CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ART SONG: John Alden Carpenter Charles Edward Ives Aaron Copland and Ned Rorem by Annette Whitney A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Honors Degree of Bachelor of Music. Department of Music University of Utah August - 1966 Approved: /___r —r* Principal Supervisor Head, Major Department /— _L Honors Add(vv.iser Director, ^Honors Program I (i) Preface Last winter as I thought over the prospect of writing a senior dissertation in conjunction with my senior recital, the subject of contem­ porary American art song seemed an interesting possibility. I assumed there would be little material on the subject and few composers, allowing complete coverage of the entire twentieth century, but upon beginning*my studies, I found so many composers and such diversified idealogies and techniques of composition that I decided to limit my studies to the four composers of most interest to me and perform one song from each of them as the concluding section of the recital. Interestingly enough, the four composers under consideration represent the entire century and its trends, with styles ranging from late Romanticism to atonality. From the first half of the century I chose John Alden Carpenter. His songs have long held a special place in the singer's repertoire be­ cause of the clarity of his musical ideas and the ease with which the performer can communicate them to an audience. On the other hand, I decided to investigate Charles Edward Ives because of the mystery which, even after half a century, continues to surround him. To most people he was merely a name in a music history class- a peculiar bearded New Englander who wrote some "interesting" songs. As I did my research I was intrigued by several things. Every article about the man was unusually enthusiastic. His musical career was extraordinary, and his songs ranged from banal "moon- tune-croon" songs to pieces of fantastic intricacy both rhythmically and harmonically. But the most intriguing thing of all was my difficulty in obtaining copies of his songs. A University of Utah graduate student had (ii) a first edition of Ives' 114 Songs which he held on to so avariciously that each time I approached him with that "I-need-to-study-the-songs" expression, he retreated like an injured puppy. In spite of the diffi­ culties and perhaps even because of them, I have become a sincere follower of Charles Ives and will probably sound somewhat devout as I write about him. This is a small warning to those who do not care for such writing and definitely not an apology, for as far as I am concerned, Ives and his songs deserve much more notice than they now receive. Aaron Copland is not as well known as a composer of art song as he is as a composer of instrumental works. One day, however, while browsing through a song collection in the library, I discovered his "As it Fell Upon a Day", written for clarinet, flute and soprano as long ago as 1923, when Copland was studying with Boulanger in Paris. It seemed a good addition to the projected recital and the idea of discover­ ing more about Copland's contribution to the form was irresistible. My final choice was Ned Rorem, chiefly because he was in his first year as Composer-in-Residence at the University of Utah and I felt I ought to know and perform some songs by the man who is described as the "greatest composer of art songs alive today." (iv) Table of Contents I Preface page i II Introduction page 1 III John Alden Carpenter page 10 (1876-1951) IV Charles Edward Ives page 19 (1874-1954) V Aaron Copland page 33 (1900 - ) VI Ned Rorem page 40 (1923 - ) VII Appendix a. Lists of Songs page 50 b. Bibliography page 58 XL -1- Introduction Before the songs of these four composers can properly be dis­ cussed and their musical ideas understood, there are a few things about the general trends of music composition in America and the American musical culture itself that ought to be understood. Before World War I • America imported her art from Europe. She sent her performing musicians as well as her composers there to learn the "correct skills," and they 5. . come home with European methods, sounds, and expressions. In Europe as well as in America, the idea of an American composer or an American musical expression was unthinkable. But after the first World War, the rest of the world began looking to America for leadership in world affairs, and it was only natural that Americans should begin to take pride in everything about themselves, including their music. The cry went up for "American composers," and a so-called "American style" is still in the process of maturation. As Aaron Copland has said, "We don't have musical maturity yet, but we do have a daredevil quality of youth.""*' By this he means that as the "American style" has been evolving, her composers have not been afraid to experiment in new methods of expression and in new sounds. A mature musical culture takes time to develop. In the first place music is usually the last of the arts to flower, probably because an elaborate "superstructure" must be built before any substantial develop­ ment can take place. This superstructure consists of music teachers, ‘''Aaron Copland, Our New Music; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. (N. Y.) 1941, p. 135. -2- performers, and schools; community organizations, symphony orchestras, opera companies, concert halls, opera houses, composers and audiences 2 . who listen to their composers' music. All of tnese things had been slowly developing up to World War I, but after the war things began to happen, and "the American composer" began to assert himself. The American public, however, did not wish to listen to the new sounds, so, in onfer to get performances of their works, composers began banding together in or­ ganizations such as the "International Composers Guild" (1922), the "League . . . 3 of Composers" (1924), the "American Music Guild," etc. Aaron Copland calls this era (1920-1930) the end of the "helpless period". With these efforts the idea of an American Composer finally began to emerge in the world, but now the problem was the audience. The American public was , interested in "masterworks" by bearded and dead composers and not these new works which were obviously inferior to Bach, Brahms and Beethoven. This is still the major problem in our American musical culture. People pay scant attention to anything but the "masterworks". They do not understand that "a composer does not have to be as good as or better than to be worth listening to, he only must contribute." 