Enz_DMA Document - OhioLINK ETD Center

1

An Examination Of The Band Works Nominated For The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition And Factors Influencing The Likelihood A Band Work Will Win The

Grawemeyer Award

D.M.A. Document

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Musical Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Nicholas James Enz, M.M.

Graduate Program in Music

The Ohio State University

2015

Document Committee:

Dr. Russel C. Mikkelson, Advisor

Dr. Scott A. Jones

Dr. Daryl W. Kinney

Dr. Robert J. Ward

i

Copyright by Nicholas James Enz

2015

ii

ABSTRACT

A common way many fields or disciplines recognize outstanding work is with

competitions and awards. Recognized as one of the premiere prizes for composition, the

Grawemeyer Award, since its inception in 1985, has never been awarded to a

composition for band. Given that eminent composers such as Steven Stucky, John

Corigliano, and Michael Colgrass have written for band, it begs the question, why has a

band piece never won? The purpose of this study was to identify factors and barriers

influencing the likelihood that a composition for band may win a Grawemeyer Award.

Using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the following research questions

guided this study: (1) What pieces for band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award? (2) Is the lack of awards for band pieces due to a disparity in nominations? (3)

Are the best works for band being nominated for the Grawemeyer Award? (4) Are there

operational aspects of the Grawemeyer Award that may favor certain mediums over

others?

This study identified all band pieces that had been nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award from 1985 through 2015. This list was then compared to three datasets to assess

whether the best works for band had been nominated for the award: (1) pieces identified

in the Ostling (1978), Gilbert (1993), and Towner (2011) as having “serious artistic

merit,” (2) pieces that have won major band composition awards, and (3) band pieces by

iii

eminent composers that are popular, prolific, and in demand in other mediums. Data from

the League of American Orchestras were used to determine composers of eminence.

To examine the operations of the Grawemeyer Award, the study utilized a survey

of all individuals that have served as a juror since 2005. This study also utilized a one-on-

one phone interview with Dr. Marc Satterwhite, Chair of the Grawemeyer Award for

Music Composition. This interview was recorded and transcribed.

As a way to examine the wider music community’s perception of the band

medium, a survey of professional orchestral conductors was used to determine their

attitudes regarding programming pieces with nontraditional instrumentation.

Findings suggest that there are two reasons why a band composition has never

won a Grawemeyer Award: (1) few band works are being nominated and (2) the vast

majority band works that are being nominated do not represent the best compositions for

the band medium. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest any aspect of the

Grawemeyer Award’s operational process favors one medium over another.

iv

DEDICATION

To Lisa

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

James Procell, Interim Director at the Dwight Anderson Music Library at the University of Louisville, and Matthew Ertz, Music Cataloger at the Dwight Anderson Music Library at the University of Louisville, for all of assistance they provided in this project. Without them, this project would not have been possible.

Marc Satterwhite, Director of the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition, for

taking his time for an interview. Sean Ferguson, Assistant Librarian and Metadata/Technical Services at the

Music/Dance Library at The Ohio State University for his help in tracking down hard to find sources and translating electronic library search procedures into prose.

Bret, Michelle, and Miles Wazny for hosting me while I was conducting research

in Louisville. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Russel Mikkelson, Scott

Jones, Daryl Kinney, and Robert Ward, for their assistance and encouragement in not only this project, but throughout my time at Ohio State.

I would like to acknowledge Phil Day for his support and suggestions throughout

this project. Scott Jones for his endless support and guidance in helping me become a better

teacher, conductor, and person. I would especially like to thank my advisor, Russel Mikkelson, for the lasting

impact he has made in my life—musically and beyond. He is selfless in is teaching and music making. I am forever indebted to him for the unwavering support and mentorship he provided me.

vi

VITA

2003 ................................................... Bachelor of Arts in Music Education, Bethel College

2004-2012 ...................................... Director of Bands, Michigan Technological University

2004-2012 ............................................. Director of Jazz Band, Keweenaw Area Jazz Band

2011 ..................................... Master of Music in Conducting, Central Michigan University

2012-present ............................ Doctoral Conducting Associate, The Ohio State University

Publications

Enz, Nicholas J. “Teaching Music to the Non-Major: A Review of the Literature.” UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Education 32, no. 1 (November 1, 2013): 34–42.

Fields Of Study

Major Field: Music

Studies in Conducting: Professors Russel Mikkelson, Scott Jones, Robert Ward, Marshall Haddock

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ v VITA .................................................................................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Background ...................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 3 Purpose of Study .......................................................................................................................... 3 Need for the Study ....................................................................................................................... 4 Background and Review of Literature ......................................................................................... 7

A Brief History and Current State of Band Repertoire ........................................................... 7 The Best Works for Band ...................................................................................................... 13 Music Composition Awards .................................................................................................. 18

Overview of Remaining Chapters ............................................................................................. 23 Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 2: Identification of the Band Works Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award and an Examination of the Nominating Parties ................................................................ 25

The Nomination Process ............................................................................................................ 25 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 26 The Band Pieces Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award ........................................................ 29 Band Pieces Nominated Relative to Other Mediums ................................................................ 33 Who is Serving as the Nominator? ............................................................................................ 34 Who is Nominating Pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in Other Mediums and How Does This Compare to Those Doing the Nominating for Band Pieces? ..................................................... 38

CHAPTER 3: Are the Best Works for Band Being Nominated? ..................................... 40 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 41 Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic merit” being nominated? ................................................................................................................................. 43 Are works that have won major band composition awards being nominated? ......................... 46

The Ostwald Award .............................................................................................................. 46 The National Band Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band Composition Prize .... 48

viii

The Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize .................................................................. 51 Are band works by current eminent composers, who are recognized for their compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated for the Grawemeyer Award? .................................... 53

Popularity .............................................................................................................................. 53 Prolificness ............................................................................................................................ 56 Demand ................................................................................................................................. 57 Composers of Eminence ....................................................................................................... 58

How many of these eminent composer’s pieces for mediums other than band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award? ................................................................................... 65

CHAPTER 4: Operational Aspects Of The Grawemeyer Award And Selection Process 67 Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 67 The Grawemeyer Award Selection Process .............................................................................. 69 What criteria are used to select jurors? ...................................................................................... 71 What training/guidelines do the jurors receive? ........................................................................ 73 Who receives the call for nominations marketing? ................................................................... 73 Survey of Grawemeyer Jurors for This Study ........................................................................... 74

Survey Results: Musical Background of Jurors .................................................................... 74 Survey Results: Voting Patterns ............................................................................................ 76 Survey Results: Belief that Certain Mediums are Underrepresented in the Grawemeyer Collection .............................................................................................................................. 78 Survey Results: Belief that Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win a Grawemeyer Award than Others ............................................................................................................................ 79

CHAPTER 5: Summary of Findings, Conclusion, Suggestions for Further Research ..... 81 Restatement of Purpose and Research Questions ...................................................................... 81 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 82 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 88 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 91

Nominations .......................................................................................................................... 91 Commissions ......................................................................................................................... 92

Suggestions for Further Research .............................................................................................. 94 Final Thoughts ........................................................................................................................... 96

APPENDIX A: List of Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Winners ................ 97 APPENDIX B: List of Band Works in the Grawemeyer Collection ................................ 98 APPENDIX C: The Grawemeyer Collection’s Transition to a New Records System ... 100 APPENDIX D: Composer Data Collected for Chapter 3 ............................................... 102 APPENDIX E: Surveys and Interview Questions .......................................................... 110

Survey for 1st Round Jurors (Faculty) ..................................................................................... 110 Survey for 2nd Round Jurors .................................................................................................... 114 Survey for 3rd Round Jurors (Lay Jurors) ................................................................................ 117

APPENDIX F: Transcript from Phone Interview with Marc Satterwhite ...................... 122 APPENDIX G: Sample Nominating Letter from Publishing Company ......................... 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 130

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Band Pieces Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award ................................................................. 30 Figure 2.2: Number of Band Works Nominated Each Year Since 1985 ....................................................... 32 Figure 2.3: Number of Nominations for Each LC Subject ............................................................................ 33 Figure 2.4: Mean Number of Nominations Per Year Per Medium ................................................................ 34 Figure 2.5: Nominating Parties and Their Affiliation with Each Band Piece ............................................... 35 Figure 2.6: Percentage Of Works Nominated By Entities In Different Mediums ........................................ 38 Figure 2.7: Percentage Of Works Nominated By Entities In Different Mediums from 1989-2015 ............. 39 Figure 3.1: Pieces of Serious Artistic Merit Composed Between 1983-2007 ................................................ 45 Figure 3.2: List of Ostwald Award Winning Pieces Since 1983 .................................................................... 48 Figure 3.3: List of NBA/Revelli Award Winning Pieces Since 1983 ............................................................ 50 Figure 3.4: List of Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize Winners .................................................... 52 Figure 3.5: Number of Grawemeyer Award Nominations Identified in Figures 3.1-3.4 .............................. 52 Figure 3.6: Award-winning pieces still eligible for the 2017 Grawemeyer Award ....................................... 53 Figure 3.7: Composers Meeting The Criteria “Popular” ................................................................................ 55 Figure 3.8: Composers Meeting the Criteria for “Prolificness” ..................................................................... 57 Figure 3.9: Composers Having Two Or More Works Premiered By Group 1 Orchestras ............................ 58 Figure 3.10: Composers Meeting Criteria for 2 or More Categories ............................................................. 59 Figure 3.11: Number of intended premieres as reported the LAO Symphony magazine .............................. 60 Figure 3.12: List of Eminent Composers ....................................................................................................... 61 Figure 3.13: List of Band Works by Composers Labeled as “Eminent” ....................................................... 63 Figure 3.14: Number of Nominations in Other Mediums by Eminent Composers ....................................... 65 Figure 4.1: Response Rate for Juror Surveys ................................................................................................. 74 Figures 4.2: 1st Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College ..................................... 74 Figures 4.3: 2nd Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College .................................... 75 Figures 4.4: 3rd Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College .................................... 75 Figure 4.5: Lay Juror Musical Training ......................................................................................................... 75 Figure 4.6: Lay Juror Current Music Ensemble Participation ...................................................................... 76 Figure 4.7: Distribution of Lay Juror Desire to Hear Contemporary Music ................................................. 76 Figure 4.8: 1st Round: Percentage of Works Rated as a 1 ............................................................................. 77 Figure 4.9: 2st Round: Percentage of Works Rated Selected as Finalists ...................................................... 78 Figures 4.10: 1st Round Jurors: Belief That Mediums are Underrepresented ................................................ 79 Figures 4.11: 3rd Round Jurors: Belief That Mediums are Underrepresented ................................................ 79 Figures 4.12: 2nd Round Jurors: Belief That Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win the Grawemeyer Award ............................................................................................................................................................ 80 Figures 4.13: 3rd Round Jurors: Belief That Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win the Grawemeyer Award ............................................................................................................................................................ 80 Figure 5.1: Pieces identified in this study that are eligible for the 2017 Grawemeyer Award ...................... 92 Figure 5.2: Band Works Commissioned by Orchestras ................................................................................. 95 Figure B.1: List of Band Works in the Grawemeyer Collection .................................................................. 105 Figure D.1: Number of Times a Composer has had a composition appear on a “Most Frequently Performed Contemporary Work” list ............................................................................................................................. 109

x

Figure D.2: Composers with three or more unique pieces programed by orchestras in a single season ..... 112 Figure D.3: Number of times a composer had three or more pieces performed in a single season between 2006-07 and 2010-11 .................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure D.4: Composers with works premiered by a Group 1 orchestra from 2005-06 and 2010-11 ........... 114 Figure D.5: Composers meeting the criteria in at least one category ........................................................... 115

xi

DEFINITIONS

These definitions will be used to both (1) refine the selection of records that will

be compared in this study and (2) clarify terms that often have more than one meaning.

1. Band: For the purposes of this study, the term band will be defined by Ostling’s definition for band as modified by Gilbert (and clarified by Towner) with two changes1: (1) the number of violoncelli and basses will be limited to two or fewer2 and (2) Band works featuring another ensemble with band (e.g., string quartet and band, jazz band and wind ensemble) must have nine or fewer members in the featured ensemble. Therefore, the following criteria must be met for an ensemble to be considered a band:

1. A minimum of ten wind instruments and/or percussionists. 2. Mixed instrumentation, i.e. excluding brass choirs, woodwind choirs

and percussion ensembles. 3. Use of string instruments in the basic ensemble limited to two or fewer

violoncelli and/or string bass, or to solo parts for the violin and/or viola.

4. The use of a conductor. 5. Works that require another ensemble in addition to the band (e.g.,

chorus, orchestra, jazz band) must have nine or fewer members in the additional ensemble.

2. Genre: The type or category of musical work (e.g., opera, symphony, concerto,

song cycle)

3. Medium: The type or make-up of the ensemble performing the musical work (e.g., orchestra, woodwind quintet).

1 Clifford N. Towner, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according

to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Second Update” (D.M.A., The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2011), 10, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/882863386/abstract/E97ABBC6678F43C0PQ/9?accountid=9783.

2 This is due to a number of works written for orchestra without high strings (e.g., Wolfgang Rihm’s IN-SHCRIFT-II)

xii

4. Repertoire: The totality of works, roles, or parts known to have been written (or at

least available in print or for hire) for a given instrument, voice-type, or ensemble.3

3 Ian D. Bent and Stephen Blum, “Repertory,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music

Online. (Oxford University Press), accessed November 3, 2014, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/40606.

1

CHAPTER 1: Introduction, Purpose, and Background

Introduction

The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition is among the most prestigious

awards in the world that recognizes a single, new musical work. With a cash prize

significantly higher than other composition prizes, this annual award seeks to “incubate

powerful ideas” and recognize an “outstanding achievement by a living composer in a

large musical genre: choral, orchestral, chamber, electronic, song-cycle, dance, opera,

musical theater, extended solo work, etc.”4 Three panels of jurors—respectively

composed of faculty composers, professional musicians, and lay people—select the

winner and ensure the recipient represents values from the widest possible audience.5

Since its establishment in 1985, this award has been given to a musical work in a variety

of mediums including orchestra, opera, chamber ensemble, mixed-medium ensemble, and

unaccompanied piano. Interestingly, although the body of repertoire for band contains

4 Allan Dittmer, The Power of Ideas: The University of Louisville Grawemeyer

Awards in Music, Education, Religion, World Order and Psychology, vol. II (Louisville, KY: Butler Books, 2008), 7; Grawemeyer Music Award Committee, “2016 Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Entry Form” (University of Louisville, 2015), 1, http://grawemeyer.org/music/pdf_docs/music_application.pdf/at_download/file.

5 Allan Dittmer, The Power of Ideas: The University of Louisville Grawemeyer Awards in Music, Education, Religion, and World Order (Ashland, KY: Jesse Stuart Foundation, 2000), 64.

2

many significant works by prominent composers, a Grawemeyer Award has never been

awarded to a piece for band.

The selection process for the Grawemeyer Awards is unique and its transparency

provides strong potential for this study. Unlike many other awards, composers are not

allowed to nominate their own works for the award. Instead, each piece must be

nominated by “a professional musical organization or individual (performer or

performing group, conductor, critic, publisher, or head of a professional music school or

department).”6 Once a piece has been nominated, a file is created for that piece which

includes the nomination form, a letter of nomination, a copy of the full score, a recording

of the piece, evidence that the piece was premiered within the eligibility period7 (usually

a program from the premiere), program notes, photograph of composer, and biography of

composer. These files are available to the public at the Dwight Anderson Music Library

at University of Louisville.

After the nominations close, a three-round juried process is used to select a

winner. The first-round jury consists of composition faculty from the University of

Louisville. The second round consists of music professionals (typically the previous

winner, a conductor or professional musician, and a critic). The third round consists of

6 Grawemeyer Music Award Committee, “2016 Grawemeyer Award for Music

Composition Entry Form.”

7 A piece is eligible for period of five years after its premiere.

3

lay people who must not be professional musicians, but “regular concertgoers with a

particular interest in new music.”8

Statement of the Problem

Recognized as one of the premiere prizes for composition, the Grawemeyer

Award, since its inception in 1985, has never been awarded to a composition for band.

Given that eminent composers such as Steven Stucky, John Corigliano, and Michael

Colgrass have written for band, it begs the question, why has a band piece never won? Is

there some part of the selection process that is biased against band works; is the band

community itself guilty of not meeting the established criteria, or of not promoting its

own literature?

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to identify factors and barriers influencing the

likelihood that a composition for band may win a Grawemeyer Award. Specifically, this

study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. What pieces for band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award since its inception through 2015?

2. Is the lack of awards for band pieces due to a disparity in nominations? a. Are fewer band pieces nominated relative to other mediums? b. Who is nominating band pieces for the Grawemeyer Award? c. Who is nominating pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in other mediums

and how does this compare to those doing the nominating for band pieces? 3. Are the best works for band being nominated for the Grawemeyer Award?

8 Dittmer, The Power of Ideas, 2008, II:63.

4

a. Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic merit” being nominated?

b. Are works that have won major band composition awards being nominated?

c. Are band works by eminent composers, who are recognized for their compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated? How many of their works for other mediums have been nominated?

4. Are there operational aspects of the Grawemeyer Award that may favor certain mediums over others?

a. What criteria are used to select jurors? b. What training/guidelines do the jurors receive? c. Who receives the call for nominations marketing? d. What musical background do the jurors have? e. Of the pieces that jurors select to advance to the next round, what

mediums are represented? f. Do jurors believe any mediums are underrepresented in the Grawemeyer

Collection? g. Do jurors believe certain mediums are better suited to win the

Grawemeyer Award than others?

Need for the Study

There is little scholarly research on the Grawemeyer Award for Music

Composition. As composers, conductors, and critics have described this as one of the

most prestigious music composition awards in the world, it would be reasonable to expect

that this prize would receive more scrutiny and attention. However, beyond the three

books published by those closely associated with the administration of the award, there

have been no published studies on the Grawemeyer Music Award. Two of the books, The

Power of Ideas and The Power of Ideas II, are authored by Allan Dittmer, Executive

5

Director of Grawemeyer Awards.9 These books are historical accounts of the awards in

general and include personal accounts of friends and family of Charles Grawemeyer. The

third book is a print catalog of the all entries from 1985 through 2005. James Procell, the

head librarian who oversees the Grawemeyer Music Collection, is aware of no other

extant scholarly work on the archive.10

The band community frequently discusses the lack of recognition it receives from

the wider music community (see REVIEW OF LITERATURE SECTION below).11 This

study sought to provide insight into this lack of recognition. This issue is certainly

complex and cannot be completely explored in a single study. However, examining one

mechanism that the greater music community uses to recognize significant compositions,

the Grawemeyer Award, may identify factors influencing this perceived lack of

recognition.

This study provides a list of contemporary eminent composers who are writing for

band. This list can be used for further advocacy, including nominating eligible works for

the Grawemeyer Award and concert programming. Although many studies identify a few

9 The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition is one of five Grawemeyer

Awards. For a more detailed description of the awards see section THE GRAWEMEYER AWARD FOR MUSIC COMPOSITION on page 20)

10 James Procell, Phone interview, interview by Nicholas Enz, Phone, August 14, 2014.

11 Frank Battisti, The Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary American Wind Band/Ensemble and Its Conductor (Galesville, MD: Meredith Music, 2002); Frank L. Battisti, Winds of Change II The New Millennium: A Chronicle of the Continuing Evolution of the Contemporary American Wind Band/Ensemble (Galesville, MD: Meredith, 2012).

6

significant composers who have written for band, none of these studies attempt to

identify eminent, contemporary composers who have written for band based on frequency

of commissions, frequency of performances, and prolificness.12 The studies that do exist

are incomplete for two reasons: (1) The mechanism for recognizing composers and pieces

is limiting (e.g., the Pulitzer Prize is only given to Americans), and (2) The criteria used

to determine significance is either not defined, anecdotal in nature, or based on opinion.

This document will attempt to identify all eminent composers and their works for band

composed after 1983 (the first year a piece would have been eligible to be nominated for

the Grawemeyer Award).

There has been no study conducted to determine if the pieces the band community

considers to be the best pieces for band are being provided with the same opportunities

for recognition as other mediums.13 The Grawemeyer Award is one of the highest honors

a single piece of music can receive regardless of medium. If the best pieces for band are

being nominated for the award, then the lack of a winning piece may indicate that the

quality of band music is not up to the artistic level as other mediums or that there is

maybe a bias in the selection process. If the best pieces for band are not being nominated,

then it indicates the band community is not providing these pieces with the same

12 Defined as most number of unique pieces performed in a given year. This

criteria seeks to identify composers that consistently write high quality compositions, rather than a few pieces that receive a lot of performances.

13 “The best pieces for band” refers to those pieces that have won band composition awards or have been identified as a significant piece for band in published studies). See Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion.

7

opportunity for recognition as other mediums or the band community is not aware of the

award.

This study will also provide insight into one aspect of the band community’s

advocacy for its own recognition. Because the Grawemeyer Award requires someone

other than the composer to nominate a work, composers must depend on the band

community for nominations of band works. Identifying who has been nominating works

and who has not may provide the band community with a strategy for increasing the

number of future nominations.

Background and Review of Literature

This section of the document seeks to:

• provide information and historical context regarding the development of important wind band repertoire

• review extant literature that identifies the best works for band • provide a background and description of Grawemeyer Award for Music

Composition

A Brief History and Current State of Band Repertoire

Elevating the status of the wind band and its repertoire has been a concern of

individuals and professional band organizations for at least 200 years. The French

Revolution is considered by many to be the catalyst that gave rise to the development of

modern band.14 Since then, scholars and leaders in the wind band community frequently

14 Frank L. Battisti, The Twentieth Century American Wind Band/Ensemble:

History, Development and Literature, 1st ed., Sept. 1995 (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music, 1995); Frederick Fennell, Time and the Winds; A Short History of the Use of Wind Instruments in the Orchestra, Band and the Wind Ensemble (Kenosha, WI: G. Leblanc,

8

argue that improving the quality of the repertoire is fundamental to improving the

perception of the medium. For example, a note printed on the first page of Anton

Reicha’s Six Quintets for Wind Instruments, Op. 88, published in 1817, indicates a

perception that wind music is of a second-tier status and declares “the progress of

instruments depends more on composers than players.”15 This perception of second-tier

status was deemed “unfair” by the Donaueschingen Music Festival executive committee,

chaired by Paul Hindemith, and decided to promote the band medium at the 1926

Donaueschingen Music Festival.16

Following the Donaueschingen Music Festival, composers began taking an

interest in bands and between 1940 and 1970 a large number of prominent composers had

written pieces for the medium. These composers include Milhaud, Creston, Schoenberg,

Schuman, R. R. Bennett, Hanson, Persichetti, Husa, Schuller, Benson, Bassett, Copland,

and Hindemith.17 In 1946, Richard Franko Goldman wrote that “since 1940, writing for

band has assumed the proportions of a real movement.”18 Frank Battisti—Conductor

1954); David Whitwell, The History and Literature of the Wind Band and Wind Ensemble (Northridge, CA: Winds, 1982).

15 Anton Reicha, Six Quintets for Wind Instruments, Op. 88 (Bonn: N. Simrock, 1817), 2.

16 John C. Carmichael, “Wind Music and the 1926 Donaueschingen Music Festival,” in The Wind Band and Its Repertoire: Two Decades of Research as Published in the College Band Directors National Association Journal, ed. Michael Votta Jr. (Miami: Warner Bros. Publications, 2003), 144.

