Citation
William Schuman's literature and materials approach

Material Information

Title:
William Schuman's literature and materials approach
Creator:
Steele, Jonathan, 1952-
Copyright Date:
1988
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Jonathan Steele. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
19935917 ( OCLC )
AFL4809 ( LTUF )
0024623445 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
WILLIAM SCHUMAN'S LITERATURE AND MATERIALS APPROACH: A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE MUSICIANSHIP
By
JONATHAN STEELE

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1988




Copyright 1988
by
Jonathan Edward Steele




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude for the guidance and encouragement given by my major professor, Dr. John White, throughout my program of study at the University of Florida and particularly during the writing of this dissertation.
I am also grateful for the helpful and precise
assistance provided by my committee members in their review of my work. Their many hours of work are greatly appreciated.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Clearwater Christian
College for the substantial assistance and encouragement given to me in my doctoral studies.
Most of all, I am thankful for my wife, Bea. Without her unending love, patience, and support, I would not have finished this task.

iii




TABLE OF CONTENTS

pace
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 1
Objectives 5
Background 6
The Juilliard School . . . . . . 6
The Literature and Materials Approach . .
History of the Comprehensive Musicianship
Approach .
The Young Composers Project . . . .
The Contemporary Music Project and
Comprehensive Musicianship . . 17 Background on William Schuman . . . . . 22
Biography 22
Philosophy 38
Musical Output 41
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . 45
Scholarly Research 46
Bibliographies 47
Periodical Literature . . . . . . . 48
Biographies 52
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . 54
Preliminary Study 54
Interview With William Schuman . . . . . 54 Interview With Michael White . . . . . 56
Interview Protocol 58
Other Interviews 59
Follow-up Study 60
iv




CHAPTER FOUR COMPARISON OF APPROACHES . . . . 61
The Literature and Materials Approach (L and M) . 62
origins 62
Summary of Schuman's educational views . . 69 Implementation 71
Materials 73
Teaching Fellows Program . . . . . 84
Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) . . . . . 87
Origins 87
Support of CM from Educational Philosophy . 94 Implementation 101
Philosophical Connections Between the Two
Movements 115
Current Adaptation of the Literature and Materials
Approach at Juilliard 120
Differences 121
Similarities 127
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS . . . 129 APPENDIX A Outline for Literature and Materials 1 136 APPENDIX B Outline for Literature and Materials 11 140 APPENDIX C Outline for Literature and Materials 111 142 APPENDIX D Graduate Standing Qualification Exam . 145 APPENDIX E Discography of William Schuman's Music . 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY 148
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 151
INDEX 152




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy WILLIAM SCHUMAN'S LITERATURE AND MATERIALS APPROACH: A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE MUSICIANSHIP By
Jonathan Steele
December 1988
Chairman: Dr. John White
Major Department: Music
During his tenure as president of the Juilliard School of Music (October 1, 1945 to December 31, 1961), William Schuman restructured the school in several significant ways. The most significant pedagogical contribution was his revision of the curriculum used for Music Theory instruction. The new curriculum was designated the "Literature and Materials" approach, because it was based upon an orientation to music itself as a source of information about compositional practices rather than textbooks and other writings about music. It was a philosophy and an approach for the mastery of musicianship rather than a method or system of instruction. The intent of this curriculum was to remove the bias created by the imposition of "a priori" rules upon the analysis of music, thus allowing a fuller understanding of all style periods, including twentiethcentury music.




Comprehensive Musicianship is another approach which
bore a strong similarity to William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach. This concept came about in the sixties as a result of a Ford Foundation grant for the study of arts in the United States. The Ford Foundation became interested in this project as a result of exploratory conferences which they sponsored.
The Ford grant was appropriated first for the Young
Composers Project of 1959. In this project, young composers were placed in public schools for renewable one-year terms to compose original works for school bands, choruses, and orchestras. Additional grants came from the Ford Foundation through the year 1974 to fund subsequent movements which arose out of the Young Composers Project, Including the Composers in Public Schools Program, the Contemporary Music Project, and the Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education. Out of these programs came the definition of a "new" approach to musicianship training known as Comprehensive Musicianship.
This dissertation documents William Schuman's early development of the Literature and Materials approach, his implementation of this program at Juilliard, some associations of the program with the origins of the Contemporary Music Project of the sixties, and a comparison of the Literature and Materials approach at Juilliard to the Comprehensive Musicianship movement in music education.

vii




CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Interest in the subject of the Literature and Materials of William Schuman and its relationship to the Contemporary Music Project came about initially as a result of a study of each of those subjects in graduate classes in Current Trends in Music Education and in Twentieth-Century Styles. In these classes it was apparent that there was a relationship between the essence of Schuman's educational philosophy and the goals of the Contemporary Music Project, but that there was little indication of any correlation in the materials published on the two subjects. Further study verified this initial conjecture.
William Schuman became the president of the Juilliard School on October 1, 1945. During his first year as president he was already putting into effect educational reforms which would reach beyond the scope of the school itself. His most notable reform was the new approach to the instruction of music theory known as the Literature and Materials approach.
Trends in music education in the United States often originate in college music departments, schools of music,




2
and conservatories of music. When a new approach to musical study is introduced in higher education, it has an effect on the students and graduates of that institution, who often become practitioners of the new method. It also has a rippling effect into other developments in music instruction depending upon the influence and stature of that institution in our society.
The Literature and Materials approach played a major role in a national change of thought among music educators concerning how music should be taught at the college level. The idea of an integrated approach to the study of music had been discussed by some. In the post-war period of the late 1940's there was an atmosphere of experimentation in many areas, including music. Therefore, it is not surprising to note that both composers and teachers of composition were challenging traditions. It was only natural that the idea of combining elements of music in the teaching of music theory would be one of the proposed changes. In a 1946 article in Music Educators Journal, Neil Daniels said,
In short, the harmony course is becoming a course
in music appreciation as well as a course in
certain well-defined skills and techniques in the manipulation of rhythmic and tonal concept . .
The traditional harmony course is undergoing a vast reshaping. . Counterpoint and harmony
cannot be thought of apart from one another. Even
in strict counterpoint one must think of the
vertical relations of the melodic lines. Harmony
and counterpoint are just different ways of




viewing tone relations and should be taught
together in that sense.1
In a 1959 article describing Schuman's Literature and Materials program, Frederick Kintzer said,
To those of us who have grown up under the old
routine of three or more isolated courses which
comprised the music major's daily dozen, these
proposals make sense. The former manner of
teaching music fundamentals lacked continuity as
the student was moved from technique to technique
and from room to room on successive hours of the school day. Not only did the system suffer from
lack of integration, but techniques were most frequently presented in abstract concepts and
exercises.2
Kintzer said that another leader in the new, integrated style of teaching music was Howard A. Murphy, a professor of music education at Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York. To illustrate this, Kintzer makes reference to a statement that Murphy used in the foreword to a solo piano analyzed edition to Beethoven's symphonies (1938), where Murphy said, "The greatest teacher of music, either aesthetically or technically, is music''3.
Kintzer described a new textbook written by Murphy and published in 1951 that followed the integrated and musical approach to the study of theory. He said that this was one of many results of the "impetus of the dramatic Juilliard
1Neil M. Daniels, "The Junior College Curriculum," Music Educators Journal, January-February 1946, p. 26.
2Frederick C. Kintzer, "Integrated Music Fundamentals for the College Freshman," Music Educators Journal, February-March 1959, p. 73.
31bid., p. 73.




announcement" of the L and M program. The thesis of Murphy's text was "to teach the art of music, not theory, for the enrichment of life, through the stimulation of creativity and the clarification of insights for the perf ormer and listener",4
According to W. McNeil Lowry, a staff member of the
Ford Foundation Humanities and Arts program and an associate of Schuman, the idea of an integrated approach to the teaching of musicianship was "in the air" and was being discussed before it was established at Juilliard. Lowry was responsible for the Contemporary Music Project as it was funded by the Ford Foundation. This project became yet another effort toward an integrated approach to the teaching of music theory.
Schuman's Literature and Materials approach, although it represents neither the first discussion of the idea nor the last application of its principles, nevertheless stands alone as the first major implementation of the integrated approach with any degree of continuing success at an institution of higher learning.
The prominence of Juilliard was unquestionably enhanced by the reforms of William Schuman during his tenure as president of the school. The school's prominence as a major influence in arts education certainly paved the way for the
4Howard A. Murphy and Edwin J. Stringham, Creative
Harmony and Musicianship (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951), p. xi, cited in Kintzer, "Integrated Music Fundamentals," p. 73.




subsequent reception of the Comprehensive Musicianship idea as a national movement which arose out of the Contemporary Music Project. The materials that document the Contemporary Music Project of the sixties do not make reference to William Schuman or his Literature and Materials approach as a precedent in the history of their movement. Very little mention is even made of the existence of the Literature and Materials approach, although it is identical in concept to Comprehensive Musicianship.
ObJectives
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: 1) to trace the factors which influenced Schuman' s development of the concept of Literature and Materials through a survey of his life, musical output, and philosophy; and 2) to document the similarity of the Literature and Materials approach as implemented at Juilliard to the subsequent approach of Comprehensive Musicianship. The sources for this documentation will be published materials from the Contemporary Music Project, existing literature about William Schuman and the Juilliard School, personal interviews with Schuman himself and with key individuals at Juilliard and In the Contemporary Music Project.




Background
The Juilliard School
The Juilliard School was originally two schools: The
Institute for Musical Art and the Juilliard Graduate School. The Institute for Musical Art was founded in 1905 by Dr. Frank Damrosch with financial backing from James Loeb. Damrosch, the institute's first director, was a godson of Franz Liszt and the brother of the famous conductor, Walter Damrosch. He had been the head of music education for New York City's public schools. His plan was to establish a music academy that would rival European conservatories so that gifted American students could receive high quality training without having to go abroad. The expected firstyear enrollment was about 100 students, but actual enrollment reached nearly 500.5
The Juilliard Graduate School was founded in 1924 with a legacy from Augustus D. Juilliard. Juilliard had been a music-lover, opera-benefactor, and textile manufacturer. When he died, he wanted to contribute to musical life in New York. His estate set aside 13 million dollars for the establishment of the Juilliard Musical Foundation in 1920. In 1924, these funds were offered to the Metropolitan Opera, but were considered by them to be unnecessary since their economic situation was solid at that time. As William
5Juilliard (New York: The Juilliard School, 1987), p.




Schuman related in a personal interview conducted during this study, "Juilliard's money was turned down by the Metropolitan Opera because they didn't want it. They didn't need it in those days, they thought." The trustees then decided to create a graduate school of music which would provide advanced education to persons of outstanding ability on a tuition-free basis.6
In 1926, the Juilliard Musical Foundation took over the Institute for Musical Art. The trustees desired that neither school would lose its identity. In 1927, the trustees formed a corporation with a Board of Directors to operate under the name of Juilliard School of Music. The distinguished Columbia University professor, John Erskine, became the first president of the new corporation, with Ernest Hutcheson serving as Dean of the Graduate School, and Frank Damrosch as Dean of the Institute for Musical Art.
Erskine continued as president until 1937 when he was succeeded by Ernest Hutcheson. Hutcheson served from 1937 until William Schuman's installation in 1945.
The two schools differed in that anyone who could
afford to pay the fee could attend the Institute for Musical Art, but the Juilliard Graduate School was more exclusive. Admission was highly competitive. One of Schuman's first reforms was the amalgamation of the schools into one; a
6George Dickey, "The Founding of Juilliard," The Juilliard Review Annual, 1963-1964, p. 19.




task which he described in my interview with him as being "very, very difficult to do." The name of Juilliard School of Music then was applied to the institution, and the use of separate titles was discontinued.
Schuman is also responsible for the establishment of the Literature and Materials program, The Juilliard Review journal, the Juilliard String Quartet, and the Dance Division during his time as president. In 1962, when Schuman began his service as president of the new Lincoln Center, he was responsible for the successful negotiations of the terms by which the Juilliard School would join the Lincoln Center as its resident school.
Peter Mennin succeeded William Schuman as president of Juilliard in 1962. He established the Drama Division in 1968. During that year, the name of the school was shortened to The Juilliard School to reflect the inclusion of the disciplines of music, drama, and dance. The move to the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts was completed under his presidency in 1969. Upon his death 1983, Peter Mennin was succeeded as president by Joseph Polisi, who still holds that office at the time of this study.7 The Literature and Materials Approach
Within a year after Schuman assumed the Presidency of
Juilliard in 1945, he totally revamped the theory department with sweeping changes in curriculum. The changes

7Juilliard, p. 15.




represented a new approach and philosophy rather than a method of instruction. Indeed, the very lack of method or regimentation is one of its hallmarks. It is an emphasis on the study of the music itself, rather than a study of books and methods about the music. Since this represented a radical departure from past traditions, changes in faculty personnel were inevitable as well. The essential flexibility could be handled by versatile musician-teachers but often proved to be beyond the reach of teachers competent in traditional approaches.
When Schuman came to the school he interviewed each of the existing music theory teachers to explain the new approach to them. He described it to me as follows:
I asked them whether they felt capable of teaching
this way and practically none of them said they
could. So I told the board that the best people
to teach this were composers who knew how to
teach, because the composer's training related to every aspect of music and the composer was taught
to look at music as a whole and you start with the
whole body, not the parts of the body.
Schuman found it necessary to hire many new members of the faculty for the Literature and Materials department who would have a particular knowledge and interest in the language of music. The resultant group included Vincent Persichetti, Peter Mennin, William Bergsma, Richard Franko Goldman, Robert Ward, Judson Ehrbar, Irwin Freundlich, Vittorio Giannini, Roger Goeb, Frederick Hart, Julius Herford, Robert Hufstader, Frederick Jacobi, Sergius Kagen,




10
Norman Lloyd, Robert Tangeman, and Bernard Wagenaar8 While no one was terminated by the new administration, some of them were not able to make the adjustment and decided to leave Juilliard.
Securing quality personnel to teach in the L and M
department has always been a challenge at Juilliard because of the super-human demands placed upon the teachers. A faculty member in L and M must be an active composer, an effective communicator, and a skillful performer on an instrument. While this is not an easy task, it is not unlike the challenge that exists at any school which attempts the current effort toward a so-called integrated approach toward the teaching of lower-division music theory. John D. White, Music Theory Coordinator of The University of Florida Music Department and author of Guidelines for College Teaching of Music Theory, describes it as follows:
Perhaps the ideal theory teacher is a unique
combination of theorist, composer, performer, and
historian; for the integration of these musical
disciplines is a major objective of the lowerdivision theory courses.9
A few pages later, he continues his description of teacher qualifications:
The ideal theory teacher, then, at least for the
integrated approach, is a kind of Renaissance
person with a balanced perspective--an
8William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and
Materials of Music," The Musical Quarterly 34 (1948), p. 159.
9John D. White, Guidelines for Colleae Teaching of Music Theory (London: Scarecrow, 1981), p. vi.




10Ibid., p. 7.

accomplished and experienced performer who in
addition to being a skillful composer is comfortable singing and at the keyboard; has a good
knowledge of music literature and history; and
possesses the communicative skills, perceptivity,
and other attributes of a fine teacher.10
History of the Comprehensive Musicianship Approach
The Comprehensive Musicianship approach was the outgrowth of an exploratory program sponsored by the Ford Foundation to study humanities and the arts in the United States. The activities of program were centered around two main projects: the Young Composers Project and the Contemporary Music Project.
The Young Composers Project. In 1957, the Ford
Foundation began the sponsorship of a series of conferences in which participants examined the place of arts and humanities in the national scene. W. McNeil Lowry was head of the Humanities and the Arts Program for the foundation which organized these conferences. He described the program in a telephone interview. American artists were called upon to offer suggestions for improving the appreciation of the arts in the United States. For a period of 18 months, Lowry and representatives of the Foundation went into 185 communities to talk to everyone they could find in the arts. The original title of this survey was, "Economic and Social Study of the Status of the Artist and His Institution In the United States." Despite the implications of this title, the




focus was centered on the artists, on professional music,
and not on education. The following quote from a 1958 Ford
Foundation report previews the program:
With the assistance of artists, heads of artistic institutions, critics, and community patrons, the
Foundation has undertaken a long-term study of the
economic and social position of the arts and the
artist in the United States. The first phase has been an inventory of points on which information is to be gathered. The Foundation this year held
two national conferences to catalogue major
questions in music, fine arts, the theater, and creative writing. In addition, the Foundation
staff has consulted critics and working artists in
New York and about eighty other communities, and
has also visited parallel artistic Institutions In
Europe. The first stage of data collection is
being carried out with the help of social scientists experienced in surveys. Analysis and
evaluation will not begin for at least another
year.11
At one of these conferences, Norman Dello Joio presented the idea of placing young composers in public secondary
schools. According to Lowry, Dello Joio's initial idea came
from music history of 200 or 300 years ago when composers
wrote for an immediate audience. Young composers in those
days were employed to write music for public consumption.
They not only wrote music, but they also performed it. In
the case of the church musician, it might be an original
cantata for the choir or a prelude for the organ. Dello
Joio suggested that if modern young composers could be
placed in environments where their work and creativity could
be developed during the formative stage of their careers,
11"Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report, (Oct. 1, 1957 to Sept. 30, 1958), p. 35.




they would also have a positive influence on a significant source of the musical life of the nation. The most natural place for this to occur would be the public schools.
The idea was put into operation as the Young Composers Project with an initial grant from the Ford Foundation of $200,000. This was administered by the Ford Foundation in cooperation with the National Music Council through a Joint Committee with Norman Dello Joio serving as chairman. This Joint Committee had two subcommittees: one for the selection of composers and one for the selection of school systems in which they would work. Members of the first composer selection committee were Oliver Daniel, Vittorio Giannini, Thor Johnson, Peter Mennin, and Douglas Moore, with Howard Hanson serving as an ex-officio member. Members of the first school system selection committee were Jacob Avshalomov, Vanett Lawler, George Howerton, Wiley Housewright, Robert Marvel, James Neilson, Ralph Rush, and Howard Hanson, an ex-officio member.12 Most of the music educators who had been involved in the early administration of the program were active members in the Music Educators National Conference (MENC), an organization which would later take a more prominent role in administering it.13
12Howard Hanson, "Report on the Ford Foundation
National Music Council Project to Place Young Composers in Secondary Public School Systems," National Music Council Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Spring 1959), pp. 3-4.
13Contemporary Music Project, Comprehensive
Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 3.




In my Interview with W. McNeil Lowry, he told me that the National Music Council was used by the Ford Foundation initially for two main reasons: 1) It was a music organization which encompassed the largest and most diverse group of musicians, including professionals, college faculty members, and other music educators; and 2) It was taxexempt with a "1501c3"' status. The Ford Foundation did not want to formulate a new organization just to accommodate the administration of this grant.
Gideon Waldrop (whose term of service was from 19591961) and Grant Beglarian (from 1961-1963) were the first two field representatives selected for the program.1 Their assignment was to travel around the country to meet with the composers, interact with them and help to resolve their problems.
Michael White, one of the first twelve composers sent out, is chairman of the Literature and Materials Department at Juilliard at the time of this study. He gave me a great deal of information during a personal interview and during a second interview over the telephone. He said that Gideon Waldrop (the first field representative for the Young Composers Project) had been a "middle man" in the Ford Foundation. He was involved as a designer and consultant for the Young Composers Project from the beginning. In 1961, Waldrop was named Assistant to the President of

141bid., p. 109.

M




Juilliard by Schuman. When Peter Mennin succeeded Schuman as president of Juilliard in 1962, Waldrop became the Dean of the school and remained there for a total of twenty-five years. As of this writing, he is the president of the Manhattan School of Music.
During school year 1959-1960, twelve composers went out under this program. They were Grant Beglarian, Emma Lou Diemer, Arthur R. Frackenpohl, Arnold Freed, Joseph W. Jenkins, James L. Kurtz, Richard B. Lane, Martin S. Mailman, Robert S. Muczynski, Harold Owen, Robert B. Washburn, and Michael White. They were each paid a stipend of $5000 plus travel expenses to work as composers in residence for one year in the schools assigned to them by the committee of selection.15 They were permitted to re-apply for an additional term if they wished. During the second year, school year 1960-61, the following twelve composers were sent out, some of them for a second term: D. Donald Cervone, John Barnes Chance, William Wilson Coker, Emma Lou Diemer, Donald Martin Jenni, Richard Lane, Ronald B. LoPresti, Martin Mailman, Theodore S. Newman, J. Peter Schickele, William Ennis Thomson, and Michael White. Each of them also received the $5000 stipend.16 It is notable that many of these individuals have subsequently achieved
15"Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report, (Oct. 1, 1958 to Sept. 30, 1959), p. 49.
16"Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report, (Oct. 1, 1959 to Sept. 30, 1960), p. 49.

I




16
considerable success as composers. It may be concluded that the program was successful to the extent that it at least launched some significant careers in composition.
From 1959 to 1969, seventy-three composers and seventyseven communities were involved. To ensure that the composers would still be in their formative stage, the maximum age was thirty-five years, and most of them had no more than three years of experience beyond their professional training.17
The objectives of the program were as follows: 1) To provide opportunities for young composers to develop their craft; 2) to enable young composers to hear their work performed; 3) to involve students in the study and performance of music written especially for them; 4) to provide an interchange of musical ideas, techniques, and attitudes between composers and high school music directors; 5) to bring about a new vitality in the life of communities and their schools; 6) to establish a creative artist within the cultural life of a community; 7) to create a body of music literature which could be played by secondary schools across the country and thereby positively affect their tastes and standards.18
17Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought, p. 3.
'8The Contemporary Music Project, The CMP Library
(Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1969), p.
9.




The Contemporary-Music Prolect and Comprehensive
Musicianship. While there were obvious benefits of the Young Composers Project for composers, students, and music educators alike, several deficiencies also became evident. The most notable of these was the inability of the classroom teacher to assimilate the Ideas presented to them by the young composers. Music educators, who had been trained mainly in the so-called "common-practice period" literature, were not able to personally relate to the contemporary styles used by the composers. As a whole, they knew very little about the techniques of contemporary composition. From this MENC recognized a need for a more comprehensive undergraduate training of music educators. In the ensuing years MENO would take an increasingly more active role in the encouragement of both the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship and teacher training In music.
In 1962, the MENO addressed this need by proposing to the Ford Foundation that the Young Composers Project be continued. They suggested that the program be expanded to include seminars and workshops on contemporary music In schools and that pilot projects should be established in elementary and secondary schools. In 1963, the Ford Foundation accepted the proposal made by MENC and granted them a total of $1,380,000 to set up The Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education. The name soon became shortened to CMP. R. Bernard Fitzgerald was named

M




18
director (1963-1965), and Grant Beglarian, assistant director (1963-1965). Norman Dello Joio continued as chairman of the Joint Committee (containing the sub-committees for the selection of composers and school systems). The Joint Committee was renamed the Project Policy Committee in 1965.
During the years 1963 to 1965, sixteen seminars and
workshops were held at colleges and universities across the country to help teachers in their understanding of analysis, performance, and teaching of contemporary music, and to foster creativity in the classroom. Six pilot projects were established to provide additional training for public school teachers to expand their understanding of contemporary techniques of composition. The Young Composers Project was also continued, but its name was changed in 1965 to Composers in Public Schools Program (CPS).19
In 1965, Grant Beglarian was appointed director (19651968) and John Davies assistant director (1965-1968). From April 22 to 25 of 1965, the Contemporary Music Project held a seminar at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois. Participants included educators, theorists, composers, historians, and performers in music who met for the purpose of considering ways of improving music teacher education. The title of the seminar was "Seminar on Comprehensive Musicianship--The Foundation for College Education in
19Comprehensive Musicianship: An AntholoQy of Evolving Thought, p. 109.




Music." It has since been referred to simply as "The Northwestern Seminar." Out of this seminar came a curricular recommendation which represents (according to MENC reports) the first definition and description of "Comprehensive Musicianship." The report of this seminar was published by MENC.20
In 1966, the Ford Foundation issued a supplemental
grant of $250,000 to increase the resources of CMP in its national programs. CMP published a catalogue of works written by composers who had participated in the Young Composers Project during the initial period from 1959 to 1964. It was entitled, Contemporary Music for Schools, with the subtitle CMP1. This was superseded by the CMP Library in 1969, which included later compositions as well. Also published in 1966 was CMP3, a report of pilot projects in Baltimore, San Diego, and Farmingdale.21 Browning Cramer was named administrative assistant in 1966, a post he retained until 1970.
From 1966 to 1968, six regional Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education (IMCE) were established to begin applying the findings of the Northwestern Seminar. Thirtysix colleges and schools conducted two-year programs, some
20The Contemporary Music Project, Comprehensive
Musicianship: The Foundation for ColleQe Education in Music (CMP2) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1965).
21The Contemporary Music Project, Experiments in
Musical Creativity (CMP3) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference), 1966.

0




20
of which involved in-service training for teachers in local elementary and secondary schools. In 1967, the Airlie House Symposium was held to establish procedures and forms for evaluating the effectiveness of IMCE. The results were called "Procedures for Evaluation of Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education." According to the report published by CMP, "The main purpose of the assessment is to compile data about IMCE in order to ascertain the validity of the theory and practice of Comprehensive Musicianship studies in their totality and specific parts."22 Raymond Donnell served as field representative from 1967 to 1968.
Two publications were released in 1967. The first was CMP4, a report of the pilot projects at Ithaca College and the Interlochen Arts Academy.23 Vera Brodsky Lawrence, the newly-appointed director of publications, supervised the publication of the CMP Library to supercede Contemporary Music For Schools (CMP1). It was published in three volumes: Vol. I, "Works for Band, Winds, and Percussion/ Solos;" Vol. II, "Works for Orchestra and String Instruments;" and Vol. III, "Works for Chorus and Voice."24
22David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP6) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 94.
23Warren Benson, Creative Projects in Musicianship
(CMP4) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference), 1967.
24Vera Brodsky Lawrence, editor, CMP Library
(Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1967, 1968, 1969).

M




21
In 1968, the Ford Foundation provided a five-year grant of $1,340,000 for the continuation of the project. MENC administered the grant and supplemented it with a renewable $50,000 per year grant for the five-year period. The resources of CMP were divided among three programs: Program I, Professionals in Residence to Communities; Program II, The Teaching of Comprehensive Musicianship; and Program III, Complementary Activities. Program I was an expansion of the Composers in Public Schools Program, in the words of the report, "placing composers, performers, and scholars in communities to serve a wide spectrum of cultural and educational interests.''25 Program II provided for the "identification and support of competent and creative teachers to design music curricula based on the theory and practice of comprehensive musical education.''26 Program III included various other support activities and publications of CMP, including consultation services to schools, workshops, and courses for school music teachers, presentations at conventions, three new CMP publications, twelve issues of a newsletter to the membership of MENC, an instructional film entitled, "What is Music," and two national conferences on College Music Curricula in 1970 and 1971. The three publications were the second edition of the CMP Library,
25Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of EvolvinQ Thought (CMP5), p. 111.
261bid., p. 111.




22
Comprehensive Musicianship and UnderQraduate Music Curricula MP6 )27, and the Source Book of African and Afro-American Materials for Music Educators (CMP7 )28.
Background on William Schuman Biography
William Howard Schuman was born in New York City on
August 4, 1910, to parents of German-Jewish descent. He was named after William Howard Taft. Although he did not study music seriously until he was 23, music was something that he loved and pursued as an avocation throughout his childhood years and through high school. He studied violin and piano at age 11 but was more interested in sports, especially baseball (which would later become a subject for an opera that he wrote). At Speyer Junior High School he had an interest in the theater. He wrote a play called, "College Chums," which was performed during his time there. He was voted "best orator" and stated in his yearbook that his ambition was to be a theatrical producer. At George Washington High School his organizational skills were seen in his formation of a jazz band. The band rehearsed in his living room and eventually played at dances and other engagements. Schuman "arranged" music by teaching parts to
27David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP6).
28James Standifer and Barbara Reeder, Source Book of African and Afro-American Materials for Music Educators (CMP7) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971).




23
the musicians by rote, because he did not know how to score a piece. He also played piano, banjo, saxophone, and clarinet with a certain degree of success. The band thrived, receiving many engagements to play during his time in high school. In addition to his band work, he teamed up with Frank Loesser in writing popular songs, many of which were published. Despite these musical successes, he still had given no serious thought to a musical career.
When he graduated from George Washington High School,
he registered at New York University School of Commerce with loosely-laid plans to go into business. Through his sister's persuasion, he attended his first live performance of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra just a few months before his twentieth birthday. The friend who usually accompanied her was sick and she did not want to go alone. The program consisted of Schumann's 3rd Symphony, the funeral march from Wagner's Gotterddmmerung, and "Summer Evening" by Kodaly. Schuman related the impact that the evening had on him:
I went really as a favor to her--but that concert literally changed my life. I still remember the date: April 4, 1930. I was astounded at seeing that sea of stringed instruments, and everybody
bowing together. The visual thing alone was
astonishing. But the sound! I was overwhelmed;
I had never heard anything like it. The next day
I withdrew from N.Y.U.. I left N.Y.U. and started
to walk home from 4th Street to 112th Street. As
I walked, I thought and thought about all those
wonderful sounds. "I've got to be a musician," I
thought. "My life has to be in music." All those
sounds were still going 'round and 'round in my
head. As I passed 78th Street and West End




Avenue, I noticed a sign on a private house:
Malkin Conservatory of Music. I walked in and said: "I want to be a composer. What should I
do?" The woman at the desk said promptly: "Take
harmony lessons." So I signed up to study harmony
with Max Persin.29
Persin was aware of the trends of contemporary music and challenged Schuman to "look at the music and find out what makes it tick, what causes one composer to sound different from another"30.
This anecdote explains certain aspects of both his
musical and educational predispositions. As a composer of ten symphonies and numerous orchestral works, he has always been partial to symphonic sound. While many modern composers have shunned the symphony orchestra and have written for smaller more intimate groups of instruments, Schuman has continued to write for the full orchestra. As of this writing, he has accepted a commission to compose an orchestral work for the new performing arts center in Tampa, Florida. His first exposure to serious music was a quality live performance by a large orchestra. It is not surprising that he has devoted the larger part of his creative life writing for this media.
The anecdote cited above also gives insight concerning his educational predispositions. A live encounter with
29Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," Stereo Review, June, 1974, p. 69 (Sheila Keats graduated from Juilliard during the Schuman years).
30Flora Rheta Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti, William Schuman (New York: G. Schirmer, 1954), p. 9.




music of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra kindled the fire of Schuman's creative imagination to become a composer. Having been so profoundly affected by this experience, he also formulated his teaching philosophies with an emphasis upon encounters with music as a source of inspiration and education. He knew the powerful effect of music as a challenge to creativity and would have no patience with systems or methods of instruction as a substitute for a study of music itself.
After his lessons in harmony with Max Persin he studied counterpoint with Charles Haubiel also at the Malkin Conservatory. Schuman worked at it from eight to ten hours per day and in time was able to write fugues in fourteen voices. At the same time he continued writing songs and arrangements.
In 1933, Schuman decided that the most pragmatic step
for a young composer to take was to become his own patron by securing work in some creative field. For this reason he entered the Teacher's College at Columbia University to prepare for a job as a teacher to support himself as a composer. During his student days he composed both popular and serious music, but soon concluded that his concentration was being diluted by his divided interests. At this point, around 1934, he gave up his efforts in popular music. He




26
graduated in 1935 with a Bachelor of Science degree.31 He was disturbed by the music education program at Columbia in that more emphasis was placed on the teaching of music than on the music itself. Although he had some outstanding teachers, there were some whose methods caused him to question the value of traditional teacher education. On the positive side, he had one teacher whose course in the history of education [in his words] "set him on fire, it was so exciting." On the negative side, he described a teacher [unnamed] who bored him in a course in the principles of teaching. He related the following illustration to me:
I took a course in the principles of teaching by a woman that started out by saying, "Now the city in
which we are New York there are three major rivers. Would you then conclude that all major cities have three major rivers?" I didn't know
what this woman was talking about. She was giving
us a lesson on not to generalize and it took an
hour and a half and I thought I'd go out of my
mind.
He gave a disparaging description of Lilla Belle
Pitts, a well-known music educator of his day, calling her an "educationist." Although she was a respected author of many books on the subject of music education, in Schuman's estimation she was concerned more with method than with content. He described an encounter that he had with Ms. Pitts as a student in one of her classes:
She gave a class and said, "If you want to introduce a young child to music, you give that child a
31Christopher Rouse, William Schuman Documentary (New York: Theodore Presser, 1980), p. 5.




I

crayon and a piece of paper and you have that
child listen to the music and draw what that child
is hearing." I couldn't believe what I was
listening to, and finally I found myself on my
feet. And I said, "Respectfully, I would like to
disagree with Professor Pitts. I think it's the worst way you could possibly teach listening to
music, because you're taking attention away from the music and putting it on something else. It's
like teaching somebody to look at a picture and asking them what music it reminds them of. I'm
just completely out of sympathy with it and I
don't think it can be justified."
He continued the account telling how Dr. Harold Rugg,
another prominent music educator at Columbia, took him into
his home and agreed with his views:
He [Dr. Rugg] said, "I just loved what you did
yesterday." He said, "This is an absolutely valid
point of view and I didn't agree with Professor Pitts,
but I wasn't in a position to say so." And he
befriended me, and I saw that education could be, like
everything else in life, completely dull and misleading
or very exciting and exploratory.
This was the beginning of his concern for reforms in
music education which he would pursue later at Juilliard.
It illustrates Schuman's formulation of his own philosophies, not only of music education, but of how he dealt
with his personal convictions. He rarely hesitated to speak
his mind in any matter about which he held strong beliefs,
even if it put him at odds with prominent Individuals. This
practice, coupled with his own substantive abilities, stood
him in good stead at the "crossroads" in his life, such as
when he entered Sarah Lawrence College and Juilliard.
Upon graduation, he applied for a job at Sarah Lawrence
College. While perusing the catalogue a phrase which




reflected his own beliefs had caught his eye: "In a very real sense, all education is self-education, but some environments are more favorable to the process than others." He was attracted by this concept which would later be central to the Literature and Materials approach. The assertiveness with which he pursued this job typifies his demeanor in many other challenges in his life. Although there were no openings at the time, he phoned the college and spoke to a representative of the college, saying, "1... if what you print in your catalogue is true, your president should be glad to see me." With this he got an appointment to see the president, Constance Warren. Although there was no opening initially, Schuman was eventually hired there several months later.32
During the summer of 1935, before his first fall term at Sarah Lawrence College, he received a scholarship to study conducting at the Mozarteum Academy in Salzburg. Although the scholarship did not include the full cost of travel and lodging, he went anyway. A large portion of his time in Salzburg was devoted to the writing of his first symphony.
Upon his return he began his work at Sarah Lawrence,
teaching harmony, music appreciation and choral singing. It was there that Schuman had the opportunity to put into practice some of the experimental educational Ideas that he

32Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 11.

