CONITZ-DOCUMENT-2019.Pdf

Home , Capet Quartet, Douglas Moore, George Antheil, Hans Werner Henze, Howard Boatwright, Lucien Capet

Abstract

(Re)Examining narratives: Personal style and the viola works of Quincy Porter (1897–1966)

Aaron Daniel Conitz

The American composer Quincy Porter (1897–1966) is primarily remembered for his achievements and contributions as a member of the academy and, as a result, his music has largely been cast in the shadows. His compositional style is frequently described as “personal” or

“highly individual,” particularly in reference to his works of chamber music, specifically those for string instruments. Porter was a fine violist who performed throughout his professional career in solo recitals and chamber ensembles; these experiences directly influenced his composition.

Reexamining Porter’s narrative through the lens of his works for viola reveals a more nuanced perspective of the individual, one that more effectively conveys his personal style through the instrument he played. This body of repertoire forms a unique sector of his oeuvre: the works are valuable for the violist in their idiomatic qualities and compositional appeal, yet also display the composer’s voice at its finest. This document will present the works Porter originally wrote for viola (no transcriptions) as a valuable contribution to the repertory of 20th century American viola music. The works will be presented in chronological fashion and explore analytical aspects, stylistic concerns, historical context, and performance practice. The document begins with a biography to provide context for these works. ii

Acknowledgements

It is said that it takes a small village to raise a child. The essence and wisdom of this statement has certainly held true throughout the creation of this document; I would like to thank and recognize the small village of individuals that have helped me along this long, but rewarding journey.

The inspiration for this project was twofold, beginning at the Cleveland Institute of Music during my undergraduate studies. Thanks to Sergein Yap’s brilliant idea of creating an American themed studio recital, I investigated the extant viola repertoire by American composers. Through this process, I discovered Quincy Porter and began exploring his viola repertoire. The idea of a research project associated with Porter and his viola music emerged from a discussion with

David Bynog during his bibliography course at Rice University. I thank David for inspiring me to pursue the subject, providing me with materials from his own research on Porter, and his

meticulous editorial eye.

I thank Richard Boursy, archivist at the Irving S. Gilmore Music Library, and the staff at the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University. The Quincy Porter Papers,

MSS 15 were an invaluable resource in producing this document. In addition to the library staff support, I thank Bethany Hargreaves for remotely providing scans of original documents. Thanks

to Chris Irvine for hosting me while I conducted research at Yale.

I thank my advisor Richard Lavenda for his perspective, critical feedback, and strategic

advice throughout this dissertation process. In challenging times, I appreciated his sober advice

in organizing and presenting my research concisely and effectively. iii

I thank the following people for their support, encouragement, and guidance: my viola

teachers, James Dunham, Robert Vernon, Lynne Ramsey, and Jeffrey Irvine; collaborative

pianist, Eliza Ching; my committee members, Peter Loewen, and Genevera Allen; Shane Monds

for creating the prolongation graphs; the InterLibrary Loan staff at Fondren Library; the staff and

facilities at the University of Washington Music Library; and Bonnie Wolkenstein.

I thank my family for their love and support, encouraging me in my musical pursuits,

both professional and academic. I thank them for providing me the opportunity to learn the violin

and viola, and persistent reminder of the value of music education and learning.

Lastly, I thank my partner Valerie Khanh for her ever-present support, love, and understanding; without her organizational wisdom, constant encouragement, and unwavering belief in me, this dissertation document would never have reached its current state.

Aaron Conitz

April 18, 2019

Seattle, Washington

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Table of Figures...... v List of Tables ...... vi Introduction ...... 1 Chapter One: A (Brief) Biography of Quincy Porter (1897–1966) ...... 5 Schola Cantorum, Vincent d’Indy, and Lucien Capet (1920-21) ...... 10 Mon maître, Ernest Bloch ...... 12 Return to Paris, 1928–31 ...... 15 Salle Chopin: February 18, 1931 ...... 25 Return to the Academy ...... 28 Vassar College, 1932–38 ...... 31 New England Conservatory, 1938–46 ...... 32 Yale School of Music, 1946–65 ...... 38 Chapter Two: The Duo for violin and viola (1917) ...... 49 Chapter Three: Establishing the Idiom –– Suite for viola alone (1930) ...... 62 Performance and recording history ...... 62 The personal style of Porter ...... 66 Chapter Four: Concerto for viola and orchestra (1948) ...... 77 The Concerto ...... 79 Reputation and Recording History...... 100 Chapter Five: Speed Etude (1948) ...... 106 Chapter Six: Duo for violin and viola (1954) ...... 122 Chapter Seven: Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957) ...... 138 Considering the options: harp or harpsichord? ...... 151 Conclusion ...... 154 Bibliography ...... 158 Archive collections ...... 158 Books and Articles ...... 158 Music ...... 162 v

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 1–10 ...... 50 Figure 2. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 11–24...... 51 Figure 3. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 25–33...... 52 Figure 4. Duo (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 30–33...... 53 Figure 5. Duo (1917) I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 37–41...... 55 Figure 6. Duo (1917), II. Andante, mm. 1–5...... 56 Figure 7. Duo (1917), II. Andante, mm. 11–15...... 57 Figure 8. Suite for viola alone, I. Lento, mm. 1–5...... 67 Figure 9. Suite for viola alone, I. Lento, mm. 6–13...... 68 Figure 10. Suite for viola alone, II. Allegro furioso, mm. 24–29...... 69 Figure 11. Suite for viola alone II. Allegro furioso, mm. 33–35...... 70 Figure 12. Suite for viola alone, III. Larghetto espressivo, mm. 78–88...... 71 Figure 13. Suite for viola alone, III. Larghetto espressivo, mm. 89–94...... 72 Figure 14. Suite for viola alone, IV. Allegro spiritoso, mm. 115–129...... 73 Figure 15. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 1–2...... 81 Figure 16. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 3–6...... 82 Figure 17. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 7–9...... 83 Figure 18. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 10–14...... 84 Figure 19. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 16–17...... 85 Figure 20. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 2–3...... 86 Figure 21. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 56–58...... 87 Figure 22. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 140–42...... 88 Figure 23. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 219–222...... 88 Figure 24. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 231–238...... 89 Figure 25. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, rehearsal 33...... 91 Figure 26. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo...... 92 Figure 27. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, cadenza...... 93 Figure 28. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, cadenza...... 93 Figure 29. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto...... 94 Figure 30. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto...... 96 Figure 31. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto...... 97 Figure 32. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto...... 97 Figure 33. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto...... 99 Figure 34. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo...... 100 Figure 35. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 1–4...... 108 Figure 36. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12...... 108 Figure 37. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 21–27...... 110 Figure 38. Speed Etude (1948). Long-range tonal plan with linear voice leading...... 112 Figure 39. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12 and 54–57...... 114 Figure 40. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 105–112...... 115 Figure 41. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 1–7...... 118 Figure 42. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12 and 54–57...... 120 vi

Figure 43. Duo for violin and viola (1954), I. Allegretto mm. 1–13...... 126 Figure 44. Duo for violin and viola (1954) I. Allegretto, mm. 9–18...... 128 Figure 45. Duo for violin and viola (1954) I. Allegretto, mm. 31–35...... 128 Figure 46. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 1–8...... 130 Figure 47. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 9–18...... 131 Figure 48. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 19–27...... 132 Figure 49. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 40–46...... 132 Figure 50. Duo for violin and viola (1954) III. Allegro molto, mm. 1–10 and 42–53...... 134 Figure 51. Duo for violin and viola (1954) III. Allegro molto, mm. 54–69...... 134 Figure 52. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Allegro molto, mm. 131–143 and 169–177...... 135 Figure 53. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 1–6...... 140 Figure 54. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 7–12...... 141 Figure 55. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 13–15...... 142 Figure 56. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 19–21...... 143 Figure 57. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 28–33...... 144 Figure 58. Duo for viola and harp, map of formal design...... 146 Figure 59. Duo for viola and harp, long-range harmonic plan...... 147 Figure 60. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 49–51...... 148 Figure 61. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 94–102...... 149 Figure 62. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 112–117...... 150

List of Tables

Table 1. Speed Etude (1948)...... 112

vii

CONCERTO FOR VIOLA AND ORCHESTRA By Quincy Porter Copyright © 1951 (Renewed) by Associated Music Publishers, Inc. International Copyright Secured. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted by Permission. • I. Adagio, mm. 1–17 • II. Allegro, mm. 2–3, 56–58, 140–142, 219–222, 231–238 • III. Largo, mm. 1–2, 25, 27–28, 43–45 • IV. Allegro giusto, rehearsal 43, 47, 51, 52, 65

DUO FOR VIOLIN AND VIOLA (1917) By Quincy Porter Unpublished, autograph manuscript. Reprinted by Permission of the Quincy Porter Estate.

DUO FOR VIOLA AND HARP OR HARPSICHORD (1957) By Quincy Porter Unpublished holograph facsimile Reprinted by Permission of the Quincy Porter Estate.

Introduction

Often the narrative of a composer’s life is written to suit the needs of a particular perspective on a cultural moment, or thesis when describing an epoch. The historian’s task, then, is to place that individual within a larger continuum, a neatly organized arrangement of individuals, each of whom represents a handful of creative achievements, intellectual qualities, or characteristics which defined that era. Unfortunately, these criteria may or may not result in the creation of a narrative that accurately reflects that individual’s strongest achievements or contributions to music. Quincy Porter (1897–1966) has often been categorized as an “academic” composer, one who participated within noted music departments of major academic institutions, contributing little to the benefit or advancement of creative musical composition in the United

States. It would be inaccurate to deny Porter’s membership to the academy, yet this designation excludes a significant aspect of his identity and importance as a composer within early to mid-

20th century America: Porter made one of the most substantial contributions of any American composer to the contemporary viola repertoire.

The narrative that has been written regarding Porter primarily focuses on his achievements within the academy and his contributions to the orchestral repertoire. Porter was an accomplished and revered professor of theory and composition, wrote and published theory textbooks, and advocated for contemporary American composers and music; he contributed a great deal to music education.1 His orchestral works, though award-winning, are limited in

number and are often criticized for their display of a style that emerged as promising and original, but remained stagnant throughout his career. However, the works Porter wrote for

1 Willard Kent Hall, “Quincy Porter: His life and contributions as a composer and educator,” DMA diss. (University of Missouri – Kansas City, 1970). 2

small-ensembles, particularly the string quartet, are often referred to as representing his style and

approach most effectively, yet no study or specific discussion devoted to them exists within the literature.

It is interesting that Porter’s stylistic approach would be described, and agreed upon, as a

“very personal idiom”2 that “suggests intimate confidences”3 and not craft a narrative of his life

around these aspects, seemingly essential to the overall depiction of Porter. Therefore, it stands

to reason, that the most effective way to create a narrative of Porter’s contributions and overall

effect upon the 20th century landscape of American music would be through the works that most

strongly reflect his personal and “highly individualistic” style. Porter was a lifelong performer of

the viola and, as a result, produced a number of works for the instrument; in my opinion, the

most effective way to demonstrate Porter’s creative and academic achievements is through the

lens of his works for viola, his personal idiom.

The overall aim of this document is to reexamine the narratives associated with Porter’s

biography and reposition them within the context of the body of music he wrote for the viola.

The first chapter of this document will explore the biography of Quincy Porter with the intent of

establishing a narrative of Porter’s life that is in reference to his various educational, cultural,

and professional experiences, and gives agency to the development of his personal style. The

biography will also connect Porter to a group of likeminded composers, placing him within the

overall milieu of the contemporary American musical landscape. Ultimately, this narrative will

facilitate the presentation of the body of works Porter composed for the viola, and demonstrate

the manner in which these experiences shaped the music he wrote.

2 Howard Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Bulletin of American Composers Alliance 6, no. 3 (1957): 2. 3 David Ewen, “Quincy Porter,” The world of twentieth-century music, 2nd ed. (London: Robert Hale, 1991), 563. 3

The remaining chapters of this document will present, in chronological order, each of the works Porter wrote originally for viola, solo or duo. This body of work offers us an access to and perspective of the trajectory of Porter’s life; as a result, a narrative that reveals his personal voice in the most personal context unfolds, allowing us to witness the intersection of the multiple aspects of his professional career as an academic, composer, and performing musician. While

Porter did transcribe several of his works for viola ––Blues Lointains for flute and piano (1928) and Poem for violoncello and piano (1949) ––these will not be included. Each work will be illuminated with a theoretical discussion, uncovering the stylistic elements and tendencies of

Porter’s idiom; a description of each work’s performance and recording history; and, an evaluation in specific reference to their idiomatic nature.

As of this writing, no other work has been devoted to the discussion of Porter’s value and contributions as a composer through the lens of his viola works. Furthermore, the extant literature and research concerning Porter’s biography is limited to Willard Hall’s “Quincy Porter:

His life and contributions as a composer and educator,” Robert Frank’s “Quincy Porter: A survey of the mature style and a study of the Second Sonata for Violin,” Walter Temme’s “The symphonic works of Quincy Porter: A conductor’s guide,” and a handful of small entries in encyclopedias, dissertations, and collections concerning 20th century American composers and stylistic trends. The Hall and Frank dissertations provided the most comprehensive description of

Porter’s life and were completed within 10 years of Porter’s death and, until now, a document of equal scope has not been produced. A large amount of original archival research was required in the creation of this biography of Porter as well as the analyses of his works for viola. I relied heavily upon the Quincy Porter Papers (MS 15) at the Irving Gilmore Music Library at Yale

University. While this archive has been consulted by others, I specifically approached the Porter 4

Papers in specific regard to the works for viola and the manner in which this context could reveal

Porter’s life and overall contributions.

In my opinion, the reexamination of the narratives associated with Quincy Porter through the lens of the works he wrote for viola reveals the composer at his finest. As a result, Porter can be celebrated for his most significant achievement, free from the confines of past narratives. The purpose of this document is to provide a fresh description and perspective of Porter’s life utilizing his viola works. Not only does this body of work represent a significant and valuable contribution to the viola repertoire, but it also, conveniently, parallels the trajectory of Porter’s life. It is my hope that this reexamination will reinvigorate interest in Porter’s music and inspire further scholarship and research, ultimately increasing the visibility of this incredibly valuable and important body of viola repertoire among contemporary American music. 5

Chapter One: A (Brief) Biography of Quincy Porter (1897–1966)

Quincy Porter’s formative years were strongly influenced by his immersion in the patrician intelligentsia of New England at the turn of the 20th century. His background and

educational path were similar to that of many early-20th century American composers, but his particular placement within New England society and close proximity to academic institutions

had a more profound, perhaps even unique, impact upon his personal and professional trajectory.

Porter was born to Frank Chamberlain Porter and Delia Lyman in New Haven,

Connecticut on February 7, 1897. Porter’s early childhood and formative years were influenced by a family steeped within both academic and New England heritages, aspects that would continue to shape his life. Porter’s father was a professor of Biblical Theology at the Yale School of Divinity, a position he held for 38 years; he had obtained five degrees and was the author of multiple works in religious study. Porter’s maternal grandfather was also a professor at Yale, of astronomy. Porter’s family had multiple generations of roots within the New England soil, so no doubt their pedigree influenced their placement within New Haven society. His father was a direct descendant of the renowned New England Puritan evangelist, Jonathan Edwards, and his mother was a descendant of Oliver Ellsworth, a nominated and confirmed Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court during President George Washington’s administration.4 Porter attended Hopkins

Grammar School, the third-oldest independent secondary school in the United States.

4 Albert Nelson Marquis, ed., Who’s who in New England: A biographical dictionary of leading men and women of the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut (Chicago: A. N. Mariquis & Co., 1916), 865.

Porter expressed musical interest at an early age, beginning his musical studies at the age

of 10. He was a violin pupil of Herbert Dittler,5 an American-born violinist who had studied in both Berlin and Paris, for seven years.6 Although his father “listed music among his numerous

interests,”7 Porter was the first person within his family to take up music as a professional

pursuit. It seemed logical, considering his family background and proximity to the institution,

that Porter would enroll at Yale University for his undergraduate education. While numerous

universities and colleges had accepted music as a course of study,8 Yale was among a few large

universities with major influence to have a department of music alongside the University of

Michigan and Harvard University.9 Porter’s matriculation at Yale represents his entrance into the

American Academy, a group of composers and music educators that deemed institutions of

higher learning as the vehicle for the further development and establishment of an American

musical tradition.

In 1890, Yale University installed Gustave Stoeckel as the Battell Professor of Music, a new position created the same year. Stoeckel’s involvement with Yale had begun in 1854, when he was hired to be responsible for musical instruction; his efforts were instrumental to the development, and eventual creation, of a music department within the university. The creation of the Battell professorship represented the university’s formal acceptance of music as a discipline as well as the founding of the Yale Department of Music. During the first four years of the department, Stoeckel established a music curriculum that included three year-long courses that

5 Willard Kent Hall, “Quincy Porter: His life and contributions as a composer and educator,” DMA diss., University of Missouri–Kansas City (1970), 1. 6 Garry Clarke, “Quincy Porter: Composer-Professor,” in Essays on American Music (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977), 136. 7 Robert Eugene Frank, “Quincy Porter: a survey of the mature style a study of the second sonata for violin and piano,” DMA diss., Cornell University (1973), 1. 8 Michael Bennet Joiner, “Courses in culture: the acceptance of music in the late-nineteenth century American university,” Ph.D. diss., University of California Santa Barbara (2013), 8. 9 Ibid., 241.

were designed to develop skills in music theory and composition. These courses were designed

to be intellectually based and to also follow the precedent established by John Knowles Paine in

his creation of an academic department of music at Harvard University.10 After four years,

Stoeckel announced his retirement and the University hired Horatio Parker (1863–1919) as his

successor.

Horatio Parker’s appointment as the Battel Professor of the Theory of Music ushered in a

new era for the institution’s program of music instruction. His position as a prominent member

of the so-called “Second New England School,” conservative musical style, and perspective on

the developing musical culture and tradition within America strongly shaped the individuals who

passed through the program he developed. Born in Boston, Parker had a highly cultured

background with early lessons in piano and exposure to Greek and Latin literature by his mother.

Parker continued his studies in Boston with George W. Chadwick, and following in Chadwick’s

footsteps, pursued instruction with Josef Rheinberger at the Hochscule für Musik in Munich

(1882–85). In 1885, Parker returned to America where he worked at several churches playing

organ and composing hymns, services, and anthems. Parker gained tremendous popularity with the success of Hora Novissima (1891–92), an oratorio based on a Latin text. The work displays

Parker’s fully developed style where “the melody and part-writing are particularly fascinating,”11 while maintaining an American, “modernized Puritanism”12 type of sound.

Parker’s appointment at Yale transformed his range of influence, shifting his overall contributions to the musical landscape of America from that of a composer to a pedagogue.

Parker believed that the training of composers was critical in the development of a uniquely

10 Ibid., 245. 11 David Stanley Smith, “A study of Horatio Parker,” The Musical Quarterly 16, no. 2 (April 1930): 157. 12Ibid.

American musical culture. His experience in Europe brought to his attention the general

adversity that faced the American composer and the general perception of European critics that

American composers were of a lesser value.13 Ultimately, the education and training of

American composers on American soil by American composers within American institutions would allow a musical culture to emerge, independent of a European model. It was for these reasons that Parker formulated and instituted a new course of study for the Department of Music that consisted of a six-course series on the theory of music: harmony, counterpoint, strict composition, instrumentation, free composition, and history of music.14 The series was a

systematic approach to the harmonic theories of the common practice (voice leading,

progression, relationships, structure) through species counterpoint and designed with a specific emphasis on composition. Overall, the emphasis of the curriculum was derived from Parker’s

experience with Germanic traditions of harmonic practice and education. However, through his

composition courses (strict composition, instrumentation, and free composition), Parker exposed

serious students to the “process of composing in different forms and styles.”15

The music curriculum instituted by Parker remained in effect, relatively unchanged, throughout his tenure at the institution. It was this course of study that fostered the early development of the young Quincy Porter; he received a Bachelor of Arts from Yale College in

1919, and a Bachelor of Music in 1921, studying primarily with Horatio Parker and David

Stanley Smith. Neither individual had any interest in the modernism of Paris or Vienna, popular at the time; the outer limits of Smith and Parker’s “stylistic horizons” were limited to Elgar,

Brahms, and Sibelius. Interestingly, Charles Ives had studied with Parker from 1894–98, and

13 Gilbert Chase, America’s music, from the pilgrims to the present (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 380. 14 Joiner, 252–53. 15 Horatio Parker, quoted in Joiner, 255.

while he is referred to as New England’s “home-grown modernist,” Parker “regarded him as a

crack-pot, although obviously to be respected for his successes in the insurance business.”16

Porter thrived within the academic atmosphere cultivated by Parker, receiving multiple awards for his works including the Osborne Prize for Best Fugue (1919) and the Steinert Prize

(1919) for his Violin Concerto. The Violin Concerto was also submitted to the 1921 Prix de

Rome in musical composition. Although the prize was unanimously awarded to Howard Hanson, the executive secretary of the competition, Roscoe Guerney, informed Porter that “the jury

thought favorably of your music and ranked you second in the competition.”17 Porter had great

admiration and respect for Horatio Parker; one of his “most vivid memories as a student was

playing in the orchestra for a performance of Parker’s last work,” A.D. 1919.18 Among Porter’s

fellow students were Douglas Moore, Bruce Simonds, and Roger Sessions. Sessions and Moore, in particular, remained close friends and colleagues of Porter’s throughout his career; all three individuals would play influential roles within the development of the American academy. Each of these students, Sessions in particular, forged unique musical paths that traveled far afield from the conservative musical instruction they received from Parker.

In addition to his composition studies, Porter continued to engage in instrumental performance activities. He was responsible for the revival of the Yale Symphony; he organized a string quartet in which he played first violin.19 He performed his “Brahmsian” Violin Concerto

with the Yale Symphony as part of his graduation.20 Porter was well-liked by faculty as a

16 Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Bulletin of the American Composers Alliance 6, no. 3 (1957): 2. 17 Roscoe Guerney to Quincy Porter, 4 November 1921, The Quincy Porter Papers, MS 15, Irving S. Gilmore Music Library of Yale University, New Haven (hereafter cited as Porter Papers MS 15). 18 Boatwright, 2. 19 Hall, 1. 20 Boatwright, 2.

violinist, often appearing in joint recitals with friend and pianist, Bruce Simonds; the serious

musicians often performed the sonata of César Franck.21

The emphasis upon common practice through course work and composition instruction is

evidenced within the early work of Porter. An example of this is the youthful Duo for violin and

viola (1917). This work not only demonstrates the stylistic influence of Smith and Parker but

also the rigorous training in counterpoint, form, and common practice functional harmony (see

Chapter Two: The Duo for violin and viola (1917)).

Schola Cantorum, Vincent d’Indy, and Lucien Capet (1920-21)

Following the completion of his Bachelor of Arts in 1919, Porter was encouraged to

continue his studies internationally. The obvious choice was Germany, in part because of

Porter’s own pedagogical lineage (Parker, Smith, et al.) but also because nearly all 19th century,

American composers or instrumentalists promoted German musical education as example par

excellence. Porter’s decision, however, was to pursue studies with Vincent d’Indy at the Schola

Cantorum in Paris and enroll in private violin lessons with Lucien Capet; France was also a more

appropriate option due to the deteriorated political relations with Germany following the end of

World War One. This choice marks a shift in the general interest in France as a pedagogical

destination, one that would become quite pronounced over the following decades (especially

with the influence of Nadia Boulanger and the American University at Fontainebleau).

Porter studied in Paris during the 1920–21 academic year. This experience in Paris

represents an important shift within his development as a composer on several fronts due to the institutional influence of the Schola Cantorum and d’Indy, and his exposure to the renowned

chamber musician and violinist, Lucien Capet. The instruction Porter received at Schola

21 Hall, 2.

Cantorum with d’Indy was certainly a change from the overtly Teutonic training delivered by

Parker and Smith, predominantly because of what the institution represented and the musical philosophy of d’Indy himself.

Formalized as an educational institution in 1896, Schola Cantorum was a school that promoted the revival of early music, particularly sacred vocal works, and utilized these works for

pedagogical purposes. Bruce Simonds, who also studied at the Schola with Porter, remembered the instruction of d’Indy being “a combination of composition, analysis, and history of music.”22

This method of instruction does not vastly differ from the type of training that Simonds and

Porter had received from Smith and Parker. However, the influence of modal counterpoint, emphasis upon older models, and interest in more diverse styles offered a different perspective.

Vincent d’Indy’s musical philosophy was conservative; he had studied with César Franck and had “a reverence for the man that passed beyond reason.”23 However musically conservative,

d’Indy sought to instill an understanding of music through a “historically based pedagogy, provoking students to ascertain and relive, as it were, the successive developments of musical civilization in their own work.”24

Porter engaged in private instruction outside of the Schola Cantorum with the famed

violinist, Lucien Capet (1873-1928). By 1920, Capet had developed a successful career as a chamber musician and renowned pedagogue. Capet received first prize at the Paris Conservatory in 1893; following a brief orchestral tenure, Capet founded the Capet String Quartet around the turn of the century. This quartet would become one of the most acclaimed quartets within early-

22 Hall, 3. 23 Norman Demuth, Vincent d’Indy, 1851–1931: Champion of classicism (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974), 9. 24 Andrew Thomson, Vincent D’Indy and his world (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 28.

20th century Europe,25 setting high standards in interpretation and technical facility. The famed

violin pedagogue Josef Gingold described attending a concert given by the ensemble in Brussels

as “the greatest string quartet concert I heard in my lifetime.”26 Gingold made specific reference

to Capet’s bow technique, his ability to create smooth string crossings and “undulating his bow

to produce a vibrato with his right hand.”27 Capet’s understanding of general violin technique

and performance, and string quartet performance made an indelible impression upon Porter as a

violinist and composer. Capet’s influence explains why nearly all of the works he composed between 1920 and 1930 were for string ensembles; these included four string quartets, two quintets, two violin sonatas, and a string orchestra work.

Mon maître, Ernest Bloch

In 1921, Quincy Porter returned to America and enrolled in the composition class of

Ernest Bloch in New York City. Bloch had emigrated to the United States from Switzerland in

1916, and had established a composition class at the Mannes School of Music and also a private studio out of his apartment. Bloch’s presence in America was significant, as he represented a fresh, contemporary European perspective in which many young composers had great interest.

Bloch became a pedagogical beacon for Roger Sessions, Randall Thompson, Bernard Rogers, and Quincy Porter, all of whom took part in his composition course.

The course of study instituted by Bloch was a rigorous examination of fugue,

counterpoint, and musical form. This division of studies was quite traditional (similar to Porter’s

experience with d’Indy, Parker, and Smith) but the manner in which these elements were treated

25 Steven Shipps, “The influence of Lucien Capet on teaching violin,” American String Teacher 43, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 65. 26 Quoted in Shipps, 66. 27 Ibid.

was quite unconventional. According to Michael Nott, the feature of Bloch’s pedagogy that was

the most distinguished from “prevailing pedagogical trends of the day (and what rendered it, in

large part, so effective) was his complete eschewal of textbooks.”28 Instead, drawing from the

masterworks of the literature, Bloch emphasized artistic goals and considerations, separating

them from a study of “rules.” This method of study through musical literature was progressive at

the time, and was a highly influential revelation for Porter who would draw from the repertoire

to form course material(s) throughout his own teaching career.

The emphasis upon Renaissance counterpoint had an indelible effect upon Porter, particularly the sixteenth-century polyphonic choral music of Orlando di Lasso. In a journal

Porter wrote:

It is by studying such great classics as Orlando di Lasso (1530-1594) who died the same year as Palestrina, that we are able to obtain a mastery over the principals. He, for instance, began all his works either on the 8th or 1st or 5th. They have lasted till now and as far as we can see will last forever, so we can not go wrong by studying them, the harder the better.29

Lasso’s motets and style were not only a model of contrapuntal style for Porter, but also a

resource for harmonic materials; these ideas of harmonic theory certainly influenced young

Porter’s compositional style. Bloch highlighted for Porter the relationship between scale and

tonality: “scale is physical fact of relationship of notes” and “tonality is the feeling of these

notes,” within which the “tonic is a tone which may end satisfactorily … everything in music is

psychological.”30 In this vein, Porter made another observation regarding different types of

scales: “The ‘model’[sic] scales were given up in 1450, but are coming back in modern music.”31

28 Michael Nott, “Roger Sessions’ fugal studies with Ernest Bloch: A glimpse into the workshop,” American Music 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1989): 246. 29 Notebooks, Porter Papers MS 15. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.

