ABSTRACT Title of Document: THE MUSIC OF MANUEL M. PONCE, JULI?N CARRILLO, AND CARLOS CH?VEZ IN NEW YORK, 1925-1932 Christina Taylor Gibson, Doctor of Philosophy, 2008 Directed By: H. Robert Cohen, Professor Emeritus, Musicology and Ethnomusicology Division, School of Music From 1925 to 1932, music by Manuel M. Ponce, Juli?n Carrillo, and Carlos Ch?vez was performed in New York and widely reviewed in the city?s newspapers. Although they are among the most significant figures in Mexican musical history, the influence of these composers and their works in New York from 1925-1932 has not been sufficiently studied. During these years, New York was not only the cultural capital of the U.S. but it was also a center for modernism and expatriate Mexican culture. In addition, the years in question mark the period directly preceding the premiere of Ch?vez?s ballet, H.P., with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, a performance that transformed Ch?vez?s career and made him one of the most well- known Latin American composers in the U.S. This dissertation seeks to provide a multi-faceted examination of these composers and performances of their works in New York during the critical years before Ch?vez?s ascendancy and to demonstrate the diverse Mexican musical aesthetics represented there during a relatively short period of time. Specifically this dissertation focuses on performances of Ponce?s canciones and guitar compositions, Carrillo?s avant-garde microtonal music, and Ch?vez?s modernist chamber works; all of which were presented in New York between 1925 and 1932. It also provides information about Mexican music in New York directly before and after the central period in question, examining in some detail New York performances of Carrillo?s First Symphony in 1915, Ponce?s performance of his own piano music in 1916, and the aforementioned Philadelphia premiere of Ch?vez?s H.P. in 1932. THE MUSIC OF MANUEL M. PONCE, JULI?N CARRILLO, AND CARLOS CH?VEZ IN NEW YORK, 1925-1932 By Christina Taylor Gibson Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Emeritus H. Robert Cohen, Chair Professor Barbara Haggh-Huglo Associate Professor Richard G. King Associate Professor Leonora Saavedra Professor Mary Kay Vaughan ? Copyright by Christina Taylor Gibson 2008 ii Acknowledgements Over the course of the dissertation writing process I have become thankful for the many resources available to me. Among the people most important to this project, was my adviser, H. Robert Cohen, who has provided advice, edits, and suggestions throughout the process, always reading with a keen eye. Leonora Saavedra very generously agreed to fly out from California for my defense and offered insightful comments and questions about the manuscript. Mary Kay Vaughan of the History Department encouraged this project from the very beginning and gracefully agreed to serve as Dean?s Representative on the Committee. Barbara Haggh-Huglo and Richard King, both Musicology professors at the University of Maryland, were inspiring teachers during my coursework and continued to give advice during the dissertation phase of my studies. The Musicology-Ethnomusicology Department as a whole has been supportive of my interests throughout my studies at Maryland. In addition to my committee members, Professors Jennifer DeLapp Birkett, Richard Wexler, and Robert Provine have given me advice and guidance. Special mention should be made of several students at the University who encouraged my work: Victor Vicente (Ethnomusicology), Susanne Eineingel (History), and Kimberlee Staking (Women?s Studies). I am lucky to be in a field where scholars tend to be generous and welcoming. The project would not have been possible without assistance from scholars who specialize in my period of Mexican or Latin American music, including Alejandro Madrid, Ricardo Miranda, John Koegel, Carol Hess, and, especially, Robert Parker. iii Deborah Schwarz-Kates, Grayson Wagstaff, Melissa de Graaf, Elizabeth Crouch Fitts, Andrew Weaver, James Armstrong, and Katherine Preston also gave assistance and friendship. In the archives in which I completed my research, I found friends and allies. Carmen Viramontes, Juli?n Carrillo?s granddaughter, generously arranged for me to visit the Carrillo family home where the composer?s papers still reside. There I met the family secretary, Graciela Barri?n Tamayo, and the cellist Jimena Gim?nez Cacho who assisted my research. At the AGN?s Ch?vez archive, C?sar Montoya Cervantez helped me understand the system and adjust to various difficulties. Stephanie Poxon provided advice and help at the Library of Congress, leading me to the Jascha Heifetz and Nicolas Slonimsky collections. Researchers and staff members at RIPM, including Esperanza Berroc?l, Vashti Gray, and Randi Trzesinski helped me find copies of various articles. I placed inquiries with several institutions and presses for the use of the material in this dissertation. Carl Fischer gave permission to use examples from Carrillo?s scores. Musical America allowed me to copy a musical example printed in their publication. The Art Resource, the Modern Museum of Art, and Banco de M?xico, which represents the estate of Diego Rivera, gave me permission to reprint the drawing of ?H.P., the man? in Chapter 6 of this document. Carmen Viramontes, representing the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo, permitted the use of images taken at the archive and reproduced in Chapter 4 of this document. My heartfelt thanks to each person involved in allowing me to access and to include the works of others. iv I have had numerous jobs over the course of the dissertation that helped me fund my work and retain my sanity. Teaching jobs at the College of William and Mary, St. Mary?s College of Maryland, and the University of Maryland were joyful, fulfilling experiences. A graduate assistantship at the Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center at the University of Maryland provided a different sort of knowledge and experience. Most recently, I have enjoyed working at the Special Collections of the Performing Arts at the University, where I have learned about archival preservation and cataloguing. Last, but surely not least, are those in my personal life who have encouraged my work. Anjali Shah provided me a place to stay during research trips to New York. Megan and Andrew Smith fed me when I traveled to Baltimore. Kathleen Mullen, Annie Du, Dave and Emily Leichman, Gina King, Linton Wells, Shannon and Dave Hughes, Heidi Hemming, and Helen McBride were simply good friends. My immediate family members, Peggy, Doug, and Julia Taylor, and my in-laws, Gordon, Larry, and Grey Gibson, were my cheerleaders throughout this process. My husband Matthew is the most peaceful, loving, supportive person I know; I could not have seen the project to completion without him. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................ii? List of Illustrations......................................................................................................vii? Abbreviations................................................................................................................x? Introduction...................................................................................................................1? Carrillo, Ponce, and Ch?vez in Mexico....................................................................3? Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez in New York, 1925-1932............................................6? Cultural Life in New York........................................................................................8? Chapter 1: Literature Review......................................................................................11? Secondary Literature...............................................................................................11? Biographies.............................................................................................................11? ?Mexico Vogue? Literature....................................................................................15? Histories of U.S. Musical Life................................................................................16? Primary Literature Review......................................................................................18? Chapter 2: Prelude to the Vogue Years: Carrillo?s Orchestra Concert of 1915 and Ponce?s Piano Recital of 1916 in Context..................................................................22? Mexican Music in New York during the 1910s and early 1920s...........................22? Carrillo in Mexico and Abroad Before 1914..........................................................26? Carrillo in New York, 1914-1915...........................................................................27? Carrillo?s First Symphony......................................................................................30? Reception of Carrillo?s Symphony and the American Symphony Orchestra.........33? Var?se and Carrillo in New York: A Comparison..................................................36? Ponce and Mexican Musical Nationalism...............................................................40? Reception................................................................................................................44? After Ponce?s Recital..............................................................................................49? Mexican Musicians in the New York Press, 1910-1920.........................................50? After 1920...............................................................................................................52? Chapter 3: Ponce?s Music and the ?Mexico Vogue? in New York............................54? Ponce?s Canciones..................................................................................................56? Clarita S?nchez.......................................................................................................65? Jascha Heifetz and ?Estrellita?................................................................................68? Andr?s Segovia.......................................................................................................72? After the ?Vogue?...................................................................................................76? Ponce?s New York Legacy?....................................................................................79? Chapter 4: Carrillo and Sonido 13 in New York, 1925-1932.....................................81? The Invention of Sonido 13....................................................................................84? The First Performance of Sonido 13 Music............................................................88? Advance Press in New York for Sonido 13............................................................94? Preparing for Sonata Casi Fantas?a in New York...................................................97? Sonata Casi Fantas?a...............................................................................................99? Reception of Sonata Casi Fantas?a........................................................................105? After Sonata Casi Fantas?a: Writings in New York..............................................108? Theoretical Treatises.............................................................................................110? vi Leyes de Metamorfosis musicales and the composition of Concertino................112? After Sonata Casi Fantas?a: Other Compositions.................................................114? Reception of Concertino.......................................................................................115? Carrillo and New York from 1928 to 1932...........................................................118? Stokowski in Mexico, 1931..................................................................................120? Carrillo?s New York Legacy?...............................................................................126? Chapter 5: Ch?vez?s Early Years in New York, 1925-1931....................................129? Ch?vez?s First New York Visit.............................................................................132? Ultra-modernism in Mexico..................................................................................136? Ch?vez the modernist returns to New York..........................................................140? Fiesta Fiasco..........................................................................................................144? Non-Public Performances.....................................................................................148? Rosenfeld..............................................................................................................150? Copland.................................................................................................................152? Cowell...................................................................................................................155? Lessons, Lectures, and Writings...........................................................................160? Ballets...................................................................................................................164? Ch?vez Returns to Mexico City, 1928-1932.........................................................166? Ch?vez?s Reputation in New York, 1928-1932....................................................169? Ch?vez in New York before 1932........................................................................172? Chapter 6: H.P. and Ch?vez in U.S. Musical Life after 1932..................................175? Plans and Preparations..........................................................................................180? Pre-Concert Publicity............................................................................................182? The Performance...................................................................................................188? Local Reception....................................................................................................200? Broader U.S. Reception........................................................................................201? After H.P...............................................................................................................203? Ch?vez as Informal Cultural Ambassador............................................................205? Conclusions...............................................................................................................213? Appendix A: Selected Reviews of Clarita S?nchez?s Recitals in New York..........225? Appendix B: Jascha Heifetz: Performances in Mexico, Selected Reviews, and Performances of ?Estrellita? in New York...............................................................227? Appendix C: Segovia?s Concerts in New York and Selected Reviews, 1928-1932.................................................................................................................230? Appendix D: Select Articles about Juli?n Carrillo and Sonido 13 Published in New York, 1925-1932..............................................................................................233? Appendix E: Ch?vez?s Friends and Associates.......................................................236? Appendix F: Articles and Reviews about Carlos Ch?vez?s Horsepower in 1932...245? Bibliography.............................................................................................................252? vii List of Ilustrations Example 2-1:?? The program for the American Symphony Orchestra concert as printed in the Musical Advance with a photograph of Carrillo to the left............................................................................................29? Example 2-2:?? The first theme of the Finale..........................................................31? Example 2-3:?? The first theme of the first movement is similar in contour..........31? Example 2-4:?? The second theme in the Finale is typical of Carrillo?s writing elsewhere........................................................................................31? Example 2-5:?? The ?false recapitulation.? Permission granted from Carl Fischer on behalf of Jobert.........................................................................32? Example 2-6:?? The principal melody to the canci?n ?Me he de comer un durazno.? An arrangement can be found in Mexican Folkways 6, no. 1................................................................................................43? Example 2-7:?? Ponce opens his Balada Mexicana with the melody to ?Me he de comer un durazno.? It is repeated in an octave lower and then developed through measure 95..............................................44? Example 2-8: Ponce?s New York recital program................................................46? Example 3-1:?? The principal melody is stated in full after a six-bar introduction. The accompanying lyrics are: ?Estrellita del lejano cielo, que miras mi dolor, que sabes mi sufrir, baja y dime si me quiere un poco porque yo no puedo sin su amor vivir.?...........................58? Example 3-2:?? Photograph of Mojica printed in Musical Digest, January 1929...63? Example 3-3:?? On top of a low slow-moving passacaglia pattern, a baroque-like melody forms two recognizable sequence patterns, the first in measures 1-4 and the second in measure 6....................................74? Example 3-4:?? Variations III and IV, demonstrate the variety of harmonization techniques used in Ponce?s composition. Whereas Variation III presents a closed pattern of 3rds, Variation IV is more open with an emphasis on the melody....................................................74? Example 4-1:?? Quarter-tone scale written in altered tonal notation.......................89? Example 4-2:?? Translation of Schubert?s ?Unfinished? Symphony into Carrillo?s microtonal notation. Printed with permission from Musical America............................................................................90? Example 4-3:?? The opening passage to Preludio demonstrates Carrillo?s facility with microtonal melodies; the harmonies, by contrast, are sparse and simple. Permission granted by the current holders of the copyright, Carl Fischer, on behalf of Jobert..................................91? viii Example 4-4:?? In the middle stanza, the violin moves downward whilst the guitar line rises. The final cadence reiterates the centrality of pitch class E. Permission granted by the current holders of the copyright, Carl Fischer, on behalf of Jobert....................................................93? Example 4-5:?? The inscription at the left is in the composer?s hand. It reads: ?First ?Grupo 13? of New York that performed Juli?n Carrillo?s Sonata Casi Fantas?a in 4 th , 8 th , and 16 th tones in Town Hall, 13 March 1926; the first group to do so in the world.? Emil Mix holds the octavina and Margarita Rein stands next to the arpacitera. Permission to use the photo granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo.............................................98? Example 4-6:?? Cello solo passage between two movements of Sonata Casi Fantas?a. Permission use excerpts of the autograph score granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo...............................................................................100? Example 4-7:?? The first half of the first thematic section of Sonata Casi Fantas?a...............................................................................102? Example 4-8:?? One of the most experimental passages occurs after rehearsal K.104? Example 4-9:?? The first page of the only English-language issue of El Sonido 13 that Carrillo would publish. Unlike the other issues of the magazine, which range between twenty and twenty-five pages in length, this issue is four pages. Permission to include a photograph of the publication granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo.......................................107? Example 4-10:??Comparison of this example from the beginning of the Concertino with example 4-5, from the beginning of the Sonata demonstrates the practical application of Carrillo?s metamorphosis technique. Permission to reprint an excerpt of the score granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. Addition permission granted by the current publishers, Carl Fischer, in behalf of Jobert............................................................................113? Example 4-11:??Carrillo made these postcards to commemorate the Mexico City Grupo Sonido 13?s performance with Stokowski and the medal Carrillo bestowed upon the conductor. Permission to use the photo granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo...............................................................................122? Example 5-1:?? The vocalist sings, ?Donde va mi coraz?n por esta luminosa avenida?? on a steady stream of C half-notes, only changing to F# on the last syllable of ?avenida.? Meanwhile the other instruments, particularly the oboe, here represented in the treble line of the piano reduction, depict the wandering heart with disjunct lines in irregular meters. Reduction by author...............135? ix Example 5-2: ? Machine sounds from ?Dance of Men and Machine? emphasizing a mechanical pull between duple and triple meters. Meas. 20-24. Piano reduction by author......................................141? Example 5-3: ? Mexican melody from ?Dance of Men and Machines,? meas. 34-38. Piano reduction by author.......................................142? Example 6-1: ? In first movement of H.P., the trumpet introduces full Mexican melody into a modernist context, shown here in the fourth measure of the example...............................................................193? Example 6-2:?? The chord at the end of the first movement is shown here in the strings. In the full score, all the instruments play together, excepting the double bass and the percussion. An E pedal tone in the double bass sustains into the next movement....................194? Example 6-3:?? Rivera, Diego (1866-1957), The Man, costume design for the ballet (Horsepower). 1927. Watercolor and pencil on paper, 20 7/8 x 29 3/8?. Gift of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller to the Museum of Modern Art. Image used courtesy Art Resource, the Museum of Modern Art, and Banco de M?xico (in behalf of the estate of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo).....................................195? Example 6-4:?? The Northern Music of Movement IV, measures 20-24, piano reduction by author......................................................................199? Example 6-5:?? The Southern music of Movement IV, measures 34-41, piano reduction by author......................................................................199? x Abreviations AGN Archivo General de la Naci?n CENIDIM Centro Nacional de Investigaci?n, Documentaci?n e Informaci?n Musical CSM Christian Science Monitor ICG International Composers? Guild JAMS Journal of the American Musicological Society LC Library of Congress NMQ New Music Quarterly NYPL New York Public Library NYHT New York Herald Tribune NYT New York Times OSM Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana (later Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico) PAAC Pan American Association of Composers UNAM Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico 1 Introduction In an article titled ?Latin American Composers in the United States? (1980), the Cuban composer and scholar Aurelio de la Vega issued an implicit challenge to musicologists: A complete, accurate survey of the presence of Latin American composers in the United States is an almost impossible task. Records of visits of these composers to North America prior to the 1920s are scarce. We know, for example, that Ignacio Cervantes appeared as a pianist in the United States as early as 1882. But until the various significant visits of Ch?vez, starting with one in 1932 to attend the premiere in Philadelphia, under Stokowski, of his ballet Caballos de Vapor (Horsepower), there are no records to verify the presence of Latin American composers in the professional musical life of the United States. 1 Recently, John Koegel referred to de la Vega?s statement in an article on Mexican and Cuban composers in New York, 2 asserting that since 1980 musicologists have been gradually constructing a history of Latin American composers in the U.S. As he readily acknowledged, however, we still know too little about the subject. The period directly before Carlos Ch?vez?s 1932 visit provides a striking example of one lacuna in the field. From 1925 to 1932, music by Manuel M. Ponce and Juli?n Carrillo was performed in New York and widely reviewed in the city?s newspapers. Although Ponce and Carrillo are certainly among the most significant figures in Mexican musical history, the influence of these composers and their works in New York, the cultural capital of the U.S., has not been studied. During this same period, Ch?vez?s works were also performed and reviewed in New York. While his 1 Aurelio de la Vega, ?Latin American Composers in the United States,? Latin American Music Review 1, no. 2 (Fal-Winter 1980): 162-175. 2 John Koegel, ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos en Nueva York, c. 180 ? 1920,? Historia Mexicana 56, no. 2 (October-December 206): 53-602. 