L’Age d’or of the Chamber Wind Ensemble
A document submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
in the Ensembles and Conducting Division of the College-Conservatory of Music 2013
by
Danielle D. Gaudry
BM, McGill University, 2000 BE, University of Toronto, 2001 MM, The Pennsylvania State University, 2009
Committee Chair: Terence Milligan, DMA
ABSTRACT
This document presents a narrative history of the chamber wind ensembles led by Paul
Taffanel, Georges Barrère and Georges Longy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Using different historical approaches, this study examines contemporaneous musical society and the chamber wind ensemble genre to explore the context and setting for the genesis of the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, the Société moderne des instruments à vents, the Longy Club and the Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments. A summary of each ensemble leader’s life and description of the activities of the ensemble, selected repertoire and press reactions towards their performances provide essential insights on each ensemble. In demonstrating their shared origins, ideologies, and similarities in programming philosophies, this document reveals why these chamber wind ensembles created a musical movement, a golden age or age d’or of wind chamber music, affecting the local music scene and continuing to hold influence on today’s performers of wind music.
""!! !
Copyright 2013, Danielle D. Gaudry
"""! ! ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to all those who have been a part of my journey, both in the completion of this document and over the course of this degree. Dr. Glenn
D. Price taught me valuable lessons during a time of transition in the CCM Wind Studies department. I thank Dr. bruce mcclung for his incredibly detailed and constructive feedback as a reader. Dr. Terence Milligan, my document advisor, generously provided support and guidance during my time at CCM. I would also like to thank Prof. Rodney Winther, whose passion for chamber music and continuous encouragement inspired me to pursue this topic. I am especially grateful to Dr. Ann Porter for her mentorship and for kindly offering her time and expertise when
I needed it most.
My family has always encouraged and supported my musical and academic endeavors; for this I remain grateful. In particular, my sister Lisa deserves acknowledgement for her excellent proofreading. I would like to express undying gratitude toward my husband Jordan and his extraordinary editorial help as the “fourth reader” of this document. Above all, I could not have written this document or achieved success in this degree without his endless optimism, indefatigable strength, unwavering love and his belief in me.
"#! ! ! CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iv
INTRODUCTION...... 3
Chapter
1. DEVELOPMENT OF CHAMBER WIND ENSEMBLES ...... 8 Etymology...... 8 Taxonomy ...... 11 Organology...... 12 Orchestration and Instrumentation...... 15 Social History...... 17
2. PARIS: THE BEGINNING ...... 19 Parisian Music of the 1870s ...... 19 Paul Taffanel ...... 23 Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents...... 25 Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents after Taffanel ...... 30 Georges Barrère ...... 31 Société moderne des instruments à vents...... 32
3. THE UNITED STATES ...... 36 The Boston Scene at the Turn of the Century...... 36 Georges Longy...... 39 The Longy Club ...... 40 The New York Scene in the Early 1900s...... 43 The Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments...... 45
4. IMPACT AND INFLUENCE...... 49 Lesser-Known Chamber Wind Ensembles ...... 49 Final Impressions on the Chamber Wind Ensembles ...... 50 Impact and Influence on Today’s Ensembles ...... 52
$!! ! CONCLUSION...... 55
APPENDIX...... 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 62
%!! ! INTRODUCTION
Embarrassed by France’s huge losses in the Franco-Prussian War, the dominance of
German concert music, and the insatiable thirst of its own public for grand operatic spectacles, the musical elite of France founded the Société nationale de musique in 1871 to elevate and reclaim France’s position in art music. Although successful in its promotion of French composers—Fauré, Franck, Massenet, and Saint-Saëns were in fact founding members—the
Société nationale’s goal of a new French aesthetic was complicated by these composers’ employment of instrumental models already ruled by the German masters. However, at least one unique venture emerged from this nationalist movement, unconcerned with bettering Germans at their own game. When flutist and entrepreneur Paul Taffanel created his Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, he aimed to highlight wind players and create a culture of serious wind music, a feat not yet accomplished in any European center.
The Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, founded by Taffanel in
1879, proved to be groundbreaking in its ideology and philosophy, and greatly affected the
Parisian chamber music scene. The programming and structure of this ensemble established a foundation for a musical movement, directly resulting in the creation of ensembles by Georges
Barrère and Georges Longy, and also influencing the development of wind ensembles in the twentieth century. Prior to Taffanel’s ensemble, no one had ever considered wind players as equals to string players in the world of chamber music. His efforts in developing a repertoire were substantial, resulting in numerous premieres. Subsequently, flutist Georges Barrère’s
Société moderne des instruments à vents, modelled after Taffanel’s group, embodied a younger, modern version of this new chamber wind aesthetic, taking up the mantle of promoting new and better music for wind players.
&!! ! Taffanel’s musical influence reached far beyond Paris. At the turn of the twentieth century in the United States, established orchestras such as those in Boston and New York began recruiting wind players from Paris, knowing that these Conservatoire-trained musicians would drastically improve the level of their ensemble. Oboist Georges Longy brought his experience with Taffanel’s group to Boston; the Longy Club, based on Taffanel’s ideals, allowed what began as a unique outlet for wind chamber music to become an influential historical development in that city. Subsequently, in New York, now-ex-patriot Georges Barrère recreated his Paris world with his Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments, bringing this musical movement well into the twentieth century.
Biographical monographs on Taffanel and Barrère provide some of the only scholarly information on their chamber ensembles; there is currently no literature linking all of these ensembles as part of a movement. In Taffanel: Genius of the Flute, Edward Blakeman devotes an entire chapter to the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, with emphasis on the factual, historical details of the first season, gleaned from the Papiers Paul Taffanel (family archives) in Paris.1 Nancy Toff’s Monarch of the Flute: The Life of Georges Barrère relates details of the Société moderne des instruments à vents and the Barrère Ensemble of Wind
Instruments, which she has collected through primary documents and interviews.2 David
Whitwell’s The Longy Club, currently the only resource dedicated entirely to one of these ensembles provides personnel lists, programs, and newspaper articles for each of the concerts ever performed by the Longy Club.3
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 ! Edward Blakeman, Taffanel: Genius of the Flute (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
2 Nancy Toff, Monarch of the Flute: The Life of Georges Barrère (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
3 David Whitwell, The Longy Club: 1900-1917, ed. Craig Dabelstein (Austin, TX: Whitwell Books, 2011).
'!! ! While Blakeman, Toff, and Whitwell provide invaluable sources, each author only deals with one ensemble; the information is therefore not synthesized into a cohesive historical narrative. Conversely, Frank Battisti’s Winds of Change, although not delving into the specifics of the ensembles above, provides a general historical overview of trends and similarities across eras in the wind field.4 Most importantly for this study, Battisti places these four chamber wind ensembles alongside the separate but important development of the professional band, both leading to the foundation of the modern wind ensemble at the Eastman School of Music in 1952.
In order to establish the chamber wind ensembles as part of an actual movement and describe a shared history, I employ a five-pronged approach to researching their origins: the etymology, taxonomy, organology, orchestration and instrumentation and the social history of the ensemble. I model my method on John Spitzer and Neal Zaslaw’s The Birth of the Orchestra, which provides a well-organized historical narrative of the symphony orchestra.5 Drawing parallels in instrumental music culture through the historical development of ensembles and genres allows for the origins of the chamber wind ensemble to be uncovered through an examination of the traits common to these chamber wind ensembles and their repertoire.
I explore the creation of the chamber wind ensembles chronologically as they were founded, starting with Taffanel’s ensemble in Paris. To discern the elements surrounding the genesis of each ensemble, I discuss the musical life of each city at the time of the founding of the ensemble. I assemble and present other applicable data surrounding the chamber ensembles, such as concert information, personnel lists, press reviews, and repertoire lists, all of which are
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 Frank L. Battisti, Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary American Wind Band/Ensemble and its Conductor (Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2002).
5 John Spitzer and Neal Zaslaw, Birth of the Orchestra: History of an Institution, 1650–1815 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004).
(!! ! essential to ascertaining relationships between the groups. To understand the contemporaneous impact of the ensembles, I aim to relate other similarly configured and lesser-known societies to the larger four. Finally, I compare current chamber wind ensembles with Taffanel’s original format and philosophy to gain a broader perspective on the importance and impact of this musical movement on today’s wind world.
The scope of this study encompasses the era of chamber wind ensembles from 1879 to
1932, beginning with Paul Taffanel’s Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents in
Paris, continuing with Georges Barrère’s Société moderne des instruments à vents and then
Georges Longy’s Longy Club in Boston, ending with Georges Barrère’s Barrère Ensemble of
Wind Instruments in New York. I examine the philosophy espoused by each ensemble leader regarding programming, and more specifically, the repertoire they performed with an instrumentation of seven or more wind players.
Taking advantage of a flexible, wind-centered instrumentation, the chamber wind ensembles lead by Taffanel, Barrère and Longy elevated the standard of wind playing by performing and encouraging the composition of repertoire specifically for winds. In particular, the music performed by these groups presents a unique body of literature, as these pieces were being written for then-unusual instrumental combinations, and for a performance context outside of amateur music-making.
Through their series of concerts spanning many years, the popularity garnered by each of these chamber wind ensembles in their respective geographical locations supports the assertion that they did not exist independently, but that they established a musical movement as a whole.
The format adopted by these ensembles and the repertoire they promoted provided the foundation of the wind chamber music genre, and possibly even the basis of the modern concept
)!! ! of the wind ensemble. For all the accomplishments of these ensembles in such a short time span, perhaps it is time to label this period as the golden age of chamber wind ensembles, or more appropriately l’age d’or.
*!! ! CHAPTER ONE
DEVELOPMENT OF CHAMBER WIND ENSEMBLES
To establish the chamber wind ensembles of Paul Taffanel, Georges Barrère and Georges
Longy as part of an actual movement and describe their shared history, I borrow John Spitzer and Neal Zaslaw’s five-pronged approach from The Birth of the Orchestra to conduct this research: the etymology, or history, of what is commonly known as chamber wind ensembles; the taxonomy, or classification, of common traits within different wind ensembles; the organology, the study of the development of instruments used in these wind ensembles; the orchestration and instrumentation composers have used in writing for wind ensembles; and the social history of the ensemble, or the interaction between players, composers, and audiences.1
This model will shed light on the origins of the chamber wind ensemble, connecting the founding of the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents in late-nineteenth-century Paris with the chamber wind ensembles that followed.
Etymology
Perhaps because Frederick Fennell only coined the term “wind ensemble” in 1952, no scholarly research exists either defining the term “chamber wind ensemble” or examining its development as part of a movement. In establishing the Eastman Wind Ensemble, Fennell recognized that the wind music of many eras, if played by a dedicated ensemble, could comprise a unified repertoire. No doubt Taffanel’s ensemble and his artistic legacy were links in the chain leading to Fennell’s ideology. For this reason, it is more advantageous to examine the name of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$ Spitzer and Zaslaw, 14.