This comment implies that Porter had knowledge and awareness of contemporary usages of

modal collections, particularly by Bloch and Debussy. Porter would certainly have been exposed

to the music of Debussy during his time studying in Paris (1920-21). Modal scales and

movement through the scales themselves would characterize the harmonic style of Porter for the

remainder of his compositional career. Additionally, from his exposure to and study of the vocal

polyphony of Orlando di Lasso “he derived his ideal of flowing, almost consistently stepwise

melody, and very close-knit continuity of sections.”32 Porter’s intensive study of Renaissance

polyphony was one aspect of a wide-spread, chronologically speaking, study of music theory and literature which included “sonata and rondo form, harmony, analysis of Bach, Beethoven,

Brahms, Debussy, etc.”33

Porter’s experience studying with Bloch was essential to his own stylistic development;

an experience after which “practically ever vestige of Porter’s early stylistic influences

disappeared.”34 From 1921 to 1927, Porter composed several works for string instruments,

including a short piece for string quartet entitled In monasterio (1927). This work demonstrates

Porter’s burgeoning compositional voice and the influence of d’Indy and Bloch. The three- movement work draws from modal harmonies, utilizes parallel motion in perfect intervals, the chorale texture evocative of J.S. Bach, and exhibits dance-like melodic material one might find in an Italian madrigal.

In 1922, Bloch accepted an offer to be the first director of the Cleveland Institute of

Music. Porter and Sessions both followed their teacher to Cleveland, each being given teaching

opportunities within the Institute. Porter served as an instructor of theory, including counterpoint,

32 Boatwright, 3. 33 Porter to George Gow, 4 February 1932, Porter Papers MS 15. 34 Boatwright, 3.

solfege, harmony, form, orchestration, composition, and also music history.35 Following the

departure of Bloch in 1926, Porter was appointed head of theory, a position he held until 1928.

In addition to his teaching activities, Porter was also invited to be a member of the string

quartet in residence at the Institute, the di Ribaupierre String Quartet; the position he was offered was not as a violinist, however, but a violist. Upon moving to Cleveland, Porter had inquired about a vacant position in the viola section of the Cleveland Orchestra; he prepared for the audition, learning the viola for the first time. Although the spot was given to someone else, he did learn the instrument sufficiently to be able to fill the vacancy in the di Ribaupierre String

Quartet.36 Porter performed extensively with the quartet, mostly at the Cleveland Museum of Art,

including presentations of the complete cycle of Beethoven quartets and the complete chamber

works of Brahms for more than three instruments. In Cleveland, Porter had the opportunity to

collaborate with many well-known musicians, including Douglas Moore (organ), Maurice

Kessler (violin, Boston Symphony), and Carleton Cooley (principal viola, Cleveland Orchestra,

and composer).37

Return to Paris, 1928–31

In 1925, United States Senator Simon Guggenheim and his wife established the John

Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in remembrance of their son John Simon who had

died 26 April 1922. The purpose of the fellowship, as stated in Senator Guggenheim’s Letter of

Gift, was to “add to the educational, literary, artistic, and scientific power of this country, and

also to provide for the cause of better international understanding.”38 The Foundation began

35 Porter to Gow, Porter Papers MS 15. 36 Hall, 5. 37 List of programs by performer (Quincy Porter), Museum archives and special collections, Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland. 38 “History of the Foundation,” John Simon Guggenheim Foundation (website), accessed October 12, 2018, https://www.gf.org/about/history/.

16 awarding grants in music composition in 1926, primarily funding individuals who wished to study and compose in European countries.

In 1928, Porter applied and received the first of two awards from the Guggenheim

Memorial Foundation. The purpose of Porter’s application was to return to Paris, but this time to exclusively compose and immerse himself within the musical culture rather than receive instruction. Porter decided to refrain from formal composition study primarily because he believed his study with Ernest Bloch had provided him with sufficient technical skill necessary to develop an individual style. Some of the reasons for returning to Europe were to receive

“uninterrupted time” where he would be able to remove himself “from a large percentage of social obligations,” have “longer days to work” and receive “still a little more understanding of the artist’s problems” from Europeans. Within this atmosphere he would be able to clarify his own tendencies and, through exposure to the multiplicity of other composers’ individual styles, be aided in “establishing his own taste.”39 In a letter many years after his time in Paris, Porter related that his experience was “the first time I had been quite free to devote myself to composition without having to steal the time from a rather heavy schedule of teaching,” continuing to say that “the three years in Paris were very important in gaining perspective.”40

The three years in which Porter remained in Paris proved to be one of the most productive and influential periods of his composition career, not only in the number of works composed but also the manner in which they signify the emergence of a unique style. According to Howard Boatwright, the compositions of this period “contain the prototypes of the melodic, rhythmic and textural devices which were later to typify the more mature Porter.”41 This will be

39 Quincy Porter, “What can Europe offer to American composers?” The Musician 38, no. 3 (March 1932): 7. 40 Porter to Jonathan Elkus, January 25, 1959, Porter Papers MS 15. 41 Howard Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Bulletin of American Composers Alliance 6, no. 3 (1957): 3.

17 demonstrated using three facets of his overall experience. First, the works he composed during the three years; second, the interaction with colleagues and artists, and general cultural immersion; and, third, the various public and private presentations of his music.

In the fall of 1928, Quincy and his wife, Lois Porter, traveled to Paris where they would stay for the next three years. The decision to devote his time exclusively to composition and cultural immersion, distinct from almost every other American composer going to Paris at this time, distinctly shaped Porter’s musical style;42 Howard Boatwright asserts that “it is possible that the individuality of Porter’s style is in some degree accounted for by his withdrawal into himself during his three years in Paris.”43 Boatwright refers to this period as a “withdrawal,” but perhaps it is better described as a gestational period where Porter was able to congeal ideas obtained and developed throughout his studies with Parker, Smith, d’Indy, and, most importantly, Bloch. Porter composed some 15 works during his time in Paris, all of which are for either chamber ensembles or solo instruments; these works include his String quartet no. 3,

String quartet no. 4, Little trio for violin, flute, and viola, Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano,

Sonata for piano, Suite for solo viola, and a Quintet for clarinet and strings. This catalog presents a clear trajectory of development; from an early period of works that were largely imitative of

Bloch and Debussy, Porter’s style emerged as having a strong, rhythmic profile, demonstrating motivically cohesive structures, and an inventive harmonic idiom.

The early works of this period demonstrate a fledgling Porter borrowing from a variety of stylistic influences, including Impressionism, the Blues, and Jazz. The young Porter’s work embodied a “vast eclecticism” of styles to a point where they were criticized as compositions

42 Composers such as Walter Piston, Virgil Thomson, Roy Harris, and Aaron Copland who pursued studies with Nadia Boulanger. 43 Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Bulletin of American Composers Alliance 6, no. 3 (1957): 3.

that did not appear to be “fundamentally original.”44 Blues Lointains for flute and piano (1928)

was the first work to be composed during this period (September - 05 October 1928), and the

composer noted, “it is easy to see that it borrows from the Blues and from Jazz” continuing to

say that “there is a touch of nostalgia added.”45 The work reflected Porter’s interest in the jazz idiom “that began when Porter first organized a jazz band to defray college expenses.”46 The title

of the work was a cooperative effort between Porter and his colleagues, Jan Merry and Eleanor

Merry Cohu, a flutist and pianist, respectively, who were the first performers of the work. The

group “finally decided on ‘Blues Lointains,’ though I [Porter] should … have called it a

fantasie.”47 Porter continues, “It has themes in it which are a little from ‘Blues’ sources — also

from rhythms which come from jazz. The whole mood of the piece is dreamy, however.”48

Porter’s statement seems glaringly obvious given the title of the work, yet it seems, at first glance, that the work does not directly draw from these specific influences. The work is not long, about seven minutes, but demonstrates complex rhythmic ideas and utilizes harmonic ideas of bitonality, drawing from the octatonic referential scale collection. The premiere of the work was given 12 January 1929 at Salle Chopin by Merry and Cohu.

Lois Porter was a skilled violinist with whom Quincy often collaborated in chamber music performances. It was for his wife that Porter dedicated his Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano (1929), a work that demonstrates the beginning of his idiom moving away from an imitative style influenced by Bloch and Debussy. The Sonata’s clear and cohesive structures emerge through the usage and transformation of motivic material. Each of the movements

44 Aaron Conitz trans., “Musique de Chambre de Quincy Porter,” La Revue Musicale in Porter Papers, MS 15. 45 Porter to Elkus, Porter Papers MS 15. 46 Hall, 6. 47 Letter to family, November 11, 1928, Porter Papers MS 15. 48 Ibid.

demonstrates complex formal balance and motivic unity, functional and modal harmonic

practice, and strong rhythmic interest. Porter’s melodic style is expansive and lyrical in the slow

movement, and the boisterous final movement features a soaring melody in the violin. On

March 8, 1929, Porter wrote:

I think [the sonata] is by a good deal the best thing I have written. The first and last movements are quite brilliant, more so than anything I’ve written. The first movement is more or less solemn, the second quite bright, and sunshiny, with a little light scherzo like part in the middle. The last movement has quite a lot of go to it.49

This work received its first public performance with Maurice Hewitt playing violin and Porter at

the piano on February 9, 1931 at a private residence in Paris.

The Suite for solo viola (1930) is one of Porter’s most significant contributions to his

catalogue not only among the Guggenheim works but specifically within the body of

compositions for viola. Porter delivered the public premiere of the piece on February 10, 1931 at

the American Library in Paris:

A suite for viola by Quincy Porter was played by its author. The four parts are in the old style, a fact which does not prevent Mr. Porter form employing quite modern sonorities. The strange rhythm of his allegro furioso was notable, also the good style of his larghetto espressivo ….50

Porter continued to perform it throughout his career, often featuring it alongside the Suite (1919)

of his beloved teacher and mentor, Ernest Bloch.51 The four-movement work is an idiomatic display of lyrical and virtuosic viola playing which most certainly have contributed to the work’s success and popularity. Porter creates an effective solo work that displays a monodic style similar to the solo violin and cello works of J.S. Bach, colored by extended tertian harmony,

49 Porter to family, Porter Papers MS 15. 50 Louis Schneider, “Composers Execute Own Works at Concert of American Library,” New York Herald, 11 February 1931. 51 Hall, 13.

driving rhythmic profile, and lyrical melodies. This solo viola piece depicts Porter at his finest, a

convergence of his interest in counterpoint-driven, linear composition style and his great interest in and affinity with viola playing. A more detailed and nuanced discussion of the Suite is presented following the biography section.52

Porter’s String Quartet no. 3 was completed between February and December of 1930 and dedicated to the violinist Maurice Hewitt. This string quartet demonstrates a method of composition that utilizes elements of a thematic idea throughout a multi-movement work to

create a cohesive, unified structure, a method that would characterize Porter’s composition from

this point forward. Porter wrote:

The theme given out at the start is particularly important inasmuch as it not only influences much of the thematic material which follows, but to a certain extent generates its own harmony. In the first movement it its almost always present, contrapuntally or for accompanying figures. The Andante is tranquil and reposeful in character. The whole movement seems to grow out of the short, two- measure phrase with which it opens. There are several lyrical ideas, one of which (first stated by the cello) bears an analogy with the main theme of the first movement. The final Allegro Moderato, in an unchanging rhythm of 3/2, is based on hardly ever interrupted rhythmic figurations which are used as accompaniments for the lyrical ideas of the piece. There is an atmospheric pianissimo section in which the viola sings a floating melody, answered in canon by the cello. A restatement of the main theme of the first movement closes the movement.53

The work was quite successful following its premiere performance in Paris, receiving a notable

performance at a festival of American music in Bad Homburg, Germany on July 8, 1931.54 The

Gordon Quartet featured the work at the Library of Congress Festival of Chamber Music

(sponsored by the Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge Foundation) in 1935, a performance that was

received quite favorably:

52 See Chapter Three: Establishing the Idiom –– Suite for viola alone (1930) 53 Quincy Porter program note (May 13, 1932), Museum archives and special collections, Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland. 54 “Homburg American Festival,” New York Times, July 5, 1931.

Mr. Porter’s quartet proved to be the dark horse of the Festival. composed with breadth of musical horizon and devotion to sheer musicality, it never seeks to substitute effects of color for effects of music. In a series of programs in which coloristic and fantastic treatment of strings was unduly emphasized, the immediate sincerity and warmth of this work were distinctly appealing. The style is one of free dissonance without mannerism and with a sense for development and structural solidarity.55

The work was subsequently recorded by the Gordon String Quartet (Columbia 68395-D).

In 1936, the work was selected for publication by the Society for the Publication of American

Music.56 Among the nine total string quartets Porter composed String quartet no. 3 is the most known.

Outside of composition and musical studies, the Porters’ stay in Paris consisted of attending concerts, establishing personal and professional connections, cultural immersion, and beginning a family. Several colleagues from the time the Porters lived in Cleveland happened to live in Paris during these years (1928-31), including Arthur and Marguerite Quimby. The

Quimbys were close friends of the Porters; Arthur was a pianist and organist with whom Quincy often collaborated on violin, and Marguerite was a vocalist who would eventually perform songs by Porter. The Porters and Quimbys often attended concerts together, even studying the music to be heard beforehand and having informed discussions concerning the work(s). Quincy and

Arthur were particularly critical of Stravinsky’s work in general, but specifically the works belonging to the neoclassical idiom. Porter wrote, in a letter to his family, that on the evening of

November 16, 1928, he and the Quimbys

went to an all Strawinsky [sic] program which he himself conducted. We thought the program very poorly chosen. He began with one of his first works, very dull, and then followed his latest but one, Apollo [Apollon musagète]. Arthur Quimby and I studied it a little beforehand and didn’t get a favorable impression. It seemed rather a silly imitation of classics. There was nothing in the whole

55 Cecil Michener Smith, “Spring Festival Review,” Modern Music 12, no. 4 (May/June 1935): 196. 56 “Society Honors Two Composers,” New York Times, June 9, 1936.

program which was very representative of his best work, according to our opinions.57

Stravinsky had completed Apollon musagète in January 1928, a commission from the

Library of Congress that was funded heavily by Mrs. Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge. The ballet was scored for a string chamber orchestra and choreographed by Georges Balanchine.58 Stravinsky

“cooly and mellifluously depicts the birth and apotheosis” 59 of Apollo with diatonic music

(although it does demonstrate octatonic collections on deeper analysis), recalling the tradition of

17th and 18th century ballet de cour and Jean-Baptiste Lully. Apollo exemplifies Stravinsky’s neoclassical period where the composer utilized musical allusion and reference to Classical sources, much like contemporaneous artistic movements such as cubism and Dadaist photomontage,60 in the creation of works that were a dialogic parody. It was for this stylistic alignment that Porter had such a negative perception of the work, dismissing it as “a silly imitation of classics.” Perhaps the artistic gesture and aesthetic stance was lost on Porter’s sensibilities.

Porter and Arthur Quimby attended another program of Stravinsky’s work on March 5,

1929,

at which [Stravinsky] conducted his octuor and Histoire d’un Soldat, and played piano compositions. We were much disappointed. His recent things are as clever as anything can be, but void of emotion — just as he wants them to be!61

Again, the pair were unimpressed with not only the neoclassical idiom displayed within the Octet

(1923) but also a work written more than a decade earlier, during Stravinsky’s so-called

57 Porter to family, Porter Papers MS 15. 58 Stravinksy, Igor,” Grove online, 2001 https://doi-org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.52818 59 Ibid. 60 Maureen A. Carr, Multiple masks––Neoclassicism in Stravinsky’s works on Greek subjects (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 17. 61 Porter to family, March 5, 1929, Porter Papers MS 15.

“Russian period” –– L’histoire du Soldat (1918). Instead of criticizing the composer for his “silly

imitation of the classics,” Porter identifies Stravinsky’s success in creating music “void of

emotion,”62 clearly aligning himself in opposition to works that are not expressive of emotional

quality.

Most of the concerts attended throughout this first year were performances of classical

music. Perhaps the most influential of concerts Porter attended during this year, and perhaps the

entire three years in Paris, was of the Capet Quartet on the evening of 19 November 1928. Porter

had studied violin and chamber music privately with Lucien Capet, the quartet’s namesake and

first violinist, while attending the Schola Cantorum in Paris (1920-21). Porter wrote:

We had a treat in the evening hearing the wonderful Capet quartet, of which I had such happy memories. It was as beautiful as ever and I was glad not to be disillusioned after these years in which I’ve learned much more about quartets. We both thought it by far the finest quartet we had ever heard. They played Ravel, Schubert and Debussy. We fear they are not to give the regular series of Beethoven quartets this year. It will be a great disappointment.63

It is no surprise that Lois and Quincy were left with such a significantly positive

impression from the performance given by the Capet Quartet. The influence of Capet upon

Porter was not only through the performances he witnessed and the direct instruction from Capet

he received, but also indirectly through one of Capet’s most celebrated and faithful disciples,

Maurice Hewitt.

Maurice Hewitt would come to play an integral role in the promotion of Porter as a

composer, especially during Porter’s Parisian experience. Born in 1884, he studied at the Paris

Conservatory and “took a celebrated part in prestigious quartets from the age of 20.”64 From

62 Ibid. 63 Porter to family, Porter Papers MS 15. 64 Barry Brenesal, “Review Rameau: Les 6 concerts en sextuor. Les Indes Galantes: Excerpts,” Fanfare 30, no. 5 (May/June 2007): 174.

1909 to 1914, and again from 1918 to 1928, Hewitt performed as second violinist of the famed

Capet Quartet, “the most celebrated quartet in all of Europe, with amazing recordings that are

still in production to this day.”65 Following Lucien Capet’s untimely death in 1928, Hewitt

founded his own ensemble, the Hewitt Quartet, with the members of the former Capet Quartet.

The performance Quincy and Lois Porter attended of the Capet Quartet was most likely one of

the final appearances of the ensemble.

Hewitt carried with him the substantial and renowned legacy of Capet––his technical

understanding, pedagogical influence, and his passion for teaching chamber music. Hewitt taught

violin classes, coached chamber music, and directed the orchestra at the Conservatoire américain

de Fontainebleau beginning in 1920.66 While at a social gathering in March 1929, the Porters

had the chance opportunity to meet

M. Hewitt, the 2nd violinist of the former Capet quartet, and his most devoted disciple. He is a charming person. He reminded us much of Ward Lewis in his charm. He is much more of a person than Touche, with whom Lois studied during the fall, and I’m sure Lois will get much more from him. She is going to begin lessons pretty soon after M. Hewitt returns from his Easter vacation about Apr. 9.67

It was through his teaching of violin and chamber music that the Porters came to know

Hewitt; according to Hewitt, “they both asked me to give them quartet lessons, for he also plays

violin and viola extremely well.”68 Through this contact, Hewitt became quite close with Porter

and, as a result, was introduced to Porter’s composition; he became quite fond of Porter’s work,

and was the dedicatee for two pieces that were composed during this time, String Quartet no. 3 and Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano. Additionally, both Lois and Quincy Porter frequently read

65 Steven Shipps, “The Influence of Lucien Capet on Teaching Violin,” American String Teacher 43, no. 1 (1993): 65. 66 Claude Chamfray, “Maurice Hewitt,” trans. Aaron Conitz, Le courrier musicale de France 37, no. 1 (1972): 48. 67 Porter to family, Porter papers MS 15. 68 Hewitt introductory speech, Porter Papers MS 15.

string quartets with Hewitt, forging a friendship that would soon develop into a professional

connection.

Salle Chopin: February 18, 1931

Due to the encouragement and support of Maurice Hewitt, a concert exclusively featuring

the works of Porter was presented at Salle Chopin on February 18, 1931. The concert proved to

be a significant moment within the compositional career of Porter; it was a high-profile event in

Paris, one of the most culturally rich cities in the world, that was received with critical acclaim.

Notably, this is the only example of a high-profile performance consisting entirely of Porter’s music. Ultimately, the concert represented, in essence, the entirety of Porter’s experience in Paris

(1928–31).

The program featured six works written by Porter while residing and working in Paris from 1928–31, representing approximately one third of his output during those years. The works featured were (in concert order) the Suite for viola alone (1930), Sonata for piano (1929),

Quintet for clarinet and strings (1929), Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano (1929); The Little Trio for flute, violin and viola, and String quartet no. 3 (1930). This selection of works presented

Porter in a personal way, depicting an individual who loved writing and performing chamber music. Furthermore, Porter contributed his skills as a pianist and violist performing in all but one of the works; his performance of the Suite for solo viola has particular significance in demonstrating a highly personal idiom which he had developed and refined while in Paris.

Hewitt made significant effort to promote the concert through rehearsal performances using his position within the milieu of Parisian musicians and culturally important individuals.

Porter wrote in a letter to his family dated January 6, 1931:

He is also going to have several “rehearsals” which he will invite people whom he wants to interest especially — like Casadesus, Nadia Boulanger, Benoit, (the viola

of the Capet quartet) etc. It is to be an invitation affair, the invitations coming from M. Hewitt. No one knows whether any good will come of it, but at any rate I think it doubtless a very good thing to do, and a rather auspicious circumstance — the backing of Hewitt. He is always most encouraging about my works, and is particularly pleased with the quartet which I dedicated to him.69

These rehearsal performances were quite successful in gathering attention for the concert on February 18, and also a way to receive feedback concerning the compositions and the composer himself. On February 5, Hewitt arranged for a private performance at the home of

Blair Fairchild, a wealthy American who had great interest in music and providing support for musicians. In attendance was one of the recipients of Fairchild’s financial support, a young

American pianist named Beveridge Webster. Webster, approximately 21 years of age at the time, was a close associate of Maurice Ravel and the first American to receive first prize in piano at the Paris Conservatory.70 According to Porter, Webster was “very genuinely enthusiastic” about the performance of his Suite for solo viola, Sonata no. 2 for violin and piano, and String quartet no. 3.

On February 9, Porter and company performed the same set of works for the French composer Arthur Honegger and Henri Casadesus (who, incidentally, had played viola as a member of the Capet Quartet). Casadesus, being a violist, took great interest in the solo suite; incredulous that Porter was American, he insisted that “[Porter] had too much poetic feeling and depth of sentiment for an American.”71 After hearing the string quartet, he stated that “[Porter] had treated the instruments with a thorough knowledge of their possibilities, and yet never searching for precious effects, and that it was the best modern quartet he knew of.”72

69 Porter to family, January 6, 1931, Porter Papers MS 15. 70 Michael Fleming and Katie Buehner, "Webster, Beveridge," Grove Music Online, accessed 26 Feb. 2019, https://doi-org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2293320. 71 Porter to family, Porter Papers MS 15. 72 Ibid.

Overall, the Salle Chopin performance was a great success. Due to the connections Porter

and Hewitt had made through the rehearsal performances and general connections to the musical

culture of Paris there were many notable members of the audience including Virgil Thomson,

Robert Delaney, and Nadia Boulanger. Boulanger, in a note to Porter wrote

Were it not two in the morning, and would I not be absurdily [sic] tired, would I say my joy yesterday evening – everything was so perfect, peacefully, beautifully, charmingly prepared and presented – and so good in itself. Useless trying to express; I am sure you understand what is implied. With great happiness for such a success.73

The positive reviews in the press positioned Porter as a formidable voice within the

musical landscape of the 1930s. The Paris Chicago Tribune, identified Porter as “a composer of

well-defined personality” who wrote highly individual music “that rings with sincerity.”74

Another highlighted Porter’s compositional style as “a rich invention of themes and original

rhythms … modern, with a particular affection for polytonality.”75 Chevallier in Le Monde wrote:

Neither classic, nor modern — Mr. Quincy Porter is first of all very personal. From the classic, however, he has the solidity of architecture, the frankness of line from the modern, the boldness of the harmonies, freedom in the melodic contours, and a happy conciseness. But that which is peculiar to himself is a sort of inspiration which oscillates between fiery outbursts, at times rugged, and a poetry a little bit bucolic which readily imprints a pastoral tint on his themes.76

The concert was a culmination of the three years Porter had spent in Paris while supported by the Guggenheim Foundation. During these three years, Porter was able to produce

15 works, the most prolific period of his compositional career, which came to define his mature

style in form, harmonic content, and musical affect. Some of these works, the Suite for solo viola

73 Boulanger to Porter, February 19, 1931, Porter Papers MS 15. 74 “Concert Quincy Porter,” Paris Chicago Tribune, February 20, 1931. 75 “Music in Paris,” New York Herald, February 20, 1931. 76 L. Chevaillier, “Concert Quincy Porter,” Monde musical, February 28, 1931.

and String quartet no. 3 for example, came to be the most performed works throughout Porter’s lifetime and beyond.

Return to the Academy

Quincy Porter’s successful three years in Paris paved the way for a fruitful career in

composition and the development of a personal, unique, and engaging musical voice. However,

upon his return to the United States, Porter did not continue to singularly pursue composition,

instead beginning what would evolve into an illustrious and diverse career within the American

academic sphere. His transition into the academic world was seamless: he knew the individuals

involved and had had significant educational and professional experience in both prominent and

emerging institutions. As we will discover in the examination of his works for viola, Quincy’s

return to the academy did not lead to any further development in his compositional aesthetic or

style, instead he remained steadfastly fixed to the ideas and methods incubated during his crucial

three years in Paris.

When Porter returned to the United States in 1931, he found himself surrounded by a

diverse mixture of compositional voices and stylistic perspectives, even within the American

academy. The musical landscape of the 1930s was dominated by Aaron Copland (1900–1990)

and a cohort of individuals who had all studied with Nadia Boulanger in the 1920s, including

Roy Harris and Virgil Thomson. These composers attempted to create a space for American art

music through their formation of organizations, founding of musical institutions (not associated

with academic universities), writings, and compositions. Copland, like Ives, drew from American

source material in the creation of his distinctly American voice; his career and stylistic

development spanned a range of trends including neoclassicism, nationalism, and serial

composition. Copland’s evocation of expansive landscapes through open sonorities and usage of

popular themes contrasts Porter’s absolute music, free of any associated program or national identity.

The “Boulangerie” of the 1920s also included George Antheil, Roger Sessions, and

Walter Piston. Each of these composers offered individual expressions of the American voice, divergent from the ideas of Copland. Antheil, the enfant terrible of American music, explored the limits of sonic experience through timbral effects apparent in Ballet Mécanique (1925).

Sessions and Piston, although quite different stylistically, followed similar professional trajectories within the American academy: Sessions at Princeton University and Piston at

Harvard University. Sessions’ earlier style, who had also studied with Bloch and Parker (like

Porter), was freely dissonant manner, eventually embracing 12-tone serialism and abandoning tonality altogether in his later years.

The career and style of Walter Piston (1894–1976), however, strongly resembled that of

Porter. Following his studies with Boulanger, Piston returned to Harvard University where he became a renowned pedagogue, influencing many American composers, and wrote several important music theory textbooks. While his style has been considered neoclassical, Elliot Carter identified that Piston’s style was rooted in his strong individuality:

Piston went his own way. He stood firmly on his own chosen ground, building up a style that is a synthesis of most of the important characteristics of contemporary music and assimilating into his own manner the various changes as they came along.77 Piston, in addition to chromatic and diatonic tonality, drew variety of elements from

contemporary music, “thoroughly and rather impartially assimilated,”78 including twelve-tone

procedures, extended harmonies, impressionist texture. Like Porter, Piston had great interest in musical craftsmanship, particularly the usage of counterpoint and structural design. Piston was

77 Elliott Carter, “Walter Piston,” Musical Quarterly 32, no. 3 (July 1946): 354. 78 Ibid., 362.

identifiable as an American composer in his quotation of American themes and also, “more

subtly and pervasively, in the sonority and texture of his music, which are quite distinct from

those of any of the schools of Europe.”79

While Piston’s appointment as a professor of music at Harvard University immediately followed his European studies, Porter’s career path would lead him through the conservatory and liberal arts college before obtaining tenure at Yale University. In 1931, Porter returned to

Cleveland where he resumed teaching in a part-time capacity (courses in counterpoint and form, and private composition lessons). While in Cleveland, Porter engaged in numerous performances as a violist and conductor. On December 6, 1931, another program entirely devoted to Porter’s music was presented at the Cleveland Museum of Art; the concert featured works performed at

Salle Chopin.80 The Cleveland Orchestra played the premiere performance, with the composer

conducting, of Poem and Dance (1932), one of the few works Porter composed while in

Cleveland. In a review of a recording of the work, Henry Cowell stated:

The dissonances are luscious rather than harsh; ninth chords, chromatically altered chords, and rapidly changing tonal centers wander in a rather unfocused fashion. The Dance, on the other hand, is sprightly and rhythmical; sometimes regular (sounding like modern Russian music) …. The whole work leaves an impression of being sincere, musicianly, and pleasing in sound, but rather too vague in form.81 Ultimately, Porter’s teaching and performance activities severely limited his time available for

composition, “one of the chief reasons I should be interested in a change which might leave me

freer for my own work.”82

79 Ibid., 363. 80 CMA program, December 6, 1931, Museum archives, Cleveland Museum of Art. 81 Henry Cowell, “Review of Records,” The Music Quarterly 42, no. 3 (July 1956): 419 http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.rice.edu/stable/740442. 82 Porter to George Gow, February 4, 1932, Porter Papers MS 15.

