THE FEDERAL MUSIC PROJECT:

IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY

By

Wynsor Rebekah Taylor

Submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

In

Arts Management

Chair:

~ herburne Laug ·· · ~/114 ·,e. ~ _,/ A'"tfuee Fullman

1 Date '

2010

American University

Washington, D.C. 20016 AMERICAN Ui\HVERSITY LIBAARY. UMI Number: 1484847

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI __..,Dissertation Publishing.___

UMI 1484847 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Pro uesr --- --....

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml48106-1346 THE FEDERAL MUSIC PROJECT:

IMPLICATIONS FOR TODAY

By Wynsor Rebekah Taylor

ABSTRACT

As one of the work relief programs established as part of President Franklin

Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, The Federal Music Project employed musicians throughout the United States. During its eight year tenure, the Federal Music Project employed more individuals than any of the other Federal One Projects while avoiding much ofthe sharp criticism facing art projects of the day. This historical study traces the development and history of the Federal Music Project in order to draw lessons from this successful program to apply to future federally funded arts programs.

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL MUSIC PROJECT ...... ! I

3. LESSONS LEARNED ...... 53

4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 77

111 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

At a time when the world faces economic uncertainty, many individuals fmd themselves looking to the Great Depression and Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal for understanding and inspiration. This era also served as a platform for the greatest experimentation in publicly funded art in the history of the United States with the Federal

One Projects of the Works Progress Administration. While many of these projects faced intense scrutiny and were arguably used as scapegoats to reduce the scope of federal relief, the Federal Music Project (FMP) escaped such accusations.

The Federal Music Project was successful for many reasons. During its tenure, the Federal Music Project reached a vast audience, employed the largest workforce of all the arts projects, and avoided leftist leanings and accusations more than all of its other

Federal One counterparts. 1 In June of 1936 alone, 12.7 million Americans attended one or more of the 26,372 FMP performances? At its height, the Federal Music Project had

15,842 workers on its rolls in various divisions.3 Furthermore, the FMP operated until

1943, nearly four years after Congress passed the Emergency ReliefAppropriations Act

1 Nick Taylor, American-Made: The Enduring Legacy of the WPA: When FDR Put the Nation to Work (New York: Bantam Books, 2008), 287.

2 "Report on Performance and Attendance from Inception to March 31, 1938," Monthly Performance and Attendance Reports, compiled 111936-4/1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

3 Taylor, American-Made, 289. 1 2

that legislated the Federal Theatre Project out of existence after individuals raised concerns over the FTP's "communist nature".4

At its inception in 1935, the Federal Music Project received a budget of

$7,641,814 from the WPA. 5 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population ofthe

United States in 1935 was 127,250,232.6 Therefore, the United States government spent

$0.06 per person on FMP activities alone. Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to

$0.94 per person.7 In comparison, in 2009, the NEA received $155 million dollars from the federal government to fund art programs around the country. 8 During the same time, the estimated population of the United States was 305,529,237.9 Therefore, in 2009, the

United States only spent $0.51 per person on federally funded arts projects. When one compares this level of financial investment to that made by the federal government to the activities of the FMP, it suggests value in the structure of the FMP. The researcher seeks

4 George Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment The Federal Music Project 1935-1939, The WPA Music Program 1939-1943," Final Report on the Accomplishments of the Music Program compiled 6/1943, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, viii.

5 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project, Nikolai Sokoloff, Director Works Progress Administration, Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 8.

6 U.S. Census Bureau, "Historical National Population Estimates: July I, 1900 to July 1, 1999,"; available from http://www .census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

7 Inflation Calculator, "The Changing Value of a Dollar," Dollar Times; available from http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

8 National Endowment for the Arts, "NEA at a Glance,"; available from http://www.arts.gov/about/Facts/AtAGiance.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

9 U.S. Census Bureau, "Census Bureau Projects U.S. Population of305.5 Million on New Year's Day,"; available from http://www.census.gov/Press­ Release/www/releases/archives/population/OI3127.html; Internet; accessed 21 April201 0. 3

to uncover such value through this study so that future federally funded arts programs can apply this model to their structure.

Tracing the history of the Federal Music Project and studying its model of operation provide lessons which both government officials and arts managers can apply to current and future initiatives in publicly funded art. The lessons of the FMP reach beyond artistic discipline and decade to provide a successful model for federal arts funding in the United States.

Purpose

The purpose of this historical study is to ascertain an understanding of the historical significance of the Federal Music Project. This study also seeks to uncover explanations for the success of the Federal Music Project with the hopes of enhancing actions for future federal arts funding.

Research Question

What implications for future federal arts funding can lawmakers, government officials and arts managers glean from the successes ofthe Federal Music Project?

Need for the Study

Lawmakers and citizens alike scrutinize government funding, including funding dedicated to the arts. The largest and most recognizable annual national funder of the arts in the United States, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), funds existing arts organizations. Recently, Public Law 111-5, The American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act of2009, allotted an additional $50 million to the NEA to help preserve jobs in the 4

arts. 10 During its tenure, the Federal Music Project used its funding to create jobs in the arts by forming new performing groups and educational experiences. Such a shift in mindset has many implications and this study seeks to draw lessons from the past which are applicable to such a restructuring of the federal arts funding model in the United

States. However, it is important to note that this study does not necessarily advocate for an increase in the amount of federal funding for the arts. Instead, this study seeks to ascertain ways in which the organizers of federally funded arts programs can spend the money appropriated to the arts more wisely.

If a new model is necessary, it is important to seek lessons from previous models in order to promote carefully planned progress. The history of the New Deal, the role of the Federal Music Project, and lessons learned from their experiences profoundly apply to the present day. Selecting the right personnel, making a case to the public, and meeting the needs of both the artists and the community are vital to any program's success. While other researchers have explored various aspects of the Federal Music

Project, no comprehensive study in existence specifically analyzes the successes of the

Federal Music Project with the intentions of finding lessons to apply to future federal funding.

Delimitation

The scope of this study focused on the general history of the Federal Music

Project as a working model for future federally funded arts programs. In depth research was not conducted on each branch of the FMP nor was a complete history of federal arts

1 ~ational Endowment for the Arts, "The Arts and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009, Public Law 111-5 ("Recovery Act")"; available from http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/recovery/. Internet; accessed 10 April2010. 5

funding in the United States explored. This study does not seek to uncover specific issues of financial management or accounting practices ofthe 1930s and 1940s, thus the researcher did not consult records related to such items. Even though other arts projects existed under Federal One, the researcher chose to focus on the Federal Music Project as an example of success in federal funding due to its avoidance of controversy, its level of funding, and its ability to reach a vast national audience. While government officials and arts managers may find comprehensive studies of the other art projects in the New Deal beneficial to future funding models, such research does not fall within the scope of this study.

For the purposes of this study, the researcher defines "art" based on the NEA's funding categories and typical grantees. These funding categories include artist communities, arts education, dance, folk and traditional arts, literature, media arts, museums, music, musical theater, opera, theater, and visual arts. 11 Within these categories, one sees a very traditional, academic concept of art. Upon reviewing the list ofNEA grantees, one quickly notes the same organizations appear throughout the years.

In fact, "the endowment has consistently and unashamedly championed the same academically sanctioned version of the arts." 12 With this continued support, the United

States government communicates that it approves of this kind of art. Since this study seeks to find lessons which will apply to current or future funding, this model of federally

11 National Endowment for the Arts, "Recent Grants by Discipline,"; available from http://www.arts.gov/grants/recent/index_ 02.html; Internet; accessed 21 April 2010.

12 James Bau Graves, Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005), 118. 6

approved art provides the parameters for the type of art which is most likely to receive government funding in the future.

Since the time of the New Deal, the United States has experienced remarkable change. Today, the face of the U.S. includes growing Hispanic and Asian populations with one in ten ofthe nation's population foreign bom. 13 According to the New York

Times, between July 2007 and July 2008, 48% of the children born in the United States were minorities. 14 Compared with data from 1990, when non-Hispanic whites accounted for almost two-thirds ofbirths in the United States, one can easily see that the country's demographic composition will continue to change in the future. 15 In fact, the U.S.

Census Bureau predicts that by 2042 minorities will be the majority in the country. 16

During the same time period, as baby boomers continue to age and medical advancements extend life expectancy, the U.S. population over the age of eighty-five will likely triple. 17 The researcher recognizes that these changes to the population of the

United States influence both federal funding and the kinds of art currently produced in the country. In this way, the concept of what is "American" is different than it was

13 Bill Ivey. "Introduction: The Quest of Participation," in Engaging Art: The Next Great Transformation ofAmerica's Cultural Life, eds. Steven Tepper and Bill lvey (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008), 8.

14 Sam Roberts, "Births to Minorities Are Approaching Majority in U.S." The New York Times, II March 2010; available from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/us/12census.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

15 lbid.

16 U.S. Census Bureau, "An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury,"; available from http://www .census. gov/Press-Release/www /releases/archives/populati on/0 12496 .html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

17 Ibid. 7

during the time of the FMP. Furthermore, as this shift in the composition of the United

States continues it may have future implications on the results of this study.

The terminology used in this study reflects the historical era of focus. Therefore, the use of "American" or "America" in this paper is not meant to perpetuate hegemony or imperialism but to maintain the integrity and historical accuracy of the time period surrounding the Federal Music Project.

Methodology and Sources

The researcher conducted a historical study on the Federal Music Project using traditional qualitative research methodology. The researcher created an in-depth and detailed program evaluation of the Federal Music Project in an attempt to transfer knowledge and best practices to future funding. All historical resources were evaluated by the researcher to ensure that those selected offered the strongest insight when addressing the research questiori:

After creating a list of materials related to the history of the Federal Music

Project, the researcher narrowed potential sources based on scholarly reliability and relevance to topic. These secondary sources include scholarly articles and books on the

New Deal, Federal One, and the Federal Music Project which were accessed via the library and the internet.

To further validate these findings, the researcher consulted primary sources. The primary sources investigated for this study are located at the National Archives II in

College Park, Maryland and The Library of Congress's Performing Arts Reading Room in Washington, D.C. These primary sources consist of government reports and manuals, 8

official correspondence, and meeting transcripts. As these materials are held in secure locations, the researcher was required to register with each organization to gain access to these materials. As with previous sources, all materials viewed at these institutions were examined for new potential facts and to corroborate the information discovered in secondary source work. The researcher undertook this process of source accreditation in an effort to achieve triangulation to validate this qualitative study. 18

Limitations

Because the Federal Music Project existed decades in the past, this qualitative study faced a number of limitations. First, since the Federal Music Project existed over seventy-five years ago, all ofthe government officials who were integral in its development and operation are now deceased making personal interviews impossible.

Furthermore, due to a lack of reporting standards during the term of the Federal Music

Project, the information which is available through government reports and records varies in consistency throughout the legacy of the project. Nevertheless, the primary sources consulted answer many of the questions the researcher would have posed to employees if interviews had been possible.

It is also important to note that technically the Federal Music Project was an employment program which happened to help artists not an artistic program which was federally funded. George Foster, the final director of the Federal Music Project, wrote

"neither the Federal Music Project nor the WP A Music Program constituted a

18 Gretchen Rossman and Sharon Rallis, Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2"d ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc., 2003), 69. 9

governmental subsidy ofmusic."19 Nevertheless, artists were employed, art was created, and communities were impacted through this federally funded program. While Congress may not have intended their creation ofthe Federal One Projects as a government subsidy ofart,20 the fact remains that in the eyes ofthe public, the quality ofwork undertaken provided outstanding contributions to the American cultural force. 21 This view was also held by respected musicians. When interviewed during a Composers Forum-Laboratory,

Dr. Howard Hanson said that the Federal Music Project marked "the first time in the history of [the United States that] the Government has awakened to the fact that there is such a thing as music!"22 For these reasons, one cannot ignore the Federal One Projects and their contributions to the culture of the United States and thus serve as models for future federal arts funding.

Organization of Study

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter presents the purpose, procedure and organization of the study including the limitations of historical research.

19 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," ii.

20 I bid., 48.

21 "Manual for Oklahoma WPA Music Project Teachers Issued Under the Direction of Merle Montgomery, Assistant State Supervisor in Charge ofEducation ,"Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1.

22 " Transcript of New York City Forum March 17, 1937 Dr. Howard Hanson," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 10

Chapter 2: History of the Federal Music Project

In this chapter, the researcher outlines the events which led to the development of the Federal Music Project and traces its history from its inception to its disbandment.