2 activities have been more widely examined, 3 his participation in various intellectual circles in New York deserves further investigation. In addition, comparisons of the aesthetic approaches found in the relevant Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez works; the promotion of performances of their works in New York; and the ways in which audiences responded, help to explain why Ch?vez and his music were ultimately granted such a large role in U.S. musical life. This dissertation provides a multi-faceted examination of these composers and performances of their works in New York during the critical years before Ch?vez?s ascendancy and to demonstrate the diverse Mexican musical aesthetics represented there during a relatively short period of time. Of particular interest are performances of Ponce?s canciones and guitar compositions, Carrillo?s avant-garde microtonal music, and Ch?vez?s modernist chamber works; all of which were presented in New York between 1925 and 1932. It also provides information about Mexican music in New York directly before and after the central period in question, examining in some detail New York performances of Carrillo?s First Symphony in 1915, Ponce?s performance of his own piano music in 1916, and the aforementioned Philadelphia premiere of Ch?vez?s H.P. in 1932. As demonstrated in the dissertation, Ponce, Carrillo and Ch?vez left very different types of legacies within the music community of New York. Regardless of the degree of success or recognition ultimately achieved, the performances of these 3 E.g. Robert Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3-4 (194): 81-88; Leonora Savedra, ?Carlos Ch?vez y la construci?n de una alteridad estrat?gica? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas, edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (M?xico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Belas Artes y Literatura, 202): 125-136; Antonio Saborit, ?Mexican Gaities: Ch?vez en la Babilonia de hiero? in Di?logo de resplendores,139- 148. 3 composers? works were remarkable because they followed a period of relative disinterest in Mexican culture among New Yorkers. By the 1930s it became clear that Ch?vez would achieve the most enduring and widespread recognition for his works and abilities. Following the premiere of H.P. in 1932, Ch?vez became the most prominent Mexican composer in the U.S. From that enviable position he was able to influence performances of Mexican classical music, limiting the aesthetic diversity available to New York audiences. I argue, therefore, that the moment of musical history examined in this dissertation holds particular interest because it represents a period of Mexican musical aesthetic diversity unknown in New York during the years preceding and following it. Carrillo, Ponce, and Ch?vez in Mexico Although performances of their works in the U.S. have not received adequate attention, scholars clearly recognize the important place that Carrillo, Ponce, Ch?vez, and their music held in Mexico. 4 During the first half of the 20 th century, these composers were leaders in their country?s musical community. Their lives, like those of all Mexicans, were disrupted by the Mexican Revolution (c. 1910-1920), a complicated war fueled, in part, by continuing class conflict, which devastated the population, the economy, and the landscape of Mexico. The war and the tenuous peace that followed inspired many artists to contemplate what it meant to be Mexican. Nationalist themes had been explored in Mexican music since at least the early 19 th 4 Se histories of musical life in Mexico, such as Robert Stevenson, Music in Mexico, New York: Thomas Y. Crowel and Company, 1952; Yolanda Moreno Rivas, Rostros del nacionalismo en la musica Mexicana: Un ensayo de interpretacion (?xico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989); Moreno Rivas, La Composici?n en M?xico en el siglo X, Mexico, D.F.: Consejo Nacional Para la Cultura y las Artes, 194. 4 century, but the Revolution prompted a more fervent and widespread interest in the expression of nationalism through music. Carrillo, Ponce, and Ch?vez each wrote works that can be understood as part of a broader post-Revolutionary discourse about mexicanidad in music. By the time the Revolution began, Carrillo (1875-1965) had already established a prominent position in Mexican cultural life. 5 A prodigy on the violin, Carrillo was granted a series of prestigious scholarships, including one that enabled him to study in Brussels and Germany, where he premiered his First Symphony conducting the Leipzig Orchestra. After returning home, Carrillo held several prominent posts: professor of composition at the National Conservatory, Inspector General of Music, director of the National Conservatory, and conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra. He also became the principal proponent of German music in Mexico and was the first to lead a Mexican orchestra in a performance of all nine of Beethoven?s Symphonies. Carrillo?s early works were in a German Romanic style, but in the wake of the Revolution, he began championing a new microtonal compositional technique that he called Sonido 13. Although most of the works he created did not contain obvious references to nationalist themes, Carrillo and his followers called Sonido 13 ?revolutionary? and found the innovations of the method analogous to the changes embodied in the Revolution. 6 5 Se histories of musical life in Mexico listed above as wel as biographical documents pertaining to Carilo, including, Julian Carilo, Juli?n Carilo: Testimonio de una vida (San Lu?s de Potos?, M?xico: Comit? Organizador, 192); Jos? Velasco Urda and Juli?n Carilo, Julian Carilo: Su Vida y Su Obra (M?xico: Edici?n del Grupo 13 Metropolitano, 1945). 6 A series of conferences about nationalism and music was held in Mexico City during the early 1920s. Carilo did not atend these conferences himself, but his students, including Geronimo Baquiero Foster and Vicente Mendoza, argued in behalf of Sonido 13. For more information about these conferences and their import in Mexican compositional circles, se Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and 5 Ponce (1882-1945) was in the process of developing his career when the Revolution began. 7 He was well-known as a professor of piano at the National Conservatory of Mexico, and as an advocate for the performance of works by Debussy. But he became more famous during 1912 and 1913 when he gave concerts, made speeches, and published articles that made clear his desire to research, compose, and perform mestizo folk music. At the time, Ponce believed that such music offered the best opportunity to cultivate a body of Mexican nationalist music. While Ponce?s own views changed over time, to this day Mexicans view much of his music as quintessentially nationalist, which led to his enduring reputation as the father of Mexican musical nationalism. Ch?vez (1899-1978), a generation younger than the other composers, was just a boy during most of the Revolution. 8 Although he composed a handful of works during his youth, Ch?vez did not learn composition in a classroom or other formal setting. Rather he studied piano?first in Ponce?s studio and later in Pedro Luis Ogaz?n?s studio. By the early 1920s, Ch?vez was performing his own works in piano and chamber music recitals. These concerts made his avant-garde tastes obvious to the Mexican public, inspiring both praise and criticism. Ch?vez became a more prominent figure in Mexico City musical life around 1928, partly in response to his perceived successes during two New York sojourns in 1924/25 and 1926-1928, but most immediately and obviously because of his appointments as director of the Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201). 7 For more information about Ponce?s carer and biography, se Ricardo Miranda, Manuel M. Ponce: Ensayo Sobre su Vida y Obra, M?xico, D.F.: R?os y Ra?ces, 198. 8 Se Robert Parker, Carlos Ch?vez: Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983); Roberto Garc?a Morilo, Carlos Ch?vez: Vida y Obra (M?xico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1960). 6 Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana and as the head of the National Conservatory. For the next several decades he was the de facto head of musical life in Mexico City. Through his official positions he encouraged the performance of both Mexican and modernist music. During the 1930s, Ch?vez?s own compositions reflected both nationalist and modernist tendencies. Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez in New York, 1925-1932 As one might expect from the previous descriptions, performances of music by Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez in New York between 1925 and 1932 reflected various aesthetic styles. Works by all three composers were performed in New York?s Carnegie Hall, Town Hall, and Aeolian Hall. Notices of upcoming concerts including their works were printed in the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune, and often reviewed in local magazines and newspapers. Although Ponce composed a wide variety of music, from complex works for orchestra to simple and intimate songs, it was his canciones, straightforward arrangements of Mexican folk songs, that were most frequently performed in New York during the late 1920s. The canciones were included in recitals by prominent musicians, including Clarita S?nchez, 9 Fanny Anit?a, 10 and Jascha Heifetz. 11 In addition to performing canciones, the Spanish guitarist Andr?s Segovia, a close friend 9 Se reviews: ?Sociedades Hispanas,? La Prensa, 23 May 1925, 6; ?Clarita S?nchez, Mexican Soprano, Gives Concert,? NYHT, 17 November 1925, 17; ?Concierto de Fany Anit?a esta noche en el Waldorf-Astoria,? La Prensa, 3 November 1926, 2. 10 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 1 November 1928, sec. 9, 10. 11 ?New York Concerts,? Musical Courier, 2 February 1928, 32. 7 of the composer, introduced some of Ponce?s most virtuosic guitar music to New York audiences. 12 From 1926 to 1928 Carrillo lived in New York and participated in its musical life. There were only two significant concerts of Carrillo?s music in New York during the period in question: the first was a performance of Sonata Casi Fantas?a organized by the League of Composers (1926), and the second a performance of Concertino by the Philadelphia Orchestra (1927). Though few in number, these concerts attracted reviewers from nearly every New York newspaper and many New York periodicals. 13 In addition, Carrillo?s approach to composition was described in several articles published in the months leading up to the performances. 14 He attempted to draw more attention to his composition theories through Sonido 13, a self-published bilingual magazine. Ch?vez?s U.S. career began in December 1923 with a short, four-month trip to New York and continued with a longer visit there from 1926 to 1928. Partly as a result of these visits, performances of Ch?vez?s chamber works were presented in concerts organized by the International Composers Guild (1924 and 1926), the Copland-Sessions Concerts (1928), the Pan American Association of Composers (1928), and the League of Composers (1930). The early U.S. performances 12 Segovia began touring in the U.S. in 1928, and he included many of Ponce?s compositions in his recitals. Reviews of such concerts include: Lawrence Gilman, ?Music: Guitar Recital by a Great Musician, Mr. Segovia?s Debut,? NYHT, 9 January 1928, 15; ?New York Concerts,? Musical Courier, 19 January 1928, 12; ?Concerts and Recitals,? Musical America, 25 January 1930, 107. Aditional reviews are listed in Apendix C. 13 Examples include: Olga Samarof, ?Music,? New York Evening Post, 15 March 1926, 13; Olin Downes, ?Music,? NYT, 14 March 1926, 29; W.J. Henderson, ?Demonstrate New Musical Scale,? New York Sun, 15 arch 1926, 19; arion and Flora Bauer, ?Music in New York? Musical Leader, 17 March 1927, 6; H.T. Craven ?Stokowski Presents ?Thirtenth Sound,?? Musical America, 12 March 1927, 12. 14 Se Apendix D for a list of articles. 8 culminated with the highly publicized premiere of Ch?vez?s ballet, H.P., in March 1932. Cultural Life in New York It is not surprising that both Carrillo and Ch?vez lived in New York during the 1920s for it was an exciting place to experience Mexican expatriate culture and modernist music. Helen Delpar has identified these years as part of the ?Mexico Vogue,? 15 which started around 1920 and peaked around 1930. ?The Vogue? was characterized by Mexico-themed art exhibits, magazine articles, theatre shows, and musical performances that displayed pride in Mexican culture and that attempted to restore the image of Mexico abroad somewhat tarnished by the Revolution. Many ?Vogue? participants engaged in an aggressive campaign on behalf of nationalist Mexican art. For example, New York patrons such as Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, Frances Flynn Paine, Anita Brenner, and Alma Reed commissioned work by Jos? Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera, and arranged exhibitions of their work. 16 Articles in the The New Republic, New Masses, Mexican Folkways, and numerous other publications touted the values of Mexican culture, reviewed local displays of Mexican art, and informed readers about Mexican customs. New York City was also a center for musical modernism during the 1920s: a number of organizations created concert series for the performance of new music. The earliest organizations were the International Composers? Guild (ICG), founded in 1921; the Franco-American Musical Society (later called the Pro-Musica Society), 15 Helen Delpar, The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican: Cultural Relations Betwen the United States and Mexico, 1920-1935 (Tuscalosa: University of Alabama Pres, 192). 16 Ibid. 9 founded in 1920; and the League of Composers, founded in 1923. Around 1928, after Edgar Var?se dismantled the ICG and returned to Europe, two additional organizations were formed: the Copland-Sessions Concerts and the Pan-American Association of Composers (PAAC). These groups encouraged the composition and performance of new music through their concert series. Publications associated with a few of these organizations?such as the League of Composers? Modern Music and the Pro-Musica Society?s Pro-Music Quarterly?fueled intellectual examination of contemporary compositional trends. The ?Mexico Vogue? and modernist musical life were just two of many factors influencing the performances of Mexican classical music in New York during the late 1920s and early 1930s. The composers? personal investment in New York musical life, the aesthetic approach of the music presented, and the opinions of critics were all important as well. This study examines each composer?s music and the relevant performances of that music in order study many facets of their New York careers. * * * This dissertation consists of six chapters and an introduction. The first chapter provides a brief review of scholarship with a list of the relevant archival sources. Chapter 2 examines musical life within the Latino community of New York before the ?Vogue,? with a particular focus on performances of Ponce and Carrillo?s music. It demonstrates the ways in which the aesthetic and political environment of New York during the 1910s discouraged some expressions of Mexican national identity in 10 music. Chapter 3 offers a history of the performance and critical reception of Ponce?s music in New York from 1925 to 1932, showing how the ?Mexico Vogue? of the late 1920s encouraged performers to program the composer?s nationalist canciones, with the understanding that they would be well-received by critics and audiences. Chapter 4 contains an account of Carrillo?s activities in New York in the 1920s and the reception of his music there. It examines Carrillo?s interactions with the modernist music community, which initially showed intense interest in the composer?s approach to microtonal composition. Chapter 5 describes the reception of Ch?vez?s modernist music in New York before 1932, during a period when he struggled to establish his place in U.S. musical life. It demonstrates how Ch?vez?s used his talents as a composer, writer, teacher, and friend to find recognition during his early career. Chapter 6 focuses on Ch?vez?s achievement of sought-after recognition in the U.S., which began with the premiere of H.P. in March 1932 and continued during the years that followed. It demonstrates the ways in which the H.P. premiere functioned as a turning point within Ch?vez?s U.S. career, making him the most prominent Mexican composer in the U.S. 11 Chapter 1: Literature Review Secondary Literature The scholarly literature leaves many lacunae in the history of music by Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez in New York from 1925 to 1932, but it does provide important pieces of this history. There are three types of studies that explore related subjects: (i) biographies of the composers, (ii) examinations of the ?Mexico Vogue,? and (iii) studies of musical life in the U.S. Biographies Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez have been examined most extensively in biographical studies based on the Ch?vez archives in the Archivo General de la Naci?n (AGN, Mexico City), the Ponce Archives in the Escuela Nacional de M?sica (UNAM, Mexico City) and, to a lesser extent, the Juli?n Carrillo archives, scholars have written biographies of these composers. These new studies offer very little information about performances of music by Ponce and Carrillo in New York. Detailed scholarly accounts of Ch?vez?s activities in New York focus on the ways those activities informed his career as a whole rather than their place in New York musical life. Collectively, biographical studies of these composers offer an incomplete account of the performances of their music in New York during the 1920s and 1930s. 12 Recent studies, by authors with greater access to Ponce?s personal papers, have explored Ponce?s relationship with his wife Clema, 17 his exile in Cuba, 18 his studies abroad, 19 and his friendship with Andr?s Segovia. 20 Whereas traditional narratives draw a dividing line between Ponce?s compositions before 1925, which were considered Romantic in style, and those written after 1925, which were considered modernist, recent studies by Ricardo Miranda have demonstrated the use of modernist techniques in the early compositions and Romantic approaches in the later works. 21 Biographers, including Miranda and Emilio D?az Cervantes and Dolly R. D?az, have examined Ponce?s visit to New York in 1916, during which he performed a poorly received piano recital of his music. However, because the composer was not involved in performances of his music during the late 1920s, these performances have gone unacknowledged by Ponce scholars. Carrillo scholarship presents an unbalanced account of his reception in New York. Several recent studies examine the Sonido 13 theories and place them in a historical context. 22 Ernesto Sol?s Winkler examined most of the extant written 17 Yael Bitran, ?Manuel M. Ponce: Cartas de amor desde Cuba (1915-1916),? Heterofon?a no. 18-119 (198): 9-23. 18 Ibid.; Clara D?az Perez, ?Presencia de Manuel M. Ponce en la cultura musical cubana,? Heterofon?a no. 118-19 (198): 24-40. 19 Ricardo Miranda, ?D?un cahier d?esquises: Manuel M. Ponce en Paris, 1925-193,? Heterofon?a no. 18-19 (198): 52-73. 20 Mark Dale, ??Mi querido Manuel?: La influencia de Andres Segovia en la musica para guitara de anuel M. Ponce,? Heterofon?a no. 18-19 (198): 86-105; Alejandro Madrid, ?De Mexico, concierto para Andres Segovia: Una vista al Concierto del Sur de Manuel . Ponce,? Heterofon?a no. 118-19 (198): 106-17; Andr?s Segovia, The Segovia-Ponce Leters, edited by Miguel Alc?zar, translated by Peter Segal (Columbus, OH: Editions Orph?e, 1989). 21 Miranda, Manuel M. Ponce: ensayo sobre su vida y obra. 22 Laurete Belamy, ?The ?Sonido Trece? Theoretical Works of Julian Carilo: A Translation with Comentary,? (PhD dis., Indiana University, 1972); E. R. Blackaler, La revolucion musical de Julian Carilo (M?xico, D.F.: Secretaria de Educaci?n P?blica, 1969); Jos? Rafael Calva, Julian Carilo y microtonalismo: ?la visi?n de mois?s? (M?xico, D.F.: CENIDIM, 1984); Luca Conti, ?Introduci?n cr?tica al ?Sonido 13? de Juli?n Carilo,? Heterofon?a no. 123 (200): 75-88; Alfred John Pike. ?The discoveries and theories of Juli?n Carilo, 1875-1965? Inter-American Music Buletin no. 5 (September 196): 1-4. 13 evidence to untangle the chronology of Carrillo?s microtonal discoveries. 23 Luca Conti has demonstrated how Carrillo developed his Sonido 13 ideas through his compositions as well as through his theoretical prose. Alejandro Madrid?s recent analyses of Carrillo?s music have determined that key aspects of his style appearing in the non-microtonal works written before the 1920s continued to appear in the Sonido 13 music. 24 Such studies provide important background material for this dissertation, but they do not examine Carrillo?s activities in the U.S. Two studies provide accounts of the performances of Carrillo?s music in New York: his autobiography, Testimonio de una vida, 25 and a collection of formal interviews with Jos? Velasco Urda, Juli?n Carrillo: Su Vida y Su Obra. 26 Both furnish detailed information about Carrillo?s activities in New York; however, because both were written and edited by Carrillo, his followers, and his family, strive to establish Carrillo?s historical importance, presenting an entirely favorable view of his life and work. Although helpful, both texts quote selectively from contemporary reviews, presenting an incomplete and biased reception history of Carrillo?s music and theoretical works in New York. Literature about Ch?vez provides more details about that composer and his activities in New York, but fails to consider certain aspects of his New York career. 23 Ernesto Sol?s Winkler, ?La revoluci?n del sonido 13: Un ensayo de explicaci?n social,? (Master of History Thesis, Universidad Aut?noma del Estado de M?xico, 196). Sol?s Winkler examined many documents relating to Carilo and Sonido 13, including periodical articles published in Mexico, recorded radio adreses, and various autobiographical acounts. 24 Alejandro Madrid, ?Writing Modernist and Avant-Garde Music in Mexico: Performativity, Transculturation, and Identity After the Revolution, 1920-1930,? (PhD dis., Ohio State University, 203); Ricardo Miranda, ?Romanticism and Contradiction in the Work of Juli?n Carilo,? (paper presented at the anual national meting of the American Musicological Society, Washington, D.C. on 28 Oct. 205). 25 Julian Carilo, Juli?n Carilo: Testimonio de una vida (San Lu?s de Potos?, M?xico: Comit? Organizador, 192). 26 Jos? Velasco Urda and Juli?n Carilo, Julian Carilo: Su Vida y Su Obra (M?xico: Edici?n del Grupo 13 Metropolitano, 1945). 14 Scholars naturally investigated Ch?vez?s role in New York musical life, 27 because the composer was so open about his ties to the U.S. Increasingly they are recognizing the significant influence the cultivation of a U.S. audience had on Ch?vez?s career. 28 In particular, recent studies draw links between his new approach toward nationalist music in the 1920s and early 1930s and his concern about U.S. audiences. 29 For many years, the premiere of H.P. has been recognized as a seminal event in the history of Mexican music in the U.S. 30 Despite the wealth of information already available, there are aspects of Ch?vez?s U.S. career that remain unexamined; the present narrative adds several elements missing from earlier accounts. For example, the strength and influence of Ch?vez?s friendship with fellow composer Henry Cowell is evaluated here even though it receives little attention in biographies about either man. 31 Ch?vez?s participation in a production of Michael Gold?s play Fiesta, has not been mentioned, to my knowledge, in any published account of Ch?vez?s?s New York years, but it is included here. The premiere of H.P. is often referred to as a seminal performance and 27 This scholarship includes: Robert Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3-4 (194): 81-88; Leonora Savedra, ?Carlos Ch?vez y la construci?n de una alteridad estrat?gica? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas, edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (M?xico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Belas Artes y Literatura, 202): 125-136; Antonio Saborit, ?exican Gaities: Ch?vez en la Babilonia de hiero? in Di?logo de resplendores,139-148. 28 Robert Parker?s writings chronicling Ch?vez?s activities in the U.S. have aded to a body of earlier literature by Robert Stevenson, Herbert Weinstock, and others. 29 This scholarship includes: Gloria Carmona, ?Carlos Ch?vez y la musica del futuro? Pauta: Cuadernos de teoria y critica musical 12, no. 45 (January-March 193): 5-18; Yolanda Moreno Rivas, Rostros del nacionalismo en la musica Mexicana: Un ensayo de interpretacion (M?xico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989); and Savedra, ?Carlos Chavez y la construci?n de una alteridad estrategica.? 30 Jefrey Belnap, ?Diego Rivera?s Greater America,? Cultural Critique 63 (Spring 206): 61-98; Nancy Broks Schmitz, ?A Profile of Catherine Litlefield? (PhD is., Temple University, 1986); Robert M. Stevenson, ?Carlos Ch?vez?s United States Pres Coverage.? Inter-American Music Review 3, no. 2 (Spring-Sumer 1981): 125-131. 31 Joel Sach?s biography of Cowel, scheduled for release in 209, may also shed new light on the relationship. 15 has been examined in a number of significant articles, but previous studies have not analyzed Ch?vez?s collection of press-clippings to the same extent as this dissertation. ?Mexico Vogue? Literature Literature about the ?Mexico Vogue? emphasizes the visual and literary arts, rather than musical arts. However, in those few texts considering music and the ?Vogue,? Ch?vez?s role is emphasized over that of other composers. Scholars have examined the papers of patrons Abby Aldrich Rockefeller 32 and Dwight Morrow; 33 and U.S. writers and managers such as Frances Flynn Paine, 34 Anita Brenner, 35 and Frances Toor and have established their roles in the ?Mexico Vogue.? 36 But many of these documents reflect more interest in visual, indianist art than in music. Although Paine and Toor demonstrated a limited interest in Mexican music, none of the other Vogue sponsors appear to have funded or promoted purely musical projects. Toor, in keeping with the topic of her ?little magazine,? 37 Mexican Folkways, collected folk songs, ignoring classical Mexican composers. Paine was genuinely interested in cultivating Mexican art music that could be presented in New York through Ch?vez?s 32 Aby Aldrich Rockefeler Papers, Rockefeler Archive Center, North Tarytown. 33 Dwight W. Morow Papers, Archives, Amherst Colege, Masachusets; Elizabeth Cuter Morow Papers, Sophia Smith Colection, Smith Colege, Northampton, Masachusets. Se also: Elizabeth Morow, The Mexican Years: Leaves from the Diary of Elizabeth Cuter Morow (New York: Spiral Pres, 1953); Susan Danly, ed., Casa Manana, (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Pres, 202). 