+!! ! Taffanel’s ensemble, Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, and deconstruct the meaning behind it rather than attempting to anachronistically define “chamber wind ensemble,” a term that had not existed in Taffanel’s time. The title Taffanel gave to his ensemble can be broken down into three components: 1) société (society); 2) musique de chambre
(chamber music); 3) instruments à vents (wind instruments).
The label of “Société” sprang forth from the ideals of the French Revolution, where self- governance, community and equality were prized principles. Applying these to musical, academic or artistic societies instilled within them a sense of fraternity and collaboration, legitimizing their place in the French Republic, while connoting a higher artistic and moral purpose than any group of people creating art. Many other groups adopted this designation in the nineteenth century, such as the Société nationale de musique, the Société de géographie and the
Société des artistes français.
Musique de chambre or chamber music denotes music composed for a small instrumental ensemble of one player per part. According to Christina Bashford, the term implies intimate music written and played for its own sake.2 In the seventeenth century, musica di camera referred to music with a compositional style and function differing from church and theatre works, but as time progressed, the definition began to imply instrumental music intended for courtly or domestic surroundings. Only towards the end of the nineteenth century did “chamber music” signify instrumental ensemble music for small forces performed in private or public settings.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Oxford Music Online, s.v. “Chamber Music,” http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/05379?q=chamber+music&search=qui ck&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit (accessed February 20, 2013).
,!! ! The designation instruments à vents certainly delineated wind players from string players, since most players in Taffanel’s musical circle would have been orchestral musicians and particularly because “chamber music” usually implied string quartets during his time. Although the term “wind instruments” can literally apply to all woodwinds and brass, it had already been regularly used to represent the instruments of the woodwind quintet (flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, and French horn), and excluded brass instruments, as they were associated with the world of military bands.
The etymology described above does not hold up to Frederick Fennell’s version of wind ensemble, however. His group was not a society based on collaboration and equality, and it was not uniquely structured for small forces; it was comprised of woodwinds, brass and percussion.
Nevertheless, there are significant connections that must be made between the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents and the Eastman Wind Ensemble of 1952.
Differing from the standard concert band or military band of the era, Fennell distinguished his new ensemble by its flexible instrumentation of one player per part and repertoire of works primarily written for winds. Using the standard orchestra wind section as a baseline (3333-4331
T percussion),3 and adding saxophones, euphonium and string bass, a concert program might have employed anywhere from eight players for an octet to fifty-five players for a traditional concert band work. Lauding the potential of his new ensemble in 1954, Fennell wrote that “it is possible to perform, with but a few exceptions, all of the great music written for wind
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 ! Instrumentation in this abbreviated format lists the woodwinds in the first grouping from highest to lowest in range. Doubling instruments such as piccolo would be indicated in a bracket beside the number designating the related instrument. The second grouping deals with brass in the same manner, and any extra instruments such as percussion, harp or piano are added at the end. The standard orchestra wind section outlined above would then read as: three flutes, three oboes, three clarinets, three bassoons, four horns, three trumpets, three trombones, one tuba, timpani and percussion.
$-! ! ! instruments dating from the 16th century through the years to so recent an important score as the
Symphony in Bb (1951) by Paul Hindemith. This is an imposing amount of music.”4
Taxonomy
In order to determine that the chamber wind ensemble of Paul Taffanel produced the birth of a movement, it is necessary to identify several traits that set apart his ensemble from other ensembles of the same era.
1. A chamber wind ensemble is comprised of wind instruments.
2. A chamber wind ensemble has one player per part.
3. The instrumentation of chamber wind ensembles is somewhat standardized as using flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and French horn, but can be modified to include instruments increasing the range of a section (piccolo, English horn, bass clarinet, contrabassoon) or to add other wind instruments such as trumpet or saxophone. Occasionally, instruments such as string bass, violoncello, piano or harp can also be utilized, as long as the majority of the instruments are wind-based.
4. The size of a chamber wind ensemble is flexible and does not use a fixed number of players: the majority of the large ensemble music requires anywhere from seven to thirteen players.
5. A chamber wind ensemble performs as a collaborative entity, where all players have equal importance.
6. Chamber wind ensembles share a common repertoire, composed specifically for this type of ensemble.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 Frederick Fennell, Time and the Winds (Huntersville, NC: North Land Music Publishers, 1954), 58.
$$! ! ! This list serves to describe the chamber wind ensemble Paul Taffanel created and the one used as a model for Georges Barrère and Georges Longy. While there were many other musical societies and ensembles existing concurrently, some of these lacked one or more traits. For example, ensembles employing strings in equal measure to winds such as the Parisian Société classique (1871–1875) would not correspond to this list, nor would those societies promoting chamber music for a smaller number of musicians, without highlighting the larger ensemble works, such as the Société nationale de musique (1871–1939).
Based on this list of traits, it would appear that Taffanel’s ensemble was the first such
“chamber wind ensemble,” signaling the origins of a movement. However, the Harmoniemusik of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries cannot be overlooked, particularly when judged by this definition. Technically, these early wind groups should be considered precursors of this genre, but the difficulty in placing them as part of the shared movement exists in the instrumentation and consequently the repertoire, since the Harmoniemusik did not use flutes and frequently played arranged or transcribed music. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, their role positioned them as background entertainment for European courts, in contrast to
Taffanel’s ensemble, which existed expressly as a means to promote serious music in concert situations. For these reasons, the Harmoniemusik ensembles are the historical forbearers of the chamber wind ensembles, but not the originators of the genre.
Organology
While the scope of this chapter is not to give an entire history of each instrument found in the chamber wind ensemble, the many changes that shaped modern wind instruments during the years leading up to the mid-nineteenth century require a brief summary in order to place each instrument in context at the time that Taffanel established his ensemble. The extensive
$%! ! ! refinement of wind instruments during the nineteenth century can be credited with completely transforming their place in chamber music.5 Increasing demands by composers regarding technique in addition to larger orchestras and halls combined with the competition created by international trade exhibitions were all factors in these nineteenth century instrumental developments.
German flute maker Theobald Boehm (1794–1881) spent his career creating and redesigning flutes. In 1847 he improved upon an earlier design to construct a metal flute with a cylindrical bore and a tapered head. Flutist Louis Dorus (1812–1896), a professor at the
Conservatoire, composer, and member of the Opéra orchestra, first adopted this new model. By the time Paul Taffanel joined the flute class at the Conservatoire, Dorus had fully integrated the
Boehm flute, and it soon became the standard instrument for all professional players.6
While Boehm also designed oboes and bassoons, it was another oboe maker, Frédéric
Triébert (1813–1878), who was responsible for the most innovative designs in France, revising the layout of the keys and adopting interdependent mechanisms. His last model in 1872 had lengthened the bell and added keys. After Triébert’s death in 1881, it was François Lorée (1835–
1902) who established a workshop to continue Triébert’s tradition. This same year, professional oboist Georges Gillet (an original member of Taffanel’s ensemble) adopted Triébert’s 1872 model as the official instrument of the Paris Conservatoire, though it took several years to become established as an international standard.
What is known today as the Boehm-system clarinet was the result of a collaboration between clarinetist Hyacinthe Eléonore Klosé (1808–1880) and instrument maker Louis-Auguste !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 ! Joël-Marie Fouquet, “Chamber Music in France from Luigi Cherubini to Claude Debussy,” trans. Stephen E. Hefling and Patricia Marley, in Nineteenth-Century Chamber Music, ed. Stephen E. Hefling (New York: Schirmer, 1998), 288.
6 Blakeman, 14.
$&! ! ! Buffet (1789–1864). First displayed at the 1839 Paris Exposition, this clarinet used the same mechanical principles as the Boehm flute, but adopted Klosé’s simpler fingering and Buffet’s use of the key-rings to eliminate the chief difficulties with the instrument. Klosé’s position as clarinet professor at the Conservatoire for thirty years helped standardize this model.
Carl Almenraeder (1786–1843), nicknamed “Boehm of the bassoon” developed the modern bassoon in Germany with his innovations of the acoustics, intonation and response of keys. After his death, Johann Adam Heckel (1812–1877) and his descendents continued the manufacture and further refinement of the seventeen-key, four-octave bassoon that became known as the Heckelfagott, the model other makers eventually adopted. In France, however, the efforts of Triébert, Buffet-Crampon, and others led to the creation in 1879 of the twenty-two-key model with innovations in the keywork, then established as the French-system (or Buffet) bassoon.
Although Italian Luigi Pini invented the valve horn in 1822, the hand horn continued to be taught at the Conservatoire well into the twentieth century, except for the period from 1833–
1864 when Jean Emile Meifred (1791–1867) was horn professor. German maker Fritz Kruspe
(1862–1909) is credited with the invention of the double horn in 1897, but French instrument maker Pierre Louis Gautrot had already created a système équitonique or compensating system for the French horn in 1858. Essentially conceived as a double horn, the instrument had three valves, each with a set of additional tubing that extended the range of the instrument.
$'! ! ! Orchestration and Instrumentation
Through the years, composers and musicians found different ways to use these newly redesigned and modified wind instruments. A brief history of the combination of wind instruments used in ensembles by themselves across different periods of Western music might also bring some insight into the creation of chamber wind ensembles in the late nineteenth century.
1. Medieval secular. A small group of musicians playing wind instruments together can be traced back to medieval Europe; in Italy, civic wind bands were known as pifferi or concerti.7
These ensembles performed concerts at the city hall, in addition to a wide expanse of duties including playing for banquets, carnivals, races and contests, weddings and parades. The
Burgundian stad pijpers and the English waits performed similar functions.
2. Renaissance sacred. Giovanni Gabrieli’s Sacrae Symphoniae, published in 1597, is a massive collection of works containing sixteen purely instrumental compositions. Of these,
Sonata pian e forte and Canzon Noni Toni a 12 are both scored for antiphonal choirs, and can be considered the first instance of specific instrumentation in Western music, calling for sackbuts and cornetts.
3. Renaissance secular. Most fifteenth- or sixteenth-century secular music was conceived for consorts, or families of instruments in different registers, with one player on a part. Consorts of wind instruments such as recorders or oboes were quite common.
4. Classical Harmoniemusik. Used from the mid-eighteenth century to the 1830s, the word Harmoniemusik generally refers to both the ensembles (Harmonien) of the European
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* David Whitwell, A Concise History of the Wind Band, ed. Craig Dabelstein (Austin, TX: Whitwell Publishing, 2010), 40.
$(! ! ! aristocracy,8 and the music (musik) written for them. Comprised of pairs of oboes, clarinets, horns and bassoons, these portable “wind bands” provided background musical entertainment for their aristocratic patrons, and occasionally presented public or private concerts for the courts in and around Vienna, Prague and Budapest. Composers such as Franz Joseph Haydn and Franz
Krommer were quite prolific in their output of serenades, divertimentos, cassations and partitas.
Mozart, on the other hand, is only known to have composed three wind serenades, K. 361, K.
375, and K. 388, while Beethoven composed Rondino in E-flat and Octet in E-flat, op. 103.