17 Battisti, The Winds of Change.

18 Richard Franko Goldman, The Concert Band (New York, Toronto: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1946), 199–200.

9

Emeritus of the New England Conservatory of Music Wind Ensemble, co-founder of the

World Association of Symphonic Bands and Ensembles (WASBE), past-president of the

College Band Director’s National Association (CBDNA) and author of numerous articles

and books on bands, wind repertoire, and education—agreed with Goldman and believed

this trend continues through the 1950s and 1960s.19

Between 1970 and 1999, concern was raised that the number of world-class

composers being commissioned to write band pieces was declining. In his 1981 address

to the CBDNA National Conference, Gunther Schuller, Pulitzer Prize winning composer

and wind band composer, warned “there are too many fine and/or famous composers that

have eluded your grasp… You need more of that kind of international world caliber

amongst composers in your repertory before the world will take you seriously, before a

critic from The New York Times or The New Yorker or the Detroit Free Press will look

into what you’re doing.”20 Ten years later, in an address to the 1991 WASBE Manchester

Conference, Schuller’s concern became more pointed: the wind band community needs to

“go even further in [the] commissioning of major works by the major composers of our

time” in order to eliminate the “notion that wind band music is music of a lesser stripe,

composed by lesser composers, and thus performed by lesser musicians.”21 Battisti wrote

that the number of commissions to distinguished composers declined considerably

19 Battisti, The Winds of Change, 62, 208.

20 Gunther Schuller, “Address at the CBDNA National Conference, February 13, 1981, Ann Arbor, MI,” CBDNA Journal, no. 5 (Winter 1988): 33.

21 Gunther Schuller, “Storm the Establishment,” WINDS 6 (Winter 1991): 9.

10

between 1990 and 1999, noting that no “international world-class composers” received

commissions for band pieces in 1997, 1998, or 1999.22 He then asserted that “the

commissioning of the best composers in the world be resumed immediately.”23

Evidence suggests these warnings and decrees have been met with action. In

recent years, scholars of the wind band have taken a more optimistic view of the quantity

and quality of band works. Battisti affirmed that the body of wind band repertoire greatly

increased between 2000 and 2010.24 He includes quotes from these distinguished

composers in his book Winds of Change II, which may suggest a more open dialogue

between composer and commissioning body. During this time period, Battisti noted that

the following world-class composers wrote works for band: Bolcom, Corigliano, Kernis,

Lindberg, Rands, Rouse, Skrowaczewski, and Del Tredici.25 He also believes the

increased number of pieces written for solo instrument with band accompaniment by

world-class composers is a positive development (e.g., Colgrass, Kernis, and Higdon).26

More to the point, Ray Cramer, Emeritus Director of Bands at Indiana University,

believes the new repertoire, especially the “many by Pulitzer Prize-winning composers,

have contributed not only to the wealth of our literature but most assuredly to a new level

22 Battisti, The Winds of Change, 176. Contrary to Battisti’s statement, this study

identifies two eminent composers that did receive commissions to write for band during this time period. See chapter 3 for this data.

23 Ibid.

24 Battisti, Winds of Change II The New Millennium, x.

25 Ibid., 153.

26 Ibid., 154.

11

of musical respect.”27 Michael Haithcock, Director of Bands at the University of

Michigan, believes “the success and number of performances of works by Rands,

Druckman, Husa, Stucky, and other prize-winning composers represent the growing

positive contributions of America’s best composers and stand as powerful examples for

other composers.”28 Following the 2005 CBDNA National Conference, Larry Livingston,

Director of Orchestras at the University of Southern California wrote,

It is abundantly clear that bands can play in Carnegie Hall, can meet the acid competency test, can commission and perform virtuoso pieces which would daunt and, as well, irritate the New York Philharmonics of the world, can manifest the same excellence which marks the best concerts given anywhere. It is also undeniable that virtually every living composer is now willing to accept an invitation to write for band, and not just for the lucre. The volcanic reaction of the audiences was more than home-boy backslapping. It was testimony by the NYC hard hats that we are not delusional when we imagine making some dent in the cultural landscape.29

To some degree, band repertoire is beginning to be recognized by world-class

orchestras and conductors. In 2000, Sir Simon Rattle, conductor of the Berlin

Philharmonic, premiered Magnus Lindberg’s Gran Duo for winds with the City of

Birmingham Symphony Orchestra. This performance received positive attention from

Andrew Clements, critic at The Observer/The Guardian, who called the piece a

“remarkable 20-minute movement for woodwind and brass.”30 In 2002, William

27 Battisti, The Winds of Change, 272.

28 Ibid., 275.

29 Larry Livingston, quoted in Jerry Junkin, “From the Podium,” CBDNA Report, Spring 2005, 1, http://www.cbdna.org/pdf/Report2005sp.pdf.

30 Andrew Clements, “Colourful Chorale,” The Guardian, March 10, 2000, sec. Global, http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/mar/10/artsfeatures1.

12

Schuman’s George Washington Bridge was performed by the San Francisco Symphony

with Michael Tilson Thomas conducting. Also that year, Kurt Masur, former conductor

of the New York Philharmonic, opened his farewell concert with Hemispheres, a piece

for large wind ensemble by Joseph Turrin. Masur commissioned Hemispheres and

requested that the work be exclusively for winds.31 This piece and performance received

attention from Justin Davidson (Newsday), Peter G. Davis (New York Magazine), and

Bernard Holland (New York Times) who described the piece as “nervous, loud, swift and

aggressive to the point of violence. It is also beautifully made, negotiating its constant

changes of speed and pulse with grace.”32 John Corigliano’s Circus Maximus was

performed by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra (Leonard Slatkin conducting), the

Baltimore Symphony Orchestra (Marin Alsop conducting), and it opened the 2007 Aspen

Music Festival with David Zinman conducting.33 Still, this acceptance is not universal. At

the 2005 CBDNA National Conference, Lorin Maazel, music director of the New York

Philharmonic from 2002 to 2009, “snubbed” the organization by not showing for a panel

discussion when he allegedly learned he would be talking with “band directors.”34

31 Joseph Turrin, “Hemispheres,” Joseph Turrin, 2002,

http://www.josephturrin.com/comp.works/hemis.html.

32 Bernard Holland, “MUSIC REVIEW; Cordial Notes Resound, As Tough Downbeats Fade,” The New York Times, June 1, 2002, sec. Arts, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/01/arts/music-review-cordial-notes-resound-as-tough-downbeats-fade.html.

33 Battisti, Winds of Change II The New Millennium, 157.

34 Junkin, “From the Podium,” 1; Battisti, Winds of Change II The New Millennium, 57.

13

While world-class composers and some conductors are attentive to bands and

band music, music critics give little attention to the band community. Steve Smith, music

critic for the New York Times, did cover both Alsop’s Circus Maximus performance in

2013 and the 2012 premiere of Mohammed Fairouz’s In the Shadow of No Towers by the

University of Kansas Wind Ensemble. The performances of band works by major

orchestras did receive some attention by critics (see above). However, despite Cramer’s

statement that music critics can no longer ignore “the wealth of material being written for

the wind band by leading composers” very few critics have paid attention to the band.35

The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this study, but anecdotal evidence suggests:

(1) a precedent has been established that tends to review only professional orchestras, (2)

lack of familiarity with bands and band music, (3) the vast majority of prominent bands

are university ensembles and there is a hesitancy to review student ensembles, and (4) an

opinion that bands are “education only” entities.

The Best Works for Band

A common way many fields or disciplines recognize outstanding work is with

competitions and awards. While there are numerous awards recognizing band

compositions, three awards are frequently cited by experts as the most significant awards

(e.g., Towner (2011) and Battisti (2012)). These awards are the Ostwald Award, the

National Band Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band Composition Contest, and


14

the Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize. A detailed description of each award and

the selection process is included in chapter 3.

One line of research has focused on identifying pieces the band community

believes to be the best works for the band medium. A frequently cited and replicated

study is Acton Ostling’s 1978 study, in which he attempted to define repertoire of

“serious artistic merit” for the college wind band.36 The study involved two phases. First,

312 conductors throughout the United States were surveyed and asked to nominate ten

wind band conductors who sought out and consistently programmed music of artistic

merit. Ostling then selected the twenty conductors that received the most nominations.

These conductors were then asked to evaluate 1,481 pieces of music for band using the

criteria that Ostling developed:

1. The composition has form—not ‘a form’ but form—and reflects a proper balance between repetition and contrast.

2. The composition reflects shape and design, and creates the impression of conscious choice and judicious arrangement on the part of the composer.

3. The composition reflects craftsmanship in orchestration, demonstrating a proper balance between transparent and tutti scoring, and also between solo and group colors.

4. The composition is sufficiently unpredictable to preclude an immediate grasp of its musical meaning.

5. The route through which the composition travels in initiating its musical tendencies and probable musical goals is not completely direct and obvious.

6. The composition is consistent in its quality throughout its length and in its various sections.

7. The composition is consistent in its style, reflecting a complete grasp of technical details, clearly conceived ideas, and avoids lapses into trivial, futile, or unsuitable passages.

8. The composition reflects ingenuity in its development, given the stylistic context in which it exists.

36 Ostling, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific

Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.”

15

9. The composition is genuine in idiom, and is not pretentious. 10. The composition reflects a musical validity which transcends factors of historical

importance, or factors of pedagogical usefulness.37

Of the 1,481 compositions, 314 were determined to have serious artistic merit.38

In 1993, Jay Gilbert replicated this study and included compositions in the list of music to

be evaluated that were written since the original Ostling study.39 In 2011, Towner

replicated the study to include new compositions since 1993. Towner then made the

recommendation that this study be repeated on a ten-year cycle and suggested that one of

the national band organizations assist with the process.40 A list of compositions identified

as having “serious artistic merit” that were composed between 1983 and 2007 are

included in Chapter 3.

A second line of research has focused on prize-winning composers writing for the

band medium.41 For example, Timothy Mahr’s DMA Document identifies all pieces

37 Ibid., 23–30. Ostling’s study includes a more detailed description of each

criterion.

38 Ostling, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.”

39 Jay Warren Gilbert, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Replication and Update” (D.M., Northwestern University, 1993), http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/304056841/abstract/E97ABBC6678F43C0PQ/15?accountid=9783.

40 Towner, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.”

41 One might critique the Ostling, Gilbert, and Towner studies as self-referential because the experts evaluating the band works were employed primarily as a band conductor. This is problematic because if the goal of the wind band community is to be widely recognized outside of the band community, a panel of wind band experts may not

16

composed for band by Pulitzer Prize winning composers from 1943-1992.42 However,

while Mahr’s document identifies important band pieces by Pulitzer Prize winning

composers composers, the document is almost twenty years old and many significant

commissions have occurred since that time.

Although studies that examine the repertoire of large mediums such as orchestra,

band, and choir do exist, few studies attempt to identify prominent living composers.

Most of these repertoire studies examine a specific niche of the repertoire (e.g.,

Venezuelan choral composers of the 20th century) or attempt to identify a core repertoire

for a particular time period. A study in 1990 by Price, Yarbrough, and Kinney compared

the opinions of 574 music theory and composition faculty regarding composer eminence

of living American composers with the frequency of performances of works by American

composers by 29 major American symphony orchestras during the 1985-86 concert

season. The study found a “moderate consensus regarding relative eminence of living

American composers when faculty and orchestra surveys were compared.”43 The

accurately represent the greater musical community. The studies that create lists of band pieces by eminent composers show evidence that these composers are writing for the band medium, however, these band works are often overshadowed by the composers’ other works. For example, Aaron Copland is widely known for Appalachian Spring, Rodeo, and Fanfare for the Common Man, however, little is known outside of the band community about his original band work Emblems or his band editions of An Outdoor Overture or Variations on a Shaker Melody.

42 Timothy Jon Mahr, “An Annotated Bibliography and Performance Commentary of the Works for Concert Band and Wind Orchestra by Composers Awarded the Pulitzer Prize in Music 1943-1992, and a List of Their Works” (DMA Document, University of Iowa, 1995).

43 Harry E. Price, Cornelia Yarbrough, and Michael Kinney, “Eminence of American Composers: University Faculty Attitudes and Symphony Orchestra

17

following seventeen composers appeared on both the faculty lists and performance lists

(an * indicates that this composer has written at least one work for band as of March 1,

2015):

Aaron Copland* Jacob Druckman* John Corigliano* Elliot Carter* Ned Rorem* Ellen Taaffe Zwilich* Leonard Bernstein Charles Wuorinen* Dominick Argento* Joseph Schwantner* Donald Erb* Bernard Rands* William Schuman* Lukas Foss* William Bolcom* George Rochberg* John Adams*

However, although there are many studies on band repertoire, many professionals

in the band community have expressed their concern that the band community is too

“self-referential” in their activities.44 For example, most studies involve asking band

conductors to evaluate pieces for band. A less self-referential approach would be to have

orchestra conductors evaluate pieces for band. Craig Kirchhoff, Director of Bands at the

University of Minnesota, agrees and believes that one long-term objective of the wind

band is to have its “concerts, repertoire, and artistic values critically reviewed by experts

using the same aesthetic standards that apply to the music of an Elliot Carter or a Pierre

Boulez.”45

Programming,” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 106 (October 1, 1990): 44.

44 Gary Hill, “From the Podium,” CBDNA Report, Spring 2004, 1, http://www.cbdna.org/pdf/Report2004sp.pdf.


18

Music Composition Awards

There are hundreds of awards for music composition with different focuses and

objectives. Under the entry AWARDS in Grove Music Online, Jane Gottlieb, Vice-

President for Library and Information Resources and author of the entry, lists over 130

awards deemed significant in all fields of music. Of these awards, thirty-five recognize

composers or compositions. Of these thirty-five awards, only one award recognizes a

single musical work and is open to everyone regardless of age, citizenship, medium, or

gender.46 This award is the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition. While other

awards are significant, they do not fit the criteria for this study because they are either too

narrow or broad in scope. For example, the Pulitzer Prize for Music is limited to U.S.

Citizens only. This eliminates important composers who are not U.S. citizens such

Thomas Adès, Pierre Boulez, Magnus Lindberg, Louis Andriessen, and Arvo Pärt.

Additionally, honors such as the Nemmers Prize, Ernst von Siemens Music Prize, Polar

Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Academy of Arts and

Letters recognize a body of work or “investment in a person’s originality, insight, and

potential” instead of a specific work.47

Although the act of commissioning and performing new works is an endeavor in

46 Jane Gottlieb, “Awards,” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online (Oxford

University Press, October 4, 2012), http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2227378?q=awards&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit.

47 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, “Our Strategy,” MacArthur Foundation, 2014, http://www.macfound.org/programs/fellows/strategy/.

19

which many individuals and organizations have participated, there has been little

published regarding how and if these new works have been brought to the attention of

important critics, ensembles, award committees, and audiences. Battisti writes that the

“wind bands/ensembles enjoy the interest and great respect of many of today’s great

composers. However, they do still not command the attention of the VIPs and media of

the wider musical world.”48 One way of garnering attention of these “VIPs” is winning

highly-anticipated awards (such as the Grawemeyer Award and Pulitzer Prize). Top

critics review the work, ensembles and conductors may consider the work for

performance, and audiences may be more likely to consider listening to this award-

winning composer or work.

A few studies focus on the Pulitzer Prize for Music and note that a band piece has

never won (Mahr 1995 and Bennefield 2012). Frank Battisti devotes an entire chapter of

his book, The Winds of Change, to the Pulitzer Prize in Music. In the chapter, he

identifies significant band pieces that were considered for the prize but never won and

significant band pieces that were never considered. Battisti expresses concern that

“though wind works considered to be excellent by the wind band/ensemble world have

been submitted for the prize, works for other mediums have always prevailed.”49 He asks:

“Do pieces perceived by band directors/conductors as masterpieces… not measure up to

the quality found in the broader repertoire of musical literature?”50 Battisti speculates that

48 Battisti, Winds of Change II The New Millennium, 157.


50 Ibid.

20

the data indicate that band pieces do not measure up because “works for other mediums

have always prevailed.”51 Unfortunately, the policies of the Pulitzer Prize limit us only to

speculation because all entries, application materials, and selection methodology remain

confidential, known only to a select few. However, the transparency of the nomination

and selection process for the Grawemeyer Award may provide valuable insights.

The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition

Dr. Allan Dittmer, Executive Director for the Grawemeyer Award has authored

two books that detail the history of the award and include accounts from Charles

Grawemeyer’s family and associates. A print version of the Grawemeyer Collection

catalog exists, but only contains entries from 1985-2005. The Grawemeyer Collection

catalog is indexed online and can be accessed through the Dwight Anderson Music

Library at the University of Louisville’s website.

The Grawemeyer Award for Composition is one of the most prestigious music

composition awards in the world given annually to a new piece of music “in a large

musical genre.”52 This award is the largest cash prize for a single music composition

varying from $100,000-$200,000. Since 1985, it has been awarded to some of the most

prominent composers in the world (e.g., Ligeti, Corigliano, Penderecki, Husa, Adams,

51 Ibid.

52 The University of Louisville and The Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, “The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition: Description,” The Grawemeyer Awards, 2009, http://grawemeyer.org/music/description.html. The description then lists examples: “choral, orchestral, chamber, electronic, song-cycle, dance, opera, musical theater, extended solo work and more.”

21

Takemitsu, Boulez, and Kernis). The list of all Grawemeyer Award Winners through

2015 can be found in Appendix A.

The award was established in 1983 by H. Charles Grawemeyer (1912-1993) with

a $9 million donation to the University of Louisville. Grawemeyer desired a way to

create worldwide recognition for individuals and their works. After extensive study of

many award programs, especially the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, Grawemeyer decided

that his award should recognize a “single powerful idea or creative work” rather than

lifetime achievement and the idea or creative work should “be accessible to a larger

audience.”53

The Grawemeyer Award is awarded in five areas: Music, Ideas Improving World

Order, Education, Religion, and Psychology. As Grawemeyer studied the Nobel Prizes,

he believed there were other fields worthy of recognition. The initial prize was awarded

in 1985 to composer Witold Lutoslawski for Symphony No. 3. In 1988, an award was

established for ideas improving world order, which focused on ideas that include both

peace and justice. In 1989 and 1990, the education and religion awards were established,

respectively. In 1999, six years after Grawemeyer’s death, the Grawemeyer Award in

Psychology was announced and first bestowed in 2001. This particular category was part

of Grawemeyer’s original plan for the award and named in his gift agreement to the

university.54

The choice to recognize five areas in the liberal arts was deliberate. In a 1989


54 Ibid., II:211.

22

luncheon address to the Rotary Club of Louisville, Grawemeyer discussed why he, as an

engineer, chose to recognize the liberal arts:

…our engineers must be educated to understand ethical implications of science achievements, and even help in seeing that they are contributing to man’s total life… our twentieth-century world has progressed so fast and so far in technical accomplishments, that there now exists a vital need to learn how these tremendous achievements in technology can be put to the best use for man’s total well-being.55

Composers, critics, music publishers and sellers, and record labels perceive the

music award as significant. Most, if not all, composers include this award in their

biography. Many, like Kernis and Corigliano, mention the award within the first two

sentences of their official biography.56 Ligeti, winner of the 1986 award for his Etudes for

Piano, calls the award “the most prestigious music prize in the world.”57 The third

volume in the Power of Ideas series by Dittmer will be released in summer of 2015. This

book focuses on how the award affected the lives and careers of the winners.58 Critics

such as Daniel J. Wakin, New York Times Deputy Editor of the Cultural Department,

also describes the Grawemeyer Award one of “the most prestigious in classical music"

and Shauna Snow of the Los Angeles Times writes it is “considered the top award in

55 Ibid., II:56.

56 John Corigliano, “Biography,” Website of John Corigliano, accessed August 3, 2014, http://www.johncorigliano.com/index.php?p=item5&q=1; Yale University, School of Music, “Biography: Aaron Jay Kernis,” Yale University, accessed August 3, 2014, http://music.yale.edu/faculty/kernis-aaron/.

57 Dittmer, The Power of Ideas, 2000, 76.

58 Marc Satterwhite, interview by Nicholas Enz, Phone Interview, March 3, 2015.

23

international music composition.”59 Publishers, sheet music vendors, and CD/Audio

sellers use awards that works have won to promote a piece or composer. For example,

J.W. Pepper, a sheet music distributor, identifies Joan Tower’s Silver Ladders as a

Grawemeyer Award winner.60

Overview of Remaining Chapters

The organization of this document is based on the research questions (presented

on pages 3-4). Chapter 2 will address questions 1 and 2. Chapter 3 and 4 will address

research questions 3 and 4, respectively. Chapter 5 will provide a summary and

interpretation of the results, recommendations for the band community and Grawemeyer

Awards Committee, and suggestions for further research. The research procedures

utilized to explore each question are detailed in each respective chapter.

59 Daniel J. Wakin, “Dutch Composer Wins Grawemeyer Award,” The New York

Times, November 28, 2010, sec. Arts / Music, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/arts/music/29arts-DUTCHCOMPOSE_BRF.html; Shauna Snow, “Arts And Entertainment Reports From The Times, News Services And The Nation’s Press.,” Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2000, http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/29/entertainment/ca-58503.

60 J.W. Pepper Sheet Music, “Silver Ladders (Full Score) by Joan Tower,” J.W. Pepper Sheet Music, accessed September 5, 2014, http://www.jwpepper.com/Silver-Ladders/7926215.item#.VBKBtkvlZAo.

24

Scope and Limitations

• This study includes the entire history of the Grawemeyer Collection through the

year 2015.

• The datasets used for comparisons in chapter 3 include only pieces written in or

after 1983 because this was the first year of eligibility for the Grawemeyer

Award.

• The League of American Orchestras data was limited to that available online at

the time of the study.

25

CHAPTER 2: Identification of the Band Works Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award and an Examination of the Nominating Parties

The purpose of this chapter is twofold: (1) Create a dataset of all pieces

nominated for the Grawemeyer Award that meet this study’s definition for band (see

DEFINITIONS section), and (2) Examine the parties nominating the band works for

comparison with other mediums. The dataset of all band pieces nominated for the award

will be used in subsequent chapters. This chapter also addresses the following research

questions:

1. What pieces for band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award since its inception through 2015?

2. Is the lack of awards for band pieces due to a disparity in nominations? a. Are fewer band pieces nominated relative to other mediums? b. Who is nominating band pieces for the Grawemeyer Award? c. Who is nominating pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in other mediums

and how does this compare to those doing the nominating for band pieces?

The Nomination Process

The Grawemeyer Award nomination and selection process was intentionally

designed to ensure the winning pieces would be held in high regard by the widest

audience possible.61 In order for a composition to be considered, it must be nominated by

“a professional musical organization or individual (performer or performing group,

61 Dittmer, The Power of Ideas, 2000, 64.

26

conductor, critic, publisher, or head of a professional music school or department).”62 A

few rules are noteworthy and relevant to this study: (1) “No more than one work of any

composer may be submitted” in a single year, (2) “entries from previous winners of this

award will not be considered,” (3) a piece is eligible for nomination up to five years after

its premiere, (4) “Works may be resubmitted during the period of eligibility.”63 Each

nomination must include the following materials to be complete:

• Entry form, with a signature of the nominating person or organization and a signature of the composer

• One bound copy of the score • One recording of the complete work • Documentation of premiere performance taking place within the eligibility period • Program notes (in English) • Letter of support from nominating person or organization (in English) • Biography of composer (in English) • Photograph of composer • $40 entry fee must accompany the application64

Procedures

To answer each of these questions, a dataset for each question was created and

used for comparison.