34 Paine produced several exhibits of exican art, eventualy forming the Mexican Arts Asociation to promote Mexican fine arts in the U.S. Corespondence, Carlos Ch?vez, AGN. 35 Anita Brener wrote about Mexico in U.S. periodicals and published a bok about Mexican culture. She became an advocate for the artwork of Clemente Orozco, aranging several comisions and exhibitions for him. Anita Brener, Idols Behind Alters (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929); The Wind That Swept Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Pres, 1971); Richard D. Wods, ?Anita Brener: Cultural ediator of Mexico? in Studies of Latin American Culture 9 (190): 209-22. 36 Frances Tor published the influential magazine, Mexican Folkways. Se also: Francisco Javier I?iguez, ?Discursos imaginarios, cultura popular y formaci?n del Estado en ?Mexican Folkways?,? (PhD dis., University of California, Irvine, 201). 37 Here ?litle magazine? refers to highly specialized publications with smaler publics and often artistic or literary themes which proliferated at the begining of the 20 th century. 16 ballets. 38 Mabel Dodge Luhan 39 participated in the Vogue from her home in Taos, New Mexico, running a salon for visiting artists and intellectuals. Yet, like Paine, she did not show very much interest in the work of Ponce and Carrillo. Instead, she befriended Ch?vez and promoted his work, providing him access to her extensive network of contacts. In general, the papers of the ?Mexico Vogue? patrons indicate little interest in music, particularly classical music; the few exceptions limited their promotion to Ch?vez?s most populist and indianist works. Nonetheless, their efforts to recognize and promote Mexican culture effected a more welcoming environment for Mexican music in New York and, therefore, ?Mexico Vogue? studies should and do inform the present project. Histories of U.S. Musical Life While biographical studies of Ponce and Carrillo highlight performances of their music outside the U.S., rather than in the U.S., and ?Vogue? studies stress visual and literary arts rather than music, histories of music in New York have been more concerned with U.S. and European composers and their activities during the 1920s and 1930s rather than those of Latin American composers. Once again, of the three Mexican composers, Ch?vez receives the most attention in the scholarly literature about New York musical life, while Ponce and Carrillo are less prominently featured. 38 Robert Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3- 4 (194): 81-88. 39 Luhan Colection, Beinecke Library, Yale University Archives. Se also, Corespondence, Carlos Ch?vez, AGN. The most pertinent article is: Robert Parker, ?Leopold Stokowski y Carlos Ch?vez: Contacto en Taos,? Heterofon?a 98-9 (January-December 199): 4-1. Biographical studies of Luhan include: Emily Hahn, Mabel: A biography of Mabel Dodge Luhan (Boston: Houghton Miflin Co., 197); Jane V. Nelson, Mabel Dodge Luhan (Boise: Idaho Boise State University Pres, 1982); Winifred Frazer, Mabel Dodge Luhan (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984); Lois Palken Rudnick, Mabel Dodge Luhan: New Women, New Worlds (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Pres, 1984). 17 Studies of Cowell?s New Music publications and concerts, 40 the ?Copland-Sessions? concerts, 41 and the International Composers? Guild 42 are just a few examples of articles with a New York focus that include information about Ch?vez. Among the most relevant studies to the subject of this dissertation are those that deal with various aspects of cultural life in the U.S., such as: Helen Delpar?s book, The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican, 43 Robert Parker?s articles treating Ch?vez and ?Mexico Vogue? patrons, 44 Leonora Saavedra and Robert Stevenson?s work on Ch?vez and the U.S. press, 45 John Koegel?s studies of Mexican music in the U.S., 46 and Carol Oja?s depiction of musical life in 1920s New York. 47 Most of these scholars draw their conclusions through consultation of the periodical literature. Many of the studies stress Ch?vez?s role and de-emphasize the influence of others, but Delpar, Parker, Saavedra, Stevenson, Koegel, and Oja recognize that the breadth of Mexican music in New York from 1925 to 1932 extends beyond Ch?vez. 40 Rita H. Mead, ?Latin American Acents in New Music,? Latin American Music Review 3, no. 2 (Fal-Winter 1982): 207-228. 41 Carol Oja, ?The Copland-Sesions Concerts and Their Reception in the Contemporary Pres,? Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 213-229. 42 Deane L. Rot, ?The Pan-American Asociation of Composers (1928-1934)? Yearbok for Inter- American Musical Research, International 8 (1972): 49-70. 43 Delpar, The Enormous Vogue. 44 Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet? and ?Leopold Stokowski y Carlos Ch?vez: Contacto en Taos.? 45 Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201); Robert M. Stevenson, ?Carlos Ch?vez?s United States Pres Coverage,? Inter-American Music Review 3, no. 2 (Spring-Sumer 1981): 125- 131 46 John Koegel, ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos en Nueva York, c. 180 ? 1920? and ?Del Rancho Grande y a trav?s del R?o Grande: M?sicos mexicanos en Holywod y en la vida musical norteamericana, 1910-1940,? Heterofon?a 128 (Jan.-June 203): 101-130. 47 Carol Oja, Making Music Modern: New York in the 1920s (New York: Oxford University Pres, 200). 18 Primary Literature Review Primary sources consulted in preparation for this dissertation include contemporary newspapers and magazines, scores, recordings, and archival documents. Newspapers, magazines, and journals chronicle important performances through reviews and program listings. Sunday editions of New York newspapers from the late 1920s and early 1930s, especially the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune, provide extensive program listings for New York concert halls and radio stations that prove invaluable for the reconstruction of musical life in the city. Reviews of concerts, printed nearly every day in these papers, are also helpful. La Prensa, the principal Spanish-language newspaper of New York and one of the few early 20 th -century New York Spanish-language periodicals to survive in a relatively complete form, provides a different view of the same set of performances. It is one of the few sources to document social events within the New York Latino community. Performances open to a wider public, but featuring music of interest to La Prensa?s readership, received particular attention in the paper, which often provided more information about Latino performers than any other source. New York music magazines for a broad readership, such as Musical America and Musical Courier, included many short reviews that add to and deepen the picture of musical life provided by newspapers. Profile articles were far more common in these publications than in the large daily newspapers; in Musical America U.S. audiences could read biographical articles about both Carrillo and Ch?vez. Other magazines, such as The New Republic, New Masses, and Mexican Folkways, were known for their articles about Mexican culture. The New Republic 19 catered to intellectual, left-wing readers; during the 1920s the magazine published several articles about Mexican culture, including profiles and reviews of Ch?vez and his music. New Masses was the principal communist magazine in New York of the time, and it also included many articles about Mexican culture, especially the politicized muralist movement. Mexican Folkways, edited by anthropologist Frances Toor, made canciones and other Mexican folk music available to New Yorkers through the yearly publication of a volume that focused on a particular genre of Mexican music; the volume invariably included some basic analysis of the song type presented alongside a collection of melodies and lyrics. Carrillo received particular attention in two idiosyncratic publications published in New York. The first was the Musical Advance, a magazine written for a much broader audience than that subscribing to Modern Music or Pro-Musica Quarterly, but smaller than that reading Musical America. Topics of interest in the magazine included modernism, especially of the Germanic variety, perhaps explaining the attraction Carrillo and his music held. The second was Sonido 13 magazine, a publication written and published by Carrillo himself as a tool to promote his microtonal compositional methods, which were also called Sonido 13. Initially the magazine was written in Spanish and published in Mexico City; according to an editor?s note at the beginning of the first issue, the purposes of the magazine were to educate interested readers and quiet Carrillo?s critics in the Mexican music community. 48 At least 24 issues were published in this format. In addition, while Carrillo was living in New York, he published three bilingual issues of the magazine in an attempt to attract a broader audience to his ideas and music. 48 Carilo, ?Nuestro Programa,? El Sonido 13, January 1924, 1. 20 The information located in periodicals was enhanced by the material found in the Carrillo 49 and Ch?vez archives. 50 Carrillo documented every U.S. performance of his music in his scrapbooks, including articles from major and minor publications, as well as a few photographs and concert programs. Many of the articles Carrillo collected are difficult to find elsewhere. The Carrillo archive also contains a nearly complete collection of his autograph manuscript scores, including Sonata Casi Fantas?a and Concertino, the works most closely examined in this dissertation. A smaller but equally valuable collection in the archive of rare recordings of Carrillo?s works provides recordings of both works. Also of interest are the photographs of Carrillo with U.S. musicians, including his New York ?Grupo 13? and a photograph of Carrillo and Stokowski. Where possible, I have also consulted recent recordings and musical scores of the works examined in this dissertation. Ch?vez did not document the earliest U.S. performances of his music with care; however he did save some clippings. Invaluable to this study was the extensive and thorough clipping file for the 1932 H.P. premiere. In addition, the Ch?vez archives contain a large collection of correspondence, draft copies of Ch?vez?s writings, and extensive documentation of his various professional activities. Material from these parts of the collection supported and augmented evidence found elsewhere. Other archives proved important, albeit to a lesser extent. The New York Public Library?s Henry Cowell, Edgard Var?se, Herbert Weinstock, and Pan 49 Juli?n Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 50 Carlos Ch?vez Archive, Archivo General de la Naci?n, Mexico City, Mexico. 21 American Association of Composers Collections provided context for much of the information found in the Mexico City Ch?vez Archive. The Jascha Heifetz Collection in the Library of Congress supplied materials that informed the Ponce chapter. Other Library of Congress collections, including the Modern Music, Nicolas Slonimsky, and Aaron Copland Collections shaped chapters about Ch?vez. By combining information found in the more comprehensive periodical sources with that in the more selective archival collections of Carrillo, Ch?vez, and their friends, one gains a sense of the community as well as the personal responses of composers and critics to the music performed in New York during the late 1920s and early 1930s. 22 Chapter 2: Prelude to the Vogue Years: Carilo?s Orchestra Concert of 1915 and Ponce?s Piano Recital of 1916 in Context Scholars have established the existence of a ?Mexico Vogue? in New York during the late 1920s and 1930s, which appears to have influenced the reception of music by Mexican composers there during the this period. 51 Far from being just a momentary fad, however, many of the musical styles popularized during the ?Vogue? were being performed and enjoyed in New York during earlier decades, including the 1910s and early 1920s. In this chapter, I examine Mexican musical life in New York before the ?Vogue? with particular emphasis on two performances: the 1915 performance of the American Symphony Orchestra featuring Juli?n Carrillo directing his own first symphony; and Manuel M. Ponce?s 1916 recital of his own piano works. Mexican Music in New York during the 1910s and early 1920s Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, 52 Carlos Curti, 53 Ignacio Rodriguez Esper?n (?Tata Nacho?) 54 and Mar?a Grever 55 all composed and performed in New York before 1925. New York was a center for music publishing and recording, and many Latin American artists, especially Mexicans and Cubans, came to the city to profit from the presence of these industries. 56 Many of the Mexican compositions written, published, 51 Se Chapter 3 for more details about the ?Mexico Vogue.? 52 John Koegel, ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos en Nueva York, c. 180 ? 1920,? Historia Mexicana 56, no. 2 (Oct.-Dec. 206): 53-602. 53 Ibid. 54 Se leters to and from Carlos Ch?vez in: Gloria Carmona, ed. Epistolario Selecto (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989). 55 Mar?a Lu?sa Rodr?guez Le, Mar?a Grever: poeta y compositora (Potomac, Md.: Scripta Humanistica, 194). 56 Koegel, ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos.? 23 recorded, and performed in New York before 1925 were dances and songs in Latin forms?similar to works later associated with the ?Vogue.? Further evidence of a pre-?Vogue? Mexican musical culture in New York City can be found in La Prensa, a Spanish language New York newspaper that reported on social events hosted by Latin American, Spanish, or Mexican organizations. The brief descriptions found in La Prensa indicate that some events included music performances by marching bands, dance bands, or classical recitalists. Frequently music from the native countries of those in attendance was featured. 57 Among the Mexican performers mentioned in the pages of La Prensa are the violinist Patricio Castillo, 58 the singer Consuelo Escobar de Castro, 59 the singer Trina Varela, 60 the pianist and conductor Enrique Torreblanca, 61 and the singer J. de Salgado. 62 While composer biographies and La Prensa columns give some indication of the variety of musical performance in the Mexican expatriate community of New York during the 1910s, a comprehensive history is difficult to construct. For the most part, this aspect of musical life was not chronicled in mainstream publications such as the New York Times or the New York Herald; nor was it recorded in music specialist magazines such as Musical America or Musical Courier. The information about Mexican music in mainstream New York newspapers during the 1910s pales in comparison to the amount of information about Mexican 57 E.g. ?Una Recepci?n y Baile en el Club ?La Luz?,? La Prensa, 3 January 1919, 5; ?En una fiesta de caridad se pondr? en scena ?Las Flores? de los Quintero, ? La Prensa, 2 May 192, 1; ?Baile de flores en el Waldorf-Astoria,? La Prensa, 4 May 192, 2. 58 ?El Festival del Club Latino Americano Ser? Brilante,? La Prensa, 5 May 192, 1. 59 ?De M?sica,? La Prensa, 31 March 1923, 7. 60 ?Suplemento Ilustrado,? La Prensa, February 1923. [no page numbers suplied] 61 ?En una fiesta de caridad se pondr? en escena ?Las Flores de los Quintero,? La Prensa, 2 May 192, 1. 62 ?M?sica,? La Prensa, 5 May 1921, 5. 24 music available in similar publications during the 1920s. For example, a search of the New York Times database under ?Music and Mexico? produced 144 records for the years 1910 ? 1919. Many are advertisements or shipping reports; when these are eliminated only 88 documents remain. By contrast, for the years 1920-1929, there were 522 records of which 402 are neither advertisements nor shipping reports. One significant factor appears to be the location of the Mexican music concerts in question. Many of the Mexican music performances advertised in the pages of La Prensa during the 1910s were not given in concert halls frequented by critics for the New York Times, Musical America, or other mainstream publications. In the 1920s, several concerts of Mexican music were held in Carnegie Hall, Aeolian Hall, and Town Hall?venues such critics often attended. The locations of the 1920s concerts may have resulted in more articles about Mexican music in the mainstream press. Nevertheless, although most performances of Mexican music were overlooked by mainstream publications prior to 1925, two concerts did receive attention: Carrillo?s performance with the American Symphony Orchestra on 15 January 1915 and Ponce?s solo piano recital on 27 March 1916. Both were held in New York?s Aeolian Hall. Although both concerts featured works by Mexican composers, critics viewed them very differently. The American Symphony Orchestra performance was well received, perhaps because the symphonic repertoire presented was in a Germanic style familiar to New York audiences. By contrast, Ponce?s performance featured several nationalist compositions unfamiliar to New Yorkers. Furthermore, it took place a few days after Francisco ?Pancho? Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico, 25 during a period of severe anti-Mexican sentiment in the U.S. 63 Unlike the American Symphony Orchestra concert, Ponce?s recital was poorly received in the New York press. In the remaining sections of this chapter, I will examine Carrillo and Ponce?s New York performances of 1915 and 1916 respectively in an attempt to understand some of the events that shaped the reception of their music in the same city a decade later. To that end, I will examine each performance, its reception, and the influence that the performances appear to have had on the composers? careers. Although based upon published scholarly accounts, the following offers new information about performances of Mexican music in New York. For example, I present the first complete narrative describing Carrillo?s 1915 concert. While descriptions of the concert may be found in Carrillo?s autobiographies, 64 they concentrate on the most positive aspects of the composer?s experience. This narrative analyzes both positive and negative reactions to the performance. Ponce?s 1916 New York recital is beautifully described in Ricardo Miranda?s Manuel M. Ponce: Ensayo Sobre Su Vida y Obra and Emilio D?az Cervantes and Dolly R. de D?az?s Ponce: Genio de M?xico. The account offered here draws upon these sources, adding necessary information about Ponce?s compositional style, and a comparison between the experiences of Ponce and Carrillo. This is the first narrative to compare reactions to Carrillo?s 1915 concert and Ponce?s 1916 recital and to place them in a wider cultural context. 63 For a complete description of the incident, se p. 47-48. 64 Carilo, Testimonio de una vida (San Lu?s Potos?: Comit? Organizador, 194); Jos? Velasco Urda, Juli?n Carilo: Su Vida y Obra (Mexico: Edici?n del ?Grupo 13 Metropolitiano,? 1945). I list the Urda as an autobiography because the text contains a series of interviews so the text about Carilo is, for the most part, reflective of the composer?s point of view. 26 Carrillo in Mexico and Abroad Before 1914 Carrillo was born into a poor lower-class family living in the small town of Ahualulco in San Luis Potos?. At the age of ten he traveled to the city of San Luis Potos? to begin formal violin studies. In 1899, when in his mid-twenties, Carrillo earned scholarships from the Porfirio D?az administration to study violin, composition, and theory in Leipzig and Ghent. When Carrillo returned to Mexico in 1905, he received a series of prominent posts that established his favored position within the D?az regime including Professor of Composition at the National Conservatory and Inspector General of Music of Mexico City. While there, Carrillo continued his studies of music theory, as well as his career as a performer, pedagogue, and composer. His first formal foray into the field had occurred in 1900 when he presented a paper at the International Congress of Music in Paris, which was held in connection with the Universal International Exposition. Later, he presented his ideas at musical congresses in Rome and London in 1911. It is possible that Carrillo?s close association with the D?az regime made it particularly difficult for him to continue his professional activities during some of the Revolutionary administrations. Carrillo was not favored by Madero, the leader of the party that had forced D?az to resign. When Madero was overthrown by Victoriano Huerta, many believed there would be a return to Porfirian policies. Within the music community, Huerta?s government seemed to confirm such assumptions by appointing Carrillo the director of the National Conservatory of Mexico and encouraging plans to expand the institution. Unfortunately the funds to realize Carrillo?s ambitious ideas did 27 not exist and, as opposition to Huerta increased, Carrillo could count on little support. Perhaps realizing that the political tides were turning yet again, in December 1914 Carrillo left Mexico and brought his family with him to New York City. Carrillo in New York, 1914-1915 The concert given by Carrillo?s American Symphony Orchestra in January 1915 occurred several months after Carrillo fled Mexico. Almost immediately upon arriving in the city, Carrillo began an aggressive promotional campaign, notifying critics of his presence in New York, the music he had composed, and his plans to form a new symphony orchestra. A November 1914 article in Musical Advance introduced the composer to New York audiences with a brief biography. At the outset, it announced Carrillo?s plans to ?organize a symphony orchestra and a society for the special cultivation of chamber music.? 65 Although the biography listed Carrillo?s positions with the Conservatory of Mexico City, it emphasized his various activities abroad including Carrillo?s participation in a Musical Congress held in Paris in 1900, lessons with Salomon Jadassohn at the Leipzig Conservatory, performances as a violinist in the Gewandhaus Orchestra, studies at the Ghent Conservatory, and participation in the International Music Congress in Rome. Perhaps of particular interest to those who would later attend the performance of the American Symphony Orchestra was the news that Carrillo had conducted the Leipzig Orchestra in the 1902 premiere of his first symphony. 65 ?Carilo in New York,? Musical Advance, November 1914, 3. 28 Carrillo was never able to organize the chamber music society mentioned above, but the American Symphony Orchestra was created shortly after his arrival, sometime in late 1914. In his autobiography, Carrillo recalled the formation of the group: I could tell immediately the absolute ignorance [the people] of that enormous city had about the development of music in Latin American countries, and not only that, but also that when one of our artists arrived to go through the intense whirl of New York, the press published opinions so unfavorable that they could satisfy themselves when they said that [he/she] wasn?t so bad for a Latin American . . . I also believed that it was necessary to see if it was possible to condense in a single ideal all of the artists of the continent, without distinction of race or nationality?all of my efforts to form the American Symphony Orchestra rotated around that idea. 66 The group was organized without start-up capital; the musicians donated their time with the understanding that they would share in the profits, if there were any. Such an arrangement was possible because many opera theatres and concert halls had closed their doors in the winter of 1914 in response to the war abroad, and musicians were desperate for work. The January 1915 issue of Musical Advance printed a full- page copy of the program for the first planned American Symphony Orchestra concert, 6 January 1915, in Aeolian Hall [Example 2-1]. The program included the overture to Beethoven?s ?Leonore No. 3,? Ave Maria from Bruch?s ?The Cross of Fire,? Le Massena?s arrangement of ?Albumblatt? by Wagner, the waltz from 66 ?Pude darme cuenta inmediatamente del desconocimiento absoluto que aquela enorme ciudad ten?a del desarolo musical en los pa?ses hispanoamericanos, y no solo eso, sino que la prensa cuando legaba a pasar por el torbelino intenso de la gran urbe neoyorkina, alguno de nuestros artistas, publicaba opiniones tan poco favorables que hab?a que darse por satisfecho cuando dec?a que no era tan malo si se atend?a a que era un latinoamericano? Carilo, Testimonio, 178. Al translations by author unles otherwise noted. 29 Tchaikovsky?s Serenade, and Carrillo?s own Symphony No. 1 in D major [Example 2-1]. 67 Example 2-1: The program for the American Symphony Orchestra concert as printed in the Musical Advance with a photograph of Carrillo to the left. 67 ?America Symphony Orchestra,? Musical Advance, January 1915, 3. 30 Carrillo?s First Symphony After offering a preview hearing of his Symphony in December 1914, Carrillo made the score available to New York reporters. As a result, brief analyses of the composition appeared in the pages of the New York Herald, 68 Musical America, 69 and Musical Advance. 70 The critic for the New York Herald thought the work ?showed little originality,? but reviewers for Musical America and Musical Advance disagreed. The writer for Musical Advance noted: The symphony is in the orthodox form of four movements, each finely developed and nicely contrasted. It abounds in instrumental color and tonal variety and captivates the listener by reason of its beauty, and therefore is one of the most important contributions to symphonic literature that has been heard for some time. 71 The symphony?s most remarkable elements are its soaring melody, virtuosic string parts, and loud dramatic endings. The outer movements conform to traditional sonata-form and contain two contrasting themes, while the short inner movements are monothematic. The most compelling movement is the finale, the first theme of which, unlike most of the melodic material in the symphony, is fast-paced and malleable [Example 2-2]. In contour and key, it resembles the first theme of the first-movement [Example 2-3]; both are in D major and consist of an initial leap followed by a gradual descent. Whereas the first movement is slow and romantic, the first theme of the Finale is a loud, rapid-fire burst of energy. 