I
encourage you to watch the film "Copland Portrait" (described in my
article on Copland's cultural diplomacy activities) which you can find here. This is a USIA film and will help set you up for our presentation.
Secondly,
spend some time listening to the music of Charles Ives this weekend and
keep it in mind as you read the primary source article listed on the syllabus by Daryl Dayton, Music Advisor
of the US Information Agency during the 1970s. (Questions below)
Here is a small sampling of Ives's works.
Charles Ives playing his own Concord Sonata, 3rd movement - "The Alcotts". (1911-15; revised 1947):
One of Ives's most well-known orchestral works is The Unanswered Question (1906).
Listen out for three layers of music here: the strings represent "the
Silence of the Druids—who Know, See and Hear Nothing." The trumpet
then asks "The Perennial Question of Existence" and the woodwinds seek
"The Invisible Answer." Ultimately all that remains is the silence.
And
finally, one of his many songs. This is "The Things Our Fathers Loved,"
(1905) which features his characteristic mixture of musical nostalgia
and harmonic complexity. Within this song are quotes from a number of
old American songs, including "The Battle Cry of Freedom," "My Old
Kentucky Home," "On the Banks of the Wabash," "Come Thou Fount of Every
Blessing," and "In the Sweet By and By."
Given this repertoire, which of the reasons that Dayton describes in his articles for promoting Charles Ives above all other American composers through the USIA strike you as most significant and worthy of discussion? How can we contextualize them within the USIA's broader goals? How do Dayton's goals differ from those of the Music Advisory Panel who advised the State Department during the 1950s?
The music of Charles Ives represented a link between America past and America present. The themes present in his music evoke nostalgia for the open frontier, the fight for democracy, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the American Dream. Moreover, his story as an entrepreneur supported the capitalist ideal that hard work and dedication make it possible for any American to rise above their station to fulfill their dreams.
ReplyDeleteWhen Daryl Dayton was writing his note on the promotion of Charles Ives in 1975, these American ideals seemed further and further away from the present. The US population was coming to the realization that the American Dream was still not achievable for those born without the right ancestry, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or education. However, it was important for the USIA to continue selling the American Dream abroad, showing foreign nations that these things have always been possible in America, much like the attempts in prior decades to ameliorate foreign views of America’s race problems by promoting works such as "Porgy and Bess".
Dayton considered Ives the most “challenging” and “thought-provoking” American composer, the “cornerstone of the USIA music program.” Ives’s belief that music should say something was directly aligned with the philosophy of the USIA, albeit with some reinterpretation to meet its propagandistic aims. Audiences across the world had responded favorably to the ability of Ives to incorporate American folk traditions with a passion for human rights. In Dayton’s mind, Ives’s music “reflects the freedom from orthodoxy, the ability to think and act independently that have marked American developments in science, medicine or agriculture,” illustrating “American inventiveness.”
Dayton describes Charles Ives’ music as being evocative of the common man, equality and freedom- ideals that the U.S. identified with, and that other countries could also appreciate. Dayton mentions that Ives’ music and story paralleled the founding story of America. His success abroad, working outside of European ideals, provided hopeful evidence of the U.S.’s ability to function and flourish outside of European influence.
ReplyDeleteWhere in the 1950s, the goals of the Music Advisory Panel were to censor the music that would be heard abroad, Dayton was interested in promoting America’s freedom from conventions as represented in the controversial and innovative music of Ives, and those who followed him. In the 1950s, the panel was working to neutralize aspects that tied Ives to the Soviet Union, but by 1975, Dayton elevated these ideals as those that made Ives (and American culture in general) seem unique and sophisticated.
Charles Ives’ music helped set the stage for future 20th century composers. Ives’ music represented all the American ideals the USIA was interested in to help further propagate their agenda. Ives became a central character in the history of twentieth-century composition and the cultural marketing of the Cold War. By projecting Ives as a great American composer, he became internationally associated with the American ideals of freedom and independence. The USIA claimed Ives as a model of these American ideals, distributing his image, his scores, and his recordings, around the world. One of the USIA’s main objectives was to submit evidence to people in other nations that America’s aspirations for freedom, progress, and peace were legitimate.