62 Grawemeyer Music Award Committee, “2016 Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Entry Form.”

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

27

Question 1: What pieces for band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award since its inception through 2015?

Question 1 was answered by creating a dataset of all pieces that have been

nominated for the Grawemeyer Award that meet the definition of a band work (see

DEFINTIONS section). The list of band works of the Grawemeyer Collection was

generated with the assistance of Matthew Ertz, Music Cataloger at the Dwight Anderson

Music Library at the University of Louisville. 65 To generate this list, a series of catalog

queries (“band,” “wind ensemble,” and “instrumental ensemble”) were performed in

Grawemeyer Collection, which includes every piece nominated for the award. Because

these queried terms are not specifically defined, each query required a examination of

each piece to ensure it met this study’s definition of band.66 Searching for “band” within

“subject” generated in 85 results. Because this search also includes mediums such as jazz

bands and mixed chorus with band, each record was examined to remove those works

that did not meet the definition of band. This pared the list down to 66 works, which is

approximately 97% of the final list. The second and third “subject” searches for “wind

ensemble” and “instrumental ensemble” generated 8 and 284 results, respectively. Again,

these results had to be examined to remove duplicates and those pieces that did not meet

65 Matthew Ertz to Nicholas Enz, “RE: Grawemeyer Collection Questions,”

March 11, 2015. This email from Ertz details the procedures used to generate this list.

66 The Library of Congress Subject Heading Manual discusses this issue in H 1917.5 (5)(a). In summary, “band” is considered large ensemble with more than one person per part and “wind ensemble” is considered a small ensemble with one person per part. “Instrumental ensemble” is often used to label an ensemble that does not have a standard instrumentation or includes instruments that might not traditionally be found that particular ensemble (e.g., band with ukulele, wind quintet and accordion).

28

the definition of band. This was most easily done by looking at the instrumentation field

and removing those pieces that included violin or viola as section, had less than 10

players, or included another ensemble (e.g., wind ensemble and chorus). Of the 292

results from “wind ensemble” and “instrumental ensemble,” two met the definition for

band and were added to the list, which brought the total works in the Grawemeyer

Collection that meet the definition of band to 68.67

A dataset was created that included the following information about each of the

68 pieces:

Composer Title of piece Year(s) nominated Commissioning body Nominating party* Relationship of nominating party to composer*

All of the information was extracted from the online catalog, except for the items marked

with an *, which was collected by examining the physical nomination files at the

University of Louisville.

Question 2a: Are fewer band pieces nominated relative to other mediums?

Question 2a was answered by performing a Library of Congress (LC) Subject

search on the Grawemeyer Collection and collecting data regarding the number of pieces

nominated for each medium. The number of pieces nominated for each medium were

then compared to the number of band pieces nominated.

67 As of July 2015, these search procedures will no longer work as the library is transitioning to a new records system. See Appendix C for a detailed explanation from Matthew Ertz, Music Cataloger at the Dwight Anderson Music Library.

29

Question 2b: Who is nominating band pieces for the Grawemeyer Award?

To answer Question 2b, a dataset was created by examining the files of each of

the band pieces in the Grawemeyer Collection and extracting the names and affiliation of

the parties nominating the work. It should be noted that composers cannot nominate

themselves.

Question 2c: Who is nominating pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in other mediums and how does this compare to those doing the nominating for band pieces?

To answer research Question 2c a statistical sampling of the Grawemeyer

Collection was used to estimate the number of people from each category (e.g., publisher,

conductor, critic) making nominations for other mediums identified in question 2a. Of the

3,457 nominations identified as orchestra, chorus, opera, and chamber music, a random

sampling of ten percent of the files (N=346) from each medium were examined. The

affiliation that the nominator had with the composer was recorded for each file. The

datasets created for questions 2b and 2c were then compared.

The Band Pieces Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award

Figure 2.1 below is a list of the band pieces nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award, the composer and the year nominated from 1985-2015.

30

Figure 2.1 – Band Pieces Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award Composer Title Nominated in

Andersson, Magnus Under Bron, Under Tiden 1994

Barsom, Paul Seventy Thousand Assyrians 2002

Beckel, Jim Glass Bead Game 2002

Blaha, Joseph Concerto 1993

Boone, Benjamin 9-11: Voices Echo 2007

Brant, Henry 500: Hidden Hemisphere 1993

Bryant, Steven Concerto for Wind Ensemble 2012

Yi, Chen Dragon Rhyme 2012

Colgrass, Michael Winds of Nagual 1986, 1989

Colgrass, Michael Arctic Dreams 1996

Colgrass, Michael Urban Requiem 1997, 1998, 2000

Deutsch, Herbert Transcendance 1933

Dutton, Brent Symphony No. 5 2007

Dzubay, David Shadow Dance 2008

Emerson, Ty Alan Five Pieces 2007

Fairouz, Mohammed Symphony No. 4 2015

Freund, Don Earthdance Concerto 2006

Gillingham, David Heroes, Lost and Fallen 1992

Gillingham, David Waking Angels 2000

Gillingham, David When Speaks The Signal-Trumpet Tone 2002

Hamburg, Jeff Violin Concerto No. 1 2012

Heisinger, Brent Concerto 1985

Holland, Anthony Tesla Tower 2002

Holsinger, David Deathtree 1990

Hutcheson, Jere T. Concerto for Piano and Wind Orchestra 1985

Hutcheson, Jere T. Caricatures 1998

Kechley, David Restless Birds Before the Dark Moon 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006

Kittelsen, Guttorm Concert Piece 1992

Langenhuysen, Niko Modiano 1990

Lorentzen, Bent Saxophone Concerto 1989

Lu, Pei Symphony No. 2 1996

Mailman, Martin For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Night

1990

Maslanka, David Symphony No. 5 2006

McLoskey, Lansing What We Do Is Secret 2015

continued

31

Composer Title Nominated in

Meij, Johan de Casanova 2002

Meister, Scott Feles Galactica 1985

Miereanu, Costin Voyage D'hiver II 1986

Mobberley, James Ascension 1990

Mogensen, Michael Aerial Fantasy 2008

Moravec, Paul Wind Symphony 2015

Morel, Francois Aux Couleurs du Ceil 1989, 1990

Márton, Eugen-Mihai Orchesterstück: für 22 Instrumentalisten 1985

Needham, Clint Fractured Elements 2014

Nelson, Ron Passacaglia 1994

Peterson, Wayne And The Winds Shall Blow 1996

Primosch, James Forms Of Light 2009

Rakowski, David Ten of a Kind 2004, 2006

Reale, Paul Columbus Concerto 1994

Reale, Paul Inferno 2005

Reed, Alfred Third Symphony 1989

Rindfleisch, Andrew The Light Fantastic 2003

Rosenhaus, Steve Symphony 2005

Scearce, J. Mark Canto IX 2000

Schmidt, William Concerto Of The Winds 1986

Sims, Ezra Concert Piece : For Viola With Flute, Clarinet, Violoncello, and Small Orchestra

1993

Skrowaczewski, Stanisław Music For Winds 2012

Taylor, Rowan Clarinet Concerto No.3 1996

Taylor, Rowan Horn Concerto No. 2 2001

Ter Schiphorst, Iris. Dislokationen 2013

Turrin, Joseph Hemispheres 2004, 2007

Turrin, Joseph Concertino 2013

Volans, Kevin Concerto 1998

Waignein, Andre Mir vu bausse gekuckt (Impressions Luxembourgeoises)

2002

Walczyk, Kevin Symphony No. 2 2012

Walden, Stanley Invisible Cities 1989

Wangerin, Mark Prelude And Fanfare 1993

Wilson, Curtis Concerto 2005

Zaimont, Judith Lang Concerto: Solar Traveller 2011

Figure 2.1: Continued

32

Of the 4,404 pieces that have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award since

the award was established in 1985, 68 pieces meet this study’s definition as a piece for

band. Figure 2.2 below indicates the number of band works nominated each year since

the award began in 1985. If a band work was nominated in more than one year, its

subsequent nominations were included in the chart. Note that there were no band works

nominated in 1987, 1988, 1995, and 2010.

Figure 2.2 – Number of Band Works Nominated Each Year Since 1985

The years 1999 and 2000 were combined in figure 2.2 because the award that would have

normally been given in the fall of 1999 was moved to the spring of 2000 at the request of

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999/2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015

33

the University of Louisville president, John Schumaker. The awards from then on have

been presented in the spring.

Band Pieces Nominated Relative to Other Mediums

The relatively few number of band compositions in the Grawemeyer Collection

raises the question: how well are other mediums are represented? An exhaustive search,

similar to the one performed for band works, could be performed for each medium.

However, such a search falls outside of the scope of this study and would greatly increase

the time needed for this study. Furthermore, an exhaustive search is unneeded to show a

disparity in the nominations. The results of a LC Subject search show a significant

disparity in the number of nominations. Figure 2.3 below identifies the number of

nominations categorized in each LC Subject.

Figure 2.3 - Number of Nominations for Each LC Subject

Medium LC Subject Search Term # of Nominations Band68 band 85 Orchestra orchestra 1044 Concerto69 concerto? 769 Symphony69 symphon? NOT orchest? 287 Chorus chorus? 415 Opera opera? 438 Chamber duet? trio? quartet? quintet? sextet? septet?

octet? nonet? 504

Total 3542

68 As described above, this number has to be reduced because not all pieces that

are labeled band meet this study’s definition of band (e.g., brass band, jazz band).

69 While concerto and symphony are not mediums, they do receive their own LC Subject heading. The vast majority of these genres are for orchestra.

34

The nearly one-thousand compositions that are unaccounted for in Figure 2.3 are

predominately made up of music using electronic instruments, unaccompanied

instruments, untraditional instruments, or ensembles made up of the same instrument or

family (e.g., brass choir, flute choir). Figure 2.4 below identifies the mean number of

nominations per year for each category from 1985-2015:

Figure 2.4 – Mean Number of Nominations Per Year Per Medium Medium Mean number of nominations per year

Band70 2.3 Orchestra 70.0 Chorus 13.8 Opera 14.6 Chamber 16.8

The data in Figure 2.3 and 2.4 indicate a significant underrepresentation of band

music nominated for the award compared to other mediums.

Who is Serving as the Nominator?

Pieces must be nominated for the Grawemeyer Award by “a professional musical

organization or individual (performer or performing group, conductor, critic, publisher, or

head of a professional music school or department).”71 Because the composer cannot

nominate the piece him or herself, the responsibility of nominating the award is placed on

70 The actually number of band works (68) is used for this comparison.

71 Grawemeyer Music Award Committee, “2016 Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Entry Form.”

35

members of the music community. Figure 2.5 below identifies the nominating parties and

their affiliation with the piece for each band piece nominated.

Figure 2.5 – Nominating Parties and Their Affiliation with Each Band Piece

Composer Title Nominating Party Nominating Party Affiliation Andersson, Magnus Under Bron, Under

Tiden Jonas Klingberg Chairman of the Board: Stockholms

Parvagsmans Musikkar

Barsom, Paul Seventy Thousand Assyrians

Richard D. Green Director of the School of Music at Penn State

Beckel, Jim Glass Bead Game Patricia Collins Jones

Dean of the School of Music at DePauw University

Blaha, Joseph Concerto William Wakefield Conductor of Symphonic Winds at University of Oklahoma

Boone, Benjamin 9-11: Voices Echo Matthew Darling Chair of Music Department at California State Fresno

Brant, Henry 500: Hidden Hemisphere

Jenneth S. Webster Associate Director of Programming at Lincoln Center

Bryant, Steven Concerto for Wind Ensemble

Jerry Junkin Director of Bands at UT-Austin

Yi, Chen Dragon Rhyme Glen Adsit Director of Bands at The Hartt School

Colgrass, Michael Winds of Nagual Frank Battisti Director of Wind Ensemble at NEC

Colgrass, Michael Arctic Dreams Frank Battisti Director of Wind Ensemble at NEC

Colgrass, Michael Urban Requiem Conchita Ramos Senior Staff Assistant University Bands at University of Miami

Deutsch, Herbert Transcendance Peter Boonshaft Director of Bands at Hofstra University

Dutton, Brent Symphony No. 5 Harold Warman Director of Instrumental Ensembles at San Diego State University

Dzubay, David Shadow Dance John R. Locke Director of Bands at UNC-Greensboro

Emerson, Ty Alan Five Pieces Harlan Parker Director of Bands at Peabody

Fairouz, Mohammed Symphony No. 4 Todd Vundernik Peermusic

Freund, Don Earthdance Concerto Ray Cramer Director of Bands at Indiana University and Department Chair

Gillingham, David Heroes, Lost and Fallen H. Owen Reed Composer

Gillingham, David Waking Angels Cort McClaren President of C. Alan

Gillingham, David When Speaks The Signal-Trumpet Tone

Fred Mills Professor of Trumpet and Chamber Music at University of Georgia

Hamburg, Jeff Violin Concerto No. 1 Morten Leth Jacobsen

Associate of Sonderjyllands Symfoniorkestester

continued

36

Composer Title Nominating Party Nominating Party Affiliation Heisinger, Brent Concerto NO FILE NO FILE

Holland, Anthony Tesla Tower Dwight Oltman Professor of Music at Baldwin Wallace and Director of Ballet San Jose Silicon Valley

Holsinger, David Deathtree Col. John Bourgeois Director of the Marine Band

Hutcheson, Jere T. Concerto for Piano and Wind Orchestra

NO FILE NO FILE

Hutcheson, Jere T. Caricatures James Forger Director of the MSU School of Music

Kechley, David Restless Birds Before the Dark Moon

Wayne Tice Principal Saxophonist of US Military Academy Band

Kittelsen, Guttorm Concert Piece Trevor J. Ford Head of Music, Norwegian Band Federation

Langenhuysen, Niko Modiano Muziekgroep "De Ereprijs"

Performing Group

Lorentzen, Bent Saxophone Concerto Scott Coplen VP of Edition Wilhilm Hansen

Lu, Pei Symphony No. 2 John Carmichael Director of Bands at Western Kentucky

Mailman, Martin For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Night

Elizabeth Ludwig Fennell

President of Ludwig Music

Maslanka, David Symphony No. 5 Barry O'Neal Director of Concert Music at Carl Fischer

McLoskey, Lansing What We Do Is Secret Eric Hewitt Professor of Saxophone and Music Director of Wind Ensemble and New Music Festival at Boston Conservatory

Meij, Johan de Casanova David Warble Music Director at Orange County Symphony, Disney-Grammy Symphony, and other orchestras...

Meister, Scott Feles Galactica NO FILE NO FILE

Miereanu, Costin Voyage D'hiver II NO FILE NO FILE

Mobberley, James Ascension Gary Hill Director of Bands at UMKC

Mogensen, Michael Aerial Fantasy Harlan Parker Director of Bands at Peabody

Moravec, Paul Wind Symphony David Waybright Director of Bands at the University of Florida

Morel, Francois Aux Couleurs Du Ceil Joel Pasquier Director of the School of Music at Laval University in Canada

Márton, Eugen-Mihai Orchesterstück : Für 22 Instrumentalisten

NO FILE NO FILE

Needham, Clint Fractured Elements Jack Sutte Trumpet of the Cleveland Orchestra

Nelson, Ron Passacaglia Eugene Corporon Director of Bands at CCM

Peterson, Wayne And The Winds Shall Blow

Stephen Fisher President of C. F. Peters


continued

37

Composer Title Nominating Party Nominating Party Affiliation Primosch, James Forms Of Light Christopher Kendall Dean of School of Music, Theatre, and Dance

at the University of Michigan

Rakowski, David Ten of a Kind Michael Colburn Director of President's Own Marine Band

Reale, Paul Columbus Concerto Thomas Lee Vice Chair, UCLA Department of Music

Reale, Paul Inferno Thomas Lee Vice Chair, UCLA Department of Music

Reed, Alfred Third Symphony James M. Bankhead Conductor USAF Band

Rindfleisch, Andrew The Light Fantastic Eric Ziolek Chair of Department of Music at Cleveland State University

Rosenhaus, Steve Symphony Donald H. Keller, Jr.

Director of US Navy Academy Band

Scearce, J. Mark Canto IX James Syler Editor/Publisher at J. Ballerbach Music

Schmidt, William Concerto Of The Winds NO FILE NO FILE

Sims, Ezra Concert Piece: For Viola With Flute, Clarinet, Violoncello, and Small Orchestra

NO FILE NO FILE

Skrowaczewski, Stanisław

Music For Winds George Sturm CEO of Boelke-Bomart, Inc. (Publisher)

Taylor, Rowan Clarinet Concerto No.3 Stephen Piazza Chairman at Los Angeles Pierce College

Taylor, Rowan Horn Concerto No. 2 Carlyle Hume Chairperson at Los Angeles Pierce College

Ter Schiphorst, Iris. Dislokationen : Für Orchester Und Klavier (Verstärkt)

NO FILE NO FILE

Turrin, Joseph Hemispheres Cort McClaren President of C. Alan

Turrin, Joseph Concertino Phil Smith Principal trumpet of NY Philharmonic

Volans, Kevin Concerto Catherine Manners Head of Promotion at Chester Music

Waignein, Andre Mir Vu Bausse Gekuckt Unreadable signature of publisher

Representative of de Haske publications

Walczyk, Kevin Symphony No. 2 Danh T. Pham Special Projects Coordinator at Keveli Music (Publisher)

Walden, Stanley Invisible Cities Thomas Broido Director of Performance Promotion at Presser

Wangerin, Mark Prelude And Fanfare Robert F. Feller Director of Bands at Biola University Symphonic Winds

Wilson, Curtis Concerto Bobby R. Francis Director of Bands at TCU

Zaimont, Judith Lang Concerto: Solar Traveller

Harlan Parker Director of Bands at Peabody


38

Who is Nominating Pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in Other Mediums and How Does This Compare to Those Doing the Nominating for Band Pieces?

A random sample of 10% from each category in Figure 2.3 was taken and

relationship of the nominator to the composer was recorded (concerto and symphony

were included in orchestra – See footnote 68). Results from the sample are below in

Figure 2.6. All categories below are independent.

Figure 2.6 – Percentage Of Works Nominated By Entities In Different Mediums (actual numbers from sample in parentheses)

Con

duct

or

Publ

ishe

r

Hea

d of

Sch

ool o

r Pe

rfor

min

g O

rgan

izat

ion

Perf

orm

er

Cri

tic

Oth

er

No

Dat

a in

File

or

File

Mis

sing

Est

imat

ed #

of t

otal

no

min

atio

ns

Sam

ple

size

Band72 35.3% (24)

19.1% (13)

25.0% (17)

5.9% (4)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

14.7% (10) 68 68

Orchestra 9.5% (20)

36.2% (76)

31.0% (65)

3.8% (8)

1.0% (2)

2.9% (6)

15.7% (33) 2100 210

Choir 16.7% (7)

21.4% (9)

47.6% (20)

2.4% (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

11.9% (5) 415 42

Opera 4.8% (2)

21.4% (9)

45.2% (19)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

33.3% (14) 438 44

Chamber 0.0% (0)

30.0% (15)

32.0% (16)

12.0% (6)

2.0% (1)

2.0% (1)

22.4% (11) 504 50

Of note in the Figure above, the column labeled “No Data…” represents those

files that contained no data or were missing completely. From 1985 through 1988, a large

number of files are missing or incomplete. Neither Ertz nor Satterwhite know the precise

72 The data for band pieces nominated for the Grawemeyer Award are exact figures. All other mediums are estimates based on a statistical sampling.

39

reason for this, but Satterwhite suspects these files may have been lost or never created in

the early years of the award.73

Figure 2.7 below adjusts for these missing files by eliminating data from the

years 1985-1988.

Figure 2.7 – Percentage Of Works Nominated By Entities In Different Mediums from 1989-2015 (actual numbers from sample in parentheses)

Con

duct

or

Publ

ishe

r

Hea

d of

Sch

ool o

r Pe

rfor

min

g O

rgan

izat

ion

Perf

orm

er

Cri

tic

Oth

er

No

Dat

a in

File

or

File

Mis

sing

Adj

uste

d Sa

mpl

e si

ze

Band74 38.7% (17)

21.0% (13)

27.4% (17)

6.5% (4)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

6.5% (4) 62

Orchestra 10.3% (20)

38.7% (75)

33.5% (65)

4.1% (8)

1.0% (2)

3.1% (6)

9.3% (18) 194

Choir 18.4% (7)

23.7% (9)

52.6% (20)

2.6% (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

2.6% (1) 38

Opera 5.4% (2)

5.4% (2)

51.4% (19)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

37.8% (14) 37

Chamber 0.0% (0)

33.3% (15)

35.6% (16)

13.3% (6)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

13.3% (6) 45

Unlike other mediums, band music receives a significantly larger number of nominations

from conductors of ensembles than other mediums.

73 Marc Satterwhite, interview by Nicholas Enz, Phone Interview, March 24,

2015, transcript located in APPENDIX F of this document.

74 The data for band pieces nominated for the Grawemeyer Award are exact figures. All other mediums are estimates based on a random sampling.

40

CHAPTER 3: Are the Best Works for Band Being Nominated?

The purpose of this chapter is to identify whether the band works nominated for

the Grawemeyer Award represent the highest artistic quality of the medium. Two

methods that the band community uses to identify and recognize significant artistic

contributions to repertoire are (1) surveys of experts and (2) composition awards.

Additionally, a deliberate effort has been made to commission eminent composers, who

are recognized in other mediums, to write for band. As discussed in chapter 1, many

experts believe this commissioning agenda is a significant source for the best new works

for band. This chapter answers research questions 3a-c:

3. Are the Best Works for Band Being Nominated? a. Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic

merit” being nominated?75 b. Are works that have won major band composition awards being

nominated? c. Are band works by current eminent composers, who are recognized for

their compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated? How many of their works for other mediums have been nominated?

75 Ostling, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific

Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit”; Gilbert, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit”; Towner, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.”

41

Procedures

Question 3a and 3b were answered through two comparisons. Question 3a was

answered by comparing the list of band pieces nominated for the Grawemeyer Award

with a list of pieces that have been identified as having “serious artistic merit” in the

Ostling (1978), Gilbert (1993), and Towner (2011) studies. Question 3b was answered by

comparing the list of band pieces nominated for the Grawemeyer Award with lists of

award winning works for three highly regarded band composition prizes (the National

Band Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band Competition, The Ostwald Award,

and the Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize).

Question 3c: Are band works by current eminent composers, who are recognized for their compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated?

Question 3c was answered by first identifying eminent contemporary composers

that are recognized for their orchestral compositions. I examined three categories and

devised a set of criteria for each category to evaluate composers. These categories were:

(1) Popularity: defined as the number of works identified as a “most frequently

performed contemporary work” by the League of American Orchestras (LAO), (2)

Prolificness: defined as the number of different works of a composer being performed by

LAO members, and (3) Demand: defined as the number of world premieres of a

composer by Group 1 orchestras in the LAO.76 These three categories were chosen

76 League of American Orchestras, “ORR 2010-2011,” League of American

Orchestras, 2015, http://www.americanorchestras.org/knowledge-research-innovation/orr-survey/orr-current.html. Group 1 orchestras are those orchestras that the

42

because they represent three different aspects of composer recognition. After a ranking of

composers has been created for each category, each list was pared down to the top 20-35

composers.

Composers who are recognized for the orchestral compositions were chosen for

three reasons: (1) orchestra, like band, is an instrumental medium using more than ten

musicians (as defined by the Library of Congress Subject Heading Manual)77, (2) many

of the instruments that the band and orchestra mediums use are the same, and (3) over

half of the Grawemeyer Award winning compositions have been written for the

orchestral medium.