Vassar College, 1932–38

In the fall of 1932, Porter assumed a position at Vassar College where he remained a professor of music until 1938. Porter’s tenure at Vassar was rich in musical activities, fulfilling

his interest in music education, performance, and composition. Porter had been drawn to the

position primarily because it would allow him “to go on with his creative work”83 in addition to

fulfilling teaching demands, an interest that was satisfied by the liberal arts model utilized at

Vassar College. As a result, Porter enjoyed a productive period as a composer while at Vassar, composing, notably, two string quartets, Dance in Three Time (1937), and Symphony no. 1

(1934). His Symphony no. 1 received an honorable mention at the New York Philharmonic

Symphony Competition of 1937, resulting in its premiere with that ensemble and the composer conducting on April 13, 1938.84 Vassar also offered numerous performance opportunities with

Porter often appearing on faculty recitals as a violinist and/or violist.85 The composer often

performed his own works.

The liberal arts environment allowed Porter to create courses that explored both performance and academic endeavors in equal measure; the courses reflected Porter as performer, academic, and composer, but also the influence of his mentors, specifically Ernest

Bloch. The theoretical courses involved modal and tonal counterpoint, analysis, ear training, chorale harmonization in the style of Bach, the writing of fugues, and polyphonic forms in the

16th-century style. A free composition course encouraged “creative writing for various mediums in polyphonic and monophonic forms and styles.”86 Interestingly, Porter also designed a course

that merged academic and performance spheres: “an exposition of the principles of

83 Ibid. 84 Hall, 15–16. 85 Ibid., 13. 86 Vassar College Catalog (1933-34), Poughkeepsie, New York, 119-22, quoted in Hall, 18.

interpretation, with demonstrations based on performances by member of the class.”87 Porter also

formed and presided over a Composer’s Club for students.

New England Conservatory, 1938–46

In 1938, Porter accepted the position of Dean at the New England Conservatory of

Music; he succeeded Wallace Goodrich as director in 1942, a position he held until 1946.

Porter’s activities as a performer and composer declined, a direct result of the demanding administrative positions he held. The few works that were composed during this time included

String Quartet no. 7 (1943) which “was the most ambitious work of his Boston years.”88 The work was commissioned by the Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge Foundation as part of receiving the

prestigious Medal for Eminent Service to Chamber Music. The premiere performance of the

work was met warmly, one review finding it curious that although

Seven years have elapsed between the composition of the sixth and seventh quartets … one encountered the same genial personality, unchanged in major characteristics. It is apparently impossible for the composer to utter a banality or a cliché much less adhere to any of the modern schools. His music is fresh and spontaneous, independent, intellectual, and at the same time emotionally vital.89

Porter’s positionality as an academic administrator gave him an authoritative voice within

the discipline of music education in the United States; during his tenure at the New England

Conservatory of Music, Porter was involved directly with several music education organizations,

initiated a national conversation on music curricula and program of study, and authored several

articles on the importance of music education. Porter became involved with the National

Association of Schools of Music (NASM) as Vice President of the Board in 1941, later serving

87 Ibid. 88 Hall, 20. 89 “Porter wins Coolidge medal for eminent services to chamber music,” The Washington Post, October 31, 1943.

as a member of its commission on curricula (1942–1944).90 The organization has served, since

1924, as an accreditation board for schools of music, with a particular interest in organizing

continuity between programs of musical study in the United States. Porter also served on the

executive board of the Music Teachers National Association. In 1944, Porter was elected to the

National Institute of Arts and Letters (now known as the American Academy of Arts and

Letters), becoming its treasurer in 1964.91

Porter had several articles published within the MTNA Volume of Proceedings in the

1940s, one of which addressed the creation of a six-year curriculum for musical education. Porter had great interest in the evolution of musical culture within America much like his teacher,

Horatio Parker; he believed that this culture could be fostered through the well-rounded development of musical educators. A six-year curriculum, Porter proposed, would combine the offerings of the conservatory and university as institutions of music learning and address the rising need of music education within schools, a direct avenue of influence to the advancement of musical culture in America. Ultimately, the curriculum would result in students who are

“more useful when they go out into the musical world.”92 Porter administered a survey to 130

music educators, receiving 72 responses; the survey proposed the idea of a six-year curriculum,

asking how the coursework should be divided and what type of degrees should be administered.

The responses were “very healthily at variance with one another,” and Porter concluded that the

survey’s success was in its initiation of what he considered to be a very important conversation:

I shall not attempt to draw any more conclusions than have already been implied, but should like to consider this an introduction to a subject which ought to be very much more thoroughly discussed as time goes on. In a day when no one can get very far without a specialization, and when no specialist can go very far unless he

90 Hall, 23. 91 “Quincy Porter, 69, Composer, Is Dead,” New York Times, November 13, 1966. 92 Quincy Porter, “A six-year curriculum for post high school music education,” Music Teachers National Association Volume of Proceedings 25 (December 26, 1941): 275.

is pretty broad in his outlook, I believe that a six-year, carefully integrated course of study is something we ought all to consider very carefully.93

This integrated approach to music education was progressive for the 1940s, an approach

that was purely the product of Porter’s individual perspective. Porter’s vantage on music

education was derived from his own experience within the two types of musical institutions

(conservatory and university) as a student, professor, and administrator. These experiences

afforded him an understanding of the unique offerings of each approach, whether it be an

instrumental performance or academic study focus. Porter’s ultimate goal was the cultivation of

musicians who would continue the development and growth of American musical culture.

Unfortunately, the six-year curriculum that Porter proposed has never been implemented.

Porter’s concern with the overall system of higher-level music education was also directed specifically at the development and cultivation of American composers. Porter’s article

“The education of the American composer” outlined the importance of early music education in its formulation of an American style.94 Investigating the formulation of an “American style” has proved to be a difficult endeavor, primarily due to the absence of a generally accepted definition of the style itself. During the early 20th century, American composers emerged with interest in

American folk melodies, jazz influences, and spirituals, weaving these indigenous musical ideas

within the fabric of contemporary American music, creating a cultural moment where the

“American style” began to take shape. Porter’s perspective on the formulation of an American

style focused upon removing the overwhelming influence from and reliance upon European

models of musical culture, not necessarily looking to indigenous musical sources or artistic

movements. Instead, Porter’s idea of developing the American composer, and thus style,

93 Ibid., 281. 94 Quincy Porter, “The Education of the American Composer,” Musicology 1, no. 1 (Fall 1945).

35 resulted from an early and well-established music education created by and for Americans. He believed that the dependence on European music education lead to dependency in stylistic and aesthetic ideas, the result of which “was a good deal of ‘second hand’ music, of dubious value as a contribution to the musical life of this country.”95

What Porter meant by a uniquely American system of music education remained unclear, particularly due to his continued reliance upon the decidedly European models of Palestrina,

Lasso, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Additionally, Porter’s music itself drew from contemporary stylistic trends within France and Germany, including the historical models which produced them. It seems that Porter was interested more in creating institutions of music education which would develop American composers rather than he himself utilizing materials, sources, and styles native to the American composer.

Porter believed that American institutions should provide a broad perspective with extensive variance in influence––the most important aspect of a composer’s education. It was with this broad perspective that a composer’s original voice would emerge. Porter continued to emphasize the necessity of solid, yet contemporary, understanding of harmony and counterpoint that would “enable the student to glean principles of musical structure in the living music of the past and present.”96 Porter’s idea of contemporary music education was influenced by his Ernest

Bloch’s radical approach, drawing directly from the body of repertoire to provide instruction; the harmonic principles and processes were not, however, contemporary. Porter’s consideration of this perspective as progressive speaks to the highly conservative models of education that existed within the American academy at this time, and that simply by including examples from the

95 Ibid., 28. 96 Ibid., 31.

repertoire the method could be considered innovative and broad while maintaining the

dominance of Western principles of music and its manner of creation.

At the same time, Porter’s opinion was that a teacher of composition should provide tools

with which the American composer would then be able to create, that they would be able to write

“whatever seems to ring the bell most resonantly in his own musical consciousness.”97 He believed a musical education grounded in comprehensive understanding of the common practice

(harmonic procedures, forms, counterpoint) would allow the development of an independent compositional voice, distinctly American. Unfortunately, due to his European-centric training and range of influences, Porter largely ignored the enormous wealth of indigenous material available to the American composer including, but not limited to, Afro-Caribbean music, spirituals, folk music, Native American music, and the New England shape-note tradition.

However, Porter believed that if elements of these diverse aspects of American music were incorporated by a composer “it must be because he has developed or inherited … an intuition which makes him capable of giving them a new validity.”98 This opinion is progressive in nature,

yet continues to remove the agency of influence of these traditions. Ultimately, Porter’s

perspective was highly conservative in that it maintained the hegemony of Western art music,

denying the possibility of creating a national idiom that reflected and incorporated the myriad

musical cultures already present within the cultural fabric of America.

Throughout his career in the American academy, Porter championed not only the education but also the existence of contemporary American composers through organizations, festivals, recording, and publication. Porter was involved in the creation and founding of the

American Composers Alliance (ACA) in 1938; he served on executive board with, among

97 Ibid., 32. 98 Porter, “The Education of the American Composer,” Musicology 1, no. 1 (Fall 1945): 32.

others, Aaron Copland, Marian Bauer, Otto Luening, Roy Harris, and Roger Sessions. The ACA

was designed to assert the position of the contemporary American composer as a serious

professional endeavor, one which was entitled to fair compensation.99 This organization

functioned largely as a union for American composers, “to address such issues as royalties and

performance rights that affected the economic life of a composer” and increase the visibility of

their music.100 Porter eventually went on to serve as the organization’s president. Porter was also

involved in the formation the American Music Center alongside composers Otto Luening and

Howard Hanson. The AMC, founded in 1939, was instituted with the specific intention of

addressing issues of publication, distribution, and recording of contemporary American music,

issues which the ACA had left unaddressed.101 Porter also served on the board for the League of

Composers, the International Society for Contemporary Music, and Composers Recordings, Inc.

Porter was involved in the Music Festival of the Yaddo Group (Saratoga Springs, New

York) as a contributing performer, composer, and, eventually, director. The music festival was designed to celebrate and promote contemporary American music, composers, and musicians and “regarded as one of the most important testing grounds for new American music.”102

Between 1932 and 1952, only nine festivals occurred; Porter was involved in only five. In 1933,

Porter served as a composer and performer, featuring his Suite for solo viola (1930). From 1936

until 1940, Porter served on the board of directors alongside composers John Duke, Richard

Donovan, Norman Lockwood, and Roy Harris (among others). In 1937, as chairman of the

board, Porter acquired recording equipment which proved to be of “inestimable value to the

99 Susan Richardson, “Defining a place for composers: the early history of the American Composers Alliance and the American Music Center, 1937–1950,” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University (1997), 168. 100 Ibid., 169. 101 Ibid., 305–06. 102 Radio broadcast announcement, September 09, 1938, Porter Papers MS 15.

38 composer as well as to those interested in possessing a permanent record of contemporary music.”103 In addition to providing archival recordings (which were available for sale), Porter also introduced the idea of live radio broadcast. The first broadcast was by WNYC, a non- commercial station, featuring all five concerts of the 1938 festival; this broadcasting service brought significant exposure of contemporary American music to the masses of New York

City.104

Yale School of Music, 1946–65

Following the retirement of David Stanley Smith in May 1946, Porter was invited to join the composition and theory faculty of the Yale School of Music. Porter’s decision to return to

New Haven was motivated primarily by his desire to leave the administrative sector of academia and return to regular teaching and, ultimately, composing. This position allowed him more freedom, increasing his composition productivity and appearances as a performer. Porter became a member of the composition faculty in the September 1946, joining Paul Hindemith and

Richard Donovan. Porter taught courses on harmony, modal counterpoint, and string quartet analysis in addition to private composition instruction. In 1960, Porter was appointed Battell

Professor of Music Theory and Composition, the position his teacher Horatio Parker had held, succeeding Paul Hindemith and Richard Donovan; he remained in this position until his retirement in 1965. Porter and Hindemith were an odd pair of colleagues, similar in that they both were violists and composed a significant body of music for the instrument, but couldn’t have been further apart in stylistic approach to composition. In addition to his teaching duties,

103 Yaddo Music Group Brochure (1940), Porter Papers MS 15. 104 Memo from Richard Pack (September 10, 1938), Porter Papers MS 15.

Porter was appointed a fellow of Branford College in 1947, and the master of Pierson College in

1958.

Porter had a lifelong interest in the study and teaching of counterpoint, an interest further

fueled by his studies with Bloch in Cleveland. While at the New England Conservatory, Porter

had completed the counterpoint book, A Study of Sixteenth Century Counterpoint Based on the

Works of Orlando di Lasso, which was first published by New England Conservatory Press in

1940, and by Loomis & Co. in 1948. Porter believed that a solid understanding of counterpoint

and harmony were essential tools for the composer,105 an understanding that was best developed

through exposure to actual music (a direct influence from Bloch’s pedagogical style):

In counterpoint, I advocate concentration on a study of the early sixteenth century vocal style, and of the Bach style, rather than on a purely theoretical type of “strict” counterpoint which never gave birth to living music.106

Porter’s text was exactly that, a study of modal counterpoint using the works of the Flemish

master, Orlando di Lasso as its foundation. Porter drew primarily form the two- and three-voiced

vocal works of di Lasso in examining characteristics of melodic patterns, rhythmic ideas,

treatment of consonant and dissonant intervals, the application of cantus firmus, and the use of

harmonic ideas to enhance textual meaning. Porter thought counterpoint illustrated the harmonic

principles used within later contrapuntal genres such as fugue (as exemplified by Bach), thus an

exhaustive and complete study of the subject was of highest importance. In 1951, Porter

published A Study of Fugue Writing based on Bach’s Well-tempered Clavier. The work illustrated Porter’s interest in the contrapuntal form, but remained on the well-beaten path of fugue study based upon the works of Bach, reifying the “standard” in 18th century counterpoint

instruction.

105 Porter, “Education of the American Composer,” 30. 106 Ibid.

Porter’s interest in counterpoint and imitative forms as pedagogical tools for music theory

instruction parallel those of Walter Piston, an individual who embodied many of the same ideals

in composition and education as Porter. Piston was an influential figure within the American

academy not only in his position as a professor of music at Harvard University (1926–1960), but

also in the popularity of his own music theory textbook, Harmony (1941). The work was

produced in response to the overwhelming absence of music theory texts that presented the

material in a progressive way, sensitive to “the impact on music schools of the contemporary,

and of the older periods brought to light by musicologists.”107 A progressive music theory text, in

Piston and Porter’s opinion, centered around the implementation of musical examples from the repertoire so as to illuminate the genius of the masters within the classroom. Piston’s Harmony

offered a rudimentary exposition of music theory using scales, vertical structures, and chord

progressions as the fundamental materials to describe phrase structure, harmonization, and

tonality.108 These materials were given agency within musical examples from the common

practice era (1700-1900). Discussion of counterpoint was notably absent, a striking contrast to

Porter’s approach to teaching music theory;109 Porter believed that the combination of

counterpoint and harmony were essential to gain a broad understanding the synthetic process of

composition in historical and contemporary periods. Piston’s perspective, as demonstrated in

Harmony, relied upon the tonal practice of the 19th century as a framework with which other

compositions would be evaluated or analyzed. In comparison, Porter’s implementation of Lasso

as the model for contrapuntal study and his belief in a holistic understanding of music theory and

its ability to be broadly applied to a composer’s work were radical perspectives.

107 Carter, “Walter Piston,” The Musical Quarterly 32, no. 3 (July 1946): 359. 108 Walter Piston, Harmony (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1948). 109 Piston would eventual publish Counterpoint (1947).

Porter found great value in the performance of chamber music, a value no doubt

crystallized through his work with Lucien Capet and fostered throughout his early career as a

quartet violist. In addition to its personal value, Porter asserted chamber music as an important

aspect of developing the musical culture in the United States and that “we who are teachers must

attempt to help our students to a greater understanding and appreciation of this inexhaustible

medium.” 110 Porter taught a course on string quartet analysis during his tenure at Yale; this course represented the sum total of Porter’s interests: musical education, theoretical analysis, and chamber music. Using the works of Haydn, Beethoven, and Bartók as the core course material,

Porter involved his students in analytical discussions concerning overall structure and form. The

course was not limited to the quartets of Haydn, Beethoven, and Bartók; Porter incorporated

many contributions to the 20th century string quartet repertoire, particularly those of American

composers such as Irving Fine, Walter Piston, William Schuman, Randall Thompson, Roger

Sessions, and Elliot Carter.

The selection of Haydn and Beethoven as core material for the course was obvious due to

the relationship the composers, respectively, had with the medium––Haydn being the “inventor”

of the form, and Beethoven its champion. The works of Bartók, however, were not well-known

at the time and, generally, had not been received with open arms by the American public. It was

during the three years Porter spent in Paris that he encountered the composer and his music:

March 13, 1929. In the evening Arthur and I went to a Béla Bartók concert, at which several of his works were played – a quartet, songs, piano works, and a violin sonata. He played piano himself. Afterwards we went around to see Bartók (who Arthur had had give a lecture in Cleveland the previous year – on which occasion Lois and I dined with him at Quimby’s) and also to see Szigeti, the fine violinist who played his sonata.111

110 Porter, “Chamber Music,” Music Teachers National Association Volume of Proceedings 35 (1940): 273. 111 Porter to family, March 13, 1929, Porter Papers MS 15.

Porter became quite fond of Sonata no. 1 for violin and piano he heard Szigeti perform, eventually performing it himself at Vassar College in the early-1930s.112 Porter developed an immense interest in Bartók’s six string quartets and knew them quite thoroughly; Lois Porter remembered “how excited and thrilled he was when the six quartets of Bartók were finally recorded by the Juilliard string quartet for the first time.”113

The string quartet medium was well-suited to facilitate musical study due to its popularity among composers from its inception to the present day and also the smaller number of voices allowed for a clear depiction of a composer’s style. For example, Porter had a particular reverence for Haydn and believed that through his string quartets it was possible to witness “one of the rarely creative geniuses who never seemed to find himself in a rut, and who kept on making discovery after discovery as he went from [one] work to another.”114 In addition to style,

Porter placed particular emphasis on the usage of motive and the manner in which the various motives of a work interacted. Porter believed this to be essential element to creating an effective string quartet, citing the highly developed motivic interplay of Beethoven and Bartók.115 The string quartet medium, according to Porter, was one of the most challenging mediums in which to compose and, as a result, was a metric with which to measure the greatness of a composer.116

Porter’s involvement within the Yale School of Music and the University, at large, allowed for more time to compose; the years in New Haven saw an increase in Porter’s creative output. In addition to string quartets no. 8 (1950) and no. 9 (1958), Porter wrote a number of small-scale works, including Divertimento for two violins and viola (1949), Duo for violin and

112 Hall, 44. 113 Ibid. 114 Quartet analysis lecture notes, October 25, 1951, Porter Papers MS 15. 115 Hall, 72. 116 Hall, 72–73.

43 viola (1954), and Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957). Upon hearing Porter’s String quartet no. 8 (1950), Ross Lee Finney wrote:

Regardless of what the program said, this work is in one movement. There are, of course, different tempos and different moods, but the formal design is found in the flow of one idea into the next and the lovely arch of the entire work, ending where it began. The idiom, as one would expect of Porter, is completely free of the affectations that pass for modern. He is primarily the writer of beautiful melodic lines, but they always suffuse into subtle and iridescent harmonic colors. This quality in the music must be accepted as a special gift to the listener from an exceedingly sensitive ear.117

These pieces depict Porter at the height of his compositional craft in different ways, demonstrating his interest in structural cohesion and clarity, motivic transformation, and imitative forms.

Porter’s renewed interest in larger, symphonic forms resulted in a series of concertos written from 1948–59; these large-scale works demonstrate the same ideals in structural unity and thematic cohesion present within the smaller chamber works. The Concerto for viola and orchestra (1948) was commissioned by the Alice W. Ditson Foundation and premiered at the

Columbia University Festival of American Music on May 16, 1948 with Paul Doktor as the soloist and Dean Dixon conducting the Columbia Broadcasting Symphony Orchestra. It represents Porter’s idiom within the large-scale format of a solo instrument concerto with full orchestra quite successfully, ingratiating the violist with lyrical melodic figures and idiomatic passagework. Paul Doktor, the first violist to perform the work, noted that

without letting the viola become the dictator of the composition Porter writes the themes and passages of the concerto in such a way that they have to sound well in the hands of a good player; and in spite of the use of a full orchestra the soloist is never drowned out. Idiomatically written from the violist’s standpoint, Porter –– with an inherent lightness and airiness –– uses the colors of the orchestra in such a

117 Ross Lee Finney, BMI Pamphlet, Porter Papers MS 15.

way as to combine or contrast them with the solo instrument which is thoroughly enjoyable to both performer and audience.118

The work has been considered to be one of Porter’s finest contributions to the 20th century repertoire, and, arguably one of the best exemplars of the genre from the 20th century

(which will be further explored within the second section of this document). Porter’s viola

concerto appeared at a time when the genre was becoming popular. In fact, three of the most

performed works of the genre appeared between 1928 and 1949: William Walton’s Concerto for

viola and orchestra (1928), Paul Hindemith’s Der Schwanendreher (1935), and Béla Bartók’s

posthumously completed Concerto for viola and orchestra (1949). Other concertos that were

written during this time and have reached popularity include Walter Piston’s Concerto for viola

and orchestra (1957), and Bohuslav Martinu’s Rhapsody-Concerto (1952).

During the 1952-53 academic year, Porter took a leave of absence from his position at

Yale School of Music. Several months were spent in Paris, but the majority of his sabbatical was

in Florence, Italy. This time designated for creative endeavors, away from academic

responsibilities yielded Concerto Concertante for Two Pianos, which received the Pulitzer Prize in 1954. The Louisville Symphony commissioned the work, delivering its premiere in 1954 with

Dorothea Adkins and Ann Monks, pianists, and Robert Whitney conducting. The concerto was written as a single movement, suffused with imitative writing from simple canons to extensive fugal sections in a way that was much “bigger, more deeply philosophic and original … (than his symphony).”119 Howard Boatwright described the Concertante as “magnified chamber music”

118 Paul Doktor, “Paul Doktor reviews the Quincy Porter concerto for viola and orchestra,” Violins and Violinists (July-August 1954): 179. 119 Alfred Frankenstein, BMI Pamphlet, Porter Papers MS 15.

where, while the orchestra had a strong presence, and the non-virtuosic piano parts were

“integrated into the whole”120 musical fabric.

In 1959, with the assistance of the William Morse Trust for Music, the New Haven

Symphony commissioned Porter to write the Concerto for harpsichord and orchestra. The

premiere performance was given on January 19, 1960, with Ralph Kirkpatrick, harpsichord, and

Frank Brieff leading the New Haven Symphony. Kirkpatrick was a notable harpsichordist and

early music scholar who had joined the faculty at Yale School of Music in 1940. Kirkpatrick’s

association with Yale contributed to Porter’s interest in the harpsichord, evidenced in the three

works written for the instrument: Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957), Concerto for

harpsichord and orchestra (1959), and Quintet for harpsichord and strings (1961). Regarding the

instrument’s unique qualities, Porter was interested in the “clarity in the portrayal of more

complicated harmonic combinations, and in the delineation of rhythms.”121 This concerto

demonstrates Porter’s continued interest in cohesive structure and thematic unity:

The theme at the beginning of the Concerto returns to its original form at the very end. After this theme has been developed for some measures, another theme is given out quietly by the harpsichord. This motive is used extensively in a great variety of ways throughout the whole Concerto, both thematically and as figuration.122

Porter’s interest in large-scale forms that involved full orchestra was primarily limited to

the concertos he wrote for viola, piano(s), and harpsichord. He composed only two symphonies,

which are separated by two decades: Symphony no. 1 (1934) was premiered in 1938, and

Symphony no. 2 completed in 1962.

120 Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Bulletin of American Composers Alliance, 3. 121 Quincy Porter, New Haven Symphony program notes, January 19, 1960, in record liner notes: http://www.newworldrecords.org/uploads/fileDZEbO.pdf. 122 Ibid.

Porter’s limited presence within the catalog of American symphonic works written during

1930 to 1960, especially among the composers within the academy, was noticeable. Other

composers of this group, such as Walter Piston, Howard Hanson, and William Schuman, wrote

multiple symphonies. The symphonic form had been established by John Knowles Paine (1839–

1906) as the most effective way to assert American composition against the hegemony of the

German symphonists of the late 19th century. In this way, the genre was revered as the ultima in

“classical” composition and the only way to access visibility was through the dominant form.

Porter’s limited contribution to the symphonic catalog distinguishes him as an outlier among the

other members of the American academy; compared to Porter’s two symphonies Hanson wrote

seven, Piston wrote nine, and Schuman contributed ten (these numbers do not include numerous

other works written for symphony orchestra). While Porter did compose several other orchestral

works, he primarily wrote works for smaller ensembles; for this reason, Porter has been

neglected as a member of the American academy.

Porter’s Symphony no. 2 (1962) was commissioned by Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), in

celebration of their 20th anniversary. The premiere performance was given on January 14, 1964

by the Louisville Symphony Orchestra with Robert Whitney conducting. It was received with

mixed reviews, one reviewer praising its open, singing melodies and another regarding it as “too

polite and gentle to make much of a first impression.”123 The work was recorded by Whitney and the Louisville Symphony Orchestra and released March 1964 (LOU642); another recording of the work was released in 2004, by Sinfonia Varsovia under the direction of Ian Hobson (Albany

Troy 574). The symphony demonstrates Porter’s idiom in its usage of clear formal structure

123 William Mootz, “Starker solo something to savor,” Louisville Courier-Journal (January 15, 1964).

(three movements, each in binary form), reliance upon motivic transformation as a means for

thematic unity, implementation of bitonality, and freely developed contrapuntal writing.124

The final period of Porter’s life, 1960–66, was primarily occupied with composition,

mostly of chamber music, and teaching. In 1965, Porter retired from Yale as the Battell Professor

of theory and composition, hoping to devote his time to his hobbies (printing, photography, and

electronics).125 His final work was Quintet for oboe and strings (1966), a work requested by

Wykeham Rise School in Washington, Connecticut.126 Unfortunately, the composer did not live

to see the work performed; the premiere was delivered by the Yale Quartet and Robert Bloom on

June 11, 1967.

On November 12, 1966, Quincy Porter died of a stroke at his home in Bethany,

Connecticut. Several tributes and messages of remembrance were issued in wake of his death

highlighting his personal character and contributions to music education and composition.

Kingman Brewster, president of Yale University, wrote that “Quincy Porter was one of those

rare and wonderful people; a genuinely free spirit. He helped to liberate the rest of us from self-

consciousness and conformity.”127 Otto Luening wrote:

Quincy Porter was very much a contemporary man. In his numerous important teaching positions, he worked mightily for his students. His old and young colleagues profited by the zealous efforts he made on their behalf in the many honorary and active posts he held in various composer societies …. Porter’s music will last just as long as personal, poetic, and eminently musical statements are needed by society. To place the onus of the acceptance of Quincy Porter’s music on society itself is precisely what he would have desired.128

124 Walter Temme, “The symphonic works of Quincy Porter: A conductor’s guide,” DMA diss., Arizona State University (1989): 174–201. 125 Hall, 49. 126 Ibid., 50. 127 “Quincy Porter, 69, Composer, Is Dead,” New York Times, November 13, 1966. 128 Otto Luening, “Quincy Porter (1897–1966),” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Letters and the National Institute of Arts and Letters (New York, 1967): 95.

