Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2019 Prizes, Winning, and Identity: Narrative Vocal Music of the Pulitzer Prize, 2008–2018 Julia K. Kuhlman West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Part of the Composition Commons, and the Musicology Commons Recommended Citation Kuhlman, Julia K., "Prizes, Winning, and Identity: Narrative Vocal Music of the Pulitzer Prize, 2008–2018" (2019). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 3769. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/3769 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRIZES, WINNING, AND IDENTITY: NARRATIVE VOCAL MUSIC OF THE PULITZER PRIZE, 2008–2018 Julia K. Kuhlman Thesis submitted to the College of Creative Arts at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Musicology Evan A. MacCarthy, Ph.D., Chair Travis D. Stimeling, Ph.D. Matthew Heap, Ph.D. Morgantown, West Virginia 2019 Keywords: Prizes, Awards, Pulitzer, Prestige, Vocal Music, Cultural Arbitration Copyright 2019 Julia K. Kuhlman Abstract Prizes, Winning, and Identity: Narrative Vocal Music of the Pulitzer Prize, 2008–2018 Julia K. Kuhlman This thesis considers the ways in which the Pulitzer Prize for Music shapes and is shaped by music of the moment. Since 1943, the Pulitzer Prize has marked 83 pieces as “distinguished” examples of American music. The financial rewarding of winning composers and the initiation of a reciprocal transfer of prestige and political capital, the Pulitzer’s expert juries and governing body has contributed to the preservation of a perpetually-shifting status quo. By chronicling the year-to-year shifts of administrative power dynamics in prize selections, the Pulitzer Prize has mirrored the changing American musical landscape. Drawing on methods of reception history, archival research, and sociological theory, I address recent efforts to reform the Pulitzer’s arbitration of taste. Through an examination of Pulitzer- winning pieces for voice and the prize juries who selected them, I argue that over the past decade we witness a broader and more inclusive definition of American music. A new emphasis by the Prize on global identities and themes—and the social conflicts they articulate—constitute an alteration of the Pulitzer Prize’s institutional identity and its ongoing construction of an American canon for the twenty-first century. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES AND FIGURES...........................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………….v INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………1 CHAPTER ONE: Prizes & Price Points: An Economic View of Cultural Prizes……………..27 CHAPTER TWO: The History of the Pulitzer Prize & Music………………………………...56 CHAPTER THREE: Winners in Waiting: Pulitzer Juries & Finalists…………………………78 CHAPTER FOUR: Winners & Boards……………………………………………………….104 CHAPTER FIVE: The Pulitzer Prize & the Musical Field…………………………………...138 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………….….161 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………166 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………..181 iii TABLES AND FIGURES FIGURE 1, Rachel Whiteread’s House……………………....……….……………………32 FIGURE 2, Pulitzer Prizewinners by Performing Forces......................................................93 FIGURE 3, Pulitzer Prizewinner Ages.................................................................................127 TABLE 1, Narrative Vocal Works of the Pulitzer Prize……………..….…………….......…1 TABLE 2, Grawemeyer Award Winners 2008-2018.............................................................52 TABLE 3, Pulitzer Prizewinners and Juries, 1943-1953........................................................64 TABLE 4, Vocal Music Winners Before 1960.......................................................................68 TABLE 5, Vocal Music Winners 1975-1996.........................................................................72 TABLE 6, Most Frequently Serving Jurors............................................................................85 TABLE 7, Juries of Sig Gissler 2003-2006............................................................................87 TABLE 8, Jurors’ First Services.............................................................................................88 TABLE 9, New Jurors 2008-2018 Serving Multiple Times...................................................89 TABLE 10, Narrative Vocal Finalists 2008-2018...................................................................91 TABLE 11, Pulitzer-Nominated Electroacoustic Works.........................................................99 iv Acknowledgements I spent a lot of my master’s degrees learning and re-learning how to pursue the things that inspire my curiosity. My gratitude for the people who helped me find them (and be tenacious about them) is close to inexpressible, but I’ll try: The words filling these too many pages are only possible because of the Kuhlmen & Kuhlwomen who put me here—here being happy, healthy, successful, and on this planet. Especially Mom, Grandma, Grandpa, and Joe. My membership in a dynamic community of musicians always challenges me to think through as many perspectives as I can conceive. Dr. Michael Ibrahim, Dr. Matthew Heap, members of the MMC past and present, the WVU and BGSU saxophone studios (if you could say they’re different) have helped me to find my place as a musical “utility man.” Many of the questions that fascinate me the most about music aren’t the ones I write about, but the ones that help me to understand how music can help humans be better humans. Dr. Travis Stimeling’s modelling of compassionate, empathetic, and ethical scholarship has profoundly shaped these “how and why” questions of my musical practice. Throughout this thesis, it’s not difficult to find examples of the many ways in which I’ve been influenced by my advisor and mentor, Evan MacCarthy. It isn’t simply my frequent use of the word “profound” or Rubiks Cube hand gestures, but the depth and comprehensiveness of thought, work ethic, humor, and worldliness with which he approaches his own work that I strive to capture in mine. The parts of this project of which I’m proudest reflect the lessons he’s shared, and I’m thankful to have been supported throughout this process by such an inspiring, generous, and thoughtful scholar. v Introduction The Pulitzer still seems to be the most prestigious prize in most people’s mind for music in this country. Certainly there are richer prizes, but the Pulitzer has the most name recognition. People tend to think the Pulitzer prize-winning-composers are some kind of special breed.1 Christopher Rouse, Winner of the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for Music The Pulitzer is…an excuse to conclude that American music sucks.2 Kyle Gann, Critic There is perhaps nothing quite like the annual announcement of the Pulitzer Prize for Music for its ability to inspire skepticism and celebration in equal measure. Awarded annually to an American composer for a musical work premiered during the previous year, the prize has become known to composers as a career-maker. But what does it actually do? How can one organization claim to have an impact upon a compositional landscape as diverse as the United States? This is the question I will explore throughout this thesis through the perspectives of Pulitzer winners, finalists, juries, the prize’s governing body, and its audiences. At its most basic, the Pulitzer’s role is to promote outstanding American music by acting as an arbitrator between the musicians who create it and the audiences who consume it. Listeners treat the Pulitzer as a kind of advertisement. A daily confrontation with an overwhelming barrage of pieces, performers, or composers becomes much easier when the Pulitzer Prize presents a single manageable and easy-to-locate selection. The prize transforms a could listen into a should listen. Its legitimization of prizewinners uses two-tiered process: a jury of highly regarded musical specialists narrows an unwieldly list of possibilities for listening to three finalists, and 1 Bruce Duffie, “Composer Christopher Rouse,” Bruce Duffie Interviews, April 29,1994, Accessed April 26, 2019, http://www.bruceduffie.com/rouse.html. 2 Dean Suzuki, “View from the West: A New Hoper for the Pulitzer,” New Music Box, August 1, 2003, https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/view-from-the-west-new-hope-for-the-pulitzer/. 1 the Pulitzer’s Administrative Board selects one. With the Pulitzer name as a seal of approval, winning pieces and composers can use the award as a sort of credential. Beyond simply rewarding its winners with more listeners, a prize such as the Pulitzer supports its selections with invaluable and necessary resources. The award transfers prestige and money to its winners