The LAO Orchestra Repertoire Report was chosen as the source of data for these

criteria. This choice was made for the following reasons: (1) this organization has the

most comprehensive source of such data in the world as it represents approximately 800

orchestras in the United States and Canada.78 The author is not aware of any other

organization in the world that collects this amount or these type of data on this many

different orchestras or other mediums. (3) The composers represented in the LAO reports

regularly appear in programs from other major symphony orchestras in the world. For

example, the Berlin Philharmonic premiered works by Thomas Adès (2007), Mark-

Anthony Turnage (2006), and Wolfgang Rihm (2013). The London Philharmonic

LAO has identified as having the largest annual operating and programming budgets relative to other LAO orchestras.

77 The Library of Congress Subject Heading Manual, Section H 1917.5.

78 League of American Orchestras, “About the League,” League of American Orchestras, 2015.

43

premiered four works by Mark-Anthony Turnage between 2005-10. To provide further

evidence, after the list of eminent composers was created, I examined past programs from

four major orchestras outside of the United States and found that between 2002 and 2011

all of the orchestras had either premiered or performed a piece by one of the composers

identified as eminent by this study.79

The data used were limited to what was available on the LAO website. The results

are not meant to be exhaustive. It is meant to be a snapshot that represents a brief period

of time. This snapshot can then be used for comparisons in this study.

Once this list of eminent composers was generated, a dataset was created that

identified all works for band by these composers. This dataset was compared to the list of

band works that had been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award.

Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic merit” being nominated?

NOTE: All charts in this chapter include only pieces written in or after 1983 because this was the first year of eligibility for the Grawemeyer Award.

The Ostling (1978), Gilbert (1993), and Towner (2011) studies have identified

works as having “serious artistic merit.”80 Because the studies sought to utilize the finest

conductors and educators in the band profession, the pieces identified in these studies are

79 These orchestras outside of the United States include: London Philharmonic,

London Symphony Orchestra, Berlin Philharmonic, and Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra.

80 Ostling, “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.”

44

generally agreed to a high degree of validity. Figure 3.1 below is a list of all works,

written between 1983 and 2007, identified as having “serious artistic merit” in either

Towner or Gilbert’s study.81 Items marked with an * indicates that the composition was

nominated for the Grawemeyer Award.

81 Because the Grawemeyer Award first began accepting nominations for pieces

written in 1983, only works written after 1983 have been included.

45

Figure 3.1 – Pieces of Serious Artistic Merit Composed Between 1983-2007 Composer Title Year Bassett, Leslie Concerto Grosso (for Brass Quintet, Wind and percussion

ensemble) 1983

Stockhausen, Karlheinz "Luzifer's Tanz" from Samstag aus Licht 1983 Husa, Karel Concertino for Piano and Wind Ensemble 1984 Françaix, Jean Hommage à l'ami Papageno 1984 Benson, Warren Wings 1984 Stucky, Steven Voyages 1984 Bennett, Richard Rodney Morning Music 1985 Colgrass, Michael Winds of Nagual* 1985 Harbison, John Music for 18 Winds 1986 Colgrass, Michael Déjà Vu (for four percussion soloists and wind ensemble) 1987 Druckman, Jacob "Engram" from Prism 1987 Benson, Warren Dawn's Early Light 1987 Mailman, Martin For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Nights* 1988 Schuller, Gunther On Winged Flight: A Divertimento for Band 1989 Torke, Michael Adjustable Wrench 1989 Colgrass, Michael Arctic Dreams* 1991 Harbison, John Three City Blocks 1991 Maw, Nicholas American Games 1991 Stucky, Steven Funeral Music for Queen Mary (after Purcell) 1992 Bennett, Richard Rodney Concerto for Trumpet and Wind Orchestra 1993 Maslanka, David Symphony No. 4 1993 Schwantner, Joseph Concerto for Percussion 1994 Stucky, Steven Fanfares and Arias 1994 Colgrass, Michael Urban Requiem 1995 Harbison, John Olympic Dances 1996 Lindberg, Magnus Gran Duo 2000 Rakowski, David Ten of a Kind (Symphony No. 2)* 2000 Del Tredici, David In Wartime 2003 Corigliano, John Circus Maximus: Symphony No. 3 for Large Wind Ensemble 2004 Botti, Susan Cosmosis 2005

Of these thirty works, four were nominated for the Grawemeyer Award. These

pieces are Arctic Dreams and Winds of Nagual by Michael Colgrass, For Precious

Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Nights by Martin Mailman, and Ten of a Kind by David

46

Rakowski. It is important to note that Circus Maximus by John Corigliano was not

eligible because Corigliano had already won the Grawemeyer Award in 1991.

Are works that have won major band composition awards being nominated?

Three awards recognizing new band compositions are frequently cited by experts

as being most significant (e.g., Towner (2011) and Battisti (2012)). These awards are the

Ostwald Award, the National Band Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band

Composition Contest, and the Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize.

The Ostwald Award

The American Bandmasters Association (ABA) and the John Philip Sousa

Foundation present the Ostwald Award annually. The award was established in 1955 and

first awarded in 1956 when the band uniform company, Uniforms by Ostwald (and later

MacMillan Ward-Ostwald), partnered with the ABA to recognize the best band

composition written in the preceding year.82 The period of eligibility has now been

expanded to three years.83 To select a winner from the nominations, an initial screening

committee, which is made up of both ABA and non-ABA members and chosen by the

82 Shawn David Vondran, “The Development of the Ostwald Award” (University

of Miami, 2009), 5–6, http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=oa_dissertations.

83 The American Bandmasters Association, “The American Bandmasters Association: Awards,” The American Bandmasters Association, February 4, 2015, http://americanbandmasters.org/awards/.

47

Chair of the Ostwald Award, listens to each piece and creates a pool of potential winners

to advance to an ABA subcommittee. From this pool, the ABA subcommittee selects

finalists for the award. In December at the Midwest Clinic, the ABA/Ostwald Award

Committee members vote to determine the winner. Currently, the award alternates

difficulty level requirements annually. For example, the 2014 Award recognized a grade

5 or 6 piece and the 2015 Award will recognize a grade 1-4 piece.84

The archives of the award are housed at the University of Maryland in the Special

Collections Repository at the Performing Arts Library. The prize amount for the 2014-15

award is $5,000. According to the ABA, the Ostwald Prize “is responsible for more new

band music than any other competition of its kind.”85 Only the winner is announced;

nominees and finalists remain confidential.

Figure 3.2 is a list of all pieces that have won the Ostwald Award since 1983. The

list of winning works were collected from the ABA website.86 Items marked with an *

indicates that the composition nominated for the Grawemeyer Award.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid.

86 The American Bandmasters Association, “ABA Awards,” The American Bandmasters Association, accessed March 1, 2015, http://americanbandmasters.org/awards/.

48

Figure 3.2 - List of Ostwald Award Winning Pieces Since 1983 Composer Title Year Martin Mailman Exaltations 1983 James E. Curnow Symphonic Variants for Euphonium and Band 1984 Joseph H. Downing Symphony for Winds and Percussion 1985 David R. Holsinger In the Spring, at the Time When the Kings Go Off to War 1986 David Sartor Synergistic Parable 1987 Dana Wilson Piece of Mind 1988 Martin Mailman For Precious Friends His In Death's Dateless Night* 1989 Gregory Youtz Fire Works 1990 Timothy Mahr The Soaring Hawk 1991 Ron Nelson Passacaglia (Homage on B-A-C-H)* 1993 Anthony Iannaccone Sea Drift 1995 Dan Welcher Zion 1997 Donald Grantham Fantasy Variations 1999 Peter Graham Harrison's Dream 2002 John Mackey Redline Tango 2005 Michael Daugherty Raise the Roof 2007 John Mackey Aurora Awakes 2009 Yo Goto Songs for Wind Ensemble 2011 Michael Gandolfi Flourishes and Meditations 2012 Aaron Perrine Pale Blue on Deep 2013 Steven Bryant Concerto for Alto Saxophone 2014

Of the twenty-two works that have won the Ostwald Award since 1983, only two

pieces have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award, Passacaglia by Ron Nelson and

For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Nights by Martin Mailman.

The National Band Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band Composition Prize

The National Band Association (NBA) has awarded the National Band

Association William D. Revelli Memorial Band Composition Prize (referred to as the

NBA/Revelli Prize from here forward) since 1977. The award—named for the University

of Michigan Band Director, William D. Revelli—was set up to “further the cause of

49

quality literature for bands in America.”87 The NBA states that winning works should be

“of such nature that will allow bands to program them as part of their standard

repertoire.”88 The entries are evaluated and narrowed to list of six to ten finalists by a

committee of graduate students and band directors. A winner is selected at the Midwest

Band and Orchestra Clinic each December by a panel of public school, university, and

military band directors. Only the winner is announced.89

Figure 3.3 is a list of all NBA/Revelli Award-winning pieces since 1983. This list

was created using data from the NBA website.90 Items marked with an * indicate a

Grawemeyer Nominated Composition.

87 National Band Association, “About the NBA/Revelli Composition Contest,”

National Band Association, 2015, https://www.nationalbandassociation.org/contests/.

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

50

Figure 3.3 – List of NBA/Revelli Award Winning Pieces Since 1983. Composer Title Year Gregory Youtz Scherzo for a Bitter Moon 1983 Arthur Gottschalk Concerto for Wind and Percussion Orchestra 1984 Michael Colgrass Winds of Nagual* 1985 Anthony Iannaccone Apparitions for Symphonic Band 1987 Martin Mailman For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Nights* 1988 Gordon Ring Concerto for Piano, Winds, and Percussion 1989 Paul Epstein The Adventures of Matinee Concerto 1990 Mark Camphouse To Build a Fire 1991 Ron Nelson Passacaglia (Hommage to B-A-C-H)* 1992 James Syler The Hounds of Heaven 1993 Jeffrey Hass Lost in the Fun House 1994 Donald Grantham Bum's Rush 1995 Walter Mays Dreamcatcher 1996 Warren Benson The Drums of Summer 1997 Donald Grantham Fantasy Variations 1998 Donald Grantham Southern Harmony 1999 David Kechley Restless Birds Before the Dark Moon* 2000 Joseph Spaniola Escapade 2001 Dean Roush Illuminations 2002 David Dzubay Ra! 2003 Sam Hazo Perthshire Majesty 2003 Joseph Turrin Illuminations for Solo Trombone and Wind Symphony 2004 Philip Sparke Music of the Spheres 2005 Frank Ticheli Symphony No. 2 2006 Steven Bryant Radiant Joy 2007 Steven Bryant Suite Dreams 2008 John Mackey Aurora Awakes 2009 Steven Bryant Ecstatic Waters 2010 Scott Lindroth Passage 2011 Kevin Walczyk Epitaphs Unwritten 2011 Michael Schelle The End of the World 2012 Oliver Waespi Audivi Media Nocte 2013 Wayne Oquin Affirmation 2014

Of the 33 works that have won the NBA/Revelli Award since 1983, four have

been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award. These works are Winds of Nagual by

51

Michael Colgrass, For Precious Friends Hid in Death's Dateless Nights by Martin

Mailman, Passacaglia by Ron Nelson, and Restless Birds Before the Dark Moon by

David Kechley.

The Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize

The Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize (referred to as the Beeler Prize

from here forward) was established by the Ithaca College School of Music to “further

encourage the composition and performance of the highest quality wind band literature in

honor and memory of Ithaca College's renowned director of bands.”91 The award began

as a commissioning series in 1975 and transitioned into a bi-annual composition award in

1987. Unlike the previous two prizes, entries must be no longer than seven minutes in

length.92

Figure 3.4 is a list of all Beeler Prize winning pieces since it was established in

1987. This list was created using data from the Beeler Prize website.93

91 Ithaca College School of Music, “Beeler Memorial Composition Prize,” Ithaca

College, accessed February 4, 2015, http://www.ithaca.edu/music/ensembles/windensemble/beeler/.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

52

Figure 3.4 – List of Walter Beeler Memorial Composition Prize Winners Since 1983. Composer Title Year Paul Reale Moonrise, A Polonaise, Early Light 1987 Frank Ticheli Music for Winds and Percussion 1989 Warren Benson Adagietto 1992 Adam Gorb Metropolis 1994 Jeffrey Hass Lost in the Funhouse 1996 Evan Chambers Polka Nation 1998 David Dzubay Myaku 2000 Michael Djupstromm Homages 2002 John Mackey Redline Tango 2004 No Prize Awarded

2006

Kathryn Salfelder Cathedrals 2008 Jess Langston Turner Rumpelstilzchen 2010 Viet Cuong Sound and Smoke 2012

Of the twelve works that have won the Walter Beeler Memorial Composition

Prize since its inception in 1987, none have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award.

Figure 3.5 below is a summary of Figures 3.1-3.4, which identifies the number of

band compositions nominated for the Grawemeyer Award from each list created in this

chapter (i.e., Pieces of “serious artistic merit,” Ostwald Award-winners, NBA/Revelli

Award-winners, and Walter Beeler Memorial Prize-winner).

Figure 3.5 – Number of Grawemeyer Award Nominations Identified in Figures 3.1-3.4

# of Grawemeyer Nominations Identified as having “serious artistic merit” 4 Ostwald Award 2 NBA/Revelli Award 4 Walter Beeler Memorial Prize 0

Of the work discussed thus far in this chapter, figure 3.6 identifies the

compositions still eligible for the next Grawemeyer Award in 2017.

53

Figure 3.6 – Award-winning pieces still eligible for the 2017 Grawemeyer Award Composer Title Year Scott Lindroth Passage 2011 Kevin Walczyk Epitaphs Unwritten 2011 Yo Goto Songs for Wind Ensemble 2011 Viet Cuong Sound and Smoke 2012 Michael Schelle The End of the World 2012 Michael Gandolfi Flourishes and Meditations 2012 Oliver Waespi Audivi Media Nocte 2013 Aaron Perrine Pale Blue on Deep 2013 Wayne Oquin Affirmation 2014 Steven Bryant Concerto for Alto Saxophone 2014

Are band works by current eminent composers, who are recognized for their compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award?

The results for each category (Popularity, Prolificness, and Demand) are found

below. Included with each of the results is a brief description of the procedures.

Popularity

To determine the composers that have the highest number of performances of a

single work, the League of American Orchestras’ Orchestra Repertoire Reports were

examined for each season that data were available (2001-02 through 2010-11).94 In the

summary of each report is a list of the “most frequently performed contemporary works”

(defined as a work “written the past twenty-five years”).95 For this study, a composer is

94 League of American Orchestras, “Orchestra Repertoire Report Survey,” League

of American Orchestras, 2015, http://www.americanorchestras.org/knowledge-research-innovation/orr-survey.html.

95 League of American Orchestras, “ORR 2010-2011,” 8. Additionally, the name of the list has changed based on the number of works on the list. For example, the list is

54

credited for each appearance on a season’s list. If a composer has two or more different

works on a single list, the composer is credited with the number of different works on the

list. For example, during the 2009-10 season, Magnus Lindberg had two pieces appear

on the “Most Frequently Performed Contemporary Work” list. In this study he would be

credited with two pieces that year.

The criteria for the category of popularity was set at having more than the median

number of appearances on the “Most Frequently Performed Contemporary Work” list

(Mdn=1). Figure 3.7 below identifies composers with two or more appearances on the

“Most Frequently Performed Contemporary Work” lists between the 2001-02 and 2010-

11 seasons (For a list of all composers with one or more appearances see Figure D.1 in

APPENDIX D).

sometimes called “The 25 Most Frequently Performed…” or “The 20 Most Frequently Performed…”

55

Figure 3.7 – Composers Meeting The Criteria “Popular”

Name of Composer # of times a composer has had a composition appear on a “Most

Frequently Performed Contemporary…” list Adams, John 20 Corigliano, John 16 Higdon, Jennifer 14 Kernis, Aaron Jay 9 Golijov, Osvaldo 8 Harbison, John 6 Rouse, Christopher 6 Adès, Thomas 5 Knussen, Oliver 5 Sierra, Roberto 5 Theofanidis, Christopher 5 Daugherty, Michael 4 Marquez, Arturo 4 Pärt, Arvo 4 Tower, Joan 4 Davies, Peter Maxwell 3 Dutilleux, Henri 3 Ligeti, Gyorgy 3 Lindberg, Magnus 3 Meyer, Edgar 3 Bates, Mason 2 Bernstein, Leonard 2 Danielpour, Richard 2 Estacio, John 2 Glass, Philip 2 Hersch, Michael N. 2 MacMillian, James 2 Messiaen, Oliver 2 Saariaho, Kaija 2 Salonen, Esa-Pekka 2 Schwantner, Joseph 2 Thomas, Augusta Read 2 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 2

56

Prolificness

To determine prolificness, I examined the list of “Performances of Works

Composed within the Past 25 Years” for all orchestras found in each the League of

American Orchestras Orchestra Repertoire Reports.96 This list is published annually and

contains records of all works written within the last 25 years and the ensemble that

performed each work. These data were available for five years (2006-7 through 2010-11

seasons). To be considered a “prolific composer” for the purpose of this study, a

composer needed to have two or more seasons with three or more unique compositions

performed. Two or more was chosen as the break point because two was the median

number of seasons. All composers that appeared on two or more of these annual lists are

identified below in Figure 3.8 (for a list of all composers that had three or more works

performed in a single season see Figures D.2 and D.3 in APPENDIX D).

96 League of American Orchestras, “Orchestra Repertoire Report Survey.”

57

Figure 3.8 – Composers Meeting the Criteria for “Prolificness” Composers that had two or more seasons with three or more unique works performed (between 2006-07 and 2010-11)

# of seasons with three or more unique compositions performed

Adams, John 5 Golijov, Osvaldo 5 Higdon, Jennifer 5 Tower, Joan 5 Corigliano, John 4 Daugherty, Michael 4 Glass, Philip 4 Rouse, Christopher 4 Williams, John 4 Adés, Thomas 3 Danielpour, Richard 3 Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 O'Connor, Mark 3 Puts, Kevin 3 Takemitsu, Toru 3 Theofanidis, Christopher 3 Bolcom, William 2 Estacio, John 2 Frank, Gabriela Lena 2 Liebermann, Lowell 2 Lindberg, Magnus 2 MacMillan, James 2 Pärt, Arvo 2 Schwantner, Joseph 2 Sheng, Bright 2 Sierra, Roberto 2 Stucky, Steven 2 Torke, Michael 2

Demand

The demand for a composer to write new works can be measured by the number

of commissions he or she receives. To determine whom these significant composers

were, I examined the LAO Orchestra Repertoire Report and identified the composers

that received commissions from Group 1 orchestras. The LAO Orchestra Repertoire

Report identifies works that have been premiered during a single season. This dataset

encompassed the 2005-06 through 2010-11 concert seasons. To meet the criteria for

58

“Demand,” a composer must have had two or more works premiered by a Group 1

orchestra between the 2005-06 and 2010-11 seasons. Figure 3.9 below identifies these

composers (for a list of all composers with one or more works premiered by a Group 1

orchestra see Figure D.4 in APPENDIX D).

Figure 3.9 – Composers Having Two Or More Works Premiered By Group 1 Orchestras Composer Works Premiered Composer (continued) Works Premiered

Harbison, John 4 Frank, Gabriela Lena 2

Higdon, Jennifer 4 Glass, Philip 2

Hétu, Jacques 3 Kellogg, Daniel 2

Jones, Samuel 3 Lieberson, Peter 2

Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 MacDonald, Andrew Paul 2

Stock, David 3 Pound, Robert 2

Theofanidis, Christopher 3 Schuller, Gunther 2

Turnage, Mark-Anthony 3 Schwantner, Joseph 2

Tüür, Erkki-Sven 3 Sheng, Bright 2

Adams, John 2 Sierra, Roberto 2

Andriessen, Louis 2 Tovey, Bramwell 2

Carter, Elliot 2

Composers of Eminence

To be considered a composer of eminence for the purpose of this study, a

composer must have met the criteria for two of the three categories (Popularity,

Prolificness, and Demand). Figure 3.10 identifies the composers who have met the

criteria in at least two of the three categories (for a list of all composers that met the

criteria for at least one of the categories see Figure D.5 in APPENDIX D).

59

Figure 3.10 – Composers Meeting Criteria for 2 or More Categories Name of Composer Popularity Prolificness Demand Total Adams, John x x x 3 Glass, Philip x x x 3 Higdon, Jennifer x x x 3 Kernis, Aaron Jay x x x 3 Schwantner, Joseph x x x 3 Sierra, Roberto x x x 3 Adés, Thomas x x

2

Corigliano, John x x 2 Danielpour, Richard x x 2 Daugherty, Michael x x 2 Estacio, John x x 2 Frank, Gabriela Lena x x 2 Golijov, Osvaldo x x 2 Harbison, John x x 2 Lindberg, Magnus x x 2 MacMillan, James x x 2 Pärt, Arvo x x 2 Rouse, Christopher x x 2 Sheng, Bright x x 2 Theofanidis, Christopher x x 2 Tower, Joan x x 2 Tüür, Erkki-Sven x x 2

Additionally, in the LAO magazine entitled Symphony, the results of an annual

pre-season survey regarding the works to be premiered that season are published.

Because the data from this survey are based on what the orchestra intends to do as

opposed to what it actually does, the numbers differ from the LAO Orchestra Repertoire

Report Premieres list. These differences occur for a number of reasons. For example, a

premiere may be cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., The New York

Philharmonic postponed a concert in 2010 which included the premiere of a Voice, a

Messenger by Aaron Jay Kernis because of weather).97 Figure 3.11 identifies composers

97 Anthony Tommasini, “The Tried and the True Step in After the Storm,” The

New York Times, December 29, 2010, sec. Music, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/arts/music/30gilbert.html?_r=0.

60

that had four or more works that were intended to be premiered by Group 1 orchestras

between the 2002-03 and 2012-13 concert seasons.

Figure 3.11 – Number of intended premieres as reported the LAO Symphony magazine

Composer # of intended

premieres Higdon, Jennifer 11 Bates, Mason 8 Harbison, John 8 Lieberson, Peter 8 Sierra, Roberto 8 Knussen, Oliver 7 Lindberg, Magnus 7 Stucky, Steven 7 Thomas, Augusta Read 7 Adams, John 6 Carter, Elliot 6 Frank, Gabriela Lena 6 Rouse, Christopher 6 Gubaidulina, Sofia 5 Sheng, Bright 5 Skrowaczewski, Stanislaw 5 Corigliano, John 4 Daugherty, Michael 4 Hersch, Michael 4 Holland, Jonathan 4 Jones, Samuel 4 Kulesha, Gary 4 McTee, Cindy 4 Paulus, Stephen 4 Previn, André 4 Stock, David 4 Theofanidis, Christopher 4 Turnage, Mark-Anthony 4

Interestingly, if the data from Symphony magazine (which also includes wider

range of dates, 2002-03 through 2012-13) replace the Orchestra Repertoire Report the

results are nearly identical. Two composers would be added to the list of composers

identified in Figure 3.11 (Oliver Knussen and Steven Stucky). Because both the

Symphony magazine list of intended premieres and LAO report of actual premieres

61

produce such similar results and I consider the difference minor, Knussen and Stucky

were added to the list of composers identified in Figure 3.11 above.98 Figure 3.12 is a

final list of the composers that were identified as eminent using the procedures and

criteria above.