68 ?American Symphony Plays,? New York Herald, 17 December 1914, 7. 69 A.W.K., ?Mexican Tinge to Orchestral Event,? Musical America, 16 January 1915, 7. 70 ?Carilo?s First Symphony? Musical Advance, January 1915, 4. 71 Ibid. 31 Example 2-2: The first theme of the Finale. Example 2-3: The first theme of the first movement is similar in contour. The second theme of the Finale is in the romantic style typical of Carrillo?s writing elsewhere in the symphony [Example 2-4]. Even longer than the other melodies, this theme retains interest through periodic interpolations by the orchestra. In the approach to the development, the melody modulates frequently, often alternating between major and minor to add color and harmonic interest. When the first theme returns in full, it is in A, not D major, as expected [Example 2-5]. The harmonic equivocations of the ?false recapitulation? continue throughout the recapitulation. After a series of modulations and the last full iteration of the theme, there is finally a cadence in D. The second theme enters in D, but it is quickly subsumed into a modulatory texture. These harmonic equivocations justify the bombastic repetition of the D major chord in the Coda. Example 2-4: The second theme in the Finale is typical of Carrillo?s writing elsewhere. 32 Example 2-5: The ?false recapitulation.? Permission granted from Carl Fischer on behalf of Jobert. 33 Carrillo?s first symphony demonstrates facility within the expected forms; it is neither avant-garde nor nationalist. Any elements of surprise, including the false recapitulation in the Finale, are presented using established compositional techniques. There are no allusions to folk song, titles, or programs evoking Mexico, or any signal within Carrillo?s symphony that the composer might be Mexican. If Carrillo wished, as he stated in his autobiography, to represent musical life in Latin America through the performance of his symphony, 72 the image he presented was familiar to a New York audience well-versed in the German Romantic tradition. Reception of Carrillo?s Symphony and the American Symphony Orchestra Although several critics had already heard the work in a preview performance, the official premiere in January elicited additional comments from New York critics. The New York American, 73 Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 74 New York Sun, 75 New York Tribune, 76 New York Herald, 77 and Musical America 78 published reviews. While the writer for the New York Herald continued to believe the symphony, ?does not interest greatly,? the critic for Musical America noted that the work was ?much applauded.? Most articles were brief but complimentary. Critics found Carrillo?s skills as a conductor laudable, but they criticized occasional mistakes by the musicians. 72 ?I also believed that it was necesary to se if it was posible to condense in a single ideal al of the artists of the continent, without distinction of race or nationality?al of my eforts to form the American Symphony Orchestra rotated around that idea.? For ful quote, se above. Carilo, Testimonio, 178. 73 ?New Orchestra Wins N.Y. Favor,? New York American, 7 January 1915, 15. 74 ?New Symphony Orchestra,? Broklyn Daily Eagle, 7 January 1915, 5. 75 ?New Orchestra Conductor,? The Sun, 7 January 1915, 12. 76 ?Carilo Beter than Orchestra,? New York Tribune, 7 January 1915, 9. 77 ?New Orchestra Heard,? New York Herald, 7 January 1915, 17. 78 A.K.W., ?Mexican Tinge to Orchestral Event,? Musical America, 16 January 1915, 7. 34 Nearly every article mentioned the composer?s nationality and it appears that the Latin American community supported Carrillo in his efforts. In the review for Musical America, the author observed that, ?the audience included large numbers of [Carrillo?s] countrymen.? 79 Several articles about the event appeared in Mexico City newspapers and magazines, probably based upon accounts provided by expatriates in attendance. 80 Carrillo?s nationality was mentioned in most mainstream reviews printed in New York, but the composer?s Mexican or Latin American identity was not the primary focus of such articles. Reviews of the concert in mainstream U.S. publications did not relate the Pan-American ideals of the group or note the number of Latin American musicians in the Orchestra. Instead, most critics analyzed Carrillo?s performance of standard symphonic works, including his own composition. Following the premiere of his symphony, Carrillo encountered financial difficulties. It appears from the account offered in his autobiography that Carrillo attempted, unsuccessfully, to raise funds for the orchestra. Few details are given, but Carrillo does write that a promised payment from an unnamed ?prominent Mexican? never materialized. 81 Carrillo was unable to pay the participating musicians, much less afford a second performance. Yet Carrillo continued to make ambitious plans for the organization. His goals were prominently featured in an extensive profile article by Mar?a Cristina Mena for 79 Ibid. 80 L. Lara Perdo, ?Juli?n Carilo,? Revista Universal, December 1914, 13; ?La Emancipaci?n Musical de Am?rica: El Pro del Arte,? Revista Universal, September 1916, 21; ??Orquesta Sinf?nica ?America?? Revista Universal, [n.d., 1917]. Scrapboks, Archivo Juli?n Carilo, Mexico City. 81 Carilo, Testimonio, 181. 35 the Century Magazine, published two months after the first performance. 82 It was in this article that Carrillo outlined his Pan-American ideals for the Orchestra. Despite an ongoing lack of funding, Carrillo told Mena that he wished to perform new works by composers from throughout the Americas with the Symphony Orchestra. Declaring Carrillo, ?the Herald of a Musical Monroe Doctrine,? Mena portrayed Carrillo as an ambitious idealist: In a waking vision he saw the Americas, North and South, become spiritually federated by the free evolution and jealous nurture of a music neither of North nor South, but of America; and he felt a prescience that that music of the Western World would assert its fountainhead, by the force of logic, in the United States. 83 Despite the positive publicity of the Century Magazine article, the American Symphony Orchestra never escaped from its economic doldrums. Over the next few months, Carrillo was not able to meet his monetary obligations, much less plan for future performances. His wife supported the family financially while Carrillo looked for suitable employment. Unfortunately various plans to teach composition and violin pedagogy and perform as a soloist proved equally disappointing and, as a consequence, Carrillo returned to a considerably more peaceful Mexico City in 1918. Despite his financial troubles, it appears that Carrillo retained fond memories of his visit to New York. He memorialized his stay there through an extensive scrapbook, still in existence at the Carrillo archives. Shortly after writing his new microtonal theory in the early 1920s, Carrillo permitted the Musical Advance to print the first English language version. 84 Later, writers at Musical America became 82 Mar?a Cristina Mena, ?Juli?n Carilo: The Herald of a Musical Monroe Doctrine,? Century Magazine, March 1915, 753. 83 Ibid. 84 Carilo, ?The Thirtenth Sound,? The Musical Advance, May 1923, 1. 36 interested in his theories as well. In 1926, Carrillo returned to New York to share his new ideas about music composition. Several of the articles about Carrillo and his music published during the 1920s mentioned his earlier visit. 85 It is clear that Carrillo built upon the reputation he developed in 1914 and 1915 to create interest in his microtonal music during the 1920s. 86 Var?se and Carrillo in New York: A Comparison Although Carrillo expressed satisfaction with his first foray into New York musical life, he hardly experienced unqualified success. The well-documented career of Edgard Var?se offers an example of the possibilities available to some foreign musicians in New York and illuminates the comparative difficulties Carrillo faced. Var?se arrived in New York in December 1915, a year after Carrillo had made his own pilgrimage to the city, and immediately began to establish his reputation by granting interviews to New York reporters. From that point forward, the similarities between the two composers? early New York careers are striking: both presented themselves as conductors as well as composers, both found support in expatriate communities of New York, both formed cooperative symphony orchestras, and both faced early mixed reviews. Yet Var?se?s early forays as a conductor, composer, and musical organizer in New York led to a long and successful career in that city whereas Carrillo had no significant engagements in New York between the American Symphony Orchestra premiere in 85 ?Advanced Musicians in Mexico Use Quarter-Tones and New Notation,? Musical America, 4 April 1925, 9; Carilo, ?Music Without Tones and Semitones,? The Musical Advance, June 1925, 1; Wiliam Spier, ?exican Composer Proposes New Quarter-Tone Notation,? Musical America, 15 August 1925, 18. 86 Se Chapter 4 for more information about Carilo?s activities in New York during the 1920s. 37 1915 and the League of Composers? concert in 1926. The differences in their New York careers seem to be attributable, in part, to Var?se?s careful cultivation of his image in the U.S. press, to his persistent search for sympathetic patrons in the New York music community, and to a political environment that made the New York public particularly receptive to his ideas and aesthetic. Var?se?s New York debut as a conductor was more widely recognized and lauded than that of Carrillo, at least partly because Var?se made some wise decisions about how he would present himself and his music. Whereas Carrillo raced to form the American Symphony Orchestra and presented it in a concert a few months after he came New York, Var?se?s debut concert occurred 1 April 1917, well over a year after his arrival. Rather than introducing his own music, Var?se featured a performance of Hector Berlioz?s Requiem, dedicated to soldiers dying in World War I. Critics declared him a ?genius,? and, as a consequence, Var?se was able to pursue additional conducting opportunities. 87 In contrast, critics agreed that some members of Carrillo?s American Symphony Orchestra were ill prepared for their premiere? perhaps one reason Carrillo struggle to find additional opportunities for the organization to perform. After his conducting debut Var?se continued to cautiously pursue opportunities to direct U.S. symphony orchestras. He was invited to conduct the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and led a concert in March 1918. Shortly thereafter he became the director of the New Symphony Orchestra, a cooperative endeavor organized with the express purpose of performing new music in New York. An initial 87 Select reviews quoted and analyzed in Carol Oja, Making Music Modern (Oxford University Pres, 200) 29. Aditional reviews may be found in Louise Var?se, Var?se: A Loking Glas Diary (New York: W. . Norton, 1972) 128-130. 38 pair of concerts occurred 11 and 12 April 1918. The program included works by J.S. Bach, Claude Debussy, Alfredo Casella, B?la Bart?k, and Gabriel Dupont?every selection was a New York premiere. Reviews were mixed; most critics seemed to deplore Var?se?s skills as a conductor while acknowledging the contributions he was making to New York musical life. 88 Var?se responded to the criticism by reducing his activities as a conductor while increasing his visibility as a composer and musical organizer. By 1921 he had composed Am?riques and Offrandes, two of his most significant works of the period. That same year, he formed the International Composers Guild with Carlos Salzedo. Although Salzedo was a French compatriot, several of the early patronesses of the ICG were from the U.S. including Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, Clare Reis, and Alma Wertheim. The critic Paul Rosenfeld became one of Var?se?s most valued champions in the New York press. Thus, by the 1920s, Var?se had extended his reach well beyond the French expatriate community of New York, finding money and support in the larger music community of the city. By contrast, according to Carrillo?s own account, the budget for the American Symphony Orchestra depended entirely upon funds from an unreliable wealthy Mexican expatriate living in New York. Carrillo had no opportunity to repudiate criticisms in the press because there was no second concert, nor did he find patrons to support another public event through which he might demonstrate his skills. Carrillo did not become integrated into New York musical life. It is clear that Var?se was a skilled composer, musician, and publicist and that his abilities in these areas contributed to his success in New York. Nevertheless 88 For analysis of these reviews se Oja, 32. 39 Var?se was also able to take advantage of environmental circumstances largely outside his control. Shortly after he arrived in New York, the U.S. entered World War I, forming a strong alliance with France and declaring war on Germany and its allies. Musicians and artists from Europe, especially France, flocked to New York, forming a strong expatriate community. Meanwhile, anti-German sentiment swept the city and audiences and critics searched for an alternative to the Germanic repertoire that had dominated the classical music scene in New York. Var?se had the good fortune to be able and willing to offer such an alternative?a French oriented modernism. While some critics objected to his aesthetic, others appreciated the freshness and novelty of Var?se?s approach. The strength of his support among patrons, critics, and audiences was such that, regardless of objections or momentary disappointments, Var?se continually attracted attention for his performances, projects, and ideas. By contrast, Carrillo faced a less positive environment. Rather than presenting a desired change in music aesthetic, the music Carrillo?s American Symphony Orchestra offered was Germanic in orientation?it did not shock New York critics but it also did not provide something new. Furthermore, Carrillo did not benefit from a positive view of his country and culture in the New York press. To the contrary, most articles about Mexico printed in New York newspapers of the time described the bloody and threatening Revolutionary conflict. The events of the Mexican Revolution as reported in New York newspapers directly influenced the responses of critics and audiences to Ponce?s 1916 recital, described below. It is less clear that they had such a direct impact on Carrillo?s New York career; it is, however, evident that Var?se was 40 far more advantageously placed in terms of national identity and compositional aesthetic. Ponce and Mexican Musical Nationalism Var?se?s New York debut was an unqualified success, lauded by both the public and the participants; Carrillo?s New York debut received mixed reviews from critics but satisfied the composer-conductor; Ponce?s first New York recital was not well regarded by either the critics or the composer, and contemporaries called it a ?fracaso? (failure). 89 Unlike Carrillo?s concert, which featured the performance of standard Germanic symphonic works, Ponce?s 1916 piano recital featured works that used the music of Mexican canciones to express overt nationalism. It was performed at a particularly difficult time in the history of U.S.-Mexican relations. Perhaps not surprisingly, the concert was disliked by nearly every New York critic to write a review. Ponce?s recital of nationalist music performed in New York in 1916 was only a small part of his long-standing effort to cultivate, compose, and perform nationalist music. His first efforts were two compositions titled Arrulladora Mexicana, published in 1905 and 1909, based on popular Mexican tunes. Shortly after the publication of the second piece, around the beginning of the Revolution, Ponce began to spend more time and energy collecting mestizo music and composing works based on this music. 90 At that time as Ponce recounts in the essay, ?Notas sobre m?sica mexicana,? 89 Se the diary of Ponce?s friend, Frederico Gamboa, cited by Ricardo Miranda, Manuel M. Ponce, 41. 90 Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of odern Mexican Music.? (Ph.D. dis., Univeristy of Pitsburgh, 201): 19-20. 41 the Mexican canci?n began to be accepted as part of the salon repertoire. 91 While patriotic compositions by Mexican composers were not entirely unknown, the popular acceptance of the canci?n offered new possibilities to the classical composer. 92 Ponce introduced some of his nationalist efforts to the Mexican public through two concerts given in July 1912. The first, held July 7, was an orchestral concert performed by the Orquesta Beethoven, directed by Carrillo which featured Ponce?s Piano Concerto alongside orchestral selections from Weber?s Freisch?tz and Liszt?s Faust. Ponce performed his own work and received an encore for his efforts; he responded with a performance of a nationalist piece, Rapsod?a mexicana, for solo piano. The second concert, on July 9, was a solo piano recital featuring Ponce?s works. Several nationalist compositions were programmed near the end, including settings of four Mexican songs, the Tema mexicano variado, and, once again, Rapsod?a mexicana. Ponce strengthened his connection to the swelling nationalist movement through a lecture given at a Mexico City bookstore in December 1913, the fourth in a series that had included the poet Luis G. Urbina, the teacher Antonio Caso, and the historian Pedro Henr?quez Ure?a. 93 In this lecture, titled ?La M?sica y la canci?n mexicana,? Ponce declared the canci?n ?the soul of the people,? a people he specifically identified in later paragraphs as the poor and down-trodden. 94 He also advocated the use of the mestizo canci?n as the basis for a nationalist body of music. 91 Ponce, ?Notas sobre musica mexicana,? in Nuevos escritos musicales (Mexico, D.F.: Stylo, 1948): 9-27. 92 For a history of nationalism in Mexican music, se: Yolanda Moreno Rivas, Rostros del Nacionalismo en la m?sica mexicana (Mexico: Fondo de cultura econ?mica, 1989). 93 The lecturers were members of Ateneo de la Juventud, group of intelectuals originaly formed in oposition to Porfirio D?az?s Cient?ficos. D?az Cervantes y D?az, 173; Miranda, 31. 94 First printed: Ponce, ?La m?sica y la canci?n mexicana,? Revista de Revistas, 21 December 1913, 17. Reprinted in Diaz Cervantes and Diaz, Genio de Mexico, 175-183. 42 For models, Ponce pointed to the work of Glinka, Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, and Grieg. 95 A week later, ?La M?sica y la canci?n mexicana? was published in Revista de Revistas, a Mexican periodical with a broad readership. Such statements, delivered at a time of class conflict, created a public image of radicalism for Ponce and the genre he promoted. Ponce?s words inspired composers such as Miguel Lerdo de Tejada, Mario Talavera, Ignacio Rodriguez Esper?n (popularly known as ?Tata Nacho?), and others. They wrote simple songs in binary form imitating the canciones of the Mexican mestizo. While Lerdo de Tejada, Talavera, and ?Tata Nacho? lacked classical training, they participated in an explosion of canci?n composition in Mexico over the next several years. 96 It seemed every young Mexican composer wished to write the perfect canci?n or canci?n arrangement, even those most interested in pursuing classical careers. For example, some of the earliest compositions by Carlos Ch?vez and Silvestre Revueltas were also canciones. In part because of Ponce?s lecture, these simple songs became closely identified with Mexican nationalism. As Saavedra describes it: Soon it became difficult to distinguish traditional songs from arrangements and newly composed songs, and for fifteen years after Ponce?s first compositions the singing, arranging, composing, and collecting of songs all were forms?in the minds of most people, in fact the only forms?of what passed as musical nationalism. 97 95 Ibid. Although it was the cal for canci?n composition and performance that Mexican musicians heded with the most enthusiasm, Savedra and Miranda argue convincingly that it was realy the development of these folk songs into large-form clasical compositions for which Ponce wished to advocate. 96 Savedra, 2. Mauricio Magdaleno describes this environment in an article about Ponce for El Nacional. Reprinted in: iranda, Manuel M. Ponce, 173-174. 97 Savedra, 23. 43 Although only the simple canciones became popular compositional forms for many Mexican composers, Ponce himself also composed and advocated the composition of larger works based on canciones. In such works, often written for piano or orchestra, Ponce used complex compositional forms associated with high art. However, despite the formal complexity, the quotes from canciones included in such works were recognizable. For example, the Balada Mexicana, first featured in a recital given in Havana, Cuba, and later in the 1916 New York recital, demonstrates the clarity with which Ponce often presented his canci?n-based melodies, even when transferred to a classical form. This sonata-form work uses two canci?n melodies as primary and secondary themes. As examples 2-6 and 2-7 demonstrate, the clarity of the melodies is not lost in the settings. Example 2-6: The principal melody to the canci?n ?Me he de comer un durazno.? An arrangement can be found in Mexican Folkways 6, no. 1. 44 Example 2-7: Ponce opens his Balada Mexicana with the melody to ?Me he de comer un durazno.? It is repeated in an octave lower and then developed through measure 95. A similar approach may be found in the two Rapsod?a Mexicana pieces and the Tema mexicano variado, both frequently performed in Ponce?s concerts during the decade. Piano arrangements of canciones, presented more plainly, were also staples in Ponce?s concerts of the period. As Ponce pointed out in ?La M?sica y la canci?n Mexicana,? he was using an established method of signaling nationalism. Just as Brahms had mined German and Hungarian folk songs or Glinka had arranged Russian folk songs to express national pride, so Ponce employed the folk music of Mexico to represent his own feelings of nationalism. Reception Ponce performed his nationalist music for audiences in three cities: Mexico City, Havana, and New York City. While the receptions in Mexico City and Havana 45 were extremely positive, the reception in New York was negative. Luis G. Urbina, reviewing one of Ponce?s performances in Mexico City for El Imparcial, noted: The ovation is unanimous, and grows, motivated by an emotive impulse which is half admiration and half amazement. People look at each other as if saying to themselves: We had a musician of this stature and we didn?t know it! 98 An unfortunate political alliance made work in Mexico City difficult for Ponce; as a consequence he moved to Havana, Cuba in 1914. There he continued composing and performing, giving numerous concerts. In addition to the canciones and larger compositions based on canciones, these concerts included works based on the popular music of Cuba. As in Mexico City, Cuban critics showered accolades on the young composer. A writer for La Lucha wrote, ?Manuel M. Ponce possesses all: execution, mechanics, feeling, technique. . .? 99 The reputation Ponce developed in Mexico City and Cuba allowed him to arrange a performance in one of the best New York halls?Aeolian Hall?and to attract critics to his concert. The program for the 1916 New York recital was very similar to those offered in Cuba [Example 2-8]. It included piano chamber works in traditional forms alongside works using the folk music of Cuba and Mexico. Works with nationalist titles such as Mexican Ballade, Mexican barcarolle, and Mexican Rhapsody II were featured prominently toward the close of the program. In addition to these larger nationalist works, the program also included four arrangements of Mexican canciones. Predicting a success similar to that found in Mexico and Cuba, 98 ?El concierto de anoche,? El Imparcial, 10 July 1912, as translated and quoted in Baron Corvera, Bio-bibliography, 150. 99 ?Elegantes,? La Lucha, 5 Nov. 1915, as translated and quoted in Baron Corvera, Bio-bibliography, 153. 46 Ponce planned to improve his economic circumstances with the New York concert, using it as a starting point for a U.S. tour. 100 Example 2-8: Ponce?s New York recital program. Things did not proceed as Ponce had planned; the critical reception of the 1916 New York recital was devastating. Published reviews were short and negative. The reviewer for Musical America wrote, ?The present writer heard about half a dozen numbers and found one quite as pointless and inconsequential as another. Mr. Ponce?s playing was on a level with his compositions.? 101 The New York Times critic opined, ?Neither as pianist nor composer does Mr. Ponce demand extended consideration.? 102 The New York Herald reviewer thought the music derivative, writing, ?On the program it was asserted that Mr. Ponce?s recital was one of ?original music? . . . However, there were many reminiscences of other composers in the 100 Miranda, 41; Diaz y Diaz. 101 H.F.P., ?Mexican Pianist Plays Own Compositions? Musical America, 1 April 1916, 29. 102 ?Yesterday?s Concerts,? New York Times, 28 March 1916, 1. 27 March 1916 Aeolian Hal Recital Works writen and performed by Manuel M. Ponce Prelude and Fugue (theme by Handel) Spinner Song Sonata Mazurka XXIII Tragic Prelude (Etude I) Cuban Rhapsody I Gallant Prelude (Etude VIII) Mexican Songs (I, XVII, XIV) Morire Habemus (Etude IV) Mexican Ballade Love?s Romance Mexican Barcarolle Life Smiles (Etude XII) Mexican Rhapsody II Plenilunio (Moonlight) 47 music.? 103 Only the critic for the New York Tribune wrote a positive review, noting that Ponce had ?fluent technique, a good sense of rhythm and an evident musicianly sense.? 104 But even this writer had to confess that the audience was, ?exceedingly small.? 