Quincy Porter was a product of the New England intelligentsia and its aristocratic ideals, particularly in the encouragement of music education. Porter’s trajectory as a musician, in education and professional career, was influenced by academic centers of learning, beginning and ending with Yale University. His stylistic approach as a composer was established by 1931, only to be further refined throughout his career. The diversity of Porter’s career is shown within his academic endeavors, advocacy for American composers, interest in the development of music education in America, and activity as a performing violist resulted in limited time available for the development of his compositional voice.

Porter’s career paralleled that of several members of the so-called American academy, particularly those of Walter Piston, Howard Hanson, William Schuman, and Roger Sessions.

Within this group of individuals, Porter has not received significant recognition as a composer, in part due to his limited composition of orchestral works. However, Porter was a prolific composer and enjoyed visibility as an influential voice within the American musical landscape evidenced in the fact that a majority of his later works were results of commission and as the recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in 1954. As evidenced within the works for viola, Porter’s style did not undergo significant change throughout his career. In the light of his popularity and renown within the American academy, it seems as though Porter was never pressured to alter his course, stylistically. Although Porter’s style would not change throughout his career, it remained

“spontaneous and personal.”129 Howard Boatwright spoke of Porter’s individuality and highly personal style as a composer, stating that his music was “identifiable within a measure,”130 a fact that is most pronounced within the works that he wrote for the instrument he played, the viola.

129 Herbert Elwell, “Quincy Porter,” Modern Music 23, no. 1 (Winter 1946): 26. 130 “Quincy Porter, 69, Composer, Is Dead,” New York Times, November 13, 1966.

Chapter Two: The Duo for violin and viola (1917)

Porter’s Duo for violin and viola was completed December 31, 1917 and bears the

inscription “Dedicated to my Father, Jan 4, 1918.” The work was composed during Porter’s

undergraduate studies and exemplifies the strong Teutonic influence of David Stanley Smith and

Horatio Parker, as seen in Porter’s choices in formal design, harmonic structure, style, and

contrapuntal technique(s). While this Duo for violin and viola shows Porter writing within the

shadow of Smith and Parker it certainly presents a number of ideas that will become elements of

his mature style, particularly his interest in counterpoint and imitative writing, emphasis on

motive as a fundamental element, and clarity and cohesion in formal design. The work is

comprised of three movements and each demonstrates discrete aspects of Porter’s juvenile

aesthetic and educational influence through his interaction with and usage of species

counterpoint, imitative form, structural clarity, and harmonic exploration outside of the common

practice.

The first movement, Allegro non troppo, resides in the diatonic world of A major and

exemplifies “textbook” sonata form (type 3)131 in its clear usage of exposition, development, and recapitulation. The exposition’s primary theme (P) has a strong, angular rhythmic profile within its two motives. The first motive (P1) has disjunct melodic motion in quarter notes that rests on

131 Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). This analysis of Porter’s demonstration of sonata form draws from the concepts and vocabulary presented in Hepokoski and Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory. Hepokoski and Darcy describe “sonata” as a dialogic idea that is more easily understood as a possible set of operations rather than a set of rules that define a rigid, formal framework with a prescribed tonal plan. The description of sonata theory illuminates the many ways in which composers of the common practice era engaged with ideas of form through tonal and rhetorical principles; sonata theory also allows the understanding of form as a malleable object with which composers interact. Hepkoski and Darcy’s exhaustive study of 18th century repertoire revealed five general types demonstrations of sonata theory; type 3 sonata refers to what most music students and early sonata theorists conceived as sonata form in which a full exposition, development, and recapitulation follow a specific tonal plan.

the support of a quasi-Alberti bass pattern in eighth notes, outlining the clear diatonic chord

progression. The harmonic material of P1 follows a straight-forward plan of a compound eight-

bar phrase structure, divided into equal four-bar phrases (see Figure 1). The first phrase of P1

shows a clear progression of I–V–V/V–I with cadential motion indicated by rhythmic and

harmonic cues; this is followed by another four-bar phrase, repeating the same material but switched between the two voices, completing the parallel period phrase structure.

Figure 1. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 1–10

The second motive (P2) has unison rhythmic motion and also demonstrates imitative,

compound rhythmic patterns. The change in rhythmic texture of P2 provides contrast and allows

for more independent, linear parts. The eight-bar phrase of P2 (mm. 8–16) is also divided into

discrete four-bar sections, noticeable through the change in rhythmic patterns, and supported by

a diatonic harmonic progression. The first four bars are in rhythmic unison, and the consequent

four bars display two lines interacting contrapuntally, establishing greater independence; both

sections of P2 clearly outline the A major diatonic key area through scalar motion and chordal

expression of tonic and dominant.

Figure 2. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 11–24.

Porter’s early interest in combining and manipulating motivic cells in order to achieve

greater balance in phrase structure is demonstrated in the third phrase of P, beginning in measure

17 (see Figure 2). It can be described as an aggregate of elements from P1 and P2, or P1+2 the

first four measures of the eight-bar phrase group reprise the harmonic and rhythmic motion of P1,

but instead close the phrase with an authentic cadence in A major. The concluding four measures

of the phrase group employ the rhythmic material and gestures of P1 but modulate toward the

relative minor key area of the secondary theme (S). This combination of two phrase groups

(P1+2) results in a satisfyingly balanced P-area; this presentation of motives through consistent

phrase structure allows the structural division of the form to clearly emerge.

The S-theme strongly contrasts the affect of P through its usage of minor mode, rhythmic

profile and texture, and overall character. The consequent phrase of P1+2 cadences on a C-sharp major seventh chord (m. 24) colored by a 4-3 suspension, preparing the F-sharp minor key of the

S-area, Poco lent expressivo [sic]. The viola provides accompanying triplet figuration, arpeggiated chords which solidify the minor mode; the change in rhythmic texture reflects the

overall change in character and provides a supportive motion upon which the lyrical melody in

the violin can rest. This melody (S1) demonstrates consistent phrase structure and harmonic

scheme consistent with the phrases of the P-area. The S-area is divided into two eight-bar phrases, indicated by the instruments trading melodic and accompanying material; S1 features the

melody in the violin with the viola providing the supporting material and vice versa in S2. Each

eight-bar phrase is divided equally into four-bar antecedent and consequent phrases. The antecedent phrase of S1 (mm. 24-27, see Figure 3) moves away from the tonic through a standard

harmonic progression that is largely motivated by linear voice-leading, arriving at the dominant

(further reified by the half-diminished chord) in measure 27; the consequent phrase (mm. 27–31,

see Figure 3) travels from this dominant area, returning to the F-sharp minor tonic.

Figure 3. Duo for violin and viola (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 25–33.

The chord progression choices Porter makes here indicate the strong influence of 18th- century counterpoint, which was a central part of his undergraduate music education. Linear voice-leading influences the chord progression, allowing the accompanying figuration to provide an almost compound harmonic structure to frame the monodic melody. Oblique motion creates tension and release throughout, while also providing forward motion in the line and seamless movement through the chord progression.

The proceeding phrase group (S2) is a close approximation of S1, following its melodic

contour and rhythmic patterns (see Figure 4). Several aspects differentiate these groups––

octave higher in order to accommodate the registral constraints of the violin; the rhythmic

patterns are borrowed directly from S1 but explore a wider chromatic area. Porter utilizes a sort of circle of fifths sequence to move from F-sharp minor to the chromatic mediant of A-sharp via

B minor and E-sharp half-diminished. This chromatic exploration in S2 serves as preparation for

the enharmonic respellings which will appear in the development.

Figure 4. Duo (1917), I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 30–33.

Instead of harmonically closing the eight-bar structure, the consequent phrase of S2 (mm.

36-39) moves through a chord progression built upon the fundamental chromatic descending line

from F-sharp to C-sharp. The antecedent phrase began in F-sharp minor and moved to A-sharp half-diminished seventh as a leading tone for the subdominant lock on B major (IV); the subdominant lock appears in the form of a quasi-pedal.132 The chromatic descending line from F-

sharp to C-sharp creates a contrapuntal gravitas toward the dominant, a dramatic preparation for

132 Monodic instruments such as the violin or viola are capable of vertical chords, but not sustained for multiple beats; Porter utilizes the arpeggiated pattern to create the illusion of a sustained pedal, hence the term “quasi-pedal.”

the development, and also prepares the harmonic landscape for the enharmonic respellings that

will permeate the development section.

The development remains within the boundaries of textbook type-3 sonata form in terms

of its utilization and transformation of rhythmic and melodic motivic material, and its consistent

usage of phrase structure which parallels that of the exposition. However, Porter does deviate

from the standard harmonic practice of the common era, exploring more chromatic harmonic

areas. Perhaps the most notable feature of this particular development, especially considering the

placement of this work within Porter’s oeuvre, is his usage and manipulation of motivic material

to create a cohesive overall narrative.

The viola opens the development with fugal/imitative writing, implementing motivic

figures from both P and S; the P1 serves as the subject of a fugue utilizing the G-flat diatonic

collection (see Figure 5). The enharmonic relationship of the half-cadence to C-sharp minor on

the final beat of measure 39, becomes the respelled dominant of the G-flat diatonic collection.

While this respelling opens the possibility for the further exploration of a diverse tonal area it is not particularly innovative within the realm of type 3 sonata form. The subject spins out countersubject material, reminiscent of both melodic and accompanying parts of P1, after which a real

“answer” follows in the violin. Both “subject” and “answer” have an eight-bar phrase structure.

Figure 5. Duo (1917) I. Allegro non troppo, mm. 37–41.

In fact, the development follows the structural design of the exposition while exploring

different harmonic areas; while Porter ventures into new harmonic territory, his adherence to this

type of structural rigidity indicates he had not fully emerged in his stylistic voice or structural

thinking. The imitative style of P2 follows, borrowing less from the rhythmic and melodic

characteristics of P2 and providing a type of “free development” area which facilitates a

transition to the appearance of S1 in measure 56. This version S1 features an added C pedal point

beneath the melodic idea of S1; this provides harmonic tension preparing for the retransition

which begins in measure 61. In both circumstances the motivic material of the exposition

appears without significant transformation, but presented within the context of a quasi-fugal, imitative counterpoint form. While Porter’s adherence to a rigid structural idea it is clear that his juvenile manipulation or recontextualization of motivic cell represents an emerging compositional voice, foreshadowing the more developed, mature style.

The retransition propels the harmonic motion toward the A major and arrives, in measure

64, at the recapitulation. What follows is a model example of recapitulation within type 3 sonata form; the reprise of motivic ideas in condensed form with a concluding coda. A condensed version of the P-area opens the recapitulation; both P1 and P2 appear in their full form, but the

third phrase of the P-area is shortened with only the consequent four-bar phrase included. Only

one measure of the melodic motive of S1 appears as Porter moves into a concluding coda section.

The coda employs material of P within an imitative context, clearly outlining and asserting the

key area of A major with standard harmonic progression and cadential motion.

The second movement, Andante, exhibits clear formal design and structure, and harmonic

and melodic execution typical of the common practice.133 The movement features rounded

binary (ABA), a form favored by Porter throughout his compositional career. The A section (see

Figure 6) features a double-stop, sciliano accompanying figure that provides the harmonic background for a flowing melody, characterized by an anacrusis to a tied dotted quarter note.

This figure occurs multiple times, creating harmonic tension as a suspension or to announce the reprise of the melody. Porter begins the movement in D minor, yet composed a melody that, on its own, does not clearly outline the tonal area. The prominent metric placement of less important scale degrees (in terms of tendency tones and voice leading) provide less definition of a tonal area; the harmonic background provided by the viola tethers this melody to the D minor diatonic collection.

Figure 6. Duo (1917), II. Andante, mm. 1–5.

133 In European-centric music history the common practice period refers to the rise, adherence to, and decline of the tonal system; a period which lasted, roughly from 1650 to 1900. This system encompasses the formation of melody, harmonization, phrase structure, and overall formal design of a piece or set of pieces.

By reducing the melody’s attachment to a specific tonal area Porter is able to lightly experiment

with different harmonization(s). For example, the reprise of the melody (m. 13) follows the same

harmonic plan, but instead of moving toward the dominant begins to tonicize G minor (see

Figure 7).

Figure 7. Duo (1917), II. Andante, mm. 11–15.

Porter creates consistent phrase groupings that follow standard harmonic progression and

structure. Each eight-bar phrase group with antecedent and consequent parts, a parallel period

structure. The first eight-bar phrase group (a) moves toward a strong cadence in the dominant

key area; the dominant key area is established using a four-bar extension. The second phrase

group (a’) reverses the siciliano accompanying pattern and offers a more harmonically

adventurous setting of the melodic figure which is repeated in the same register. The harmonic

setting includes more dissonances (e.g., suspension, accented passing tone, anticipation) offered

through typical species voice leading techniques. The second phrase group (a’) closes with a clear authentic cadence in D minor.

The B section, Vivace, offers contrast to its counterpart in the rounded binary through

usage of major mode, contrapuntal writing, spirited character, and rhythmic motion. Porter

establishes F major through standard harmonic progression, articulated within the context of a

clear four-bar phrase. The imitative, staggered entrances are reminiscent of the first movement

and, rhythmically, are borrowed from the A section (m. 13); imitative writing provides forward

motion, contrasting the lyrical character of A. Again, clear phrase construction frames the section, not only through rhythmic differentiation but also by cadential motion. The final phrase of B utilizes syncopated figures to alternate B-flat and G minor chords; Porter raises the root and third of the G minor chord a semitone arriving at an unrelated E-dom7 to close with a strong V7

– I cadence in A major, leading directly to A, which is repeated exactly.

The final movement, Allegro molto, demonstrates Porter’s early interest in manipulating

formal models, particularly imitative forms of 18th century counterpoint; although this example is

less developed it provides a rudimentary view of the composer’ style. Interest in these structures

was, no doubt, a direct influence of his Yale education, particularly David Stanley Smith who

represented the faction of the American Academy who were steeped within the influence of

German music education;134 the work was, in fact, composed during his final year of undergraduate study at Yale College. It follows, then, that this movement would be made up of several discrete sections of contrapuntal writing, including multiple two-voice canons, creating a sort of hybridized form. This overall structure can be described as an arch form with the alternation of canon and transition with simple two-voice imitative counterpoint comprising the parts of the form, visible here:

134 See biography chapter concerning Porter’s formative education, especially David Stanley Smith’s placement in the development of the Academy within American institutions of higher education and his emphasis upon the philosophy of German music education (importance of counterpoint and four-part harmony as didactic tools) and compositional style.

A –– B –– C –– B’ –– A –– [Coda: A’]

The A section is a simple, two-voice canon in D major; as a simple canon, the comes

appears as an exact replication of the dux, transposed one octave lower. After three measures, the canonic voices spin out a descending, imitative sequential pattern that pushes the harmony

toward the dominant. The canon reappears in measure 13 with a cadence concluding the first

canon in measure 16. Porter concludes A with a transitional section that directly moves to C

minor, traveling through distantly related key areas; it is connected to the canonic section

through its usage of the rhythmic motto of the canon. The transition leads to B, an imitative

section that is divided into two eight-bar phrase structures, reminiscent of the design of the first

movement. Again, we see Porter drawing together structural elements from previous movements

to create a cohesive musical narrative over multiple movements; this type of structural unity will

become a hallmark of the mature style. The “melodic” figure appears first in the violin and again

in the viola in measure 31 and appears both times with the same accompanying figure. This

imitative section closes with transitional material, again rhythmically tethered to the canonic

motives of A, which propels the harmony toward an F/C centricity.

The center of the arch form (C) features a canon occurring at the fifth, outlining the tonal

centricity of F. C follows the structural design of A in that the canon is proceeded by a free

imitative counterpoint section which leads into a transitional area, functioning as a harmonic

conduit to the B’ section. The canon voices are rhythmically differentiated from those of A,

providing contrast. Porter combines rhythmic motives of B and C while moving toward a C-

sharp M7 cadence through a chromatic descent, anticipating the F-sharp minor key area of B’. B’

features the melodic pattern of B, transposed into F-sharp minor, and set against material

60 resembling the countermelody of B. This section provides harmonic motion returning to D major and the reprise of A, as indicated in the clear cadence to A major in measure 65.

The concluding section of this movement, from measure 79 to the end, demonstrates elements (on a small scale) that will characterize the motivic style of Porter throughout his career, distinguished by his combination of motivic cells to create structural connectivity and overall cohesion. The coda begins with the canon of A (mm. 79-81), which is then set against the melodic figure of B; this demonstrates Porter’s technique of simultaneously blending motivic and melodic material from disparate sections, presaging later techniques of transforming motivic cells. The coda returns to the A canon and, after a section of free counterpoint, drives toward a conclusive D major cadence.

The Duo has never been published as of this writing; the only extant copy of the work is located in the Quincy Porter Papers (MS 15) at the Yale University School of Music Library. It is possible that the work was never published due to its status as “juvenilia,” although there is no documentation that Porter provided this classification for the work. The relative obscurity of

Porter’s works even in his more developed, mature style certainly had an effect on the continued publication of his works; as a result, it is not surprising that this work remained unpublished.

Additionally, no recording of the work exists.

This piece would serve well as an inclusion to duo repertoire for intermediate violinists and violists. While remaining within diatonic harmony, the piece explores diverse harmonic areas and plays with tonal expectations; from a pedagogical perspective, this allows the performer to enjoy rich harmonic territories while staying within a fairly consistent hand frame structure. The work is clearly structured and, as a result, is a straightforward example of early

20th century American music from which younger students of violin and viola would greatly benefit.

Quincy Porter’s youthful Duo for violin and viola (1917) depicts the composer just before his exposure to the compositional practice and pedagogy of influential individuals such as

Vincent d’Indy and, notably, Ernest Bloch. The piece exemplifies his early interest in imitative forms and process oriented compositional practice, a desire for structural clarity and cohesion through the manipulation of motivic material, and a willingness to venture into new harmonic territory while still retaining principles and influence of the common practice era.

Chapter Three: Establishing the Idiom –– Suite for viola alone (1930)

If the viola works of Porter represent his overall development, his stylistic trajectory, then

the Suite for viola alone (1930) signifies the emergence of his idiom through the influences of

Horatio Parker and Ernest Bloch, crystallized by his immersive cultural experience in Paris from

1928–31. Porter’s Suite for viola alone was completed on October 15, 1930. This period was

quite productive for Porter and has been identified as the moment in which his “very personal”

compositional style took shape. The Suite exemplifies this description to the fullest extent,

serving as a demonstration of his voice within the context of the most intimate and personal of

settings for Porter: the solo viola. Porter’s intimate relationship with and knowledge of the viola

as a performer comes strongly to the fore within this work; the coupling of Porter’s personal

style with his consummate understanding of the viola resulted in one of his most successful

works not only for viola, but within his entire oeuvre. This chapter will explore the work’s

performance and recording history, its expression of Porter’s musical idiom, and the work’s

overall reception.

Performance and recording history

The Suite’s official premiere was given by the composer at Salle Chopin on February 18,

1931, a performance that demonstrated the composer as “a veritable virtuoso of the viola” who

“gave himself without stint in the interpretation of a curious suite for viola alone, in four

parts.”135 Porter had performed the work several times in preparation for the presentation of his

works in house concerts and for his friend Maurice Hewitt. Writing to his family on October 25,

135 Paris Notebook, Felix Raugel unpublished review “written on his own initiative for Monde Musical by Raguel, which didn’t appear, being already covered by Chevaillier,” Porter Papers MS 15.

1930, Porter noted that “on Wednesday I went over to Hewitt’s at the end of the afternoon, to

play him my suite for viola. He liked it very much indeed.”136 This first informal performance of

the work was just six days following the work’s completion, indicating that Porter had been

learning the Suite as it was being composed. Although the composer was an accomplished violist

and experienced performer, he informed his family that he would “rehearse my little suite for

viola alone every day so I shall not be too much scared when I play it.”137 Porter’s first public

performance of the Suite was at the American Library on February 10, 1931.

Porter presented his Suite numerous times following the performances given in France to critical acclaim, praising not only the craft of his composition but also his skill as a performer.

Upon Porter’s return to the United States, the Cleveland Museum of Art sponsored a presentation

of his works December 6, 1931, which opened with the composer performing the Suite. One

reviewer noted that “Porter is an excellent performer upon the viola and was heard in viola solo

(without accompaniment), a severe test of instrumental skill.”138 In later performances, the solo

suite was often featured alongside Ernest Bloch’s Suite for viola and piano (1919) and

Hindemith’s Sonata for viola alone.139 Between 1931 and 1937, the composer performed his suite at least eight times, including radio broadcasts for WORØ (February 24, 1935) and WQXR

(March 27, 1937).140 Following his performance at the Yaddo Festival of American Music on

September 30, 1932, Lehman Engel wrote:

Quincy Porter’s Suite for Viola Alone was an excellent and intriguing composition. It was well-written for the instrument, employing it to its last feasible technical limits. The double stop passages were so deftly handled that one lost sight of the fact that one was listening to a solo instrument. The work was spirited in fast passages and had much vitality in slower and more lyrical sections.

136 Porter to family, October 25, 1930, Porter Papers MS 15. 137 Porter to family, January 6, 1931, Porter Papers MS 15. 138 “Quincy Porter’s Recital at the Museum,” edited by Alice Bradley, Cleveland Scrapbook, Porter Papers MS 15. 139 Hall, 13. 140 List of performances (Quincy Porter), Porter Papers MS 15.

There were long interesting melodic lines. The composer played it very brilliantly.”141

Engel highlights Porter’s formidable skill as a violist; others who knew Porter, including

Howard Boatwright, identified Porter as “not a virtuoso player … nor was he an amateur,”142 a

“very capable player.”143 These conflicting opinions/remembrances of Porter’s skill are resolved

in the evaluation of his recording of the Suite for viola alone by New Music Quarterly, issued in

1939.144 This recording solidifies Porter as a violist of considerable ability, easily navigating the

instrument and the technical challenges the work presents.

Porter’s Suite for viola alone was performed and celebrated by several notable violists

during his lifetime. Carlton Cooley (1898–1981), an American born musician, was one of the

nation’s foremost violists. He served as the principal viola for the Cleveland Orchestra (1922–

37), the NBC Symphony Orchestra (1937–54), and the Philadelphia Orchestra (1954–63). It was

during his tenure in Cleveland that Cooley became familiar with Porter’s Suite. In a letter to

Porter (March 19, 1931), Cooley identified the work “as very fine for that instrument” and that

he had been asked “to play it at the first American composer’s program in May.”145 Cooley continued to praise Porter’s ability as a composer: “I believe your work as fine as any young

American I know, and in fact a great deal more inspired, and certainly logical. Keep it up.”146

Cooley performed the Suite on May 20, 1931. Ferenc Molnar (1895–1985) performed the work

at the third annual Talbott and Contemporary American Music Festival of the Westminster Choir

School on May 26, 1938.147 A review in Musical America stated that “without lavishing thematic

141 Lehman Engel, “Yaddo Festival of Contemporary American Music,” The Saratogian, Saratoga Springs, New York, October 5, 1933. 142 Boatwright, “Quincy Porter (1897–1966),” Perspectives of New Music 5, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 1967): 163. 143 Boatwright quoted in Hall, 30. 144 LP reissued in 1978, by Composers Recording, Inc. (CRI-SRD 390). 145 Letter from Carlton Cooley, March 19, 1931, Porter Papers, MS 15 146 Ibid. 147List of performances (Porter), Porter Papers MS 15.

richness on his sonata [sic], Mr. Porter has given it logic, drive and variety,” and that “Mr.

Molnar played bravely and with zest.”148 Molnar was a member of the Roth String Quartet from

1926–39, and later became the principal viola of the San Francisco Symphony (1944–63).149

Contemporary violists have featured the work in recordings and high-profile performances, demonstrating continued interest in and overall relevance of the Suite. Masao

Kawasaki, renowned violin and viola pedagogue and performer featured the work in the Viola

Space Japan 10th Anniversary recording (BIS-1379 CD); the recording was released in 2003.

Viola Space, a festival that features violists and viola repertoire, was established by Nobuko Imai

in 1992. The album celebrates the extensive list of works that have been presented at the festival,

featuring highlight performances; Porter’s Suite appears alongside other 20th century works of significance such as the Sonata for viola solo (1991-1994) by György Ligeti and Krzystof

Penderecki’s Cadenza per viola sola (1990). Kawasaki delivers an excellent performance of

Porter’s Suite for viola alone. Eliesha Nelson featured the Suite on her album of Porter’s works for viola (Sono Lumos 2004), an album that increased the visibility of Porter’s viola repertoire significantly. In fact, Nelson’s recording inspired me to learn the Suite and perform it in a studio recital during my undergraduate degree at the Cleveland Institute of Music; the recital featured works of American composers. David Aaron Carpenter, the first prize winner of the prestigious

Walter W. Naumburg Competition (2006) presented the “richly-hued, largely chordal unaccompanied Suite for Viola”150 in a program at Weill Recital Hall in New York City on

November 26, 2007. Carpenter has carved a significant place within the classical music world as

a viola soloist with a thriving performance and recording career. The most recent recording

148 Robert Sabin, “Westminster Festival Brings New American Works,” Musical America 58, no. 11 (June 1938): 6. 149 “Ferenc Molnar, 89, Is Dead; A Leading West Coast Violist,” New York Times (May 23, 1985). 150 Alan Kozinn, “A violist and his friends, assertive and collaborative,” New York Times (November 28, 2007).

release of the Suite was by Megumi Kasakawa on her 2017 solo album “Porträt-Reihe: For Viola

(Ensemble Modern Presents Megumi Kasakawa)” (EMCD-036). Kasakawa is the solo violist for

Ensemble Modern, a well-established and renowned contemporary music collective founded in

1980, and based in Frankfurt am Main. The album features the Suite alongside works of the 20th

and 21st centuries by William Bergsma, Elliott Carter, Hans Werner Henze, Heinz Holliger, and

Tristan Murail; Porter’s appearance among these renowned composers speaks to the importance

of and overall impact his Suite has created.

The personal style of Porter

The renewed interest in Porter’s Suite for viola alone has substantial ties to the style it

displays, specifically the collection of elements and influences that Porter draws from, and the

manner in which this style is presented within the context of the solo viola idiom that he knew

intimately. By 1930, Porter had been exposed to the Germanic training of Horatio Parker and

David Stanley Smith, the traditionalist French perspective of Vincent d’Indy, and the pedagogy

of Ernest Bloch. These experiences brought a focus upon and understanding of the fundamentals

of common practice harmony, form, and counterpoint; an introduction to the textural elements of

French music; and, an exposure to the modalities of Medieval and Renaissance polyphony. The

Suite demonstrates these influences as German and French (counterpoint, structural design, and

textural effect), with a reference to the musical past in a way that is “neither classic, nor

modern”151 and a hint of Americana.

The German influence of Parker is demonstrated in Porter’s usage of counterpoint and

voice leading principles, reliance upon the functional cues of tonality (tonic, dominant, etc.), and

151 L. Chevaillier, “Concert Quincy Porter,” Monde musical (February 28, 1931), trans. found in Porter Papers MS 15.

the structural design of the individual movements and the suite, writ large. Throughout the Suite,

Porter utilizes voice leading principles to create cadential markers, resulting in clear phrase structure. The opening phrase of the first movement, Lento, presents the tonal centricity of G in relation to its dominant degree through a non-functional progression that relies upon voice leading principles related to the function of tendency tones. The first intervallic gesture of the piece is from G to D-flat, outlining the tritone; when the interval is enharmonically respelled, the

D-flat becomes C-sharp and the leading tone to the dominant scale degree of G, asserting a

functional relationship between the pitches. Porter briefly tonicizes D-flat mixolydian, evidenced

in the assertion of the tonic/dominant relationship of D-flat and A-flat in the second measure with the descending perfect fourth interval, while remaining tethered to the G centricity through the enharmonic respelling of D-flat (C-sharp). The tonal centricity of G is colored by the modal collection of D-flat mixolydian. The movement toward D major in the third measure

rearticulates its dominant relationship to the tonal centricity of G; the cadential motion into the

measure five reasserts the bitonal expression of D-flat mixolydian and G diatonic, evidenced

with the arrival at the dominant of G (m. 5). The aural closure of the phrase relies upon the cues

of tonality, but colors the progression with simultaneous presentation of tangentially related pitch

material.

Figure 8. Suite for viola alone, I. Lento, mm. 1–5.