M




had formulated as a result of his discontentment with traditional methods at Columbia Teacher's College. These will be detailed in Chapter Four "Comparison of Approaches."
Having the security of a full-time teaching position,
he married Frances Prince in the spring of his first year at Sarah Lawrence College on March 27, 1936. During that year he also finished the symphony that he had begun in Salzburg and submitted it for the Bearns Prize at Columbia University. He had submitted his Chorale Canons (later published as "Four Canonic Choruses") for the prize the year before. Neither composition won the prize, but the attempts resulted in some favorable recognition of his work by Daniel Gregory Mason, the chairman of the music department of Columbia.3
After Schuman had been at Sarah Lawrence College a few years, the president, Constance Warren, asked Schuman to recommend someone to fill a vacancy in the music department. He submitted the name of Norman Lloyd with the commendation, "We have oil in the back yard." Norman Lloyd was a dance composer and an accompanist, primarily, and composed a lot of music for Jose Limon. He was In Schuman's words, "an all-around splendid musician." He and Schuman became very close friends and began sharing ideas about methods of instruction. According to Schuman, Norman Lloyd assisted

33 Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 14.




him by narrowing down his broad ideas into specific terms. His more tangible assistance would come later as a collaborator on the Literature and Materials project.
During the summer of 1936, Schuman studied composition with Roy Harris at Juilliard, using his First Symphony as his first project. Harris saw the weaknesses in this work, but he also saw the potential and desire of Schuman to succeed at symphonic writing. In the fall of 1936, Schuman's First Symphony was performed on a Composers' Forum Laboratory Concert of the Works Progress Administration. The opportunity for Schuman to hear the weaknesses of his own early work caused him to withdraw this symphony. Despite this discouragement, Schuman continued to study privately with Harris for the next two years at his home in Princeton. Through Harris, Schuman became interested in early music and medieval modes as well as polyharmony.34 Although composition activities occupied a significant portion of his time at Sarah Lawrence, he also received his Master of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1937.
By entering his compositions into various competitions, Schuman continued to receive significant exposure for his work. During the period of the Spanish Civil War, the Musicians' Committee of the North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy held a contest with Bernard Wagenaar, Roger Sessions, Aaron Copland, and Roy Harris as judges.

34Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 15.




The prize was to include performance, publication, and recording of the winning work. Schuman submitted his Symphony No. 2 and it won the contest. A lack of funds prevented the prizes from being awarded, but it brought Schuman's work to the attention of Aaron Copland. As a result, Copland wrote a favorable article in the May/June 1938 issue of Modern Music, saying, "Schuman is, so far as I am concerned, the musical find of the year." Copland's high regard for Schuman was also recorded thirteen years later in a July, 1951 article in The Musical Quarterly, where he lauded the "Schumanesque rhythms" of the Fourth String Quartet. He said, "There is nothing quite like these rhythms in American music, or any music for that matter."
In 1938, the Columbia Broadcasting System presented
Symphony No. 2 with Howard Barlow conducting in a concert of non-commissioned works by new American composers. In a review of this concert, Schuman's symphony received a favorable rating, even compared to commissioned works.3 On the negative side, the work was criticized for constant reiteration of original material and for lack of growth or expansion after a very strong beginning.
Schuman 's growing fame was enhanced by the receipt of various awards. From 1939 to 1941, he received two Guggenheim Fellowships. His Symphony No. 3 was performed on
35Goddard Lieberson, "Over The Air," Modern Music, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1938-1939), p. 66.




October 17, 1941 by the Boston Symphony under Koussevitzky. The performance in Boston as well as a performance in New York brought encouraging reviews. Olin Downes called it the best work of a rising generation. Reviews of his next work, Symphony No. 4, were not as favorable, however. In 1943, he received the first Pulitzer prize ever given for music for his "A Free Song." On November 12, 1943, the Boston Symphony performed his Symphony No. 5, commissioned by the Koussevitzky Music Foundation.
In 1945, came Schuman' s first efforts at music for the theater. At the request of choreographer Anthony Tudor he produced the ballet score for "Undertow." It was staged in New York by the Ballet Theatre at the Metropolitan Opera House on April 10, 1945, and later in a concert performance by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra.
Schuman enjoyed a favorable relationship with the music publishing house, G. Schirmer. The President, Carl Engel, had become enthusiastic about Schuman's choral music and requested the first refusal option to publish anything that Schuman wrote. When Carl Engel died, G. Schirmer asked Schuman to become their director of publications upon advice from Serge Koussevitzky. His work began on June 1, 1945.36 In my interview with Schuman, he related the following anecdote:

36Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," p. 72.

M




The Schirmer family called Koussevitzky, and he recommended me, and I called Koussevitzky and I
said I'm not a businessman. I'll tell you exactly
what he said, because I can hear it. He said, "William, through the night, you will become a
businessman."
One of Schuman's most significant appointments came in 1945 when he became president of the Juilliard School of Music where he remained until 1962. The appointment came as a result of efforts of two members of Juilliard's board, who independently arrived at the name of Schuman as a possible candidate for the job after Ernest Hutcheson retired. Juilliard Board member James Warburg had a daughter, Kay, who had been an admiring student of Schuman at Sarah Lawrence College. Schuman was just three days into his three-year contract with G. Schirmer when he received a call from James Warburg asking him to consider the position at Juilliard. Warburg's continuing support of Schuman throughout his tenure as president is indicated in a commencement address given by Warburg on May 26, 1961. Warburg delivered this address at Schuman's invitation for what turned out to be his final commencement as president of Juilliard. The following is an excerpt of that address:
Although we, on the board, are mere amateurs in the field of the art, we have, I think, made at
least one outstanding contribution to the development of the school--namely, that of
inducing Bill Schuman to become its president.
George Bernard Shaw, in one of his more cynical
moments, once said of educators: "He who can, does.
He who can't, teaches."




Bill Schuman is the living disproof of that
aphorism, not only because he is both an
outstanding musician and a dedicated teacher, but
because his major interest lies in producing
artists and teachers who are fully rounded
individuals, and who are, therefore, equipped to
lead happy, creative and useful lives. That, as I
see it, is the mark of a great educator.37
John Erskine, board member and past president of
Juilliard, became acquainted with Schuman at a panel discussion on modern music conducted by the New School for Social Research. Schuman had at first deferred the ten-minute time slot allotted for his presentation. John Erskine's speech followed. Erskine in his description of new music said that there were two problems with modern music: the first was
that it was not heard, and the second was that it was heard. He went on to give an amusing but deprecatory discourse on modern music, including the charge that it has no melody. Schuman asked for his ten minutes back and proceeded to answer Erskine's charges. 38 In my interview with Schuman he described the scene:
I said, "I can't do John Erskine battle in any
field of learning. He's one of the most erudite
men around, and I've always appreciated him;
especially his books, since my parents tell me I
shouldn't read them. . I can't do battle with
him in any field of learning except music, which
is the field of my professional competence and
obviously not of his." I said, "For example, he
talks about the lack of melody in contemporary
music; but there is a new work that has just come
out by a contemporary composer named Paul
37James P. Warburg, "Commencement Address," The Juilliard Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Fall 1961), p. 10.
38Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," p. 72.




Hindemith, called 'Matthew the Painter,' 'Mathis der Maler.' I should like to sing the symphony."
So I started to sing the symphony.
The audience was naturally amused, and Erskine was
impressed by Schuman' s quick-witted ability to think on his feet as well as his passion for the subject and the breadth of knowledge that he displayed. These two coincidental encounters of Schuman with Juilliard board members (Warburg and Erskine) lead to his appointment as president.
He came to Juilliard with the understanding that he
would be allowed to institute reforms that he felt might be necessary. The board told Schuman that of the approximately fifty people who were interviewed for the job of president, he was the only one who was critical of the school in any way. He was given the support of the board and the freedom to make changes where needed. He utilized his instinctive gift for administration that had manifested itself even in his adolescence with his organization of the jazz band at that time. During his years at Juilliard Schuman inaugurated the Literature and Materials approach to the teaching of music theory which would establish a pattern for schools and departments of music thereafter. While at Juilliard, Schuman continued as consultant to G. Schirmer until 1951.
One of Schuman's first goals in coming to Juilliard was to establish a resident string quartet. He proposed to the board that the school would hire four string players, give them a modest teaching assignment, and they would be




36
guaranteed a certain percentage of their income from engagements for the next three years. The only stipulation was that the name of the Juilliard Quartet would remain constant. The first player hired was Robert Mann (who is still at Juilliard). He, in turn, assisted with the securing of the other three players. As Schuman had predicted, the quartet did more than any other one thing to spread the musical fame of the school around the world.39
In Schuman's second year at Juilliard, he brought
Norman Lloyd to the faculty from Sarah Lawrence College to be the Director of Education. Although this position did not work out for him, he remained on the faculty and was the principal collaborator with Schuman on the development of the Literature and Materials curriculum. Lloyd was very well organized and had more of a pedagogical turn of mind than did Schuman. The two complemented one another in the development of the new approach in that way. Schuman formulated the broad concepts and Lloyd had the patience to put them in the form of a curriculum. During Thanksgiving holiday of 1946, Schuman and Lloyd travelled to Atlantic City where they worked slavishly for four days to put the ideas of the curriculum on paper. He described it to me:
We got to where we started very early in the
morning, and after each three-hour session we'd take a little walk and at the afternoon before
dinner we managed to go to a movie. And we, you 39Harriet Gay, The Juilliard String Quartet (New York: Vantage Press, 1974), p. 5.




know, we quit around midnight. We had long, long
days and in three or four days we knocked this
thing out and put it on paper.
Schuman received honorary doctorates from Chicago
Musical College (1946), University of Wisconsin (1949),
Columbia University (1954), Brandeis University (1962), and
many other institutions. He received the New York Music
Critics Circle Award in 1950 and the Brandeis University
Creative Arts Award.
In 1962, he was appointed president of the Lincoln
Center for the Performing Arts where he remained until 1969.
When he resigned the presidency of Juilliard, the faculty
and staff honored Schuman by a gift of $1000 to the Lincoln
Center for an endowed seat at the Juilliard Theater bearing
William Schuman's name. The testimonial reads as follows:
The Faculty and Staff deeply regret your
resignation from the presidency of the Juilliard
School of Music.
In the sixteen years you have been our president
your vision and your outstanding qualities of
leadership have won our admiration; your artistic
ideals and integrity our highest respect; your
kindness, consideration and warm humanity our
affection.
We are happy that your achievements have received
yet further recognition: we congratulate the
Board of Directors of Lincoln Center for the
Performing Arts on their election of you as
president. The great influence that Lincoln Center will have on the artistic life of our
nation tempers to a degree the regret we feel at
you departure.
Our congratulations, our complete confidence in
you, our enthusiastic support and our warmest best




wishes go out to you and will be with you in the
years ahead.40
When he assumed the presidency of the Lincoln Center,
he made it clear at the outset that he was not interested in simply just being a '"figure-head," but that he planned on taking an aggressive leadership role. An important part of the program that he initiated was the development of an educational program in partnership with its constituent organizations. Services to education included live performances in secondary schools, training for teachers of the performing arts at Lincoln Center Teacher's Institute, professional education in conjunction with the Juilliard School, and services to colleges and universities, mainly in the form of music festivals, such as the first International Choral Festival held in 1965.41
While at Lincoln Center, he established the Lincoln
Center Student Program, the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, the Philharmonic Orchestra Summer Promenade Concerts and the Film Society of Lincoln Center. He received the Concert Artists Guild Award in 1967. In 1968, he was awarded the John H. Findley Medal by City College for significant service to the City of New York.
40"Faculty Honors Schuman," The Juilliard Review,
edited by Gideon Waldrop, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1961-1962), p. 3.
41William Schuman, "The Role of the Lincoln Center," Musical America, (Feb., 1966).




He resigned his position at Lincoln Center to devote himself to composition in 1969. In 1970, he was elected chairman of the Videorecord Corporation of America. In 1973, he was elected to the American Academy of the National Institute of Arts and Letters. In 1974, he became the board chairman of the MacDowell Colony in Peterborough, New Hampshire. This is a retreat where creative artists from all fields can work intensely, free from other demands on their time. As the founding director of the Charles Ives Society, he has taken a prominent role in promoting the publication of definitive editions of Ives' works. Schuman holds board memberships in various organizations, including the Naumburg and Koussevitzky Foundations, as well as the Chamber Music Society and Film Society of The Lincoln Center.42 He has remained an active composer, accepting commissions as he is able to complete them. Examples of his commissions at the time of this study include an opera for an opera company, a piano piece for the Van Cliburn Foundation competition, and an orchestral piece for the opening of the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center. Philosophy
Three primary characteristics guided William Schuman's accomplishments throughout his life: 1. a commitment to an experiential and progressive approach to education; 2. a

42Rouse, William Schuman Documentary, p. 26.




40
knack for administration and organization; and 3. a disdain for "arty-ness" or snobbishness on the part of musicians. His commitment to education can be traced to his time at Columbia Teacher's College. He had a desire to teach, but not to simply convey knowledge in a dry, pedantic way. He could see the weakness in this method as a freshman and began forming his determination to change this approach to music education if he had the opportunity. His interest in the position at Sarah Lawrence College was due to the similarity of the institution's philosophy of education to his own: that "all education is self-education." Schuman displayed his skill for organization and administration at Sarah Lawrence as he immediately involved himself in the planning and coordination of the new program of instruction under which he was hired.
Schuman's desire to revise traditional music instruction continued at Juilliard. In just his second year there he instituted the integrated approach to music theory instruction known as the "Literature and Materials" program. Schuman advocated the setting aside of "preconceived notions of rigid organization of music into history, analysis, and theory, and to present music as a whole in a manner calculated to exploit the student's love of it and his desire for training."4
43William Schuman, "William Schuman Summarizes
Juilliard Objectives," Musical America, Vol. 81 (Feb. 1961), pp. 18-19.

E




His disdain for cultural snobbishness has been made clear to anyone who has personal contact with or who has read articles by him. In a 1965 article in Music Journal criticizing the Pulitzer Prize committee for not awarding its music prize for 1965, Schuman once again makes a plea for the culturally-minded to avoid snobbishness.44
In all of his accomplishments, both musical and
administrative, Schuman was above all, practical, in the ways enumerated above as well as others. His pragmatic but energetic approach made him a valuable asset to the educational and musical world. Additional information about Schuman's philosophy as it specifically relates to music instruction is contained in Chapter Four. Musical Output
William Schuman wrote for orchestra, band, chamber ensembles, piano, chorus, solo voice, opera, ballet, and film. In the orchestra category, he wrote ten symphonies, a piano concerto, a violin concerto, several one-movement pieces for orchestra, including "American Festival Overture" (1939), "Song Of Orpheus: Fantasy for Cello and orchestra" (1963), and "Variations on America" (1963). "Song Of Orpheus" was inspired by William Shakespeare and commissioned by the Ford Foundation for Juilliard cellist Leonard Rose. "Variations on America" is a transcription for
44William Schuman, "The Prejudice of Conformity," Music Journal, Vol. 23 (Sept., 1965), p. 44.

0




42
orchestra of the Ives piece of the same name for solo organ. Other orchestral works include "Credendum," a three-movement work commissioned by UNESCO in 1955, and one of his mostof ten performed works, "New England Triptych: Three Pieces After William Billings" (1953). The three sections of this piece are, "Be Glad Then, America," "When Jesus Wept," and "Chester." The first two of the three were transcribed by him for band, and the third, "Chester" was made into "Chester Overture" for band as well. He wrote Symphony No. 7 in 1960, Symphony No. 8 in 1962, "The Orchestra Song" in 1963, Symphony No. 9 ("Le Fosse Ardeatine") in 1968, "In Praise of Shahn" in 1969, "Voyage for Orchestra" in 1972, Symphony No. 10 ("An American Muse") in 1975, commissioned by the National Symphony Orchestra for the American Bicentennial, and "Amaryllis" ("Variants on an Old English Round") completed in 1976 as an string orchestra adaptation of an earlier piece for string trio.
Other band works include a piece written for the
Pennsylvania State University music department in 1941, entitled "Newsreel in Five Shots." The five sections included 'Horse Race,'' 'Fashion Show,'' 'Tribal Dance," "Monkeys at the Zoo," and "Parade." "George Washington Bridge; an Impression for Band," written in 1950, is a programmatic work depicting the construction and finished structure of the famous George Washington Bridge in New York City, which was a childhood fascination of Schuman. Other




works include a band transcription of "Variations on America" (1968), "Philharmonic Fanfare" (1965), "Dedication Fanfare" (1968), and "Anniversary Fanfare" (1969).
Chamber music includes String Quartet Nos. 1 through 4 (1936, 1937, 1939, and 1950), a "Canon and Fugue" (1934, for violin, cello, and piano), "Amaryllis: Variants for String Trio" (1964), a "Quartetino For Four Bassoons" (or 4 clarinets or saxophones; 1939), "Prelude for a Great Occasion" (1974, for brass and percussion), and "In Sweet Music" (1978, a serenade on a setting of Shakespeare for flute, mezzo-soprano, viola, and harp).
He wrote a limited amount of music literature for
instrumental solo. Piano music included his "Three-Score Set" (1943), "Voyage: a Cycle of Five Pieces" (1953, including "Anticipation," "Caprice," "Realization," "Decision," "Retrospection"), and "Three Piano Moods" (1958, including "Lyrical," "Pensive," and "Dynamic"). For solo trumpet, he wrote "XXV Opera Snatches" (1978).
His earliest choral work was "Four Canonic Choruses" (1933; originally "Chorale Canons"), written during his student days. Others include "Chorale Etude" (1937), "The Orchestra Song" (1939), "Prelude for Voices" (1939), "Te Deum" (1944), "The Truth Shall Deliver" (1946), "Five Rounds on Famous Words" (Nos. 1-4, 1956; No. 5, 1969).
"A Free Song" (1942, also called "Secular Cantata No. 2"), earned Schuman the first Pulitzer Prize ever awarded




44
for music in 1943. "A Free Song" was based upon the poetry of Walt Whitman, a favorite source of inspiration for his choral music. Whitman's poetry also provide the texts for "Pioneers" (1937), "Carols of Death" (1958), and "Declaration Chorale" (1971). Other choral works include "This Is Our Time" (1940, also called "Secular Cantata No. 1"), "Deo Ac Veritati" (1963), "Mail Order Madrigals" (1971, based upon advertisements in a 1897 Sears-Roebuck catalogue), "To Thy Love" (1973), and "Casey At Bat" (1976, arranged from "The Mighty Casey").
He wrote the following pieces for solo voice: "God's World" (1932), "Holiday Song" (1942), "Orpheus With His Lute" (1944), "The Lord Has a Child" (1956), "The Young Dead Soldiers" (1975; based on poetry by Archibald MacLeish), and "Time To The Old" (1979, three songs also based upon texts by Archibald MacLeish, including "The Old Gray Couple," "Conway Burying Ground," and "Dozing on the Lawn"). In addition to these songs, Schuman also composed between sixty and one hundred popular songs in collaboration with Frank Loesser and other lyricists.
Schuman's only opera was "The Mighty Casey: A Baseball Opera in Three Scenes" (1953). He wrote five ballets: "Undertow" (1945), "Night Journey" (1947), "Judith" (1949), "Voyage for a Theater" (1953), and "The Witch of Endor" (1965).45

45Rouse, William Schuman Documentary, pp. 31-42.




CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The study of William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach proceeded with a sequential discovery of materials related to the subject. First, I searched through listings of dissertations published and in progress to determine if this subject has been or is being studied by another individual. Next, I studied all available (though limited) biographical materials on William Schuman. Next, I collected and surveyed all available periodical literature on Schuman or the Literature and Materials approach, making use of bibliographical listings found in the biographies.
The study of the subject caused me to become interested in relationships with the Comprehensive Musicianship approach of the sixties. Therefore, the next step in the literature review consisted of a search for periodical literature on the Contemporary Music Project, out of which Comprehensive Musicianship was born. The periodicals listed published materials from the project, which also proved helpful. Finally, personal interviews with William Schuman, Michael White (a teacher at Juilliard), W. McNeil Lowry (formerly of the Ford Foundation), and Gordon Hardy (formerly of Juilliard), resulted in further study of additional




materials from the Ford Foundation, the National Music Council, and from the Juilliard School itself. Scholarly Research
The first step in surveying this topic was to determine if any other research had been done on the subject. After checking sources available, I concluded that scholarly research on the subject of William Schuman is limited to studies of his music. Mention has already been made of the eight dissertations listed in the Gleason outline. In addition to these, I searched for dissertations an the subject of William Schuman in Doctoral Dissertations in American Music, American Music Studies, International Index of Dissertations and Musicological Works in Progress, Approved Doctoral Dissertations in Progress in Music Education, International Directory of Approved Music

Education Doctoral Dissertations in Progress, and Doctoral Dissertations in Musicology. The relatively small number of dissertations found in this search dealt mostly with musical analyses of Schuman's compositions rather than his educational contributions.
The search for pertinent dissertations lead to the discovery of an extensive master's thesis entitled, "The History of the Juilliard School From its Inception to 1973,11 by Marie Therese Hayes, written for the Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. and submitted in August, 1974. This thesis was helpful primarily because of its




bibliography. It led to several useful articles on the origin of the Juilliard School.
A portion of Hayes' thesis dealt with William Schuman' s establishment of the Literature and Materials program at Juilliard, but it neither went beyond the depth of the primary sources that I have used nor did it include the current applications of the program at the school. Neither this nor any of the other theses that I found dealt primarily or specifically with the comparison of William Schuman's Literature and Materials program to the Comprehensive Musicianship idea. Bibliographies
Particularly valuable for its bibliography of sources on William Schuman is the Volume on Twentieth-Century music from the Gleason Music Literature Outlines, Series IV.1 Published in 1980, it represents the most recent extensive listing of bibliographic materials on or about him at the conclusion of the article on William Schuman. This bibliography includes periodical literature under the heading of "Articles by William Schuman," and books and periodicals under the heading of "References to William Schuman." The books listed are mostly encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries that deal with the composing style of Schuman. Many of the articles listed focused on
1Harold Gleason and Warren Becker, Music Literature Outlines, Series IV;__20th Century American Composers, 2nd edition (Bloomington: Frangipani Press, 1980), pp. 175-184.




48
Schuman's educational philosophy. In keeping with the scope of this study, I gave particular attention to those that pertain to his educational ideas.
Also included in the Gleason bibliography Is a section on the "Book" (singular) about Schuman, referring to the one by Flora Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti.2 This was the only published biography of his life in book form that existed at the time the Gleason outline was prepared. There is a listing of eight dissertations done on various aspects of the music of Schuman, all of them relating to analysis of his compositional style. After collecting the articles and resources mentioned in this bibliography it became clear that there was a relatively small amount of documentation of Schuman's educational philosophies and even less on the impact of his revamping of Juilliard's music theory curriculum. All eight of the dissertations listed dealt with some aspect of his music, but none on his Literature and Materials approach to the teaching of music theory. Periodical Literature
Periodical literature contained some of the most
helpful and timely information available on the subjects of Literature and Materials and Comprehensive Musicianship. I searched through the Music Index paying particular attention to the years that William Schuman was president of
2Flora Rheta Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti, William Schuman (New York: G. Schirmer, 1954).




49
Juilliard, 1945-1962. I checked such topics as "Literature and Materials, Comprehensive Musicianship, Young Composers Project, Contemporary Music Project, Ford Foundation, Music Theory, William Schuman, and Juilliard" for those years. One particularly valuable article was by Sheila Keats in a 1974 issue of Stereo Review.3 This provided a concise but thorough biography on Schuman's life.
The article that best describes in his own words his
ideas regarding the teaching of music theory may be found in a 1948 issue of Musical Quarterly, entitled, "On the Teaching of the Literature and Materials of Music,4. published just one year after he instituted these sweeping changes as the new president of Juilliard. Second only to this article in explaining his educational approach is his article describing his views as a teacher at Sarah Lawrence College. It is called "An Unconventional Case History,5' describing his use of a type of discovery approach in the teaching of a novice music student there.
Many of the articles provide valuable information about his early work, mostly relating to his musical output. These are in the form of reports of premiers which he
3Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," Stereo Review, Vol. 32, (June 1974), pp. 68-77.
4William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and
Materials of Music," The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 34 (1948), pp. 155-168.
5William Schuman, "Unconventional Case History," Modern Music, Vol. 15, No. 4, (1937-1938), pp. 222-227.




50
attended, public reception of his music, concert reviews of one sort or another, public forums in which he participated. There is also on record an assortment of reviews of concerts and books which he wrote about others. Insight into Schuman's early role within the artistic community can be gained in these articles, especially those written by such notable figures as Aaron Copland, Roger Sessions, Leonard Bernstein, Elliott Carter and others, who were themselves still ascending in their careers. However, they do not contain information about his educational approach.
In addition to those periodical articles mentioned herein, I collected all available articles that even tangentially related to the subject of Schuman's work at the Juilliard School. I gave particular attention to those mentioning Literature and Materials.
Having begun the study of Schuman and his approach to music theory instruction, I turned my attention to material pertaining to the Comprehensive Musicianship approach due to its similarity to that of Schuman. The primary article which summarized that approach and its history is "Contemporary Music Project," in Music Educators Journal, May, 1973. This article gave a concise but thorough reporting of events in the Contemporary Music Project (CMP).
The article included a bibliography of materials published by CMP through the Music Educators National Conference. These sources were named and numbered




51
consecutively in the order of their publication from CMP, to CMP8. Each dealt with a particular aspect of the project, but certain ones proved to be particularly helpful in documenting its history most completely. Among the books published by CMP, the one that presents the most complete documentation of its influence on college-level teaching of music theory is (CMP6), by David Willoughby It is a synopsis of thirty-two experimental projects in Comprehensive Musicianship which were implemented as a result of OMP.
Although the Music Educators Journal article on the
Contemporary Music Project proved helpful in documenting the project, it contained a bias toward the Music Educators National Conference which publishes the journal. W. McNeil Lowry was a staff member of the Ford Foundation who was involved in CMP from its inception. In a telephone interview, he related to me some of the early initiatives of the Ford Foundation which lead to OMP. Through my interview with Lowry, I discovered that the Ford Foundation had more to do with the beginning of the project than this article indicated. Lowry's comments caused me to search through annual reports of the Ford Foundation and reports from the National Music Council for further specific information. This bias will be further explored in Chapter Four.
6Dav id Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and
Undergraduate Music Curricula--(CMP6) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971).




52
Two articles provided a critique on the outcomes of CMP with an objective and realistic look at the expectations of the project. One of the articles was by the music theorist, Leo Kraft, written shortly after the publication of CMP6 The other was by A. Cutler Silliman on the subject of Comprehensive Musicianship8. Biographies
While the Gleason bibliography is fairly complete and relatively recent, it does not list all useful references about Schuman. After the personal interview with Schuman was completed, he provided two additional sources: A brief biography by Christopher Rouse9 and a booklet on Schuman published by Broadcast Music Incorporated.10 These two booklets along with the Schreiber/Persichetti book on Schuman's life (mentioned earlier) provide a fairly complete accounting of his life and works. The Schreiber/Persichetti book gives the fullest insight into those early influences toward a new view of musicianship training starting at Columbia Teacher's College, later at Sarah Lawrence College,
7Leo Kraft, "Reflections of CMP6," College Music Symposium, Vol. 12, (Fall 1972), pp. 84-93.
8A. Cutler Silliman, "Comprehensive Musicianship: Some Cautionary Words," College Music Symposium, (Fall 1980), pp. 125-129.
9Christopher Rouse, William Schuman Documentary (New York: G. Schirmer, 1980).
10Barbara Petersen, William Schuman (New York: Broadcast Music Incorporated, 1984).




53
at Juilliard, and finally at the Lincoln Center. All three of these provide biographical information as well as a listing of his works.
The Rouse booklet includes an up-to-date bibliography
including a few titles not mentioned in the Gleason outline, although it is not as exhaustive.

M




CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Preliminary Study
Part of my attraction to the topic of William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach was the prospect of a personal interview with a living American composer who had such a dramatic Impact on the teaching of music theory in this country. Having determined that he was still living and in fairly good health, I began pursuing ways of making contact with him in order to set up an interview with him in person. Included in this idea was the hope of an observation and some interviews at the Juilliard School to do a follow-up study on the material that would be received from Schuman. His tenure at Juilliard had ended in 1962, so it was conceivable that many of his reforms would have been significantly modified since that time. Interview With William Schuman
As a first step toward gathering information about
Schuman, a search through dictionaries of twentieth-century composers proved successful in locating his address.1 Directory assistance provided his phone number. On Monday,
'Neil Butterworth, A Dictionary of American Composers, New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1983, p. 413-414.




June 15, 1987, 1 talked first with his wife and then with him on the phone about the possibility of an interview with him on the subject of the impact of his "Literature and Materials" approach at Juilliard on college music instruction. He was very helpful in providing additional information about further resources. Concerning an interview, he said that he would cooperate with a project that "captured the excitement of the subject" and the "revolutionary zeal" of what he was trying to do. He said that he was not interested in another dry, dull academic summary of his work. He also said that he would agree to an interview only if it were well-organized and to the point. The phone conversation gave encouragement to proceed with a project about an important movement in music instruction, knowing that its author was approachable, albeit within certain prescribed limitations.
He was not willing at that time to make an appointment, however. Instead, he suggested a call later In the fall when his schedule would be more conducive to conducting an interview. In October, he said that he was undergoing some tests and would prefer a later date. Finally in January, he agreed to an interview which was arranged for January 21, 1988 in his apartment in New York City. He agreed to an hour and a half interview and permitted the tape recording of it for later transcription. After several phone calls




arrangements were made for the trip, accommodations, and a visit to the Juilliard School.
Having secured permission for an interview with
Schuman, I began making preparations for an observation of the Literature and Materials classes at Juilliard. After a few phone calls, it was determined that Michael White is the current chairman of the Literature and Materials department there. By phone he gave me permission to attend three of the Literature and Materials classes taught by him on Friday, January 22, the day after the Schuman interview.
The interview was a very pleasant experience for me,
and I trust for Schuman as well, because he was afforded yet another opportunity to expound on somc ideas which he holds very strongly. The only detail of the interview which did not progress as planned involved the logical sequencing of questions. At one point in the interview, the planned sequence of questions was leading Schuman away from his desired direction, so he asked if he might finish filling in some details. Thereupon he finished his narrative and provided a more complete description of some of his early experiences which were formative to his educational philosophies.
Interview With Michael White
In accordance with the pre-arranged plans I visited
three of White's Literature and Materials classes on Friday




morning, January 22. These classes were Literature and Materials I, II, and IV, respectively.
Following the observations, he granted me a forty-five minute recorded interview in his office. During the interview, he provided first-hand information concerning the influence of the Literature and Materials program at Juilliard on the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship in the sixties. At this interview, he explained that he had been one of the first composers sent out under the Young Composers Project in 1959. He also supplied information concerning the present state of the Literature and Materials curriculum as it is administered at Juilliard. Since Schuman left Juilliard in 1962, several notable adaptations were made in the curriculum due to pragmatic concerns identified by the present faculty. At the time of this writing, Michael White is the chairman of the Literature and Materials department at the Juilliard School.
The interview with Michael White took place the day after the interview with Schuman. Procedures for this interview were similar to those for the first one except for the fact that many of the questions asked White arose out of the interview with Schuman and of the observations of White's classes prior to the interview. Most of the questions for White related to two main topics: (a) current usage of the Literature and Materials approach and how it differs from Schuman' s conception of it; and (b) the




0

connection of the Juilliard School and in particular the Literature and Materials approach to the Contemporary Music Project, of which White was a part.
It was not discovered until this second interview that White had been one of the first composers sent out in the Young Composers Project. This naturally led to a number of facts about the beginnings of that project about which White had first-hand knowledge, including names of other individuals who might be contacted for further information. While the interview with Schuman provided the historical background for the concept, the interview with White provided the current state of affairs and some important connections which are not clearly documented elsewhere. Interview Protocol
It should be mentioned here that the process of
interviewing someone of prominence is not to be taken for granted if any degree of success in the interview is to be achieved. Preparation for the interview of Schuman consisted of the study of articles and books that were available prior to the interview. A thorough acquaintance with his life and philosophies was essential to the formulating of a logical and orderly sequence of questions. Forethought was given to the protocol for conducting the interview in the following areas:
1. preparing adequately for the interview by a
thorough study of all available resources




I

59
2. a logical and sequential ordering of the interview
questions
3. requesting permission to conduct the interview in
a manner conducive to his cooperation
4. requesting a definite amount of time to conduct
the interview (a two-hour interview was requested;
he granted permission for one and one-half hours, which proved to be sufficient and was the actual
time used)
5. requesting permission to record the interview
6. having extra tapes, batteries, and an extension
microphone for use during the interview
7. having a note-pad with pencils for the recording
of some written information, such as spellings of
names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.
B. requesting permission for pictures to be taken
afterward, and having camera and film ready
9. requesting permission to use the interview for
purposes of this dissertation
10. expressing sincere thanks for his time verbally at
the conclusion of the interview, and in writing
afterward
11. transcription (typing), editing and indexing the
interviews for future reference
12. sending a copy of the transcript to the interviewee.
Other Interviews
In addition to the two interviews with William Schuman and Michael White, I conducted one follow-up interview over the phone with Michael White for approximately 90 minutes, during which he gave me information concerning the current (1988-1989) application of Literature and Materials at Juilliard. The additional item of protocol to be remembered for telephone interviews is that one must have a person's




permission to record the interview before beginning to record.
I also conducted three additional interviews over the phone. The first was with Gideon Waldrop, the first Field Representative for the Ford Foundation's Young Composers Project and a Dean of Juilliard. The next interview was with Gordon Hardy, a long-time faculty member in the L and M department at Juilliard. Finally, I conducted a very profitable telephone interview with W. McNeil Lowry, who was the staff member in charge of the Humanities and the Arts Program of the Ford Foundation during the years prior to and during the administration of the Young Composers Project and the Contemporary Music Project. Follow-up Study
Follow-up study based upon the contents of these
interviews became a necessity. Initially, this involved a re-check of periodical materials on the Young Composers Project, the Contemporary Music Project, and on Comprehensive Musicianship. Also, there were some additional names to be contacted who had ties to either the Juilliard School or the Ford Foundation or to the projects sponsored by it.