5. Romantic chamber. While it is more challenging to establish a trend of wind writing for chamber musicians in the Romantic era, a few works fit into this chronology. Mendelssohn’s
Notturno in C, op. 24 (1824) for wind octet plus flute, trumpet and contrabassoon certainly stands out. Franz Lachner composed his Octet for flute, oboe and pairs of clarinets, bassoons and horns in 1850, and was followed by Emil Hartmann’s Serenade in B-flat in 1865 for the same instrumentation but adding a violoncello and string bass. Joachim Raff’s Sinfonietta, op. 188
(1873) for double wind quintet and Dvo!ák’s Serenade in D minor, op. 44 (1878) for wind octet, contrabassoon, violoncello and bass are the last works composed for a chamber ensemble of winds before Taffanel founded his ensemble.
It is obviously much easier to trace a direct history of this genre simply through its repertoire that can now, with hindsight, be connected through association over many years. The dearth of music written specifically for winds, particularly before the Classical era, points precisely to the problem Taffanel discovered in the latter part of the nineteenth century, that there existed a lack of serious and worthwhile music.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 There is evidence that emigrant Moravians brought the Harmoniemusik tradition to the United States. See Rufus A. Grider, “Music in Bethlehem,” in Historical Sketch of Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, John Hill Martin, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: John L. Pile, 1873), 157–173.
$)! ! ! Social History
The difficulties in tracing a social history for chamber wind ensembles is that to date, no one has viewed these ensembles as having a shared, collective story. In fact, the larger history of the concert band more often dominates the discourse of wind music history, appropriating the repertoire performed by the chamber wind ensembles (Mozart, Gounod, Richard Strauss, et al.).
David Whitwell presents two conflicting arguments regarding the role of chamber wind repertoire within the history of the concert band, also supported by Frank Battisti in his Winds of
Change: “1. The band’s cultural forebearers were the military bands, and the works of Mozart,
Berlioz, Gounod, Strauss, etc. [sic] were peripheral to that history; or 2. The band’s cultural forebearers were Mozart, Berlioz, Gounod, Strauss, etc. and the military bands were peripheral to that history.”9
If in terms of instrumentation and orchestration the Harmoniemusik can be considered as a predecessor to the nineteenth-century chamber wind ensemble, then its social history obviously sets it apart. The Harmoniemusik ensembles were under royal or aristocratic patronage, performed in courts and palaces, and although not formed by individual musicians, did come to resemble one another in instrumentation and orchestration. Their repertoire developed concurrently and fell out of favor as the ensembles ceased to exist. Conversely, individual musicians (Taffanel, Barrère, Longy) founded their chamber wind ensembles towards the end of the nineteenth century. They performed in a variety of halls and the general public patronized the concert series. The development of their repertoire also paralleled the creation of the ensemble, but with the ability to draw on masterpieces from the past, they had a small advantage. When
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9 ! David Whitwell, “The Contemporary Band—In Quest of an Aesthetic Concept of History,” The Instrumentalist 23 (May 1969): 35, quoted in Frank Battisti, The Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary Wind Band/Ensemble and Its Conductor (Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2002), 3.
$*! ! ! examining the ensembles led by Paul Taffanel, Georges Barrère and Georges Longy, the sharing of players and of repertory can contribute to the idea of a common movement. As this document will demonstrate, the transmitted philosophies and repertoire of these chamber wind ensembles are the basis of this movement.
Spitzer and Zaslaw explain that an institution is a social structure legitimized by beliefs and sanctions, sometimes within organizations with similar purposes.10 They define the “birth of the orchestra” as the emergence of the orchestra as an institution. Did the chamber wind ensemble emerge as an institution in the latter part of the nineteenth century? A set of beliefs on how these ensembles should be organized, how they should play and what their role should be in society certainly did emerge from this movement. For these reasons, the chamber wind ensemble can be considered a history unto itself.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 Spitzer and Zaslaw, 34.
$+! ! ! CHAPTER TWO
PARIS: THE BEGINNING
Parisian Music of the 1870s
In the mid-nineteenth century, French orchestral wind playing had been greatly admired for its unity and sensitivity, but by the 1870s, many musicians—such as flutist Paul Taffanel— felt that things had slowly deteriorated. Undoubtedly, the 1870 Franco-Prussian War and subsequent Siege of Paris greatly affected artistic life. Despite the initial optimism of a French victory, it was clear by September of 1870 when the state ordered all the theaters to close that musical life would not be spared in the consequences of the ongoing conflict. When concert culture resumed, it took on a new significance. Stimulated by the political upheaval of early
1871, the birth of a new musical nationalism and seriousness of artistic purpose in the emergent
Third Republic paved the way for the founding of the Société nationale de musique as well as other concert organizations, encouraging the composition and performance of French symphonic and chamber music, as a reaction against the Germanic tradition. Perhaps the turmoil of this time highlighted for Taffanel the lack of worthwhile music for winds, in addition to viable performance opportunities for wind players.
France was deeply divided in the 1870s: devastated by defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, then humiliated by the Commune,1 differences between moderates, socialists, and radicals caused turmoil. The arts offered a non-violent and secular domain to explore their similarities
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 ! The result of an uprising in Paris after the Franco-Prussian War, the Commune was the government that briefly ruled Paris for two months in the spring of 1871, partly in an attempt to prevent a possible royalist restoration.
$,! ! ! and divergences, and perhaps revitalize the nation.2 Many looked to art music to express high ideals and to nurture moral strength in this period of rebuilding.3 Once concert series resumed and theaters reopened their doors in the spring of 1871, a musical and cultural renewal was already underway.
For many musicians, the extravagant and lavish productions of the Opéra and Opéra- comique were seen as frivolous, despite the preoccupation of Parisian audiences with all things vocal and operatic. These same musicians admired the German instrumental culture that considered symphonic and chamber music the purest manifestations of musical art. Inspired by the great masters of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, and intrigued by the innovations of modern composers such as Robert Schumann, Liszt and Wagner, the goal of this new generation of young musicians was to create its own school of viable, “serious” French music.4 The Société nationale de musique (1871–1939) would be the vehicle through which these musical leaders would cultivate this new style and provide direction and encouragement to develop French music.
The first meeting of the new Société nationale de musique was held in February 1871, and attended by several notable musicians: Romain Bussine, Théodore Dubois, Henri Duparc,
Gabriel Fauré, César Franck, Jules Garcin, Ernest Guiraud, Jules Massenet, Camille Saint-Saëns, and Paul Taffanel. With its motto of Ars gallica, the new society endeavored to further the production and popularization of all serious musical works, and provided a stimulus for
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Jann Pasler, Composing the Citizen: Music as Public Utility in Third Republic France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 161.
3 Ibid., 162.
4 Michael Strasser, “Ars Gallica: the Société nationale de musique and Its Role in French Musical Life, 1871–1891” (PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998), 118.
%-! ! ! composers to compose instrumental music. Although the first concert of the Société nationale de musique did not take place until November of that year, for the remainder of the 1870s, it presented approximately ten to twenty concerts each season, supporting mainly chamber music at first, then, as the society gained momentum and financial support, works for orchestra and larger ensembles as well.
Certain historians define this period in French musical culture as a renaissance, attributed to the new sense of nationalism led by the Société nationale de musique, who made a point of excluding any non-French composers until 1886.5 While this philosophy is often mistakenly labeled as anti-German sentiment,6 it can perhaps be better explained within the context of creating a new national style modeled after the German instrumental musical culture. The continued indifference of Parisian theater directors towards works by young French composers was still prevalent, but the instrumental genres that were now increasingly popular with the concert-going public were a means to promote new French music.7 However, there were several other organizations aside from the Société nationale intent on presenting instrumental music during the decade following the war.
The venerable Société des concerts du Conservatoire, an orchestra made up of professors and graduates of the Conservatoire founded in 1828 by conductor François Habeneck, gave concerts on Sunday afternoons. The extreme conservatism of the elite audience that attended the weekly concerts meant that only a small number of works by living composers found their way
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 ! Blakeman, 74.
6 Jeffrey Cooper, The Rise of Instrumental Music and Concert Series in Paris in 1828–1871 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1983), 160.
7 Strasser, 223.
%$! ! ! onto the organization’s programs after the war,8 though this already indicated a more visible presence for contemporary French music.
Conductor Jules Pasdeloup began the Concerts populaires de musique classique in 1861.
They were an artistic and financial success even before the war. Employing a large orchestra of approximately eighty musicians, Pasdeloup also presented Sunday afternoon concerts and built a large audience, partly because of the inexpensive tickets. The orchestra mostly performed works by Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Haydn, but after the war, Pasdeloup made a concerted effort to premiere and present works by French composers.
Edouard Colonne set out to replicate the success enjoyed by Pasdeloup with his Concerts nationaux (known colloquially as Concerts Colonne), which he had founded in 1873. Colonne’s
Sunday concerts—presented in a venue more accessible to the southern half of the city— emphasized works of contemporary French composers. Other concert series organized in the early 1870s such as the Concerts Danbé led by Jules Danbé, and the Concerts Mozart, despite its name, generally avoided Austro-Germanic works in order to promote French composers.9 The
Concerts Lamoureux, another Sunday concert series created in 1881, also built huge audiences of the city’s bourgeois class.
In the 1870s, concerts by newly created chamber music societies were often held irregularly and programs were not always announced in the musical press. The majority of these chamber societies were in fact string quartets, such as the Société Schumann or the Société de musique moderne. The Société classique had formed in 1871, when a string quartet joined forces with several of Paris’s premier wind players, including Paul Taffanel. Its concerts would be
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 Ibid., 245.
9 Cooper, 161.
%%! ! ! devoted to chamber music for both winds and strings, and was well received by critics. Though the ensemble only lasted for four seasons, it drew on both the established repertoire and music of modern French composers.
As the number and variety of concert offerings in Paris grew throughout the 1870s, these reflected the growing enthusiasm for concert music by French audiences. Perhaps this rapid growth of concert organizations immediately following the war is an indicator of the mood for reform felt in so many aspects of French society, and the patriotic sentiments encouraged the growth of a new national ideology. The principle of producing “serious” music, now ingrained in
French composers and musicians, did not disappear in subsequent decades, but rather was a defining factor for many of the later movements in French culture.
Paul Taffanel
Today considered the father of the modern French school of flute playing, Paul Taffanel
(1844–1908) had a multi-faceted career as a player, conductor, composer, teacher and leader of musical organizations, making him a major figure in fin-de-siècle Parisian musical life.
Taffanel showed an interest in music at a young age, and he studied with famed flutist
Louis Dorus at the Paris Conservatoire, allowing him to flourish as a flute player. Upon his graduation from Dorus’s flute class with the premier prix at the concours in 1860, Taffanel continued to study composition at the Conservatoire, eventually leading to his prize-winning
Quintette, op. 3 in 1876, in addition to many transcriptions and arrangements.
Taffanel made a name for himself as a first-rate flute player by performing with all the major organizations in Paris, such as the Concerts populaires and the Opéra-comique.