Additionally, a description of policies and procedures utilized during the project's tenure exists to allow for comparison to current project models as well as to provide a supportive structure for the lessons learned.

Chapter 3: Lessons Learned

The researcher explores the successful operating principles of the Federal Music

Project in this section.

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research

Included in this chapter are applications of this study to future federal arts projects and suggestions for further research which will support these endeavors. CHAPTER2

HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL MUSIC PROJECT

Development of the Federal Music Project

At the time of President Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933, "as many as 15 million people-a quarter of the nation's workers-had no jobs and no hope of finding one.23 According to the Department of Commerce, between 1929 and 1932, 30% ofthe salaried workers and 42% of wage earners in mining, manufacturing, construction and transportation were unemployed. 24 Artists suffered even greater percentages of unemployment. In New York alone, 12,000 of 15,000 local members of the American

Federation of Musicians were unemployed in 1933.25 Nationwide, "as many as two- thirds of professional musicians in the United States"26 were unemployed and only eleven

"privately funded" orchestras remained in existence.27

Even though musicians were hard hit by the Great Depression, their unemployment problems began long before wealthy patrons saw their portfolios plummet

23 Taylor, American-Made, Prologue.

24 Harry Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression to Professional, Technical and Other Service Workers, Dated May 18, 1936," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 3.

25 Taylor, American-Made, 283.

26 James Findlay and Margaret Bing, The WPA: An Exhibition of Works Progress Administration (WP A) Literature and Art from the Collections ofthe Bienes Center for the Literary Arts (Ft. Lauderdale: Bienes Center for the Literary Arts, 1998), 8.

27 Taylor, American-Made, 283. 11 12

on October 29, 1929. In fact, there were technological advancements in the previous

decade that compounded the musicians' plight. Talking pictures eliminated the need for

live orchestras to accompany silent films. 28 In 1926, 22,000 musicians were employed in

the silent movie industry but "by 1934 that number dwindled to just over 4,000" as sound

film and records became widely available.29 With the spread of radio and phonograph

recordings the demand for live music declined still further especially in restaurants, pubs

and hotels. 30 Even well-established cultural centers like New York were not immune to

this trend. During the Great Depression, the New York Symphony and the New York

Philharmonic merged into one organization drastically cutting back on their personnel. 31

Music teachers watched helplessly as their students withdrew from lessons. 32

Unemployed and without the prospect of new work, professional musicians "were among

the first to feel the full tragic impact of the depression. "33

The road to the establishment of the Federal Music Project began with the Public

Works of Art Project which developed through advocacy. Alfred Barr, director of the

Museum of Modem Art in New York, coupled with George Biddle, a muralist and

college classmate of President Roosevelt helped develop all federal art relief. After

watching the plight and lack of hope experienced by many artists, Barr began to believe

28 Taylor, American-Made, 283.

29 Jane Mathews, "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy," The Journal ofAmerican History 62 (1975): 321.

3°Kenneth Bindas, All ofThis Music Belongs to the Nation: The WPA 's Federal Music Project and American Society (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995), 1.

31 "A Preliminary Report ofthe Work of the Federal Music Project," 7.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid. 13

that the government should offer relief to artists as well as laborers. Barr spoke with many government officials, promoting this idea as often as he could. The breakthrough came when he mentioned it to a "young girl who was a member of the family of a

Cabinet member and she ... persuaded her parent to bring the matter to the attention of the

President."34 Meanwhile, in May 1933, Biddle wrote a letter to President Roosevelt advocating for a mural project.35 FDR liked the idea and responded by suggesting Biddle discuss this with Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Robert who was in charge of the

Public Building Work.36 On November 29, 1933, Assistant Secretary Robert released a statement encouraging the expansion of relief provisions to include the fine arts.37

Shortly thereafter, Federal Emergency Relief Agency (FERA) director Harry Hopkins promised $1,039,000 ofFERA's funding to get the Public Works of Art Project

(P.W.A.P.) started.38

The particulars of this new project were discussed on December 8 during a meeting at the home of Edward Bruce that included Eleanor Roosevelt, leaders in

American art, museum directors, and government officials. 39 This was the birth of the

Public Works of Art Project. Even though Hopkins's funds employed just a few artists, actors, and musicians, they had lasting effects. First, Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the

34 Joel Bernstein, "The Artist and the Government: The P.W.A.P.," in Challenges in American Culture, eds. Ray Browne, Larry Landrum and William Bottorff(Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1970), 70.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid., 71.

39 Ibid. 14

Treasury, authorized "a Section of Fine Arts ... which put visual artists to work decorating public buildings" in 1934.40 At the same time, the Civil Works Administration (CWA) developed the Civil Works Service (CWS) which employed a few musicians emphasizing educational and recreational music.41 However there was no direction or supervision from the CWA. 42 The advocacy efforts and these advancements eventually led to legislation. In June of 1934, an Emergency Appropriation Act made special grants available to states that created professional and non-manual projects which encouraged, among other things, the development of state orchestras in New Hampshire, Alabama,

Idaho, and North Carolina.43

FERA and the CWA

On May 12, 1933, Congress created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration

(FERA) "to aid the states in meeting the costs of both direct relief and work relief to the unemployed."44 During its tenure, FERA employed an average of two million workers each month.45 Initially many of those employed by FERA worked in manual labor.

Teachers were the first "service workers" assisted by FERA with thirty-three states receiving grants to help reopen rural schools thus employing some 33,000 individuals and

40 Mathews, "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy," 318.

41 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 2.

42 Ibid.

43 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 3.

44 Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression," 5.

45 Ibid., 10. 15

educating over a million children.46 The undertaking of such "white-collar" work paved the way for the employment of musicians. These ventures into "white-collar" work were important because musicians, especially instrumentalists, faced the very real danger of injury to their skilled hands with the heavy manual labor which appeared in the early federal work programs.47

Many precedents for future federal employment funding that were later seen in the Federal Music Project were set with FERA. First, federal funding was set to stimulate local employment rather than to replace it. Therefore, FERA projects were logical extensions of the work provided by existing public institutions.48 FERA also established the mingling of federal, state, and local sponsorship of projects.49 Another concept established during the FERA era was that relief wages should be lower than local prevailing wages so as not to cause competition with local employers. 5° Of course this policy had a dual purpose. Workers would be enticed to accept positions in private employment where the wages were higher. Furthermore, with lower wages in FERA more workers would be employed.51 From its launch in mid-November 1933, to its ending in mid-March 1934, FERA employed 4.5 million Americans (including the Public

Works Administration, Civil Conservation Corps, Civil Works Administration and the

Civil Works Service) with more than ten percent of these workers employed in "white-

46 Ibid., 5.

47 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project," 8.

48 Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression," 7.

49 Ibid., 8.

50 Ibid., 9.

51 Ibid. 16

2 collar" positions. 5 The average monthly wage was $27.70 which was only enough to

3 cover basic needs. 5 FERA employees were eligible for other government programs which supplemented food and clothing costs if this salary did not provide for their family. 54 A third lesson FERA established was the need for federal employees of such programs to come from relief rolls. 55 This mandate remained true through the years of the

Federal Music Project.

In preparation for an expansion of the experimental employment of artists, Glenn

Tindall submitted a proposal to FERA outlining what a federally funded music project could look like. Tindall suggested that such a project should have a music administrator who would appoint an advisory committee of "outstanding, well-recognized, musicians of America, including representatives from musical associations."56 Tindall further suggested dividing the country into four territories-Eastern, Western, Central,

Southern--each headed by a volunteer administrator. 57 He maintained that the precedent set forth by the FERA projects be maintained and that all federally-funded music projects undertaken avoid competition with local groups. 58 Tindall suggested five areas for a federal music project: orchestra, music conservation camps, concert bands, recreational

52 Ibid., 7.

53 Ibid., 10.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Glenn Tindall, "Tentative Suggestions Regarding a Proposed Music Project for Consideration of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Submitted February 1934," Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 2.

57 Ibid., 3.

58 Ibid., 7. 17

music, and opera companies. 59 He estimated that these five projects would employee

5,670 individuals at a cost of two million dollars.60 The Federal Music Project became more than just a suggestion and at its height employed three times as many Americans as

Tindall estimated.

The experimental, emergency projects under FERA and the CWA became the

Federal Music Project which received nearly a third of all the funds Hopkins made available to sponsor Federal Project Number One.61 The funding was appropriated as

• Federal Art Project $2,490,864 • Federal Music Project $7,126,862 • Federal Theatre Project $6,154,768 • Federal Writers' Project $2,848,991

Dr. Nikolai Sokoloff, Director of the Federal Music Project {1935-1939)

In April 1935, acting upon a suggestion from FDR, the 74th Congress passed

Public Resolution No. 11 which reorganized the entire works program and created the

Works Progress Administration replacing the CWA and the P.W.A.P.63 This resolution appropriated $4,880,000,000 for reliefpurposes.64 Four months later, Harry Hopkins

59 Ibid., 5-9.

60 Ibid., 9.

61 "A Preliminary Report ofthe Work of the Federal Music Project," 8.

62 Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression," 12.

63 Bernstein, "The Artist and the Government: The P.W.A.P.," 72.

64 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 3. 18

authorized Federal Project One and due to the widespread unemployment of musicians, the Federal Music Project was one of the first WPA projects organized.65 Hopkins allotted $7,126,862 to the Federal Music Project.66 Designed to provide employment to professional musicians registered on relief rolls, the FMP sought opportunities for musicians as both performers and teachers ofmusic.67

Hopkins tapped Dr. Nikolai Sokoloff to head the Federal Music Project. Sokoloff was an accomplished musician and extremely intelligent. However, Hopkins choice of

Dr. Sokoloff to head the Federal Music Project was not universally applauded.68 Some were concerned that he was foreign born and would try to impart his non-American ideas on the program.69 Ironically, though, "among the first steps of the Federal Music Project was the emphasis on works by American composers in all concert programs."70 In fact, by July 1936, more than 1,500 compositions by 540 American composers had been performed by orchestras and bands of the FMP not including dance music or popular songs."71 However, most of the complaints regarding Sokoloff came from members of the music community who saw him as "a musical snob."72 In light of these concerns and

65 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 3.

66 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 3.

67 "Federal Music Project Manual: Preliminary Statement oflnformation, Dated October 1935," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 1.

68 Taylor, American-Made, 283.

69 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 5.

7°Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 11.

71 Ibid.

72 Taylor, American Made, 284. 19

earlier recommendations made through the Tindall memo, Hopkins and Sokoloff established a twenty-five member advisory committee for the Federal Music Project.73

Federal Music Project National Advisory Committee74

• Dr. Walter Damrosch-composer, conductor • Olin Downes-New York Times music critic • William Earhart-Supervisor of Public School Music (in Pittsburg) • Carl Engel-President, G. Schirmer, Inc. • Rudolph Ganz-President of Chicago Musical College • George Gershwin-composer • Wallace Goodrich-Director, New England Conservatory of Music • Dorothy Gordon-concert artist, Exponent of Children's Programs Columbia "School of the Air" • Dr. Howard Hanson-Director of Eastman School of Music, composer • Alfred Hertz-conductor, San Francisco Symphony Orchestra • Mrs. John Alexander Jardine-President, National Federation Music Clubs • Edward Johnson-Director General Metropolitan Opera Company • Walter Kramer-composer, editor of"Musical America" • Dr. Hans Kindler-conductor, National Symphony Orchestra • John Powell-concert pianist, composer, Folk Festival Authority • Olga Samaroff Stokowski-concert pianist, on faculty at the Juilliard School • Carleton Sprague Smith-Director ofthe Music Division, New York Public Library • Mrs. Frederick Steinway-President, National Music League, Inc. • Leopold Stokowski-conductor, Philadelphia Orchestra • Joseph Weber-President, American Federation of Musicians • Paul Whiteman-director of dance music • Augustus D. Zansig-Director, National Recreation Association • Frederick Stock-conductor, Chicago Symphony • Lawrence Tibbett-American baritone, Member of Metropolitan Opera company

Formed to help create standards for examinations and to give advice on methods to be pursued in achieving the aims of the FMP/5 the National Advisory Committee in

73 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 6.

74 "A Preliminary Report of the Work ofthe Federal Music Project," 4.