Porter also utilizes contrapuntal devices in conjunction with voice leading principles in

the solo voice texture to create motion within phrase(s). The concluding half of the second

phrase of the first movement (mm. 5–11) utilizes a combination of oblique motion of two voices

and successive 7-6 suspensions, propelling the phrase to its cadence on E (see Figure 9). The

bracketed areas demonstrate the 7-6 suspensions and the oblique motion. The oblique motion of

notes within the successive chords enhances the independence of the contrapuntal lines, creating

multiple voices within the solo instrument idiom. Examining the circled pitches within each

successive bracketed area, we see a linear descent over five measures from F5 to E4 (F minor diatonic with flat-5). The chain of suspensions, oblique motion, and linear descending pattern combine to create an effect of prolongation through octave displacement to create a 3–2–1 (G–F–

E) cadence to conclude the phrase. Motion toward the cadence (m. 11) is enhanced with the

usage of an appoggiatura non-chord tone. These types of linear progressions are common within

Porter’s idiom and will appear throughout his works for viola.

Figure 9. Suite for viola alone, I. Lento, mm. 6–13.

The tonic-dominant axis is utilized by Porter not only as a structural mechanism for localized phrases, but also in the articulation of larger formal design. The second movement,

Allegro furioso, presents a rounded binary formal design (A B A’) that is delineated using textural and/or rhythmic devices. The first section (mm. 24–42) consists of two parts (A1 and A2), both utilizing the same material but using different tonal centricity; it is the relationship of these tonal

centers that provides unification of material and structural definition. The same D♭/A♭ interval that opened the first movement is now presented with a C pedal. The localized phrase structure using the tonic/dominant axis is presented within the first two measures, using the two perfect fourth

dyads D♭ /A♭ and E♭ /A♭ (see Figure 10). Porter creates an open sonority with the perfect fourth and the resonance of the open C string as the pedal point. From an idiomatic perspective, Porter knew that blocked perfect fourths fit very well within the violist’s hand frame; not only is the hand position comfortable but the perfect fourth interval allows for purity of pitch (rather than tuning non-perfect intervals that can differ slightly within different temperament inflection), allowing the instrument to resonate fully and purely.

Figure 10. Suite for viola alone, II. Allegro furioso, mm. 24–29.

The following section, A2, is the exact same rhythmic and intervallic material of A1 but appearing a fifth higher (see Figure 11). Porter draws upon the tonic/dominant axis to create a relationship between the two sections of A and also, more than likely, to capitalize upon the perfect fifth tuning arrangement of the viola; movement across the instrument directly translates to perfect fifth motion, allowing the violist to maintain the same hand framed. This is an example of Porter merging idiomatic ideas of viola performance with harmony and structure.

Porter creates direction toward the closing of A1 using a linear progression, similar to the example in the first movement (see Figure 9). The ascending line (see Figure 11) from D3 to D4 and the usage of G/D as a pedal point solidifies the relationship of D as the secondary dominant of C. Additionally, Porter employs the rhythmic device of augmentation to create an agogic accent, slowing the motion toward the cadence and creating structural division.

Figure 11. Suite for viola alone II. Allegro furioso, mm. 33–35.

The second movement displays a strong rhythmic profile and forward motion, creating a texture that is impressionistic yet evocative of an industrial scene, perhaps that of a locomotive.

Porter implements compound meters based in sixteenth notes (18/16, 15/16) throughout the movement; using various slurred grouping and accents within these meters Porter is able to create a driving rhythmic texture. The opening of the movement (see Figure 10) establishes the regularity of six groups of three sixteenth notes by presenting them under a single slur (m. 24).

The following measures displace the grouping by one sixteenth note using slurring of three notes

on metrically weak beats (m. 25–28), obfuscating the metric implication. Porter returns to emphasizing metrically strong beats using accent and slurs to reify the grouping of three sixteenths (m. 29). These techniques of rhythmic grouping through slurs and accentuation result

in an effervescent and vivacious texture, conjuring images of a steam powered sewing machine

or locomotive.

The third movement, Larghetto espressivo, displays a lyrical, flowing melodic pattern

characteristic of Porter’s idiom that is largely derived from a small intervallic motive that is

presented throughout the movement. The presentations of this motive provide structural

definition, articulating the binary design of the movement (AA’). The motive is presented in the

first measure of the movement, an ascending minor third followed by a perfect fourth (see Figure

12). The structure of the first phrase (mm. 78–82) is articulated using three appearances of the

three-note motive; first announcing the phrase (m. 78, 79), then closing the phrase (m. 81)

followed by flowing phrase extension material. The second phrase opens with the motive (m.

83).

Figure 12. Suite for viola alone, III. Larghetto espressivo, mm. 78–88.

Porter concludes the A section using the intervallic material of the motive, arriving at the

re-presentation of the head motive, or “motto” (see Figure 13). Porter changes the direction of

the minor third and perfect fourth intervals to descending (m. 92–93) and creates groupings of

two eighth notes with slurring to slow the motion toward the close of the section. A cadential

figure, featuring a partial version of the motive in descending motion, closes the A section. Porter

utilizes the same motive to conclude the movement, preparing the segue into the final.

Figure 13. Suite for viola alone, III. Larghetto espressivo, mm. 89–94.

Porter’s interest in looking back into music history for compositional inspiration is clear

within his implementation not only of modal scales, the functional relationships within tonality,

and contrapuntal devices, but also the usage of musical genres of the past. The final movement of

the Suite strongly resembles the moto perpetuo or perpetuum mobile a type of “piece in which rapid figuration is persistently maintained.”152 The genre first appeared within the Baroque period and gained popularity through the Classical era, into the 19th century. The genre usually

functions as a display of technical virtuosity, akin to the toccata and tarantella, and typically

appears as the finale of a multi-movement work. One of the most famous examples of a Baroque

moto perpetuo is the final movement, Presto, of J.S. Bach’s Sonata no. 1 in G minor (BWV

1001); as a former violinist, Porter was most certainly familiar with the work. Bach’s single

voice pattern of constant sixteenth note motion allow compound melodic lines and the

implication of linear harmonic progression to appear. These lines and structures emerge through

the arpeggiated patterns which outline vertical harmonies; the motion creates activity “in which a

152 Michael Tilmouth, “Moto perpetuo,” New Grove Online https://doi- org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.19224.

73 range of accentuations occur on metrically weak points often boldly conflicting with one another and creating metric ambiguities.”153

Figure 14. Suite for viola alone, IV. Allegro spiritoso, mm. 115–129.

Within the single-voice texture of constant sixteenth notes Porter forms arpeggiated groupings that imply vertical harmonies. Through the juxtaposition of these groupings he is able to create rhythmic ambiguity, variety, and interest in a way that is similar to Bach’s solo violin movement. Examining the first measure of the Allegro spriritoso, Porter clearly outlines a descending A major triad, straddling the last half of the first beat and the second half of the second beat (see

Figure 14). As the movement proceeds, this four-note, descending figure is presented on both metrically strong and weak parts of the beat, and creating an overall sense of metric ambiguity. Porter applies this same descending figure in measure 121, outlining an E minor triad; the figure is metrically displaced one sixteenth note in the following two appearances and on the final (m. 124) it occurs on the strongest part of the beat, signaling the end of the episode and the

153 Joel Lester, Bach’s works for solo violin: style, structure, performance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 110.

74 closing of the phrase (m. 127). This type of rhythmic displacement of arpeggiated figuration suffuses the texture of the entire moto perpetuo movement.

The figuration presents rhythmic challenges to the performer, but the movement is quite idiomatic, thanks to Porter’s usage of perfect fourths. Similar to the blocked structures in the second movement, the perfect fourth interval provides a secure framework for the left hand in linear passage work that can be easily moved as a unit. For example, the first three measures of

Allegro spirtoso (m. 115–118, see Figure 14) are all within the hand frame of fourth position that is securely blocked by a perfect fourth (E and A); all of the pitch material fits within that structure, facilitated by string crossings. The lightly embellished scalar descent of the following two measures (119–120) remain within the diatonic A major collection, easily accessible to any violist who practices scales. Porter’s rhythmic displacement (mm. 121–124) remains in the same hand frame structure in a similar manner to the opening passage, isolating the string crossing challenge, but still allowing the performer ease of left-hand movement while creating an impressive display. Additionally, Porter maintains the centricity of A, but moves from diatonic major to the Phrygian mode; this motion through modal collections is subtle in that it remains within the already established hand frame structure. In this way, Porter maintain heightened rhythmic and harmonic interest while simultaneously creating a satisfyingly idiomatic movement.

In creating these arpeggiated figures, Porter utilizes the perfect fourth and fifth intervals, lending the overall sonority an expansive, open quality. This open sonority, exemplified in and established through the music of Copland, has become an aspect of a characteristically American style. The perpetual motion of ascending and descending scalar lines and the usage of perfect intervals in arpeggiated figuration has influenced some to consider the movement “an impressive

feat of fiddling that reveals Porter’s American roots.”154 In my opinion, the juxtaposition of

Americana sound with the rhythmic displacement methods inherent within the perpetuum mobile

genre allows the movement to exist as a dialogic vehicle, connecting and combining the musical

past and present.

This type of juxtaposition was certainly in style in the 1930s; several examples display

the usage of the moto perpetuo genre to achieve this. The final movement of Maurice Ravel’s

Sonata for violin and piano (1927), Perpetuum mobile, combines the virtuosic genre with elements of jazz, pentatonic and octatonic scalar collections, and polytonality. Samuel Barber’s

Concerto for violin and orchestra, op. 14 (1939) concludes with the virtuosic and raucous Presto in moto. The moto perpetuo, “one of the few nonstop concerto movements in the violin literature,”155 is combined with a rondo structure and utilizes imitation and polytonal chordal

structures (penultimate chord).156 Later examples of moto perpetuo exist within the solo cello

works by Benjamin Britten, particularly Suite no. 1, op. 72 and no. 2, op. 87. These cello suites

also draw from elements of the past in formal design and style, infused with Britten’s

contemporary harmonic idiom.

Porter’s Suite for viola alone (1930) effectively represents the formation and coalescence

of his “personal style” during his experience in Paris from 1928–31. The Suite demonstrates

Porter’s educational experience and exposure to a variety of stylistic influences, including an

exhaustive study of tonal theory and structural design, the voice leading principles of 18th

century counterpoint, modal collections of Renaissance polyphony, and textural elements of

French impressionism. Porter is able to combine these elements and infuse them with his interest

154 David Bynog, preface to Suite for viola alone (American Viola Society Publications 08), 2015. 155 Barbara B. Heyman, Samuel Barber: the composer and his music (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992): 197. 156 Ibid.

76 in musical models of the past, particularly those of J.S. Bach and his works for solo violin.

Ultimately, Porter’s ability to employ an amalgamation of stylistic influences and compositional techniques and present them within an idiomatic setting for the violist allows this Suite to emerge as a highly effective work. The popularity of the piece––evidenced in its recent revitalization, positive critical reception, and presentation by high-profile performers, contemporary and historical–– is undoubtedly a result of Porter’s creation of an idiomatic work that displays his individual voice that would continue to be displayed throughout his career, particularly in his works for viola.

Chapter Four: Concerto for viola and orchestra (1948)

Heralded as a “work of felicity and charm, of melodious pleasure, and rich, delectable

colors,”157 Porter’s Concerto for viola and orchestra (1948) represents a departure from the smaller-scale chamber works to larger symphonic forms, particularly the concerto. The Concerto was applauded by performers, notably Paul Doktor who identified its value and interest “because it is written by a man who is not only a well-known composer but also an excellent violist,”158 and also composers such as Gunther Schuller who stated “the material is so consistently and logically developed that the result is a work of considerable unity and attraction.”159 Schuller

continued to praise the work’s “effective and brilliant viola part which … is advanced enough to

attract the player looking for a ‘modern’ work to perform.”160 This section will explore the

performance history and reception of the Concerto, provide an analytical discussion of the work itself, and conclude with an exploration of the connection between its reputation and recording history.

The work, completed in 1948, was written at the request of the Alice W. Ditson

Foundation and was to be premiered at the Ditson Festival of American Music (Columbia

University). While the work bears a dedication to William Primrose, the premiere performance of the concerto took place with Paul Doktor as soloist and Dean Dixon leading the Columbia

Broadcasting Symphony Orchestra in May 16, 1948. Doktor’s performance was very well received, and the work was deemed a significant addition to the repertoire of viola concerti.

157 A. Frankenstein, San Francisco Chronicle, Porter Papers MS 15. 158 Paul Doktor, “Reviews the Quincy Porter Concerto for Viola and Orchestra: An Outstanding American Viola Concerto,” Violins and Violinists (July/August 1954): 178. 159 Gunther Schuller, “Review of Concerto for Viola,” Notes Magazine 10 (March 1953): 331. 160 Ibid.

Doktor’s playing was described by Cecil Smith in Musical America as “ardent and altogether

beautiful,”161 Miles Kastendieck thought it “superb.”162

Irving Kolodin wrote that the performance highlighted the overall sense “that Porter and

the viola enjoyed a completely harmonious relationship in the period of this work’s composition.”163 This “harmonious relationship” is demonstrated through two primary factors:

first, the idiomatic and sympathetic manner in which Porter wrote for the viola as a solo

instrument, and second, the way in which Porter is able to present the viola and orchestra as equal partners in a conversation, neither overwhelming or dominating. Both of these factors contribute to the overall ease of performing the work (to be later explored within this section); the “clear and transparent orchestration” allows the “grateful viola writing” to appear “in the spotlight almost all the time.”164 Francis D. Perkins in the New York Herald Tribune identified,

after hearing the premiere, that the work was “idomatically [sic] written from the standpoint of

the solo viola and also effectively combines and contrasts its colors and timbres with those of the

orchestra at large.”

These reviews make particular reference to the manner in which Porter was able to successfully navigate the difficulties inherent to the composition of a viola concerto with the instrument as its centerpiece. The genre presents significant challenges to the composer: the instrument’s middle-voice register is easily overshadowed by instruments that have significantly higher and lower ranges, and, due to its acoustic limitations, the viola has limited dynamic range with which to cut through the substantial texture of a full orchestra. Doktor believed that Porter’s ability to create “a plastic and wide spaced orchestration which produces a transparency and yet

161 Cecil Smith, Musical America, Porter Papers MS 15. 162 Kastendieck, New York Journal American, Porter Papers MS 15. 163 Kolodin, New York Sun, Porter Papers, MS 15. 164 Schuller, Notes Magazine, Porter Papers MS 15.

a well-rounded sound quality which is not often equaled in other contemporary works for viola

and orchestra” set it apart, and certainly influenced his opinion that “this work is one of the most

important additions to the literature for this medium and will certainly rank high among the viola

concerti by Hindemith, Tansman, Walton, and Bartók.”

The work was subsequently performed by Primrose in New Haven, Connecticut with the

composer conducting the New Haven Symphony and again on March 6, 1949 with the

Vancouver Symphony. The violinist turned violist, Jascha Veissi, however, performed the work

quite extensively. Upon discovering that Porter had written a new concerto in Musical America,

Veissi wrote to the composer saying that he was “very anxious to get acquainted”165 with the

work. It seems that Veissi was hoping to become the champion of this new piece in hopes to

expand his career as a soloist. In January 1950, Veissi wrote to Porter of his upcoming

performance engagements throughout Europe and that he “would love to play [Porter’s] concerto

everywhere.”166 Veissi performed the concerto in The Hague, Amsterdam, and Zurich with

“great success,” and related to Porter that “the more I play it, the more I love it.”167 Veissi’s enthusiasm for the concerto resulted in many performances; however, it seems the work did not

launch his solo career in the way he had hoped.

The Concerto

The Viola Concerto exemplifies the four-movement form commonly utilized in Porter’s

works post-1946; however, its unique structural design sets it apart from other works of this

period. The concerto’s four movement structure reflects Porter’s nascent interest in structural

unity through the elision of the first three movements, which are played without interruption,

165Veissi to Porter, June 29, 1948, Porter Papers MS 15. 166Veissi to Porter January 1950, Porter Papers MS 15 167Veissi to Porter, April 24, 1950, Porter Papers MS 15.

followed by a fourth, separate movement. We can look at this structure as almost being, writ

large, a two-movement structure where the first three movements form one larger section that is contrasted to and juxtaposed against the standalone fourth movement. The duration of each movement, however, does not create a balanced two-movement structure; while the combined duration of the first three movements is nearly three times the length of the final movement, the unity through consistent character and usage of motive in the first three movements does provide balance against the final movement. The first three movements echo a ternary, slow-fast-slow tempo structure, demonstrating the unified design of a single movement work. Therefore, the work can be seen as having a hybridized formal design, a combination of the highly unified one- movement works, with the elided first three movements, and the standard multi-movement works, such as the Symphony no. 1 (1938) and the String Quartet no. 3 (1931). The idea of compound form is also given further agency through the Concerto’s long-range tonal plan (to be further discussed).

The first movement of the concerto is constructed using a simple ternary, A B A form.

The A section introduces several melodic and motivic ideas, material that will be not only used to express the simple ternary form, but will also be frequently used and developed throughout the concerto to create a cohesive work. The viola’s “recitative-like line”168 appears above a melodic,

antecedent “motto”169 figure in the horns (see Figure 15). The salient features of this motto are a descending melodic pattern that outlines a perfect fifth between A and D, followed by a cadential figure of a descending minor third. The descending figure outlines what would seem to be a D major key area, but the recitative viola part opens with a perfect fifth, A to E interval which

168 Porter description of Concerto, Porter Papers MS 15. 169 Porter’s use of the word “motto” refers to a figure used to unify an entire set of movements, in this case the concerto; the concept is also referred to as a “head-motif.” The idea began to appear in cyclic masses (e.g., “L’homme armé”) and in 19th century works like Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique (1830).

clearly defines the centricity of A as a tonal area. The collection of pitch material utilized here is

A Dorian, a scale commonly utilized by Porter. The motion from the final eighth note of measure one into measure two implies a dominant to tonic cadence, solidifying A as a tonal center. The passing motion from F-sharp to E in the melodic line creates a smoothness to the cadence in the second beat of measure two, but when examined vertically, the E to A in the bassoon creates a major second dissonance (E-F-sharp). Although not a significant dissonance, this E/F-sharp dyad functions to firmly establish the A Dorian collection; the E being the dominant of A, and the F- sharp being the defining pitch for the Dorian mode. Porter will often use these types of dissonant dyads supported by smooth linear voice-leading as a technique of harmonic coloring and establishment of a tonal area.

Figure 15. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 1–2.

The consequent motto phrase, beginning in measure three, is distinguished by its usage of

muted strings. Again, the vertical harmonic structures are driven by the linear voice leading

patterns. While the melodic motion of the antecedent motto was descending, the consequent

phrase ascends, creating a writ large symmetrical structure, but the rhythmic ideas obfuscate the

apparent symmetry. The rhythmic motion of the consequent motto is defined by its generally

syncopated quality that creates a metric ambiguity above which the solo viola is able to sing.

Figure 16. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 3–6.

The “recitative-like” solo viola part moves above the antecedent and consequent motto phrases with florid, scalar motion. There are several gestural figures introduced within the A section that appear quite frequently throughout the remaining concerto. The opening rhythmic motive in the solo viola, an upbeat 32nd note figure that outlines the open fifth (A-E), serves as a structural identifier throughout the movement. It appears in its original form (see Figure 15), and also as an augmented eighth note upbeat (see Figure 16); the melodic motion of the motive will, however, always be upward.

Figure 17. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 7–9.

We see Porter using the motive in this fashion following the introduction of the motto

phrases. A small, cadenza-like passage appears, foreshadowing the full cadenza in the third

movement, beginning in the sixth measure. This unaccompanied section is announced by the

32nd note, upward motive and articulated three times, the first two in strict, notated rhythm, and the final time as more rhythmically free grace notes (see Figure 17). Virtuosic passage work, scalar flourishes, and double-stop figuration distinguish the solo section; the A Dorian scale collection makes up the harmonic material. The ascending scalar passage closing this miniature cadenza concludes with the pitch B, the supertonic of A Dorian, which Porter uses as the secondary dominant to pivot the tonal centricity from A to E. The supertonic is held while strings present a final appearance of the consequent motto phrase that centers on the dominant, E. The shift in pitch centricity announces the move from the A section, centered around the A Dorian collection, into the B section which is centered around E, the dominant scale degree.

Figure 18. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 10–14.

The B section is a contrasting section that freely develops material derived from the

opening section. Porter juxtaposes the descending melodic pattern of the antecedent motto phrase

with the rhythmically ambiguous, accompanimental consequent motto phrase, sometimes simultaneously. For example, the opening of the B section (see Figure 19) asserts E minor as a tonal area utilizing the rhythmic motion of the consequent motto, however this iteration creates rhythmic blurring through metric juxtaposition: the 5/8 meter is articulated as 2+3 grouping over the bass part which, over two measures of 5/8, implies 5/4. We see a rhythmic simulacrum of the antecedent motto appearing in the bass clarinet and bassoon, colored by a chromatic scalar descent.

Figure 19. Concerto for viola (1948), I. Adagio, mm. 16–17.

The viola part continues to function in a florid manner, outlining scalar material and

using a wide variety of rhythmic diminution, equal and unequal, to further blur metric definition.

Porter continues to employ various rhythmic and melodic elements of the motto phrases underneath the recitative solo line. The return of A at rehearsal seven completes the ternary form; the antecedent and consequent motto phrases are presented by the orchestra while the viola part continues with the rhapsodic, recitative melodic material.

Porter describes the second movement, Allegro, as “a movement consistently in 6/8 time” that, despite its tempo, “contains much lyric melody, most often entrusted to the solo viola.”170

He continues:

In one prolonged passage, the viola takes over the fast figurations and acts as a background for the melodies which occur in the woodwinds and strings. In a later passage, the use of ‘jazz’ mutes by the trumpets and trombones lends an eerie background to a long melodic line sung by the viola.171

Porter alludes to the movement’s overall structure which is defined by textural changes in

the treatment and juxtaposition of rhythmic and melodic material; however, the definition of

formal structure in this movement is much less clear in comparison to the first movement. The

170 Porter description of Concerto, Porter Papers MS 15. 171 Ibid.

movement is divided into four areas, each building upon or drawing from elements presented in

the preceding area. The sectional division of the movement does not follow any particular formal model other than being a continuous development of rhythmic, harmonic, melodic, and contrapuntal ideas which create a unified whole.

The opening of the second movement presents a small motivic cell172 (see Figure 20)

that, in a highly concentrated fashion, demonstrates a number of operative ideas that will be

utilized by Porter throughout the movement.

Figure 20. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 2–3.

The salient characteristics of this motivic cell are divided into rhythmic, harmonic, and

contrapuntal ideas. The offset rhythmic pattern foreshadows the syncopation and the resulting

juxtaposition of meters (three against two in compound meter). Following the clear, yet colored

with extended ninth harmony, cadence in D major, the viola lands on a G-sharp which provides a pedal point for the motivic cell; the pedal point features the leading tone of A diatonic major which does not resolve as expected within tonal canon. The pedal point, in this case, functions to create harmonic color, tension, and ambiguity (outside of the more common function of a pedal point as a feature of prolongation, propelling the harmonic motion toward an arrival point); the

172 A motivic cell differs from a motive in that it represents a combination of motivic ideas (pitch content, rhythm, gesture) that appear simultaneously.

G-sharp leads to A, but Porter never resolves in this way, typically moving down, stepwise.

Porter colors the harmony through tertian extension, utilizing dominant seventh or minor seventh

chords and adding a ninth. The oblique voice leading of this motivic cell creates smooth motion between chords and, as a result, blurs the distinction between the two chords. Additionally, the independent, contrapuntal linear motion foreshadows much of the imitative writing in the following section.

Porter creates a spacious area for the lyrical melody in the viola with still chordal harmony following the imitative section. The first melodic gesture of the second section, beginning at rehearsal 16 (see Figure 21), demonstrates a stepwise, descending pattern that is derived from the opening motivic cell; this pattern is echoed within the bass line, featuring a descending E-D-C (3-2-1) pattern which solidifies the centricity of C.

Figure 21. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 56–58.

The viola proceeds into a florid accompanimental section under which the orchestra

carries the lyrical melody. This rhythmically excited, driving type of accompaniment juxtaposed with a slow, soaring melodic pattern is highly typical of Porter; the texture of the accompanying

material transforms into an ostinato pattern that is less flowing and quasi-melodic and more

vertically rhythmic and driving. Earlier evidence of this type of writing for the viola can be

found within the Suite for viola alone (1930). The melodic pattern explores the same lyrical ideas

of the earlier section, but adds rhythmic interest through the usage of duple patterns against the

grouping of three eighth notes.

Figure 22. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 140–42.

The final section of the movement, from rehearsal 28 to 33, can be seen as an aggregate of the various motivic devices (rhythmic, harmonic, contrapuntal) and melodic treatment present within the previous three sections (see Figure 23).The orchestra provides the rhythmically driving ostinato pattern supporting material which outlines the harmonic framework.

Figure 23. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 219–222.

This pattern insistently returns to G-sharp, creating the effect of a held pedal point which, following the model of the motivic cell of the first section, never resolves as a leading tone of A diatonic, but proceeds downward to F-sharp (see Figure 24). This refusal of the leading tone function is part and parcel of Porter’s exploration of a post-tonal diatonic landscape. By denying

the listener a resolution, Porter creates an audible sense of wandering in the orchestral material

that, underneath the viola, propels the lyrical line forward. Porter further unifies the first and

second movements with a reprise of the opening theme of the first movement as the first melodic

gesture of this final section, appearing in a rhythmically augmented form.

Figure 24. Concerto for viola (1948), II. Allegro, mm. 231–238.

The movement closes with a transitional area, functioning much like a coda, returning to

the muted, held chords upon which the viola sings a long melody. A rhythmically augmented

version of the motto from the first movement is quoted by the horns in this transitory passage,

creating another thread of cohesion between the two movements, further obfuscating a clear division between them.

Returning to the idea of the elided first three movements as a unified structure, the third movement, Largo, serves as the closing of this tripartite form. While the Largo is not a reprise of the first movement in the fashion of true ternary form, there are several harmonic and melodic

ideas which tether this movement to the first, in addition to their parallel character, affect, and

tempo. These ideas provide structural unity, and indicating Porter’s interest in highly unified,

one-movement forms.

Porter describes the movement as “dirge-like in character” and having a binary structure, separated by “the most extended cadenza of the concerto.” He continues to describe the movement:

In the first section the melody is taken by the viola, with the exception of a short interlude for unmuted strings. At the beginning of the second section, after the cadenza, the viola reverses its position, playing harmonic background, while the woodwinds take turns at the melodic line. The movement concludes with the viola again in the role of chief singer.173

Each section of the movement is defined through the usage of rhythmic and harmonic motives; the distinction between the two sections surrounding the cadenza are enough to designate the overall binary form as AA’. The orchestra provides the harmonic background in the opening of the first section while an expressive, flowing melody is featured in the viola. Here

Porter juxtaposes two pitch collections: E diatonic (no indication of major or minor) and the whole tone collection containing F natural, WT1.174 The presence of E diatonic is indicated

through the half-cadence motion beginning the movement with the transitional held B in the

viola, which then resolves to E in the second measure. The plaintive, wandering melody in the

viola resides mostly within this collection; the WT1 collection contains a majority of the pitch

material of E diatonic which facilitates the simultaneous occurrence of the two collections. In

contrast to the first movement, this melody has less diminution flourish yet it maintains the

“recitative-like” quality, outlining scalar passages and utilizing syncopated groupings to evoke a

declamatory quality.

173 Ibid. 174 C-sharp E-flat F G A B

A three-note motive appears in the first measure of the movement that will serve as structural identifier and cadential marker within the harmonic background (see Figure 25). The motive features a rising fourth interval (appearing sometimes as augmented, perfect, or diminished) which then returns to the original note; this oscillation gives the overall movement a berceuse175 character.

Figure 25. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, rehearsal 33.

The use of WT1 collection as the pitch material for the motive allows Porter to extend the

harmonic possibilities while maintaining connectivity to the diatonic area centered on E. The

chromatic oscillation of the augmented fourth in measure one and the following expansion of the

motive with stepwise chromatic voice leading creates harmonic tension over which the largely

diatonic scalar motion of the melody is able to float.

This same three-note motive marks the beginning of the A’ section at rehearsal number

39 (see Figure 26). Instead of the viola carrying the melodic figure, Porter reverses the roles by

giving the three-note motive and harmonic background to the viola and the E diatonic melody to

175 The French word, meaning ‘cradle’ or ‘lullaby’, has come to represent a musical genre of soothing, gentle soporific songs or character pieces. The term refers to a work typically written for piano in compound meter featuring oscillating motion between tonic and dominant over a tonic pedal.

the flute. The three-note motive appears throughout A’ and serves as a structural marker for the phrase groupings.

Figure 26. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo.

