by Karen L. Carter-Schwendler
as published in the IAWM Journal, June 1995, pp. 12-15.
The concert reviews of the American composer, essayist, and music critic Virgil Thomson (1896-1989) are generally accepted as some of the best writing about music, indeed as models of good criticism. For Thomson, the career of critic involved cultivating a reputation as a strong-minded polemicist, a consummate promoter and interpreter of contemporary musical culture, and an articulate writer. He reviewed not only art music but also jazz, popular music, film music, theater, and books. Often, especially in his longer articles and books, he approached extra-musical topics in history, finance, and politics.
From 1940 to 1954 Thomson was head music critic for the New York Herald Tribune, where his reviews and other articles appeared regularly during the concert season, from about October through April. Due to his popularity, reviews were reprinted in several book-length collections.1 Thomson's engaging prose style and polemical approach captured readers' interest and generated a response which was, if not thoroughly positive, certainly always lively, as is evident in a recently published collection of correspondence between Thomson and his readers.2
Thomson exerted undeniable influence on the New York musical scene and on his readers' views of music and musicians, particularly new American music. Over the years he became known for challenging the managerial policies of performing institutions such as the Metropolitan Opera and the New York Philharmonic which promoted a constricted repertory of largely 19th-century European "mainstream' works. He devoted increasing amounts of his reviewing space to performances of new music. In 1951, after ten years at the Herald Tribune, he underscored his objective in the preface to Music Right and Left, his third collection of Herald Tribune reprints:
"Over the years . . . my coverage has altered. At the beginning it was more catholic. I reviewed the big names and the little names, the old music and the new. Nowadays I pay less attention to standard repertory and standard soloists, to what one might call the nationally advertised brands. They get covered, of course; but I tend to leave these more familiar assignments to my ever-patient colleagues of the staff. I like to examine the newer trends, the nonstandardized musical life of outlying cities, experiments in the universities, everything that might be preparing the second half of our century for being different from the first."3
When reading Thomson's Herald Tribune reviews, I found myself asking questions that involved issues that were somewhat different from other writers' glowing praise of his acutely perceptive ear and memorable language, his courage in criticizing established institutions, and his skillful explaining of contemporary trends for the enlightenment of his loyal readers. Did he really fulfill the "cultural obligation" to new American music 4 that he asserted was his critical raison d'etre? More specifically, how and where did the activities and contributions of contemporary American female composers fit into his musical scene? Unlike other writers, such as Jose Iturbi and Lawrence Gilman (Thomson's predecessor at the Herald Tribune), Thomson did not deliver sweepingly negative judgments of women composers. He rarely mentioned feminine and masculine traits in music.5 Yet he did review music by women differently from music by men.
This essay will examine these differences to reveal some of the ways Thomson's reviews supported a view of contemporary musical activities that was predominantly male. Some of his methods were obvious, such as a selective omission of women composers' music from his reviews. Perhaps more telling, however, were the subtle alterations in his language when he was discussing music composed by women.
Though Thomson willingly discussed women as performers, at least as singers and instrumental soloists, if not conductors, he tended not to discuss women as creators.6 Extenuating circumstances may be cited, such as the fact that fewer works by female composers were performed than works by men, and that Thomson could not possibly review every concert that took place. Yet he was selective in his attention. While he praised the League of Composers concerts for their emphasis on contemporary American music, and wrote frequently about their activities, he offered only a rare, and cursory, mention of the Orchestrette Classique, led by Frederique Petrides, referring to the group's "thoroughly intelligent programming." 7 It is true that this group was in existence only during Thomson's first three years at the Herald Tribune (1940-43), yet the group did promote the cause of the American composer, male and female. It seems odd that he did not use it more often as an example.
When he chose not to mention works by women, one reason could be constrictions of space in the newspaper; in reviewing a program of several works, he might have room to name only one or two. In a review of a concert of original compositions by students of the High School of Music and Art, he names the sixteen composers‹six of them female‹ not their works, except for Meyer Kupferman's woodwind sextet.8 Another review, of a concert which included Mary Howe's song Let Us Walk in the White Snow, reveals a similar procedure of omission.9
While Thomson claimed to be interested in activities at the universities, and mentioned numerous commissions and awards procured by male composers, he was quite reticent about awards procured by women composers. Omitted was any mention of Miriam Gideon's commissions from the City College of New York, or Marion Bauer's commission by the League of Composers. Further, while Thomson usually managed to find time to attend concerts devoted to the music of contemporary American male composers, in 1951 he managed to miss a concert devoted entirely to works by Miriam Gideon, a concert which received a lengthy review from Olin Downes in the New York Times.10 I do not mean that Thomson should have attended every New York concert, and been an ardent supporter of women's music. I am only pointing out that, for Thomson, the "cause" of American music was separate from the contributions that female composers were making.