Figure 3.12 – List of Eminent Composers Adams, John Adés, Thomas Corigliano, John Danielpour, Richard Daugherty, Michael Estacio, John Frank, Gabriela Lena Glass, Philip Golijov, Osvaldo Harbison, John Higdon, Jennifer Kernis, Aaron Jay Knussen, Oliver Lindberg, Magnus MacMillan, James Pärt, Arvo Rouse, Christopher Schwantner, Joseph Sheng, Bright Sierra, Roberto Stucky, Steven Theofanidis, Christopher Tower, Joan Tüür, Erkki-Sven

98 Furthermore, Frank, Knussen, and Stucky each had at least one reported

premiere between 2005-06 and 2010-11 in the Orchestral Repertoire Reports.

62

Figure 3.13 is a list of all band works by the composers in Figure 3.12. This list

does include transcriptions of works originally for other medium, but only if transcribed

by the composer. Works marked with an * were composed for young or beginning band.

63

Figure 3.13 – List of Band Works by Composers Labeled as “Eminent”

Composer Title Year

Composed Adams, John Grand Pianola Music 1982 Corigliano, John Circus Maximus: Symphony No. 3 for Large Wind Ensemble 2004 Corigliano, John Gazebo Dances 1978 Danielpour, Richard Voice of the City 2005 Daugherty, Michael Alligator Alley* 2002 Daugherty, Michael Bells for Stokowski 2002 Daugherty, Michael Bizarro 1993 Daugherty, Michael Brooklyn Bridge for Solo Clarinet and Symphony Band 2005 Daugherty, Michael Dési 1991 Daugherty, Michael Ladder to the Moon 2006 Daugherty, Michael Lost Vegas 2011 Daugherty, Michael Niagara Falls 1997 Daugherty, Michael On the Air 2012 Daugherty, Michael Raise the Roof for Timpani and Symphonic Band 2007 Daugherty, Michael Red Cape Tango 1993 Daugherty, Michael Rosa Parks Boulevard 2001 Daugherty, Michael UFO 2000 Daugherty, Michael Vulcan 2014 Frank, Gabriela Lena Requiem for a Magical America: El Dia de los Muertos 1994 Harbison, John Music for 18 Winds 1986 Harbison, John Olympic Dances 1996 Harbison, John Three City Blocks 1991 Higdon, Jennifer Fanfare Ritmico 2000 Higdon, Jennifer Kelly's Field 2006 Higdon, Jennifer Mysterium 2011 Higdon, Jennifer Oboe Concerto 2008 Higdon, Jennifer Percussion Concerto 2009 Higdon, Jennifer Rhythm Stand* 2004 Higdon, Jennifer Road Stories 2010 Higdon, Jennifer Soprano Sax Concerto 2009 Higdon, Jennifer Wind Shear 2000 Kernis, Aaron Jay A Voice, a Messenger 2009 Knussen, Oliver Choral 1970-72 Lindberg, Magnus Gran Duo 2000 Lindberg, Magnus Zungenstimmen for wind orchestra 1994 MacMillan, James Sowetan Spring 1990 Rouse, Christopher Wolf Rounds 2006 Schwantner, Joseph ...and the mountains rising nowhere 1977 Schwantner, Joseph From a Dark Millennium 1980 Schwantner, Joseph In Evening's Stillness 1996 Schwantner, Joseph Recoil 2004 Schwantner, Joseph Sparrows 1979 Sheng, Bright La'i (Tibeban Love Songs) 2005

continued

64

Composer Title Year

Composed Sheng, Bright Shang Hai Overture 2010 Sierra, Roberto Diferencias for concert band 1997 Sierra, Roberto Rapsodia for solo trumpet & wind ensemble 1996 Stucky, Steven Fanfares and Arias 1994 Stucky, Steven Funeral Music for Queen Mary (after Purcell) 1992 Stucky, Steven Threnos 1988 Stucky, Steven Voyages (cello solo, wind ensemble) 1983-84 Stucky, Steven Concerto for Percussion and Wind Orchestra 2001 Stucky, Steven Hue and Cry, for wind ensemble 2006 Theofanidis, Christopher Etenraku 1996 Theofanidis, Christopher I wander the world in a dream of my own making 2005 Theofanidis, Christopher The Here and Now 2009 Theofanidis, Christopher Sweet Like That* 2011 Tower, Joan Fascinating Ribbons 2000 Tüür, Erikki-Sven In the Memory of Clear Water (1990) 1990

Nineteen of the 24 composers recognized for their compositions in the orchestral

medium, identified in this study as eminent, have written for the band medium. None of

the works on this list have been nominated for a Grawemeyer Award. Christopher

Theofanidis’ The Here and Now orchestral/chorus version was nominated in 2007 for the

Grawemeyer Award, but the band/chorus version was not. Of the works listed in Figure

3.12, the following works are still eligible for the Grawemeyer Award as of March 2015:

Vulcan (Daugherty), On the Air (Daugherty), Lost Vegas (Daugherty), Mysterium

(Higdon), and Sweet Like That (Theofanidis). As of March 2015, Arvo Pärt, John Estacio,

Philip Glass, Osvaldo Golijov, and Thomas Adés have not yet written for band.


65

How many of these eminent composer’s pieces for mediums other than band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award?

For the purpose of comparison, a COMPOSER NAME search was performed on

the Grawemeyer Catalog to identify the number of nominations in other mediums. The

results of this search are found below in figure 3.14.

Figure 3.14 – Number of Nominations in Other Mediums by Eminent Composers

Name of Composer

# of pieces nominated in

other mediums

Ban

d

Orc

hest

ra

Cho

ir

Ope

ra

Cha

mbe

r

Mix

ed M

ediu

m

Adams, John 3 3 Adés, Thomas 2 1 1 Corigliano, John 2 2 Danielpour, Richard 16 11 1 3 1 Estacio, John 1 1 Daugherty, Michael 6 6 Frank, Gabriela Lena 6 4 3 1 Glass, Philip 2 1 1 Golijov, Osvaldo 4 3 1 Harbison, John 15 9 1 1 4 Higdon, Jennifer 8 8 Kernis, Aaron Jay 9 7 2 Knussen, Oliver 4 4 Lindberg, Magnus 11 11 MacMillan, James 15 8 1 2 4 Pärt, Arvo 9 4 2 1 2 Rouse, Christopher 16 15 1 Schwantner, Joseph 10 9 1 Sheng, Bright 14 13 1 Sierra, Roberto 12 11 1 Stucky, Steven 12 11 1 Theofanidis, Christopher 7 5 2 Tower, Joan 2 2 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 3 2 1

66

This study identifies twenty-four eminent contemporary composers. Of these

twenty-four, fourteen have written 58 pieces for band collectively. Six have not written

for band at all. None of these composer’s band compositions have been nominated for the

Grawemeyer Award, however all of the twenty composers have had pieces nominated for

other mediums.

67

CHAPTER 4: Operational Aspects Of The Grawemeyer Award And Selection Process

The purpose of this chapter is to determine if there are operational aspects of the

Grawemeyer Award that may favor certain mediums over others. The chapter answers

research question 4:



mediums are represented? f. Do jurors believe a medium is underrepresented in the Grawemeyer



Procedures

Questions 4a-c were addressed with an interview with Dr. Marc Satterwhite,

Director of the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition. Once IRB approval was

obtained, Satterwhite was contacted to schedule a phone interview. This interview took

place on March 24, 2015 at 1:00pm. Satterwhite gave his verbal approval to have his

interview recorded and transcribed. He was allowed to decline to answer any question.

Satterwhite reviewed this document to confirm his quotes were accurate and used in the

correct context. A transcript of the interview can be found in APPENDIX F.

68

Questions 4d-g: d. What musical background do the jurors have? e. Of the pieces that jurors select to advance to the next round, what




Questions 4d-g were answered by surveying all people that have served as jurors

for the Grawemeyer Award that are still living. These survey questions gathered data

anonymously regarding attitudes and music experience of the three different panels jurors

(see APPENDIX E for the surveys):

1. Composition faculty at the University of Louisville that have served as jurors for the first round of Grawemeyer Award judging

2. Experts that have served as the jurors for the second round (usually a conductor, critic, and composer)

3. Lay people that have served as jurors for the third round of Grawemeyer Award judging.

The surveys were developed in consultation with music education research faculty

members. Face validity was established by basing the type and order of questions on

previous studies (Kinney 2001 and Bennefield 2012) and reviewed by music faculty,

undergraduate students, and graduate students.

Once IRB approval was obtained, jurors were emailed a link to the survey. Each

of the three panels received a different survey. All respondents were allowed to decline

any survey question.

69

The Grawemeyer Award Selection Process

After the nominations close, three panels of jurors are used to select a winner. In a

typical year, the committee receives 150-160 entries.99 All jurors are selected by the

Chair of the Music Award.100 The first panel of jurors consists of four composition

faculty from the University of Louisville. This panel of jurors screens all nominations and

rates each piece with a 1 (“a potential winner”), 2 (“a perfectly good piece, but not

necessarily of winning quality”), or 3 (“not of winning quality”).101 After each juror has

rated every piece, a “rank listing” of every piece is calculated mathematically.102 Marc

Satterwhite says that these jurors then meet again to determine “where to draw the line as

to how many pieces to send forward [to the next panel of jurors]. There is no fixed

number of entries that we send forward or no fixed percentage. It is what we think is the

strongest pool of potential winners.”103 In a typical year, Satterwhite states 12-16 pieces

(approximately 10% of nominations) advance to the second round.104

The second panel of jurors is “made up of three judges of international stature

with strong interest and knowledge in contemporary music; normally a composer, a

99 Marc Satterwhite, Radio Interview, interview by John Clare, Radio Broadcast - KPAC 88.3, November 11, 2011, http://kpac883.blogspot.com/2011/11/eps-wins-grawemeyer.html.

100 Ibid. Two people have held this position: Paul Brink (1985-2005) and Marc Satterwhite (2005-present).

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid.

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid.

70

conductor, and a critic. Each of these judges may pick up to three works as finalists.”105

Although these jurors begin with the list of pieces advanced from the first round, they

may “inspect any of the other compositions from the complete list.”106 These judges

make their selections at the University of Louisville, but never “meet as a group, or

consult with each other. Judges who come later are not informed of the earlier judges

choices until they have made their own.”107 The following guidelines are offered to this

panel of jurors:

A. Each of the works chosen must be worthy of the award. B. Each of the final works you select should hold promise of lasting value, e.g.,

of becoming a permanent addition to its repertory. C. Each should continue the tradition established by the previous winners,

representing the very best of current serious composition.108 Sattwerwhite says typically five to seven pieces advance to the third round.109

The third panel of jurors, consists of seven lay people who must not be

professional musicians, but “regular concertgoers with a particular interest in new

music.”110 Satterwhite writes: “Recordings of the chosen finalists are presented

anonymously to the members of the lay panel, along with program notes redacted to


106 Grawemeyer Award for Music Committee to 2nd Round Juror, Letter, (March 11, 1994), 1994 Winner File, Grawemeyer Collection.


108 Grawemeyer Award for Music Committee to 2nd Round Juror, March 11, 1994.

109 Satterwhite, Radio Interview.


71

remove references to the composers, performers, commissioners, etc.”111 Each juror then

ranks the finalists. Satterwhite then totals the rankings and “a winner emerges

arithmetically.”112

What criteria are used to select jurors?

This section is summary of the phone interview with Dr. Marc Satterwhite. For a complete transcript of the interview see APPENDIX F.

The first panel of jurors have always included the full-time composition faculty at

the University of Louisville. Currently, the first panel of jurors includes the three full-

time composition faculty and Dr. Frederick Speck, Director of Bands and Professor of

Music, who was on the composition faculty before becoming the Director of Bands.

The second panel of jurors is typically composed of a conductor, composer, and

critic. Satterwhite always offers the previous winner the opportunity to serve as one of

the jurors. Some choose to participate, others do not. All jurors on this panel should have

an international reputation. For the critic, Satterwhite looks for people that “are aware of

and write about new music a fair amount.”113 Similarly, Satterwhite looks for conductors

that frequently program contemporary music. He also tries to be “geographically

111 Ibid., II:62.

112 Ibid., II:63.

113 Satterwhite, interview, March 24, 2015.

72

diverse.”114 For example, he has brought in people to serve as jurors from Europe and

Mexico. Satterwhite has never had someone serve as a second round juror twice.

The third panel of jurors comes from a pool Satterwhite “inherited from Paul

Brink,” the previous chair of the Grawemeyer Award for Music. As people move away or

die, Satterwhite adds to the list. In finding new members for this group, he is “looking for

people that are regular concertgoers who have an interest in new music.”115 He defines

the “concertgoer” as “people who routinely attend classical music concerts of varying

kinds. Some are more into some kinds of classical music than others, but it's not unusual

to see any of them at the orchestra, opera, ballet, chamber music or student group

concerts.”116 Satterwhite describes this as “an interesting and very diverse group. Some of

them have had musical training, others have not… a couple have no formal music

background; they just really like contemporary music.”117

The first and third panels remain fairly stable as they are made up of the

composition faculty at the University of Louisville and a pool of lay people Satterwhite

has created.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid.

73

What training/guidelines do the jurors receive?


Satterwhite allows the jurors to make choices based largely on their own criteria.

The first and third panel of jurors receive no training or prompts before they make their

decision. The second panel of jurors are told to “look for works that are of the highest

quality musically” and “have the potential to enter the permanent repertory.”118 When

Satterwhite brings the second panel jurors to Louisville, he makes it a point to

“completely avoid talking about the pieces with them until after they have made their

choices.”119

Who receives the call for nominations marketing?


Satterwhite has a mailing list of about one-thousand publishers, recording

companies, music schools, and music organizations from around the world. Every entity

on this mailing list receives a flyer with the nomination form. He is constantly editing this

list to make certain it is as comprehensive as possible. The nomination form is also

available online.120

118 Ibid.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

74

Survey of Grawemeyer Jurors for This Study

Jurors were asked to complete a survey regarding their previous experiences with

music, general voting patterns, and attitudes towards different mediums represented by

the Grawemeyer Collection. All past jurors that are still living while Marc Satterwhite

was chair received surveys. The response rates to each survey are found below in figure

4.1. The three separate surveys can be found in APPENDIX E.

Figure 4.1 – Response Rate for Three Juror Surveys

# of

Sur

veys

Sen

t

# of

Com

plet

ed

Surv

eys

Res

pons

e R

ate

First Round 5 3 60.0%

Second Round 15 8 53.3%

Third Round 10 9 90.0%

Survey Results: Musical Background of Jurors

All jurors were asked questions regarding their musical background. Figures 4.2a-

c indicate in which ensembles jurors participated during high school and college.

Figure 4.2 – 1st Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College (n=3)

0 Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7+ Years Chamber Ensembles 2 Jurors Choir 1 Juror 1 Juror Concert/Band Wind Ensemble 1 Juror 2 Jurors Jazz Band 1 Juror 1 Juror Musical Theatre/Opera 1 Juror Orchestra 3 Jurors

75

Figure 4.3 – 2nd Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College (n=8) 0 Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7+ Years Chamber Ensembles 2 Jurors 1 Juror 1 Juror 2 Juror Choir 3 Jurors 3 Jurors 2 Jurors Concert/Band Wind Ensemble 4 Jurors 2 Jurors Jazz Band 4 Jurors Musical Theatre/Opera 3 Jurors 2 Jurors 1 Juror Orchestra 2 Jurors 3 Jurors 2 Juror

NOTE: All but one of the second round jurors had participated in at least two ensembles in high school and in college. Figure 4.4 – 3rd Round Jurors: Ensemble Participation in High School and College (n=9)

0 Years 1-3 Years 4-6 Years 7+ Years Chamber Ensembles 1 Juror 1 Juror 3 Jurors Choir 1 Juror 2 Jurors 1 Juror 4 Jurors Concert/Band Wind Ensemble 2 Jurors 1 Juror 2 Jurors Jazz Band 2 Jurors 1 Juror Musical Theatre/Opera 1 Juror 2 Jurors 2 Jurors Orchestra 3 Jurors 1 Juror

Members of the lay juror panel were also asked about musical training they

received as a high school or college student. The results from the lay juror panel are

below in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.5 – Lay Juror Musical Training (n=9)

# of Respondents Took Private Lessons 8 Had a Music Appreciation Course 6 Had a Music Theory Course 5 Had a Music History Course 6

The lay juror panel was also asked about community music groups of which they

are currently participating. The results from the lay juror panel are below in Figure 4.4.

76

Figure 4.6 – Lay Juror Current Music Ensemble Participation (n=9) # of Respondents Chamber Ensembles 3 Choir 4 Concert/Band Wind Ensemble 3 Folk/Ethnic Ensembles 2 Jazz/Rock Band 2 Orchestra 3

Members of the lay juror were also asked how great of a desire they had to hear a

contemporary piece performed by a professional-level ensemble on a scale from 0 to 10

(10 being the highest). The results from this question are below in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.7 – Distribution of Lay Juror Desire to Hear Contemporary Music (n=9)

Survey Results: Voting Patterns

Members of the first round were asked to estimate the percentage of works they

rate as a 1 for each medium since they began serving as a juror (1 is the highest rating in

this round). The results are below in figure 4.6.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

ber of Jurors

Desire to Hear Contemporary Music (10 being highest)

77

Figure 4.8 – 1st Round: Percentage of Works Rated as a 1 (n=3)121

Similarly, members of the second round were asked to estimate the percentage of

pieces they selected as finalists for each medium. The results are below in figure 4.7.

121 Figures 4.6 through 4.13 and layout of the surveys found in Appendix E are

provided with permission from SurveyMonkey™.

78

Figure 4.9 – 2st Round: Percentage of Works Rated Selected as Finalists (n=8)

Survey Results: Belief that Certain Mediums are Underrepresented in the Grawemeyer

Collection

Jurors 1 and 3 were asked if they believed there are any mediums

underrepresented in the Grawemeyer Collection. Each juror could select any number of

categories that he or she believed to be underrepresented. The results from each panel of

jurors is below in Figure 4.8a-b.

79

Figure 4.10 – 1st Round: Belief That Mediums are Underrepresented (n=3)

Figure 4.11 – 3rd Round: Belief That Mediums are Underrepresented (n=9)

Survey Results: Belief that Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win a Grawemeyer Award than Others

All jurors were asked if they believe there are mediums better suited than others

to win the Grawemeyer Award? If they did believe some mediums are better suited to

win, they were asked which mediums. All first round jurors responded that they “believe

all mediums are equally suited to win the award.” Figures 4.9a-b indicate the responses

80

from the second and third round of jurors. Two of the nine, respondents from the third

panel of jurors chose not to answer this question.

Figure 4.12 – 2nd Round: Belief Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win the Grawemeyer Award (n=8)

Figure 4.13 – 3rd Round: Belief Certain Mediums are Better Suited to Win the Grawemeyer Award (n=7)

81

CHAPTER 5: Summary of Findings, Conclusion, Suggestions for Further Research

Restatement of Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to identify factors and barriers influencing the

likelihood that a composition for band may win a Grawemeyer Award. More specifically,

this study sought to answer the following research questions:

1. What pieces for Band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award? 2. Is the lack of awards for band pieces due to a disparity in nominations?

a. Are fewer band pieces nominated relative to other mediums? b. Who is nominating band pieces for the Grawemeyer Award? c. Who is nominating pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in other mediums

and how does this compare to those doing the nominating for band pieces? 3. Are the Best Works for Band Being Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award?

a. Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic merit” being nominated?

b. Are works that have won major band composition awards being nominated?

c. Are band works by eminent composers, who are recognized for the compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated? How many of their works for other mediums have been nominated?






82

Summary of Findings

Question 1: What pieces for Band have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award?

Sixty-eight of the 4,404 compositions that have been nominated for the

Grawemeyer Award are band works.

Question 2a: Are fewer band pieces nominated relative to other mediums?

A fewer number of band compositions have been nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award than other mediums. Approximately 1.5% of the all nominated works were band

compositions. In comparison, orchestral works make up approximately 47.7% of the

nominated works, choral works make up 9.4%, operas make up 9.9%, and chamber

ensembles make up 11.4%.

Question 2b: Who is nominating band pieces for the Grawemeyer Award?

The majority of nominations come from conductors (38.7%), head of school or

performing organization (27.4%), and publishers (21.0%).

Question 2c: Who is nominating pieces for the Grawemeyer Award in other mediums and how does this compare to those doing the nominating for band pieces?

Unlike other mediums, band music receives over one-third of its nominations

from conductors. In no other medium do conductors nominate such a high percentage of

the works. Publishers are responsible for nominating over one-third of the works for

orchestra and chamber works compared to 21.0% of the works for band. Choral music,

83

operas, and chamber music also receive over one-third of their nominations from heads of

schools or performing arts organizations.

Summary of Question 2: Is the lack of awards for band pieces due to a disparity in nominations?

A fewer number of band compositions compared to other mediums are being

nominated for the Grawemeyer Award. The band medium is largely dependent on

conductors for the nominations. In contrast, publishers and heads of schools or

performing organizations nominate the works in other mediums.

Question 3a: Are works the band community has identified as having “serious artistic merit” being nominated?

Of the thirty works composed in or after 1983 that have been identified as having

“serious artistic merit,” only four have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award.

Question 3b: Are works that have won major band composition awards being nominated?

Of all pieces that have won the Ostwald Award, NBA/Revelli Award, or Walter

Beeler Memorial Prize, only four of these band compositions have been nominated for

the Grawemeyer Award. Winds of Nagual by Michael Colgrass was identified has having

“serious artistic merit” and won the NBA/Revelli Award. This work was nominated twice

for the Grawemeyer Award (1986 and 1989). Similarly, For Precious Friends Hid in

Death's Dateless Nights by Martin Mailman was identified as having “serious artistic

merit” and won the NBA/Revelli Award and the Ostwald Award. This piece was

84

nominated for the Grawemeyer Award in 1990. Ron Nelson’s Passacaglia won both the

NBA/Revelli Award and the Ostwald Award and was nominated for the Grawemeyer in

1994.

Question 3c: Are band works by eminent composers, who are recognized for the compositions in the orchestral medium, being nominated? How many of these eminent composers’ works for other mediums have been nominated?

Twenty-four composers, recognized for their works in the orchestral medium,

were identified as eminent in this study. All but five of these composers have written for

band. The nineteen eminent composers who have written for band have a combined total

of 58 works for band. None of these 58 works have been nominated for the Grawemeyer

Award. All of these composers have had compositions in other mediums nominated for

the Grawemeyer Award. Five of these composers identified as eminent have won the

Grawemeyer Award (Adams, Adés, Corigliano, Kernis, and Tower).

Summary of Question 3: Are the Best Works for Band Being Nominated for the Grawemeyer Award?

If the best band works are defined as those works that have met one of the follow

three criteria: (1) identified as having “serious artistic merit,” (2) won a major band

award, or (3) composed by an eminent composer, then few of the best works for band

have been nominated for the Grawemeyer Award. Of the 68 band works nominated for

the Grawemeyer Award only six (8.9%) have met at least one of the above criteria.

85

Question 4a: What criteria are used to select jurors?

All jurors are selected by the Chair of Grawemeyer Music Award. The first round

jurors are always the full-time composition faculty at the University of Louisville. Dr.

Frederick Speck, who was a member of composition faculty before becoming Director of

Bands also serves as a first round juror. The second round jurors consist of a conductor,

critic, and composer all of which have international reputation and be involved with

contemporary music. The third round jurors come from a pool of lay people who are

“regular concertgoers who have an interest in new music.”122 The group is diverse in

terms of musical background. The first and third panels of jurors the Grawemeyer Award

remain fairly stable as they are made up of the composition faculty at the University of

Louisville and a pool of lay people Satterwhite has created. Satterwhite has never had

someone serve as a second round juror twice.

