRES
A. Tabulation of Annotators' Questionnaire . 318
B. Tabulation of Managers' Questionnaire . . 319
C. Additional Questions Asked of Managers
COOperating in the Audience Survey . . . 320
APPENDIX IV: QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO PANEL OF
CONCERT-GOERS
A. First Questionnaire to Panel . . . . . . . 321

B. Second Questionnaire to Panel . . . . . . 322

X

APPENDIX V: AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The
The

The

South Bend Response . . . . . . .
Eastern Connecticut Response . .
Asheville Response . . . . . . .
Green Bay Response . . . . . . .
Evansville Response . . . . . . .
Albany Response . . . . . . . . .
Syracuse Response . . . . . . . .
Phoenix Monday Audience Response

Phoenix Tuesday Audience Response
Louisville Response . . . . . . .
Seattle Response . . . . . . . .
Indianapolis Response . . . . . .

Averages Response . . . . . . . .

xi

Page

323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

On the first page of the preface to Philip
Hale's Boston Symphony Programme Notes, editor John N.
Burk offers this respectful prophecy:

Some day an inquisitive musicologist will con-
sider the part played in the history of musical
education and musical taste by that seemingly in-
dispensible adjunct of the symphony concert room,
the Programme Note. When this time comes, the
contributions made by Philip Hale to the musical
civilization of his time will appear in their true
proportions.

Burk's prOphecy was correct. This dissertation
is a study of the educational influence of program
notes, where both Hale and his successor, John Burk,
occupy enviable positions.

It is quite surprising that a study of program
annotation has not been undertaken before. For over
one hundred years this "seemingly indispensible adjunct
of the symphony concert room" has touched the lives of

4

1ed. John N. Burk, Philip Hale's Boston Sym-
phony Programme Notes (Garden City: Doubleday, Doran
and Co., Inc., 193577 p. xvii.

 

thousands of concert—goers in America and Europe, and
presumably has influenced their musical taste and their
enjoyment of music. The Rockefeller Panel Report1 in
1965 listed 1,113 community symphony orchestras in the
United States; virtually every one of them supplied
annotated programs to its patrons, either by custom,

conviction or demand. As a Newsletter of the American

 

Symphony Orchestra League suggested, "With the expend-
iture of time, effort and money involved in preparing
and printing concert notes, it seems as though it might
be in order to take a look at the total situation and
see whether or not present procedures followed by each
orchestra really are geared to the conditions prevail-
ing in that specific situation."2
It might be of interest to note that the present
study came into being without the author's knowledge of
this Newsletter. It resulted, in fact, from a surprise
gift of a large collection of Boston Symphony programs
that had been saved worshipfully by a regular patron of

that orchestra. After several years of idleness in a

cabinet, these programs were brought into the light and

 

lRockefeller Panel Report, The Performing Arts:
Problems and Prospects (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1965), p. 21.

 

2American Symphony Orchestra League, Newsletter,
January, 1960, p. 18.

 

read with great interest. They revealed what other
collectors had apparently known before: that here was

a treasure store of musical information fully deserving
of shelf space in any library, and far too valuable to
be discarded after each concert. Curiosity was aroused,
the mental processes stimulated; a probe into other pro-
gram notes resulted. An area unfolded that, with the
exception of an occasional short article in a special—
ized music magazine or an impassioned but brief essay

in some concert program, had been widely neglected and
generally by-passed. The program note appears to be in
the same category as a Sunday sermon--a1ways there and
sometimes worth taking in, and, like the sermon, per-
haps labored over for many days in the hope of affecting
someone in the audience. But how often is it affective,
and how effective? Very few peOple seem to have been
curious to find out, except by casual word-of-mouth in-
quiry and perhaps an embarrassed glance around the au-
ditorium before concert-time to see who was reading
what--"program notes or the names of sustaining patrons",
as one annotator worded it. One criterion of audience
appreciation cited by some annotators and concert man-
agers has been the number of programs discarded in the
concert hall; but this is hardly a satisfactory measure,
since it could also reflect nothing more than the pa-

trons' sense of tidiness.

It may be that educators have a peculiar pro-
pensity for evaluation. Most of them, if conscientious,
are anxious to discover more effective teaching methods,
to adjust their methods and materials to the needs and
receptive capacities of their pupils, and to evaluate
constantly. A few inquiries by this researcher reveal-
ed a strong aversion to program notes among musician
friends; mere casual mention invariably brought forth
diatribes such as, "Program notes are always had; they
talk around the music, but never about it"; or "They're
usually such nonsense"; or "They talk about Beethoven's
love affair with the Countess Theresa Brunswick, but
miss the point of the music"; or "I never read the notes
because I don't want to get angry before I listen to
the music." Non-musicians were generally startled by
the query, but rallied to confess one of two attitudes:
either "I know so little about music that I always read
the notes in the hope of learning something that I can
understand," or "The notes confuse me, so I never read
them." One concert-goer admitted that "I don't read
the notes when they are long and spread out through the
program; I get discouraged."1

One annotator was kind enough to write his spe-

cific objections to most program notes:

 

l . .
Personal interViews.

I firmly believe that program notes should and
can add greatly to the enjoyment of a concert.
Generally, however, they do not. Nine out of ten
aren't worth the paper they are written on. Here
are what I consider some of the fundamental reasons
for failure:

1. Their purpose--to inform the audience about
the music it is going to hear, which is the only
excuse for program notes--has been forgotten or
ignored.

2. Most annotators, especially musicians, are
not audience-oriented and do not know what an au-
dience wants or needs. The vast majority of musi-
cians, unfortunately, can't write, anyway.

3. There is too much formal analysis in tech-
nical language.

4. To be terse, but not dull, to inform without
being pompous, and to be entertaining as well as
informative demands writing skill. From what I
have read, all too few annotators have such skill.

5. Distressingly few program notes are planned--
most seem merely thrown together with no effort to
make them easy to read.

The previously quoted Newsletter states that

 

the successful accomplishment of purpose in program

annotation

is based on the assumption that the listener will
read the notes before he hears the music. Yet a
practical analysis of the usual concert situation
indicates this may be a vain assumption a great
deal of the time.

Take the matter of concert hall lighting. Sel-
dom is the lighting conducive to reading fine print
on shiny paper. . . . There is the matter of the
relationship between the length of program notes
and the concert arrival habits of the audience in
a given city. . . . If an orchestra uses detailed
program notes and expects or h0pes the audience
members will read them before the concert, a prac—
tical viewpoint would seem to indicate that the
notes should be mailed to the subscribers in

 

16,

1Jack W. Rudolph, Green Bay, letter, October

1967.

advance of the concert. . . . Then there is the
problem of arrangement of the notes in relation to
other material in the program and its effect on the
use made of the notes.

There are the questions of technical discussions
of the music, of complicated analyses, of philOSOphical
treatises that leave the reader dazed, of subjective
Opinions that prejudice a listener; and there is the
problem of offending the reader by writing down to him,
avoiding erudition; and the problem of space restriction
and lack of preparation time (many annotators hold other
full—time jobs, writing notes as an extra-curricular
activity). Therefore the matters of content, length,
method and writing style all rear their heads like Her-
cules' Hydra. How much frustration is experienced by
both writer and reader? Is the latter fairly treated?
Is he short-changed? Or does he have a splendid educa-
tional aid that he fails to use and appreciate? These
are questions to be considered in this paper.

Just how does one write THE PERFECT program
note? Many writers have commented on this. One of
them confessed that

one writes in words about the musical experience

knowing that words are not correlations for the ex-

perience; but one writes for the people who may have
had similar experiences and who might find the words

 

lAmerican Symphony Orchestra League Newsletter.
See p. 2.

 

meaningful in a similar way. . . . When there is
nothing to say, preaching is inevitable. . . . Anal-
ysis and technical discussion are quite as far from
the musical experience as aesthetic talk.

Another writes, "The essential qualification for
an author of such notes--assuming, of course, that he is
a musician--are ardor, insight, scholarship, and style.
The more usual qualifications, unfortunately, seem to
be indifference, ignorance, and illiteracy."2 Another
says:

How ought program notes to be written? Little
attention has been given to the question, but a
change has recently come over the commentary which
one buys in the concert hall; analysis has given
way before more general comment. In so far as it
has opened the gates to irrelevance, rodomontade,
criticism, and even controversy, it is bad. . . .
The programme note is allowed to range through all
degrees of ineptitude and wrongheadedness because
no one ever criticises it. . . . And so between the
items of the concert, we continue to read all kinds
of comment--good, bad and very bad.3

M. A. DeWolfe Howe, discussing the Boston Sym-
phony notes, which for years have averaged five
thousand words per program, writes that "through all

these years the programmes have served a far-reaching

 

1Robert Craft, biography of Anton Webern, with

Columbia record album #K4L-232, p. 8.

2Lawrence Gilman, Orchestral Music: An Arm-
chair Egide, ed. Edward Cushing (New York: Oxford Uni-
versIty Press, 1951), p. v.

3Frank Howes, "Programme Notes," The Musical
Times (London: Novello & Co., Ltd.), LXXITIApri1_1,
I930, V. 71, No. 1046.

 

educational purpose, not only with direct reference to
the concert of the evening, but through bringing togeth-
er an extraordinary mass of musical lore, historical,
critical, and biographical." No wonder, then, that he
continues, citing John S. Dwight, who "even before Mr.
Apthorp's day addressed himself to the Boston public:
'We may read and we may listen, but not both, dear
friend, at the same time."

Irving Kolodin tells us that the true tradition
of the program annotator is "to be ignored, and only
remembered on the rare occasion when he confuses Piccini
with Puccini, or ascribes to Johann Strauss, Jr., a
33122 written by Johann Strauss, Sr."2

Sir George Grove makes this comment: "Biog-
raphy, culled from a musical dictionary (though without
acknowledgment) and the repetition of well-worn anec-
dotes, with a few quotations of leading themes, are too

often all their authors deem necessary."3 And Percy

Scholes, another British scholar, declares that

 

1M. A. DeWolfe Howe, The Boston Symphony Orches-

 

tra (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1914), p. 139.

2Irving Kolodin, New York Philharmonic program,
October 22, 1962, p. 40.

3ed. H. C. Colles, Grove's Dictionary of Music
and Musicians (5th Ed., New York: The MacmilIan Com-
pany, I959), III, p. 943.

 

it is much to be desired that writers of analytical
programmes would answer in their mind, before be-
ginning each task, a few obviously fundamental ques—
tions, such as whether they are writing for profes-
sional musicians or for the general public, whether
they mean their notes to be read before the perfor-
mance begins or during its course, and so on. . . .
The writing of annotations for programmes is Elearly
a branch of the work of Musical Appreciation.

Klaus George Roy, the Director of Publications
for the Cleveland Orchestra, sums up the problem thus:
"The issue is whether, in the realization that music
always begins where words stop, anything can be done at
all to aid the bearer in his quest for understanding

and, hopefully, enjoyment."2

Justification for the Study

 

In Chapter III the question of how program notes
are written will be considered in more detail; but these
multivarious comments demonstrate the justification for
this study. Hundreds of people involved in the compil-
ing, editing and publishing-~and with the reading--of
program notes can benefit from a survey of past and cur-
rent practices, of leading annotators' rationales, of
solutions of some of the common problems, from examina-

tion of some commendable literary samples, and

 

1Percy Scholes, The Oxford Companion to Music
(London: Oxford University Press, 1935), p. 4II

 

2Klaus Roy, Cleveland Orchestra program, Sep-
tember 18, 1964, p. 32.

10

especially of audience reactions to annotation as it is
practiced in several United States cities of different
sizes and locations. These people will perhaps be in-
terested in discovering just how bad--or good--current
annotation is, whether or not most notes are "merely
thrown together", whether or not authors are writing at
their readers' level. These questions indicate a need
for specific information about audience educational
level, musical knowledge and program reading habits.

All of these are a part of this study.

Survey of Extant Literature

The lack of published research and publication
in the field was a strong encouragement for undertaking
this research. Although this is necessarily a limited
study, it is representative enough to point up the need
for a complete survey of United States symphony audi-
ences, a project that would require funding by some in-
terested foundation. The Twentieth Century Fund did
finance a survey of twelve symphony audiences as part
of the economic study made by Baumol and Bowen in 1963—

l

64. As the only such survey it is widely quoted, al-

though deprecated in some circles because of its survey

 

1William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen, Per-
forming Arts, the Economic Dilemma (New York: Twentieth
Century Fund, 1966).

11

methods.l Their questions sought such information as
educational level, attendance frequency, age, sex, oc-
cupation, income, symphony concert expenditures (includ-
ing transportation and related meals). Some of these
factors would influence the writing of program notes,
and some have been duplicated in the present study, with
lesser request for details. It must be noted that their
survey considered twelve maigr symphonies only, with no
concern shown for the problems and the importance of the
Lansings, the Phoenixes and the Ashevilles.

The managers of a few orchestras have shown en-
terprise and imagination in promoting surveys of their
reSpective audiences. Cincinnati, for instance, in
1960 promoted a survey by Proctor and Gamble; and Bal-
timore in 1963 contracted with a professional organiza-
tion for a marketing and Opinion research. The infor-
mation sought in Cincinnati was similar to that of the
Twentieth Century Fund survey, with additional emphasis
on programming preference. The Baltimore survey sought
answers to "Why Baltimore Symphony Subscribers Don't
Renew." The results of these projects would surely serve
a useful purpose; however, no survey of program note ap-
preciation was included, and none has come to our at-

tention.

 

1

One manager of a major symphony assured this
writer that the loges and balconies of his auditorium
were ignored, thus distorting the conclusions.

12

Writing in the Journal of General Psychology,

 

Geneva D. Williams of the University of Oklahoma re-
ported the results Of an experiment which pitted a con-
trol group of 286 subjects against an experimental
group of 274 subjects in a test of the effect of pro-
gram notes on the enjoyment of certain specific musical
selections. This test presented recorded music to col-
lege English students, one group receiving program notes,
the other only a listing of titles. The author concluded
that program notes aided significantly the group's en-
joyment of the music, but added that their influence
varied almost directly in prOportion to the amount of

l

musical training the subject had had. Another exper-

iment was reported by M. G. Rigg in the Journal of Ex-
2

 

perimental Psychology.
Outside of the sources mentioned, only short
commentaries on this subject have been found; for the
most part they are annotators' rationales as printed
in program books. Some data was found in reference

volumes-~Grove's Dictionary, Scholes' The Oxford

 

 

1Geneva D. Williams, "The Effect of Program
Notes on the Enjoyment of Musical Selections," Journal

of General Psychology, v. 29, 1943, p. 261-279.

2M. G. Rigg, "Favorable vs. Unfavorable Prop-

aganda in the Enjoyment of Music," Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology, v. 38, 1942, p. 78-81.

 

13

Companion to Music--and in various program note authors'

 

collected annotations, such as Tovey's Essays in Musi-

 

cal Analysis.l

 

Several musicologists have questioned the va-
lidity of program annotation as a research topic for a
doctoral dissertation in musicology, suggesting that it
might be suitable for a periodical article; but each of
these peOple has conceded its validity as an education-
al study. One annotator of a major orchestra shifted
from a position of skepticism to one of commendation of
it as a project worthy of foundation support. This is
indeed to be hOped for some day in order to draw a com-

plete picture of contemporary annotation.

Premise of the Study

 

Of course the fundamental premise of any such
study as this is the general acceptance of the educa-
tional function of the symphony orchestra. Frederick
Dorian, distinguished musicologist of Carnegie-Mellon
University, suggested a possible wording of the intro-
ductory paragraphs of the audience questionnaire used
in connection with this study: "The symphony orchestra,

whether supported by private and/or public funds, serves

 

lSir Donald Francis Tovey, Essays in Musical
Anal sis (6 vols; London: Oxford University Press,
1935 .

 

14

the community as an instrument of education and enjoy-
ment; hence the program notes should support this dual
purpose."1 According to nearly all of the annotators
questioned for this report, the educational function is
the chief raison d'étre of program notes. This must be
stated at the outset as the basic tenet of this disser-
tation, to be supported in Chapters II and III. The
purpose of the present study is to determine the effec-
tiveness of program annotations as an educational func-
tion. A residual value, hopefully, will be the im-
provement of future annotation (assuming that the main
stream of these determinations will be published and

circulated).

Hypothesis

 

The hypothesis that controls the approach and
method of procedure is that most program notes fail to
achieve their intended purpose. As previously stated,
this purpose is both assumed and demonstrated to be the
enhancement Of audience understanding and enjoyment of

the music heard in the symphony hall.

Limitations of the Study

Certain limitations were imposed of necessity.

First, it was physically impossible to acquire and read

 

lFrederick Dorian, letter, November 18, 1967.

15

programs from all 1,113 orchestras! Wisdom suggested
careful scrutiny of the programs of at least half a
dozen of the major symphonies and a reasonable number
of programs of orchestras in classes B, C and D.1 Sec-
ond, while older notes such as those of Philip Hale,
George H. L. Smith, Lawrence Gilman and Donald Tovey
could not be overlooked, emphasis on contemporary writ-
ing was a requirement for practicality and usefulness.
Third, a limitation was established in the selection of
notes for specific comparison. Two types of notes were
examined for this purpose: those for compositions in
the standard repetoire and those for new music. In the

former category were Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Brahms'

 

Second Symphony and Debussy's La Mer, selected for their

 

historical periods and consequent variety of style.
Orchestra managers were requested to submit programs

of first performances or of controversial recent

works, and because of the involvement of text, programs
of choral compositions. Fourth, because of the cost,
only twelve audience surveys were p1anned--three in each

budget class. (Final distribution of the questionnaires

 

1This usage is in accordance with the 1967
American Symphony Orchestra League classification:

A--Major--budgets over $500,000.

B--MetrOpolitan--budgets between $100,000 and
500,000.

C--Urban—-budgets between $50,000 and 100,000.

D--Community--budgets under $50,000.

16

involved actually only two major, four metropolitan,
three urban and three community symphony audiences.)
Fifth, although it was tempting, the matters of musical
criticism and programming were considered to be outside
the confines of the problem. The inclusion of criticism
in annotation will be discussed, but criticism is es-
sentially a by-product of the symphony concert occurring
after the event; hence it serves a different function.
Programming likewise is an allied subject which will be

mentioned in passing only as it affects annotation.

Definition of Terms

 

A definition of terms will be helpful, although
not as essential as in a more technical thesis. By

annotation we mean any descriptive, analytical or gen-

 

eral commentary on the composer and/or the work being
performed that appears in the printed program of the

symphony concert. The words program notes, annotations,

 

analytical notes, notes on the program, descriptive

 

 

notes, will be used interchangeably, even though the

dictionary definitions permit varieties of meaning.

Order of Procedure

 

The procedure for this dissertation began with
the intention of considering only the annotations of

seven major orchestras--Boston, New York, Philadelphia,

17

Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit and Chicago--selected
for their importance and their geographical accessibil-
ity. They formed the core of this study, which quickly
expanded beyond these bounds. The intention, and the
actuality, was to interview the authors of the program
notes published by these orchestras. The first step
was a test interview with Robert Holmes, author of the
Detroit Symphony notes since 1965/66. Armed with a set
of questions, this interviewer encouraged him to vocal-
ize his ideas and his rationale. In an hour and a half
interview he did this most courteously and efficiently,
adding many suggestions and new leads for pursuit. This
length of time, incidentally, proved to be the average
for succeeding interviews. The goodwill and warmth of
mutual feeling was one of the fine personal values that
accrued from this and the many other interviews and ex-
changes of correspondence during the course of this re-
search. With few exceptions, friendly interest and
cooperation were the norm.

The interview with Dr. Holmes led by reference
to Klaus George Roy in Cleveland. It became evident
that Mr. Roy is one of the most quoted annotators in
the profession, perhaps second only to Sir Donald
Francis Tovey. One writer who uses a pseudonym con-
fessed that too late he realized a more suitable pen

name than "Hans Lick" would have been "Rob Roy"! The

18

two hours spent with Mr. Roy were also very pleasant
and very revealing. Here is a natural teacher, an imag-
inative and meticulous scholar, who fortunately devotes
full time to his duties with the orchestra. In approach-
ing him there was better preparation-—not only a better
list of questions, but a sample questionnaire for au-
dience circulation. Thus each interview proceeded, each
time more productively. Mr. Roy and others followed
up their interviews with several most helpful letters
and copies of duplicated materials from their files.
Following the next visit to Pittsburgh and
Stephen Sell, Assistant Manager of the Pittsburgh Sym-
phony Society (their annotator was in Europe at the
time), three questionnaires were duplicated for mail
distribution: one for annotators, one for managers, and
one as a possible sample for an audience survey. Con—
sidering only geographical distribution, a selection of
orchestras from the American Symphony Orchestra League
list1 was made, with an equal number (ten) selected
from each class. A post card, followed by a personal
letter when necessary, was sent to managers asking for
their annotators' names and addresses. A personal let-

ter (Appendix I), a copy of the annotator's questionnaire

 

lSpecial Directory Issue of Hi h Fidelit —
.Musical America, December 15, 1966, p. 182-I97.

19

(Appendix I) and a copy of the audience questionnaire
(Appendix I) were sent to each annotator. (The audience
questionnaire was not yet in its final form as printed
in the Appendix; several revisions were required before
it was acceptable for distribution to audiences--
revisions suggested by the reactions of managers and
authors.) If the annotator approved the use of the
audience questionnaire, another COpy was sent to his
manager, along with a personal letter (Appendix I) and
a different questionnaire (Appendix I). Since it would
be asking for an appraisal of the author's work, it was
thought to be unethical to pursue the matter without
his express approval. If the audience questionnaire
was rejected by the author, his manager received only
a request for sample programs and answers to questions.
Altogether over seventy orchestras were involved, in-
cluding most of the major ones. Appendix II lists the
orchestras originally solicited, the forty-four coop-
erating annotators and the twenty-eight cooperating
managers.

The variety of responses was rather amazing.
Most were sympathetic to the project and evinced a de-
sire to be fully COOperative; some were cool, but polite;
some expressed inability to cooperate; a few were nega-

tive. However, even in the cases where full COOperation

20

was withheld, people were usually willing to send pro-
grams. Altogether, representative programs of over one
hundred orchestras were collected and studied.

Out of the seventy-odd orchestras solicited,
three from each category were sought to COOperate in
the audience survey. Most of the major symphonies
courteously refused, for a number of valid reasons; but
a total of twelve was eventually chosen--two from class
A, three from classes B and C, four from class D. A
third class A orchestra withdrew at the last moment,
which accounts for the shortage in this group. Appendix
II lists the orchestras involved in this survey. Many
of those who refused did so reluctantly, feeling that
a survey would be an imposition upon their audiences;
many of them asked for a report of the findings. Some
felt that they knew their audiences already by personal
contact and subscriber list (the Philadelphia audience,
e.g., is 97% subscription); some appeared to exhibit
fear of this survey; a few were not interested. This
range of responses is quite understandable and was ex-
pected. A side comment is irresistable: several or-
chestras claim to have "the most SOphisticated audience
in the country", and each Offered arguments to support
this claim. There is no doubt that those major orches-
‘tras that have been in existence for many years and

Imave had a record of purposeful education can claim a

21

more knowledgeable clientele than can a small orchestra
of fewer years with a shorter season in a more isolated
community. But one of the questions this inquiry sought
to answer was the relative sophistication of audiences
in cities as different as Seattle and Green Bay, Wis-
consin. Opinions on this vary extremely; evaluation

is needed.

The eleven cooperating orchestras distributed
questionnaires to one half of their audience at one
concert, with the exception of Phoenix where two dif-
ferent audiences were questioned. The method was to
insert a questionnaire in alternate program books in
order to have responses from all sections of the audi-
torium. A total of 12,808 questionnaires was circulated;
3,115 responses were received, representing 24 per cent.

In order to establish a set of criteria by which
to judge any annotation, and to seek an Opinion on cer-
tain specifics such as the acceptance of technical
terms, a panel of five "typical" concert-goers was

selected. This will be presented in Chapter IV.

Order of Presentation

 

In presenting this material, the procedure will
be to present in Part I the history of program annota-
tion, a picture of its present state (Chapter III),

Specific comparisons (Chapter IV) and the handling of

22

specific problems (Chapter V). Part II will report the
findings of the audience survey, their interpretation,
and final conclusions. Related subjects for future
research that have been suggested by this study will

be mentioned in the final chapter.

PART I. HISTORY AND PRESENT

STATE OF ANNOTATION
CHAPTER II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANNOTATION

The Function of Program Notes

The need for information

In this day of abundant concerts and thousands
of educated and musically enlightened listeners, per-
haps it is legitimate to ask, "Why have program notes
at all?" Like a cobra, this question raises its head
occasionally to demand the attention of those close by.
The Philadelphia Orchestra annotator, John Briggs, ac-
centuated the importance of concert guides when he
spoke of attending a Montreal organ concert by a world-
renowed organist during Expo 67; not only were there
no program notes--there were no programs! The result,
in his word: "Chaos."l So the first essential aid for
the listener is a program that lists titles and compos-

ers. What would logically follow as next desirable?

lJohn Briggs, Philadelphia, Interview, October
23, 1967.

23

24

Probably the composer's birth and death dates, to place
him in history; perhaps then a list of movements; next
a filling out of the details--i.e., a brief analysis of
the form and construction of the composition. Any fur-
ther expansion would call for more and more detail and
wider and wider excursions of thought about the compos-
er's life, his associations, his ideas, his struggles,
successes and failures, his other compositions, his
comments on music, on the specific composition, on life
itself. If called upon, an imaginative and informed
writer could expand this into volumes, and this has
been done. Interestingly, annotation has been and
currently i§_all of these types. A glance at its his-
tory will show its tenuous beginnings, the gradual ac-
ceptance of a type, and its expansion into the present-
day variety of styles.

No author has written a full history of annota-
tion; in fact, only a few have recorded any information
about it. Not only are there a limited number of early
examples to discuss and illustrate, but also a limited
number of sources of information. Furthermore, the
form and style became rather standardized; so how much
could one write on the subject without bogging down in

the quagmire of comparative writing styles Of various

authors?

25

The stress on education

 

Until the nineteenth century public concertizing
was comparatively limited. Music was largely the pri-
vate affair of wealthy patrons, many of whom were am-
ateur musicians well versed in the arts. For example,
Haydn's employer, Prince Esterhazy, a great lover of
music and performer on the barytone, supported a small
and competent ensemble for concert, church and Opera.
Even as late as Beethoven's day there were the Prince

Lichnowskys and Lobkowitzs. As Grove's Dictionary ex-

 

presses it,

While the private patronage of music by princes
and nobles remained the chief source Of livelihood
to the musician, the progress of public concert
institutions was impeded. The breakdown of the
system of patronage and the change of tone and tem-
per which the Napoleonic wars brought to the EurOpe
of the nineteenth century stimulated the increase
of concerts. The Viennese development of symphonic
music brought the modern symphonic orchestra in
every centre of EurOpe.l

Of course, there were such landmarks as the Collegia
Musica prOpagated in Germany, Switzerland and Sweden

around 1700, and the Tonkfinstler Societat of Vienna

 

(1771) and the famous Gewandhaus Concerts (from 1781).

 

But with rare exceptions, not until the orchestral and
chamber concert came into the public domain in the nine-

teenth century would one find program notes, or even

 

lEd. H. C. Colles, Grove's Dictionary of Music

and Musicians (3rd ed; New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1938), I, p. 691.

 

26

printed programs. When they did appear, they were Of-
fered for the enlightenment of what must have been a
musically ignorant audience.

In The American Symphony Orchestra, John H.
Mueller says that "conductors of the American symphony
orchestras have always conceived of themselves as ed-
ucators rather than entertainers. Any differences
among them lie in the intensity with which they have
felt dedicated to their mission, and the degree to which
they have compromised with the practical necessity of
offering some relaxation to their audiences."1 It is
highly probable that conductors have always deplored
playing for inferior audiences and would have made ef-
forts to enlighten them by one means or another when-
ever possible. Printed programs in themselves represent
quite a step in this direction. One can imagine the
original argument over their cost--an argument that has
not yet ceased! Today, as pianist Eunice Podis writes,
"almost everyone agrees that some kind of guidance is
helpful. . . . For some groups, the main purpose is to
inform and to educate; others want primarily to be en-
tertained, while still others require a subtle combina-

tion of the two."2 She was referring to the lecture

 

1John H. Mueller, The American Symphony Orchestra

(Bloomington: University Of Indiana Press,71951), p. 362.

 

2Eunice Podis, "Words and Music", Cleveland
Institute of Music Notes, V, 2 (June, 1967).

 

27

recital, but her words do service to program annotation,
too. These remarks refute Gustave Mahler's contention
that "no music is worth anything when the listener has
to be informed as to what is experienced in it--in other
words, what he is expected to experience."1 Mahler's
thoughts were reflected in William Schuman's refusal to
write notes for the New York Philharmonic's performance

of his Eighth Symphony, saying that "no propaganda,

 

however skillfully contrived, can in the final analysis
substitute for genuine criteria any more than prose
explanations can substitute for musical clarity."

Edward Downes, the New York annotator, could not resist
printing that letter and writing a bit of rebuttal
which is actually a splendid argument pro program notes:

Mr. Schuman makes it sound hard for a program
, note to communicate anything useful beyond Objec-

tive historical facts, the most pertinent of which
he has furnished himself. Perhaps he did not mean
it to sound so. And certainly it is not easy for
a program note to persuade a baffled (and often em-
battled) listener to enjoy a thorny new work.
Nevertheless, having had a tantalizing opportunity
to study the score of Mr. Schuman's new symphony,
this listener would like to pass along some impres-
sions to other listeners, who may have been baffled
before, but are still anxious to enjoy a major new
work by a leading American composer.

With an unfamiliar work, in no matter what art
medium, it is Often helpful to know what type of

 

1Quoted by Klaus George Roy, Cleveland Orches-
tra program, September 18, 1964, p. 31.

28

expression to look for--just as it can help to know
what not to look for, in order to avoid frustration
and irritation.

Music appreciation and taste

The words information, understanding, apprecia-

 

 

 

tépp_and E§§32_have been used repeatedly in connection
with annotation. They are so closely interrelated that
they cannot be considered separately in any discussion
of music education. The British scholar, Edward J.
Dent, Offers the opinion that "there are many people

who fear that if they acquired a knowledge of structural
principles of music they would lose all their pleasure
in it"; but he hastens to assure us that "the fear is
groundless. The character and the quality of the
pleasure may change, and undoubtedly does change as a
result of ripening and decaying age; but no one . . .
would admit after personal experience that the essential
joy of music was destroyed by knowledge."2 Let us hope
this fear has been dispelled forever; if any remnant of
it is extant, it is very quiet. The mutual experience
of all those thousands who have undergone the process

of education lends assurance to those responsible for

 

1New York Philharmonic program, October 4,

1962, p. 38.

2Edward J. Dent, Terpander or Music and the
Future (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1927), p. 7.

29

music appreciation that their educative efforts will
lead others to the kind of satisfaction and deeper un-
derstanding they themselves enjoy. Only once has this
writer heard this negative comment: "Learning about
music has spoiled it for me; what I used to enjoy I no
longer can because I now know that it is not good."1
One feels quite sure, however, that this person found
a satisfying substitute for his Old loves in the form
Of something better.

All the effort involved in the entire educa-
tional process has the same basic goal as music educa-
tion: through increased knowledge to widen horizons,
to expand experiences, to deepen meanings, and to ef-
fect a fuller realization of life itself. Ignorance
may be bliss, but it is also myopic; and it negates all
that the liberal arts have championed since that term
originated in the Middle Ages, and that the Greek phil-
OSOphers taught in the Golden Age of Greece twenty-five
centuries ago. We cannot today do otherwise than to
educate our citizenry, and this includes the fine arts,

as the term liberal arts always has.

 

Music appreciation as a subject taught, and so
listed in many a college catalog, is not so much a sub-

ject as a process that is continuous, a process of

1Interview with a friend, 1940.

3O

constantly increasing understanding of all the facts of
music, a process that leads to the Elysium of greater
enjoyment and sensual and inner understanding for those

whose minds are receptive. The Harvard Dictionapy de-

 

scribes Music Appreciation thus:

This term has come to be accepted as a name for
the type of musical training designed to develop in
the seriously interested amateur an ability to lis-
ten intelligently to the music which he is likely
to encounter in concert performances and in broad-
cast reproductions and thus to enhance the pleasure
and satisfaction he may derive from listening to
music. . . . As a principle, the idea of providing
a special type of training for the average music
lover is sound and more deserving of constructive
cooperation than the adverse criticism on the part
of professional musicians.1

Taking cognizance of the dual function of this

"special training"--(1) to develop an ability to listen
intelligently and (2) to enhance the pleasure and sat-
isfaction derived from listening to music--we record

here that the concensus of Opinion of all those solic-
ited for this paper represents such accord. Dr. Dorian's
statement2 is fully affirmed. As to how these ends are
accomplished, Chapter III will shed light; but the force
that gave rise to early annotation was undoubtedly the

same desire to inform and thereby to enhance enjoyment

that we see in the concert hall today.

 

1Willi Apel, Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), p. 44.

 

2See p. 13.

31

About taste in art many books have been written.
While there is much disagreement about taste, there are
some facts that we know. For instance, we know that it

is a very personal affair--de gustibus non disputandi;

 

we know what we like, even if we are uncertain why.
One person adulates Tschaikowsky, another rejects him;
one finds Bach tedious, another glorious; and so on ad
infinitem. Sometimes these differences are bound up
in individual personality differences; often they are
the result of differences in knowledge about Tschai-
kowsky and Bach, of differences in experiences with
them. We know this because we see changes in taste
occur with maturation, as a result of new experiences
and changing outlooks. A child of five might enjoy
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star; a boy of fourteen might
spurn it. The fourteen-year-old might appreciate
Sousa's Stars and Stripes Forever, but merely tolerate
it at age fifty. We also know that taste changes with
knowledge. For example, nearly every musician has un-
dergone stages of appreciation of Bach, from trial to
acceptance to eyeopening understanding to complete
admiration and perhaps to spiritual involvement. Many
times one hears the statement that "every time I hear
Bach I hear something new that deepens my respect for
him." Are these changes in taste, appreciation or un-
derstanding? Probably all three. It is toward these

changes that the program note author is leading.

32

The History of Annotation

 

The earliest examples

 

According to several sources the first known
example of a program aid was the printing of vocal
texts by Johann Friedrich Reichardt for the audiences

of his Concerts Spirituels (after the Paris model) in

 

1783. His biographer wrote:

The Concerts Spirituels provoked lively in-
terest and even after the first concert had taken
place the German people clamored for Reichardt to
repeat the undertaking each year. In order to make
known to the public in advance the essence and con-
tent of the pieces to be produced, he placed in
their hands not only text books in which the orig-
inal texts were printed with parallel German trans-
lations, but he also gathered information on those
composers who were hitherto unknown to the Berliners,
and gathered the praiseworthy explanations of each
piece in his well-known distinguished manner, thus
ensuring a quick understanding that very much eased
for them the attainment of his purpose.

 

Both Eitner's guellen-Lexikon and the Thomson

Cyclopedia offer one sentence of corroboration.2&3 The

 

 

famous critic, Edouard Hanslick, reported that

printed programs came into use quite late.
J. F. Reichardt accompanied his Concerts Spirituels

 

 

1H. M. Schletterer, Johann Friedrich Reichardt

(Augsburg: J. A. Schlosser's Buch-& Kfinsthandlung, 1865,
p. 357. (This passage translated from the German.)

 

2Robert Eitner, Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und
Musikgelehrten (Graz: Akademische Druck, 1959-60).

3Oscar Thomson, International Cyclgpedia Of
Music and Musicians, ed. Robert Sabin (9th ed.; New
York: Dodd, Mead, 1964).

 

 

33

in Berlin (1784) . . . with "short exposés" on the
aesthetic worth of the pieces. Cramer (Magazine of
Music, 1789, p. 229) made the Observation on this
po1nt that "He was the first with the foresight
which should not be neglected in any concert (the
printing of the text), encountered, moreover, only
with Hiller in Leipzig", and he bewailed: "They
play, they sing, they fiddle; but no one understands
from what poem it came; one does not know whether
that which he hears is set from Peter or Paul!"

This example came about quite late, however, and
only gradually. In Vienna the great academic char-
acter made its beginning. The Society of the Friends

 

 

of Music, in the announcement of its Evefiing hap-

penings" (which were, to be sure, somewhat family-

1ike in character) in the year 1818 ran the printed
notice: "The program will be hung in the hall for

everyone' 3 enlightenment. "1

On August 31, 1781, an "Advertisement of the
art enrichment of the Leipzig concerts" made the fol-
lowing announcement:

#10. The printed concert-bills for the whole year
will be available for one thaler, eight groschen,
and will be brought to the house the day before the
concert. The ladies and strangers will be supplied
with them in the concert hall. #11. The printed
text books of new, previously unperformed operas
and oratorios will likewise be supplied to each
subscriber of the concerts at home before the per-
formance, for which he need not pay again.

Sir George Grove, referring to the Gewandhaus

 

concert of January 29, 1807, said:

On that occasion an unusual innovation was adopted.
Special attention was called to the new symphony
[Beethoven Third] in the posters; and in a bill or

 

. lEdouard Hanslick, Geschichte des Concertwesen
in Wien (Vienna: Wilhelm Graunmfiller, 1869), p. 95.

 

2Edward Creuzberg, Die Gewandhaus-Konzerte zu
Leipzig, 1781-1931 (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartél, 1931),
P 22.

 

34

programme distributed in the room, a short descrip-
tion of the work was given, probably for the first
time in the history of such performances. This is
quoted in an excellent history of these renowned
concerts, compiled by Herr Alfred DOrffel to cele-
brate the one hundredth anniversity of their foun-
dation on November 25, 1881, and is as follows:
"Grand heroic symphony composed by Beethoven,
and performed for the first time in Leipzig. (l)
A fiery and splendid Alle ro; (2) a sublime and
solemn Funeral march; (35 an impetuous Scherzando;
(4) a grand Finale in the strict style. 1

 

In his history of the Philharmonic Society of
London, published in 1862, Hogarth furnished his con-
tribution: "In 1819 the programmes began to be more
fully drawn up, and to contain the words of the vocal
pieces."2

Frederick Dorian affirms that the Germans and
Austrians "always used musical scholars for their anno-
tations",3 mentioning Hermann Kretschmar, Max Graf and
Reichardt. Kretschmar (1848-1924) was a critic, writer
and conductor in Leipzig. In his three volume Guides
through the Concert Hall he states that "the following
'Guides through the Concert Hall' arise from single

essays which I wrote over the years for the concerts

 

1Sir George Grove, Beethoven and His Nine Sym-
honies (3rd ed.; New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,

1962 , p. 91. Reprinted through permission of the
publisher.

2George Hogarth, The Philharmonic Society of
London (London: Bradbury and Evans, and Addison, Hol-
lier and Lucas, 1862), p. 22.

3Letter, November 18, 1967.

35

conducted by me, in order to prepare the listeners in
advance for the introductions of unfamiliar or hard—
to-understand compositions."l

Grove and his compatriot, Percy Scholes, are

inclined to the conviction that regular annotation, or
analysis of pieces, began in England. The evidence
supports this claim.
At the very first concert of the Royal Phil-
harmonic Society, on March 8, 1813, a Beethoven
Symphony was performed. But the pilgrim fathers
of the Society were not accustomed to be exact in
presenting their printed programmes. This pro-
gramme affords no clue, and no record has been
discovered, by which we may identify the work.2
This author, Levien, adds that "in 1819 the program
began to be more fully drawn up, and to contain the
words of vocal pieces."3 Percy Scholes says, "The
introduction of the annotated program is, I think,
usually credited to Professor Ella, who used this de-
vice in connection with his Musical Union Concerts in
1845." He continues, however, to admit that

the erudite critic of the "Yorkshire Post", Mr.

Herbert Thompson, traces the idea back so far as

one Knecht (turn him up in Grove), who ran orches-
tral concerts at Biberach, in Swabia, long ago,

 

1Hermann Kretschmar, Ffihrer durch den Concert-
saal (3v.; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1898), fore-
word dated 26 September, 1886.

 

2John Mewburn Levien, Beethoven and‘the Royal
Philharmonic Society (London: Novello and Co., Ltd.,
1927), p. 14.

3Ibid., p. 22.

36

in 1790. SO probably Knecht actually was the in-
ventor. Then, too, slightly before Ella, John
Thomson, Professor of Music at Edinburgh University,
seems to have done something similar in connection
with the Reid concerts there.1

Grove does give the credit to John Thomson,
the first Reid Professor of Music in the University
of Edinburgh, who from the season of 1838/39 on-
wards, added analytical and historical notices of?
the pieces in the programmes of the concerts of the
Professional Society of Edinburgh. His analyses
entered thoroughly into the construction of the
overtures and symphonies performed, but did not
contain quotations from the music. The next step
appears to have been made by John Ella when he
started the matinées of the Musical Union in 1945.
His "syntOpical analysis", with quotations in music
type, set the pattern which has endured to the
present time.2
Scholes makes additional and more complete re-
marks in his Oxford Companion to Music, citing as pos-
sible the very earliest example a "Concert of Catches
and Glees, given by Arne at Drury Lane Theatre in 1768.
It has a preface explaining the nature Of the catch and
glee, and the various items are provided with historical
and critical notes." He also makes mention of "the
same general intention as that of an annotated program
in the advance articles that Weber during his Opera

conductorship at Prague (1813) and Dresden (1817) used

 

1Percy Scholes, Crotchets (London: John Lane
the Bodley Head, Ltd., 1924), p. 14.

2Ed. H. Fuller Maitland, Grove's Dictionary

(2nd ed.; London: The Macmillan Co., 1911),TIII,
p. 921.

 

 

37

to contribute to the local papers."1 Scholes says,

too, that Wagner (1846) inserted a valuable treatise

on Beethoven's Ninth Symphopy, and he even recalls an

 

early American example in Philadelphia on 12 April 1787,
when in double column layout the Handel "Hallelujah
Chorus" (q.v.) text and constructural explanations are

parallel.2

John Ella

 

Writing of John Ella in an article for Music

and Letters, John Ravell reported that

 

Clayton Freeling, the friend of long standing
and a member of the committee, advised Ella to
print analytical programme-notes, and the result
was comprehensive "synoptical analyses" with co-
pious music-type illustrations. Ella dispatched
these "Musical Union Records", as they were called,
free of charge to all subscribers a day or two be-
fore the performance. The "records" also included
biographical notes on the artists and paragraphs
on current musical events. In 1821 two programs
conducted by Sir George Smart had included short
notes descriptive of Beethoven's Sixth Symphony
and the finale to Act I of "Don Giovanni," and in
his comprehensive annotated program for the first
Reid concert (1841) Prof. Thomson printed a diagram
to illustrate a fugue. But Ella's "records" are
more elaborate than any programmes previously
issued.

Chorley's articles were not unnoticed by Ella,
who in April 1845 alluded loftily to them, saying
that "nothing will ever tempt us to convert this
Record into a channel for controversy or personal-
ities." A few weeks later, however, Chorley made

 

1Scholes, Oxford Companion, p. 39.

21bid., 4o.

 

38

a blunder and published some inept verses, and Ella
fell to temptation, gleefully ridiculing the critic's
"lyrical gems" and the flight of fancy which "had
planted an organ in the Sistine Chapel."1
From all these sources one can see that program
notes were not customary until c. 1840. A facsimile of

an early "syntOpical analysis" from The Musical Union

 

record of March 11, 1845, is reproduced on the succeed-
ing pages. Note the quotation from Baillot (in French):
"It is not enough that the artist be prepared for the
public; it is also necessary that the public be prepared
for what it is going to hear him do."

Ella's matinées were subscription concerts of
chamber music. A reading of his program notes reveals
that they were limited to analysis; but page two Offers
an essay on musical taste, and page three an essay on
Mendelssohn, plus a concession to the non—musician lis-
tener in the form of an explanation of terms, coupled
with Ella's complaint that "musical critics frequently
use terms of their own coining, calculated to confuse,
rather than instruct the amateur." This sounds like

the twentieth century rather than the nineteenth!

The late nineteenth century

By the late nineteenth century most orchestral

programs demonstrated the custom of supplying program

 

lJohn Ravell, "John Ella 1802-1888," in Music

and Letters, v. xxxiv (April, 1953), p. 102.

39

.:' YORK

'PUI'.‘ ‘ UlrtRARV

TILDEN k‘ouuoxrlons "-
:- '- :5‘...'7.”.5le_. .1». L i

W“. ..

 

gs.-

(J

‘4‘}

{dagim
Tun uartet is, by contra untists, considered the
test 0 good part writin . ousseau says, that rem-
pla'nage is not admit in this species of compo-
sition, and that no real quartet can be without
- merit. Quartets have become more rigidly contra-

tal, and less obligate, and what was considered
In Rousseau‘s days the “no plus ultra.” of a fine
Chamber composition would scarcely be listened to
by the connoisseurs of the present time. The
design, however, remains the same with the earliest
symphonies for a full band ; the Allegro, Adagio,
Minuet and Trio, and Finale, being the usual divi-
sions of compositions of this class. Beethoven and
Mendelssohn have introduced a scherzo, with much
efect, in some of their works; and other writers,
thou' h content to imitate the models ot' Ha dn
and Iozart, have extended the rhythm of t eir
Minuets and Tries ; Onslow in particular, has pro-
duced much variety of melodies and character in
' both Minuets and Trice-which are extremely ofi‘ect-
ive. Beethoven, perhaps, stands alone, in never
lacking interest in his Finales, which others often

  
      
 

F major, 6-8. Minuet and Trio.

sea at"?

Edit-mitten itui Flint. .-..
MARCH 11, 1845.

I
if. 3 pa; c u ‘artist suit bicn report your 1c bile ll taut use! us is utlic lc soit 8 co u‘on In
'ASTB ' if“ ’~ 1'3! .2 f luipthin rowan-guitar. 1 P q

 

Quartet, Op. 13. Haydn.

’\

._.

 
   

mcz. coco
Finale Vivace, 2-4.

render tedious, or trifling. It is said of an eminent
writer, whose later works are remarkable for their
contrast, in style and matter, to the trivial produc-
tions of his youthful genius, “that his faculty of
expression ripened in exact ratio to the cultivation
of his intellect." Of Haydn, the remark applies
with sin force, for no author ever published
works 0 greater contrast; the earlier uni-tot.
(omitted in some editions), scarcely merit t .e corn-
panionship of the latter numbers. The one chosen
or this occasion is a well known and tim-uz'ite
quartet; the charming subject of the first Allegro,
occupying four bars, forms the basis of ail the
counterpoint throughout, and is only relieved by
florid passages for the first violin. The Adagio
is a fine specimen of simple and flowing melody,
rich and glowing harmonies, the style and treat-
ment of which may rgustly be said to have boss.

invented by Haydn. he Minuet is a fine subieet,
with admirable counterpoint; the Trio, a Violin

$010; the Rondo, one of his most successful in...
movements, is replete with variety of facts.

Quartet, No. 3. Op. 59. Beethoven. Introduzione. Andante con mote, 3-4, leading into

Allegro Vivace,
C Major. P

    

Andante con mote quasi Allegretto. A Minor, 6-8. Finale. F agate. Viola leads.

The quartets dedicated to Prin Rasumosky,
Of which this is the last of the set, rave not un—
frequently been stigmatized as “ crude inventions
of a disordered brain ;” happily, the executive art
has made progress, and musicians of cultivated
understanding are found to play these elaborate
works with unaffected enjoyment of their "crudities
and melodic disorders.” The graceful opening of
the allo , the trite e isodcs of a martial character,
and a t 'rd florid su iject starting in the second
violin, in quick succession, form the basis on which
the entire movement is carried out, with imitations,
original effects in harmony, and endless forms of
contrapuntal ingenuity.

The andante is naive, expressive, melancholy,
and gay; simple and melodious in its meandering
triplets and within the comprehension ot'every ama-
teur. From the fire? pizzicato of the violencello,
to the last note of the movement, the mind of the
composer,—-the directing rower in art—asserts its
presence; and it requires a delicacy of light and
shade in He execution, rarely obtained, to do
justice to so lovely an inspiration. ,

B‘R‘JX ‘3\ (‘9 (a "S t 1
\V“. \.\ S: l 2:. Pr.

The subjects of the miuuet and trio anesim licit,
itself: the figurative accompaniment of the tier,
for the second violin and viola, i3 efi'ectivc in the
time‘mlj.’d.

The fugue of the last allegro has immortal-
ized this uartet. Haydn’s fugues, in‘his quar—
tets, are y and monotonous; Mozart has intro-
duced one,' melodious and charmingly workcll .
but this, by Beethoven, towers far above any that
is known in chamber compositions. There a: . ism
subjects which divide the attention: the first (it-r:
of by the viola) occulpying ten bars; the other,
eight bars. The letter as a singularly fine efl‘a; t——
pt'a. c123. fz.-—playe:l, in succession, by each of the
performers on one string. The fugue, in it. rap-:-
tition by the viola, is accompanied ‘uv plain
counts int, and is soon richly clashed in ~olz-ri
harmoxues, the whole terminating with the second
subject, worked up most wonderfully in brilliant.
and grand combinations, each instrument taxed
to its utmost in‘ power and ‘ efl’ect,—e spit-ad:
triumph of genius and science!

Trio Concertante, Op. 88. Piano,

40

Violin and Violoncello. Hummel.

 

/’

Allegro

fl

 

Andante, G, 24.

Few amateurs are unacquninted with the tries of
Hummel; the one, however, chosen for this day,
can only receive justice from a professor. Written
for the celebrated John Cramer, the composer
naturally has indul ed much fancy, in order to
exhibit the motion skill of his cotemporary in
dificult and rilliaut passages. These are relieved
by some of the great master's usually happy and
c t phrases of melody: the uninterrupted
flees, and rich combinations at the close of the

Rondo, E, 2-4.

first allegro, attesting the work of a scholar and a
man of "enius. The andaute, a stately subject, is
rather llandelian, and forms an admirable inter-
mezzo between two brilliant movements,—the latter
a sprightly, dashing, and fanciful rondo, abounding
with difiiculties. The violencello has expressive
melodies in the first allegro, well ada ited to show
off the instrument and player ; ot erwisc, the
stringed instruments have more of accompaniment
than legitimate part~writing to execute.

After the Trio, 9. Solo on the Pianoforte by EDWARD ROECKEL.

This pianistkthe nephew of Hummel, succeeded
the famous Haenselt as a pupil of his uncle, with
whom he remained three years studying the piano
and composition, and is now a resident in London.
The name of Roeckel is associated with events, in
the annals of musical history, of no ordinary in-
terest. The father of the above pianist was the

first tenor, on the successful revival of “ Fidelio,”
for whom Beethoven expressly composed new
music. Roeekel, senior, was also the instructor of
the famous Sontag, and first introduced the Ger-
man opera performances in Paris and London.
The latter circumstance led to the general ado tion
of conducting orchestras with the baton in En d.

 

Artists engaged at the four first Meetings to play Quartets-—

M. SAINTON, First Violin.
HERB GOFFRIE, Second Violin.

MR. HILL, Viola.
M. ROUSSELOT, Violoncello.

Director......J. ELLA, Professor.

Hen. Mom. Phil.

Aced. of Rome.

 

Tun analysis of the practical amateurs, members
of the Musical Union, s ows, that sixty are iauists,
five authors of published works, four dou le bass

layers, twenty-nine violinists, fifteen violoncel-
lists; the remainder known patrons of the various
musical institutions of the metropolis.

Tun “ Britannia,” a weekl paper devoted to
the fine arts, has referred to t is institution in a
spirit worthy of the cause it advocates.

" We will ask what has the Philharmonic paid to soloists ?
n it not well known that artists are too glad to play there for
the glory of the art and not for the small stipend that has
been gin-n to the genius of a Malibran ors Thalherg? The
Philharmonic began with the gratuitous aid of the great
names of the present age. Mrs. Anderson, and many other
eminent artists, for the honour of the art, repeatedly gave
their services gratuitously. The Melodists, whose professed
object is to give prise ballads, invite to their dinners the

great instrumentalists of the season. Individual speculations-
do nothing for art; and it is to organized societies, established
on sound principles. supported by men of rank and station
in society, and directed fairly, without favouritism or prejm.
dice, that the virtuusi or professors must look for the improve-
m . - The occasion is most propitious: the instru-
me . our fine ban-ls are literally unemployed, whilst
monster concerts of thirty and forty vocal pieces, shorn of
orchestral accompaniment, unrelicvcd by concerted and clas~
sica! music, fill the pockets of shopkeepers or Jew speculators,
degrading the artist to the sordid feeling of commercial spe-
culation. and perpetuating the laugh and sneer of all conti-
nental and conscientious musicians. Her Majesty's Theatre.
the Ancient and Philharmonic Concerts, are supported by
an organised and united body of aristocratic amateurs and
accomplished artists, and only in these establishments does
art shine in her best attire. Something remained to be
done for the most prolific species of music—chamber cun-
positions, and the Musical Union is champion of the good
cause.