75 Ibid. 20

actuality did very little. 76 In fact, the researcher found no record of this group ever meeting. The reason Sokoloff chose not to convene the committee and seek their advice is unknown. This poor governance decision cost Sokoloff a wealth of experiential knowledge and remains an example of an area in which future federally funded arts groups can surpass the success of the FMP.

The battle between providing music to all and providing high-quality music remained a balancing act during the Federal Music Project's existence. 77 Even with the creation ofthe National Advisory Committee and a strong administrative staff in the national office, Sokoloff did little to help alter his elitist image and it is undeniable that

"as with each of the directors of the Federal One projects, Sokoloffs background would shape the goals of the project he headed."78 Therefore, it is not surprising that Sokoloffs love of classical music and European upbringing led him to decide "from the start that he would give Americans a diet of classics in order to improve their taste" and would only include "refined" American music in Federal Music Project presentations.79 Sokoloff further stated, "I do not think it is our business to [employ] every Tom, Dick, or Harry who has no musical ability."80 Simply put, the administration had "no intention of

76 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 82.

77 Neal Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," in Challenges in American Culture, eds. Ray Browne, Larry Landrum, and William Bortoff (Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1970), 89.

78 Taylor, American-Made, 284.

79 lbid.

80 "Minutes of Regional Meeting Held in Boston, June 22-24, 1938," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 3. 21

fostering incompetence"81 and Sokoloff worked to create a project that would rise above the "shoddy performances by shabby musicians who operated without careful planning" which seemed to be the general characteristics of pre-WP A music work relief. 82

According to the FMP Manual Sokoloff issued in October 1935, the purpose of the Federal Music Project was "to establish high standards of musicianship, to rehabilitate musicians by assisting them to become self-supporting; to retrain musicians, and to educate the public in an appreciation of musical opportunities."83 From the project's purpose statement, Sokoloff and his staff developed five major goals for the

Federal Music Project:

1. Provide employment assistance for musicians on relief rolls. 2. Establish high standards by classifying musicians. 3. Stimulate community interest. 4. Create an intelligent musical public. 5. Demonstrate to the public the constructive work done by the government to combat the depression84

Rehabilitations and Training ofReliefMusicians

In an effort to rehabilitate and train musicians, the Federal Music Project offered many opportunities for relief musicians to explore and to refine their skills. As previously mentioned, many movie musicians were unemployed and naturally found themselves on the relief rolls and then working for the FMP. Orchestra rehearsals offered

81 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project," 5.

82 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 6.

83 "Federal Music Project Manual," I.

84 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, I. 22

these former movie musicians the training necessary to perform with symphonies. 85 Such training was intended to prepare them to support themselves off of federal relief. In the case of dance musicians, the FMP gave them opportunities to learn to double an instrument making them more marketable in the private sector. 86 For example, saxophonists would learn to play both the flute and the clarinet. Institutes on conducting techniques for FMP conductors were held in Wisconsin and Massachusetts.87 Training offerings also focused on educational techniques because performing musicians could work as public or private teachers thus affording them a means by which to supplement their income. 88 Those musicians who worked specifically as teachers were offered training opportunities as well. By January 1936, the FMP had offered twenty different courses on educational theory asking each relief educator to attend three different courses.89

Auditions

His focus on cultured music and professionalism led Sokoloff to develop a classification system that rated "musicians according to their skills [so that] those who read music would receive employment more quickly than those who played by ear and

85 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 194.

86 Ibid., 195.

87 Ibid., 207.

88 Ibid., 195.

89 "A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 1937 for the Sirovich Committee," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 14. 23

those with classical training had a considerable advantage."90 Each state director of the

Federal Music Project compiled an audition board consisting of prominent musicians in the local community which had to gain approval by the federal or regional director.91 As part of their duties, these audition and classification boards were to consult with state and district divisions to attempt some consistency but this proved difficult.92

According to the Federal Music Project's October 1935 manual, the audition board could consist of three to five people of non-relief status and where necessary members of the audition committee could receive payment for their services.93 Members of the audition or classification board were paid no more than $5.00 per three hour session and no more than $10.00 per day.94 Three hours constituted an audition period with a required interval between audition periods to ensure that the judges could rest and thus more fairly judge the applicants.95 During the three hour audition period no more than twenty musicians could be auditioned.96 The manual further stated that "first-rate accompanists from relief rolls" be assigned to accompany auditionees noting that a poor performing accompanist had the ability to "spoil any examination regardless of the ability

90 Taylor, American-Made, 285.

91 William McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts: The Origins and Administrative History of the Arts Projects ofthe Works Progress Administration (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969), 198.

92 Ibid. 609.

93 "Federal Music Project Manual," 5.

94 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 198.

95 "Federal Music Project Manual," 5.

96 Ibid. 24

of the artist."97 In areas without approved accompanists, one of the members of the

Audition Board was required to be a skilled pianist. 98

The audition judges used Forms 20M and 21M to interview and score the auditions.99 Form 20M was a general information form with places to record the auditionee's age, sex, color, height, weight, and overall physical condition in addition to their employment and salary history which included any previous work performed under the CWA or ERA. 100 Interestingly, the researcher did not find any record of bias based on age or ethnicity even thought the recording of such factors on an employment application are discourage today to help avoid discrimination. Form 20M also requested judges record any experience the auditionee possessed in administrative duties such as accounting, bookkeeping, or stenography. 101 After conversing with the Audition

Committee regarding his or her background information, the auditionee was then asked to perform a passage from a standard work for their instrument which was followed by a more difficult standard work. 102 These passages tended to come from classical works. 103

The examination concluded with a sight-reading passage from either a little-known work

97 lbid., 5.

98"Federal Music Project Manual," 5-6.

99 Ibid., 6.

100 "Federal Music Project Manual," Appendix, WPA Form 20M.

101 Ibid., 3.

102 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 169.

103 Ibid., 170. 25

or a work written by one of the committee members to test auditionees' musical

. 104 11teracy.

The audition process for music educators manifested itself differently than performers. According the FMP Manual, teacher applicants were required to have a specialization in subjects and/or instruments. 105 Furthermore audition committees requested auditionees to present five pieces in their present or previous repertoire while considering their professional attitude including cooperation, sense of responsibility, genuine interest in teaching, openness to suggestions, and their best project placement. 106

In actuality, there was no real way to assess the educational aptitude of applicants in an audition setting, so committees tended to rely heavily on the individual's background for guidance. 107 Basically the accepted standards for educators were proof of"good" training, the able to perform several examples of what they taught and a display of sound musicianship. 108 In many ways, these standards are much akin to the criteria used to hire music educators in schools today.

WPA Form 21M asked judges to describe the "appearance and manner of soloist[ s ]" in addition to scoring auditionees on tone, technique, rhythmic integrity, phrasing, intelligence of interpretation, sight-reading ability, style, intonation, quality of

104 Ibid., 169.

105 "Federal Music Project Manual," 8.

106 Ibid.

107 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 188.

108 "Federal Music Project Manual," 8. 26

sound, tone production, breathing technique, and diction. 109 If the applicant was a teacher they were also scored on overall "sound musicianship". 110

At the conclusion of the audition, committee members compared their individual score sheets and came to a majority opinion regarding the auditionee. 111 Auditionees were rated A through D with A and B being accepted for FMP employment, C reclassified and D unemployable in the field of music. 112 The higher a musician's classification, the higher the individual's pay .113 This difference in pay and even the very existence ofthis classification system drew contempt from the American Federation of

Musicians as they wanted their members employed and paid regardless of their audition results. 114 With political pressure mounting, Sokoloff eventually gave in and paid all performing musicians $23.86 per week regardless of their standing in the classification system. 115

However, Sokoloff's debates with the unions did not stop with wages. He wanted eight performances a week while the unions pressured him to keep them to five. 116 In

January 1936, the White House ended the debates by requiring an increase in hours or a

109 "Federal Music Project Manual," Appendix, WPA Form 21M.

110 Ibid.

111 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 170.

112 "Federal Music Project Manual," 9.

113 Taylor, American-Made, 285.

114 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 609.

115 Taylor, American-Made, 285.

116 Bindas, All ofThis Music Belongs to the Nation, 8. 27

loss in relief status, so the unions caved. 117 All FMP musicians were included in the salary grade "Professional and Technical" established by the Division of Employment thus receiving the highest rate paid to any security wage employee. 118 While there were periodic requests for the establishment of multiple rates for musicians "Dr. Sokoloff maintained that none but professional musicians should be employed by the FMP and therefore those that were employed should receive the Professional wage rate.""9

However Appendix A ofthe Revision of Operating Procedure No. E-9 dated November

10, 1939, established two rates ofpay-"skilled" or "professional and technical"-for musicians, music copyists, arrangers and music teachers. 120

Work Assignment

Even with complex audition systems, the Federal Music Project ran into some limitations in worker assignment as a federal work relief program. The Division of

Employment prohibited "predesignation of personnel" which intended to prevent favoritism in all federally funded projects. For example, a construction foreman would submit a request for a specific number of positions for a project. Then, names of eligible workers were drawn from files in the employment division that matched the request so that a boss could not select his friends. 121 While this policy was good in theory, it limited

FMP projects because there was a distinct difference in skill sets between jazz trumpeters

117 Ibid.

118 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 172.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid., 173.

121 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 175-6. 28

and classical trumpeters but officially recording this on an auditionee's sheet was considered a predesignation of personnel. 122 To combat this, in many states it became an unspoken practice "to submit requisitions by occupational classifications with an attached penciled note with the names of the musicians needed". 123

Programming

In order to employ the musicians who auditioned, local communities developed projects and submitted requests for approval for funding through the FMP. Each project required project administrators to completed WPA Form 320 which asked many of the same questions as present day grant applications. 124 There were very general check box lists for all cultural activities related to this proposed project and localities cited other funding secured to pay for the costs of the program. By the end of 1935, WPA Form 330 replaced Form 320 and was noted as a remarkable improvement. 125

At its height, the Federal Music Project had 15,842 workers on its rolls in various divisions. 126 All in all, there were ten basic classifications available for FMP projects:

1. Symphony and Concert Orchestras 2. Dance Orchestras 3. Bands 4. Chamber Music Ensembles 5. Vocal Quartets and Ensembles 6. Instrumental and Vocal Soloists 7. Grand Opera, Operetta, Opera Comique and Chamber Opera

122 Ibid., 176.

123 Ibid., 177.

124 Ibid., 264-5.

125 Ibid., 266.

126 Taylor, American-Made, 289. 29

8. Teaching of Music and Music Appreciation 9. Employment and use of music librarians, music copyists, music binders, piano tuners, instrument repairers, etc. 10. Other127

The concert branch of the Federal Music Project offered performances "in communities and outlying areas." 128 The FMP concert units performed in a variety of venues seeking to reach audiences in their comfort zones. Between January 1 and

September 15, 1936, thirty-two million Americans attended Federal Music Project performances with tickets ranging from complimentary to $0.50. 129 (Both the Federal

Theatre Project and the Federal Music Project charged admission to some of their events.

Any profit generated through ticket sales went either to the state account or to pay for

130 non-personnel project costs. ) In the case of the FMP, the admission policy was guided by a fear that making all concerts free of charge would cause unfair competition with local performing groups and "develop audiences which would not expect to pay for their music."131 Still, it was the Depression and organizers realized that admission costs should be reasonable. During its tenure, those programs which charged admission had prices which hovered around the cost of a movie ticket ($0.25 to $0.50) with no price set above $1.00. 132 The profit received from admissions generally paid for any non-labor

127 "Federal Music Project Manual," 10.

128 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 608.

129 Taylor, American-Made, 287.

130 "Works Progress Administration Operating Procedure No. F-45, Procedure for Business Manager-Agent Cashier," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 16-7.

131 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 56.

132 Ibid., 57, 59. 30

costs the project incurred and then the cooperating local sponsor would receive a portion of these funds to replenish their investment. 133

American Music and Folk Music

While he was certainly not perfect, Sokoloff was a gifted and knowledgeable musician with a healthy respect for how the role of politics would influence the Federal

Music Project's mission. This awareness led Sokoloff to eventually encourage works by

George Gershwin, John Phillip Sousa, Jerome Kern, and Irving Berlin that "he might not have chosen under other circumstances."134 In fact, this renewed focus on contemporary music led some audiences to complain that they missed the classics. 135 So in some ways,

Sokoloff reached his goal of training the American people to see "the value of cultivated music, American or otherwise." 136

Even though Sokoloff remained focused on cultured music and saw folk music groups as a novelty, the sheer volume of folk music performances required the formation of separate groups under the Federal Music Project. 137 Sokoloff hired Charles Louis

Seeger for "development of folk music and recreation aspects" to appease complaints of his focus on high-brow programming. 138 Seeger was one of the United States' most

133 Ibid., 59.

134 Taylor, American-Made, 288.

135 Ibid.

136 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 10.