CHAPTER FOUR
COMPARISON OF APPROACHES
When the Literature and Materials (L and M) program of Juilliard is compared to the Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) approach, very few significant differences can found. The primary differences are those of application rather than content. It is my contention that the former gave birth to the latter, although the connection between these two approaches has not been fully documented. At least it can be said that the former (L and M) provided a pattern for the latter (CM) in the laboratory-like environment of Juilliard. What began as an idea in the mind of Schuman became a reality and even a national movement during his lifetime although credit has not been duly ascribed to him for his initiative. Even during his student days at Columbia Teacher's College he sensed that a problem existed in the way musicianship was taught. He had the opportunity to experiment with a new approach as a young teacher at Sarah Lawrence College. At Juilliard he had the authority as an administrator to reform an entire curriculum and make a national impact on the teaching of musicianship in general, and music theory in particular. The curriculum was implemented and maintained under Schuman's supervision for the




62
remainder of his tenure at Juilliard from 1947 through 1962. Since then, it has continued with the same name, "Literature and Materials," but has been adjusted to meet the demands of the school's growth and some perceived weaknesses in the approach.
The purpose of this chapter is to compare the L and M and CM approaches: to show the similarity of their content and differences of their applications, to show the historical and philosophical connections of the two approaches, and to present the current status of the L and M program as it has been adapted in recent years at Juilliard.
The element that was common to both approaches was a
perceived need for a new way of teaching music theory. The differences between the two are in the unique educational scenarios in which this need was met. To adequately compare these two approaches, it is necessary to document two major aspects of each: 1) the origins and the causes of its development; and 2) its application and implementation.
The Literature and Materials Approach (L and M) Origins
Although William Schuman is known mostly as a significant twentieth-century composer, his activities as a music educator were no less important to the musical world. It was in his role as educator that he adopted the philosophies that form the basis for the Literature and Materials approach. In his introduction to The Juilliard Report, he




referred to his work at Sarah Lawrence College as an experiment with new teaching techniques. In an exploratory freshman course dealing with the arts, he taught the musical portion of the class while other teachers covered various other aspects of the arts. The class was composed of students who had little or no knowledge of the arts, but possessed a healthy curiosity. It was his experimentation with this group of students that led ultimately to the Literature and Materials approach.' His description of the situation at Sarah Lawrence College is included later in this chapter.
Schuman placed a high premium on the importance of the students' feelings and sensations in the learning of musical concepts. According to him, conventional courses in music theory were inadequate because they did not provide the subjective linkage between the course content and the student's understanding. Even though techniques could be fully explained and understood in conventional music theory courses, they did not consistently "register" with the students in the realm of their feelings. He maintained that for education to be meaningful it had to provide emotionally valid experiences for the student. His belief was that the study of music could provide this emotional content and still be a legitimate intellectual pursuit.
iWilliam Schuman, "Introduction" in The Juilliard Report on Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1953), p. 8.




Schuman felt that a significant factor in making a
course meaningful was the choice of materials. According to Schuman, there was no set formula for success in teaching. No one "supersyllabus," curriculum, or instructional plan could supply answers for the variety of problems that would be encountered in a classroom. His position was that the instruction must be adapted to the needs of the individual students as well as the class as a group. He objected to the false finality of the claim that one has "had" a class, implying that learning in that subject has reached some sense of completion. Instead, he insisted that education, like self-discipline, is never fully achieved. It is a perpetual, self-generating process.2
The philosophy expressed above was described in
Schuman's Introduction to The Juilliard Report, written in 1953. Sixteen years earlier, in 1937, Schuman had described, in "Unconventional Case History," his experimentation with various approaches to teaching musicianship to a student at Sarah Lawrence College.3 The twenty-seven-yearold Schuman had just received his Masters degree that year, and his Bachelors degree two years earlier from Columbia, where he recognized the serious deficiency in music education and in music teacher training. At the outset of the
2William Schuman, The Juilliard Report, p. 10.
3William Schuman, "Unconventional Case History," Modern Music, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1937-1938), pp. 222-227.




article, he cited a reason f or the apathy of the general public toward music: "the obvious deficiency in the quality of its education". His concern for the general acceptance of contemporary music and his aversion to the restrictions caused by rules were clear even at this early stage of his educational and compositional career:
So long as the public lacks curiosity about what is untried, the contemporary composer of vision
will be ignored, and so long as that public is educated through a system which imposes rigid
formulae of aesthetic norms unrelated in any vital way to the experience of the individuals that make up its collective entity, the growth of a healthy
curiosity will be thwarted.5
Immediately after this paragraph, Schuman gave some
insight concerning the kind of educational climate in which he worked, where he was able to pursue his ideas freely.
Let us therefore turn our attention to work done at an
experimental college for women where all the teaching materials and methods are evolved to meet a student's specific need for them at a specific time. This puts the major responsibility of education on the student,
where it belongs.6
Even in this, his first position as a music educator, his emphasis upon the self-generating process of learning was set forth, with great similarity to the way he described it later in The Juilliard Report. It also provided Schuman with a working model of a flexible curriculum which would provide the basis for his Literature and Materials approach.
41bid., p. 222.
51bid., p. 222.
6Ibid. p. 222.




71bid., p. 223.

Schuman's experiences at Sarah Lawrence as seen in the article are foundational to his thinking about music theory education.
The student whom Schuman described in the article was Joan Peck, referred to only as "Joan" in the printed text. Schuman recalled her name without hesitation in my interview with him. He used his experience with her to demonstrate how a flexible approach could be adapted for a typical student. She was his student in an experimental course in the arts where the emphasis was on experience by active participation in some area of the arts. At the first conference with Joan, she expressed her secret desire to compose music using twentieth-century ideas, although her understanding of music theory and composition was almost non-existent. Schuman's experiment for the next several weeks was to lead Joan through a series of discoveries by which she would arrive at some success in music composition. Joan began with only the ability to sing melodies which she would hear in her head. She could not play an instrument and had no knowledge of notation, orchestration, or form.7
Schuman requested that she submit something that she
had written. She returned with dots and dashes and lines on a piece of notebook paper, approximating a contour of her desired melody. She fully expected him to require her to employ the conventional system of notation to record the




music. However, he reassured her that there was an appropriate use for a more free type of notation that permitted some latitude on the part of the performer. It was only after she expressed her desire for more precision that they discussed how to indicate fundamental pulse in her notation system. After a number of weeks during which she made improvements in her work, her self-designed system proved increasingly inadequate. She eventually took the initiative to find an upper-level student who assisted her in learning the conventional notation system which she began using to write her work.8
She then expressed an interest in incorporating the
concept of harmonic progression into her compositions. She had noticed some items in a theory textbook which she did not understand. Rather than using that or any other text to explain the concepts, Schuman began to lead her into a study of Bach chorales upon which the text was based. She was soon composing in this style in an acceptable manner.9
This process of desire, challenge, and discovery was
repeated throughout the term as Schuman led Joan through the other concepts that she needed to complete her composition projects. These concepts included notation, harmonic progression, form, orchestration, and counterpoint. Each was handled only as they were needed in the context of the
Blbid., p. 225.
91bid., p. 226.




68
student's work. In each case Joan was encouraged to arrive at her own solution through guidance from the teacher.10
Three rudimentary principles of Schuman's philosophy
that remained constant throughout his life are demonstrated in this case study: 1) musical composition is an integrated process, including the co-equal elements of theory, harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration; 2) true learning only occurs when the student is self-motivated and learns by discovery of concepts on his or her own accord; and 3) the musical masterpieces themselves are the best sources for learning a particular concept. These elements remained a part of his philosophy as he established the L and M program at Juilliard. Other similarities also can be seen.
He spoke of training students at Sarah Lawrence in the technique of "penetrative listening," which he described later at Juilliard as "virtuoso listening." This was an integral part of L and M classes there.11 Schuman concluded his description of Sarah Lawrence College by admitting that he had the ideal situation there for the implementation of such an innovative approach since it was a school dedicated to experimental solutions to meeting the challenges of education. In The Juilliard Report, he also described Juilliard as an ideal situation because they had the
10Ibid., p. 227.
11William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and
Materials of Music," Musical Quarterly, Vol. 34, (1948), p. 159.

M




69
advantage of a wealth of performing talent, and the resource of a wide variety of musical activity. Both of these statements were made in the context of his claims that these ideas (the "discovery" approach of Sarah Lawrence and the L and M approach at Juilliard) could be administered anywhere with the creativity of a gifted teacher.
The main points of Schuman's views on music theory
instruction are summarized in an article describing L and M written in 1948, the year after he instituted the approach at Juilliard.12
Summary of Schuman's educational views
1. He had a disdain for the obscure verbiage of
traditional educational theory, which he called "pedigese." It is notable that Schuman applied this type of descriptive word to the weaknesses of conventional education, such as the term, "educationist," mentioned in reference to Lilla Belle Pitts.
2. He blames the difficulties of vague terminology
found in traditional pedagogical theory on the "pomposity of the degree-granting mania which so hopelessly pervades much of American education"13
3. Conventional courses in music theory have failed because they are nothing more than a series of abstract graded exercises which have become an end in themselves.
121bid., pp. 155-168.
131bid., p. 155.




70
4. No "effective antidote" to routine theory instruction has been developed (before L and M) on a large scale.
5. Much of traditional music education is the worship of technique as a self-contained entity.
6. Students' desire for unquestioned authority to
dictate to them the rules of musical composition is tantamount to mental laziness and is a detriment to learning. It is a result of the educational system out of which they have come. Schuman was interested in expanding the mental horizons of the students, and in diminishing what he calls "pedestrian thinking."
7. Quite often, instrumentalists at the college level are more interested in the idea of performance than in the music that they are performing. They often lack even the knowledge of literature available that features their own instrument. In Schuman's words, their musical horizons often go no further than the end of their horns.
8. Organized flexibility of the L and M approach
allows teachers to adjust it to students' individual needs and capacities.
9. A musician in any branch of the art must be a virtuoso listener. Schuman describes it this way:
In other words, an ability to hear the component
parts of the language of music (harmonic progressions, melodic intervals, rhythmic patterns,
orchestral color, etc., etc.) does not ipso facto
mean integrated understanding--an understanding




that can only be achieved when the whole work is
clearly viewed as the sum of these parts.14
10. Teacher training is essential to enable students of L and M to successfully pass these concepts along at other schools.
11. Faculty and students provide input into adjustments made to the L and M classes.
12. Students must assume the responsibility for their own education.
13. Students must view the completion of their musical training as a beginning of a lifetime of learning, rather than as an end in itself.
Implementation
Upon the philosophical base described above, Schuman set out to establish a means of teaching the elements of music in a truly integrated way through the Literature and Materials approach. With the collaboration of Norman Lloyd described in Chapter One (p. 36), a working curriculum was established. When the new curriculum was being planned, conferences were held with faculty and students. The need for a broad music curriculum was clear but the schedule was already crowded.
To accommodate the schedule difficulty, the school year was lengthened from thirty weeks to thirty-five. Thus, five weeks were added to the two-year experiment that began in
14William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 159.




151bid., p. 161.

1948. Also, the normal undergraduate course of study was extended from four years to five. Literature and Materials courses were concentrated in the first twenty weeks of the school year. All other courses (individual instruction in instruments, voice, conducting, and composition) were held during weeks one through fifteen, were suspended for weeks sixteen through twenty, and then resumed for weeks twentyone through thirty-five. This provided a five-week period of focus in the middle of the year for the consummation of L and M activities. Faculty members who were not instructors in L and M had the opportunity to increase their outside performance activities during this time as well.15
The first two years of Literature and Materials were
regarded as general instruction. The primary goal of these years was to give the student an awareness of the dynamic nature of the materials of music. The difficulty at Juilliard (and everywhere else this approach has been tried) was to maintain freedom of instructional methods for the faculty while at the same time verifying that basic standards of musicianship were being achieved by the students. Instead of setting up rigid a priori objectives, the L and M faculty met as a group and agreed on a rudimentary minimum which all students would be expected to know. They prepared an examination which would serve as a review of the year's work.




The first year was to be a concentration on a general
study of styles. Melodic content was emphasized but consideration was also given to the elements of rhythm, harmony, and form. Assignments stressed listening skills, performance, and creative work.
Materials
The text for all L and M courses would be the music
itself, but the teacher had the freedom of using any supplementary materials that would be of help, including traditional music theory textbooks. These references were considered tools for the building process, rather than the core of the subject matter.
A common misunderstanding of the L and M approach was that traditional textbooks were to be avoided if used at all. Schuman' s approach was more pragmatic than that. In my interview with him, in reference to textbooks, he said, "Any tool is legitimate. Its just that I wanted the music to be the road to that tool and not the other way around. Anything that could illuminate the music would be fine." He related an example of how standard references could be effectively used by recalling a story told to him by Leonard Slatkin, who had been an L and M student of Vincent Persichetti at Juilliard. Persichetti told the students, "for the next time we meet, can you please find out for me what the lowest note of the English horn is?" As Schuman related it, Persichetti obviously knew what that note would




74
be, but this exercise sent students to the library or to the double reed studio to find out what the note was. The dull student would simply report that the lowest note of the English horn was a low "E" with no further knowledge gained. This is always the case with certain students who do the minimum just to get by so that they can say that they have "had" the course. However, the brighter students would encounter a variety of passages for the English horn which would lead to other discoveries, all of which would expand their understanding of music.
At the conclusion of the first year, students were
given a "Test of Basic Vocabulary." They were required to receive a grade of 90 percent or better before they could proceed any further in the program. Students who could not pass this test at the end of their first year were placed on probation. The test included elements such as scales and modes, key signatures, performance of rhythmic patterns in all time signatures, interval recognition and performance, identification of major, minor, diminished, and augmented triads, dominant seventh chords, and chords built on seconds or fourths, orchestral instrument characteristics, and common foreign terminology for tempo and dynamic markings.1
The outline of the subjects and techniques covered in the first year of L and M is printed in The Juilliard Report:

16 The Juilliard Report, p. 53.




Compositional styles:
Students will be expected to recognize and to
write melodies and cadences in the styles of
various representative composers. Introduction to types of literature:
Song, Piano, Choral, Chamber music,
Orchestral, Opera
Form:
Introductory study of one-, two-, and threepart forms; rondo, variation, fugue, and
sonata principles.
Scale structures:
Major and minor (key signatures), modes,
whole-tone, pentatonic, chromatic (twelvetone)
Rhythm:
Fundamental rhythmic concepts (metric patterns, time signatures, pulse);
Relation of tempo to the expressive and
structural elements of music;
Rhythmic organization in terms of length:
Measure, Motive, Phrase, Short pieces,
Long compositions;
Study of rhythmic devices used in composition.
Harmony:
All triads in all positions, seventh chords;
Figured bass principles, overtone series,
Cadences, Use of non-harmonic tones;
Simple melodic harmonization, primarily
diatonic but including simple modulation via
common chord and common tone;
Sequential harmonic patterns, Harmonic
organization of a phrase (original part
writing)




Miscellaneous:
Relation of words and music, Recognition of
all intervals: melodic and harmonic,
Instrumental sounds, ranges, and usages,
Transposition.
It is suggested that each instructor assign a list
of thirty works in addition to regular class assignments -- material to be drawn from all
periods from the twelfth to the twentieth centuries. Students to study these works, via
records, sufficiently to be able to recognize them
at the end of the year.17
The L and M faculty agreed that the second year would consist of a continuation of the study of styles with greater emphasis on individual student. There would be a more detailed examination of the methods by which composers of various style periods manipulated melodic lines to learn the changing character of compositional practices. Creative work in listening and performance would also continue to be emphasized. Since instructors were given freedom to choose the means by which they reached their goals, the teaching styles were as varied as the instructors' personalities. Schuman described the divergence as follows:
One instructor planned to select subject matter
based on programs given at the School; another on
programs given by one of the leading orchestras; another on music the students were studying for
performance; still another planned to trace music in reverse chronological order from 1948; another in conventional chronological order; and so on.18
17The Juilliard Report, pp. 64-65.
18William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 162.




As Schuman originally conceived it, students who are performers in all areas of proficiency are mixed in single classes. With this format, flexibility in terms of learning activities was essential. In its original design, students were assigned to the L and M classes by the registrar under the review of the Chairman of the L and M faculty. The object of this process was to achieve a reasonably balanced population in each class in terms of performing area, with a similar number of vocalists, pianists, and instrumentalists in each class. Balance of this type was desired because of the importance of live musical performance in class, both of well-known works and original student compositions. 19 This practice has been modified in the present curriculum at Juilliard due to restrictions of scheduling outlined at the end of this chapter.
At the end of two years of study in L and M, students were given an examination over the materials that they had assimilated over the first two years. This was in keeping with the desire of the faculty to maintain an objective standard of quality in an open-ended methodology. The exam was in two parts, each lasting approximately three hours. The first part consisted of written materials. In the example cited by Schuman, students were to compose a modal melody to a given Latin or English text, write a canonic piece in which they were given a choice of several

19The Juilliard Report, p. 57.

0




instrumental and vocal combinations, harmonization of a chorale melody in a unified style (be consistent in the style chosen), complete melodies in a style of a few composers, such as Couperin, Bartok, Weber, or Lassus, and to add a contrapuntal second part to a given melody. The second three-hour portion of the exam involved listening skills. The example cited by Schuman included the aural analysis of the slow movement of Bach's D-minor concerto for Two Violins, the third movement of Walter Piston's First String Quartet, and an excerpt from a Mass of Taverner. After three playings, students were asked questions concerning the type of counterpoint, the implied harmony of the counterpoint, the type of melodic writing (scalewise, arpeggiated, diatonic, chromatic, etc.), form, an educated guess at period and composer stating reasons, performing media, important thematic materials used (rhythm, melodic patterns), compositional devices used (sequence, inversion, ostinato, etc.), and other technical features pertinent to this piece. The last question chosen for this portion of the exam asked the student to "jot down everything that you hear as the music unfolds and then assemble your notes into a readable paragraph." The two pieces chosen for this were the first movement of Mozart's Quartet in D (K. 575) and Schubert's song, "Gute Nacht.''20
20William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 164.




This first comprehensive test described by Schuman in
1948 was changed by the time of the first publication of The Juilliard Report in 1953. According to the report, by 1951 the exam given at the end of the second year also consisted of two parts. The first part was a uniform exam given to all students in all L and M classes which would ensure that certain basic competencies were achieved. The uniform exam given in 1951 consisted of following four questions:
1. Write a short two-part canon for violin and
cello.
2. Over a figured bass (taken from Handel
Concerto Grosso, Opus 6, No. 3, and given at
examination time), realize a melody for flute
and a part for a keyboard instrument.
3. Given a violin part (composed by a faculty
member, and distributed at examination time),
compose parts for two other instruments.
4. Given a cantus firmus (taken from Koechlin),
write fifth species counterpoint both above
and below.21
In this first portion of the exam, the student had an hour and a half to complete three of the four questions.
The second part of the exam was drawn up separately by the various instructors and included ear-training, listening, discussion of styles, and at least one section geared to probing those aspects of the L and M experience that would not be easily tested by conventional techniques (such as the question mentioned above about a readable paragraph describing the student's hearing of a certain piece of music).22
21The Juilliard Report, p. 123.
221bd.,p. 123




When the L and M curriculum was first established at Juilliard, students in the third and fourth years were divided up into classes of specialization at the conclusion of their second year of study. The purpose of this was to allow further concentration in the literatures of their own performing areas under specialists in those areas. It was meant to produce the highest standard of musicianship possible on the part of the student performers.2 This practice was abandoned at the beginning of academic year 1952-1953 in order to provide a more integrated approach. With this change, the student would be able to remain with the same L and M instructor throughout his undergraduate training. To fulfill the need for specialization, repertoire classes for singers and pianists were established. Students were assigned to these classes at the discretion of their L and M instructor. Only those students who were ready to study and discuss repertoire with stylistic discernment were recommended for the repertoire classes. Students were placed in these classes normally at the end of the second year, however an advanced student could go earlier and a slower student could be detained until ready. In addition to their studies with their L and M instructor, pianists and singers were also required to attend repertoire classes twice weekly for one and one-half hours each. 24
23William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 165.
24The Juilliard Report, p. 128.




251bid., pp. 128-130.

I

Specialized classes for other instrumental performers were replaced with Chamber Music classes, where it was felt that students could experience the most vital development in studying and performing high-calibre literature for their instrument. The string ensemble classes had at their disposal the most abundant body of literature to perform. The student could be assigned to trios, quartets, quintets, and other miscellaneous groupings of instruments. Piano students had opportunities to perform in chamber ensembles with piano. Brass, woodwind, and percussion players were at a disadvantage in terms of chamber music since they did not encounter as many examples of significant literature for their instruments as did the string and piano players with their vast array of available music. The chamber music repertoire available to them was more limited, but an increasingly large body of Renaissance literature and idiomatic transcriptions has largely filled this gap. Vocal chamber ensembles had a wealth of Renaissance music at their disposal. Percussion ensemble groups studied either original works for percussion or standard symphonic excerpts.25
Concurrent with these chamber classes, the students continued work with their L and M instructor at their own level of advancement. Works were studied in greater detail and the aspects of harmony, counterpoint, and form were treated with more sophistication. At the more advanced




261bid., p. 131.

levels, the L and M study groups got smaller and the instructor was able to devote more time to individual projects. The concept of specialization was retained to the extent that students were expected to achieve certain outcomes based in part on their area of specialization. For example, a voice major was not expected to demonstrate more than a rudimentary ability in fugal composition. Conducting majors, on the other hand, had to show facility in skills of composition, orchestration, and analysis. The opportunity was available for any student to advance in his or her area of interest.26
In addition to the emphasis on performing-area repertoire in the third and fourth years, students also were subjected to an intensified library reading requirement. There was an emphasis on teaching students to use library resources on their own initiative. Students were typically asked to research varying views on a topic and share those views in class.
The recommended outline of objectives for the third and fourth years of L and M approved by the faculty in 1948 is printed in The Juilliard Report, as follows:
A. General.
1. More detailed knowledge of styles of
periods determined by the instructor, but generally (depending on medium) covering
earlier phases of the literature involved,
in the third year of L and M, and later




phases of the literature in the fourth
year.
2. Comparison of these styles with any
relevant period or media, in terms of
influence, adaptation, change, or contrast.
3. Study of standard repertoire, plus guidance toward extension and enlargement of
repertoire (familiar and unfamiliar
music).
4. Performance of music in class must be
stressed and made possible.
B. Specific.
1. The purpose of L and M is to produce
better performers.27 Evaluation of this
result cannot be made from a purely L and M viewpoint and must, therefore, be tested
in closest co-ordination with all major
and ensemble classes.
2. The following goals should be achieved by
all divisions of L and M, the importance of the various elements being emphasized according to their place in the specific
literature:
a. Acquaintance with development of
smaller and larger forms.
b. Acquaintance with changes in rhythmic,
melodic, harmonic, and contrapuntal
practices and characteristics in the periods covered and in the works of
specific composers.
C. Ability to prove knowledge of principles used in the above A a and b) by
writing and analyzing.
27This exclusion of composers manifests the L and M
goals of creating more intelligent performers. Juilliard, even today, is primarily a performance school.

28The Juilliard Report, pp. 133-134.




84
In its original design in 1948, there was a fifth year, or L and M V, which consisted of a summarizing course in Music History. Supplementary courses were offered in Orchestration, Orchestral Conducting, and other subjects. By the time The Juilliard Report was compiled in 1952, the fifth year had been dropped, and the non-performance areas such as orchestration were to be incorporated into the L and M class work.29
Teaching Fellows Program
A necessity identified by Schuman in the new approach to music theory instruction was the improvement of teacher training. This was accomplished at Juilliard through the Teaching Fellowship Program, which was established under Schuman and still continues today. This program was intended to provide a small number of gifted and interested graduates with an opportunity to pursue further studies while gaining actual apprenticeship experience in teaching. Fellowships are granted to candidates based upon their undergraduate records and their aptitude as future teachers. They receive tuition scholarships and a small salary for their work. Their duties include observation and assistance of their supervising teacher. Teaching Fellows typically assist with ear-training, sight-singing, fundamentals, or piano instruction at the secondary proficiency level. In all cases, they are to be working with a teacher rather than

29 The Juilliard Report, p. 171.




85
for him. A Teaching Fellow's actual duties depend on his or her experience and ability and the supervising teacher's needs. Fellowships are renewable and most run for a term of two years. During the second year of the fellowship, the Fellow is able to be of most assistance, often teaching another section of a class parallel to the supervising teacher.30
Two of the first group of Teaching Fellows, graduates of Juilliard, who were then appointed by Schuman to a full faculty position were Arnold Fish (deceased) and Gordon Hardy (currently the Dean of Aspen School of Music). These are also the two men who later collaborated on Music Literature: A Workbook for Analysis, which was used every year through 1987-1988 as the primary source of L and M music materials. In the fall semester of 1988, it was dropped as a regular resource in the program. In its place, other musical examples have been selected by the current L and M faculty for use in the classroom. These materials are listed later in this chapter.
Schuman said that the attitude of the Juilliard School toward prospective teachers was that their musicianship must be on the same level as that of the other students at the school. His comments reflect his disdain for the state of music teacher education as he saw it:

301bd.,p. 173.

0




If we are to raise the standards of music teaching, our professional schools must no longer steer the least talented students into teaching. Music
teaching must be considered a vocational aspect of professional music, just as playing in an orchestra is one, appearing on the concert stage is
another, and composing or conducting are still
others. There is no reason to expect every
professional musician to be a teacher but there is every reason to insist that every music teacher be
a musician of professional caliber.31
Schuman expressed here a feeling about music education that touches upon the age-old conflict between performance and teaching, between the "conservatory"s approach and the "liberal arts" approach, and between questions of breadth versus depth. The adage that is often applied to this situation is, "He who can, does. He who can't, teaches"3 In schools and departments of music in colleges and universities across the country the debate continues today over the importance of performance to the prospective music teacher. The prevailing attitude in most schools seems to be that performance ability is somehow less important for the music educator than for the performer. If this is not stated in writing, it is at least implied in the degree requirements. For instance, the recital requirement is traditionally lighter for music education students than for performance majors.
31William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 167.
32James P. Warburg, "Commencement Address," The
Juilliard Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Fall 1961), p. 10. This was the quote from George Bernard Shaw used by Warburg in his commencement address of 1961.

M




0

87
It is true that graduates whose livelihood is dependent upon performance alone have a greater need to demonstrate these abilities as they seek employment as performers. However, serious consideration must be given to the implications of music teachers whose performance abilities are marginal and the message that this gives to their students. It is no coincidence that the question of breadth versus depth also arose in the designing of the Literature and Materials approach and later of Comprehensive Musicianship.
Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) Origins
As described earlier in this report, Comprehensive Musicianship as an educational movement resulted as an attempt to correct the educational weaknesses that were revealed by the Young Composers Project. The roots of CM go back to the study conducted by the Ford Foundation beginning in 1957, entitled "Economic and Social Study of the Status of the Artist and His Institution in the United States." As scores of artists who were interviewed made their comments and suggestions about the place of the arts in American society, Norman Dello Joio made the suggestion that captivated the attention of the Ford Foundation. His idea was to place young composers in situations where they could compose music for specific groups and have it be performed by them. As the young composers took their place in public schools throughout the country, it became evident that there




88
was little understanding among music educators about current trends in musical composition. High school band directors, choral directors, and orchestra directors had a knowledge of music literature that was limited to the particular group for which they were responsible. On average, they were thoroughly unprepared for the new sounds and techniques that were being introduced by the young composers to their students. There was an obvious need for teacher training that would better prepare the music educators for a broader understanding of contemporary practices.
Out of this need came the proposal by the Music
Educators National Conference (MENC) to the Ford Foundation for funding for the program which gave birth to the term, "Comprehensive Musicianship." A fact that is not well-known is that initially MENC resisted the efforts of the Ford Foundation In their national study. They viewed the foundation as a threat to their positions, since this study would bring some deficiencies to light. After the idea of contemporary music in the schools caught on as a national movement, the leadership of MENC began to soften their resistance and even take much of the credit for the movement.
The Ford Foundation found it necessary to work through an existing national organization in music. They initially used the National Music Council (NMC) because of its taxexempt status and nationwide membership of prominent figures in the arts. It did not make any sense to start their own




89
tax-exempt organization to administer their grants when two such organizations (NMC and MENC) already existed. They used the MENC as a proving ground for the idea of placing young composers In the schools. Both of these organizations were tantalized by the prospect of major grants from the Ford Foundation, but at the same time felt threatened by the foundation's size and influence.
According to W. McNeil Lowry, who was the head of the Humanities and Arts Program of the Ford Foundation during those years, the foundation "winked at" MENC's taking credit for much of the initiative of the Young Composers Project. Anyone who looks into it will discover that It was the Ford Foundation that was the catalytic force behind the movement, despite resistance from MENC at first. They overlooked and even encouraged MENC's claims that it was their program because of the fact that the foundation was dependent upon MENC for the execution of it.
In a personal interview over the telephone with Lowry, he described some of the early feelings that existed between the Ford Foundation and MENC.
Sometimes the Foundation winked at that because
you really did have to depend on their execution of it, so it didn't hurt to let them think whatever they want to think. There was enough real
sensitivity and jealousy on their part anyway
about the fact that this came out of Ford
Foundation catalytic work with professional
composers. They didn't like that.
The core of this program was the Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education. The name soon




became shortened to CMP. Included in the proposal was the extension of the Young Composers Project, which was later re-designated as the Composers in Public Schools Program.
The following is an excerpt from the proposal made to
the Ford Foundation. Notice the similarity of these objectives to the objectives of L and M:
1. to increase the emphasis on the creative
aspect of music in the public schools.
2. to create a solid foundation or environment in the music education profession for
the acceptance, through understanding of
the contemporary music idiom.
3. to reduce the compartmentalization which
now exists between the profession of music
composition and music education for the benefit of composers and music educators
alike.
4. to cultivate taste and discrimination on
the part of music educators and students
regarding the quality of contemporary
music used in schools.
5. to discover, when possible, creative
talent among the students in the
schools.33
Norman Dello Joio, a 1942 graduate of Juilliard, and
the first Chairman of the Committee of Selection for the Young Composers Project, addressed the 1962 MENC convention on the subject of "The Study of Contemporary Music." He echoed many of the sentiments of William Schuman fourteen
33Contemporary Music Project, "Proposal by Music
Educators National Conference for Ford Foundation Grant," 1962, p. 2, printed in Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought (CMP5) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 32.




91
years earlier, but he made no reference to Schuman's L and M approach. He spoke of the gratification of taking part in an assault on the prevalent attitude that separates the living composer from his audience.
The following quote is taken from the address given by Dello Joio at the convention in 1962.
I believe that the significance of having composers here with us today is that you as educators
are in contact with men who are actively functioning in their art. It is up to the forward-looking teacher to recognize that a pattern for change is being made, and that by his efforts these composers are making a long-needed breakthrough in
attitudes that cling to the past alone. It should
be clear to all of us that by writing music for
you they are putting to rest many inherited fears
about contemporary music.34
As the Contemporary Music Project gained momentum
through seminars and workshops sponsored by the grant, the main concerns were focused on two related areas: 1) the nature of teacher training In music, and 2) the nature of musicianship training for all college music students. Their hope was to provide solutions for the deficiencies in these two areas that were revealed by the Young Composers Project.
In 1964, the effectiveness of short-term workshops and seminars was called into question by some members of the Policy Committee of the Contemporary Music Project. George Howerton, one of the members of the committee and the Dean of the School of Music at Northwestern University in
34"The Young Composers Project," in Music Educators Journal, Vol. 48, April-May, 1962, p. 35.




92
Evanston, Illinois invited the MENC to hold a four-day highlevel conference on music theory there to explore educational principles that might meet educational needs. The
seminar was held for four days in April, 1965. At this
seminar, every major tenet of Schuman's L and M approach was
put forth under the label of Comprehensive Musicianship. A
small group met in October, 1964, to plan the seminar and
focus its purposes. The small group of music theory experts
consisted of Allen Forte, Arrand Parsons, and Warren Benson
in addition to CMP officers Norman Dello Joio, Bernard
Fitzgerald, and Grant Beglarian.
The following list contains the starting premises for
the seminar:
1. Required theory courses should be
concerned with all aspects of music and
not be limited to a narrow concentration
in one area of the discipline or
historical period.
2. The pedagogical approach should be that
which makes possible the synthesis of
skills and knowledge acquired in theory
courses, so that the student will be
provided with a solid and broad base for
his specialized studies. It is imperative
that the required theory courses provide
him with sufficient background for
advanced and independent study once he
enters the teaching profession.
3. The all-inclusiveness of the proposed
courses should provide those who emphasize
performance and those who emphasize
appreciation with technical skills and
conceptual knowledge.
4. It is assumed that new teaching techniques
would have to be employed.




5. Specific guidelines for techniques and
pedagogical philosophy must be developed.
6. The resources of the Project are not
sufficient for implementation of such a
broad plan of action. Recommendations of
the high-level conference may be disseminated and the active cooperation and
support of national organizations con- 3
cerned with these matters would be sought.~
The Northwestern Seminar addressed the same problem
that Schuman had addressed nearly two decades earlier. The
report of the seminar published by MENC lists the following
factors as a background among many reasons cited:
Since the study of traditional practices, mainly
those of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century music,
receives the main attention in required college
courses in "musicianship," it must be assumed that
this inadequacy of background is due not so much
to the lack of such courses as to their limited
scope and purpose.
In college courses dealing with musicianship, the student in music education or performance degree programs is expected to complete requirements in
ear-training, sight singing, harmony, history, and
literature.... .This broad training is intended to provide the student with an understanding of the
art which will complement his technical
professional training. In practice, however, a
synthesis rarely occurs between courses within the
general area of musicianship or between musicianship courses and professional studies.
If the creative approach has any validity, the
college curriculum should provide the prospective
teacher with means for developing his own creative
potential in his own terms. Existing courses in
theory seldom do this.36
35Contemporary Music Project, "Digest of Proceedings: Meeting of Planning Group for the High-Level Conference on Music Theory," Washington (1964) p. 7, (cited in CMP5, p. 34) .
3 6Contemporary Music Project, Comprehensive Musicianship:
The Foundation for College Education in Music (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 196_5), pp. 5-7.