  

 
 

41

MENQELSSQHN.

LI critique est sis-rte, et l‘att est (Main—Borneo.

Mexmnssonafl—The Opinions of musica‘ critics
of modern Athens are not very encouraging to the
candidates for the vacant professorship: If the
following notice of a recent public pcrfonnance
in Edinburgh be taken as a type of generai feel-
ing on art, then, whoever may be the successful
candidate, with his three hundreds per annum,
will probably cxclaim, like Xerxes, “ this victory
costs too dear !”

“ Mendelssohn’s overture, ‘ A Midsummer
Night’s Dream,’ is clever and artistic, but dry,
an wanting breadth of style. The rapid passage
led 05 b the violins, reminds us of the commence-
ment 0 one of J. S. Bach's compositions. Men-
delssohn is a well-trained artist, and a man of
talent, but not a creative genius. In his works,
as in those of most of the new German school, we
have plenty of orchestral c‘fects, and far-sought
harmonies and modulations, with hardly a gleam
of melody—nothing that sinks into the heart’s
memory, and haunts our making dreams and even
our sleeping dreams, with echoes of its mysterious
beauty. In the course of the overture, we have
occasional notes probably intended to represent
the vocal efl'orts of the transformed Bottom when
Titania is caressing his ‘ air large ears.’ Titania
says to him, ‘What, wilt thou hear some music,
my sweet love l’ Bottom replies, ‘I have a rea-
sonable good car in music ; let us have the tongs
and the bones.‘ Possibly upon this hint Men-
delssohn constructed some of the more dry and
nois passages of his overture.”

T 0 following account of the same Overture,
performed under the direction of the Composer at
the Birmingham Festival 1837, is far more to our
taste, and Opposed entirely to the cynical thrusts
of the northern materialist:

“ The Overture which 0 nod the second act
fiist stamped the fame of It endelssohn as an ima-
ginative musician of the most elevated school of

escriptive writing. There is no medium betwixt
the really beautiful and sheer mediocrity in com-
positions of this class. The pedantic skill of a
theorist may often veil the want of melod in a
more limited style of music ; but nothing 3 ort of
ins takes a sure flight in regions of fancy and
'nation necessary to describe, poetically and
musically, a subject like the one in question.
Literary men are often so literalqin their ideas, as

Quanrms.—T.art music is not every
body’s privilege, : - . ' - ould be unreasonable to

expect that those who love to listen, should always
be capable of netrating the arcana of a science
which, not on y requires a whole life to unfold,
but a peculiarly favourable organization to com-
prehend! '
i clody, harmony, simple and double counter-
point, the constituent parts of a classical com-
position, are thus defined in a recent work on theory.
Melody is a successron of single notes ; harmony
a combination of notes, without melodic form;
aim le counterpoint, melodic form in accom-
pannnent, adapted for one part on! ; double
counterpoint, melodic form, constructed so as to
admit of inversion without alteration. The best
features in all the compositions of the great masters,

 

to suppose that when nothing is ex messed in black
and White no purpose is attained, and by such
filse reasoning underratc the powers of the musical
art unas-uciatcd with words ! But here is a whole
poem in the ‘ vague !’ Ah, the incomprehensible!
But give us such mystified stuff, and let us once
directed to the intent of the composer, reve with
him in his fairy clement ! What exquisite fancy
pervades the scoring of the violins. flickering on
the cheater-elk in the oddest possible intervals, the
grey sprites of the orchestra seemingly hovering
in the air! What bold and vigorous conceptions
in the full instrumentation ! How finely contmsted
are its whimsical fancies with the expressive me-
lody in contrary motion with the bass, descending
chromatically with the violins! Then, again, in
the coda is likewise a new charm, where the loud

hrase which had occurred in the nm‘ is resumed
in augmentation by the violins pianissimo, the
whole terminating with the four treble chords of
flutes and wind instruments, taking farewell of
‘ the clamorous owl, the elves, the quaint spirits
below!’ How lovely expressed is Titania’s request
to her fairies-—

' Sing me now asleep;
Then to your oifices, and let me usL‘

Go on Felix! thou art most felicitom in this dc-
scriptive music. Let us have another offspring
generated by our immortal bard’s dramas. We

eg our conductors and leaders to recollect that
they are constantly in the habit of taking the
time much too slow, destroying much of the effect
of the Overture."

The crucllest remark of a critic, was the accu-
sation of plagiarism from Weber's Mermaids Song
in “ Oberon!" By converting the (izh, 7th, bib,
and 9th bars of the 6-8 song into common time,
the melody becomes identically the same as the
cantabile at the close of the overture.

The exquisite treatment of this fragment of
Weber’s melody in its adapted form, never fails to
produce sensation; and, to our taste. is the most
charming phrase in the whole composition. It has
been the privilege of all musicians to copy their
predecessors in design, and the accident of the
greatest composers to have adopted melodic crea-
tions similar to each other. Fuieii’s favorite
aphorism at once defines theboundary (z' imitation, in
assertingthat "Genius may adopt, but never steals."

-.

are usually double counterpoint; the popular
melodies of the more ephemeral class of music,
have little else than the mechanical distribution of
harmony. Der Freischutz comprises all the ele-
men ts of aclassical composition, whilst Sonnambula,
replete with captivating melody and dramatic
feeling, has not a vestigo of countcpoint in its
scoring 2” To professors this trans'ation is not
addressed, but- to others it may not he unacceptable,
since musical critics frequentlflm terms of their
own coiriin’g, calculated to contW

 

'msfifiér't‘fie amateur! In a subsequent number,

the illustrations from the above uorlv will be
printed. A finer specimen of doubleoo'
perhaps, could not be chosen, the~
evelopment of the fugue, in "
Beethoven, dedicated to R9

42

notes--in the United States as a free service, in Eng-
land at a small fee. A European example from this
period would be the programs of the Koenigliche musi-
kalische Kapelle in Dresden in the later nineties. On
January 29, 1897, this orchestra presented an all-

Schubert program consisting of the Rosamunde Overture,

 

the Unfinished Symphony, and after "ten minutes pause",

 

the Grand Symphony in C major. The program of twenty
pages (plus cover) included five pages of advertise-
ments, four and one-half devoted to an essay on Schubert,

and fourteen and one-half pages of illustrated program

 

notes. This would be comparable to some we find today,
differing only in style. A translation of the opening
paragraph of this orchestra's annotation of Brahms'

Second Symphony reads like many a modern program:

 

The second symphony of Brahms (published at
the end of 1877) is, in its style, where a pastoral
motive and Anacreontic ideas combine as neighbors
to spiritual overtones, one of the romantic compo-
sitions of the author. In musical construction it
predates the first symphony. Its plan is conserva-
tive and allows the theme to be heard repeatedly,
aided through additions and interpolations. In its
content the symphony approaches, in distinguished
modern form, the spirit of the old Vienna school.
Its keynote is serenity, and even in the sad por-
tions of its Adagio a soulful warmth and joyful
mien reign.

 

1Program of the Koenigl, musikalische Kapelle,
Dresden, March 10, 1899.

43

Then follows an analysis of its four movements, taken

directly from Kretschmar's Guides through the Concert

 

Hall (with credit).

Another example would be the programs of the
Boston Symphony Orchestra (founded 1881), whose first
acknowledged writer of "Historical and Analytical
Notes" was G. H. Wilson in the season of 1888/89.

Somewhat as Haydn worked for his Oxford degree,
Brahms's eightieth opus celebrates his being crowned
Doctor of Philosophy at Bremen in January, 1881.
This and its companion, "The Tragic," also produced
at Bremen, were written in the summer of 1880, they
in turn being preceded by the Rhapsodies for Piano-
forte, Op. 79. The "Academic Festival" overture,
we learn from the new work on Brahms by Dr. Dieters,
recently translated and published in London, was,
as the title suggests, written expressly for the
occasion of the ceremonies at Bremen. Based upon
several popular student-songs, and winding up with
the familiar "Gaudeamus," it was received with
hearty enthusiasm in the Fatherland, where these
tunes are known by all. On the occasion of the
first presentation of the work in London, April 30,
1881, Mr. August Mann prepared an analysis, from
which the following is compiled:--1

After this analysis, the final paragraph re-
cords the date of the first Boston performance by the
Theodore Thomas Orchestra (October 14, 1881) and the
dates of the Boston Symphony performances (1881 under
Henschel, 1888 under Gericke). It behooves us to note

the several attributes of this annotation: (1) two

 

1G. H. Wilson, Boston Symphony program, March 9,
1888, p. 581. COpyright © by Boston Symphony Orches-
tra Inc.

44

errors, placing the first performances of Brahms' over-

tures in Bremen rather than Breslau (Academic Festival)

 

and Vienna (Tragic); (2) a detailed description of the
overture's construction, borrowed (in modern vogue)
from August Mann; (3) an annotation length of twenty-
two pages (3,000 words); also (4) an "Entr'Acte", a
useful catch-all device still found in the Boston

programs.

The early twentieth century

 

In the twentieth century, when most of our
United State orchestras were founded, annotation was
considered an essential adjunct to the program from
the first, and has usually been included except when
prevented by cost. "The Chicago Orchestra, founded by
Theo. Thomas,"1 is typical. Beginning modestly in 1891
as the Chicago Orchestra with Theo. Thomas conducting,
the very first program (October 16) was a modest four-
page folder; yet one and one-half of these pages were
devoted to program notes in very fine print. By the
fourth season the program had lengthened to twenty-four
pages, with 6,900 words of "descriptive remarks"——the
longest set of program notes encountered in this study--

and a one and one-half page essay ("Entr'Acte") on

 

1This is the official title.

45

Beethoven. The Chicago notes were not by-lined until
the fifth season, when the words "Program Analysis by
Mr. W. S. B. Mathews" appeared. Interestingly, this
basic wording was used until very recent years; also
the same basic style of annotation with music examples
and analysis. Other orchestras, with less affluent in-
cipiencies, had to wait longer for their annotated
programs, as in the case of the Lansing Symphony. Its
first printed program appeared in 1932, two years after
its founding. There seemed to be no question about the
desirability of annotations, as the 1932 program of
four pages contained 500 words. However, no acknowl-
edgment of the author was made in these programs until
the season of 1965/66.

It was stated that the traditional function of
program notes has been to inform, to educate; and early
examples stressed the use of analysis with illustrations
in music type. Not until the twentieth century was
there much effort to be clever or entertaining, or to
go much beyond the traditional type. The one writer
whom all others admire was Sir Donald Tovey (1875-
1940). Tovey had the rare faculty of being able to
write warmly and interestingly while restricting him-
self to the music, even to analysis. This was in con-
tradiction to his own remarks on_the subject, for he

said that "Schubert's tonality is as wonderful as star

46

clusters, and a verbal description of it as dull as a
volume of astronomical tables. But I have often been
grateful to a dull description that faithfully guides
me to the places where great artistic experiences await
"1
me.
Sir George Grove of dictionary fame was another

who should be granted equality with Tovey in the anno—

tation endeavor. His Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies2

 

(now available in paperback) is a monumental commemora-
tion of his accomplishments. Of Sir George, Irving
Kolodin wrote:

It was, of course, he who was responsible for
the "brief remarks" attached to the concerts of
the Crystal Palace Saturday Concerts, which later
"became more systematic and more analytical," or
as Colles states: "Sir George Grove's deprecatory
references to the notes which he himself wrote for
the Saturday concerts at the Crystal Palace had
been retained here because it is characteristic of
his modesty. They, however, more than any others,
established the practise in the English concert-
room. They were unique in combining technical in-
formation with lucid and readable style calculated
to make the subject attractive to the ordinary
amateur."

But not the least of his achievements was to
establish the precedent, create a model, invent a
device through which some fairly formidable minds--
if not necessarily the mirror image of his own--
have carried on a similar dialogue with the public.

 

lSir Donald Tovey, quoted by Klaus George Roy,
Cleveland Orchestra Program, September 18, 1964, p. 34.

2Quoted on p. 33.

47

Philip Hale in Boston, Lawrence Gilman in New York
and Philadelphia, Felix Borowski in Chicago--these
are only a few of those who have enriched the lives
of countless concert goers by means of the tool
created by "G."1

Edward Cushing expressed his opinion of the
analytical program note in this way:

Sometimes the analytical note (a distinct type)
assists us to a quicker comprehension of the com-
poser's technique of communication. Illustrated
with examples in musical notation, it identifies
"ideas," describes the development to which these
are subjected, the forms into which they evolve.
But such notes are for those in the know--for the
professional musician, the qualified or at least
ambitious amateur. The best are Donald Tovey's and
B. H. Haggin's,2 and they are very good indeed.

But they will not benefit l'homme moyen musicale,
except quite incidentally. For him-~and he is in
the majority in any concert audience, and certainly
in that vaster audience that listens to serious
music on the air and on records--the program note
that offers historical and biographical information,
interpretation and insight, is more helpful.3

 

Although not intended as rebuttal, Tovey's
answer might have been these words found in the first

volume of his Essays in Musical Analysis:

 

These essays are program notes written for the
concert hall . . . and with the exception of the
précis of the Ninth Symphony, none . . . assumes
any more technical knowledge than is likely to be
picked up in the ordinary course of concert-going
by a listener who can read musical quotations or

 

lIrving Kolodin, "Speaking of Program Notes,"
New York Philharmonic program, October 22, 1962.

2Haggin's 1956 edition of The New Listener's

Companion has been revised (New York: Horizon Press,
1967).

 

3Gilman, Orchestral Music, p. v.

48

recognize them when played. . . . The reader will
know better than to expect from such things a com-
plete system of criticism. The duty of the writer
of program notes is that of counsel for the defense.
If the defects of the works analyzed are too noto-
rious to be ignored, he must find what can be said
in favour of keeping the work in the concert rep-
oire. . . . No doubt my prejudices will appear in
spite of my most diplomatic efforts.l

Most writers today agree with Tovey's attitude; the
majority oppose subjectivity of opinion, all the while
admitting Tovey's delightful subjectivity! (A few
writers admire and advocate the freedom of subjective

opinion, as we shall learn in Chapter III.)

Theypopular style

 

While education via analysis was long the tra-
ditional function of program notes, some authors in the
early part of the twentieth century did veer away from
such technical and potentially sterile gymnastics. The
English scholar, Edward J. Dent, states that "most
people, when they listen to music, do not want to be
bothered with formal analysis; they want to have their

2

emotions aroused." This is the niche that Philip Hale

fills. Here is a sample:
Brahms wrote two overtures in the summer of

1880 at Ischl--the Academic and the Tragic. They
come between the Symphony in D major and that in

 

lTovey, Essays, I, 1.

2Dent, Terpander, p. 7.

 

49

F major in the list of his orchestral works. It is
said by Heuberger that Brahms wrote two "Academic
Festival overtures"; so he must have destroyed one
of them. When the Academic was first played at
Breslau, the rector and Senate and members of the
PhilOSOphical faculty sat in the front seats at the
performance, and the composer conducted his work.
Brahms was not a university man, but he had known
with Joachim the joyous life of students at Got-
tingen--at the university made famous by Canning's
poem:

Whene'er with haggard eyes I view
This dungeon that I'm rotting in,
I think of those companions true
who studied with me at the U-
niversity of G6ttingen--
niversity of Gottingen;

--the university satirized so bitterly by Heine.

Brahms wrote to Bernard Scholz that the title
Academic did not please him. Scholz suggested that
it was "cursedly academic and boresome," and sug-
gested Viadrina, for that was the poetical name of
the Breslau University. Brahms spoke flippantly of
this overture in the fall of 1880 to Max Kalbeck.
He described it as a "very jolly potpourri on stu-
dents' songs a la Suppé"; and, when Kalbeck asked
him ironically if he had used the "Foxsong," he
answered contentedly, "Yes, indeed." Kalbeck was
startled, and said he could not think of such ac-
ademic homage to the "leathery Herr Rektor,",
whereupon Brahms duly replied, "That is also wholly
unnecessary."l

Hale then proceeds to name the songs Brahms used. This
example faithfully demonstrates his customary approach
to annotation.

Sometimes program notes have become very roman-
tic and ultraimaginative, as illustrated by the follow-
ing two examples. The first is from the pen of Theodore

Thomas, whose accomplishments and motives cannot be

 

led. Burk, Philip Hale's, p. 93.

 

50

questioned. The writing style dates itself at c. 1900.

In this symphony [Beethoven's Fifth] the first
movement, although it represents a struggle, and
the will-power of a great soul, nevertheless forms
the introduction to the work. The second movement
represents the emotional side of the same soul and
is a temporary rest. The third movement takes up
the struggle again, and leads to a great triumph
of unusual strength and happiness in the fourth.1

The second example comes from Seattle several years
back:

If one were to draw Brahms' state of mind in
the style of the cartoonist Steinberg, perhaps in
the center there would be the great Gothic cathe-
dral of self-control, housing a magnificent Baroque
organ. Beside it would run a river marked "DARK
WARM CELLO MELODY" on the banks of which grows a
scattering of delicate Viennese waltzes. An anon-
ymous beast, clumsy yet powerful, is sniffing the
flowers rapaciously. From an unseen hiding place
comes the dim sound of a horn. In the Second Sym-
phony it is the pastoral beauty in the foreground
which comes to life first. (While writing it
Brahms had taken summer lodgings near the Worthensee
in the intimate countryside of Carinthia.) Each
time a swaying waltz is presented in the genial
first movement (Allegro non trOppo) the beast ap-
proaches it with extreme tenderness. But he loves
each one too much, so that as he regards it more
warmly a violence breaks through which, if a re-
straining hand did not pull him back, would destroy
the melody. (Twice this happens in the first sec-
tion, or exposition of the Allegro non troppo.)

In the development section which follows, the
moody horn has the first waltz in a new key and one
would expect a fanciful diversion. The opposite
happens. A sharp fu ato buildup increases tension
and activates the Brass instruments to a severe
Baroque harshness. The climax, a fierce protest
in which all the orchestra is sounding the interval
of a third in various registers, hangs in the air

 

lTheodore Thomas and Frederick Stock, Talks on
Beethoven's Symphonies, ed. Rose Thomas (Boston: Oliver
Ditson Co., 1930) , p. 75. Copyright© by Theodore
Presser Co.

51

throughout the recapitulation of the waltzes. As
soon as the coda begins it starts again. Then,
like ea vox humana the hesitant horn creeps forth
from its hiding place, for a precious moment re-
leasing the identity of the composer himself. All
tension is smoothed away now and a tender, positive
feeling suffuses the whole scene like a glow in the
atmosphere.

 

If the Brahms Second is not ruined for the reader now,
it is only because he already has acquired an unshake-

able attachment for it!

The play-byjplay commentary

Often one used to meet a pedantic kind of play-
by-play commentary--a kind that James Lyons referred to,
actually printed under the title of "Running Descrip-
tion" by one of our major symphonies ("like a report
on a horse race," he said, "with timings to the sec-
ond");2 following is an example:

The first movement is in two sections, begin-
ning with a subdued ostinato in the Violas which
continues for nearly one hundred bars. A first
theme is introduced by a pair of bassoons. It is
then taken up by a pair of horns, flutes and clar—
inets. A second theme, of similar character, is
played by the strings. There is a feeling of an-
ticipation until the strings, in a repeated stac-
cato, increase the tension and set the stage for
the symphony's major "actor," the snare drum.

 

1
withheld.

Seattle Symphony program, not recent; name

2James Lyons, in The American Record Guide,
Vol. XXX, No. 5 (January, 1964), p. 404.

 

3Detroit Symphony program, not recent; name
withheld.

52

Tflnis is only the first paragraph! It.continues in this
vein until an entire symphony has been dissected meas-
11136 by measure, even though the reader was probably
JLc>st after the above paragraph. Such examples surely
jfxrustrate the listener to the point of repulsion from
karts-program booklet, for it resembles an artist who
dieascribes his painting by saying, "This is blue, that
its; red." An exceptionally conscientious reader might
rotary himself in the booklet, flashlight in hand, to
1:11e exclusion of the music. Fortunately, there is much
iLeass of this kind of "analysis" today. It really isn't
earialysis, anyway, but merely a substitute for the music.
Gradually, as rued by Howe,l writing has
<311anged. Today some writers are so ardent that they
axivocate anything that interests the listener in the
Huasic.2 The large majority disfavor the detailed anal-
ywsis, but claim validity and desirability for some kind
CHE analysis, "at least a road map.“3 Even though opin-
iCIn is widely varied, the tradition of musical analysis
‘Mj;th illustrations has never slackened, and to inform
is; still the preeminant occupation of the sincere pro-

gram annotator .

¥

1p. 7.

° 2A vieWpoint revealed in interviews with two
d1 S tingui shed annotators .

3John Briggs, interview, October 24, 1967.

53

Who the Annotators Were

 

Who were the annotators of the past in the
United States? Before musicology became a recognized
branch of musical scholarship, before the days of radio,
television, the long-playing record and the tape re-
corder, the music available to the common man was far
less in quantity and probably lower in quality than in
present-day America. Today anyone can invite the New
York Philharmonic to his living room and can easily
find, in addition to the record jacket, innumerable
sources of musical information. While many a college
formerly offered only a volunteer glee club and a
marching band as media for student musical experience,
today most of them require their students to have an
enlightened exposure to the arts in one form or anoth-
er. The point is that before the thirties there were
few writers conversant with music; hence there was a
limited choice of potential annotators for programs.
Likewise, there was a limited number of orchestras with
budgets ample enough to hire them. By and large, in
the first quarter of the century and even in the sec-
ond, the annotator of the metropolitan orchestra pro-
gram was a local newspaper critic. Witness: William
F. Apthorp (Boston, 1892/93 - 1900/01), critic for the
Boston Transcript; Felix Borowski (Chicago, 1912/13 -

1955/56), critic for the Chicago Evening Post and

 

54

Record—Herald and the Christian Science Monitor;

 

Lawrence Gilman (New York and Philadelphia, 1920/21 -
1938/39), critic for the New York Herald, Herald-
Tribune, Harper's and North American Review; and Herbert
Peyser (New York), James Huneker (New York) and many
more. Such people as these were professional writers,
authors of books on music and other subjects, and more
often than not, composers. Like Tovey, Borowski, e.g.,
was known to the general public as a composer. Most

of the men named above, and such others as Burk, Bian-
colli and Huneker, are known to the music-loving public
for their books. Many of these books are their col-
lected and carefully revised annotations from years of
program note writing; others are expansions into such
volumes as Chopin, the Man and His Music (Huneker),

The Mozart Handbook (Biancolli), and Clara Schumann

 

(Burk). The practice of publishing collected annota-
tions is far from dead, for we have two recent addi-
tions: Alfred Frankenstein's (San Francisco)1 and

Donald Ferguson's (Minneapolis).2

 

lAlfred Frankenstein, A Modern Guide to Sym-
phonic Music (New York: Meredith Press, 1966).

2Donald Ferguson, Masterworks of the Orchestral
.Repetoire (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1954).

 

 

55

Who the Annotators Are

 

The picture today has changed, just as the en—
tire educational mode has changed. According to the
managers who replied to their questionnaires, there
would be no difficulty in replacing a lost annotator
today. They recognize a plentiful supply, especially
in cities where there are colleges or universities.
The latter supply the market today, either directly
from their staffs or indirectly from their graduates.
The following table shows the occupations of the

twenty-four annotators who reported this information:

TABLE 1

ANNOTATORS' OCCUPATIONS, 1967

14 . . . . . . . . . . . Musicologists

7 . . . . . . . . . . . Professional musicians

5 . . . . . . . . . . . Critics

4 . . . . . . . . . . . Amateurs

2 . . . . . . . . . . . Librarians
_2 . . . . . . . . . . . Educational radio programmers
34 . . . . . . . . . . . Total reporting

The educational qualifications of the writers
represented in this table would have been rare in the
twenties; but today Ph.D.'s are found in cities like
Lansing, Wichita Falls, Augusta (Ga.), Phoenix and
Baton Rouge. The small towns can now claim the pres-
ence of educated citizens, some with musical knowledge

and the willingness to write. The presence of a

56

college in the community almost assures the availability
of a competent musician, so this is the readiest source
tapped by the symphony orchestra.

While the question of remuneration was not in-
tentionally investigated for this paper, it inevitably
arose. Certainly this is not a highly rewarding pro-
fession, perhaps not even in satisfaction derived.

Some of the writers are full-time employees who assume
responsibility for the program bulletin as one of their
duties. Of the part-time annotators reporting, those
on contract barely exceeded in number those doing the

job as labor amoris--seventeen vs. fourteen. Only one

 

mentionedaifee--twenty—five dollars per program, which
is exactly the cost of a professional program note
service. Some of these devoted people donate up to
thirty hours per week to this cause. Many a manager
has spoken of his annotator in tones of grateful praise;
but this is too infrequently paralleled by the kind of
praise that most college professors could use as pur-
chasing power at the shopping center.

In passing it should be mentioned that about
twenty per cent of the program annotators are women.
Some are experienced writers, some are symphony man-
agers, some are housewives who have returned to pro-

fessional activity after raising families.

57

From this brief history of the development of
program annotation, and from the presentation of ideas
and examples from the past, we perceive that it is no
easy task to write a good program note. Capable people
have tried all sorts of approaches and methods, even to
the point of exploiting any device that promises re-
sults. These writers have not and do not lack zeal or
commitment. What this paper intends to display is

their degree of success.

CHAPTER III

CURRENT ANNOTATION RATIONALE AND PRACTICE

For this paper there were four sources of con-
temporary rationales of writing program notes: (1) the
published statements of annotators found in program
books, magazines or prefaces to published volumes; (2)
the oral statements made in personal interviews; (3)
written answers to questions; (4) analysis of the notes
themselves. Several writers have made thorough and
excellent printed statements; many have made isolated
remarks that have proved useful in determining their
methods. No doubt there are printed statements that
have not been discovered in this research; but those
which have come to light are representative, and the
interviews have revealed the rationales of the writers
of the seven major symphony orchestras under considera-
tion. Table 2 lists the annotators interviewed in
person. Those annotators who submitted written replies
to questionnaires are listed in Appendix II. It seems
irrelevant to list all the programs read; they repre-
sent orchestras of all classes, A - D, in cities of

greatly varying sizes and geographical locations.

58

59

TABLE 2

ANNOTATORS INTERVIEWED

Paul Affelder . . . . . Program Note Service, New York
John Briggs . . . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Orchestra
Frederick Dorian . . . . . . . . Pittsburgh Symphony
Edward Downes . . . . . . . . . New York Philharmonic
Werner Graf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flint Symphony
Robert Holmes . . . . . . . . . . . . Detroit Symphony
Arrand Parsons . . . . . . . . . . . Chicago Symphony
Arnold Perris . . . . . . . . . . . . Lansing Symphony
Andrew Raeburn . . . . . . . . . . . Boston Symphony
Klaus George Roy . . . . . . . . Cleveland Orchestra

The Annotators' Questionnaires

 

Considering first the questionnaires, Appendix
III presents the tabulations of answers. The first two
questions asked of the annotators (re their qualifica-
tions and contractual arrangements) were summarized in
Chapter II. Question #3 (inquiring about the chief

function of program notes) is summarized in Table 3:

TABLE 3

CHIEF FUNCTION OF PROGRAM NOTES
AS REPORTED BY ANNOTATORS

 

Function Number of Annotators
To inform 23
To enhance the enjoyment of music 16
To make the listener more
receptive to the music _2_
Total reporting 44

The group which believed in increasing reader recep-
tivity would permit anything that arouses reader in-

terest or curiosity. This group is a minority, but

6O

nevertheless does represent about one-tenth of the total,
so cannot be dismissed as unimportant. These writers
would be the ones prone to dwell on composer anecdotes
and circumstances surrounding the composer or his work;
they would be inclined to rely heavily on a captivating

literary style. However, to inform, with the implica-

 

tion of enhancing the listener's enjoyment of music,
was by far the commonest response to this question.

Question #4 (evidence of audience appreciation
of their notes) brought a straight-across-the-board
"from verbal comments, unsolicited." One person spoke
of being "mobbed during intermission," another of "fre-
quent invitations to speak to groups," and three ad-
judged their acceptance by the number of programs left
in the hall. One author purposely introduced an error
in a program and was happily surprised by the number
of patrons who discovered and spoke of it. No cases
appeared where an audience had been expressly asked for
its evaluation.

About formal analysis (question #5) there was
an agreement that was quite surprising when one consid-
ers that this was the prototype for so many years.
Twenty-one were unequivocally Opposed to it in program
notes, although most of them approved of it for them-
selves. Only five believed that analysis is the prin-

cipal function of the notes; six believed in a limited

61

use of analysis. One author said, "In 1967 do we need
an analysis of a Mozart symphony?"l Another said, "I
occasionally use it as a help to music students."2
Several said, "Not in this community," implying a be-
lief in it, but at the same time a fear of using it.
Several authors believed in some sort of descriptive
outline. Buttxarepeat, only five out of thirty-two
were ardent proponents of technical analysis. In
Chicago the notes always include an analysis because

of a seventy-five year precedent; and the Philadelphia
notes always include at least a cursory analysis or
rough guide as a matter of principle. More of

the major symphonies use this device than do the or-
chestras in smaller cities. Observation indicates that
many writers resort to a discussion of construction
when a work is new or unusual and requires some such
comment in order to make it intelligible to the lis—
tener.

The information that most writers try to in-
clude as a regular practice (question #7) proved to be
mainly factual: composer's dates, first performance
dates, historical orientation, instrumentation. Beyond

that the commonest conviction was that something should

 

lRussell F. Locke, Albany, questionnaire.

2Dorothea Kelley, Dallas, questionnaire.

62

be offered to explain the composer's attitude toward
music and the particular piece being performed. A
number of authors wisely replied, "It depends on the
piece of music." Certainly what one should or could
say about Lopotnikoff would differ from one's commen-
tary on Beethoven, for example.1

Questioned about the reprinting of former notes
(question #8), the respondents were about equally di-
vided. Most authors would rather like to rewrite any
notes that appear to them to be inadequate; but many
admitted the necessity of reuse for purely practical
reasons. One writer expressed the opinion of a few of
his confréres when he said, "Once I have written what
I consider to be a good program note, why should I
change it?"2 By count, ten annotators said, "Never,"
eight, "Yes," three, "Sometimes," and eleven, "Perhaps,
but always reconsidered and altered."

As to question #9 (managerial restrictions),
managers escaped almost totally unscathed. Budgets
limited space for nearly all writers (most orchestras

allot Space by inches or words); one annotator was

 

1In Chapter IV we shall view the attempt to cap-

ture from a panel of concert-goers a suitable set of cri-
teria for judging any program note.

2Gomer Ll. Jones, Michigan State University,
Lansing, Mich., interview, May 29, 1967.

63

told, "No musical examples";l cost restricted the use
of examples by other writers. One writer Operated under
the instruction to "Use all the space you need, and
allocate it roughly in proportion to the importance of

2 How he must be envied! Other considera-

each work."
tions enter the picture occasionally: e.g., a conductor
sometimes objects to an annotator's point of View, or a
manager summarily lops off paragraphs in order to use
the space for some other item. This practice always
irritates an annotator and occasionally alters the im-
pact Of the annotation. But generally speaking, a
writer is given complete freedom, and his opinions are
both permitted and respected.

Subjectivity in writing (question #10) produced
some interesting comments. Only five writers thought
that notes shouldtxawritten from a purely personal point
of view. Dr. Dorian (Pittsburgh) expressed the majority
Opinion when he wrote that "One is a human being, hence
'subjective'; but one strives in all honesty for an ob-
tainable degree of 'Objectivity.'"3 The five who wanted

the privilege of expressing their opinions were also

strong in their espousal of the practice: "I like it!

 

1 . . . .
Mary Ann Feldman, Minneapolis, questionnaire.

2John Briggs, Philadelphia Orchestra.

3 . . . . .
Frederick Dorian, Pittsburgh, questionnaire.

64

I don't think writing on music is likely to be very
interesting without it, and it certainly would be no
fun to do it. And I write for fun. Q.E.D. My biases

are mainly pro; if I do not care for a piece of music

1

I try not to show it." Edward Downes (New York) ex-

pressed his approval of a positive Opinion, citing
Tovey as a worthy example of "counsel for the defense."2
Rarely does a writer try to prejudice his audience
against a composer, a style or a composition; it is
generally considered to be unethical and less than
scholarly. One of the rare cases encountered was the
following excerpt from a class D orchestra program. It
was preceded by quotation of two avant guard music ex-
planations and one paragraph from Tschaikowsky.

The first two quotations illustrate what I re-
gard as the diseased condition of contemporary
music. The first assumes that musical creation is
primarily-~or entirely--a rational process. This
view has received increasing support since World
War II, as the scientist has become an Object of
superstitious awe. So composers write articles in
the style of reports by physicists, and produce
sounds that drive audiences out of the halls. . . .
Both views share a premise--impulse, emotion, the
demon within, is not to be accorded a place.

SO Tschaikowsky's view has fallen beneath con-
tempt. . . . In any case, it is now fashionable to
look down on Tschaikowsky's emotional intensity and
intellectual shortcomings. He was, by the way,
aware of both traits. . . .

 

lWilliam Burke, Kalamazoo, questionnaire.

2See the full Tovey statement on p. 47.

65

My own prescription for music in our time
would be a large dose of Tschaikowsky's want of
skill.1

This was an annotation, obviously, for a Tschaikowsky
symphony. As such, it was definitely ppngschaikowsky;
what seems indefensible is the author's frank public
disapproval of contemporary trends.

The final question (a request for comments)
elicited many, some lengthy. The majority of annota-
tors addressed themselves to one or more of three sub-
jects: (1) meeting the needs of specific audiences,
(2) the superfluity of the detailed analysis, and (3)
the author's justification of his or her rationale.

Some of the latter made fascinating reading; they will

be referred to in the process of this chapter.

The Managers' Questionnaire

 

The questionnaire sent to symphony managers was
not quite as revealing as that sent to annotators, un-
doubtedly because of its nature. Its purpose differed
from the other questionnaire: to discover some of the
official practices and attitudes of symphony management.
A total of twenty-eight responses was received; a list
is found in Appendix II. Although most Of the questions

were the YES-NO type, #9 did ask for comments; twelve

 

lSource withheld.

66

out of the total twenty-eight availed themselves of the
opportunity to write a few sentences. Otherwise, only
question #1, on the desirability of program notes, re-
quired a statement of any length. Like the annotators,
managers specified that program notes are desirable

"for education," "for enjoyment," or both. Three men-
tioned audience demand; two, audience receptiveness.

Three of the orchestras use program notes
"usually"; all others "always" in regular subscription
concerts. Summer series and "pOp" concerts, as we know,
often lack annotations.

As for the copyrighting of notes, twenty-four
said "No," four "Yes." It becomes expensive, since
each program must be OOpyrighted separately. Some man—
agers felt that the right to do so should be granted to
the author; others felt that the work is Often not
original, therefore not eligible for the privilege;
others indicated that they would be flattered to have
their notes borrowed. The Boston, Pittsburgh, Los
Angeles and New York orchestras take advantage of the
copyright laws. Even when the New York notes were not
COpyrighted, they contained a statement to the effect
that quotations were permitted provided credit was
given, but wholesale copying was not permitted without
express permission from the management. The Los Angeles

notes are copyrighted as part of the Los Angeles edition

67

of Playbill; and..Mr. Affelder's Program Note Service
annotations are marked COPYRIGHTED. Mr. Roy (Cleveland)
expressed the prevailing view that the practice of bor-
rowing is so general that copyrighting would be a nui-
sance to everyone.

Only three managers admitted placing any re-
strictions on their annotators. One restriction was
the privilege of editing; another was the proviso that
the notes be uncomplicated. Undoubtedly editing is
practiced by other managers; in fact, annotators have
admitted that they appreciate this check for possible
errors. If there are cases of severe alterations other
than the space cuts previously referred to, they have
not come to the surface. Such a practice would un-
doubtedly lead to author resignation, so it would be
unlikely to appear in such a study as this. We know
that the budget spectre is a permanent fixture in the
manager's office, and all managers who were specifically
questioned about this aspect admitted that it does in-
evitably affect annotation at some time. The usual
policy is to allot space which the annotator fills;
writers adapt themselves to this limitation, even though
they have frequently voiced their frustration in meeting

such a requirement. Their most commonly voiced

 

lInterview, May 10, 1967.

68

complaintwas the lack of budget for musical examples,
each of which requires a special engraved plate (and
Often special permission from the copyright holder).
Methods of financing programs affect annotation di-
rectly, too. E.g., many booklets are expected to be
self-supporting; hence any excess of pages means either
a special budget allotment or an intensified search for
special advertising to cover the immediate cost.
Question #6 (on advance distribution) covered
a luxury practice that many would like to be able to
afford, but few can. Managers generally felt that this
was a wasted expense, that most of their patrons would
not read the programs in advance; yet twelve of them
had considered advance distribution, and three--San
Francisco, Seattle and Birmingham--practice it. Kal-
amazoo, Pittsburgh and Duluth once tried it, only to
abandon it. Baltimore, San Diego and Louisville are
seriously considering it for the near future. A few
orchestras, as a very special service to a limited number
of "loyal patrons," mail the program notes in advance.
Several managers or annotators confessed that "we op-
erate with almost wet ink as it is!" This is not nec-
essarily due to procrastination, but to the necessity
for last minute changes. An example cited was the last
minute dress rehearsal availability of a visiting com-

poser Or guest conductor for an interview and statement.

69

Question #7 (on knowledge Of audience composi-
tion) revealed what was expected: that symphony or-

chestras know their audiences to a degree, either by

 

personal acquaintance or by a subscription file; but
few know accurately from a survey. Baltimore, Cincin-
nati and Spokane are exceptions, having surveyed their
audiences for special purposes. The contention that
ownership of a list of names and addresses constitutes
an audience analysis is false. This reveals little per-
tinent information other than property values and prob-
able income brackets, and possibly educational accom-
plishments.

In response to the request for comments, twelve
managers responded. The gist was that program notes
should be interesting and not too technical or didactic.
Managers apparently considered readability and attract-
iveness very important factors. This will be discussed
later.

Lastly, the apparent availability of competent
annotators is overwhelming. It is doubtful if this
would have been the case twenty-five years ago; but
today only three managers expressed any concern over
a replacement if it were found to be necessary. Of
course, as one of them suggested, "How often do we

find 'good' anything, including program annotators?"l

 

1Thomas D. Perry, Jr., Boston Symphony, ques-
tionnaire.

7O

Competence in this field requires much knowledge, a

good library and great skill as writer, salesman, psy-
chologist and educator! In passing, one cannot overlook
the forty-odd orchestras that subscribe to a program
note service; but there are other influences that prompt
this action--factors like neatness and promptness,

which for some managers is a novel experience. How-
ever, it does not tell us that competent annotators

are unavailable.

Some Generalizations

 

From the results of the questionnaires and in-
terviews it is possible to make some generalizations.
The first is that writers will most likely attempt a
fresh approach to each composition on the program.
Klaus Roy tells of the time when he sat for thirty
minutes before a blank sheet of paper before finding
a suitable beginning for his annotation of SchOnberg's
Op. 16. As he said, "One always starts fresh, with
the old agony all over again; the only thing that would

I 1
be worse is a formula."

He is not alone in this ap-
proach, as we have seen in the answers to annotators'
questions: twenty-four out of forty-four prefer not

to reprint earlier notes verbatim. In practice it is

 

lPersonal letter, June 13, 1967.

71

done more frequently than is admitted, because of the
pressure of time or perhaps to permit a super effort
on some other portion of the program. Again, it de-
pends on the situation. There is a much greater wil-
lingness to repeat the notes on the standard repetoire
than on contemporary compositions. In the first place,
most earlier music is less complicated structurally; in
the second place, it is better known to audiences. One
writer said, "I think program notes should be freshly
expressed, informative but terse. It is always a prob-
lem to know how far to go theoretically. Needless to
say, it has become impossible to say anything NEW about
the standard repertory. How on earth can anyone write
on Beethoven's Fifph? Under separate cover, you will
see that I have tried."1
Mr. Roy mentioned the abomination of a formula.
Yet there are prominent annotators who use a formula--
with freedom, of course. John Briggs (Philadelphia)
and Arrand Parsons (Chicago) have routines that they
consider quite workable and satisfactory. The former,
a critic and trained journalist, writes professionally
for a living. His journalistic opening remarks are
planned to capture the reader's attention; he then adds

basic facts and the setting of the work, "not the

 

1F. Crawford Page, Baton Rouge, questionnaire.

72

instrumentation unless it is unique," making sure to
include anything about the music or the composer that
is unusual. He then closes with a "road map analysis,"
not complicated, but ample to guide any listener.1 An
illustrative example would be his annotation of the

Haydn Symphony No. 7 ("Le Midi"). He commences with

 

three short paragraphs on Haydn's new post with the
Esterhazy family, his duties, his employer, and his
offering of three symphonies for his debut; then one
paragraph dealing with Haydn's salary increase; finally
an analysis:

On May 1, 1761, Haydn signed a three-year con-
tract as Vice-Kapellmeister at the court of the
Hungarian Prince Paul Anton Esterhazy. The con-
tract stipulated that incumbent Gregorius Werner,
being unable to perform his duties "on account of
his great age and infirmities," was to keep the
honorary post of Kapellmeister, but that actual
authority over the singers and the players in the
orchestra would be Haydn's. He was to rehearse
and conduct concerts, and compose music for them,
as required. It was a position that called for
administrative ability as well as musical talent.

A year later Paul Anton was dead, and his
brother Nicholas succeeded him as Prince. Nicholas,
nicknamed "The Magnificent," was a figure straight
out of the Renaissance. As colonel of a regiment
of Hussars, he had fought at the Battle of Kolin,
which liberated Bohemia, and had participated in
the taking of Berlin. As a diplomat, he had served
the Empress Maria Theresa well at various EurOpean
courts. He was a lover of the arts who played the
"baryton," a now-forgotten relative of the 'cello.
What would Nicholas think of his Vice-Kapellmeister,
and his music?

 

lJohn Briggs, Philadelphia, interview, October

24, 1967.

73

For the new Prince, Haydn prepared a musical
welcome, three tone-paintings for the orchestra of
the type that were beginning to be called "sympho-
nies." Entitled "Le Matin," "Le Midi," and "Le
Soir," they depicted morning, noon and evening at
the Esterhazy court, and gave Haydn an opportunity
to display his versatility. "Le Matin" begins with
a miniature sunrise in music. In the slow movement
there is an amusing parody of "Do-re-mi;" Haydn's
duties included teaching solfége to the female
singers, so that "they may not forget in the coun-
try what they have been taught with much trouble
and expense in Vienna." In "Le Midi," a performance
is taking place. Haydn's contract required him to
call on the Prince at midday to "inquire whether
His Highness is pleased to order a performance by
the orchestra." In "Le Soir," it is evening. The
twittering of birds is interrupted by a storm, but
it soon passes, and night peacefully descends. All
three symphonies employ a group of solo instruments
in the manner of a baroque Concerto Grosso. "Le
Matin" uses flute, bassoon, violin and 'cello; the
others, two violins and 'cello.

Prince Nicholas' reaction to the music was
prompt; he raised Haydn's salary from 400 to 600
florins a year. It was the beginning of an asso-
ciation that would end only with the Prince's death.

"Le Midi" opens with an introductory Adagio
(C major) for full orchestra—-oboes, horns, bassoons
and strings. As the tempo quickens to Alle ro, the
principal subject is introduced by the strings and
bassoons. The second subject, in G major, is an-
nounced by the solo violins. The development sec-
tion begins with a passage in which the three solo
instruments are prominent. A restatement of the
principal subject begins the recapitulation that
completes the movement.

The second movement (Recitativo: Adagio, C
major) is a recitative, in which the voice is rep-
resented by solo violin I. It is followed by a
second Ada io, in G major, in which solo violin I
and the 80%0 'cello imitate a SOprano—tenor duet
in the florid style of Baroque Italian opera. The
movement ends with an elaborate cadenza for the
solo instruments.

In the Menuetto there is a return to C major..
The menuet theme is stated immediately by the oboes,
bassoons and strings, 'celli and double-basses. A
repetition of the menuet ends the movement.

 

74

For the brisk finale (Allegro, C major), a solo
flute is added to the orchestra. A vigorous, de-
cisive theme stated by the two solo violins is an-
swered by the solo flute with a contrasting theme
in rapid sixteenth-notes. The themes are combined
and elaborated. A final energetic statement of the
opening theme, this time by the full orchestra,
concludes the symphony.l

A reading of this example shows that Mr. Briggs

probably achieved his stated Objective: "To put our
subscribers in the most receptive frame of mind to hear
this particular work."2 It also shows his objectivity,
his avoidance of critical subjectivity, his inclusion
of interesting "extras" ("Do-re-mi") as a sort of
bonus. The analysis is actually a description which
could serve musician or non-musician alike; his pre-
liminary material serves to arouse interest in both
Haydn and Le Midi. This formula, if it can be called
that--it comes closer to being a method-—appears to
work. Whether repeated exposure to it week after week
as a regular patron would result in boredom can only
be conjectured, since no survey of the Philadelphia
audience reaction is available. One unique attitude
presented by this annotator is his intentional consid-

eration of the critic. Having had experience as one,

he writes material that will ease the work of the

 

1John Briggs, Philadelphia Orchestra program,

November 5, 1965.

2John Briggs, interview, October 24, 1967.

75

critic in his follow-up newspaper article. Further-
more, since his notes will be used for concert rebroad-
casts, he must bear in mind the radio audience and the
spoken word as well-—not an easy assignment!

A second safe generalization is that notes are
addressed to certain audiences. This excerpt from a
letter is one bit of evidence: "[Our] program notes,
then, are not aimed at the relatively few musicians in
the audience, but rather to people who are hearing
symphonic music for the first time, or (if they have
supported the Augusta Symphony for many years) have
never heard another orchestra."l Another exhibition
of evidence is found in the May Festival programs of
the University of Michigan, whose readers include many
trained musicians attracted annually to this special
event. These annotations are quite long and involved,
unhampered by adjacent advertisements; they are written
by Glenn McGeoch, Professor of Music History and Lit-
erature at the University. The Baumol and Bowen re-
port2 records the high educational level of symphony
attenders--6l% of males and 33% of females having done

graduate study; hence the annotator who, like Arnold

 

lDorothy R. Stoddard, Augusta, Georgia, ques-
tionnaire.

2Baumol and Bowen, Performing Arts, p. 457.

 

76

Perris (Lansing) assumes an audience appreciation of
such refinements as literary references and words Of
several syllables,l even some musically technical terms,
is not necessarily astray, as some people imply.

Robert Holmes (Detroit), when asked to whom he addressed
his notes, was able to pinpoint his reply: "To the man~
who is well educated, loves music, but knows only that
E is higher than C."2 In Boston, Andrew Raeburn, al-
though new to his position in 1967 as Program Book
Editor, was aware of the SOphistication of the Boston
audience, "most of whom have been regular subscribers
for years and therefore have heard Beethoven's Fi££h_
many times and have been accustomed to reading John
Burk's excellent notes."3 In Cleveland, Klaus Roy
pointed out that the Cleveland Orchestra for years had
had excellent rapport with the public schools of that
city and had perpetuated "one of the best youth music
education programs in the country that began back in

the twenties; consequently we believe our audience

today to be one of the best prepared."4 There is

 

lArnold Perris, Lansing, interview, January 12,

1968.

Robert Holmes, Kalamazoo, Detroit annotator,
interview, May 22, 1967.

3Andrew Raeburn, Boston, interview, August 25,
1967.

4Klaus Roy, Cleveland, interview, May 10, 1967.

77

justification for this statement in the scripts circu-
lated amongst the schools today for the children's
concerts: they show a concerted educational effort to
continue this tradition. Furthermore, in Cleveland
there is much warm intercourse between subscriber and
annotator in the programs, with quotations from letters,
Roy's replies, and gleanings from conversations. These
indicate audience involvement.

The various opinions about audience erudition
in different cities are worth noting. Several authors-—
not many--volunteered that there is as much musical ig-
norance in New York City as in Lansing or Kalamazoo.
One annotator in a city of 100,000 population confessed
that while that might be true, he would be intimidated
by the New York audience into writing less flippantly
than he customarily does!. Chapter VI will offer some
clarification of audience differences. Suffice it to
say here that an annotation for a class D orchestra
with three concerts per year in a city of 30,000 would
probably be shorter, more terse and less erudite than
an annotation produced for a Lincoln Center that at-
tracts musicians from all parts of the country. A
simple comparison of program books bears this out. One
annotator frankly admitted that he is often chilled by
the knowledge that members of his audience are better
informed than he. This attitude affects annotation,

whether or not the study reveals it.

78

A third generalization is that for performances
of new works annotators nearly always seek the help of
the composer, if he is available, otherwise some expert
on that composer's music. Since the idiom of new works
may be as strange to the annotator as to the audience,
it is only sensible to do this. The composer may be
available in person, by phone or by mail; so why not
get the information first hand? Unfortunately, some
composers are poor writers and some cannot step back
and view their own products objectively; but many are
well educated, some are university teachers or profes-
sional authors. It is reasonably safe to ask for their
written thoughts, which can always be edited or used as
a basis for an annotation. The chances are that even a
poorly written or confusing composer's manuscript will

be read,.just for its authenticity and originality.

Specific Rationales

 

Having seen how one annotator (Philadelphia)
handles his assignment, it would be elucidating to
examine others: first, Klaus George Roy (Cleveland).
Sometimes he uses examples in music notation--a four-
part chorale, a tone row, a single theme, or whatever
he sees the need of; sometimes he resorts to an all-out
sales talk; sometimes he appears to be doing a literary

assignment; sometimes he Offers unabashed analysis.

79

Footnotes abound, offering extra comments, explanations
or sources. Often he adds an interesting quotation by
a composer or other author; and he is as likely to add
a special essay, a photograph or pithy quotation on art,
music criticism or some related subject. He is not
averse to using a review or commentary from any source
(with permission and due credit) if it serves his pur-
pose. Let us look at some of his writing. On January
5, 1967, the Cleveland Orchestra played Schubert's

Rosamunde Overture, the Mozart Piano Concerto in Eb

 

(K.482) and Brahms' Symphony No. 2. The following is

 

Mr. Roy's annotation of the Schubert:

There is hardly a game, children will tell us,
that can match a treasure hunt for excitement. And
when the treasure is worth hunting for, grownups
tend to enjoy it also. One of the most thrilling
activities for musicians of the later nineteenth
century must have been the discovery, one by one,
of unknown manuscripts by Schubert. It is well
known how Herbeck, in 1865, found the "Unfinished"
Symphony in Graz: a work of 1822. And in 1867,
"two English travelers in Vienna" struck gold in
another house: Arthur Sullivan and George Grove
came across part and parcel of the complete
"Rosamunde" music--all the parts neatly wrapped in
a parcel, and covered by the proverbial dust.

Thus came about the third performance of the
complete score, on December 1, 1867, at a concert
of the Society of Friends of Music in Vienna--
sharing honors with the premiere of Brahms'.A
German Requiem. We say "third performance" be-
cause--different from the "Unfinished," which seems
never to have been played before its rediscovery
43 years 1ater--the "Rosamunde" music had been
twice performed while it was still "contemporary."
The actual premiere took place on December 20,
1823, when the romantic drama by Frau von Chézy
commenced its run of two evenings. 44 years elapsed
before the third hearing of the music. (Modern

80

composers-in—a-hurry, take note!) "Herr Schubert
has originality," condescended the leading reviewer
Of the local press, "but unfortunately 'bizarrerie'
as well. The young man is in a period of develOp-
ment; we hOpe that he will come out of it success-
fully. At present he is too much applauded; for
the future, let us hope that he will never complain
of being too little recognized."

Frau von Chézy's libretto to Weber's "Euryanthe"
had almost killed that opera two months earlier, in
October of 1823. Nothing daunted, her "Rosamunde"
deals with the adventures of a Princess of Cyprus
who survives not a poison-pen plot against her, but
a poison-letter one. It seems that the villain of
the piece dispatches to Rosamunde an epistle which
would, upon perusal, deal death by alchemy. This
science-fiction plot, after four acts, fails. So
did, as we have seen, the "grand romantic drama"
itself. Schubert, his Pegasus hitched to an im-
movable star, must have known that at least his
music was worth saving. When the authoress initi-
ated a revision in 1824, and asked Schubert what
his fee would be, he replied with all the honesty
and sweetness of his character: "Convinced of the
value of 'Rosamunde' from the moment I read it, I
am greatly pleased that you, Madame, have without
a doubt succeeded in remedying in a most favorable
manner a few insignificant faults which only an un-
sympathetic audience could have so censured. . . ."
Yet, true to his habitual bad luck, Schubert was to
receive not a penny, and the new version was not
produced.