137 Taylor, American-Made, 288.

138 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 91. 31

highly regarded musicologists. 139 One of his first projects in this new post was to prepare a manual entitled Music as Recreation which "attempted to reconcile some of the differences between professionalism and community service."140 Seeger saw regional music as a kind of dialect much like that found in language study. 141 He believed "that some degree of accord could be reached between social music and fine art music" challenging musicians to cultivate an interest in both the social and cultural aspects of music. 142 In the third year of Federal One, "a joint committee on the folk arts" was established and encouraged all the projects to work together to "seek out and preserve" the distinctive flavors ofUnited States' regions. 143 Folk music projects included recording and publishing Hispanic music, music of the American Indian, Creole and

A cad tan. songs, an d spmtua . . 1 s. 144

Music Education

The Federal Music Project provided public arts education in many forms. Before the FMP began, as many as two-thirds of children in rural schools were without music instruction of any kind. 145 The Federal Music Project "greatly expanded music education through both concerts in schools and classes that were offered directly in WPA

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid.

141 Ibid., 92.

142 Ibid.

143 Taylor, American-Made, 288-9.

144 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 638-640.

145 Ibid., 626-7. 32

facilities." 146 These classes offered instruction in music history, theory, appreciation, composition, conducting, and folk music/dancing. 147 Students in these classes ranged in age from six to seventy-five years old. 148 At its peak, thousands of teachers worked for

The Federal Music project in these capacities. 149 The FMP "hired teachers to direct choruses, bands and orchestras, conduct classes in both vocal and instrumental music, and direct amateur community productions and group sings."150 However, the music education division expanded past these traditional definitions including experiments in music therapy and the integration of music with other school subjects. 151 Despite the equalization of wages for performing musicians and their contribution to the advancement of music education in the United States, music teachers were paid on a lower scale than other divisions of the Federal Music Project. 152 Based on the researcher's experience in public arts education, this practice by the FMP does not seem to have set a precedent for arts educators receiving lower wages than educators in other subjects.

To ensure that education projects did not cause competitions for local private music teachers, only group instruction was undertaken in FMP approved projects. 153 The

146 Taylor, American-Made, 289.

147 Ibid.

148 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 632.

149 Taylor, American-Made, 289.

15°Findlay and Bing The WPA: An Exhibition of Works Progress Administration, 8.

151 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 608.

152 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 8.

153 "Federal Music Project Manual," 8. 33

Federal Music Project also felt that group instruction provided a life experience for participants thus reinforcing the communal nature of art and hopefully encouraging future participation in music. 154 Moreover, these education classes contributed to the economy because individuals involved in group instruction had a greater propensity to purchase instruments or music. 155

FMP music education programs also took form in music appreciation classes.

The Rockefeller Foundation paid for Layman's Music Courses through the FMP which had as their purpose to "train intelligent listeners and thus raise the country's standard in musical taste."156 Such appreciation classes were often divided by ability level including offerings for inactive listeners, active listeners, and specialists. 157

The FMP music education projects also explored the integration of music and other academic subjects pushing the boundaries of music education. In New York City, children experienced academic lessons followed by songs whose story or background were related to the discussed academic lesson. 158 Many of these selections were folk music and FMP music consultants reported that these students were able to recall both the

154 "A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 1937 for the Sirovich Committee," 11.

155 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of November 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 14.

156 "Reports Various Music Projects-June 15, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936- 1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

157 " Pamplet-Music Education, W.P.A. Federal Music Project ofNew York City Division of Women's and Professional Projects," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

158 Ibid. 34

stories and songs from the previous year thus associating them with the academic facts. 159

These songs were often dramatized and became part of a play presented either within the students' classrooms or in the auditorium as an all-school review. 160 These efforts did not go unnoticed. One superintendent said "with the public school music program as constricted as it is, we eagerly embrace this splendid service provided by your group."161

In Minneapolis, one of the FMP projects explored ways to bring instrumental music to the disabled. The Michael Dowling School worked with "crippled" children and

Elmer Clingman decided to develop altered instruments to help these children explore music. 162 Many ofthese instruments were donated and then individually customized to fit the needs of the students. 163 In 1937, he had an orchestra oftwenty-nine students with a waiting list of fifty students. 164

Composers' Forum-Laboratories

Even though the Federal Music Project focused on employing performers and presenting concerts, there was involvement in the creative process despite the fact that there was not overt monetary support for composers as a whole. At the suggestion of Dr.

Sokoloff, the FMP held Composers' Forum-Laboratories which employed performers to

159 Ibid.

160 Ibid.

161 "Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January IS-February 15, 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 9.

162 "A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 1937 for the Sirovich Committee," 16.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid. 35

play new works by contemporary American composers. 165 These forums did not pay composers for their pieces because a 193 7 memo declared that "all works of art produced on the Federal Art Project[s] [must] remain the property of the federal government."166

Moreover, "with pressure from ASCAP and other copyright difficulties, the FMP decided it was too difficult to pay composers for each piece."167 Finally, the project did not want to "deal with the issues of artistic freedom or [with] problems from Congress over what was being produced."168 Instead, participating composers were awarded a $10.00 honorarium. 169

Even without direct payment for compositions, the Composers' Forum-

Laboratories were revolutionary in design. A subset of the Education Unit of the FMP, all of these events were free of charge to the public. 170 These events were characterized by their unique informality but high-quality work171 (six Prix de Rome winners and four

172 Guggenheim scholarship winners appeared in the Composers' Forum-Laboratories ),

165 Foster, "Record ofProgram Operation and Accomplishment," 13.

166 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 67-8.

167 Ibid., 68.

168 Ibid.

169 "Announcement Concerning Composers' Forum-Laboratory, WPA Federal Music Project, 1 Grant School 17 h & Pine Streets, Philadelphia, PA, J. W.F. Leman, General Director," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

170 Memo on Govt. Aide, dated June 18, 1936, 21.

171 Literary Digest Feb. 8, 1936 from Special Report Prepared September 15 for President's Advisory Committee on Education Appendix II---Critics, National and Special Reports, compiled 1936- 1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

172 Ashley Pettis, "Special Report (October 30, 1935-June 15, 1938) New York City Composers Forum," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 4. 36

much akin to an open dress rehearsal atmosphere. Composers had the opportunity to explain their work to the audience prior to its performance, and in some instances, were even allowed to conduct the piece themselves. 173 Each forum also included a post- performance discussion with the composer about their work guided by questions from the audience. 174 Music students in the audience often asked technical questions while

"layman" audience members tended to ask questions about the importance of the pieces. 175 Surprisingly the audiences were as critical of the "safe" pieces as of the more

"controversial" ones. 176 The Composers' Forum-Laboratory considered the public discussions as a kind of training for the composer as it caused the composer to do

"considerable soul-searching" in order to defend his or her musical work. 177

Over the years, participation in these forums varied from well-known to student composers. 178 Nevertheless, interest in the Composers' Forum-Laboratories was unrelated to how well-known the composer was; instead people come because they saw the value ofthe project. 179 In fact, famed composer, Aaron Copland said that the only

173 "Federal Music Project Narrative Reports January 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

174 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 94.

175 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project," 20.

176 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 95.

177 Foster, "Record ofProgram Operation and Accomplishment," 323.

178 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 626.

179 William Haddon, "Narrative Reports-Written December I, 1936 Narrative #12- Massachusetts, Period October 7, 1936-November 12, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936- 1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 37

new trend of significant importance in the music world during this time period was the composer's concern for his audience which likely developed out ofthese forums. 180

From its first event in New York City on October 30, 1935, the mission of the

Composers' Forum-Laboratory was to "observe every type of music written by competent musicians (in America)--music expressive of every shade of thought and feeling peculiar to this moment in history."181 During Sokoloffs tenure with the FMP,

Composers' Forum-Laboratories did just this in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia,

Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Los Angeles, and at the University ofMinnesota.182 There was hope to expand the program to more cities but a lack of private resources prevented this. 183 Nevertheless, it was as intended, "a panoramic view ... of what [was] happening in a musical way" in the United States. 184

These events provided the composer an opportunity to hear his or her composition performed as well as educating the audience on the creative process. In many ways, it was a "significant move toward breaking down the ancient barrier between the musician and his audience."185

18°Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 98.

181 Pettis, "Special Report (October 30, I935-June I5, I938)," I.

182 "Report on Performance and Attendance from Inception to March 3I, I938 dated April I, I938," Monthly Performance and Attendance Reports, compiled I/1936-4/1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

183 Foster, "Record ofProgram Operation and Accomplishment," 13.

184 Pettis, "Special Report (October 30, I935-June I5, I938)," I.

185 Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression," 2I. 38

End of the Sokoloff Era

Federal One began to slowly unravel. "By 1936, the massive spending that had characterized the New Deal since its launch in 1933 had eased the economic crisis but had not erased it."186 President Roosevelt made the first cuts in July of 1936, "well ahead ofthe November election, when he slashed the WPA budget by twenty-five percent and

Federal One by a third." 187 These deep cuts led to pink slips, layoffs and protests. 188

Even the usually equable musicians protested the job cuts. On Christmas Eve several hundred New York schoolchildren came to City Hall for a round of caroling next to the lighted outdoor tree. They had been trained by WP A music teachers and were accompanied by a WP A band, but as they sang, demonstrators from the music project drowned them out with shouts of"We wantjobs!"189

Fiscal year 1936-1937 also brought two significant changes to the Federal One

Projects: the prevailing wage clause in the Relief Act and the first quota reduction. 190

The prevailing wage clause mandated that the rates of pay for persons on work relief

"shall not be less that the prevailing rates of pay for work of a similar nature as determined by the Works Progress Administration with the approval ofthe President."191

Since the monthly maximum earned remained the same, in effect this clause forced musicians to be restricted to fewer working hours each month. 192 Restricted hours lead to

186 Taylor, American-Made, 315.

187 Ibid.

188 Ibid., 316.

189 Ibid., 317.

19° Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 13.

191 Ibid., 14.

192 Ibid. 39

difficulty scheduling programs and rehearsal and thus put a huge strain on the types of project the FMP could approve and undertake.

Interestingly, during the now infamous hearings into "un-American" activities in the Federal One projects, Sokoloff had the option to testify in defense of his program but he opted not to do so. 193 While his program was spared, the ending of the Federal

Theatre Project signaled a shift in support. Harry Hopkins's 1938 move from WPA administrator to Secretary of Commerce was one of the final nails in the coffin. 194 By

August 31, 1939, all WPA projects had to obtain state or local sponsorship to avoid being phased out. 195

Dr. Earl Vincent Moore, National Director of the WP A Music Program (1939-1940)

After years of political pressure and criticism of his lofty ideals for the Federal

Music Project, Dr. Sokoloff announced his resignation as director ofthe project in 1938 to renter the workforce as a professional conductor.196 He stayed on until May 19, 1939 to ensure a smooth transition. 197 Earl Vincent Moore was named Sokoloff's successor in

August of 1939. 198 Despite opinions on his personal qualifications and philosophies,

Sokoloff's leadership "maintained the integrity of the project against all unwarranted

193 Jonathan Harris, Federal Art and National Culture: The Politics of Identity in New Deal America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 207.

194 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 105.

195 Ibid., 108.

196 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 98., Bindas, All ofThis Music Belongs to the Nation, 106.

197 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 106.

198 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 20. 40

demands" and showed himself "neither weak in the face of intimidation nor stubborn when sound policy and equity counseled compromise."199

The time after Sokoloff's departure was characterized by change for the Federal

Music Project. On July 31, 1939, General Letter No. 278, set forth the "Instruction on the Organization of Arts Projects Within State WPA Programs" which stated that "the entire series of projects for the nation as a whole will be known as the WPA Art Program,

WPA Music Program, WPA Writers Program, and WPA Historical Records Survey

Program" which would operate under the State Division of Professional and Service

Projects."200 Thus the FMP became the WPA Music Program.201

The WP A Art Program, the WPA Music Program, and the WPA Writers Program now fell under the Community Service division of the WPA. 202 This meant that Dr.