105 Perhaps the reception in New York was colored by a sense that Ponce had violated some of the programming norms in that city?s music community. During the early 20 th century, the Germanic tradition was most highly valued in New York. However Ponce performed salon music not associated with dominant German genres. Similarly, most successful performers in New York had cultivated a reputation in Europe before performing in the U.S. However, although Ponce had studied abroad, the most significant performances of his music took place in Mexico and Cuba. Nonetheless, while these reasons may account for some of the negative reception of Ponce and his music, it appears the principal reason for the unfavorable reaction to his music in New York was a bias against Mexican nationalist music. This bias was particularly strong for critics attending Ponce?s recital, because the concert occurred two weeks after Francisco ?Pancho? Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico (9 March 1916). The invasion set off a diplomatic nightmare for U.S. President Woodrow Wilson?s administration; its alliances with Villa?s opponent, Venustiano Carranza, the current president of Mexico, and his administration had ignited Villa?s anger. Although the situation was beyond his control, Wilson faced an upcoming presidential election and needed to demonstrate his strength. On March 15, he summoned troops under General John J. Pershing and sent them into Mexico to find 103 ?Mexican Plays Own Music? New York Herald, 28 March 1916, 12. 104 ?usic by a Mexican? New York Tribune, 28 March 1916, 9. 105 Ibid. 48 and kill Villa. Daily articles in U.S. newspapers encouraged such bellicose activity by publishing exaggerated reports of the Columbus invasion and by following the movements of Pershing?s troops. These articles continued through the month of March?papers for March 27, the day of Ponce?s premiere, and March 28, the day the concert was reviewed, contained front-page stories about the ongoing hunt for Villa. 106 Despite the extremely negative anti-Mexican environment in the U.S., publicity for Ponce?s recital promoted the ?Mexican? aspects to his program. Before the concert, Ponce recorded his Mexican Barcarolle on a piano roll for the Aeolian Company, a fact that was trumpeted in advance publicity, 107 preparing critics and audiences for the ?Mexican? aspect of his performance identity. His nationalism was confirmed in the programs printed in major New York papers listing titles such as Mexican Rhapsody and Mexican Ballade. The promotional material clearly identified Ponce as proudly Mexican, perhaps an unwise choice given the environment. Although some of his concerts in other U.S. cities were cancelled following Villa?s invasion, the Aeolian Hall concert was not. The review for the New York Herald linked the invasion with Ponce?s concert. In the opening sentence the critic wrote, ?Manuel M. Ponce . . . has invaded New York and made his principal attack yesterday afternoon at a recital in Aeolian Hall.? 108 While the New York Herald critic probably intended a light-hearted tongue- 106 ?Pershing?s Men Stil on Vila?s Trail? New York Times, 27 March 1916, 1; ?Vila Eludes Trap, Fleing Toward Hils? New York Herald, 27 March 1916, 1; ?Cavalry Half a Day Behind Vila? New York Times, 28 March 1916, 1; ?Trops Race After Vila 30 Miles Below Border,? New York Tribune, 28 March 1916, 1; ?Pursuers Within Half Day?s March of Vila? New York Herald, 28 March 1916, 1. 107 D?az Cervantes and D?az, 260. 108 ?Mexican Plays Own Music,? New York Herald, 28 March 1916, 12. 49 in-cheek reference, it seems a broader feeling of political ill will was behind Ponce?s failure. The small size of the audience, the unavailability of performance opportunities both before and after the recital, and the negative response of the critics indicate that audiences and critics adopted a pre-determined stance that may have had no relationship to the quality or intrinsic appeal of the performance. After Ponce?s Recital Despite the localized reasons for Ponce?s poor New York reception, the event cast a shadow over the composer?s future interactions with the New York music community. Ponce never again presented a recital of his piano music in New York, even though his reputation as a composer continued to flourish in Mexico and Cuba. Two articles written for Mexico Moderno in 1920 indicate the composer?s remaining resentment over the interaction. In the first, ?The Torture of the Performer? (?El Suplicio del Concertista?), 109 Ponce describes a situation similar to his own: [Performers] arrive in North America anxious to earn glory and money (money more than glory) and, inevitably, fall into the claws of the managers . . . The debutantes without European reputations are the ?small fish? in the ocean of egotism of the big cities ? ?The recital,? the manager of the Aeolian in New York used to say, ?is a business like any other. It is not enough to contribute talent or aptitude; money is indispensable, capital in cash.? 110 109 Ponce, ?El Suplicio del Concertista,? Mexico Moderno 1, no. 1 (1 Aug. 1920): 3-36. 110 ?Casi todos los?virtuosos? que constituyen la segunda categor?a son pobres o disfrutan de un discreto bienestar. Llegan a Norteam?rica ansiosos de conquistar gloria y d?lares (m?s d?lares que gloria) y caen iremediablemente en las garas de los managers . . . Los debutantes sin reputaci?n european, son los pocos chicos en el mar de ego?tismo de las grandes ciudades.??El recital, sol?a decir el manager de la Aeolian de Nueva York, es un negocio como cualquier otro. No basta aportar el talento o las aptitudes; es indispensable el dinero, el capital en efectivo.?? Ibid. 50 In this transparent allusion to his New York experience, Ponce makes it clear that he felt part of the blame for his failure was due to poor management by those in charge of the Aeolian. Later in the article, Ponce expressed similar distaste for New York critics. He recounted the story of a New York critic who, 25 years after writing a malicious review of Hans von B?low, retracted his statements. ?Does this late repentance at least sooth the conscience of the critic?? Ponce sarcastically inquired. 111 In the next issue of the magazine, Ponce?s criticism of New York reviewers continued. Quoting from an article in Musical America, Ponce noted that reporters for the Times, Tribune, Post, and other publications missed a last minute program change in a concert of Spanish music, so that critics reviewed Procesi?n del Roc?o by Turina rather than the Roi d?Ys of Lalo. To make matters worse, they criticized the work. Ponce appended the quotation with the following commentary: ?After hearing this, are you going to keep believing in the efficacy of Yankee criticism?!? 112 Mexican Musicians in the New York Press, 1910-1920 The anti-Mexican press that emerged after Villa?s invasion of Columbus, New Mexico probably encouraged critics to disdain Ponce?s performance of his own nationalist compositions. However, in addition to the specific circumstances surrounding the recital, both the performer and the critics were operating in an environment inhospitable to Mexican culture. Popular entertainment often portrayed 111 ?Cierto redactor de un semanario musical neoyorkino confesaba, poco tiempo ha--?despu?s de un cuarto siglo!?que hab?a atacado injustamente a Hans V. Bulow en una rese?a escrita a prop?sito de los conciertos del gran pianista alem?n en Nueva York. ?Este arempentimeinto tard?o habr? aquietado, al menos, la conciencia del cr?tico?? Ibid. 112 ?Despu?s de los que antecede, ?vaya Ud. a crer en al eficacia de la cr?tica yanqui!,? Ponce, ?El Arte Musical en el Mundo,? Mexico Moderno 1, no. 2 (1 Sept. 1920): 19-121. 51 the Mexican as a ?greaser? or a bandit. 113 As a writer for the New York Times attested in 1916, a common adjective for the Mexican country and its people was ?barbarous.? 114 Little factual information in the press countered these images; during the years of the Revolution, most newspaper articles about Mexico described a country over-run with violence. A story relayed in Mexican singer Jos? Mojica?s autobiography suggests that Ponce?s reception reflected the experience of other Mexican musicians and composers. During the 1920s, Mojica became a famous opera singer and movie star in the U.S., lauded for recitals of canciones in which he serenaded the audience while wearing ornate Mexican trajes and sombreros. Mojica claims that he conceived of these Mexicanist concerts in 1916 when he was living in New York. At the time, Mojica was working as a dishwasher while trying to make a career as a musician. During a conversation with his manager, Mojica suggested creating a recital of canciones, but the manager worried that anti-Mexican sentiment would endanger Mojica?s reception, and plans for the concerts were temporarily abandoned. 115 Other, more positive, accounts of Mexican music performances during the late 1910s and early 1920s suggest that Mojica?s manager may have been overly cautious. For example, the mainstream press records New York performances by pianist Ernesto Berumen in the years leading up to the ?Vogue.? Articles suggest that he performed mostly European music but included the occasional work by Mexican 113 Se Helen Delpar, The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican: Cultural Relations Betwen the United States and Mexico, 1920-1935 (Tuscalosa: University of Alabama Pres, 192); Delpar, ?Godbye to the ?Greaser?: Mexico, the MPDA and Derogatory Films, 192-1926,? The Journal of Popular Film and Television 12, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 34-41. 114 Joyce Kilmer, ?Mexican Painter Proud of Nation?s Culture,? New York Times, 2 July 1916, 12. 115 Jos? Mojica, I, a siner . . . (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Pres, 1963). 52 composers. Berumen was favorably reviewed and found reliable employment performing with Frank La Forge in the principal halls of New York. It appears that his first New York concerts were given in 1918, and that Berumen remained for the subsequent two seasons; in 1920, he included Ponce?s Balada Mexicana on a program performed in Aeolian Hall. Berumen did not receive the welcome afforded Mexican artists in the late 1920s, but unlike Ponce, neither did he inspire mean- spirited reviews. After 1920 During a period when few Mexican composers and performers were reviewed in mainstream New York publications, Ponce and Carrillo received attention from New York critics for their works and performances. Following the premiere performance of the American Symphony Orchestra in January 1915, critics were impressed with Carrillo?s European training, and his skills as a conductor and composer. However, the musicians were viewed as poorly prepared, financial troubles plagued the organization, and a complimentary article in Century Magazine describing Carrillo as the ?Herald of a Musical Monroe Doctrine? did little to shore up support. Ponce?s piano recital, containing nationalist compositions and performed during a tense moment in U.S.-Mexican political relations, suffered an even worse fate, inspiring brief, negative reviews in most of the mainstream New York newspapers. Even though scholars have an incomplete picture of Mexican musical culture in New York during the 1910s, the lack of attention toward Mexican music in mainstream publications, the indifferent reaction to Carrillo?s ?Musical Monroe 53 Doctrine,? the discouragement of Jos? Mojica?s song recitals, and the negative reaction toward Ponce?s performance of nationalist music suggest that, there was, at the very least, a bias against open displays of Mexican nationalism in that city during the 1910s. The collective impression left by these specific incidences is supported by evidence gathered by scholars in other fields, especially those studying films of the era. 116 Var?se, one of the foreign musicians most successful in New York during the period, benefitted from New Yorkers? openness toward French culture and an early interest in modernism. Ponce and Carrillo faced an environment hostile to Mexican culture. Perhaps as a consequence, neither composer presented music that New York critics found new and exciting. The modernist and Mexicanist movements, which gained strength in New York during the early 1920s, made the positive receptions of music by Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez from the late 1920s and early 1930s possible. Anti-Mexican prejudices were diminished through an active campaign by Mexican expatriate artists, the Mexican government, and sympathetic New Yorkers, leading to the ?Mexico Vogue.? As a result, the number of articles about Mexican composers and musicians in New York began to increase and the reactions to their music were often positive. Meanwhile, the growing modernist movement, encouraged by Edgard Var?se and the composer-students of Nadia Boulanger, created an audience for Carrillo?s microtonal experiments and Ch?vez?s dissonant abstractions. 116 Se Helen Delpar, The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican and ?Godbye to the ?Greaser;? Alfred Charles Richard, Jr., The Hispanic Image on the Silver Scren, (New York: Grenwod Pres, 192). 54 Chapter 3: Ponce?s Music and the ?Mexico Vogue? in New York Manuel M. Ponce?s first and only New York concert occurred on 27 March 1916 in Aeolian Hall. 117 The recital featured his original compositions for solo piano and was not well-received by critics because anti-Mexican sentiments prejudiced them against Ponce?s nationalist music. Ponce left feeling disillusioned about concert life in that city. Understandably, he was not anxious to return to New York and did not perform there again. Approximately ten years later, from 1925 to 1932, Ponce was living in Paris, studying with Paul Dukas and absorbing modernist musical developments in France. Not surprisingly, Ponce scholars regard the 1916 performance as the beginning and end of his relationship with New York. 118 Yet for audiences there, the story is somewhat different. An examination of New York newspapers and periodicals reveals that, even though Ponce was not living in that city from 1925 to 1932 and did not personally cultivate a U.S. audience after 1916, performers such as Jascha Heifetz, Clarita S?nchez, Jos? Mojica, and Fanny Anit?a included Ponce?s canciones in recitals given during these years. Starting in 1928, Andr?s Segovia began to perform in the U.S., often programming Ponce?s works for the guitar. At least two factors contributed to the growing number of performances of Ponce?s music in New York and the positive reviews of those performances between 1925 and 1932: the ?Mexico Vogue? and the proliferation of ?star performers.? Many 117 For more information about this performance, se Chapter 1. 118 Se Ricardo Miranda, Manuel M. Ponce: Ensayo Sobre su Vida y Obra (Mexico: R?os y Ra?ces, 198) 37-45; Emilio D?az Cervantes and Doly R. de D?az, Ponce: Genio de M?xico (Mexico: Federaci?n Editorial Mexicana, 203) 231-246. 55 of Ponce?s canciones were performed on programs that were advertised as ?Mexican.? Such programs might include a set of Mexican songs or dances, or feature a singer known for her ?Mexicanist? performances. These performances seem to have been encouraged by the ?Vogue,? drawing audience members from the Latino community as well as the mainstream population. By contrast, the well-attended and widely reviewed performances by Spanish guitarist Andr?s Segovia do not appear to have been motivated by affection for Mexican culture, and audiences did not expect to hear Mexican music in his recitals. The guitarist?s display of his Spanish heritage was the only nationalist emotion apparent in these performances. Furthermore, it appears that Segovia?s primary motivation was a desire to promote the guitar and the classical repertoire written for that instrument. Audiences attended his performances, not because of his nationality, but because Segovia was a ?star performer,? internationally renowned for his artful interpretations. The present chapter is the first study of performances of Ponce?s music in New York during the late 1920s and early 1930s, and brings to light a previously unexamined relationship between Ponce?s compositions and New York audiences. In order to understand the music chosen for these performances, the chapter begins with an examination of Ponce?s canciones. This is followed by a brief description of the time and place in which the performances occurred?New York during the ?Mexico Vogue??and an examination of known performances of Ponce?s songs there between 1925 and 1932. To deepen our understanding of the place of Ponce?s canciones in New York during the ?Vogue?, we turn to two case studies. The first 56 concentrates on the New York career of Mexican soprano Clarita S?nchez, showing that she, a Mexican classical performer, found acclaim because she displayed her national identity in performance. The second provides an account of the performances by Russian violinist Jascha Heifetz of Ponce?s famous canci?n ?Estrellita.? In these performances, a non-Mexican expressed affection for Mexican culture through Ponce?s ?Estrellita,? appealing to ?Vogue? audiences and more general audiences alike. Finally, we turn to the exceptional performances of Ponce?s music by Andr?s Segovia, studying these non-nationalist performances of his work and how they might have enhanced Ponce?s reputation in the U.S. Ponce?s Canciones Ponce began writing the repertoire attractive to ?Mexico Vogue? audiences fifteen years before it became popular in New York. By the end of his life, he had arranged or composed over sixty canciones, and his efforts to publicize and encourage composition in the genre resulted in many additions to the literature by other composers as well. The canciones remain among Ponce?s most popular works, as demonstrated by the regularly released recordings of performances of this repertoire. 119 As Ponce describes it in his essays, ?La Canci?n mexicana? and ?La Forma de la canci?n mexicana,? 120 the Mexican canci?n is a short work with a memorable melody and romantic lyrics set in a repetitive binary form. The entire principal 119 Eduardo Contreras Soto, ?Fonograf?a de Manuel Mar?a Ponce,? Heterofon?a 118-19 (198): 137- 213. 120 Ponce, ?La canci?n Mexicana? in Escritos y Composiciones Musicales, an isue of Cultura 4, no. 4 (1917) 17-26; Ponce, ?La Forma de la canci?n Mexicana? in Nuevos Escritos Musicales (Mexico: Editorial Stylo, 1948) 49-61. 57 melody is presented in the first half of the piece, which begins and ends in the same key. In the second half, there is a brief bridge, followed by the ritornello section of the melody. Then, typically, the first half of the composition is repeated. In his arrangements Ponce frequently harmonized the melodies with simple chords, however, he strove to emphasize the melody, believing it to be the most characteristic trait of the canci?n. The subject matter of canci?n lyrics varies, but most speak of love and many include poetic references to Mexican landscapes. Most of Ponce?s canciones are arrangements of well-known pre-existing Mexican mestizo melodies, including ?A la orilla de un palmar,? ?Cuiden su vida,? ?Acu?rdate de m?,? and ?So?? mi mente loca.? However, Ponce also composed a handful of original canciones, including the most famous of his works, ?Estrellita.? The form, lyrics, and melody of ?Estrellita? are typical of the canci?n repertoire. A brief instrumental introduction presents a modulating and shortened version of the principal melody, followed by the A section in full in F major [Example 3-1]. Then there is a brief bridge, modulating to D minor, the repetition of the second half of the A melody, and a ?del signo? return. ?Estrellita? is, like so many other canciones, a love song; the protagonist sings his adoration to a star, an obvious substitute for a distant and desired lover. 121 Most important, as Ponce himself would have noted, is the melody, notable for phrases beginning with conjunct seconds and progressing to 121 The mythology surounding ?Estrelita? would have us believe that Ponce wrote the song as a tribute to his wife, Clema. There is, however, no dedication ascribed to recent editions; on the contrary there is a note, ??Estrelita? NUNCA FUE DEDICADA NADIE por su autor.? 58 leaps of a fifth and then a sixth in the upper register of the voice: 9 Example 3-1: The principal melody is stated in full after a six-bar introduction. The accompanying lyrics are: ?Estrellita del lejano cielo, que miras mi dolor, que sabes mi sufrir, baja y dime si me quiere un poco porque yo no puedo sin su amor vivir.? As can be seen from the above description and example, in most technical respects, the lyrics and musical form of the Mexican canci?n are similar to those found in many art songs and opera arias. Some lyrics, like those of ?Estrellita,? are vague about place, but others, such as ?A La Orilla de un Palmar? and ?China de mi Alma,? refer to the Mexican landscape or people. During and after the Revolution such pieces were subsumed into nationalist discourse and became part of Mexican national musical culture. 122 As observed in Chapter 2, Ponce stated that works by Glinka, Brahms, Fr?d?ric Chopin, Franz Schubert, and Edvard Grieg, who also used the folk music of their homelands in their compositions, served as models for Ponce?s canciones. Although the New York public rejected Ponce?s 1916 recital because it was too overtly nationalist in the anti-Mexican environment of the time, it appears that the same audiences embraced performances of his nationalist canciones during the 1920s. 122 Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music.? (Ph.D. dis., Univeristy of Pitsburgh, 201): 19-24. Many scholars have examined this phenomenon in other cultures, perhaps begining with Herder. For an excelent history of this discourse, se Richard Taruskin?s article, ?Nationalism? in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 59 The changed reaction to Ponce?s music was part of a ?Mexico Vogue? environment that affected opinions about many types of Mexican nationalist expression. By 1925, the number of U.S. newspaper articles recounting Mexican violence had decreased; in their place, many articles expressed curiosity about the post-revolutionary government and its reforms, admiration for the beauty of Mexico?s natural environment, and genuine interest in Mexican culture. The ?Vogue? was made manifest by the increased travel between Mexico City and New York and the free flow of information between the two cities. ?Mexico Vogue? writers included Mexican expatriates living in New York, U.S. expatriates living in Mexico City, or citizens of any country who traveled frequently between the two cities. Such writers often wrote for readers in both cities. For example, Jos? Juan Tablada, a Mexican expatriate in New York, wrote a weekly column about Mexicans in New York for El Universal, but also published articles in U.S. magazines. Frances Toor, a U.S. expatriate living in Mexico, edited the bilingual magazine Mexican Folkways, which was published in Mexico City, but was nevertheless available to interested New Yorkers and written with a U.S. audience in mind. Participants in the ?Vogue? were interested in promoting Mexican culture for many different reasons. Some were simply attracted to Mexican life, art, food, or customs. Others admired the idealism some of the Mexican Revolutionaries expressed and believed that the Post-Revolutionary government was an encouraging experiment in left-wing governance. Some U.S. citizens believed that Mexico presented a less complex pre-modern utopia. Most Mexicans associated with the ?Vogue? wished to ameliorate the image of Mexico portrayed in popular U.S. culture. 60 Because of the diverse reasons motivating ?Mexico Vogue? participants to write, create, and perform works reflecting the positive aspects of Mexican culture, the information, images, and sounds presented to New York audiences were also diverse in nature. Yet, if one theme might be traced through the ?Vogue? work of this period, it is an admiration for Mexican folk and popular traditions. One might follow this theme through a series of important Mexican folk art exhibits in the U.S.?the first in Los Angeles in 1922, the second in New York in 1928, and a third touring exhibit originating in New York in 1930. 123 One might also point to the growing amount of information available in the U.S. about Mexico, including that found in books by Anita Brenner, Carlton Beals, Elizabeth Morrow, and Stuart Chase; and articles in magazines such as New Masses, The New Republic, Mexican Folkways, and Arts. 124 Most pertinent to the present study is evidence that the interest in Mexican folk art was manifested in the musical life of New York. For example, during the late 1920s touring Mexican orquesta t?picas, 125 often funded by the Mexican government, visited New York frequently. 126 The orquesta t?pica repertoire included canciones and other works representative of national identity; one organization performed 123 James Oles, ?For Busines or Pleasure: Exhibiting Mexican Folk Art, 1820-1920? in Casa Ma?ana: The Morow Colection of Popular Arts, ed. Susan Danly (Albuquerque: University of New exico Pres, 202). 124 Helen Delpar, The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican: Cultural Relations betwen the United States and Mexico, 1920-1935 (Tuscalosa: The University of Alabama Pres, 192). 125 Orquesta t?picas are large string-based ensembles that present the music of a certain country or region. 126 ?New York Concerts,? Musical Courier, 2 December 1926, 20; ?Plans of Musicians,? New York Times, 21 November 1926, sec. x, 10; Winthrop P. Tryon, ?With Hamlet Left Out,? NYT, 2 December 1926, 21; ?Mexican Orchestra Aclaimed at Palace,? NYT, 13 March 1928, 23; Susan L Cost, ?St. Louis Grets Tipica Orchestra,? Musical America, 31 March 1928, 29; C.E., ?Colorful Music Wil Mark Tipica Tour,? Musical America 10 January 1930, 10. 61 Ponce?s Balada Mexicana in New York. 127 In 1928, the radio station WABC, with the support of the consul general of Mexico, began a series of programs about Mexican culture, including performances of Mexican music. 128 Guty C?rdenas and ?Tata Nacho,? the composers of many famous canciones, lived in New York during the mid-1920s. C?rdenas performed widely and made many recordings of canci?n arrangements. 129 ?Tata Nacho? collaborated with Miguel Covarrubias for the ?Rancho Mexicano? scene of the Broadway review, The Garrick Gaities. 130 Mexican Folkways printed copies of canciones, devoting one issue every year to Mexican folk music. Given this environment, it is not surprising that many performers began including Ponce?s canciones on their programs. According to programs printed in the Herald-Tribune and Times, Nina Koshetz sang Ponce?s ?Serenade? in her Carnegie Hall appearance, 131 Juan Pulido performed ?Ya sin tu amor,? 