In addition to his selective omission of women's creative efforts, I find that Thomson practiced a subtle, almost subliminal means of communicating a negative evaluation. When reviewing music by women, he often altered his usually effective critical and descriptive vocabulary, noticeably decreasing the number of vivid adjectives for which he was so famous in his reviews of music by men. It is generally acknowledged that the power of his prose style was that it not only imparted critical evaluation but also conveyed the degree of enthusiasm that a given composition engendered in him. Frequent readers of Thomson's reviews could become acquainted with his stock of adjectives and other descriptive vocabulary‹even if they occasionally found him mystifying‹and they would certainly interpret any absence of his usual descriptive remarks as strong indication of reduced interest in the composition under discussion.
Just as it is generally recognized that Thomson wrote most successfully and vigorously about things with which he was most comfortable, such as American music and French music, so also he seems to have been more comfortable with compositions written by men than by women. When writing about music by women, he often seems to "distance" himself by writing in a style that is more objective, less descriptive, drier in tone, and less "passionate." It is not clear that this lack of enthusiasm that I find was intentional on his part. Yet one cannot help but notice that when he did not like a piece of music by a man, he was direct and to the point, as in this comment about Honegger:
"Arthur Honegger's 'Joan of Arc at the Stake' has never meant much to this colleague . . . So loosely conceived and so casually composed a work could not be expected to have much tension in performance."11
Similarly, he wrote of Ernst Krenek's Symphony no. 4:
"It is troublesome to encounter a work so seemingly serious in thought, so certainly ambitious, and so thoroughly well composed in a practical sense, and yet to be utterly unable at any point to be convinced by it."12
Compared to these outspoken remarks about men's music, his apathy and passivity when writing about women's compositions is striking. The reader's sense of Thomson's discomfort is heightened when the review is about music by women and men both, as in his 1941 review of a League of Composers concert. Consider the following paragraph about Miriam Gideon's three songs, The Too Late Born, Gather Ye Rosebuds, and Sonnet:
"Miss Gideon's songs were charming melodically, but lacked grace prosodically, because the English language does not lend itself prettily to equal note-values, as French does. Trying to fit it to any such pattern gives the result something of the flavor of a translation."13
This was followed by remarks on Alvin Etler's Five Speeds Forward, for flute, oboe, viola, and bassoon, which Thomson described as
". . . graceful in both writing and execution. The combination is a charming one that lends itself to all sorts of variety in musical texture. The second of the 'Speeds' was a richly flowing slow movement of great breadth and loveliness. "
Thomson's prose is more animated, more typically "Thomsonian," in the discussion of Etler's work. The view he conveys of Gideon's songs is not hostile or antagonistic in any way; rather, it is straightforward, objective, and to the point. The reader is told that while her songs contained nice melodies, her approach to prosody left something to be desired. Of course, his remark denigrating English prosody is indicative of his admitted bias for things French. Notwithstanding, the objective tone of Thomson's comments also conveys less enthusiasm for Gideon's songs than do his elaborate remarks about Etler's work, and, owing to Thomson's considerable influence, Gideon would seem to have been placed at a disadvantage. Reading these comments today, of course, we have the advantage of knowing that her name is now more familiar to most people than Etler's.
In a review from 1953 we may compare Thomson's comments on the music of Peggy Glanville-Hicks and Henry Brant.14 He reported that:
"Peggy Glanville-Hicks's 'Letters from Morocco' are six longish songs for tenor and orchestra composed in frank (and often imaginative always agreeable) evocation of North African musical ways to descriptions of that land culled from letters of Paul Bowles. Their texts are beautiful; and their music, in at least two cases, is poetically touching. In all cases it is scored with a sure hand, and its application of Arabic vocal melisma to English words gives a pungent flavor. "
He had this to say about Henry Brant's Signs and Alarms:
"Scored for two clarinets, piccolo, trumpet, trombone, tuba, two horns and percussion, the piece is at once a comical joke and a high expert study in instrumental sonorities. Every part is a piece of virtuoso writing, and the whole is an exciting extension of instrumental customs, as well as an entertaining pleasantry. Especially original and effective are its researches into the acoustical affinities of tuba with kettledrum and of xylophone with piccolo, the former duet accompanying a hair-raising trombone solo, the latter a side-splitting passage for trumpet. "
Again, while there is nothing overtly negative in Thomson's comments about Glanville-Hicks's work, it comes off less well when juxtaposed with the more engaging writing about Brant's. In another review headed "Substantial Novelties" (1949), Thomson comments on works by four composers - Wallingford Riegger, Ruth Crawford, Lou Harrison, and Alan Hovhaness - and responds extremely positively to all but the last.15 Riegger's String Quartet no. 2 he finds "full of meaning," "serene," and the "work of a master workman"; "it is shapely, clear, varied, free and eminently sensible." Harrison's Suite for Strings No. 2 is "sweet," "sincere," "original," "ingenious," and "strong." Crawford's String Quartet, second movement, is "striking," "thoroughly absorbing," "distinguished," "noble," "daring," and "completely successful," yet he devotes the least space to it of the four works reviewed. Further, he begins his review of this work, not with the composer's name, but with "A slow movement from a [the] quartet by Ruth Crawford. . . ." While it is conceivable that Thomson was implying that this work, dating from 1930, was a "classic" compared to the others, nevertheless he makes the names of the other three composers more immediately apparent.