ReplyDeleteIves’ music was filled with American hymn tunes and nineteenth-century popular songs. Ives’s works still maintained some sense of European tradition by using traditional European genres such as the symphony, sonata and art song. Yet his music also went against that tradition by incorporating techniques considered radical for the time, including tone clusters, microtones and polytonality. This showed the ability to think independently and showcased the inventiveness of American music, which is what the USIA wanted to promote. Dayton’s goals differed from the goals of the Music Advisory Panel in the 1950’s as the panel did not see value in the promotion of avant-garde musicians at this time. Despite having the same focus on high culture, avant-garde music was absent from the programs of the Music Advisory Panel in the 1950’s. Even the professional musicians that were on the panel at the time doubted the success of avant-garde music being used for propaganda abroad.
Charles Ives was a person who believed in hard work, integrity, and equal rights. He was known as one who defended the welfare of the “common man” and stood up for equality for everyone. As Dalton states in his article, “Ives’ music and life provide a convincing introduction to the fundamental ideas of American life.”
ReplyDeleteThe USIA promoted Ives’ music because it was first and foremost relatable to the audience. The USIA’s goals were to use influential people to both alter the image of the US as well as turn people towards the way of life in America. Since Ives was writing music that was both relatable (adaptations of folk songs etc) as well as modern in his use of extreme dissonance, tone clusters, multiple rhythms, and multiple tonalities, the USIA felt they could show how the American way of life was the reason for his great music. Ives’ music had the best of both worlds – relatable yet still innovative. I think the USIA capitalized on this since Ives was the image the USIA wanted to broadcast of a typical American excelling due to the intrinsic values of the US.
Dalton extols Ives' virtues by saying that he 'stands as a noble monument to American freedom,' and that in short, his life is emblematic of the American dream. As such, it seems that part of the reason for promoting Ives comes as much from who he is as a person as it does from his musical prowess. It is as if to say, in America, we have these great people, and when aspects of their life are in concert with American values, we in America have the perfect social climate for them to also produce great works of art. What is also interesting here is that Ives work was largely ignored during his lifetime, so it seems that he only became of musical use once his politics were also of propagandistic use.
ReplyDeleteMusically, "The Things Our Fathers Loved," might have been particularly useful for propaganda purposes as, while it is clearly situated within a broader American musical history through its inclusion of folk tunes, the way that it manipulates them is distinctly modern. Ives could then be seen to represent the freedom to use elements of the past in an idiosyncratic, individualistic and modern manner, totally in opposition to Soviet orthodoxy and formalism.
Similarly, the Concord Sonata at times resembles a Scott Joplin rag, while also charting a distinctly modernist path. Again, Ives' seems to be speaking a musical language that is related to that of other distinctly 'American' musics, while also representing a musical aesthetic unfettered by official controls.
Of the numerous reasons that Dayton presents for the prioritization of the music of Charles Ives in the USIA music program, I found the discussion of the artist as an individual to be the most compelling. In this piece, Dayton says that while foreign audiences were highly receptive to Ives’ music, “...they are more deeply moved by Ives, the man.” He discusses how Ives represented the image of an ideal American. That is, a figure that portrays qualities including freedom, independence, courage, and justice. Dayton discusses many aspects of Ives’ biography to demonstrate how his actions provide an “...introduction to the fundamental ideals of American life,” and I find the most convincing of these to be Ives’ life as a businessman. The author mentions that early on in the artist’s career, Ives decided not to use music as a profession and that he found financial success in business. This easily leads to an implication that his art was a product of freedom and inspiration, autonomous from commercial influence or need, and this is framed in a way to affirm the American character in his music. Indeed, there seems to be no other character better suited to represent Western capitalism than the American businessman.