Would it not be interesting to make a thorough
study, some day, of what has happened to "inciden-
tal music" through the history of the theater? One
might organize it in several groups: a) those
cases in which the drama has had a variety of scores
written for it, most of them forgettable; b) those
in which the drama received music worthy of its own
quality, as in the Shakespeare-Mendelssohn colla-
boration, or Ibsen-Grieg; and c) those in which the
drama itself has become incidental, with the music
remaining as the one redeeming feature of the enter-
prise. There may be yet other combinations, includ-
ing those instances in which a single theatrical
work--for instance "Romeo and Juliet"--continues to
inspire new music at the rate of at least one per
decade.

The confusion surrounding the actual identity
of the "Rosamunde" overture has been recounted in
the factual heading above [omitted here]. Be that

81

as it may, the title has become irrevocably attached
to the present overture, and we are equally attached
to the music. The beginning, an Andante in.C minor,
3/4 time, is quite serious and dramatic; but after
seven measures we find ourselves swaying to a plain-
tive tune in the manner of a fast waltz. The con-
trast of these two moods, and a series of striking
modulations, often move in spheres that remind one
of the "unfinished" Symphony to come. (The great

B minor entr'acte from the true "Rosamunde" music,
to be sure, has been sometimes called the real fast
movement belonging to that Symphony, at least in
spirit.) The Allegpo Vivace of the Overture, in C
major, 2/2, is built along the design made famous

by Rossini, the idol of the era; but the melodies
are purest Schubert. Note the delightful "yodel-
ing" counter-line of the 'cellos against the second
subject! There is much ingenious development, and
an equal amount of repetitiousness, before a fast
and driving coda in 6/8 time winds up the music in

a festive way. Yet there is still time for certain
contrasts of colors and dynamics uniquely associated
with this composer. The music perhaps most clearly
prophecied in this coda and in the body of the over-
ture itself is none other than that of the "Great"

C major Symphony, NO. 9, to be composed only a few
years later.

 

The first sentence captures our imagination and

arouses our curiosity to see how it relates to Schubert.

What
five
like
tion
feel
the

Admi

follows is craftsmanship that leads us through
paragraphs almost before we realize it! It reads
a novel, yet interjects a great deal of informa-
unobtrusively. By the end of the third page we

that we are acquainted with Rosamunde except for

 

hearing Of-it, and this we anticipate eagerly.

ttedly a rare skill is exhibited here, and few

 

lKlaus George Roy, Cleveland Orchestra program,

January 5, 1967, p. 457.

82

annotators can be expected to match it. It demonstrates
‘wide knowledge, much writing experience, a vivid imag-
ination, a teacher's devotion--and ample time! (Mr.

Roy is a full-time member of the orchestra staff.) Few
jprogram note authors are endowed with all of these at-
tributes. If there is one distinguishing feature that
causes this annotation to glow while others fade, it

is the writing style.

In 1964 Mr. Roy devoted four pages of his
"Entr'Acte" (an idea borrowed from Boston by several
program editors) to a discussion of annotation and a
presentation of some of his convictions. We have al-
ready quoted one statement from it in Chapter 1.1 He
commences by offering Gustav Mahler's and Peter Mennin's
condemnations of the practice of pre-conditioning the
listener, then proceeds to rebut them by these argu-
ments:

If an annotation is to transcend in any way its
original purpose as a source Of factual "background
information," then how can it help in a deepening
of the musical experience without crudely tres-
passing On the mysteries of artistic creativity?
How can the "organic growth" of the work as a
"whole" [words gleaned from the statements he is

refuting] be illumined without reference to the
cells from which the organism grows?

 

1See p. 9.

83

Both Mahler and Mennin speak of the later oc-
casion when the musician—-or the interested layman--
may immerse himself further in the work, perhaps
with score in hand . . . But both composers skirt
the problem that this Opportunity may not so soon
arise again, if it arises at all! . . . With the
vast majority of works, a single hearing may be
expected. . . . Composer and annotator may jointly
face the problem of how much verbal assistance
should be provided for the listener's use. . . . A
large percentage of the observable concert-going
public does not make as efficient use of its pro-
grams as it might. . . .

One may wonder whether a musical performance
might not be seen in a wider context than mere en-
tertainment or "enjoyment"; that it might, in fact,
have certain educative functions. . . . The composer
has done . . . a "work." How much effort can--or
should--the hearer bring to its comprehension, par-
ticularly in view of the fact that many a remiére
is likely to be a derniére? . . . Music, aEter aII,
embodies an intellectuaI experience as well as an
emotional and esthetic one. . . .

Where, then, is the boundary line between
"sticking to the music" and "philosophical mean-
dering"?

This essay, even so dissected, Opens our eyes to an
annotator's concern for the listener, while at the same
time exposing his problems; and the last sentence gives
the clue to the difficulty of writing any good annota-
tion.

Mr. Roy made other pertinent observations:

It seems to me that there is an instructional
aspect in program annotation, as there is in the
concert itself. The best listener after all not
only enjoys the music, but actually learns some-

thing from it that is of considerable if intangible
value. If the annotator happens to have a desire

 

lRoy, Cleveland, September 18, 1964.

84

to teach, then he will wish to share his insights,

his Opinions and--most importantly--his enthusiasms

with his audience. He may feel that if his com-

ments can increase the listener's sense of antic-

ipation, he has achieved something.l

Another program note author wrote, "My most
difficult task is not in finding enough to write about,
but to cut down the information to include just those
items which might be interesting but not too technical
for the well-educated person to understand and appre-
ciate, while simultaneously avoiding too simple or
naive a literary style."2 Another said, "Before writ-
ing new notes I read everything possible that has been
written on the work. Then I decide what material I
feel is especially pertinent. Literary style in writ—
ing is highly to be desired, I feel, and this can only
come with experience--and with talent."3
Turning from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, we find

similarities and differences. Both Frederick Dorian
and Klaus Roy are Viennese scholars well established
in their professions, but Mr. Dorian's record dates,
earlier--from 1945/46. He is known for his many pub-

lications and contributions to scholarly journals,

magazines and encyclopedias. Mr. Roy is a composer,

 

lRoy, letter, June 13, 1967.
2Ruth Watanabe, Rochester, questionnaire.

3Dorothea Kelley, Dallas, questionnaire.

85

author, musicologist, ex-critic and originator of many
record jackets. Frederick Dorian set forth his ration-
ale On program notes in the Pittsburgh Symphony program
of October 31, 1952; the following is a partial quota-
tion that contains the salient points:

The purpose of these notes is to activate the
listener. . . . The deeper appreciation of great
tone works, past and present, requires a specific
kind of listening. . . . Only a certain type of
romantic and impressionistic music aims psycholog-
ically at the passivity of the hearer. . . . By
contrast, the great masterpieces from the Baroque
era to our time demand more from the listener who
wishes to enjoy their beauty to the fullest, . . .
because the musical concepts of these works are
primarily structural. . . . By no means does this
exclude the emotional factor in listening. But
these notes are concerned with the musical causes
of the emotional response.

How can program notes help the concert-goer to
arrive at a genuine appreciation of the old and
contemporary music? There are different roads
leading to this goal. Notes may be purely tech-
nical and analytical, or purely descriptive and
anecdotal. Between these extremes there are many
possible combinations. All of them have their place
and we propose to apply them where it seems most
apprOpriate. . . .

A specific problem lies in the fact that the
audience is composed of music lovers on various
levels of understanding. . . . There can be no
perfect program notes to suit all members Of all
audiences.

Dr. Dorian then offers a series of devices which will
cope with the last problem mentioned: advance distri-
bution of programs [a plan later abandoned], occasional

glossaries of technical terms, footnotes, sidelights on

 

1Frederick Dorian, Pittsburgh Symphony program,
October 31, 1952.

86
performance practices, discussions of instruments,
references to source materials, sketches of composers'
lives. Finally he concludes:

These notes on the programs, then, should help
to bridge the gap between the composer and his au-
dience. The process of tonal communication is
threefold: the composer creates his score; the
interpreter, by his performance, turns it into
sounding reality; the listener receives the tonal
message. But unless the concert-goer fully re-
sponds, this communication is not successfully
completed. . . .

It is sincerely hoped that these notes will
contribute their share to an enriching concert ex-
perience and that contact between the consuming
layman and the producing musician will become closer
through constant enlightenment.l

This essay announces the intention of using
many and varied approaches. A reading of the Pitts-
burgh programs verifies the embodiment of these prin-
ciples; but one type appears to dominate: the rather
full analysis, preceded by historical and musicological
background. Such is this example:

DVORAK'S NINE SYMPHONIES

To this day there prevails a considerable amount
of confusion concerning the chronology of Dvorak's
one hundred and fifteen works, to which the composer
gave specific opus numbers. Forty-five 0f Dvorak's
compositions are published without Opus numbers.

We learn from the authentic study by the noted
Dvorak scholar, Otakar Sourek, why certain opus
numbers do not correspond to the chronological
order of the score's appearance in print. [This
source was footnoted.]

 

lIbid.

87

There follows another paragraph of this expla-
nation; then a chronology of the nine symphonies; then
a section on the symphony being performed, No. 7 in D
minor (1885):

The foregoing table lists the symphony heard
on this program as No. 7. But for one half of a
century, the beautiful work was generally referred
to as Dvorak's Second. The table also shows that
this very score, completed in 1885, is the Second
of Dvorak's symphonies written in the tragic key
of D minor.

Dvorak's music always enjoyed popularity in
Anglo-Saxon countries. As a token of British es-,
teem, the Philharmonic Society of London conferred
an honorary membership on the composer in June,
1884. At this time, he was commissioned to write
a new symphony for London. By Christmas, the score
was progressing, and it was completed with notable
Speed by Easter. On April 22, 1885, Dvorak con-
ducted the premiere of the new Symphony in D minor
with the London orchestra. The musiE’was warmly
received.

 

I

The initial allegro maestoso is a predominantly
emotional movement of sombre, at times richly sat-
urated, orchestral color. The music commences
pianissimo above a roll of the timpani, as the
chief theme (D minor, 6/8) is announced by Violas
and cellos.

With energetic gestures, the alle ro storms on;
it calms down; and then flows into a Wistful bridge
passage that leads to the subsidiary lyrical theme.

This second subject (B-flat) is heard dolce
(flute and Clarinets, later the violins). It is
Spun forth in graceful lines. The tender melody
recalls a Bohemian folk song; but the curves are
more polished.

There is no sharp division between the exposi-
tion of these themes and their work-out. The de-
velopment is brief in comparison to traditional
symphonic prOportions. The climax of this develop-
ment and the recapitulation dovetail. The dolce of
the subsidiary subject is now transposed to D, the
main tonality. A coda reticence retains the level
of pianissimo.

 

 

 

 

lDorian, Pittsburgh, February 10, 1967.

88

The balance of the annotation is a continuation of this
analytical description of the remaining three movements
of the symphony.

In the same program, the annotation of the

Tschaikowsky Violin Concerto contains six short para-

 

graphs of introductory material and thirteen shorter
paragraphs of analysis. A total of fourteen musical
terms appeared in this program, some of which would not
be expected to be a part of the average patron's vocab-
ulary; but true to his promise, there is a seventy-six
word glossary of terms that "appear with some frequency
in our pages."1 In some of the Pittsburgh programs as
many as thirty-three such terms have been counted.

The late Alfred Frankenstein, one of America's
most distinguished music critics, in his collected
notes from twenty-six years of writing for the San
Francisco Symphony, offers this introductory preface:

Salesmanship and subjective evaluation have been
avoided, although analysis is inevitably a form of
criticism since its aim is to establish the nature
of the object under discussion and clarify our im-
pressions of it. In general, the aim of the book
is to provide something in between the superfici-
ality of the average record-jacket note and the
scholarly detail of a collection like Sir Donald
Francis Tovey's Essays in Musical Analysis (al-

though Tovey is quotediin the fOllowing pages.so
Often as to be almost embarrassing).

 

 

lIbid.

2Alfred Frankenstein, A Modern Guide to Sym-

phonic Music (New York: Meredith Press, 1966), p. v.

 

89

Some of Mr. Frankenstein's annotations will appear in
Chapter IV.
Donald Ferguson commences his book of collected

Minneapolis Symphony program notes with A Word to the

 

Reader, from which the following excerpts have been
gleaned:

You will find a majority of the works in this
book devoted to the analysis of musical structure.
Many students of music would hold that all the
words, except those which deal with the historical
or incidental analysis of a given composition, should
be devoted to its structural analysis. Looked at
in reverse, this Opinion is equivalent to a conten-
tion that in the music itself nothing matters else
than structure, which in its highest aspect is form,
demands analysis.

Yet you will also find, Often mingled with the
analytical comments, many incidental references to
the character--the apparent expressive purport--of
the music. These spring from a frank concurrence
in the common belief that great music is actually
a communication--that it portrays and expresses
significant emotions. . . .

That phrase [the universal language], however,
which seems to imply that the language of music is
so easy that it does not need to be studied, dis-
tresses the studious music lover, who, having spent
long hours over the structure of music, has discov-
ered many latent values which only analysis can
reveal. . . .

The generality of music lovers, however, are
both less and more exacting. They perceive less
keenly than the composer or the learned critic the
excellence of the structure as such. But they also
demand, largely by a kind of intuition, that the
music show some tangible relation to what they
recognize--also largely by intuition--as "human
interest." And that interest is aroused by actual-
ities of experience, real or imaginative, rather
than by abstractions, such as form in its essence
really is. Thus music whose only visible virtue
is artistic perfection is generally rejected by
what Philip Hale once called "that noble army of
mUsic lovers who know what they like."

90

Yet that army, as both artist and critic must
ultimately recognize, has by its acceptance or re-
jection pretty effectively determined the history
of our art. Its taste, although considerably guid-
ed (and Often intimidated) by the learned, still
reflects a rather simple and largely intuitive
judgment of what is good. . . . Thus music which
has a lasting appeal turns out in the long run to
be music which somehow accords with our more in-
clusive judgments of what is good in life.

"Human interest," as the intuition of the noble
army sees it, is an inclusive mental and emotional
awareness arising from an unpredictable combination
of items of experience. Critical interest (that of
the learned student of art) is by comparison highly
exclusive. . . . The trend in musical criticism,
like the trend in most presentday thought, is to-
ward the scientific; and human interest is not
readily reducible to scientific classification.

Yet a certain common ground between the two
camps exists. In all the arts, contemporary crit-
ical judgment takes large account of tensions as
contributing to the value of artistic forms. View-
ed as tensions merely, these are sufficiently ab-
stract to be apprehended without disturbing the
critic's exclusive preoccupations with art as art.
But in the view of the noble army, these same ten-
sions are perceptible, not merely as components of
art, but as fruitful stimulants of that intuition-
of experience--that same human interest--which is
its insatiable desire.

Can it be that these tensions—-and perhaps in
other equally factual components of the musical
substance--there exists a rational basis for those
intuitions? Can these be shown to operate for sug-
gestion in a manner common to all normally equipped
listeners? Can those facts of musical structure
which the skilled analyst views as "purely musical"
be interpreted also, in another light, as the bases
of an intelligible communication?

The whole history of music indicates that this
may be so. This book has been written in the be-
lief that it is so.

 

1Donald Ferguson, Masterworks of the Orchestral

Re etoire (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1954), p. 3.

 

91

Dr. Ferguson's ideas resemble those of Dr.
Dorian. He has given the analyzing annotator a strong
argument to support his practice. We shall see some
examples of his program notes in Chapter IV. What this
chapter attempts to do is to gather Opinions and a few
illustrations that demonstrate current rationales and
methods.

Although it is now thirty-eight years Old,

Frank Howe's article written for The Musical Times in

 

1930 remains one of the best exposés of the problem and
one of the most definitive in its suggestions for solu-
tions. It should, like each of the above dissected
essays, be read intact; but again, the principal
thoughts are gleanable. Continuing from the opening
paragraph that was quoted in Chapter I,1 Mr. Howes
commented that criticism is always easier to read than
formal analysis, that it is more interesting because
it represents Opinion; but he insisted that the anno-
tator's function is to
offer facts, not judgment, to provoke thought per-
haps, but not to provide it ready-made and final.
He must therefore eschew the first source of in-
terest on which he relies to attract his readers
when he is writing history, biography, or criticism.
No wonder that he often becomes dull. . . . The

psychological aim of the programme note ought to
be to encourage receptiveness in the listener; to

 

1See p. 7.

92

this end a bias in favor of the work is permissible
which would be out of place in criticism, whose ap-
proach to the same work ought in the first instance
to be defensively skeptical. It is not, therefore,
tactful . . . for the annotator to assume a lofty
superiority and point out that no one has ever be-
fore had a right idea of the music to be perform-
ed. . . .

If then so many kinds of comment are inapprOp-
riatel to the narrow scope of the concert programme
note, however interesting it may be in itself or
however fruitful in another context, what material
remains at the disposal of the unfortunate annota-
tor for making a readable and interesting note?

Mr. Howe listed three specifics: (l) biographical in-
formation; (2) revelation of the composer's musical
mind ("It renders a service alike to composer and lis-
tener"); (3) formal analysis, which has "a long and
respectable standing in this country [England], which
is the home of the annotated program." He emphasized
that analysis need not be dissection, "which kills both
the music and the annotator, but should be an expres-
sion of the logic of the movement"; then he illustrated
by a quotation from Tovey in which that gentleman dem-
onstrated sonata form as drama. Specifically Howe
wrote that
the way, therefore, to write an analytical note,

when analysis is plainly required, is to uncover

the composer's logic, not cut up his music nor de-

scribe its purple patches. The logic may be ex—

pressed in terms of drama or geography (a useful
metaphor in describing key changes), or evolution,

 

1All critics of program notes are quite willing
to say what the notes should not be; few are able to
formulate the converse.

93

or any other similar principle, so long as it is

not mere dissection. . . . Metaphors, so long as

they are readily recognizable, are preferable to

technical descriptions . . . because they make for

crispness.
Howe concluded that anything, in fact, may be legiti-
mate "if it accomplishes the two-fold aim of the pro-
gramme note, viz., (a) to put the listener psycholog—
ically into the right attitude for obtaining for himself
the maximum of understanding and enjoyment, and (b) to
make him aware of the main logical basis which he might
possible miss through distraction in detail."1

Now since Tovey is so often quoted and has been

referred to so frequently, a sample of his colorful
analysis might be welcome at this point. In the intro-
duction to his Essays he explains that "To avoid a fre-
quent source of misunderstanding, I must point out that
neither here nor in any other of my analytical essays
is the basis of analysis technical." Then he goes on
to state that "musical analysis is concerned with whip
is done. Unless the composer has left sketches, any
attempt to Speak of 'ngw_it is done' is downright

charlatanry."2

 

l
p. 305.

Howes, "Programme Notes," The Musical Times,

 

2Tovey, Essays, I, 4.

94

Again at the ninth bar the same change of har-
mony carries it to the extreme distance of B flat
minor. From this point the theme, in its new var-
iation, is carried through a passage of energetic
action in which various orchestral groups answer
each other, gaining and yielding ground in rapid
sword-play, until a close is about to be reached
in the very key in which the exposition had ended.
Here, however, the theme of figure (d) (from Ex. 2)
intervenes, no longer with its original bold spirit,
but in hushed mystery. Then, through the solemn
clouds of Ex. 3, figure (f), the wood-wind utter
plaintive fragments of the first theme (a) and its
variation, rising through distant keys in slow
chromatic steps, till we reach the very threshold
of our tonic. And here again the theme of figure
(d) appears mysteriously. But it suddenly blazes
into passion, and, plunging again into distant
keys, leads to a solemnly heroic close in G Sharp
minor. This close, and the fierce passage that
leads to it, will be heard again at the catastrophe
of the tragedy.

This continues for several pages. It is unabashed
analysis in greater detail than most concert-goers
would care to digest today; but it is imaginatively
written and not insufferably dull. This prompts the
expression of another generality: the analysis that
one finds today in most concert programs is more often
of the "road map" or descriptive variety than the kind
of detailed play-by-play account exemplified by Tovey;
or for that matter, like this kind of running descrip-
tion:2
It Opens (sehr ruhig) with tremblings in harps

and suggestive hiccoughs in the basses, to which
the violins and cellos bring a dreamy phrase in

 

1ibid., p. 118.

28ee footnote #2, p. 51.

95

octaves, all being pianissimo. The double clarinet
sighs over this at studied intervals, and the flutes
echo it, and the clarinet states a slumbrous inci-
dent while the violins essay a theme which is slow
and thoughtful. Flutes and oboes with second vi-
olins and Violas then sing the basic theme, which

is an awakening melody, of gentle cadence. This
divides itself among the woodwinds and enjoys a
Slight crescendo, the violins echoing the phrases
with the same subtle emphasis.

This "analysis" tells uS nothing that even an
iintrained ear could not detect; it is deadening to read
sand could serve as a great distraction if a reader
t:ried to follow it during a performance. Fortunately
tzhis kind of writing is no longer in vogue, although
:Lt.does Show up occasionally. It is not to be found
:Ln.any major symphony program, however. One is more
Ilikely to find a description like this one:

Evocation. This is the Opening number of the
piano suite. According to Gilbert Chase, it is a
fandanguillo (little fandango), a triple-rhythm
Spanish dance normally performed by a single couple
to an instrumental refrain, alternating with vocal
couplets.

Féte-Dieu a Séville is the French name for one
of the most important feast days of the Catholic
Church (Corpus Christi). In Seville, as in many
other Catholic cities on this day, there is a great
ecclesiastical procession. The Host, or Blessed
Sacrament, is carried in procession by a priest
under a canopy. The streets are strewn with flow-
ers. When the procession is halted now and then,
the Spectators improvise an unaccompanied song
called a saeta. The phrases of the saeta are
passed back and forth from one group of Spectators
to another, sometimes reaching a high pitch of
excitement.

 

lDetroit Symphony program, c. forty years ago.

96

Féte-Dieu a Séville begins with a march-like
strain which is soon joined by the melody of a
saeta. The two proceed in counterpoint. Presently
the saeta takes the lead, the march drOps into the
background and, as the saeta grows more and more,
excited, the music accelerates almost to a dance
tempo.. There is an abrupt climax. A calmer ver-
sion of the saeta follows and finally fades into
the distance.

Triana. Triana is a lower class suburb of
Seville noted for its gypsy population. The rhythm
of the pOpular paso-doble alternates and combines
with a toreador march or marcha torera. Piquant
cross rhythms and unexpected modulations contribute
to the rhapsodic character of this movement which
sometimes recalls Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsodies.

 

 

 

Another sample of a common type is this annota-
tzion from Cleveland:

It is revealing of Brahms' mature wisdom that
he offered for the finale not music to outbid the
Scherzo in appassionato qualities, but a dance-like
and cheerful Rondo. The designation is significant
and apt: Allegretto grazioso (B flat, 2/4). There
are at least three other individual subjects be-
sides the first: an A minor tune right out of the
"Love-Song Waltzes," first sung with melting sweet—
ness by the woodwinds; a dolce melody in.F major
by the piano, lightly accompanied, and its sequel,
another F major tune, dancelike and jaunty, sur-
rounded by pizzicato strings. . . . The coda, mark-
ed unypocogpiu presto, introduces a new rhythmical
framework for the main theme (triplets) and drives
briskly toward a brilliant conclusion without adding
weightiness or oratorical flourishes.

 

 

 

 

From Chicago comes the following type of anal-
ysis, continuing a long tradition:

Beethoven completed the Third Symphony in 1804
at Vienna. Private performances of the work were given

 

lEdward Downes, New York Philharmonic program,

February 11, 1967, p. H.

2ROy, Cleveland, November 10, 1960, p. 207.

97

in 1804 by Prince Lobkowitz's orchestra and, early
in 1805, it was played at a concert given by the
bankers, Wurth and Fellner. The first public per-
formance of the work was given on Sunday evening,
April 7, 1805, at the Theater an der Wien in Vienna.
The program carried the following announcement:

"A new grand symphony in D sharp by Herr Ludwig
van Beethoven, dedicated to his Serene Highness
Prince Lobkowitz. The composer has kindly consent-
ed to conduct the work." At the concerts of the
Chicago Symphony Orchestra the Third Symphony was
first heard on January 16, 1891.

In his study of Beethoven, Alexander Wheelock
Thayer has described how the Third Symphony origi-
nally bore a dedication to Napoleon Bonaparte on.
the title page. Ferdinand Ries, Beethoven's pupil,
describing the composer's reactions when he was
informed that the First Consul of France had pro—
claimed himself emperor, credits Beethoven with
the words: "Is then he, too, nothing more than an
ordinary human being? Now he, too, will trample
on all the rights of man and indulge only his am-
bition. He will exalt himself above all others,
become a tyrant!" Napoleon's name was erased from
the title page.

I. Allegro con brio, E flat major, 3-4 time.

An introduction consisting of only two E flat major
chords opens the first movement. The first theme
is then presented by the violoncellos as illus-
trated in the following example:

[The first eleven measures, in piano reduction.]

A transitional section contains two new ideas: the
first follows close after the first violin state-
ment of the first theme and presents a descending
three-note pattern with a dotted rhythm that is
tossed from one instrument to another. The second
transitional idea, more vigorous in character, is
again a descending melodic line with a somewhat
dance-like rhythm. This material leads directly
into the key of B flat major and the statement of
the second theme. The new theme begins with the
woodwinds and also employs the strings:

[Thirteen measures of the second theme, also in
piano reduction.]

The exposition may be repeated in performance.
The develOpment section begins with the first
idea of the transition section. The first theme

98

appears and is combined with the second, more vig-
orous idea of the transition section. The first
portion of the development, utilizing these ideas,
reaches a climax with a full-orchestral section
which gives emphasis to a harmonic sonority. As
this climax subsides a new theme is introduced,
appearing first in the oboe and in the remote key
of E minor. A treatment of the first theme makes
up the final portion of the development. Just be-
fore the return of the first theme in the recapit-
ulation, however, the famous passage in which the
tonic and dominant harmonies are sounded together‘
appears: the violins are given the dominant har-
mony of E flat major, playing tremolo, while the

horn enters, outlining the tonic chord of the first
theme.

{Plius this analysis continues through the balance of the
symphony, in very detailed fashion. But to repeat,
analyses with such detail do not appear often in today's
programs.

Arrand Parsons, theorist and educator, has been
cum-the faculty of Northwestern University for twenty
yea-rs and has written for the Chicago Symphony Since
1:he season of 1956/57. He inherited this particular
type of program note controlled by the tradition of
Iaearly Sixty years of Hubbard William Harris and Felix
ZBorowsky. Dr. Parson's theory is that a great deal of
information Should be offered, including an analysis
"from the listener's point of View"; from this the lis-

‘tener Should be free "to take or leave as much as he

¥

Arrand Parsons, Chicago Symphony program,
February 2, 1967, p. 19.

99

desires." He believes, like Dr. Dorian, that program

notes represent an educational activity that emphasizes

the expressive quality of the musicritself--"music in

musical terms." If there is a sin in the profession,

he believes it to be the extreme pOpularization of pro-

gram notes. His approach to all pieces is essentially

the same--i.e., to state the facts in an unprejudiced
fashion, then to offer an analytical description. His
technical. terms are immediately followed by parenthet-

ical explanations; and his annotations are reused with—

out change when a work is replayed. In recent years

his analyses have tended to become less detailed, but
they continue to display musical examples in notation.
Dr. Parsons stresses the freedom of each individual to

take a concert as he pleases--to read or not to read

the program notes. This rationale is quite peculiar

to this annotator; but in his case the symphony. sub--
scribers have become accustomed to this kind of anno—
tation, and the management wishes it continued.1

We travel to Boston next, where also abides a

long tradition. Following Philip Hale, John N. Burk

wrote for this orchestra from 1934 until his retirement

at the close of the 1964/65 season. The tradition in

Boston is that of much: information. Mr. Burk erte the

1Interview, November 22, 1967.

100

1CiJ1d of program note that could not be absorbed in the
few moments before a concert, but could profitably be
preserved for later reference. His notes still exude

dignity and thoroughness, and they are still being used,

eexren after_his death in 1967. An able young Englishman,

kaidrew Raeburn, the new Program Editor, draws his mate-
rnials from a number of sources in addition to the Sym-
phony files--sometimes from his own pen, more often
from that of the person deemed most qualified to com-
:nuent on the particular work at hand. The name of James
quons, editor of The American Record Guide, has appeared
nmare frequently than any other to date.

Many of Mr. Burk's notes are too lengthy to
reprint here in toto, but one sample is possible. The
reader will notice the wide range. of coverage that per-
Initted his notes to consume about 5,000 words per pro-
‘gram. This annotation of the Mozart "Prague" Symphony
inas preceded by the customary listing of basic.facts

(of first performance, instrumentation, first Boston

jperformance, etc.

The last symphony which Mozart composed before
his famous final three of 1788 (the E-flat, G minor,
and "Jupiter" symphonies) was the Symphony in D
major, called the "Prague" Symphony, which had its
first performance in that city early in 1787.

Mozart may not have composed it especially for
Prague, but when he went there from Vienna on a
sudden invitation, the new score was ready in his

portfolio for the first of two performances in the
Bohemian capital.

101

"Prague is indeed a very beautiful and agreeable
place," wrote Mozart on his arrival there. And he
had good cause to be gratified with the more than
friendly reception which he found awaiting him.
Figaro, produced there in the previous season, had
been an immense success, and its tunes were sung
and whistled on all sides. A bid was to come for
another opera, and Don Giovanni was to be written
and produced there within a year, and to cause
another furore of enthusiasm. The composer of
Figaro, as might be expected, was applauded loud
and long at the two concerts of his visit in 1787,
and after the D major symphony at the first of
them, he could not appease the audience until he
had improvised upon the piano for half an hour.

At length a voice shouted the word Figaro! and
Mozart, interrupting the phrase he had begun to
play, captured all hearts by improvising variations
from the air "Non piu andrai."

Writing on January 15 to his friend Gottfried
von Jacquin, Mozart related how a round of enter-
tainment mostly connected with music-making was
awaiting him. On the evening of his arrival, he
went with Count Canal to the "Breitfeld Ball, where
the flower of the Prague beauties assemble. You
ought to have been there, my dear friend; I think
I see you running, or rather limping, after all
those pretty creatures, married and single. I
neither danced nor flirted with any of them--the
former because I was too tired, and the latter from
my natural bashfulness. I saw, however, with the
greatest pleasure, all these people flying about
with such delight to the music of my Fi aro, trans-
formed into quadrilles and waltzes; for Here nothing
is talked of but Figaro, nothing played by Fi aro,
nothing whistled or sung but Fi aro, no opera so
crowded as Figaro, nothing but Figaro--very flat-
tering to me, certainly."

Franz Niemetschek, a Bohemian who wrote a bio—
graphy Of Mozart in 1798, said of the concert of
January 19: "The symphonies which he chose for
this occasion are true masterpieces of instrumental
composition, full of surprising transitions. They
have a swift and fiery bearing, so that they at
once tune the soul to the expectation of something
superior. This is especially true of the great
symphony in D major, which is still a favorite of
the Prague public, although it has been heard here
nearly a hundred times."

The Symphony in D major is noteworthy by the
absence of a minuet (in his earlier symphonies,

 

 

102

Mozart was often content with three movements).
Still more unusual is the Slow introduction to the
first movement. Haydn, and Beethoven after him,
were inclined to such introductions, but Mozart
usually preferred to begin at once with his lively
first theme. The exceptions, which occurred in
succession through Mozart's last years, were the
"Linz" Symphony in C major (K. 425), the introduc-
tion to Michael Haydn's Symphony in G major (K.
444), the "Prague" Symphony, and the famous E-flat
Symphony (K. 543) which followed.

Remembering that this symphony was composed
between Figaro and Don Giovanni, commentators have
noted a likeness in the chief theme of the allegro.
to the first theme of the Overture to Don Giovanni.
Eric Blom goes even further in associating the Sym-
phony with the opera that followed: "The porten-
tous and extended slow introduction of the 'Prague'
Symphony is charged with the graver aspects of Don
Giovanni; the half-close leading to the allegro-i5
practically identical with that at a similar junc-
ture in the great sextet of the opera, and an
ominous figure in the finale almost makes one think
of the stone guest appearing among a riot of mirth,
though the grace and the laughter of Susanna are
there, too. The slow movement makes us dream of
the idyllic summer-night stillness in Count Alma-
viva's invitingly artificial garden. The wonder of
the Symphony is, however, that in spite of the
variety of the visions it may suggest to the hear-
er, it is a perfect whole. Every structural part
and every thematic feature is exquisitely propor-I
tioned. No separate incident is allowed to engage
attention independently of the scheme in which it
is assigned its function, even where it is as in-
credibly beautiful as the second subject of the
first movement, which is surreptitiously introduced
by a passage that is apparently transitional, or as
engagingly spritely as the second subject of the
finale with its bubbling bassoon accompaniment."

 

 

 

The symphonies through the Salzburg period are
a record of growth from season to season within the
cramping limitations of the occasions they were
written for. The last six, through the Vienna de-
cade, are a more striking record of growth, not
because they are more widely Spaced, but because
they are quite free of limitations and restraints
of performance. The "Linz" Symphony Shows no Sign

103

of regard for limited abilities, and the "Prague"
Symphony, although presumably addressed to a better
orchestra, must have been found mercilessly exac-
ting by the players in that city. This symphony,
like the last three symphonies of two years later,
seems to be an idealization by the composer who
until then had never been able to break loose from
the immediate contingencies of performances. He
ranges freely, he indulges his fantasies, finds
new musical images. He assigns to the players parts
requiring an instant agility, an attack ensemble,
a refinement of phrasing which he must have known
they did not possess. Nor did it apparently bother
him that most of the fine points of the "Prague"
Symphony would surely drift past the ears of its
first audience. The "Prague" Symphony, technically
speaking, is at last the full symphonic Mozart.
The discourse throughout has a new degree of pliancy
in chromaticism and modulation, in the combination
rof motives. The melodic line is continuous, never
yielding to episodes or cadences, but rather gen-
erating them. Nor is it broken by the constant
alternation of strings and winds within a phrase,
for they are integrated as never before. The over-
all color of orchestra sound, the variation of
rhythmic stress, the overlapping of parts--these
are all the craftsman's devices in presenting a
pervasive melodic wealth which only Mozart could
conjure up.

This iS actually one of Mr. Burk's shorter
Eunnotationsl Yet even here he manages to approach the
Symphony obliquely: he does not Offer an analysis, but
Ilevertheless contrives to familiarize uS with its im-
Iportant features. Perhaps he felt that the structure
<>f a Mozart symphony required no special attention in
11959, for when he wrote on other works he did analyze

Inore fully, though always in narrative style. We can

1John N. Burk, Boston Symphony program, Oc-
tober 6, 1959, p. 9. Copyright © by Boston Symphony
()rchestra Inc.

104

agree that his writing displays dignity, scholarship,

and a rather business-like attitude.

In the Boston program of November 19, 1964,

Mr. Burk set forth some sound basic observations on the

nature of

scribable

the musical response, calling it "The Inde-

Act." He wisely accentuated the

utter incommunicability of music except in its own
terms of actual performance. . . . No one can ex-
plain why groups Of agreeable sounds, when multi-
plied into a symphony by Beethoven or Brahms, can
deeply move an audience and stir them into raptured
applause. It would be quite useless to try to ex-
plain this extraordinary phenomenon to the music-
starved man on his distant island [referring to a
personal experience described earlier in his ar-
ticle]; we can't even explain it to ourselves, but
only know that it is so. . . .

The isolation of music from everyday inter-
course is plain in our necessity to describe it in
words borrowed from non-musical experiences for
want of words of its own. Tone quality must be
described in terms of visual color. . . . Tones
are called "transparent," or "effulgent," "veiled"
or "dark." There are tactile borrowings--"soft,"
"velvety," "rough"; one speaks of "texture" as if
counterpoint had anything to do with the patterns
of the loom. . . .

The writer who is moved by a piece of music
will, with honorable intent, attempt to convey his
impression by calling up verbal images. . . .

Who can say why certain music in the minor mode
affects us as it does, while at times it makes a
quite cheerful impression? Certainly not the anal-
ysis. Technical analysis can never reach the true
nature of a piece of music, and is hardly more help
than so-called descriptive analysis which, borrow-
ing words from the other arts, can give us at best
a quasi-approximation in indifferent poetic images.

The artist who will win us by his poetic Skill
rather than by throwing his complexity at up will
perhaps even in these days be more enjoyed.

 

lBurk, Boston, November 19, 1964, p. 206.

Copyright © by Boston Symphony Orchestra Inc.

105

Mr. Burk reveals in this essay a great deal
about annotation, more by inference than direction,
more by exclusion than by inclusion. In the concert
year 1959/60, the Chattanooga and Nashville programs
used Mr. Burk's notes.1 In the first Chattanooga pro-
gram he made known to that audience some of his atti-
tudes on the sharing of the musical experience; repeat-
ed requests have produced no copy of that program for
this study, unfortunately; so his attitudes must be
ascertained from his annotations themselves and from
the featured article just quoted.

In New York the Philharmonic—Symphony Society
annotator is Edward Downes, known not only as the son
of the late distinguished music critic for the New York
Times, but as the radio voice of the Saturday afternoon
MetrOpolitan Opera quiz. His program notes are unique;
he writes in a very individual style easily recognized
by its vocabulary: "mugged," "harlequinade," "addle-
pated," "scaramuccio." One finds his rationale reflect-
ed in his writing--that there should be "something for
all."2 A perusal of several Of the New York programs

reveals to an inquiring reader a rich variety of

 

1A seemingly sensible practice not often en-
countered.

2Interview, October 23, 1967.

106

approaches: sometimes a learned and serious musicolog-.
ical annotation, frequently a rather thorough analysis
with musical examples ("after all, nearly everyone
reads music these days"), and occasionally just an in-
teresting commentary in a more pOpular vein. His anno-
tations offer vividly imaginative writing, a satisfying
amount of detail, and allusions that would Spur an in-
dustrious music lover to further reading after the
concert.

In the program of January 27, 1966, three works

are listed: the Sibelius Fourth Symphony, the Neilson

 

Flute Concerto and the Beethoven Fifth Symphony. Mr.

 

 

Downes uses-2,780 words to discuss this program--not a
voluminous quantity, compared to other major symphony
programs. In presenting the Sibelius he devotes con-
siderable space to a discourse on the place of this
symphony in Sibelius' output and the reasons for its
uniqueness; he repeatedly compares Sibelius and Richard
Strauss; he mentions the composer's throat condition;
he cites reactions to the first performance; he quotes
critics William Henderson (on the United States pre—
miere) and Olin Downes (on the Boston premiere), and
refers to the latter's pre-concert analysis for the
Boston ngp (later reprinted by Hale in the Boston
notes and by Gilman in the New York notes); finally he

lists the instrumentation. For the Nielson concerto

107

he uses a different approach: an orientation of Niel—
son's place in history, a bit of biography, one brief
paragraph on the place of the flute concerto in Niel-
son's output, and finally the musical themes in nota—
tion, with brief comments on the features of each
movement--form, tonality, and other evidences of struc-
ture. Several times Mr. Downes thoughtfully contrasts
Nielson to Sibelius. This paragraph is typical of his
style:

A deliciously naive variant of the principal
theme appears in lilting march tempo. In the orig-
inal version of the Concerto this led to further
transformation of the main theme in a vigorously
dotted rhythm and a cheerful conclusion in the key
of D major. But after the Paris premiere of the
Concerto Nielson changed the conclusion quite dras-
tically, continuing the Tempo di marcia with a re-
turn of the bass trombone in its role of clown, or
clodhopper, to present further bumbly transforma-
tions of the Tempo di marcia. After several further
wild surprises, the music lands happily in the key
of E major, to recapitulate the E major theme from
the first movement and bring the Concerto to a
sunny conclusion in that key.

 

For the Beethoven annotation Mr. Downes offers
the introductory paragraph that is quoted in Chapter
III? then one paragraph on the date of the first per-
formance; after that, an analysis in the form of a

commentary, with the theme of each movement in musical

 

lDownes, New York, January 27, 1966.

2See p. 115.

108

notation. He, as nearly all other annotators, mentions
the "Fate knocking" motive. Some of his colorful ex-
pressions stand out: "a blazing C major," "elephantine
gambols" of the double basses, and "the orchestra pulls
itself together with a sudden crescendo and strides
into the light." In general, the New York notes strive
for reader interest, tending to be a combination of
erudition and stylistic appeal, thus hopefully offering
something to suit every preference in the audience.

From the program notes authors in other cities
comes a number of pertinent, though shorter published
statements. Dorothea Kelley (Dallas) wrote a short
preface to her notes in a recent program:

If the written word can in some measure help
to make the music of these concerts more under-
standable and comprehensible, and by so doing bring
added enjoyment to the audience, then the purpose
of these Notes has been accomplished.

Certain procedures which have proven practical
in the last fourteen seasons will be continued.
Biographies of the well-known composers will be
kept at a minimum, with the stress only upon events
in an artist's life which have direct bearing upon
the work under discussion. The main body of ma-
terial will be a non-technical analysis of the
music, and technical terms may be discussed occa-
sionally under a separate heading for those who
wish to pursue the subject further. Brief biogra-
phies of the soloists, purely factual and pruned of
press agent hyperboles, will be presented whenever
possible.

 

lDorothea Kelley, Dallas Symphony program,
September, 1967.

109

Joseph Biskind offered his ideas in a six-
paragraph article in a recent San Francisco Symphony
bulletin. Some of them are selected for this quotation:

Program annotators are faced with a difficult,

not to say impossible task. For, as musicians know
to their sorrow, music is accurately describable
only in terms peculiar to itself. . . . The program
annotator has but two choices--he can write either
technical analysis, which is understandable only
to the musician, or verbal rhapsodies, which may
or may not be entertaining in themselves, but which
have nothing to do with the music. It would seem
to follow, therefore, that the program annotator
ought to concentrate on the music as experienced.
Mr. Biskind proceeds to discuss the musical experience,
arriving at the conclusion that "the annotator has no
choice but to confine himself to the outward Shape of
the musical journey. The best that he can do is to
chart the direction of the musical stream on its way
to that long—foreseen destination, hoping that his
charts may help in crossing difficult places."l He
indicates the indispensibility of technical terms, dull
though they may be, finally quoting Tovey's statement,2
"Schubert's tonality . . . etc."

From Spokane Algis Grinius affirms that

the problem is a challenging one if one wants

to be honest about it. And I do. First, I think

the program notes should try to reconstruct briefly
the times in which the composition was written and

 

lJoseph Biskind, San Francisco Symphony program,
December 4, 1963, p. 7.

2See p. 45,

110

performed. This involves research, and where prac-
tical, digging into the letters of the composers on
their contemporaries. The problem concerning con-
temporary composers is more difficult because fre-
quently biographical and historical information is
lacking. Secondly, the analytical aspect of the
work in question leads one to consider the audience
and their capacity to understand musical terms or
notation. If one does include analysis it must be
somehow transcribed in non—technical terms. I can-
not say conclusively that in this department I have
been successful. But a cursory glance at other
progrim notes will verify my opinion that they also
fail.

William Burke (Kalamazoo), admittedly an am-
aiteur annotator, offers some interesting thoughts:
There must be plenty of amateur writers. What
is essential is that the ama actually be there:
you must love it and be glad to do it even if only
a few were to read your notes. But I couldn't
stand the idea that a mere handful read mine--hence
my efforts to make them at least a little inter-
esting.2
Charles Frink (Eastern Connecticut Symphony),
composer, writes that "people seem to enjoy reading
about the composer and his background. Technical anal-
ysis usually does not seem to help the audience re-
spond to the music. Personal opinion of the annotator
sometimes provokes controversy, and I think this helps

to build‘interest."3

From Tucson Geraldine Saltzberg writes:

 

lA. Grinius, Spokane, questionnaire.

2William Burke, Kalamazoo, questionnaire.

3Charles Frink, New London, questionnaire.

111

Annotators Should meet the needs of the au-
dience. The Tucson audience is not made up of
music students or intellectuals. The annotator
must be a teacher and take his audience as he
finds it; he must make his lesson interesting
enough for his reader to want to continue read-
ing--and listening.l

One skeptic responded to the questionnaire in
1:his fashion:

I Should be curious about audience reaction to

program notes. I rather doubt their value, myself.
I seldom read notes unless I am unfamiliar with the
music to be performed. When writing notes, I try
to make them as interestingly informative as I can.
The audience as a whole, I've been led to
believe, is not interested in formal analysis. I
doubt if many of them would even attempt to read
an analytical digest. On the other hand, I do not
use the apocryphal tales that accumulate like bar-
nacles on popular masterpieces.

It is hardly necessary to add that his orchestra re-

acted strongly against circulating any audience ques-

tionnaire!

In view of the negative statement of the hypo—
thesis On which this paper is built, it is quite indic-
ative that only this one skeptic appeared among the
dozens Of people whose reactions were sought. At this
juncture there is a temptation to restate the hypothesis
positively; respect for annotators has increased with

the progression of the research. Already it is possible

to conclude that, as in any educational situation, an

 

lGeraldine Saltzberg, Tucson, questionnaire.

2Source withheld.

112

education in music appreciation is available to those
who will exert the effort to seek it; the quality of

teaching may vary, but the desire to teach is present.

Summary

To summarize the presentation of these several
writers' credos is in one sense a very easy task, and
in another sense an impossible one. Every annotation
is a new work of art in itself and, like any original
creation, a reflection of its creator. This means that
every annotation is unique, therefore resistant to
molding. As Klaus Roy suggested, the annotation is a
literary creation and as such it must be the best piece
of literature it is possible to create.1 There are
patterns of thought and purpose in this creative pro-
cess, however, since all such essays are lessons in
music appreciation. There is a rather general agree-
ment that such essays Should not be dull, and that the
likelihood of dullness increases directly in prOportion
to the amount of technical writing. There is some
agreement, too, that even when analysis is deemed nec-
essary, it need not and Should not be aimed at the mu-
sician, but at the unskilled layman, hence couched in

layman's language. There seems to be a comparatively

 

1Roy, interview, May 10, 1967.

113

firm conviction, Often implied rather than expressed,.
that "the music is the thing," in Spite of the examples
of fantasy and anecdotes one frequently encounters.
Reduced to Simplest terms, annotators do aim to inform
and to guide, in the hope of creating listener recep-.
tiveness and increasing his understanding and enjoyment
of the music. T. S. Eliot's plaudit to the critic can
be applied to the competent annotator:

SO the critic to whom I am most grateful is the
one who can make me look at something I have never
looked at before, or looked at only with eyes cloud-
ed in prejudice, set me face to face with it and
then leave me alone with it. From that point, I
must rely on my own sensibility, intelligence, and
capacity for wisdom.1

The widest cleft in annotation opens between

analysis and fantasy; but where should the line be

drawn? Is it a fixed line of demarcation or a flexible
boundary? One answer might be that for the imaginative
and well informed writer the line flexes without break-
ing, while for the unimaginative or less well informed
it is likely to be a firm line anchored in stolid con-
viction. It is regrettable, but true, that as one

scans many programs, those of the class B, C and D or-

chestras Show more shades of weakness than those of the

major symphonies. This is not to condemn all notes

 

1T. S. Eliot, On Poetry and Poets (London:
Faber and Faber, 1957), p. 1177’

 

114

produced by those orchestras, for some are very satis-
fying; but among the class A orchestras one detects a

higher standard of competency in all areas.

Problems Facing the Annotator

There are still some moot questions to be con-
sidered. For one, there is the matter of personal
Opinion: what place does it have in a program bul-
letin? Should the listener be informed as to what he
is expected to hear? How much Should he be told? We
have tabulated a preponderance of Opposition to this
preconditioning, yet have shown that all writers are
bound to be subjective to some degree; in other words,
annotators cannot achieve complete Objectivity. For
one thing, there is the analogy of "counsel for the

defense":1 one must defend--that is the pro quid est.

 

of program notes; therefore one must seek and promul-
gate arguments pro the composition. Already, then, one
is showing bias. But it should be manifest by now that
this salesmanship has its limits. One must be honest,
one must make no statements that go beyond the function
of serving both the music and the public; one must not

conjecture.

 

lTovey's term; see p. 48.

115

Here is an example of some comments on Brahms

that might be considered of questionable judgment:
It bespeaks a man unrevealed in his personal life--
a sensitive artist capable of poetic tenderness and
deep feeling. Writing a symphony after Beethoven
was no laughing matter to Brahms. To him the key
of C minor meant'hard, pitiless struggle, iron en-
ergy and dramatic intensity. . . . This is indeed
the masterwork of a true genius.
Did the writer know for certain what C Minor meant to
Brahms?2 Does that statement apply equally to the
string quartet Op. 1 and the piano quartet Op. 60, both
in C minor? And does he imply too strongly that this
symphony (No. l) is THE masterwork of Brahms? Does he
leave enough mental room for the listener to expand his
own ideas on this symphony? These questions raise
doubts.

An even more vivid example of personal opinion
comes from the pen of one of the best known annotators,
yet there is a difference:

Like Beethoven's own character, this Fifth Symphony
is music of struggle and triumph. In its emotional
high voltage it is an intensely forward-looking work,
embodying one of the most powerful music trends of
the following one hundred years. In the central
importance it gives to rhythm, it reaches beyond

the century-span, past Stravinsky's Rite of Spring,
to the 1920's and 1930's.3

 

1Source withheld.

2It is an idea proposed by Walter Niemann in
llis book, Brahms (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1930), p.

3Downes, New York, January 27, 1966.

116

'Ihe closing sentence is as controversial as possible.
.At first thought it seems inapprOpriate to make such
a dogmatic statement. On second thought it withdraws
into a different position: because it so obviously
represents one individual's Opinion, it leaps the chasm
into criticism. An intelligent reader will take it as
just that; it might cause him to ponder (a valuable
response), but it would scarcely be taken at face value
without a challenge. It most certainly would increaSe
his anticipation for hearing this astounding rhythm,
and it might Open to him a new Beethovian vista.
Referring again to Klaus Roy, one of the few
who ventured to voice his inner thoughts in this area,
we.quote:

Responses to an art work.are always bound to
subjective, and perhaps the question is how val-
uable is the Opinion of the person so responding?
Similar to music criticism it isn't so much the
Opinion that counts, but the activity, the process
itself. If the writer is someone who may have val-
uable insights to contribute, the fact that they
might be arguable and should not be taken as immu-
table 1aw can be recognized and valuably used by
the perceptive reader. Anyone can obtain and pre-
sent the facts; but what we have here is akin to
the interpretive reporting Of our better colum-
nists. We are less interested in their facts than
in their Opinions; in music, of course, the great
example remains Donald Tovey.l

A word of caution, though, to the average

writer: note that Mr. Roy referred to "our better

 

lRoy, letter, June 13, 1967.

117

«columnists." This is a dangerous area; it approaches
criticism as opposed to "pure" annotation in the tra—
ditional sense. It is true that "anyone can obtain and
present the facts"; it is likewise true that the lis-
tener usually needs something more than just the facts--
he needs guidance. The individual author must use his
own judgment, after weighing the import Of an annota-
tor's influence. He must be quite sure of his ground;
he must avoid rash generalizations; he must make well-
supported statements; and he must be lucid. Tovey also
cautions the author—musician who, he says, "must guard
against the danger of confusion between knowledge that
is relevant to the understanding of works of art, and
knowledge that is relevant only to the discipline of an
artist's training."1 This is a superb guiding premise
for writing program notes; careful absorption of its
meaning can aid an annotator in selecting his method
and his vocabulary, as well as in determining his basic
philosophy. It is especially poignant for musicians
who are tempted to discuss music in musician's language.
To be left out in the Open is an uncomfortable
Situation that results sometimes from such unfinished

commentaries as this:

 

1Donald Francis Tovey, Beethoven (London:
Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 4.

 

118

The opening movement [of Brahms' Second Sym-
phony] is a miracle of symphonic form, in which
arge, noble ideas derive before our very ears from
two fragments.1 [This was not enlarged upon.]

 

Similarly, a "preset" is disturbing:

What could a man proclaim in 1955--especially
a Jew of European origin living in America [Bloch]?
This is the beginning of more than program notes
permit, but I Offer a suggestion. The melody and
the harmony of the work Share a striking character—
istic: the "natural" intervals--octaves, fifths,
thirds, the intervals the ear itself creates--are
just missed throughout. This is what creates the
tension of the music. It suggests a great voice
barely able--after enormous effort--to Sing its
natural song.

How much more preferable to let the hearer determine

what Bloch's Proclamation for Trumpet and Orchestra

 

suggests to him? After reading the above, it would be
difficult to listen with a free mind.2
AS a final reference in this chapter, we recall
T. S. Eliot's comment about the critic. The annotator
Should remember that listening to music (an aesthetic
experience) is a very personal experience quite sacred
to the individual--and doubly so if it is a new exper-

ience (i.e., a new composition). He must remember that

each person reacts to a musical performance in his own

 

lSource withheld.