Question 4b: What training/guidelines do the jurors receive?

Jurors make their decisions based on their own criteria. The second round jurors

are told to “look for works that are high quality musically” and “have the potential to

enter the permanent repertory.”123 Satterwhite purposely makes it a point to not influence

any of the jurors before they make their decision.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

86

Question 4c: Who receives the call for nominations marketing?

Satterwhite has a mailing list of about one-thousand publishers, recording

companies, music schools, and music organizations from around the world. Every entity

on this mailing list receives a flyer with the nomination form. He is consistently editing

this list to make certain it is as comprehensive as possible. The nomination form is also

available online.124

Question 4d: What musical background do the jurors have?

The survey of jurors indicated a wide variety of musical training and

participation. There does not seem to be an ensemble that jurors participated in more than

others, although no second round juror participated in a jazz band. The majority of the lay

jurors had taken private lessons and courses in music (e.g., music appreciation, music

theory, music history). The vast majority of lay jurors have a strong desire to hear at least

one contemporary piece of music at each professional-level concert.

Question 4e: Of the pieces that jurors select to advance to the next round, what mediums are represented?

The first round jurors’ responses suggest that, although a large number of works

receiving a 1 rating are for orchestra, chamber music and concert band/wind ensemble

pieces have also received 1 ratings. The second round jurors indicated that chamber

music, choral music, musical theatre/opera, or orchestral music are the mediums for

124 Ibid.

87

which they have voted. In other words, the second round jurors have not advanced a band

piece or a jazz band piece to the final round.

Question 4f: Do jurors believe a medium is underrepresented in the Grawemeyer Collection?

The majority of first and third round jurors believe that there are mediums

underrepresented in the Grawemeyer Collection. Two of the three first round jurors agree

that choir and band music are underrepresented in the collection. The third round jurors

are not in aligned in their view of underrepresentation, though the majority of jurors do

believe certain mediums are underrepresented (six believe there is a medium

unrepresented, two do not know if a medium is underrepresented, and one does not

believe there are any mediums underrepresented).

Question 4g: Do jurors believe certain mediums are better suited to win the Grawemeyer Award than others?

First round jurors agreed that all mediums are equally suited to win the award.

The majority of second round jurors agreed that all mediums are equally suited to win the

award. The third round of jurors were somewhat divided in their beliefs. Although many

of these third round jurors believe all mediums are equally suited, some do believe that

orchestral and chamber music may be better suited to win the Grawemeyer Award.

88

Summary of Question 4: Are there operational aspects of the Grawemeyer Award that may favor certain mediums over others?

This study finds no operational aspects of the Grawemeyer Award favoring

certain mediums over others. However, the fact remains that no band piece has advanced

beyond the second panel of jurors. The results of this study are inconclusive as to whether

or not this is due to the quality of band works nominated or a bias within the jury panels

or selection of the jurors. The majority of jurors of the Grawemeyer Award do perceive

band music as a suitable medium for winning the award. The first round of jurors, which

do evaluate every nomination, do believe that music for band is underrepresented in the

collection.

Conclusion

The findings in this investigation suggest that there are two fundamental reasons a

composition for band has never won a Grawemeyer Award:

1. Very few band works are being nominated 2. The vast majority band works that are being nominated do not represent the best

compositions for the band medium.

It is clear that the band medium is underrepresented in comparison to other

mediums nominated for the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition. Not only does

the data indicate an underrepresentation, but the first round jurors also recognize that

band medium is underrepresented. This is noteworthy because these are the jurors that

listen to and evaluate all entries to the Grawemeyer Award. Because composers cannot

nominate themselves, the band community must take the responsibility to nominate these

works if they are to be considered for the award. Conductors nominate a larger

89

percentage of band works than conductors do in other mediums. Major publishers will

often nominate a large number of their orchestral works because winning the

Grawemeyer Award boosts sales and performances of their music resulting in more

revenue (see APPENDIX F for a sample nomination letter from a publisher).

A number of possibilities exist for why there are so few quality band works

nominated for the award: (1) the large number of band composers that self-publish their

pieces minimize (if not eliminate) the possibility that a publisher would nominate the

work, (2) the consortium-commissioning model may create a diffusion of responsibility

amongst its members and no member steps forward to nominate the work, (3) the band

community may not be familiar with the award or the nomination process, and (4) it may

be that, as a whole, there is little desire in the band community for this type of

recognition.

This study finds little to no evidence that certain mediums are favored over others

in the selection process. It is interesting to note that jurors said they had no bias against

the band medium, but no band pieces advanced to the third panel of jurors. This may be

because the quality of the band works were not of the same quality as the quality of other

mediums or it may be that there is a bias in the second panel of jurors. This may be

worthy of further study. Overall, the majority of jurors believe that all mediums are

equally suited to win the Grawemeyer. A second-round juror that believes that orchestral

music and musical theatre/opera are more suited to win commented that,

In our U.S. classical music culture, we often put more prestige on orchestral and operatic works. This might be a bias from the listener/judge, or it might be that ambitious composers deliver their best works in those genres, resulting in a sort of feedback loop. From my perspective, as a judge, I tried to do all my listening

90

"pure," going first by gut reaction to the music -- did it move me? is it well crafted? etc. -- and only later did I try to piece together the composer's compositional techniques (if they were not obvious) and look at biographical info.125

Interestingly, the third-round jurors were somewhat divided in their belief that certain

mediums are better suited to win the Grawemeyer Award. Perhaps this belief is based on

fact that the majority of winning works have been operas or music for orchestras.

If a pattern of experience with the band medium is indicative of a favorable view

of band music as an artistic endeavor, then perceptions of jurors do not present any

barriers in the Grawemeyer Award selection process. Many, if not most, of the jurors

have had experience with the band medium. Three of four faculty that have served as first

round jurors have written many pieces for band (the one juror that has not specializes in

electro-acoustic/multimedia music). One of the first round jurors serves as the Director of

Bands at the University of Louisville. Many of the second and third round jurors have

participated in bands either in school or as a community member.

Because so few band works are being nominated and the works that are being

nominated are not recognized as representing the best quality for the medium, it is

difficult to determine if a band work would advance to the second or third round of

judging. The survey data indicate that first round of jurors have rated band compositions

as a 1 in the past, which means that there is a possibility that a band piece has advanced

beyond the first round. Satterwhite did confirm that a band piece has advanced to further

rounds.

125 Respondent #4, Factors Influencing the Selection Process of the Grawemeyer

Award: 2nd Round Jurors, Survey, March 18, 2015.

91

The study concludes that most important barrier to overcome is the nomination of

more band compositions that represent the highest artistic quality for the medium. There

is little evidence that indicates a negative bias exists in the administration or selection

process of the award. In fact, many of the jurors recognize an underrepresentation of band

music in the collection.

Recommendations

Findings from this study can prove beneficial to the band community in a number

of ways. Based on this study, I make the following recommendations to the band

community and suggest ways to carry out these recommendations.

Nominations

The band community should consider taking deliberate steps to nominate more

band works of the highest artistic quality for the Grawemeyer Award, if this type of

recognition is desired. As part of the commissioning process, consortiums or

commissioning ensembles could make it a point to nominate the work, especially those

works by eminent composers. Professional organizations like ABA or CBDNA could add

the nomination of works to their annual agenda. These organizations may consider

making it a point to nominate winners of the Ostwald Award, NBA/Revelli Award, and

Beeler Awards.

The band community should also engage the publishers of band music to

nominate works for the Grawemeyer Award. Publishers of orchestral and chamber music

find nominating works a worthwhile endeavor.

92

As a starting point, the pieces identified in this study that are eligible to be

nominated for the 2017 Grawemeyer Award are found in figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 – Pieces identified in this study that are eligible for the 2017 Grawemeyer Award

Composer Title Year Scott Lindroth Passage 2011 Kevin Walczyk Epitaphs Unwritten 2011 Yo Goto Songs for Wind Ensemble 2011 Michael Daugherty Lost Vegas 2011 Jennifer Higdon Mysterium 2011 Christopher Theofanidis Sweet Like That 2011 Viet Cuong Sound and Smoke 2012 Michael Schelle The End of the World 2012 Michael Gandolfi Flourishes and Meditations 2012 Michael Daugherty On the Air 2012 Oliver Waespi Audivi Media Nocte 2013 Aaron Perrine Pale Blue on Deep 2013 Wayne Oquin Affirmation 2014 Steven Bryant Concerto for Alto Saxophone 2014 Michael Daugherty Vulcan 2014

Commissions

The band community should not only seek to build its repertoire through the

commissioning of “internationally established, first rate composers” as Paul Creston,

Gunther Schuller, and Frank Battisti recommend, it should also seek to build its

repertoire through multiple commissions by the same composer.126 Just as choosing to

write a work for band demonstrates value in the medium, choosing to write multiple

works for band demonstrates sustained value in the medium. Many of these composers


93

identified in chapter 3 have written only one or two pieces for band. Commissioning

these composers, especially those with few or no works for band, not only builds the

repertoire by quality composers, it also adds an element of prolificness within the

medium. Therefore,

1. The following composers, identified in chapter 3, should be approached to write

their first piece for band: Arvo Pärt, John Estacio, Philip Glass, Osvaldo Golijov,

and Thomas Adés.

2. The following composers, identified in chapter 3, should be approached to write

their second or third piece for band: John Adams, John Corigliano, Richard

Danielpour, Gabriela Lena Frank, Aaron Jay Kernis, Oliver Knussen, Magnus

Lindberg, James MacMillan, Christopher Rouse, Bright Sheng, Roberto Sierra,

Joan Tower, and Erikki-Sven Tüür.

Commissioning of Composers That Have Not Yet Won an Award

The best composers that have not yet won a major award should be commissioned

to write for band. Many award-winning composers have written for band after they have

won a major award like the Grawemeyer Award (e.g., Corigliano and Kernis). Frank

Battisti encouraged the band community to commission the winners of the Pulitzer Prize

and Grawemeyer Award.127 Although commissioning award-winning composers to write

for band does lend credibility to the medium, these composers cannot win awards like the

Pulitzer Prize or Grawemeyer twice. By commissioning the best composers that have not

127 Ibid., 176.

94

yet won a major award, the band community can increase its chances of receiving

recognition by a band piece winning a major award.

Suggestions for Further Research

While not a primary focus of this study, I noticed a noteworthy disconnect

between pieces identified as having “serious artistic merit” and winners of major band

composition awards. From 1983 to the present, only one Ostwald-winning piece has been

identified as having serious artistic merit (Martin Mailman’s For Precious Friends Hid in

Death's Dateless Nights). Two NBA/Revelli Award-winning pieces have been identified

has having serious artistic merit (Martin Mailman’s For Precious Friends Hid in Death's

Dateless Nights and Winds of Nagual by Michael Colgrass). No Walter Beeler Memorial

award winning pieces have been identified as having serious artistic merit. This lack of

overlap may be a topic of further research.

In creating lists of band works by eminent composers, I was struck by the number

of pieces commissioned by orchestras that meet the definition of band. Of the works by

eminent composers identified in this study, the eight compositions in figure 5.2 were

commissioned by orchestras.

95

Figure 5.2 – Band Works Commissioned by Orchestras Composer Title Year Commissioned by Theofanidis, Christopher Etenraku 1996 National Symphony Orchestra Frank, Gabriela Lena Requiem for a Magical America:

El Dia de los Muertos 1994 Annapolis Symphony

Orchestra Higdon, Jennifer Fanfare Ritmico 2000 The Women’s Philharmonic Higdon, Jennifer Percussion Concerto 2009 The Philadelphia Orchestra,

The Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, and The Dallas

Symphony Orchestra Higdon, Jennifer Wind Shear 2000 Minnesota Orchestra Knussen, Oliver Choral 1970-72 American Symphony

Orchestra Lindberg, Magnus Gran Duo 2000 City of Birmingham

Symphony Orchestra Stucky, Steven Funeral Music for Queen Mary

(after Purcell)128 1991 Los Angeles Philharmonic

One of the motivations for this study was my desire to explore the perception of

band music in the wider music community. Another way of doing this would be to

modify the Ostling, Gilbert, and Towner studies to include orchestral conductors instead

of band conductors. This could also provide insight into the attitudes the wider music

community has toward band music.

The band community’s commissioning agenda has greatly increased the number

of available works that bands have to perform. However, it is the repeated performances

of works that establish a core repertoire.129 Research into which of these commissions

receive repeated performances could provide insight into the success of these

commissions and guide the commissioning of future works. For example, there may be a

correlation between particular instrumentation and repeated performances.

128 While not a commission, Stucky wrote this piece for the Los Angeles

Philharmonic at the suggestion of Esa-Pekka Salonen.


96

The League of American Orchestras Orchestral Repertoire Reports provided a

wealth of easily accessible information for study. These reports include data and statistics

on total number of concerts, performances of individual works, commissions, and

frequently performed works. Future repertoire studies on band music could be made

easier if CBDNA or another professional band organization would adopt a similar system

for data collection and presentation. Developing such a system might be worthwhile

venture.

In much of my early research, I found that important presentations, panels, and

speeches were rarely archived by CBDNA. For example, there was no transcript or

recording made of the roundtable discussion of national-level music critics regarding

concert music and bands at the 2005 National CBDNA convention. Technology has made

this task fairly simple and would aid many future researchers in a variety of topics.

Final Thoughts

Winning a Grawemeyer Award is not the ultimate indicator of a broader

acceptance of wind band repertoire. It is, however, a step towards a new level of

recognition that has not yet been achieved. As long as the best composers continue to

write for the bands, and the band community provides these composers with

opportunities for such recognition, the band medium will someday be recognized with a

Grawemeyer Award winning composition.

97

APPENDIX A: List of Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Winners Year Recipient Composition Medium

1985 Witold Lutoslawski Symphony No. 3 orchestra

1986 György Ligeti Études chamber (solo piano)

1987 Harrison Birtwistle The Mask of Orpheus opera

1988 not awarded

1989 Chinary Ung Inner Voices orchestra

1990 Joan Tower Silver Ladders orchestra

1991 John Corigliano Symphony No. 1 orchestra

1992 Krzysztof Penderecki Symphony No. 4 "Adagio" orchestra

1993 Karel Husa Concerto for Cello and Orchestra cello and orchestra

1994 Toru Takemitsu Fantasma/Cantos clarinet and orchestra

1995 John Adams Violin Concerto orchestra

1996 Ivan Tcherepnin Double Concerto for Violin, Cello and Orchestra

violin, cello and orchestra

1997 Simon Bainbridge Ad Ora Incerta – Four Orchestral Songs from Primo Levi

mezzo-soprano, bassoon and orchestra

1998 Tan Dun Marco Polo opera

1999 not awarded

2000 Thomas Adès Asyla, Op. 17 orchestra

2001 Pierre Boulez Sur Incises chamber

2002 Aaron Jay Kernis Colored Field cello and orchestra

2003 Kaija Saariaho L'amour de loin opera

2004 Unsuk Chin Violin Concerto orchestra

2005 George Tsontakis Violin Concerto No. 2 orchestra

2006 György Kurtág ...Concertante..., Op. 42 violin, viola and orchestra

2007 Sebastian Currier Static chamber

2008 Peter Lieberson Neruda Songs mezzo-soprano and orchestra

2009 Brett Dean The Lost Art of Letter Writing violin and orchestra

2010 York Höller Sphären orchestra

2011 Louis Andriessen La Commedia opera

2012 Esa-Pekka Salonen Violin Concerto orchestra

2013 Michel van der Aa Up-Close, Concerto cello, orchestra, and film

2014 Đuro Živković On the Guarding of the Heart orchestra

2015 Wolfgang Rihm In-Schrift 2 orchestra

98

APPENDIX B: List of Band Works in the Grawemeyer Collection

Com

pose

rT

itle

Nom

inat

ed in

Nom

inat

ing

Part

yN

omin

atin

g Pa

rty

Aff

iliat

ion

And

erss

on, M

agnu

sU

nder

Bro

n, U

nder

Tid

en19

94Jo

nas K

lingb

erg

Cha

irman

of t

he B

oard

: Sto

ckho

lms P

arva

gsm

ans M

usik

kar

Bar

som

, Pau

lSe

vent

y Th

ousa

nd A

ssyr

ians

2002

Ric

hard

D. G

reen

Dire

ctor

of t

he S

choo

l of M

usic

at P

enn

Stat

e

Bec

kel,

Jim

Gla

ss B

ead

Gam

e20

02Pa

trici

a C

ollin

s Jon

esD

ean

of th

e Sc

hool

of M

usic

at D

ePau

w U

nive

rsity

Bla

ha, J

osep

hC

once

rto

1993

Will

iam

Wak

efie

ldC

ondu

ctor

of S

ymph

onic

Win

ds a

t Uni

vers

ity o

f Okl

ahom

a

Boo

ne, B

enja

min

9-11

: Voi

ces E

cho

2007

Mat

thew

Dar

ling

Cha

ir of

Mus

ic D

epar

tmen

t at C

alifo

rnia

Sta

te F

resn

o

Bra

nt, H

enry

500:

Hid

den

Hem

isph

ere

1993

Jenn

eth

S. W

ebst

erA

ssoc

iate

Dire

ctor

of P

rogr

amm

ing

at L

inco

ln C

ente

r

Bry

ant,

Stev

enC

once

rto

for W

ind

Ense

mbl

e20

12Je

rry

Junk

inD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t UT

Aus

tin

Yi,

Che

nD

rago

n Rh

yme

2012

Gle

n A

dsit

Dire

ctor

of B

ands

at T

he H

artt

Scho

ol

Col

gras

s, M

icha

elW

inds

of N

agua

l19

86, 1

989

Fran

k B

attis

tiD

irect

or o

f Win

d En

sem

ble

at N

EC

Col

gras

s, M

icha

elAr

ctic

Dre

ams

1996

Fran

k B

attis

tiD

irect

or o

f Win

d En

sem

ble

at N

EC

Col

gras

s, M

icha

elU

rban

Req

uiem

1997

, 199

8, 2

000

Con

chita

Ram

osSe

nior

Sta

ff A

ssis

tant

Uni

vers

ity B

ands

at U

nive

rsity

of M

iam

i

Deu

tsch

, Her

bert

Tran

scen

danc

e19

33Pe

ter B

oons

haft

Dire

ctor

of B

ands

at H

ofst

ra U

nive

rsity

Dut

ton,

Bre

ntSy

mph

ony

No.

520

07H

arol

d W

arm

anD

irect

or o

f Ins

trum

enta

l Ens

embl

es a

t San

Die

go S

tate

Uni

vers

ity

Dzu

bay,

Dav

idSh

adow

Dan

ce20

08Jo

hn R

. Loc

keD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds -

UN

C-G

reen

sbor

o

Emer

son,

Ty

Ala

nFi

ve P

iece

s20

07H

arla

n Pa

rker

Dire

ctor

of B

ands

at P

eabo

dy

Fairo

uz, M

oham

med

Sym

phon

y N

o. 4

2015

Todd

Vun

dern

ikPe

erm

usic

- Pu

blis

her

Freu

nd, D

onEa

rthd

ance

Con

cert

o20

06R

ay C

ram

erD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t Ind

iana

Uni

vers

ity a

nd D

epar

tmen

t Cha

ir

Gill

ingh

am, D

avid

Her

oes,

Lost

and

Fal

len

1992

H. O

wen

Ree

dC

ompo

ser

Gill

ingh

am, D

avid

Wak

ing

Ange

ls20

00C

ort M

cCla

ren

Pres

iden

t of C

. Ala

n Pu

blis

hing

Gill

ingh

am, D

avid

Whe

n Sp

eaks

The

Sig

nal-T

rum

pet T

one

2002

Fred

Mill

sPr

ofes

sor o

f Tru

mpe

t and

Cha

mbe

r Mus

ic a

t Uni

vers

ity o

f Geo

rgia

Ham

burg

, Jef

fVi

olin

Con

cert

o N

o. 1

2012

Mor

ten

Leth

Jaco

bsen

Ass

ocia

te o

f Son

derjy

lland

s Sym

foni

orke

stes

ter

Hei

sing

er, B

rent

Con

cert

o19

85N

O F

ILE

NO

FIL

E

Hol

land

, Ant

hony

Tesl

a To

wer

2002

Dw

ight

Oltm

anPr

ofes

sor o

f Mus

ic a

t Bal

dwin

Wal

lace

and

Dire

ctor

of B

alle

t San

Jo

se S

ilico

n Va

lley

Hol

sing

er, D

avid

Dea

thtre

e19

90C

ol. J

ohn

Bou

rgeo

isD

irect

or o

f the

Mar

ine

Ban

d

Hut

ches

on, J

ere

T.C

once

rto

for P

iano

and

Win

d O

rche

stra

1985

NO

FIL

EN

O F

ILE

Hut

ches

on, J

ere

T.C

aric

atur

es19

98Ja

mes

For

ger

Dire

ctor

of t

he M

SU S

choo

l of M

usic

Kec

hley

, Dav

idRe

stle

ss B

irds B

efor

e th

e D

ark

Moo

n20

02, 2

003,

200

5, 2

006

Way

ne T

ice

Prin

cipa

l Sax

opho

nist

of U

S M

ilita

ry A

cade

my

Ban

d

Kitt

else

n, G

utto

rmC

once

rt P

iece

1992

Trev

or J.

For

dH

ead

of M

usic

, Nor

weg

ian

Ban

d Fe

dera

tion

Lang

enhu

ysen

, Nik

oM

odia

no19

90M

uzie

groe

p "D

e Er

eprij

s" (N

ethe

rland

s)

Lore

ntze

n, B

ent

Saxo

phon

e C

once

rto

1989

Scot

t Cop

len

VP

of E

ditio

n W

ilhilm

Han

sen

Lu, P

eiSy

mph

ony

No.