Moore now answered to the Director of Community Service Programs instead of directly to the WP A. 203

In addition to engaging in a total reorganization of the staff in summer of 1939,

Moore also had to deal with two large blows to the WPA Music Program. The

Emergency ReliefAppropriations Act passed in 1939, for the fiscal year ending June 30,

1940, threw all music project operations to the State Administrations and included an eighteen months work clause and a requirement for twenty-five percent local sponsorship

199 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 611.

20°Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 21.

201 Ibid., 1.

202 Ibid., 21.

203 Ibid. 41

of all WP A operations. These changes were easily adapted in manual labor projects but were nearly fatal to the cultural projects?04

Eighteen Months Clause

Item b, Section 16 of the Emergency ReliefAppropriations Act stated that all relief workers (except veterans) who had been continuously employed for more than eighteen months were "ineligible to be restored to employment on such projects until after (a) the expiration of thirty days after the date of his removal, and (b) recertification of his eligibility for restoration to employment on such projects."205 The intent behind this clause was to ensure that individuals were not relying on federal relief money and were making attempts to earn "an honest living."206 The eighteen months clause also intended to ensure that work opportunities were spread among more people. 207 However, massive layoffs were the effect on the music project. Projects were left scrambling to find sponsors only to have the eighteen months clause kick in and dismiss "practically every project musician in the United States."208

In manual labor positions, one worker could easily replace another. In the case of the FMP, a jazz trumpeter could not replace an oboist in an orchestra just because they were both musicians. Moreover, construction workers were not likely have worked continuously for eighteen months since they were assigned on a project by project basis

204 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 27.

205 Ibid., 24.

206 Ibid., 25.

207 Ibid.

208 Ibid., 28. 42

(i.e. build X bridge) most had at least a day or two of"unemployment" between projects whereas musicians were assigned to more permanent projects (i.e. perform with this symphony). 209

Basically, the immediate effect of the eighteen months clause was to halt all WPA orchestra operations.210 This was especially disconcerting because there was no way to predict who would be eligible to return after the mandatory thirty day leave.211 In fact, from this first lay-off until the last day of federal funding in 1943, "there was never a time when some WP A orchestra was not faced with the absence of a key instrumentalist on the eve of an important concert because his eighteen months were up on that date."212

Furthermore, according to WP A regulations, a dismissed worker had no assurance of returning to the same job from which he was laid off. So, if there was not a request from the FMP in the Division of Employment when a musician returned from his furlough looking for an assignment, the person was likely to be assigned a manual labor job which if they did not accept would mean their ineligibility for any future WP A employment for having refused an assignment.213

Twenty-Five Percent Sponsorship

Like the eighteen months clause, the requirement for WP A projects to obtain twenty-five percent sponsorship came out of construction projects. This requirement

209 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 25.

210 Ibid., 26.

211 Ibid., 28.

212 Ibid., 26.

213 Ibid., 28-9. 43

intended to keep federal money from being used to buy supplies.214 However, service- focused projects, like the music program, had high labor costs and low material costs.215

Unfortunately, the Act also prohibited music projects from counting admission receipts as sponsor contributions, which was the largest item of sponsorship for the music program prior to this Act. 216 Thankfully, Colonel F.C. Harrington, Commissioner ofthe WPA, interpreted the twenty-five percent sponsorship requirement to mean that the total sponsorship in a state must amount to twenty-five percent of the total cost ofWPA operations so that it was not required for each individual project to obtain twenty-five

. 217 percent sponsorsh 1p.

As much as ninety-five percent of the music project's sponsorships were in-kind donations.218 Regrettably, in-kind donations could only count toward the twenty-five percent sponsorship if their contribution "constituted a financial burden upon the sponsor."219 For example, a school donating the use of their rooms for a concert did not count as sponsorship because the building was not built specifically for the WPA project and was therefore not a financial burden on the school. In response to this, the WP A

214 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 23.

215 Ibid., 24.

216 Ibid., 23.

217 Ibid., 22.

218 Ibid, 67.

219 Ibid. 44

Music Project became creative and began to count sponsors donating items such as light bulbs.220

Even with Harrington's interpretation and the program's creativity, the sponsorship provision altered the way state administrators viewed project proposals for approval, often selecting those with the best chance for sponsorship.221 For example, many groups began to focus only on education concerts because the only non-labor cost was transportation which was often covered by the school's PTA.222 The unexpected positive thing that occurred was that this provided excellent word of mouth marketing for the WP A because students would go home and tell their parents about the school concerts.223 Recognizing this fact, many groups scheduled a paid admissions concert the same night as their afternoon public school concert.224

The Composers' Forum-Laboratory also suffered under the eighteen months clause and the sponsorship requirement. With a limited number of hours each musician could work, at times it was difficult to obtain the right instrumentation for the composers' pieces. Orchestras did not want to give up their first-chair oboist to play for a

Composers' Forum when it could mean that he or she would not be able to play a concert at the end of the month because they had already reached their maximum monthly

220 Ibid., 67-8.

221 Ibid., 22.

222 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 30.

223 Ibid., 31.

224 Ibid. 45

salary.225 This was compounded by the fact that since the compositions were so varied at each event, the Composers' Forums could not employ a set group ofmusicians.226

Moreover, there was intense pressure from Washington, D.C. (even the White House) to decrease the number of free concerts. 227

Moore's Influence on the WPA Music Program

After reading the Emergency ReliefAppropriations Act and considering that it abolished the Federal Theatre Project, "it is not beyond supposition that Congress intended that the remaining cultural programs should die a lingering death by slow strangulation."228 The fact that within a few months the WPA Music Program was employing more musicians and operating in more states than it had in June 1939, is a fitting testimony to the indomitable courage of Dr. Earl V. Moore."229

Moore's tenure marked a distinct change in the Federal Music Project's focus. He looked for ways to integrate music activities, education, and recreation regardless of the quality of the musicianship. 230 In fact, Moore saw himself as more of an educator than a director.231 He declared that "the purpose of the WPA Music Program was to develop elementary skills and arouse a love for music without aiming to develop musicians."232

225 Ibid., 325. 226 Ibid.

227 Ibid., 30.

228 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 63.

229 Ibid.

230 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 615.

231 Ibid.

232 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 360. 46

One of his first steps was to ensure that teacher training programs be conducted in every state which had music education activities.233 Moore felt that many teachers on relief rolls were not likely to be familiar with modem teaching techniques and sought the use of these training programs to combat this fact. 234

Dr. Moore strongly believed in the power of advisory boards and championed their rebirth in regards to federally funded arts programs. 235 He felt that they were the trustees of the WP A Music Program and should therefore be responsible for assisting in formulating policies and communicating with the public as well as advising the administrative officials working for the program.236 Moore led by example in this matter, selecting a distinguished group for the National Advisory Committee for the WP A Music

Program.

National Advisory Committee for the WP A Music Program237 • Eric Clarke-American Association of Colleges • Eric Delamarter-former associate conductor, Chicago Symphony, composer, music critic • Peter Dykema-professor, Music Education Teacher's College Columbia, experience in community music • Rudolph Ganz-President, Chicago Musical College, conductor, composer, performer, teacher • Edwin Franko Goldman-Conductor, Goldman Band • Wallace Goodrich-Director, New England Conservatory of Music • Howard Hanson-Director, Eastman School of Music, composer, conductor, educator, President, National Association of Music • Arthur Judson-concert manager, New York Philharmonic • Edwin Hughes-pianist, educator, President, National Music Council

233 Ibid., 197.

234 Ibid.

235 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 83.

236 Ibid.

237 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 90-1. 47

• Leonard Liebling-Editor, Musical Courier • Harold Spivacke-Chief Music Division Library Of Congress, musicologist • Augustus Zanzig-Field Representative, National Recreation Association, author and authority on community and recreational music

While this committee was well-respected, it was not flawless. Due to travel expenses, there was not a representative from west of Chicago or from the American

Federation ofMusicians.238 Nevertheless, unlike Sokoloff, Moore utilized the expertise ofhis committee. The National Advisory Committee met three times. 239 All of these meetings were funded by the Carnegie Corporation but with the war approaching the committee did not meet again.240 The Carnegie Corporation's financing of these meetings marks one of the first hybrids of government and private support.

With the shift from the Federal Music Project to the WPA Music Program, the national staff was "divorced from the state music projects" and served in more of an advisory role.241 In fact, the national office of the WPA Music Program had no direct communication with the states-no letters, no monthly narrative reports, etc. after the

1939 reorganization. 242 With the national staff serving in more of the roles of consultants to the Director of Professional and Service Projects, the State Directors saw more responsibility. 243 Truly, Moore was responsible for the quality of the national program

238 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 92.

239 Ibid., 92-5.

240 Ibid., 98.

241 Ibid., 125.

242 Ibid., 127.

243 Ibid., 125. 48

but he had no authority to enforce the standards which he established. 244 The WPA State

Administrator did little beyond servicing music projects?45

With the end ofthe FMP in 1939, WPA Form 330 was replaced by WPA Form

301 (Project Proposal) which was used by all WPA projects both construction and service?46 WPA Form 301 was submitted in conjunction with Form 306 which was a two- sided one page document providing bare details of the purpose of the project, funds necessary, etc.247 These forms were difficult to fill out and between 1939 and 1943 a properly documented WPA Form 301 was never received in Washington, D.C.248

In the late summer of 1940, Dr. Moore resigned from his position as National

Director ofthe WPA Music Program because his leave of absence from the University of

Michigan had expired.249 However, Moore remained a special consultant to the WPA

Music Program working on a per diem basis. 250

George Foster, National Program Director (1940-1943)

In August 1940, George Foster was appointed Deputy Director of the WPA Music

Program, a position that had not been filled since William Mayfarth resigned in 1939.251

244 Ibid.

245 Ibid., 118.

246 Ibid., 267.

247 Ibid.

248 Ibid., 268.

249 Ibid., 132.

250 Ibid.

251 Ibid., 38. 49

During his time as the head of the WPA Music Program, Foster closely followed the policies of Dr. Moore and communicated with him on numerous occasions?52

Foster continued to focus the WPA Music Program on education. Much like the

FMP's days under Sokoloff, education was cited as a way to increase relief workers' employability. 253 Other objectives of the WP A Music Education Program included:

1. Extending the advantages of music education to communities and groups of individuals otherwise unable to obtain such advantages. 2. Employing certified music teachers in providing instruction in musical theory and history, appreciation of music, and the development of elementary classes in applied music. 3. Developing community music activities as a factor in solving the problem of worth-while leisure-time enterprise through providing leadership for community bands, choruses, and orchestras. 254

However, even the educational portion slipped away and the emphasis became directed toward defense and war services. 255

While Foster was director, the impending reality of war began to influence music projects. In August 1940, the Massachusetts Music Project began providing bands for recruitment rallies.256 Similarly, the Army Air Corps was without their own bands, so the

WPA supplied musicians to fill this need.257 Efforts were made to balance civilian and

252 Ibid.

253 "Organization and Operations of Music Education Activities, WP A Technical Series Community Service Circular No. 12, Music Program Circular No. 2, Dec. 23, 1940," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., Sec. I, I.

2541bid.

255 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts , 320.

256 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 39.

257 Ibid. 50

military services in an effort to serve both as adequately as possible.258 The use of community music to increase moral was cited as an example of this combination. 259

"Nothing brings a large group of people together in unity of spirit quicker, or more surely that singing together, or listening to, and being stirred by the same music at the same time."260

In November 1941, Florence Kerr, the Assistant Commissioner of the Division of

Professional and Service Projects, convened a meeting of a Special Advisory Committee on the Arts with the purpose of developing plans for the future of the WPA Arts

Programs.Z61 Comprised of fifteen eminent individuals in the arts fields, the scope of their discussions included consideration of how the activities of the Arts Programs could

262 263 continue under government sponsorship. The Music Panel included :

• Leo Cluesman-American Federation of Musicians, representing James C. Petrillo, American Federation of Musicians President • Roy Harris-composer and member of the music department at Cornell • Arthur Judson-concert manager • Eric Delamarter-composer, educator, conductor • Dr. Howard Hanson-Director, Eastman School of Music

258Florence Kerr, "Mrs. Kerr Reports on the WPA Music Program for 1941 to Community Service Programs, Works Projects Administration, Dated January 1, 1941," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 3.