2Does the reader recall a certain popular book
of the 1930's in which the author attached texts to all
the standard repetory themes in order to facilitate
remembering them? If so, is Brahms' Second still
"Calm and clear, D major the key?"

119

way and to his own degree, that he often needs guidance,
he usually needs information, and that he can profit by
some stimulation of his thought and imagination.
Another moot question is that of musical vocab-
ulary. How technical does the writer dare to be with-
out blocking out his reading audience? In Chapter V
we Shall cite some specifics, but a few comments are
in prOper sequence here. Judging from the general
trend of music education in the United States today,
we know that there is a higher percentage of musical
literacy than ever before; and we know that the general
educational level of the populace, especially of the
symphony audience, is also at its highest point in our
history. We know from many articles in newspapers and
pOpular magazines that today's student is confronted
with ever increasing demands upon his mind--demands
that he is meeting. It would be tempting to conclude
that today's concert-goer is more astute and better
informed than at any time in the past. According to
the American Music Conference, in 1967 an estimated
800,000 adults were enrolled in extension courses to
learn to play musical instruments, and another
41,000,000 answered the roll call of amateur musicians

in the United States.l The number of community

 

1Christian Science Monitor, December 30, 1967,
p. 13.

120

orchestras and touring musical groups of all kinds has
increased phenomenally Since World War II. In Michigan
alone there are some twenty-two community orchestras
listed by the American Symphony Orchestra League, and
probably at least that many unlisted, plus another
dozen or so college or university orchestras of com-
mendably high standards of performance. Add to this
the influence of television (for the good, that is)
and it would seem that a large segment of most au-
diences should be reasonably receptive to musical
ideas. Critic Robert Taylor, writing in the Boston

Sunday Herald, quoted a letter to him from Klaus Roy:

 

In your review you mentioned the word "atonal-
ity," but did not explain it. Not so many years
ago, that and such terms as "sonata form," "reca-
pitulation," "inversion," "polyphony," etc., were
all considered much too technical for the layman.
Nowadays, most hearers take them in stride. . . .
No one will admit, after personal experience, that
the essential joy of music was destroyed by know-
ledge.1

For an actual determination of the limits to this use
of musical terms, each writer should know his own au—
dience--and know it by some accurate determination
rather than by unscientific guesses or assumptions.
Only thus can annotator and audience meet on common
ground. Likewise, the line between understanding and
possible vagrancy is moot and must be determined for

each audience separately.

 

1Robert Taylor, Boston Sundangerald, February
15, 1959, Section III, p. 4.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANNOTATIONS ON SPECIFIC WORKS

This chapter analyzes and compares some writing
samples on the Specific compositions mentioned in Chap—
ter I. Orchestra annotators and managers were asked to

submit programs that included the Beethoven Fifth Sym-

 

phony, the Brahms Second Symphony, Debussy La Mer, any

 

first performance or controversial contemporary work,
and a choral presentation. In many cases the annota-
tors had not written notes on these specific works, so
were unable to comply; several substituted other Bee-
thoven or Brahms symphonies; some merely sent what pro-
grams they had on hand. Reading the samples was any-
thing but tedious; the variety of writing was enough to
maintain interest. In spite of expected inconsistency
of quality and length, individual enterprise and
uniqueness shone through and offered many surprises.
The one firm conviction that emerged was that there is
no such thing as a worthless program note. Some au-
thors had very little to say, some maneuvered all
around their subject, and some were far too brief.

But everyone had something to say, and said it posi-

 

tively. Some said it poorly, some charmingly. Some

121

122

Spoke about the composer and his times, others focused
on the work at hand. A few relied heavily on other
people's ideas, using many quotations; and a few got
trapped in the mire of a single facet such as the "Fate
knocking" motive of the Beethoven first movement.

In general the major orchestra programs pre-
sented the fullest and most appealing notes. Once in
awhile, however, a class C or D program brought a
pleasant surprise, and a class A or B program the Op-
posite. Although the matter of program length is
scheduled for Chapter V, it should be affirmed here
that it enters as a factor in annotation quality. For
example, an author with a dozen lines at his disposal
can write only a few basic facts with little or no
original contribution. Many a program is limited to
four pages, two of them taken up by titles and the
patron and orchestra membership lists. Perhaps we can
concede that a little is better than nothing, but a
little can also by its omissions be either misleading
or frustrating. On the other hand, a writer with sev-
eral pages at his disposal has considerably more free-.
dom, and at the same time a real challenge to control
his expression carefully. An annotation of, say, 800
words is too short to allow rambling, SO a writer must
select his ideas carefully and express them succinctly

if he expects to entice and enlighten his audience.

123

Any annotation that demonstrates such care immediately
stands out, so it is easy to become prejudiced in favor
of a skillful program annotator. If rated as a group,
these annotations would very likely produce our old ac-
quaintance, the parabolic curve--a few A's and F's,
more B's and D's, and many C's. In analyzing the sam-
ples there will be a rating, assigned subjectively by
the author's application of standards established by a
representative panel of concert-goers. Certainly pre-
ference for the A standard is acknowledged, since ex-
cellence is always the goal to be sought in education.1
In weighing the illustrations against the established
criteria, there is no intent to censure or discount-
enance any writer. Consequently the authors of uncom-
mendable annotations will remain anonymous.

To establish criteria for the most acceptable
annotation, a panel of five members was selected to
represent symphony audiences at large. Membership of
the panel is shown in Table 4. The table shows that
one panel member is a music lover with no musical
training or experience, two members enjoyed the prac-
tice of music while in school, and two are professional

music teachers—-one in a small college and one in a

 

1The reader is referred to John W. Gardner's
paperback book, Excellence (New York: Harper, 1961).

 

124

TABLE 4

PANEL CONSTITUENTS

 

 

Number
concerts Musical
Member Sex Education Profession per year experience

 

A F 2 years Secretary 4 Piano, violin
college in high school
B M A.B. Banker 5 None
C M A.B. Manufac— 10 Piano, cello,
turer trombone in

high school
and college

D M M.A. Professor 12 Piano, compo-
of Music, sition
liberal arts
college

E M Ph.D. Professor 6 Flute, theory

of Music,
large state
university

 

large university. Selection of the panel was guided

by the desire to include a variety of intelligent per-
sons whose concert habits might be representative of a
sophisticated symphony audience. Their combined state-
ment of what a good program note should contain would
be one type of criteria qualifying as worthy of consid-
eration, whose application would certainly be more
valid than subjective judgment by the author alone.

This panel was given several tasks, but the first and

125

principal one was to state what they sought in a good
program note. There was no collusion--members worked
entirely alone. A compilation of their reports pro-

duced the following guide:

TABLE 5

PANEL CRITERIA FOR A GOOD ANNOTATION

 

 

Cited by
Information desired panel members
1. Biography of the composer A C E
2. Political and social influences C E
3. Background of the composer's work
on the specific composition, with
its relation to his other works A B C D E
4. Unusual features, such as structure
or instrumentation B C E
5. Outline of the music (movements,
themes, development, etc.) A B C D E
6. Anecdotes that reveal the composer's
character, moods or ideas D

Adhering to the principle of majority rule, Nos. 1, 3,

4 and 5 emerged as essential; we shall include No. 2
also, as being closely related to No. 3. Panel members
B, D and E also stressed the necessity for non-technical
language. Undoubtedly every reader of this paper would
like to add his own stipulations, perhaps placing more
emphasis on the aesthetic value of the music than did
the panel. But annotations are written for the audi-
ence, and the panel represents reasonably well the edu-

cational level of the audience; so this chapter will

126

be guided by their standards, and examples will be
rated l.- 5 by the author according to the completeness

of the information listed in Table 5, items 1 - 5.

Beethoven's Fifth Symphony

 

Of the Beethoven annotations which were read,
27% presented a few general statements, but little
specific information. Another 11% offered a little
more, even some critical judgment, and could be con-
sidered moderately satisfying. This leaves 62% that
by panel standards would be of real help to an audi-
ence. Perhaps a few illustrations will be convincing,
beginning with some from the group that would be rated
lowest.

The Fifth Symphony, for instance, is the most
succinct statement of Beethoven's philosophy, both
musical and personal. What could be more "dramat-
ic" than the four-note motif that he first hurls
at his hearers and that dominates the entire first
movement? Or the long crescendo bridge from the
third to the fourth movements that begins so am-
biguously and builds so inevitably to the burst of
triumph that is the finale? No wonder the Fifth
is the most universally beloved symphony, and be-
sides, as Herbert Weinstock comments, it is "the1
most eminently whistleable music ever composed."

This is all--one paragraph in the midst of five that
were intended to deal with three Beethoven works on

the same program. (It was preceded by a one-sentence

 

lSource withheld.

127

reference to the drama of Beethoven's ideas.) Rating
by panel standards is about I. This program came from
a city of 1,000,000 population, whose orchestra budget
could well have afforded more space to the author's
efforts—-efforts that would have been rewarding, judg-
ing by the knowledge of the work that he displayed in
these few sentences. Of twenty-eight pages in the pro-
gram, one and one-half were devoted to the program
notes; furthermore, the notes were spread thinly amidst
the advertising over five widely separated pages. This
was certainly a discouraging offering to the audience.

There was a disappointing example from another
major symphony--an annotation of 800 words devoted ex-
clusively to a discussion of performance problems of
the opening six bars. Even though it was knowledgeably
written (it would have to be, to find so many words on
so small a subject), it would scarcely excite a lis-
tener or arouse his anticipation to hear the symphony.
Rating: perhaps l.

Another annotation used 550 words as follows:
one paragraph to say that the symphony is so well known
that "comment seems almost superfluous," that ever
since Schindler's remark about Fate"an endless stream
of interpretations have attached themselves to it? a
second paragraph to speak of Beethoven's aversion to

"programmatic connotations" and to recall his pupil's

128

report that the motto was an imitation of a bird call;
a third paragraph to stress the importance of the motto
to the cyclic design of the symphony; a fourth para-
graph to deal with dates of the composition; a fifth

to describe the concert of its first performance; fi—
nally, a closing paragraph to aver that later perfor-
mances have been better and programs shorter, resulting
in the establishment of the symphony as "a truly im-
portant cornerstone of the symphonic repetoire."1 This
essay is respectably written and rather interesting,
but with exception of two paragraphs, very tight lipped
about the secrets of the music or the composer. Since
it revealed very little information desired by our
panel, it would have to be rated no higher than £°

Here is a complete example that is very read-

able, though brief and, by panel standards, still not
very satisfactory:

For Beethoven the writing of a symphony was a
prolonged act of labor. A severe self-criticism
dominated his relentless drive in seeking perfec-
tion. In the case of his Fifth Symphony, it is
known that he made preliminary sketches for the
first three movements during the years 1800 and
1801, a period encompassing the First and Second
symphonies. Also, there is evidence that he took
up his task once again between 1804 and 1806 while
working on Fidelio and the Fourth Piano Concerto.

The date of its completion is not definitely
known--perhaps at Heiligenstadt during 1807.

 

lSource withheld.

129

The first performance took place in the Theater-
an-der-Wien on December 22, 1808. Although it had
been commissioned by Count Franz von Oppersdorff,
it was dedicated jointly to two of the composer's
personal friends, Prince Lobkowitz and Count Ras-
oumovsky. As one might expect, not all members of
the audience were pleased. The composer and the-
orist Jean Lesueur found it "too exciting" and con—
cluded that the symphony should not have been writ-
ten. The great god Spohr insisted that the Opening
theme (the famous "three shorts and a long"), which
dominates the first movement and is to be found in
the others, was "wanting in dignity."

All sorts of stories have been conducted con-
cerning the "meaning" of this symphony. The most
attractive one is that the "three shorts and a
long" represent Fate knocking on the composer's
door. Although the composer denied it, one sus-
pects that this falsehood is more echt Beethoven
than the truth.

During World War II this same theme (or is it
a motive?) always Opened the German news broadcasts
beamed to the Nazis by the B.B.C. It was a very
clever move on the part of the English, for Bee-
thoven has always been associated in one way or
another with the concepts of freedom and the bro-
therhood of man. Yet he was--with the possible
exception of Wagner--the most sacred "Aryan" cow
in the new Nazi history of German culture. But to
add insult to injury, those "three shorts and a
long" happened to represent the International Morse
Code symbol for the letter "V" (° ' ' -), and Prime
Minister Churchill's two outstretched fingers were
ever there to assure his countrymen that "V" stood
for "Victory."

For once in history a symphony and its creator
had served as powerful weapons in a psychological
war.

This, too, was squeezed in three segments between ad-

vertisements. At least it was on three alternate pages

to allow continuity by turning single pages! And this,

too, was in another major symphony program of thirty-

six pages. Rating: about 2.

 

lSource withheld.

130

In so many programs, as in the public mind, the
extreme focus on the "Fate knocking" and "V for Victory"
had clouded vision and obstructed the larger view. If
annotators cannot climb beyond these trivialities to
see the mountaintop View, surely they have missed Bee-
thoven. Even those authors who see this symphony as a
bold breakaway from classical tradition do not neces-
sarily feel its tremendous dramatic impact and breath-
taking exhilaration. This was the position of another
author (major symphony) who made his position clear,
but whose only critical judgment was signed over by
proxy to Berlioz. It appears to be difficult for the
musician-author to desert the practice of his art long
enough to be a sensitive discerning artist, or as Tovey
said, to be conversant with that knowledge which is

relevant to the understanding of art works. Even the

 

late Alfred Frankenstein, one of the most highly re-
spected critics, concentrated so hard upon the details
of construction in the Beethoven Fifth that he probably
lost all but the musicians in his audience. (We must
give him credit, however, for including some enlighten-
ing facts that others overlooked--notably the entire
concept of the relative weights of symphonic movements
in the time of Beethoven. In this regard he claimed

the relationship of this particular symphony to Mozart's
Jupiter and Schubert's C Major, both of which conclude

with important, climactic finales.)

131

The annotator in one of our smaller cities,
writing for a class D orchestra program, was able in
a single page to focus on many of the major points in
the music:

The sketches for this universally known and
cherished monument of music date back to 1800, the
year of the First Symphony, and Beethoven continued
working on it while he was occupied with "Fidelio"
and the Fourth Piano Concerto. Moreover, he prob-
ably put it aside completely to create the Fourth
Symphony, so that the first performance of Op. 67
is dated December 22, 1808, on an all-Beethoven
program.

Great and strongly individual though they are,
the First, Second and Fourth Symphonies remain,
nevertheless, extensions of the Haydn and Mozart
molds. Even the "Eroica," with all its titanic
proportions, is again "in the mold." But in the
Fifth, setting aside all smugly superficial prat-
ings-about "Fate" jangling the knocker on the door,
or about telegraphic symbols for "Victory," the
sincere disciple of Beethoven ultimately discerns
such concentrated drama, such driving vigor, and
such revelations of the master's sorrows, rages,
enthusiasms, and reveries that, finally, there is
only amazement, speechless reverence, and humble
gratitude that this sere planet gave birth to a
musical brain capable of such utterances. Whether
one considers the galvanizing energy of the first
movement, the sublimities of the second with its
"Haydnesque" variations on two themes, or the mys-
terious opening of the third with its incredible
trio(so naively described by Berlioz as "the gambols
of a delighted elephant") leading to the long pedal
point on A flat and thus reaching for the resplend-
ently triumphant glories of the fourth movement--
in the end, there is one answer, utter perfection.
It is interesting to recall that the symphony form-
ed part of the very first program of the New York
Philharmonic Society on December 2nd, 1842. In
tonight's performance of the last movement, the top
trombone part will be played by an alto trombone
rather than by the customarily used tenor trombone--
thus following Beethoven's original scoring.l

 

1F. Crawford Page, Baton Rouge.

132

Notice how much he has packed into this one page of a
6" x 9" program: the sketches, dates, contemporary
works by Beethoven, date and content of the first per-
formance program; also the uniqueness of the Fifth as
compared to his early symphonies, the salient dramatic
and emotional features; the energy, sublimity, the
likeness of the second movement to Haydn, some of the
unique features (the third movement, the long pedal
point leading to the "resplendently triumphant glories
of the fourth movement"); and he adds a bonus reference
to the appearance of this symphony on the first New
York Philharmonic concert in 1842, as well as a final
sentence mentioning the trombones. Note that he played
down the significance of "Fate knocking" and "V for
Victory." If he had to write tersely, he did it well.
It does, however, whet one's appetite for more words
and more information. A longer annotation would have
been aesthetically and intellectually welcome. Rating:
at least a 2:112; more biographical data, more polit-
ical and social background, and more analysis would
have raised this rating.

In his collected annotations, Lawrence Gilman
devoted one paragraph to dates and contemporary works

(Fidelio and the Fourth Piano Concerto), four para-

 

graphs to Grove's and d'Indy's conjectures about the

presence of Beethoven's personal problems reflected in

133

the symphony, and one final paragraph to a brief expan-
sion of his belief in its quality of epic valor. Ra-
ting: 1. The final paragraph is significant:

Many things have been found in the Fifth Sym-
phony--the summons of Fate, martial celebrations,
the repercussions of a tragic love affair, the note
of the yellow-hammer heard in country walks. But
whatever Beethoven did or did not intend to say to
us in this tonal revelation, there is one trait
that the C minor Symphony has beyond every other,
and that is the quality of epic valor. There is
nothing in music quite like the heroic beauty of
those first measures of the Finale that burst forth
at the end of the incredible transition from the
Scherzo with its swiftly cumulative crescendo, and_
the overwhelming emergence of the trombones--so
cannily held in reserve throughout the foregoing
movements. This is music pregnant with the great-
ness of the indomitable human soul. Listening to
it, one knows that the inward ear of Beethoven had
almost caught that lost word which, could a man
but find it, would make him master of the hosts
of Fate and of the circling worlds.

There was one other class D orchestra that ex-
celled in the author's grasp of the unique power and
construction of this symphony. The opening paragraph
reveals his approach:

This symphony is without doubt the most popular
of all symphonies. It has had a long and hard life,
but has managed to survive as a strong and compel-
ling masterpiece in spite of the wear and tear of
hundreds of performances both good and bad. In
fact, it received rather rough treatment at its
first performance in Vienna in 1808, when it was
inadequately rehearsed, indifferently played and
coldly received by the audience and critics who
felt that it was too long and too complicated.

For its period this was a daring work, relatively
more progressive perhaps than many a symphony
written today. If this familiar music does not
seem daring to us now, it does remain the work of

1Gilman, Orchestral Music, p. 45.

 

134
a bold and vigorous man who touches us with the
strength of his personality when we hear his music.
Any symphony is a complicated structure in detail,
and this one is no exception. Its popularity
rests, we feel, on the fact that Beethoven chose
to build his forms with melodic materials which
are unusually simple and concise, and which appeal
easily and directly to the imagination.
From this introduction the writer moved directly into
a description of each movement, giving each a paragraph
of about the above length. His closing words were:
"When the powerful main theme blazes forth again it is
as though Beethoven is demonstrating in his music what
he had at last discovered in life: that man is not
the slave but the master of his destiny."1 This anno-
tator concentrated on the music; his space was limited,
his type extremely small and crowded. Had he included
more background and some biography, his rating would
have fared well. Assigned: 2-lé2.

The Louisville Orchestra program presented an
annotation whose information and directness of style
would appeal to many. It was pleasantly printed with-
out any distracting advertisements (the program con-
tained only eight pages, with two advertisements on the
back cover). The opening paragraph shows us the au-

thor's no-nonsense approach:

Although it has, since its composition (1805),
the reputation of being the most popular and most

 

lWray T. Lundquist, South Bend Symphony pro-

gram, March 15, 1953.

135

widely performed of Beethoven's Symphonies, the
Fifth is in one important respect quite atypical.
In fact, nowhere else among the composer's orches-
tral pieces will we find the traditional forms so
placed at the service of an overall dramatic con-
ception. Even in the famous Ninth Symphony, the
grand choral finale with its introductory summary
of all that has gone before has seemed to many
commentators somewhat of an afterthought; sketch-
books bear this out.

He goes on to mention the "special urgency" of the
first notes, the "dark-hued andante" of the second
movement, the peculiarity of the Scherzo. His final
paragraph is this:

To find a counterpart to the blazing C major
fanfare which resolves the three movements of
tension-building, we might turn to the contemporary
Leonore.Overture NO. 3 in which precisely the same
sort of thing takes place. The dramatic overture
mirrors the action near the close of Beethoven's
Opera "Fidelio" in which an army of liberation
comes to the rescue of Florestan, an imprisoned
patriot. Clearly then, the Fifth Symphony is a
musical "rescue drama" of a more abstract kind and
its high point is the moment at which the fourth
movement begins. And how does Beethoven solve the
problem of avoiding a feeling of anticlimax once
the finale is under way? By recreating, in minia-
ture, the transition from the scherzo at the begin-
ning of the reprise. This starts the final pages
off with a renewed enthusiasm, one which gathers
an almost unbearable momentum as it approaches the
end.

Rating: about 2—1/2 or 3.
Chapter III cited the characteristics of the
New York Philharmonic annotations and illustrated them

by one paragraph of the Fifth Symphony annotation.

 

 

1Robert McMahan, Louisville Orchestra program,
January 11, 1966.

136

Other than that paragraph there was only a descriptive
analysis of the work, with one theme from each movement
in music notation, plus brief mention of "Fate knocking."
It is very effective writing, albeit somewhat self-
conscious and epigrammatic. Rating: 2_Or 2:.

In his published notes Tovey presents the long—

est and most thorough dissertation on the Fifth Sym-

 

phghyf-seven pages, with copious illustrations in staff
notation. In this amount of space he could afford to
linger on such fine points as the opening phrase, or
the use of the - - -- rhythm in other works of the same
period, or on the fact that "the third movement has
often been scanned wrongly from beginning to end, and

the writer in Grove's Dictionary who cites the trio as

 

an unacknowledged case of three-bar rhythm has blund-
ered straight into the trap."1 As usual, though, Tovey
is concerned with the music, and never lets his tech-
nical discussion alter his focus. He comes close to it
in this annotation, but maintains a foothold by which
he can regain solid ground. For example, he works
right through his analysis of the Scherzo with no com-
ment whatever on its emotional qualities; then is his

consideration of the Finale, he reverts momentarily:

 

lTovey, Essays, I, 42.

137

Let us remember that the "Scherzo" had a tre-
mendous emotional value, and then consider how it
is to be reintroduced into the sustained triumph
of the finale. Any one could think that there were
only two ways of working the problem: first, to
reproduce the mood just as it was. Of course this
is impossible. We cannot forget that the terror is
passed. Secondly then, we could recover the mood
by elaborating the details. This would betray it-
self as fictitious. . . . Beethoven recalls the
third movement as a memory which we know for a fact
but can no longer understand: there is now a note
of self-pity, for which we had no leisure when the
terror and the darkness was upon our souls: the
depth and the darkness are alike absent, and in the
dry light of day we cannot remember our fears of
the unknown. And so the triumph resumes its prog-
ress and enlarges its range until it reaches its
appointed end.

Rated by panel standards, Tovey would earn no more than
3.

Of all the Beethoven notes that were examined,
those by Burk and Roy easily made the strongest impres-
sions and most fully met the panel requirements. Per-
haps it was because they were longer--about 1300 and
1400 words respectively. Considering that the recip-
ient of their programs might arrive at the hall just
in time for the opening curtain, it is almost super-
fluous to call attention to the estimated seven minutes
reading time. These two annotations are so complete
that ideally they should be read both before and after

the performance, then followed immediately by a second

hearing via recording. (This is the educator's point

 

lIbid., p. 44.

138

of View!) Practically, what is more predictable is a
partial reading before the hearing, and by a few avid
fans a post-reading; a ygry interested regular patron
might even go so far as to save his program and restudy
it, perhaps with score or recording, just prior to the
next scheduled performance of the same work (this par-
ticular work we know will be replayed sooner or later).
Those orchestras which mail their programs to patrons
in advance most certainly do encourage pre-reading of
the notes. A comparison between the Seattle and any
other Symphony (Chapter VI or Appendix IV) will reveal
the effect, for Seattle is the only orchestra surveyed
that maintains this practice.

It would be an imposition on the present reader
to present both the Boston and Cleveland notes in toto.
Some sentences from each will illustrate the impres-
siveness of these essays, but to leave no room for
doubt, consider the beautiful literary style, the foci
of emphasis, the thoroughness and the "teacher's
touch." Burk's Opening paragraph draws us right to the
heart of the symphony and arouses our interest and
curiosity, while at the same time complimenting us by
placing us in a class with Goethe, Mendelssohn, Lesueur,
Berlioz and Malibran:

Something in the direct, impelling drive of the

first movement of the C minor symphony commanded
the general attention when it was new, challenged

139

the skeptical, and soon forced its acceptance.
Goethe heard it with grumbly disapproval, according
to Mendelssohn, but was astonished and impressed in
spite of himself. Lesueur, hidebound professor at
the Conservatory, was talked by Berlioz into break-
ing his vow never to listen to another note of Bee-
thoven, and found his prejudices and resistance
quite swept away. A less plausible tale reports
Maria Malibran as having been thrown into convul-
sions by this symphony. The instances could be
multiplied. There was no gainsaying that forth-
right, sweeping storminess.

The second and third paragraphs continue the exposé of
the symphony's greatness and some of the controversies
surrounding it. A fourth paragraph elides subtly into
an almost Toveyan analysis, avoiding Tovey's love for
detail, but still touching all the important structural
and expressive elements:

Those--and there is no end of them—-who have
attempted to describe the first movement have look-
ed upon the initial four-note figure with its seg-
regating hold, and have assumed that Beethoven used
this fragment, which is nothing more than a rhythm
and an interval, in place of a theme prOper, rely-
ing upon the slender and little used "second theme"
for such matters as melodic continuity. Weingartner
and others after him have exposed this fallacy, and
what might be called the enlightened interpretation
of this movement began with the realization that
Beethoven never devised a first movement more con-
spicuous for graceful symmetry and even, melodic
flow. An isolated title cannot explain a mosaic,
and the smaller the tile unit, the more smooth and
delicate the line will be the complete picture.
Just so does Beethoven's briefer "motto" build upon
itself to produce long and regular melodic periods.
Even in its first bare statement the "motto" be-
longs conceptually tO an eight-measure period,
broken for the moment as the second fermata is held
through an additional bar. The movement is regular
in its sections, conservative in its tonalities.
The composer remained, for the most part, within

140

formal boundaries. The orchestra was still the
orchestra of Haydn, until, to sell the jubilant
outburst of the finale, Beethoven resorted to his
trombones.

The innovation, then, was in the character of
the musical thought. The artist worked in materials
entirely familiar, but what he had to say was as-
tonishly different from anything that had been said
before. As Sir George Grove has put it, he "intro-
duced a new physiognomy into the world of music."
No music, not even the "Eroica," had had nearly the
drive and impact of this First Movement.

Mr. Burk continues through the other movements in sim-
ilar fashion. This annotation earns about a 4 rating
and it will be found in every succeeding Boston Sym-
phony program whenever the Beethoven Fifth has been
played.

Some people may question this as an example of

a good program note. They might say, “All right for
Boston, but not for Tucson or Duluth." It does compli-
ment the audience by assuming some prior knowledge:
e.g., it suggests that a reader already knows Haydn's
instrumentation; it assumes a reader understanding of
"period," "Trio," "Andante," "scherzo," "tonality"; it
presupposes an acquaintance with Goethe, Mendelssohn,
Weingartner and others. But we have already discovered
that symphony audiences are composed of the best edu-

cated people in the community, people who should recog-

nize the names that Burk mentions, with the possible

 

lBurk, Boston, October 6, 1959, p. 50. Copy-
right © by Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

141

exception of Weingartner and Malibran. Anyone except

a newcomer to Boston would recognize Arthur Nikisch as
an early conductor of that orchestra. "Period" is the
only technical term that might be misunderstood. As
for Haydn's instrumentation, this reference is not lost
on anyone, for even without specific knowledge an ig-
norant reader could assume that Haydn-represented an
earlier, probably more limited, practice than Beetho-
ven, and this would lend some meaning to the statement.
This is literature intended for a serious, educated
music lover; the more he knows about music the more he
will derive from the essay. Is it not the same of any-
thing read or heard--the newspapers, for example, or a
conversation or lecture? Communication involves at
least two parties. The message may be presented more
or less exactly as its producer intended it,_but it is
received in a form shaped by the experience of the con-
sumer. The wider his experience and knowledge, the
more nearly like the initial idea will be the communi-
cated idea. Only a subjective judgment can be applied
to Burk's attempt to meet his audience on its level.
The pertinent questions are: Did he know his audience?
Did he serve their needs? Only a survey could deter-
mine the answers. By Our panel standards his rating

would be close to 4_(by comparison, very high).

142

Mr. Roy's annotation is written in quite a dif-
ferent style. It seems more informal, more personal;
and it roams widely, even within a paragraph. It re-
veals a mind that is constantly in motion seeking new
explanations and new approaches to his "pupils," new
associations that will reveal yet other facets of the
diamond. The paragraph in which he describes the sec-
ond movement is typical:

The second movement is a theme and three varia-
tions, with elements of rondo design. Beethoven
was a master of this musical working method; the
imagination he brings to bear on his material is
inexhaustible, though the broad outline of the music
is never obscured. The movement offers us a re-
markable insight into the composer's musical work-
shop. The theme in A flat strikes us as one that
must surely have sprung fully armed like Minerva
from the head of Jove. But that was Mozart's and
Schubert's way of production; with them, the work
was done in their heads, ready to be put on paper
in its near-final form. Beethoven labored visibly,
and left a record of his efforts in his many sketch-
books. There are about four stages through which
the theme had to go before it gained the form we
today find "inspired":

 

[Here Mr. Roy inserts four measures of the first
and final versions of the theme.]

That first, non-committal tune (quite similar
to that of a Southern_gospel hymn!) was kneaded
and shaped like the clay of a potter; each version
showed a new strengthening of line, an increase of
musical meaning. It is this kind of revelation
which should dispel the layman's widely held im-
pression that great works of music somehow just
happen; composition means hard work, even for the
genius, and what may sound spontaneous and truly
inspired may at times be the hardest-won.1

 

 

 

lRoy, Cleveland, September 22, 1966, p. 39.

143

The underlinings are not in the original; they have
been added here to underscore his interesting metaphors
and similes, little touches of extra meaning. Many
other annotators referred to Beethoven's sketches; Mr.
Roy brought them to the reader. Others said that Bee-
thoven labored over his music; Roy showed us how.
Referring back to the first paragraph of this
illustration, we find that it serves as a topic para-
graph for the entire essay, just as a topic sentence
serves a single paragraph:
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is the most powerful
work of musical rhetoric in orchestral literature.
It does not beg you, the listener, to agree with
its message; it does not cajole or attempt to per-
suade; it demands imperiously that you accept it.
Few are skeptical enough to resist; most are con-

vinced immediately that the composer means what he
says, and submit to a will stronger than theirs.

 

"What, is it really the most powerful work of musical
rhetoric in orchestral literature? Well, we shall see!"
Isn't this just the reaction Mr. Roy could expect, and
that he is likely to want? He might even get a more
stubborn response, such as "I'm not going to be one of
those who fall into Beethoven's clutches; I'm going to

be a skeptic and keep my psychical distance."2 We

 

lIbid., p. 35.

2A term invented in 1913 by the British psy-
chologist, Edward Bullough, to represent the degree of
consumer non-involvement in an art work.

144

believe it quite probable that by the end of the sym-
phony this skeptic would be fully and finally convinced,
that Mr. Roy would have won his pupil for Beethoven.

The balance of this essay discusses the "mes-
sage" of the symphony ("One might conceive it as an
almost pagan challenge: 'I am the master of my fate.'"),
its lack of a literal program, the potency of the : ° --
as a "one-celled organism," the balanced structure of
the four sections of the first movement, the close of
the third movement as "one of the most significance-
laden transitions in symphonic literature," and the
splendor of the Finale ("the conquest is consolidated
and confirmed"). He enlists the aid of an earlier
Boston annotator (Roy came to Cleveland from Boston),
William Apthorp, in describing the final close as
"sheer jubilation." Roy does not fail to include men-
tion of the additional instruments in the Finale as a
new device, the fifty-measure crescendo of the bridge
to the Finale, Lesueur's famous comment (a fine-print
extra appearing after the main body of the annotation),
and his ideas about the "Fate knocking" and "V for
Victory." Of the latter he argues that Beethoven might
have been pleased, for "Unrelated as this-context was
to his original intention, at least the over-all impli-

cation of the symphony had been understood."

145

In this annotation the only technical terms
are "Scherzo," "Presto," "coda," "scherzando"--really
nothing that an average concert-goer has not met many
times and would probably comprehend. He does mention
"exposition, development, recapitulation and coda,"
but explains them as "the four classical sections of
the first movement." He uses references to Tovey, E.
Robert Schmitz, Apthorp, Schubert and Mozart; in the
case of the first three this was not so much for the
benefit of their names as for their thoughts--i.e., he
felt that their words would contribute significantly,
and he wanted to give proper credit.1 This annotation
rating: also 4.

Now what can we offer as the result of the com-
parisons of the several annotations of the Beethoven
Fifth? Although comments have.been interspersed, a
reiteration can do no harm. First, not all annotators
captured the principal message or aesthetic worth of
the symphony; second, many of the annotations were so
brief as to be ineffectual; third, some evinced wrong
emphases, even intentionally limited to one or two
specifics; fourth, some were so long as to be imprac-
ticable, in spite Of high quality; fifth, there was

much reliance upon Berlioz and Wagner (who wrote at

 

lRoy, Cleveland, September 22, 1966, p. 37.

146

length on Beethoven) and Thayer (Beethoven's bio-

grapher); sixth, many writers quoted other annotators
(a practice to be discussed in Chapter V); seventh,
there were few factual errors; eighth, very few anno-
tations would rate a grade higher than» 2 or 3 by panel
standards because of omission of some types of informa-

tion (principally biography and social-political

influences) .

Brahms ' Second Symphony

Moving along in history to Brahms, we Observe
that his romantic character evoked a far greater var—

iety of responses from writers. In fact, one of the

statements common to most Of the annotations was that
the Second is the recipient Of many interpretations-

Mostwriters went one step further and told what some;

of these are. As with the Beethoven, we found all de-

grees of annotation of this fascinating symphony, from

pure factual reporting (including analysis) to free

fantasy. Brahms, however, as suggested above, taps the

romantic veins of his annotators; so we read of "som-

ber undertones," "gravely beautiful melodies," the
"bitter-sweetness of those haunting major and minor
seconds," "Brahms the pastoral poet ," the "musing and

reminiscent Brahms, haunted by the fleetingness of all

beloved things," and so on. One can read through the

147

program notes of Gilman, Hale, Burk and a great many

others without finding any specific information about

the musical notes themselves-—many interesting words,
Yes I

and some that will help the listener to develop a

feeling for the work. But for a look at the score and
the

"what," one must read Tovey and Ferguson, Roy,
Downes and Briggs.

Dividing the Brahms annotations into camps, we
find that the two general types balance almost equally
in number; yetof the factual 50%, none can be said to

have eliminated the element Of fantasy altogether.

The
conclusion is that in spite of annotators' expressed

desire to remain neutral and objective, they cannot,

especially when the music is romantic in nature.

Some,
like Hale, try to remain outside the realm of criticism

or evaluation by quoting other writers' opinions, which

gives the impression of objectivity. Subdividing the
50% factual annotations still further, .wefind that

nearly a third of £133 dismiss the formal element with
a few sentences, preferring to expound on the work's

various interpretations, its origin or its acceptance.
This leaves actually about one-third of all the annota-
tions that adequately, in terms of our. panel standards,
met the problem of supplying a "good" annotation. Be-

fore describing some of the successful examples, we

should inspect a few that were seemingly less so.

148

Brevity is a heavy—handed master, as illustrated
by this example:

[Brahms' dates, first performance dates and the
instrumentation are in fine print under the head-
ing . ]

The summer of 1887 found Brahms at Portschach,
by the WOther Lake, Kéirnten. In the following
autumn Clara Schumann wrote to Hermann Levi:
"Brahms is in good spirits, delighted with his
summer holiday, and has a new Symphony in D major
ready in his head; the first movement he has put
on paper."

Brahms, ever a love of nature, must
have absorbed much fresh air and sunshine,

for the
mood of the second is cheerful and bright in char-
acter.

It was not, however, what he told his
friends. Brahms wrote his publisher, Fritz Sim-
rtxflc: "The new Symphony is so melancholy that you
‘Mill not be able to bear it. I have never written
anything so sad and the score must come out in
mourning." Later Brahms showed the heaviness of
his wit and his love of teasing his friends when
he wrote after the first successful performance--
again to Simrock--"But you must put a black edge
round the score to give an outward show of grief.
. . . The musicians play my work here with crepe
round their arm, because it sounds so mournful."

The opening measure of the first movement con-
tains the fundamental motive—~three notes-—which
Brahms uses in every conceivable way.

The opening
theme is divided between the horns and woodwinds,
alternately.

Another theme is heard in the violins,
graceful in character .

Cellos and Violas next
bring in the beautifully melodic second subject.

Various episodes built on these themes or on
strongly marked rhythmic patterns lead to a richly-
textured development section. The coda has a won-
derful synCOpated accompaniment against which is

heard the original motive and the first theme--
horn solo.

It diminishes into an atmosphere of
mystery .

The second movement--Adagio non troppo--is in a
large three-part form, serenely romantic. The
third movement--Allegretto grazioso--is a dance, the
oboes carrying the melody to the accompaniment of
Clarinets, bassoons, and pizzicato cellos. The two
trios are each. variations of this theme.

The fourth movement--Allegro con spirito--is
vigorous and moving, full of invention and of the
devices which Henry Drinker calls "Brahms' calling

149

cards," such as shifting rhythms, recurrent bass
figures, or the massed use of string, woodwind or
brass choirs. The movement ends joyfully and tri-
umphant.l [sic]

This author did well in the space allotted; but after
reading it one feels that he has not said all that he
should or could. Rating: 2.

Here is another, even briefer and much less
revealing:

The second of Brahms' symphonies followed his
first within a year; in fact, their composition
overlapped so that he worked for a time on the two
simultaneously. Feeling that the symphony was an
ultimate musical expression, he had postponed work-
ing in this genre until he was sure of his craft,
producing these symphonies at thirty-three and
thirty-four. [sic]

The Second Symphony, as supple and graceful a
statement as the First is stern and serious, shows
the warm, luminous side of Brahms' gift. He jok-
ingly told his friends and publisher that this
second symphony was even more serious than the
first, delighting in their surprise as the fresh-
ness and charm of the work eventually unfolded to
them.

The Opening movement is a miracle of symphonic
form, in which large, noble ideas derive before our
very ears from two fragments; these are presented
by basses and horns in the first two measures and
are expanded logically yet without apparent effort.
The richly colored second movement presents ideas
characterized by both dignity and interior sadness,
and is succeeded by a lilting pastoral intermezzo
which wavers between major and minor, geniality and
humorousness. The finale combines yet furthers
the moods of the preceding movements without spe-
cific reference to their materials, culminating in
an intense D major triad sustained by the horns an
exclamation point to complete a masterful work.é

 

1Source withheld.

2Source withheld. Class D orchestra.

150

The author of this example was a musicologist (Ph.D.)
who should have known Brahms' 1877 age, but more impor-
tantly should have been more explicit about this "mir-
acle of symphonic form." Perhaps we can assume that
space, not the writer, was the villain, for there was

a severe space restriction. Rating: about 1.

The chief merit of many of the longer annota-
tions (Hale's and Gilman's, e.g.) that deal with moods
and meanings, is their effectiveness in achieving the
oft-avowed aim of arousing listener receptiveness.
Ideally, as we now realize, an annotation should do
this every time, while at the same time informing the
reader, perhaps furtively, even beyond his own desire.
This ideal annotation is, needless to say, rarely
found. In a brief note, however, it is still possible
to go efficiently right to the major points, as in this
example from Louisville:

Eliot's remark about the classic persuasion
applies to the general practice of Bloch and Ravel
[quoted earlier in these notes] by which they in-
tegrated progressive musical elements with those
of a remote tradition. But the 20th Century is by
nature a time of synthesis and integration. If not
itself a classical age, then it is certainly an
anti-romantic one in which Bloch and Ravel have
come to fit very well. On the other hand, when one
measures the second half of the 19th Century by the
activities of its most characteristic figures--
Wagner and Marx, Flaubert and Edison, Darwin and
Nietzsche, Whitman and Dostoevsky--then Brahms does
seem at first to have been a man born out Of his
own time. Yet even here Eliot's observation holds

true. Despite the example of the Symphony No. 2,
written with the same wind instruments and valveless

151

French horns that Beethoven had used in his Sym-
phony not less than three-quarters of a century
earlier, and despite the persistence in his music
of the classical forms, of relatively simple har-
monies and modulations, of a basically abstract,
non-literary musical substance, Brahms was a Ro-
mantic at heart.

The dramatic plan of the Second Symphony shows
little of the subtle interplay of sound and silence,
of forte and piano that characterize the balancing
of Opposite forces in the classical style. In-
stead, Brahms' canvas is vast, his gestures are
grand. And even if the symphony does not explore
the emotional depths of the C minor (written the
previous year) it projects its atmosphere Of ser-
enity and good humor in prOportions double that of
any symphony of the Haydn/Mozart era. Moreover,
had Mozart written the symphony, or Beethoven, he
would have countered the faster movements with an
Andante of greater dramatic power. (Compare the
Piano Concerto in G, K. 453, or the Seventh Sym-
phony.) In the slow movement of the Second, there
is scarcely a hint Of such negative thoughts.

One more special feature of this Symphony ties
it to a thread which runs throughout the entire
century. Schuman [sic], Chopin, and after them,
Franck and the incomparable Liszt, experimented a
good deal with the kind of large-scale piece in
which one single motivic cell furnished the basis
for all the thematic ideas. Philosophically this
was a way of illustrating the belief that there is
a single idea that unites all the different faces
that the world can present, or in human terms, that
unites all the situations in which a man may find
himself, and all the states of mind which may pos-
sess him. In music this indivisible kernel of self
takes the form of the basic motive from which the
composition is fashioned. For Brahms' First Sym-
phony the motive consisted of three rising notes
C-C#-D. From this developed the entire dramatic
structure, a continual striving after some lofty
idea. The Second Symphony is also built on a three-
note phrase: D-C#-D. This is heard in the low
strings on the first page, and in countless places
and transformations in between. It is the equilib-
rium of the basic cell itself--the melody moves
away from a note in the tonic harmony and then re-
turns immediately to its point Of departure--that
makes all the movements so stable and self-assured.

152

And it is that stability and serenity which have
given rise to the nickname (after Beethoven's
Sixth)--Brahms' "Pastoral."l
Mr. McMahan accomplished the maximum in his 577 words;
he wasted none. The concentrated style would hold a
reader by its immediate insistence that "here is some-
thing important you should know; let's get on with it."
Reading time: three minutes. Rating: 3-1 2-4.

The longer the article, the more Opportunity
for fuller reporting, for more detailed analysis and
for fantasy. Ferguson permitted himself the use of
three pages to introduce the character of the Brahms
symphony; then he plunged directly into a descriptive
analysis. His writing is quite Toveyan in this exam-
ple:

Presently, as if in awakening realization of
this spiritual scene, there comes a suffusion of
warmth, chiefly embodied in a new phrase in the
violins (Quotation B), accompanied by an undulat-
ing figure in the lower strings and immediately
answered by the flute. This melody also begins
with the three notes of the opening bar; the same
notes, approached by a rhythmic condensation of
another part of the figure shown at B, form the
climax of this strain; and they will appear later,
in diminution, to form the spacious approach to
the second subject.2

Tovey's analysis consumes eleven pages and is

introduced by a single eighteen-line paragraph. His

 

1Robert McMahan, Louisville Orchestra program,
October 10, 1967, p. 4.

2Ferguson, Masterworks, p. 145.

 

153

analytical style is the same as in all his other anno-
tations:

It begins with a broad theme for horns and
woodwinds, punctuated by a very important figure
in the basses.

[A quotation in musical notation appears here.]

The continuation of this broadens out into a mys-
terious passage, in which the violins enter quietly
and expand figure (a) [from the above musical exam-
ple] into a strange sequence that falls slowly as
the tone-colour darkens; till the solemn trombones
enter with quiet minor chords and rolling drums,
while a few instruments utter figure (a) like a
plaintive question.

Not many people today, however, are going to take the
time or exert the discipline required to go along with
Tovey on such an excursion in the few minutes before
the auditorium lights dim for the conductor's entrance.
Because of his stress on analysis, rating by panel
standards would be low--about l-l/2.

A few pithy commentaries from some of the
briefer program notes revealed insights that were
worthy to be expanded into fuller essays. One was this:

The four symphonies of Brahms have in their

nearly three-score years and ten attained almost
monumental stature. You might develop an argument
over the degree of their greatness. . . . This very
greatness might be the only remaining Obstacle be-
tween these masterpieces and full public apprecia-

tion. . . . A lot has been written about the music's
concern with the composer's profounder thoughts,

 

lTovey, Essays, I, 95.

154

and all of it is probably true. But it is also
musical canvas worked with strong, bright, warm
colors. Its statement is vigorous, vital, Opti-
mistic.

Another, written by a confessed amateur and

intense music lover, was this:

As the symphony runs its lyric course it is
apparent that it appeals to simple emotions and is
satisfying rather than elegant. . . .

For what it may be worth, it is suggested that
the best way to enjoy this symphony is to relax and
permit it to carry you along "where it listeth."

Another said that "in any case, the ambivalence

is part of its magic."3 And nowhere is this ambiva-
lence more evident than in the program notes themselves.
One writer finds the symphony too heavyweight and hard
to digest; another finds it serious, grave, "with an
undercurrent of tragedy"; yet another, as we have read,
finds it cheery, light and airy. A conflict exists be-
tween those who take Brahms' preannouncements of it
seriously and those who attribute them to his "typical
heavy-handed humor." Another area of disagreement is
the degree of warmth that greeted its first performance

in Vienna. The usual interpretation of our knowledge

of that occasion concedes an Opening coolness that

 

1Jay Waltz, South Bend Symphony program, Feb-
ruary 10, 1946.

2Henry P. Bakewell, Hartford Symphony program.

3Alan M. Kriegman, San Diego Symphony program,

March 18, 1962, p. 26.

155

gradually thawed as the symphony progressed; we know
that the audience clapped the orchestra into a repeti-
tion of the third movement. One author announced to
his audience that "Brahms was indeed showered with
roses at the close of the first performance, which was
conducted by Joachim in his native Hamburg."1 [sic]
Standing opposed to him is the annotator who quoted
Brahms' biographer, Florence May, as writing that "the
audience maintained an attitude of polite cordiality
throughout the performance, and even the most favorable
Of the press notices damned the work with faint
praise."2 These conflicts demonstrate either the emo—
tional vagueness or the universality of this remarkable
symphony.

The Cleveland notes displayed a happy balance
between fantasy and fact by the use of intermingled
quotations, musical illustrations, analytical refer-
ences and suggestive adjectives like "elusive," "phil-
osophical," "graceful," "quintessential," "healthy" and
"mysterious." The writer also injected his own touch
through such sentences as these:

Note, for example, how a questing phrase from the
solo horn initiates a fugato, with sonorities that

 

1Cincinnati Symphony program, January 19, 1962.

2Burk, Boston, April 22 , 1958. Copyright © by
the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

156

resemble those of organ music, and how an unpreten-
tious theme suddenly reveals itself as the central
pattern in a stormy polyphonic tapestry. . . .

If there can be any question as to the inten-
tional sorcery wrought upon the themes of the Alle-
retto, one may take the risk of claiming that the
finale subject (Allegro con spiritu, D major, alla
breve) is a not too distant blood-relative of the

motto from the first movement. . . .

When, at the end, it is the second theme which
is declaimed by horns and trumpets and then virtu-
ally trilled by trumpets, horns and woods, with the
trombones blasting out the D major triad, it would
be a dull hearer indeed who could fail to be re-
juvenated by such triumphant exhilaration.

 

 

This entire annotation required 1225 words, a number
not available to the majority of annotators, although
common to many of the metrOpolitan and major orchestra
programs. Rating: 3:322.

Most of the Brahms annotations, when space per—
mitted, stressed the contrast between his first and
second symphonies, Often comparing this to the contrast
between Beethoven's Eifth and §i§E§i this permitted the
convenient use of the words "tragic" and "pastoral."

It was only natural to mention Brahms' reluctance to
write a symphony before age forty-three, and to quote
his own remarks and writings about it. Many of the
program note authors spoke of critics' reception of the
work in Leipzig, and several gleefully reported such re-

viewers' comments as Apthorp's "Exit in case of Brahms."2

 

lRoy, Cleveland, January 5, 1967, p. 477.

2The reader is referred to Nicolas Slonimsky's
captivating Lexicon of Musical Invective (New York:
Coleman-Ross, 1965).

157

Interspersed comments, as well as the notes
themselves, have served to show the status of annota-
tion on this symphony. If a panel examination were to
result in letter grades, again there would be very few
A's. Of about forty annotations, perhaps three could
be said to be of that caliber. The majority would fall

somewhere in the B,C,D category.

Debussy's La Mer

 

When it comes to assessing annotations of De-
bussy's La Mer there are enigmatic problems. How 9225
one discuss this music? It is so loosely organized,
formally speaking, that it defies strict analysis; it
is not a symphony of historical or traditional form,
but rather a tone poem with all the pictorial and in-
formal expectations of that genre. Its assigned title,
"The Sea: Three Symphonic Sketches," suggests its
amorphous character. One could expect of an annotation
of this work the kinds of information the panel desires,
but without the detail of formal description of the
music; and there would probably have to be more words
devoted to the mood (this would satisfy the require-
ment of listing "unusual features"). Every writer
struggles with this work and most writers made no ef-
fort to explain the music itself; they were content to
speak of Debussy's love for the sea. Alfred Franken-

stein was frankly honest and said:

158

No one has ever written a satisfactory program
note on this work, least of all the present author.
Most of the commentators do not talk about Debussy's
music at all, but about the sea it is supposed to
describe, often at length and poetically. In this
they remind the writer of a poor, Old radio an-
nouncer of some years back in San Francisco, who
had charge of a program of recorded excerpts from
operas. Before broadcasting each selection, he
would read a translation or synopsis of its text
in the most dramatic and elocutionary style he
could command. He thought he was doing the compo-
sers a favor. Actually, he was doing his little
best to nullify their efforts.

If Debussy has succeeded in suggesting the sea
in this music, that suggestion, obviously, should
be left in the music and not drawn out into words.
The great scale and grand sweep of the work--by far
Debussy's largest creation for orchestra alone--
have led some of his biographers to discuss it in
purely symphonic terms, but these discussions are
a little difficult to follow and impossible to il-
lustrate without an excessively large number of
quotations, some of them extremely intricate; this
is one of those cases wherein nothing will really
do but the complete score. Once again we return
to a familiar point: symphonic analysis was in-
vented as an avenue of approach to Beethoven; it
works with Beethoven and those--before and after
him--who stand in his tradition, but it does not
necessarily work with a composer like Debussy who,
in Thoreau's phrase, "listened to a different drum."

Incidentally, Debussy's biographers have so far
managed to overlook the big symphonic piece, also
entitled The Sea, written by the Belgian composer,
Paul Gilson, in 1892, thirteen years before De-
bussy's work was finished. Debussy himself, in all
probability, did not.1

To observe what the commentators have said
about La Mer, let us look first at the sources gener-
ally respected, to see whether or not these authors

were ensnared by "Debussy's love for the sea" and his

 

1Frankenstein, A Modern Guide, p. 216.

 

159

"feeling of inferiority when bathing in the ocean"
(often quoted). Which orchestra program offers an ex-
planation of the music, with or without eulogy and
fantasy? Los Angeles? Pittsburgh? Indianapolis? No.
Cleveland? Not really, although it might beautifully
sensitize the listener to the kinds of sounds he will
hear. Nor Boston. John Burk wrote, "It would be hard
to think of a score more elusive than La Mer to minute
analysis." He referred to its cyclic structure accom-
plished by the recurrence in the last movement of the

first movement theme, then calls it "music to set the

imagination aflame."l

The typical La Mer program note might be this
one from Dallas:

The "umplumbed, salt, estranging sea" was ever
a source of fascination to Debussy. Although a
very minor portion of his life was spent in the
vicinity of the sea, he loved it passionately.
"You will say that the ocean does not exactly wash
the Burgundian landscapes; but I have an endless
store of memories and, to my mind, they are worth
more than the reality, whose beauty often deadens
thought," he wrote to his friend Andre Messager.
This thought, of the actuality being too potent
for the artistic creations, he expressed on several
occasions--the sight of the sea hypnotized him to
the extent of paralyzing his creative faculties,
he claimed. All of which may explain why "La Mer"
(The Sea) was written mainly in Paris, although
Debussy put the finishing touches on the work in
Eastborne, England.