Full Text

PAGE 1

WILLIAM SCHUMAN'S LITERATURE AND MATERIALS APPROACH: A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE MUSICIANSHIP By JONATHAN STEELE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1988 ^p p LIBRARIES

PAGE 2

Copyright 1988 by Jonathan Edward Steele

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my gratitude for the guidance and encouragement given by my major professor, Dr. John White, throughout my program of study at the University of Florida and particularly during the writing of this dissertation. I am also grateful for the helpful and precise assistance provided by my committee members in their review of my work. Their many hours of work are greatly appreciated. I owe a debt of gratitude to Clearwater Christian College for the substantial assistance and encouragement given to me in my doctoral studies. Most of all, I am thankful for my wife, Bea. Without her unending love, patience, and support, I would not have finished this task. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 1 Objectives 5 Background 6 The Juilliard School 6 The Literature and Materials Approach .... 8 History of the Comprehensive Musicianship Approach 11 The Young Composers Project 11 The Contemporary Music Project and Comprehensive Musicianship 17 Background on William Schuman 22 Biography 22 Philosophy 38 Musical Output 41 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 45 Scholarly Research 46 Bibliographies 47 Periodical Literature 48 Biographies 52 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 54 Preliminary Study 54 Interview With William Schuman 54 Interview With Michael White 56 Interview Protocol 58 Other Interviews 59 Follow-up Study 60 iv

PAGE 5

CHAPTER FOUR COMPARISON OF APPROACHES 61 The Literature and Materials Approach (L and M) . 62 Origins 62 Summary of Schuman's educational views .... 69 Implementation 71 Materials 73 Teaching Fellows Program 84 Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) 87 Origins 87 Support of CM from Educational Philosophy . 94 Implementation 101 Philosophical Connections Between the Two Movements 115 Current Adaptation of the Literature and Materials Approach at Juilliard 120 Differences 121 Similarities 127 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 129 APPENDIX A Outline for Literature and Materials I . 136 APPENDIX B Outline for Literature and Materials II . 140 APPENDIX C Outline for Literature and Materials III 142 APPENDIX D Graduate Standing Qualification Exam . 145 APPENDIX E Discography of William Schuman's Music . 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY 148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 151 INDEX 152

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy WILLIAM SCHUMAN'S LITERATURE AND MATERIALS APPROACH: A HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE MUSICIANSHIP By Jonathan Steele December 1988 Chairman: Dr. John White Major Department: Music During his tenure as president of the Juilliard School of Music (October 1, 1945 to December 31, 1961), William Schuman restructured the school in several significant ways. The most significant pedagogical contribution was his revision of the curriculum used for Music Theory instruction. The new curriculum was designated the "Literature and Materials" approach, because it was based upon an orientation to music itself as a source of information about compositional practices rather than textbooks and other writings about music. It was a philosophy and an approach for the mastery of musicianship rather than a method or system of instruction. The intent of this curriculum was to remove the bias created by the imposition of "a priori" rules upon the analysis of music, thus allowing a fuller understanding of all style periods, including twentiethcentury music.

PAGE 7

Comprehensive Musicianship is another approach which bore a strong similarity to William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach. This concept came about in the sixties as a result of a Ford Foundation grant for the study of arts in the United States. The Ford Foundation became interested in this project as a result of exploratory conferences which they sponsored The Ford grant was appropriated first for the Young Composers Project of 1959. In this project, young composers were placed in public schools for renewable one-year terms to compose original works for school bands, choruses, and orchestras. Additional grants came from the Ford Foundation through the year 1974 to fund subsequent movements which arose out of the Young Composers Project, including the Composers in Public Schools Program, the Contemporary Music Project, and the Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education. Out of these programs came the definition of a "new" approach to musicianship training known as Comprehensive Musicianship. This dissertation documents William Schuman's early development of the Literature and Materials approach, his implementation of this program at Juilliard, some associations of the program with the origins of the Contemporary Music Project of the sixties, and a comparison of the Literature and Materials approach at Juilliard to the Comprehensive Musicianship movement in music education. vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Interest in the subject of the Literature and Materials of William Schuman and its relationship to the Contemporary Music Project came about initially as a result of a study of each of those subjects in graduate classes in Current Trends in Music Education and in Twentieth-Century Styles. In these classes it was apparent that there was a relationship between the essence of Schuman' s educational philosophy and the goals of the Contemporary Music Project, but that there was little indication of any correlation in the materials published on the two subjects. Further study verified this initial conjecture. William Schuman became the president of the Juilliard School on October 1, 1945. During his first year as president he was already putting into effect educational reforms which would reach beyond the scope of the school itself. His most notable reform was the new approach to the instruction of music theory known as the Literature and Materials approach. Trends in music education in the United States often originate in college music departments, schools of music,

PAGE 9

2 and conservatories of music. When a new approach to musical study is introduced in higher education, it has an effect on the students and graduates of that institution, who often become practitioners of the new method. It also has a rippling effect into other developments in music instruction depending upon the influence and stature of that institution in our society. The Literature and Materials approach played a major role in a national change of thought among music educators concerning how music should be taught at the college level. The idea of an integrated approach to the study of music had been discussed by some. In the post-war period of the late 1940 's there was an atmosphere of experimentation in many areas, including music. Therefore, it is not surprising to note that both composers and teachers of composition were challenging traditions. It was only natural that the idea of combining elements of music in the teaching of music theory would be one of the proposed changes. In a 1946 article in Music Educators Journal Neil Daniels said, In short, the harmony course is becoming a course in music appreciation as well as a course in certain well-defined skills and techniques in the manipulation of rhythmic and tonal concept. . The traditional harmony course is undergoing a vast reshaping. . Counterpoint and harmony cannot be thought of apart from one another. Even in strict counterpoint one must think of the vertical relations of the melodic lines. Harmony and counterpoint are just different ways of

PAGE 10

viewing tone relations and should be taught together in that sense. In a 1959 article describing Schuman's Literature and Materials program, Frederick Kintzer said, To those of us who have grown up under the old routine of three or more isolated courses which comprised the music major's daily dozen, these proposals make sense. The former manner of teaching music fundamentals lacked continuity as the student was moved from technique to technique and from room to room on successive hours of the school day. Not only did the system suffer from lack of integration, but techniques were most frequently presented in abstract concepts and exercises 2 Kintzer said that another leader in the new, integrated style of teaching music was Howard A. Murphy, a professor of music education at Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York. To illustrate this, Kintzer makes reference to a statement that Murphy used in the foreword to a solo piano analyzed edition to Beethoven's symphonies (1938), where Murphy said, "The greatest teacher of music, either aesthetically or technically, is music" 3 Kintzer described a new textbook written by Murphy and published in 1951 that followed the integrated and musical approach to the study of theory. He said that this was one of many results of the "impetus of the dramatic Juilliard ^•Neil M. Daniels, "The Junior College Curriculum," Music Educators Journal January-February 1946, p. 26. 2 Frederick C. Kintzer, "Integrated Music Fundamentals for the College Freshman," Music Educators Journal February-March 1959, p. 73. 3 Ibid., p. 73.

PAGE 11

4 announcement" of the L and M program. The thesis of Murphy's text was "to teach the art of music, not theory, for the enrichment of life, through the stimulation of creativity and the clarification of insights for the performer and listener" 4 According to W. McNeil Lowry, a staff member of the Ford Foundation Humanities and Arts program and an associate of Schuman, the idea of an integrated approach to the teaching of musicianship was "in the air" and was being discussed before it was established at Juilliard. Lowry was responsible for the Contemporary Music Project as it was funded by the Ford Foundation. This project became yet another effort toward an integrated approach to the teaching of music theory. Schuman 's Literature and Materials approach, although it represents neither the first discussion of the idea nor the last application of its principles, nevertheless stands alone as the first major implementation of the integrated approach with any degree of continuing success at an institution of higher learning. The prominence of Juilliard was unquestionably enhanced by the reforms of William Schuman during his tenure as president of the school. The school's prominence as a major influence in arts education certainly paved the way for the Howard A. Murphy and Edwin J. Stringham, Creative Harmony and Musicianship (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951), p. xi cited in Kintzer, "Integrated Music Fundamentals," p. 73.

PAGE 12

5 subsequent reception of the Comprehensive Musicianship idea as a national movement which arose out of the Contemporary Music Project. The materials that document the Contemporary Music Project of the sixties do not make reference to William Schuman or his Literature and Materials approach as a precedent in the history of their movement. Very little mention is even made of the existence of the Literature and Materials approach, although it is identical in concept to Comprehensive Musicianship. Objectives The purpose of this paper is two-fold: 1) to trace the factors which influenced Schuman 's development of the concept of Literature and Materials through a survey of his life, musical output, and philosophy; and 2) to document the similarity of the Literature and Materials approach as implemented at Juilliard to the subsequent approach of Comprehensive Musicianship. The sources for this documentation will be published materials from the Contemporary Music Project, existing literature about William Schuman and the Juilliard School, personal interviews with Schuman himself and with key individuals at Juilliard and in the Contemporary Music Project.

PAGE 13

6 Background The Juilliard School The Juilliard School was originally two schools: The Institute for Musical Art and the Juilliard Graduate School. The Institute for Musical Art was founded in 1905 by Dr. Frank Damrosch with financial backing from James Loeb Damrosch, the institute's first director, was a godson of Franz Liszt and the brother of the famous conductor, Walter Damrosch. He had been the head of music education for New York City's public schools. His plan was to establish a music academy that would rival European conservatories so that gifted American students could receive high quality training without having to go abroad. The expected firstyear enrollment was about 100 students, but actual enrolled ment reached nearly 500. The Juilliard Graduate School was founded in 1924 with a legacy from Augustus D. Juilliard. Juilliard had been a music-lover, opera-benefactor, and textile manufacturer. When he died, he wanted to contribute to musical life in New York. His estate set aside 13 million dollars for the establishment of the Juilliard Musical Foundation in 1920. In 1924, these funds were offered to the Metropolitan Opera, but were considered by them to be unnecessary since their economic situation was solid at that time. As William 5 Juilliard (New York: The Juilliard School, 1987), p. 14.

PAGE 14

7 Schuman related in a personal interview conducted during this study, "Juilliard's money was turned down by the Metropolitan Opera because they didn't want it. They didn't need it in those days, they thought." The trustees then decided to create a graduate school of music which would provide advanced education to persons of outstanding ability on a tuition-free basis. In 1926, the Juilliard Musical Foundation took over the Institute for Musical Art. The trustees desired that neither school would lose its identity. In 1927, the trustees formed a corporation with a Board of Directors to operate under the name of Juilliard School of Music. The distinguished Columbia University professor, John Erskine, became the first president of the new corporation, with Ernest Hutcheson serving as Dean of the Graduate School and Frank Damrosch as Dean of the Institute for Musical Art. Erskine continued as president until 1937 when he was succeeded by Ernest Hutcheson. Hutcheson served from 1937 until William Schuman 1 s installation in 1945. The two schools differed in that anyone who could afford to pay the fee could attend the Institute for Musical Art, but the Juilliard Graduate School was more exclusive. Admission was highly competitive. One of Schuman 's first reforms was the amalgamation of the schools into one; a 6 George Dickey, "The Founding of Juilliard," The Juilliard Review Annual 1963-1964, p. 19.

PAGE 15

8 task which he described in my interview with him as being "very, very difficult to do." The name of Juilliard School of Music then was applied to the institution, and the use of separate titles was discontinued. Schuman is also responsible for the establishment of the Literature and Materials program, The Juilliard Review journal, the Juilliard String Quartet, and the Dance Division during his time as president. In 1962, when Schuman began his service as president of the new Lincoln Center, he was responsible for the successful negotiations of the terms by which the Juilliard School would join the Lincoln Center as its resident school. Peter Mennin succeeded William Schuman as president of Juilliard in 1962. He established the Drama Division in 1968. During that year, the name of the school was shortened to The Juilliard School to reflect the inclusion of the disciplines of music, drama, and dance. The move to the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts was completed under his presidency in 1969. Upon his death 1983, Peter Mennin was succeeded as president by Joseph Polisi, who still holds that office at the time of this study. 7 The Literature and Materials Approach Within a year after Schuman assumed the Presidency of Juilliard in 1945, he totally revamped the theory department with sweeping changes in curriculum. The changes 7 Juilliard p 15

PAGE 16

9 represented a new approach and philosophy rather than a method of instruction. Indeed, the very lack of method or regimentation is one of its hallmarks. It is an emphasis on the study of the music itself, rather than a study of books and methods about the music. Since this represented a radical departure from past traditions, changes in faculty personnel were inevitable as well. The essential flexibility could be handled by versatile musician-teachers but often proved to be beyond the reach of teachers competent in traditional approaches. When Schuman came to the school he interviewed each of the existing music theory teachers to explain the new approach to them. He described it to me as follows: I asked them whether they felt capable of teaching this way and practically none of them said they could. So I told the board that the best people to teach this were composers who knew how to teach, because the composer's training related to every aspect of music and the composer was taught to look at music as a whole and you start with the whole body, not the parts of the body. Schuman found it necessary to hire many new members of the faculty for the Literature and Materials department who would have a particular knowledge and interest in the language of music. The resultant group included Vincent Persichetti, Peter Mennin, William Bergsma, Richard Franko Goldman, Robert Ward, Judson Ehrbar Irwin Freundlich, Vittorio Giannini, Roger Goeb, Frederick Hart, Julius Herford, Robert Hufstader, Frederick Jacobi Sergius Kagen,

PAGE 17

10 Norman Lloyd, Robert Tangeman, and Bernard Wagenaar 8 While no one was terminated by the new administration, some of them were not able to make the adjustment and decided to leave Juilliard. Securing quality personnel to teach in the L and M department has always been a challenge at Juilliard because of the super-human demands placed upon the teachers. A faculty member in L and M must be an active composer, an effective communicator, and a skillful performer on an instrument. While this is not an easy task, it is not unlike the challenge that exists at any school which attempts the current effort toward a so-called integrated approach toward the teaching of lower-division music theory. John D. White, Music Theory Coordinator of The University of Florida Music Department and author of Guidelines for College Teaching of Music Theory describes it as follows: Perhaps the ideal theory teacher is a unique combination of theorist, composer, performer, and historian; for the integration of these musical disciplines is a major objective of the lowerdivision theory courses. A few pages later, he continues his description of teacher qualifications : The ideal theory teacher, then, at least for the integrated approach, is a kind of Renaissance person with a balanced perspective — an 8 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," The Musical Quarterly 34 (1948), p. 159 9 John D. White, Guidelines for College Teaching of Music Theory (London: Scarecrow, 1981), p. vi

PAGE 18

11 accomplished and experienced performer who in addition to being a skillful composer is comfortable singing and at the keyboard; has a good knowledge of music literature and history; and possesses the communicative skills, perceptivity, and other attributes of a fine teacher. 10 History of the Comprehensive Musicianship Approach The Comprehensive Musicianship approach was the outgrowth of an exploratory program sponsored by the Ford Foundation to study humanities and the arts in the United States. The activities of program were centered around two main projects: the Young Composers Project and the Contemporary Music Project. The Young Composers Project In 1957, the Ford Foundation began the sponsorship of a series of conferences in which participants examined the place of arts and humanities in the national scene. W. McNeil Lowry was head of the Humanities and the Arts Program for the foundation which organized these conferences. He described the program in a telephone interview. American artists were called upon to offer suggestions for improving the appreciation of the arts in the United States. For a period of 18 months, Lowry and representatives of the Foundation went into 185 communities to talk to everyone they could find in the arts. The original title of this survey was, "Economic and Social Study of the Status of the Artist and His Institution in the United States." Despite the implications of this title, the 10 Ibid. p. 7.

PAGE 19

12 focus was centered on the artists, on professional music, and not on education. The following quote from a 1958 Ford Foundation report previews the program: With the assistance of artists, heads of artistic institutions, critics, and community patrons, the Foundation has undertaken a long-term study of the economic and social position of the arts and the artist in the United States. The first phase has been an inventory of points on which information is to be gathered. The Foundation this year held two national conferences to catalogue major questions in music, fine arts, the theater, and creative writing. In addition, the Foundation staff has consulted critics and working artists in New York and about eighty other communities, and has also visited parallel artistic institutions in Europe. The first stage of data collection is being carried out with the help of social scientists experienced in surveys. Analysis and evaluation will not begin for at least another 11 year x x At one of these conferences, Norman Dello Joio presented the idea of placing young composers in public secondary schools. According to Lowry, Dello Joio's initial idea came from music history of 200 or 300 years ago when composers wrote for an immediate audience. Young composers in those days were employed to write music for public consumption. They not only wrote music, but they also performed it. In the case of the church musician, it might be an original cantata for the choir or a prelude for the organ. Dello Joio suggested that if modern young composers could be placed in environments where their work and creativity could be developed during the formative stage of their careers, 11 "Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report (Oct. 1, 1957 to Sept. 30, 1958), p. 35.

PAGE 20

13 they would also have a positive influence on a significant source of the musical life of the nation. The most natural place for this to occur would be the public schools. The idea was put into operation as the Young Composers Project with an initial grant from the Ford Foundation of $200,000. This was administered by the Ford Foundation in cooperation with the National Music Council through a Joint Committee with Norman Dello Joio serving as chairman. This Joint Committee had two subcommittees: one for the selection of composers and one for the selection of school systems in which they would work. Members of the first composer selection committee were Oliver Daniel, Vittorio Giannini, Thor Johnson, Peter Mennin, and Douglas Moore, with Howard Hanson serving as an ex-officio member. Members of the first school system selection committee were Jacob Avshalomov, Vanett Lawler, George Howerton, Wiley Housewright, Robert Marvel, James Neilson, Ralph Rush, and Howard Hanson, an ex-officio member. 2 Most of the music educators who had been involved in the early administration of the program were active members in the Music Educators National Conference (MENC), an organization which would later take a more prominent role in administering it. 12 Howard Hanson, "Report on the Ford Foundation National Music Council Project to Place Young Composers in Secondary Public School Systems," National Music Council Bulletin Vol. 19, No. 3 (Spring 1959), pp. 3-4. 13 Contemporary Music Project, Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 3.

PAGE 21

14 In my interview with W. McNeil Lowry, he told me that the National Music Council was used by the Ford Foundation initially for two main reasons: 1) It was a music organization which encompassed the largest and most diverse group of musicians, including professionals, college faculty members, and other music educators; and 2) It was taxexempt with a "501c3" status. The Ford Foundation did not want to formulate a new organization just to accommodate the administration of this grant. Gideon Waldrop (whose term of service was from 19591961) and Grant Beglarian (from 1961-1963) were the first two field representatives selected for the program. 14 Their assignment was to travel around the country to meet with the composers, interact with them and help to resolve their problems Michael White, one of the first twelve composers sent out, is chairman of the Literature and Materials Department at Juilliard at the time of this study. He gave me a great deal of information during a personal interview and during a second interview over the telephone. He said that Gideon Waldrop (the first field representative for the Young Composers Project) had been a "middle man" in the Ford Foundation. He was involved as a designer and consultant for the Young Composers Project from the beginning. In 1961, Waldrop was named Assistant to the President of 14 Ibid., p. 109.

PAGE 22

15 Juilliard by Schuman. When Peter Mennin succeeded Schuman as president of Juilliard in 1962, Waldrop became the Dean of the school and remained there for a total of twenty-five years. As of this writing, he is the president of the Manhattan School of Music. During school year 1959-1960, twelve composers went out under this program. They were Grant Beglarian, Emma Lou Diemer, Arthur R. Frackenpohl Arnold Freed, Joseph W. Jenkins, James L. Kurtz, Richard B. Lane, Martin S. Mailman, Robert S. Muczynski Harold Owen, Robert B. Washburn, and Michael White. They were each paid a stipend of $5000 plus travel expenses to work as composers in residence for one year in the schools assigned to them by the committee of selection. 15 They were permitted to re-apply for an additional term if they wished. During the second year, school year 1960-61, the following twelve composers were sent out, some of them for a second term: D. Donald Cervone, John Barnes Chance, William Wilson Coker Emma Lou Diemer, Donald Martin Jenni Richard Lane, Ronald B. LoPresti, Martin Mailman, Theodore S. Newman, J. Peter Schickele, William Ennis Thomson, and Michael White. Each of them also received the $5000 stipend. 16 It is notable that many of these individuals have subsequently achieved 15 Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report (Oct. 1, 1958 to Sept. 30, 1959), p. 49. 16 Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Report (Oct. 1, 1959 to Sept. 30, 1960), p. 49.

PAGE 23

16 considerable success as composers. It may be concluded that the program was successful to the extent that it at least launched some significant careers in composition. From 1959 to 1969, seventythree composers and seventyseven communities were involved. To ensure that the composers would still be in their formative stage, the maximum age was thirty-five years, and most of them had no more than three years of experience beyond their professional training. 17 The objectives of the program were as follows: 1) To provide opportunities for young composers to develop their craft; 2) to enable young composers to hear their work performed; 3) to involve students in the study and performance of music written especially for them; 4) to provide an interchange of musical ideas, techniques, and attitudes between composers and high school music directors; 5) to bring about a new vitality in the life of communities and their schools; 6) to establish a creative artist within the cultural life of a community; 7) to create a body of music literature which could be played by secondary schools across the country and thereby positively affect their tastes and standards. 18 17 Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought p. 3. 18 The Contemporary Music Project, The CMP Library (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1969), p. 9.

PAGE 24

17 The Contemporary Music Project and Comprehensive Musicianship While there were obvious benefits of the Young Composers Project for composers, students, and music educators alike, several deficiencies also became evident. The most notable of these was the inability of the classroom teacher to assimilate the ideas presented to them by the young composers. Music educators, who had been trained mainly in the so-called "common-practice period" literature, were not able to personally relate to the contemporary styles used by the composers. As a whole, they knew very little about the techniques of contemporary composition. From this MENC recognized a need for a more comprehensive undergraduate training of music educators. In the ensuing years MENC would take an increasingly more active role in the encouragement of both the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship and teacher training in music. In 1962, the MENC addressed this need by proposing to the Ford Foundation that the Young Composers Project be continued. They suggested that the program be expanded to include seminars and workshops on contemporary music in schools and that pilot projects should be established in elementary and secondary schools. In 1963, the Ford Foundation accepted the proposal made by MENC and granted them a total of $1,380,000 to set up The Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education. The name soon became shortened to CMP. R. Bernard Fitzgerald was named

PAGE 25

18 director (1963-1965), and Grant Beglarian, assistant director (1963-1965). Norman Dello Joio continued as chairman of the Joint Committee (containing the sub-committees for the selection of composers and school systems) The Joint Committee was renamed the Project Policy Committee in 1965. During the years 1963 to 1965, sixteen seminars and workshops were held at colleges and universities across the country to help teachers in their understanding of analysis, performance, and teaching of contemporary music, and to foster creativity in the classroom. Six pilot projects were established to provide additional training for public school teachers to expand their understanding of contemporary techniques of composition. The Young Composers Project was also continued, but its name was changed in 1965 to Composers in Public Schools Program (CPS). 19 In 1965, Grant Beglarian was appointed director (19651968) and John Davies assistant director (1965-1968). From April 22 to 25 of 1965, the Contemporary Music Project held a seminar at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois. Participants included educators, theorists, composers, historians, and performers in music who met for the purpose of considering ways of improving music teacher education. The title of the seminar was "Seminar on Comprehensive Musicianship — The Foundation for College Education in 1 Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought p. 109.

PAGE 26

19 Music." It has since been referred to simply as "The Northwestern Seminar." Out of this seminar came a curricular recommendation which represents (according to MENC reports) the first definition and description of "Comprehensive Musicianship." The report of this seminar was published by MENC. 20 In 1966, the Ford Foundation issued a supplemental grant of $250,000 to increase the resources of CMP in its national programs. CMP published a catalogue of works written by composers who had participated in the Young Composers Project during the initial period from 1959 to 1964. It was entitled, Contemporary Music for Schools with the subtitle CMP 1 This was superseded by the CMP Library in 1969, which included later compositions as well. Also published in 1966 was CMP 3 a report of pilot projects in Baltimore, San Diego, and Farmingdale 21 Browning Cramer was named administrative assistant in 1966, a post he retained until 1970. From 1966 to 1968, six regional Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education (IMCE) were established to begin applying the findings of the Northwestern Seminar. Thirtysix colleges and schools conducted two-year programs, some 20 The Contemporary Music Project, Comprehensive Musicianship: The Foundation for College Education in Music (CMP q) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference 1965) 21 The Contemporary Music Project, Experiments in Musical Creativity (CMP 3 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference), 1966.

PAGE 27

20 of which involved in-service training for teachers in local elementary and secondary schools. In 1967, the Airlie House Symposium was held to establish procedures and forms for evaluating the effectiveness of IMCE The results were called "Procedures for Evaluation of Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education." According to the report published by CMP, "The main purpose of the assessment is to compile data about IMCE in order to ascertain the validity of the theory and practice of Comprehensive Musicianship studies in their totality and specific parts." 22 Raymond Donnell served as field representative from 1967 to 1968. Two publications were released in 1967. The first was CMP 4 a report of the pilot projects at Ithaca College and the Interlochen Arts Academy. 23 Vera Brodsky Lawrence, the newly-appointed director of publications, supervised the publication of the CMP Library to supercede Contemporary Music For Schools (CMPj). It was published in three volumes: Vol. I, "Works for Band, Winds, and Percussion/ Solos;" Vol. II, "Works for Orchestra and String Instruments;" and Vol. Ill, "Works for Chorus and Voice." 24 22 David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula ( CMP 6 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 94. 23 Warren Benson, Creative Projects in Musicianship J_CMP 4 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference; 1967. 24 Vera Brodsky Lawrence, editor, CMP Library (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1967, 1968, 1969).

PAGE 28

21 In 1968, the Ford Foundation provided a five-year grant of $1,340,000 for the continuation of the project. MENC administered the grant and supplemented it with a renewable $50,000 per year grant for the five-year period. The resources of CMP were divided among three programs: Program I, Professionals in Residence to Communities; Program II, The Teaching of Comprehensive Musicianship; and Program III, Complementary Activities. Program I was an expansion of the Composers in Public Schools Program, in the words of the report, "placing composers, performers, and scholars in communities to serve a wide spectrum of cultural and educational interests." 25 Program II provided for the "identification and support of competent and creative teachers to design music curricula based on the theory and practice of comprehensive musical education." 26 Program III included various other support activities and publications of CMP, including consultation services to schools, workshops, and courses for school music teachers, presentations at conventions, three new CMP publications, twelve issues of a newsletter to the membership of MENC, an instructional film entitled, "What is Music," and two national conferences on College Music Curricula in 1970 and 1971. The three publications were the second edition of the CMP Library 25 Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving: Thought (CMP 5 ) p 111. 26 Ibid. p. 111.

PAGE 29

22 Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP 6 ) 27 and the Source Book of African and Afro-American usic Educators (CMP ? ) 28 Background on William Schuman Materials for Music Educators (CMP 7 ) 28 Biography William Howard Schuman was born in New York City on August 4, 1910, to parents of GermanJewish descent. He was named after William Howard Taft. Although he did not study music seriously until he was 23, music was something that he loved and pursued as an avocation throughout his childhood years and through high school. He studied violin and piano at age 11 but was more interested in sports, especially baseball (which would later become a subject for an opera that he wrote) At Speyer Junior High School he had an interest in the theater. He wrote a play called, "College Chums," which was performed during his time there. He was voted "best orator" and stated in his yearbook that his ambition was to be a theatrical producer. At George Washington High School his organizational skills were seen in his formation of a jazz band. The band rehearsed in his living room and eventually played at dances and other engagements. Schuman "arranged" music by teaching parts to 27 David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP 6 ) 28 James Standifer and Barbara Reeder Source Book of African and Afro-American Materials for Music Educators (CMP 7 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971)

PAGE 30

23 the musicians by rote, because he did not know how to score a piece. He also played piano, banjo, saxophone, and clarinet with a certain degree of success. The band thrived, receiving many engagements to play during his time in high school. In addition to his band work, he teamed up with Frank Loesser in writing popular songs, many of which were published. Despite these musical successes, he still had given no serious thought to a musical career. When he graduated from George Washington High School, he registered at New York University School of Commerce with loosely-laid plans to go into business. Through his sister's persuasion, he attended his first live performance of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra just a few months before his twentieth birthday. The friend who usually accompanied her was sick and she did not want to go alone. The program consisted of Schumann's 3rd Symphony, the funeral march from Wagner's Gotterdammerung, and "Summer Evening" by Kodaly. Schuman related the impact that the evening had on him: I went really as a favor to her — but that concert literally changed my life. I still remember the date: April 4, 1930. I was astounded at seeing that sea of stringed instruments, and everybody bowing together. The visual thing alone was astonishing. But the sound! I was overwhelmed; I had never heard anything like it. The next day I withdrew from N.Y.U.. I left N.Y.U. and started to walk home from 4th Street to 112th Street. As I walked, I thought and thought about all those wonderful sounds. "I've got to be a musician," I thought. "My life has to be in music." All those sounds were still going 'round and 'round in my head. As I passed 78th Street and West End

PAGE 31

24 Avenue, I noticed a sign on a private house: Malkin Conservatory of Music. I walked in and said: "I want to be a composer. What should I do?" The woman at the desk said promptly: "Take harmony lessons." So I signed up to study harmony with Max Persin. 29 Persin was aware of the trends of contemporary music and challenged Schuman to "look at the music and find out what makes it tick, what causes one composer to sound different from another" 30 This anecdote explains certain aspects of both his musical and educational predispositions. As a composer of ten symphonies and numerous orchestral works, he has always been partial to symphonic sound. While many modern composers have shunned the symphony orchestra and have written for smaller more intimate groups of instruments, Schuman has continued to write for the full orchestra. As of this writing, he has accepted a commission to compose an orchestral work for the new performing arts center in Tampa, Florida. His first exposure to serious music was a quality live performance by a large orchestra. It is not surprising that he has devoted the larger part of his creative life writing for this media. The anecdote cited above also gives insight concerning his educational predispositions. A live encounter with 29 Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," Stereo Review June, 1974, p. 69 (Sheila Keats graduated from Juilliard during the Schuman years) 30 Flora Rheta Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti, William Schuman (New York: G. Schirmer, 1954), p. 9.

PAGE 32

25 music of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra kindled the fire of Schuman's creative imagination to become a composer. Having been so profoundly affected by this experience, he also formulated his teaching philosophies with an emphasis upon encounters with music as a source of inspiration and education. He knew the powerful effect of music as a challenge to creativity and would have no patience with systems or methods of instruction as a substitute for a study of music itself. After his lessons in harmony with Max Persin he studied counterpoint with Charles Haubiel also at the Malkin Conservatory. Schuman worked at it from eight to ten hours per day and in time was able to write fugues in fourteen voices. At the same time he continued writing songs and arrangements In 1933, Schuman decided that the most pragmatic step for a young composer to take was to become his own patron by securing work in some creative field. For this reason he entered the Teacher's College at Columbia University to prepare for a job as a teacher to support himself as a composer. During his student days he composed both popular and serious music, but soon concluded that his concentration was being diluted by his divided interests. At this point, around 1934, he gave up his efforts in popular music. He

PAGE 33

26 graduated in 1935 with a Bachelor of Science degree. 31 He was disturbed by the music education program at Columbia in that more emphasis was placed on the teaching of music than on the music itself. Although he had some outstanding teachers, there were some whose methods caused him to question the value of traditional teacher education. On the positive side, he had one teacher whose course in the history of education [in his words] "set him on fire, it was so exciting." On the negative side, he described a teacher [unnamed] who bored him in a course in the principles of teaching. He related the following illustration to me: I took a course in the principles of teaching by a woman that started out by saying, "Now the city in which we are New York there are three major rivers. Would you then conclude that all major cities have three major rivers?" I didn't know what this woman was talking about She was giving us a lesson on not to generalize and it took an hour and a half and I thought I'd go out of my mind. He gave a disparaging description of Lilla Belle Pitts, a well-known music educator of his day, calling her an "educationist." Although she was a respected author of many books on the subject of music education, in Schuman's estimation she was concerned more with method than with content. He described an encounter that he had with Ms. Pitts as a student in one of her classes: She gave a class and said, "If you want to introduce a young child to music, you give that child a 3 Christopher Rouse, William Schuman Documentary (New York: Theodore Presser, 1980), p. 5.

PAGE 34

27 crayon and a piece of paper and you have that child listen to the music and draw what that child is hearing." I couldn't believe what I was listening to, and finally I found myself on my feet. And I said, "Respectfully, I would like to disagree with Professor Pitts. I think it's the worst way you could possibly teach listening to music, because you're taking attention away from the music and putting it on something else. It's like teaching somebody to look at a picture and asking them what music it reminds them of. I'm just completely out of sympathy with it and I don't think it can be justified." He continued the account telling how Dr. Harold Rugg, another prominent music educator at Columbia, took him into his home and agreed with his views: He [Dr. Rugg] said, "I just loved what you did yesterday." He said, "This is an absolutely valid point of view and I didn't agree with Professor Pitts, but I wasn't in a position to say so." And he befriended me, and I saw that education could be, like everything else in life, completely dull and misleading or very exciting and exploratory. This was the beginning of his concern for reforms in music education which he would pursue later at Juilliard. It illustrates Schuman's formulation of his own philosophies, not only of music education, but of how he dealt with his personal convictions. He rarely hesitated to speak his mind in any matter about which he held strong beliefs, even if it put him at odds with prominent individuals. This practice, coupled with his own substantive abilities, stood him in good stead at the "crossroads" in his life, such as when he entered Sarah Lawrence College and Juilliard. Upon graduation, he applied for a job at Sarah Lawrence College. While perusing the catalogue a phrase which

PAGE 35

28 reflected his own beliefs had caught his eye: "In a very real sense, all education is self-education, but some environments are more favorable to the process than others." He was attracted by this concept which would later be central to the Literature and Materials approach. The assertiveness with which he pursued this job typifies his demeanor in many other challenges in his life. Although there were no openings at the time, he phoned the college and spoke to a representative of the college, saying, "...if what you print in your catalogue is true, your president should be glad to see me." With this he got an appointment to see the president, Constance Warren. Although there was no opening initially, Schuman was eventually hired there 32 several months later. During the summer of 1935, before his first fall term at Sarah Lawrence College, he received a scholarship to study conducting at the Mozarteum Academy in Salzburg. Although the scholarship did not include the full cost of travel and lodging, he went anyway. A large portion of his time in Salzburg was devoted to the writing of his first symphony Upon his return he began his work at Sarah Lawrence, teaching harmony, music appreciation and choral singing. It was there that Schuman had the opportunity to put into practice some of the experimental educational ideas that he 32 Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 11

PAGE 36

29 had formulated as a result of his discontentment with traditional methods at Columbia Teacher's College. These will be detailed in Chapter Four "Comparison of Approaches Having the security of a full-time teaching position, he married Frances Prince in the spring of his first year at Sarah Lawrence College on March 27, 1936. During that year he also finished the symphony that he had begun in Salzburg and submitted it for the Beams Prize at Columbia University. He had submitted his Chorale Canons (later published as "Four Canonic Choruses") for the prize the year before. Neither composition won the prize, but the attempts resulted in some favorable recognition of his work by Daniel Gregory Mason, the chairman of the music department of Columbia. 33 After Schuman had been at Sarah Lawrence College a few years, the president, Constance Warren, asked Schuman to recommend someone to fill a vacancy in the music department. He submitted the name of Norman Lloyd with the commendation, "We have oil in the back yard." Norman Lloyd was a dance composer and an accompanist, primarily, and composed a lot of music for Jose Limon. He was in Schuman 's words, "an all-around splendid musician." He and Schuman became very close friends and began sharing ideas about methods of instruction. According to Schuman, Norman Lloyd assisted 33 Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 14

PAGE 37

30 him by narrowing down his broad ideas into specific terms. His more tangible assistance would come later as a collaborator on the Literature and Materials project. During the summer of 1936, Schuman studied composition with Roy Harris at Juilliard, using his First Symphony as his first project. Harris saw the weaknesses in this work, but he also saw the potential and desire of Schuman to succeed at symphonic writing. In the fall of 1936, Schuman 's First Symphony was performed on a Composers 1 Forum Laboratory Concert of the Works Progress Administration. The opportunity for Schuman to hear the weaknesses of his own early work caused him to withdraw this symphony. Despite this discouragement, Schuman continued to study privately with Harris for the next two years at his home in Princeton. Through Harris, Schuman became interested in early music and medieval modes as well as polyharmony. Although composition activities occupied a significant portion of his time at Sarah Lawrence, he also received his Master of Arts degree from Columbia University in 1937. By entering his compositions into various competitions, Schuman continued to receive significant exposure for his work. During the period of the Spanish Civil War, the Musicians' Committee of the North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy held a contest with Bernard Wagenaar Roger Sessions, Aaron Copland, and Roy Harris as judges. 34 Schreiber and Persichetti, p. 15

PAGE 38

31 The prize was to include performance, publication, and recording of the winning work. Schuman submitted his Symphony No. 2 and it won the contest. A lack of funds prevented the prizes from being awarded, but it brought Schuman' s work to the attention of Aaron Copland. As a result, Copland wrote a favorable article in the May/June 1938 issue of Modern Music saying, "Schuman is, so far as I am concerned, the musical find of the year." Copland's high regard for Schuman was also recorded thirteen years later in a July, 1951 article in The Musical Quarterly where he lauded the "Schumanesque rhythms" of the Fourth String Quartet. He said, "There is nothing quite like these rhythms in American music, or any music for that matter." In 1938, the Columbia Broadcasting System presented Symphony No. 2 with Howard Barlow conducting in a concert of non-commissioned works by new American composers. In a review of this concert, Schuman' s symphony received a favorable rating, even compared to commissioned works. a On the negative side, the work was criticized for constant reiteration of original material and for lack of growth or expansion after a very strong beginning. Schuman 's growing fame was enhanced by the receipt of various awards. From 1939 to 1941, he received two Guggenheim Fellowships. His Symphony No. 3 was performed on 35 Goddard Lieberson, "Over The Air," Modern Music Vol. 16, No. 1 (1938-1939), p. 66.