The extended cadenza that separates the two sections of the third movement represents the culmination of thematic material, harmonic and melodic, presented thus far within the concerto, serving as the climax of the single movement, compound structure of the first three movements. It shows Porter’s ability to combine virtuosic display and clever compositional craft that is structurally functional while at the same time serving the solo violist with its idiomatic writing. The cadenza opens with a descending gesture of rapid rhythmic diminution using the B- flat minor diatonic collection; this foreshadows later areas in the cadenza where the viola rapidly descends through diatonic collections to create dramatic arrival points.

Porter expands and develops the three-note motivic cell of the third movement within the cadenza, maintaining the rocking motion of the motive, but including oblique motion to seamlessly create contrapuntal lines (see Figure 27). The oblique motion results in the inclusion of harmonic thirds, an interval of later importance in the rapid passagework. Each iteration of the three-note cell is expanded, but the general shape and direction of the cell is maintained.

Figure 27. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, cadenza.

The declamatory gesture of the first movement appears, heralding rapid motion passagework that develops into wide arpeggiated chords while maintaining a compound melodic line. The ascending and descending motion from the three-note cell presents itself in the rapid passagework (ascending and descending third instead of a fourth), and is increasingly expanded with the inclusion of pedal points and arpeggiation (see Figure 28). Porter is able to unify texturally contrasting areas using the ascending and descending third motion.

Figure 28. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo, cadenza.

This passagework is brilliantly written in that it provides melodic motion through the idea of compound melody, utilizes open strings to create greater resonance in the instrument (resulting

in a bigger sound), and stays within the diatonic hand frame (it doesn’t present unusual or difficult finger patterns).

Porter concludes the Concerto with a “rapid and gay” finale (Allegro giusto) that, while retaining thematic connection to the concerto at large, remains structurally separated from the preceding three movements, reinforcing the idea of the concerto as a hybridized two movement form in which the first three movements represent a highly unified one-movement form. Several themes are heard throughout the movement which are then layered upon or juxtaposed against one another; additionally, themes and motives from the preceding movements are also present and manipulated similarly. The manner in which Porter presents and reprises melodic motives contributes to the movement’s overall cohesive thematic design. The usage of driving rhythmic devices such as syncopation, metric juxtaposition, and dance rhythms distinguishes it from the rest of the work, while Porter’s motivic, harmonic, and melodic methods remain largely the same.

Figure 29. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto.

Two melodic gestures are present in the opening of the movement (see Figure 29). The first pattern (T1) is jaunty and lively in character, featuring consonant motion, a syncopated

ostinato pattern, and implication of the two against three metric juxtaposition.

The pitch material outlines the major tetrachord built on E, but doesn’t include the defining scale degree seven. Following the introduction of the second melodic gesture, this pattern becomes an accompanimental, secondary material; the rhythmic aspects of the gesture are retained to provide direction. The flowing and lyrical second melodic gesture (T2) appears in the viola; the opening anacrusis motion is reminiscent of the concerto’s opening including the dominant to tonic melodic movement (see Figure 29). Porter creates ambiguity in key area by avoiding the use of scale degree seven, which facilitates a smooth transition to D Lydian.

Eventually, Porter juxtaposes the two modal areas of Lydian and Mixolydian to create E

Mixolydian/Lydian176 with sharp-4 and flat-7. This type of modal mixture predominates the

movement’s pitch material and harmonic direction.

Rhythmic and melodic features of the first two theme areas are displayed once again against which the viola presents rhythmic ostinato figures that outline the harmonic changes; this

is reminiscent of a similar passage within the second movement. A rhythmically augmented

version of T2 appears in the orchestra the second measure of rehearsal 47 (see Figure 30).

176 E F-sharp G-sharp A-sharp B C-sharp D E

Figure 30. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto.

Porter introduces a new theme area at rehearsal 51(T3), following a transitional passage that

features a rhythmically driving recitative line in the viola above the secondary material of the

first theme area (see Figure 31). T3 utilizes the same idea of modal mixture, in this case mapping

E Phrygian onto G Mixolydian. The modal collections E Phrygian and G Mixolydian are both

“white key” modes (i.e., no sharps or flats); the two collections emerge by rotating the C diatonic collection and using either E or G as the tonal center. The melodic pattern of T3, presented in

the orchestra, uses the E Phrygian collection while the viola moves through arpeggiated patterns

in G Mixolydian, alternating between G and D (tonic/dominant). Porter avoids creating clashing dissonance while stepping outside of the tonal realm common practice; the function of tendency

tones and tonal relationships remain, but re-contextualized using shifting tonal centricity within a

larger collection. This is an example of post-tonal diatonic music, or pandiatonicism.

Figure 31. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto.

An orchestral tutti section follows the introduction of T3; elements of T1, T2, and T3 are

presented simultaneously, effectively summarizing and reprising the thematic material of the

movement thus far. We see an augmented version of T2 in the strings simultaneously juxtaposed

with the woodwinds presenting the rhythmic secondary material of T1, and just before that the

melodic pattern of T3.

Figure 32. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto.

Following the orchestral tutti, Porter reintroduces themes and motives from the preceding

three movements which culminate in a short cadenza “of meditative character.”177 We hear a reprise of the third movement emerging from the unwinding orchestral tutti which is followed by

177 Porter, MS 15, Box 26F.

an appearance of the motto theme of the first movement. The short cadenza responds with an

expanded elaboration upon the consequent motto theme; the homogenous, half-note rhythmic texture of the cadenza lends a plaintive character and allows the linear contrapuntal motion to

come to the fore. This cadenza lacks the virtuosity of the previous example, but provides a

moment of pause before the coda.

Porter draws from several rhythmic motives, particularly the dance rhythm of T3 in the

coda’s gradual acceleration to the movement’s end. This coda “of increasing rapidity of

motion”178 creates a boisterous and exciting conclusion to the concerto with driving rhythmic

syncopation above sustained harmonic motion. Throughout the coda, Porter utilizes the

diminished fifth/augmented fourth tri-tone as a source of harmonic tension; he often creates triad

structures from the melodic minor scale and sets them against scale degrees three and six (which

form the tritone). This harmonic tension resolves in the final chord of the piece; the chord may

be spelled as a C-sharp minor seventh, but the overwhelming presence of E and G-sharp (and

single example of C-sharp) seem to imply the E major collection. The C-sharp becomes

functional when positioned as a perfect fourth relation to G-sharp (see Figure 33), and as a resolution to the tension provided by the tritone. Porter is able to create a conclusive and

satisfying final cadence that resembles the common practice, while still granting it a more

colorful appeal that steps outside of the standard harmonic idiom.

178 Ibid.

Figure 33. Concerto for viola (1948), IV. Allegro giusto.

The layered functions of the final chord give rise to a wider discussion concerning the

long-range harmonic plan of the concerto and the additional implications for the work’s overall

structure. In order to establish this context, we return to the final chord of the third movement.

The movement’s final chord is a bitonal juxtaposition of B major and F major; it has an

unresolved quality that sounds like a half-cadence and the wide span of the chord itself lends an expansive sound that contributes to the chords lack of finality. The bitonal structure has two functions: it simultaneously creates a half-cadence and provide resolution for the movement’s tonal centricity. The F major triad provides closure to F in the competing tonal centers of E and F presented at the opening of the movement, and the B major triad serves as a dominant to E, providing the half-cadence. Returning to the fourth movement’s final chord, the implication of E major is given greater agency within the context of providing a resolution to the half-cadence created at the close of the third movement (B  E).

100

Figure 34. Concerto for viola (1948), III. Largo.

The idea of the concerto as a compound, two-movement work where the first three movements comprise one movement and are juxtaposed against the fourth, final movement, is further reinforced by the resolution of the concerto’s long-range harmonic plan within the final chord of the concerto. The first three movements demonstrate tonic-dominant harmonic motion from A diatonic to E with the persistence of G-sharp as both a frustrated leading tone and mediant; the compound movement structure concludes with the B/F tertian structure, serving a secondary dominant function within the harmonic plan. The final chord of the movement (see

Figure 33) is now seen as authentically resolving the tonal area of A/E of the compound movement in two ways: first, providing resolution for the frustrated leading tone/mediant (G- sharp), and the half-cadence which closes the third movement. The long-range harmonic plan of the work draws from functional cues of common practice tonal progression in order to provide cohesion and structure while utilizing tonal materials in a non-functional manner.

Reputation and Recording History

While the concerto has an established place within the oeuvre of Porter, the work has not received much attention in the last 50 years. Initial reviews of the work were quite positive, leading one to believe that the concerto had great promise and would survive the test of time,

101

particularly as a member of the scantily populated viola concerto repertoire. The work never was

able to quite get off of the ground to become established among the canon of 20th century viola

concerti. This section will explore reasons why the Concerto never fully emerged which include

its limited promotion by high-profile performers, and the longstanding absence of a commercially available, high-quality recording.

In a letter to Porter, Primrose stated that he hoped to perform the Concerto often, regarding it as a “major work” in his repertoire.179 Primrose’s wife, Dorothy, also delivered praise, saying that “a work of such distinction and great worth should be recorded and as soon as possible” and that her “husband would love to record and is sending a letter to Dick Gilbert, the

director of Columbia Records.”180 The Concerto, unfortunately, was never recorded by Primrose,

probably due to Porter’s relatively low-profile within the contemporary music world at that time,

but more likely a result of the emergence of other, higher profile recording opportunities

available to Primrose at that time. Within his memoir, Walk on the North Side, Primrose recalls

Porter asking him

Why I didn’t play more often the concerto he wrote for me. I think it is a fine work and rewardingly written for the violist, as Porter played viola himself. I told him, “Quincy, unless you can become notorious in some way, run off with an infamous and wealthy heiress or jump off a building, it will be difficult to get your concerto performed.”181

Primrose highlights the reality of the modern viola concerto here, one that is, sadly, quite true.

Although many more works for viola and orchestra are being composed each year, the

frequency with which the instrument is engage as a solo feature with a major symphony orchestra remains quite low. Since 2000, at least 10 viola concertos have been composed by

179 Primrose to Porter, 19 July 1951, Porter Papers MS 15. 180 Dorothy Primrose to Porter, 05 June 1951, Porter Papers MS 15 181 William Primrose, Walk on the North Side (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1978), 79.

102

prominent composers such as Jennifer Higdon (2015), John Williams (2009), Nico Muhly

(2014), Aaron Jay Kernis (2014), and Mark-Anthony Turnage (2000-2001). Muhly’s concerto, following its premiere by Nadia Sirota and the Detroit Symphony Orchestra (October 23, 2015), has, to date, received approximately eight performances worldwide.182 Similarly, Kernis’

concerto has received approximately seven performances by Paul Neubauer following its

premiere with the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra (April 24, 2014).183

Porter’s Concerto was also significantly overshadowed by the arrival of Béla Bartók’s

Concerto for viola and orchestra in 1949. Bartok’s Concerto, a work that Primrose had

commissioned, was left unfinished at the time of the composer’s death in 1945; at the behest of

the Bartók family, the work was reconstructed/completed by Tibor Serly and upon its

completion. Primrose gave the premiere performance on December 2, 1949, with the

Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra and Antal Doráti. The work proved to be hugely important for

Primrose, a commission investment he likened to “getting in on the ground floor in investing in

Xerox or the Polaroid camera.”184 It was, perhaps, the hallmark of Primrose’s career as a

contribution to the viola concerto repertoire; Primrose would perform the concerto “well over a

hundred times,”185 “more than any other concerto, not excepting the Walton concerto.”186 The

musical success and positive reception of the Bartók Concerto most certainly affected the emerging success of the Porter’s Concerto, at least in the ability for the influential musical

182 Music Sales Classical, , accessed February 12, 2019. 183 Music Sales Classical, http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/Calendar.aspx?cpn=1&ps=10&Composer=Aaron%20Jay%20Kernis&WorkTitl e=Viola%20Concerto&SearchMode=1, accessed February 12, 2019. 184 Primrose in David Dalton, “The Genesis of Bartók’s Viola Concerto,” Music & Letters 57, no. 2 (April 1976): 126. 185 Ibid. 186 Ibid.

103

personality of Primrose to carry the work to the awareness of a larger audience. As previously mentioned, Primrose had expressed interest in recording Porter’s Concerto, but the project never

materialized; a recording of Porter’s Concerto by Primrose would certainly have solidified the

work’s reputation and increased the visibility of Porter as a valuable composer for the viola.

Paul Doktor’s premiere performance of the Concerto on May 16, 1948, with Dean Dixon

conducting the CBC Orchestra, was recorded under the auspices of the Alice M. Ditson Fund of

Columbia University as part of the Festival of American Music. However, this recording was

never commercially released and remains unavailable to general audiences. In 1953, the

Concerto received its first commercially available recording with Paul Angerer (1927–2017) and

the Vienna Symphony Orchestra (Desto D410). Angerer, a prominent Austrian violist and

composer, began his orchestral career with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra. After receiving a medal at the Geneva Competition in 1948, Angerer was engaged by the Zürich Tonhalle

Orchestra and the Orchestre de la Suisse Romande (1949–52), and returned to the Vienna

Symphony Orchestra as principal viola where he served from 1953–56.187 Following his

orchestral work, Angerer pursued conducting, musical administration, and composition.

Recording was a prominent aspect of Angerer’s performance career, appearing as a violist and/or

conductor on numerous albums.

Angerer’s performance of Porter’s Concerto was released on Desto as a part of their

“American Music Series,” alongside Walter Piston’s Symphony no. 2. While the Desto series was intended to promote and present new American music, ostensibly for posterity, this particular recording of Porter’s Concerto had quite the opposite effect, particularly in establishing a future

187 Rudolf Klein, “Angerer, Paul” Grove, accessed online (15 January 2019) https://doi- org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.00927.

104

for the work following the composer’s death in 1966. In a letter to Porter on December 11,

1965, Henry Fogel wrote:

While I have the highest respect for Desto, and for the many GOOD recordings that they have produced in their American Music Series, it seems to me that a recording as blatantly bad as the Porter Viola Concerto disc should not be allowed before the public. I have long thought, because of this recording, that the Porter Viola Concerto was an inferior work, unworthy of consideration.188

Fogel explained that, upon hearing a performance of the Concerto by Paul Doktor and the

Syracuse Symphony Orchestra, his perception of the work was completely changed. Fogel highlights the negative effect that a recording of an incompetent performance can have upon the

perception and future of a work and that, if the work is to be perceived by the public in a positive light:

We must get a capable, decent performance of this work on disc. It is too fine a piece of music to be allowed to languish in poor reputation due to a totally inadequate performance.189

Unfortunately, the negative reception of the Desto recording jeopardized the possibility of future recordings, most likely also influencing the general interest in the work. The recording was not known to me prior to reading Fogel’s letter, but upon listening to it discovered that Fogel’s assessment was accurate—it seemed as though Angerer was able to manage the solo part but the orchestral performance was subpar.

Eliesha Nelson, violist of the renowned Cleveland Orchestra, recorded the Concerto in

2007, including it on her album The Complete Viola Works of Quincy Porter (Dorian Sono

Lumos 90911). In a review of the album, Rob Barnett expressed enthusiasm for the performance

in which “Nelson lays bare the limpid and singing soul of the Concerto,” in contrast to his

pervious perception of the concerto (much like Fogel) as “a work which left me cold all those

188 Fogel to Porter, December 11, 1965, Quincy Porter Papers, MS 15. 189 Ibid.

105

years ago when listening to the Angerer version.”190 Nelson’s recording has been warmly welcomed by other reviewers; Jerry Dubins described the Nelson as having “such voluptuously alluring playing in music so beguiling” that it deserved “the strongest recommendation.”191 This

recording of the Concerto, at the time of this writing, has inspired a renewed interest in the work

as not only a worthwhile addition to the repertoire, but also a work deserving of praise and

presence in the concert hall. As of this writing, no public performances of notable profile have occurred of the Concerto.

190 Rob Barnett, “Review: Quincy Porter: Complete viola works,” http://www.musicweb- international.com/classrev/2010/Sept10/Porter_viola_DL90911.htm. 191 Jerry Dubins, “Review of Quincy Porter: Complete Viola Works,” Fanfare (November/December 2011): 92.

106

Chapter Five: Speed Etude (1948)

On July 2, 1947, Porter received a letter from William Schuman, president of The

Juilliard School of Music. At the behest of the Juilliard Committee on Commissions, Schuman offered Porter a commission “to write a piece of moderate difficulty, with piano accompaniment, for each of the following: violin, viola, violoncello, contrabass, plus a piece for string quintet

(two violins, viola, violoncello, and contrabass) with piano optional.”192 The purpose of this commission, Schuman continued, was “to provide teachers with music which is at once appropriate in its technical demands and written with the artistry and craftsmanship of an accomplished composer.”193 The Committee on Commissions believed that Porter was the perfect candidate for the project in his position as a prominent figure in music education, academia, and contemporary composition.

Schuman continued to describe a situation which the commission project should attempt to remedy, one in which a conservatory student is forced to devote skills to “music largely of inferior quality until he reaches the degree of proficiency necessary to the performance of the great masterpieces of the literature.”194 Porter certainly addressed this dilemma within Speed

Etude (1948), a work that presents a contemporary idiom while being a didactic work, palatable for the conservatory student violist, and serving as a bridge within the repertoire. The discussion of Speed Etude will be two-fold: first, an analytical presentation of the work including its formal elements and harmonic idiom, and second, its value and relation to viola performance. These aspects will be addressed simultaneously in order to demonstrate Porter’s marriage of

192 Schuman to Porter, July 2, 1947, Porter Papers MS 15. 193 Ibid. 194 Ibid.

107

compositional craft and didactic intent, ultimately creating a work that prominently features the

viola.

Speed Etude received its premiere performance by Paul Doktor in a program entitled

“Debut and Encore Concert” at Town Hall (New York City) on January 15, 1950.195 Dedicated

to Doktor “with gratitude for the glorious first performance of my viola concerto,”196 the work is

an exuberant display of virtuosity and legerdemain. As its title suggests, Speed Etude serves as a

study or exercise in velocity as well as a showpiece akin to the etudes or fantasy-caprices of

Paganini or Vieuxtemps. While the purpose of the genre is to demonstrate the technical prowess

and virtuosity of the instrumentalist, each caprice or etude generally places particular emphasis

upon a particular aspect of technique or execution. Porter’s Speed Etude could certainly be

considered a work of this genre, particularly because of its usage of moto perpetuo to

demonstrate the violist’s technical facility, but also because the piece serves simultaneously as a

didactic tool and brilliant addition to the concert/recital repertoire (similar to Paganini’s Caprice

no. 24).

The most obvious technical idea that Porter is exploring throughout the piece is finger

facility and dexterity, one of the primary aspects of the virtuosic moto perpetuo genre. The viola

part is a relentless stream of rapid eighth notes in both scalar and arpeggiated form, and coupled

with the brisk tempo marking Porter manages to place a high number of notes in a condensed

period of time. Within the scalar motion there are two types of motion that Porter utilizes. The

first embellishes simple ascending or descending lines with upper or lower neighbor notes,

195 “Programs of the Week,” New York Times (15 January 1950). 196 Program notes to ASTA-MTNA Joint Contemporary String Music Forum concert, American String Teacher 2, no. 1 (January 1952): 6.

108

creating a type of oblique scalar motion (see Figure 35); with this type of motion, Porter is able

to traverse across the instrument rapidly.

Figure 35. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 1–4.

The second type of scalar motion implements a type of pedal point against which Porter travels

up or down scalar passages (see Figure 36); the pedal point allows Porter to access maximum

resonance from the instrument, creating a more present sound (i.e., louder).

Figure 36. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12.

Both types of scalar motion rely upon a consistent and well-established hand frame that would, assumedly, be available to the conservatory-level violist. However, this piece presents the additional challenge of intonation consistency and accuracy through the perfect interval relationships that are formed in the second type of motion (see Figure 36). By integrating perfect interval relationships within scalar motion Porter is able to create finger patterns that are continually “checked” by open strings, further grounding the violist’s intonation (or revealing, depending on your perspective). Additionally, the rapid passagework throughout the piece requires accurate shifting of the hand into different positions, presenting the young violist with formidable, but not impossible, challenge.

109

Porter explores the idea of traditional scalar patterns within the then contemporary harmonic context of the “white key” pandiatonicism. The implementation of the pandiationic idiom allows the violist to move through scalar passages with the same diatonic hand frame without presenting the scalar patterns within the context of a clear “tonic,” or tonal center, and without being confined to a major or a minor key. The hand frame slightly changes throughout the piece as the tonal centricity shifts (more on this later), but the general configuration of the hand never leaves a diatonic frame. Porter is able to provide the conservatory-level violist with scalar patterns that are familiar but presenting them within a post-tonal diatonic context.

At several points in the piece, Porter changes the texture, transitioning from scalar motion to arpeggiated patterns. This change in texture offers contrast in sound and also technical demand for the violist, shifting the focus to the right hand while providing a different challenge in the left hand. The arpeggiated pattern (see Figure 37) presents the technical challenge of even, smooth, and rhythmic string crossings within the context of a fast tempo. Scales are the foundational exercise for every young instrumentalist and arpeggios are their counterpart, providing a different aspect of technical exercise (e.g., accurate shifting, smooth string crossing(s), accurate intonation) within the same key or mode. Porter’s implementation of arpeggiation, in this context, provides both textural and technical contrast to the scalar motion previously described.

110

Figure 37. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 21–27.

The arpeggiation also provides an opportunity for the violist to explore and develop a

“blocked” hand frame, a static position of the hand where each finger is on a different string and

moves as a unit each time the hand shifts. The usage of perfect fifths, fourths, and major/minor

sevenths over two strings contrasts from the standard arpeggiation of thirds found in scale books;

these intervals also increase the difficulty in pitch accuracy and the “intonation” of each

“blocked” structure in the left hand. These arpeggiations are built upon a stepwise descending

pattern, beginning on E4 and arriving at D3 (see Figure 37 and Figure 38), of the “root” pitches

of each arpeggiated group. This linear, descending pattern, however, is not motivated by a tonal

harmonic progression; the pattern creates a series of non-functional, vertical formations which

imply a “white key,” pandiatonic idiom. It is the juxtaposition of Porter’s contemporary

harmonic idiom with the idea of the piece as a vehicle for technique development and refinement

that, ultimately, satisfies the requirements of and motivation for the commission.

The textural and harmonic changes (shifting of tonal centricity) indicate structural divisions. As previously discussed, there are two primary textural ideas Porter which explores that represent technical challenges within the context of Speed Etude as both a didactic work and concert showpiece: scalar motion (ascending and descending thirds, and pedal point motion) and

111 arpeggiated figuration. It becomes clear that, from structural standpoint, these didactic elements become motivic ideas with which Porter utilizes to create a formal design. Nine structural divisions emerge when mapping the alternation between the technical motives within the viola part (see Table 1). The sections are relatively balanced in length, with the exception of the first

(and its recurring counterpart) which is roughly twice the length of the other sections, indicating the sections are of equal importance without the implication of primary/secondary/tertiary roles.

112

Table 1. Speed Etude (1948).

Figure 38. Speed Etude (1948). Long-range tonal plan with linear voice leading.

113

The structural divisions allow the long-range harmonic goals to emerge, revealing

Porter’s reliance upon tonal cues from functional progression that is motivated, ultimately, by linear voice leading. It is possible to trace the long-range progression of the piece through the tonal centricity of each section (see Figure 38). The tonal centricity of C in section one provides the tonic for the progression, moving toward the supertonic (section three) by way of the mediant

(section two) which serves to define C as “tonic,” but also leading to the supertonic through an appoggiatura. From the supertonic, Porter moves toward the dominant (G) in section five, which is reinforced through the F-sharp leading tone centricity in section six. The reprise of the section one material returns the tonal centricity to C; Porter closes the long-range progression with a final C Lydian scale.

Within the long-range harmonic motion, Porter demonstrates linear progression(s) that offer transportation from one area to the next, and are inspired by the scalar ideas associated with the didactic aspect of the work. The arpeggiated figures of section two demonstrates a descending scalar pattern; the first note of each figure outlines a descent though the C Lydian collection, beginning on E4 and arriving at D3. This descending scale offers linear direction toward the next pillar within the long-range harmonic plan. The vertical structures created don’t present functional progression themselves, but, in fact, are governed by the linear descent. In this way Porter is able to imbed the didactic element of scale study within the harmonic background.

Porter creates balance and cohesion, while providing contrast and interest, within the work by re-presenting directly or reinterpreting earlier material. For example, the pedal point figuration in section five (mm. 56–57) is the same figuration demonstrated in section one (mm.

9–18) transposed down a perfect fifth (see Figure 39).

114

Figure 39. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12 and 54–57.

An example of reinterpretation of preexisting material occurs in the final section (mm.

107–110, Figure 40) utilizing the same pedal point figuration (see Figure 36). In this example, the grouping is offset, juxtaposed against the 12/8 meter, by one eighth note. Slurs are used to rhythmically offset the grouped pattern while the primary beats are maintained through different types of accentuation: the tenuto markings emphasize the primary beats of the meter while a combination of horizontal and dynamic accent gives added importance on beats two and four.

Porter’s indication of reduced tempo (Poco meno mosso) creates a sort of agogic197 accent for the

several bars while the accelerando pushes the tempo forward, adding to the layering of

accentuation. The aggregate of accents (durational and horizontal) and rhythmic juxtaposition

results in heightened contrast and interest as the piece gathers momentum toward the finish.

197 A form of accent that is created with the lengthening of durational value.

115

Figure 40. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 105–112.

Though sectionalized vis-à-vis textural changes, the work demonstrates the characteristics of a highly unified, one movement form with which Porter often dealt. Cohesion is created through structural balance and textural homogeneity, and, as previously discussed, the manipulation of preexisting material. The most obvious demonstration of structural balance is the reappearance of the opening material (m. 74). A prominent recapitulation will often indicate a specific formal design, a rounded binary or type of sonata for example. However, instead of implying a rounded form, the recapitulation of section one (see Table 1) functions as a way to provide thematic closure and finality to the work, a particular dilemma composers often face when working within a post-tonal harmonic realm where localized, goal-oriented functionality is absent. By reprising familiar material, Porter aurally ties together the Etude. The recapitulation, when examined in the context of the alternating textural motives, also enhances the unification of the one-movement form. The constant flow of notes and homogeneity of texture reinforces the moto perpetuo or perpetuum mobile in which the viola is the primary feature.

Until this point, the piano part has had no part within the discussion of Speed Etude, largely because the parts, individually, have little interaction other than the fact that they occur simultaneously, and the primary goal and focus of the piece is to serve the violist (per the stipulations of the commission). It is worthwhile to explore, however, the way in which Porter is

116

able to create an accompanying part that has harmonic interplay with the primary voice and

melodic interest, while remaining independent and secondary; additionally, this discussion will

also explore why Porter would choose to include piano accompaniment at all, especially

considering the function of the work regarding its commission.

The early-20th century is considered by many to be the Golden Age of violinists, an era

ushered in by a number of prominent and extremely gifted soloists such as Mischa Elman, Jascha

Heifetz, Nathan Milstein, Fritz Kreisler, and David Oistrakh.198 These violinists seemed to

inherit the tradition established by Niccolo Paganini and Henri Vieuxtemps in the mid-19th

century in their ability to concertize through recital performances and orchestral appearances.

The goal of these soloists was to prominently feature their gifts through works that demanded

great technical facility and prowess, further establishing and enhancing the showpiece genre.

Performers were known to compose their own works to suit the recital needs, Fritz Kreisler being

one of the best-known examples. In addition to composing, these performers often arranged

well-known “classical hits” for violin and piano, often drawing from the étude and caprice

repertoire. A famous example of this is Paganini’s Caprice no. 24; several performers

transcribed this caprice for violin and piano, including Fritz Kreisler and Leopold Auer. It is not

surprising that William Primrose, the Golden Age violist, also regularly performed a viola and

piano version of Caprice no. 24 (arr. David Stimer).

Porter, whether consciously or not, was certainly drawing from this performance tradition where the violin or viola is the centerpiece while the piano serves as harmonic accompaniment with little melodic or textural prominence. Speed Etude exemplifies the showpiece tradition but utilizes a more contemporary harmonic idiom in order to place the piano in the background while

198 Janet Horvath, “The Golden Age of Violinists,” Interlude (December 25, 2012), http://www.interlude.hk/front/the-golden-age-of-violinists/.