 

lBurk, Boston, April 24, 1962, p. 47. Copy-
right ©by the Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

160

It was while Debussy was at Eastborne in 1905
that he wrote the following, "The sea rolls with a
wholly British correctness. There is a lawn combed
and brushed on which little bits of important and
imperialistic English frolic. But what a place to
work! No noise, no pianos, except the delicious
mechanical pianos, no musicians talking about
painting, no painters discussing music. In short,
a pretty place to cultivate egoism."

The Three Sketches, after undergoing some re-
visions, achieved the following descriptive titles:
I. "De l'aube a midi sur la mer" (From dawn to
noon at sea), II. "Jeux de vagues" (Play of the
waves), III. "Dialogue du vent et de la mer" (Dia-
logue of the wind and sea). The work was finished
in 1905 and the first performance was at the Con-
certs Lamoureux in Paris in October of 1905. The
conductor was Camille Chevillard.

At the time that Debussy was working on the
score of "La Mer" his private life was far from
harmonious. In the summer of 1904 Debussy left
his wife Lily for Emma Bardac, wife of a successful
Paris businessman. Lily attempted suicide and this
provoked an Open scandal, all Paris taking sides in
the controversy. Debussy, a much disputed (and
much imitated) composer, had achieved serenity by
this time. His "L'Aprés-midi d'un Faune" of 1894,
and his "Nocturnes" of four years later, had become
almost classics, and in 1902 his Opera "Pélleas et
Mélisande" was the sensation of the season; but
this security did not render him inviolate to the
sharp tongues of gossip, and these years were not
pleasant ones for him or, one must assume, for the
women involved in his life.

The Impressionistic School of which Debussy was
the chief protagonist in music, cultivated a delib-
erate remoteness from reality. And yet it is inter-
esting to note that a part of Debussy's inspiration
for "La Mer" he found in Hokusai's print, "The
Wave," a work of balanced symmetry, clean lines and
rich detail, that had little in common with the
Impressionistic painters whose work is so closely
associated in the present-day mind with the music
of Debussy. This print, incidentally, was repro-
duced upon the title page of the score when it was
first published by Durand in Paris in 1905.1

 

 

lDorothea Kelley, Dallas Symphony program,
February 21, 1966, p. 21.

161

For the kind of annotation that presents both

the mood and the methods we can go to the New York

Philharmonic program or to Ferguson's book.1 Mr.

Downes introduces La Mer by three paragraphs and an
excerpt from a Debussy letter to his publisher, then
proceeds to a descriptive analysis with musical themes
(one per movement). This would rate a panel approval
of perhaps 3, therefore classified as a relatively good
annotation, though differing from the Dallas example
(the latter could be assigned a 2).

No annotations of La Mer met all the require-
ments of the panel, but Ferguson came fairly close and
managed to earn his 3 rating in only 587 words:

This is the largest in dimension of Debussy's
works. It was begun in 1903 and finished two years
later. It was first performed at one of the Lam-
oureux concerts, Camille Chevillard conducting.
That performance was apparently merely correct and
dull; and the failure to realize the composer's
vision was perhaps the reason for the rather indif-
ferent response of a public which in part, at
least, had been made expectant of new and vivid
stimulation. [Here the reader was referred to a
footnote which described the author's experience at
one of the concerts of the Queen's Hall Orchestra
in London in 1908 when this work was played, with
the composer present.]

The texture of the music could be described
only in the most tedious of language. The form is
patently dictated by the idea, and is true to its
subject; but it is not a conventional form, nor has
it in any direct way been imitated. Debussy's at-
titude toward the problem of form was of course

 

lFerguson, Masterworks.

 

162

unorthodox, but as the world has come to see, it
was entirely logical. "NO fixed rule should guide
the creative artist," he said; "rules are estab-
lished by works of art, not for works of art. One
should seek discipline in freedom, not in the pre-
cepts of a philOSOphy in its decline--that is good
only for those who are weak. I write music only to
serve Music as best I can, and without any other
intention; it is natural that my words should incur
the risk of displeasing people who like 'certain'
music, and perseveringly stick to it alone."

The first of the three sketches is entitled:
"From Dawn to Noon at Sea." It begins (Trés lent)
in B minor, with matter indescribably well designed
to suggest the coming of light over the waste of
waters. NO formal thematic development is to be
expected, but a gradual clearing of the light and
a gradual growth in animation will fill out the
picture for us--unless we are too much preoccupied
with the business of analysis. We shall feel the
rising of the wind and shall sense the slow appear-
ance of something like sentient life in the sea
itself. We are thus prepared for the second sketch,
entitled "Frolic of the Waves." Not merely the
swirl and tumult of the undulations is pictured--
although he who will may readily "see" the heaving
surface--but also some immanent life that seems
actually to inspire the joyous tussles of the waves.
And there is needed even more of a kind of imper-
sonation of the elements if we are to understand
the third sketch--the "Dialogue of the Wind and the
Sea." It is a dialogue which man has never learned
to translate into words. The ancients, who knew
nothing of meteorology, did better than we toward
a translation of this ageless tongue. They invented
an Aeolus and a Neptune to rule these wayward ele-
ments, and doubtless saw in their antics and tan—
trums more potent implications than reside in the
ergs and moments of our dull mensuration. Debussy's
vision is almost Vergilian.

The Louisville annotation on this work is im-
pressive, too, as it focuses strongly on the music; its

rating would be about 2-1/2:

 

lFerguson, Masterworks, p. 225.

 

163

For Debussy, this set of orchestral sketches
representing his impressions of the changing faces
of the sea was as "classical"--that is to say, for—1
mal--an expression of the symphonic ideal as Haydn's
No. 104. However, the Frenchman, true to his ra-
ther Bohemian existence and outlook, had a horror
of academic constraints of any kind. His single
composition in the traditional manner bears the
pompous title "First Quartet for Strings in G
minor, Opus No. 10" (there were no Opus Nos. 1-9!);
the resulting work is a wicked parady of academic
seriousness whose humor has failed to penetrate in
most circles of the higher criticism.

Debussy never attempted such mischief again.

In La Mer he turns the tables by fabricating a bal-
anced, plastic, coherent whole without resorting to
33y traditional forms whatsoever. These three sep-
arate pictures fuse a novel thematic content (de-
rived mostly from the two-note passage that Opens
the piece) into a progressively more dramatic form.

The first movement is primarily a continuous
narrative with little back-tracking over old mate-
rial. The subject, a seascape near the island of
Corsica, was wholly a product of a journey that
Debussy had taken only in his imagination. His
ultimate title "From dawn to noon on the sea"
caused one wag to remark that the most pleasant
part occurred "about a quarter to eleven." By
this means, the composer hoped to call our-atten-
tion to the excitement which grows as the warmer
and brighter colors are brought into play. De-
bussy, like his Operatic heroine, Melisande, appears
to say everything twice, but such is the energy of
this music that every echoed phrase spins Off into
something new, drawing the listener along in its
wake. -

The scherzo "Play of the waves" is a series of
delicate and graceful dances whose long singing
tunes inspired more than one ballet in the next
decade. (Dukas' "La Peri," Ravel's "Daphnis and
Chloe," and Debussy's own "Jeux," to name just
three.) The final movement "Dialogue of the wind
and the sea" is the real tour de force of the work.
Here for the only time in his life Debussy approach-
es the official symphonic tradition Of such French
masters as D'Indy, Chausson, and Franck. In fact
it sounds at times as if this particular sea had
washed over the grave of the latter gentleman, es-
pecially in the stormy, side—slipping harmonic
reaching upward it seems to the vault of heavens.
All of this must be leading somewhere; when the

 

164

broad ending of the first movement returns to con-
clude the entire work the grandeur of the music
transcends nature itself. At this point the words
of Oscar Wilde come irresistably to mind; "One does
not see anything until one sees its beauty. At
present, peOple see fogs, not because there are
fogs but because poets and painters have taught
them the mysterious loveliness of such effects."
In keeping with the grain of truth that underlies
the satire, one would have to add "the sea" to
Wilde's "fogs," and "Debussy" to his "poets and
painters."l
An analysis of all the writing samples on 33
Mer leaves the impression that it is more helpful to a
concert-goer to prepare him for Debussy's musical im—
pressions than to show him the intricacies of the music.
Certainly the majority Of program annotators, if their
annotations are their votes, indicate the truth of
this. Sensitivity to the Debussy sounds is important
to the appreciation of La Mer. Whether this justifies
the avoidance of all technical exposition, the indivi-
dual must decide. The typical annotation would prob-
ably satisfy many people; the music lover who likes to

know the details of what is happening may be left hold—

ing a program that serves him less than adequately.

A Contemporary Work

 

The object of bringing a contemporary work into

this discussion is, of course, to expose annotation

 

lMcMahan, Louisville, processed copy, no date.

165

procedures amid problems that are quite different from
facing a familiar Brahms or Beethoven. We have stated
earlier that nearly all authors go to the composer for
help whenever possible. This is largely true, as will
be demonstrated, and it is a perfectly logical and wise
procedure. The special problem is one of communication,
for much of the new music must not only be explained in
terms as complicated as the music, but it must also be
"sold" to a resistant public. (People always resent
and fear a little the unknown and new.) Another fact
easily overlooked is the yet unknown quality of all new
compositions. History teaches us that twenty, fifty or
more years hence, most of the new works we hear today
will be long forgotten and buried; yet we strive to
present them to the public when they are spawned, and
the annotator must do his utmost to promote a fair
hearing. Even if he is dubious or hostile, he must

try to conceal his emotions. We called attention to
several writers who believe that the annotator must
write positively; as one author commented, how can an
annotator let on that he considers a work selected by
the conductor to be unworthy of performance? We might
add that performance is a prerequisite for public crit-

ical judgment.

166

Two—thirds of the collected programs contained
first performances (not necessarily world premieres)
of new or recent works. In supplying notes for these,
half the writers quoted the composer's own explanations
of their works, or the explanations of other authorita-
tive specialists close to the composer. Sources in-
cluded interviews, letters, premiere programs, and in
a few cases published books or periodical articles.
In one case the regular annotator was the composer, so
we can assume there was complete authenticity in this
report! Of this group (half) of annotators, 68% replied
unabashedly on the composer's words, with little or no
attempt to enlarge upon the ideas. Most of these anno-
tations were preceded by introductory material about
the composer (a facet apparently considered more essen-
tial than with Brahms, Beethoven and Debussy). Another
20% of the group used a paragraph or so of the compo-
ser's expression as a departure point for their own
comments and personal observations. These were invar-
iably helpful in orienting the listener to the compo-
ser's point of view and his position in the current of
the artistic stream. These writers relied upon such
sources as the soloist for whom a composition was
written (RostrOpovich, e.g., on the Boris Tschaikowsky

Partita for Cello, Harpsichord, Piano, Electric Guitar

167

and Percussion) or a specialist in the production of a

 

certain composer's music (Robert Craft on Stravinsky).
Of the 12% who attempted their own analyses,
all but three were writing for major symphony programs.
Their attempts were positive and knowledgeable, demon—
strating an acquaintance with the composer's output and
methods. One could almost see in the background, like
a watermark in fine paper, an annotator sitting with
score in hand. Hours of such study would be required
to gain intimacy with many a modern score. The other
three annotations in this group were rather special
cases: one (class C) was on a local composer (probably
known personally and interviewed many times); one (class
B) was an analysis of a Giannini symphony (not compli-
cated); and the third (also class C) showed familiarity
with the score, but limited itself to sketchy descrip-

tions of Schuller's Seven Studies on Themes of Paul

 

3392. This leaves a final group (about 20% of the
total) that could be dismissed quickly as examples of
avoidance of responsibility; all were short dismissals
of the works as "among the composer's most interesting
works," or the product of "among the most original of
contemporary composers," or as "thought to picture the
composer's impressions of the Swiss country scene." A
few writers in this group sought to place the composer

historically, and a few listed the movements of the

168

works and added a sentence of such "explanation" as:

"This section is calm and quietly expressive, with a

very simple line."

1

Let us examine first two brief examples that

would earn a panel rating of no more than 3.

yet

Mennini attended Oberlin Conservatory and com-
pleted his undergraduate training at Eastman School
of Music. Following a short tenure on the faculty
of the University of Texas, Mennini accepted a po-
sition at Eastman where he taught composition and
orchestration. He is presently Dean of North Car-
olina School of the Arts, in Winston-Salem.

The Symphony "Da Festa" was commissioned by the
Erie, Pennsylvania centennial commission for its
celebration. It was premiered in a special concert,
that concluded the festival, in September of 1963
by the Erie Philharmonic conducted by James Sample.

It is festive in nature, using the dance idiom
as a rhythmic foundation and contains, especially
in the second movement, many lyric melodies.

The second example is the shortest annotation
encountered:

Ron Nelson, one of the more successful present
day composers in the U.S., is head of the composi-
tion department of Brown University. He has writ-
ten works for orchestra, chorus, ballet, and the
solo voice. The Toccata is a short, brilliant work
for orchestra, a showpiece of instrumental display
and full of outgoing good humor. The work was com-
missioned by the citizens of Lima, Ohio, for the
Lima Symphony Orchestra, and was first performed
by them under the direction of William Byrd, De-
cember 9, 1962.3

 

1The quoted phrases are from various programs.

2Source withheld.

3Ibid.

169

These brief notes Offer minimal background information,
but almost nothing to aid a listener's comprehension of
the music. Yet these works were deemed worthy of per-
formance by two metropolitan orchestras.

Consider this annotation of the Khatchaturian
Concerto for Flute and Orchestra as played by Pierre
Rampal in 1967 with a metropolitan orchestra:

Khatchaturian is a spokesman for an ancient and
rich Armenian musical heritage; he has rendered the
folk culture of his native land into an immediately
appealing idiom. Armenian music, unlike that of
the Western world, has a long and varied history
and it is upon this wealth of folk-tradition that
Khatchaturian draws. His rhapsody-like style makes
his music immediately effective. He was catapulted
to sudden fame in 1937 when his Piano Concerto was
first presented; undoubtedly, he is best known for
the "Sabre Dance," from his fantastically popular
Gayne Suite. This work, indeed, was on the "hit
parade" in 1948.

Khatchaturian does not adhere to the classical
formalities of composition; his use of extended
lyrical themes has caused adverse criticism of his
handling of the basic formulae of construction. Be
that as it may, he luxuriates in exciting tonal
colorings--said to stem from his interest in
Ravel-~and these have a stirring effect upon his
audience.

The Flute Concerto was adapted by the composer
from his Violin Concerto Of 1941, especially for
Mr. Rampal who presents its world premiere at these
concerts.

This, too, leaves many gaps for the listener, besides
preconditioning him to be "stirringly effected." It

would almost be better to offer a reader a longer, more

 

1Source withheld.

170

controversial annotation than to leave him gasping
for something more informative and definite. Rating:
perhaps 3:322.

In two of the above cases the program size
must take partial blame for the brevity: eight pages
plus cover. But in the first example we cannot find
the same cause: sixteen pages plus cover, and size
8-1/2" x 11" at that.

Describing a program note that offers back-
ground only, we call attention to one on Joaquin Rod-
rigo's Concierto de Aranjuez for Guitar and Orchestra.
It contains an opening paragraph of 210 words dealing
with the state of Spanish music from the sixteenth
century to the present; then nine lines presenting the
composer; one sentence presenting the work as "be-
lieved . . . written in 1939, . . . Rodrigo's major
success and his first serious work in the concerto
form"; fifteen lines describing the locale of Aranjuez;
finally a listing of the instrumentation. Again,
slightly helpful, but not musically informative. Ra-
ting by panel standards: 3:322.

The longer efforts of those who did their home-
work and wrote their own observations, of those who
based their annotations on the composer's words, proved
to be as varied as one would expect. On reading them

one finds himself eagerly accepting their information

171

as gospel truth because most of it is new information
to the reader-—he has no basis for criticism. For
example, names like Penderecki, Lutoslawski, Ben-Haim,
William Kraft, B. Tschaikowsky and Donald Keats ring
no familiar bells. One finds himself assigning each
annotation, like daisy petals, to one of two categor-
ies: "fairly lucid" or “confusingly technical." This
applies also to composer's annotations--some become
very involved, with schemes and diagrams intended to
expose their methods of composition (methods of in-
terest to composers, but usually not to symphony
clientele).

In a program annotation accompanying Hale

Smith's Contours for Orchestra, Joseph Sagmaster skill-

 

fully alternates his Own and the composer's words to
explain the intricacies of this twelve-tone piece of
music. The program usesthe common custom of printing
the standard facts in small type under the title. Mr.
Sagmaster then begins by quoting the composer's notes
written for the premiere in Louisville: "Everything
derives from a basic tone row and its variants, and
though certain rhythmic proportions also derive from
it, the idea of this being a serial 'sounding' piece
was perhaps the farthest thing from my mind." Next
Mr. Sagmaster explains a tone row. A third paragraph

quotes Mr. Smith again: "A strong functional harmonic

172

structure can be created for the row without recourse
to tonality in the usual sense." Then follows a dis-
cussion of the motive and its character, the harmony,
the rhythm, the counterpoint and the use of instru-
ments. Two more brief excerpts from the composer are
followed by a final evaluation: "Mr. Smith is not like

some contemporary serialists, writing Augenmusik ("eye-

 

music"), in which the inspiration appears to be more
mathematical than musical."l This annotation is easily
read, it is revelatory and not too complex to be help-
ful to nearly any music lover. Rating: 3:322_(quite
good).

The Cleveland annotation of Gunther Schuller's

Seven Studies on Themes of Paul_Klee is interesting,

 

long and unique. It is more than just an explanation
of Schuller's work, for it delves into the whole ques-
tion of the relationship of music and art and includes
a lengthy addendum on the art of Paul Klee. Approp-
riately (and part of the reason for this particular
annotation), the performance came at the close of an
accompanying Klee exhibit in the adjacent Art Museum.

The actual description of each of the Seven Studies is

 

presented in the composer's words as published in the

 

1Joseph Sagmaster, Cincinnati Symphony program,
March 10, 1967, p. 577.

173

Minneapolis Star of November 26, 1959. Apparently Mr.
Roy felt that that was his best approach for a satis-
factory educational lesson on this particular piece of
music. It surely would have been a worthwhile program
to preserve in one's files. Rating: at least 31.1
Opportunity presented itself to compare two
major symphony program notes on Witold Lutoslawsky's
Concerto for Orchestra, one from Boston and one from
Rochester. As reported above, Boston has no regular
annotator, but a Program Book Editor who hires the ser-
vices of various experts as needed. This annotation
was prepared by Leonard Marcus, Managing Editor of §3gh
Fidelity magazine, conductor, composer, violinist and
scholar. The Rochester annotator is Ruth Watanabe,
musicologist, professor and librarian at the Eastman
School of Music. The two essays were amazingly alike:
each set the stage by speaking of Lutoslawski as the
leading Polish composer of today, mentioning his back-
ground, his roots, his general style; each then pre-
sented an outline of the Concerto movement by movement,
referring to matters of form and material. Each then

found a unique way to close. Dr. Watanabe concluded

with a quotation from Robert Sabin (Musical America,

 

January, 1962); Mr. Marcus drew on Lutoslawski's

 

lRoy, Cleveland, November 10, 1960, p. 189.

174

summer experiences at Tanglewood, thus bringing his
name closer to home for the Boston audience. Although
Mr. Marcus included some detail--meters, tonalities,
pedal point-~neither annotation was excessively tech-
nical. Each served the purpose of providing the proper
historical setting and establishing the experience to
be expected in hearing the Concerto. By panel stand-

ards these would be considered good, earning a 3

rating.1&2

Moving now to composer's program notes, we
quote part of one rather labored explanation whose
value to an amateur musician-listener is suspect:

-The title, Quarternion, refers to a set of
pitches (a twelve-tone row) and four rhythmic
structures being the generating factors of a four-
movement composition.

The opening section of the Alle ro states in
juxtaposition the horizontal and vertical aspects
of the set with the four basic rhythmic structures.
This first section exposes the images upon which
all subsequent sections are based.

The structure of the Alle ro is essentially
areas of ostinati and melodic Iines interrupted by
harmonic fragments (muted horns) that become longer
and more complex with each appearance. Both parts
pull together in the first tutti. The following
section, characterized by rhythmic and dynamic in-
terplay, leads to a climax in which the harmonic
and rhythmic structures are stressed. The movement
closes quietly with varying shapes of the set mov-
ing through instrumental colors.

 

 

Leonard Marcus, Boston Symphony program, De-
cember 8, 1967. Copyright © by the Boston Symphony
Orchestra, Inc.

2Ruth Watanabe, Rochester Philharmonic program,

March 2, 1967.

3Source withheld.

 

175

Not even musicians would struggle through three more
paragraphs like this; the non-musician would have been
lost by the end of the second paragraph! But there is
an even more complex example in which Stockhausen's
explanation of Kontakte is quoted. In it such terms
as "potentiometer," "ring-modulators," "sine-wave gen-
erators" and "filters" require an electronic education.
As for the brief excerpt below, surely it be-
longs in mathematical environs. With study it might
lead to understanding, but the ten minutes before a

concert is hardly the apprOpriate moment for it.

What was formerly pitch (height)-
has become duration (length). The
durational row fragment is then 3,5,1
((3133),). By combining the two
graphs or. a pitch and time axis we
ohtain the following:

In the preceding graph the Y-axis
has been designated as pitch. In rela-
tion to this the X-axis can be labeled as
time. If we take the graphed figure and
turn it over on its side. it would appear
as follows on our time axis:

 

176

This is the composer's own offering; we use it here to
illustrate compositional knowledge unmatched by a par-
allel understanding of audience needs.

There are, however, composers who can write
words as well as music. One such is Stanley Weiner,
who supplied the following annotation for his Concerto
No. l for Violin and Orchestra for the Indianapolis
Symphony program. He was introduced by one opening
sentence from the regular annotator. Mr. Weiner's
remarks, though brief, are straight to the point:

The Concerto for Violin and Orchestra by Stanley
Weiner, which is having its first American perfor-
mances with the Indianapolis Symphony at this con-
cert pair, was completed in Brussels, Belgium, in
1961. The earliest sketches date from 1959, at a
time the composer was touring Spain as concert vi—
olinist. It is his first of three violin concertos,
and the only one scored for normal-sized orchestra.
Nos. 2 and 3 are scored for violin with string or-
chestra. Unlike the later works, which were per-
formed relatively soon after being composed, the
First Concerto had to wait six years before being
heard for the first time. This took place on August
22 of this year when the composer performed it as
soloist with the Symphony Orchestra of the Belgian
Radio under the direction Of Edgard Doneux. It is
also scheduled for two performances in Rumania as
well as in Norway this season.

The composer believes that a violin concerto
should include strong melodic lines. From the very
beginning of the first movement, with the Opening
bars of the solo violin, this becomes self-evident.
Throughout the work the composer has remained faith-
ful to his musical credo of evolution rather than
revolution, construction rather than destruction.
This does not exclude the use of a number of tech-
nical innovations, and the composition of a work
making extreme technical demands on the soloist.

The first movement is in sonata-allegro form.
Marked as "allegro," it contains two main themes,

a development period, recapitulation, cadenza and

177

coda. The second movement, "andante," is in A-B-A
form--the central part being indicated as an "alle-
gro con fuoco." The last movement is an "allegro
Vivace," and is a true rondo.l
This example would rate a panel 3.
Another quite acceptable and lucid composer-
annotation is that of William Kraft in one of the Los

Angeles Symphony programs. He wrote yet another when

the same work (Concerto for Four Percussion Soloists

 

and Orchestra) was played on Boston. The latter is

 

more complete, for in it he described the forms and
ideas and their development, whereas in the former he
wrote only generalities. However, the Los Angeles
editor, Nicholas Slonimsky, provided a list of the
twelve variations in the third movement and included
minimal information, some Of which was quoted from the
composer. Mr. Kraft wrote for the Boston audience as
follows:

As to the Percussion Concerto in particular, it
was written in 1964 while I was on a fellowship at
the Huntington Hartford Foundation. I took it as a
challenge to have the percussion instruments com-
pete with the traditional concerto instruments on
their own terms and laid the work out in three
movements with internal designs meant to show the
percussion instruments in their favorable light.
The first movement opens with a glockenspiel (or-
chestra bells) solo, the material of which undergoes
some evolution and some commentary by tympani, vi-
braphone and five graduated drums. The second
movement is founded on a jazz-like ostinato. . . .

 

lIndianapolis Symphony program, October 12,
1967, p. 47.

178

One could--if so disposed-~compare the movement

with a Japanese fan that folds out gradually, shows

its full design and then folds back on itself.1
This continues in the same manner. There is no problem
here: composer is speaking clearly to consumer and
will be heard. The word ostinato might bother some
people; a parenthetical explanation (as with glocken-
sp3g3) would have been helpful. An audience would
probably like this type of communication with its
first-hand honesty; panel rating of the entire annota-
tion would be 3.

These examples indicate that it is almost im-
possible to avoid some technical writing when called
upon to introduce a new 20th 0. work; and they indicate
also that nearly every annotator supplies some back-

ground information about the new composer and his means

of expression.

Vocal Works

 

Moving on now to the last of the comparative
writing samples, we enter the area of vocal works.
These vary from solo appearances to oratorios, from
cantatas to symphonies. Two of the most pOpular Of-

ferings in recent months have been the Beethoven Ninth

 

lWilliam Kraft, Boston Symphony program, No-
vember 3, 1967, p. 270. Copyright©by the Boston
Symphony Orchestra, Inc.

179

Symphony and the Verdi Requiem, with Mahler gaining
increased interest. We are concerned mainly with the
handling of the texts and the resulting reduction of
the size of the accompanying annotation. There is no
doubt that the printing of the texts crowds out much
information about the vocal works, and the preferred
practice is to print the texts. When a foreign lan-
guage is sung, very often the program will run parallel
columns of the original text and its translation. Some
program sizes prohibit the printing of any text, and
some programs offer the translation only. In sixty-
five programs featuring the voice, thirty-six supplied
texts; the remainder Offered only compendia, titles or
source references. In the case of operatic excerpts it
can be granted that a synopsis of the action might be
sufficient; in the case of common liturgical texts it
can be reasonably assumed that a large part of any au-
dience would be reasonably familiar with them (such

things as the Gloria, Reguiem and Mggnificat).

 

One wonders what factors determine the decision
to include or exclude the texts, to print or omit the
foreign setting, to supply a literal translation or a
paraphrase. Undoubtedly many factors enter the decie
sions: lighting, cost of programs, assumption of au-
dience familiarity, or perhaps the mistaken notion that

the words will always be understood when heard. Many

180

orchestras go to the trouble of publishing the texts,
often on separate inserted sheets, but fail to give
enough light for reading. Interviews with managers
revealed some very strong convictions on that score:
a few would like to maintain dim lighting, but the
majority would never sanction any distraction of focus
from the stage. One even said that he would not turn
on the lights even if 95% of his audience indicated a
desire for it. (His audience was not questioned.)
There will be more mention of this in Chapters VI and
VII, since there was a question put to each audience
on the desirability of more reading light.

There were a few programs in which the annota-
tors preferred to write about the music rather than to
print the texts; this was especially true of those com—
positions whose texts were well known--works like Mpg:

siah and The Creation. Bach cantatas seemed to demand

 

both an annotation and the text, the former to explain
their original function, the latter because the texts
are not well known.

There was also a case of a Czechoslovakian text
with a parallel English translation. The explanation
for this was that the work was sung in Czech, that peo-
ple could follow the sounds even if they could not un-
derstand the language, and that there would be some

Czechs in the audience.

181

There were also many programs that left a def-
inite void by omitting the texts of works that were not
well known to members of the audience. Such a practice
needs to be reviewed by orchestra management, who could
profit from making some inquiries into audience prefer-
ence. Unfortunately there is much stubbornness and
some smugness in this sphere of operations. It is
hOped that the present study will be somewhat effective

in widening vistas and opening minds.

CHAPTER V

COMMON PROBLEMS

As a final exposure of methods and techniques
of preparing and presenting program notes, this chapter
focuses on some of the details that the study of dozens
of examples has detected. As one reads a single pro-
gram, or even several, the notes may seem adequate and
satisfying. Pertinent facts may be presented that ap-
pear to enlighten the reader sufficiently for him to
anticipate the listening experience with confidence.
But as one reads many notes from the pens of many authors,
the limitations of the average annotation become increas-
ingly obvious. Very few would completely satisfy our

representative panel.

Writing Style

 

One quality factor emerges with increasing im-
portance: the attractiveness and readability of the
writing style. Of course, this does not preclude an
informative educational Offering. In fact, these two
elements must coexist for the fullest appreciation of

music. If any author expects to be read, he must

182

183

develop smooth continuity and an interesting style.

This applies to any kind of writing, but most of all

to literature that is elective rather than compulsory
reading. Take these Opening sentences,1 for example
(believed to be presented here in the order of increasing
enticement):

Brahms worked on his Third Symphony in 1882,
and in the summer of 1883 he completed it.

This symphony was probably completed during
the summer of 1877, for it was first performed
on December 30 of that year by Hans Richter and
the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra.

Summer was the most productive time for
Brahms.

Haydn's Symphony No. 102 was written in 1794-
1795, during the composer's last period of com-
position, the years Of his greatest mastery.

The date was March 10, 1824, when B. Schott
and Sons, publishers, received a letter from
Beethoven, Offering a list of new works.

This wondrous work was baptized "German Re-
quiem" by Brahms himself.

It is most appropriate that Mr. Ehrling sche-
duled a Sibelius work for last week's concerts
and a composition by Nielson for this week.

The Irish are a music-loving peOple, and the
city of Dublin already had an illustrious musical
past when George Frederick Handel arrived there
on November 18, 1741.

On the evening of September 21, 1945, Tibor
Serly called on his fellow-composer and fellow-
Hungarian, Bela Bartok, in New York. He found
Bartok in bed, using the last of his failing
strength to write the final pages of his Third
Piano Concerto.

 

l .
From various programs.

184

Full many a man, in times past, went to sea in
order to have something to do while finding out
what he really wanted to do--or so it might seem.
[This was in reference to a Roussel symphony, not
any sea piece!]

One does not have to be a composer to feel the
thrall of the sea.

If art is prophetic we should all be alarmed,
for in the world of music, 1984 has arrived.

The use of a provocative opening sentence is
pOpularly known as the journalistic opening. It is
most effective--much more so than the frequent Opener,

"This symphony was composed in 18--, which produces a
somewhat negative mental response. The best teaching
results from a situation of pleasure. We know it is
not always achievable, for sometimes the only way to
learn the facts is to concentrate and memorize, however
boring. But the sensitive teacher tries to be stimulat-
ing, to arouse curiosity and to inspire a student to
seek information on his own initiative. If this can be
done so subtly that the student is scarcely aware that
he is being led, we laud it as skillful teaching. So
Philip Hale's style is not to be deprecated, for it is
attractive and easily read. "Anyone can present the

1

facts," but how? For direct comparison, here are two

excerpts from recent programs of two major symphonies:

 

1As one annotator commented.

185

Example 1

There is a short, capricious introduction,
allegro vivacissimo, followed by a cadenza. The
ensuing rondo (D major, 2/4) has the flavor of a
somewhat robust dance. The solo violin part, as
one may expect, is replete with brilliant and dif—
ficult passage work.

 

The second theme is heard in the solo over a
drone bass of the cellos.

Example 2

It is fortunate that the Scherzo (Allegro vi-
vace, 3/4) meets no immovable object on its way;
for it is an irresistable force. The Trio, like
the main theme of the first movement, is based on
the outline of the E flat major triad; its sounds
are thrilling to the hearer, its technical execu-
tion a terror to the three horn players.

An analysis of Example 1 shows it to be composed of
short, declarative statements, simple forms of the verb

"to be" and one passive "is heard." In Example 2, sen-

tences are longer, smoother flowing. Verbs include is
thrice, "is based" and two action verbs, "meets" and
"moves." Continuity has forward thrust. Both examples
are informative. Example 2 as a regular diet in large
quantities is perhaps more palatable and therefore more
successful educationally. If Example 1 appeals to the
present reader, let him ponder the perusal of many
pages in this style. Observation shows that there are
far more annotations like the first example for the

reason that the combination of writing skill, musical

knowledge and imagination is rare.

 

lSource withheld.

2Roy, Cleveland, May 11, 1967.

186

Extra Touches

 

In some writing there are extra touches that
add interest and variety. One, the voicing of personal
Opinion, was mentioned earlier and illustrated by exam-
ples from Cleveland and New York. As Frank Howe said,l
critical Opinion makes more interesting reading than
purely factual data, and several authors have supported
the practice of writing critically in an annotation.

In spite of the predominance of objection to it, it con-
tinues to emerge, apparently spontaneously. It has been
cautioned that sparing use of this method is desirable;
when Opinion is laid down as incontrovertible fact, it
is misleading and prejudicial, therefore out of order.

Another type of "extra" is the fortunate happen—
stance of just the right reference, metaphor or imagina-
tive suggestion that lends a touch of subtlety or charm.

An example is the opening of John Brigg's (Philadelphia)

annotation of the Brahms Second §ymphony, where he, a

 

singer, recalled the Brahms song, Mit Vierzig Jahren
("At forty years upon the height we're standing"). As
nearly every annotator of this symphony points out,
Brahms was a mature forty-three before attempting a
symphony and gave the world two within a year. This

fortunate extra touch of meaning was a nice bonus for

 

1See p. 91.

187

the reader. Likewise, the same author's mention of
Haydn's increase in pay as a result of the three sym-
phonies ("Le Matin," "Le Midi," "Le Soir") presented at
his Esterhazy debut, added an essentially superfluous
bit of information that turned out to be a supporting
argument for the quality of 33hM3d3.

This type of bonus was called "fortunate hap—
penstance" because sometimes these ideas seem to appear
without consciously being sought. Actually they are
the mark of the scholar who has ready access to accumu-
lated knowledge and experience. The same thing occurs
in the form of art and literary references and compari-
sons to other compositions that certain writers cannot
avoid. An example of illuminating similes is this
sentence from a Detroit program: "A tragic, frightening
work, Klaus Roy . . . likens it to the 'horrifying fan-
tasies of Hieronymus Bosch and Matthias Grfinewald, like

Picasso's Guernica, the exalted denunciations of Jeremiah
l

 

and Isaiah, the shattering novels of Dostoevsky.'" And

from another Cleveland program: "When the news first
reached the outside world, towns in many parts of the
world changed their names to Lidice. Jo Davidson created
a statue; Edna St. Vincent Millay wrote an epic poem.

Martinu's brief work was not written until 1943 . . ."2

 

lHolmes, Detroit, October 19, 1967.

2Roy, Cleveland, November 4, 1965, p. 211.

188
Another, from Lansing:

The scherzo Of the Metamorphosis, titled
Turandot, is based on a "ChineSe Melody" which
Weber had used in incidental music for Schiller's
drama based on a play by Gozzo (the 5am? from
which Puccini's Opera was constructed).

Other illustrations of fine touches follow:

A memorial exhibition of his [Hartmen's] paint-
ings opened in St. Petersburg in February of 1874;
and from a visit to this exhibition Moussorgsky
emerged with the idea of setting to music (so to
speak) ten of his friend's pictures, as a memorial
tribute. The resulting piano suite has immortal-
ized Hartmann as did Verdi his friend Manzoni, or
Tennyson Hallan (or, for that—matter, Wagner his
non-friend What's-his-name).

Perhaps the Violin Concerto of Sibelius has
not yet had time to become pOpular, but I can see
no reason why it should not soon take its place
with the Violin Concerto of Mendelssohn and the G
minor Concerto of Max Bruch as one of t e three
most attractive concertos ever written.‘

Sullivan's view would explain why the Eighth is
much more related in spirit to the Sixth Symphony,
the "Pastoral," than to the Seventh. Like the
Sixth, it is in the key of F major, which was for
the composer almost invariably a tonality of good
cheer. It is, perhaps, Beethoven's "comic" sym-
phony, music that is continually On the verge of
riotous laughter. This does not mean that there
is no serious moment in the work; who knows the
meaning of tragedy better than the great comedian?

Another writer, a professional,intentionally

uses phrases that add spice to his program notes: "For

 

lPerris, Lansing, December 4, 1967.
2Burke, Kalamazoo, November 16, 1967.
3

Tovey, Essays, III, 211.

4Roy, Cleveland, January 19, 1962, p. 673.

189

the theme of the finale Beethoven got additional mile-
age Out of a melody he had used several times before,
notably in his 'Prometheus' ballet score"; and "The
Romeo theme is familiar as the tune of Larry Clinton's
pop ballad, 'Our Love,' with which Tschaikowsky first
crashed the Hit Parade in 1939."1

These are samples of unique ways of reaching
an audience.

There are touches that detract, too—-or more
accurately, that fail to add. One follows, written by

a composer on his composition Johnny Appleseed, a sym-

 

phonic legend in praise of a beautiful country that
never was":

The ideals of a nation may be revealed more
fully in its folklore than its history. The legend
of Johnny Appleseed is a case in point. As the
hard-won victories of the federal period began to
be threatened by sweatshops, Know-Nothingism and
the deepening conflict over slavery, American cul-
ture produced a legend that glorified a set of
ideals increasingly violated by events. The stories
woven around the life of Jonathan Chapman concern
far more than frontier horticulture. The hero is
a philosopher who turns away-from churches, not be-
cause he is irreligious, but because he believes
in direct contact of the human and the divine. He
is a woodsman who totally rejects the emerging city
and all it stands for. He is an individualist who
eludes all regimentation. He is a practitioner of
nonviolence who lives at peace with bears, hornets,
rattlesnakes--even men, of different colors, includ-
ing red. He is a humanitarian who risks his life
to perform deeds of mercy in time of war. He is an
idealist who cherishes the values of the spirit and
disdains money. He is also a realist who ignores

 

1Jack Rudolph, Green Bay, November 13, 1966.

a

 

190

appearances, including his own. He is a conserva-
tive in a deep sense, distrusting busyness touted

as progress. He searches for and attains a state
of inner harmony that permits him to face calmly
the worst that nature has to offer--storms, disease,
pain, death. He is, in short, many things many
Americans seem more willing to praise than be.)

This introduces us to Johnny Appleseed, but does
not prepare us for the music we are to hear. It might
develop some degree of curiosity, so it cannot be con-
sidered entirely unsatisfactory.

It was difficult to resist the temptation to
include the next example; it is hermorphroditic--both
happily clever and mildly annoying. It imparts infor—
mation, but is so self-polarized as to exert a strangely
magnetic pull away from the musical production. This
writer, an amateur, has a definite, but peculiar flair
for writing: O

When Lully was a little lad adept with song and
string, he was a mischievous and ingratiating imp
indeed. The Chevalier de Guise, most noble French-
man, rode through town and heard him play and sing.
Forthwith he took him into France to enter the ser-
vice of Mademoiselle Montpensier, a lady of royal
lineage, who desired a boy to teach her the Tuscan
tongue. He was placed in the scullery—-a most im-
probable place from which to give language lessons,
but a status not unknown to musicians. He had at
least enough time free from the pots and pipkins to
take lessons on the guitar from a friendly Francis-
can and to attain remarkable proficiency on the
violin. Somehow the lady discovered this bright
jewel in her basement and promoted him to her or-
chestra. Here his mischief now turned to cleverness
and, besides, he was in truth a violinist of great
ability. SO we find him soon at the court of Louis
XIV where favor followed favor for the rest of his

 

lSource withheld.

191

days, Lully having now the prudence to direct his
satire at all others save his royal patron, whom
he spared.

He started in the string orchestra and soon
became conductor and composer. Prolific works
followed, mainly ballets in collaboration with
Moliére. Opera was then closed to him, as the
royal franchise belonged to three others. He
watched with care until they fell out and he fell
in. Thenceforth none but he, Lully, could employ
more than two singers and four strings--a neat
monopoly indeed. Be it said to his credit that
he toiled busily writing Operas by the dozens and
still an occasional ballet, including this one,
first performed in 1687.

Errors

Another distraction takes the form of errors,
either factual, grammatical or typographical. The de-
gree of distraction depends on the sensibility and
musical knowledge of the reader. For example, unless
he knew that Brahms composed his first two symphonies
at ages forty-three and forty-four, he would not have
been disturbed by the annotation that attributed them
to Brahms' thirty-third and thirty-fourth years.2 Once
a reader discovers an error of fact, he will surely
mistrust all annotations by that author.

One amusing error of syntax exposed a careless
editor. Referring to the evening's soloist, he wrote:

"An imaginative amateur chef, their dining room fireplace

 

lSource withheld.

2See p. 149.

192

is the scene of many elaborate barbecues." The an-
notator penciled a private note: "What a talented
fireplace!"l

A disturbing typographical error is exemplified
by the "nine French hours" that turned up recently in

the instrumentation of Handel's Music for the Royal

 

Fireworks.2 Another from the same source offered "the

 

thythmic snap of dotted rhythms." From another city
came a program that listed the "Romeo and Juliet Over-
tune-Fantasy [sic] by Tschaikowsky (180-1893)[sic]."3
The major orchestras normally demand adequate proof
reading, but even so, embarrassing errors can appear,
such as the announcement of Virgin [sic] Thomson as
guest conductor of his compositions. Another error
changed a modal melody to a "model" melody,4 something
quite different from the thought intended.

It is disturbing, too, when an annotator runs
out of either ideas or space, one cannot tell which,
and bows out with a broad generalization unsupported

by facts, illustrations or other amplification. One

such (previously cited) was: "The Opening movement is

 

lSource withheld.

2 .

LanSlng, January 22, 1968.
3Green Bay, November 13, 1966.

4Pittsburgh, November 11, 1966, p. 265.

193

a miracle of symphonic form";1 or "The concerto in its

entirety shows fine structural unity";2 or "Rachmani-
noff's music was Russian to its very core, and it re—
mained the favorite in concert halls of the Soviet Union
even though its composer was regarded as a political

renegade."3

Borrowing

 

Many of the quotations in this paper serve to
illustrate most annotators' dependence on the writings
of other annotators. This is an area of major concern,
for it is so customary that it can be regarded as the
mode of annotation. The American Symphony Orchestra

League Newsletter cited it as a common practice; various

 

annotators called attention to it in answering their
questionnaires; and one annotator refused to submit
sample programs because "They are not my original work."4
Presumably they are compilations of others' words. This

practice is even more common than is admitted. One

reads many single phrases or sentences that are

 

1See p. 149.

2Allen Park, Michigan, January 28, 1968.

3New Orleans, November 28, 1967, p. 19. This
was the full explanation of the music; it was preceded
by twenty—eight lines about the composer.

4Source withheld.

194

recognized as taken from the standard source books and
encyclopedias, and these are not always identified by
the writer. A favorite source of information is another
set of program notes. Many an annotator's Office is
well stocked with bound volumes of the major symphony
orchestra programs and such bOOks as the collected notes
of Gilman, Frankenstein, Peyser, Bagar and Biancolli,
Tovey, Hale and Ferguson(mentioned over and over in this
paper). These function as any good library does--as
sources of information. When authors are properly cred-
ited, these sources serve the worthy and legitimate
function of adding authority and/or interest and variety
to a written article. If quotation will help the edu-
cational process it certainly should be used. When this
practice is abused, reaching the point of appropriating
an entire annotation, it is ethically questionable. A
few examples of this have been uncovered. In one case
an annotation was taken intact from the Dallas Symphony
program (minus one paragraph, apparently for lack of
space). NO credit was given to Dallas, and each pro-
gram listed its own annotator. This causes one to
wonder why some managements do not hire the annotators
of other orchestras to supply them with notes. This
has been done occasionally: e.g., the Chattanooga and
Nashville orchestras at one time used Mr. Burk's notes

(Boston) by arrangement. And of course, this is the

195

plan of the Program Note Service mentioned earlier,
which seems to fill a gap caused by incompetence or
lack of an annotator in some cities.

Scanning several programs, we found frequent
quotations from other annotators and from the standard
source books. In a random selection of ten isolated
single programs from ten different orchestras, this

tabulation of quotations resulted:

TABLE 6

QUOTATIONS IN ANNOTATIONS

 

 

 

 

From Other Annotations
Programs or Criticisms From Books

 

——

 

Cleveland
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Detroit
Pittsburgh
Boston
Phoenix
Seattle

Los Angeles
Philadelphia

i—‘i—‘Of—‘l—‘OCfiOON
ONUlNl-‘Ni-‘U'INOm

 

This evidence may not look impressive in table form,
but it shows that all but one used quotations; and

some of the quotations extended for a full paragraph
or more. There are other examples, not from class A

orchestra programs, that rely heavily upon borrowings

196

from George H. L. Smith,1 Philip Hale, Donald Tovey,
Felix Borowski, Klaus Roy, Edward Downes and others.
As for library sources, it is easy to recog-
nize the writings of Berlioz and Wagner on Beethoven,
the critiques of Hanslick, and many other common ref—
erence sources. The Bibliography lists many of the
books whose words appear most frequently in orchestra

programs.

Unifying the Notes

 

A problem that has achieved a solution in
several ways is that of relating the works on the same
or adjacent programs. Such possibility adds interest
and offers the educational advantage of contrasting
two pieces of music. A professional program note ser-
vice cannot meet this problem, and annotators who
cling to a formula are hard pressed to write relative
notes. Some writers like to solve this problem by
writing a special article; some incorporate their rel-
ativities directly into the notes. When a program is
a one-composer offering, a special article on the in-
terpretation of the music or the significance of the
composer is 3 propos and is a splendid way to relate

the works being played. The "Entr'Acte" of the Boston,

 

lCleveland, 1949/50-1956/57.

197

Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Detroit programs is the
ideal device for this purpose. Other programs offer
the same principle in the form of a single annotation
for the entire program. An unique feature adopted in
the Chicago Symphony bulletins in the 1967/68 season
is a short section called "Introducing this week's
program," in which the annotator relates the works in
whatever way he chooses. He reports a pleasant audi-
ence reaction to this, as well as his own delight in
its function. There should be more of this sort of
thing; it can be a useful educational device. The an—
notator who is willing to make the extra effort will
be appreciated by his public. For example, a Detroit
program stated "It is most appropriate that Mr. Ehrling
scheduled a Sibelius work for last week's concert and
a composition by Nielson for this week." This was an
opening wedge into an article that Offered the reader
opportunity to expand his musical thought by a compari-
son of these two composers. Dr. Holmes wrote:

Both were born in Scandinavia in 1865, both
excelled in the symphonic idiom, the symphonies
of both [those performed on these two programs]‘

. . . cover about the same period of time, . . .
and both stand as the first really great musical

geniuses of the north.

The following special articles are typical:

 

lDetroit, October 12, 1967.

198

TABLE 7

TYPICAL SPECIAL PROGRAM ARTICLES

 

 

 

Program Date Title
Boston 1/19/68 "Berlioz, the Theatrical
Composer"
1/12/68 "The Virtuoso Conductor"
Cleveland 5/11/67 "Beethoven's Vienna"
4/ 6/67 "To Igor Stravinsky for His
Eighty-fifth Birthday"
Pittsburgh 11/ 3/67 "Mahler Cycle"
9/22/66 "On Critics and Criticism"
New York 2/11/67 "The Musical Cocteau"

 

These are not always written by the regular annotators;
they are found more Often in the major orchestra pro-
grams than in those of classes B-D; they are justifica-

tion for the practice of saving programs.

Technical Languagg

 

The question of audience musical erudition
cannot be solved easily. The audience questionnaire
was of some help, and will be discussed in Part II.

We have noted that some authors studiously avoid the
use of any words that might cause confusion. For ex-
ample, the Detroit notes seldom carry more than three
or four musical terms. Others, notably the Chicago
programs, always follow any such term by a parentheti-

cal explanation. The vast majority of programs, in

199

keeping with the expression of the majority of annota-
tors on the questionnaires, try to limit their vocabu-
lary to words of common usage; as stated earlier, they
believe their audiences to be educated, but not musically.
A few annotators, Cleveland and Pittsburg, e.g., permit
themselves the use of a rather wide range of terms. In
one recent program1 a total of thirty-one special terms

was used, in addition to "Eb major," "G major,‘ and time
signatures 3/4, 3/8, 4/4. The list of terms in Table 8
was presented to the panel, with the request that each
person privately indicate which terms he felt should not
have been used. This panel agreement may come as a sur-
prise! Remember that three of the panel stressed "Keep
it simple!" Yet they agreed 100 percent on the legiti-
macy of the use of nine of these terms, and eleven of
the terms were checked as undesirable by only one member.
On the basis of this agreement, annotators can be freer
in their use of technical terms. Curiously, panel mem-
ber D checked the most words (fourteen), and panel mem-
ber C the fewest (three). This may indicate that
musicians are not aware of symphony audience musical
erudition. However the audience questionnaires later

revealed that the panel is weighted a bit heavily in

educational achievement.

 

lPittsburgh, November 11, 1966.

TABLE 8

TECHNICAL TERMS FOUND IN ONE PROGRAM

Allegro di molto
Allegretto
Allegro grazioso
Andante moderato
PP

Tutti

Dolce

Recitative
Exposition
Episodes

Rondo

Tonic

*Phrygian church mode

Canonic
Fifth notes

Adagio, ma semplicemente
Andante I
Allegro ma non troppo '
Allegro molto

ff

**Fermata

Poco espressivo
Scherzo
Development
Coda

Dominant
Counterpoint

*Six-four chord

Ostinato

*Terms which all panel members would exclude.

**Terms which three or more panel members would exclude.

The Cleveland programs reveal a free use of

terms of form and tempo, time signatures and tonalities.

In one program1 the words in Table 9 were found. A

majority of the panel agreed that only three of these

words were for musicians rather than the public. While

this indicates that audience musical vocabulary is in-

creasing, the general feeling among writers is still

that care must be exercised in keeping the written word

within rather limited bounds.

 

lCleveland, April 6, 1967.

201

TABLE 9

TECHNICAL TERMS IN ONE CLEVELAND PROGRAM

*Basso continuo Partita
Tutti Suite
Allemande *Courrante
Sarabande Fugato

*Clarino Grave
Allegro Gavotte
Bourrée Vivace
Concerto grosso Polyphonic
Ostinato Toccata
Cantilena Capriccio

*Terms which all panel members would exclude.

PrOgram Notg Length

 

The reader has noticed that program notes vary
in length from a single paragraph of six lines1 to a
lengthy discussion Of more than 6,000 words.2 Again,
the audience questionnaire report will be helpful in
establishing the preferable length; but looking at the
problem practically, the reading time in minutes is an
important factor. Different audiences undoubtedly de-
velOp different arrival habits, perhaps conditioned by
the program notes, perhaps solely by automobile parking

facilities. Personal observation of many audiences

suggests that the auditorium begins to fill about thirty

minutes before the concert, and that the busiest moments

 

1See p. 168.

2See p. 44,

202

for ushers are the last ten minutes. If we assume that
the bulk of the audience will have between five and ten
minutes to get settled in their seats, to look over the
rest of the audience and to scan their programs, we can
assume a maximum reading of about 2000 words (figuring
200 per minute). Divided among three to four composi-
tions, this allows 500—700 words per annotation,which
appears to be about adequate to present the kind of an-
notation the better writers like to supply. A briefer
limit hampers the writer; a longer article may not be
read. There is serious doubt that any but a few readers
will absorb 3000-5000 words in the hall before a concert.
It might be helpful to review the current practice in
Table 10. The pattern is evident: (l) the major sym-
phonies offer longer notes; (2) the average drOps in
each class; (3) the deviation is on the brief side of
the 2000 word figure. The overall word average is about

1300 per program.

Program Format

 

One finds in programs an expected variety of
type size and style, advertising practice and format.
In the belief that these are factors that could influ—
ence the reading of program notes, the panel was ques-
tioned about the type size. The panel was given

copies of four program excerpts that varied from

203

TABLE 10

ANNOTATION AVERAGE LENGTH

 

 

 

Orchestras Average Pages Average Words
Class A 33 2300
Class B 16 1200
Class C 16 1000
Class D ° 14 800
Boston 60 4000
Dallas 40 1700
Cincinnati 38 2800
Indianapolis 36 1000
Seattle 16 1400
Phoenix 32 1000
Lansing 16 800
South Bend 8 600
Fort Wayne 16 1000
Augusta, Georgia 44 800
Green Bay 16 1000

 

eight-point to fourteen-point type, three of them con-
sidered ten-point to be too small, and all agreed on
the imprOpriety Of using eight-point. Many programs
use ten-point type; the eight-point was found only in
footnotes. One factor in reading ease is the abundance
of Open space. Even twelve-point type can look crowded
and discouraging. This is the reason that at least one
orchestra resorts to a larger program size (7-1/4" x ll")--
"to allow plenty of open space."1

The commonest program size is 6" x 9", which is

both convenient and economical. Many orchestras prefer

 

1Green Bay

204

a larger 8-1/2" x 11" (Kansas City, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco, e.g.), and a few have chosen Odd
sizes (Rochester 6" x 10", Green Bay 7-1/4" x 11",
Louisville 4" x 9"). In the cases of Los Angeles and
New York, their programs are issued by magazine pub-
lishers in the general format of those magazines

(Playbill and Saturdangeview). The San Francisco

 

bulletin is in the form of a monthly magazine, remini-
scent of the Metropolitan News.