Because today's assessments of Thomson's reviews are usually based on the reviews in reprint collections rather than on the sum total of his reviews in the Herald Tribune, I have compared the two versions. I have found only one review that was altered substantially in its reprint version.16 It begins as follows:
"The Composers' Forum gave us last Saturday night in the McMillin Theater of Columbia University one of its more entertaining contrasts. Music by Julia Smith and Lou Harrison made up the program. The easy-going jollity of the former set off perfectly the quiet poetry and intense auditory expertness of the latter without placing either at an unnecessary disadvantage."Miss Smith had mobilized two pianos, three singers, two conductors (including herself) and an orchestra of some forty players. She produced with these forces extended selections from a fairy-tale opera, a five-piece twelve-tone piano suite, and a symphony on American folk airs. All were marked by animation, clear expressive intent and a preoccupation with the school trade. "
While Smith's three pieces of "jollity" received only this paragraph in the reprint, Lou Harrison's works of "intense auditory expertness" received four times as much. Moreover, his compositions merited the following description:
"The whole is delicate of sound, thoroughly alive rhythmically and melodically, evocative of some tranquil and vibrant scene. Few composers now alive can fascinate the ear, as Mr. Harrison does, with simple procedures. At once plain and sophisticated, his music reflects a concentration on music's basic elements that is as expressive, surprisingly, as it is intrinsically interesting. "
Later in the review Thomson remarks:
"The evening's final delight (preceding the forum discussion) was a pair of Pastorals for strings that imitate the sound of a vielle, or medieval hurdygurdy. Sophisticated, picturesque and exquisitely melodious, these pieces use Mr. Harrison's elaborate skill in composition toward the service of an utterly simple expressive purpose. They, too, transport us to a dream world where all is music, really music, really interesting musically, really sensitive and elaborate and lovely and not about anything in the world but how beautiful the materials of music can be when handled with tenderness and with intelligence. "
Again, the language of the passage regarding Julia Smith's works is far more objective. It tells the reader what instruments were used, what type of works were heard, and how they were successful in technique and expression. Nothing superfluous is said, nothing more is needed. By comparison, in discussing Harrison's work, Thomson depends on his readers to interpret phrases such as "plain and sophisticated," and "intrinsically interesting," and to appreciate the poetry of his description of "a dream world where all is music, really music, really interesting musically . . .[etc.]." The title of the review is itself significant: "For Teaching [Smith's work] and For the Mind [Harrison's]."
The reprint of the review omits the following paragraph that elaborates on Smith's work and does, I think, merit quoting:
"Entertaining to hear once, if a shade insistent thematically, all these works appeared to your reviewer less exigent as communications of their author's inner ear-life than determined in their wish to impose her talents on the young. These talents are not small, and her training has been respectable [she was a student of Thomson at one point] if none too thorough. One wonders, indeed, if this composer's complaisance toward the standards of the high school auditorium does not conceal a certain esthetic innocence on her part and perhaps, too, a sagacious instinct toward basing her career on captive audiences. Her music is jolly and, even in the twelve-tone context, easy to take. If it were not quite so easy also to leave alone, its amiable qualities might give it an authentic charm. At the present state of her advancement, Miss Smith seems to have, for all her pleasant gifts, her native energy drive and her relentless good humor, no discernible artistic personality at all. A factory-smooth product for the educational machine is apparently her ideal. Her obvious sincerity and openness of mind might delay its achievement. "
Again, whether one agrees with Thomson, one must acknowledge that he is not attacking Smith's music. Instead, his statements offer exactly what should be expected - opinionated criticism. Unfortunately, these comments are not only especially harsh when juxtaposed with the glowing account of Harrison's works, but also less imaginative and less inspired.