219

96Jo

hn C

arm

icha

elD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t Wes

tern

Ken

tuck

y

Mai

lman

, Mar

tinFo

r Pre

ciou

s Fri

ends

Hid

in D

eath

's D

atel

ess

Nig

ht19

90El

izab

eth

Ludw

ig F

enne

llPr

esid

ent o

f Lud

wig

Mus

ic

Mas

lank

a, D

avid

Sym

phon

y N

o. 5

2006

Bar

ry O

'Nea

lD

irect

or o

f Con

cert

Mus

ic a

t Car

l Fis

cher

McL

oske

y, L

ansi

ngW

hat W

e D

o Is

Sec

ret

2015

Eric

Hew

ittPr

ofes

sor o

f Sax

opho

ne a

nd M

usic

Dire

ctor

of W

ind

Ense

mbl

e an

d N

ew M

usic

Fes

tival

at B

osto

n C

onse

rvat

ory

Mei

j, Jo

han

deC

asan

ova

2002

Dav

id W

arbl

eM

usic

Dire

ctor

at O

rang

e C

ount

y Sy

mph

ony,

Dis

ney-

Gra

mm

y Sy

mph

ony,

and

oth

er o

rche

stra

s...

cont

inue

d

Figu

re B

.1 –

Lis

t of a

ll ba

nd w

orks

nom

inat

ed fo

r the

Gra

wem

eyer

Awa

rd

99

C

ompo

ser

Titl

eN

omin

ated

inN

omin

atin

g Pa

rty

Nom

inat

ing

Part

y A

ffili

atio

n

Mei

ster

, Sco

ttFe

les G

alac

tica

1985

NO

FIL

EN

O F

ILE

Mie

rean

u, C

ostin

Voya

ge D

'hiv

er II

1986

NO

FIL

EN

O F

ILE

Mob

berle

y, Ja

mes

Asce

nsio

n19

90G

ary

Hill

Dire

ctor

of B

ands

at U

MK

C

Mog

ense

n, M

icha

elAe

rial

Fan

tasy

2008

Har

lan

Park

erD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds P

eabo

dy

Mor

avec

, Pau

lW

ind

Sym

phon

y20

15D

avid

Way

brig

htD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t the

Uni

vers

ity o

f Flo

rida

Mor

el, F

ranc

ois

Aux

Cou

leur

s Du

Cei

l19

89, 1

990

Joel

Pas

quie

rD

irect

or o

f the

Sch

ool o

f Mus

ic a

t Lav

al U

nive

rsity

in C

anad

a

Már

ton,

Eug

en-M

ihai

Orc

hest

erst

ück

: Für

22

Inst

rum

enta

liste

n19

85N

O F

ILE

NO

FIL

E

Nee

dham

, Clin

tFr

actu

red

Elem

ents

2014

Jack

Sut

teTr

umpe

t of t

he C

leve

land

Orc

hest

ra

Nel

son,

Ron

Pass

acag

lia19

94Eu

gene

Cor

poro

nD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t CC

M

Pete

rson

, Way

neAn

d Th

e W

inds

Sha

ll Bl

ow19

96St

ephe

n Fi

sher

Pres

iden

t of C

. F. P

eter

s

Prim

osch

, Jam

esFo

rms O

f Lig

ht20

09C

hris

toph

er K

enda

llD

ean

of S

choo

l of M

usic

, The

atre

, and

Dan

ce a

t the

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

ichi

gan

Rak

owsk

i, D

avid

Ten

of a

Kin

d20

04, 2

006

Mic

hael

Col

burn

Dire

ctor

of P

resi

dent

's O

wn

Mar

ine

Ban

d

Rea

le, P

aul

Col

umbu

s Con

cert

o19

94Th

omas

Lee

Vic

e C

hair,

UC

LA D

epar

tmen

t of M

usic

Rea

le, P

aul

Infe

rno

2005

Thom

as L

eeV

ice

Cha

ir, U

CLA

Dep

artm

ent o

f Mus

ic

Ree

d, A

lfred

Third

Sym

phon

y19

89Ja

mes

M. B

ankh

ead

Con

duct

or U

SAF

Ban

d

Rin

dfle

isch

, And

rew

The

Ligh

t Fan

tast

ic20

03Er

ic Z

iole

kC

hair

of D

epar

tmen

t of M

usic

at C

leve

land

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Ros

enha

us, S

teve

Sym

phon

y20

05D

onal

d H

. Kel

ler,

Jr.

Dire

ctor

of U

S N

avy

Aca

dem

y B

and

Scea

rce,

J. M

ark

Can

to IX

2000

Jam

es S

yler

Edito

r/Pub

lishe

r at J

. Bal

lerb

ach

Mus

ic

Schm

idt,

Will

iam

Con

cert

o O

f The

Win

ds19

86N

O F

ILE

NO

FIL

E

Sim

s, Ez

raC

once

rt P

iece

: For

Vio

la W

ith F

lute

, Cla

rine

t, Vi

olon

cello

, and

Sm

all O

rche

stra

1993

NO

FIL

EN

O F

ILE

Skro

wac

zew

ski,

Stan

isła

wM

usic

For

Win

ds20

12G

eorg

e St

urm

CEO

of B

oelk

e-B

omar

t, In

c. (P

ublis

her)

Tayl

or, R

owan

Cla

rine

t Con

cert

o N

o.3

1996

Step

hen

Piaz

zaC

hairm

an a

t Los

Ang

eles

Pie

rce

Col

lege

Tayl

or, R

owan

Hor

n C

once

rto

No.

220

01C

arly

le H

ume

Cha

irper

son

at L

os A

ngel

es P

ierc

e C

olle

ge

Ter S

chip

hors

t, Ir

is.

Dis

loka

tione

n : F

ür O

rche

ster

Und

Kla

vier

(V

erst

ärkt

)20

13N

O F

ILE

NO

FIL

E

Turr

in, J

osep

hH

emis

pher

es20

04, 2

007

Cor

t McC

lare

nPr

esid

ent o

f C. A

lan

Turr

in, J

osep

hC

once

rtin

o20

13Ph

il Sm

ithPr

inci

pal t

rum

pet o

f NY

Phi

lhar

mon

ic

Vola

ns, K

evin

Con

cert

o19

98C

athe

rine

Man

ners

Hea

d of

Pro

mot

ion

at C

hest

er M

usic

Wai

gnei

n, A

ndre

Mir

Vu

Baus

se G

ekuc

kt20

02U

nrea

dabl

e si

gnat

ure

of p

ublis

her

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

of d

e H

aske

pub

licat

ions

(Hol

land

)

Wal

czyk

, Kev

inSy

mph

ony

No.

220

12D

anh

T. P

ham

Spec

ial P

roje

cts C

oord

inat

or a

t Kev

eli M

usic

(Pub

lishe

r) in

O

rego

nW

alde

n, S

tanl

eyIn

visi

ble

Citi

es19

89Th

omas

Bro

ido

Dire

ctor

of P

erfo

rman

ce P

rom

otio

n at

Pre

sser

Wan

gerin

, Mar

kPr

elud

e An

d Fa

nfar

e19

93R

ober

t F. F

elle

rD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t Bio

la U

nive

rsity

Wils

on, C

urtis

Con

cert

o20

05B

obby

R. F

ranc

isD

irect

or o

f Ban

ds a

t TC

U

Zaim

ont,

Judi

th L

ang

Con

cert

o: S

olar

Tra

velle

r20

11H

arla

n Pa

rker

Dire

ctor

of B

ands

at P

eabo

dy C

onse

rvat

ory

Figu

re B

.1: C

ontin

ued

100

APPENDIX C: The Grawemeyer Collection’s Transition to a New Records System

The computerized records system that was used to collect data for this study will

be transitioned to a different system in July of 2015. Matthew Ertz, Music Cataloger at

the Dwight Anderson Music Library at the University of Louisville explains:

The University of Louisville Libraries has decided to not renew their contract with Ex Libris—the proprietor of the Voyager Integrated Library System (ILS)—and to use OCLC’s “next gen” ILS called WorldShare Management System (WMS). In early 2014, we at the music library decided to transfer all the bibliographic, holding and item records from the Grawemeyer Catalog (where they existed exclusively since the Catalog’s creation in 1998) to the main Voyager database so that they could be found in both the Grawemeyer Catalog and in WorldCat Local as well as modifying our circulation procedure for Grawemeyer materials. All of this work would have had to be done anyway because in October 2014 we found out that we would be transitioning to WMS and go “live” with it in July 2015. The retirement of Voyager meant the Grawemeyer Catalog would go away and we would have to figure out how to make the best of WMS and WorldCat (it’s public view). The biggest hurdle we overcame was being able to make the Grawemeyer Collection a branch of the music library—much like the music library is a branch of the University Libraries—so that it could be searched separately. This was key because it retained most of the Grawemeyer Catalog’s search functions (e.g. author, subject, keyword, etc.), but not all, the glaring example being the loss of call number browse—something WorldCat Local cannot do. Call number browse was probably the most used search function in the Grawemeyer Catalog, mostly to see an alphabetical listing of any given year’s nominees. With the transition to WMS we will also lose any record of nominees whose materials were sent back in the first few years of the award; the Grawemeyer Catalog kept brief but indexed records indicating no materials were available. It would be unfortunate to lose this information, so to remedy the situation we will create some sort of online finding aid that will list all nominees by call number (i.e. year) and a collective list of all nominees alphabetically as well as any other lists that we deem pertinent. There has been a small glimmer of hope with the call number browse issue and that is in January 2016 WorldCat Local will be replaced with WorldCat Discovery (WCD; an updated sleeker version of its predecessor). WCD can do a call number browse for those using

101

WMS, but it is imperfect. The search term “nu:2010,” for example, would bring all items whose call number began with 2010, but sort them by relevance without an option to sort them in actual call number order. In addition, the display of the search results do not display quick & easy information such as the call number for quick browsing.130

130 Ertz to Enz, “RE: Grawemeyer Collection Questions.”

102

APPENDIX D: Composer Data Collected for Chapter 3 The following tables contain data that was used to create Figures 3.8 through 3.14.

Popularity

Figure D.1 below identifies each composer that has appeared on one or more lists

and the number works that have appeared on these lists since the 2001-02 season.

Figure D.1 – Number of Times a Composer has had a composition appear on a “Most Frequently Performed Contemporary Work” list

Name of Composer # of times a composer has had a composition appear on a

“Most Frequently Performed Contemporary…” list Adams, John 20 Corigliano, John 16 Higdon, Jennifer 14 Kernis, Aaron Jay 9 Golijov, Osvaldo 8 Harbison, John 6 Rouse, Christopher 6 Adés, Thomas 5 Knussen, Oliver 5 Sierra, Roberto 5 Theofanidis, Christopher 5 Daugherty, Michael 4 Marquez, Arturo 4 Pärt, Arvo 4 Tower, Joan 4 Davies, Peter Maxwell 3 Dutilleux, Henri 3 Ligeti, Gyorgy 3 Lindberg, Magnus 3 Meyer, Edgar 3

continued

103


“Most Frequently Performed Contemporary…” list Bates, Mason 2 Bernstein, Leonard 2 Danielpour, Richard 2 Estacio, John 2 Glass, Philip 2 Hersch, Michael N. 2 MacMillian, James 2 Messiaen, Oliver 2 Saariaho, Kaija 2 Salonen, Esa-Pekka 2 Schwantner, Joseph 2 Thomas, Augusta Read 2 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 2 Aho, Kalevi 1 Aldridge, Robert 1 Argento, Dominick 1 Assad, Clarice 1 Bolcom, William 1 Connesson, Guillaume 1 Dalbavie, Marc-Andre 1 Frank, Gabriela Lena 1 Getty, Gordon 1 Gubaidulina, Sophia 1 Hailstork, Adolphus (Cunningham) 1 Jordan, Derrick 1 Kancheli, Giya 1 Kim, Jin Hi 1 Kraft, William 1 Kurtag, Gyorgy 1 Lauridsen, Morten 1 Liebermann, Lowell 1 Lieberson, Peter 1 Little, David T. 1

Lopéz, Jimmy 1 Ludwig, David 1 Mackey, Steven 1 Mellits, Marc 1

Figure D.1: Continued

continued

104


“Most Frequently Performed Contemporary…” list O'Connor, Mark 1 Pasatieri, Thomas 1 Peck, Russell 1 Penderecki, Krzysztaf 1 Picker, Tobias 1 Previn, Andre 1 Puts, Kevin 1 Raustavaara, Einojuhani 1 Rihm, Wolfgang 1 Sallinen, Aulis 1 Schnittke, Alfred 1 Schulhoff, Ervin 1 Schwantner, Joseph 1 Sheng, Bright 1 Silvestrov, Valentin 1 Stock, David 1 Takemitsu, Toru 1 Widmann, Jorg 1 Wuorinen, Charles 1 Yannatos, James 1 Yusupov, Benjamin 1

Prolificness

For each year, all composers with three or more unique pieces appearing on the

list were recorded (see Figure D.2 below).


105

Figure D.2 – Composers with three or more unique pieces programed by orchestras in a single season

2006-07 # of

pie

ces

2007-08 # of

pie

ces

2008-09 # of

pie

ces

2009-10 # of

pie

ces

2010-11 # of

pie

ces

Adams, John 15 Adams, John 14 Adams, John 14 Adams, John 6 Adams, John 6

Higdon, Jennifer 10 Corigliano, John 13 Higdon, Jennifer 11 Danielpour, Richard 6 Glass, Philip 6

Corigliano, John 8 Higdon, Jennifer 9 Daugherty, Michael 9 Golijov, Osvaldo 6 Golijov, Osvaldo 5

Daugherty, Michael 8 Rouse, Christopher 8 Stucky, Steven 6 Williams, John 5 Tower, Joan 5

Puts, Kevin 6 Glass, Philip 7 Adés, Thomas 5 Corigliano, John 4 Daugherty, Michael 4

Rouse, Christopher 6 Williams, John 7 Rouse, Christopher 5 O'Connor, Mark 4 Lindberg, Magnus 4

Williams, John 6 Daugherty, Michael 6 Tower, Joan 5 Adés, Thomas 3 Ewazen, Eric 3

Glass, Philip 5 Knussen, Oliver 6 Williams, John 5 Estacio, John 3 Adés, Thomas 3

MacMillan, James 5 Danielpour, Richard 5 Corigliano, John 4 Higdon, Jennifer 3 Gubaidulina, Sofia 3

Takemitsu, Toru 5 Golijov, Osvaldo 5 Takemitsu, Toru 4 Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 Higdon, Jennifer 3

Golijov, Osvaldo 4 Pärt, Arvo 5 Frank, Gabriela Lena 3 Liebermann, Lowell 3 Theofanidis, Christopher 3

Theofanidis, Christopher 4 Takemitsu, Toru 5 Glass, Philip 3 Lieberson, Peter 3 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 3

Turnage, Mark-Anthony 4 Tower, Joan 5 Golijov, Osvaldo 3 Lindberg, Magnus 3 Bolcom, William 3 Frank, Gabriela Lena 4 Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 Puts, Kevin 3 Danielpour, Richard 3 Kernis, Aaron Jay 4 Liebermann, Lowell 3 Rouse, Christopher 3 Dun, Tan 3 MacMillan, James 4 Lutoslawski, Witold 3 Tower, Joan 3 Estacio, John 3 O'Connor, Mark 4 O'Connor, Mark 3

Pärt, Arvo 3 Salonen, Esa-Pekka 4 Ranjbaran, Behzad 3

Previn, Andre 3 Stucky, Steven 4 Sheng, Bright 3

Schwantner, Joseph 3 Bolcom, William 3 Sierra, Roberto 3

Torke, Michael 3 Carter, Elliot 3 Theofanidis, Christopher 3

Tower, Joan 3 Chen, Yi 3

Davies, Pater Maxwell 3

Peck, Russell 3

Puts, Kevin 3

Schwantner, Joseph 3

Sheng, Bright 3

Sierra, Roberto 3

Torke, Michael 3

The following Figure (Figure D.3) indicates the number of times a composer had

three or more unique pieces performed in a single season.

106

Figure D.3 – Number of times a composer had three or more pieces performed in a single season between 2006-07 and 2010-11

Composer

# of seasons composer had three of more

unique compositions performed

Composer (continued)

# of seasons composer had three of more

unique compositions performed

Adams, John 5 Pärt, Arvo 2

Golijov, Osvaldo 5 Schwantner, Joseph 2

Higdon, Jennifer 5 Sheng, Bright 2

Tower, Joan 5 Sierra, Roberto 2

Corigliano, John 4 Stucky, Steven 2

Daugherty, Michael 4 Torke, Michael 2

Glass, Philip 4 Carter, Elliot 1

Rouse, Christopher 4 Chen, Yi 1

Williams, John 4 Davies, Pater Maxwell 1

Adés, Thomas 3 Dun, Tan 1

Danielpour, Richard 3 Ewazen, Eric 1

Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 Gubaidulina, Sofia 1

O'Connor, Mark 3 Knussen, Oliver 1

Puts, Kevin 3 Lieberson, Peter 1

Takemitsu, Toru 3 Lutoslawski, Witold 1

Theofanidis, Christopher 3 Peck, Russell 1

Bolcom, William 2 Previn, Andre 1

Estacio, John 2 Ranjbaran, Behzad 1

Frank, Gabriela Lena 2 Salonen, Esa-Pekka 1

Liebermann, Lowell 2 Turnage, Mark-Anthony 1

Lindberg, Magnus 2 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 1

MacMillan, James 2

Demand

Figure D.4 below identifies those composers who had one or more works

premiered by a Group 1 orchestra (as reported by the LAO Orchestra Repertoire Report).

107

Figure D.4 – Composers with works premiered by a Group 1 orchestra from 2005-06 to 2010-11

Composer # of

Pr

emie

res

Composer (continued) # of

Pr

emie

res

Harbison, John 4 Hillborg, Anders 1 Higdon, Jennifer 4 Holland, Jonathan 1 Hétu, Jacques 3 Holloway, Robin 1 Jones, Samuel 3 Jalbert, Pierre 1 Kernis, Aaron Jay 3 Kulesha, Gary 1 Stock, David 3 Kurth, Michael 1 Theofanidis, Christopher 3 Lee, James, III 1 Turnage, Mark-Anthony 3 Levinson, Gerald 1 Tüür, Erkki-Sven 3 Liebermann, Lowell 1 Adams, John 2 Lindberg, Christian 1 Andriessen, Louis 2 Lindberg, Magnus 1 Carter, Elliot 2 Lohrmann, Uwe 1 Frank, Gabriela Lena 2 Louie, Alexina 1 Glass, Philip 2 Mahoney, Shafer 1 Kellogg, Daniel 2 Maurice Wininsky 1 Lieberson, Peter 2 Mumford, Jeffrey Carlton 1 MacDonald, Andrew Paul 2 Mustonen, Oli 1 Pound, Robert 2 Newman, Thomas 1 Schuller, Gunther 2 Oliverio, James 1 Schwantner, Joseph 2 Paulus, Stephen 1 Sheng, Bright 2 Peel, John 1 Sierra, Roberto 2 Pintscher, Matthias 1 Tovey, Bramwell 2 Previn, Andre 1 Baker, David Nathaniel 1 Prutsman, Stephen 1 Beaser, Robert 1 Puts, Kevin 1 Beckel, James 1 Richman, Lukas 1 Bermel, Derek 1 Rihm, Wolfgang 1 Bolcom, William 1 Rodriguez, Robert Xavier 1 Borzova, Alla 1 Saariaho, Kaija 1 Braunsfels, Walter 1 Salonen, Esa-Pekka 1 Brouwer, Margaret 1 Schafer, R. Murray 1 Cabell, Stephen 1 Schafer, R. Murray 1 Caine, Uri 1 Schiff, David 1 Coleman, Charles 1 Schneider, Maria 1 Current, Brian 1 Schoenberg, Adam 1 Danielpour, Richard 1 Schoenfield, Paul 1 Dawe, Jonathan 1 Singleton, Alvin 1 Dowland, John 1 Skrowaczewski, Stanislaw 1 Fletcher, Alan 1 Sortomme, Richard 1 Gandolfi, Michael 1 Svoboda, Tomas 1 Gatonska, Michael 1 Vali, Reza 1 Golijov, Osvaldo 1 Volans, Kevin 1 Good, Scott 1 Walker, George Theophilus 1 Goodyear, Stewart 1 Wildmann, Jorg 1 Grey, Mark 1 Williams, John 1 Gubaidulina, Sophia 1 Yannatos, James 1 Haas, Georg Friedrich 1 Zwilich, Ellen Taaffe 1

108

Composers of Eminence

Figure D.5 below indicates which composers met this study’s criteria in each

category. The figure also includes the total number of categories for which the composer

met the criteria.

Figure D.5 – Composers meeting the criteria in at least one category Name of Composer Popularity Prolificness Demand Total Adams, John x x x 3 Adés, Thomas x x

2

Andriessen, Louis x 1 Bates, Mason x 1 Bernstein, Leonard x 1 Bolcom, William x 1 Carter, Elliot x 1 Corigliano, John x x 2 Danielpour, Richard x x 2 Daugherty, Michael x x 2 Davies, Peter Maxwell x 1 Dutilleux, Henri x 1 Estacio, John x x 2 Frank, Gabriela Lena x x 2 Glass, Philip x x x 3 Golijov, Osvaldo x x 2 Harbison, John x x 2 Hersch, Michael x 1 Hétu, Jacques x 1 Higdon, Jennifer x x x 3 Jones, Samuel x 1 Kellogg, Daniel x 1 Kernis, Aaron Jay x x x 3 Knussen, Oliver x 1 Liebermann, Lowell x 1 Lieberson, Peter x 1 Ligeti, Gyorgy x 1 Lindberg, Magnus x x 2 MacDonald, Andrew Paul x 1 MacMillan, James x x 2 Marquez, Arturo x 1 Messiaen, Oliver x 1 Meyer, Edgar x 1 O'Connor, Mark x 1 Pärt, Arvo x x 2 Pound, Robert x 1

continued

109

Name of Composer Popularity Prolificness Demand Total Puts, Kevin x 1 Rouse, Christopher x x 2 Saariaho, Kaija x 1 Salonen, Esa-Pekka x 1 Schuller, Gunther x 1 Schwantner, Joseph x x x 3 Sheng, Bright x x 2 Sierra, Roberto x x x 3 Stock, David x 1 Stucky, Steven x 1 Takemitsu, Toru x 1 Theofanidis, Christopher x x 2 Thomas, Augusta Read x 1 Torke, Michael x 1 Tovey, Bramwell x 1 Tower, Joan x x 2 Turnage, Mark-Anthony x 1 Tüür, Erkki-Sven x x 2 Williams, John x 1