PAGE 39

32 October 17, 1941 by the Boston Symphony under Koussevitzky The performance in Boston as well as a performance in New York brought encouraging reviews. 01 in Downes called it the best work of a rising generation. Reviews of his next work, Symphony No. 4, were not as favorable, however. In 1943, he received the first Pulitzer prize ever given for music for his "A Free Song." On November 12, 1943, the Boston Symphony performed his Symphony No. 5, commissioned by the Koussevitzky Music Foundation. In 1945, came Schuman 1 s first efforts at music for the theater. At the request of choreographer Anthony Tudor he produced the ballet score for "Undertow." It was staged in New York by the Ballet Theatre at the Metropolitan Opera House on April 10, 1945, and later in a concert performance by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra. Schuman enjoyed a favorable relationship with the music publishing house, G. Schirmer. The President, Carl Engel, had become enthusiastic about Schuman 's choral music and requested the first refusal option to publish anything that Schuman wrote. When Carl Engel died, G. Schirmer asked Schuman to become their director of publications upon advice from Serge Koussevitzky. His work began on June 1, 1945. 36 In my interview with Schuman, he related the following anecdote : 36 Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," p. 72

PAGE 40

33 The Schirmer family called Koussevitzky, and he recommended me, and I called Koussevitzky and I said I'm not a businessman. I'll tell you exactly what he said, because I can hear it. He said, "William, through the night, you will become a businessman. One of Schuman's most significant appointments came in 1945 when he became president of the Juilliard School of Music where he remained until 1962. The appointment came as a result of efforts of two members of Juilliard 's board, who independently arrived at the name of Schuman as a possible candidate for the job after Ernest Hutcheson retired. Juilliard Board member James Warburg had a daughter, Kay, who had been an admiring student of Schuman at Sarah Lawrence College. Schuman was just three days into his three-year contract with G. Schirmer when he received a call from James Warburg asking him to consider the position at Juilliard. Warburg's continuing support of Schuman throughout his tenure as president is indicated in a commencement address given by Warburg on May 26, 1961. Warburg delivered this address at Schuman's invitation for what turned out to be his final commencement as president of Juilliard. The following is an excerpt of that address: Although we, on the board, are mere amateurs in the field of the art, we have, I think, made at least one outstanding contribution to the development of the school — namely, that of inducing Bill Schuman to become its president. George Bernard Shaw, in one of his more cynical moments, once said of educators: "He who can, does. He who can't, teaches."

PAGE 41

34 Bill Schuman is the living disproof of that aphorism, not only because he is both an outstanding musician and a dedicated teacher, but because his major interest lies in producing artists and teachers who are fully rounded individuals, and who are, therefore, equipped to lead happy, creative and useful lives. IU at > as see it, is the mark of a great educator. 37 John Erskine, board member and past president of Juilliard, became acquainted with Schuman at a panel discussion on modern music conducted by the New School for Social Research. Schuman had at first deferred the ten-minute time slot allotted for his presentation. John Erskine 's speech followed. Erskine in his description of new music said that there were two problems with modern music: the first was that it was not heard, and the second was that it was heard. He went on to give an amusing but deprecatory discourse on modern music, including the charge that it has no melody. Schuman asked for his ten minutes back and proceeded to answer Erskine' s charges. 38 In my interview with Schuman he described the scene: I said, "I can't do John Erskine battle in any field of learning. He's one of the most erudite men around, and I've always appreciated him; especially his books, since my parents tell me I shouldn't read them. ... I can't do battle with him in any field of learning except music, which is the field of my professional competence and obviously not of his." I said, "For example, he talks about the lack of melody in contemporary music; but there is a new work that has just come out by a contemporary composer named Paul 37 James P. Warburg, "Commencement Address," The Juilliard Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 {Fall 1961), p. 10. 38 Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," p. 72

PAGE 42

35 Hindemith, called 'Matthew the Painter,' 'Mathis der Maler.' I should like to sing the symphony." So I started to sing the symphony. The audience was naturally amused, and Erskine was impressed by Schuman's quick-witted ability to think on his feet as well as his passion for the subject and the breadth of knowledge that he displayed. These two coincidental encounters of Schuman with Juilliard board members (Warburg and Erskine) lead to his appointment as president. He came to Juilliard with the understanding that he would be allowed to institute reforms that he felt might be necessary. The board told Schuman that of the approximately fifty people who were interviewed for the job of president, he was the only one who was critical of the school in any way. He was given the support of the board and the freedom to make changes where needed. He utilized his instinctive gift for administration that had manifested itself even in his adolescence with his organization of the jazz band at that time. During his years at Juilliard Schuman inaugurated the Literature and Materials approach to the teaching of music theory which would establish a pattern for schools and departments of music thereafter. While at Juilliard, Schuman continued as consultant to G. Schirmer until 1951. One of Schuman's first goals in coming to Juilliard was to establish a resident string quartet. He proposed to the board that the school would hire four string players, give them a modest teaching assignment, and they would be

PAGE 43

36 guaranteed a certain percentage of their income from engagements for the next three years. The only stipulation was that the name of the Juilliard Quartet would remain constant. The first player hired was Robert Mann (who is still at Juilliard) He, in turn, assisted with the securing of the other three players. As Schuman had predicted, the quartet did more than any other one thing to spread the 39 musical fame of the school around the world. ^^ In Schuman 's second year at Juilliard, he brought Norman Lloyd to the faculty from Sarah Lawrence College to be the Director of Education. Although this position did not work out for him, he remained on the faculty and was the principal collaborator with Schuman on the development of the Literature and Materials curriculum. Lloyd was very well organized and had more of a pedagogical turn of mind than did Schuman. The two complemented one another in the development of the new approach in that way. Schuman formulated the broad concepts and Lloyd had the patience to put them in the form of a curriculum. During Thanksgiving holiday of 1946, Schuman and Lloyd travelled to Atlantic City where they worked slavishly for four days to put the ideas of the curriculum on paper. He described it to me: We got to where we started very early in the morning, and after each three-hour session we'd take a little walk and at the afternoon before dinner we managed to go to a movie. And we, you 39 Harriet Gay, The Juilliard String Quartet (New York: Vantage Press, 1974), p. 5.

PAGE 44

37 know, we quit around midnight. We had long, long days and in three or four days we knocked this thing out and put it on paper. Schuman received honorary doctorates from Chicago Musical College (1946), University of Wisconsin (1949), Columbia University (1954), Brandeis University (1962), and many other institutions. He received the New York Music Critics Circle Award in 1950 and the Brandeis University Creative Arts Award. In 1962, he was appointed president of the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts where he remained until 1969. When he resigned the presidency of Juilliard, the faculty and staff honored Schuman by a gift of $1000 to the Lincoln Center for an endowed seat at the Juilliard Theater bearing William Schuman 's name. The testimonial reads as follows: The Faculty and Staff deeply regret your resignation from the presidency of the Juilliard School of Music. In the sixteen years you have been our president your vision and your outstanding qualities of leadership have won our admiration; your artistic ideals and integrity our highest respect; your kindness, consideration and warm humanity our affection. We are happy that your achievements have received yet further recognition: we congratulate the Board of Directors of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts on their election of you as president. The great influence that Lincoln Center will have on the artistic life of our nation tempers to a degree the regret we feel at you departure. Our congratulations, our complete confidence in you, our enthusiastic support and our warmest best

PAGE 45

38 wishes go out to you and will be with you in the years ahead. 40 When he assumed the presidency of the Lincoln Center, he made it clear at the outset that he was not interested in simply just being a "figure-head," but that he planned on taking an aggressive leadership role. An important part of the program that he initiated was the development of an educational program in partnership with its constituent organizations. Services to education included live performances in secondary schools, training for teachers of the performing arts at Lincoln Center Teacher's Institute, professional education in conjunction with the Juilliard School, and services to colleges and universities, mainly in the form of music festivals, such as the first International Choral Festival held in 1965. 41 While at Lincoln Center, he established the Lincoln Center Student Program, the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center, the Philharmonic Orchestra Summer Promenade Concerts and the Film Society of Lincoln Center. He received the Concert Artists Guild Award in 1967. In 1968, he was awarded the John H. Findley Medal by City College for significant service to the City of New York. 40 "Faculty Honors Schuman," The Juilliard Review edited by Gideon Waldrop, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1961-1962) p. 3. 41 William Schuman, "The Role of the Lincoln Center," Musical America (Feb., 1966).

PAGE 46

39 He resigned his position at Lincoln Center to devote himself to composition in 1969. In 1970, he was elected chairman of the Videorecord Corporation of America. In 1973, he was elected to the American Academy of the National Institute of Arts and Letters. In 1974, he became the board chairman of the MacDowell Colony in Peterborough, New Hampshire. This is a retreat where creative artists from all fields can work intensely, free from other demands on their time. As the founding director of the Charles Ives Society, he has taken a prominent role in promoting the publication of definitive editions of Ives' works. Schuman holds board memberships in various organizations, including the Naumburg and Koussevitzky Foundations, as well as the Chamber Music Society and Film Society of The Lincoln Center. 42 He has remained an active composer, accepting commissions as he is able to complete them. Examples of his commissions at the time of this study include an opera for an opera company, a piano piece for the Van Cliburn Foundation competition, and an orchestral piece for the opening of the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center. Philosophy Three primary characteristics guided William Schuman 's accomplishments throughout his life: 1. a commitment to an experiential and progressive approach to education; 2. a 42 Rouse, William Schuman Documentary p. 26,

PAGE 47

40 knack for administration and organization; and 3. a disdain for "arty-ness" or snobbishness on the part of musicians. His commitment to education can be traced to his time at Columbia Teacher's College. He had a desire to teach, but not to simply convey knowledge in a dry, pedantic way. He could see the weakness in this method as a freshman and began forming his determination to change this approach to music education if he had the opportunity. His interest in the position at Sarah Lawrence College was due to the similarity of the institution's philosophy of education to his own: that "all education is self-education." Schuman displayed his skill for organization and administration at Sarah Lawrence as he immediately involved himself in the planning and coordination of the new program of instruction under which he was hired. Schuman 's desire to revise traditional music instruction continued at Juilliard. In just his second year there he instituted the integrated approach to music theory instruction known as the "Literature and Materials" program. Schuman advocated the setting aside of "preconceived notions of rigid organization of music into history, analysis, and theory, and to present music as a whole in a manner calculated to exploit the student's love of it and his desire for training." 43 43 William Schuman, "William Schuman Summarizes Juilliard Objectives," Musical America Vol. 81 (Feb. 1961), pp. 18-19.

PAGE 48

41 His disdain for cultural snobbishness has been made clear to anyone who has personal contact with or who has read articles by him. In a 1965 article in Music Journal criticizing the Pulitzer Prize committee for not awarding its music prize for 1965, Schuman once again makes a plea for the culturally-minded to avoid snobbishness. 4 In all of his accomplishments, both musical and administrative, Schuman was above all, practical, in the ways enumerated above as well as others. His pragmatic but energetic approach made him a valuable asset to the educational and musical world. Additional information about Schuman 's philosophy as it specifically relates to music instruction is contained in Chapter Four. Musical Output William Schuman wrote for orchestra, band, chamber ensembles, piano, chorus, solo voice, opera, ballet, and film. In the orchestra category, he wrote ten symphonies, a piano concerto, a violin concerto, several one-movement pieces for orchestra, including "American Festival Overture" (1939), "Song Of Orpheus: Fantasy for Cello and Orchestra" (1963), and "Variations on America" (1963). "Song Of Orpheus" was inspired by William Shakespeare and commissioned by the Ford Foundation for Juilliard cellist Leonard Rose. "Variations on America" is a transcription for 44 William Schuman, "The Prejudice of Conformity," Music Journal Vol. 23 (Sept., 1965), p. 44.

PAGE 49

42 orchestra of the Ives piece of the same name for solo organ. Other orchestral works include "Credendum, a three-movement work commissioned by UNESCO in 1955, and one of his mostoften performed works, "New England Triptych: Three Pieces After William Billings" (1953). The three sections of this piece are, "Be Glad Then, America," "When Jesus Wept," and "Chester." The first two of the three were transcribed by him for band, and the third, "Chester" was made into "Chester Overture" for band as well. He wrote Symphony No. 7 in 1960, Symphony No. 8 in 1962, "The Orchestra Song" in 1963, Symphony No. 9 ("Le Fosse Ardeatine") in 1968, "In Praise of Shahn" in 1969, "Voyage for Orchestra" in 1972, Symphony No. 10 ("An American Muse") in 1975, commissioned by the National Symphony Orchestra for the American Bicentennial, and "Amaryllis" ("Variants on an Old English Round") completed in 1976 as an string orchestra adaptation of an earlier piece for string trio. Other band works include a piece written for the Pennsylvania State University music department in 1941, entitled "Newsreel in Five Shots." The five sections included "Horse Race," "Fashion Show," "Tribal Dance," "Monkeys at the Zoo," and "Parade." "George Washington Bridge; an Impression for Band," written in 1950, is a programmatic work depicting the construction and finished structure of the famous George Washington Bridge in New York City, which was a childhood fascination of Schuman. Other

PAGE 50

43 works include a band transcription of "Variations on America" (1968), "Philharmonic Fanfare" (1965), "Dedication Fanfare" (1968), and "Anniversary Fanfare" (1969). Chamber music includes String Quartet Nos 1 through 4 (1936, 1937, 1939, and 1950), a "Canon and Fugue" (1934, for violin, cello, and piano), "Amaryllis: Variants for String Trio" (1964), a "Quartetino For Four Bassoons" (or 4 clarinets or saxophones; 1939), "Prelude for a Great Occasion" (1974, for brass and percussion), and "In Sweet Music" (1978, a serenade on a setting of Shakespeare for flute, mezzo-soprano, viola, and harp) He wrote a limited amount of music literature for instrumental solo. Piano music included his "Three-Score Set" (1943), "Voyage: a Cycle of Five Pieces" (1953, including "Anticipation," "Caprice," "Realization," "Decision," "Retrospection"), and "Three Piano Moods" (1958, including "Lyrical," "Pensive," and "Dynamic"). For solo trumpet, he wrote "XXV Opera Snatches" (1978). His earliest choral work was "Four Canonic Choruses" (1933; originally "Chorale Canons"), written during his student days. Others include "Chorale Etude" (1937), "The Orchestra Song" (1939), "Prelude for Voices" (1939), "Te Deum" (1944), "The Truth Shall Deliver" (1946), "Five Rounds on Famous Words" (Nos. 1-4, 1956; No. 5, 1969). "A Free Song" (1942, also called "Secular Cantata No. 2"), earned Schuman the first Pulitzer Prize ever awarded

PAGE 51

44 for music in 1943. "A Free Song" was based upon the poetry of Walt Whitman, a favorite source of inspiration for his choral music. Whitman's poetry also provide the texts for "Pioneers" (1937), "Carols of Death" (1958), and "Declaration Chorale" (1971). Other choral works include "This Is Our Time" (1940, also called "Secular Cantata No. 1"), "Deo Ac Veritati" (1963), "Mail Order Madrigals" (1971, based upon advertisements in a 1897 Sears-Roebuck catalogue), "To Thy Love" (1973), and "Casey At Bat" (1976, arranged from "The Mighty Casey"). He wrote the following pieces for solo voice: "God's World" (1932), "Holiday Song" (1942), "Orpheus With His Lute" (1944), "The Lord Has a Child" (1956), "The Young Dead Soldiers" (1975; based on poetry by Archibald MacLeish) and "Time To The Old" (1979, three songs also based upon texts by Archibald MacLeish, including "The Old Gray Couple," "Conway Burying Ground," and "Dozing on the Lawn"). In addition to these songs, Schuman also composed between sixty and one hundred popular songs in collaboration with Frank Loesser and other lyricists. Schuman 's only opera was "The Mighty Casey: A Baseball Opera in Three Scenes" (1953). He wrote five ballets: "Undertow" (1945), "Night Journey" (1947), "Judith" (1949), "Voyage for a Theater" (1953), and "The Witch of Endor" (1965) 45 45 Rouse, William Schuman Documentary pp. 31-42

PAGE 52

CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The study of William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach proceeded with a sequential discovery of materials related to the subject. First, I searched through listings of dissertations published and in progress to determine if this subject has been or is being studied by another individual. Next, I studied all available (though limited) biographical materials on William Schuman. Next, I collected and surveyed all available periodical literature on Schuman or the Literature and Materials approach, making use of bibliographical listings found in the biographies. The study of the subject caused me to become interested in relationships with the Comprehensive Musicianship approach of the sixties. Therefore, the next step in the literature review consisted of a search for periodical literature on the Contemporary Music Project, out of which Comprehensive Musicianship was born. The periodicals listed published materials from the project, which also proved helpful. Finally, personal interviews with William Schuman, Michael White (a teacher at Juilliard) W. McNeil Lowry (formerly of the Ford Foundation), and Gordon Hardy (formerly of Juilliard) resulted in further study of additional 45

PAGE 53

46 materials from the Ford Foundation, the National Music Council, and from the Juilliard School itself. Scholarly Research The first step in surveying this topic was to determine if any other research had been done on the subject. After checking sources available, I concluded that scholarly research on the subject of William Schuman is limited to studies of his music. Mention has already been made of the eight dissertations listed in the Gleason outline. In addition to these, I searched for dissertations on the subject of William Schuman in Doctoral Dissertations in American Music American Music Studies International Index of Dissertations and Musicologlcal Works in Progress Approved Doctoral Dissertations in Progress in Music Education International Directory of Approved Music Education Doctoral Dissertations in Progress and Doctoral Dissertations in Musicology The relatively small number of dissertations found in this search dealt mostly with musical analyses of Schuman' s compositions rather than his educational contributions. The search for pertinent dissertations lead to the discovery of an extensive master's thesis entitled, "The History of the Juilliard School From its Inception to 1973," by Marie Therese Hayes, written for the Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C. and submitted in August, 1974. This thesis was helpful primarily because of its

PAGE 54

47 bibliography. It led to several useful articles on the origin of the Juilliard School. A portion of Hayes' thesis dealt with William Schuman's establishment of the Literature and Materials program at Juilliard, but it neither went beyond the depth of the primary sources that I have used nor did it include the current applications of the program at the school. Neither this nor any of the other theses that I found dealt primarily or specifically with the comparison of William Schuman's Literature and Materials program to the Comprehensive Musicianship idea. Bibliographies Particularly valuable for its bibliography of sources on William Schuman is the Volume on Twentieth-Century music from the Gleason Music Literature Outlines, Series IV 1 Published in 1980, it represents the most recent extensive listing of bibliographic materials on or about him at the conclusion of the article on William Schuman. This bibliography includes periodical literature under the heading of "Articles by William Schuman," and books and periodicals under the heading of "References to William Schuman." The books listed are mostly encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries that deal with the composing style of Schuman. Many of the articles listed focused on 1 Harold Gleason and Warren Becker, Music Literature Outlines, Series IV; 20th Century American Composers 2nd edition (Bloomington: Frangipani Press, 1980), pp. 175-184

PAGE 55

48 Schuman's educational philosophy. In keeping with the scope of this study, I gave particular attention to those that pertain to his educational ideas. Also included in the Gleason bibliography is a section on the "Book" (singular) about Schuman, referring to the one by Flora Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti 2 This was the only published biography of his life in book form that existed at the time the Gleason outline was prepared. There is a listing of eight dissertations done on various aspects of the music of Schuman, all of them relating to analysis of his compositional style. After collecting the articles and resources mentioned in this bibliography it became clear that there was a relatively small amount of documentation of Schuman's educational philosophies and even less on the impact of his revamping of Juilliard's music theory curriculum. All eight of the dissertations listed dealt with some aspect of his music, but none on his Literature and Materials approach to the teaching of music theory. Periodical Literature Periodical literature contained some of the most helpful and timely information available on the subjects of Literature and Materials and Comprehensive Musicianship. I searched through the Music Index paying particular attention to the years that William Schuman was president of 2 Flora Rheta Schreiber and Vincent Persichetti, William Schuman (New York: G. Schirmer, 1954)

PAGE 56

49 Juilliard, 1945-1962. I checked such topics as "Literature and Materials, Comprehensive Musicianship, Young Composers Project, Contemporary Music Project, Ford Foundation, Music Theory, William Schuman, and Juilliard" for those years. One particularly valuable article was by Sheila Keats in a 1974 issue of Stereo Review 3 This provided a concise but thorough biography on Schuman' s life. The article that best describes in his own words his ideas regarding the teaching of music theory may be found in a 1948 issue of Musical Quarterly entitled, "On the Teaching of the Literature and Materials of Music, 4 published just one year after he instituted these sweeping changes as the new president of Juilliard. Second only to this article in explaining his educational approach is his article describing his views as a teacher at Sarah Lawrence College. It is called "An Unconventional Case History, 5 describing his use of a type of discovery approach in the teaching of a novice music student there. Many of the articles provide valuable information about his early work, mostly relating to his musical output. These are in the form of reports of premiers which he 3 Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," Stereo Review Vol. 32, (June 1974), pp. 68-77. 4 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," The Musical Quarterly Vol. 34 (1948), pp. 155-168. 5 William Schuman, "Unconventional Case History," Modern Music, Vol. 15, No. 4, (1937-1938), pp. 222-227.

PAGE 57

50 attended, public reception of his music, concert reviews of one sort or another, public forums in which he participated. There is also on record an assortment of reviews of concerts and books which he wrote about others. Insight into Schuman's early role within the artistic community can be gained in these articles, especially those written by such notable figures as Aaron Copland, Roger Sessions, Leonard Bernstein, Elliott Carter and others, who were themselves still ascending in their careers. However, they do not contain information about his educational approach. In addition to those periodical articles mentioned herein, I collected all available articles that even tangentially related to the subject of Schuman's work at the Juilliard School. I gave particular attention to those mentioning Literature and Materials. Having begun the study of Schuman and his approach to music theory instruction, I turned my attention to material pertaining to the Comprehensive Musicianship approach due to its similarity to that of Schuman. The primary article which summarized that approach and its history is "Contemporary Music Project," in Music Educators Journal May, 1973. This article gave a concise but thorough reporting of events in the Contemporary Music Project (CMP) The article included a bibliography of materials published by CMP through the Music Educators National Conference These sources were named and numbered

PAGE 58

51 consecutively in the order of their publication from CMP 1 to CMP 8 Each dealt with a particular aspect of the project, but certain ones proved to be particularly helpful in documenting its history most completely. Among the books published by CMP, the one that presents the most complete documentation of its influence on college-level teaching of music theory is ( CMP 6 ) by David Willoughby 6 It is a synopsis of thirty-two experimental projects in Comprehensive Musicianship which were implemented as a result of CMP. Although the Music Educators Journal article on the Contemporary Music Project proved helpful in documenting the project, it contained a bias toward the Music Educators National Conference which publishes the journal. W. McNeil Lowry was a staff member of the Ford Foundation who was involved in CMP from its inception. In a telephone interview, he related to me some of the early initiatives of the Ford Foundation which lead to CMP. Through my interview with Lowry, I discovered that the Ford Foundation had more to do with the beginning of the project than this article indicated. Lowry' s comments caused me to search through annual reports of the Ford Foundation and reports from the National Music Council for further specific information. This bias will be further explored in Chapter Four. 6 David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP 6 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971).

PAGE 59

52 Two articles provided a critique on the outcomes of CMP with an objective and realistic look at the expectations of the project. One of the articles was by the music theorist, Leo Kraft, written shortly after the publication of CMP g 7 The other was by A. Cutler Silliman on the subject of a Comprehensive Musicianship Biographies While the Gleason bibliography is fairly complete and relatively recent, it does not list all useful references about Schuman. After the personal interview with Schuman was completed, he provided two additional sources: A brief biography by Christopher Rouse 9 and a booklet on Schuman published by Broadcast Music Incorporated. 10 These two booklets along with the Schreiber/Persichetti book on Schuman's life (mentioned earlier) provide a fairly complete accounting of his life and works. The Schreiber/Persichetti book gives the fullest insight into those early influences toward a new view of musicianship training starting at Columbia Teacher's College, later at Sarah Lawrence College, 7 Leo Kraft, "Reflections of CMP6," College Music Symposium Vol. 12, (Fall 1972), pp. 84-93. 8 A. Cutler Silliman, "Comprehensive Musicianship: Some Cautionary Words," College Music Symposium (Fall 1980), pp. 125-129. 9 Christopher Rouse, William Schuman Documentary (New York: G. Schirmer, 1980). 10 Barbara Petersen, William Schuman (New York: Broadcast Music Incorporated, 1984)

PAGE 60

53 at Juilliard, and finally at the Lincoln Center. All three of these provide biographical information as well as a listing of his works. The Rouse booklet includes an up-to-date bibliography including a few titles not mentioned in the Gleason outline, although it is not as exhaustive.

PAGE 61

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Preliminary Study Part of my attraction to the topic of William Schuman' s Literature and Materials approach was the prospect of a personal interview with a living American composer who had such a dramatic impact on the teaching of music theory in this country. Having determined that he was still living and in fairly good health, I began pursuing ways of making contact with him in order to set up an interview with him in person. Included in this idea was the hope of an observation and some interviews at the Juilliard School to do a follow-up study on the material that would be received from Schuman. His tenure at Juilliard had ended in 1962, so it was conceivable that many of his reforms would have been significantly modified since that time. Interview With William Schuman As a first step toward gathering information about Schuman, a search through dictionaries of twentieth-century composers proved successful in locating his address. Directory assistance provided his phone number. On Monday, 1 Neil Butterworth, A Dictionary of American Composers New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1983, p. 413-414. 54

PAGE 62

55 June 15, 1987, I talked first with his wife and then with him on the phone about the possibility of an interview with him on the subject of the impact of his "Literature and Materials" approach at Juilliard on college music instruction. He was very helpful in providing additional information about further resources. Concerning an interview, he said that he would cooperate with a project that "captured the excitement of the subject" and the "revolutionary zeal" of what he was trying to do. He said that he was not interested in another dry, dull academic summary of his work. He also said that he would agree to an interview only if it were well-organized and to the point. The phone conversation gave encouragement to proceed with a project about an important movement in music instruction, knowing that its author was approachable, albeit within certain prescribed limitations. He was not willing at that time to make an appointment, however. Instead, he suggested a call later in the fall when his schedule would be more conducive to conducting an interview. In October, he said that he was undergoing some tests and would prefer a later date. Finally in January, he agreed to an interview which was arranged for January 21, 1988 in his apartment in New York City. He agreed to an hour and a half interview and permitted the tape recording of it for later transcription. After several phone calls

PAGE 63

56 arrangements were made for the trip, accommodations, and a visit to the Juilliard School. Having secured permission for an interview with Schuman, I began making preparations for an observation of the Literature and Materials classes at Juilliard. After a few phone calls, it was determined that Michael White is the current chairman of the Literature and Materials department there. By phone he gave me permission to attend three of the Literature and Materials classes taught by him on Friday, January 22, the day after the Schuman interview. The interview was a very pleasant experience for me, and I trust for Schuman as well, because he was afforded yet another opportunity to expound on some ideas which he holds very strongly. The only detail of the interview which did not progress as planned involved the logical sequencing of questions. At one point in the interview, the planned sequence of questions was leading Schuman away from his desired direction, so he asked if he might finish filling in some details. Thereupon he finished his narrative and provided a more complete description of some of his early experiences which were formative to his educational philosophies Interview With Michael White In accordance with the pre-arranged plans I visited three of White's Literature and Materials classes on Friday

PAGE 64

57 morning, January 22. These classes were Literature and Materials I, II, and IV, respectively. Following the observations, he granted me a forty-five minute recorded interview in his office. During the interview, he provided first-hand information concerning the influence of the Literature and Materials program at Juilliard on the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship in the sixties. At this interview, he explained that he had been one of the first composers sent out under the Young Composers Project in 1959. He also supplied information concerning the present state of the Literature and Materials curriculum as it is administered at Juilliard. Since Schuman left Juilliard in 1962, several notable adaptations were made in the curriculum due to pragmatic concerns identified by the present faculty. At the time of this writing, Michael White is the chairman of the Literature and Materials department at the Juilliard School. The interview with Michael White took place the day after the interview with Schuman. Procedures for this interview were similar to those for the first one except for the fact that many of the questions asked White arose out of the interview with Schuman and of the observations of White's classes prior to the interview. Most of the questions for White related to two main topics: (a) current usage of the Literature and Materials approach and how it differs from Schuman' s conception of it; and (b) the

PAGE 65

58 connection of the Juilliard School and in particular the Literature and Materials approach to the Contemporary Music Project, of which White was a part. It was not discovered until this second interview that White had been one of the first composers sent out in the Young Composers Project. This naturally led to a number of facts about the beginnings of that project about which White had first-hand knowledge, including names of other individuals who might be contacted for further information. While the interview with Schuman provided the historical background for the concept, the interview with White provided the current state of affairs and some important connections which are not clearly documented elsewhere. Interview Protocol It should be mentioned here that the process of interviewing someone of prominence is not to be taken for granted if any degree of success in the interview is to be achieved. Preparation for the interview of Schuman consisted of the study of articles and books that were available prior to the interview. A thorough acquaintance with his life and philosophies was essential to the formulating of a logical and orderly sequence of questions. Forethought was given to the protocol for conducting the interview in the following areas: 1 preparing adequately for the interview by a thorough study of all available resources

PAGE 66

59 2. a logical and sequential ordering of the interview questions 3. requesting permission to conduct the interview in a manner conducive to his cooperation 4. requesting a definite amount of time to conduct the interview (a two-hour interview was requested; he granted permission for one and one-half hours, which proved to be sufficient and was the actual time used) 5. requesting permission to record the interview 6. having extra tapes, batteries, and an extension microphone for use during the interview 7. having a note-pad with pencils for the recording of some written information, such as spellings of names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. 8. requesting permission for pictures to be taken afterward, and having camera and film ready 9. requesting permission to use the interview for purposes of this dissertation 10. expressing sincere thanks for his time verbally at the conclusion of the interview, and in writing afterward 11. transcription (typing), editing and indexing the interviews for future reference 12. sending a copy of the transcript to the interviewee Other Interviews In addition to the two interviews with William Schuman and Michael White, I conducted one follow-up interview over the phone with Michael White for approximately 90 minutes, during which he gave me information concerning the current (1988-1989) application of Literature and Materials at Juilliard. The additional item of protocol to be remembered for telephone interviews is that one must have a person's

PAGE 67

60 permission to record the interview before beginning to record. I also conducted three additional interviews over the phone. The first was with Gideon Waldrop, the first Field Representative for the Ford Foundation's Young Composers Project and a Dean of Juilliard. The next interview was with Gordon Hardy, a long-time faculty member in the L and M department at Juilliard. Finally, I conducted a very profitable telephone interview with W. McNeil Lowry, who was the staff member in charge of the Humanities and the Arts Program of the Ford Foundation during the years prior to and during the administration of the Young Composers Project and the Contemporary Music Project. Follow-up Study Follow-up study based upon the contents of these interviews became a necessity. Initially, this involved a re-check of periodical materials on the Young Composers Project, the Contemporary Music Project, and on Comprehensive Musicianship. Also, there were some additional names to be contacted who had ties to either the Juilliard School or the Ford Foundation or to the projects sponsored by it.