132 Rosalie du Prene sang ?Voy a partir? in her concerts, 133 and Richard Crooks performed ?Marchita el alma.? 134 In addition to these non-Mexican singers, at least five Mexican singers of note performed in New York during the period between 1925 and 1932: Rosa Dom?nquez (sic), 135 Manuel Millet, 136 Fanny Anit?a, 137 Jos? Mojica, 138 and Clarita 127 ?Plans of Musicians,? NYT, 21 November 1926, 21. 128 ?Seci?n de Radio? La Prensa, 6 Febraury 1928, 3. 129 Enrique Mart?n, ed., Guty C?rdenas Cancionero (M?rida, Yucat?n: Instituto de Cultura de Yucat?n, 206). 130 Jos? Juan Tablada, ?Nueva York de D?a y de Noche,? El Universal, 31 May 1925, sec. 1, p. 3. 131 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYHT, 15 January 1928, sec. 7, 10. 132 ?Programs of the ek,? NYT, 18 November 1928, sec. 9, 10. 133 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 8 February 1931, sec. 8, 10. 134 ?Programs of the ek,? NYT, 28 February 1932, sec. 8, 9. 135 ?Rosa Dom?nquez,? Musical America, 21 April 1928, 2. 136 Helen Ten Brock, ?De ?sica,? La Prensa, 7 March 1927, 3. 137 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 1 November 1928, sec. 9, 10. 138 ?Music: Jos? Mojica, Tenor, Greted,? NYT, 17 April 1932, 27; Y., ?Mojica in Recital,? Musical America, 25 April 1932, 38. 62 S?nchez. Dom?nguez gave a benefit costume recital that included Ponce?s ?Estrellita? and ?Tata Nacho??s ?Borrachita.? Millet performed Mexican, Cuban, and South American songs in his first New York appearance. Anit?a, a native of Durango, included Ponce?s ?A la orilla de un palmar? on a Carnegie Hall recital. Clarita S?nchez sang Ponce?s canciones in many of her concerts in New York, detailed below. Jos? Mojica only gave one performance in New York, which did not include a canci?n by Ponce. 139 However, Mojica did include such works in his concerts in other U.S. cities. 140 Moreover, the radio and the gramophone brought many closed studio recordings and distant concerts of Mexican music, including those by Mojica, into New York homes. 141 Several canci?n performers emphasized the Mexican-ness of their concerts by dressing in Mexican or Spanish costumes, advertising the Mexican songs on their programs, or including Mexican and Latin American dancing in performances. Mojica drew attention to his ?exotic? Mexican identity in several of his publicity photos. For example in one photograph advertising his recitals, Mojica wore a lavish charro outfit, stared off-camera with heavily lined eyes, and held a cigarette in his right hand [Example 3-2]. 142 Mojica?s stage name for his recitals was ?Don Jos? 139 ?Hermoso Programa para el Concierto de Jose Mojica en el Town Hal el Sabado,? La Prensa, 13 April 1932, 5. 140 Mojica made recordings with Edison and Victor; while operatic repertoire predominates on his recordings they often included Latin American folk songs. Of particular interest: Ponce, ?Lejos de ti,? Jos? Mojica, Edison 6049 (master no. 10383-A). 141 For example, se notices about ?Sue?os Espa?oles,? Angelita Loyo, and Los Aztecas in ?Secion de Radio,? La Prensa, 8 February 1930, 6. Several New York radio broadcasts were anounced in the Times: ?Today?s Radio Program,? NYT, 2 April 1926, 2; ?The Microphone Wil Present,? NYT, 26 January 1930, 120; ?Today on the Radio,? NYT, 31 January 1930, 28. 142 ?In the Costume of His Native Mexico?Se?or Don Jos? Mojica,? Musical Digest, January 1929, 37. 63 Mojica,? and accounts of the performances report that he routinely wore a traje costume for a concluding section of Mexican serenades. Example 3-2: Photograph of Mojica printed in Musical Digest, January 1929 Mojica was one of the best-known performers giving Mexicanist concerts, but similar performances by others proliferated in the mid-to-late-1920s. For example, David Daca gave a performance in December 1925 that was clearly ?Mexicanist? in content: he performed a Pueblo Indian song, two unattributed Mexican folksong arrangements (?Noche Serena? and ?El Cefiro?), Yradier?s ?La Paloma,? and LaForge?s arrangement of ?Estrellita.? 143 Anit?a?s 1928 Carnegie Hall performance of ?A la orilla de un palmar? occurred during a set that also included ?Ya soy feliz? 143 ?Curent Programs in Detail,? NYT, 6 December 1925, sec. x, 1. 64 by ?Tata Nacho? and ?Canci?n Mixteca? by Avil?s. 144 In an interview with La Prensa, Anit?a expressed her continued devotion to Mexico and Mexican culture, despite her frequent travels outside the country. 145 Rosalie du Prene performed a song recital with Julian Huarte and his Argentine Orchestra that included Ponce?s ?Estrellita? and ?Voy a partir? amidst many Latin American songs and dances. 146 Performers of Mexican music had devoted followers in New York?s Latino community, as conveyed by the detailed reviews and articles found in La Prensa. The newspaper followed the activities of Clarita S?nchez, 147 Fanny Anit?a, 148 and Jos? Mojica 149 with devotion. Recitals of singers performing Mexican music were often hosted and funded by organizations within the Latino community. These performers benefited from the proliferation of organizations such as the Sociedad Mutualista Mexicana, El Centro Hispano Americano, and El Centro de Amigos during the 1920s. 150 Although the Latino community hosted, promoted, and applauded the concerts, support for Mexican musical performances in New York extended beyond it. In addition to Latino social organizations, wealthy New Yorkers without Latino roots were creating groups to promote Mexican culture. For example, the Roerich 144 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 1 November 1928, sec. x, 30. 145 ?Veinticinco a?os de expatriaci?n y fama no alejan a Fany Anit?a de M?jico,? La Prensa, 16 November 1928, 1. 146 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 8 February 1931, sec. x, 10. 147 Helen Ten Broeck, ?De Musica,? La Prensa, 4 November 1926, 7; ?Un interesante recital de canciones de Espa?a y M?jico habr? el domingo,? La Prensa, 14 February 1928, 2. 148 ?Concierto de Fany Anit?a esta Noche en el Waldorf-Astoria,? La Prensa, 3 November 1926, 2; Fany Anit?a Recibe una Larga Ovaci?n,? La Prensa, 5 November 1926, 2; ?Veinticinco a?os de expatriaci?n y fama no alejan a Fany Anit?a de M?jico,? La Prensa, 16 November 1926, 1. 149 ?Aclamado en una jira triunfal por las Antilas, Jos? Mojica visita New York,? La Prensa, 7 April 1932, 1; ?Hermoso programa para el Concierto de Jos? Mojica en el ?Town Hal? el S?bado,? La Prensa, 13 April 1932, 5. 150 Se the ?Sociedades Hispanas? page in La Prensa. It apears that many of these groups disapeared after 1929, probably because of economic hardships. 65 family, wealthy Russian ?migr?s, created similar opportunities for Mexican musicians through the foundation of the ?Inter-American Group? of the Roerich Society, a concert series that frequently showcased Mexican singers. 151 Performers featured in the columns of La Prensa also attracted attention from the mainstream press, receiving mention in the columns of the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Musical America, and Musical Courier. Clarita S?nchez Within this broader context, the recitals given by Clarita S?nchez are particularly remarkable because of the frequent and overt references to her Mexican identity in the accompanying mainstream press reports. Unfortunately, there is very little in the press about S?nchez?s biography. According to a New York Herald Tribune article, the singer came to New York in the 1920s to study voice with the former Metropolitan Opera coloratura, Marcella Sembrich. 152 The Mexican government funded her lessons, ostensibly in hopes that she would advance a positive image of Mexican culture abroad. 153 By 1923, she was advertised in La Prensa as the ?brilliant Mexican soprano lauded in New York.? 154 From 1925 to 1932, S?nchez performed at least nine recitals in New York, most of them during the mid-1920s. Like other performers, S?nchez used Ponce?s music to perform her national identity. Programs from some of her concerts, printed 151 ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 24 April 1932, sec. x, 7; ?Programs of the Wek,? NYHT, 24 April 1932, sec. vi, 7; ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 13 November 1932, sec. x, 7. 152 ?Clarita Sanchez, Mexican Soprano, Gives Concert,? NYHT, 17 November 1925, 17. 153 J.A.H., ?Recitals of High Caliber Fil New York?s Concert Hals,? Musical America, 28 November 1925, 30. 154 ?La Representaci?n Art?stica de Espa?a e Hispano-Am?rica en los Estados Unidos,? La Prensa, Febraury 1923 [suplement, no day given]. 66 in the New York Times and New York Herald Tribune, give us a sense of her repertoire. Among the Ponce compositions and arrangements included on her programs are: ?A la orilla de un palmar,? ?Marchita al alma,? ?Las Ma?anitas,? ?Todo Pas?,? ?La Pajarera,? and ?Estrellita?. Probably in an attempt to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, S?nchez?s performance identity extended far beyond Ponce?s music and ?lo mexicano? in its most restrictive sense; she performed works from throughout the Ibero-American world, accentuating contemporary Spanish music almost as much as Mexican music. 155 Most of her recitals contained a significant section of songs from Spain and Latin America, including works by Falla and Alb?niz. Press photos depicted S?nchez in a Spanish mantilla, emphasizing her Hispanic identity. S?nchez furthered her representations of the Latino world through the use of traditional dress in concert. Her costume recitals could be quite elaborate; in one recital, for example, she changed her apparel for each country represented in the program. 156 The cultivation of a Pan-Hispanic identity was not unusual in vocal recitals of Latin American artists during this period. Many other singers performing Ponce?s work at the time presented similar recitals. Ponce?s canciones usually formed part of a Spanish-language group including works from Spain and Latin America. 157 155 The tendency of S?nchez, Mojica, and other Mexican singers performing in the U.S. to emphasize the Spanish cultural influence in Latin America has a long history. Some scholars asert that this ?Hispanic? aproach might be a vehicle to avoid or counter anti-Latino or Mexican racism in the U.S. Se David G. Gutierez, ?Migration, Emergent Ethnicity, and the ?Third Space?: The shifting Politics of Nationalism in Greater exico,? The Journal of American History 86, no. 2 (September 199): 481- 517 and Roberto R. Trevi?o, ?Prensa y Patria: The Spanish-Language Pres and the Biculturation of the Tejano Midle Clas, 1920-1940,? The Western Historical Quarterly 2, no. 4 (November 191): 451-472. 156 ?Spanish Song Recital,? NYT, 14 February 1927, 14. 157 For example, Sophie Braslau?s Carnegie Hal performance of ?Estrelita? ocured in a set including work by Fala and Obradors [?Concert Program,? NYT, 19 January 1930, sec. x, 10]. Lucrezia Bori 67 Whereas Spanish music had been popular for many years in New York, during the late 1920s, mexicanidad was becoming fashionable as well and, like S?nchez, more performers embraced their Mexican nationality in public. Furthermore, S?nchez?s Hispanist presentation capitalized on stereotypes popularized through Hollywood films, which often presented Mexican ?se?oritas? dressed in Spanish costumes, emphasizing Spanish influence in Mexico and displaying a female exoticism associated with women from other cultures. 158 Nonetheless, S?nchez viewed her performance of Spanish-language songs as an expression of patriotism. When asked by an interviewer why she performed these works, she answered: [those songs] carry in their notes memories of the mountains, of the prairies, and of the distant land where we were born, the songs that our mothers sang to us when we were children, and stay recorded in our hearts; the songs of Mexico, of my homeland. 159 From the beginning, S?nchez presented herself to critics as a representative of the Mexican government. Several of her concerts advanced Mexican cultural diplomacy. One of the Pan-American Union concerts, held in Washington, D.C. but broadcast in New York, featured S?nchez as a soloist. 160 During a New York concert, the stage was draped with Mexican, Spanish, and U.S. flags to pay tribute to the performed ?Estrelita? over the radio alongside Yradier?s ?La Paloma,? and Valverde?s ?Clavelitos? [?The Microphone Wil Present,? NYT, 13 March 1932, sec. x, 10]. 158 The depiction of this stereotype in film ay originate with Rose of the Rancho (1914). Se: Alfred Charles Richard, Jr., The Hispanic Image on the Silver Scren (New York: Grenwod Pres, 192) 131. The film was re-made in the 1930s and stared Gladys Swarthout wearing similar costumes. Other films creating a similar image include Buried Treasure (1921) and Girl of the Rio (1931). 159 ?aquelas canciones que traen en sus notas recuerdas de las monta?as, de las lanuras y de la tiera lejana donde hemos nacido, las canciones que nuestras madres nos cantaron cuando ?ramos ni?os y se quedan grabadas en el coraz? ; las conciones de M?jico, de mi patria.?? ?Clara S?nchez: La Cantante Mejicana,? La Prensa, 15 February 1928, 5. Al translations by author unles otherwise noted. 160 ?Washington, D.C.,? Musical Courier, 1 February 1926, 51. 68 Consul General of Mexico and the Consul General of Spain, both in attendance. 161 The headlines for reviews of her concerts often included the words ?Mexico? or ?Mexican.? 162 Generally, responses from New York critics toward the Mexican music on S?nchez?s concerts were overwhelmingly positive. Although reviewers varied in their evaluation of the singer, nearly everyone agreed that the sets of Mexican and Spanish folksongs were laudable. She became so recognized for this aspect of her programs that one of the few disapproving critics, writing for Musical America, referred to her as a ?ward? of the Mexican government. 163 S?nchez?s performances were considered sufficiently marketable that she was recorded singing ?Estrellita? and ?Marchita el Alma.? 164 Jascha Heifetz and ?Estrellita? Through the efforts of performers such as S?nchez, New York audiences learned more about Mexican culture and the canci?n tradition that was an integral part of it. Although Mexican folk music gradually became more familiar to New York audiences, only one canci?n became well-known to mainstream U.S. audiences: Ponce?s ?Estrellita.? 161 ?Clarita S?nchez Sings,? NYT, 20 February 1928, 14. 162 E.g.: ?Clarita S?nchez, Mexican Soprano, Gives Concert,? NYHT, 17 November 1925, 17; ?Mexican Soprano in Recital,? NYHT, 9 November 1926, 20; ?Clarita S?nchez Sings: Mexican Soprano Displays a Voice of Beautiful Quality at the Galo,? NYT, 20 February 1928, 14. 163 J.A.H., ?New York Recital Wek Includes Unusual Variety of Music,? Musical America, 13 November 1926, 1. 164 Ponce, ?Estrelita,? Clara Elena Sanchez, Vocalion 15191, 8053. Listed in Ros Laird, ed., Other Non-U.S. Recordings and Indexes, vol. 4 of Brunskwick Records: A Discography of Recordings, 1916- 1931 (Westport, Con.: Grenwod Pres, 201). Ponce, ?Marchita el Alma,? Clara Elena Sanchez, Vocalion 15289. 69 By 1930 the work was ubiquitous?it was on the radio, in the concert hall, and sold at the local sheet music store. Arrangements of nearly every imaginable variety existed, from traditional versions for voice and piano 165 to those written for instrumental trios, 166 organ, 167 band, 168 orchestra, 169 and violin. 170 Moreover it seems ?Estrellita? was appropriate for any performing venue?from a Carnegie Hall art music concert to the local radio variety show. As a popular song in its own right, ?Estrellita,? unlike other Ponce canciones, was occasionally performed in contexts that offered no reference to national identity. Yet ?Estrellita? retained its identification as a Mexican contribution to popular music literature, appearing as the token Mexican piece on many concerts featuring Latin American, Folk, or World music. 171 In most concerts ?Estrellita? was grouped with other Mexican or Latin American songs, performed in costume, or identified in the program notes as ?Mexican.? Covers to ?Estrellita? scores often declared it a Mexican serenade, melody, or song, solidifying the connection for those playing it at home. 172 165 Voice and piano arangements include: Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Charles Fonteyn Maney, in Mexican and Spanish Songs (Boston: Oliver Ditson Company, 1928) 37-39; Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by N. Cliford Page (New York: Carl Fischer, 1927); Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Frank La Forge (New York: G. Ricordi and Co., 1923). 166 Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged for violin, celo, and piano (Philadelphia: Theodore Preser Co., 1929); Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Edward G. Simon for two violins and piano (New York: C. Fischer, 1927). 167 ?Estrelita? aranged by Gordon Bach Nevin (Boston: Oliver Ditson Company, 1928) 168 Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Charles J. Roberts for piano and orchestra (New York: C. Fischer, 1927). 169 Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Mayhew Lake for modern band (New York: C. Fischer, 1929). 170 Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Jascha Heifetz (New York: C. Fischer, 1928). 171 Se David Daca listing ?Curent Programs in Detail,? NYT, 6 December 1925, sec. x, 1; Fany Anit?a listing ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 1 November 1928, sec. x, 10; Rosalie DuPrene listing ?Programs of the Wek,? NYT, 8 February 1931, sec. x, 10; and Lucrezia Bori listing ?The Microphone Wil Present? NYT, 13 March 1932, sec. x, 16. 172 Se covers to the folowing arangements distributed in shet music form: Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by N. Cliford Page (New York: Carl Fischer, 1927); Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Frank 70 Perhaps the clearest and most interesting uses of ?Estrellita? as a vehicle for ?Vogue?- inspired performance were Jascha Heifetz?s concerts of the late 1920s. Heifetz first performed his now-famous rendition of ?Estrellita? during the last Mexico City concert of his 1927 world tour (11 December 1927). Some of his most lauded concerts of the world tour occurred in Mexico, where reporters followed his every move, and audiences flooded halls in order to hear him play. 173 For the concert in question, Heifetz was requested to play something Mexican in origin. From a book of Mexican folk songs, he chose ?Estrellita,? and arranged the simple vocal score into a vehicle to display his virtuosity. The resulting composition was the first of Heifetz?s arrangements for the violin; over subsequent years, he would make many such arrangements. The delicate tribute to Mexican culture, attributed to Ponce in the program, was greeted with wild applause. In response to audience requests, Heifetz repeated the work. Heifetz was known for having a reserved and distant relationship with his fans, but he seemed unusually warm toward his Mexican audiences. In scrapbooks documenting the world tour, Heifetz collected many clippings from Mexican newspapers. For example, in one his oversize scrapbooks, over twenty pages are dedicated to the Mexico visit, more than any other country visit recorded in the same book. 174 An amateur photographer, Heifetz took pictures throughout this tour. Photographs from Mexico, some of them reprinted in music periodicals and La Forge (New York: G. Ricordi and Co., 1923); ?Estrelita? aranged by Gordon Bach Nevin (Boston: Oliver Ditson Company, 1928). 173 Se Apendix B for a list of articles writen about Heifetz in Mexico City. 174 Boxes 248, 253, and 254, Heifetz Colection, LC. The oversize scrapbok referenced here is in Box 248. 71 newspapers, show Heifetz near famous landmarks. 175 In a publicity photo from the same era, Heifetz wore a traditional Mexican traje while playing the violin. 176 Heifetz?s emotional connection with Mexican audiences and music was publicized in the U.S. press upon his return. Many profile articles described Mexican audiences throwing hats, jewelry, and flowers on stage in appreciation for the performances. 177 In an account of his activities, a reporter for Musical Courier wrote: But of all gay and exciting and stimulating audiences, the Mexicans are the best. Down there a concert is a riot . . . And when they applaud they do it with all their might and work themselves into a perfect frenzy, which, however quick to start is just as quick to end when the player appears on stage for an encore or another number of the program. 178 A few weeks after returning to New York, Heifetz began to tour in the U.S., making ?Estrellita? a standard work on his programs. 179 U.S. audiences and critics, already familiar with the tune, embraced Heifetz?s rendition. 180 In 1928, Carl Fischer published Heifetz?s arrangement of ?Estrellita? and in the summer of 1929, a recording of the violinist playing the song became available. 181 The images of Mexico and Mexican culture propagated through Heifetz?s publicity and U.S. tours contrast sharply with those found in the periodical literature a 175 Charles Drake, ?Traveling with Heifetz,? Musical Courier, 2 December 1927, 4; ?World Tours and Shorter Ones,? Musical America, 21 January 1928, 4. 176 Boxes 248, 253, and 254, Heifetz Colection, LC. 177 ?Throwing Hats at Heifetz,? NYT, 25 December 1927; ?Jascha Heifetz in Recital Here After Two Years Absence,? New York Review, 31 December 1927; Jascha Heifetz, ?Around the World with a Fidle,? The World Magazine, 25 March 1928, 5; ?Heifetz Returns After Two Years Circling World,? New York Herald Tribune [n.d.]. Box 264, Heifetz Colection, LC. 178 ?Heifetz Returns from World Tour? Musical Courier, 5 January 1928, 2. 179 For a list of Heifetz performances in which ?Estrelita? was listed on the program, se Apendix B. 180 ?Heifetz Stirs Audience,? NYT, 30 January 1928; ?New York Concerts,? Musical Courier 2 February 1928, 32; ?Heifetz Gets Tremendous Ovation in Violin Recital at izpah,? Syracuse Herald, 5 January 1929; ?Heifetz Gives Fine Concert,? Times Herald (Dalas), 5 April 1929. Box 264, Heifetz Colection, LC. 181 Ponce, ?Estrelita? aranged by Jascha Heifetz (New York: C. Fischer, 1928); ?Concert Music Records,? New Yorker, 25 August 1929, Box 264, Heifetz Colection, LC. 72 decade earlier. 182 For example, although the Musical Courier article quoted above refers to the Heifetz recital as a ?riot,? the audience members described in the Musical Courier account are also cultured?they immediately became quiet in deference to a performer of the classical violin. Heifetz?s Mexico was warm-hearted and culturally aware, with audiences engaged in the celebration of high art. The heft of Heifetz?s Mexico scrapbook indicates a personal affection for the culture. More importantly, the reception of his performances of ?Estrellita? signals a wider cultural shift within the U.S. ? one that welcomed positive images of Mexican culture. Andr?s Segovia Heifetz?s performances of ?Estrellita? and the recitals of Clarita S?nchez provide evidence of the influence of the ?Mexico Vogue.? It is tempting, given the strength of this evidence, to attribute all of the positive reception given Ponce?s music in 1920s New York to the ?Vogue.? The reception of Andr?s Segovia?s recitals, which often included Ponce?s music, proves such an assumption wrong. Instead, the popularity of these concerts seems to have been based on Segovia?s own attraction for the press and the novelty of his campaign on behalf of the guitar as a classical instrument. From his very first New York concert in 1928, the U.S. press adored him. Most of Segovia?s New York concerts included at least one work by Ponce, and the guitarist often voiced his preference for Ponce?s compositions. 183 Segovia?s New 182 Se Chapter 2 for more about the period preceding the ?Vogue.? 183 ?Ponce is the greatest for the guitar, melodicaly, harmonicaly, and musicaly. You know, in Ponce everything is magnificent for the guitar . . .? Graham Wade, ?Manuel Ponce,? Andres Segovia (London: Robson Boks, 1986) 87. 73 York performances between the first concert in 1928 and the last concert of 1932 included Ponce?s Theme, Variations, and Finale; Sonata Mexicana; Sonata Rom?ntica; several canciones arranged for guitar; and the ?Suite in A,? attributed to Baroque composer Sylvius Weiss, but actually written by Ponce. 184 With very few exceptions, the Ponce compositions that Segovia performed were different from the simple canciones appearing on recital programs of the time. Ponce and Segovia enjoyed a close friendship, especially during the late 1920s when Ponce was living in Europe and Ponce composed almost all of his guitar music especially for Segovia in close consultation with the performer. Aside from the handful of canci?n arrangements for the guitar and the Sonata Mexicana, Ponce?s first large work for the guitar, there are few references to Mexican folk music within these works. Far more common are works that demonstrate Ponce?s facility with complex Western forms. Ponce?s Theme, Variations, and Finale was frequently featured in Segovia?s programs, and it typifies the compositional style of Ponce?s works for guitar. Most of the variations in the work use a bass line first presented in the opening bars, an idea borrowed from the Baroque passacaglia. The melody forms a simple ABABA? pattern. Its most identifiable feature is a sequenced pattern of seconds that is presented in the A section. The B section is characterized by a descent in the upper line from A to D. The reliance on sequences and decorative fast-moving notes gives 184 The atribution to Weis was a joke Ponce and Segovia conceived of together. The work was composed in the style of J.S. Bach but Ponce and Segovia were disinclined to atribute the work to such a wel-known composer. After some consideration, they setled on the leser-known Weis, who composed in a similar style. Fritz Kreisler?s musical jokes were probably used as a model. Miranda observes that the work continues to be misatributed in programs and disc notes. Se: Miranda, ?Exploraciones,? Ensayo, 115. 