110

�.,).%��/.3%.4��/2-�

�./�2��#.&��!#4/23��.&,5%.#).'�4(%��%,%#4)/.��2/#%33�/&�4(%��2!7%-%9%2��7!2$��,#(�#*�&��(0�-.#!�.),��2��!29,��)..%9��'�#&�+)..%9��/35�%$5��()3�)3�!�#/.3%.4�&/2-�&/2�2%3%!2#(�0!24)#)0!4)/.��4�#/.4!).3�)-0/24!.4�).&/2-!4)/.�!"/54�4()3�345$9�!.$�7(!4�4/�%80%#4�)&�9/5�$%#)$%�4/�0!24)#)0!4%��/�$��.��#!".-��()3�3526%9�).6/,6%3�2%3%!2#(�� /52�0!24)#)0!4)/.�)3�6/,5.4!29�!.$�-!9�7)4($2!7�!4�!.94)-%�7)4(/54�0%.!,49�/2�,/33�/&�"%.%&)43��/,*)-��) �."��./�2��(%�0520/3%�/&�4(%�345$9�)3�4/�).6%34)'!4%�&!#4/23�).&,5%.#).'�4(%�3%,%#4)/.�02/#%33�/&�!7!2$�3%-)�&).!,)343��&).!,)343��!.$�7)..%23��).#,5$).'�02%6)/53�%80%2)%.#%3�7)4(�-53)#�!.$�!44)45$%3�4/7!2$�0!24)#5,!2�-%$)5-3�!.$�'%.2%3�� /5�!2%�).6)4%$�4/�4!+%�0!24�).�!�2%3%!2#(�3526%9�!"/54�4(%��2!7%-%9%2��7!2$�"%#!53%�9/5�3%26%$�!3�!�*52/2�&/2�4(%�!7!2$��,)��/,�-��-%-��/,�.#)(� /5�7),,�"%�!3+%$�!�3%2)%3�/&�-5,4)0,%�#(/)#%�!.$�&),,�).�4(%�",!.+�15%34)/.3�� /52�0!24)#)0!4)/.�7),,�2%15)2%�!002/8)-!4%,9��-).54%3�!.$�)3�#/-0,%4%$�/.,).%�!4�9/52�#/-054%2�� /5�-!9�3+)0�!.9�15%34)/.3�9/5�&%%,�5.#/-&/24!",%�!.37%2).'��#-%-� �(� #.-��(%2%�!2%�./�+./7.�2)3+3�/2�$)3#/-&/243�!33/#)!4%$�7)4(�4()3�3526%9��(%2%�!2%�./�).#%.4)6%3�&/2�345$9�0!24)#)0!4)/.��%35,43�7),,�"%�53%$�4/�)-02/6%�4(%�'%.%2!,�+./7,%$'%�/&�-53)#�#/-0/3)4)/.�!7!2$3��)( #��(.#�&#.2��/�)$%.4)&9).'�$!4!��).#,5$).'�.!-%3��!$$2%33%3��0(/.%�.5-"%23��!.$��!$$2%33%3�7),,�"%�#/,,%#4%$��%�7),,�7/2+�4/�-!+%�352%�4(!4�./�/.%�3%%3�9/52�3526%9�2%30/.3%3�7)4(/54�!002/6!,��54��"%#!53%�7%�!2%�53).'�4(%��.4%2.%4��4(%2%�)3�!�#(!.#%�4(!4�3/-%/.%�#/5,$�!##%33�9/52�/.,).%�2%30/.3%3�7)4(/54�0%2-)33)/.��.�3/-%�#!3%3��4()3�).&/2-!4)/.�#/5,$�"%�53%$�4/�)$%.4)&9�9/5�� /52�$!4!�7),,�"%�02/4%#4%$�7)4(�!�#/$%�4/�2%$5#%�4(%�2)3+�4(!4�/4(%2�0%/0,%�#!.�6)%7�4(%�2%30/.3%3�� /52�2%30/.3%3�7),,�"%�+%04�342)#4,9�#/.&)$%.4)!,��!.$�$)')4!,�$!4!�7),,�"%�34/2%$�).�3%#52%�#/-054%2�&),%3��.9�2%0/24�/&�4()3�2%3%!2#(�4(!4�)3�-!$%�!6!),!",%�4/�4(%�05",)#�7),,�./4�).#,5$%�9/52�.!-%�/2�!.9�/4(%2�).$)6)$5!,�).&/2-!4)/.�"9�7()#(�9/5�#/5,$�"%�)$%.4)&)%$��&�9/5�(!6%�15%34)/.3�/2�7!.4�!�#/09�/2�35--!29�/&�4()3�345$9;3�2%35,43��9/5�#!.�#/.4!#4�4(%�2%3%!2#(%2�!4�4(%�%-!),�!$$2%33�!"/6%��)(.��.-��(��/�-.#)(-��/2�15%34)/.3��#/.#%2.3��/2�#/-0,!).43�!"/54�4(%�345$9��/2�9/5�&%%,�9/5�(!6%�"%%.�(!2-%$�!3�!�2%35,4�/&�345$9�0!24)#)0!4)/.��9/5�-!9�#/.4!#4��)#(/,!3��.:�!4�%.:��/35�%$5��/2�15%34)/.3�!"/54�9/52�2)'(43�!3�!�0!24)#)0!.4�).�4()3�345$9�/2�4/�$)3#533�/4(%2�345$9�2%,!4%$�#/.#%2.3�/2�#/-0,!).43�7)4(�3/-%/.%�7(/�)3�./4�0!24�/&�4(%�2%3%!2#(�4%!-��9/5�-!9�#/.4!#4��3��!.$2!��%!$/73�).�4(%��&&)#%�/&��%30/.3)",%��%3%!2#(��2!#4)#%3�!4�� ,%!3%�&%%,�&2%%�4/�02).4�!�#/09�/&�4()3�#/.3%.4�0!'%�4/�+%%0�&/2�9/52�2%#/2$3��

��)�2)/��!,��.)�."��)0��.�,'-�� 2��&#�%#(!��-��2)/��)(-�(.�."�.�2)/��,��1#&&#(!�.)��(-1�,�."��+/�-.#)(-�#(�."#-�-/,0�2��(��,��)0�,�."��!��) ��

��)1�'�(2�2��,-�"�0��2)/�-�,0��-��$/,),3 ),�."��,�1�'�2�,��1�,��

��(&#(��)(-�(.

�

��/,0�2��!��) ��

�

%3�

��

�/�

��

APPENDIX E: Surveys and Interview Questions

Survey for 1st Round Jurors (Faculty)

114

Survey for 2nd Round Jurors

117

Survey for 3rd Round Jurors (Lay Jurors)

122

APPENDIX F: Transcript from Phone Interview with Marc Satterwhite Phone Interview: Tuesday, March 23, 2015 at 1:00pm The interview was then reviewed by Marc Satterwhite and a Grawemeyer Award administrator for accuracy. Nicholas Enz (NE): In looking through the collection, I have found that few files exist between 1985 and 1988? Do you know why that may be? Marc Satterwhite (MS): I really don't… I’ve been involved in the award since 1994, when I came to the University of Louisville. I became the Director in 2005. My suspicion is that it is because the award was new. It started in 1985 and everyone doing this [processing and administering the award] had full-time jobs. I suspect some of this was done on the fly and either the records never got made because everyone was too busy or they just got misplaced. I don't know that for a fact, but there was not a full-time administrator to run this award. Everyone that was involved in it was a faculty or staff member doing it on their own time (or at least mostly on their own time). NE: Is that still the case? MS: No. I get some release time to chair the award—about a quarter load. I hire one staff member on an overtime-basis to do all of the processing of the entries as they come in each January. That is it in terms of staff time; it is my release time, plus overtime for the secretarial help. NE: How is the call for nominations handled? Who receives the calls for nominations (publishers, composers, etc.)? MS: I inherited a massive mailing list from Paul Brink of several thousand names. After a few years, I removed the names of individuals and pared it down to just institutions. I discovered we weren't getting any return on sending the flyer to individuals. I did, however, that year send a postcard to those individuals stating that after this year, they would not be receiving a flyer. The flyer, however, would always be available on the website.

123

Now I have a mailing list of not quite a thousand, which includes publishers, recording companies, music schools, and national music organizations from all over the world. I am constantly tweaking the list. Every so often someone will call my attention to a publisher or organization I should include and I'll put that on the list. NE: How do you select each panel of jurors? What criteria do you use? MS: The first panel is composition faculty so that is easy: all the full-time composition faculty, which is three of us and then our band director, who is also a composer and was actually on the comp faculty before becoming the band director. The second panel is typically a conductor, a composer, and a critic, but doesn't absolutely have to be that. I look for people with solid reputations nationally and internationally. I always offer the composer spot to the previous winner. They are not required to participate. Some do participate and some do not. If they don't participate, I then have to look for a really good composer who is not entered that year. For the critic, I get recommendations and I see who is writing for the major papers. I am looking for people who are also, if not a new music specialist, aware of and write about new music a fair amount. For the conductor, I look for conductors who program a lot of contemporary music. So far I have not repeated any of those people since I have been doing it. I try to be geographically diverse within reason, because I only have so much of a budget to pay for their travel. I've brought people in from Europe—a couple of times I've brought up critics from Mexico. I’m hoping to bring in someone from South America, but haven’t yet. For the lay panel, I sort of inherited a group from Paul [Brink] and I'm always on the lookout for new people and I'm constantly tweaking that as people move away or, sadly, die. In them, I'm looking for people who are regular concertgoers who have an interest in new music. A couple of my frequent lay panel members are really not that interested in non-contemporary music. The new stuff is really what they're into. It is an interesting and very diverse group. Some of them have had musical training, others have not. They cannot be professional musicians. A couple may have music degrees, but have gone on to become doctors and lawyers or something else. A couple have no formal music background; they just really like contemporary music. NE: You say that the third panel of jurors is made up of regular “concertgoers.” Would you clarify your definition of “concertgoer?” MS: By regular concertgoers I mean people who routinely attend classical music concerts of varying kinds. Some are more into some kinds of classical music than others, but it's not unusual to see any of them at the orchestra, opera, ballet, chamber music or

124

student group concerts. And of course all have a particular interest in contemporary music and tend to show up at those events. NE: What criteria do jurors use to make decisions? Do they receive any training or prompts to help them make decisions? MS: They are pretty much on their own. The first panel is all composers so we all know the contemporary music scene. What I tell the middle panel is to look for works that are of the highest quality musically—that is the first criterion—and that they have the potential to enter the permanent repertory. Whatever their personal criteria for those are up to them. In fact, when I have those judges here in town—they come separately, not at the same time—I completely avoid talking about the pieces with them until after they have made their choices. When we go out for dinner or lunch, until they have made their choices, we don't even discuss this year's entries. I make it a point to not show my feelings about any of the works. For the lay panel, I do not [provide any prompts or criteria]. They are all contemporary music fans and they all have their own tastes and preferences. Some like more conservative music, some like more edgy music. I try to get a mix of that kind of thing. I just give them a recording and a briefly-redacted program note. They then have a couple of weeks to come back with their results. NE: How is the marketing of the award handled? Who receives press releases regarding winners? MS: That is completely handled by the University's PR department because there are awards in several categories and that is centralized. I write up a draft of a press release and a draft of a bio and send it up the ladder. They have a style book that they make it conform to, but that is all done by the PR department and coordinated with the other awards. I make myself available, but most news outlets just use the press release. They don't usually call me for anything. I'm just quoted in the press release with a sentence or two and they print that. They mostly use what is in the press release and then call the winner if they want more information. NE: Have any changes in the award selection process been made since you became chair? If so, what were the catalysts for these changes?

125

MS: I've pretty much left it alone. I did cut down the mailing list because we were sending out several thousand more rather expensive flyers than we needed to, but that didn't seem to cut down on the entry pool. NE: How do you believe the award has impacted the University of Louisville? MS: For the School of Music it is a very big deal. All of the M.M. [Master of Music] students have to talk about the Award in their orals in one way or another. It used to be that they had to know something about all of the winners, but now that there are so many a typical question would be relevant to their specialization. For example, a clarinetist might be asked: "Which of the Grawemeyer winners has written significant clarinet pieces? How does this impact you?" They are expected to have a general knowledge of the award and how it would impact their field. If they are a choral conductor: "Which of these composers has interesting choral pieces?" Of course, when the winners come every spring and are here for about a week, they give lectures or masterclasses. We always have a pizza party with the composition students. Depending on their specialization they might address another class as well. For example, when Kurtág was here he coached string quartets because that was his main job at the Budapest Conservatory. It is a big thing for us. The New Music Festival every year will usually feature works by Grawemeyer-winning composers, as well as the featured principal guest composer. Next year, we will be having a focus on Grawemeyer winners because it will be our 30th year. I'm not sure what the other departments at the University do with their winners, but we work ours! NE: In the catalog of nominations, only 68 works for band have been nominated of the approximately 4500 works in the catalog. Do you have any thoughts as to why band music is so poorly represented in the collection? MS: This is very speculative, but I think it is a confluence of things. A lot of classical composers are non-American and non-British. America has a strong band tradition and so does Britain, but in other countries it is more localized or even nonexistent. For example, in Spain there are a few bands, but it is not like there is a band in every high school and college. Composers in countries where there is no band tradition are going to have very little incentive to write for band. I am betting most of those 68 pieces are by Americans or Britons or are people living in America or Britain. I'm sure that is a factor. As I think about it, that may be the main factor. The other thing is, and this is sad, but in certain classical music circles there is still a feeling that the band is second-tier. I think it is less so than it use to be. I am looking

126

across the list and there are a lot of well-respected composers turning out band literature—of course, Husa turned out a lot—but for most of them, it is not their primary medium. David Maslanka has entered the Grawemeyer and other people that you associate primarily with the band, but I think there is still a bit of prejudice in certain quarters. I can't tell you the specific composers or the pieces, but some band pieces have made it past the first round. I just can't tell you which ones or how many, but it has happened. I also think that people look at the previous winners and probably think to themselves "this isn't an award that band pieces win, so I'll nominate the string quartet instead or maybe a violin concerto." Again that is pretty speculative, but I am going to guess this is a factor, too. I've entered a lot of competitions myself. You look at what has won before, the types of pieces and composers, and make a somewhat informed decision on what to enter. Lots of pieces that have won have in been big mediums: orchestra and opera. Not a lot of chamber music has won. I think people may look at that and it kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At some point though, something is going to break that cycle—a string quartet will win or a piano trio or a song cycle or a band piece. That is very speculative though. I should also mention that we have actually commissioned band/wind ensemble works from two of the winners, Sebastian Currier and Brett Dean. In both cases it was their first band piece. NE: How often do composers approach someone to nominate their works? MS: I don't know exactly how often, but I do absolutely know it happens. They could go to their publisher (we get stacks from major publishers every year). Or if someone has commissioned a piece from you, an organization, or an individual, you can certainly approach that person and ask them to nominate the piece. I am sure that 99.9% of the time they are happy to do that. As far as how much of the nomination initiative comes at the composer's initiative versus the nominator's initiative, I have no idea. But there is nothing preventing a composer approaching someone who has a reasonable connection with a piece and asking them to nominate the work. Each composer can only enter one piece per year. If the publisher is nominating a work, the publisher probably consults with the composer about which piece to enter. If it is the composer, they probably think about what is their best piece and approach the right person to be the nominator. NE: Throughout your career as a composer, what changes, positive or negative, have you seen with the artistic quality in music written for band?

127

That's a good question. It is not what I write for most of the time, although I like writing for band. It is a great medium. It seems to me that in the band world, the music that I hear today is not that different from music I heard when I was in high school. It seems to be fairly mainstream and tonal. But every so often someone like a Husa will come through with a spikier language. On the whole, it seems like a more conservative medium than, perhaps, the string quartet. I'm not sure of the reasons for that. I'm by no means a band expert, but I do go to our band concerts regularly. I do write for band. It seems to me that the repertory is kind of steady-state. The average piece that a band might program now is not that different than what one might program in the 1960s or 70s. Obviously, individual composers have individual languages, but with some exception it doesn't seem as differentiated in the band world as I hear in the other contemporary mediums. In other words, I don't hear as much diversity in band writing as I do in string quartet writing on the whole. I don't think I have ever heard a band piece sound the way John Zorn would write. It doesn't mean there aren't any out there. They maybe just aren't the ones getting programmed on a regular basis. I do think on the whole it is a more conservative medium. NE: Do you think that may be because so much of band music comes from educational institutions? MS: That could be. There really aren't professional bands besides the military bands. There are professional orchestras and professional string quartets, but the band tradition, at least in this country, is in schools. NE: The Grawemeyer Award is a relatively new award. What vision do you have for the award in 15 years? MS: We are committed to what it is because it is an endowment for contemporary classical concert music. However, to me, the definition of that seems to be broadening a bit. We've had some interesting crossover-type pieces entered. For instance, there are lots of pieces with the influence of jazz or pop. We've had a lot more of those pieces that stretch the boundaries of "is it classical music or not?" Some of these tilt more poppy, but are still clearly classical concert music, and others that are more on the edge. I suspect at some point that one of those is going to win. We've had some interesting pieces submitted. Some are just not contemporary classical music. There are borderline pieces. I often wonder what would have happened if this award had been around when Sweeney Todd was new. For me, that is an opera. It has huge pop influences, but it is an opera. What if this award had been around when Porgy and Bess was written? I could see one of those things winning it.

128

I think one of these crossover pieces will win it eventually. The award is for what it is for. We can't change the terms of the award. It's not like I can change this into something completely different—even if I wanted to. We are just going to get more crossover music. More and more composers are coming up through jazz and pop backgrounds than ever before. That wasn't my background, but it is the background of a lot of my students. They got into music playing in garage bands, and then got into classical music later. I got into music by playing in school orchestras, but a lot of my students have a very different background. That is really kind of exciting and those influences are only going to continue to grow. As we get more and more of this music, eventually one of these is going to win. For example, looking at the list of winners, Andriessen has a few poppy elements mixed in with the minimalism elements, but I'm not sure any of the others do.

129

APPENDIX G: Sample Nominating Letter from Publishing Company

130

BIBLIOGRAPHY Battisti, Frank. The Winds of Change: The Evolution of the Contemporary American

Wind Band/Ensemble and Its Conductor. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music, 2002.

Battisti, Frank L. The Twentieth Century American Wind Band/Ensemble: History, Development and Literature. 1st ed., Sept. 1995. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music, 1995.

———. Winds of Change II The New Millennium: A Chronicle of the Continuing Evolution of the Contemporary American Wind Band/Ensemble. Galesville, MD: Meredith, 2012.

Bent, Ian D., and Stephen Blum. “Repertory.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed November 3, 2014. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/40606.

Carmichael, John C. “Wind Music and the 1926 Donaueschingen Music Festival.” In The Wind Band and Its Repertoire: Two Decades of Research as Published in the College Band Directors National Association Journal, edited by Michael Votta Jr., 144–46. Miami: Warner Bros. Publications, 2003.

Clements, Andrew. “Colourful Chorale.” The Guardian, March 10, 2000, sec. Global. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/mar/10/artsfeatures1.

Corigliano, John. “Biography.” Website of John Corigliano. Accessed August 3, 2014. http://www.johncorigliano.com/index.php?p=item5&q=1.

Dittmer, Allan. The Power of Ideas: The University of Louisville Grawemeyer Awards in Music, Education, Religion, and World Order. Ashland, KY: Jesse Stuart Foundation, 2000.

———. The Power of Ideas: The University of Louisville Grawemeyer Awards in Music, Education, Religion, World Order and Psychology. Vol. II. Louisville, KY: Butler Books, 2008.

Ertz, Matthew. Email to Nicholas Enz. “RE: Grawemeyer Collection Questions,” March 11, 2015.

131

Fennell, Frederick. Time and the Winds; A Short History of the Use of Wind Instruments in the Orchestra, Band and the Wind Ensemble. Kenosha, WI: G. Leblanc, 1954.

Gilbert, Jay Warren. “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Replication and Update.” D.M., Northwestern University, 1993. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/304056841/abstract/E97ABBC6678F43C0PQ/15?accountid=9783.

Goldman, Richard Franko. The Concert Band. New York, Toronto: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1946.

Gottlieb, Jane. “Awards.” Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, October 4, 2012. http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/subscriber/article/grove/music/A2227378?q=awards&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit.

Grawemeyer Award for Music Committee. Letter to 2nd Round Juror, March 11, 1994. 1994 Winner File. Grawemeyer Collection.

Grawemeyer Music Award Committee. “2016 Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition Entry Form.” University of Louisville, 2015. http://grawemeyer.org/music/pdf_docs/music_application.pdf/at_download/file.

Hill, Gary. “From the Podium.” CBDNA Report, Spring 2004. http://www.cbdna.org/pdf/Report2004sp.pdf.

Holland, Bernard. “MUSIC REVIEW; Cordial Notes Resound, As Tough Downbeats Fade.” The New York Times, June 1, 2002, sec. Arts. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/01/arts/music-review-cordial-notes-resound-as-tough-downbeats-fade.html.

Ithaca College School of Music. “Beeler Memorial Composition Prize.” Ithaca College. Accessed February 4, 2015. http://www.ithaca.edu/music/ensembles/windensemble/beeler/.

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. “Our Strategy.” MacArthur Foundation, 2014. http://www.macfound.org/programs/fellows/strategy/.

Junkin, Jerry. “From the Podium.” CBDNA Report, Spring 2005. http://www.cbdna.org/pdf/Report2005sp.pdf.

J.W. Pepper Sheet Music. “Silver Ladders (Full Score) by Joan Tower.” J.W. Pepper Sheet Music. Accessed September 5, 2014. http://www.jwpepper.com/Silver-Ladders/7926215.item#.VBKBtkvlZAo.

132

League of American Orchestras. “About the League.” League of American Orchestras, 2015.

———. “Orchestra Repertoire Report Survey.” League of American Orchestras, 2015. http://www.americanorchestras.org/knowledge-research-innovation/orr-survey.html.

———. “ORR 2010-2011.” League of American Orchestras, 2015. http://www.americanorchestras.org/knowledge-research-innovation/orr-survey/orr-current.html.

Mahr, Timothy Jon. “An Annotated Bibliography and Performance Commentary of the Works for Concert Band and Wind Orchestra by Composers Awarded the Pulitzer Prize in Music 1943-1992, and a List of Their Works.” DMA Document, University of Iowa, 1995.

National Band Association. “About the NBA/Revelli Composition Contest.” National Band Association, 2015. https://www.nationalbandassociation.org/contests/.

Ostling, Acton Eric. “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit.” Ph.D., The University of Iowa, 1978. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/288455954/citation/79581353F153492EPQ/11?accountid=9783.

Price, Harry E., Cornelia Yarbrough, and Michael Kinney. “Eminence of American Composers: University Faculty Attitudes and Symphony Orchestra Programming.” Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, no. 106 (October 1, 1990): 37–47.

Procell, James. Phone interview. Interview by Nicholas Enz. Phone, August 14, 2014.

Reicha, Anton. Six Quintets for Wind Instruments, Op. 88. Bonn: N. Simrock, 1817.

Respondent #4. Factors Influencing the Selection Process of the Grawemeyer Award: 2nd Round Jurors. Survey, March 18, 2015.

Satterwhite, Marc. Radio Interview. Interview by John Clare. Radio Broadcast - KPAC 88.3, November 11, 2011. http://kpac883.blogspot.com/2011/11/eps-wins-grawemeyer.html.

———. Interview by Nicholas Enz. Phone Interview, March 3, 2015.

———. Interview by Nicholas Enz. Phone Interview, March 24, 2015. transcript located in APPENDIX F of this document.

133

Schuller, Gunther. “Address at the CBDNA National Conference, February 13, 1981, Ann Arbor, MI.” CBDNA Journal, no. 5 (Winter 1988): 32–34.

———. “Storm the Establishment.” WINDS 6 (Winter 1991): 9–10.

Snow, Shauna. “Arts And Entertainment Reports From The Times, News Services And The Nation’s Press.” Los Angeles Times, November 29, 2000. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/29/entertainment/ca-58503.

The American Bandmasters Association. “ABA Awards.” The American Bandmasters Association. Accessed March 1, 2015. http://americanbandmasters.org/awards/.

———. “The American Bandmasters Association: Awards.” The American Bandmasters Association, February 4, 2015. http://americanbandmasters.org/awards/.

The University of Louisville and The Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. “The Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition: Description.” The Grawemeyer Awards, 2009. http://grawemeyer.org/music/description.html.

Tommasini, Anthony. “The Tried and the True Step in After the Storm.” The New York Times, December 29, 2010, sec. Music. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/arts/music/30gilbert.html?_r=0.

Towner, Clifford N. “An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band according to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Second Update.” D.M.A., The University of Nebraska - Lincoln, 2011. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/docview/882863386/abstract/E97ABBC6678F43C0PQ/9?accountid=9783.

Turrin, Joseph. “Hemispheres.” Joseph Turrin, 2002. http://www.josephturrin.com/comp.works/hemis.html.

Vondran, Shawn David. “The Development of the Ostwald Award.” University of Miami, 2009. http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=oa_dissertations.

Wakin, Daniel J. “Dutch Composer Wins Grawemeyer Award.” The New York Times, November 28, 2010, sec. Arts / Music. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/arts/music/29arts-DUTCHCOMPOSE_BRF.html.

Whitwell, David. The History and Literature of the Wind Band and Wind Ensemble. Northridge, CA: Winds, 1982.

134

Williamson, John E. Rehearsing the Band. Edited by Kenneth L. Neidig. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music, 2007.

Yale University, School of Music. “Biography: Aaron Jay Kernis.” Yale University. Accessed August 3, 2014. http://music.yale.edu/faculty/kernis-aaron/.

Enz_DMA Document - OhioLINK ETD Center

Documents

Transcript of Enz_DMA Document - OhioLINK ETD Center