ReplyDeleteIn this way, the USIA used Ives’ music as a medium to portray the ideal character of an American. Dayton discusses how this image of Ives was provoked in Europe by using materials to accompany his music including pictures, tapes, and books. In the chapter by Cull, he includes the 2 point mission statement of the USIA upon its formation in 1953. Point 2b. of this reads: “By depicting imaginatively the correlation between U.S. policies and the legitimate aspirations of other peoples in the world.” In relation to this part of the mission statement, there seems to be logic behind the use of Ives’ music and character in the USIA’s globals efforts. The portrayed freedom of his music, politically and aesthetically, reflects the U.S. government’s policies and foreigners should see, through the depiction of Ives’ character, how these policies manifest themselves positively in the life of people. Point 2d. of this mission statement similarly states that by displaying the American character, others will be able to understand the “...objectives of the Government of the United States.” In the context of these mission statements and the argument presented by Dayton, it appears that the goals of the USIA were diverse and many mediums were needed to achieve their ends. In the case of Charles Ives, the USIA realized this diverse methodology by promoting not only American art, but also the American artist.
Charles Ives’ music set the basis for American compositions of the twentieth century. Ives’ music was based on European traditions, using forms such as sonatas, symphonies, and arts songs. However, as Dayton states, “foreign musicians were amazed to learn that nearly all of those stylistic and technical features which mark music in the 1970’s such as extreme dissonance, micro-tunings, multiple rhythms and tonalities, tone clusters, improvisatory style, actually were already present in embryo in the music of Charles Ives more than 60 years ago.” By showing how Ives’ music included these radical elements over half a century prior to European composers adoption of these elements, promoters could show how American ideals such as freedom of speech and freedom to explore new ideas led to innovation and advancement in society.
ReplyDeleteThe USIA’s promotion of Charles Ives’ music differs slightly from the Music Advisory Panel’s (MAP) choice of musicians. While the MAP focused more on European music which was suppressed under communistic regimes, such as Bartok, Ravel, and Stravinsky, the USIA’s choice to promote a home-grown American composer such as Ives demonstrates that they wished to promote American ideals and innovations.
I believe that Dayton’s comment about the significance of “Ives, the man” and his “early decision not to use music as a profession” is worthy of discussion. As a successful businessman who was also a professional musician and composer, Ives embodied exactly the kind of freedom that the USIA was attempting to promote. He showed that life in America was so good that you could work a 9-5 and still feel the desire to work a second job on evenings and weekends. He was not bound by the same censorship and hardship that someone seeking a career as a composer would be. His welfare was not reliant on publications or performances and for that reason he was free to experiment in his music in any way that he chose. He prospered in the American capitalist system and that gave him the freedom to become a great musical pioneer.
ReplyDeleteDayton’s goals to promote American music in this way are similar to those of the Music Advisory Panel who advised the State Department in the 1950s in the sense that they were still attempting to show that America did not lack culture. By this time there seems to have been less question of whether they deserved recognition and more of an initiative to show that Americans were also capable pioneering new musical styles (and had been for a while). In the 1970s, the American government also seems to have begun to view the foreign perception of them as a “race of materialists” less as a negative attribute and more as a positive one. (Eisenhower letter) By choosing to use Ives, the man, a successful insurance salesman, who was religious, intellectual, and indeed delighted in such “diversions” as baseball and football, the USIA was advocating the notion that America had it all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFossler-Lussier has pointed out that the Music Advisory Panel was drawn from the elite of society; these elite members likely privileged European art music and wanted to portray America as an educated, “cultured” nation. As much as the State Department and the Music Advisory Panel wanted to select music that would represent America and its values, music composed in the European art music tradition was viewed as “the music that Europeans…would respect most” (Fosler-Lussier, 2008, p. 233). In particular, their dismissal of avant-garde music as “too esoteric” demonstrates their desire to win European approval. The Music Advisory Panel of the 1950s was likewise opposed to the promotion of popular music, which they believed would not enhance the perception of America as a nation with its own “high” culture.