259 Ibid.

260 Ibid.

261 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 99-100.

262 Ibid.

263 Ibid., 100. 51

64 During their discussions, the music panel recognized thae :

1. The movement of workers from crowded centers of unemployment to communities where services were needed must be solved. 2. A means test of the WPA must be supplanted by a need for work. 3. The control and direction of a music program must remain in the hands of the Director, aided by a small board oftechnical experts and that the appointment of key personnel must be the responsibility of the Director.

However, history intervened before any of these suggestions could be put into place.

The December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor threw the United States into World

War II. WPA program directors received a telegram from Howard Hunter informing them that all WPA resources were to be devoted to the military efforts, thus marking the end of the WP A Music Program?65 From December 7, 1941, forward, no activity continued which did not "directly serve the armed forces, war industry, or the sale of War

Bonds and stamps. "266 To reflect this change and a reorganization of the program into the War Service Programs Subdivision, the WPA Music Program became known as the

Music Section ofthe War Service Program 1942 and later as the Music Section, Division of Program Operations 1943.267

The Music Section of the War Services Program touched many parts of the war effort. In a memo written by Florence Kerr to the Chief Regional Supervisors, she noted that the music program must "be evaluated in terms of its contribution to the war

264 Ibid., 10 l.

265 [bid., 43.

266 Thid., 44.

267 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," I, 45. 52

268 effort. " With the increased exposure to music at events, "soldiers began to ask for music instructors to teach them to play instruments during their free hours" and soon most States had all of their qualified choral and vocal instructors assigned to military carnps.269

At its peak, the FMP employed over 15,000 musicians but it still had over 7,000 musicians working at beginning of World War II.270 Even after the start of the war, the

FMP sent music recordings "to the troops, and orchestras played at military posts" before the program was officially disbanded in 1943.271 Personnel dwindled due to employment opportunities both in and out of music but "even as late as March 1943, many WPA orchestras were still playing full schedules in Army camps, military hospitals and air fields."272 "On April 30, 1943, the last work projects closed in a few remaining state administrations. The last encore had been played. "273

268 Florence Kerr, "Memo to the ChiefRegional Supervisors, Subject: Reorientation of the Community Service Program to the War Effort, Released Dec. 17, 1941 ,"Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., I.

269 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 42.

27°Findlay and Bing, The WPA: An Exhibition of Works Progress Administration, 8.

271 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 320.

272 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 44-5.

273 Ibid., 45. CHAPTER3

LESSONS LEARNED

There are many lessons gleaned from the Federal Music project which government officials and arts managers alike should apply to any future federal funding of the arts. These lessons include allowing for local influence, decentralizing control, encouraging new work, focusing on American art, creating positive press, meeting audiences where they are comfortable and focusing on the future not just the present. As previously mentioned, the Federal Music Project serves as an excellent model from which to draw these lessons because of its ability to avoid the harsh criticism leveled on other Federal One projects. "The FMP employed more people than the other arts projects, reached more Americans through its artists' performances, and steered clear of political scandal."274

Allow Local Influence

Any federal program promoting art must include local influence because "when a democratic government gets involved in the arts, the result will reflect popular tastes and attitudes."275 In a country as large and diverse as the United States, local influence must

274 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, xiii.

275 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 86. 53 54

remam. Dr. Earl Moore, Director ofthe WPA Music Program, stated that this project was "designed to work toward an integration of the arts with the daily life of the community".Z76 Federally funded arts programs must remain fluid and adaptable to the needs of the community in which they exist, thus the need for local influence. 277

Allowing local influence in the art and artist presented reiterates a community's values and allows the art project to connect to members of the community.

Local Art

There are numerous examples oflocal influence within the history of the Federal

Music Project. This local influence comes in presenting art that speaks to the locality's culture and to art and artists from the locality in question. The programming of culturally relevant art is seen in many examples during the existence of the FMP and WP A Music

Program. Communities in the Southwest supported a much larger body of Latino music than Oklahoma which focused on the music of the American Indian. Florida's District #5 supported a Cuban Marimba Band278 while a Wisconsin unit supported a German Band which the union declared competitive due to its popularity.Z79 One of the best examples of local influence is a 1936 pageant entitled Texas Under Six Flag, which the Recreation

276 Earl Moore, "The W.P.A. Music Program-Plans and Activities, An Address Before the Annual Meeting ofthe Music Teachers' National Association, Kansas City, MO, December 28, 1939," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 4.

277 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 37.

278 Clarence Carter Nice, "Narrative Reports June 30, 1936-District #5, Key West, FL," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

279 Ruth Sutton-Doland, "Narrative Reports Written November 15, 1936 Regarding Wisconsin," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 55

Department presented with the aid of the FMP. Nearly 8,000 people attended this performance which traced the history of Texas through song beginning with ancient traditional Chippewa chant and moved to that of the Spanish, the French, the Mexicans, popular music of the early days of Texas statehood, and finally music of the present time.280

Local Artists

Local influence also comes through the inclusion of local artists. The FMP included local soloists with project sponsored orchestras.281 Similarly, the Philadelphia

Civic Orchestra performed work by twenty different Philadelphia composers.282 This catering to local taste is also one reason that the FMP was able to secure local funding to continue its work well into the 1940s. The programs of the FMP had to justify themselves in the eyes of the public and prove their worth. The amount oflocal influence in the FMP strove to support this because what "actually could be done ... depended to a very great extent upon what ... American communities ... felt should be done."283

Decentralize Control

Decentralizing a federal arts program helps gain bipartisan support and allows the program to meet the needs of its constituents. While the federal government set up

280 "Latest Reports Received Concerning Various Music Projects May 31, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 13-4.

281 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of May 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland 10.

282 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities April 1-30, 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 14.

283 Hopkins, "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression," 12. 56

parameters such as salary ranges, hourly work, and citizenship requirements, administrators for the FMP existed on both state and locallevels.284 Such a structure allows conservatives to feel that localities are in control while liberals have the art funding they seek.

By keeping programs local, costs also decrease. During the years of the WPA, both "Roosevelt and Hopkins repeatedly urged ... Sokoloff to tour, but touring was expensive, complicated, and unpopular in Congress."285 Nevertheless, even without touring, the project made a profound impact on both rural and urban communities.

Maintaining decentralization keeps costs down and avoids the necessary justification of travel expenses.

Decentralization also allows for artists to be seen as vital members of their communities by making them part of the "mainstream of American life and [making] the arts both expressive of the spirit of a nation and accessible to its people."286 Local control gives leaders the ability to appeal to their communities' desires like the Federal

One projects which brought "together artist and people ... to use the up-lifting power of art to enrich the lives of ordinary citizens ... [thus] creating a nation of cultural consumers. " 287 More exposure means more interest and more interest means more consumption which is good for both artists and communities. Furthermore, the decentralization of control allows for transparency at the local level and sets a precedent

284 Bindas, All ofThis Music Belongs to the Nation, 10.

285 Mathews, "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy," 327.

286 Ibid., 316.

287 Ibid., 319. 57

for future governance of projects which may grow from federal funding. Decentralizing control occurs in two areas: governance of the project and funding of the project.

Governing the Project

While there were regional directors and state administrators, local communities were given jurisdiction over many aspects ofthe governance of the Federal Music

Project. "From the beginning of the FMP two patterns of advisory committees were maintained-State and local."288 Even the FMP Manual stated that areas should establish a local advisory committee to "assist local projects, to help set and maintain high standards of musicianship and to help create cooperating sponsors."289 Suggested membership for these committees included a representative from the National Federation of Music Clubs, a representative from the Musicians' Union, a member of the Music

Teachers Association, a conductor or musician, and an interested patron thus ensuring all stakeholders were represented.290 Admittedly, these committees were not widespread during the FMP, but their suggestion in the manual point to their importance. 291

Even without an official advisory committee, communities had local boards for auditions and programming. The programming board had the autonomy to select music for community projects. For example, Dr. Sokoloff declared May 1-7, 1938, as National

Music Week but left the details of its celebration in each community up to individual

288 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 80.

289 "Federal Music Project Manual," 3.

290 Ibid., 3-4.

291 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 79-80. 58

localities.292 This autonomy also allowed local communities to assess what was working and what was not, therefore using federal funding appropriately. Compare this with the

NEA's "Shakespeare in American Communities" initiative. As part of this program, the

NEA funded professional theater productions of Shakespearean plays which toured communities throughout the United States.293 These productions did not give localities a choice in programming and did not involve local actors. In this way, the NEA's project imposed art on local communities. When Sokoloff declared National Music Week in

May of 193 7, he gave localities the autonomy to determine how they would participate, thus allowing each community to reflect its own musical culture.

Similarly, in the state of Illinois, the local booking department chose to replace unsatisfactory free concerts in parks with appearances in public institutions such as hospitals and settlement houses?94 The same booking department also avoided a conflict between the dance orchestras and the local union by developing novelty programs at

CCC camps?95 Each community was also granted the autonomy to determine what publicity methods were most suitable to their area. 296 In this way each program was able to "best serve the communities and their particular needs".297

292 Report on Federal Music Project Activities April 1-30, 1938," 1.

293 National Endowment for the Arts, "About Shakespeare in American Communities,"; available from http://www.arts.gov/national/shakespeare/About.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

294 "Narrative Reports Written November 15, 1936-Illinois," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland., 3.

295 Ibid., 4.

296 "Narrative Reports Written August 15, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936- 1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

297 Foster, "Record ofProgram Operation and Accomplishment," 37. 59

Funding the Project

Even with local governance control, localities may question the costs of any art program brought to their area. Once again, looking to the Federal Music Project a solution is found. To balance the costs of performances, the WPA paid the salaries ofthe artists while the cities provided venues and other services necessary and were allowed to charge admission (with the WPA's consent) to help recoup some ofthese costs.298

Requiring local programs to obtain cooperating sponsorship gave localities a "buy in" to the work of the FMP. These sponsors were very diverse including state universities; municipal, county and township boards; Chambers of Commerce; Boards of Education; school superintendents; service clubs; veteran's organizations; fraternal and social groups; Federations of Musicians; parks departments; Philharmonic Societies; boy's clubs; religious associations; American Legion; Daughters of the Confederacy; and even fire departments.299 Prior to their involvement with the FMP, many of these groups had never sponsored local music, but when the government required the WP A Music

Program to obtain twenty-five percent local sponsorships, these groups became the backbone of projects. 300 These sponsors occasionally provided direct funding through monetary and in-kind contributions but also sought rehearsal and performance spaces, as

298 McDonald, Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts, 279.

299 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project," 5., Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 53-4.

30° Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 54. 60

well as housing for traveling musicians.301 Today, local art sponsors provide very similar support.

Each state adopted their own employment policies which affected employment conditions and sought to create more equity in pay.302 For example, Oklahoma adopted a policy of assigning all musicians at the "skilled" rate unless they received an "A" audition grade which established an incentive for their musicians to utilize the training offered through the program to increase their skills and thus increase their rate of pay. 303

Encourage New Work

Another lesson learned from the Federal Music Project, is to encourage new work not by paying for its creation but by developing a system to support the creative process.

This is an important distinction. Funding individual artists has come under scrutiny in the United States. By funding individual artist's creative process it can be seen as supporting the philosophy behind such work which may be controversial. To avoid this, the FMP simply encouraged new work through acceptance of manuscripts and through performances such as the Composers' Forum-Laboratory.

While the Federal Music Project was permitted to employ composers, its leadership instead chose to support composers through performance opportunities. If the

FMP chose to pay a composer to write a piece, this work would become property of the federal government. 304 Therefore, FMP officials chose instead to pay royalties for the

301 Ibid., 54-5.

302 Ibid., 173.

303 Ibid.

304 "Minutes of Regional Meeting Held in Boston, June 22-24, 1938," 8. 61

performance of works thus allowing composers to retain the future monetary benefits of their pieces. 305

Even though the FMP could hire composers, the provisions to do so were quite strict. First, project leaders had to certify that eligible composers were "in need".306 If certified as "in need", composer then had to pass a committee examination.307 After meeting these qualifications, the composer could only receive payment for work that was written specifically for a WP A performing unit or for WPA educational materials, with all of their work becoming property of the United States government and thus renouncing any eligibility to receive royalties from this work in the future. 308 Operating Procedure

No. G-5, Page 2, Section 34 included other strict provisions about the types of activities for which composer could write. 309 According to available records, after the provisions in G-5 were set, only one composer was hired. 310 This composer was a young Native

American living in Oklahoma. 311 He was employed to write orchestral pieces based on

305 Ibid.

306 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 349.