PAGE 68

CHAPTER FOUR COMPARISON OF APPROACHES When the Literature and Materials (L and M) program of Juilliard is compared to the Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) approach, very few significant differences can found. The primary differences are those of application rather than content. It is my contention that the former gave birth to the latter, although the connection between these two approaches has not been fully documented. At least it can be said that the former (L and M) provided a pattern for the latter (CM) in the laboratory-like environment of Juilliard. What began as an idea in the mind of Schuman became a reality and even a national movement during his lifetime although credit has not been duly ascribed to him for his initiative. Even during his student days at Columbia Teacher's College he sensed that a problem existed in the way musicianship was taught. He had the opportunity to experiment with a new approach as a young teacher at Sarah Lawrence College. At Juilliard he had the authority as an administrator to reform an entire curriculum and make a national impact on the teaching of musicianship in general, and music theory in particular. The curriculum was implemented and maintained under Schuman' s supervision for the 61

PAGE 69

62 remainder of his tenure at Juilliard from 1947 through 1962. Since then, it has continued with the same name, "Literature and Materials," but has been adjusted to meet the demands of the school's growth and some perceived weaknesses in the approach. The purpose of this chapter is to compare the L and M and CM approaches: to show the similarity of their content and differences of their applications, to show the historical and philosophical connections of the two approaches, and to present the current status of the L and M program as it has been adapted in recent years at Juilliard. The element that was common to both approaches was a perceived need for a new way of teaching music theory. The differences between the two are in the unique educational scenarios in which this need was met. To adequately compare these two approaches, it is necessary to document two major aspects of each: 1) the origins and the causes of its development; and 2) its application and implementation. The Literature and Materials Approach (L and M) Origins Although William Schuman is known mostly as a significant twentieth-century composer, his activities as a music educator were no less important to the musical world. It was in his role as educator that he adopted the philosophies that form the basis for the Literature and Materials approach. In his introduction to The Juilliard Report he

PAGE 70

63 referred to his work at Sarah Lawrence College as an experiment with new teaching techniques. In an exploratory freshman course dealing with the arts, he taught the musical portion of the class while other teachers covered various other aspects of the arts. The class was composed of students who had little or no knowledge of the arts, but possessed a healthy curiosity. It was his experimentation with this group of students that led ultimately to the Literature and Materials approach. 1 His description of the situation at Sarah Lawrence College is included later in this chapter. Schuman placed a high premium on the importance of the students' feelings and sensations in the learning of musical concepts. According to him, conventional courses in music theory were inadequate because they did not provide the subjective linkage between the course content and the student's understanding. Even though techniques could be fully explained and understood in conventional music theory courses, they did not consistently "register" with the students in the realm of their feelings. He maintained that for education to be meaningful it had to provide emotionally valid experiences for the student. His belief was that the study of music could provide this emotional content and still be a legitimate intellectual pursuit. ^•William Schuman, "Introduction" in The Juilliard Report on Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1953), p. 8.

PAGE 71

64 Schuman felt that a significant factor in making a course meaningful was the choice of materials. According to Schuman, there was no set formula for success in teaching. No one "supersyllabus, curriculum, or instructional plan could supply answers for the variety of problems that would be encountered in a classroom. His position was that the instruction must be adapted to the needs of the individual students as well as the class as a group. He objected to the false finality of the claim that one has "had" a class, implying that learning in that subject has reached some sense of completion. Instead, he insisted that education, like self-discipline, is never fully achieved. It is a perpetual, self-generating process. The philosophy expressed above was described in Schuman' s Introduction to The Juilliard Report written in 1953. Sixteen years earlier, in 1937, Schuman had described, in "Unconventional Case History," his experimentation with various approaches to teaching musicianship to a student at Sarah Lawrence College. 3 The twenty-seven-yearold Schuman had just received his Masters degree that year, and his Bachelors degree two years earlier from Columbia, where he recognized the serious deficiency in music education and in music teacher training. At the outset of the 2 William Schuman, The Juilliard Report p. 10. 3 William Schuman, "Unconventional Case History," Modern Music, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1937-1938), pp. 222-227.

PAGE 72

65 article, he cited a reason for the apathy of the general public toward music: "the obvious deficiency in the quality of its education" 4 His concern for the general acceptance of contemporary music and his aversion to the restrictions caused by rules were clear even at this early stage of his educational and compositional career: So long as the public lacks curiosity about what is untried, the contemporary composer of vision will be ignored, and so long as that public is educated through a system which imposes rigid formulae of aesthetic norms unrelated in any vital way to the experience of the individuals that make up its collective entity, the growth of a healthy curiosity will be thwarted. 5 Immediately after this paragraph, Schuman gave some insight concerning the kind of educational climate in which he worked, where he was able to pursue his ideas freely. Let us therefore turn our attention to work done at an experimental college for women where all the teaching materials and methods are evolved to meet a student's specific need for them at a specific time. This puts the major responsibility of education on the student, where it belongs. Even in this, his first position as a music educator, his emphasis upon the self-generating process of learning was set forth, with great similarity to the way he described it later in The Juilliard Report It also provided Schuman with a working model of a flexible curriculum which would provide the basis for his Literature and Materials approach. 4 Ibid., p. 222, 5 Ibid. p. 222 6 Ibid., p. 222

PAGE 73

66 Schuman's experiences at Sarah Lawrence as seen in the article are foundational to his thinking about music theory education. The student whom Schuman described in the article was Joan Peck, referred to only as "Joan" in the printed text. Schuman recalled her name without hesitation in my interview with him. He used his experience with her to demonstrate how a flexible approach could be adapted for a typical student. She was his student in an experimental course in the arts where the emphasis was on experience by active participation in some area of the arts. At the first conference with Joan, she expressed her secret desire to compose music using twentieth-century ideas, although her understanding of music theory and composition was almost non-existent. Schuman's experiment for the next several weeks was to lead Joan through a series of discoveries by which she would arrive at some success in music composition. Joan began with only the ability to sing melodies which she would hear in her head. She could not play an instrument 7 and had no knowledge of notation, orchestration, or form. Schuman requested that she submit something that she had written. She returned with dots and dashes and lines on a piece of notebook paper, approximating a contour of her desired melody. She fully expected him to require her to employ the conventional system of notation to record the 7 Ibid. p. 223.

PAGE 74

67 music. However, he reassured her that there was an appropriate use for a more free type of notation that permitted some latitude on the part of the performer. It was only after she expressed her desire for more precision that they discussed how to indicate fundamental pulse in her notation system. After a number of weeks during which she made improvements in her work, her self-designed system proved increasingly inadequate. She eventually took the initiative to find an upper-level student who assisted her in learning the conventional notation system which she began using to write her work. She then expressed an interest in incorporating the concept of harmonic progression into her compositions. She had noticed some items in a theory textbook which she did not understand. Rather than using that or any other text to explain the concepts, Schuman began to lead her into a study of Bach chorales upon which the text was based. She was g soon composing in this style in an acceptable manner. This process of desire, challenge, and discovery was repeated throughout the term as Schuman led Joan through the other concepts that she needed to complete her composition projects. These concepts included notation, harmonic progression, form, orchestration, and counterpoint. Each was handled only as they were needed in the context of the 8 Ibid. p. 225. 9 Ibid. p. 226.

PAGE 75

68 student's work. In each case Joan was encouraged to arrive at her own solution through guidance from the teacher. 1 Three rudimentary principles of Schuman's philosophy that remained constant throughout his life are demonstrated in this case study: 1) musical composition is an integrated process, including the co-equal elements of theory, harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration; 2) true learning only occurs when the student is self-motivated and learns by discovery of concepts on his or her own accord; and 3) the musical masterpieces themselves are the best sources for learning a particular concept. These elements remained a part of his philosophy as he established the L and M program at Juilliard. Other similarities also can be seen. He spoke of training students at Sarah Lawrence in the technique of "penetrative listening," which he described later at Juilliard as "virtuoso listening." This was an integral part of L and M classes there. 11 Schuman concluded his description of Sarah Lawrence College by admitting that he had the ideal situation there for the implementation of such an innovative approach since it was a school dedicated to experimental solutions to meeting the challenges of education. In The Juilliard Report he also described Juilliard as an ideal situation because they had the 10 Ibid. p. 227 11 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," Musical Quarterly Vol. 34, (1948), p, 159.

PAGE 76

69 advantage of a wealth of performing talent, and the resource of a wide variety of musical activity. Both of these statements were made in the context of his claims that these ideas (the "discovery" approach of Sarah Lawrence and the L and M approach at Juilliard) could be administered anywhere with the creativity of a gifted teacher. The main points of Schuman's views on music theory instruction are summarized in an article describing L and M written in 1948, the year after he instituted the approach at Juilliard. 12 Summary of Schuman's educational views 1 He had a disdain for the obscure verbiage of traditional educational theory, which he called "pedigese." It is notable that Schuman applied this type of descriptive word to the weaknesses of conventional education, such as the term, "educationist," mentioned in reference to Lilla Belle Pitts. 2. He blames the difficulties of vague terminology found in traditional pedagogical theory on the "pomposity of the degree-granting mania which so hopelessly pervades much of American education" J 3. Conventional courses in music theory have failed because they are nothing more than a series of abstract graded exercises which have become an end in themselves. 12 Ibid. pp. 155-168 13 Ibid. p. 155.

PAGE 77

70 4. No "effective antidote" to routine theory instruction has been developed (before L and M) on a large scale. 5. Much of traditional music education is the worship of technique as a self-contained entity. 6. Students' desire for unquestioned authority to dictate to them the rules of musical composition is tantamount to mental laziness and is a detriment to learning. It is a result of the educational system out of which they have come. Schuman was interested in expanding the mental horizons of the students, and in diminishing what he calls "pedestrian thinking." 7. Quite often, instrumentalists at the college level are more interested in the idea of performance than in the music that they are performing. They often lack even the knowledge of literature available that features their own instrument. In Schuman' s words, their musical horizons often go no further than the end of their horns. 8. Organized flexibility of the L and M approach allows teachers to adjust it to students' individual needs and capacities. 9. A musician in any branch of the art must be a virtuoso listener. Schuman describes it this way: In other words, an ability to hear the component parts of the language of music (harmonic progressions, melodic intervals, rhythmic patterns, orchestral color, etc., etc.) does not ipso facto mean integrated understanding — an understanding

PAGE 78

71 that can only be achieved when the whole work is clearly viewed as the sum of these parts. 10. Teacher training is essential to enable students of L and M to successfully pass these concepts along at other schools. 11. Faculty and students provide input into adjustments made to the L and M classes. 12. Students must assume the responsibility for their own education. 13. Students must view the completion of their musical training as a beginning of a lifetime of learning, rather than as an end in itself. Implementation Upon the philosophical base described above, Schuman set out to establish a means of teaching the elements of music in a truly integrated way through the Literature and Materials approach. With the collaboration of Norman Lloyd described in Chapter One (p. 36), a working curriculum was established. When the new curriculum was being planned, conferences were held with faculty and students. The need for a broad music curriculum was clear but the schedule was already crowded. To accommodate the schedule difficulty, the school year was lengthened from thirty weeks to thirty-five. Thus, five weeks were added to the two-year experiment that began in 14 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 159.

PAGE 79

72 1948. Also, the normal undergraduate course of study was extended from four years to five. Literature and Materials courses were concentrated in the first twenty weeks of the school year. All other courses (individual instruction in instruments, voice, conducting, and composition) were held during weeks one through fifteen, were suspended for weeks sixteen through twenty, and then resumed for weeks twentyone through thirty-five. This provided a five-week period of focus in the middle of the year for the consummation of L and M activities. Faculty members who were not instructors in L and M had the opportunity to increase their outside performance activities during this time as well. 15 The first two years of Literature and Materials were regarded as general instruction. The primary goal of these years was to give the student an awareness of the dynamic nature of the materials of music. The difficulty at Juilliard (and everywhere else this approach has been tried) was to maintain freedom of instructional methods for the faculty while at the same time verifying that basic standards of musicianship were being achieved by the students. Instead of setting up rigid a priori objectives, the L and M faculty met as a group and agreed on a rudimentary minimum which all students would be expected to know. They prepared an examination which would serve as a review of the year's work. 15 Ibid. p. 161

PAGE 80

73 The first year was to be a concentration on a general study of styles. Melodic content was emphasized but consideration was also given to the elements of rhythm, harmony, and form. Assignments stressed listening skills, performance, and creative work. Materials The text for all L and M courses would be the music itself, but the teacher had the freedom of using any supplementary materials that would be of help, including traditional music theory textbooks. These references were considered tools for the building process, rather than the core of the subject matter. A common misunderstanding of the L and M approach was that traditional textbooks were to be avoided if used at all. Schuman's approach was more pragmatic than that. In my interview with him, in reference to textbooks, he said, "Any tool is legitimate. Its just that I wanted the music to be the road to that tool and not the other way around. Anything that could illuminate the music would be fine." He related an example of how standard references could be effectively used by recalling a story told to him by Leonard Slatkin, who had been an L and M student of Vincent Persichetti at Juilliard. Persichetti told the students, "for the next time we meet, can you please find out for me what the lowest note of the English horn is?" As Schuman related it, Persichetti obviously knew what that note would

PAGE 81

74 be, but this exercise sent students to the library or to the double reed studio to find out what the note was. The dull student would simply report that the lowest note of the English horn was a low "E" with no further knowledge gained. This is always the case with certain students who do the minimum just to get by so that they can say that they have "had" the course. However, the brighter students would encounter a variety of passages for the English horn which would lead to other discoveries, all of which would expand their understanding of music. At the conclusion of the first year, students were given a "Test of Basic Vocabulary." They were required to receive a grade of 90 percent or better before they could proceed any further in the program. Students who could not pass this test at the end of their first year were placed on probation. The test included elements such as scales and modes, key signatures, performance of rhythmic patterns in all time signatures, interval recognition and performance, identification of major, minor, diminished, and augmented triads, dominant seventh chords, and chords built on seconds or fourths, orchestral instrument characteristics, and common foreign terminology for tempo and dynamic markings. The outline of the subjects and techniques covered in the first year of L and M is printed in The Juilliard Report : 16 The Juilliard Report p. 53

PAGE 82

75 Compositional styles: Students will be expected to recognize and to write melodies and cadences in the styles of various representative composers. Introduction to types of literature: Song, Piano, Choral, Chamber music, Orchestral, Opera Form: Introductory study of one-, two-, and threepart forms; rondo, variation, fugue, and sonata principles. Scale structures: Major and minor (key signatures), modes, whole-tone, pentatonic, chromatic (twelvetone) Rhythm : Fundamental rhythmic concepts (metric patterns, time signatures, pulse); Relation of tempo to the expressive and structural elements of music; Rhythmic organization in terms of length: Measure, Motive, Phrase, Short pieces, Long compositions; Study of rhythmic devices used in composition. Harmony : All triads in all positions, seventh chords; Figured bass principles, Overtone series. Cadences, Use of non-harmonic tones; Simple melodic harmonization, primarily diatonic but including simple modulation via common chord and common tone; Sequential harmonic patterns. Harmonic organization of a phrase (original part writing)

PAGE 83

76 Miscellaneous: Relation of words and music, Recognition of all intervals: melodic and harmonic, Instrumental sounds, ranges, and usages, Transposition. It is suggested that each instructor assign a list of thirty works in addition to regular class assignments — material to be drawn from all periods from the twelfth to the twentieth centuries. Students to study these works, via records, sufficiently to be able to recognize them at the end of the year. 17 The L and M faculty agreed that the second year would consist of a continuation of the study of styles with greater emphasis on individual student. There would be a more detailed examination of the methods by which composers of various style periods manipulated melodic lines to learn the changing character of compositional practices. Creative work in listening and performance would also continue to be emphasized. Since instructors were given freedom to choose the means by which they reached their goals, the teaching styles were as varied as the instructors' personalities. Schuman described the divergence as follows: One instructor planned to select subject matter based on programs given at the School; another on programs given by one of the leading orchestras; another on music the students were studying for performance; still another planned to trace music in reverse chronological order from 1948; another in conventional chronological order; and so on. 17 The Juilliard Report pp. 64-65. 18 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 162.

PAGE 84

77 As Schuman originally conceived it, students who are performers in all areas of proficiency are mixed in single classes. With this format, flexibility in terms of learning activities was essential. In its original design, students were assigned to the L and M classes by the registrar under the review of the Chairman of the L and M faculty. The object of this process was to achieve a reasonably balanced population in each class in terms of performing area, with a similar number of vocalists, pianists, and instrumentalists in each class. Balance of this type was desired because of the importance of live musical performance in class, both of well-known works and original student compositions. This practice has been modified in the present curriculum at Juilliard due to restrictions of scheduling outlined at the end of this chapter. At the end of two years of study in L and M, students were given an examination over the materials that they had assimilated over the first two years. This was in keeping with the desire of the faculty to maintain an objective standard of quality in an open-ended methodology. The exam was in two parts, each lasting approximately three hours. The first part consisted of written materials. In the example cited by Schuman, students were to compose a modal melody to a given Latin or English text, write a canonic piece in which they were given a choice of several 19 The Juilliard Report p. 57

PAGE 85

78 instrumental and vocal combinations, harmonization of a chorale melody in a unified style (be consistent in the style chosen) complete melodies in a style of a few composers, such as Couperin, Bartok, Weber, or Lassus, and to add a contrapuntal second part to a given melody. The second three-hour portion of the exam involved listening skills. The example cited by Schuman included the aural analysis of the slow movement of Bach's D-minor concerto for Two Violins, the third movement of Walter Piston's First String Quartet, and an excerpt from a Mass of Taverner. After three playings, students were asked questions concerning the type of counterpoint, the implied harmony of the counterpoint, the type of melodic writing (scalewise, arpeggiated, diatonic, chromatic, etc.), form, an educated guess at period and composer stating reasons, performing media, important thematic materials used (rhythm, melodic patterns), compositional devices used (sequence, inversion, ostinato, etc.), and other technical features pertinent to this piece. The last question chosen for this portion of the exam asked the student to "jot down everything that you hear as the music unfolds and then assemble your notes into a readable paragraph." The two pieces chosen for this were the first movement of Mozart's Quartet in D (K. 575) and Schubert's song, "Gute Nacht." 20 20 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 164.

PAGE 86

79 This first comprehensive test described by Schuman in 1948 was changed by the time of the first publication of The Juilliard Report in 1953. According to the report, by 1951 the exam given at the end of the second year also consisted of two parts. The first part was a uniform exam given to all students in all L and M classes which would ensure that certain basic competencies were achieved. The uniform exam given in 1951 consisted of following four questions: 1. Write a short two-part canon for violin and cello. 2. Over a figured bass (taken from Handel Concerto Grosso, Opus 6, No. 3, and given at examination time) realize a melody for flute and a part for a keyboard instrument 3. Given a violin part (composed by a faculty member, and distributed at examination time), compose parts for two other instruments. 4. Given a cantus firmus (taken from Koechlin) write fifth species counterpoint both above and below. 21 In this first portion of the exam, the student had an hour and a half to complete three of the four questions. The second part of the exam was drawn up separately by the various instructors and included ear-training, listening, discussion of styles, and at least one section geared to probing those aspects of the L and M experience that would not be easily tested by conventional techniques (such as the question mentioned above about a readable paragraph describing the student's hearing of a certain piece of music) 22 21 The Juilliard Report p. 123 22 Ibid. p. 123

PAGE 87

80 When the L and M curriculum was first established at Juilliard, students in the third and fourth years were divided up into classes of specialization at the conclusion of their second year of study. The purpose of this was to allow further concentration in the literatures of their own performing areas under specialists in those areas. It was meant to produce the highest standard of musicianship possible on the part of the student performers. 23 This practice was abandoned at the beginning of academic year 1952-1953 in order to provide a more integrated approach. With this change, the student would be able to remain with the same L and M instructor throughout his undergraduate training. To fulfill the need for specialization, repertoire classes for singers and pianists were established. Students were assigned to these classes at the discretion of their L and M instructor. Only those students who were ready to study and discuss repertoire with stylistic discernment were recommended for the repertoire classes. Students were placed in these classes normally at the end of the second year, however an advanced student could go earlier and a slower student could be detained until ready. In addition to their studies with their L and M instructor, pianists and singers were also required to attend repertoire classes twice weekly for one and one-half hours each. 23 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 165. 24 The Juilliard Report p. 128.

PAGE 88

81 Specialized classes for other instrumental performers were replaced with Chamber Music classes, where it was felt that students could experience the most vital development in studying and performing high-calibre literature for their instrument. The string ensemble classes had at their disposal the most abundant body of literature to perform. The student could be assigned to trios, quartets, quintets, and other miscellaneous groupings of instruments. Piano students had opportunities to perform in chamber ensembles with piano. Brass, woodwind, and percussion players were at a disadvantage in terms of chamber music since they did not encounter as many examples of significant literature for their instruments as did the string and piano players with their vast array of available music. The chamber music repertoire available to them was more limited, but an increasingly large body of Renaissance literature and idiomatic transcriptions has largely filled this gap. Vocal chamber ensembles had a wealth of Renaissance music at their disposal. Percussion ensemble groups studied either ori25 ginal works for percussion or standard symphonic excerpts. Concurrent with these chamber classes, the students continued work with their L and M instructor at their own level of advancement. Works were studied in greater detail and the aspects of harmony, counterpoint, and form were treated with more sophistication. At the more advanced 25 Ibid. pp. 128-130.

PAGE 89

82 levels, the L and M study groups got smaller and the instructor was able to devote more time to individual projects. The concept of specialization was retained to the extent that students were expected to achieve certain outcomes based in part on their area of specialization. For example, a voice major was not expected to demonstrate more than a rudimentary ability in fugal composition. Conducting majors, on the other hand, had to show facility in skills of composition, orchestration, and analysis. The opportunity was available for any student to advance in his or her area of interest. 26 In addition to the emphasis on performing-area repertoire in the third and fourth years, students also were subjected to an intensified library reading requirement. There was an emphasis on teaching students to use library resources on their own initiative. Students were typically asked to research varying views on a topic and share those views in class. The recommended outline of objectives for the third and fourth years of L and M approved by the faculty in 1948 is printed in The Juilliard Report as follows: A. General. 1. More detailed knowledge of styles of periods determined by the instructor, but generally (depending on medium) covering earlier phases of the literature involved, in the third year of L and M, and later 26 Ibid., p. 131.

PAGE 90

83 phases of the literature in the fourth year. Comparison of these styles with any relevant period or media, in terms of influence, adaptation, change, or contrast Study of standard repertoire, plus guidance toward extension and enlargement of repertoire (familiar and unfamiliar music) Performance of music in class must be stressed and made possible. B. Specific. The purpose of L and M is to produce better performers. 27 Evaluation of this result cannot be made from a purely L and M viewpoint and must, therefore, be tested in closest co-ordination with all major and ensemble classes. The following goals should be achieved by all divisions of L and M, the importance of the various elements being emphasized according to their place in the specific literature: a. Acquaintance with development of smaller and larger forms. b. Acquaintance with changes in rhythmic, melodic, harmonic, and contrapuntal practices and characteristics in the periods covered and in the works of specific composers. c. Ability to prove knowledge of principles used in the above [a and b) by writing and analyzing. 28 27 This exclusion of composers manifests the L and M goals of creating more intelligent performers. Juilliard, even today, is primarily a performance school. 28 The Juilliard Report pp. 133-134.

PAGE 91

84 In its original design in 1948, there was a fifth year, or L and M V, which consisted of a summarizing course in Music History. Supplementary courses were offered in Orchestration, Orchestral Conducting, and other subjects. By the time The Juilliard Report was compiled in 1952, the fifth year had been dropped, and the non-performance areas such as orchestration were to be incorporated into the L and OQ M class work. 3 Teaching Fellows Program A necessity identified by Schuman in the new approach to music theory instruction was the improvement of teacher training. This was accomplished at Juilliard through the Teaching Fellowship Program, which was established under Schuman and still continues today. This program was intended to provide a small number of gifted and interested graduates with an opportunity to pursue further studies while gaining actual apprenticeship experience in teaching. Fellowships are granted to candidates based upon their undergraduate records and their aptitude as future teachers. They receive tuition scholarships and a small salary for their work. Their duties include observation and assistance of their supervising teacher. Teaching Fellows typically assist with ear-training, sight-singing, fundamentals, or piano instruction at the secondary proficiency level. In all cases, they are to be working with a teacher rather than 29 The Juilliard Report p. 171

PAGE 92

85 for him. A Teaching Fellow's actual duties depend on his or her experience and ability and the supervising teacher's needs. Fellowships are renewable and most run for a term of two years. During the second year of the fellowship, the Fellow is able to be of most assistance, often teaching another section of a class parallel to the supervising teacher. 30 Two of the first group of Teaching Fellows, graduates of Juilliard, who were then appointed by Schuman to a full faculty position were Arnold Fish (deceased) and Gordon Hardy (currently the Dean of Aspen School of Music). These are also the two men who later collaborated on Music Literature: A Workbook for Analysis which was used every year through 1987-1988 as the primary source of L and M music materials. In the fall semester of 1988, it was dropped as a regular resource in the program. In its place, other musical examples have been selected by the current L and M faculty for use in the classroom. These materials are listed later in this chapter. Schuman said that the attitude of the Juilliard School toward prospective teachers was that their musicianship must be on the same level as that of the other students at the school. His comments reflect his disdain for the state of music teacher education as he saw it: 30 Ibid. p. 173

PAGE 93

86 If we are to raise the standards of music teaching, our professional schools must no longer steer the least talented students into teaching. Music teaching must be considered a vocational aspect of professional music, just as playing in an orchestra is one, appearing on the concert stage is another, and composing or conducting are still others. There is no reason to expect every professional musician to be a teacher but there is every reason to insist that every music teacher be a musician of professional caliber. Schuman expressed here a feeling about music education that touches upon the age-old conflict between performance and teaching, between the "conservatory" approach and the "liberal arts" approach, and between questions of breadth versus depth. The adage that is often applied to this situation is, "He who can, does. He who can't, teaches" 3 In schools and departments of music in colleges and universities across the country the debate continues today over the importance of performance to the prospective music teacher. The prevailing attitude in most schools seems to be that performance ability is somehow less important for the music educator than for the performer. If this is not stated in writing, it is at least implied in the degree requirements. For instance, the recital requirement is traditionally lighter for music education students than for performance majors. 31 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 167. 32 James P. Warburg, "Commencement Address," The Juilliard Review Vol. 8, No. 3 (Fall 1961), p. 10. This was the quote from George Bernard Shaw used by Warburg in his commencement address of 1961.

PAGE 94

87 It is true that graduates whose livelihood is dependent upon performance alone have a greater need to demonstrate these abilities as they seek employment as performers. However, serious consideration must be given to the implications of music teachers whose performance abilities are marginal and the message that this gives to their students. It is no coincidence that the question of breadth versus depth also arose in the designing of the Literature and Materials approach and later of Comprehensive Musicianship. Comprehensive Musicianship (CM) Origins As described earlier in this report, Comprehensive Musicianship as an educational movement resulted as an attempt to correct the educational weaknesses that were revealed by the Young Composers Project. The roots of CM go back to the study conducted by the Ford Foundation beginning in 1957, entitled "Economic and Social Study of the Status of the Artist and His Institution in the United States." As scores of artists who were interviewed made their comments and suggestions about the place of the arts in American society, Norman Dello Joio made the suggestion that captivated the attention of the Ford Foundation. His idea was to place young composers in situations where they could compose music for specific groups and have it be performed by them. As the young composers took their place in public schools throughout the country, it became evident that there

PAGE 95

88 was little understanding among music educators about current trends in musical composition. High school band directors, choral directors, and orchestra directors had a knowledge of music literature that was limited to the particular group for which they were responsible. On average, they were thoroughly unprepared for the new sounds and techniques that were being introduced by the young composers to their students. There was an obvious need for teacher training that would better prepare the music educators for a broader understanding of contemporary practices. Out of this need came the proposal by the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) to the Ford Foundation for funding for the program which gave birth to the term, "Comprehensive Musicianship." A fact that is not well-known is that initially MENC resisted the efforts of the Ford Foundation in their national study. They viewed the foundation as a threat to their positions, since this study would bring some deficiencies to light. After the idea of contemporary music in the schools caught on as a national movement, the leadership of MENC began to soften their resistance and even take much of the credit for the movement. The Ford Foundation found it necessary to work through an existing national organization in music. They initially used the National Music Council (NMC) because of its taxexempt status and nationwide membership of prominent figures in the arts. It did not make any sense to start their own

PAGE 96

89 tax-exempt organization to administer their grants when two such organizations (NMC and MENC) already existed. They used the MENC as a proving ground for the idea of placing young composers in the schools. Both of these organizations were tantalized by the prospect of major grants from the Ford Foundation, but at the same time felt threatened by the foundation's size and influence. According to W. McNeil Lowry, who was the head of the Humanities and Arts Program of the Ford Foundation during those years, the foundation "winked at" MENC s taking credit for much of the initiative of the Young Composers Project. Anyone who looks into it will discover that it was the Ford Foundation that was the catalytic force behind the movement, despite resistance from MENC at first. They overlooked and even encouraged MENC s claims that it was their program because of the fact that the foundation was dependent upon MENC for the execution of it. In a personal interview over the telephone with Lowry, he described some of the early feelings that existed between the Ford Foundation and MENC. Sometimes the Foundation winked at that because you really did have to depend on their execution of it, so it didn't hurt to let them think whatever they want to think. There was enough real sensitivity and jealousy on their part anyway about the fact that this came out of Ford Foundation catalytic work with professional composers. They didn't like that. The core of this program was the Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education. The name soon

PAGE 97

90 became shortened to CMP. Included in the proposal was the extension of the Young Composers Project, which was later re-designated as the Composers in Public Schools Program. The following is an excerpt from the proposal made to the Ford Foundation. Notice the similarity of these objectives to the objectives of L and M: 1. to increase the emphasis on the creative aspect of music in the public schools. 2. to create a solid foundation or environment in the music education profession for the acceptance, through understanding of the contemporary music idiom. 3. to reduce the compartmentalization which now exists between the profession of music composition and music education for the benefit of composers and music educators alike. 4. to cultivate taste and discrimination on the part of music educators and students regarding the quality of contemporary music used in schools. 5. to discover, when possible, creative talent among the students in the schools. 33 Norman Dello Joio, a 1942 graduate of Juilliard, and the first Chairman of the Committee of Selection for the Young Composers Project, addressed the 1962 MENC convention on the subject of "The Study of Contemporary Music." He echoed many of the sentiments of William Schuman fourteen 33 Contemporary Music Project, "Proposal by Music Educators National Conference for Ford Foundation Grant," 1962, p. 2, printed in Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought (CMP 5 ) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971), p. 32.

PAGE 98

91 years earlier, but he made no reference to Schuman's L and M approach. He spoke of the gratification of taking part in an assault on the prevalent attitude that separates the living composer from his audience. The following quote is taken from the address given by Dello Joio at the convention in 1962. I believe that the significance of having composers here with us today is that you as educators are in contact with men who are actively functioning in their art. It is up to the forward-looking teacher to recognize that a pattern for change is being made, and that by his efforts these composers are making a long-needed breakthrough in attitudes that cling to the past alone. It should be clear to all of us that by writing music for you they are putting to rest many inherited fears about contemporary music. As the Contemporary Music Project gained momentum through seminars and workshops sponsored by the grant, the main concerns were focused on two related areas: 1) the nature of teacher training in music, and 2) the nature of musicianship training for all college music students. Their hope was to provide solutions for the deficiencies in these two areas that were revealed by the Young Composers Project. In 1964, the effectiveness of short-term workshops and seminars was called into question by some members of the Policy Committee of the Contemporary Music Project. George Howerton, one of the members of the committee and the Dean of the School of Music at Northwestern University in 34 "The Young Composers Project," in Music Educators Journal, Vol. 48, April-May, 1962, p. 35.

PAGE 99

92 Evanston, Illinois invited the MENC to hold a four-day highlevel conference on music theory there to explore educational principles that might meet educational needs. The seminar was held for four days in April, 1965. At this seminar, every major tenet of Schuman's L and M approach was put forth under the label of Comprehensive Musicianship. A small group met in October, 1964, to plan the seminar and focus its purposes. The small group of music theory experts consisted of Allen Forte, Arrand Parsons, and Warren Benson in addition to CMP officers Norman Dello Joio, Bernard Fitzgerald, and Grant Beglarian. The following list contains the starting premises for the seminar: 1 Required theory courses should be concerned with all aspects of music and not be limited to a narrow concentration in one area of the discipline or historical period. 2. The pedagogical approach should be that which makes possible the synthesis of skills and knowledge acquired in theory courses, so that the student will be provided with a solid and broad base for his specialized studies. It is imperative that the required theory courses provide him with sufficient background for advanced and independent study once he enters the teaching profession. 3. The all-inclusiveness of the proposed courses should provide those who emphasize performance and those who emphasize appreciation with technical skills and conceptual knowledge. 4. It is assumed that new teaching techniques would have to be employed.

PAGE 100

93 5. Specific guidelines for techniques and pedagogical philosophy must be developed. 6. The resources of the Project are not sufficient for implementation of such a broad plan of action. Recommendations of the high-level conference may be disseminated and the active cooperation and support of national organizations concerned with these matters would be sought 35 The Northwestern Seminar addressed the same problem that Schuman had addressed nearly two decades earlier. The report of the seminar published by MENC lists the following factors as a background among many reasons cited: Since the study of traditional practices, mainly those of eighteenthand nineteenth-century music, receives the main attention in required college courses in "musicianship," it must be assumed that this inadequacy of background is due not so much to the lack of such courses as to their limited scope and purpose In college courses dealing with musicianship, the student in music education or performance degree programs is expected to complete requirements in ear-training, sight singing, harmony, history, and literature. ... This broad training is intended to provide the student with an understanding of the art which will complement his technical professional training. In practice, however, a synthesis rarely occurs between courses within the general area of musicianship or between musicianship courses and professional studies. If the creative approach has any validity, the college curriculum should provide the prospective teacher with means for developing his own creative potential in his own terms. Existing courses in theory seldom do this. 36 35 Contemporary Music Project, "Digest of Proceedings: Meeting of Planning Group for the High-Level Conference on Music Theory," Washington (1964), p. 7, (cited in CMP_ 5 p. 34) Contemporary Music Project Comprehensive Musicianship: The Foundation for College Education in Music (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1965), pp. 5-7.

PAGE 101

94 It is significant to note the concern for the "limited scope" and the lack of "synthesis" in traditional music theory instruction, and the need for providing the teacher with a "means for developing his own creative potential" in this description of CM. These were also the concerns of Schuman at Juilliard and at Sarah Lawrence College. In 1966, the Contemporary Music Project established the Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education (IMCE) to implement the recommendations of the Northwestern Seminar in thirty-six institutions of higher learning. The results of these were summarized and published in a book written by Dr. David Willoughby which was to serve as a guide for college music departments which determined a need to restructure their programs of instruction in music theory and history. 37 It includes summaries of other seminars related to the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship held by MENC in the sixties, citing their philosophies as additional support. Some of the cited support is summarized below. Support of CM from Educational Philosophy First, a reference is made to the findings of the Tanglewood Symposium of 1967. The primary concern of the Tanglewood Symposium was the role and impact of music in American society. Music education was perceived as a means of helping individual students fulfill their needs. The 37 David Willoughby, Comprehensive Musicianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP g) (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971).