ReplyDeleteThe USIA of the 1970s, on the other hand, appears to be much more concerned with promoting the kind of music that embodied core American core such as innovation and freedom (as in, the freedom to experiment), as well a respect for tradition. Daryl Dayton’s high praise of Charles Ives as the embodiment of American ideals and his promotion of Ives’ music through USIA cultural events is evidence of this attitude. It appears that the USIA (if we may generalize Dayton’s attitudes) was more concerned with advocating for the kind of music that set America apart, that made American music unique and special, rather than emphasizing common ground to promote their reputation abroad. Ives represents a juxtaposition of innovation and traditional values through his combination of modern compositional techniques like micro-tunings with traditional American vernacular music. As such, as Dayton asserted, he represented the best of what the USIA would like to promote and paved the way for other, more experimental American composers.
Dayton has found in Charles Ives, a home-grown American Artist that promotes not only American music but more importantly allows a separation from the dependance of American high culture on European music. His use of American folk-music blended with art music follows a similar trajectory as European artists like Bartok, but establishes an American music tradition that up until now had been seen as somewhat lacking because of its reliance on European music.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Music Advisory Panel was very concerned with the propagandistic value of the artists’ music, Dayton saw the value in Ives the man as a representation of the values of freedom and innovation in American culture. There was an honesty in Ives’ work ethic (music was not a profession) that had tremendous potential to transcend politics and speak directly to people on a personal level.
What is perhaps Daryl Dayton’s most astonishing reason for elevating Charles Ives above all other American composers through the USIA, is that Dayton believed many of the major experimental and avant-garde musical developments of the 1970’s—viz. “extreme dissonances…multiple rhythms and tonalities, tone clusters, [and] improvisatory style—were already present in Ives’ oeuvre some six decades earlier (albeit in a germinal state). This is astounding because it is true; and one would need only a brief look at Ives’ Concord Sonata, written in 1919, for confirmation of this claim. For example, notwithstanding the piece’s atonality that precedes that of Schoenberg (and in my opinion, advances that of Scriabin), Ives’ piano sonata includes: experimental orchestration (optional inclusion of a violin and flute in the first and last movements, respectively), neither time signatures nor bar lines that follow a regular metric pattern; and in the second movement particularly, it abounds with chromatic tone clusters and uses (what, perhaps, can be retroactively defined as) avant-garde techniques [1].
ReplyDeleteIves (and his music)—undeniably forward-looking, though dated by the time when Dayton wrote his article—exuded American “freedom” and individualism through his artistic innovation “outside the European musical mainstream.” Both of these qualities of “freedom” and individualism were very attractive to the USIA who sought to strongly link these virtues with America, and subsequently extoll them around the globe. These goals of the USIA differ from those of the Music Advisory Panel that advised the State Department in the 1950’s in that the latter was primarily concerned with dispelling the negative stereotype that the United States was culturally backward, and proving they could culturally stand on equal footing with Western Europe.
1. Ives calls for a fourteen and three-quarter inch piece of wood be used in the second movement to produce a chord cluster.
Charles Ives is a strategic choice on the part of Dayton and the USIA because of both his personal life and his music. Importantly, Dayton (87) notes that the "unorthodox features of American music" should be viewed (Dayton says "audiences overseas [...] quickly recognize" these features, lending it a more congratulatory sense, but I take what follows to be more prescriptive) not only from a technical standpoint, but "especially as a manifestation of the freedom of expression with which American artists are able to compose and work."
ReplyDeleteIves is unique for quietly introducing more innovative and experimental features to music, which Dayton suggests largely preceded the same advancements in music overseas. It is this "fact," coupled with Dayton's portrait of "Ives, the man [...] his personal credo based on Yankee precepts of work, honesty, and integrity, and by his early decision not to use music as a profession," that allows for an advocation based on an ideology of freedom. In America, Dayton argues, it is possible for musicians like Ives to explore music, and it is because of this that he was able to presage European advancements in music.