College Orchestra Director Programming Decisions Regarding Classical Twentieth-Century Music Mark D

James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Dissertations The Graduate School Summer 2017 College orchestra director programming decisions regarding classical twentieth-century music Mark D. Taylor James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/diss201019 Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Mark D., "College orchestra director programming decisions regarding classical twentieth-century music" (2017). Dissertations. 132. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/diss201019/132 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. College Orchestra Director Programming Decisions Regarding Classical Twentieth-Century Music Mark David Taylor A Doctor of Musical Arts Document submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts School of Music August 2017 FACULTY COMMITTEE Committee Chair: Dr. Eric Guinivan Committee Members/ Readers: Dr. Mary Jean Speare Mr. Foster Beyers Acknowledgments Dr. Robert McCashin, former Director of Orchestras and Professor of Orchestral Conducting at James Madison University (JMU) as well as a co-founder of College Orchestra Directors Association (CODA), served as an important sounding-board as the study emerged. Dr. McCashin was particularly helpful in pointing out the challenges of undertaking such a study. I would have been delighted to have Dr. McCashin serve as the chair of my doctoral committee, but he retired from JMU before my study was completed. Dr. Eric Guinivan, Assistant Professor of Composition at JMU and the chair of my doctoral committee, provided encouragement, gave generously of his time, and made a number of helpful suggestions. Dr. Mary Jean Speare, Professor of Musicology, Director of Graduate Studies, and Associate Director of the School of Music at JMU, and Professor Foster Beyers, current Director of Orchestras and Assistant Professor of Orchestral Conducting at JMU, graciously accepted the invitation to serve as members of my doctoral committee. I did not have the opportunity to study with Professor Beyers; I am especially grateful for his willingness to serve as a committee member so that I could have the orchestral conducting perspective represented on my doctoral committee. Dr. Lisa Maynard, Associate Professor of Music Education at JMU, offered a good deal of encouragement to me throughout my degree program. She was particularly encouraging with regard to getting my doctoral research published. I am indebted to the following people for words or phrases I have appropriated or adapted for my own study: Dr. Timothy Dixon for his phrase “college-level orchestra;” Dr. Bradley Smith for his use of the word “obligation” when referring to programming decisions; the authors Alex Turrini, Michael O’Hare, and Francesca Borgonovi for the phrase “intrinsic quality;” and The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) for their phrase “adventurous programming.” Maestro Daniel Lewis (1925-2017) was an indirect mentor, in terms of his unusual approach to programming with the Pasadena (CA) Symphony during the two seasons I played with the orchestra. Dr. Ralph Laycock (1920-2006), former Director of Orchestras at Brigham Young University (BYU), was an incredibly influential mentor to me. I learned much from him about what a college-level orchestra is capable of doing. Dr. Madison Sowell, former Provost at Southern Virginia University, deserves special mention for persistently encouraging me to obtain this degree. Rowan Taylor (1927-2005) and Priscilla Taylor, my parents, provided me with a rich musical upbringing. In addition to their encouragement that I study the piano and violin, our home was a welcoming place where many of their dearest friends came to make a wide variety of music. My father helped me become acquainted with a broad assortment of string orchestra, chamber orchestra and full orchestra repertoire as I was recruited, at age 11, into the two local orchestras he conducted. My mother accompanied me most ably on a good number of violin pieces, some of which were newly-composed. Both of my parents had an open mind toward new music. Michael Taylor and Stephen Taylor, two of my sons, provided help with the submitted repertoire list, professional orchestra audition lists, figures, tables, proofreading, and other tasks. Last and foremost, my wife Samee provided incalculable moral support and faith that I could successfully complete this degree program as a non-traditional student. Table of Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Figures and Tables................................................................................................... v Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Review of the Literature .................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Presentation of Survey .................................................................................... 38 Chapter 3: Presentation and Analysis of Survey Data ...................................................... 42 Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 82 Appendix A: Recruitment Letter to CODA Members .......................................... 91 Appendix B: Survey Questions ............................................................................. 92 Appendix C: Programming Factors Regarding Newer Music .............................. 94 Appendix D: Category and Category Factor Ratings, Sorted by Average ........... 96 Appendix E: Verbatim Free Responses from Survey Question #2 ...................... 97 Appendix F: Number of Pieces by Nationality and Programming Decade ....... 103 Appendix G: Number of Pieces by Genre and Programming Decade ................ 104 Appendix H: Submitted Repertoire, Alphabetically by Composer Surname and Performance Frequency ...................................................................................... 106 Appendix I: Submitted Repertoire, Organized by Year of Composition ............ 129 Appendix J: Submitted Repertoire, Organized by Performance Frequency ....... 154 Appendix K: List of Orchestras in By the Numbers Reports ............................. 178 Appendix L: List of American Composers by Programming Decade ................ 185 Glossary of Genre Names ............................................................................................... 187 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 193 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Most Important Composers of Standard Repertoire. ......................................... 28 Figure 2. Most Important Repertoire, Organized Chronologically. .................................. 29 Figure 3. Most Important Contemporary Composers. ...................................................... 30 Figure 4: Most-represented Composer Nationalities Before 1850. .................................. 33 Figure 5: Most-represented Composer Nationalities Between 1850 and 1969. ............... 34 Figure 6: Most-represented Composer Nationalities Since 1970. .................................... 34 Figure 7. Performances of Programmed Works Composed 1590-1799. .......................... 35 Figure 8. Performances of Programmed Works Composed 1800-2017. .......................... 36 Figure 9. Number of European, American and Latin-American Pieces, 1885-1944. ....... 47 Figure 10. Most-represented Genres, 1885-1944. ............................................................ 47 Figure 11. Number of European, American and Latin-American Pieces, 1945-2015. ..... 49 Figure 12. Most-represented Genres, 1945-2015. ............................................................ 49 Figure 13. Number of Programmed Pieces, 1935-1974. .................................................. 50 Figure 14. Number of Women Composers by Programming Decade. ............................. 54 Figure 15. Number of American Pieces by Programming Decade. .................................. 57 Figure 16. Most-represented Nationalities by Programming Decade. .............................. 58 Figure 17. Most-enduring Genres. .................................................................................... 59 Abstract College-level orchestra programming studies is still an emerging field of research. The hypothesis for this study is as follows: (1) college-level orchestra directors generally program newer music that is tonal, rhythmically straightforward, more-easily understandable on the first listening, and already-familiar; and (2) college-level orchestra directors are generally reluctant to program newer music that is post-tonal, psychological in nature, densely-written, containing enigmatic meaning, and

Load more