Equally disconcerting here are Thomson's recurring, and denigrating, references to the "school trade" and "captive audiences" and the like. Is he suggesting that Smith's work is somehow simple to the point of being inane, and better performed for the less sophisticated ears and less-intellectually developed minds of high school students? Is he suggesting that she pursue a career as a "school marm"? No easy answer can be found. It is significant that Smith was known primarily as a pianist, composer and writer, not an educator. Her works include operas, symphonic works, a piano trio, a string quartet, and a piano concerto. Her writings include a book on Copland and one on Carl Friedberg. By contrast, Thomson had nothing but praise for Aaron Copland's play-opera The Second Hurricane, which was written specifically for high school performers. In this case he remarked that:
"The Hurricane in score is as satisfactory as it was in performance. It is a very beautiful work, a very rich work, touching, exciting, gay and a real music-pleasure."17
Of course none of this resolves the question of why so much of the original review of Julia Smith's works was omitted from the reprint version. Obviously, Thomson did not want this portion of the review to be re-read. One could speculate that when he re-examined the review he judged it atypical of his prose style and chose to omit it. Placed alongside the other reviews in the collection, it stuck out like a sore thumb. That the adjectives and descriptive remarks about Harrison's work were included in full is not surprising, as they are in keeping with the reviewing style that established Thomson's reputation.
Throughout his tenure on the Herald Tribune Thomson claimed that he was an avid promoter of contemporary music, and censurer of those who were not dedicated to varying the musical diet, broadening the repertoire from the canon of European classics. Contrary to his declaration, it seems that what he was really trying to achieve was a new musical canon that consisted primarily of works by contemporary male Americans. No matter what the reason, Thomson did not provide compositions by women with representative space, nor did he always review them on equal terms with works written by men. The bottom line is: he did not promote all contemporary American music.
Unfortunately, Thomson is no longer here to discuss his methods or explain the reasons behind them. What concerns me is not the fact that the Herald Tribune writings continue to be held in high esteem‹that position is in many ways well deserved - but rather that many writers continue to claim that they are the quintessential paradigm for music criticism that reflects unequivocally the contemporary "musical scene" in which they were written. While the attitudes and reception may be accepted as historical facts, they must not be perpetuated without question.
1. The Musical Scene (1945), Music Right and Left (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), The Art of Judging Music (1948), and Music Reviewed 1940-1954 (New York: Vintage Books, 1967). He also wrote for Vanity Fair, Harper's, Vogue, Modern Music, The American Mercury, and The Boston Transcript. His books include The State of Music (1939, rev. 1962), Virgil Thomson (1966), and Music with Words: A Composer's View (1989, posth.).
2. Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson, edited by Tim Page and Vanessa Weeks Page (New York: Summit Books, 1988), 147-278. The Herald Tribune during those years had a daily circulation estimated at 450,000, the weekly book section 750,000. The figures are from Thomson's introduction to Music Reviewed: 1940-1954 (1967), v.
3. Music Right and Left, ix.
4. Thomson, "The Cultural Obligation," reprinted in The Musical Scene (New York, 1945), 263-265.
5. He did remark that the women's chorus at Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, was "for once, on the efficiency level of the best male choirs" ("From the Middle States," Herald Tribune, 25 February 1951, sect. IV, p. 8).
6. For a few other cursory mentions of women composers by Thomson, see "University Festival" in The Art of Judging Music, 203-6; American Music Since 1910 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), and Barbara Zuck's "Virgil Thomson: American Music and Music Critic‹Remarks by Virgil Thomson at the Otterbein Virgil Thomson Festival," Otterbein Miscellany (December 1976): 1-23.
7. Thomson, "Conducting Reviewed," reprinted in Music Left and Right, 69. The Orchestrette Classique performed works by Diamond, Dello Joio, Copland, Barber, Menotti, Ulric Cole, and Julia Smith, according to Carol Neul-Bates, ed., Women in Music (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1982), 69.
8. Thomson, "The Budding Grove," reprinted in The Musical Scene, 133.
9. Thomson, "Masterpieces Revived," reprinted in Music Right and Left, (New York, 1951), 104.
10. Olin Downes, "Miss Bauer's Work Makes Up Concert," New York Times, 9 May 1961, L41.
11. Thomson, "Anniversary Show," Herald Tribune, 19 November 1952, 26.
12. Thomson, "Music Throughout," ibid., 30 March 1951, 14.
13. Thomson, "Choice Young," ibid., 3 February 1941, 9. The three songs are published under the title Sonnets From Fatal Interview.
14. Thomson, "Original and Exciting," Herald Tribune, 23 February 1953, 11.
15. "Substantial Novelties," ibid., 16 March 1949, 21.
16. Thomson, "For Teaching and For the Mind," ibid., 17 April 1950, sect. IV, p. 6. It is reprinted in Music Reviewed 1940-1954, 313-314.
17. Selected Letters of Virgil Thomson, 127.
Karen L. Carter-Schwendler recently completed a Ph.D. in musicology at the University of Kentucky. She wrote her dissertation on the music and activities of folksinger/songwriter Jean Ritchie. The article on Thomson is a shortened version of a paper presented at the 1992 Sonneck Society Conference.