Eventually, he became first flutist at the Société des concerts du Conservatoire in 1869, and at the Opéra in 1876. His concurrent performances as a soloist and chamber musician, where he
%&! ! ! often performed recitals with singers or other instrumentalists, helped him gain recognition, but he was more frequently featured as a soloist during concerts by larger ensembles such as the
Concert populaires. Taffanel was known for his prodigious virtuosity and his unrivaled tone, described as being exquisitely warm and rich.10
Taffanel first began teaching privately in 1864, eventually taking over the flute professorship at the Conservatoire in 1893 and remaining there until his death. The most significant graduates of Taffanel’s Conservatoire class included such players as Georges Barrère,
Louis Fleury, Philippe Gaubert, Georges Laurent, Daniel Maquerre, and Marcel Moyse. Many of
Taffanel’s students went on to illustrious careers performing with world-class orchestras and teaching in highly recognized conservatories: Georges Laurent became solo flutist of the Boston
Symphony Orchestra and taught at the New England Conservatory; Daniel Maquerre played in both the Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Philadelphia Orchestra; and Marcel Moyse became flute professor at the Conservatoire, to name a few. Towards the end of his life, Taffanel sketched out a manuscript of what would become his Méthode de flûte and although he died before completing it, his student Philippe Gaubert contributed to and edited the method book so that it was finally published in 1923. No doubt this method was vital in the spread of the French flute style.
In 1892 Taffanel commenced a new chapter in his life, that of conductor. He took over leadership of the Société des concerts du Conservatoire, where he favored contemporary music, and the following year became the conductor at the Opéra. His 1907 article “L’Art de diriger”
(The Art of Conducting), for the Lavignac Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du
Conservatoire, demonstrated his significance as a leader and conductor until his death in 1908. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 ! Nancy Toff, Monarch of the Flute: The Life of Georges Barrère (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 14.
%'! ! !
Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents (1879–1893)
Although Taffanel’s involvement with the Société nationale brought to light the lack of worthwhile music for winds, it was his participation in the successful Société classique (1871–
1875), a purely chamber group of winds and strings, that made him understand “the benefit there would be for wind players in perfecting their skill if they got together to perform works specially written for them, without the aid of the strings.”11 This was the impetus that led Taffanel to found a new society exclusively for winds, drawing on neglected wind repertoire from the past and stimulating the composition of new works, promoting the independence of wind instruments.
Taffanel’s concept for his new ensemble was meticulously planned and well-thought out down to every last detail. From the unusually intensive period of rehearsals, the series of six concerts per season, and his model of programming, he established a stable base from which to achieve his goals. Only the name of the group developed: debuting as Six séances de musique de chambre in February 1879, it took until 1885 for Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents to emerge as the definitive name. The first concert took place in the 170-seat recital room of the Salons Pleyel et Wolff (a concert hall belonging to the instrument manufacturers) on Thursday, February 6, 1879 at 4 p.m., but due to the high demand for tickets, the remaining five concerts of that season had to be moved to the larger 550-seat hall of the Salle
Pleyel, the most prestigious chamber music venue in Paris.12 Holding his concerts on Thursdays was contrary to most other concert series in Paris at the time, which presented on Sundays.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11 Blakeman, 44.
12 Ibid., 70.
%(! ! ! Taffanel assembled his original ensemble as a wind octet, based on the Harmoniemusik of the classical period: pairs of oboes, clarinets, bassoons, and French horns, but added a flute
(played by himself) and a piano. The nucleus of players he recruited for his first season consisted of oboists Georges Gillet and Auguste Sautet, clarinetists Charles Turban and Arthur Grisez, horn players Henri Dupont and Jean Garigue, and bassoonists Jean Espaignet and François
Villaufret. These top-notch players had all received the premier prix at the Paris Conservatoire
(except for Sautet), and all were members of either the Opéra or Opéra-comique orchestras.
Taffanel’s regular pianist Louis Diémier rounded out the personnel list. Over the years, the ensemble explored more varied repertoire that required extra players, often drawing from the pool of recent Conservatoire graduates because of Taffanel’s position on the juries for the annual examinations. In this manner, the Société was able to renew and rejuvenate itself.
From the first concert of the Société, Taffanel established a model of programming that he would follow for years: 1) a classical ensemble work, 2) a serious solo piece, 3) a contemporary foreign ensemble work and, 4) a new French ensemble work.13 Although still a member in good standing of the Société nationale de musique, Taffanel clearly disconnected from its nationalist programming ideology of performing only French compositions. Instead, he was more concerned with choosing what he considered serious instrumental repertoire and rigidly rejecting anything associated with the world of the musical salon, particularly virtuoso solo pieces or vocal selections. Structured as evening social events that either relegated music to the background or were considered private concerts, the salons of the 1870s provided a forum for
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
13 Ibid., 70.
%)! ! ! chamber and vocal music not heard elsewhere; many Parisian musicians still did not consider these soirées a venue for serious music.14
In his programming, Taffanel sometimes included works involving strings, but these certainly did not constitute a large part of the ensemble’s total repertoire. The programs for the first season contained works representing each of Taffanel’s four categories:
February 6
Beethoven Octet, op. 103 J. S. Bach Flute Sonata in B minor, BWV 1030 Anton Rubinstein Quintet, op. 55 Adrien Barthe Aubade
February 20
Mozart Serenade in E-flat, K. 375 Beethoven Horn Sonata, op. 17 Schumann Romances for oboe, op. 94 Louis Spohr Quintet, op. 52 Émile Pessard Prélude et menuet [for wind quintet]
March 6
Mozart Quintet, K. 452 J. S. Bach Flute Sonata in E flat, BWV 1031 Julius Röntgen Serenade, op. 14 Saint-Saëns Tarentelle, op. 6 [for flute, clarinet and piano]
March 20
Mozart Serenade in C minor, K. 388 Saint-Saëns Romance for horn, op. 36 Beethoven Quintet, op. 16 Beethoven Trio [for 2 oboes and cor anglais] op. 87 Liszt arr. Lassen Trois pièces [for wind quintet] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 Ibid., 88.
%*! ! ! April 3
Beethoven Sextet, op. 71 Berlioz Trio [for 2 flutes and harp] from L’Enfance du Christ Weber Clarinet Sonata, op. 47 Léon Kreuyzer Sextet [for piano and wind quintet] Georges Pfeiffer Musette [for oboe, clarinet, and bassoon] Adolphe Deslandres Scherzo [for wind quintet]
April 18
Mozart Serenade in B-flat, K. 361 “Gran Partita” Clémence de Grandval Flute Sonata Mendelssohn Concertstück for clarinets, op. 114
Over the course of its fifteen-year life, the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents performed about one hundred and fifty different works, including approximately fifty premieres. Two instrumental groupings comprised the majority of the new music the Société performed: the traditional wind quintet (flute, oboe, clarinet, horn and bassoon), occasionally augmented by a piano, and a modified wind octet (flute, oboe, plus pairs of clarinets, horns and bassoons).
The most intriguing aspect of the septets and octets programmed by Taffanel was that aside from the older, more established Classical works by Beethoven and Mozart for example, all others were pieces written specifically for his Société and required only one flute player.
Théodore Gouvy, Silvio Lazzari, Charles Lefèbvre, Rudolf Nová"ek, Carl Reinecke, and Camille
Saint-Saëns all composed octets for Taffanel’s instrumentation, favoring one flute and one oboe.
Although arguably one of the most famous pieces to come out of the Société, Charles
Gounod’s Petite symphonie was one of only two works utilizing nonet instrumentation performed by Taffanel’s group. More prevalent in Taffanel’s repertoire than the nonets were the double wind quintets: Émile Bernard’s Divertissement premiered in 1884, and Joachim Raff’s
%+! ! ! Sinfonietta, together totaling a documented fourteen performances. Additionally, works exceeding ten players by such notable composers as Mozart (Serenade in B flat, K. 361, “Gran
Partita”), Brahms (Serenade No. 2), Dvo!ák (Serenade in D minor) and Richard Strauss
(Serenade, op. 7) were performed less often than the two double wind quintets.
The Paris musical press monitored the Société’s first season with interest and occasional reservations. The Revue et gazette musicale, a weekly review concerning musical performance and literature, commented that wind music was so much more interesting for being so little explored.15 By the third season, rival music journal Le Ménestrel also lent its support: “We cannot encourage enough the efforts of this young society which has already won over the music-loving Paris audience.”16 Often, the reviews of Société concerts included critiques of the works themselves, which did not always impress the critics, as in the case of the Lachner Octet, reviewed in Le Ménestrel: “Octet by Lachner, a colorless work and quite dated.”17
Each successive season of the Société was organized like the first, a series of six concerts starting in the new year, all approximately two weeks apart. The ensemble took several trips outside Paris, to Amiens, Brussels, and Bordeaux, in addition to two extensive tours: in 1886 to
Nancy, Mulhouse, Lausanne, and Geneva; and in 1891 to Basel, Mulhouse, Berne, Neuchâtel,
Lausanne, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. Occasionally, the Société performed for special events, such as the 1889 Paris Universal Exposition.
As the fifteenth season drew to a close with its final concert on May 4, 1893, no indications exist that this was intended to be the last performance of the Société. Since Taffanel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 Revue et gazette musical, March 9, 1879, quoted in Blakeman, 71.
16 “Nous ne saurions trop encourager les efforts de cette jeune Société qui a déjà conquis la faveur du public dilettante de Paris.” Le Ménestrel (February 27, 1881), 104.
17 “[…] un otetto de Lachner, oeuvre pâle et bien vieillie […]” Le Ménestrel (April 20, 1890), 128.
%,! ! ! had now become principal conductor at the Opéra and flute professor at the Conservatoire, in addition to conducting the Société des concerts du Conservatoire, he no longer had time to lead his beloved Société; that summer, the ensemble decided to disband rather than to continue without him.
Paul Taffanel likely did not guess, at that time, the impact his Société would have. He not only achieved his primary objectives in raising performance standards and increasing the repertoire for winds, but in doing so, created a culture of wind chamber music that would be sustained and maintained by others, both in Paris and abroad.
Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents after Taffanel
Although Taffanel relinquished his leadership of the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents and the ensemble officially disbanded in 1893, the influence of the group was such that a revival was attempted by some of the former members. Oboist Georges Gillet and clarinetist Charles Turban endeavored to resurrect the group, but it was clarinetist Prosper
Mimart joined by Taffanel’s student Philippe Gaubert who actually succeeded in 1898,18 renaming the group Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents et à cordes, joining with an existing string and piano ensemble and presenting mainly traditional nineteenth-century
French, German, and Austrian works.19 Although this new configuration continued to give concerts until the First World War, and then once again in 1941, not much is known about the ensemble after Taffanel’s departure. Better documentation survives for another ensemble greatly influenced by Taffanel and led by one of his students, Georges Barrère.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18 Blakeman, 92.
19 Toff, 25.
&-! ! ! Georges Barrère
Arguably one of most famous flutists of his generation in the United States, Georges
Barrère was a virtuosic performer, a founder and leader of ensembles, a seeker of new repertoire, and a teacher who changed the face of flute playing, placing him at the forefront of the New
York classical music scene in the early twentieth century.