74 the melody a Baroque sound [Example 3-3]. To the Baroque form and melody, Ponce added post-Romantic, semi-impressionist harmonies, at times set in close dissonances and at other times spaced beyond the octave [Example 3-4]. Example 3-3: On top of a low slow-moving passacaglia pattern, a baroque-like melody forms two recognizable sequence patterns, the first in measures 1-4 and the second in measure 6. Example 3-4: Variations III and IV, demonstrate the variety of harmonization techniques used in Ponce?s composition. Whereas Variation III presents a closed pattern of 3rds, Variation IV is more open with an emphasis on the melody. The display of Western form, melody, and harmony in the Theme, Variations, and Finale is typical of Ponce?s work for the guitar. By playing this music in New 75 York, Segovia offered listeners access to more complex works by Ponce. In truth, these works were more representative of Ponce?s compositional style as a whole than the simple canciones. It is difficult to detect any display of Mexican national identity in Segovia?s performances of Ponce?s music. Although the guitarist occasionally performed some of Ponce?s nationalist compositions, including arrangements of Mexican canciones, Segovia?s recitals were not understood to be displays of Mexican nationalism. If Segovia manifested any nationalist tendencies on his programs, they were, naturally, reflective of his own Spanish heritage and the Spanish origins of the guitar. Many of the composers whose works appeared in Segovia?s concerts were Spanish; examples include Fernando Sor, Manuel de Falla, Frederico Moreno Torroba, Enrique Granados, Isaac Alb?niz, Joaqu?n Turina, Francisco T?rrega, and Felipe Pedrell. In reviews, Ponce was occasionally listed with these other names as one of the many Spanish composers featured on Segovia?s programs. 185 Unlike programs and reviews of S?nchez?s recitals, even in accounts with accurate biographical information about the relevant composers, there was no emphasis on Ponce?s nationality. Folias d?espagne and Concierto del Sur, two of Segovia?s favorite pieces by the composer, both evoked images of Spain rather than Mexico. However, it appears from press material surrounding his U.S. tours, that while Segovia?s recitals might have demonstrated pride in Spain and Spanish music, the dominant purpose was the promotion of the guitar as a classical instrument and the establishment of the importance of the guitar music literature. 185 ?Segovia Again Charms,? NYT, 12 January 1928, 24; Francis Perkins, ?Andres Segovia Opens His Season,? NYHT, 20 January 1930, 1. 76 The frequent performances of Ponce?s music in Segovia?s recitals rarely elicited comment from reviewers. Although reviews of Segovia?s concerts were generally positive, when critics wrote about the music he performed, they tended to emphasize the older music on his programs. J.S. Bach?s lute music, Segovia?s arrangements of Bach and Scarlatti for the guitar, and the inclusion of Sor?s compositions were frequent topics in reviews of Segovia?s recitals. The ?Suite in A,? masquerading as a piece by Weiss, elicited more comment from New York reviewers than any of Ponce?s other compositions. 186 After the ?Vogue? Similar performances of Ponce?s music continued through the 1930s and 1940s. During this period, as in previous years, Ponce?s canciones were featured in vocal or instrumental recital programs, and Segovia toured in the U.S. performing Ponce?s guitar music. Three performances of Ponce?s music from these decades departed from the patterns established during the late 1920s and deserve particular attention: the performance of his ?Preludes for Cello and Piano? on the 6 March 1932 League of Composers concert, the performance of Chapultepec by the Philadelphia Orchestra on 21 November 1934, and the U.S. premiere of Concierto del Sur on 13 January 1946 by Segovia and the New York Philharmonic. The League of Composers concert featured music by composers throughout the Americas, including Ch?vez?s Sonatina for violin and piano and Ponce?s 186 ?Segovia Recaled by Audience 16 Times,? NYT, 20 January 1930, 16. 77 Preludes. 187 The performance occurred three weeks before the premiere of Ch?vez?s H.P. with the Philadelphia Orchestra, possibly because the League wished to promote Ch?vez?s music in advance of the ballet premiere. Regardless of the League?s motivation, the music community?s excitement about the upcoming H.P. performance drew notice to the Ch?vez work at the expense of the other works on the program. As a result, Ponce?s music received very little attention. Ponce faced a similar problem when the Philadelphia performed his Chapultepec alongside William Dawson?s Negro Symphony and Harl MacDonald?s ?The Santa F? Trail.? Dawson?s symphony, the second composed by an African- American to be performed by a major symphony orchestra in the U.S., was the most interesting work for critics, and resulted in relatively little commentary about Ponce?s Chapultepec. 188 Ch?vez had a role in selecting the repertoire for both the League performance and the Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Ponce?s music. 189 This marked a departure from the patterns developed during the 1920s, when almost all performances of Ponce?s music reflected the performer?s desire to place a work on a program. The reliance on Ch?vez?s advice for the selection of Mexican concert material became increasingly common during the 1930s. Ch?vez?s influence among 187 ?League to Give A Pan-American Program,? NYHT, 28 February 1932, sec. VI, p. 7; H.. ?Music in Review,? NYT, 7 March 1932; F.D.F., ?Composers? League Gives Works from 7 Countries,? NYHT, 7 March 1932; C., ?No Halt in Concerts During Lenten Season: League Presents Third Concert,? Musical America, 25 March 1932, 26. 188 Olin Downes, ?Stokowski Gives American Works,? NYT, 21 November 1934, 2; W.J. Henderson, ?Stokowski Ofers 3 Novelties,? New York Sun, 21 November 1934, 16; Leonard Liebling, ?Stokowski Leads Thre Novelties of Merit,? New York American, 21 November 1934, 13; Pits Sanborn, ?Negro Music Played Here at Carnegie,? New York World Telegram, 21 November 1934, 17 . 189 Sanborn to Ch?vez, 8 Nov. 1934, c. 10, v. VI, exp. 165, ?Corespondencia Personal,? Ch?vez Archive, AGN; Claire Reis to Ch?vez, 19 Dec 1930 and Ch?vez to Reis, 7 Jan. 1931, c. 8, v. I, exp. 85, ?Corespondencia Personal,? Ch?vez Archive, AGN. 78 U.S. musicians and critics allowed him to shape the presentation of Mexican music within the U.S. In addition to serving as an advisor for U.S. performers interested in playing Mexican music, Ch?vez was also often consulted by those writing about Mexican musical life. As a result, although the number of articles about music in Mexico published in the U.S. increased during the 1930s and 1940, Ch?vez and his students were more frequently featured. Articles including information about Ponce usually cast him as a past master, even though he was still writing music and garnering acclaim from Mexico City audiences. 190 It does not appear that Ch?vez participated in any way in the 1946 U.S. premiere of Ponce?s guitar concerto, Concierto del Sur. Two U.S. performances of the work were given in January 1946, the first in New York City and the second in Washington, D.C. Unlike the reviews of the League and Philadelphia Orchestra concerts, reviews of the 1946 concerto performances often included biographical information about Ponce and analysis of his music. Concierto del Sur was lauded widely 191 and was canonized in the guitar repertoire shortly thereafter. However, the acclaim accorded the guitar concerto proved momentary and did not help Ponce develop a sustained reputation in the U.S. 190 Verna Arvey, ?Mexico?s Significance in Present Day Music,? Etude 54, no. 2 (Feburary 1936): 79- 80, 129. Elgin Groseclose, ?Mexico?s Artistic Development,? NYT, 8 Nov. 1936, sec. x, 7. Charles Pore wrote a series of articles for The Musician in 1940 and 1941. Some of the articles mention Ponce but none of them discus his music or seriously consider the value of his music. Examples include: Pore, ?Daniel Ayala and Racial Music,? The Musician, July 1940, 12-123; ?Mexico Finds Art a Nationalizing Force,? The Musician, January 1941, 6; ?Mexico Has Its Nationalists,? The Musician, February 1941, 25; ?Mexico Sponsors Music for the ases,? The Musician, May 1941, 8; ?Music in Mexico,? The Musician, October 1941, 156. 191 Noel Straus, ?Segovia Presents a Novel Program,? NYT, 14 January 1946, 14; Virgil Thomson, ?Guitar with Orchestra,? NYHT, 14 January 1947, 1; Alice Eversman, ?Segovia is Acorded Ovation in Apearance with Orchestra,? Star (Washington, D.C.), 28 Jan. 1946, sec. B, 2. 79 Ponce?s New York Legacy? Despite the numerous and well-regarded performances of Ponce?s canciones and guitar works in New York during the late 1920s and early 1930s, Ponce never achieved the reputation apparently required for lasting influence within the New York music community. It appears that one contributing factor was Ponce?s absence from New York, which prevented him from participating in the promotion of his own music in the U.S. Instead, performers programmed and promoted his work as they saw fit. The common practice of grouping Ponce?s works with compositions by other composers did not encourage audiences to develop a taste for Ponce?s compositions; rather it massed Ponce with other Mexican or Latino composers. Possibly because Ponce was not exerting pressure on publishers and writers, there are no known articles published in the U.S. during the late 1920s analyzing his style or offering accounts of his biography. The work by Ponce most recognizable to U.S. audiences became ?Estrellita,? a modest popular song that did not demonstrate the composer?s artistry in larger forms and more complex styles of composition. Although Segovia?s recitals did include Ponce?s more complex music, they did little to educate audiences about the composer, because the performer, not the composer, was the subject of reviews, and his instrument served as the focal point of the recitals. Without more exposure to his music or recognition of his work in the press, New Yorkers were never able to recognize the composer for the breadth of talent he possessed. As Ch?vez became increasingly well-known in the U.S. during the 1930s, he quickly overshadowed most other Mexican classical composers, including Ponce. As 80 a result, performances of Ch?vez?s music in the U.S. were most widely and attentively reviewed, his view of musical life in Mexico influenced most accounts published in the U.S., and his tastes often governed programs of Mexican or Latin American classical music in the U.S. For these reasons, scholarly accounts of musical life in New York rarely mention Ponce. Yet concerts of his music are remarkable; performers featuring Ponce?s canciones on their programs offered a cultured and refined presentation of mexicanismo at odds with the ?greasers? depicted in early Hollywood films. While Ch?vez used his personal influence to propagate his Mexicanist aesthetic during the 1930s, the performances of Ponce?s canciones detailed in this chapter came many years earlier. Such performances helped reform the image of Mexicans in the press, making Ch?vez?s attempts to cultivate New York audiences for Mexican music easier in the years that followed. 81 Chapter 4: Carilo and Sonido 13 in New York, 1925-1932. In 1926, just as Mexican culture was becoming a focus of the New York press, Juli?n Carrillo, once dubbed ?the herald of a musical Monroe Doctrine,? 192 returned to New York. A decade earlier, Carrillo had attracted notice from New York newspapers and magazines for his single performance as director of his American Symphony Orchestra. 193 Following the performance, Carrillo solicited manuscript scores from contemporary composers residing throughout the Americas for performance with American Symphony Orchestra. As a result, he was viewed as a would-be musical diplomat. During the 1926 visit Carrillo once again gained attention. However, this time it was not his diplomacy but his modernism that drew interest. In 1926, Carrillo brought a new approach to composition with him to New York. He called it ?Sonido 13? to indicate its use of microtones?that is, tones beyond the traditional twelve notes of the chromatic scale. First proposed in a small theoretical document published in 1923, 194 by 1926 Carrillo and his students had demonstrated the potential of Sonido 13 microtonality through concerts of new works held in cities throughout Mexico. In addition to composing and performing, Carrillo continued to expand his hypothesis about microtones into an integrated new approach to composition. News of his theoretical and compositional progress was reported to followers through a self- published Spanish-language periodical Sonido 13. Although his new compositional 192 Mar?a Cristina Mena, ?Juli?n Carilo: The Herald of a Musical Monroe Doctrine,? The Century Magazine, March 1915, 753-759. 193 Se Chapter 2 for more information about this performance. 194 Carilo, Pl?ticas Musicales (Mexico: Juli?n Carilo, 1923) 25-274. 82 methods were derided by many members of the Mexican musical establishment, New York modernists and critics seemed interested in Carrillo?s music and theories. When Carrillo became frustrated by the poor Mexican reception of his music and theories, he traveled to New York, expecting to find a new more positive evaluation. Carrillo?s second extended visit to New York lasted over two years, from the winter of 1925/26 to the spring of 1928. Over that period, Carrillo expanded his theory, writing three treatises about Sonido 13, 195 and continued, albeit sporadically, to publicize his progress through his magazine, Sonido 13, now published in New York in bilingual English/Spanish editions. Perhaps most significantly, while in New York, Carrillo participated in two performances of his music. The first was a concert hosted by the League of Composers in March 1926, which featured the composer?s Sonata Casi Fantas?a for a chamber ensemble of microtonal instruments. The second, a year later, was a performance by Leopold Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra who played an orchestrated version of the same piece, re-titled Concertino, assisted by a small ensemble of microtonal instruments. In advance of both concerts, New York music periodicals published articles explaining Carrillo?s theories, notation, and musical style. After each performance, reviews appeared in nearly every New York newspaper. 196 This chapter constitutes the first systematic study of Carrillo?s activities in New York and the reception of his music there. Recent studies by Alejandro 195 The thre treatises are: Pre-Sonido 13 and Teor?a L?gica de la M?sica, Las Leyes de Metam?rfosis Musicales . Se below for analysis of their contents and aplicability. 196 Se Apendix D for a list of relevant reviews. 83 Madrid, 197 Luca Conti, 198 and Ernesto Sol?s Winkler 199 have shed new light on the composer?s compositional methods and activities in Mexico, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe, but rarely mention his activities in the U.S. Earlier biographical books and articles, including those by Gerald Benjamin, 200 E.R. Blackaller, 201 Jos? Rafael Calva, 202 Alfred Pike, 203 and Laurette Bellamy 204 refer to Carrillo?s 1926-1927 visit to New York, but most include few details. The autobiographical accounts, Testimonio de una vida and Juli?n Carrillo: Vida y Obra, do provide information about Carrillo?s 1926-1927 visit to New York, but provide subjective narratives largely written or shaped by the composer and his close circle of acolytes. Thus, this chapter is both more comprehensive and more objective than previously published accounts. The chapter is organized chronologically. It begins with an investigation into the origins of the Sonido 13 theory and a description of its basic tenets. This is followed by an examination of some of the first microtonal music Carrillo produced and the early reception of his microtonal music and theories in Mexico City. After a study of the reception of Carrillo?s music and theories before his arrival in New York 197 Alejandro Madrid, ?Writing Modernist and Avant-Garde Music in Mexico: Performativity, Transculturation, and Identity After the Revolution, 1920-1930,? (PhD dis., Ohio State University, 203). 198 Luca Conti, ?Introduci?n cr?tica al ?Sonido 13? de Juli?n Carilo,? Heterofon?a no. 123 (200): 75-88. 199 Ernesto Sol?s Winkler, ?La revoluci?n del sonido 13: Un ensayo de explicaci?n social,? (Master of History Thesis, Universidad Aut?noma del Estado de M?xico, 196). 200 Gerald Benjamin, ?Una deuda cultural saldada: la contribuci?n de Juli?n Carilo a la m?sica del futuro,? Revista Musical Chilena 158 (1982): 60?7. 201 E. R. Blackaler, La revoluci?n musical de Julian Carilo (M?xico, D.F.: Secretar?a de Educaci?n P?blica, 1969). 202 Jos? Rafael Calva, Julian Carilo y microtonalismo: ?la visi?n de mois?s? (M?xico, D.F.: CENIDIM, 1984). 203 Alfred John Pike. ?The Discoveries and Theories of Juli?n Carilo, 1875-1965,? Inter-American Music Buletin no. 5 (September 196): 1-4. 204 Laurete Belamy, ?The ?Sonido Trece? Theoretical Works of Julian Carilo: A Translation with Comentary,? (PhD dis., Indiana University, 1972). 84 in 1925, the chapter provides a detailed account of Carrillo?s visit there from 1926 to 1928. Finally, the after effects, or lack thereof, of Carrillo?s visit are examined. The Invention of Sonido 13 The first time Carrillo introduced his thoughts about the utility of microtonal compositional techniques to the Mexican public was in 1923, with the publication of his second book of Pl?ticas Musicales (Music Lectures), which included a chapter titled, ?El Sonido Num. 13 ? Algunos Antecedentes.? 205 Here Carrillo suggested that the music of the future would move beyond whole-tones and half-tones into the realm of smaller divisions of tones. As the self-proclaimed ?discoverer? of the 13 th tone, Carrillo implied that he would play a central role in this inevitable musical development: We are on the eve of witnessing one of the transcendental events that has occurred in musical technique not only since the Renaissance or medieval period but since the beginning of the Christian Era . . . The thirteenth sound is going to start a real revolution. 206 The ideas presented in ?El Sonido Num. 13?Algunos Antecedentes? were limited to the two most basic tenets of the theory: that the whole tone could be subdivided into sixteen portions and that the human ear could distinguish each of them. Over the next few months and years, Carrillo would augment his theory, 205 Carilo, Pl?ticas Musicales, 25-274. Carilo claimed the chapter stemed from a leter he wrote to the editors of the Parisian periodical Le M?n?strel. The magazine did not print his leter and I have not sen definitive evidence that it was writen or sent. Nonetheles, Carilo corectly recaled that an article about microtones apeared in the 19 May 192 isue: E.C. Grasi, ?L?Orient et la Musique de l?Avenir,? Le M?n?strel, 19 May 192, 25-26. Ernesto Sol?s Winkler believes it was this article that motivated Carilo to formalize his theory. 206 ?The Thirtenth Sound,? Musical Advance, May 1923, 1. 85 devising a new notation, commissioning the creation of microtonal instruments, and proposing compositional techniques to assist those wishing to write microtonal music. In 1923, when the second Pl?ticas was printed, Carrillo was a prominent member of the Mexico City music community, serving as the conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra and as a Professor of Composition at the National Conservatory of Mexico. His leadership within the music community made him a frequent target for those dissatisfied with his reforms. One of the most visible signs of unrest occurred in February 1923 when a group of students revolted against the implementation of pedagogical and institutional changes, requesting Carrillo?s removal. 207 Despite his prominence and the frequency with which his name appeared in Mexico City newspapers, the new theoretical material presented in Carrillo?s second Pl?ticas was not reported upon in Mexican newspapers for several months. The theory reached a wider audience in 1924, following the re-publication of the Pl?ticas chapter in serial form in the first three issues of Carrillo?s new periodical titled Sonido 13. Apparently already the cause of disagreements within his circle of colleagues, Carrillo wrote that the purpose of those creating the magazine, ?to dedicate their efforts only and exclusively to the progress of musical art,? had been derailed by ?the small-minded character assassinations that never disappear and enemies who, because they lack artistic personalities, do not matter to the universal movement.? 208 Following the publication of the Pl?ticas chapter in the Sonido 13 207 ?La Direci?n del Conservatorio Nacional de M?sica,? (?) February 1923, [n.p.], scrapboks, Juli?n Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 208 ??EL SONIDO 13? har? abstraci?n en sus momentos de lucha, si es que ?sta se presenta, de todo inter?s personal, para dedicar sus esfuerzos ?nica y exclusivamente al progreso del arte musical, pues son tantos y tan variados los problemas t?cnicos por resolver, que ser?a lamentable distraer esfuerzos de un fin tan noble y alto, y detenernos a combatir peque?eces de car?cter que nunca faltan y enemigos 86 magazine, the argument within the elite music community about the value of Carrillo?s new techniques of microtonal composition became increasingly public. Luis Delgadillo, a Nicaraguan composer living in Mexico City, was the first to declare in print his skepticism about the applicability of Sonido 13 techniques. On 24 May 1924, an article by Delgadillo appeared in El Dem?crata challenging Carrillo to support his theory in a scientific manner. 209 In defense of Sonido 13, Carrillo wrote his own article for El Dem?crata, published on 29 May 1924, responding to Delgadillo?s every accusation and belittling his musical training throughout the document. 210 Predictably, the article did little to defuse the situation; rather it fanned the discussion into a very public and personal debate. Within weeks Delgadillo had recruited eight Mexico City composers to join his campaign against Sonido 13: Alba Herrera y Ogaz?n, Ignacio Montiel y L?pez, Estanislao Mej?a, Ernesto Henr?quez, Jesus C. Romero, Pasqual H. Toral, Manuel Barajas, and Roberto Guti?rrez Arreola. The argument quickly migrated from the pages of El Dem?crata to El Universal, one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the city. Those in the group, known as ?The Nine,? wrote articles for local newspapers and held radio broadcasts in which they stated their opposition to Carrillo?s ideas. 211 They attacked Carrillo?s claims directly, challenging him on scientific and aesthetic grounds. que, por falta de personalidad art?stica, poco significan el movimiento universal.? Carilo, ?Nuestro Programa,? El Sonido 13 1, no. 1 (January 1924): 1-2. 209 Delgadilo, ?Notas de Arte Musical: Critica Sobre el Sonido 13, del Maestro Carilo,? El Dem?crata (Mexico City), 24 ay 1924, sec. 1, p. 3. 210 Carilo, ?El Sonido 13,? El Dem?crata (Mexico City), 29 May 1924, sec. 1, p. 3. 211 A list of some of the most significant articles published in El Universal can be found in: Sol?s Winkler, 371-372. 87 In June 1924, the Sonido 13 theory received an additional blow from an unexpected corner; the young modernist composer Carlos Ch?vez wrote an article in El Universal titled ?El Cruti Hind? y el Cuarto de Tono Europeo.? 212 Superficially, the article appeared to be a straightforward account of the history of microtones in world music. Because it was published in the midst of debates about the value of Sonido 13, the article was widely interpreted as an attack on Carrillo?s claim that he had been the first to discover the applicability of microtones in classical composition. Any doubt about the target of ?El Cruti Hind?? was erased with the publication of another article by Ch?vez, ?La Importaci?n en M?xico? which presented Ch?vez?s problems with Sonido 13 in more direct terms. 213 To Ch?vez?s articles, Carrillo responded angrily, writing an article published in La Antorcha, which was reprinted in his Sonido 13 magazine. 214 It is possible that Ch?vez?s articles were written in retaliation for Carrillo?s refusal to premiere the younger composer?s works in 1921. 215 However, regardless of the motivation behind 212 Ch?vez, ?El Cruti Hind? y el Cuarto de Tono Europeo [part 1],? El Universal (Mexico City), 24 Aug. 1924, sec. 3, p. 1; Ch?vez, ?El Cruti Hind? y el Cuarto de Tono Europeo [part 2],? El Universal (Mexico City), 31 Aug. 1924, sec. 3, p. 1. 213 Ch?vez, ?La Importaci?n en Mexico,? La Antorcha (Mexico City), 1 Sept. 1924, reprinted in Ch?vez, Obras I : Escritos Period?sticos (1916-1939), ed. by Gloria Carmona (M?xico : El Colegio Nacional, 197) 51-61. 214 Carilo, ?El Sonido 13,? La Antorcha, 29 Nov. 1924, quoted in Ch?vez, Obras, 51. 215 Stevenson wrote that Carilo refused to perform El Fuego Nuevo [Stevenson, Music in Mexico, New York: Thomas Y. Crowel and Company, 1952]. No evidence of Carilo?s rejection of El Fuego Nuevo was found in either the Ch?vez or Carilo personal archives. However, in his autobiography, Carilo remembers refusing to perform a diferent composition by Ch?vez, Sinfon?a de la Patria. A leter from Carilo to Ch?vez from 1921 indicates that the younger composer invited Carilo to concerts featuring new compositions. The leter reads: Mucho agradezco la amabilidad que tuvo Ud. de invitarme a sus conciertos . . . Deseo que continue Ud. por el camino emprendido y que tenga todo el ?xito que su talento tan justamente hace esperar. Con todo afecto, Ud. Manda a su muy atento servidor y amigo. [Much thanks for your kindnes in inviting me to your concerts . . . I hope that you continue along your curent path and that you have al the suces that justifiably awaits your talent. With much afection from your servant and friend]; Carilo to Ch?vez, 16 June 1921, c. 3, v. I, exp. 12, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Leonora Savedra discuses this exchange in her disertation; her discusion of Jos? Vasconcelos? role is particularly interesting, although tangential to 88 their publication, the articles began a period of open enmity between the composers that lasted through the rest of their lives. 