307 Ibid.

308 Ibid.

309 Ibid.

310 Ibid.

311 Ibid. 62

the themes of Oklahoma's Native American tribes. 312 Records show his employment was specific only to this project.313

Besides all of these difficulties, the process of payment was nearly impossible because unlike performers, most composers did not write the same number of hours each week or each month, working instead when they were inspired. The larger federal requirement related to the clocking of hours did not recognize this part of the creative process and thus created issues with payment.314

With the stringent guideline related to employing composers, the FMP chose instead to encourage their work through performance opportunities. It was a policy of the

FMP that any composer could submit a composition to a project for the local Audition

Board to approve. 315 If approval was granted, the project supervisor would schedule a total of two hours of rehearsal to further audition the piece. If it was performed well and deemed successful, FMP rules required the group to perform the composition publicly.316

Having music performed is a very important step, especially for a young composer. Even tedious as this procedure was, the FMP's consideration of new work provided opportunities for composers to have audiences hear their work.

One of the best examples of encouraging new work which occurred during the

FMP was the Composers' Forum-Laboratory. The FMP hired performers, secured a venue, and advertised the program. Composers were given the opportunity to premiere

312 Ibid.

313 Ibid.

314 Ibid., 352.

315 "Federal Music Project Manual," 12.

316 Ibid. 63

new work and interact with the audience. This experience allowed audiences to hear compositions that may not have been programmed elsewhere, as well as giving composers the opportunity to interact with audiences and hone their work based on their observations during this experience thus creating better work. 317 Therefore, these opportunities helped both audiences and artists to grow. For example, William Schuman was just a young faculty member at Sarah Lawrence College when the FMP presented his

2"d Symphony at one of the Composers' Forum-Laboratories and he grew into one of the most well-respected American composers of his time.318 The importance ofthe

Composers' Forum-Laboratory was noted across the musical community. Aaron

Copland considered it the most successful venture of the FMP saying that "these concerts have showrt one practical way in which composers can be aided: by a performance of a cross-section of their work before an interested public. It seems to me that no better way exists for aiding the creative talent of America."319

American Art

Even though concerns were raised when Hopkins tapped foreign-born Sokoloff to the head the Federal Music Project, Sokoloff chose to focus many parts of the FMP on

American music. In a regional meeting in 1938 he said, "we should not forget to place as many American works of American composers on our programs as possible. "320

Sokoloff distinguished between programming high-quality music associated with the

317 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 324.

318 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of May 1938," 6.

319 Pettis, "Special Report (October 30, 1935-June 15, 1938)," 4.

320 "Minutes of Regional Meeting Held in Boston, June 22-24, 1938," 7. 64

United States and work which was just nationalistic in nature. He instructed FMP regional leaders on this topic saying, "I do not want you to feel that you must put on a composition simply because it is written by an American."321 This concentration on quality native art continued throughout all incarnations of the FMP. In fact, by the time the FMP became the WPA Music Program 6, 772 works written by 2,034 native musicians or musicians residing in the United States had been played by the Federal

Music Project. 322 When spending public funds on art through federal funding, supporting art that is for the lack of a better word, nationalistic, is more easily rationalized. This debate is also seen yearly in Congress when it comes time for funding foreign operations bills. Supporting both artists and art focused on the United States is an essential part to any successful federally funded art program.

During the time of the FMP, all the state directors understood that they should "be liberal in their programming of American works."323 In fact, by the beginning of

December 193 7, more than twenty symphonic programs were devoted entirely to

American compositions.324 However, it is not necessary that this art come from well- known native composers. For instance, the Civic Orchestra in Philadelphia played 140 works of both famous and unknown American composers with no change noted in

321 Ibid.

322 "The Federal Music Project, Works Progress Administration, July 1935-1939, Dated August 31, 1939," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.,43.

323 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 322.

324 "A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 1937 for the Sirovich Committee," 19. 65

audience attendance.325 As another example, on July 4, 1938, the FMP collaborated with

NBC radio to broadcast a concert version of the new American opera, Gettysburg, which had its premiere in May of the same year thanks to the FMP.326 During the 1930s, critics noted that American audiences were supportive of native composers in the concert hall, in the movie theater, and on the radio. 327

Prior to the Federal Music Project, most of the symphonic programming in the

United States was European and of the classical genre. In 1939, 60% of American compositions performed were by contemporary composers, the bulk of which were from local, relatively unknown composers presented through FMP's concerts.328 Today most orchestras continue to routinely perform contemporary work.

Meet Audiences Where They Are Comfortable

The largest and most recognizable annual national funder of the arts in the United

States, the National Endowment for the Arts, has as its motto, "A Great Nation Deserves

Great Art". Former NEA director, Bill Ivey, feels that this statement indicates that the people of the United States are given the art they need, not necessarily the art they want. 329 Through the FMP, one sees that a successful federal arts funding program should include more of a balance. While Sokoloff wanted to increase the cultural palate

325 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities Aprill-30, 1938," 14.

326 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of July 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 1.

327 "Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January 15-February 15, 1938," 3.

328 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 68.

329 Ivey, Engaging Art, 6. 66

of the country, he understood that when introducing something that is unknown or uncomfortable, it is important to do so in scaffolded steps. FMP programming included familiar classical works, contemporary popular music, and works by American composers in addition to more "high art" selections.

Similar to allowing local influence and decentralizing control, federally funded programs should feel accessible by meeting audiences where they are comfortable both artistically and in location. The Federal Music Project met Americans where they were comfortable by playing in their communities, parks, railway stations, and schools. 330

This helped to break down barriers of elitism and snobbery, while making music more accessible to the masses. This idea remains today when one considers the great popularity of Fourth of July concerts which occur outdoors inviting people of the United

States to gather with their lawn chairs and blankets to enjoy quality music with their families. Through this accessibility, hopefully "people [will] come to regard the arts, not as an expendable luxury, but as a community asset" like what occurred during the FMP's tenure.331

FMP projects made many conscious efforts to make their offerings comfortable.

For example, in Wardsboro, Vermont, one of the community's group music classes held a recital-like concert in a local hall.332 Between forty and fifty individuals from all walks of life performed together ranging in ages from the very young to middle-aged adults. 333

330 Taylor, American-Made, 286.

331 Mathews, "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy," 319.

332 "Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January IS-February 15, 1938," 1.

333 Ibid. 67

A reception of homemade cake and ice cream followed allowing the performers to mingle with the audience. 334 Having such a casual event following a performance puts people at ease and makes it easier to invite those who may be unsure about attending a classical concert in the first place.

Even the programming of the Federal Music Project sought to meet audiences where they were comfortable. By December 1, 1937, the FMP units had performed over sixty operas and operettas, with the vast majorities of these sung in English.335

Audiences often find opera, especially foreign language opera, intimidating. When the

FMP performed operas in English, they took away the language barrier thus enabling communication of the essence of the piece. Thus, those unfamiliar with opera were more likely to attend. Furthermore, once attending an opera or two performed in English, it was more probable that these audience members would later attend an opera performed in a foreign language. This matches Aaron Copland's assessment of the major musical trend ofthe 1930s, which he said was "to get closer to the audience" by writing "things simpler so that the audience can build it without pulling it down."336

Another stride consciously made by the FMP to meet audiences in their comfort zone was the Project's admissions policy. Free performances were the general rule during the tenure of the project with most paid admissions hovering around the price of a

334 "Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January IS-February 15, 1938," 2.

335 "A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 1937 for the Sirovich Committee," 31.

336 Transcript of New York City Forum February 24, 1937 Aaron Copland," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 68

movie ticket ($0.25 to $0.50).337 By removing the barrier of cost, a broad range of audience members were attracted and more willing to take a risk on concerts they may have not otherwise attended. In 1941, George Foster attended a symphony orchestra concert in Bridgeport, Connecticut reporting a sold out show with an unusual mix in the audience:

The older people were there because they were expected to be seen there. The youth, it was explained, had been receiving WP A symphony concerts in the public schools for the past five years and they had found that between a movie and a symphony concert, both costing thirty-five cents in Bridgeport, the symphony concert gave more satisfaction for the money. 338

Positive Press

As with any program, the court of public opinion is very important. This only increases when the program involves something controversial such as public funding for the arts. Looking again to the Federal Music Project, a lesson in public relations is seen.

Being proactive and not waiting for damage control are the best lessons regarding positive press. "The FMP tried from the start to distance itself from its more radical sister projects, primarily by using its Office oflnformation ... to disseminate pro-FMP

American stories."339 For example, pamphlets entitled What the Government is Doing for

Music and Musicians in the San Francisco Bay Area were written by Home Hanley and distributed in concert programs throughout the area.340

337 Section 34 Music Projects-General Policies, Types of Activities and Services No. G-5, Sec. 34, Dated Jan. 10, 1940,2.

338 Foster, "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment," 48.

339 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 11.

340 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of July 1938,", 2. 69

Positive press can also come through the support of famous and well-respected artists. During the FMP, dance orchestras had guest leaders such as Benny Goodman,

Duke Ellington, and Cab Calloway lending not only their expertise but also their endorsement of the project.341 Famed composers, Arnold Schoenberg, Paul Hindemith and William Grant Still each took time to guest conduct with FMP ensembles. 342

Making sure the community at large knows about a federally funded arts program is sometimes simple. When the WP A Music Program was faced with the twenty-five percent sponsorship clause, many groups began to perform educational concerts which turned into a great word of mouth strategy. Children would attend the in-school concert and then go home to tell their parents about it, who would then in turn go to the same group's evening paid concert.343 Still, one of the best marketing events was the astounding record of accomplishment the FMP achieved within its first year of operation.344 By getting a high-quality program off the ground quickly, individuals could experience their tax dollars at work and it gave supporters a sense of progress and justification. 345

341 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of May 1938," 6.

342 "Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of July 1938," 1.," Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of August 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland, 1., "Report on Performance and Attendance from Inception to March 31, 1938 dated April1, 1938."

343 Foster, "Record ofProgram Operation and Accomplishment," 31.

344 Ibid., 9-10.

345 Ibid., l 0. 70

Focus on the Future Not Just the Present

Finally, it is important to note than any arts project should follow the example of the FMP and focus on the future. Looking to the future is a manner of risk taking but is important nonetheless. All federally funded programs should focus on making their country better and this requires looking beyond the present. The Federal Music Project chose to do this in two different ways. First, the FMP offered young artists the opportunity to grow and hone their skills thus building their capacity. Second, the FMP made sure there were opportunities for all people of the United States-including minorities. While this included ethnic minorities and disabled individuals, the researcher will focus on the example of strides made by women in the FMP as an example of the opportunities afforded all minorities during the FMP's tenure.

Growing Young Artists

The Federal Music Project gave aspiring conductors the chance to "prove their talents [and] to try their wings with federal bands, orchestras and choruses."346 By giving young conductors opportunities to lead many different groups, the FMP hoped that they would receive employment with orchestras in the United States based on their experience gained through the FMP.347 Once in these positions, the FMP hoped they would program more works by American composers due to their exposure to them through their time conducting Project orchestras.348 Performers were also helped through the FMP. As

346 "A Preliminary Report of the Work of the Federal Music Project," 18.

347 Bindas, All ofThis Music Belongs to the Nation, 68.

348 Ibid. 71

reported in the January 15-Februrary 15, 1938 Report on Activities, a young Helen

Dupca and Rita Lieberson trained with the WP A singing classes and later debuted with the Philadelphia Civic Opera Company. 349

Provide Opportunities to Everyone

One of the ways that the FMP proved ground breaking was by providing opportunities to all groups. Consider as an example, the opportunities the FMP afforded female musicians, composers, and conductors years before a time when women working outside the home was readily accepted.350 Through the Composer's Forum-Laboratories,

"women composer's works were seriously considered for the first time."351 The Federal

Music Project also had many of the first mix-gendered orchestras thus fighting the era's stereotype that women were not physically or intellectually able to handle "complicated" instruments such as horns and strings.352 The Federal Music Project went further by establishing one all-female orchestra.353 Similarly, in Philadelphia, an all-female artistic team created a musical entitled County Fair which was attended by nearly 2,000 people.354

Unfortunately, "under normal circumstance, given a choice between a man and a woman of equal skills, the man received federal work relief under the assumption that

349 6.