Program paper is almost invariably glossy,
probably due to the higher cost of mat paper. This is,
of course, rather hard on the eyes. Some orchestras
have sought to ease the strain by the use of tinted
paper or colored ink, or both: buff with brown ink,
e.g..l One disastrous experiment was an orange gold
with red ink!2 After reading a few lines of this the
words seem to dance on the page. But 98 percent of all
programs are white or off-white. The latter is quite
comfortable to the eye if it is mat finish.

It is evident that some editors are aware of
eye psychology (advertisers have long recognized it).
But many programs would undoubtedly offend the good

taste of some readers by the intermingling of program

 

1Eastern Connecticut and Kalamazoo Symphonies.

2Unidentified.

205

notes and advertisements. A question to this effect
was included in the audience questionnaire and will be:
discussed in Part II. The positioning of advertise-
ments is surely a problem to the editor, because he
must satisfy the advertiser even sometimes against his
own preference. Many programs intermingle advertise-
ments with text copy. Approximately an equal number
are able to face a page of text with a page of adver-
tisements, while a few are able to avoid commercialism
entirely or to limit it to the back cover.. The last
group tends to be the orchestras with short program
books of four to eight pages. The middle course seems
to be the happy compromise if advertisements are essen-
tial, for a full page of text is more inviting to a
reader than a few lines "continued on page 16." We
fear that many a reader is unwilling to hunt for "page
16." A few programs have done away with a program
page, forcing the reader to find titles in the program
notes! This might be a way of calling attention to

the notes.

Advance Distribution

 

The audience questionnaire, when first con-
ceived, included a question about the desirability of
distributing programs in advance in order to allow

patrons to acquaint themselves with the music and the

206

composers. So many managers objected (on the grounds
that they would be inviting requests for a service

they could not provide) that it was stricken from the
final version. Various orchestras have tried different
schemes- We have mentioned the San Francisco and Los
Angeles monthly bulletins. The Tulsa Philharmonic in
1959/60 instituted a policy of publishing in each pro-

"a

gram the program notes for the succeeding program,
pattern established by many of the leading symphony or-
chestras."l Attention has already been called to those
orchestras which have tried a mailing service. There
are other methods of pre-educating an audience, of
course, and all have been used-—a verbal presentation
at a social hour, for instance (a common practice).
There are also the mass media-—radio, television and
newspaper--which play a significant role in some com-
munities. The point is that the desire to pre-educate
is present, though methods vary both in fact and in in-
tensity. No one spoke strongly against advance distri-
bution of programs; some spoke of it enthusiastically;
some doubted its value in return for the cost and
trouble.

A final observation on program notes calls

attention to the balance of emphasis. It has already

 

lTulsa Philharmonic program, November 17, 1959.

207

been pointed out that notes run the gamut from fantasy
to fact. In the shorter notes there is an "average
annotation" (It is found frequently enough to be called
that): it is the program note that devotes the bulk of
its space to background information--the note that gives
the reader only a few general remarks about the music%
An example is the annotation from a suburban community;
orchestra (class D) program covering the Brahms Concerto

for Violin, Cello and Orchestra. The format was supefl

 

rior: twelve pages plus cover, good quality mat paper;
clear photograph reproductions of soloists and conductor,
only one full-page advertisement, and two consecutive
full pages of program notes. Type was mixed and rather
small, but quite readable because Of the ampleness of
Open spaces between lines. The total number of words
was 476 (the full program required 1100), of which 266
established the background, 143 discussed the concerto
in very general terms, and 58 outlined the three move—
ments (one sentence per movement); the remaining nine
words were better omitted: "The concerto in its en-
tirety shows fine structural unity."1 The author of

the program notes was not identified.

 

1Allen Park, Michigan, Symphony program, Jan-
uary 28, 1968.

208

Another similar illustration from a class B
orchestral offered sixteen lines of background on
Poulenc,then six lines on his organ concerto. Such
an annotation can be interesting and somewhat helpful,
but also disappointing to an inquiring reader who
wants to learn about the music.

While these examples are rather typical of the
short program book, they are not typical of the class
A bulletin. Of twenty major symphony programs, only
four were of the "average" type; and only four (not the
same four) were of the fantasy type. The major annota—
tors prefer a carefully considered balance between the
different elements of an annotation, and they usually
include some kind of analysis. This statement is not
in conflict with the figures stated in Chapter III; it
is based on the analysis of many programs.

* * * * *

If program notes are to be printed and annota-
tors paid for the trouble of preparing them to the
best of their ability, every effort should be made to
encourage the reading of them. In some programs this
is done by making them not only attractive to the eye,
but by giving them prominence, by making them seem im—

portant. For instance, some editors place the words

4%

1Phoenix Symphony program.

209

"Program notes by ------ " in a box; Often the annota-
tor's professional qualifications are listed (i.e., his
vocation); others place the notes near the front of the
bulletin so they will be seen first; some call special
attention to a statement or feature to be found in the
annotations. If the management considers the program
notes of sufficient importance, there are many ways of
conveying that impression. Opposing this is the orches-
tra whose bulletin numbered twenty—two pages, but whose
annotations required only two; much of the remaining
space was filled with social features, including five
large pictures of affiliated social groups. This also
conveys a message to an audience very quickly.

Quoting Dr. Dorian again, if the symphony or-
chestra is to serve its role of education and enjoyment,
"the program notes should support this dual purpose,"

too.l

 

1See p. 14.

CHAPTER VI

THE AUDIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire circulated amongst symphony
audiences was the result of much thought, discussion
and alteration. Its final form was designed for com-
puter use, which accounts for the instructions "Check
only one" and the simple form of "YES-NO" answers. The
ease and speed of checking also entered into the con-
sideration of the format: for group use, the simpler
the better. It would have been a more valuable ques-
tionnaire had it been much longer, but some annotators
thought thirteen questions to be too many. A quiz of
technical terms would have been revealing; and a ques-
tion such as "What information would you like in a good
program note?" would also have been useful. Both were
considered to be too lengthy.

The reasoning behind most of the questions
seems obvious enough, if the hypothesis is recalled:
that symphony concert program notes fail to accomplish
their intended purpose. To support or to negate this
hypothesis we need to know whether program notes are

read, and when and how completely. To delve into some

210

211

of the factors that influence the reading--or non-
reading—-we need to know audience Opinions on certain
other procedures such as auditorium lighting, the use
of musical examples, the distribution of programs;
and we need to know the chief criticisms,some of which
were elicited by the questions. Others peculiar to a
single orchestra, or less frequently voiced, would ap-
pear as written comments. Finally, as a guide to the
writing of program notes, we need to know audience
educational attainment and musical erudition; the lat-
ter can be partially determined by knowing the frequency
of concert attendance and the amount of musical study.
Questions lb, 3 and 5 were suggested by the
annotators of three of the major symphonies; a manager
of another major orchestra, apparently disturbed by
some of the annotations he was required to print in
his bulletin, wanted to include a question on writing
style, but this was excluded for ethical reasons.
(His orchestra was not included in the final selection.)
Questions 1 and 6 reveal the kinds of use that patrons
make of their symphony programs. It was assumed that
advance reading was the best preparation for educated
listening, although both a pre- and a post-reading
would be even more commendable. (Many people, it was
discovered, do just that.) It was also assumed that

the more significant the notes, the more likelihood

212

there would be of preserving them for future refer-
ence. In this regard it is regrettable that we could
not include one of the orchestras that customarily
prints long annotations. Questions 2 and 3 were ob-
viously offered for practical reasons. Numbers 4, 5,
7, 8, 9 and 13 were designed to reveal the consumer's
evaluation of his orchestra's annotations. Questions
9, 10 and 11 specifically were conceived as the best
possible short-answer questions to help in determining
audience musical knowledge. Question 12 was included
to give the annotator a clue to guide him in his depth
of writing. Question 13 was a catch-all question to
give the checker opportunity to enlarge upon, explain
or clarify any previously checked answer or to add a
comment not covered by a printed question. Twenty-four
percent of the returned questionnaires contained written
comments; 8 percent, however, pertained strictly to ad-
ministrative affairs, leaving 16 percent that applied
to the program notes. All comments were summarized and
included in the reports to the symphony managers and
annotators.

For convenience the questionnaire, with average
percentages, is included as Table 11 in this chapter and
in Appendix V-M. Also for convenience, questions have
been numbered. The balance of the chapter will consider

the results of the questionnaire orchestra by orchestra,

213

TABLE 11

AUDIENCE QUESTIONS AND AVERAGE PERCENTAGES

 

 

1a.

1c.

10.

11.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) aIways? 84.0% lb. 1) partially? 38%
2) sometimes? 15.5% 2) totally? 62%
3) never? .5%
Do you read them: (Check only_one)
1) before the music is played? 87%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the music is played? 4%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 41%; NO 59%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 12%; NO 88%
DO you save your programs for '
future reference? YES 54%; NO 46%

DO OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 95%; NO 5%

DO you find them: (Check one in each column if ygu
desire)

 

1) too complex or technical? 6.4% 1) too brief? 13.0%

2) too lightweight? 8.4% 2) too long?
DO you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 86%; NO 14%
DO you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 84%; NO 16%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal music study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 34%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 7%
Are you a college graduate? YES 62%; NO 38%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes—-praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 16%

 

214

then question by question. N.B.: In the tabulations
all percentages are based on the number of answers to
the specific question involved, with the exception of
questions 8 and 13, whose percentages are based on the
total number of questionnaires received from each
orchestra. It is regrettable that only two class A
orchestras are represented, while three are included
from each of the other classes. As explained earlier,
one class A orchestra was compelled to withdraw at the
last moment, leaving no time to secure a replacement.
However, a mitigating factor is the splendid represen-
tation of the national audience via eleven orchestras

so widely selected.

The South Bend gymphopy

 

The City:

In northern Indiana, eighty miles east of Chicago.

Industrial city.

The home of Notre Dame University and St. Mary's
College (total enrollment 8,000).

POpulation 140,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1932.

Membership: 85.

Budget: Under $50,000 (class D).

Series: Six concerts.

Conductor: Edwyn H. Hames (founder).

Manager: Mrs. B. D. Cullity.

Annotator: Dr. Charles Biondo, faculty member at
Notre Dame University, violist and orchestra
member. No compensation for his annotations.

215

The South Bend program is a 5" x 9" four page
booklet with no advertising, printed in black ink on
white vellum paper. The annotations are limited to ap-
proximately a single page, so the average length is 600
words. Dr. Biondo's response to the question about the
chief function of program notes was: "To interest the

I | O O O "
audience members in listening--and in reading on. He

 

believes in "some subjective discussion and some objec-
tive, with attention to form, style, history and points
of laymen's curiosity." He is modest in his claim not
to be a writer; his profession is music education.

The South Bend annotations are influenced by
the necessity for brevity. For example, with five
works on the program (on the date of the questionnaire
distribution), there was room for only 181 words on
Samuel Barber's Symphony No. 1. To conserve space,
Barber was referred to as "B." in the notes--a practice
frowned upon by a number of patrons. An exact copy of

this annotation follows:

symphony No. I, Op. 9 in E Minor __1_Samuel Barber (I910-_-__)

The best index of a composer’s genius is recognition by the great
conductors responsible for the discovery and promotion of new talent.
B.’s fortuitous meeting with Toscanini in Italy blossomed into his popu-
larity over the continent; upon his return he was promoted by Bruno
Walter. who discerned a new type of standard bearer for modern Ameri-
cana. They liked B.’s adroit treatment of dissonances, his interweaving
of chromaticism within the tonality, his lyric, though elegiac melodies,
his aggressive rhythms and constant shifting between major and minor
keys and his orchestrational clarity and logic.

Written in 1936, four years after his successful “School for Scandal”
and revised six years later, his “symphony in one movement” synthesizes
the traditional four parts into one. The two distinct, angular motives
heard at the start can be identified cyclically throughout. Although con-
tinuous, the symphony contains sections of various tempi and moods.
including an identifiable scherzo. In fact, the ancient form of the
passacaglia, featuring a ground and ostinato bass with a number of sup-
erposed variations makes its appearance in the finale, based on the dra-
matic opening motive.

. fii’ ’fi_e i ii, i 1 7.; — __ .. _ _

1From the annotator's questionnaire.

216

Worthy of note are the small type size (8 pt.) and the

number of musical terms: dissonance, chromaticism,

 

 

motives, tonality, major, minor, tempi, scherzo, passa-

 

 

 

caglia, ground and ostinato bass.

 

 

The South Bend management reports that vocal
texts are never printed, that programs carry no adver-
tising, that sufficient reading light is supplied during
concerts, that programs are not available before the
concert date. Table 12 (and Appendix V-A) displays the
results of the audience questionnaire. Seven hundred
and sixty were distributed; 363 (48 percent) were re—
turned. Thus this report represents 24 percent of the
South Bend audience. For a comparison with the averages
of the eleven orchestras see Appendix V-M.

Significant variations from the averages appear
in questions lb, 1c, 8, 11 and 12. In lb the 68 percent
figure for total reading of the program notes is 6 per—
cent above average; in lo the number of peOple who read
their programs during the performance is heavy (17 per-
cent vs. an average 9 percent). Most managers and an-
notators with whom this questionnaire was discussed
agreed that music is primarily for listening, that
reading distracts. Nevertheless, quite a number of
orchestras carry on the practice of supplying light,
and a substantial number of patrons--not a majority—-

like it, as we shall see when we enter a general

217

TABLE 12

THE SOUTH BEND RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

11.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 86% lb. 1) partially? 32%
2) sometimes? 14% 2) totally? 68%
3) never? 0%
DO you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 81%
2) while the music is being played? 17%
3) after the music is played? 2%
Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? [Not applicable] YES 46%; NO
Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 26%; NO

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 44%; NO

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 35%; NO

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 50%; NO

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO

54%

74%

56%

65%

50%

6%

DO you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 11% 1) too brief? 20%
2) too lightweight? 8% 2) too long?
Do you find them comprehensive
enough? YES 82%: NO
Do you attend five or more symphony
concerts per year? YES 79%; NO

Which of these applies to you? (One only)

1) A music lover with no formal music study.
2) An amateur musician with some formal study.
3) A professional musician or music teacher.
4) A music student.

Are you a college graduate? YES 55%; NO

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet.

4%

18%

21%

45%
34%
12%

9%

45%

16%

 

218

discussion of question 3. The 11 percent (this is 11

percent of the total number of questionnaires received

 

from South Bend) who believed the notes to be too com—
plex or technical is high; likewise the 20 percent who
checked "too brief." Question 11 indicates that the
South Bend audience contains a relatively large number
of musicians and music students; and its percentage of
college graduates is lower than average. (There were
two other orchestras with lower percentages of college
graduates.)

It is curious that 139 people out of 363 would
check that they follow the vocal texts, when such are
never printed in the South Bend programs. Perhaps they
thought the question referred to the ggpg texts. This
response appears to invalidate this question on all the
questionnaires. The figures will still be reported,
but their significance is now largely erased. This
question and No. 5 are not applicable to the South Bend
programs.

Of the ninety-four who volunteered written com-
ments, fifty (14 percent) were concerned with the program
notes; this was close to the average 16 percent. The
other comments were on such subjects as the soloist, the
players' attire, the program selections, etc. Tabula-
tion of the annotation comments showed twenty-two
statements of praise, sixteen of criticism and eighteen

suggestions.

219

Eastern Connecticut Symphony

 

The City:
New London. Orchestra performs in Willimantic, also.
Port city on Thames River, one-half mile from Long
Island Sound; in eastern Connecticut.
Some manufacturing.
Home of U. S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut
College for Women, Mitchell Junior College
(total enrollment c. 2500).
Population: 36,000
The Orchestra:
Founded: 1921
Membership: 60
Budget: under $50,000 (class D).
Series: seven concerts.
Conductor: Victor Norman.
Manager: Mrs. Charles Frink.
Annotator: Charles Frink, composer.

This orchestra considers itself to be a regional
symphony; it draws its members from eastern Connecticut
and presents its concerts in both New London and Willi—
mantic on college campuses. Many of its wind players
are recruited from the United States Coast Guard Academy
band. The programs have varied in format, but usually
are 6" x 9" booklets averaging sixteen pages; the pro-
gram notes average 1,000 words. Paper is frequently
tinted and ink is seldom black, a favorite choice being
brown on buff; blue on off-white, and black on white
have also been used. Paper is always of good quality
and is never glossy.

Mr. Frink believes in "helping people prepare,

emotionally and intellectually, for the musical experience.I

 

*— '_‘ ‘ ‘ " “’*=* "' A * *"a'-"'—‘_‘ ‘r’-’#~

220

He is Opposed to formal analysis and rather in favor of
personal Opinion as a stimulus to audience controversy

and thought.1 [A sample follows:

OVERTURE TO OBERON

CARL MARIA VON WEBER (1786-1826)

The circumstances surrounding the writing of Oberon are more dramatic than
the opera itself. When he was offered a commission by London's Covent Garden
Theater to write an English opera, Weber, aged thirty-nine, was dying of tuberculosis.
His physician advised him that a year's rest in Italy might prolong his life for another
five or six years, but that acceptance of the commission would mean death in a few
months. Hoping that a financially successful opera would protect his wife and children
from poverty, Weber set out for England.

The work he produced for Covent Garden reflects nothing whatever of his
personal crisis. Oberon is a fairy tale — an epic poem recited and acted out with
musical background, occasional arias and interludes. The music is full of elfin joy,
and the work was an instant success. After the first performance Weber wrote to his
wife:

My dear Lina, Thanks to God and to His all-powerful will I obtained this
evening the greatest success of my life. The emotion produced by such a triumph
is more than I can describe. To God alone belongs the glory. When I entered
the orchestra, the house, crammed to the roof, burst into a frenzy of applause.
Hats and handkerchiefs were waved in the air. The overture had to be executed
twice, as had also several pieces in the opera itself. At the end of the performance
I was called onto the stage by the enthusiastic acclamations of the public; an
honor which no composer had ever before obtained in England. All went excel-
lently, and everyone around me was happy.

The overture was the last part of the opera to be completed—on April 29, 1826.
Weber conducted twelve performances of the opera in May. On June 4 he died;

The management reports that it usually prints

vocal texts (it did on the day the questionnaires were

 

1From the annotator's questionnaire.

221

distributed) and that it supplies reading light on
those occasions. Programs are not mailed in advance;
advertisements are grouped by pages. The tabulation
appears in Table 13 and Appendix V-B.

An analysis of these figures reveals a high
appreciation rate, but a low percentage of advance
readers. An unusually large percentage checked YES
in question 2; this can be accounted for by the presence
of the vocal text in the program on the day of the ques-
tionnaires and by the accompanying reading light. In
spite of the high percentage of non-college graduates
(51 percent vs. the average 62 percent) and the high
percentage of untrained music lovers (59 percent vs.
the average 51 percent) and the low percentage of
patrons who attend more than five symphony concerts per
year, a rather large number (16 percent) complained of
notes that were too brief. Offsetting this was a high
10 percent (vs. an average of 5.6 percent) who checked
"too long." This incongruity suggested a look at the
correlation between some of these figures. It was dis-
covered that the untrained group of music lovers ac-
counted for 63 percent of the "too brief" checks and
the music students accounts for 27 percent of the "too
long" checks; both were out of proportion to their num-
bers in the audience. Question 11 tells us that this

is an unusually heterogeneous audience with a high

222

TABLE 13

THE EASTERN CONNECTICUT RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

11.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 87% lb. 1) partially? 35%
2) sometimes? 13% 2) totally? 65%
3) never? (only 1)
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 81%
2) while the music is being played? 12%
3) after the music is played? 7%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 59%; NO 41%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 26%; NO 74%

Would simple musical examples be
helpfulEKSingle staff notation) YES 40%; NO 60%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? YES 14%; NO 86%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 58%; NO 42%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 6% 1) too brief? 16%
2) too lightweight? 5% 2) too long? 10%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? ‘ YES 86%; NO 14%
Do you attend five or more symphony .

concerts per year? YES 61%; NO 39%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 59%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 27%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 4%
4) A music student. 10%
Are you a college graduate? YES 49%; NO 51%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 12%

 

223

percentage of music students (probably just a high per-
centage of students because of the connection with the
two college campuses). Observation of student responses
on most other orchestras' questionnaires showed that
music students are inclined to be more critical than
adults of the other three categories, and usually more
demanding; according to the Eastern Connecticut responses,
their audience is atypical. But it must be cautioned
that this judgment is based on a rather weak student
voice (only sixteen total), so it cannot be considered

a very reliable judgment. The written comments on these
questionnaires totaled thirteen of praise, four of crit-

icism and six suggestions.

The Asheville Symphopy

 

The City:

County seat of Buncombe County in western North
Carolina.

Industry: textiles, electronics, paper, furniture.

Market place for surrounding agricultural, mining
and lumbering district.

Center of mountain folk culture.

Home of Asheville-Biltmore College and the Plank
School of Creative Arts.

Population: 61,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1961.

Membership: 55.

Budget: under $50,000 (class D).

Series: eleven concerts.

Conductor: Joseph E. Fischer.

Manager: Helen N. Sorton.

Annotator: Joseph E. Fischer, conductor; violinist,
Assistant Professor, Asheville-Biltmore College.

224

The Asheville program is a twelve page booklet
(plus cover) printed in black on white coated vellum
paper. Advertisements are limited to the three or four
back pages; program notes appear in a block of about
two pages and they average 750 words. Mr. Fischer in-
tends his notes to enlighten the audience; he believes
in offering information about the composer, a general
description of the composition, and some of the latter's
background. Annotation is part of his obligation to the

orchestra.1 An example follows:

Slavonic Dances, Opus 46 Antonin Dvorak

born: Nclahozeves, Bohemia—September 8, 1841
died: Prague, Czechslovakia—May l, 1904-

Aftcr Smetana, Dvorak must be considered the most important Bohemian
composer of the 19th century. Success was slow in coming to Dvorak. Brahms
helped him to obtain an Austrian State prize and recommended Dvorak to his
own publisher, Simrock. Having recently scored a great financial success with
Brahms’ Hungarian Dances, Simrock requested from Dvorak a similar group
of pieces of Bohemian background. The eight Slavonic Dances, Opus 46, for
piano duet were the result and their success catapulted the 37 year old composer
to international fame overnight. Dvorak, himself, later arranged the dances
for orchestra. While the dances are not actual folk tunes, comparison with
Bohemian folk music indicates that Dvorak did base many of his melodies on

folk songs and dances, all the while retaining his own individual and char-
acteristic style.

The outstanding featureis the brevity; in this
particular instance there were six short works on the
program--no symphonies or long concertos, only a short
Baroque oboe concerto.

The Asheville management reported that vocal

texts are printed, that only dim light is offered dur-

ing concerts, that advertisements are restricted to one

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

225
TABLE 14

THE ASHEVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) a ways? 88% lb. 1) partially? 36%
2) sometimes? 12% 2) totally? 64%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 90%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 33%; NO 67%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 20%; NO 80%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 33%; NO 67%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 17%; NO 83%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 39%; NO 61%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
I) too complex or technical? 5% 1) too brief? 22%
2) too lightweight? 11% 2) too long? 2%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 84%; NO 16%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 67%; NO 33%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 53%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 30%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 9%
4) A music student. 8%
Are you a college graduate? YES 69%; NO 31%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 13%

 

226

section of the program. While the programs are not
mailed in advance, the titles always appear in the
local paper before the concert. Table 14 is the tab—
lation of the Asheville questionnaire (also Appendix
V-C).

Significant variations were found in questions
1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. Asheville symphony concert at-
tenders showed higher than average program note reading
thoroughness; also a higher than average educational
level (69 percent vs. 62 percent). A relatively low
number save their programs, and a low number indicated
their desire for musical examples. A large 22 percent
would like longer annotations, and 11 percent (slightly
above average) would like more serious annotations.
The Asheville audience comments included eight of praise,

six of criticism and eight suggestions.

The Green Bay Symphony

 

The City:

On Green Bay, Lake Michigan, one hundred ten miles
north of Milwaukee; in Wisconsin.

Port city, distributing point as the terminus of
the Fox-Wisconsin waterway (connecting the St.
Lawrence River with the Mississippi basin).

Flour milling, food canning, cheese, paper, steel
products.

No colleges.

POpulation: 65,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1946.
Membership: 65.

.- V__—4_ _ h—F—_-‘-_. -

227

Budget: Between $50,000 and $100,000 (class C).

Series: four concerts.

Conductor: Oleg Kolavenko.

Manager: Cyril Kronschnabel.

Annotator: Jack Rudolph, retired Colonel (U.S.A.),
professional writer and critic, newspaperman;
no special musical training. No compensation.
The Green Bay program is a twelve-page program

measuring 7-1/4" x 11", attractively covered. Print is
large (12 pt.) and unusually widely spaced; paper is
superior quality mat finish; advertising is limited to
the back cover. The program notes average 700 words.
Mr. Rudolph's strongest conviction is that annotation
generally ignores the audience and its tolerance. He
believes in quality of writing, a focus on the music as
Opposed to "chit-chat," a description, not analysis,

of the music.1 (His letter was quoted in Chapter I.)
His writing bears his stamp of originality, as exempli-
fied in the sample that follows. In spite of the full

page required for its presentation, this annotation was

accomplished in only 290 words.

SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN B-FLA‘I' MAJOR ........ Franz Schubert (1797-1828)

Composed September-October, 1816; first performed by an ama-
teur orchestra at the home of its conductor, Otto Hatwig, with Schubert
playing viola. Public premiere at the Crystal Palace, London, 1873,
following discovery of the parts in Vienna by Sir Arthur (Gilbert and
Sullivan) and Sir George (Dictionary) Grove in 1867. First American
performance by Boston Symphony in 1884.

.._._.~—-—.._.b —

 

 

1From the annotator's questionnaire.

‘ fls’k‘xyr - 4“

 

228

l. Sonata form: quick and cheerful.
II. A B A Song form: moderate speed, with motion.
lll. Minuet and trio: spritely and graceful.

IV. Sonata form: fast and lively.

Written when Schubert was only 19, the Fifth Symphony is the most
personal and successful of his early symphonies and a minor masterpiece, as
popular today as when the world first heard it nearly half a century after Schu-
bert’s death. The work is sometimes called the ”symphony without trumpets
and drums” (there are no Clarinets, either), presumably because the pickup
neighborhood ensemble for which it was written didn’t have any. Composed
in the classical form of Haydn and Mozart, the charming, sunny work is pure

Schubert in its wealth of singing melody.

The symphony opens with a four-bar introduction for woodwinds which
returns at the close of the movement, after which the ioyous first theme and
softly lyrical second are introduced by the strings. The second movement is
a graceful, flowing melody of the kind that seemed to pour out of Schubert

like water out of a tap every time he sat down to compose.

The minuet is straight out of the 18th Century. The trio, introduced by
the woodwinds, sounds a rustic note so often used by Haydn and Mozart. The
finale is a merry, romping movement, all sunshine and smiles, with an excep-
tionally gay first theme. Both themes of the last movement are given by the

strings.

 

 

 

'-—————

The Green Bay management reports that vocal
texts are seldom printed, reading light is not offered
during concerts, no advertising is used within the pro-
grams, and programs are not mailed in advance.

Table 15 (and Appendix V-D) displays the re-

sults of the audience survey in Green Bay. The 12

229

TABLE 15

THE GREEN BAY RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 92% lb. 1) partially? 18%
2) sometimes? 8% 2) totally? 82%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 92%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? [Not applicable] YES ; NO
Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 36%; NO 64%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 35%; NO 65%

Are you disturbed by the position—
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES ; NO

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 64%; NO 36%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
I) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 11%
2) too lightweight? 11% 2) too long? 2%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 89%; NO 11%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 73%; NO 27%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 45%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 40%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 7%
Are you a college graduate? YES 47%; NO 53%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 11%

 

230

percent return is quite low; a more accurate tabulation
would have resulted from a better response.

The figures that significantly vary from the
averages are the 92 percent who always read their notes,
the 82 percent who read them in toto, the 92 percent who
read them before listening to the music, the 64 percent
who save their programs, and the 89 percent who consider
them comprehensive enough. These figures are all high
and indicate approval of their annotations. The 11 per-
cent who consider the notes too brief is an indication
of general audience desire; but the low percentage of
college graduates (47 percent vs. an average 62 percent)
mitigates against more heavyweight annotations. One
subscriber commented very intelligently: "If the.sym-
phony is presuming itself somewhat professional, its
program notes should also attempt to be somewhat pro-
fessional." This person went on to suggest that "persons
actually interested in exploring the music.to be heard,
in depth, will do so prior to the concert; a summary of
historical events or working facts of the composition
are useful at the concert as a point of reference."1
The tone of this rather long commentary was not critical,
but constructive in its plea for more respect for audi-

ence erudition and seriousness. This seriousness is

 

1 U 0 I
From an audience questionnaire.

231

borne out in part by the statistics which show a 6 per-

cent higher than average contingent of amateur musicians

in this audience.

It is interesting to note, too, that 73 percent

of the Green Bay audience attends five or more symphony

concerts per year, even though their orchestra presents

only four. Contrast this to Asheville, where eleven

concerts are presented annually, but only 67 percent of

the

one

The

The

audience attends five or more.
Audience comments included eight of praise, only

criticism and four suggestions.

The Evansville Philharmonic

 

City:

On the Ohio River in southern Indiana.

Trade and distribution-center for surrounding coal
mining and agricultural area.

Inland port.

Manufacturing, flour milling, food packing.

Home of Evansville College (enrollment 2,000).

Population: 145,000.

Orchestra:

Founded: 1934.

Membership: 75.

Budget: between $50,000 and $100,000 (class C).

Series: twelve concerts.

Conductor: Minas Christian.

Manager: Carlos Wilson.

Annotator: Michael Giarratano, conservatory graduate,
academic teacher at St. Theresa School, private
music teacher. No compensation.

The Evansville program is a 5" x 8" booklet

printed in black ink on white paper of medium quality

232

(smooth, but not glossy); it varies from 16-24 pages
plus cover, of which approximately three are reserved
for the program notes. Print is heavy, with plenty

of Open spaces. The notes average 1,000 words. On

his questionnaire Mr. Giarratano mentioned a space
limitation; he also stated that the chief function of
program notes is "to give an insight into the composer's
life leading to the writing of the particular work,
something of interest about the work, a short analysis,
and any musical idiosyncracy of the composer that would
lead to ready recognition of his music."1 The follow-

ing is a copy of his annotatiOn of Brahm's Violin Con-

 

certo in D. Note that following two short paragraphs

 

of background material of interest, it evolves into a

descriptive analysis of the work. (See HEXt page)

The Evansville management reports that vocal
texts are customarily printed and reading light is fur-
nished on those occasions; advertisements and program
notes are intermingled; programs are not mailed in ad—
vance. It should be mentioned that the advertisements
do not seriously interfere with the reading of the
annotations; they are not prolific and they are grouped

at the bottoms of the pages. Often the program notes

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

VIOLIN CONCERTO IN D MAJOR

Brahms dedicated his only violin
concerto to the renowned violinist
Joseph Joachim. Joachim's invalu-
able assistance, indispensable ad-
vice and critical commentary effected
a work violinistically performable.

Brahms' limitations for composing
music for the violin are emphasized
in both the first and last movements.
These difficulties led Hans Von Bulow
to comment that Brahms wrote a
concerto ”not for but against the
violin." But Brahms was such an en-
ergetic composer. He wrote as quick-
ly as ideas would enter into his mind
i regardless of the limitations of the
instrument for which he was compos-
ing. Hence he would not allow him-
self to be restricted either from his
thoughts or his turbulent emotions
which were often released during
moments of musical inspiration.

After an orchestral introduction of
eighty-nine measures, the violinist

 

The second movement Adagio is
announced by the oboe singing a
tender and idyllic song accompanied
by a woodwind choir and horns.
Then the soloist enters embroider-
ing the theme with varied designs.
Soon‘the second theme — a slow,
soulful melody — is introduced by
the solo violin. The movement ends
in a serene atmosphere.

The Finale has a pulsating rhy-
thmic character. This is a virtuoso's
”paradise," brilliantly accentuated
by intricate passagework. In form

 

 

J

are allotted full pages.

233

Johannes Brahms

(Born: Hamburg, May 7. I833. dial: Viv/ma. April 3. I897)

enters with some breathless detailed
passage playing before finally — at
bar 136 —.- he takes up the prin-
ciple theme of the first movement.
Prior to the introduction of the sec-
ond subiect by the soloist, some ex-
cellent triple stopping is performed
against a cello and bass accom-
paniment for six bars. After a few
more measures of passage playing
the soloist announces the second
subject which is then transferred to
the first violins and violas. In the
development section Brahms alter-
notes the orchestra with some
treacherous virtuoso passages for
the violinist. The choice of a cad-
enza in this concerto usually rests
with the performer. The cadenza
leads us back to the principle theme
— first quietly but then becoming
increasingly agitated. The move-
ments ends vigorously with the solo-
ist executing double stops.

Continued on page 14

the finale is a Rondo, in style it is a
Hungarian gipsy dance.

According to H. Engel, Brahms
conceived the work in four move-
ments. However, the Scherzo mater-
ial, lacking here, became the seed
for the Scherzo of the second piano '
concerto.

The first performance of the violin
concerto originated at leipzig on
New Year's Day in 1879. Brahms
conducted the orchestra and Joseph
Joachim was his soloist.

Table 16 (and Appendix V-E)

presents the results of the survey.

The return was a bit lighter than average (20
percent of the number distributed, vs.

the yield of 214 was sufficient to obtain valid averages.

23 percent), yet

234
TABLE 16

THE EVANSVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 82% 1b. 1) partially? 41%
2) sometimes? 17% 2) totally? 59%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 11%
3) after the music is played? 5%

Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? ' YES 51%; NO 49%

Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 26%; NO 74%

Would simple musical examples be

helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 41%; NO 59%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 10%; NO 90%

Do you save your programs for

future reference? YES 50%; NO 50%

Do OUR program notes help you to

NO 4%
f_you

 

understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%;
Do you find them: (Check one in each column i

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 7% 1) too brief
2) too lightweight? 5% 2) too long?
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 87%;
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%;

Which of these applies to you? (One onl )

l) A music lover with no formal muSic study.
2) An amateur musician with some formal study.
3) A professional musician or music teacher.
4) A music student.

Are you a college graduate? YES 52%;

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praisemcriticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet.

? 12%
5%

NO 13%

NO 10%

47%
33%
10%
10%

NO 48%

14%

 

235

The significantly unique features of the Evansville

audience are in questions 2, 10 and 12. Forty-two

peOple made comments, 30 of them pertaining to the

annotations. Twelve were praise, thirteen criticism,

and four suggestions.

The

The

The Albany Symphony

 

City:

Port on the Hudson River, 140 miles north of New
York City.

Industrial and shipping city.

State capital.

Home of College of Pharmacy, College of Medicine,
College of Law of Union College, the State
University of New York, The College of St.
Rose, the Albany Institute of History and Art
(Total enrollment 8,000).

P0pulation: 135,000.

Orchestra:

Founded: 1931.

Membership: 55.

Budget: Between $50,000 and $100,000 (class C).

Series: Five concerts.

Conductor: Julius Hegyi.

Manager: Edward F. LaCroix. .

Annotator: Russell F. Locke, professional musician,
teacher at the Emma Willard School, Troy, N.Y.;
member of symphony board. Program notes a
courtesy.

The Albany program is a "normal" one of twenty?

eight pages, of which eighteen are devoted solely to

advertising; the size of the booklet is 6" x 9"; ink is

black on white glossy paper. The program notes are set

in bold 8-pt. type with spacers; they average about

1,500 words, or two and one-half pages. Mr. Locke

236

considers that the chief function of program notes is
"to provide illustrative, analytical, descriptive and
historical material," as the particular work requires.1
He includes instrumentation, dates of composition and
An examplev

first performance as a regular practice.

from a recent Albany program follows.

 

 

ANTONIN DVORAK (l84l-I904)-'—-
SYMPHONY NO. 3 IN G MAJOR.
OF. 88

Dvorak composed his 6 Major Sym-
phony in l889. As the fourth symphony
published during the composer's life-
time, "No. 4" clung to the work until
fairly recently. With the publication of
four earlier symphonies, the later works
have been renumbered: the indestruc-
tible "New World'I Symphony is ninth,
and last. The Eighth Symphony is scored
for two flutes (the second alternating
with piccolo), two oboes the second
alternating with English orn). two
Clarinets, two bassoons. four horns, two
trumpetsI three trombones, tuba, tim-
pani and strings.

Next to the Ninth SymphonyI the
present work is the best known of the
Czech master's essays in symphonic
form. Its popularity in England has
earned it the nickname "English."
though it is the most Slavonic in flavor
of all Dvorak's larger works. Like many
works of the essentially conservative
romantics, this symphony displays some
freedom in the handling of the classical
forms without creating new types or
dogmatically following principles in-
vented for other musical forms. Dvorék
hints at cyclic structure in the obvious
kinship of the themes of the first and
last movements, but this is not a cyclic
work a la Liszt or Franck: there are pic-
esque tonal and harmonic devices, but
these are flashes in the an of a remark-
ably conservative tonalecheme; in the
finale. Dvorak handles variation form
with some freedom. but with neither the
noLelty .nor the daring of Beethoven.

Ihe first movement opens with a
solemn theme in G minor which returns
at the beginning of the development
and again in a grand peroration at the
end of the movement. A bright. rhyth-
mic theme in the major mode follows in
the flute. and elements of both of these
themes are combined and developed
during the course of the movement. The
second theme group is in the key of 8
instead of the customary D major. mov-
ing. like the first group, from minor to
major. The development is extensive,
an in the recapitulation the first theme

group is drastically abbreviated. The
second movement is a remarkable suc-
cession of musical events: disparate ele-
ments of pathos. innocent bliss and dra-
matic aggressiveness are projected in a
manner not unlike Mahler's. The third
movement is a graceful and lyric inter-
lude in waltz-time, taking the place of a
scherzo. It is in ternary form, with a

brisk coda in duple time. In the varia-
tions which form the finale. the theme
is stated boldly by the trumpets at the
outset. Several simple variations fol-
low in varying tem i. This group of
variations returns armost unaltered at
the end of the movement after an epi-
sodic middle section in which new the-
matic material is introduted. An accel-
erated coda brings the symphony to a
brilliant conclusion.

 

1

From the annotators' questionnaire.

237

The Albany management reports that vocal texts
are printed, but reading light is not sufficient dur—
ing concerts. Advertisements are not intermingled with
program notes; and programs are not distributed in ad-
vance. Table 17 (and Appendix V-F) presentstflmaaudience
data.

Significant percentage variations in Albany
appear in questions lb, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
The Albany audience appears to be exceptionally appre-
ciative of its program annotations, yet its readership
is average and its percentage of those who read the
notes in toto is below average. No. 8 presents a para-
dox: a higher than average number checked three cate—

gories--"too brief,’ "too long," and "too complex." On
most sets of questionnaires there was a close correla-
tion between "too complex" and "too long," as well as
between "too lightweight" and "too brief." The compo-
sition of the Albany audience is unique and probably
accounts for the paradox: it has a higher than average
proportion of college graduates, but also a higher than
average of music lovers with no musical training; and
the percentage of music students is on the low side of
average. Audience comments were average in quantity;

they included thirteen of praise, ten of criticism and

three suggestions.

238
TABLE 17

THE ALBANY RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 83% 1b. 1) partially? 46%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 54?
3) never? 2%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 85%
2) while the music is being played? 4%
3) after the music is played? 11%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 32%; NO 68%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 41%; NO 59%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 10%; NO 90%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 48%; NO 52%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 99%; NO 1%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if ygu

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 10% 1) too brief? 10%
2) too lightweight? 8% 2) too long? 7%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 90%; NO 10%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 86%; NO 14%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 54%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 33%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 9%
4) A music student. 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 71%; NO 29%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion—-
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 14%

 

239

The Syracuse Symphony

The City:

Seat of Onondaga County, New York.

On the Barge Canal and Lake Onondaga, eighty miles
south of Canada.

Manufacture of electronics, drugs, clothing, steel
products.

Home of Syracuse University, LeMoyne College, the
State University College of Forestry, and the
Upstate Medical Center (total enrollment c.
20,000).

Population: 225,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1961.

Membership: 65.

Budget: Between $100,000 and $500,000 (class B).

Series: Forty-three concerts.

Conductor: Karl Kritz.

Manager: Benson E. Snyder.

Annotator: Henry Fogel, program director, radio
station WONO—FM; fine arts training; pianist,
oboist.

The Syracuse program is also a "normal" program
5-1/2" x 8-1/2", black on white medium quality non-
glossy paper. It averages twenty pages plus cover; ad-
vertisements account for half of its pages and are found
with the program notes, but are kept in blocks either at
one side of the page or at the bottom. The notes average
2,000 words. A feature of the Syracuse programs is an
occasional special article by Mr. Fogel, such as "Humor
in Music" in the February 23 program (the date of the
questionnaire distribution). Mr. Fogel states that the

chief function of annotation differs with familiar and

unfamiliar music, that for the former the notes should

240

set a mood or throw a new light, for the latter they
should reveal to the listener "an idea of what to ex-
pect." He ordinarily provides the historical setting
of each piece of music, and he does not believe in for—
mal analysis as one of the principal duties of the
annotator.l His audience evinced a strong liking for

his literary style. A sample follows:

 

I _ __i_._ ..

annmnNmes...

CONCERTO FOR CELLO
AND ORCHESTRA
Hindemith
(1895-1963)

Paul Hindemith was one of the most
prolific composers of the first halfof
this century, and was an incredibly
thorough musician. He was capable of
writing in any idiom, any style, for
any combination of forces. He wrote
sonatas for virtually every possible
instrument (including such unlikely
choices as the viola d'amore, and the
tuba), full-scale symphonies, band

works. He wrote innumerable cham- ~

ber works, operas, oratorios, con-
certos, occasional pieces, and in-
cidental works. He was also, at vari-
ous times, a professional violinist,
violist, and conductor. In the 1920's,
Hindemith's output was largely de-
voted to functional pieces, designed
to initiate the uniniated to the world
of twentieth century music. These
works, known as "Gebrauchsmusik."
not only initiated the audience, but
also served as study pieces for a
number of performers.

..____._

The CELLO CONCERTO, composed
in 1940, is not "Gebrauchsmusik." It
is a full-scale symphonic work, call-
ing for a full symphony orchestra in-
cluding double winds, four horns, two
trumpets, three trombones, tuba, two
timpani, a fair-sized percussion sec-
tion, celesta and strings. Taking, as
it does, just under a half-hour to run
its course, it stands as one of Hin-
demith's longer orchestral works. It
exploits the contrasting sonorities of
various sections of the orchestra and
the solo cello to the full—and seems
more concerned with this aspect than
with any specific melodic develop-
ment. The thematic material is, in
the true Hindemith tradition, short—
even terse. ‘(Exceptionz the rather
broad melody for the slow movement,
but even the slow movement has a

middle section marked allegro assai,

(Cantinued on page 21)

 

and more concerned with rhythmic
interplay, contrapuntal technique, and
sonorities, than with strictly hori-
zontal melodic unfolding.)

In this Concerto, Hindemtih has
solved, as one would expect of a thor-
ougly accomplished musician with his
facility, the problems of balance that
always confront anyone foolhardy
enough to write for solo cello and
orchestra. The solo is never buried,
never lost in the mud, whichis some-
thing that even Lalo cannot altogether
claim.

 

1

From the annotators' questionnaire.

241

TABLE 18

THE SYRACUSE RESPONSE

 

la.

1c.

lOe

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

DO you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 82% lb. 1) partially? 47%
2) sometimes? 18% 2) totally? 53%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 12%
3) after the music is played? 4%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? V YES 50%; NO 50%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%
Would simple musical examples be

helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 46%; NO 54%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 9%; NO 91%
Do you save your programs for '
future'reference? YES 49%; NO 51%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 11%
2) too lightweight? 10% 2) too long? 5%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? - YES 85%; NO 15%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 91%; NO 9%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl ) i
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 54%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 34%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 75%; NO 25%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 15%

 

242-

The Syracuse management always prints the vocal
texts (this is also Mr. Fogel's desire); it does not
furnish reading light at concerts; its program does in-
termingle program notes and advertisements to some ex-
tent; it does not distribute programs in advance. Table
18 (and Appendix V-6) presents the tabulation of their
audience survey.

Significant variations from the norm in Syracuse
appear in questions 2, 5, 10, 11 and 12. In many ways
this audience exhibits the same characteristics as the
Albany audience; this was especially noticeable in Nos.
11 and 12. It is surprising, in view of the excessive
number of comments praising the superior writing style
found in the notes, that only 53 percent (9 percent be-
low the average) read the notes in toto. The percentages
who considered them too brief (11 percent) and too light-
weight (10 percent) is rather significant in indicating
that the Syracuse audience could absorb a more serious
annotation. Written comments included twenty-nine of

praise, only two criticisms and twenty-three suggestions.

The Phoenix Symphony

The City:.

On the Salt River in southern Arizona.

State capital, seat of Maricopa County.

Tourist center.

Cotton, citrus fruits, dates, grain, truck crops.

243

Home of Phoenix Junior College.
POpulation: 450,000.

The Orchestra:
Founded: 1947.
Membership: 83.

Series: 52 concerts.
Budget: Between $100,000 and $500,000 (class B).

Conductor: Guy Taylor.

Manager: Douglas Richards.

Annotator: Monica M. (Mrs. John D.) Agnew, pianist,
student of music, private teacher, writer,.for-
mer music critic (1956-59) in Fort Wayne,
Indiana. On contract.

The Phoenix program is a standard-sized (6" x
9") bulletin printed in black lO-pt. type on white
glossy paper. The program and program notes appear
close to the front of the booklet on alternate pages;
advertisements appear on the intervening pages, but
never intermingled with the notes. The latter number
just under 1,000 words per program (about three pages).

The annotator, Mrs. Agnew, believes in using
"any important historical background, a small amount
of analysis that the layman can comprehend, subject-
matter of the work, and, in general, the essence of
the music."1 Occasionally she resorts to formal analy-

sis, but nothing lengthy or complicated. An example

of her typical annotation follows.

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

244

DANCES FROM THE BALLET ”ESTANCIA” Alberto Ginastera

Born in 1916 in Buenos Aires

Alberto Ginastera is one of the major musical figures in South America
today, composmg, teaching, and performing administrative duties at the
National Conservatory there. His works are performed more and more fre-
quently in the United States, where his reputation has been firmly established
as awriter of serious music who has successfully made an original and
excmng synthesis of contemporary trends. He has been thoroughly schooled
in the traditions of the past through his musical training by European teachers
both in Europe and Buenos Aires, and no longer follows the concept of creat-
ing musuc that ”speaks on intrinsic Argentine language” but seeks a style
that will be ”uniquely expressive of his own personality and ideas”.

Estancza, a ballet, was commissioned by Lincoln Kirsten in 1941 for the
American Ballet Caravan, but was not premiered by this company as its
organization was dissolved shortly after in 1942. Ginastera reworked his
score into an orchestral suite, and its first performance took place a year
later in Colon in 1943. The composer, then twenty-five years old was im-
mediately hailed as a leader of the national movement of Argentihe music
Its first performance as a ballet took place in 1952 at the Teatro Colon. '
H Estancza means "ranch”, and the ballet concerns the activity on an

estancia” from dawn to down, while the plot concerns a city boy who is
competing'with the ranch hands for the favor of a ranch girl.

The Suite consists of four dances: The Land Workers, The Wheat Dance
The Cattlemen, and Malambo. It is this last dance which dazzles the viewef
because of its speed and frenzy. Referred to as the "gaucho’s tournament”
it becomes a test of the skill of the two male dancers who, facing each other,
improvise, one at a time, to a fast six-beat rhythm. It becomes a feat of endur:
once as well, often lasting for hours on end, or until one dancer drops from
exhaustion.

The Phoenix management reports that choral
texts are printed, that reading light is not supplied
during concerts; advertisements are not intermingled
with program notes, and programs are not distributed
in advance. Tables 19A and 198 (Appendix V-H and V-I)
show the questionnaire results from two separate Phoenix
audiences (the same program on consecutive evenings).
A slight difference in audience composition and reaction
shows up in the statistics.

It appears that the Tuesday audience is a more

critical audience with a higher percentage of profes-

sional musicians and music students and a lower percentage

245
TABLE 19A

THE PHOENIX MONDAY AUDIENCE RESPONSE

 

 

la. Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

column)
1) aIways? 87% 1b. 1) partially? 42%
2) sometimes? 13% 2) totally? 58%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 90%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 40%; NO 60%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 25%; NO 75%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 40%; NO 60%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 5%; NO 95%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 56%; NO 44%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 97%; NO 3%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 7%
2) too lightweight? 6% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 94%; NO 6%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal music study. 60%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 30%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 5%
4) A music student. 5%
Are you a college graduate? YES 62%; NO 38%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 17%

 

246
TABLE 19B

THE PHOENIX TUESDAY AUDIENCE RESPONSE

 

 

la. Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

1c.

10.

ll.

l2.
l3.

 

 

column)
1) always? 89% lb. 1) partially? 45%
2) sometimes? 19% 2) totally? 55%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)‘
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 9%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 49%; NO 51%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%

Would simple musical examples be
‘ helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 45%; NO 55%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 12%; NO 88%
Do you save your programs for .
future reference? YES 69%; NO 31%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 5-1/2% 1) too brief? 10%
2) too lightweight? 6% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 90%; NO 10%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 31%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 10%
4) A music student. 8%
Are you a college graduate? YES 53%; NO 47%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes-~praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 15%

 

247

of untrained music lovers (51 percent vs. 60 percent

on Monday). Compared to the Monday audience, they

find the program notes less satisfactory, they show a
lower reading thoroughness, they evince a greater de-
sire for musical examples, and they register more.
complaints ("too brief," in particular). They also
reveal themselves as a more serious audience by the
higher percentage who follow the vocal texts and save
their programs. Significantly, the Tuesday Phoenix
audience was the only group that tallied a greater num-
ber of comments from the portion of its audience

labelled as amateur musicians. All other audiences in
the survey commented in the same proportion of 1-4
(question 11) as in the tally of the full number of re-
sponses. Actually, the appreciation rating for the
program notes of this archestra was very high and the
complaint ratio very low. The one rather serious de-
ficiency is difficult to account for in light of the
many favorable comments and other percentages: the

high ratio of people who read their notes only partially.
This should be investigated further and an attempt should
be made to improve this aspect, for it reveals a weakness
that is evidently an audience habit rather than a dis-
play of criticism of the annotation. Evidence of this
is the tally of 63 comments of praise and only 6 criti-
cisms out of a total of 170 comments. There were 72 ad-

ministrative suggestions and 31 annotation suggestions.

248

The Louisville Orchestra

 

The City:

Largest in Kentucky.

On the Ohio River, one hundred miles southwest of
Cincinnati, Ohio.

Inland port and important distributing center (for-
mer cargo transfer point around falls; hence
extensive warehouses).

Extensive manufacture; whiskey, cigarettes.

Home of the University of Louisville, the Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, the Presbyterian
Theological Seminary, Bellarmine College, Ursu-
line and Nazareth Colleges, Simmons University,
the Kentucky School for the Blind, and the Uni-
versity of Kentucky College of Pharmacy (total
enrollment c. 14,000).

POpulation: 400,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1936.

Budget: Between $100,000 and $500,000 (class B).

Series: Fifty-four concerts; recordings.

Conductor: Robert Whitney.

Manager:. Richard Wangerin.

Annotator: Robert McMahan, professor at the Univer-
sity of Louisville, Ph.D. in music history,
producer of radio series (over 200) called "The
Sacred Note" (history of church music).

On contract.

The Louisville program is rather unique. It is
only eight pages plus cover, size 4" x 9", with no ad-
vertisements; one half the space is devoted to the pro-
gram notes, which average 1,700 words in length. Ink is
black on white glossy paper. Mr. McMahan believes in
supplying his listeners with "a good listening set"; he
always includes the basic facts, but varies eachannota-

tion according to the circumstances. His usual method

is "to integrate the individual commentaries into a

249

I O D O I l
comprehenSive presentation of some speCific idea." 'He

is not averse to-subjective writing. A sample follows:

SYMPHONY NO. 5 IN B FLAT MAJOR (1816)
FRANZ SCHUBERT

Born in Vienna, Austria — 1797
Died there in 1828

Even in his years as a precocious teen-ager, Schubert was
haunted by the figure of Beethoven. Then at the peak of
his career as a symphonist, the solitary and difficult German
proved to be an unfortunate model for the impressionable
young Viennese. The example of the “Tragic" Symphony
—Schubert's No. 4 in C minor— shows that the attempt
to add a monumental dimension to an essentially lyric style
was premature by about a decade. The lesson was quickly
learned; before the year was out, Schubert had written
another symphony in which he clearly reverted to the classi-
cal models of Haydn and Mozart, particularly the latter's
Nos. 39 and 40.