Georges Barrère (1876–1944) studied flute at the Conservatoire with Henry Altès and remained as Paul Taffanel took over the flute professorship in 1893. Barrère, who cited Taffanel as an important influence on his life,20 flourished under his new teacher and eventually received the premier prix, recalling that “Taffanel was not only the best flutist in the world, but I doubt if anyone can ever fill his place. His musicianship, his style particularly, was highly inspirational.”21 After completing his studies at the Conservatoire, Barrère went on to occupy important positions with such notable organizations as the Société nationale, the Concerts
Colonne and the Opéra, in addition to a teaching position at the Schola Cantorum.
In 1905 Barrère moved to New York to play in Walter Damrosch’s newly formed
Symphony Orchestra, but was not exclusively an orchestral musician, performing extensively as a soloist and in chamber music settings. Barrère remains the only flutist with a true solo career in the first half of the twentieth century.
Biographer Nancy Toff considers Barrère the father of modern American flute playing, having founded the Julliard wind department and having had such great influence on his students that she states: “95 percent of present-day American flutists can trace their pedagogical
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20 Lola Allison, “Georges Barrère,” Flutist 2 (February 1921): 318, quoted in Toff, 11.
21 Toff, 16.
&$! ! ! genealogy to Barrère.”22 Notable students included Bernard Birnbaum, Frances Blaisdell,
Carmine Coppola, Francis Fitzgerald, Ruth Freeman, Bernard Goldberg, Byron Hester, James
Hosmer, John Kiburtz (Sr. and Jr.), William Kincaid, Ernest Liegl, Arthur Lora, Emil Noisi,
Frederick Wilkins, and Meredith Willson. One Julliard graduate said of Barrère, “In years of acquaintance with wind players, I have never heard anyone speak of another teacher with the degree of respect and affection which he commanded.”23
Always the entrepreneur, Barrère was also known for the many organizations he founded both in Paris and in New York, such as the Société moderne des instruments à vents, the New
York Flute Club, the Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments, and the Barrère Little Symphony, all of which illustrate his enduring legacy as a repertoire builder for various genres.
Société moderne des instruments à vents (1895–1924)
Immediately upon graduation from the Conservatoire in 1895, Georges Barrère set about creating a younger version of the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, which had disbanded two years before. With his teacher Taffanel’s blessing, Barrère and his colleagues proceeded to fill the void created when Taffanel’s chamber ensemble dissolved.
Composed of fellow recent Conservatoire graduates, the Société moderne des instruments à vents, nicknamed Les Petits vents (The Little Winds), gave its first series of three concerts at the
Salle de Quatuors, the smaller recital hall of the Salons Pleyel in the spring of 1896. The first concert on March 11, 1896, presented by the Société moderne, showcased a program of mostly traditional fare: works by Spohr, Saint-Saëns, Mozart and Beethoven were featured. Arthur
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22 Toff, 322.
23 Page Grosenbaugh Rowe to Nancy Toff, January 28, 1993, quoted in Toff, 322.
&%! ! ! Dandelot, critic for Le Monde musical gave an encouraging review to the young musicians, writing “The first concert was satisfying…. Provided that they work together, the members of this new Society can arrive at the result so rarely attained: to make good chamber music.”24
By the second season, it became clear that Barrère was catering to an elite audience that could afford to attend weekday, daytime concerts: aristocrats who didn’t work during the day, and musicians who only had professional obligations in the evenings. His programming had also become much bolder, involving premieres of new works by composers such as Carl Reinecke and Albert Seitz. Barrère sought out composers who were willing to write wind chamber music, a direct influence of Taffanel’s efforts to increase the wind repertoire.
Successive seasons of the Société moderne followed the same pattern of three concerts on weekday afternoons, although their concert location changed to the Salle Erard and later to the Salle Henri Herz. It was only in 1903 that the group began performing at the Salle des
Agriculteurs in the fashionable ninth arrondissement and began to schedule concerts on Tuesday evenings. Usually presenting programs mostly comprising premieres, Barrère rarely repeated works, in contrast to Taffanel. Of the very few pieces he performed on more than one occasion,
André Caplet’s double wind quintet Suite persane is an exception since it appeared six times on
Société moderne programs, more than any other piece. Aside from this composition by his close friend Caplet, Barrère also introduced a more adventurous selection of large ensemble selections, achieving critical success with works such as Jacques Erhart’s Serenade and Léon Moreau’s
Nocturne, both double wind quintets, as well as Reynaldo Hahn’s Le Bal de Béatrice D’Este, all of which were premieres. Barrère’s ensemble also seemed to have a less fixed instrumentation,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
24 Arthur Dandelot, “Musique de chambre pour instruments à vents,” Monde Musical 7 (March 30, 1896): 440, quoted in Toff, 26.
&&! ! ! as the size varied with each piece. Unfortunately for Barrère, his enthusiasm for the repertoire was such that the programs he planned extended the concerts far into the night, sometimes garnering unfavorable reviews.25
By the Société moderne’s ninth season in 1903, Barrère was able to secure a long-sought government subsidy of two hundred francs per year.26 The Ministry of Fine Arts was eager to promote new French works, so the hours Barrère had spent pleading his case were finally rewarded with this endorsement. This grant put the ensemble on the musical establishment map, and Barrère publicized it proudly on all its literature. In turn, this piece of good news also managed to get critics’ attention, who noted that the Société moderne had created a stimulus for the younger school of composers. After the second concert of that season, Le Guide musical concluded that “interest never falters” in the programs of the Société moderne, and that “One only has praise for the interpreters who form the most charming wind orchestra that one can dream of.”27
The tenth anniversary of the Société moderne was certainly cause for celebration: endorsed by leading musicians of the day—Dubois, Fauré, Massenet, Pierné, Saint-Saëns, and
Widor among them—the ensemble announced they had premiered sixty-one works in ten years.
Along with recognition from the government, the Société moderne also became known in fashionable circles, performing in some of the most sought-after salons in Paris. Precisely at this moment, Barrère had to weigh his future career and opportunities with the success he had already won in Paris.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
25 Ibid., 67.
26 Ibid., 73.
27 Ibid., 74.
&'! ! ! Barrère’s departure for New York in 1905 at Walter Damrosch’s invitation did not halt the progress of the Société moderne; the ensemble thrived for twenty more years under Barrère’s good friend Louis Fleury, who was responsible for an additional sixty-nine premieres.
The political turmoil of the early 1870s that led to the new musical nationalism in France enabled Paul Taffanel to lay the groundwork for new initiatives in chamber music, first through the Société nationale de musique and Société classique, and later with his Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents. With his emphasis on enriching the repertoire available for wind players, Taffanel managed not only to create a sustainable endeavor that provided an outlet for serious chamber music, but he paved the way for others to follow in his footsteps. Georges
Barrère and his Société moderne des instruments à vents took on the responsibility of promoting quality music for winds in Paris, adding even more momentum to this chamber wind movement.
Both Barrère and fellow compatriot Georges Longy would later be responsible for bringing this chamber wind movement to the United States.
&(! ! ! CHAPTER THREE
THE UNITED STATES
The Boston Scene at the Turn of the Century
Founded in 1881, the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) was one of the United States’ first permanent orchestras. Prior to the BSO, the primary large instrumental ensemble in Boston was the Harvard Musical Association, discontinued in 1882. With the founding of the BSO, concert music flourished in Boston. The orchestra’s prominence was largely due to the unlimited philanthropy of businessman, financier, and amateur musician Henry Lee Higginson (1834–
1919).
Having acquired a taste for symphonic music in Vienna as a young man, Higginson engaged only German conductors for the BSO, believing that only they could provide the necessary musical leadership for the ensemble.1 This was not problematic because after the revolutions of 1848, many Germans immigrated to the United States, and particularly to Boston.
In fact, the BSO was comprised of so many German or German-trained musicians that rehearsals were conducted in German.2
Naturally, the German sound and style were favored within the BSO, as were German and Austrian composers, such as Haydn, Beethoven, and Schubert. The Boston Handel and
Haydn Society, an organization created in 1815 to cultivate the performance of large-scale sacred works for chorus and orchestra, also featured composers such as Handel, Haydn, Mozart, and
Beethoven. This preference for German and Austrian music even extended outside the realm of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Ronald L. Davis, A History of Music in American Life, (Huntington, NY: Robert Krieger, 1980), 2:24.
2 Ellen Knight, “Boston’s ‘French Connection’ at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” in Perspectives on American Music, 1900–1950, ed. Michael Saffle (New York: Garland Publishing, 2000), 2.
&)! ! ! professional performances, considering that notable American composers John Knowles Paine
(1839–1906), professor at Harvard, and George Whitefield Chadwick (1854–1931), professor at the New England Conservatory, were both educated in Germany. Paine and Chadwick exerted so much influence in their passing-on of the German musical tradition that they helped establish
Boston as a “colony of German culture.”3
Chamber music in Boston before the turn of the twentieth century focused heavily on music for strings. The Mendelssohn Quintet Club (1849–1898), founded by Thomas Ryan
(1827–1903), became one of the most important and widely known chamber music societies in nineteenth-century United States. As the first professional American group devoted exclusively to the performance of chamber works with artistic merit, the Quintet focused on German
Romantic standards, but incorporated many works by American composers. Comprised of five string players, one of whom doubled on clarinet and another on flute, the ensemble occasionally augmented with other instrumentalists in order to perform works of larger dimensions, such as the Beethoven Septet in E-flat, op. 20 or the Schubert Octet in F, op. 166.4 Wulf Fries (1825–
1902), violoncello player with the Quintet broke away to form a rival organization in 1872, the
Beethoven Quintette Club. Another later member of the Mendelssohn Quintette, Bernhard
Listemann (1841–1917), also founded his own organizations: the Listemann Club, Listemann
String Quartet, and Bernhard Listemann Company.
The Euterpe Society, formed in 1879, and the Boston Chamber Music Society, founded in 1886, both functioned on membership subscriptions for their chamber music concerts and recitals. Franz Kneisel (1865–1926), concertmaster of the BSO, formed his Kneisel Quartet in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 Ibid.
4 Roger P. Phelps, “The Mendelssohn Quintet Club: A Milestone in American Music Education,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 8, no. 1 (Spring 1960): 41.
&*! ! ! 1885, comprised of BSO principal players. Performing complete quartets by Haydn, Mozart and
Beethoven in addition to string-quartet works by other European and American composers, the
Quartet built an audience for chamber music throughout America due to their constant touring.
While musicians in Boston held to the German musical tradition with which they were familiar and on which they continued to model their ideas of excellence, the influx of French musicians began slowly changing the musical landscape. Charles Martin Loeffler (1861–1935), a
German-born but French-trained violinist and composer, was responsible for the beginning of this transformation.5 As assistant concertmaster of the BSO from 1882 to 1903, Loeffler was a
Francophile who premiered works with the BSO by French composers, influencing BSO conductors and friends to program French compositions. The music he composed also represented the modern French school, and Loeffler’s acquaintances in France looked to him as a liaison and unofficial representative in the United States.6
French works such as Saint-Saëns’s first Violin Concerto or Edouard Lalo’s Fantasie norvégienne did not receive an immediate welcome by all Boston cultural leaders. As more
French musicians arrived in the city, exposure and opportunities to hear these works increased.