PAGE 102

95 symposium stressed the humanity of the students and the importance of helping them find the full meaning of life. They determined that "the music education profession must contribute its skills, proficiencies, and insights toward assisting in the solution of urgent social problems" 38 Schuman expressed a similar concept in his defense of the L and M approach. If the student truly absorbs the concept of free inquiry in the field of music, unimpeded by blind adherence to doctrine and tradition, he will bring something of this approach not only to other fields of knowledge but to the conduct of his daily life. Since a free society can grow only through the process of free inquiry by its citizens, it is my profound hope that the basic attitudes instilled through the Literature and Materials program will lead to the maturity of the musician and help toward his enlightenment as a citizen in a democracy. 39 This kind of altruism was evident in both the L and M and CM approaches with a bit of a missionary zeal mixed with it. Both movements involved the extensive rejection and misunderstanding of the personal creativity of contemporary composers and their involvement in attempting to correct the situation. Therefore the kind of claims expressed by the humanitarian statements coming out of both programs is understandable. The teacher training programs which were 38 "Tanglewood Symposium — Music in American Society," Music Educators Journal Vol. 54, (November 1967), No. 2 of the Tanglewood insert, cited in CMP 6 p. 5. 39 William Schuman, The Juilliard Report p. 24.

PAGE 103

96 initiated by both show a consistency of resolve to follow through with solutions to the problems which they addressed. Proponents of CMP, unlike William Schuman, were fond of citing noted educational authorities in defense of the Comprehensive Musicianship idea. Schuman shared most of the same views, but he came to his position on matters of educational methodology by personal encounters with it, mostly in a negative light. The educational views of Alfred North Whitehead are put forth in CMP literature in support of the heuristic method, or the method of self -discovery Whitehead spoke of the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum. Whitehead is quoted in CMP_ 6 : The result of teaching small parts of a large number of subjects is the passive reception of disconnected ideas, not illuminated with any spark of vitality. . .From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discovery which he has to make is that gener al ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life 40 Whitehead was advocating this method for education in the natural sciences. Willoughby's view was that the selfdiscovery method was indispensable in the realm of music education as well. This method suggests that the teacher knows the answer but withholds it, guiding the student through the process of discovering it for himself. 40 Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education (New York: Macmillan, 1929), pp. 14-18 (cited in CMP 6 p. 6).

PAGE 104

97 The Gestalt psychology of Bruner and others is given as an approach that is preferable to the Stimulus-response associationists such as Skinner, Thorndike, and others. Willoughby points out in his report that many music curricula are based upon associationist principles. Examples of stimulus and response activities include the drill and memorization requirements of general music classes in elementary and secondary schools. In collegiate music theory courses, programmed instruction and daily drill and memorization are unavoidable and common elements of most programs. Willoughby expressed it clearly that "the essence of Comprehensive Musicianship is closely related to Gestalt psychology: music is approached as a totality, with a concern for constituent parts as they relate to the whole" Although the Gestalt view is preferred, it does not preclude the use of programmed drills or other exercises more akin to behaviorist views considered necessary ingredients by CMP as part of an over-all music curriculum. The names of John Dewey and James Mursell are also put forth in terms of their contributions to the study of the growth process in education. Dewey's view of the educational process as a continual reorganizing, restructuring, and transforming process is mentioned as well as his concept of "Learning by personal experiences." The use of Dewey's 41 David Willoughby, CMP 6 p. 15 42 Ibid. p. 15

PAGE 105

98 name seems more a process of name dropping rather than a direct application of his ideas to CMP. The connections are fuzzy at best. The process of mentioning a famous personage in support of a particular theory is a habit that was consistently shunned by the independent-thinking Schuman. Mursell's discussion of the growth process in music education is brought forth more clearly as an illustration of the need for a new approach. Mursell held that behavioral change was a result of a continual process of gradually clarifying the understanding of concepts that once were only vaguely understood. He maintained that education takes place through "differentiation and integration." Differentiation begins with the "noticing of significant detail in a vaguely apprehended whole." Integration is accomplished through a "progressive awareness of constituent elements," and "the progressive clarification of music patterns" 43 That word, "integration" became very important and even rudimentary to Comprehensive Musicianship, as it was also to L and M. In this context Willoughby also quotes Mursell in his description of traditional music theory instruction as a presentation of a type of "formal grammar, with various rules of its own which often appear strange and arbitrary to 43 James Mursell, "Growth Processes in Music Education," in Basic Concepts in Music Education edited by B. Henry, Fifty-sixth Yearbook, Part I, of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), p. 149-150 (cited in CMP 6 p. 10).

PAGE 106

99 the learner and which are acquired by the use of practice materials without musical interest or value" 44 This particular quote could have been said by Schuman because of its similarity with his views. In the context of curriculum development in Comprehensive Musicianship, Mursell's name is again used along with Jerome Bruner According to Bruner "to be in command of these basic ideas, to use them effectively, requires a continual deepening of one's understanding of them that comes from learning to use them in progressively more complex forms" 45 This was the foundation of Bruner s spiral curriculum and was in substance the same as Mursell's cyclical sequence of topics. The Yale Seminar is also given as a support for the need for Comprehensive Musicianship. This was a seminar on music education funded through the Cooperative Research Program of the U. S. Office of Education and held at Yale University in June, 1963. The report of the seminar called for music teachers with "vastly more musical literacy." Teachers must be better prepared with a more widespread knowledge of Western music, especially contemporary practices, and also non-Western music. They must hear what happens in a music thought process in order to be able to 44 Ibid., p. 11 45 Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 2 (cited in CMP 6 p. 11)

PAGE 107

100 communicate an understanding of it. In order to initiate creative activities from their students, they must themselves have worked creatively in free and stylistic musical composition. The essence of the Yale Seminar is expressed in a statement by Claude Palisca: "Comprehensively competent musicians should be the aim of teacher training" Both the emphasis on compositional experience and the emphasis on improving the musicianship of teachers were central to Schuman's L and M approach. Compare the emphasis of the Yale Seminar with Schuman's ideas expressed here: In order to give musicians the best equipment to meet the demands of this expansion, we must produce more performers who have a composer's knowledge of music. Only in this way will we be able to send into the field young musicianteachers who are ready to assume positions of leadership. 7 Schuman was referring to the Teaching Fellowship Program at Juilliard, which he envisioned as a way of providing intensive teacher training. When the premises of educational theory that are applied to Comprehensive Musicianship are listed, a strong similarity to Schuman's L and M approach may be seen. 1 The main concern is for the student as an individual 46 Claude V. Palisca, Music in Our Schools, A Search for Improvement Bulletin No. 28 (Washington: Office of Education, 1964), p. 6 (cited in CMP 6 p. 13). 47 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 160.

PAGE 108

101 2 Learning is an outgrowth of personal discovery (and learning by doing) 3. Comprehensive Musicianship is akin to Gestalt psychology in that it is concerned with the constituent parts as they relate to the whole. 4. Certain aspects of stimulus-response psychology such as programmed instruction are useful as a means to the end objective of complete musicality, rather than as ends in themselves. 5. Syntheses and relationships should be stressed in all music study. Theoretical teachings must be related to applied music practices 6. A thorough knowledge of music literature, especially contemporary music, is central to all study of music. "A fractional part of music literature produces only fractional musicians" 48 7. Comprehensive Musicianship was developed to revitalize music teaching at every educational level, but particularly in the undergraduate preparation of future teachers. 49 Implementation The concepts articulated by the Contemporary Music Project were implemented through the Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education (IMCE), from 1966 to 1968. This was an experimental and widespread series of pilot projects at thirty-six schools around the nation, most of which were colleges or institutions of higher education. In reporting the results of these projects in CMP_ 6 (1971), the tenets of 48 William J. Mitchell, "Under the Comprehensive Musicianship Umbrella," Music Educators Journal Vol. 55 (March 1969), pp. 71-72. 49 David Willoughby, CMP 6 p. 16.

PAGE 109

102 Comprehensive Musicianship were stated in terms of specific issues encountered in the classroom. One of these is the general view of the Comprehensive idea: "Comprehensive Musicianship is more a process, an approach, an attitude than either a teaching 'method' or a reform of course structure" 50 These sound like words directly out of Schuman's introduction to The Jul 1 Hard Report eighteen years earlier. Consider Schuman's description of L and M: The Literature and Materials of Music Department as we have organized its actual day-to-day operation represents, in the diverse teaching methods and organization of subject matter, the application of a point of view and not the imposition of a uniform system. 51 Consider also the following description given by one of his students, Sheila Keats: L and M, as it soon came to be called for convenience, represents an approach, a philosophy, rather than a method, for the point of the program lies in its very lack of method or regimentation, in its dependance upon a built-in flexibility. IMCE provided a proving ground for the concepts of Comprehensive Musicianship in actual educational situations. It also showed the weaknesses and strengths of the movements as they were reported by the participants. The participants generally felt that the positive results outweighed the 50 Ibid. p. 35. 51 William Schuman, "Introduction," The Juilliard Report p. 14. 52 Sheila Keats, "William Schuman," Stereo Review Vol. 32, (June 1974) p. 73.

PAGE 110

103 negative ones. The success of IMCE was dependent upon the creativity of the individual teachers, their commitment to the Comprehensive Musicianship idea, and the teacher-student relationship in each case. The general strengths were: 1. the emphasis on music, analysis, and creative work and the resultant vitality of the class 2. the use of programmed materials which allowed more time in class for analysis and discussion 3. exposure to different instructors with diverse points of view 4. live performances and rehearsals within the classroom. 53 Comprehensive Musicianship 's integration of subjects was noted as a positive result of the program. The interdisciplinary linkages mentioned included the connection of history with theory, analysis, and performance; the connection of performance with classroom subjects; and the connection of keyboard and sight-singing with theory. 54 It should be noted that these linkages will be made or at least be attempted in any good music theory curriculum by a talented and dedicated teacher. Another strength of CM was that topics not normally covered in traditional music theory courses could be covered in these classes. There was a rational unification of materials that often had been handled in a disjointed manner 53 David Willoughby, CMP 6 p. 34 54 Ibid. p. 35.

PAGE 111

104 in music theory courses. As a result of IMCE, teachers re-evaluated their teaching styles, instituting many of the positive results. According to the program heads of IMCE, students involved in the project were helped to become "literate musicians." They exhibited a more positive attitude, more seriousness about music, and more imagination than did non-IMCE students, due in part to the following factors : 1. Broadened content and added materials. 2. Less preoccupation with rules. 3. Inclusion of more twentieth-century music. 4. Active involvement in writing skills and 55 performance Certain weaknesses are noted in terms of the integration of subjects in Comprehensive Musicianship. These weaknesses were blamed most often on the unfamiliarity of instructors with the comprehensive approach. A danger mentioned by Willoughby was the possibility of "shallow thinking that perhaps exists when one is involved in attempts at integrating various components of a subject and when a method is carried uncritically into one area because it has been successful in another" 56 When the team-teaching approach was tried, many of the instructors felt that the course tended to be non-integrated. Even if gifted 55 Ibid. p. 57 56 Ibid. p. 40

PAGE 112

105 teachers could be found who were committed to Comprehensive Musicianship and who could function well as a team, they would bring differing viewpoints to the subject. Although planning may be carefully done, integration is not guaranteed by synchronization alone. In the areas of sight-singing, ear-training, rhythmic reading, and keyboard, problems existed in the areas of pacing, supervision, correlation with other activities, and the lack of time budgeted for student practice. Lack of time was also a problem in the follow-through of many of the pedagogical tools presented in class, and in the scheduling of performances and other class-related activities. Breadth versus depth was one of the major concerns of the Comprehensive Musicianship idea expressed by the IMCE participants. It is probably the main concern even now of music theory teachers who attempt an integrated approach similar to the one advocated by CMP. John D. White addresses this subject: Indeed I am sympathetic to the integration of music literature, theory, history, and performance that this movement purported to achieve. Its [Comprehensive Musicianship' s] fundamental problem, however, is that it attempted to gather all of these disciplines under one umbrella with theoretical studies at the center. This failed to gain wide acceptance because it tended to erode the identity of the individual disciplines, an identity that is essential to their well being. 57 57 John D. White, Guidelines For College Teaching of Music Theory (London: Scarecrow Press, 1981), p. vi

PAGE 113

106 An example of the type of problem that occurs is in the harmony portion of the course. In the traditional two-year sequence of music theory instruction, students are thoroughly schooled in the chorale-style of Bach. Some participants in IMCE felt that Comprehensive Musicianship courses did not develop the eighteenth-century chorale writing styles as well as did traditional courses. However, this depth of study of one style was thought to be a detriment to a creative mind, unless it was matched by equal depth in nineteenthand twentieth-century styles. Since this is not possible in the time available for theory instruction, the over-emphasis on Bach becomes a repetitive exercise rather than depth of instruction. 58 Willoughby listed six negative conditions that were mentioned by some IMCE participants as possible results of a comprehensive approach: 1 Students attained hazy overviews of materials and developed little ability to particularize 2. Students did not understand the application of the vocabulary and its relevance to music. 3. There was too much generalization, and too many critical details were not considered. 4. Skills were not adequately developed. 5. Too many superficial connections were drawn between pieces and between styles. 58 David Willoughby, CMP 6 p. 37

PAGE 114

107 6. Through broadening, musical standards were actually lowered. 59 Elsewhere in the report, Willoughby lists successes and failures of classroom achievements in Comprehensive Musicianship. First, the successes in terms of student activities and accomplishments: 1. The discovery of knowledge. 2. Independent projects. 3. A total creative experience including composition, orchestration, performance, conducting and criticism. 4. The ability to form critical judgments and reactions 5. Synthesis and relation of knowledge. 6. Verbalization about compositions performed in class. 7. Willingness of performers to compose. 8. The use of familiar melodies in aural training. 9. The composing and singing of countermelodies to melodies of existing pieces. 10. Use of the more-interesting and lesstedious non-chronological approach. 11. Constant attention to individual students. 12. Use of a variety of analytical tools. 13. Selection of teams of students to present analyses. 14. Use of students' own performing literature to present analytical techniques. 59 Ibid. p. 38

PAGE 115

108 15. The over-all procedure and ideal of Comprehensive Musicianship. The improvement in student motivation in Comprehensive Musicianship courses was attributed to the following: 1. The use of small ensembles within the class 2. The use of their own performing medium as a playback device for ear training. 3. The use of music literature for aural training and analysis. 4. The contribution of real instruments and live music to student interest and motivation. 5. Seeing and hearing music in live performance 6. The performance of student compositions and, wherever possible, the literature being studied. 1 The classroom activities that were considered failures included the following: 1. Uninspired analytical presentations by students, and their inability to make meaningful critical statements. 2. Lack of application or achievement in the skills of sight singing, ear training, or keyboard 3. The lack of staff for team teaching. 4. Fragmentation produced by ineffective team teaching. 5. The inability of the staff to deemphasize the rule orientation of traditional teaching. 60 David Willoughby, CMP 6 p. 62 61 Ibid. p. 62.

PAGE 116

109 6. Insufficient quantity of or lack of enthusiasm for creative writing. 7. Programmed learning. 8. The use of counterpoint as a framework for continuity through a two-year course of study. 9. Lack of interest in medieval music. 10. The omission of a firm chronological, historical context. 11. Problems of coherence produced by inept organization. 62 What seems inconsistent about this is that some of the items mentioned as strengths are also listed as weaknesses. For example, programmed learning (#7 above) was cited as a positive element in that it freed class time for more productive activities such as analysis and discussion. No explanation is given as to why it would be listed also as a weakness. One is led to believe that possibly there was a problem in the area of supervision or self-discipline on the part of the students. The non-chronological nature of the course is listed as a positive element in that it is more interesting and less tedious. One wonders why is it also listed as a weakness (# 10 above). Concerning the students' creative activities and their analytical activities, the weaknesses mentioned above (#1 and 6) must be understood as partial failures, since earlier Willoughby had listed them as successes 62 Ibid. p. 67

PAGE 117

110 One notable consistency in the study is the reported failure to provide a workable integration of counterpoint into the curriculum (#8; CMP 6 p. 67). This weakness was mentioned twice in the report (also mentioned in CMP 6 p. 34). Teacher quality and preparation were consistently cited throughout Willoughby's report as weaknesses in the implementation of Comprehensive Musicianship. It was for this reason that one of the outcomes of this experiment was the emphasis on the need for effective teacher training. The problem of the inadequacies of most music theory teachers to teach comprehensively was addressed by the IMCE participants in a conceptual way. They advocated the use of both workshops and university courses. Workshops could help to re-orient teachers' thinking and generate enthusiasm for the concept, but they could not provide experience. Only actual teaching experience under supervision could provide the kind of training situation that would effectively prepare teachers. The best training, according to Willoughby's report, would involve apprenticeships by graduate music education students in undergraduate courses in music. The assistants would observe, prepare units, and teach under supervision of a competent and skilled teacher. 63 Willoughby's description of how teacher training must be done bears a predictable similarity to William Schuman's concept. It lacked the specificity and 63 Ibid. p. 68.

PAGE 118

Ill practicality of Schuman's plan because Schuman had the perfect "laboratory school" in Juilliard to implement with consistency any of the plans that he made with the help of his collaborators there. The success of any apprenticeship is only as great as the effectiveness of the supervising teacher and the relationship that he has with the apprentice or fellow. This will also have a bearing on how much and what kind of teaching responsibility is entrusted to the assistant. At Juilliard, Schuman had control over those factors sufficiently to better ensure quality. Willoughby's appeal for this type of training was conceptual at best. Leo Kraft is another of the noted music theorists who have responded with moderating words about this and other weaknesses they have perceived in Comprehensive Musicianship. In his article, "Reflections on CMP6," he declares himself a "friendly but independent critic" on the subject of Comprehensive Musicianship. The tone is generally commendatory, but he echoes some of the reservations expressed by some of the IMCE participants and adds some of his own. Of all the writers on the subject of Comprehensive Musicianship, he is the only one that I found who made reference to William Schuman and his Literature and Materials approach at Juilliard. He made the reference in the context of describing the difficulty of finding qualified teachers. Apparently their experience has not been very different from that of the Juilliard School and

PAGE 119

112 its well-known course in the Literature and Materials of music. In those cases where the teacher was master of both L and M, the course worked famously. But the number of highly gifted teachers is never very large, and it may indeed take a somewhat more gifted teacher to manage a comprehensive course than a narrower one. This is an isolated reference, acknowledging the similarity of L and M to CM in terms of their need for qualified teachers, and to a lesser extent the similarity of the programs themselves. No acknowledgment is made that L and M paved the way for CM. Kraft's major complaint was with the "common elements approach" of Comprehensive Musicianship: that the study of music should unfold from an approach that sees all manifestations of music in terms of those elements which are in common; i. e. found in most examples of music literature. His view is that this attempt at the integration of concepts of music is a rather flat, surface-only view of music. Kraft's idea is that the Schenkerian ideas of structure as expressed by Salzer, Schacter, and others must not be excluded from the integrated approach. According to Kraft, the structural understanding of music provides an integration not possible with the common elements approach, since music from various style periods can be dissimilar in terms of common elements but may be very similar in terms of Schenkerian reductive analysis. He illustrates this by the 64 Leo Kraft, "Reflections on CMP6," College Music Symposium (Fall 1980), p. 87.

PAGE 120

113 comparison of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" to a Chanson by Arcadelt, showing the similarity of structure of the two. Kraft cautions against the effect of the swinging pendulum of educational ideas in favor of the broad view of music espoused by Comprehensive Musicianship. The resultant acceptance of all musical styles outside of the commonpractice period could lead an impressionable youngster to conclude that "the latest rock hit, the mating call of the wild Eskimo [sic], and the Ninth Symphony have the same artistic merit" 65 This kind of standard-free universalism is decried by Allan Bloom in his book, The Closing of the American Mind He deals with various aspects of the American educational system and the unwillingness of those in authority to help students learn what values are in the arts. Rock music provides premature ecstasy and, in this respect, is like the drugs with which it is allied. It artificially induces the exaltation naturally attached to the completion of the greatest endeavors — victory in a just war, consummated love, artistic creation, religious devotion, and discovery of the truth. Without effort, without talent, without virtue, without exercise of the faculties, anyone and everyone is accorded the equal right to the enjoyment of their fruits. 66 In addition to Leo Kraft, another music theorist who has provided a subjective analysis of Comprehensive 65 Kraft, "Reflections on CMP6," p. 87. 66 Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), p. 80.

PAGE 121

114 Musicianship is A. Cutler Silliman. He made the central point that Comprehensive Musicianship is essentially the organization of all the elements of music around the core subject of music theory. Having established this, several problems are noted. First, it could be argued that a kind of encroachment could occur in which other aspects of the music curriculum are slighted in favor of music theory. A good case could be made for the establishment of music history or applied music as a core of the curriculum as well. He calls into question the "comprehensive" aspect of such classes, charging that the more generalized the Comprehensive Musicianship program becomes, the shallower it is bound to be. Synthesis and integration are noble ideals thwarted by the diversity of learning styles and speeds of students, as well as the diversity of teaching styles of the instructors. In terms of instructional needs, the comprehensive idea by its very nature tends to sublimate the importance of those teachers who are specialists in areas of composition, history, counterpoint, aesthetics, ear training, or sight-singing in favor of the extremely well-trained non-specialist. Most universities, however, are staffed with specialists, each contributing in his or her area of expertise for which they were hired. 67 Just as Willoughby had summoned the thoughts of Jerome Bruner in CMP 6 Silliman 67 A. Cutler Silliman, "Comprehensive Musicianship: Some Cautionary Words," College Music Symposium (Fall, 1980), p. 125.

PAGE 122

115 also cites an important observation of Bruner in reference to the question of breadth versus depth. Bruner said, "It takes no elaborate research to know that communication of knowledge depends in enormous measure upon one's mastery of the knowledge to be communicated" 68 What this implies is that the future music educator must have a thorough depth of training if he or she is to be skilled in communicating this knowledge to the students. However, the depth of training required is being threatened by the very movement that encourages it. An over-emphasis or misunderstanding of the comprehensive idea could result in a dilution of depth in favor of breadth. Philosophical Connections Between t he Two Movements The documentation published by MENC concerning the origins of the Young Composers Project, the Contemporary Music Project, and the Comprehensive Musicianship approach gives the impression that these began as an independent research project funded by the Ford Foundation with no historical precedent. No direct reference is made to the Literature and Materials program at Juilliard nor is any written acknowledgement given to William Schuman, Norman Lloyd, or the other developers of the program. In studying the origins and progress of the Comprehensive Musicianship approach, certain connections became clear. 68 Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education (New York Vintage Books, 1963), p. 88.

PAGE 123

116 I originally surmised that William Schuman's innovations in the L and M program at Juilliard gave inspiration in some way to the Ford Foundation's initial experimentation with CMP. I thought that the similarity of Literature and Materials with the Comprehensive Musicianship idea which came out of the Contemporary Music Project was more than coincidental. It is now clear that the relationships are more circumstantial and philosophical than they are causal. Nevertheless, there are many striking connections that are more than coincidental. First of all, several of the composers who went out as part of the Young Composers Project were listed as Juilliard graduates (including Michael White, who is now the Chairman of the Literature and Materials department at Juilliard as of this writing). The materials listed in CMP 6 that were used in the first IMCE projects included Music Li terature: A Workbook For Analysis Volumes I and II by Arnold Fish and 69 Gordon Hardy (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1965). In fact, of all the resources used in the IMCE project, this was used by eleven schools, the most-f requently used single resource in the project. 70 This is an anthology of music organized progressively in two volumes for study of music literature from all periods. Until school year 1988-1989, it was used at Juilliard as the only "text" in Literature 69 David Willoughby, CMP_ 6 p. 25 70 Ibid. p. 109.

PAGE 124

117 and Materials courses. Arnold Fish and Gordon Hardy at that time (1960's) were faculty members at Juilliard. Also, Leo Kraft's critique of Comprehensive Musicianship mentions William Schuman and Juilliard' s Literature and Materials program as a similar movement, although he does not make any 7 1 direct connection in terms of cause and effect. The name of Robert Ward is listed as the chairman of one of three study groups at the Northwestern Seminar in 1965. Robert Ward had been a member of the Literature and Materials faculty at Juilliard and is included in the faculty list for the 1952-1953 school year there. The Northwestern Seminar was where the concept of Comprehensive Musicianship was defined and where foundations were laid for implementing this approach as part of a college music curriculum. His was Committee number one at the Northwestern Seminar, assigned the topic "Compositional 7 2 Processes and Writing Skills." The interview with Michael White revealed some additional details of the connections between Literature and Materials and Comprehensive Musicianship. Michael White was a student at Juilliard in the late 1950's. He said that the Ford Foundation was interested in the L and M program and in Juilliard in general. They had many close connections with 71 Leo Kraft, "Reflections on CMP6," p. 87. 7 Comprehensive Musicianship: The Foundation for College Education in Music p. 11.

PAGE 125

118 the people at Juilliard. White said that he was told by Peter Mennin that there were men from the Ford Foundation who visited Juilliard. In his words, Evidently they came over here and did an awful lot of observation and thought that our approach would be good to go out into the 'world', so to speak, and to talk to young people about this kind of approach. As a graduate of Juilliard, White became involved as one of the first participants of the Young Composers Project. White was sent out on the first wave of twelve composers who were sponsored by the project. His assignment was to work in schools systems in Seattle, Washington and in Texas. About five years later, he said that he was contacted by the Juilliard School on behalf of the Contemporary Music Project. He was asked to contribute several pieces which he had written while he was on his fellowship for consideration to be a part of the project. Two of his works were selected for inclusion in a catalogue of pieces composed by the young composers who were part of the project from 1959 to 1964. This was published as CMP 1 and was first published in 1966. It served as a kind of anthology of accessible music written by contemporary composers for the public schools. It was later withdrawn, however, when it was included in and superseded by the CMP Library, Volumes I, II, and III in 1967. Gideon Waldrop is a person who had ties between Juilliard, the Ford Foundation, and the Contemporary Music

PAGE 126

119 Project which would indicate some connection between these entities. White described him as a "middle man in the Ford Foundation." He was appointed as the first field representative for the Young Composers Project from 1959 to 1961 Four or five years later, he became the Dean of the Juilliard School, where he served for about twenty years. According to White, the editors for the Contemporary Music Project were faculty members at Juilliard at the time. A room at the school was set up to handle the collecting, editing, and printing operations for the project. The compositions were not engraved, but instead were printed in the composer's own manuscript. An event that demonstrates a tangential relationship of the Ford Foundation to Juilliard and to William Schuman in particular is the Concert Artists Program of the Ford Foundation. This program originated from the same "brainstorming" sessions with Norman Dello Joio that gave birth to the idea for CMP. In this program, grants were awarded to concert artists to perform new works, to composers to write them, and to orchestras to rehearse and perform them with the concert artists. Artists were given the opportunity to choose their own composer. Leonard Rose, a cello instructor at Juilliard, was one of the concert artists selected. He chose William Schuman as his composer and the result was "A

PAGE 127

120 Song of Orpheus" for cello and orchestra, which was released in 1961. 73 Other details may yet be found concerning the connections between Schuman's Literature and Materials program at Juilliard and the chain of events which led to the Comprehensive Musicianship approach. If no other evidence existed aside from the obvious similarities of the two approaches, it would still be curious that the Literature and Materials approach has not been credited with serving as a model for an integrated approach to the teaching of music theory in general and for Comprehensive Musicianship in particular. The absence of any reference to Literature and Materials in CMP literature is a negligent omission of a useful source of information about problems and successes in the integration of elements in music theory instruction. Juilliard could have provided CMP with (at that time) ten years of experience in this approach. Current Adaptation of the Literature and Materials Approach at Ju illiard There are more similarities than differences between the Literature and Materials program as designed originally by William Schuman and Norman Lloyd in 1947-1948 at Juilliard and the way that it is administered today under President Joseph Polisi, Dean Bruce MacCombie, and the chairman of the Literature and Materials Department, Michael 73 Additional information is found in National Music Council Bulletin Vol. 18, No. 3, (Spring 1959), p. 12.

PAGE 128

121 White. Several of the differences that do exist are due to the growth of the school. At the time of the origin of L and M, there were between 300 and 400 students. At this writing, there are approximately 850 music students alone. Differences The physical limitations of space, size of classes, and scheduling alone have caused some alterations. One such change is that students now are given the choice of L and M teacher, whereas in its original form, they were assigned to classes by the registrar with the approval of the teacher to achieve balance of performing areas within each class, as well as a balanced class size. 74 In its current adaptation, a student may choose his own teacher for L and M, based upon his or her schedule, the reputation of the teacher, or other reasons. As a result, the distribution of students and their performing areas is predictably uneven. Related to this is another difference in the area of class performance. The original purpose for balanced classes was to have weekly "L and M Concerts," on Wednesdays by members of the L and M classes, performing works of their own composition and works that they were studying. 7 In lieu of these concerts, performances have been continued in class by members of the class if applicable, or by invited guests if necessary. 74 The Juilliard Report p. 57. 75 Ibid. p. 204.

PAGE 129

122 Several changes in the L and M program were instituted in the Fall of 1988 as a result of meetings of the faculty members in that department. One change is the "banding" of L and M classes. That is, all sections of the L and M I classes meet at the same time, L and M II classes meet at the same time, and so forth. This permits joint meetings of all sections of each level of L and M for performances, guest lectures or recitals, or other demonstrations. Another change was the discontinuation of their use of Music Literature: A Workbook For Analysis Volumes One and Two by Arnold Fish and Gordon Hardy. This had been the standard source of music examples for L and M classes since it was published. The reason for this change was that the faculty in L and M felt it to be too limiting in certain areas. Teachers were finding it necessary to bring in more and more xeroxed examples for the classes to use. In the new program, the L and M faculty agreed to focus their attention on fourteen representative works which would illustrate a variety of musical materials, style periods, performance media, formal structures, timbral considerations, harmonic and melodic structures, textures and contrapuntal techniques. The L and M faculty have agreed on these representative works as well as areas of focus for each work. Students are encouraged to buy as many of the actual scores for these fourteen works as possible. An emphasis is placed on a study of the entire work. In a few cases where

PAGE 130

123 the entire work could not be studied in depth in class, such as in an opera excerpt, the students are still be required to listen to the entire work and do supplemental library work on these works. Compositions are not to be covered in any definite sequence, but all teachers agree to cover the same works and focus on the same musical elements. The L and M faculty felt that this change would build in some safeguards against the over-emphasis of a favorite work or style period. The fourteen pieces selected by the L and M faculty are listed below with the techniques that are to be emphasized for each one, as described to me in a telephone interview with Michael White in August, 1988. 1. Bach, "St. Matthew Passion." a. recitatives and arias, for melodic writing and figured bass b. da capo arias c. text setting d. imitation, counterpoint 2. A Haydn quartet (teacher's choice) a. form of the movements b harmony c. quartet score reading; alto clefs d. writing for strings 3. A Mozart sonata (teacher's choice) a. form of the movements b. harmony; secondary dominants; modulation c. phrase structure d. melodic development; inversion; expansion ; fragmentation e. piano writing; development of pedal; extension of range

PAGE 131

124 A Beethoven symphony (teacher's choice) a. instruments; size of orchestra b. orchestra score reading; reduction of orchestra score for piano c. form of the movements d. melodic development e. phrase structure f. harmonic analysis A Schubert song cycle (teacher's choice) a. form; binary, strophic b. harmony useful because of the simplicity of the piano and voice texture c. text setting very important; how the emotional content of words is captured in the music; who the poets are d. phrase structure A Schumann quintet (teacher's choice) a. chromatic harmony b. texture c. score reading d. form e. rhythm; syncopation, hemiola, re-grouping, writing over the bar line Bartok's "Microcosmos" (two or three representative pieces of the teacher's choice) a. intervals b. modes; church modes; bi-modes c. phrase structure d. motivic development e rhythm Crumb, "Voice of the Whale" a. acoustical considerations; harmonic series; amplification b. notation; non-traditional c. performance issues; improvisation; performer preparation and cooperation d. theatrical aspects; lighting, costumes Short pieces by Chopin (teacher's choice) a. pianistic elements b. form c. chromatic harmonies; secondary dominant and

PAGE 132

125 diminished 7th chords; melodic neapolitans d. phrase structure e. accompaniment patterns 10. Mozart, "Marriage of Figaro," Act I a. recitatives and figured bass b. the story and its text setting; arias c. character development; musical treatment d. form; arias and ensembles e harmony f counterpoint in the ensembles g. libretto h. assigned listening to the entire opera g. staging; video-tape illustrations 11. A Bach suite (English, French, or the partitas; teacher's choice) a. binary form b. melodic development c. harmonic analysis d. counterpoint e temperament f. ornamentation, particularly in the sarabandes 12. Schoenberg Opus 23 Piano Suite a. twelve-tone technique b. comparison to Bach suite; two composers from widely-separated periods compared and contrasted in terms of form, approach, etc. c. intervals d. twentieth-century pianistic approaches 13. Chants from the Gregorian period (teacher's choice) a. melodic structure b. intervals c. clefs d. modes e modal cadences 14. Two examples of madrigals (one Italian and one English; teacher's choice) a. chord recognition b. modes c cadences d. imitation; canon, round, simple imitation e. text setting; word painting

PAGE 133

126 One major difference in the current L and M curriculum from earlier applications is in the setting up of separate courses in Ear Training and Music History. Separate Ear Training courses were set up because of the size of the school. With increasingly larger classes it became impossible to give the individual attention required for effective ear training exercises and still be able to cover the essential course content. Teaching Fellows are frequently assigned to assist in these Ear Training classes. Music History classes were added as a separate requirement, according to Michael White, as a kind of insurance that all periods of music history will be presented to the students with some sort of consistency. The problem that often occurred in the original format was that L and M faculty inevitably would favor certain style periods and avoid others in their treatment in class. This was due to both their personal preferences and to their background and knowledge in each era. Schuman himself admitted that even the most brilliant faculty members are likely to have holes in their understanding of music. This relates to the constant difficulty of staffing a college music department with individuals who are true "comprehensive musicians." The addition of the Music History course actually goes back to the very first prototype of L and M. This had a fifth year for L and M V which dealt with music history in an organized way. It was to be taught by a music history

PAGE 134

127 specialist whose task was "to synthesize the work of the first four years through a course of study that correlates the development of the art of music with general history, emphasizing parallel developments in the other arts" A description of the organization of L and M given in the Appendix of The Juilliard Report indicated that in addition to L and M V (Music History), Orchestration, Orchestral Conducting, and other supplementary courses were at first (in 1948) taught separately, but by 1952 were incorporated into the L and M curriculum. 77 One might therefore contend that the current application is closer to the original prototype of L and M than its subsequent, more integrated approach. Similarities All of the major tenets of L and M have been retained in the current application at the Juilliard School. In the printed description of the curriculum from the 1988-1989 school year, these tenets are listed as 1) the use of scores instead of textbooks, 2) the importance of live music in the classroom, and 3) the integration of musical examples from all periods. The L and M department has retained the minimum requirements for passing from one level of L and M to the 76 William Schuman, "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," p. 166-167. 77 The Juilliard Report p. 171.