The Symphony in B flat begins with four enchanting
measures in the woodwinds. Reluctant to give up the tradi-
tional introduction, the composer sets the light-hearted tone
of the proceedings with a feathery staccato scale in the

violins that leads to the simplest, most naive of first sub-
jects. After a humorously thorough dialogue based upon
this material, Schubert moves off to the second theme. One
annotator finds this new idea ”Mozartian;” another describes
it as having "a Haydnesque tang." It is all in the family,
at any rate. The development breezes along happily after
a couple of opening surprises. Suddenly the composer pro-
duces the first subject in E flat, the subdominant key. This
trick allows him to modulate eventually to the final tonic
key exactly as he had moved to the dominant in the exposi-
tion. Certain wags have implied that Schubert did so to
avoid having to think up a new transition..But the composer
scotches that opinion by adding several structural alterations
to the recapitulation. '

The second movement is unabashedly Mozartian in its
delicacy and restraint although in the contrasting sections
a little of the longer-lined lyric-dramatic style of the master
of the Art Song peeps through. The Minuet which follows
is unexpectedly serious for this symphony (as befits its
model, the Minuet from Mozart's G Minor Symphony). In
the trio a folk-song quality from a calmer perspective returns
with only a tiny reminiscence of the grimmer framing sec-
tion to recall that argument to mind. The finale is brief,
witty, and to the point without a lotof the excess baggage
that Schubert's concluding movements occasionally fall prey
to. After a bout with the "Grand Style" it must have been
a pleasant and relaxing interlude for the composer to return
to a territory which had already been so well charted. Even
so, there are flashes, however brief, from a greater depth
which indicate the dimensions of the composer who was to
emerge from this period of study and self-discovery.

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

250

TABLE 20

THE LOUISVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 72% 1b. 1) partially? 54%
2) sometimes? 28% 2) totally? 46%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 86%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 7%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 28%; NO 72%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 27%; NO 73%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 8%; NO 92%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 53%; NO 47%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 13% 1) too brief? 9%
2) too lightweight? 9% 2) too long? 9%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 85%; NO 15%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 92%; NO 8%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 33%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 7%
4) A music student. 9%
Are you a college graduate? YES 68%; NO 32%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 17%

 

251

In the Louisville programs vocal texts are
usually printed, lighting is not adequate for reading
in most parts of the auditorium during programs; there
is no advance distribution of programs, but there is a
post card reminder to regular patrons. Table 20 (and
Appendix V-J) presents the Louisville tabulation. The
most distinctive features of the Louisville tabulation
are the low readership percentage (only 72 percent reg-
istered that they always read the notes), the high per-
centage who read in part, and the small percentage who
follow the vocal texts. Probably equally significant
are the 13 percent who consider the notes too complex
or technical and the 9 percent who consider them too.
long. The audience exceeds the average in educational
attainment, but in other respects is average. Comments
included twenty-four of praise, twenty-three of criti-
cism and ten suggestions out of a total of 291 question-
naires. The statistics infer that a larger than normal

portion of this audience objects to erudite annotation.

The Seattle Symphogy

 

The City:

Principal city in Washington.and the Pacific North-
west; seat of King County.

Seaport on Puget Sound, one hundred twenty-five
miles from the ocean.

Gateway to the Orient and Alaska.,

Food processing and canning (salmon), aircraft,
miscellaneous manufacture.

252

Home of the University of Washington, Seattle Uni-
versity, Seattle Pacific College (total enroll-

ment c. 25,000).

Population: 560,000.
The Orchestra:
Founded: 1904.
Membership: 85.
Budget: Over $500,000 (class A).
Series: One hundred sixteen concerts.
Conductor: Milton Katims.
Manager: Mrs. Hugh E. McCreery.
Community Relations: Lanham Deal.
Annotator: Jo Ann (Mrs. Frederick J.) Patterson,
professional writer, self-educated music lover.

On contract.

The Seattle program is a 6" x 9" sixteen-page
booklet printed in black on white glossy paper.. Its
program notes are surrounded by advertisements, but
they do appear on consecutive pages. They average
1,400 words. Mrs. Patterson believes that the annota-
tor's chief duty is "to enhance the average concert-
goer's pleasure and appreciation by relating the com-
poser, his times, the music and its history to the
reader's own experience or presumed knowledge." She
does not think it is helpful to include formal analysis,
but she would like to be able to use musical examples,
"since almost everyone can read music."1

The Seattle orchestra conducts three practices

that quite obviously exert an appreciable influence on

its audience: (1) advance distribution of the program

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

253

notes, (2) a television program called "Center Spot,"

which hostess Mrs. Patterson produces about eighteen

times per season in cooperation with the Seattle Opera

and the Repertory Theatre, and (3) a weekly radio pro-
gram called "Symphony Previews."
of these enterprises appears not only in the statistics

of the questionnaire, but strongly in the patrons' com-

ments. The form of the mailed program notes is a

single folded sheet; the paper is quite inexpensive

and is always colored (grey, pale lavender, salmon),

with black ink in 8 pt. type.

A sample of the program

notes follows, from a regular program, not from the

advance notes; the format and

however.

SYMPHONY IN A MAJOR,
NO. 4 (ITALIAN), opus 9o
Felix Mendelssohn

(Born in Hamburg, Germany, February 3.
1809; died in Liepzig, November 4, 1847)

Beethoven had been gone only four
years when young Felix Mendelssohn un-
dertook his Grand Tour of Italy. A letter
from Rome in February, 1831, tells his
family that “I have once more begun to ‘
compose with fresh vigour, and the Italian
symphony makes rapid progress; it will be
the most amusing piece I have yet com-
posed, especially the last movement. I have
not yet decided on the adagio, and think
I shall reserve it for Naples . . ."

If Mendelssohn thought his symphony
amusing, his critics to come thought it to
be one of his best symphonies. Oddly
enough it was a difficult work for this
normally easily productive artist to finish,
and although he reworked it after its first
performance in London in 1833, he never
permitted its publication during his life-
time.

A Mendelssohn symphony by any name
is sweet to the ear, but this one has fewer
nominal characteristics than the “Scotch."
which preceded it, or the “Reformation,"
which came later. Since Mendelssohn cared
little for Italian music and had no respect
for Italy’s musicians, whatever is Italianate
about the work probably is a reflection of
his sunny, bouyant nature—except, of
course. for the famous Saltarello of the
last movement.

 

 

 

But before that, there is the pure joy of
the first movement, the happily contempla-
tive “Pilgrim’s March" of the second. and
in the third a graceful song with bassoons
and horns presenting a delightful Trio.

The Italian accent finally explodes in
the finale, which is a dance traditional to
the Roman carnival. Mendelssohn’s own
reaction to the carnival carries the listener
along with the excitement which must have
inspired this brilliant Saltarello: “Oh, that
I could enclose in this letter only one quar-
ter of an hour of all this pleasure. or con-
vey to you how life actually flies in Rome,
every minute bringing its own memorable
delights! Giving festivals here is an easy
matter; they have only to illuminate the
simple architectural outlines and the dome
of St. Peter's burns in the dark violet air,
glowing quite still. If there are fireworks.
they brighten the gloomy solid walls of the
Castle of St. Angelo. and fall into the Bier;
when they commence their fantastic festi-
vals in February, the most brilliant sun
shines down on them and beautifies every-
thing. It is an incredible land . . ."

Although the Seattle Symphony Orches-
tra has played sections of the “Italian"
Symphony for young people's concerts
and on tour, it has not been heard at a
subscription concert since 1916.

if ‘ 77-_ —— 7- ,_-____

The educational effect

type is identical in both,

.—

254

The Seattle programs do not usually contain
vocal texts; reading light is not provided during con-
certs. Table 21 presents the tabulation (found also in
Appendix V-K).

The audience response in Seattle was quite
unique. Several signs indicate a strong community in-
terest in the orchestra and its welfare: first, the
folded and crumpled condition of many of the question-
naires, and the typed responses and comments, indicated
that a large number of people took them home to answer
them; second, the percentage of comments was by far
the highest of all the cooperating orchestra audiences--
30 percent (the closest to this was Indianapolis with a
23 percent response). The effect of the active promo-
tion by the Seattle management, much of which is carried
out by the annotator and a special Community Relations
employee, shows up in question No. l: the number of
peOple who read their notes always, totally and before
the concert is well above the average. The last group
(question lc) represents 96 percent of the audience (vs.
an average 87 percent). The Seattle audience, with 72
percent college graduates, is also one of the best edu-
cated of the eleven, and it has the highest percentage
of amateur musicians. The chief criticism of the pro-
gram notes was their lack of technical detail; this

indicates that the patrons in Seattle would like more

255'

TABLE 21

THE SEATTLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 85% lb. 1) partially? 32%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 68%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 96%
2) while the music is being played? 3%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 44%; NO 56%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 32%; NO 68%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? YES 10%; NO 90%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 52%; NO 48%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 7% 1) too brief? 12%
2) too lightweight? 13% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 82%; NO 18%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 95%; NO 5%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal mu31c study. 48%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 40%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 72%; NO 28%.

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion—-
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 30%

 

256

information and more specific musical information.
Thirteen percent checked "too lightweight," and the
percentage of those who found the notes lacking in
comprehensiveness was 4 percent greater than the aver-
age. On the mitigating side, however, were the eighty-
nine people (out of 595) who volunteered their high
praise for the annotator. Only twenty-six offered criti—
cism. The unusually large number of suggestions can be
interpreted as a symptom of interest. Specifically on
the matter of advance program notes, five people voiced
disapproval and twenty-nine approval; eleven objected
to the colored paper and the small type. The largest
number of criticisms and suggestions pertained to the
need for more detail about the music. This audience

also voiced eighty-one suggestions for the management.

The Indianapolis Symphony

The City:

In central Indiana; capital and largest city.

Industry, commerce, agriculture, transportation
center. .

Home of Butler University, Jordan Conservatory of
Music, Indiana University Medical Center, In-
diana University Law School and Extension Di-
vision, Marian College, Indiana Central College
(total enrollment, excluding the Extension
Division, c. 8,500).

Population: 490,000.

The Orchestra:

Founded: 1930.
Membership: 88.

257

Budget: Over $500,000 (class A).

Series: One hundred forty—four concerts!

Conductor: Izler Solomon.

Manager: Hubert N. Scott.

Annotator: Henry F. Butler, teacher of English at
Indiana University Extension Division; piano
and theory at Juilliard School of Music and
Columbia University; former music, drama and
book editor of the Indianapolis Times.

On Contract.

 

The Indianapolis program book is similar to so
many others: 6" x 9", black ink on glossy white paper,
thirty—six pages average length. The program notes,
averaging 1,000 words, are very much intermingled with
advertisements. The latter are profuse, filling twenty-
five pages. The annotations appear on either consecu-
tive or alternate pages, often in the center between
advertisements. Mr. Butler stated that the chief func-
tion of program notes is "to convey a few pertinent
facts about each composition, and perhaps some insight."
He is not Opposed to formal analysis, but believes "it
depends on the community's assumed level of sophisca-
tion." He tries to include "circumstances relevant to
genesis and composition of a work, legends and historico-
literary materials."l He imputes some difficulty to the
problem of adjusting the notes to the physical size of
the program bulletin. The.following example illustrates
this annotator's unique and interesting style and his

customary eschewal of musical analysis.

 

1From the annotators' questionnaire.

258

CONCERTO NO. 2 IN i: MINOR, or. 21 ........................ FREDERIC FRANCOIS CHOPIN

(1810-1849)

Chopin composed the F minor Concerto in the fall of 1829, the year before he
composed the E minor Concerto. But the E minor was published first, and hence has
been termed ”No. 1. ” It has been called a more robust composition than the F minor,
but some listeners prefer the latter for its delicacy and lyricism.

The F minor Concerto is connected with romance in a way literary-minded music-
lavers find interesting. Chapin was I9‘Qhen he wrote it. In the fashion of his time,
he had fallen in speechless love with” a girl, Constantia Gladkowska, a voice student
in the Warsaw Conservatory. Excerpts from his letters at the time may show the quality
of the adoration. To a friend he had asked to speak to Constantia in his behalf, he

 

I wrote: ”God forbid that she should suffer in any way an my account. Set her mind at
rest and tell her that as long as my heart beats I shall not cease to adore her. Tell
her even that after my death my ashes shall be strewn under her feet.”

And he wrote his close friend Titus Woiciechawski, Oct. 3, 1829: "l have—perhaps
to my misfortune—already found my ideal, which I warship faithfully and sincerely.
Six months have elapsed, and I have not yet exchanged a syllable with her of whom
I dream every night." And he added he had written the Adagio (actually the lar-

ghetto) of the Concerto with Congt'afitia'in mind. One might add that Franz Liszt, no
mean connoisseur of women, found Constantia ”sweet and beautiful.”

Chopin performed the F minor Concerto in Warsaw March 17, 1830. In the
deplorably tasteless manner of that period, the first movement of the Concerto was
separated from the Larghetta and Finale by a Diverfissement for Horn, by a now far-
gotten composer named Goerner. That is the kind of program Beethoven so often
had to struggle with in the first performances of his masterpieces.

Both Chopin concertos have been weighed and found wanting by some modern
pianists, notably Ernest Hutcheson in The Literature of the Piano (Knopf, 1948). The
argument against them has been that Chopin did not understand or capably handle

the longer forms. But other, equally discerning pianists and listeners have found in

l them rare qualities. Liszt, a contemporary expert, particularly liked the Larghetto of
the F minor Concerto, finding it "of an almost ideal perfection” and ”now radiant
with light and anon full of tender pathos.”

Footnote to romance: The Constantia Gladkowska who fluttered the composer’s
. heart for many months later married a Polish tradesman. That was years after Chapin
I had left the Warsaw Conservatory and had experienced many another grande passion.

The Indianapolis management prints vocal texts
and regularly supplies adequate reading light. Programs
are not distributed in advance. Table 22 (and Appendix

V-L) presents its audience tabulation. The total return

259

TABLE 22

THE INDIANAPOLIS RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) a ways? 84% lb. 1) partially? 33%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 67%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 88%
2) while the music is being played? 8%
3) after the music is played? 4%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 56%; NO 44%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 36%; NO 64%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 48%; NO 52%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 23%; NO 77%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 64%; NO 36%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 97%; NO 3%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 1% 1) too brief? 19%
2) too lightweight? 9% 2) too long? (1)
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 80%; NO 20%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal mus1c study. 42%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 39%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 9%
4) A music student. 10%
Are you a college graduate? YES 66%; NO 34%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 23%

 

260

was very_low--only 11 percent; but in comparison to
other returns the percentages appear to depict accu-
'rately the situation in Indianapolis. The figures are
based on 115 questionnaires.

Of significance in this tabulation are the 23
percent who objected to the placement of the advertise-
ments, the rather high 64 percent who preserve their
programs, the slightly high percentage of college gradu-
ates, the 19 percent who thought the notes too brief,
the very high 56 percent who follow the vocal texts,
and the 48 percent who would like musical examples.
This audience reveals itself as quite sophisticated, to
use Mr. Butler's terminology; it has had more musical
exposure than the average symphony audience and it
tallies a higher than average educational level. Ap-
parently longer and fuller annotations would be appre-
ciated. Thirty—seven (out of 115) offered comments
that included sixteen of praise, only four of criticism

and nine suggestions.

Single Questions

 

Considering percentages question by question,
it_is most interesting that there was so much consis-
tency. This is helpful in supporting general statements,

just as divergent percentages are helpful in proving the

exceptions. The volume of returns ranged from 11 percent

261

(Indianapolis) to 48 percent (South Bend) and can prob-
ably be attributed directly to the interest and efficiency
of the person or persons responsible for the distribution
and collection. Each orchestra was advised as to a suit-
able system, but was, of course, free to act in its own
way. The very fine response from South Bend resulted
from a close friendship between the conductor and this
author. The next closest figures were 38 percent and

34 percent, both in Phoenix. Twenty-five percent was

the average return, which means that 12.5 percent of the
total audience was questioned (only half of each audience

received questionnaires).

Question la

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 23
DO YOU READ THE PROGRAM NOTES: ALWAYS?
SOMETIMES?
NEVER?
No. of No. of Always Sometimes Never
Question- la Tabu- ——————-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 115 97 84 17 15 1
Seattle 595 595 507 85 87. 15 1
Louisville 291 281 204 72 78 28 0
Phoenix-A 356 351 307 87 43 13 l
Phoenix-B 395 382 306 80 72 19 4 1
Syracuse 229 227 185 82 42 18 0
Albany 180 178 149 83 28 15 l
Evansville 217 208 170 82 35 17 3 1
Green Bay 98 96 89 92 7 8 0
Asheville 102 101 89 88 12 12 0
Eastern Conn. 174 159 139 87 19 13 1
South Bend 363 353 303 86 50 14 0
Average 84% 16%

 

*Percentage of the number of la tabulated.

262

Question la shows a range of "Always" from 72
percent to 92 percent with an average of 84 percent.
The 92 percent is based on only 96 responses, so its
validity is open to question; but the Green Bay anno-
tator is one who exhibits an unique and interesting
writing style and a limited amount of technical dis-
cussion. The 72 percent came from Louisville, where
several comments mentioned the scholarly depth of the
program notes. All other audiences tabulated in the
80's. The negligible 1 percent who say that they
never read the notes is probably a surprise to everyone,

and it conveys a definite message.

Question lb.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 24
DO YOU READ THE PROGRAM NOTES: PARTIALLY?
TOTALLY?
No. of No. of Partially Totally
question- lb Tabu- -———————
Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 85 28 33 57 67
Seattle 595 443 140 32 303 68
Louisville 291 236 128 54 108 46
Phoenix-A 356 256 107 42 149 58
Phoenix-B 395 279 125 45 154 55
Syracuse 229 184 87 47 97 53
Albany 180 133 61 46 72 54
Evansville 217 149 61 41 88 59
Green Bay 98 67 12 18 55 82
Asheville 102 83 30 36 53 64
Eastern Conn. 174 140 49 35 91 65
South Bend 363 281 99 32 182 68
Average 38% 62%

 

*Percentage Of the number of lb tabulated.

263

Looking at the "Totally" column, we detect two
extremes (46 percent and 82 percent) and two areas (50's
and high 60's); an average 62 percent read the program
notes in toto, the other 38 percent in part. We can
guess that some of this divergence stems from audience
habits and training, some from the character of the
notes themselves. There is no apparent correlation be-
tween this measurement and college education; but a
sample check on the responses of three audiences indi-
cated that those with more musical training (classes
2, 3 and 4 of question No. 11) do read the program notes
more often and more completely. One might suspect that
the longer annotations would suffer a lower readership
rate, but they do not. There is no correlation between
the length of annotation and the totality of the read-
ing. The Green Bay high of 82 percent, however, leads
one to conjecture that this might be attributed to

the delightful print and the spiciness of the writing.

Question lc.

 

The number of peOple who read their program
notes before listening to the music is very impressive:
87 percent, with Seattle easily leading the field at 96
percent. The Spread from 81 percent to 96 percent is
concentrated in the 84-90 percent bracket. The number

who read during the concert is undoubtedly influenced

264

TABLE 25

DO YOU READ THE PROGRAM NOTES: BEFORE THE CONCERT?
DURING THE CONCERT?
AFTER THE CONCERT?

 

 

 

.No. of No. of Before During After

Question- lc Tabu- —————— —————— ——————

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 llO 97 88 9 8 4 4
Seattle 595 580 559 96 20 4 10 2
Louisville 291 277 238 86 21 ll 16 6
Phoenix-A 356 345 309 90 27 9 7 l
Phoenix-B 395 376 315 84 27 9 7 1
Syracuse 229 225 186 84 25 12 14 7
Albany 180 170 144 85 6 4 20 11
Evansville 217 204 171 84 23 ll 10 5
Green Bay ‘98 96 88 90 7 7 O 0
Asheville 102 102 92 90 9 9 l 1
Eastern Conn. 174 169 137 81 21 12 ll 7
South Bend 363 341 277 81 58 17 6 2
Average 87% 9% 4%

 

*Percentage of the number of 1c tabulated.

by the lighting (South Bend, e.g.); and the number who
read after the concert tells us something of the gen-
eral musical interest. The highest of the latter was

in Albany, where the voluntary comments concentrated on
the high literary quality of the annotations, and where
99 percent of the readers recorded that they find the
notes helpful (question No. 7). A figure not listed is
the number of people who read their programs both before
and after the concerts; this amounts to an impressive 9

percent average.

265

Question 2.

 

TABLE 26

DO YOU FOLLOW THE TEXTS OF VOCAL WORKS?

 

 

 

No. of No. Of Yes No
Question- No. 2 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 115 59 56 46 44
Seattle 595 526 232 44 294 56
Louisville 291 239 67 28 172 72
Phoenix-A 356 306 128 40 178 60
Phoenix-B 395 345 169 49 176 51
Syracuse 229 206 103 50 103 50
Albany 180 164 53 32 111 68
Evansville 217 168 87 51 81 49
Green Bay 98 Not Applicable
Asheville 102 90 30 33 60 67
Eastern Conn. 174 167 99 59 68 41
South Bend 363 Not Applicable
Averages 41% 59%

 

*Percentage of the number of No. 2 tabulated.

The validity of these responses is in doubt, as
indicated by the tally from the cities where no texts
are printed. The question would have been better ex-
pressed had it included the word "printed" before "vocal
texts"; or better still, by asking "Would you like to
follow the printed vocal texts during concerts?" Again,
the lighting had much to do with the answers to this
question; but there is incongruity in the appearance of
the same percentage figures in Syracuse and Albany,

in the one case light is not sufficient for reading, in

266

the latter case it is. Hence the serious doubt of the

worth of this question in its present form.

Question No. 3.

 

TABLE 27

WOULD YOU LIKE MORE READING LIGHT DURING
THE CONCERTS?

 

 

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No
Question- #3 Tabu- Light
Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %* Offered?

Indianapolis 115 113 41 36 72 64 No
Seattle 595 578 184 34 394 68 Yes
Louisville 291 276 75 27 201 73 No
Phoenix-A 356 347 84 25 263 75 No
Phoenix-B 395 373 111 30 262 70 No
Syracuse 229 225 68 30 157 70 No
Albany 180 172 71 41 lOl 59 No
Evansville 217 198 52 26 146 74 Yes**
Green Bay 98 91 33 36 58 64 No
Asheville 102 98 20 20 78 80 No
Eastern Conn. 174 172 44 26 128 74 Yes**
South Bend 363 346 88 26 258 74 Yes
Averages 30% 70%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 3 tabulated.

**Only when vocal texts are printed.

The results of this question indicate that only
in Albany are the patrons greatly concerned about the
ampleness of light, although those orchestras whose
percentages are above 30 would do well to consider the
possibility of a change in policy. The Albany manage-
ment acknowledges this weakness in its auditorium and

regrets its inability to correct it. Curiously, the

267

second highest request for more light came from Indian-
apolis, where there is already sufficient reading light!
On the average, about one-third of each audience would
appreciate more light.

Regarding this question, most managers and many
annotators are adamant in their conviction that audiences
should listen during concerts, not read. There have been
advocates of score—following, and a recent article in
the Music Educators Journal1 reported approvingly on a
contemporary effort in Worcestor, Massachusetts, to en—
courage the scanning of an outlinecfifthe music during
the performance. As illustrated, the latter was merely
a graphic indication of the sounds one would hear during
the progress of the music--instruments, dynamics, pitch
ranges, tempi, etc. Most of the persons interviewed for
this paper would frown on such an endeavor as a dis-
traction and as a substitute for listening. A few an—
notators, including one major one, favor dim light during
performances, for reference purposes. Were concerts for
education only, perhaps a formal analysis would be in
order, with lights, scores and verbal monologue by an
instructor. But symphony concerts are for enjoyment,

too, and are to be heard as sound, not just as construction.

 

1Benjamin S. Dunham, "Program Notes: Better Un-
written than Unread," Music Educators Journal, March,
1968, (Vol. 54, No. 7), p. 96.

 

268

So the amount of reading light that is desirable is Open
to question, except when vocal texts are supplied. On
the latter occasions a dark hall would be quite sense—
less. One manager indicated that he would never lighten
an auditorium, no matter how many members of his audi-
ence requested it. Another said that lights would des-
troy the dramatic effect of the conductor's entrance.
Several others mentioned the distraction of attention
that light would produce. On the other hand, several
patrons commented that a totally dark hall and a bright
stage are tiring to the eyes; and many commented that.
they would like to be able to read. A suitable compro-
mise used in many halls, including the new Salle Wilfred
Pelletier in Montreal, is the dimming of the lights--
too little for sustained reading, but enough for refer-
ence to such items as a symphonic movement or a theme.
Now that twelve audiences have had an Opportunity to
indicate their preference, managers can make their de-
cisions intelligently rather than on their own biases.
Some experimentation would undoubtedly provoke a con-

clusive audience response.

Qgestion No. 4.

 

Apparently musical examples would be appreciated
by 42 percent of symphony concert-goers--a substantial

number. This tends to refute two annotators' statements'

269

TABLE 28

WOULD SIMPLE MUSICAL EXAMPLES BE HELPFUL?

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No

 

 

Question- No. 4 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 93 45 48 48 52
Seattle 595 517 218 42 299 58
Louisville 291 244 102 42 142 58
Phoenix-A 356 315 125 40 185 60
Phoenix-B 395 329 148 45 181 55
Syracuse 229 191 87 46 104 54
Albany 180 155 65 42 90 58
Evansville 217 172 70 41 102 59
Green Bay 98 78 27 35 51 65
Asheville 102 91 30 33 61 67
Eastern Conn. 174 146 58 40 88 60
South Bend 363 284 123 44 161 56
Averages 42% 38%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 4 tabulated.

that "most people read music these days." If manage-
ment can afford this luxury, however, this percentage
is high enough to justify the practice; and most anno-
tators would like its availability. It would stimulate
interest in the music itself; it might permit the anno—
tator to concentrate more directly on the music; it
might also stimulate the non-music-reader to learn to

read music notation.

Qgestion No. 5.

 

It is enlightening to observe how few orches-

tras permit advertisements to interfere with the program

270

TABLE 29

ARE YOU DISTURBED BY THE POSITION OF

ADVERTISEMENTS AMID THE PROGRAM NOTES?

 

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No
Question- No. 5 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 113 26 23 87 77
Seattle 595 492 48 10 444 90
Louisville 291 Not Applicable
Phoenix-A 356 Not Applicable
Phoenix-B 395 Not Applicable
Syracuse 229 227 21 9 206 91
Albany 180 Not Applicable
Evansville 217 206 21 10 185 90
Green Bay 98 Not Applicable
Asheville 102 Not Applicable
Eastern Conn. 174 170 24 14 146 86
South Bend 363 Not Applicable
Averages 12% 88%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 5 tabulated.

notes. Of the eleven COOperating orchestras, only five

intermingle the two elements; and in only one city did

the audience object very strongly--Indianapolis, where

23 percent raised their voices.

This figure, being the

only one above second place 14 percent, is so far above

as to call immediate attention ot itself and clamor for

special consideration by that management.

Most symphony

patrons who commented on the advertisements were recep-

tive to their presence as a necessity, and in some

statements, as a compliment to the advertisers.

These

patrons appreciate the more comprehensive program books

made possible by the advertising.

271

Question No. 6.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 30
DO YOU SAVE YOUR PROGRAMS FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE?
No. of No. of Yes No
Question- No. 6 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 111 70 64 41 36
Seattle 595 584 304 52 280 48
Louisville 291 274 147 53 127 47
Phoenix-A 356 353 198 56 155 44
Phoenix-B 395 389 270 69 119 31
Syracuse 229 222 109 49 113 51
Albany 180 176 84 48 92 52
Evansville 217 206 101 50 105 50
Green Bay 98 98 63 64 35 36
Asheville 102 97 38 39 59 61
Eastern Conn. 174 172 100 58 72 42
South Bend 363 352 173 50 179 50
Averages 54% 46%

*Percentages of the number of No. 6 tabulated.

As one indication of program note appreciation,

54 percent of symphony attenders save their programs:

for future reference. The best showing (69 percent)

was in Phoenix (the Tuesday audience), the poorest was

in Asheville (39 percent); other responses ranged in

the 50's, with two in the high 40's and two at 64 per-

cent. To adjudge the reasons for these differences in

response one can compare examples of the writing as

produced earlier in this chapter.

Audience differences

are not so readily apparent in the case of the two

272

extremes: the Asheville audience contains a much higher
percentage of college graduates, but the ratio of musi-

cally educated peOple is normal in each case.

Question No. 7.

 

TABLE 31

DO OUR PROGRAM NOTES HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND
AND APPRECIATE THE MUSIC?

 

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No
Question- No. 7 Tabu- -—————-
Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 111 107 97 4 3
Seattle 595 492 464 94 28 6
Louisville 291 279 255 94 24 6
Phoenix-A 356 352 341 97 ll 3
Phoenix-B 395 392 377 96 15 4
Syracuse 229 229 215 94 14 6
Albany 180 176 164 93 12 7
Evansville 217 209 200 96 9 4
Green Bay 98 98 94 96 4 4
Asheville 102 100 94 94 6 6
Eastern Conn. 174 171 164 96 7 4
South Bend 363 355 333 94 22 6
Averages 95% 5%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 7 tabulated.

The importance of this question to the survey
is of such magnitude that were it the only question
asked, an answer such as the 95% YES vote would be suf-
ficient evidence for an evaluation of the stated hypo-
thesis. Significant, too, is the narrowness of the
range of replies. The annotators of all eleven orchestra

programs can take pride in the responses of their

respective audiences.

273

There is no revelation of degree

of success, which must be adjudged by other criteria;

but there is positive evidence that the program notes

do serve their purpose.

Question No. 8.

 

DO YOU FIND THE PROGRAM NOTES:

TABLE 32

TOO COMPLEX OR TECHNICAL?
TOO LIGHTWEIGHT?

 

 

 

TOO BRIEF?

TOO LONG?

Too Too

No. of No. of Com- Light- Too Too
Question- #8 Tab- plex weight Brief Long
Orchestra naires ulated ______.______ ——————
No. %* No. %* No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 2 1 10 9 21 19 1

Seattle 595 40 7 77 13 71 12 32 6
Louisville 291 39 13 26 9 27 9 25 9
Phoenix-A 356 16 4 22 6 24 7 20 6
Phoenix-B 395 22 6 26 6 40 10 27 6
Syracuse 229 9 4 22 10 25 ll 12 5
Albany 180 18 10 15 8 18 10 13 7
Evansville 217 16 7 ll 5 25 12 12 6
Green Bay 98 4 4 ll 11 11 ll 2 2
Asheville 102 5 5 12 ll 24 22 2 2
Eastern Conn. 174 ll 6 8 5 27 16 17 10
South Bend 363 40 ll 29 8 72 20 12 3
Averages 6% 9% 13% 6

 

*Percentages of questionnaires received..

This table must be interpreted in terms of each

particular style of annotation.

What percentage of

variation from the average is to be considered serious

274

enough to warrant attention is a matter for discussion
and decision by the parties involved. But it would

seem that any figure higher than the average should be
cause for some concern, and any figure far below the
average should be cause for satisfaction. The 13 per-
cent average "too brief" tallies might also be consid-
ered a telling figure for all annotators to heed. The
reader will note that this column and the "too light-
weight" column show that audiences are more serious

than many have been willing to admit. This also tallies
with the panel's opinion about the use of technical
language, and it counters the frequent admonition to
"keep the notes simple." This admonition, incidentally,
appeared with the highest frequency in the comments and
suggestions made by professional musicians. Amateurs and
untrained music lovers were in general not especially.
disturbed by complexity, but rather, often called for
more! In order to discover which members of the audi-
ences reacted to these categories of Objections, a
correlation between questions No. 8 and No. 11 was given
a "trial run," using the responses of three audiences.
We found that, numerically, each class of peOple (ques-
tion No. 11) objected in exactly the same proportion as
their number in the audience; i.e., no more objection
was raised by one group than by another. We did learn

that music students tend to prefer more serious

275

annotation, and that a slightly higher percentage of
untrained music lovers checked "too complex"; but the

difference is so slight as to be negligible.

Question No. 9.

 

TABLE 33

DO YOU FIND THE PROGRAM NOTES COMPREHENSIVE

 

 

 

 

ENOUGH?
No. of No. of Yes No
Question— No. 9 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 106 84 80 22 20
Seattle 595 560 457 82 103 18
Louisville 291 266 227 85 39 15
Phoenix-A 356 330 309 94 21 6
Phoenix-B 395 378 347 90 31 10
Syracuse 229 216 183 85 33 15
Albany 180 173 155 90 18 10
Evansville 217 193 168 87 25 13
Green Bay 98 93 83 89 10 ll
Asheville 102 93 78 84 15 16
Eastern Conn. 174 159 137 86 22 14
South Bend 363 334 274 82 60 18
Averages 86% 14%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 9 tabulated.

The spread here is very narrow, indicating that
an average 14 percent of each audience find the program
notes not comprehensive enough for their satisfaction.
This is here stated negatively to suggest that it is a
matter Open to improvement, even though the 85 percent
approval is undoubtedly a good showing. In other words,

any figure in the "NO" column over 14 percent is possible

276

justification for change in the notes. Again, a cor-
relation between questions NO. 9 and No. 11 revealed
that no single group of people was more critical of

this aspect of the notes than any other.

Question No. 10.

TABLE 34

DO YOU ATTEND FIVE OR MORE SYMPHONY
CONCERTS PER YEAR?

 

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No

Question- No. 10 Tabu- -—————

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 113 103 90 10 10
Seattle 595 550 525 95 25 5
Louisville 291 278 255 92 23 8
Phoenix-A 356 355 318 90 37 10
Phoenix-B 395 377 343 90 34 10
Syracuse 229 226 204 91 21 9
Albany 180 176 152 86 24 14
Evansville 217 205 183 90 22 10
Green Bay 98 97 71 73 26 27
Asheville 102 97 65 67 32 33
Eastern Conn. 174 166 102 61 64 39
South Bend 363 341 266 79 75 21
Averages 84% 16%

 

*Percentages of No. 10 tabulated.

The table reveals one obvious condition: that
the orchestras with fewer concerts in their series re-
port a lower total attendance frequency. Conversely
stated, those orchestras giving twelve or more concerts
per year showed 90 percent or more of their patrons at-

tending five or more concerts per year. All class D

277

orchestras and two in class C tallied under 90 percent.
Green Bay and South Bend were in the 70's, Asheville
and Eastern Connecticut in the 60's. These are commun-
ities where there is not the opportunity to attend many
symphony concerts. Exception: Asheville.

It was assumed that peOple who hear more sym-
phony music would, just by their musical exposure, be
more knowledgeable about music and more appreciative
of the fuller type of program notes. However, there is
no actual proof of this in any of the figures--i.e.,
there is no apparent correlation between question No.

11 and either No. 7 or No. 9.

Question No. 11.

 

One might expect the percentage of amateur and
professional musicians to be highest in the largest
cities (class A and B orchestras); Indianapolis and
Seattle do register more amateur musicians in propor-
tion to their total audience, but South Bend (class D)
registered the highest proportion of professional musi-
cians, and Indianapolis, Evansville and Eastern Connec-
ticut the highest proportion of music students. The
significance of these figures is the realization that
each community and each audience is unique. Even in
Phoenix, the Monday and Tuesday audiences differ in

composition. The latter appears to be better.educated

278

TABLE 35

WHICH OF THESE APPLIES TO YOU?
1) A MUSIC LOVER WITH NO FORMAL MUSIC STUDY.
2) AN AMATEUR MUSICIAN WITH SOME FORMAL STUDY.
3) A PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN OR MUSIC TEACHER.
4) A MUSIC STUDENT.

 

 

 

 

No. of No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4
No. 11 Tabu- ‘

Orchestra lated No. %* No. %* No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 48 42 45 39 10 9 12 10
Seattle 587 285 48 236 40 48 8 l8 4
Louisville 286 145 51 95 33 20 7 26 9
Phoenix-A 349 209 60 105 30 19 5 16 5
Phoenix-B 390 198 51 120 31 40 10 32 8
Syracuse 229 123 54 78 34 19 8 9 4
Albany 180 98 54 60 33 15 9 7 4
Evansville 217 102 47 72 33 23 10 20 10
Green Bay 97 44 45 39 40 8 8 7 7
Asheville 96 51 53 28 30 9 9 8 8
Eastern Conn. 169 100 59 45 27 8 4 16 10
South Bend 355 161 45 119 34 41 12 34 9
Averages 51% 34% 8% 7%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 11 tabulated..

musically, but the former contains a higher proportion
of college graduates. Knowing that half of an audience
is musically untrained makes the annotator's job more
difficult, but it is valuable to have this knowledge.
Similarly, it is valuable to know that perhaps a tenth
of one's readers are professional musicians.

In Spite of the tally of question No. 12, how-
ever, one cannot assume that the average 51 percent who
claim no formal music study is a group of musical ignora—

muses; repeated experiences indicate that this is not

279

the case. In fact, many a questionnaire was altered
by its checker to read "a music lover with some formal
study," indicating some past training but no present

activity.

Question No. 12.

 

TABLE 36

ARE YOU A COLLEGE GRADUATE?

 

 

 

No. of No. of Yes No
Question- No. 12 Tabu-

Orchestra naires lated No. %* No. %*
Indianapolis 115 112 74 66 38 34
Seattle 595 584 423 72 161 28
Louisville 291 283 196 68 87 32
Phoenix-A 356 348 216 62 132 38
Phoenix-B 395 383 201 53 182 47
Syracuse 229 229 171 75 58 25
Albany 180 175 125 71 50 29
Evansville 217 206 108 52 98 48
Green Bay 98 95 45 47 50 53
Asheville 102 96 66 69 30 31
Eastern Conn. 174 167 82 49 85 51
South Bend 363 346 186 55 160 45
Averages 62% 38%

 

*Percentages of the number of No. 12 tabulated.

The average audience in these eleven cities is
62 percent college educated. Recall that the Baumol
report, covering twelve class A and two class B orches—
tras, indicated that 84 percent of males and 64 percent
of females in those audiences were college graduates.

So there is a difference in the largest cities. The

280

above table reveals that two class D and two class C
audiences are below the average. The spread is very
wide--from 47 percent in South Bend to 75 percent in
Syracuse. An annotator would certainly be influenced
in his style of writing by this kind of information,
and the person who said he would be intimidated by a
New York audience to write a much more serious and com—
prehensive annotation than he currently writes for a
class C orchestra in a midwestern city has some justi-

fication for this feeling.

Question No. 13.

 

TABLE 37

AUDIENCE COMMENTS

 

 

 

Percentage* Percentage*
Making Comments Commenting
Percentage* on Administra- on the
Making tive Matters Program
Orchestra Comments Only Notes
Indianapolis 32 9 23
Seattle 35 5 30
Louisville 24 7 l7
Phoenix-A 23 6 l7
Phoenix-B 21 6 15
Syracuse 22 7 15
Albany 23 9 14
Evansville 20 6 14
Green Bay 20 9 ll
Asheville l7 4 13
Eastern Conn. 17 9 12
South Bend 26 12 14
Averages 23% 7% 16%

 

*Percentages of questionnaires received.

281

Only Seattle and Indianapolis (class A) audi—
ences responded in a volume far above the average 16
percent; Eastern Connecticut and Green Bay were lowest
at 11 percent and 12 percent. All others ranged close
to the average. Note that, reading upward in the
table, the percentage of comments increases. A trial
tally of the responses revealed that college graduates
tended to be more willing than non-graduates to make

comments 0

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

In the confusion of many figures, examples and
diverse opinions one may wonder whether it is possible
to draw any definite conclusions or establish any sem-
blance of order. But assuredly it is possible, and the
conclusions should be of considerable help to orchestra
personnel in their efforts to communicate more effec-
tively with their audiences. At the same time the con-
clusions should be very heartening and stimulating to
those who have exerted their efforts productively in
the cause of musical understanding and education. Mana-
gers specifically will benefit by the audience comments
on administrative affairs, for each manager will receive
a full report of his audience survey and a compendium
of the full study. He will be able thereby to relate
his particular survey to the overall picture. Likewise,
each annotator will receive his evaluation and all the
comments from his audience. It is to the credit of
the eleven annotators that none fared badly in the sur-
vey; but each, by the comments and the statistics, will
be able to find new ways of reaching his readers and of

improving the educational function of his annotations.

282

283

Lurking in the background is the unhappy, but
ever-present possibility of a flaw in the audience sur-
vey. In the general circulation of any questionnaire
there is a fear that only those peOple who are disgruntled
or disturbed by the state of affairs being surveyed will
bother to register their emotions and opinions. No sur-
veyor can control this factor; so he must proceed on the
assumption that the returns are indicative of the opin-
ions of the entire group, and that the more disturbed
persons are those who take the time and trouble to write
comments. At least the general homogeneity--the consis-
tency--of the tabulated percentages is encouraging in
this regard; and the 23 percent return further supports

the cause for reasonable assurance of representativeness.

Further Avenues of Research

 

Other methods of
educating audiences

 

 

One of the worthwhile results of this study is
a revelation of further avenues of research. For exam—
ple, what other methods do symphony orchestras find
effective in preparing their audiences for the listening
experience? What is their total effect? What is the
best use of the mass media in music education (re the
symphony orchestra)? How many orchestras conduct ad—

vance educational sessions for their auxiliary groups?

284

What use is made of the oral program note? What is
the long-range effect of youth concerts and special
children's concerts in the schools?

Evidence from several symphony sources reveals
an apparently greater concern for educating young audi—
ences than for enlightening the adult element in the.
regular audiences. Detailed and careful planning for
youth concerts shows a direct educational goal in these
efforts, with specific methods and aims. In other
words, the program notes and methods of presenting
children's concerts are educationally superior to those
of adult concerts. Were adult concerts similarly ori-
ented, program note standards might rise abruptly and
would probably show more imagination and better educa-
tional expertise.

Reports from several managers and annotators
told of varied methods of reaching audiences. For
example, in Tucson the women's guild promotes a luncheon
called "Symphony Silhouette" on the day preceding each
concert, when the annotator lectures and distributes
galley proofs of the program notes. This type of
meeting seems to be a fairly common practice in the
United States. It would be valuable to know how com-
mon and how effective it is.

We have already seen how the Seattle Symphony

uses radio and television in its public confrontation;

-285

someone should investigate this kind of media usage in
other cities.

One can appropriately ask what contribution
adult education courses can make to the enjoyment and
understanding of symphony concerts. Are there any
schools or colleges that offer an evening course speci-
fically tied to local symphony concerts? This seems to
be very feasible and would appear to be attractive to
many concert-goers. Perhaps this is done somewhere,
but this study did not discover it. In a recent study
of university courses for non-music majors, Dr. S. T.
Burns, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the
School of Music, University of Wisconsin, reported that
some universities offer courses related specifically to
live performances on campus. For example, Indiana Uni-
versity offers "Opera Theatre Series I and II," devoted
to "discussion and analysis of works to be performed
during the current Opera Theatre Series.“ The Univer-
sity of Texas offers four courses that require attendance
at fifteen live concerts per semester. A unique feature
of one course at the University of Minnesota is an
arrangement which permits enrollees to attend rehearsals
of the Minneapolis Symphony. In fact, the course title
is "Minneapolis Symphony Demonstration Rehearsals,"

so such attendance is the very basis of the course.1

 

ls. T. Burns, Music Programs for Non-Music Majors
in State Universitiesn School of Music, College of Letters
and Science, University of Wisconsin, January, 1967, p. 37.

 

 

286

All college and university courses in "Music Apprecia-
tion," regardless of the label attached, require lis-
tening to recordings, and most of them require attendance
at some live performances. If this is good education at
the university, it is equally acceptable to the concert-
going public.

One could also ask what the school music educa-
tor can do to enhance symphony enjoyment and understand-

ing. This opens another area that cannot be touched in

the present study, but which deserves attention.

The conductor's role

 

Yet another avenue to be explored is the con-
ductor's role in the education process. What part do
his programming, his writings, his public confrontations
via formal presentations or informal interviews play in
educating his audiences? (One recalls the 1930's when
LeOpold Stokowsky programmed the same new composition
twice in the same evening, the 1920's when Walter Dam-
rosch's radio lessons with the New York Symphony were
so widely used in the schools; and there are the New
York Philharmonic's Young PeOple's Concerts on televi-
sion today.) The conductor's role should be investigated.
It would be valuable to know just how interested he is
in program annotation and how much influence he exerts.

We learned from the present investigation that some

287

conductors are very conscious of all the details of
their programs. George Szell, for example, always reads
the annotations prepared by Klaus George Roy, and occa-
sionally makes comments and suggestions (always heeded,
incidentally). Robert Shaw in Atlanta is one of several
conductors who regularly approve of their annotators'
efforts before they go to print. The extent of this
influence should be further investigated.

Since the symphony orchestra is an instrument
of both enjoyment and education, as Dr. Dorian was quoted
as saying,lthe responsibility for both of these elements
does not rest in one person or one office, but upon all
who play a role. The conductor is in a particularly
opportune position to relate to his audience, for he is
The Maestro who faces them at each concert and reflects
the image of the orchestra. He selects the programs;
frequently he exerts almost dictatorial powers. He alone
could control the educational impact of his organization.
Yet the program annotator has free reign, in most cities,
to say what he will. Sometimes a manager is able to
bring influence, even to the point of arbitrarily edit-
ing the program notes. This multiplicity of practices
implies that the educational function of the orchestra
is too often a haphazard undertaking, whereas it should

be planned as a joint concern and endeavor of conductor,

 

1Chapter I.

288

manager, program annotator and board of directors.

There should be agreement on policy and method. Seattle
is a prime example, for there these parties have agreed
on the kind of annotation they want and the general
method to be used, as well as the goals they seek. The
result of such united effort shines forth happily in

the returns from their questionnaires.

Extension of the present survey

 

Another valuable research project would be an
extension of the present audience survey over a wider
base, surveying perhaps one hundred audiences rather
than twelve--or even a complete survey of the total
membership of the American Symphony Orchestra League.
Audiences could be more thoroughly analyzed, too, as
in the Baumol-Bowen survey, and periodically to detect
trends of change.

Programming,criticism,
the record jacket

 

Three areas of natural relationship to the sub-
ject of annotation would merit minute scrutiny: (a) or-
chestral programming, (b) musical criticism and
(c) record jacket annotation. That Leonard Bernstein
and William Steinberg distinguish themselves by their
unique programming was easily discernible; this stimu-

lates conjecture that should be supported by further

289

inquiry. Musical criticism is a subject ever open to
study in depth. Fortunately, the critics have now united
in a formal organization with a new house organ supported
by money from the Arts and Humanities Foundation for the
purpose of promoting this area of recent neglect. The
preparation of record jackets is almost identical to
program annotation, and many a jacket writer is also a
program annotator. Undoubtedly many of the words ex-
pressed on the subject of annotation apply equally to

the record jacket; but again, this should be substan-
tiated or refuted by study.

There seems to be a real need for a training
course for both critics and annotators, a course com-
bining musical understanding, educational methods and
journalism. Recognizing a shortage of such trained per-
sonnel, the Music Critics Association has encouraged
the offering of Special summer courses in musical jour-
nalismil We have observed that today most program note
writers are musicians, some are critics. If musicians
could be trained to write and writers could be trained
musically, the benefits to the musical public would be

considerable.

 

1Such a course was offered in 1967 at the Uni-
versity of California, with support from the Ford Foun-
dation.

290

What can program notes do?

 

An astute member of one audience wrote on his
questionnaire: "Has anyone ever asked: what can 'pro-
gram notes' possibly do, what is impossible for them to
do?"1 This paper has not sought to answer this ques-
tion, but has proceeded on the assumption that program
annotation is an established practice and that such notes
are essential, certainly the most accessible essential
of orchestra—audience contact. An honest appraisal will
quickly reveal some of the obvious weaknesses of the
medium: its one-way communication, its appeal through
the printed word only, its brevity, its often casual
acceptance in a semi-social setting. There are severe
limitations. The search for answers to this concert-
goer's question is another enticing area of possible
research. We are concerned here with the present status
of annotation. Further study could reveal the expec-

tancy of results in an ideal situation as well as in the

"average," or typical situation.

Negation of the Hypothesis

 

The prevailing low Opinion of program notes

amongst musicians was revealed by the responses given

 

lA Ph.D. amateur musician, Seattle.

291

by musicians when asked about annotation.l The usual
first reaction was a statement of what program notes
sould net be or do! Thus arose the negative form of
the hypothesis: that most program notes do not accom—
plish their intended purpose. On the basis of the
present study, this hypothesis is now definitely proved
wrong. Audiences overwhelmingly averred that their
program notes do help them to appreciate and enjoy the
music. Surprising and gratifying were the statistics
of reading habits. That 84% of the symphony audience
respondents always read the notes, that 69% read them
in toto, that 87% read them before hearing the music

is proof of the success of the notes and of the readers'
seriousness in their efforts to get the most out of the
concerts. The number of complaints registered in ques-
tions # 8 ("complex," "brief," etc.) and # 9 (compre-
hensiveness) also reflects the seriousness of audience
participation. PeOple who suggest that program notes
are not read are just plain wrong. The only legitimate
concession to this opinion is that there is a segment
of the audience not adequately reached. The task of
education is not perfectly performed and remains a per-
manent challenge. Surely it would be a welcome discovery

to learn some day, somewhere, that 100% of the audience

 

1Chapter I.

292

reads the notes in toto before every concert; but we
know human nature well enough to recognize the futility
of such an expectation, even though perfection is the
goal sought. It will never be possible to reach or to
satisfy every member of any single audience. Common
sense suggests aiming at the majority; some writers
will want to include concessions to known minority
groups and will accomplish this by using the technique

of varying styles of annotation.

Room for Improvement

 

Perhaps another concession can be made to those
who feel that in spite of full digestion of the program
notes many people are still starved for information,
hence are not well prepared for listening. The well
considered conclusion is that some education certainly
takes place in every situation, but that in some con-
cert halls the audience is better prepared by past ex-
perience, and in some the educational job is accomplished
with greater finesse and thoroughness than in others.
It is hoped that the present study has sufficiently ex-
posed these facts and has offered such satisfactory
examples of practices both good and bad that any writer
will find here a guide and wise counsel for exercising

his job more efficiently.

293

Considering again the standards established by
the panel, and referring to the ratings of annotations
by their standards,1 we conclude that very few annota-
tions measure up to full expectancy. The statistics
tell us that 14% of the readers consider their program
notes to be lacking in comprehensiveness. This, then,
is a 14% demand for longer annotations with more detail
and completeness. Such a change would also satisfy the
13% of the audience who consider their notes too brief,
and perhaps the 8% who consider them too lightweight.
The average annotation is too brief; and there are too
many that are even briefer. Brevity is a serious weak-
ness, for it signifies a shortage of information that
robs the patron of his rightful due; and the luckless
consumer may not be aware of what he is missing. The
competent annotator, like the competent teacher, should
have in his mind the educational goal to be reached by
his "pupils," and his aim should be to assist those
people to attain this goal. The brief or superficial
annotation will not accomplish this purpose, nor will
the poorly written one. There is demonstrated, then,

a need for improvement in annotation standards, in

spite of the show of general appreciation.

 

1See Chapter V.

294

If the number of people who file their programs
for future reference could be increased, this might be
an indication of improvement in the educational value
of the notes. The present 54% is not low, but it could
be raised by bearing in mind the permanence of the
printed program. The cost of publication is an economic
factor to be reckoned with,too. It is so high ($165
per concert, for example, for the eight-page South Bend
program books) that it justifies the effort to make the
program booklet a fine permanent record. No one has
ventured to make a charge for such a keepsake, but this
could be considered; it is a possibility that might open
the way for better service to the more serious listener.

The 42% figure representing those who would like
musical examples indicates that there would be a defi-
nite educational value in their use. Audience comments
tell us that increased advertising to offset the addi-
tional cost would not disturb many people if it were
placed judiciously in the booklet.

Symphony management could also devote some
thought and effort to increasing the number of patrons
who read the program notes in their entirety. With
imagination and experimentation this percentage could
be raised above the present 62% figure. It would re-
quire a strong and lengthy selling campaign to bring
about such a change in audience habits; but it could

be done.

295

Some recapitulations

Considering again briefly the question of tech-
nical terms, we note the 6.4% who checked "Too complex
or technical" in question #8. Were this figure to go
any higher there would be cause for concern; but if we
were to judge from the written comments on the ques-
tionnaire, the chief objection here was not the use of
technical words so much as the general complexity of
some of the writing. That is, some annotations go over
the heads of some readers by reason of the manner of
writing, and this probably cannot be avoided. There
were almost no criticisms of excessive technical ter-
minology. This implies for the annotator a freer hand
in discussing the music. Trial alterations could be
undertaken, followed by sample checks of reactions,
until a happy compromise resulted.