Chamber music and French composers would both get a boost in Boston after oboist Georges
Longy arrived in 1898.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 Knight, 3.
6 Ibid.
&+! ! ! Georges Longy
As the first French oboist to play with a professional American orchestra, Georges Longy
(1886–1930) had a distinguished career as a performer, a conductor, and an entrepreneur, which allowed him to be celebrated as a key figure in Boston musical life from 1898 to 1925. Born in
Abbéville, France, Longy began his studies with oboe professor Georges Gillet at the Paris
Conservatoire at age fourteen. Receiving the premier prix at the age of eighteen, Longy embarked on a successful career as a professional oboist in Paris. A member of the Concerts
Lamoureux and the Opéra-comique, Longy was appointed soloist by the late 1890s for both the
Concerts Colonne and the Société des concerts du Conservatoire.
In 1898, a terrible steamship collision off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, caused the principal clarinetist, flutist, and oboist of the Boston Symphony Orchestra to drown as they were heading to Europe for their summer vacation. Higginson, aware of the superior reputation of
Conservatoire-trained musicians, quickly corresponded with contacts in Paris and by the fall of
1898, clarinetist Alexandre Selmer, flutist André Maquarre, and oboist Georges Longy arrived in
Boston to fill the suddenly vacated positions in the BSO.
Upon his arrival in Boston, Longy made his influence felt almost immediately in musical circles, both as a player and conductor. Longy’s colleagues held him in high esteem and he received critical acclaim as an orchestral musician and soloist. His tone was often described as being vocally conceived and his playing flexible and virtuosic: “Here is a true artist, a great artist, master of technic [sic], taste, who sings on his oboe with a purity and beauty of phrasing that any soprano of the very first rank might envy: an oboist of international reputation….”7
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7 Philip Hale, “Longy Club,” Boston Journal, (February 4, 1902), quoted in David Whitwell, The Longy Club: 1900– 1917, ed. Craig Dabelstein (Austin, TX: Whitwell Books, 2011), 29.
&,! ! ! As a conductor, Longy made his mark on Boston at once, becoming conductor for the
Boston Orchestral Club in 1899 and remaining until 1911. He also led the MacDowell Club from
1915 to 1925, the Cecilia Society, and founded the Boston Musical Association in 1919. With all these organizations, Longy was known for programming French works in addition to premiering
American compositions.
As a teacher, Longy’s greatest legacy was in founding the Longy School of Music in
1915. With help from friend Charles Martin Loeffler, Longy opened a school based on the
European conservatory model, with the goal of creating true musicians.8 Although Longy returned to France upon his retirement from the BSO in 1925, his daughter Renée Longy continued to lead the school as the director. The school continues to thrive today, offering undergraduate and graduate degrees.
The Longy Club (1900–1917)
As a student in Paris, Georges Longy gained familiarity with Paul Taffanel’s Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents since his teacher, Georges Gillet, had been an original member. Longy had also occasionally played with the group as a replacement. It was not surprising that shortly after his arrival in Boston, Longy wanted to create an outlet for wind chamber music. However, Longy did not face the same obstacles as Taffanel, since he was not faced with a lack of repertoire or of talented players, considering the pool of musicians in the
BSO.9
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 Valerie Gudell, “Georges Longy: His Life and Legacy” (DMA document, University of Houston, 2001), 114.
9 Whitwell, The Longy Club, 15.
'-! ! ! The Longy Club’s first concert was on December 18, 1900. The members of the ensemble, as listed on the program were Longy and Auguste Sautet on oboe, André Maquarre and Arthur Brooke on flute, Alexandre Selmer and Peter Metzger on clarinet, Albert Hackebarth and Franz Hain on French horn and Hugo Litke and Paul Litke on bassoon. Heinrich Gebbard assisted on piano. For this inaugural concert, they performed Beethoven’s Quintet, op. 16,
Bach’s B minor Flute Sonata, BWV 1030, and Bernard’s Divertissement, op. 36. Although Philip
Hale, critic for the Boston Journal praised the performance itself, he did not enjoy the program: the Beethoven was considered “familiar” while the Bernard was considered dry and academic.10
The first season was rounded out by two more concerts, in January and in March, both of which presented a quintet, a solo piece and a larger ensemble work. Incidentally, all three large ensemble works selected that season were by French composers: Bernard’s Divertissement,
Théodore Gouvy’s Octet, op. 71, and Vincent d’Indy’s Chanson et danses. Again writing for the
Boston Journal, Hale summed up the first season in his review of the third concert:
The performance throughout was of a high order of excellence and the audience was appreciative. Mr. Longy prepared carefully these concerts, and it is to be hoped that the artistic results thereby achieved will arouse wider interest in this club another season. There are no such players of wind instruments in any other American city, or for that matter in Germany, and their abilities should be recognized in Boston, their adopted town.11
While he did not address Longy’s programming, perhaps owing to his loyalty towards the
German tradition, Hale certainly recognized the value and artistic merit of the ensemble.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 Ibid., 21–22.
11 Philip Hale, “Chamber Concerts,” Boston Journal (March 14, 1901), quoted in Whitwell, The Longy Club, 25.
'$! ! ! Each subsequent season of the Longy Club contained three regular concerts spanning from November to March, in addition to the occasional extra concert as special occasions arose.
During the fourteenth season, Longy attempted to start a series of chamber music concerts in
New York. While the audience and press reacted favorably to this initial concert, nothing seems to have come out of this excursion. Over the years, the Longy Club in Boston performed regularly in both Chickering Hall and Potter Hall until the twelfth season, when they moved permanently to New England Conservatory’s Jordan Hall.
Longy’s programming did not exactly follow Taffanel’s model; every concert featured a smaller ensemble work (quintet/sextet), a solo or duet piece, and a larger ensemble piece (seven players or more). Considering the total body of his concert programs, Longy certainly drew on
Taffanel’s repertoire, though tended to favor French composers such as Bernard, Caplet,
Gounod, Gouvy, Huré, d’Indy, Mouquet, and Pierné. While he did not reject other foreign composers—he performed works by Enesco, Dvo!ák, Mozart, and Raff regularly—they were not featured as prominently. As he did with the other organizations he conducted, Longy encouraged
American composers, and often programmed Arthur Bird’s Suite or Serenade.
In addition to the repertoire, the personnel of the Longy Club also maintained a link to
Taffanel’s ensemble. The pipeline established between Boston and Paris with Longy’s arrival allowed for many more Conservatoire-trained musicians to join the BSO, often former classmates or colleagues. Over the years, there were several changes in personnel due to various circumstances, although for a few seasons, Longy managed to keep the same roster intact, no doubt to everyone’s benefit. For example, from seasons six to thirteen, the personnel list included Daniel Maquarre, André Maquarre, and Arthur Brooke on flute, Clément Lenom and
Georges Longy on oboe, Georges Grisez and Paul Mimart on clarinet, Peter Sadony and John
'%! ! ! Helleberg on bassoon, and Franz Hain and Heinrich Lorbeer on horn. The only change to this roster in all those years was the rotation of the three flute players.
Two members of the Longy Club were also children of Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents members: clarinetist Georges Grisez, who had studied with his father
Arthur Grisez at the Conservatoire, and Auguste Sautet (the younger) on oboe. Like Longy,
Sautet and Clément Lenom had also been oboe students of Georges Gillet at the Conservatoire.
Furthermore, Paul Mimart was the brother of clarinetist Prosper Mimart, who had helped revive
Taffanel’s Société. Flutists and brothers Daniel and André Maquarre had both won the premier prix under Taffanel’s tutelage, and pianist Louis Diémer—Taffanel’s regular accompanist— played with Longy on occasion. With all of these connections to the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents and the Conservatoire, the similarities between the two ensembles in programming and structure are easy to note.
On March 7, 1917, the Longy Club performed its last concert of the season, and although no one knew it at the time, the final concert of the ensemble. No concrete reason was ever given for the group’s disbandment, though speculation remains that the reorganization of the BSO, the end of the First World War, and a loss of financial support were all contributing causes. The end of the Longy Club did not signal the end of wind chamber music in the United States, however, as the early twentieth century proved to be full of opportunity in the New World.
The New York Scene in the Early 1900s
At the turn of the twentieth century, New York had already established itself as a cultural center for the United States, given its ideal location as a gateway for visitors and immigrants.
The city offered up many instrumental performances and concert series, both by large ensembles and chamber music groups.
'&! ! ! The New York Philharmonic Society, established in 1842, was an important force in the city’s musical life. During the course of the nineteenth century, the Philharmonic—led for some time by the industrious Theodore Thomas (1835–1905)—was occasionally eclipsed by other orchestras, but today remains one of the oldest orchestras in continuous existence in the United
States. Since the Philharmonic reflected the European training of its conductors, heavy emphasis was placed on the German school. Often in competition with the Philharmonic was the New
York Symphony Society, founded in 1878 by Leopold Damrosch (1832–1885). Its programming tended to be more adventurous, lightening the heavy German fare with works by Berlioz and
Debussy. Upon Damrosch’s death in 1885, his son Walter (1862–1950) took over the leadership of the orchestra. There were other organizations in New York City that provided opportunities for instrumentalists: the Oratorio Society, also led by Damrosch and his brother Frank (1859–
1937), the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra, the Musical Art Society, in addition to many militia and regiment bands.
Several chamber music organizations were also active at the beginning of the twentieth century in New York. The Kneisel Quartet had moved from Boston to New York and continued to provide string quartet performances. The Flonzaley Quartet, founded by Edward J. De Coppet
(1855–1916), also performed string quartets both in public concerts and in private homes. The
People’s Symphony Concerts, inaugurated in 1902, presented a series of free public chamber music concerts for recent European immigrants.
In 1903 Walter Damrosch reconstituted his ailing orchestra as the New York Symphony
Orchestra, resolving to reorganize the ensemble based on the Boston Symphony Orchestra model, with a permanent roster and daily rehearsals, reflecting the notion that improving the
''! ! ! quality of the personnel was the key to success.12 Although German by birth, Damrosch had never been charmed by the German woodwind sound and preferred French woodwind players.13
When his principal flutist (a Conservatoire-trained musician) died in January 1905, Damrosch decided to take a trip to Paris and recruit five woodwind players. One of those five was none other than Georges Barrère.
Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments (1910–1932)
In December 1905, just a few months after his arrival in New York, Georges Barrère began to recreate many of his Paris musical opportunities. He focused on creating chamber music outlets and developed a reputation as a soloist through his numerous associations with well-known musicians in New York such as Franz Kneisel and the Damrosch brothers. Despite all this, in 1910 he felt that something was missing and that wind instruments had been forgotten.14 With his charm and connections, Barrère sought out a wealthy member of the New
York Symphony board, Mary Callender, who helped him form a committee of guarantors; subsequently, the Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments was born.