5 To much of the American public music is a "passionate avocation"; many people go to concerts for sheer love of music, rather than for any special prestige they might receive. There are more amateur concerts, 2Ibid, p. 131 3Ibid, pp. 138-9 4Ibid, p. 134 5 . Jacques Barzun, Music m American Life, Indiana University Press (Bloomington, 1956) p. 15. - 3 - - - more festivals, and a greater listening audience through radio, television^ and phonograph than anyone would have dreamed of fifty years ago. But the audience is sophisticated and tends to specialize. Some listen exclusively to jazz, some to popular "dreamy" music, some to "classical," and those who specialize in "serious" listening are themselves divided into camps. Some prefer the eighteenth century, some prefer the nineteenth century and some listen to twentieth century works. In spite of this diversity of preference, one idea stands out prominently. Music is anything but a uni­ versal language, because it expresses and reflects the times in which its composer lives. Logically, then, the music of an individual's time is the music which will be best understood by him. People of every century have always listened with interest to their "hew music" and expressed their like or dislike for it one way or another but the observation of Jacques Barzun^made only a decade ago, that the American audiences of today want to hear music remote from their workaday life, seems still to hold true. They dislike their own time, their work, and their industrial-democratic fellowman.® But, again quoting Aaron Copland, "we cannot know anything 7 about the past unless we know about the present." Unfortunately many listeners think music's future is its past and this causes their lack of curiosity with the present. However, understanding and knowing the music of our own time aids us in the understanding of the music of other periods. "To my mind no one can adequately interpret the classics of the past with- g out hearing them through the ears of the present." The quality and in- ^ Ibid, p. 23. . 7 Aaron Copland, Copland on Music, Doubleday S Company, Inc. (N. Y.) 1944, p. 43. . 8 Ibid, p. 264, tensity of emotional expression have changed, but the basic elements of music - form, melody, rhythm, and harmony- still remain, even though many people do not think sc. The thing people must understand is that all of this is relative to how advanced one's musical understanding is. "All chords are now judged alike, according to their appositeness to the situa- . . 9 tion in which they are placed." Today's music is principally the expression in terms of an enriched musical language of a new spirit of objectivity attun­ ed to our own times."'*'0 Nineteenth century music is the favorite of most of the American public because it has more warmth of humanity. Un­ fortunately, when they listen to other types of music, including twentieth century music, they seek this same emotional stimulus. If they would listen with their own twentieth century ears instead of those of their grandparents and put forth the effort necessary to comprehend today's more difficult music, they would find enjoyment in the new music and an even greater understanding of the music of the past. When Aaron Copland hears a difficult piece he sard, "I'm not getting this. I shall have to come back to it for a second or third try."'*’'*' Then, even if we do not like a piece, at least we understand why, having made the effort. As Charles Ives always said, we must stand up and use our ears like men. After all, the century is more than half over and if we continue listen­ ing only to the music of the past we will never be able to enter the next century adequately. Howard and Lyon?in their book Modern Music, have said 9 Ibid» P- 264' 10 Ibid, p. 5Cf . ^ Copland, Copland on Music, p. 45, -5- ^ well: ' For unless we listen to our new music, it will not exist. When music is not performed, it is merely a set of symbols on paper. None of us can tell who the Mozarts or the Beethovens of the future will be, but we must make sure that when they come, if they are not-hece already, they will have a chance to be heard. Having observed the basic situation of the American musical culture, we ought to look at the major technical trends in American music of this century. In a sense it is understandable that people still cling to the nineteenth century with such ardor, for the music of today is far more radical and breaks more sharply with tradition than the music of any other period has ever done. In order to understand this music we must understand the basic tenets of the composers' methods and how they differ from those of the past. The first word that occurs to people concerning the new music • 13 is "dissonance". Howard and Lyons call it the "salt and pepper of music." It is a relative term since the dissonances of one period have characteris­ tically become the consonances of the next. At one time even thirds and sixths were considered dissonances. Today, modernists use dissonances alone. Harsh dissonances "resolve" only to those less harsh. It must be noted, however, that through constant repetition even the dissonances of Stravinsky's Firebird, once considered "biting", seem mild compared to some of the sound combinations in Schoenberg and other atonal composers. Impressionism ought to be defined in order to understand the works of John Alden Carpenter, who used many of its techniques, and Charles Ives, who was in some ways sympathetic to it. The musical > 12 . John T. Howard and James Lyons; Modern Music^ The New American Library of World Literature Inc. (N. Y., 1942), p. 16. 13 Ibid, p. 27- 6 - - impressionistic style was developed by Debussy as a reaction against realism. It pqints in musical terms the "impression" or mental image an object has made upon the composer. It deals in shadows and pale shimmering colors, and uses, among other things, parallel motion (all tones in a chord moving in the same direction) seventh and ninth chords, the whole-tone scale, ... 14 dissonance for sensuous effect, and freedom and flexibility of rhythi*. Atonality must be defined, because Ives used it often. It is probably the most difficult of all modern systems to understand, because it breaks so sharply with all previous listening habits. Each of the twelve half steps contained in an octave is treated as an independent tonal center and has a separate relationship to each of the eleven other tones. There are no long or extended sections in the music; it is, rather, very condensed. The system also avoids consonant combinations and rigidly insists on dissonant chords, arguing that pleasant sounds are objectionable, because they have not the strength to stand alone as well as dissonances can. All tones of the twelve-tone "row" must be sounded before any of them is heard for a second time. The music is then developed from the . . 15 initial arrangement of the row in the manner of a variation form. There is no key signature. Of this system Aaron Copland wrote: Actually, it is rather difficult to foresee what the future has in store for most music written in the atonal idiom. Already it begins to sound surprisingly dated, hopelessly bound to the period of the twenties when it was first played extensively. No doubt we are badly placed to judge it at present. But admitting our lack of sufficient perspective for judging it fairly, one can even now see certain inherent weaknesses; for what­ ever reasons, atonal music resembles itself too much. It creates a certain monotony of effect that severely ^ Ibid jp. 50-55.