350 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 86.

351 Ibid.

352 Ibid., 86-7.

353 Ibid., 91.

354 "Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January 15-February 15, 1938," 6. 72

most women had husbands to take care ofthem."355 Nevertheless, great strides were made and the groundwork laid for today's women. One cannot deny that the FMP permitted "women musicians to take their deserved place in the ensemble" where prior they had "been barred from professional symphony orchestras."356

355 Bindas, All of This Music Belongs to the Nation, 90.

356 "Latest Reports Received Concerning Various Music Projects May 31, 1936," 2. CHAPTER4

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTHER RESEARCH

The history of the New Deal, the role of the Federal Music Project, and lessons learned from this venture into federal arts funding profoundly apply to the contemporary federal arts funding model in the United States. Selecting the right personnel, making a case to the public, and meeting the needs of both the artist and the community are vital to any program's success. However, one also looks to the New Deal and the Federal Music

Project to learn ways to improve the current funding model in the United States. In addition to the lessons learned from this historical study of the Federal Music Project, the researcher feels that there are areas for future study which if explored could further strengthen future federally funded arts programs.

Research on American Feelings toward Federal Government

The degree of trust in government officials affects the structure of a program and holds implications for the manner in which funding decisions should occur. Since the founding of the United States, citizens have debated the role of the federal government.

In the decades since the New Deal, there has been an increased distrust of the federal government and arguments of intrusiveness. These attitudes are evident, especially in the recent protests of the "Tea Party Patriots", but an overall scope of the feelings of the people of the United States toward the U.S. Government requires carefully crafted

73 74

research. The implications ofthe attitudes of the people ofthe United States toward their government offer innumerable applications to any funding of the arts by a government entity.

Research on the Amount of an Acceptable Funding Level for the Arts

As previously mentioned, in 2009 the NEA's budget amounted to $0.51 per person living in the United States. In addition to a better understanding of attitudes toward the U.S. Government by its citizens, the researcher believes that a study should occur to determine what amount of government funding for the arts is acceptable to the people of the United States. This research could seek a total figure or a cost per person of federal arts funding acceptable to the majority of people in the United States. By possessing this information, both lawmakers and arts activists will be more informed on the wishes of U.S. citizens when government entities engage in budgeting activities related to arts funding. Furthermore, having a realistic picture of the amount of their tax dollars U.S. citizens wish to see invested in cultural activities may help determine the scope and size of any such federal funding of the arts.

More Definitive Research on Arts and Job Creation

Public Law 111-5, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, allotted

$50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts to help preserve jobs in the arts. 357

This funding suggests merit in the theories of the Creative Class and the Creative

Economy which link creativity to success in the work force. However, additional research into exactly how arts programs create jobs is necessary. Specifically, these

357National Endowment for the Arts, "The Arts and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," accessed 10 April2010. 75

studies should focus on the impact on both the artists directly funded and how their work affects the greater working class both locally and nationally. Such definitive research would help strengthen future lobbying efforts related to economic growth and the arts.

Creating a Balance between Local Control and Federal Funding

As previously mentioned, part ofthe Federal Music Project's success stemmed from its allowance oflocal influence and decentralization of control. However, the exact balance between these concepts and federal involvement was never pinpointed. By studying other successful federal programs both in and out of the arts, one may find a balance between these concepts. This research should include surveys of program directors, participants, and local patrons to understand the perspective from each group of stakeholders. By creating a successful balance between federal involvement, local influence, and decentralization of control, lawmakers and arts manager may develop a pattern of successful federal funding for arts programs.

Conclusion

Scholars continue to debate the long-term legacy of the Federal Music Project.

However, the short-term effect of the FMP was a musical education of the citizens of the

United States which led to audiences with a more discerning musical palate. Even in the

1930s, "art for art's sake" was passe although this attitude lingered more in music than any other art form. 358 While the classic statement of American popular criticism "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" remains prevalent even today, during the years the Federal Music Project performed and educated there was growth in musical

358 Canon, "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project of the WPA," 92. 76

discernment.359 Just like the murals of the Federal Art Project allowed for exchanges between citizens and artists, the Federal Music Project's Composers' Forum-Laboratories exposed the people of the United States to new art and new ideas which eventually helped "people [grow] to appreciate what they saw" and heard. 360 If nothing else, during the Federal One years, the public became more art-minded.361 Future federally funded art programs have the power to do the same which will create a great nation who not only deserves great art but demands it.

Through this historical study of the Federal Music Project, a successful model for future federally funded art programs appears. By applying the lessons of local influence and decentralization of control, communities can shape a federal program to match their specific needs. Through the encouragement of new work, federal arts programs can provide a structure to support the creative process while allowing artist to retain the rights to their creation. Similarly, creating a federal art program which focuses on the future, gives capacity building opportunities and accessibility to artists. By focusing on

American art and creating positive press, a federally funded art program supports national ideals and communicates successes. From the Federal Music Project one also learns that federally funded arts program should meet audiences where they are comfortable in order to provide the scaffolding necessary to grow their cultural palate. Truly, by applying the lessons of the past, lawmakers, government officials and arts managers can create a strong, successful program model for future federal funding of the arts.

359 Ibid., 86.

360 Mathews, "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy," 328.

361 Bernstein, "The Artist and the Government: The P.W.A.P.," 80. BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Announcement Concerning Composers' Forum-Laboratory, WPA Federal Music Project, Grant School 1th & Pine Streets, Philadelphia, PA, J. W.F. Leman, General Director," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"A Preliminary Report of the Work ofthe Federal Music Project, Nikolai Sokoloff, Director Works Progress Administration, Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"A Report on The Federal Music Project to December 1, 193 7 for the Sirovich Committee," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Bernstein, Joel. "The Artist and the Government: The P.W.A.P." In Challenges in American Culture, eds. Ray Browne, Larry Landrum, and William Bottorff, 69- 84. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1970.

Bindas, Kenneth J. All of This Music Belongs to the Nation: The WP A's Federal Music Project and American Society. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1995.

Canon, Neal. "Art for Whose Sake: The Federal Music Project ofthe WPA." In Challenges in American Culture, eds. Ray Browne, Larry Landrum, and William Bottorff, 85-100. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1970.

"Federal Music Project Manual: Preliminary Statement oflnformation, Dated October 1935," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Works Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"Federal Music Project: Report on Activities, January 15-February 15, 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

77 78

"Federal Music Project Narrative Reports January 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Findlay, James and Margaret Bing. The WPA: An Exhibition ofWorks Progress Administration (WP A) Literature and Art from the Collections ofthe Bienes Center for the Literary Arts. Ft. Lauderdale: Bienes Center for the Literary Arts, 1998.

Foster, George. "Record of Program Operation and Accomplishment The Federal Music Project 1935-1939, The WPA Music Program 1939-1943," Final Report on the Accomplishments of the Music Program compiled 611943, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Graves, James Bau. Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005.

Haddon, William. "Narrative Reports-Written December 1, 1936 Narrative #12- Massachusetts, Period October 7, 1936-November 12, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Mary land.

Harris, Jonathan. Federal Art and National Culture: The Politics ofIdentity in New Deal America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Hopkins, Harry. "Memorandum on Government Aid During the Depression to Professional, Technical and Other Service Workers, Dated May 18, 1936," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Inflation Calculator. "The Changing Value of a Dollar," Dollar Times. Available from http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm. Internet; accessed 21 April 2010.

Ivey, Bill. "Introduction: The Quest of Participation." In Engaging Art: The Next Great Transformation ofAmerica's Cultural Life, eds. Steven Tepper and Bill Ivey, 1- 14. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2008.

Kerr, Florence. "Memo to the Chief Regional Supervisors, Subject: Reorientation of the Community Service Program to the War Effort, Released December 17, 1941," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 79

Kerr, Florence. "Mrs. Kerr Reports on the WPA Music Program for 1941 to Community Service Programs, Works Projects Administration, Dated January 1, 1941," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"Latest Reports Received Concerning Various Music Projects May 31, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Literary Digest February 8, 1936 from Special Report Prepared September 15 for President's Advisory Committee on Education Appendix II--Critics, National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Mathews, Jane. "Arts and the People: The New Deal Quest for a Cultural Democracy." The Journal ofAmerican History 62, no. 2 (1975): 316-339.

"Manual for Oklahoma WPA Music Project Teachers Issued Under the Direction of Merle Montgomery, Assistant State Supervisor in Charge of Education," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

McDonald, William Francis. Federal ReliefAdministration and the Arts: The Origins and Administrative History ofthe Arts Projects of the Works Progress Administration. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1969.

"Minutes ofRegional Meeting Held in Boston, June 22-24, 1938," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Moore, Earl. "The W.P.A. Music Program-Plans and Activities, An Address Before the Annual Meeting of the Music Teachers' National Association, Kansas City, MO, December 28, 1939," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"Narrative Reports Written August 15, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Narrative Reports Written November 15, 1936--Illinois," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Mary land. 80

National Endowment for the Arts. "About Shakespeare in American Communities." Available from http://www.arts.gov/national/shakespeare/ About.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

National Endowment for the Arts. "Recent Grants by Discipline." Available from http://www.arts.gov/grants/recent/index _ 02.html; Internet; accessed 21 April 2010.

National Endowment for the Arts. "NEA at a Glance." Available from http://www.arts.gov/about/Facts/AtAGlance.html; Internet; accessed 21 April 2010.

National Endowment for the Arts. "The Arts and The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009, Public Law 111-5 ("Recovery Act")." Available from http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/recovery/; Internet; accessed 10 April2010.

Nice, Clarence Carter. "Narrative Reports June 30, 1936--District #5, Key West, FL," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Organization and Operations ofMusic Education Activities, WPA Technical Series Community Service Circular No. 12, Music Program Circular No.2, December 23, 1940," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

"Pamplet-Muisc Education, W.P.A. Federal Music Project ofNew York City Division of Women's and Professional Projects," National and Special Reports, compiled 1936-1939, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Pettis, Ashley. "Special Report (October 30, 1935-June 15, 1938) New York City Composers Forum," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935- 1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Report on Federal Music Project Activities April 1-30, 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of August 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 81

"Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of May 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of July 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Report on Federal Music Project Activities for the Month of November 1938," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69 National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Report on Performance and Attendance from Inception to March 31, 1938 dated April1, 1938," Monthly Performance and Attendance Reports, compiled 111936-411940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Reports Various Music Projects-June 15, 1936," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Roberts, Sam. "Births to Minorities Are Approaching Majority in U.S." The New York Times, 11 March 2010. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/20 10/03/12/us/12census.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

Rossman, Gretchen and Sharon F. Rallis. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2003.

Sutton-Doland, Ruth. "Narrative Reports Written November 15, 1936 Regarding Wisconsin," Monthly Narrative Reports, compiled 1936-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

Taylor, Nick. American-Made: The Enduring Legacy ofthe WPA: When FDR Put the Nation to Work. New York: Bantam Books, 2008.

"The Federal Music Project, Works Progress Administration, July 1935-1939, Dated August 31, 1939," Reports: 1936-1943 and Undated, U.S. Work Projects Administration Federal Music Project Collection, Music Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Tindall, Glenn. "Tentative Suggestions Regarding a Proposed Music Project for Consideration of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Submitted February 1934," Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. 82

"Transcript ofNew York City Forum February 24, 1937 Aaron Copland," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

"Transcript ofNew York City Forum March 17, 1937 Dr. Howard Hanson," Records Relating to the Composers' Forum, compiled 1935-1940, Record Group 69, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland.

U.S. Census Bureau. "An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury." Available from http://www.census.gov/Press­ Release/www/releases/archives/population/0 12496.html; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. "Historical National Population Estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999." Available from http://www .census. gov /population/estimates/nation/popclockest. txt; Internet; accessed 21 April2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. "Census Bureau Projects U.S. Population of305.5 Million on New Year's Day." Available from http://www.census.gov/Press­ Release/www/releases/archives/population/0 13127 .html. Internet; accessed 21 April2010.