On Monday afternoon, February 28, 1910, Barrère presented the first concert of his new ensemble in the thousand-seat Stuyvesant Theatre, on West 44th Street in midtown-Manhattan
(later renamed the Belasco Theater). Featuring octets by Haydn and Beethoven, a Mozart
Serenade, in addition to solo flute sonatas, the concert was well-received by the critic at the New
York Tribune, predicting that the ensemble “may prove an important addition to the musical life
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
12 Toff, 80.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., 111.
'(! ! ! of the city….The playing of the ensemble was in all respects delightful, the musicians showing remarkable precision and fine musical understanding.”15
The second concert of the season, presented a week later on March 7, 1910, was also demanding: Reinecke’s Octet, op. 216, Pierné’s Pastorale variée, d’Indy’s Chanson et danses, op. 50 and Caplet’s Suite persane, in addition to a sextet and some interludes of French songs.
Although this program consisted of some new music, the New York Times critic found it less appealing, because “there is much less music of the greatest modern composers written for wind instruments than there was by the older composers. The modern repertory offers less to draw on, and what there is is less significant. The playing of Mr. Barrère and his men had the same fine quality that it had at the first performance, but it was expended upon music scarcely worthy of it.”16 Perhaps Barrère understood that “less significant” and “scarcely worthy” really meant “not
German.” Choosing to see these reviews as a success, he went about planning for the second season.
Subsequent seasons continued with the pattern of three concerts from November to
February, but in addition to the regular performances, the ensemble toured throughout the United
States, and allowed the Barrère name to be heard across the country. Over the course of the first five seasons, they undertook at least two lengthy tours to surrounding states.
Barrère’s programming did not stray from the body of repertoire he firmly established in
Paris with the Société moderne pour instruments à vents. Like Longy, he did not imitate
Taffanel’s model verbatim, but did feature a variety of works on each concert. Most notably,
Barrère programmed several large ensemble pieces on each concert, more so than any of the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15 “New Musical Body” New York Tribune (March 1, 1910), quoted in Toff, 112.
16 “The Barrère Ensemble,” New York Times (March 8, 1910), quoted in Toff, 113.
')! ! ! other ensemble leaders. For example, in one 1913 concert, the Barrère Ensemble performed the
Mozart Serenade in B-flat “Gran Partita,” the Richard Strauss Serenade, op. 7, and the Périlhou
Divertissement, in addition to two works for chorus and winds. Although no documentation regarding rehearsals survives, considering Barrère’s busy schedule, his ambitious programs speak clearly to the ability of his musicians.
Barrère typically relied on the French large-ensemble works he had been so instrumental in bringing about in Paris as the foundation of his programs. However, by 1914 he had a new goal in mind: to stimulate the composition of works by American composers in order to prove that it was not always necessary to draw on foreign sources. On November 22, the Barrère
Ensemble presented an all-American concert, featuring pieces by Mabel Wood Hill, George
Whitefield Chadwick, Howard Brockway, and Victor Herbert. Some accused Barrère of attempting to show neutrality or to use this as a publicity ploy, but he maintained “it is only to take a step... in the general forward movement which spells progress in art.”17 In this era where the vast majority of orchestral musicians were foreign-born and unsympathetic to American composers, Barrère’s advocacy of American music received an overwhelmingly positive critical reaction, as noted in the New York Evening Post: “With a past containing few great names, although the future seems hopeful, Mr. Barrère’s experiment with present-day composers was courageous, and found its only possible justification in success.”18
Details concerning the later years of the Barrère Ensemble are sparse, and it is not clear whether concerts were planned regularly or simply as occasions arose. The only information on this matter comes to light in 1928 when the New York Symphony merged with the New York
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
17 Toff, 135.
18 “Bispham with Barrère Ensemble,” New York Evening Post (November 23, 1914), quoted in Toff, 135.
'*! ! ! Philharmonic, and Barrère chose to step down from his position as principal flute in order to make his Little Symphony and his Barrère Ensemble permanent organizations. The last documented performance of the Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments took place in June 1932 as part of an informal summer concert.
Through the stimulation of new music and the vast publicity that the Barrère name provoked, Barrère managed to bring chamber wind music to a large audience across the United
States. While his counterpart, Georges Longy, travelled less frequently, firmly establishing his
Boston identity, both leaders successfully transplanted Taffanel’s philosophy to the United
States. They had the advantage of the country’s top instrumentalists, their own chamber music experience through Taffanel, a body of recent chamber wind works, and a new-world entrepreneurial spirit. Despite the myriad musical movements and diverse ideologies of the early
1900s, Barrère and Longy’s groups managed to maintain, for a considerable time, a solid presence in their respective musical communities.
'+! ! ! CHAPTER FOUR
IMPACT AND INFLUENCE
Lesser-Known Chamber Wind Ensembles
The Société moderne des instruments à vents, Longy Club, and Barrère Ensemble of
Wind Instruments demonstrate the influence of Taffanel as an ensemble leader and a teacher because their performances were well documented in extant concert programs and published in the local press. Taffanel’s model inspired the creation of other ensembles, such as those led by
Edmond Alexis Bertram, Frederic Griffith, François Gevaert and Mariano San Miguel. Although less prolific and more obscure, these ensembles were certainly created in the same spirit of drawing attention to music for winds.
In 1889 French music journal Le Ménestrel announced the creation of a new ensemble in
Marseille based on Taffanel’s Société. Edmond Alexis Bertram, a flutist who had also studied at the Conservatoire, led this ensemble made up of a wind quintet with piano. Noted was the
“piquant novelty of their program” and the “courageous endeavor of those interested in art.”1 In
London flutist and former Taffanel student at the Conservatoire, Frederic Griffith, was involved in two rival organizations, the Wind Instrument Society and Clinton’s Wind Quintet. In his writings about music in London, Bernard Shaw commented that both enterprises should be receiving sufficient funding since they afforded opportunities for turning bandsmen into artists, and noted the dearth of first-rate wind players in London.2
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 “La valeur de ces artistes et la piquante nouveauté de leur programme assurent à l’oeuvre qu’ils entreprennent courageusement le concours de tous ceux qui, à Marseille, s’intéressent aux choses de l’art.” Le Ménestrel (January 13, 1889), 13.
2 Bernard Shaw, Music in London, 1890–94 (London: Constable, 1932), 2:47.
',! ! ! In Belgium, influential composer, musicologist, and Brussels Conservatory director
François Gevaert (1828–1908) founded an ensemble similar to Taffanel’s in the mid-1880s.
Gevaert lived in Paris for several years, where his operas were produced at the Opéra and Opéra- comique, and later became musical director of the Opéra from 1867 until the outbreak of the
Franco-Prussian War. It was during this time that Gevaert and Taffanel established a friendship and professional relationship that would be mutually beneficial in later years when Taffanel traveled to Brussels to perform and Gevaert needed flute advice for his orchestration treatise.3
In Madrid Spanish clarinetist Mariano San Miguel (1879–1935) performed extensively in both wind bands and orchestras. During the early twentieth century, he composed over two hundred works for band, including several marches, and he co-founded the Sociedad de conciertos de cámara para instrumentos de viento (Chamber Concert Society for Wind
Instruments). In 1908 he wrote to Taffanel, reporting the great success the ensemble had encountered with Taffanel’s own Quintet.4
Even though not much is known about these less prominent early chamber wind ensembles, what remains obvious is the fact that Taffanel’s influence was felt far beyond the borders of France to other continents and countries.
Final Impressions on the Chamber Wind Ensembles
The degree of influence that Paul Taffanel, Georges Barrère, and Georges Longy exerted on their immediate surroundings is daunting to ascertain quantifiably. However, the fact that
Taffanel’s retirement from his Société in 1893 enabled Barrère—as a nineteen-year-old—to start
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 François Gevaert, Cours méthodique d’orchestration (Bruxelles: H. Lemoine et cie, 1890).
4 Blakeman, 94.
(-! ! ! a similar organization and maintain its relevance in Paris until his departure in 1905, speaks volumes about the validity of the genre. Furthermore, Louis Fleury’s role in sustaining the
Société moderne for twenty years after Barrère’s departure also demonstrated the ensemble’s place in the Parisian musical world.
In Boston, the Longy Club was called “one of the most representative musical organizations of Boston” in a Post article, adding that the possibility that the ensemble could no longer present concerts would be “a deplorable loss to the city.”5 Evidently, it was widely believed that the Longy Club enriched the musical life of Boston.
In New York, Barrère’s eventual decision in 1928 to leave his orchestral position and focus on his Barrère Ensemble and his Barrère Little Symphony full-time as professional ensembles reveals his confidence in his own ability to attract audiences and be successful as a conductor and leader. In an article for Musical America, Catherine Bamman described Barrère’s group as musically significant: “From this sleep of centuries, the Barrère Ensemble has emerged, an evangelist to propagate the gospel of musical purity.”6
Musical trends and innovations appeared rapidly in the twentieth century, perhaps more so than in any other time in history. Because of this and the obvious economic impact brought about by two World Wars, it is difficult to trace the chamber wind movement past the last documented performance of each ensemble. What is easier to surmise, however, is the impact the repertoire of this movement had on future generations of musicians.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 “The Longy Club,” Boston Post (November 24, 1917), quoted in Whitwell, The Longy Club, 204.
6 Catherine A. Bamman, “Prophet of the Wind Instrument,” Musical America 21 (November 28, 1914): 28, quoted in Toff, 134.
($! ! ! Impact and Influence on Today’s Ensembles
In examining the list of large ensemble works performed by the ensembles of Taffanel,
Barrère and Longy (see Appendix), it becomes apparent that many of these works were composed for, dedicated to or premiered by these ensembles. Considering that they performed this music repeatedly, over the span of each ensemble’s existence, a strong case can be made that they in fact established the repertoire. Moreover, that many of these pieces are still in publication today and being performed by chamber wind groups is a testament to the legacy of the ensemble leaders and the path they forged for this genre.
When considering the chamber wind ensemble format in modern-day musical circles, few professional ensembles in existence today are modeled perfectly after the original ones. The
Netherlands Wind Ensemble, founded in 1959 by students at the Amsterdam Conservatory, was reformed in 1966 under conductor Edo de Waart to function as a classical octet with the capability of expanding to thirty musicians as repertory demanded. Still thriving today, the ensemble is known for its unconventional programming and is comprised of musicians from the top Dutch professional orchestras. In the United States, the Atlanta Chamber Winds, founded in
2006 by Robert Ambrose, is an ensemble committed to promoting lesser-known works for chamber winds. Ensembles such as the Hudson Valley Chamber Winds and the Detroit Chamber
Winds and Strings are comprised of the best local musicians, though they include a small string section to increase the breadth of their repertoire.
Aside from these modern chamber wind ensembles drawing mostly on professional players, the chamber wind ensemble model is perhaps best found in the university setting. The wind bands/ensembles in certain schools devote a portion of their concert programs to wind chamber works, following the Fennell-Eastman model. In other schools, such as the University
(%! ! ! of Cincinnati’s College-Conservatory of Music (CCM), there are dedicated ensembles that exist solely to perform wind chamber music. At CCM, the Chamber Winds has a roster of approximately twenty musicians on flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon and horn, with the ability to add other instruments as needed. They perform at least six concerts per academic year, featuring three or four works on each concert. Although Chamber Players functions similarly, this ensemble includes on its roster string players, percussionists, and a pianist, allowing for a slightly different type of repertoire to be performed. It is most certainly in ensembles like these that the repertoire of Taffanel, Barrère and Longy lives on.
