I have been following the discussion of British composers in the high
classical tradition during the Victorian period, or rather the lack of
them, with considerable interest. I don't really believe in some native
genius that waxes and wanes in a people over time, nor do I put much
credence in the idea that composing in one musical genre precludes the
ability of writing in another. I do believe, however, that people, even
composers (except perhaps Satie) have to eat, and that economic factors
play a great role in making or unmaking composers and other artists; and,
even when finances do not dictate their role in life, they can influence
the acclaim and prestige the individual can achieve.
I would suggest that behind every "great" composer, there is a "great"
agent or entrepreneur. D'Oyly Carte made Sir Arthur Sullivan so wealthy
that he could have written symphonies and operas had he chosen to do so.
Frederic Delius enjoyed a stipend from his father and married wealth, and
so was free to develop his talents to the fullest, but we should probably
not know much about him had Sir Thomas Beecham rescued him from
relatively obscurity, much as Leonard Bernstein made Aaron Copeland
something more than a composer of motion picture music. Percy Grainger
had to earn a living, which he did by teaching and being a band
conductor. He spent his summers here in Lawrence, Kansas, conducting
summer concerts, so we might conclude that he was not financially free to
do as he pleased. It is certainly true that the Church acted as patron
for many British composers, but -- if I recall correctly -- the stipends
were not lavish, and the work included training the choir, playing the
organ, and occasionally composing a commissioned piece -- for which there
were no copyrights or royalties paid. Nor were there many others to
commission major musical works.
The system was much different on the continent. Agents handled the
composer's career, and entrepreneurs arranged tours and concerts. Most
composers were also either musicians or conductors, or both, and made
their fortunes through the tours arranged for them. Even those with
church positions were allowed and expected to make tours, give secular
concerts, and profit from secular commissions. The stories of Mozart and
other child prodigies performing their own compositions at tender ages is
only a reflection of the fact that the tour audiences expected
entertainment, something that someone like Lizt allowed to influence his
music profoundly.
One leg of the tour during the Victorian era that promised great profits
was the United States, and many European artists came to join the Redpath
or Chautauqua circuits to restore depleted fortunes. Many English writers
came to lecture, but very few English composers or musicians, except for
a few like the beloved Sir Harry Lauder, another showman of the first water.
Much the same held true for England. The continental tours reached in
Britain, and both the entrepreneurs and performers made a good deal of
profit from their ventures, but British performers and composers were
conspicuously absent from the European scene.
If we are considering why Victorian England failed to produce composers
and performers of international reknown, we should probably examine the
musical business structure. Who were the English musical agents, who were
the entrepreneurs, why did they fail to gain their English clients the
entree into the profitable world of the European tours? To what extent
did the wealthy employ military bands for their great social events, and
why could musical agents not mitigate that custom? Are there any more
Delius's lying around waiting to be discovered?
As a final, and I hope provocative point, to what extent is the
resurgence of British music of the "classical" order due to the business
arrangements of the recording industry and the excellent commissions
offered by film makers?
Lynn
University of Kansas