Critical writing, we note, is to be frowned
upon as a regular practice; but its effectiveness on
occasion cannot be denied. The opinion of the audiences
seems to be reflected in one concert-goer's remark: "I
prefer programs which analyze the music . . . to those
which criticise the music. . . . I feel that with suf-
ficient background information and my own taste I can

make my own critical judgments."l While this writer,

 

lSyracuse; a college-educated professional musi-
cian.

296

as a professional musician, was one of a minority group,
he spoke intelligently and should be heeded. Any music
appreciation teacher must educate his pupils to the
point where each is able to make his own critical judg—
ments. If the teacher by his own enthusiasm sometimes
influences the develOpment of others' tastes, we recog-
nize it as inevitable. When it is done by the written
word, at least it can be scrutinized and recognized

and, if desired, changed.

It seems in order to suggest again, as a con-
clusion derived from this study, that managers could
encourage program note reading by the simple devise of
offering more reading light. Strict focus of the eyes
upon the brightly lighted stage is not a requirement
for good listening. It is not a sin or necessarily a
loss if a patron refers to his program during the course
of the performance. Full lighting is usually frowned
upon, as an usher in Orchestra Hall, Chicago, verified
recently; but partial lighting, as previously suggested,
might be the best answer. There are people, too, who
like to follow scores.

Finally, when a writer is unsure of any facet
of his annotation, a generally safe practice is to go
to the programs of the leading symphonies and observe
how their annotators handle the problem. It is cer-

tainly wiser to borrow a style or a method from those

297

who do the job best than to blunder bindly on one's own.
Grove and Tovey are always noble examples to emulate;
and wide reading (or this dissertation) will easily re-

veal those whose writings are successful.

Additional Conclusions

 

Reasserting that this study is a limited one,
quite exploratory in nature, we submit these additional
conclusions. First, that the listeners' extensive re-
liance on the program book demands that the best pos-
sible effort be made to construct and print an attrac-
tive format and program material that is readable,
reliable, scholarly and thorough. People who attend
symphony concerts are above average in many ways. Their
responses indicate that they are sensitive to niceties
and to the careful, refined touch and to the integrity
of the material they read. The questionnaire gave these
people their first opportunity to demand the kind of
treatment they deserve and in some cases are getting.

The program in hand is the strongest bond between pro-
ducer and consumer in the concert hall. In spite of its
educational limitations it sets the tone of the concert,
it instructs the audience. It is the medium for dissemi-
nation of all sorts of information about the music, the
orchestra, its conductor, its activities, its members,

its quest soloists, its board of directors and its

298

financial supporters. In other words, today's program
is indispensible to the welfare of both orchestra and
patron and as such it pleads for excellence.

Another conclusion is that audiences in general
apparently become accustomed and partial to their regu-
lar style of annotation, rarely comparing it with that
of other programs. Many readers seem to be rather in-
discriminating in their appreciation. This is to say
that we cannot make all decisions re program notes, pro-
gram format, auditorium lighting, etc., entirely on the
basis of popular vote. On some issues the producers of
the program and the concert, like classroom teachers,
are more capable of making wise decisions than the mem-
bers of the audience; sometimes these producers must
base their decisions on information that is not avail-
able to the individual reader. They run the risk of
offending him, of slighting his desires; but if they
do him better service thereby, the reader will likely
recognize his gain eventually. There is a large enough
segment of discriminating people in every audience to-
day who have heard other orchestras and read other pro-
gram notes to be able to make comparisons and to be
critical; they have had no voice until offered this
questionnaire. Managers and annotators have tended to
be subjective, assumptive and authoritative, even smug

in some cases; they have frequently exhibited great

299

self-satisfaction and have enjoyed complete autonomy
because they have been unquestioned and untrammeled.
The eleven annotators who were willing to place their
product in the voting booth, so to speak, are to be

commended for their bravery and humility!

Audience Comments

 

While the audiences generally approved their
notes, there were indications as to how thoroughly ef—
fective annotation is in its educational function. The
best of these were in the written comments, some of
which are recorded here.

In general the program notes are all right as
far as they go, but I usually find that I would
like to read something with a little more meat and
depth on the works being performed. I would like
to see the program notes lengthened and made a bit
more technical and comprehensive.1

I have now endured program notes at many con-
certs in many cities. Some bore more, some less.
This depends on how skilfully they are written.
But virtually none of this skill relates to music
as such. For those who can read scores, a score-
in—hand at the concert would help most. But that
would require reading light, not gloom.

Has anyone ever asked: what can "program notes"
possibly do, what is impossible for them to do?

I doubt it.

But certainly biographical anecdotage has pre-
cious little to do with music.

 

lFrom Syracuse; a college graduate with no for-
mal music training.

2 . .
From a Ph.D. amateur muSiCian, Seattle. Not
necessarily a reflection upon the Seattle annotations.

300

Suggestion: Could you put all the advertise-
ments at the end? It would be easier to find the
program notes. Otherwise, I find the notes very
helpful.1

The notes are very helpful for program music,
but I can get along fine without them for abstract
music.

Vocal: When the text is foreign, it should be
printed both in the original language and in an
English translation.2

A greater description of the music would be
helpful; on the whole, though, they are quite good
--much better even than some of the New York Phil-
harmonic.3

About program note interruption: It's not so
much advertisements as other symphony notes that
are distracting when interspersed with program
notes. They are too similar in format at quick
glance.4

Flat, uninteresting, pedantic. It is most ir-
ritating to find the second sentence in every note
starting "It is scored for . etc." So
what?5

 

I think the programme better than any I have
received in England, France or Germany.

I read the programme notes before the music
is played--then again afterward.6

 

1From Eastern Connecticut; a music student.

2From Evansville; a music student.

3From Albany; a non-college graduate with no

formal music training.

4From Albany; a college graduate with no musical

training.

5From a college graduate with no formal musical

training.

6From Indianapolis; a college graduate and ama-

teur musician; from England.

301

Reviewer sometimes lets himself get carried
away by his desire to impress the audience with his
writing abilities. His sentences are much too com-
plex, are often not understandable on first reading.
This is the test of a well-written sentence--whether
it can be comprehended on first reading. I often
give up on the program notes because of this fault.

Even though I don't always have a change to
read the program notes, I would not like to do with-
out them.2

I really like having program notes. They help
me understand the music so much better. I have one
suggestion: please make them much longer--not real,
real long, but at least twice as long.3

Would like more about the music, less about the
composer.

Suggest with each program a feature write-up on
a particular instrument (that used by the soloist,
for instance), a musical style, type, history of a
short period, a composer.4

As purely technical comment--the larger, more
legible type-face used this season is excellent.5

Sometimes they seem more to Show off the writer's
musical erudition than to be helpful to the listener.
Often they tell me more than I care to know.6

 

l I O
From a college-educated amateur mus1c1an.

2From Seattle; a college-educated music lover

with no special musical training.

3Asheville; a music lover with no formal musical

training or college education.

4Asheville; a college educated music lover with

no formal musical training.

5Green Bay; an amateur musician with college

education.

6South Bend; an amateur musician, non—college.

302

Interesting little pieces such as that of Henry
Fogel about musical humor are welcome.1

I have noticed and appreciated very much the
excellent contribution of a graphic designer in
the production of this year's program. Fine de-
sign and typography selection add that little touch
that adds to the pleasure of just being there.2

Good that they are not so technical as to scare
off non-trained readers; but some comments on or-
chestration (especially of themes) would be nice.

Very nice that notes are immediately after the
program and not interrupted by advertisements.3

If pressed I would opt for more complex, longer,
more comprehensive notes. I have indicated satis-
faction based on a realization of what is desirable
and practical for all.4

I think the notes are very helpful and interest-
ing. We drive 200 miles to attend the concerts and
always hOpe to arrive a half hour early in order to
read the program notes.

In five years we have missed concerts only a
few times each year due to weather or travel con-
flicts.5

If the Symphony is presuming itself to be some-
what professional, its program notes should also
attempt to be somewhat professional. Cliches, over-
worked phraseology, attempted simplified explana-
tions of technical or foreign musical terms, etc.,
are annoying and unnecessary. Persons actually
interested in exploring the music to be heard, in
depth,will do so prior to the concert; a summary
of historical events or working facts of the

 

1Syracuse; a college-educated music lover with
no formal musical training.

2Seattle; an untrained music lover, non-college.

3Ashville; a college-educated, professional

musician.
Syracuse; a college-educated amateur musician.

5Indianapolis; a college-educated amateur.

303

composition are useful at the concert as a point of
reference. Comprehensive notes should be saved for
rarely heard works or new compositions.

These music notes I feel are really too complex!
I am a junior in music school and some of these
things are a little vague to me. I shutter [sic]
to think what the layman struggles through. I feel
the statements in regard to form and texture are
too complex. These should not be omitted, but
should deffenetly [sic] be broken down more to the
layman's terms as the majority of the audience is
such.

I'm afraid they're [sic] are very few in the
audience who struggle through these notes, because
there is so little they can understand. If broken
down into simple ideas these music notes would
benifit [sic] and be more enjoyable!2

Appreciate the fact that the Louisville Orches-
tra doesn't include a lot of advertising, as do
many other symphonies.3

A little more simple for the layman and young
people who do attend.4

These comments are, of course, interesting to
read; but they say more than just the specific message
each was intended to express. They display sincere de-
votion to symphony music; they reveal a reliance on
program notes; they exude strong interest in the oper-
ation of symphonic affairs. They also show us that one

cannot possibly satisfy all segments of an audience-—

 

1Green Bay; a college—educated amateur musician.

2Louisville; a music student. For whom is he
Speaking?

3Louisville; a music student.

4South Bend; a professional musician.

304

there is too much diversity; and they reduce the effi-
cacy of the advice to be simpler and less technical

by showing that this advice most often comes from the
professional musician who believes he is looking after
the interest of the "other fellow" who knows less about
music than he. The amateur musician and the untrained
musician did not clamor for simpler annotations and

less technical terminology; and this was also

true of the panel, as we saw in Chapters V and VI.
Most importantly, these comments challenge the annotator
to meet the needs of his specific audience, to be musi-
cally serious, to be completely professional and to
write interestingly. This is quite an assignment!
Furthermore, the comments represent a demand for re-
sponsibility on the part of the symphony manager to

take the program notes seriously and tn) present them
seriously. If he responds to this demand he will con-
vey to his audience the impression that the notes are
important and are to be read, rather than to be regarded
as mere interesting fill. Some booklets, by sandwiching
the program notes in as space happens to be available,
appear to present the advertisements or the various

lists of names as the most important items.

305

Suggestions for Writing the
"Ideal Annotation"

 

 

If asked how to write the ideal annotation, how
would one answer? On the basis of the examples and ad-
vice reproduced in this paper, and of the statistics
and comments from audiences, the following guide could
be suggested:

1) Know your audience--its age level, its edu-
cational level, its musical erudition, its concert ex-
perience and habits, its reading habits, and even its
desires.

2) Present basic facts about the composer, his
times, his work and/or statements on the particular
composition; but include more information on lesser
known composers than on familiar ones.

3) Devote at least an equal amount of space to
a discussion of the music--to some kind of analysis or
description; give the reader something concrete that he
can grasp and hold on to as the music progresses.

4) Avoid unusual musical terms, or give them
parenthetical explanations; but fear not the use of
common words of tempo, dynamics, style, form, and even
performance instructions.

5) Write in the best possible literary style;
plan on several drafts, if necessary, and possibly a

critical review by a language expert.

306

6) Conjure up different illustrations, metaphors,
references, comparisons, to eXpress musical ideas; each
one may have meaning for one more reader.

7) Adhere to Tovey's advice to explain what
happens without trying to analyze how it happens.

8) Add extra aids occasionally, such as a glos-
sary of unusual terms or special articles on a musical
style, an instrument, a composer, etc.

9) Consider whether the notes are intended for
pre-concert or post-concert consumption; the latter can
be more comprehensive. Plan on an average of about 2,000
words, if possible, for that seems to present the maxi-
mum efficiency in balancing comprehensiveness with read-
ing time.

10) Be judicious and abstemious in writing cri-
tically, be on firm ground when you do, accompany it
with supporting data, and offer it as purely personal
opinion; but avoid a display of personal taste prefer—
ence. Stimulate controversy occasionally.

11) Write honestly, knowledgeable and straight-
forwardly to your audience. Avoid writing down; i.e.,
treat your audience with the respect it deserves, and
assume a considerable amount of erudition on its part.

12) See, if possible, that the notes are pre-
sented in an attractive format with ample-sized type,

ample Open spaces, good color contrast; in other words,

307

make the program typographically easy and inviting to
read.

13) Use all available sources of material, but
acknowledge them.

14) Go to original sources or authorities when-
even possible, such as the composer or the premiere
program.

15) Fear not to seek help! Even an occasional
guest annotation might be welcome. Solicit suggestions
from reliable sources.

16) Periodically seek an appraisal to learn the
effectiveness of the annotations, since evaluation is
the key word in all education.

17) Key the writing to the majority; do not try
to cater to all interests, for it cannot be done suc-
cessfully. Variety may be the only way to gain the
interest of the maximum number.

18) Finally, remember that program nOtes are a
literary form that comprise a permanent record of the
symphony's progress as well as of the audience's edu-

cational progress. Once published, they are indelible.

308

I—A. Letter to Annotators

Dear :

 

In preparation for a doctoral dissertation at
Michigan State University I am making a serious study
—-perhaps the first--of symphony concert program notes.
My research includes interviews with annotators and
managers, followed where possible by questionnaires to
audiences, for the purpose of evaluating the effective-
ness of program note writing. No doubt you, as an an-
notator, often wonder just how much influence your
words have upon your audiences. I hope my study will
reveal this and will suggest the methods that appear,
to be most effective. May I have your assistance?
Your thoughtful answers to the enclosed questions
would be most helpful.

I am enclosing a COpy of the audience question-
naire for your inspection and approval. How would you
feel about its distribution at one of your concerts,
either inserted in the program or hand distributed to
one hundred patrons at random? If you approve I would
request the manager's permission to distribute it. Of
course the results would be made available to you.

One further request: so that I can read a com-
parative sample of your writing, would you be willing
to send me recent programs that include notes on these
works?

 

 

Beethoven: Symphony No. 5

Brahms: Symphony No. 2

Debussy: La Mer

Any premiere, or a controversial contemporary
work.

Any choral work.

Many thanks for your cooperation and kindness.
I hope that I shall be able to reciprocate at least in
part.

Cordially yours,

10.

11.

309

I-B. Annotators' Questionnaire

Please state your qualifications as an annotator--
education, special training.

Are you on contract solely to write program notes?
Or full-time employee with other duties?

What do you consider to be the chief function of
program notes?

What evidence do you have that your notes are read
and appreciated?

Is this evidence unsolicited?
Or systematically sought?

Do you believe that formal analysis is one of the
principal duties of the annotator?

Are there certain kinds of information that you
believe should always be included in your notes?

When a work is replayed do you reuse your former
notes? Unaltered?

Does the management place any restructions or limi-
tations on your writing?

What is your opinion about subjectivity and personal
prejudice in your writing?

Any additional comments on the back of this sheet
would be welcome.

310

I-C. Letter to Managers

Dear

 

In preparation for a doctoral dissertation at
Michigan State University I am making a serious study--
perhaps the first--of symphony concert program notes.
My research includes interviews with annotators, mana-
gers and audiences.

It is my hypothesis that most program notes
fail to accomplish their intended purpose; so I seek
facts and Opinions that will either support or negate
this hypothesis. Your answers to the enclosed ques-
tions will be most helpful to me in this study. I
hope that the results of the study will indicate what
kind of notes appear to be most effective in educating
audiences and enhancing their listening pleasure.

To assure successful completion of this project
I need your permission to distribute copies of the en-
closed questionnaire to your audience (once only).
This could be inserted in one of your programs, or I
would arrange for a random distribution of one hundred
copies in stamped envelopes after a concert. I have
your annotator's approval of the questionnaire and have
offered him a summary of the results.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated;
and hopefully both of us will benefit from the effort.

Sincerely yours,

311

I-D. Managers' Questionnaire

1. Why do you consider program notes desirable?

2. Do your programs include annotation

a) always? c) seldom?
b) usually? d) never?
3. Do you copyright your program notes? Why?

4. Does your budget limit your annotations in any way?

5. Do you place any restrictions, other than space,
on your annotator?

6. Have you considered advance distribution of your
programs?
Why or why not?

7. Do you know the composition of your audience?

 

8. If you do, how do you know it?

9. Do you have any other comments to make on program
notes? They would be welcome.

10. What about the availability of competent annotators?

312
I—E. Audience Questionnaire

This questionnaire is part of a nation-wide inquiry into the effectiveness of
program notes as an educational device, and is distributed with the cooperation of
symphony managers and program note authors. Results of the survey will be giv-
en to the management of this orchestra; hence your assistance is solicited. PLEASE
CHECK YOUR ANSWERS AND HAND TO AN USHER. You may ignore any ques-
tions that are not applicable to this particular situation.

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each column)
1) always? ........ 1) partially?
2) sometimes? ________ 2) totally? ........
3) never? .........

Do you read them: 1) before the music is played?
(Check only one) 2) while the music is being played?

 

3) after the music is played?
Do you follow the texts of vocal works? YES ...... NO .....
Would you like more reading light during the concerts? YES ...... NO ......
Would simple musical examples be helpful (Single staff notation) YES ...... NO-----_

Are you disturbed by the positioning of advertisements
amid the program notes? YES ...... NO ______

Do you save your programs for future reference? YES ...... NO ......

Do OUR program notes help you to understand
and enjoy the music? YES ...... NO .....

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you desire)

 

1) too complex or technical? ........ 1) too brief? ______ _-

2) too lightweight? ________ 2) too long? ________
Do you find them comprehensive enough? YES ...... NO ......
Do you attend five or more symphony concerts per year? YES ...... NO ..... .

Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal music study. ........
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. ........
3) A professional musician or music teacher.
4) A music student. ........

Are you a college graduate? YES ...... NO ......

 

If you have any comment to make on the program notes —
praise, criticism or suggestion — please check here
and write an the back of this sheet.

 

 

 

Class A:

Class B:

Class C:

Class D:

313

II—A. Orchestras Solicited

Atlanta Symphony
Boston Symphony
Chicago Symphony
Cincinnati Symphony
Cleveland Orchestra
Dallas Symphony

Denver Symphony
Detroit Symphony
Minneapolis Symphony
New York Philharmonic-Symphony
Philadelphia Orchestra
Pittsburgh Symphony
Rochester Symphony
Seattle Symphony

Birmingham (Ala.) Symphony
Duluth Symphony

Flint Symphony

Fort Wayne Philhormonic
Hartford Symphony
Kalamazoo Symphony
Louisville Orchestra
North Carolina Symphony
Phoenix Symphony
Syracuse Symphony
Toledo Symphony

Tulsa Philharmonic

San Diego Symphony

Albany (N.Y.) Symphony
Charlotte (N.C.) Symphony
Chattanooga Symphony
Evansville (Ind.) Philharmonic
Golden (Colo.) Symphony

Green Bay Symphony

Lansing Symphony

Lubbock Symphony

Richmond (Calif.) Symphony
Spokane Symphony

Tucson Symphony

Wichita Falls (Tex.) Symphony
Worcestor (Mass.) Orchestra

Asheville Symphony
Augusta (Ga.) Symphony
Baton Rouge Civic Symphony
Beverly Hills Symphony

314

Boulder Philharmonic

Chilicothe (Mo.) Community Orchestra
Columbus (Ga.) Symphony

Eastern Connecticut Symphony

Greeley (Colo.) Philharmonic
Kirkwood (Mo.) Symphony

Lincoln (Neb.) Symphony

New Haven Civic Orchestra

Peoria Symphony

Richmond (Calif.) Symphony

Rockford (Ill.) Symphony

Saginaw Symphony

South Bend Symphony

Springfield (Mo.) Symphony

Symphony of the Valley (Woodstock, Va.)
Trenton Symphony

Wilmington (Del.) Symphony

U1I¥>UONH
eeeee

Loooqox

10.
ll.
12.
13.
l4.
l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

315

II-Be

Albany (N.Y.) Symphony
Ashville (N.C.) Symphony
Atlanta Symphony

Augusta (Ga.) Symphony

Baton Rouge (La.) Civic
Orchestra

Boston Symphony

Boulder (Colo.) Symphony

Charlotte (N.C.) Symphony
Chicago Symphony
Cincinnati Symphony
Cleveland Orchestra
Dallas Symphony

Detroit Symphony

Eastern Connecticut Symphony
Evansville Philharmonic
Flint Symphony

Green Bay (Wis.) Symphony
Hartford Symphony
Indianapolis Symphony
Kalamazoo Symphony
Lansing Symphony
Louisville Orchestra
Minneapolis Symphony

New York Philharmonic
Philadelphia Orchestra
Phoenix Symphony
Pittsburgh Symphony
Program Note Service, N.Y.
Rochester Philharmonic
San Diego Symphony

San Francisco Symphony
Seattle Symphony

South Bend Symphony
Spokane Symphony

Syracuse Symphony

Tucson Symphony

Witchita Falls (Tex.)
Wilmington (Del.) Symphony

Michael J.

Annotators Questioned

Russell F. Locke
Joseph Fischer

John Schneider
Dorothy R. Stoddard

F. Crawford Page
Andrew Raeburn
David Burge
George A. Stegner
Arrand Parsons
Joseph Sagmaster
Klaus George Roy
Dorothea Kelley
Robert Holmes
Charles Frink
Giarratano
Werner L. Graf

Jack W. Rudolph
Henry P. Bakewell
Henry F. Butler
William Burke
Arnold Perris
Robert H. McMahan
Mary Ann J. Feldman
Edward Downes

John G. Briggs, Jr.
Monica Agnew
Frederick Dorian
Paul Affelder

Ruth Watanabe

Vere Wolf

Jonathon Kramer

Jo Ann Patterson
Charles Biondo
Algis Grinius

Henry Fogel
Geraldine Saltzberg
Owanah Anderson
Mrs. Alex Pashallis

\OCDQO'NU‘IDLAJNH

F‘H
Fee
0 O

12.

26.
27.
28.
29.

316

II-C. Managers Questioned

Asheville Symphony Helen Sorton
Augusta (Ga.) Symphony Dorothy Stoddard
Baltimore Symphony Oleg Lobanov
Birmingham (Ala.) Symphony Hal T. Heath
Boston Symphony Thomas D. Perry, Jr.
Charlotte (N.C.) Symphony Allen B. Lambdin
Cincinnati Symphony Lloyd H. Haldeman
Detroit Symphony Howard Harrington
Duluth Symphony A. H. Miller
Eastern Connecticut Symphony Mrs. Charles Frink
Evansville (Ind.) Philharmonic Carlos Wilson
Flint Symphony Werner L. Graf
Green Bay Symphony Cyril Kronschnabel
Houston Symphony Tom M. Johnson
Indianapolis Symphony Hubert N. Scott
Kalamazoo Symphony Clark den Bleyker
Los Angeles Philharmonic Jaye Rubanoff
Louisville Orchestra Richard Wangerin
New York Philharmonic Kenneth Haas (Ass't)
Philadelphia Orchestra Joseph Santarlasci (Ass't)
Phoenix Symphony Jo Hitchcock (Ass't)
Pittsburgh Symphony Stephen Sell (Ass't)
Rochester Philharmonic Nat Greenberg
Saginaw Symphony Roland Crane
San Diego Symphony William L. Denton
San Francisco Symphony Joseph A. Scafidi
Seattle Symphony Alan Watrous
Spokane Symphony James Emde

Symphony of the Valley (Va.) Helen M. Thompson

317

II-D. Orchestras Cooperating
in Audience Survey

Class A:

Class

Class

Class

Indianapolis Symphony, Hubert N. Scott, Manager
Seattle Symphony, Lanham Deal, Audience Relations

B:

Louisville Orchestra, Richard Wangerin, Manager
Phoenix Symphony, Jo Hitchcock, Program Editor
Syracuse Symphony, Benson E. Snyder, Manager

C:

Albany Symphony, Edward LaCroix, Manager
Evansville Philharmonic, Carlos Wilson, Manager
Green Bay Symphony, Cyril Kronschnabel, Manager

D:

Asheville Symphony, Helen B. Sorton, Manager

Eastern Connecticut Symphony, Mrs. Charles Frink,
Manager

South Bend Symphony, Mrs. B. D. Cullity, Manager

1.

7.

10.

ll.

III-Ac

318

Tabulation of Annotators' Questionnaire

Qualifications:
Musicologists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Practicing musicians
Critics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Amateurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contract?
On contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Full time employees . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chief Function of Program Notes:
To inform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
To create receptivity of the music . . . .
To enhance enjoyment . . . . . . . . . . .
To inform and to enhance enjoyment . . . .
To inform and to create receptivity . . .
Evidence that Notes Are Read and Appreciated:
Word of mouth or written comment . . . . .
Systematically Sought Evidence?
Unsolicited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Formal Analysis One of Your Principal Duties?

Yes 0 O I O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

NO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

sometimes 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O
undeCided O O I O O O O O O O G O O O O I 0

Kinds of Information Considered Essential:

Basic facts and background . . . . . . . .

"Something for everyone" . . . . . . . . .

"The essence of the music" . . . . . . . .

"Something extra" . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Former Notes Reused?

Yes I O O O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O

NO 0 C O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Perhaps, but altered . . . . . . . . . . .
Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Managements'Restrictions:
None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No musical examples . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportional to the importance of
piece of music . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Opinion about Subjectivity:
Opposed in principle . . . . . . . . . . .
Approve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Comments:
Author's argument for his rationale . . . .
Notes should meet the needs of the specific
audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Objection to analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
Approval of this project . . . . . . . . .
Total responding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

meOWU'I

36

36

N
t-‘O‘l-‘U'l

\lkDQNm

l
1

moon

3

18

\meQN

319

III-B. Tabulation of Managers' Questionnaire

Why Program Notes Are Desirable:

Audience demand . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To create receptivity to the msuic . . . .

To inform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

To enhance enjoyment . . . . . . . . . . .

To inform and to enhance enjoyment . . . .
Programs Include Annotation?

Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Usually . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Copyright?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Annotation Limited by Budget?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restrictions on the Annotator:

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Advance Distribution of Programs?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

No I O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O I O O

Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Why Not Advanced Distribution:
Too costly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impractical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Not worthwhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knowledge of Audience Composition?
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How Known:
General acquaintance or address . . . . .
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments:
Notes should be entertaining and brief . .
"Our notes seldom academic, sometimes
Controversial, always interesting" . .
"Should be ample space; however, notes
Should be terse." . . . . . . . . . . .
"Notes are valuable to about 10% of

the audience." . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Notes should be informative, enter-

taining and fairly brief." . . . . . .
"Readers want widely differing types

of notes." . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Notes should be entertaining, but
not too technical." . . . . . . . . . .

Total responding . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
women 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O

F‘ Id H

I—J

III-C.

320

advertisements on the same page?

1. Do you print texts of vocal works?
2.
programs?
3.
4. Does your audience receive programs
of concert dates?
#1
YES NO
Indianapolis x
Seattle X**
Louisville X
Phoenix X
Syracuse X
Albany X
Evansville X
Green Bay X
Asheville x
Eastern Connecticut X
South Bend X

 

RESPONSES
#2
YES NO

X
X
X
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X

 

 

#3
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

*Only when vocal texts are printed.

**Available separately.

 

Additional Questioned Asked of Managers

Cooperating in the Audience Survey

Do you offer enough light for reading during

Do you normally intermingle program notes and

in advance

#4
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

 

321

IV-A. First Questionnaire to Panel

Following is a list of musical terms that ap-
peared in a recent major symphony program. Please
check those that you feel should NOT have been used:

Allegro di molto
Adagio, ma semplicemente
Allegretto
Andante

Allegro grazioso
Allegro ma non troppo
Andante moderato
Allegro giocoso
PP

ff

Tutti

Fermata

Dolce

Poco espressivo
Recitative
Scherzo
Exposition
DevelOpment
Episodes

Coda

Rondo

Dominant

Tonic
Counterpoint
Modal

Tonality
Phrygian church mode
Six—four chord
Fifth notes
Canonic

Ostinato

31:
0
€
8
01
:1
t<
“E
'U
D"
O
:3
t<1
O
O
:3
O
(D
H
('1'
U)
D;
O
"<
0
£1
0)
('l'
rt
(D
:5
DJ

per year?

What is the extent of your formal education?

 

What musical experience and training have you had?

 

 

You may use the other side of this sheet to state what
you like to find in a symphony program annotation.

322

IV-B. Second Questionnaire to Panel

' ' from a
Here is another set of mu51cal terms
major symphony program. Please mark any of these that,
in your Opinion, should not have been used:

concertante concerto grosso
basso continuo partita

suite allemande
courrante sarabande
fugato clarino

grave allegro

gavotte bouree .
Vivace polyphonic
toccata cantilena
capriccio

' ' found in
FollOWin are samples of various type faces
symphonygprograms. Please mark any of these that you
consider too small (i.e., so small that reading is
discouraged).

This past May a. jury I°Oiiiposml of some of the most famous
names in iiiusii- iiwai-dI-d young: )11’. Zuckei‘iiiiin (and lxyung-
Whit (lining; from Korea) tho 25th annual lieventi'itt. Award,
(toiisidvi-ml one of the. most. prestigiiiius cmnpotitions m the
world... ,_ ,

When Kodaly died on March 7 of this year at the age of 84, just three weeks
after receiving the gold medal of Britain’s Royal Philharmonic Society, the last of
countless honors bestowed upon him, he left an imprint on music and music educa-
tion equalled by few in our century. Following are the closing paragraphs in an
article by Professor Alexander Ringer of the University of Illinois, which appeared
in the July 1, 1965, issue of the Saturday Review. Professor Ringer’s words are a
fitting tribute to the great man. -

‘ .

This Concerto No. 2, which is the best known work of Rachmaninoff (with possible
exception of the Prelude in C sharp minor), came out of O c.ir;ously sterile period in the
COIH‘L‘OSC‘T'S life and was conceived in Ci environment of artistic pessimism which however
tanSie-nt was in Violent vogue among ortsts and musicians living in lvfoscow at the end
of the century.

Rachmaninoff has recorded in his memoirs a picture of this depressing foci, and of his
own reaction to it which took the form of an intense apathy. This became so strong that the
COYYIIDOSCI‘ found himself unable to continue to write, a situation possibly intensified by the
fact that his First Symphony had been an abysmal failure at its premiere in St. Petersburg
shortly before this. ficrchmaninoff's friends become so alarmed by his lethargy that they
inSisted he Visit the clinic of Dr. N. Dahl, a pioneer in the field of autosuggestion. The friends,

’ \\'hen the symphony was last performed at these Concerts more than fourteen years ago. George H. 1..
Smith had this interesting ohwrvation in his notes: “A writer in thi- .‘llusu'al Times of May l. 190*:
was able to demonstrate that the famous chord was no more than an :Iftcrtliouirlit. explaining that he
had had access to the ‘original autograph'. which was then in the collection of Felix Moscheles. He
reproduced the first page of the Andante in facsimile with his article. showing nothing but a repeat sign
at the end of the first eight measures, which are marked 'pi'mio'. A large X is drawn across the page.
The printed SCUI'C shows this rcpt-at as written out in lighter scoring, with the indication ‘pp'. The
Cclclnatcd ff chord follows, soured for full orchestra.u

323

V-A. THE SOUTH BEND RESPONSE

 

 

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

column)
1) always? 86% lb. 1) partially? 32%
2) sometimes 14% 2) totally? 68%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 81%
2) while the music is being played? 17%
3) after the music is played? 2%
Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? [Not applicable] YES 46%; NO 54%
Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 26%; NO 74%
Would simple musical examples be

helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 44%; NO 56%
Are you disturbed by the position-

ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? [Not applicable] YES 35%; NO 65%
Do you save your programs for

future reference? YES 50%; NO 50%
Do OUR program notes help you to

understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%
Do you find them: (Check one in each column ifgyou

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 11% 1) too brief? 20%
2) too lightweight? 8% ’2) too long? 4%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 82%; NO 18%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 79%; NO 21%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 45%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 34%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 12%
4) A music student. 9%
Are you a college graduate? ‘YES 55%; NO 45%
If you have any comment to make on the program

notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--

please check here and write on the back of

this sheet. 16%

 

324

V-B. THE EASTERN CONNECTICUT RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lo.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always 87% lb. 1) partially? 35%
2) sometimes? 13% 2) totally? 65%
3) never? (only 1)
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played 81%
2) while the music is being played 12%
3) after the msuic is played? 7%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 59%; NO 41%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 26%; NO 74%
Would simple musical examples be

helpful? (Single staff notation) YES 40%; NO 60%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 14%; NO 86%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 58%; NO 42%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

 

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 6% 1) too brief? 16%
2) too lightweight 5% 2) too long? 10%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 86%; NO 14%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 61%; NO 39%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal mu51c study. 59%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 27%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 4%
4) A music student. 10%
Are you a college graduate? YES 49%; NO 51%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes-~praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 12%

 

325

V-C. THE ASHEVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) a ways? 88% lb. 1) partially? 36
2) sometimes? 12% 2) totally? 64
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 90%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? YES 33%;
Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 20%;

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 33%:

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 17%;

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 39%;

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%;

%
%

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

67%

80%

67%

83%

61%

6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if_you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 5% 1) too brief?
2) too lightweight? ll% 2) too long?
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 84%; NO
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 67%; NO

Which of these applies to you? (One onl )

l) A music lover with no formal mu51c study.
2) An amateur musician with some formal study.
3) A professional musician or music teacher.
4) A music student.

Are you a college graduate? YES 69%;

NO

If you have any comment to make on the program

notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet.

22%
2%

16%

33%

53%
30%
9%
8%

31%

13%

 

326

V-D. THE GREEN BAY RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 92% lb. 1) partially? 18%
2) sometimes? 8% 2) totally? 82%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 92%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal

works? [Not applicable] YES ; NO
Would you like more reading light

during the concerts? YES 36%; NO 64%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 35%; NO 65%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES ; NO

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 64%; NO 36%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 11%
2) too lightweight? 11% 2) too long? 2%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 89%; NO 11%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 73%; NO 27%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal music study. 45%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 40%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 7%
Are you a college graduate? YES 47%; NO 53%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes-—praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 11%

 

327

V-E. THE EVANSVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 82% lb. 1) partially? 41%
2) sometimes? 17% 2) totally? 59%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 11%
3) after the music is played? 5%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 51%; NO 49%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 26%; NO 74%
Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 41%; NO 59%
Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? YES 10%; NO 90%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 50%; NO 50%
Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 7% 1) too brief?
2) too lightweight? 5% 2) too long?
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 87%; NO
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO

Which of these applies to you? (One onl )

l) A music lover with no formal muSic study.
2) An amateur musician with some formal study.
3) A professional musician or music teacher.
4) A music student.

Are you a college graduate? YES 52%; NO

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praisemcriticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet.

12%
5%

13%

10%

47%
33%
10%
10%

48%

14%

 

328

V-F. THE ALBANY RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 83% 1b. 1) partially? 46%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 54?
3) never? 2%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 85%
2) while the music is being played? 4%
3) after the music is played? 11%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? ' YES 32%; NO 68%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 41%; NO 59%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 10%; NO 90%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 48%; NO 52%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 99%; NO 1%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 10% 1) too brief? 10%
2) too lightweight? 8% 2) too long? 7%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 90%; NO 10%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 86%; NO 14%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal mu31c study. 54%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 33%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 9%
4) A music student. 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 71%; NO 29%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 14%

 

329

V-G. THE SYRACUSE RESPONSE

 

1a.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 82% lb. 1) partially? 47%
2) sometimes? 18% 2) totally? 53%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 12%
3) after the music is played? 4%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 50%; NO 50%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 46%; NO 54%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 9%; NO 91%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 49%; NO 51%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 11%
2) too lightweight? 10% 2) too long? 5%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 85%; NO 15%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 91%; NO 9%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal mus1c study. 54%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 34%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 75%; NO 25%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 15%

 

330

V-H. THE PHOENIX MONDAY AUDIENCE RESPONSE

 

 

1a.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 87% lb. 1) partially? 42%
2) sometimes? 13% 2) totally? 58%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 90%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the music is played? 1%

Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 40%; NO 60%

Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 25%; NO 75%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 40%; NO 60%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? YES 5%; NO 95%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 56%; NO 44%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 97%; NO 3%

 

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 4% 1) too brief? 7%
2) too lightweight? 6% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 94%; NO 6%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal mu31c study. 60%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 30%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 5%
4) A music student. 5%
Are you a college graduate? YES 62%; NO 38%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 17%

 

331

V-I. THE PHOENIX TUESDAY AUDIENCE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each

 

 

column)
1) always? 89% lb. 1) partially? 45%
2) sometimes? 19% 2) totally? 55%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)‘
1) before the music is played? 84%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 9%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 49%; NO 51%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 45%; NO 55%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 12%; NO 88%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 69%; NO 31%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 96%; NO 4%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
I) too complex or technical? 5-1/2% 1) too brief? 10%
2) too lightweight? 6% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 90%; NO 10%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One only)
1) A music lover with no formal mu51c study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 31%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 10%
4) A music student. 8%
Are you a college graduate? YES 53%; NO 47%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes-~praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 15%

 

332

V-J. THE LOUISVILLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lo.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 72% lb. 1) partially? 54%
2) sometimes? 28% 2) totally? 46%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 86%
2) while the music is being played? 7%
3) after the music is played? 7%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 28%; NO 72%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 27%; NO 73%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? [Not applicable] YES 8%; NO 92%

Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 53%; NO 47%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 13% 1) too brief? 9%
2) too lightweight? 9% 2) too long? 9%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 85%; NO 15%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 92%; NO 8%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal mu31c study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 33%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 7%
4) A music student. 9%
Are you a college graduate? YES 68%; NO 32%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back Of
this sheet. 17%

 

333

V-K. THE SEATTLE RESPONSE

 

 

la.

lc.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) a ways? 85% 1b. 1) partially? 32%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 68%
3) never? 0%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 96%
2) while the music is being played? 3%
3) after the music is played? 1%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 44%; NO 56%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 32%; NO 68%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 10%; NO 90%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 52%; NO 48%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 94%; NO 6%

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

 

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 7% 1) too brief? 12%
2) too lightweight? 13% 2) too long? 6%
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 82%; NO 18%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 95%; NO 5%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
l) A music lover with no formal mus1c study. 48%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 40%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student 4%
Are you a college graduate? YES 72%; NO 28%.

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 30%

 

334

V-L. THE INDIANAPOLIS RESPONSE

 

 

1a.

1c.

10.

ll.

12.
13.

 

 

Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) a ways? 84% lb. 1) partially? 33%
2) sometimes? 15% 2) totally? 67%
3) never? 1%
Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 88%
2) while the music is being played? 8%
3) after the music is played? 4%
Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 56%; NO 44%
Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 36%; NO 64%

Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 48%; NO 52%

Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the

program notes? YES 23%; NO 77%
Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 64%; NO 36%

Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 97%; NO 3%

 

Do you find them: (Check one in each column if you

desire)
1) too complex or technical? 1% 1) too brief? 19%
2) too lightweight? 9% 2) too long? (1)
Do you find them comprehensive

enough? YES 80%; NO 20%
Do you attend five or more symphony

concerts per year? YES 90%; NO 10%
Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal muSic study. 42%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 39%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 9%
4) A music student. 10%
Are you a college graduate? YES 66%; NO 34%

If you have any comment to make on the program
notes--praise, criticism or suggestion-- ’
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 23%

 

335

 

 

V-M. AUDIENCE QUESTIONS AND AVERAGE PERCENTAGES
1a. Do you read the program notes: (Check one in each
column)
1) always? 84.0% 1b. 1) partially 38%
2) sometimes? 15.5% 2) totally? 62%
3) never? .5%
1c. Do you read them: (Check only one)
1) before the music is played? 87%
2) while the music is being played? 9%
3) after the msuic is played? 4%
2. Do you follow the texts of vocal
works? YES 41%; NO 59%
3. Would you like more reading light
during the concerts? YES 30%; NO 70%
4. Would simple musical examples be
helpful?(Single staff notation) YES 42%; NO 58%
5. Are you disturbed by the position-
ing of advertisements amid the
program notes? YES 12%; NO 88%
6. Do you save your programs for
future reference? YES 54%; NO 46%
7. Do OUR program notes help you to
understand and enjoy the music? YES 95%; NO 5%
8. Do you find them: (Check one in each column in you
desire)
1) too complex or technical? 6.4% 1) too brief? 13.0%
2) too lightweight? 8.4% 2) too long?
9. Do you find them comprehensive
enough? YES 86%; NO 14%
10. Do you attend five or more symphony
concerts per year? YES 84%; NO 16%
11. Which of these applies to you? (One onl )
1) A music lover with no formal musxc study. 51%
2) An amateur musician with some formal study. 34%
3) A professional musician or music teacher. 8%
4) A music student. 7%
12. Are you a college graduate? YES 62%; NO 38%
13. If you have any comment to make on the program

 

 

 

notes--praise, criticism or suggestion--
please check here and write on the back of
this sheet. 16%

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abraham, Gerald. A Hundred Years of Music. 2nd ed.;
New York: Putnam, 1954.

 

Bagar, Robert and Biancolli, Louis. The Concert Comb
panion. New York: Whittlesey House, 1947.

 

Baumol, William J. and Bowen, William G. Performing
Arts: The Economic Dilemma. New York: Twen-
tieth Century Fund, 1966.

Berlioz, Hector. Transl. Edwin Evans. A Critigal
Study of Beethoven's Nine Symphonies. London:'
William Reeves.

 

, Beethoven. Paris: Editions Correa, 1941.

Biancolli, Louis. The Analytical Concert Guide.
Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, Doran and Co.,
1951.

 

Browne, P. A. Brahms: The Symphonies. The'Musical
Pilgrim Series; London: Oxford University
Press, 1933.

Burk, John N. (ed.) Philip Hale's Boston Symphony
Programme Notes. Garden City, N. Y.: Double-
day, Doran and Co., 1935.

 

 

Burns, S. T. Music Programs for Non-Music Majors in
State Universities. Madison: School of Music,
College of Letters and Sciences, The University
of Wisconsin, 1967.

 

Creuzberg, Eberhard. Die Gewandhausbxonzerte zu Leip-
zi 1781-1931. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel,
I931

 

Dent, Edward J. Terpander, or Music and the Future.
New York: E. P. Dutton Co., 1927.

336

337

Eliot, T. S. On Poetry and Poets. London: Faber and
Faber, 1957.

 

Elkin, Robert. The Stories Behind Music. London: Rider
and Co., 1949.

 

Engel, Gabriel. The Symphonies of Anton Bruckner. Iowa
City, Iowa: Athens Press. © The Bruckner
Society of America, 1955.

 

Evans, Edwin. Beethoven's Nine Symphonies Fully Described
and Analyzed. 2 vols.; London: William Reeves,
1923.

 

Faller, Max. Johann Friedrich Reichardt und die Anfange
der Musikalischen Journalistik.' Kassel: Im
Barenreiter, 1929.

 

Ferguson, Donald. Masterworks of the Orchestral Repetoire.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

Frankenstein, Alfred. A Modern Guide to Symphonic Music.
New York: Meredith Press, 1966.

Gilman, Lawrence. ed. Edward Cushing. Orchestral Music:
An Armchair Guide. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1951.

 

. Stories of Symphonic Music. Garden City New
York: Garden City Publishing Co., Inc., 1937.

 

Grove, George. Beethoven and His Nine Symphonies. New
' York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1962.

Hanslick, Edouard. Geschichte des Concertwesens in Wien.
Vienna: Wilhelm Graumfiller, 1869.

Hogarth, George. The Philharmonic Society of London.
London: Bradbury and Evans, and Addison, Hollier
and Lucas, 1862.

Howe, M. A. DeWolfe. The Boston Symphony Orchestra.
Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1914.

Kralik, Heinrich. Das Grosse Orchester-—Die Weiner Phil-
harmoniken und Ihre Dirigenten. Vienna: Wilhelm
Frich, 1952.

 

Kretschmar, Hermann. Ffihrer durch den Concertsaal. 3
vols.; Leipzig: BreitkOpf und Hartel, 1898.

 

338

Levien, John Newburn. Beethoven and the Royal Philhar-
monic Society. London: Novello and Co., Ltd.,
i927.

 

 

Moore, Earl V. and Heger, Theodore. The Symphony. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Bros., Inc., 1949.

 

Mueller, John Henry. The American Symphony Orchestra.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press,
1951.

 

Niemann, Walter. Transl. Catherine Alison Phillips;
Brahms. New York: A. A. KnOpf, 1930.

Otis, Philo Adams. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
Chicago: Clayton F. Summy Co., 1925.

 

Peyser, Herbert and Biancolli, Louis. Masters of the
Orchestra from Bach to Prokofieff. New York:
Putnam, 1954.

 

 

Rockefeller Panel Report. The Performing Arts: Problems
and Prospects. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

 

 

Schletterer, H. M. Johann Friedrich Reichardt. Augsburg:
J. A. Schlosser's Buch= und Kunsthandlung, 1865.

 

Scholes, Percy. Crotchets. London: John Lane the Bodley
Head, Ltd., 1924.

 

. The Mirror of Music. Vol. I; London: Oxford
University Press, 1947.

 

. The Oxford Companion to Music. London: Oxford
University Press, 1955.

 

Seaman, Julian (ed.). Great Orchestral Music. New York:
Rinehart and Co., Inc., 1950.

 

Shore, Bernard. Sixteen Symphonies. London: Readers
Union, 1950.

 

Slonimsky, Nicolas. A Lexicon of Musical Invective.
2nd. ed.; New York: Coleman-Ross, 1965.

Spaeth, Sigmund. Great Symphonies. Garden City, N.Y.:
Garden City Publishing Co., 1936.

 

. A Guide to Great Orchestral Music. The Modern
Library; New York: Random House, 1943.

 

339

Thomas, Rose. Memoirs of Theodore Thomas. New York:
Moffat, Yard and Co., 1911.

 

Thomas, Theodore and Stock, Frederick. Ed. by Rose
Thomas. Talks about Beethoven's Symphonies.
Boston: Oliver Ditson Co., 1930.

 

Toffler, Alvin. The Culture Consumers. New York: St.
Martin's Press, 1964.

 

Tovey, Donald Francis. Beethoven. London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1945.

 

. Essays in Music Analysis. 6 vols.; London:
Oxford University Press, 1935, Vols. I-III.

 

Ulrich, Homer. The Education of a Concert-Goer. New
York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1949.

 

. Music: A Design for Living.' New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Inc., 1957.

 

. Symphonic Music. New York: Columbia Univer—
sity Press, 1952.

 

Upton, George P. The Standard Concert Guide. Chicago:
A. C. McClurg and Co., 1924.

 

Reference Books

Appel, Willi. The Harvard Dictionapy of Music. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1964.

 

The ASCAP Biographical Dictionary. Compiled and edited
by the Lynn Farnol Group, Inc. New York:
American Society of Composers, Authors and Pub-
lishers, 1966.

 

Champlin, John Denison, Jr. (ed.). Cyclopedia of Music
and Musicians. New York: Chas. Scribner‘s Sons,
1890, Vol. III.

 

 

Eitner, Robert. gpellen-Lexikon der Musiker. Graz:
Akademische Druck, 1959—60.

 

Grove, George. Ed. A. Fuller—Maitland. Dictionapy of
Music and Musicians. 6 vols.; 2nd edition; London:
Macmillan, 1911-20.

Ed. H. C. Colles. 5 vols. plus two supplements;
3rd edition; London and New York: Macmillan,1935-40.
Ed. Eric Blom. 10 vols. plus supplement; 5th edi-
tion; London: Macmillan, 1954-61.

 

 

340

Mize, J. T. H. (ed.). Who Is Who in Music. Chicago:
Who Is Who is Music, Inc., Ltd., 1951.

 

Slonimsky, Nicolas (ed.). Baker's Biographical Dictionary.
5th edition; New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1958.

 

Thomson, Oscar. Ed. Robert Sabin. International gyclo-
pedia of Music and Musicians. 9th edition; New
York: Dodd, Mean, 1964.

 

 

Periodicals

American Symphony Orchestra League. Newsletter, January,
1960.

 

Curtis, Thomas A. Article in Wall Street Journal.

 

High Fidelity-n-Musical America. Special Directory Issue,
v. 12, no. 13 (December, 1966).

 

Howes, Frank. "Programme Notes," The Musical Times,
v. 71, p. 305 (April 1, 1930). London: Novello
and Co., Ltd.

 

Lyons, James. Article in The American Record Guide,
v. 30, no. 5 (January, 1964).

 

Podis, Eunice. "Words and Music," Cleveland Institute of
Music Notes, v. 5, no. 2 (June, 1967).

 

 

Ravell, John. "John Ella, 1802-1888," Music and Letters,
v. xxxiv, no. 2 (April, 1953).

 

Rigg, M. G. "Favorable vs. Unfavorable PrOpaganda in
the Enjoyment of Music," Journal of Experimental
Psychology, v. 38, 1948.

 

 

Steinburg, Michael. Article on John Burk in the Boston
GlObe' OCto 2, 1966' p. 18—Ao

Taylor, Robert. Article in the Boston Herald, Feb. 15,
1959, Section III.

 

Williams, Geneva D. "The Effect of Order of Appearance on
the Appreciation of Musical Selections," Journal
of General Psychology, v. 28, 1942.

 

. "The Effect of Program Notes on the Enjoyment
of Musical Selections," Journal of General Psychol-
ogy, v. 29, 1943.

 

341

Interviews

Affelder, Paul. Program Note Service, New York, October,
1967.

Briggs, John. Annotator, Philadelphia Orchestra, October,
1967.

Dorian, Frederick. Annotator, Pittsburgh Symphony Orches-
tra, October, 1967.

Downes, Edward. Annotator, New York Philharmonic-Symphony,
October, 1967.

Graf, Werner. Manager, Flint Symphony Orchestra, November,
1967.

Haas, Kenneth. Assistant Manager, New York Philharmonic-
Symphony, October, 1967.

Holmes, Robert. Annotator, Detroit Symphony Orchestra,
May, 1967.

Jone, Gomer L1. Music Department, Michigan State Univer-
sity, May, 1967.

Myers, Kurtz. Music Librarian, Detroit Public Library,
October, 1967.

Nelson, Boris, President, International Music Critics'
Association, August, 1967.

Parsons, Arrand. Annotator, Chicago Symphony Orchestra,
November, 1967.

Ferris, Arnold. Annotator, Lansing Symphony Orchestra,
January, 1968.

Raeburn, Andrew. Program Book Editor, Boston Symphony
Orchestra, August, 1967.

Roy, Klaus George. Program Editor, Cleveland Orchestra,
May, 1967.

Sell, Stephen. Assistant Manager, Pittsburgh Symphony
Orchestra, May, 1967.

Tata, Romeo. Former Conductor, Lansing Symphony Orches-
tra, January, 1968.

342
Letters

Agnew, Monica M. Annotator, Phoenix Symphony Orchestra.
Apel, Willi. Musicologist, University of Indiana.

Bakewell, Henry P. Annotator, Hartford Symphony Orches-
tra.

Burke, William. Annotator, Kalamazoo Symphony Orchestra.

Dorian, Frederick. Annotator, Pittsburgh Symphony Orches-
tra.

Downes, Edward. Annotator, New York Philharmonic-Symphony.

Feldman, Mary Ann. Annotator, Minneapolis Symphony Or-
chestra.

Emde, John. Manager, Spokane Symphony Orchestra.

Haldeman, Lloyd H. Manager, Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra.
Lobanov, Oleg. Manager, Baltimore Symphony Orchestra.
Patterson, Jo Ann. Annotator, Seattle Symphony Orchestra.
Roy, Klaus George. Program Editor, Cleveland Orchestra.

Saltzberg, Geraldine. Annotator, Tucson Symphony Orches-
tra.

Thompson, Helen M. Executive Vice-President, American
Symphony Orchestra League.

Traficante, Frank. Reference Librarian, Library of Congress.
Miscellaneous

Boston Symphony Orchestra Programs, 1888/89 - 1966/67-
Selections.

Chicago Symphony Orchestra Programs, 1896/97 - 1966/67.
Selections.

Cleveland Orchestra Programs, 1949/50 — 1966/67. Selections.

Craft, Robert. Anton Webern. Pamphlet in Columbia record
jacket K4L-232.

 

343

Detroit Symphony Orchestra Programs, 1914/15 - 1966/67.
Selections.

New York Philharmonic Programs, 1941/42 - 1966/67.
Selections.

Philadelphia Orchestra Programs, 1913/14 - 1966/67.
Selections.

lll'lr!!llbl I i- '

v' 11“!