PAGE 135

128 next. This is administered much as it was originally, by means of an end-of-year comprehensive exam for each level The exams consist of a condensation of the most important 78 fundamentals contained in the outlines. Faculty members in the L and M department are permitted to determine their own sequence of presentation of materials within the outline. The general scope of the materials to be covered each year is predetermined by consensus of the L and M faculty and is printed in the outline. However, there is a built-in sequence placed there to ensure that certain subjects will be covered at prescribed times. For example, the first semester of L and M I is largely devoted to an overview of Music History. This is designed to provide a backdrop for the study of the music from all the style periods during the entire sequence of the four levels of L and M. It is a separate and additional requirement to the Music History course described earlier. The Juilliard School still is very rigid in its standards for prospective L and M faculty members. They maintain at least three criteria for L and M teacher qualifications: 1) They must be composers who are currently active in composition; 2) They must be accomplished performers on some musical instrument; and 3) They must bring with them a very comprehensive knowledge of music. All three of these criteria are identical to Schuman's in his original plan. 78 See Appendix A, "Literature and Materials of Music I."

PAGE 136

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS Schuman admitted both at Sarah Lawrence College and at Juilliard that he had the ideal situation for the presentation of his integrated, music-centered approach. At Juilliard, he not only had the authority to develop the idea for the new curriculum, but the authority to administer it, support it with qualified faculty, maintain it, fund it, place within it students whose entrance requirements were more stringent than at most other music departments where the comprehensive idea has been attempted after him. This total commitment to the program, more than anything else, is what has made the program a success at Juilliard from 1948 to the present. Most other schools who would attempt it did not enjoy this type of situation. Regardless of one's views on these matters, it must be admitted that factors such as lack of funding, tenure of unqualified faculty, affirmative action employment quotas, and arbitrary and politicallymotivated actions by the state Board of Regents all can have a detrimental effect on any attempt to teach comprehensively. These factors sometimes limit the freedom of college deans and department chairmen to promote and maintain programs based primarily upon commitment to an ideal. 129

PAGE 137

130 Comprehensive Musicianship was developed as an approach to the teaching and learning of musicianship, especially music theory, for the purpose of better equipping future music teachers to treat all the materials of music on an equal and intelligent basis in their classrooms. Unlike many traditionally-trained music educators, they would be prepared to accept and explore with their students the new music as well as the traditional works. The Young Composers Project showed that many music educators are only comfortable with the common-practice period music that they knew best (and even that is too often very limited). More realistically, they tended to be most familiar with music arranged and marketed expressly for the performing group under their charge, be it band, orchestra, or chorus. The attempt to train music educators to be open-minded to other forms and styles necessitated the broad approach described in this report. The Comprehensive Musicianship concept tends to treat many subjects broadly, but few subjects with significant depth. Proponents of CM, as seen throughout this study, agree that this is a problem, but have difficulty resolving it with a practical, long-range working solution. Even their own experimental programs such as IMCE were forced to admit failures. As shown earlier, some of the successes were listed also as failures in a different context, thus diminishing the impact of their success.

PAGE 138

131 The reasons for the difficulty of developing an effective and working program of Comprehensive Musicianship can be understood if one considers the scope and limitations of the challenge. In short, the scope of the challenge is to produce in four years of undergraduate education a music educator who understands music comprehensively. More precisely, the challenge is to motivate future music educators toward a life-long process of learning about music far beyond what is covered in their undergraduate or graduate education. The limitation of the challenge, of course, is the relative shortness of time available to impart this motivation or any portion of a comprehensive understanding of music. It has been demonstrated that a lack of significant depth is one of the unavoidable by-products of the comprehensive approach, not by design, but by default, owing to the dearth of quality musician-teachers who understand music comprehensively. In college music departments where a comprehensive approach is adopted at the undergraduate level, it is reasonable to consider the qualifications of students who are products of this approach. Are they stronger or weaker? What is the effect on the next generation of college professors, who are products of the comprehensive approach, and are involved in the training of music educators? There is a great possibility that they will suffer from the resultant shallowness of the comprehensive

PAGE 139

132 approach. In effect, shallowness will tend to reproduce and multiply itself, each generation weaker than the previous one. A kind of musical in-breeding takes place. Each generation of teachers can be reasonably expected to rise only as high in their comprehensive understanding of music as the least common denominator collectively of the learning environment of which they are a product. If the comprehensive approach is applied only where quality instruction and facilities are verifiable, (such as was done with the Literature and Materials approach of Juilliard) it will be unlikely to have the nationwide effect desired, though it may be copied. A comparison has been made between William Schuman's Literature and Materials approach to the teaching of musicianship and the Comprehensive Musicianship approach. It is significant to note that the L and M approach is still a functioning part of the Juilliard curriculum, but CM has lost much of the prominence that it enjoyed in the late sixties and early seventies. One obvious reason for this is the controlled, laboratory-like conditions that the L and M program enjoys at Juilliard. They have the luxury of supporting this program in an atmosphere where admissions are selective, and where faculty members are the finest available. Most significantly, they have escaped the dilution of proficiencies that often accompanies traditional undergraduate programs in music education where method is

PAGE 140

133 more important than content. The high number of required "core" courses in education and the prevailing attitude that performance proficiency is somehow less important for the educator both work against the aims of Comprehensive Musicianship. Despite the problems that accompany the attempts to teach music theory comprehensively, it would be a mistake to conclude that the Comprehensive Musicianship concept was a failure. It is clear that this movement contributed to the current stress on an integrated approach to the teaching of music theory. As John D. White said in his book on this subject : Today our schools of music advocate a more organized approach to musicianship learning — manifesting the belief that theory or musicianship can be taught in such a way as to relate its course content to performance and to integrate it with the materials of music literature and history. The best place to make such a program work is a private school where funding and endowments are not a problem, where enrollment standards are high, and where there is an immersion in a high-quality cultural climate. Juilliard has all these attributes and serves as a good model school for that reason. Music educators in higher education who wish to adopt the integrated approach in a challenging situation, working under perhaps many restrictions, should bear in mind the strengths and weaknesses of the integrated approach. 1 John D. White, Guidelines p. 4

PAGE 141

134 Careful consideration should be given to the conflict between breadth versus depth in presenting the materials. Finding qualified teachers will always be a problem. The music teacher in a small faculty at a private college can, according to Schuman, adopt an integrated, Literature and Materials-type of program by the personal approach used to teach the students. Larger college departments and schools of music have a more difficult challenge of integrating materials. Many brilliant, independent-thinking musician-teachers must be convinced of its merits. They are also well aware of its difficulties. Even then, the difficulty of implementation remains. A sensible approach in that situation is to maintain a standard of excellence among the faculty, providing opportunities for development in areas where it is most needed. Such opportunities might include financial assistance for further study or research, limited rewards for publication and presentations at conferences (limited so that they do not interfere with teaching), and limitation of class size to permit an effective questioning or Socratic approach by the teacher. Many other factors could be named in establishing a fertile climate for advancement of college music educators. The inherent difficulties of the integrated approach, be it Comprehensive Musicianship or Literature and Materials, should provide a personal challenge for each music educator to achieve the greatest possible depth of

PAGE 142

135 learning in as many areas of musical study as possible. It should be thought of as a life-long endeavor to become, on a personal level, the comprehensively-trained musician. As the effective teacher moves toward this admittedly unattainable goal, he or she will become increasingly more aware of opportunities to integrate the elements of music for the students. These will arise naturally in the course of classroom instruction and interaction. If a music educator feels that this goal requires too much dedication, it is most likely that he or she has chosen the wrong field of service.

PAGE 143

APPENDIX A OUTLINE FOR LITERATURE AND MATERIALS OF MUSIC I (Juilliard School of Music, 1987-1988) These curricular outlines, as approved by the L and M faculty, do not constitute a syllabus in the ordinary sense of that word. They do identify specific areas that we consider fundamental to our students' musical education, and they do imply certain minimal requirements for the successful completion of the first two years of the program. However, the pedagogical approach, the "ordering" of subject material, the composers and works covered, these are all left to the discretion of the individual faculty members. Also, the most important tenets of the original L and M philosophy (i.e. the use of scores instead of textbooks, the importance of live music in the classroom, the integration of musical examples from all periods, etc.) will remain a part of our teaching. At the end of each school year departmental exams will be given to all students enrolled in LM I and II. These exams will represent a condensation of the most important fundamentals contained in the outlines. It is understood that a passing grade on these exams will be a minimum requirement for moving on to the next level of the LM. 136

PAGE 144

APPENDIX A Literature and Materials I 137 I Basic Acoustics II. Definition of Terms (musical vocabulary) III. General Outline of Music History A. Periods B. Stylistic tendencies C. Mediums D. Composers E. Listening lists 1 IV. Basic Notational Skills (including all markings and vocabulary dealing with "expression") V. Fundamentals Relating to Pitch A. Clefs and Staves B. Intervals (simple and compound) C. Modes and Scales VI Fundamentals Relating to Rhythm A. Time Signatures B. Note Values C Tempi VII Melody A. Motives, phrases, periods B. Melodic curve, climax, cadence C. Melodic extension: sequence, inversion, retrograde, interval expansion and contraction, ornamentation, fragmentation, etc. D. Melodic analysis (of various periods) E. Introduction to 2-part Species Counterpoint 1 At the discretion of the instructor.

PAGE 145

APPENDIX A Literature and Materials I 138 VIII. Basic Tonal Harmony (relating to Baroque and Classical periods) A. Concepts of tonality B. Cycle of fifths (key signature) C. Triads and seventh chords D. Harmonic function E Cadences F. Part-writing 1. doubling and spacing 2. voice-leading G. Figured Bass and Roman numeral terminology H. Modulation (common chord) I. Altered chords 1. Neapolitan sixth 2. Augmented sixth 3. Diminished seventh 4. Secondary dominant and diminished seventh J. Harmonic analysis K. Harmonization of melodies (including basic accompaniment patterns) L. Aural Harmony 2 2 Time permitting, individual instructors might want to augment the regular harmony lessons with some ear-work (scales, chords, progressions, cadences, etc.)This type of instruction might be placed in the hands of the Fellow.

PAGE 146

APPENDIX A Literature and Materials I 139 IX. Structure 3 A. Binary and Ternary forms 1. Songs and small piano works 2 Minuet and Scherzo B. Simple Rondo C. Introduction to Sonata-Allegro Form 3 When possible, this instruction will concentrate on piano and chamber works.

PAGE 147

APPENDIX B OUTLINE FOR LITERATURE AND MATERIALS OF MUSIC II (Juilliard School of Music, 1987-1988) ( Note : As stated before, specific ordering will be decided by the individual instructors. However, in L and M II it would be preferable to cover the harmonic and structural elements first and then follow up with the contrapuntal elements. This would allow for a better introduction to fugue in the first semester of L and M III.) I. Review of Harmonic Materials (from L and M I) II Chromatic Harmony A. Altered chords: secondary dominants, secondary diminished seventh chords; Neapolitan sixth; augmented sixth chords; chords with lowered or raised components, etc. B. Modulations: by means of (1) altered chords, (2) chromatic voice leading, (3) enharmonic alterations, and (4) non -pivot modulations III. Analysis of Larger Forms A. Piano Works, vocal works, chamber works, concerti, and symphonies of the late Classical and early Romantic periods. B. Score-reading and score-reduction (including basic instrumentation and transposition) C. Analysis: extended sonata form, minuet, scherzo, rondo and sonata-rondo, theme and variations. 140

PAGE 148

APPENDIX B Literature and Materials II 141 IV Analysis of Counterpoint Medieval a nd Renaissance Periods 1 A. The Ars Nova: Non-imitative, free counterpoint of the fourteenth century 1 Iso-rhythm 2 Hocket B. The fifteenth Century: canonic procedures at the octave and other intervals (inverted, mensural, retrograde, double canon) C. The sixteenth Century: madrigals, motets, and Masses of the late Renaissance V. Two-Part Species Counterpoint (cont. from L and M I) A. Writing through fifth species (florid) B. Modal canons C. Invertible counterpoint VI. Analysis of Counterpoint Baroq ue Period A. Ground bass and chaconne B. Chorale preludes C Canons D. Inventions E. Suites Vii. Writing of Two and Three Part Baro que Counterpoint A. Canon (round; inverted) B. Invertible counterpoint C. Invention techniques (sequences, free imitation) *It is understood that the concentration in this section will be on the sixteenth century. Although a great deal of time cannot be spent on the earlier centuries, they should not be neglected.

PAGE 149

APPENDIX C OUTLINE FOR LITERATURE AND MATERIALS III (Juilliard School of Music, 1987-1988) (Note: Aside from the materials listed below, there should be a review, or "tying in" of the most fundamental elements from L and M I and II. Some instructors might choose to accomplish this at a specific time — during the second semester, for example — while others might prefer an "ongoing" review that permeates the entire curriculum of L and M III. At the end of the school year a comprehensive departmental exam, covering materials from the first three years of L and M, will be given to all students in this course ) I Review of Baroque contrapuntal and harmonic materials from L and M II II Fugue A. Analysis of Baroque (Bach) fuqal procedure 1 The subject a. tonal and real answers b. exposition patterns c redundant entrances 2 Other materials a. the counter-subject b. a second subject (double fugue) c. special episodic material d. free material 142

PAGE 150

APPENDIX C Literature and Materials III 143 3. Development of subject a. re-expositions b. subject in inversion; augmentation; diminution; with altered rhythmic patterns; retrograde; shortened subject c. subject in canon or stretto d. "false" entrances of subject e. modulations of subject (key plan) f. invertible counterpoint 4 Episodes a. materials: fragments of subject; counter-subject; special material; free material b. sequential and modulating episodes c. non-modulating episodes d. episodes within the exposition 5. Stretto a. stretto as a structural device: the recurring stretto b. stretto as climax to the fugue c. stretto in inversion; in augmentation or diminution; with altered rhythmic patterns 6. Coda a. materials b. pedal points c. added voices (textural changes) B. Analysis of fugues (in different media) from the Classical, Romantic and Contemporary Periods C. Other contrapuntal techniques o r disciplines: — passacaqlia: chaconne; non-imita tive counterpoint in 3 voices or more D Fuqal writing 1. The 3-voice exposition (subject and countersubject; tonal and real answers) 2. Episodic writing (sequential and non-seq.) 3. Invertible counterpoint (in 2 and 3 voices) 4. Stretto

PAGE 151

APPENDIX C Literature and Materials III I 44 HI. Analysis of style in the nineteenth century: Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Form, and Orch estration A. Piano literature B. Song literature C. Symphonic and Concerto literature D. Opera E. Choral literature Note : Several approaches are possible here: 1. Concentrated analysis of one major work such as "Carnaval," or "Winterreise or the Brahms Violin Concerto. 2. Analysis of individual songs, movements, or excerpts from a variety of media by several different composers 3. Concentration on one technique or discipline (i.e. theme and variations; "virtuoso" writing; song cycles, etc.) and the tracing of its development throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

PAGE 152

APPENDIX D GRADUATE STANDING QUALIFICATION EXAM (Juilliard School of Music, 1987-1988) The following is a summary of the contents of a typical placement exam given to entering masters students transferring in to the Juilliard School. I. Realize a keyboard accompaniment from the figured bass. The question consisted of a six-measure excerpt from a tenor solo by Haydn, with the solo part and the bass line with figures written out. II. Add alto, tenor, and bass parts to a late seventeenth-century chorale melody in the style of Bach, including passing tones, suspensions, and other non-harmonic figures. The question consisted of a six-measure chorale melody. III. From the one-measure beginning, write the first nine or ten measures of a two-part invention, including a modulation to the dominant. IV. Complete the exposition (or more) of a three-voice tonal fugue. Two and one-half measures of the first voice are provided. V. Upon a given 12-note melody in whole notes, add a soprano melody in florid sixteenth-century style. 145

PAGE 153

APPENDIX D Graduate Standing Qualification Exam 146 VI. Provide a 4-part realization of four measures of a chorale from a given Roman numeral analysis, only (no notes are given) VII. Analyze six given musical examples from different style periods (including twentieth century). Each one is 8 to 12 measures in length. A. Describe harmonic, melodic, and other structural aspects B. Determine the style period to which each example belongs. C. Name a possible composer of each piece. D. Explain what kind of work each excerpt might be from (i.e. performance medium, formal type, etc.) E. Write your analyses and commentary directly on each score page. VIII. Give brief explanations of each of sixteen significant terms from music history, such as "overtone series, iso-rhythmic musica ficta, hocket," etc.

PAGE 154

APPENDIX E DISCOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM SCHUMAN'S MUSIC IN UF MUSIC LIBRARY L 27 "American Festival Overture," American Recording Orchestra, Walter Hendl conductor. American Recording Society, ARS 115. L 1596 "Carols of Death," Gregg Smith Singers. Everest, 3129. L 554 "Credendum," Philadelphia Orchestra, Eugene Ormandy, conductor. Columbia, ML 4992. L 2339 "Chester" for band, Paxon Senior High School Band, Richard Dickson, director. L 2797 "George Washington Bridge," Eastman Wind Ensemble, Frederick Fennell, conductor. Mercury, MG 40006. L 1571 "New England Triptych," Eastman-Rochester Orchestra Howard Hanson, conductor. Mercury SRI 75020. L 663 "A Song Of Orpheus," Leonard Rose, cellist, George Szell, Cleveland Orchestra. Columbia, MS 6638. L 321 "Symphony No. 6 in one movement," Philadelphia Orchestra, Eugene Ormandy, conductor. Columbia, ML 4992. L 2595 "Undertow," Ballet Theater Orchestra, Joseph Levine conductor L 701 "Voyage," Beveridge Webster, piano. Columbia, ML 4987. 147

PAGE 155

BIBLIOGRAPHY Benson, Warren. Creative Projects in Musicianship (CMP 4 ). Washington: Contemporary Music Project, Music Educators National Conference, 1967. Bernstein, Leonard. "The Latest From Boston," Modern Music, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1938-1939), p. 183. Bernstein, Leonard. "Young American — William Schuman," Modern Music Vol. 19, No. 2 (1941-1942), p. 97. Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Butterworth, Neil. A Dictionary of America n Composers, "William Schuman." New York: Garland Publishing House, 1984. Carter, Elliot. "American Music in the New York Scene," Modern Music Vol. 17, No. 2 (1939-1940), p. 96. Contemporary Music Project. Comprehensive Musicianship: An Anthology of Evolving Thought (CMP 5 ). Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971. "Contemporary Music Project: Comprehensive Musicianship," Music Educators Journal Vol. 59, No. 9 (May 1973), pp. 35-48. Contemporary Music Project. Comprehensive Mu sicianship: — The Foundation for College Education in Music (CMP 2 ). Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1965. Daniels, Neil M. "The Junior College Curriculum," Music Educators Journal Vol. 32, No. 3 (January-February 1946) pp. 26-28, 44. Dickey, George. "The Founding of Juilliard," The Juilliard Review Annual (1963-1964), pp. 19-22. Experiments in Musical Creativity (CMP 3 ). Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1966. Eyer, Ronald. "William Schuman," Musical America Vol. 82 (September 1962), p. 26. 148

PAGE 156

149 "Faculty Honors Schuman," The Jul 1 Hard Review Vol. 9 No 1 (Winter 1961-1962), p. 3. Frankenstein, Alfred. "William Schuman," Modern Music, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1944-1945), p. 23. Gary, Charles, and Beth Landis The Compr ehensive Music Program Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1973. Gay, Harriet. The Juilliard Strin g Quartet. New York: Vantage Press, 1974. Gleason, Harold, and Warren Becker. 20th Century American Composers 2nd edition. Bloomington, IA: Frangipani Press, 1980. Hanson, Howard. "Report on the Ford Foundation-National Music Council Project to Place Young Composers in Secondary Public School Systems," National Music Council Bulletin Vol. 19, No. 3 (Spring 1959), pp. 3-5. Hayes, Marie Therese "The History of the Juilliard School From Its Inception to 1973." Unpublished master's thesis. Washington, D. C: Catholic University, 1974. "Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation Annual Repor t, (Oct. 1, 1957 to Sept. 30, 1958), p. 35. "Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foundation A nnual Report, (Oct. 1, 1958 to Sept. 30, 1959), p. 49. "Humanities and the Arts," Ford Foun dation Annual Report, (Oct. 1, 1959 to Sept. 30, 1960), p. 49. The Juilliard Report on Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music Westport, CT : Greenwood Press, 1970. Kintzer, Frederick C. "Integrated Music Fundamentals for the College Freshman," Music Educators Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4 (February-March 1959), p. 72. Kraft, Leo. "Reflections on CMP6," College M usic Symposium, (Fall 1980), pp. 84-93. Lieberson, Goddard "Over The Air," Modern Music, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1938-1939) p. 65. Lloyd, Norman. "William Schuman" in The Golden Encyclopedia of Music Racine: Western Publishing Company, 1968, pp. 520-522.

PAGE 157

150 Peterson, Barbara. Willi am Schuman New York: Broadcast Music Incorporated, 1984. Rouse, Christopher. William Schuman Documentary New York: Theodore Presser 1980. Schreiber, Flora Rheta and Vincent Persichetti. William Schuman. New York: G. Schirmer, 1954. Schuman, William. "Unconventional Case History "Modern Music, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1937-1938), pp. 222-227. Schuman, William. "On Teaching the Literature and Materials of Music," The Musical Quarterly Vol. 34 (1948), pp. 155-168. Schuman, William. "The Responsibility of Music Education to Music," Music Educators Journal Vol. 42, No. 6 (JuneJuly 1956) pp. 17-19. Schuman, William. "William Schuman Summarizes Jul 11 iard Objectives," Musical America Vol. 81 (February 1961), pp. 18-19. Schuman, William. "The Responsibility of Lincoln Center to Education," Music Educators Journal Vol. 49, No. l (September-October 1962), pp. 35-38. Schuman, William. "The Prejudice of Conformity," Music Journal, Vol. 23 (September 1965), p. 44. Silliman, A. Cutler. "Comprehensive Musicianship: Some Cautionary Words," College M usic Symposium, (Fall 1980) pp. 125-129. Standi fer, James, and Barbara Reeder Source Book of African and Afro-American Materi als for Music Educators (CMP 7 ) Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1972. Warburg, James P. "Commencement Address," The Juilliard Review Vol. 8, No. 3 (Fall 1961), p. 10 White, John D. Guidelines for Colle ge Teaching of Music Theory London: Scarecrow, 1981. Willoughby, David. Comprehensive Musi cianship and Undergraduate Music Curricula (CMP K ). Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1971.

PAGE 158

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jonathan Edward Steele was born on July 25, 1952. He is married and has three children, all boys. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Clearwater Christian College in Biblical literature in 1974. After music studies in sacred music at Bob Jones University, he enrolled in the University of South Florida, where he received a Master of Music degree in music theory in 1980. His studies at The University of Florida are in fulfillment of the requirements of the Ph.D. degree in the college teaching of music, with an emphasis on music theory. His immediate plans (D. V.) are to continue as an Associate Professor of Music at his alma mater, Clearwater Christian College. 151

PAGE 159

INDEX Arcadelt 112 Airlie House Symposium 20 Avshalomov, Jacob *f Bach 10 Bach's D-minor concerto ^ Ballet Theatre 32 Ballets rt Barlow, Howard ~* Beams Prize "~ Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" • • • *" Beglarian, Grant 92 Benson, Warren • |~ Boston Symphony 36 Brandeis University ~e Breadth versus depth or" 99 114 Bruner, Jerome 96, 93, 114 Chamber Music classes * Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center 37 Chicago Musical College • ^6 CMP iq lis CMP Library 19 1 ^" Columbia Broadcasting System • • • 3 J> Columbia Teacher's College !' J!' Sn qr Columbia University 25, 29, 30, 3b Common elements approach 1 t~ Comparison of L&M and CM Composers cited Bach, Johann Sebastian 1£ ^> 1 * Bartok, Bela J 2 Beethoven, Ludwig van 3, 123 Bergsma, William • Bernstein, Leonard ~ Carter, Elliott JjO Chopin, Frederic • 1 *' Copland, Aaron i o a Crumb, George i Dello Joio, Norman 12, 13, 18, 90 Ehrbar, Judson Freundlich, Irwin Giannini, Vittorio 9 Goeb, Roger Goldman, Richard Franko 9 Harris, Roy 3 Hart, Frederick 152

PAGE 160

153 Composers Cited ( cont ) Haydn, Franz Joseph 1Z3 Herford, Julius ~ Hufstader, Robert Jacobi, Frederick ^ Kagen, Sergius Liszt, Franz Lloyd, Norman • * Mennin, Peter .„' Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus V, n \ Persichetti, Vincent 9 > 48 b2 Jt Pope Gregory the Great *25 Schoenberg, Arnold **~ Schubert, Franz I7 3 Schumann, Robert *A *n Sessions, Roger in Tangeman, Robert • j? Wagenaar, Bernard 10, jo Ward, Robert • Z White, Michael 18 Composers in Public Schools Composers Selection Committee Daniel, Oliver j3 Giannini, Vittorio 3 Hanson, Howard 3 Johnson, Thor 3 Mennin, Peter 3 Moore, Douglas 3 Composers' Forum Laboratory Concert 30 Compositions by Schuman A Free Song J2 Amaryllis 4Z Amaryllis: Variations for String Trio 42 American Festival Overture 41 An American Muse 4Z Anniversary Fanfare 42 Be Glad Then, America 41 Canon and Fugue 42 Carols of Death 43 Casey At Bat 44 Chester Chester Overture • 4 Chorale Canons It Chorale Etude 43 College Chums 22 Credendum Declaration Chorale 43 Dedication Fanfare 4Z Deo Ac Veritati 43 Fashion Show 42 Five Rounds on Famous Words 43 Four Canonic Choruses 43

PAGE 161

154 Compositions by Schuman ( cont ) Fourth String Quartet 31 Free Song *^ George Washington Bridge 42 God's World ** Holiday Song J* Horse Race J? In Praise of Shahn ** In Sweet Music J 3 Judith AA Le Fosse Ardeatine 42 Mail Order Madrigals 43 Monkeys at the Zoo ** New England Triptych ** Newsreel in Five Shots 42 Night Journey Orpheus With His Lute 44 Parade Philharmonic Fanfare z Pioneers Prelude for a Great Occasion 42 Prelude for Voices 3 Quartetino For Four Bassoons 42 Secular Cantata No. 1 3 Secular Cantata No. 2 jf Song Of Orpheus ** String Quartet Nos 1 through 4 4Z Symphony No. 2 30 31 Symphony No 3 ^ Symphony No. 4 Symphony No 5 Symphony No 7 Symphony No 8 J? Symphony No 9 ** Symphony No. 10 42 Te Deum The Lord Has a Child 44 The Mighty Casey • ** The Orchestra Song It The Truth Shall Deliver 43 The Witch of Endor ** The Young Dead Soldiers 44 This Is Our Time 43 Three Piano Moods 43 Three-Score Set 3 Time To The Old ** To Thy Love Tribal Dance ^ Undertow Ii Variations on America 41 Voyage for Orchestra 42 Voyage: a Cycle of Five Pieces 43

PAGE 162

155 Compositions by Schuman ( cont ) When Jesus Wept ** XXV Opera Snatches 43 Comprehensive Musicianship 17, 19, 20, 60, 61, 87, 94, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 105, 111, 115, 116, 117, 130 Concert Artists Guild Award 37 Conductors Cited Barlow, Howard 3 Koussevitzky, Serge 31, 32 Contemporary Music Project ' 'I \ \ c i 1Q 14 5, 17, 18, 60, 89, 91, 94, 95, 115, 118 Conventional courses Cramer, Browning Damrosch, Frank Damrosch, Walter Dance Division Daniels, Neil Davies, John Dello Joio, Norman Dewey, John Differentiation Dissertations Donnell, Raymond Downes, Olin ' 125 Ear-training /3 1 6g Educationist Engel, Carl • Erskine, John q 7 Film Society of Lincoln Center •** Fish, Arnold • 1 Fitzgerald, Bernard ti' Zt Ford Foundation 4, 11, 14, 17, 19, 60, 89 Forte, Allen ~* G. Schirmer • George Washington High School nn Gestalt psychology 96 1 Gleason Music Literature Outlines 47 Guggenheim Fellowships 3 Guidelines for College Teaching of Music Theory .... 10 Hanson, Howard ' J Hardy, Gordon 05 Haubiel, Charles Honorary doctorates Housewright, Wiley 3 Howerton, George Humanities and Arts program Humanities and the Arts Program • o Hutcheson, Ernest • • • • 7 '.. n IMCE 19, 20, 94, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 116, 130 Institute for Musical Art 6 7 Institutes for Music in Contemporary Education 19, 94, 101 Integrated approach 2,3

PAGE 163

156 98 20 Integration Interlochen Arts Academy International Choral Festival • • • * Interview 20 Ithaca College John H. Finley Medal ~ Joint Committee Juilliard Juilliard Graduate School r -j Juilliard Musical Foundation • • 6 ; Juilliard Report 63, 68, 74, 78, 82, 84, 102 Juilliard School • • • • • • • 1, 4, 6, 8, 15, 32, 54, 57, 58, 60, 61, 72, 111 Juilliard String Quartet | Juilliard, Augustus D • • Keats, Sheila 4S ' Kintzer, Frederick .; ',: '„ Koussevitzky, Serge %o' %i Koussevitzky Music Foundation • • ' T^r : : : : : : : : : : : . ... M . 100 Lawler, Vanett Lawrence, Vera Brodsky • • • • • Lincoln Center 8 37 40 Lincoln Center Student Program J* Listening Literature and Materials • • • • • • 1 2 5, 8, 35, 39, 55, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 72, 115 Lloyd, Norman 29, 36, 71, 115 Loeb, James 23 44 Loesser, Frank Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra •" Lowry, W. McNeil 4, 11, 12, 14 60 MacCombie, Bruce MacDowell Colony Madrigals Malkin Conservatory Manhattan School of Music ^ Marvel, Robert Mason. Danae! Gregory . . • • j • g g4 MENC r 15 117 Mennin, Peter B ' i Metropolitan Opera 30 Metropolitan Opera House Modern Music Mozart's Quartet in D 2g Mozarteum Murphy, Howard A q ; qq gg 2 Q7 98 Mursell, James a/, ao, Music Educators Journal Music Educators National Conference 13 Music History

PAGE 164

157 Music Journal 40 Music Literature: A Workbook For Analysis 116 Musical Quarterly 31, 49 National Institute of Arts and Letters 38 National Music Council 13, 14 Naumburg Foundation 38 Neilson, James 13 New School for Social Research 34 New York Music Critics Circle Award 37 New York Philharmonic Orchestra 23, 24 New York University School of Commerce 23 Northwestern Seminar 19, 93, 94, 117 Northwestern University 18, 91 4-4 Opera V* Parsons, Arrand 92 Peck, Joan JJ Pedestrian thinking 7 Pedigese f 9 Penetrative listening 8 Persichetti, Vincent 48 b2 Persin, Max 2 ^ Pilot projects 18 Piston's First String Quartet 78 Pitts, Lilla Belle 26, 69 Polisi, Joseph 12 ? Prince, Frances 29 30 Princeton Programmed learning 109 Project Policy Committee 18 Pulitzer prize 32 Pulitzer Prize committee 40 Repertoire classes 80 Rose, Leonard 41, 119 Rouse, Christopher 52 Rugg, Dr. Harold 27 Rush, Ralph 13 Salzer, Felix 112 Sarah Lawrence College 27, 28, 39, 49, 52, 61, 63, 64, 68, 129 Schacter 112 Schenker, Heinrich 112 Schirmer, G 32 3 J> Schreiber, Flora 48, 52 Schubert's song, "Gute Nacht" 78 Schuman, William 1, 4, 7, 46, 47, 54, 57, 61, 62, 90, 95, 98, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 129 Masters degree 64 Seminar on Comprehensive Musicianship 16 Shaw, George Bernard 33 Silliman, A. Cutler 113 Skinner, B. F 96

PAGE 165

158 Slatkin, Leonard 73 Song of Orpheus 119 Spanish Civil War 30 Specialization 82 Speyer Junior High School 22 St. Matthew Passion 123 Stereo Review 49 Stimulus-response 98 Summer Promenade Concerts 37 Taft, William Howard 22 Tampa Performing Arts Center 24 Tanglewood Symposium 94 Taverner Mass J 8 Teacher training 84 Teaching Fellows • 2 Teaching Fellowship Program 84 10 Test of Basic Vocabulary 74 The Juilliard Review 8 The Literature and Materials Approach 62 The Northwestern Seminar 19 The Young Composers Project 130 Thorndike V* Tudor, Anthony 32 Unconventional Case History 4 University of Wisconsin 36 Van Cliburn Foundation 38 Videorecord Corporation 38 Virtuoso listening 68 7 Waldrop, Gideon 14 Warburg, James P 33 Ward, Robert • 1 Y I Warren, Constance 28, 29 White, John D • • J? White, Michael 14, 57, 59, 120, 126 Whitehead, Alfred North 96 Whitehead, David 96 Willoughby, David 94, 97, 106, 110 Works Progress Administration 30 Yale Seminar 10 Young Composers Beglarian, Grant 15 Cervone, D. Donald 15 Chance, John Barnes 15 Coker, William Wilson 15 Diemer, Emma Lou 15 Frackenpohl, Arthur R 15 Freed, Arnold 15 Jenkins, Joseph W 15 Jenni, Donald Martin 15 Kurtz, James L 15 Lane, Richard B 15 LoPresti, Ronald B 15

PAGE 166

159 Young Composers ( cont ) Mailman, Martin * Muczynski, Robert S 15 Newman, Theodore S *$ Owen, Harold |~ Schickele, J. Peter 1 ^ Thomson, William Ennis 15 Washburn, Robert B J J White, Michael 15 Young Composers Project • • • • • 5, 13, 17, 18, 19, 57, 58, 60, 87, 89, 90, 91, 115, 116

PAGE 167

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of_Doctor ^Philosophy. \<%>&t* fr John D. WhiteT Chair 'rofessor of Music I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph Dr. Mai^aret E Professor of Curriculum ruction and. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. >*9 g 7MiM/ ^DrT Budd Udell Professor of Music I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, (q frTTZsM^ '277Dr. Camille Smith Assistant Professor of Music I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, a dissertation for the degree John W. G] 'Professor of Insi Curriculum n and

PAGE 168

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1988 j£,&L-. Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 169

^VERSITY OF FLORIDA