117

still providing interest and harmonic support. As previously discussed, the scalar patterns

explored by Porter are not always tethered to a tonally functional implication, generally moving

freely through a variety of tonal centers. This type of non-functional, linear movement has been

described as pandiatonic or “white key” music. Since being coined by Nicolas Slonimsky (Music

since 1900, 1933), the term has developed a confusing reputation in its application but, it has

generally come to describe a non-functional, diatonic, post-tonal harmonic landscape. Paul

Cooper described the term as “a vocabulary used extensively by American and French composers in the second and third decades of this century [that] consisted of a linearly conceived, non-functional diatonicism,”199 that used an “all-inclusive chromatic pitch series” where “independence of each line, within tonal/modal restrictions set by the composer, can scarcely be overemphasized.”200 Other definitions of the term lessen the emphasis of modality,

but rather that it is “a phenomenon related to modality” that employs “the use of a diatonic set—

normally the notes of a C-major scale—without the assertion of a clear and stable tonic which

would posit a mode.”201

The pandiatonic idiom is demonstrated most prominently by the piano part of Speed

Etude. The idiom allows Porter to create linear, contrapuntal patterns within the piano that are

independent of the viola, while at the same time drawing from the same pitch collection palette;

that is to say, the connection between the viola and piano is created through collection(s) of pitch

material and not functional chord progression(s) or interaction. In the opening section of the

piece, the viola clearly outlines C diatonic collection with its oblique type motion scalar patterns;

the piano, however, does not follow any tonal cues associated with the emphasis of C diatonic,

199 Paul Cooper, Perspectives in Music Theory (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1973), 248. 200 Ibid. 201 Bryan R. Simms, Music of the twentieth century: style and structure (New York: Schirmer Books, 1996), 63–64.

118

but does in fact utilize the pitch materials of said collection (see Figure 41). The vertical

structures are tertian, generally extended to include sevenths or ninths or added fourths; these

extended tertian structures add a colorful, if not slightly odd, tinge to the harmony. The pitch

material for these chords is drawn from the C diatonic collection; the usage of a supertonic pedal

(mm. 3–5) creates the major second dyad, a common technique used by Porter to reinforce a

tonal center. Porter’s use of voice exchange (m. 2) is an example of implementing voice leading techniques in order to create coherent linear patterns within the piano. These well-crafted linear patterns strongly contrast the rapid scalar and arpeggiated motion of the viola, furthering the independence of the two parts.

Figure 41. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 1–7.

119

Porter also uses density of texture (or lack thereof), dynamics, rhythmic contrast, and linear motion in the piano suffused within the harmonic idiom in order to accentuate the primary role and voice of the viola. These techniques also enhance the piano’s ability to interact with the viola in creating motion toward specific structural goals. The close of piece, as mentioned earlier, is announced by the recapitulation of the opening material and reinforced by the reinterpretation of preexisting material (accent, rhythmic juxtaposition). The piano part, while remaining in the background, reinforces the motion to conclude the piece. There are few examples throughout the work in which the piano has chords; the primary texture is of two-voice counterpoint: independent linear patterns that, generally, demonstrate scalar motion outlining various pitch collections. With these methods, Porter ensures that the viola will be heard at all times while traversing nearly the full range of the instrument.

In the final section (see Figure 42) we see scalar motion in the right hand, ascending and descending, that outlines D Dorian; this is reminiscent of the D pedal that was prominently featured in the opening few bars (see Figure 41), functioning here as an applied dominant to the

C Lydian collection of the viola (provides harmonic motion to the final cadence). From a vertical perspective, the linear pattern of the piano does not always directly interact with the viola; that is, the parts do not create a functional, tertian progression. The pandiatonic idiom further reinforces the independence of the two parts while allowing them to remain tethered to one another through common pitch material.

The reduced number of notes in the piano per beat compared to the viola (quarter notes versus triplets) thins the piano texture, allowing greater differentiation between the parts.

Syncopated, intervallic leaping in the left hand is set against the scalar motion, providing rhythmic interest and motion toward the end of the piece. The piano’s declamatory accents in the

120 final four measures of the piece lend metric definition and contrast to the rhythmically offset accents in the viola.

Figure 42. Speed Etude (1948), mm. 9–12 and 54–57.

Speed Etude was first published in 1950 by Valley Music Press, shortly after the work was completed. Following its premiere performance, the piece was performed by Paul Doktor on several occasions. Doktor performed the piece on program featuring contemporary string music sponsored by the American String Teachers Association (ASTA) and Music Teachers National

Association (MTNA) on February 28, 1952202. This type of exposure certainly promoted the

202 Program for ASTA-MTNA Joint Contemporary String Music Forum concert, American String Teacher 2, no. 1 (January 1952): 3.

121

work and allowed it to gain more traction within pedagogical circles, especially considering its

origins as part of the Juilliard Commission project. The success of Porter’s Speed Etude can be measured in the fact that it is the second most recorded of his viola compositions (the most recorded being the Suite for viola alone, 1930). Cathy Basrak was the first to record the piece, including it on her album American Viola Works (Cedille Records, 2000). Eliesha Nelson’s release of the complete viola works of Porter (Sono Luminus) followed in 2009, and Melia

Watras’ album Short Stories (Fleur de Son Classics, 2012) is the most recent contribution to the catalog. These recordings have, no doubt, increased the visibility of a work. In addition, the piece has enjoyed a revival of sorts due to its recent publication by the American Viola Society (AVS

007, 2010), evidenced in more frequent performances among conservatory-level violists. The revised edition (2017), prepared by David Bynog, clarifies discrepancies in notes and articulations between various previous editions. The publication is made available free of charge through the internet, significantly increasing its accessibility. Among violists, it seems that Speed

Etude is the work of Porter’s that is most known; the number of extant recordings, its availability, and its usefulness by instructors and performers have set it apart among the collection of Porter’s viola pieces.

Speed Etude deserves to be heard not only because of its unique position as an original showpiece for viola but also due to the manner in which it displays the harmonic idiom of

Quincy Porter within the context of viola and music education, both areas about which Porter had great interest and personal investment. The work is a tremendous feat of technical display that is equally satisfying to perform; I have had the opportunity to do so on several occasions, enjoying the work more and more each time.

122

Chapter Six: Duo for violin and viola (1954)

A majority of Porter’s compositions were written for small ensembles: duos, quartets, trios, and quintets. He had a strong affinity for the chamber music medium, particularly the string quartet, and some of his most successful compositions were in this form. It is no surprise that

Porter was awarded the prestigious Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge Medal for “Eminent Services to

Chamber Music” in 1943, placing him alongside the likes of Benjamin Britten (1941) and Frank

Bridge (1938). The award represented the sum total of Porter’s contribution to chamber music at that point, specifically the six string quartets he had composed; the Porter’s “conspicuous success toward complete mastery of the elusive string medium,”203 has much to do with the fact that he was an enthusiastic violist and chamber musician who “could handle any viola part in the chamber music literature with complete technical security.”204 His intimate understanding of the idiosyncrasies of the chamber music genre was developed through his experience performing, teaching, and studying the genre. It doesn’t seem coincidental that his closeness with the chamber music genre and interest in counterpoint would manifest itself within his compositions.

The final two works for viola completed during Porter’s tenure at Yale University were duos: one for violin and viola (1954), and the other for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957).

These two works demonstrate the Porter idiom within the context of the small ensemble genre for which he became most known; it was the chamber music/small ensemble that was most conducive to displaying his mature style. Working with just two voices, Porter was able to capitalize upon his interest in counterpoint and manipulation of motivic material to create a

203 Elwell, “Quincy Porter,” Modern Music (Winter: 1946): 25. 204 Boatwright, “Quincy Porter,” Perspectives of New Music 5, no. 2 (1967): 163.

123

rather dense texture. Gerald Kemnis stated, regarding the bare texture of two voices within the

Duo for violin and viola, that

Porter could make so much out of so little that was there; he knew the two instruments so well and how to get the most sound from them with multiple stops. The lines moving in and through each other achieve and interesting motion.205

Kemnis highlights the most important aspect of the compositional style: Porter’s emphasis upon

the counterpoint within a relatively bare texture. Both of these aspects directly influence the

presentation, manipulation, and transformation of motive(s) which, ultimately, act as structural

dividers. Each of the Duo’s three movements utilize elements of imitative, process-oriented composition (evidence of his work with 16th century counterpoint and the works of Orlando di

Lasso):206 the first movement is driven by discrete motivic cells (see the section on his Viola

Concerto) with strong rhythmic profile and definition; the second movement draws from the

fugal model as a structural design; and the third movement is a carefully structured and balanced

display of intricate two-voice counterpoint within Porter’s contemporary harmonic idiom.

Ultimately, Porter’s use of these processes resulted in the creation of a cohesive, intelligent piece

of music. While these elements influenced the work’s success as a contribution to the violin and viola duo repertoire, they contributed to the work’s negative reception, ultimately diminishing the work’s visibility.

Porter completed the final draft of Duo for violin and viola on January 4, 1954 in New

Haven, CT. He dedicated it to Joseph and Lillian Fuchs, members of the famed Fuchs Duo with hopes that the work would be performed at the Musicians’ Guild concert series in New York

City, of which the Fuchs were members. Joseph Fuchs (1900–1997) was a renowned orchestral

205 Gerald Kemnis, quoted in Hall, “Quincy Porter,” 1970: 123. 206 Quincy Porter, A study of sixteenth century counterpoint based on the works of Orlando di Lasso (Boston: Loomis, 1948).

124 violinist and, eventually, touring soloist. He was appointed concertmaster of the Cleveland

Orchestra in 1926, a position he held until 1939; during his tenure with the Orchestra, Fuchs served as an instructor of violin at the Cleveland Institute of Music (1926–35). Lillian Fuchs

(1902–1997), Joseph’s younger sister, was a renowned performer, composer, and pedagogue who had significant influence upon the American landscape of viola in the 20th century. Her teaching career spanned multiple decades and prominent musical institutions such as the

Manhattan School of Music, the Juilliard School, and the Aspen Music Festival and School; it was through these institutions that she provided mentorship for many violists including Martha

Strongin Katz (Cleveland Quartet), Geraldine Walther (Principal viola with San Francisco

Symphony, Takacs String Quartet), Lawrence Dutton (Emerson String Quartet), and Yitzhak

Schotten (University of Michigan). Lillian’s influence and status were certainly known by

Porter; it is assumed that he enjoyed her playing since he wrote not only this Duo for her but also the Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957).

The Fuchs Duo had an established performance profile within the musical scene of New

York City. Their ensemble’s debut was a performance of Mozart’s Sinfonia Concertante on

March 13, 1945 at Carnegie Hall; the duo was subsequently engaged with major symphony orchestras such as the New York Philharmonic and the Cincinnati Symphony. Lillian and Joseph were an active duo until their final performance in 1973. A number of composers were inspired by the ability and artistry of the Fuchs Duo which resulted in their premiere of several works for violin and viola. These included Bohuslov Martinu’s Three Madrigals (1951), which was written and dedicated as “l’expression of my admiration for you [Joseph] and Lillian”207 and premiered

207 Penny Thompson Kruse and Steven Kruse, “Remembering Joseph and Lillian Fuchs,” American String Teacher 53, no. 4 (November 2003): 61.

125

by the Duo on Musicians’ Guild (New York City) concert in January 1951.208 Although not documented, Porter’s proximity to the musical scene of New York City would certainly have made the composer aware of the performance activities of the Duo and the premiere of the

Martinu work, particularly because the Musicians’ Guild series was the platform from which the work was launched.

Porter’s Duo was premiered at a Musicians’ Guild concert on January 11, 1954 (roughly one week after the work’s completion!). A review of the work was published in the New York

Times the following day, delivering a critical blow to the work’s potential as a significant contribution to the violin and viola duo repertoire:

The new Porter work proved to be one of those compositions in which, after hearing a dozen bars, one could foresee with reasonable accuracy what was coming next. The main business of the opening movement revolved around an energetic, bustling figure mildly spice with dissonance—Mr. Potter [sic] being no extremist in such matters—which was juggled from one instrument to the other with considerable skill. What made the opening movement somewhat tiresome was a tendency common among today’s composers, to hammer away incessantly at a rhythmic pattern unchanged, or nearly so, throughout the movement. There were some expressive passages in the slow movement, and the final allegro brought the work to a spirited conclusion. Taken as a whole, the piece is much like other things heard ad infinitum in recent seasons. It is music that could be described as innocuous, and pleasant enough listening even though one would not wish particularly to hear it again.209

Porter, while on sabbatical from Yale during the 1952-53 academic year, composed the first two movements of the Duo in Paris. He completed the first movement in September 1952, and the second the following month. The “energetic, bustling figure” appearing at the opening of the first movement serves as the motivic cell (cell A, mm. 1–6) with which Porter uses to define

the movement’s overall structure and content. A motivic cell is a multi-measure unit comprised

208 Ibid., 61–62. 209 “New work played at Guild concert: Joseph and Lillian Fuchs offer duo for violin and viola by Quincy Porter,” New York Times (12 January 1954).

126

of discrete rhythmic, intervallic, and harmonic ideas; it is a set of concentrated material with

which will be “composed out” over the course of the movement, and serve as the binding

material in the creation of a cohesive, compact movement.

Figure 43. Duo for violin and viola (1954), I. Allegretto mm. 1–13.

Within the three measures of Cell A (see Figure 43), Porter presents several salient

rhythmic, metric and harmonic ideas. Using a different meter for each measure of the cell– 6/8,

5/8, and 9/8 – Porter immediately establishes a strong sense of rhythmic definition and profile.

The first measure uses slurs and ties to create a strong assertion of three (three groups of two

eighth notes) within the compound meter, set against the triple metric implication in the viola;

this type of metric juxtaposition will occur throughout the movement. The siciliano rhythmic

pattern characterizes the motivic cell giving it a dance-like buoyancy. The second measure (5/8) presents the downward, cadential motion of staccato sixteenth notes. Cell A is harmonically organized around the axis of B/E, without implication of functional relationship (dominant/tonic, respectively), and the cadential motion of the second measure from E to B reinforces the tonal centricity of B. The final measure of the cell utilizes elements of the previous two measures to

127

create closure in phrase and balance in discrete motives: the siciliano pattern is repeated without

the same rhythmic grouping, and the cadential motion of the 5/8 measure is expanded.

The motivic cell consists of two identical halves, the second transposed down either a

perfect fifth or perfect fourth. As seen in Figure 43, the consequent pair of the phrase group

utilizes the same rhythmic and intervallic material of Cell A with the exception of the third

measure which is extended, but ultimately utilizes the same descending cadential figure to close

the phrase (m. 8).

Porter uses this motivic cell to articulate the overall formal design of the movement,

resulting in a balanced, cohesive structure. Using the (re)appearances of the motivic cell

throughout the movement the following hybridized rondo structure emerges:

A (1–32) B (33–56) A (57–62) C (79–102) A’ (103–116) Coda (117–end)

Each A section is a presentation of Cell A in either its three or six measure version; the three

appearances of A creates formal balance through an arch form structure, a design often utilized

by Porter. The first A section is rounded itself in that the motivic cell appears twice in its full

form (antecedent and consequent phrases); the section also presents a second motivic cell (Cell

B) which is derived from the elements embedded within Cell A. Cell B (see Figure 44),

remaining in 6/8 meter, compliments Cell A in its linear, melodic motion and expands the overall range of the pitch material to nearly an octave. The rhythmic grouping of Cell B demonstrates the metric juxtaposition of three versus two and utilizes the same siciliano pattern. The melodic motion of the descending cadential figure of Cell A is balanced by the ascending figure in Cell B

(m. 13) which functions to extend the phrase rather than provide cadential closure.

128

Figure 44. Duo for violin and viola (1954) I. Allegretto, mm. 9–18.

The lyrical figure present in section B draws material of both motivic cells. The metric

juxtaposition of Cell A is shown through the grouping of two eighth notes (see Figure 45);

following this is a melodic gesture derived from Cell B. These two ideas are passed between the

two instruments in a contrapuntal fashion, weaving in and out of one another, with a clear

balance of active and passive motion.

Figure 45. Duo for violin and viola (1954) I. Allegretto, mm. 31–35.

Although the movement displays formal characteristics of a rondo form in that a primary

theme receives multiple, periodic appearances the concluding coda section alters the overall

balance of the movement. Porter loosely draws from motivic elements of the A and C sections, but the section largely is unrelated to the rest of the movement. The coda features rapid motion passage work that is passed antiphonally between the two voices; while this boisterous material

129

seems to provide a dynamic conclusion to the work, Porter undermines the success achieved

through manipulation of motivic material in the previous sections of the movement.

The “expressive” slow movement draws from elements of and formal processes from the

fugue without realizing the form in its complete state (subject/answer, episodes) or following its

tonal plan. The use of structural elements of the contrapuntal form as material with which the

movement will be built around demonstrates Porter engaging with fugal form as a musical object

in a dialogic fashion; that is to say, the fugue model provides methods and materials with which

Porter is able to combine and contrast with other forms of imitation and, ultimately, construct a

somewhat cohesive musical narrative.

Porter presents the subject (see Figure 46, mm. 1–7) in the violin which draws from the C diatonic collection without clear implication of C as its tonal center; the subject, however, does prominently display G as a possible dominant. The harmonic in the viola (E) establishes the tonal centricity of C; without the harmonic the tonal area would be ambiguous, atypical of a strong fugue subject. The subject displays disjunct melodic motion, a linear pattern that is more conducive to a contrapuntal setting rather than focusing upon lyrical beauty; with one single example of scalar motion, the balanced use of all intervals except for the second and octave gives the subject an open, hollow sound. Interestingly, the subject is divided into two parts, a division not made clear through the use of temporal or textural cues, but with intervallic material. Porter creates a parallel period phrase structure using intervallic distance rather than direct pitch material. The first half of the period is three measures with the intervallic progression of <3 6 5 7

3 4>; the progression begins again on the anacrusis to measure four and has the content of <3 6 5

7 3 5 3 6>. The bold-face intervals represent the divergence from the intervallic pattern; these intervals serve as closing material for the parallel phrase group.

130

Figure 46. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 1–8.

The answer (comes) that follows the subject (dux) here is the exact intervallic and pitch material, transposed down a perfect fifth. The “textbook” fugue, as established and codified the works of J.S. Bach, displays a subject clearly outlining the tonic area to which an answer in the dominant key responds (either exactly or with some intervals changed to preserve the tonality, known as real or tonal answers). Porter’s subject, while articulating C diatonic as a tonal center, more prominently displays the dominant; in so doing, he circumvents the tonal cues of fugal writing, instead following the essence of the form as deriving from imitation through intervals.

The answer (see Figure 47) expresses the tonal area of the subdominant (F) rather than the dominant (G), clearly reinforcing that Porter is not interested in the “textbook” harmonic organization of fugue. This is an example of Porter’s interaction with the fugue framework rather than application or usage of fugue as a procedural method (including harmonic organization).

The countersubject features contrasting material in its rhythmic profile and linear motion.

The rhythmic motion of the countersubject is much more active than the subject; the diminution allowing for more stepwise, scalar motion that outlines a long, descending pattern from F5 to G3.

Porter uses lower neighbor, appogiatura, and passing tones to fill in the background scalar

131

descent, and provide rhythmic interst against the slow-moving subject. The linear, descending

pattern reemerges as countersubject material later in the movmement.

Figure 47. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 9–18.

Porter implements the fugal elements, subject and countersubject, as structural objects to provide definition within a movement that is largely a collection of unrelated motivic, harmonic, and melodic material. Following an imitative section, the subject has a reentry in measure 23; it is rhythmically offset by an eighth note and displays F-sharp as a prominent pitch, possibly a dominant relationship to the tonal centricity of B. The countersubject appears in a different form that is drawn from the descending linear pattern which the first appearance of the countersubject displayed in the background. Beginning on the fourth beat of measure 22 (see Figure 48), the countersubject descends from C5 to G4. Porter’s counterpoint does not follow common practice methods of resolving dissonant vertical intervals (tritones, augmented fifths, sevenths), providing harmonic variety but not overwhelming dissonance. This subject/countersubject entry is half the length of its original, but stands alone when considering the parallel intervallic constitution of the original.

132

Figure 48. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 19–27.

The final appearance of the subject/countersubject unit occurs after a short cadenza passage presented by the violin (see Figure 49). The cadenza outlines a pentatonic collection based on B-flat, announcing the tonal centricity of this final subject entry. The final entry also presents another version of the countersubject material; retaining its linear pattern, Porter outlines the B-flat diatonic area with a stepwise descent from B-flat to F, coloring it with a chain of 7-6 suspensions (see Figure 49, mm. 42–44). The suspensions provide not only chromatic interest and variety, but also increase the forward motion of the movement’s closing material.

Figure 49. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Lento, mm. 40–46.

133

The final movement is an excellent display of structural craftsmanship and balance,

facilitated by the use of imitative, two-voice counterpoint. Although it features strict imitation,

the movement lacks the appropriate structural features of a fugue (subject/answer, episodes,

multiple entries. This “spirited conclusion” is constructed with a framework based upon a

ternary design (ABA’): two boisterous and lively sections filled with rhythmic drive and rustic

character are contrasted by a lyrical, flowing middle section. Each of the three sections display

distinct motives Porter will present within each voice in an antiphonal fashion; the idea is

essentially imitation without a resulting form (e.g., canon or fugue). Quick, eighth-notes

comprise the majority of the first section; two types of this motion exist (see Figure 50). First, a

disjunct descending/ascending pattern that, over several measures, descends from F-sharp5 to

C4; and second, a repeated note figure that builds in texture as notes are added to it. These two

types of motion/rhythmic textures are used to represent the structural outer sections of the

movement. The opening gesture is presented twice in succession, once in each voice, but

transposed up a minor third; the first iteration outlines a C Lydian collection and the second

outlining E diatonic minor. Both of these collections utilize F-sharp, and Porter will capitalize on

the ambiguity of tonal centricity, moving through a variety of tertian or fifth relationships within

the general collection of pitches. The second entrance of the figure (m. 9) is set against a

contrapuntal line; the imitation occurs at the third, not the fifth which verifies the movement is

not a fugue.210

210 If the second entrance were to be considered an answer to the subject it would be imitative at the fifth or fourth, not the third (as is displayed here).

134

Figure 50. Duo for violin and viola (1954) III. Allegro molto, mm. 1–10 and 42–53.

The second section of the ternary structure displays a flowing, lyrical character with

underlying forward motion. Primarily, the counterpoint is 2:1, meaning two notes set against one

note; this type of counterpoint allows for the voices to alternate between active and passive

motion, and creating a dynamic texture with only two voices. A melodic figure, with a lower and

upper neighbor, appears within this section (see Figure 51) that will serve as the connective

tissue between the contrasting final two sections of the ABA’ structure.

Figure 51. Duo for violin and viola (1954) III. Allegro molto, mm. 54–69.

A rhythmic diminution of this figure appears at the end of this section, appearing against

a drone-like oscillation between two notes. In this context, the figure functions like a mordent: decorative material of a primary, held note. The sixteenth note figure replaces the first quarter

135 note of the movement’s opening gesture (rehearsal letter H), connecting the middle section to the concluding (A’).

Figure 52. Duo for violin and viola (1954) II. Allegro molto, mm. 131–143 and 169–177.

The final section of the movement utilizes the rhythmic texture and eighth note motion of its counterpart, incorporating further diminution (sixteenth notes) as the motion accelerates to the movement’s end. Porter continues to employ direct imitatation of motivic material, using an antiphonal technique to create active engagement within both parts.

Drawing from contrapuntal techniques, imitative formal structures, and manipulation of motivic material, Porter was able to craft a work of rhythmic and harmonic interest. The focus upon a process-oriented method of composition is presented quite clearly within each of the movements of this Duo for violin and viola and, perhaps, to the detriment of lyrical, tuneful melodic patterns. The absence of goal-oriented melody and the usage of a wide range of compositional techniques positioned the work never fully within the boundaries of any particular stylistic idiom of the 1950s—it lightly uses dissonance, relies upon methods and tools of the common practice without employing the melodic features typically associated with these ideas.

In this light, the movement as doesn’t strongly articulate any one particular style, a stand which

136 would have influenced the reviewer to label the work innocuous and predictable: “after hearing a dozen bars, one could foresee with reasonable accuracy what was coming next.”211

The dense texture of carefully constructed two voice counterpoint allows both violin and viola to be equally featured and create “so much out of so little that [is] there,”212 yet the intricacies of the work seem to be lost within it. However, the effort of Porter to provide a work within the violin and viola duo medium did not go unnoticed. In a review of the work, Karl

Kroeger stated that the work

Does represent a serious attempt to come to grips with a difficult and not terribly rewarding medium. Without a real bass instrument, and because of the sound of the two instruments in various segments of their tonal range, the medium is often less than successful; and few serious efforts have been made to write in it. Porter has made an admirable try, and, on the whole has been remarkably successful. Striving at all times to employ the greatest contrast between the instruments, he has produced a well-constructed work that holds interest and almost always sounds.213

Kroeger highlights the difficulties inherent within the violin and viola duo genre. The bare texture and the obvious absence of bass present clear and formidable challenges to the composer, which, Kroeger acknowledges, Porter meets with remarkable success. Porter’s years of experience as both a violinist and violist and his intimate knowledge of the extensive body of chamber music repertoire were strong factors in enhancing the balance between and overall idiomatic nature of the individual parts. Finally, the use of intricate contrapuntal writing, the implementation of imitative forms such as fugue, and the inventive application of motivic cells allowed Porter to address and ovecome the challenges of maintaining interest and providing contrast between the two instruments.

211 “New work played at Guild concert: Joseph and Lillian Fuchs offer duo for violin and viola by Quincy Porter,” New York Times, January 12, 1954. 212 Kemnis, quoted in Hall, “Quincy Porter,” 123. 213 Karl Kroeger, Review of Duo for violin and viola, by Quincy Porter in “Music Reviews,” Frank C. Campbell, David Ossenkop and David Stam, eds. Notes, Second Series, 21, no. 1/2 (1963): 261-62. doi:10.2307/894921.

137

Although the Duo received praise for its successful navigation of the numerous and formidable challegnes of the violin and viola duo repertoire, the work falls short of strongly representing Porter’s idiom. The work demonstrates all of the primary charateristics and features of Porter’s idiom: focus on counterpoint, imitative forms, unified structural design, modal tonality, and skillful manipulation of motive. Utilizing these aspects it is possible for the performers to deliver a successful performance of the work, yet the piece seems to be overuse and overextend the idiomatic features for which Porter had become known without offerring anything particularly new. In the final analysis, the work serves as an exemplary member of the repertoire for violin and viola duo, successfully addressing and providing solutions for the inherent challenges of the genre; this was due, exclusively, to Porter’s thorough and perosnal understanding of the violin and viola.

138

Chapter Seven: Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957)

Porter’s Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord was completed in New Haven on February

3, 1957. It was primarily inspired by the violist Lillian Fuchs with whom Porter had previously

collaborated, and harpist Laura Newell. The work bears a dedication to Fuchs and Newell. The

premiere performance was included on a Musicians Guild chamber series program at the 92nd

Street Young Men’s and Young Women’s Hebrew Association on March 11, 1957. The piece

was received much more positively than the previous duo Porter had written for Fuchs. A New

York Times review of the Musicians’ Guild program reported that the work was

as serene a work as the Brahms [G minor piano quartet] is agitated. The long, flowing melodic line of the viola part has strong appeal, even at first hearing, while the harp fills out somewhat modal sounding simple harmonies. Mr. Porter’s Duo had livelier episodes and more intricate interludes for the harp, but always the music returned to the beautiful patrician line of the beginning.214

One of the most striking features of Porter’s music is the “long, flowing melodic line” that seems to spin endlessly; numerous examples of this type of melodic pattern exist within the body of his work written for viola. However, this melodic feature has generally served an aesthetic purpose, without particular importance within or influence upon the structural or formal design of a work. For example, the opening gesture and resultant melodic pattern that emerges in the first movement of the Concerto for Viola meanders through various diatonic realms that are motivated by an underlying motivic idea. That is to say, the lyrical melody is subservient to the background structure created through motivic transformation instead of providing the motivation for the work’s overall structure.

214 “Musicians Guild Offers Chamber Concert,” New York Times, 12 March 1957.

139

The unique position of the Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord within Porter’s works

for viola comes directly from the manner in which he utilizes the lyrical melodic patterns in a

much more thematic fashion; more specifically, the melodic patterns are used to create and

reinforce a structural design. This is in contrast to the highly developed contrapuntal style of

introducing, developing, and juxtaposing motivic cells, or the manipulation of imitative models,

as demonstrated in the Duo for violin and viola (1954). The following section will first, explore

each of the primary themes and identify the features which distinguish them as melodic and not

motivic, present the ways in which the themes are developed and placed within a larger harmonic

narrative, and demonstrate how these themes are utilized as structural identifiers which contribute to the work’s formal design.