In order to fully comprehend the impact and the influence the chamber wind ensembles of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries had on wind music today, it is necessary to return to the conflicting alternatives presented by David Whitwell regarding the history of today’s wind bands/ensembles, confirmed by Frank Battisti in his Winds of Change: “1. The band’s cultural forebearers were the military bands, and the works of Mozart, Berlioz, Gounod,
Strauss, etc. [sic] were peripheral to that history; or 2. The band’s cultural forebearers were
Mozart, Berlioz, Gounod, Strauss, etc. and the military bands were peripheral to that history.”7
Whitwell’s reference to works by Mozart, Gounod and Richard Strauss encompasses the chamber repertoire established by Taffanel and in his argument states that the development of the wind ensemble could not have happened without the chamber wind repertoire, whether as the primary or secondary forbearer.
In basing the Eastman Wind Ensemble on the idea that it could have a flexible instrumentation and perform a diverse repertoire encompassing all eras of music, Frederick
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7 David Whitwell, “The Contemporary Band—In Quest of an Aesthetic Concept of History,” The Instrumentalist 23 (May 1969): 35, quoted in Frank Battisti, The Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary Wind Band/Ensemble and Its Conductor (Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2002), 3.
(&! ! ! Fennell effectively acknowledged that the music promoted by the early chamber wind ensembles was valuable for the wind medium and an integral part of its history. By merging the “serious” music from the Taffanel era and the more accessible music for concert band popularized by the military band tradition upheld by Sousa, he helped the wind ensemble ascend to a place in academic institutions equal to those held by orchestras and choirs. The wind ensemble concept, now employed by almost every university music department in North America, is rooted in the repertoire once championed by Paul Taffanel, Georges Barrère, and Georges Longy.
('! ! ! CONCLUSION
Paul Taffanel’s vision in creating his Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents not only changed the face of the Parisian musical scene, it also revolutionized wind playing in chamber music, developed a repertoire, and established a genre. Whether his endeavor was truly a part of the nationalist ideal or simply an attempt to gain status for wind players, Taffanel’s influence reached far beyond the scope of what his carefully planned first season of concerts may have foretold.
That Taffanel was able to inspire other musicians to form ensembles built on his philosophies is not surprising, considering his fifteen-year success with the Société. However, that Georges Barrère and Georges Longy were both able to maintain longevity with their ensembles, hold a significant place in their cities’ musical environment and continue to contribute to the growing repertoire of chamber wind music is worthy of contemplation. None of these ensembles represented a passing fad: the long tenure of each ensemble coupled with positive press reviews indicate that the leaders and their ensembles had learned to adapt to audience tastes, while the concert-going public increasingly appreciated what chamber wind music had to offer.
Today’s chamber wind ensembles, in their flexible instrumentation, can clearly trace their lineage to the groups led by Taffanel, Barrère, and Longy. An even more valuable legacy from these groups is the chronicle of the repertoire that materialized as a result of their tireless advocacy for winds and which now comprises an essential ingredient for the development of performance practice for any wind ensemble. With that perspective, then, this period of approximately fifty years, starting in 1879, truly represents l’age d’or of the chamber wind ensemble.
((! ! ! APPENDIX
The table below is an inclusive summary of the pieces for large ensemble performed by the Société de musique de chambre pour instruments à vents, the Société moderne pour instruments à vents, the Barrère Ensemble of Wind Instruments and the Longy Club. This table serves several purposes: 1) to demonstrate the body of repertoire performed by the four main ensembles discussed in this document, 2) to understand what portion of this repertoire was shared between these ensemble leaders, 3) to perceive any trends in programming for one ensemble leader or for a particular piece, and 4) to be used as a repertoire reference.
The table includes pieces for seven players or more and only contains pieces employing a majority of wind instruments. Premieres, both world and US, are indicated, as are pieces dedicated to each ensemble leader. The table was created by collecting performance information from three main sources: Edward Blakeman’s Taffanel: Genius of the Flute, Nancy Toff’s
Monarch of the Flute: The Life of Georges Barrère, and David Whitwell’s The Longy Club.1 The performance information is gleaned from these authors’ collation of archival materials such as concert programs, newspaper reviews, personal correspondences and personal diaries.
The instrumentation for each piece is listed in the same format used in Rodney Winther’s
An Annotated Guide to Wind Chamber Music, using the standard format and abbreviations, listing woodwinds (from high to low) in the first grouping, brass in the second, then percussion, piano and anything else.2 For example, 22(EH)31-2100 would read as two flutes, two oboes (the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Blakeman, Ibid., Toff, Ibid., and Whitwell The Longy Club, Ibid.
2 Rodney Winther, An Annotated Guide to Wind Chamber Music: For Six to Eighteen Players (Miami, FL: Warner Brothers Music, 2004), 5. !
()! ! ! second doubles on English Horn), three clarinets, one bassoon, two horns, one trumpet, with no trombones or tubas. The Arabic numbers in the four right-hand columns represent the number of times each group performed a particular piece.
(*! ! ! !"#$%&'()%*+,%&-%.%#/01#%&2%#30#*%4&+5&6"33"(%,7&8"##9#%&"(4&!0($5&
!
8"##9#%& 6"33"(%,& =0>1?/?& 8"##9#%& !0($5& :0*.0)%#& 61/,%& ;()/#<*%(/"/10(& =0>1?/?& *04%#(%& '()%*+,%& :,<+& 82149":%4266"/*7253,26"2&&;"<,75%6" =253%&2'"/>,3*" ??@ABCD@71C?E?FFF" "" "" G!0" G" 8**34%H*69"I>($,J"H26" K13*3" F???E?FFF" GG" G" G" D" 8**34%H*69"I>($,J"H26" L%6(,6%" F???E?FFF" M" G" "" "" 8*&62&(9"A+,'*" N,H*&3,55*+*63" ????E?FFF" O!" G" "" P" 8,6J42+9"/*34" />,3*"Q%&"R,6("S653&>+*6359"%);"GM" ?G??E?FFF" "" "" G!0" "" 8,&(9"T&34>&" /*&*62(*9"%);"UF" ????E?FFF" "" "" "" D!" 8,&(9"T&34>&" />,3*",6"N"+2V" ????E?FFF" "" "" "" G!" 8&24+59":%4266*5" /*&*62(*"W%;"?9"%);"GO" ?@),1C???E?FFF9"H'29"H1'9"75" ?" "" "" "" A1'%J>*"@T3"[$,',J439"T6"S(Y'"%Q" 8&%1X$2Y9"B%$2&("2&&;"82&&Z&*" \>&+>&,6J"R23*&C" ????E?FFF" "" "" ?!" G" 8&>69"<*%&J*5" =25212,''*9"%);"?P" ?G?GE?FFF9"17" "" G!" "" "" 8>+1X*9"<>532H" N*&"/)2],*&J26J9"%);"??" GG@ABC??EGFFF"4)" "" "" "" G" ^2)'*39"T6(&_" />,3*")*&526*" ????E?FFF" "" O!" ?" U" ^%'%+*&9"8'25E\2&,2" N,H*&3,55*+*63"@W%1*5"(*"`,6J2'C" R,6(5"26("42&)" G" "" "" "" ^%'%+*&9"8'25E\2&,2" W%6*39"%);"P?" G???E?FFF" ?!" "" "" "" ^%&3%39"T'Q&*(" N*>a"(265*5" ?G?GEGFFF" "" G!" "" "" ^%552&39"I*'26(" />,3*9"%);"Gb" ????E?FFF"4)" "" "" "" G!" N>7%,59"[4_%(%&*" />,3*"W%;"G" ?G??EGFFF" "" G!" "" "" N>7%,59"[4_%(%&*" />,3*"W%;"?" ?G??EGFFF" "" G!" "" "" NH%cdX9"T63%6,6" /*&*62(*9"%);"UU" F???@1756CEDFFF9"H'19"17" P" "" "" ?-" A6*51%9"<*%&J*5" N,a3>%&" ????E?FFF" "" G!" ?" ?-" A&42&39":21e>*5" /*&*62(*9"%);UF" ????E?FFF" "" G!" "" ""
!"#"$%&'(")&*+,*&*" -"#"./")&*+,*&*" 0"#"(*(,123*("3%"34,5"*65*+7'*"'*2(*&" "#! ! ! !"#$%&'()%*+,%&-%.%#/01#%&2%#30#*%4&+5&6"33"(%,7&8"##9#%&"(4&!0($5&
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`27*'"a%%(" b63*&+*??%"26("
!"#"$%&'(")&*+,*&*" -"#"./")&*+,*&*" 0"#"(*(,123*("3%"34,5"*65*+7'*"'*2(*&" "#! ! ! !"#$%&'()%*+,%&-%.%#/01#%&2%#30#*%4&+5&6"33"(%,7&8"##9#%&"(4&!0($5&
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attisti, Frank L. The Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary American Wind Band/Ensemble and Its Conductor. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications, 2002. Blakeman, Edward. Taffanel: Genius of the Flute. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Cooper, Jeffrey. The Rise of Instrumental Music and Concert Series in Paris in 1828–1871. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1983. Davis, Ronald L. A History of Music in American Life. 2 vols. Huntington, NY: Robert Krieger, 1980. Gevaert, François. Cours méthodique d’orchestration. Bruxelles: H. Lemoine et cie, 1890. Grider, Rufus A. “Music in Bethlehem.” In Historical Sketch of Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, edited by John Hill Martin, 157–173. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: John L. Pile, 1873. Gudell, Valerie. “Georges Longy: His Life and Legacy.” DMA thesis, University of Houston, 2001. Hefling, Stephen E., ed. Nineteenth-century Chamber Music. New York: Schirmer Books, 1998. Knight, Ellen. “Boston’s ‘French Connection’ at the Turn of the Twentieth Century.” In Perspectives on American Music, 1900–1950, edited by Michael Saffle, 1–18. New York: Garland Publishing, 2000. Pasler, Jann. Composing the Citizen: Music as Public Utility in Third Republic France. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Phelps, Roger P. “The Mendelssohn Quintet Club: A Milestone in American Music Education.” Journal of Research in Music Education 8, no. 1 (Spring 1960): 39–44. Shaw, Bernard. Music in London: 1890–94. 2 vols. London: Constable, 1932. Spitzer, John, and Neal Zaslaw. Birth of the Orchestra: History of an Institution, 1650–1815. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004. Strasser, Michael. “Ars Gallica: the Société nationale de musique and Its Role in French Musical Life, 1871–1891.” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998. Toff, Nancy. Monarch of the Flute: The Life of Georges Barrère. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. ! "#! ! Whitwell, David. A Concise History of the Wind Band. Edited by Craig Dabelstein. Austin, TX: Whitwell Publishing, 2010. ———. The Longy Club: 1900–1917. Edited by Craig Dabelstein. Austin, TX: Whitwell Books, 2011. Winther, Rodney. An Annotated Guide to Wind Chamber Music: For Six to Eighteen Players. Miami, FL: Warner Brothers Music, 2004. ! "#!