There are two primary themes present and utilized within the Duo. The first theme is divided into two sub-themes, theme 1a and theme 1b (T1a and T1b). Both T1a and T1b are lyrical, flowing melodies and presented by the viola which is supported by simple chordal material in the harp (see Figure 53). The themes are further connected in their demonstration of similar melodic contour (voice leading) and the manner in which the melodic figures are set against simple accompanying figuration in the harp. The rhythmic profile of the accompanying figuration and the different modal collections which they utilize provide contrast between the two.

An important aspect of T1 is the manner in which voice leading is utilized that is a strong contributing factor to the creation of the Porter “sound.” The melodic pattern T1a (see Figure 53) has a relatively narrow ambitus of a minor seventh (G4–F5), outlining the Phrygian modal collection; cadential motion toward G (m. 6) indicates the closing of T1a and the centricity of that pitch. In typical fashion, Porter does not draw from the common practice era function of

140

scale degree function to reinforce or inspire chord progressions. The six-measure theme

prominently features the notes B-flat, F and G, each having specific importance within the scalar

collection of G Phrygian: B-flat defines the “minor” tetrachord of Phrygian within the context of

G as the tonal center of T1a, and F further reinforces the centricity of G as the leading tone

(again in the context of G Phrygian). These pitches are also given importance in their metric

placement and value. It is clear that the scale degree function is operative in a melodic sense, but

the tertian structures beneath the melody do not create a functional, tonal progression (i.e., tonic,

subdominant, dominant, tonic). In fact, the vertical structures feature pitch material that is drawn

from the G Phrygian scalar collection.

Figure 53. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 1–6.

Linear voice leading principles are utilized to imply tonal centricity or tethering; scalar and triadic motion is embellished with anticipations, escape tones, and appoggiaturas. The non- chord tone terminology is used in reference to its linear, voice leading aspect only (e.g., an

141

appoggiatura that is approached by leap and left by step), not the vertical implication of

dissonance against a bass function which the term traditionally implies. For example, in measure

four (see Figure 53), the first three notes outline a B-flat major triad that leads to A-flat on the third beat which Porter embellishes with the melodic motion of an appoggiatura, leaping down to a G and resolving upwards to the A-flat. The supporting structure which the appoggiatura (G) is set against would typically create a dissonance, but it instead could function as an added seventh to the A-flat major triad.

Porter continues to utilize the melodic contour, pitch content, and rhythmic essence of theme T1a as a framework while developing its melodic contour and rhythmic profile before the introduction of T1b. We see the same type of voice leading motion demonstrated in the melodic contour also set against chordal material that does not create functional, tonal chord progressions while utilizing scale degree function to define tonal centricity. The latter half of T1a (mm. 6–13, see Figure 54) continues to present G as the tonal center and Phrygian as the modal quality of the collection.

Figure 54. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 7–12.

142

The departure from T1a into T1b is indicated in the textural shift in the accompanying

material in the harp, beginning in measure 14 (see Figure 55). T1b retains the lyrical,

contemplative quality of T1a while utilizing a new pitch collection, wider ambitus, and greater

rhythmic variety. Tonal centricity shifts from G Phrygian to D Dorian, initially, moving toward

Phrygian with the inclusion of F-sharp, C-sharp, and G-sharp, while the melodic contouring and voice leading of T1a is retained. The tonal centricity of D is indicated through the metric placement, rhythmic value, and the voice leading which precedes the pitch’s introduction (see

Figure 55, m. 13–14). While Porter does not follow functional chord progression in the harmonic background, the relationship of tonal centers is drawn from the those of the common practice

(i.e., tonic, subdominant, dominant, etc.). It is the linear style of the two sections which connect them even though T1b serves, in a broader sense, as a transition between the two main thematic areas.

Figure 55. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 13–15.

Porter enhances the supporting material of T1b through rhythmic diminution (see harp

part, Figure 55) and figuration drawn from the melodic material of T1a. Syncopated rhythmic

pattern characterizes T1a, evidenced in the opening measure of the area (m. 1, see Figure 53),

and is developed as the melody itself expands, rhythmically. A falling, sixteenth note figure that

143

is preceded by a rhythmic tie is introduced within the melody of T1a (m. 8, see Figure 54); this

figure is a rhythmic expansion of the descending eighth note figures (see Figure 53). This

melodic gesture then becomes a rhythmic motive within T1b; the diminution of the supporting

material in the harp is developed further with the syncopated sixteenth note figure of T1a (see

Figure 56). In this example, the syncopation does not occur as result of a rhythmic tie, but the

slurred grouping over primary beats within the meter create a syncopated effect, blurring the

sense of meter (a prominent characteristic of T1).

Figure 56. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 19–21.

Porter’s second theme area (T2) is contrasted to the first theme (T1a and T1b) in its tempo and meter, overall character, and melodic organization. A lively, jaunty theme is presented by the viola with sweeping scalar gestures and rapid, 32nd note figuration (see Figure

57). The presentation of the theme is accompanied by the marking Tempo giusto, indicating a

more resolute, purposeful character; the transition from triple to duple meter (3/4  2/4) lends

the theme the quality of a rustic dance. The wide range of the theme, centering around E4 and

traveling up to E3 and down to A5, also contributes to the extroverted character. The pitch

material within this range outlines the E Dorian modal collection. However, the centricity of this

144

modal collection is less definite due to its lack of functional tendency tones which would

reinforce the tonal area.

Figure 57. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 28–33.

The melodic style of T2 relies upon the same type of voice leading principles of T1 but within the context of distinct rhythmic figuration. Porter utilizes non-chord tones (NCTs) within the context of only their linear voice leading aspect in conjunction with rhythmic diminution to embellish the melodic contour, lending an improvisatory quality to the dance-like theme. These

“turn” figure motives often feature a lower neighbor in 32nd notes, as seen in measure 32 (see

Figure 57).

Porter remains consistent with his compositional style in creating a highly unified, one-

movement work through the usage, manipulation and (re)presentation of primary and secondary

material. As stated earlier, the thematic importance of melody present in this Duo is a unique

feature within Porter’s oeuvre. There is less emphasis, overall, on the manipulation and

transformation of motives that more closely aligns it with the process-oriented composition of

145

late Renaissance counterpoint. Instead of extracting elements of localized, motivic cells and

weaving them together, Porter uses the primary themes T1 and T2 as the basic material with

which he creates a compact, highly unified work.

It is from the mapping of these themes throughout the piece that a long-range harmonic plan and formal structure is revealed. The structural design is, essentially, a nuanced rondo form within the standard progression of thematic areas:

A B A’ C A’ B A

Rondo form is ideal in satisfying Porter’s stylistic principle of creating a balance and

cohesion, particularly due to its symmetrical design (see Figure 58). The rondo structure appears

through the (re)presentation and development of the primary themes (T1 and T2) and their

accompanying rhythmic motives; the manipulation of melodic material is essential.

146

Figure 58. Duo for viola and harp, map of formal design.

147

Porter draws from the functional progression tendencies of the common practice in order

to create a long-range harmonic plan, resulting in a tonally coherent work within a post-tonal

context. Although the structure has been identified as rondo, Porter does not follow the

prescribed tonal cues associated with the form. Instead, the succession of tonal areas/centricity

follows both functional progression and voice-leading principles. Porter’s idiom usually does not

maintain tonal centricity for an entire section, but the structural divisions allow the analyst to

view the manner in which he is moving at a deeper, background level.

Figure 59. Duo for viola and harp, long-range harmonic plan.

The first area (A: T1a/b) demonstrates tonal centricity of G/D, displaying a tonic-

dominant relationship and defining G as the tonal center around which the long-range progression is oriented (see Figure 59). The centricity of B (T2) is E, tethered to the G/D

construct as an upper neighbor/supertonic to D, returning to the centricity of D in A’. Following

the development (C), the return of A brings also a return to the centricity of G. Porter connects the thematic areas of B and its return using an upper neighbor relationship between the tonal centricity of the two areas (EF); the centricity shifts to C which, as the subdominant of G diatonic, prepares movement toward the dominant (section seven, A) and the final tonic (m. 242).

The usage of the centricity of F-sharp (as a leading tone) and E (as supertonic) within section

seven demonstrates voice leading principles to facilitate movement from scale degree seven to

the tonic/dominant.

148

As mentioned earlier, the centricity of these structural sections shifts rather rapidly, obfuscating the aural perception of the tonal background for this post-tonal diatonic work. This effect further blurs the division of structural areas within the form so that, while the thematic material marks the structural division, the flow between these areas is seamless. The form then becomes a tool rather than a motivator, that is, content motivates structure instead of the other way around. In any case, the reliance upon principles of common practice functional progression is a hallmark of Porter’s style, particularly useful in achieving the aesthetic principle of unified, cohesive structures outside of the common practice.

The first example of Porter’s transformation and (re)presentation of melodic material occurs immediately following the initial presentation of the themes. Once again appearing in the viola, the theme of T1a is presented within an entirely new metric and rhythmic context (m. 50, see Figure 60).

Figure 60. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 49–51.

The theme is rhythmically augmented, appearing durationally equivalent to the original but within the context of the faster, duple meter. Porter transposes the melody up a major third (B- flat  D, etc.), placing the melodic theme in the tonal centricity of D. Through transposition and implementation of rhythmic motives, Porter is able to combine aspects of T1a and T1b; the tonal

149

centricity of T1b is applied to the augmented version of T1a, and the reappearance of T1a

features the rhythmic motive of T1b (see Figure 60).

The development section demonstrates multiple appearances of the themes in original

and “developed” forms, either by themselves or layered on top of one another. Both T1a/b and

T2 are presented simultaneously, beginning in measure 97 (see Figure 61).

Figure 61. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 94–102.

The rhythmically augmented version of T1a (see Figure 60 and Figure 61) follows the melodic gesture of T2, the full figure beginning in measure 94. Underneath this, the harp creates a pattern that follows the melodic contour of T2 while implying the rhythmic motive of T1b. The layering

150 of themes and motivic ideas blurs their individual distinction allowing for the aural perception of something new. The primary theme, T1, is (re)presented by the viola in its augmented form and transposed from the original by a minor third (see Figure 62); the theme is supported by an ostinato figure that resembles the rocking motion implied by the rhythmic motive of T1b, but condensed into a single octave oscillation.

Figure 62. Duo for viola and harp, mm. 112–117.

As the work progresses, demonstrated in Table 1, Porter implements the two primary themes (T1a/b and T2) as structural indicators, continuing to layer and present them within different harmonic contexts, ultimately designating the overall formal design of the piece. The two themes are melodic in nature, characterized by linear voice leading patterns and distinguished from motivic material in their length, harmonic structure, tonal centricity, and rhythmic profile.

The Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord exemplifies the combination of two of the strongest assets of Porter’s compositional voice: one, lyrical, expansive, melodic patterns with distinct rhythmic interest and variety; and two, the ability to create highly unified and cohesive works through manipulation of motivic material. It is because of the marriage of these two assets

151

that this piece was so well-received at its premiere, particularly in comparison to the first

performance of the earlier Duo for violin and viola (1954).

Considering the options: harp or harpsichord?

Porter’s choice of instrumentation, “harp or harpsichord,” presents an interesting

discussion. The indication of one instrument or the other leads one to believe that either would

be appropriate in the composer’s mind as the viola’s counterpart in the duo; however, the harp

seems to have been Porter’s preference for several reasons. Porter’s choice of Fuchs and Newell

as the first performers leads one to believe that the work was originally conceived with the harp

in mind. The holograph facsimile of the manuscript bears the title “Duo for viola and harp,”

although the part does include the registration markings (and alterations) for the harpsichord

alongside the pedal markings for the harp. Porter’s inclusion of registration markings215 for the harpsichord (provided by Ralph Kirkpatrick in the published edition) provides the harpsichordist with information regarding what octave will sound, occasionally requiring the omission of notes written for the harp. This indicates Porter altered his original composition to suit the capabilities of the harpsichord, positioning the version for harp as the original intent and, perhaps, preference. Finally, the idiomatic writing for the viola is strongly contrasting to the “somewhat awkward”216 writing for the harpsichord.

The mid-twentieth century witnessed a rising interest in historical performance,

particularly of keyboard instruments. Manuel de Falla’s El Retablo de Maese Pedro (1923)

brought attention to the harpsichord as an instrument appropriate for contemporary music

composition; this work inspired a number of concerti written for harpsichord including Concert

215 Hoxie description of registration stops; octaves. 216 Hoxie, 22.

152

Champêtre (1927-28) by Francis Poulenc, Frank Martin’s Concerto (1951), and Elliot Carter’s

Double Concerto (1961). The option of harpsichord was most likely due to Porter’s association with the Ralph Kirkpatrick, a noted performer of historical keyboard instruments and scholar.

Porter and Kirkpatrick had performed together on several occasions, as early as the Yaddo Music

Festival of 1936,217 and Kirkpatrick’s affiliation with Yale (1940–1964) further increased the

proximity of the two individuals. Porter’s interest in modal and tonal counterpoint as a

pedagogical tool and compositional method indicates his fascination with historical ideas; it

follows, then, that the application of harpsichord within the contemporary music idiom would

have been of interest to Porter. The Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord is the first example of

Porter utilizing the harpsichord, an example that seems to show Porter applying the instrument to

an already complete composition rather than writing specifically for it. Porter’s interest in

harpsichord was later demonstrated in his Concerto for harpsichord and orchestra (1959) and

Quintet for harpsichord and strings (1961), both works he wrote for Kirkpatrick.

While Porter’s inclusion of the harpsichord as an option seems to have been largely experimental, the instrumentation choice greatly impacts the work’s overall affect and success.

The timbral difference between harp and harpsichord is quite pronounced. The harp provides a roundness to the sound, a complimentary sonic effect to that of the viola’s lyrical melodies and florid figuration; it also provides a wide range within which the viola can be heard. The sound of the harpsichord is quite angular and its lack of sustain increases the chance for the viola to be heard as an equal partner in the duo. The usage of harpsichord presents a juxtaposition of epochs, a dialogue between the musical past and present, granting the work a neoclassical effect. Eliesha

Nelson included both versions in her recording of the complete viola works, providing the

217 “Old and New Works at Yaddo,” New York Times, September 6, 1936.

153

listener exposure to their unique offerings. Jerry Dubins highlights the manner in which the

version for viola and harp demonstrates “Impression of a different stripe, one with strong

overtones of the English Pastoralists, but with recurring rhythmic hoedown or fiddling episode

that could only be American.”218 Dubins aligns Porter’s usage of harpsichord to the Baroque

period: “alternately dolorous and contrapuntally energetic in a way that I suspect takes its cue

from the Bach Gamba sonatas––very beautiful.”219 While the “writing has been carefully calculated to function convincingly”220 on the harpsichord, the version for viola and harp, in my opinion, is more effective in its presentation of complimentary timbres and character.

218 Dubins, “Review of Quincy Porter: Complete Works for Viola,” Fanfare (November/December 2011): 89. 219 Ibid. 220 Michael Steinberg, “Some observations on the harpsichord in twentieth century music,” Perspectives on Music 1, vol. 2 (Spring 1963): 191.

154

Conclusion

The contemporary violist often finds themselves coursing through library catalogs, lists

of works composed, and archival collections in search of new, interesting, and hopefully

rewarding music to teach and perform. The perceived limited depth and breadth of the viola

repertoire is a commonly understood (and somewhat accepted) handicap of the teaching and

performing violist, yet there seems to be a wealth of material simply out of reach, well hidden

beneath the surface of “standard” repertoire. It was through one such a search that I came across

the music of Quincy Porter (1897–1966), specifically the Suite for viola alone (1930). The work

was no longer (at the time) in publication and I was only able to obtain the sheet music through

the wonders of InterLibrary Loan. Learning and eventually performing the Suite opened my eyes

and ears to, what seemed to me, a piece of music that held enormous value in the freshness of its

harmonic language, dynamic rhythmic profile, lyrical and expansive melodies, and overall highly

idiomatic writing for the instrument. After researching Porter, I discovered that extant resources

on his life were limited and there was little to no mention of his name within works on American

composers of the 20th century.

Porter has been largely overlooked as a composer, often being recognized for his achievements within the academy as a professor of composition and theory, and his role in organizations that served to promote contemporary American composers and their music. The

American academy consisted of a group of individuals who primarily followed traditional styles

(obviously there are exceptions) and methods of composing, typically writing in large-scale

symphonic forms. Porter’s membership within the American academy invited obvious

comparisons to individuals such as Howard Hanson, Walter Piston, and William Schuman; all

155 three of these individuals were prolific symphonists. Porter primarily composed in small-scale forms, displaying a particular fondness for string chamber music and the string quartet; outside of a handful of solo concertos with orchestra, Porter composed only two symphonies. As a result,

Porter has been dismissed as a composer due to his limited contribution to the most popular genre of his prescribed historical category; and, thus, the historical narrative that more substantially addresses the academic involvement and administrative endeavors emerged.

Ultimately, this narrative has marginalized Porter’s visibility as a composer.

My exposure to Porter’s Suite for viola alone encouraged me to think that there was more to Porter as a composer and creative figure than the literature would have me believe, that the narrative of Porter’s contribution, while highlighting significant accomplishments, was missing an even more significant feature. Quincy Porter was a violist who loved to perform chamber music in public and in private, and who contributed a one of the largest bodies of repertoire for the viola by any American composer. Reexamining the narrative of Porter’s life –– his professional and creative endeavors –– through the lens of his works originally written for viola has effectively offered a solution to understanding not only his academic achievements, but giving agency to his personal style and voice.

Porter’s catalog of works for viola parallels the trajectory of his biography and development as a composer, as well as revealing his direct influences through educational institutions, philosophies, and important individuals. The unpublished, youthful Duo for violin and viola (1917) demonstrates the composer’s nascent style, including the significant influence of his early education. Porter’s style and overall approach solidified during his time in Paris from

1928 to 1931, where he devoted his time entirely to composition; it was during this time that

Porter was able to congeal the ideas and influences of important individuals such as Lucien

156

Capet, Vincent d’Indy, and Ernest Bloch. Porter’s Suite for viola alone (1930) exemplifies the

establishment of his idiom during this time. Written in 1948, the Concerto for viola and orchestra

provides an excellent vantage of Porter as both a composer of large-scale works, and a display of his thorough understanding of the viola and the overall challenges and limitations inherent within the form of viola concerto. As a violist, Porter was able to effectively and creatively address these challenges with noted success, offering one of the most attractive works to the viola concerto repertoire. The final two works within the catalog, Duo for violin and viola (1954) and

Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957) demonstrate Porter’s idiom within the context of chamber music. Each of these works presents the tightly-knit style of motivic manipulation and formal design that typified the Porter style.

Although his methods and perspectives concerning style remained relatively unchanged after 1931, this body of work finds its value in the manner in which it prominently displays the viola in the foreground, provides the violist with highly idiomatic and grateful writing, and simply in the fact that it represents one of the most significant additions to the body of viola repertoire by an American composer. The (re)examination of narratives concerning Quincy

Porter through the lens of his works for viola provides a fresh perspective on his achievements as a composer, advocate for contemporary music, and music educator. Through original research I was able to create a biography that is reflected through analyses of the viola works, offering a new understanding of an overlooked individual. However, there is still much more to be done in regards to research and scholarship concerning Porter, particularly his activities as a violist, both as performer and instructor. The Porter Papers (MS 15) offer a wealth of information of which I was only able to partially uncover. It is my hope that this (re)examination results in performances

157 of Porter’s viola works, further scholarship, and increased overall interest so that he may truly be celebrated as an important figure within contemporary American music.

158

Bibliography

Archive collections

Museum archives and special collections. Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland.

The Quincy Porter Papers MS 15. Irving S. Gilmore Music Library Yale University, New Haven.

Books and Articles

Boatwright, Howard. “Quincy Porter (1897-1966).” Perspectives of New Music 5, no. 2 (Spring- Summer, 1967): 162–65. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.rice.edu/stable/832167.

Boatwright, Howard. “Quincy Porter.” Bulletin of the American Composers Alliance 6, no. 3 (1957), 2–9.

Boatwright, Howard and Jonas Westover. “Porter, Quincy.” Grove Music Online.

Barnett, Rob. “Review: Quincy Porter: Complete viola works,” http://www.musicweb- international.com/classrev/2010/Sept10/Porter_viola_DL90911.htm.

Barry Brenesal, “Review Rameau: Les 6 concerts en sextuor. Les Indes Galantes: Excerpts.” Fanfare 30, no. 5 (May/June 2007): 174

Carr, Maureen. Multiple masks––Neoclassicism in Stravinsky’s works on Greek subjects. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Carter, Elliott. “Walter Piston.” Musical Quarterly 32, no. 3 (July 1946): 354–375.

Clarke, Garry E. Essays on American Music. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1977. See esp. chap. 6, “Quincy Porter: Composer-Professor.”

Chamfray, Claude. “Maurice Hewitt,” trans. Aaron Conitz, Le courrier musicale de France 37, no. 1 (1972): 48.

Chase, Gilbert. America’s music, from the pilgrims to the present. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987.

159

Chevaillier, L. “Concert Quincy Porter,” Monde musical, February 28, 1931.

Cooper, Paul. Perspectives in Music Theory: An historical-analytical approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Cowell, Henry. “Review of Records.” The Musical Quarterly 42, no. 3 (July 1956): 419. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.rice.edu/stable/740442.

Demuth, Norman. Vincent d’Indy, 1851–1931; champion of classicism, a study. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1974.

Doktor, Paul. “Review of Concerto for Viola and Orchestra.” Violins and Violinists 15, no. 4 (July/August 1954): 178–81.

Dubins, Jerry. “Review of Quincy Porter: Complete Viola Works.” Fanfare (November/December 2011): 88–92.

Elwell, Herbert. “Quincy Porter.” Modern Music 23, no. 1 (Winter 1946): 20–26.

Engel, Lehman. “Yaddo Festival of Contemporary American Music,” The Saratogian, Saratoga Springs, New York, October 5, 1933.

Ewen, David. The world of twentieth-century music. 2nd ed. London: Robert Hale, 1991.

“Ferenc Molnar, 89, Is Dead; A Leading West Coast Violist,” New York Times, May 23, 1985.

Fleming, Michael and Katie Buehner. 2016 "Webster, Beveridge." Grove Music Online. https://doi-org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2293320

Flint, Catrena M. “The Schola Cantorum, Early Music and French Political Culture, from 1894 to 1914.” Ph.D. diss., McGill University, 2006.

Frank, Robert Eugene. “Quincy Porter: A survey of the mature style and a study of the second sonata for violin and piano.” DMA diss., Cornell University, 1973. RILM (1973-02042)

Hall, Willard Kent. “Quincy Porter: his life and contributions as a composer and educator (1897– 1966).” DMA diss., University of Missouri - Kansas City, 1970. ProQuest (302426087).

“Homburg American Festival,” New York Times, July 5, 1931.

Horvath, Janet “The Golden Age of Violinists.” Interlude (December 25, 2012), http://www.interlude.hk/front/the-golden-age-of-violinists/.

160

Hoxie, Jonathan David. “Music for viola and harpsichord written after 1945 by American composers: A lecture recital.” May 1997.

Joiner, Michael Bennet. “Courses in culture: the acceptance of music in the late-nineteenth century American university,” Ph.D. diss., University of California Santa Barbara (2013)

Klein, Rudolf. “Angerer, Paul.” Grove Online. Oxford Music Online. https://doi- org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.00927. (accessed January 15, 2019).

Kozinn, Alan. “A violist and his friends, assertive and collaborative,” New York Times, November 28, 2007.

Kroeger, Karl. “Review of Duo for violin and viola, by Quincy Porter in ‘Music Reviews’.” Frank C. Campbell, David Ossenkop and David Stam, eds. Notes 21, no. 1/2 (1963): 261-62. doi:10.2307/894921.

Kruse, Penny Thompson and Steven. “Remembering Joseph and Lillian Fuchs.” American String Teacher 53, no. 4 (November 2003): 58–66.

Lester, Joel. Bach’s works for solo violin: style, structure, performance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Mootz, William. “Starker solo something to savor,” Louisville Courier-Journal, January 15, 1964.

“Musicians Guild Offers Chamber Concert,” New York Times, March 12, 1957.

“New work played at Guild concert: Joseph and Lillian Fuchs offer duo for violin and viola by Quincy Porter,” New York Times, January 12, 1954.

Nott, Michael. “Roger Sessions’ fugal studies with Ernest Bloch: A glimpse into the workshop.” American Music 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1989): 245–59.

“Old and New Works at Yaddo,” New York Times, September 6, 1936.

“Music in Paris,” New York Herald, February 21, 1931.

Piston, Walter. Harmony. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1948.

161

Primrose, William. Walk on the North Side. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1978.

Porter, Quincy. “A six-year curriculum for post high school music education,” Music Teachers National Association Volume of Proceedings 25 (December 26, 1941): 273–81.

———. A study of sixteenth century counterpoint based on the works of Orlando di Lasso. Boston: Loomis, 1948.

——— . “Chamber Music,” Music Teachers National Association Volume of Proceedings 35 (1940): 273.

——— . “The Education of the American Composer.” Musicology 1, no. 1 (Fall 1945): 28–33.

———. Program notes for New Haven Symphony Orchestra, January 19, 1960. Found in accompanying booklet, Quincy Porter, George Barati –Concerto for Harpsichord and Orchestra/Harpsichord Quartet. Composer Recordings, Inc. CRI-LP-226 USD.

———. “What can Europe offer to American composers?” The Musician 38, no. 3 (March 1932): 7.

“Porter wins Coolidge medal for eminent services to chamber music,” The Washington Post, October 31, 1943.

Program notes to ASTA-MTNA Joint Contemporary String Music Forum concert, American String Teacher 2, no. 1 (January 1952): 6.

“Programs of the Week,” New York Times, January 15, 1950.

“Quincy Porter, 69, Composer, Is Dead,” New York Times, November 13, 1966.

Richardson, Susan. “Defining a place for composers: the early history of the American Composers Alliance and the American Music Center, 1937–1950.” Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1997. ProQuest (304371177).

Sabin, Robert “Westminster Festival Brings New American Works,” Musical America 58, no. 11 (June 1938): 6.

Schuller, Gunther. Review of Concerto for Viola and Orchestra by Quincy Porter. Notes 10, no. 2 (March 1953): 330–31. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.rice.edu/stable/892928.

162

Schneider, Louis. “Composers Execute Own Works at Concert of American Library.” New York Herald. February 11, 1931.

Shipps, Stephen. “The influence of Lucien Capet on teaching violin,” American String Teacher 43, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 65–70. Simms, Bryan R., Music of the twentieth century: style and structure. New York: Schirmer Books, 1996.

Smith, Cecil Michener. “Spring Festival Review.” Modern Music 12, no. 4 (May/June 1935): 196.

Smith, David Stanley. “A Study of Horatio Parker.” The Musical Quarterly 16, no. 2 (April 1930): 153–169.

“Society Honors Two Composers,” New York Times, June 9, 1936.

Steinberg, Michael. “Some observations on the harpsichord in twentieth century music.” Perspectives on Music 1, vol. 2 (Spring 1963): 189–194.

Temme, Walter. “The symphonic works of Quincy Porter: A conductor’s guide.” DMA diss., Arizona State University, 1989.

Thomson, Andrew. Vincent D’Indy and his world. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Tilmouth, Michael. “Moto perpetuo” Grove Online. Oxford Online. https://doi- org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.19224.

Walsh, Stephen. “Stravinsky, Igor.” Grove Online, 2001. https://doi- org.ezproxy.rice.edu/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.52818.

Music

Porter, Quincy. Concerto for viola and orchestra (1948). New York: Associated Music Publishers, 1951.

———. Duo for viola and harp or harpsichord (1957). Holograph manuscript in Porter Papers MS 15 at Irving S. Gilmore Music Library Yale University, New Haven.

———. Duo for violin and viola (1917). Unpublished autograph manuscript in Porter Papers, MS 15. Irving S. Gilmore Music Library Yale University, New Haven.

———. Duo for violin and viola (1954). Northampton, MA: Valley Music Press, 1962.

163

———. Duo for violin and viola (1954). Holograph manuscript in Porter Papers, MS 15 Irving S. Gilmore Music Library Yale University, New Haven.

———. Suite for viola alone (1930). American Viola Society Publications 008, 2015.

———. Speed Etude (1948). American Viola Society Publications 007, 2017.