216 The First Performance of Sonido 13 Music Pressured by his detractors to produce evidence of the theory?s efficacy and responding directly to a request from Jos? G?mez Ugarte, the editor of El Universal, 217 Carrillo organized the first concert of microtonal music in Mexico City. The performance, funded and promoted by the El Universal newspaper and radio station, occurred 15 February 1924. 218 The program included several works by Carrillo?s students?Rafael Adame, Elvira Larios, and Soledad Padilla?as well as five of Carrillo?s own works. 219 Over the following months, this concert was repeated many times as Carrillo led the musicians in his performing ensemble, nicknamed ?El Grupo 13,? in a tour of Mexican and Texan cities. The press reports surrounding these the present discusion. Se, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201) 123. 216 Upon gaining control of the National Conservatory, Ch?vez employed many of Carilo?s former students, elevating them to important government posts. Such favors were never bestowed upon Carilo. Ch?vez folowed Carilo?s carer and participated in several eforts to discredit him, as documented in the AGN. Interviews with Carilo conducted late in his life evidence continuing resentment toward Ch?vez and his participation in the 1924 debate. Se Jos? Velasco Urda, ?El Maestro Carlos Ch?vez,? Juli?n Carilo: Su Vida y Obra (Mexico: Edici?n del ?Grupo 13 etropolitiano,? 1945) 371-379. For more description of Ch?vez?s hiring practices, including the admitedly impresive qualifications some of Carilo?s former student brought to their posts, se Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others,? 29-238. 217 El Universal, 2 December 1924. 218 For more information about this performance se Luca Conti, ?Preludio a Col?n, Tepepan, Horizontes: proceso compositivo y estrategias formales en dos diversas fases del Sonido 13 de Juli?n Carilo,? Heterofon?a 128 (January-June 203) 9-32. 219 Program: Rafael Adame, Guitar Prelude in Quarter Tones; Elvira Larios, Melody for Female Voices; Adame, Capricho for Guitar in Quarter Tones; Soledad Padila, ??Oh Salutarios Hostia!? for voices and instruments; Larios, Melody for solo instruments in 16 th tones; Carilo, Preludio a Col?n for soprano in quarter tone and instruments in 16 th tones; Carilo, ?Ave Maria? in eighth and sixtenth tones; Carilo, Prelude for Obligato Celo in quarter tones; Carilo, ?Tepepan? for voices and harp in quarter tones; Carilo, ?Hoja de Album? for instruments in quarter, eighth, and sixtenth tones. Carilo, Testemonio de una vida (San Lu?s Potos?: Comit? Organizador, 194) 24. 89 performances indicate that many of them were greeted with anticipation and pleasure. 220 Among the works on the program, only one is still performed and studied: Carrillo?s Preludio a Col?n. Probably Carrillo?s first microtonal work, Preludio is among the best examples of his early approach to microtonal composition. At this stage, Carrillo notated his music by altering the traditional style, indicating microtones through the attachment of diagonal lines to note heads [Example 4-1]. Example 4-1: Quarter-tone scale written in altered tonal notation. 221 Later Carrillo derived a numeric notation in which he assigned a fixed number to every 16 th tone, starting with C=0 and ending with B+15/16=96. Thus a quarter- tone scale in C major would begin: 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, etc. with the numbers 0, 16, and 32 representing C, D, and E respectively. The octave placement of the numerically notated pitches were indicated by placement relative to a single horizontal line augmented by a ledger line placed, when needed, above and below the central line. Numbers written on the central line were to be played in the octave above middle C, numbers above the line an octave higher, and numbers on a ledger line two octaves above. Duration was indicated through the appearance or non-appearance of stems, adapted from traditional notation. The ?translation? of an excerpt from 220 ?El Sonido Trece en Linares,? 26 July 1925; ?Juli?n Carilo sale en Jira Artistica,? La Prensa, San Antonio, Texas, 1925; ?La Conferencia Sobre el Sonido 13, O?da en Jalapa,? El Universal, 21 Nov. 1925; ?Producer of 13th Sound Wil Give Concert Here,? Tampico Tribune, 15 July 1925 in Scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 221 Carilo, 2 Bosquejos, Manuscript Score, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 90 Schubert?s ?Unfinished Symphony? was offered to Musical America readers as a way of explaining the system [Example 4-2]. It is this later system that was used to create the well-known edition of Preludio a Col?n published by the New Music Quarterly in 1944 and excerpted in the examples that follow. 222 Example 4-2: Translation of Schubert?s ?Unfinished? Symphony into Carrillo?s microtonal notation. Printed with permission from Musical America. As others have noted, 223 in Preludio Carrillo combines traditional and avant- garde approaches, relying upon tonal relationships to structure the work while elaborating those relationships in a microtonal foreground. Thus, while form and harmony are governed by Western tonality, it is the melody that best exhibits Carrillo?s microtonal innovations. Carrillo demonstrated his facility at composing microtonal music from the very beginning of the work through a long, haunting line exchanged between the soprano and violin [Example 4-3]. 222 Carilo, Juli?n, ?Preludio a Cristobel Col?n,? New Music 17, no. 3 (April 194). 223 For a more detailed analysis of Preludio se Madrid, 46-69. 91 Example 4-3: The opening passage to Preludio demonstrates Carrillo?s facility with microtonal melodies; the harmonies, by contrast, are sparse and simple. Permission granted by the current holders of the copyright, Carl Fischer, on behalf of Jobert. The harmonies found in Preludio are very simple; in the example above, there is a sparing use of block chords to accompany the long solo passages. In passages where multiple voices move in harmony they usually do so by moving in parallel thirds up and down a quarter-tone scale. A short passage toward the end of the work provides the only moment of true contrary motion [Example 4-4]. In other passages, 92 only the arpacitera, a harp constructed for the express purpose of realizing Carrillo?s microtonal music, slides in a direction contrary to the other instruments while playing 16 th -tone glissandi. This is perceived as a superficial addition to the principal lines. The lack of harmonic complexity in Preludio is one indication of the difficulties Sonido 13 presented to Carrillo. Bereft of the systematized procedures developing out of traditional tonal harmonic composition, Carrillo needed to create a method suited to microtones. Harmony continued to provide obstacles for the composer in microtonal works written over the next several years. In Preludio, the inflexible approach toward harmony seems to have limited the structure; the entire work elaborates E, never modulating to another key [Example 4-4]. 224 224 Ibid. 93 Example 4-4: In the middle stanza, the violin moves downward whilst the guitar line rises. The final cadence reiterates the centrality of pitch class E. Permission granted by the current holders of the copyright, Carl Fischer, on behalf of Jobert. 94 Advance Press in New York for Sonido 13 Despite the acclaim accorded the ?Grupo 13? concerts in other Mexican cities, opposition to Sonido 13 remained formidable among Mexico City musicians. During 1924 and 1925, Carrillo faced strenuous opposition to his theories from his colleagues at the Conservatory. Perhaps in response to Mexico City musicians? derisive attitudes toward his microtonal compositions, Carrillo decided to leave Mexico and share his music and theories abroad. 225 He quit his positions at the Conservatory and as director of the National Symphony, and, in the winter of 1925-26, he moved to New York City. During the period between Carrillo?s first trip to New York (1914-1915) and his second trip (1926-1928), the cultural life of New York underwent significant changes. Most importantly, the city became an international center for modernist music. In the mid-1920s, New York?s modernist musicians exhibited a particular interest in microtonal music. The recent studies of Eastern European folk music conducted by Bel? Bart?k and Zoltan Kodaly as well as increasing recognition of refined musical developments in cultures outside the Western tradition, such as Indian classical music, had made Europeans and Americans aware of the use of quarter-tones in world music. Experimentalists, admired by those participating in modernist music circles of New York, had long shown interest in microtones. And New Yorkers had recently received news of Alois Habas? compositions in quarter tones, available in score form but unperformable on available instruments. 226 Reviews, articles, and advertisements in music periodical issues printed from 1924 to 1926 demonstrate the depth of this interest. During 1924, Musical Advance 225 A more detailed acount of this history may be found in Sol?s Winkler, 93-95. 226 Downes describes this music in the folowing article, Olin Downes, ?Opera,? New York Times, 15 February 1925, 26. 95 published several articles about Moriz Stoehr?s creation of a quarter-tone piano. 227 Half of the March 1925 issue of Pro-Musica Quarterly was dedicated to the subject of the quarter-tone and its possibilities for the contemporary composer, including an extensive article by Charles Ives. 228 The publication of the periodical issue followed a lecture on 8 February 1925 about quarter-tones in Chickering Hall by E. Robert Schmitz, the director of Pro-Musica, and a concert of quarter-tone music on 14 February in Aeolian Hall, featuring quarter-tone compositions by Ives and Hans Barth. 229 Perhaps because Carrillo?s Sonido 13 music offered new ideas about the composition of microtonal music, New Yorkers showed intense interest in Carrillo?s Sonido 13 compositional method long before the composer?s visit to their city. The Musical Advance, a publication that had heralded Carrillo?s arrival to New York in 1914, was the first to share Sonido 13 with New Yorkers. In May 1923, just months after the publication of Pl?ticas Musicales, the magazine printed a translated version of the Sonido 13 chapter, dedicating nearly an entire issue to Carrillo?s article. A postscript to the version of the article printed in Pl?ticas Musicales indicates that Carrillo had guaranteed Musical Advance the right to publish the material first. 230 The February 1925 concert of Sonido 13 music in Mexico City also attracted attention from New York publications, leading to two series of articles explaining Carrillo?s theory to interested readers of Musical America and the Musical 227 ?When the Curtain Rises,? Musical Advance, September 1924, 18; W.V.A., ?The American Quarter-Tone Piano,? Musical Advance, November 1924, 18. 228 Charles Ives, ?Some Quarter-Tone Data,? Pro-Musica Quarterly, March 1925, 24. 229 Advertisement, Pro-Musica Quarterly, March 1925, 43. 230 Pl?ticas Musicales, (1923) 274. 96 Advance. 231 Among the most significant articles was one printed in Musical America describing Carrillo?s invented notational system, probably the first detailed explanation of his notational method before the writing of Pre-Sonido Trece in 1926. 232 In early 1925, Carrillo announced his intention to move to New York through articles published in the Mexico City press. 233 Numerous plans for performances followed, many documented in the Sonido 13 periodical. In August 1925, Carrillo wrote of plans to write a symphony for a large orchestra and a Cello Concerto in 16 th , 8 th , and 4 th tones. 234 As evidence of his progress, he printed the first page of the symphony on the cover of Sonido 13, 235 using the invented notation described in Musical America. According to an article in Sonido 13, Carrillo intended to premiere the symphony in New York. 236 A few months later the composer relayed a request from the Pan-American Union in Washington, D.C. for the organization of a concert of microtonal Sonido 13 music to be transmitted by radio in October. 237 U.S. ?Grupos 13? formed and requested that the composer arrange opportunities for the members to learn about his compositional methods and music. Such writers suggested that Carrillo publish his magazine in multiple languages and send instructors to the U.S. to 231 Wiliam Spier, ?Advanced Musicians in Mexico Use Quarter-Tones and New Notation,? Musical America, 4 April 1925, 9; Carilo, ?Music Without Tones and Semitones,? The Musical Advance, June 1925, 1; Wiliam Spier, ?Mexican Composer Proposes New Quarter-Tone Notation,? Musical America, 15 August 1925, 18; ?Sixtenth Tones Radiate from Whole Tones Through the Prism of Carilo,? Musical America, 6 February 1926, 43; Carilo, ?History and Mystery of 13 th Sound,? Musical Advance, May 1926, 3; Carilo, ?Is the Epoch of the New World in Sight?? Musical Advance, November 1926, 4. 232 Carilo wrote the text in 1926 but it was not published until 1930. 233 These articles were reprinted in Sonido 13. ?El Sonido 13 Recore el Mundo,? El Sonido 13 2, no. 11 (15 June 1925): 3. 234 Cover, El Sonido 13 2, no. 15-16 (August 1925). 235 Ibid. 236 Reprint of article in El Universal Gr?fico, Ibid., 1-13. 237 ?Continentales,? El Sonido 13 2, no. 19 and 20 (October 1925): 13. 97 teach others how to play microtones. 238 Some of these performance plans were alluded to in articles for the Musical Advance 239 and Musical America. 240 The attention from New York publications was noted in the Mexico City press, resulting in articles in El Universal Gr?fico and El Universal that were then re-printed in Sonido 13. 241 Preparing for Sonata Casi Fantas?a in New York The announced plans to offer New York premieres of a microtonal symphony and cello concerto were never realized. The final draft of the symphony was not completed until 1930 and that of the Cello Concerto in 1945; 242 neither was performed in New York City. Carrillo refused the opportunity proffered by the Pan- American Union almost immediately because he did not have time to recruit and train a group of musicians by the proposed concert date. 243 Shortly after Carrillo arrived in New York in January 1926, the League of Composers commissioned a work from him for performance in one of their concerts, resulting in the premiere of Carrillo?s Sonata Casi Fantas?a in March 1926. 244 In less than three months, Carrillo recruited a small group of performers [Example 4-5], trained them to play new microtonal instruments, and composed the Sonata. In his 238 El Sonido 13 2, no. 8 (3 April 1925): 14-15. 239 Carilo, ?Music Without Tones and Semitones,? Musical Advance, June 1925, 3. 240 Wiliam Spier, ?Mexican Composer Proposes New Quarter-Tone Notation,? Musical America, 15 August 1925, 18. 241 From El Universal Gr?fico, ?El Senor D. Lu?s C. Ortiz,? El Sonido 13 2, no. 8 (3 April 1925): 8; from El Universal, ?El Sonido 13 Recore el Mundo,? El Sonido 13 2, no. 1 (15 June 1925): 3-4. 242 Omar Hern?ndez- Hidalgo, Cat?logo integral del archivo Juli?n Carilo (San Lu?s Potos?: Editorial Ponciano Araiga, 200). 243 ?Continentales,? El Sonido 13 2, no. 19 and 20 (October 1925): 13. 244 Carilo recounts this chronology in his autobiography, Testimonio de una vida (San Lu?s Potos?: Comit? Organizador, 194) 234. 98 autobiography, Carrillo remembered writing the work in a ?few days? 245 and recalled that the musicians had met for forty-eight rehearsals, each one three hours long. 246 Example 4-5: The inscription at the left is in the composer?s hand. It reads: ?First ?Grupo 13? of New York that performed Juli?n Carrillo?s Sonata Casi Fantas?a in 4 th , 8 th , and 16 th tones in Town Hall, 13 March 1926; the first group to do so in the world.? Emil Mix holds the octavina and Margarita Rein stands next to the arpacitera. Permission to use the photo granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. Although he had initially planned to offer performances of several works, Sonata Casi Fantas?a was the only work by Carrillo played that evening. The composer used the rest of his allotted time to offer a brief lecture and demonstration about Sonido 13, assisted by the performing musicians, and to repeat the work, allowing audience members another chance to observe the microtonal techniques. Sonata Casi Fantas?a was preceded by Schoenberg?s wind quintet (op. 26) and 245 Ibid.,235. 246 Ibid. 99 followed by Emerson Whithorne?s Saturday?s Child and Ernest Toch?s Tanz-Suite. The program was released to New York newspapers at least a week before the concert, leading to preview articles in the press. 247 Sonata Casi Fantas?a Sonata Casi Fantas?a, like the Preludio composed several years earlier, reveals a combination of traditional and radical compositional techniques. The microtonal scales and timbres were new, exhibited upon a set of instruments created to perform Sonido 13 music, including a microtonal horn and an altered bass called an octavina [Example 4-5]. The form and harmony were not as innovative as the melodies, but instead were based upon traditional tonal practices. 248 247 E.g., ?New Native and European Compositions to Be Heard,? NYT, 7 March 1926, sec. x, 6. 248 Carilo admired and idolized Bethoven, promoting Bethoven?s works in Mexico throughout his carer as a conductor. However, although the title, Sonata Casi Fantas?a recals the two piano sonatas by Bethoven labeled ?quasi una fantasia,? (Op. 27, no. 1 and 2), the Bethoven works do not apear to have served as models for the Sonata Casi Fantas?a. 100 Example 4-6: Cello solo passage between two movements of Sonata Casi Fantas?a. Permission use excerpts of the autograph score granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. As in Preludio, it was in scalar passages like the one found in example 4-6 through which Carrillo most ably presented the innovations of Sonido 13. Such passages not only demonstrated the various new tones found in the microtonal scales of Sonido 13, but they also exhibited the new timbres of Carrillo?s invented instruments. Realizing that the most avant-garde aspects to Sonata Casi Fantas?a were found in the melodies and timbres it presented, Carrillo wrote in the program notes for the League concert that the purpose of the work was, ?to illustrate the possibilities which the development of the instruments themselves offer to the composers of the future ...? 249 249 League of Composers Program, 14 March 1926, Scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 101 In addition, during a demonstration preceding the performance, the composer urged listeners to pay close attention to the melodies of the work. 250 Accordingly, favorable New York reviewers found the scales to be the most valuable aspect of Carrillo?s work. In her article for the New York Evening Post, Olga Samaroff noted that: the demonstrations of the new scales by single instruments were so interesting. . . that I did not even attempt to find form or significance in the work from the point of view of composition. Good, bad, or indifferent, it certainly presented a musical experiment that was extremely interesting. 251 As in Preludio, Carrillo struggled to create a harmonic language amenable to the use of microtones. Olin Downes observed, ?There is very little harmony?a few combinations of quarter-tones?and this is very suggestive?but the net result was the charting of a certain field of experiment rather than an achievement of artistic significance.? Much of the harmonic movement is in parallel thirds?with one note a quarter-tone higher or lower than normal. In the first thematic section of the work [Example 4-7], the monotony of this approach is mitigated by a little counter melody, also moving in parallel thirds. The larger-scale harmonic motion apparent in this passage is derived from tonal procedures, elaborating a G-major/minor chord, which arrives in the third measure of the example. 250 Carilo?s lecture is described in, Olga Samarof, ?Music,? New York Evening Post, 15 March 1926, 13. 251 Ibid. 102 Example 4-7: The first half of the first thematic section of Sonata Casi Fantas?a. 103 Everywhere, Carrillo combined innovative new scales with third-based harmonies grounded in the tonal system. Even the most adventurous sections of the work demonstrated this combination. The music at rehearsal section K [Example 4- 8], falls at the end of the development section and can sound extremely avant-garde. The most radical sounds come from the microtonal glissandi of the arpacitera and the slow moving microtonal scale in the octavina. Yet, despite the unique timbres and tones of the arpacitera and octavina, the compositional approach of this section is similar to that found elsewhere. At first the microtonal scales are supported by block chords, played by the strings and the horn. Then the cello and horn break away to exchange variations of the first theme, only to be interrupted by a riotous scalar passage in the upper strings, drowning out the melody. Throughout, microtonal scales and glissandi are combined with block chords. The only significant difference in the harmonies presented by this passage from the harmonies found in Preludio and other parts of Sonata Casi Fantas?a is the growing harmonic tension between the violin and guitar, which spell clashing chords in the second system. But this dissonance is resolved in the next few measures when a series of ternary block chords sequence to E. 104 Example 4-8: One of the most experimental passages occurs after rehearsal K. 105 The adherence to the strictures of sonata form, the application of Baroque- style sequences, and the use of terciary harmony demonstrate the conservativeness of Carrillo?s approach in Sonata Casi Fantas?a. However, as the composer recognized, the work sounded radical because it introduced new timbres and melodic formulations to audiences. Furthermore, it presented a new type of microtonal music to a modernist public curious about the applicability of microtones in contemporary music, generating enormous interest among critics and concert-goers. Reception of Sonata Casi Fantas?a Numerous critics attended and reported on the 13 March 1926 League concert. Reviews appeared in several periodicals including the New York Times, New York Telegram, New York Herald Tribune, New York Evening Post, and New York Sun. 252 Nearly every critic, from the conservative W.J. Henderson to the modernist Pitts Sanborn professed interest in Carrillo?s theory and devoted significant space to Sonata Casi Fantas?a in their reviews of the concert. Reviewers in New York were far more inclined than their Mexican counterparts to view experimentation with microtones in a positive light; however, with few exceptions, New York critics were dissatisfied with Carrillo?s music. Those most approving, such as Sanborn and Olga Samaroff, went to great pains to excuse the perceived structural and harmonic flaws in the composition. For example, Sanborn confessed that, ?The sonata consists largely of scale passages and glissandi, sometimes fascinating in color and cadence, at other times unduly suggestive of normal music played more or less out of tune.? But, in the next sentence 252 Se Apendix D. 106 he cautioned, ?However there is no underrating the importance of Mr. Carrillo?s chosen task, whether it is destined radically to influence the future or not.? 253 Other critics did not offer such excuses for Carrillo and his music, judging it to be ?na?ve and tentative? 254 and ?an exhibition of chromaticism and nothing more.? 255 Although the reception of Sonata Casi Fantas?a had been mixed, Carrillo found the excitement about Sonido 13 encouraging and he eagerly shared the news of his successes with his more skeptical colleagues in Mexico City through the Mexican press. Upon arriving in New York, Carrillo wrote a letter to the editor of El Universal, informing him of the formation of a ?Grupo 13? in the city and of plans to premiere a work with the League of Composers. The letter was subsequently printed in the newspaper. A few weeks later, following the concert, a shortened and translated version of Olin Downes? review was printed in El Universal. 256 Another El Universal article summarized the reviews printed in various New York periodicals. 257 The excerpts of reviews printed in El Universal were among the most positive evaluations of Carrillo?s work. Months later, the composer printed similar excerpts in a special issue of the Sonido 13 magazine, the only issue to be printed entirely in English [Example 4-9]. Perhaps the greatest encouragement came from someone who did not even attend the League concert?Leopold Stokowski. Shortly following the concert of 253 Pits Sanborn, ?The ?New? in Music,? New York Telegram, [n.d.]. Scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 254 ?Composers? League Demonstrates New Conception in Music,? New York Herald Tribune, 14 March 1926, sec. 1, 2. 255 W.J. Henderson, ?Demonstrate New Musical Scale,? New York Sun, 15 March 1926, 19. 256 ?El Maestro Carilo Explic? en Nueva York su Teor?a del Sonido Trece,? El Universal, [n.d.] March 1926. Scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 257 ?La Prensa Musical Elog?a a Juli?n Carilo,? El Universal, 25 April 1926. Scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 107 Sonata Casi Fantas?a, Stokowski requested an interview with Carrillo and his ?Grupo 13.? 258 After studying the music and hearing a performance and demonstration, Stokowski requested that Carrillo write a composition that could be accompanied by the Philadelphia Orchestra in whole and half tones. This request led to a new arrangement of Sonata Casi Fantas?a for orchestra and chamber group which Carrillo titled Concertino. Stokowski made plans to premiere the work in the spring of 1927. Example 4-9: The first page of the only English-language issue of El Sonido 13 that Carrillo would publish. Unlike the other issues of the magazine, which range between twenty and twenty-five pages in length, this issue is four pages. Permission to include a photograph of the publication granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. 258 Carilo recaled the meting in Testimonio de una vida, 237. 108 After Sonata Casi Fantas?a: Writings in New York Assured of a Sonido 13 performance with the Philadelphia Orchestra and encouraged by the reception of his Sonata Casi Fantas?a, Carrillo remained in New York during the year between the League concert in March 1926 and the Philadelphia Orchestra performances in March 1927. A few months after the League concert, Carrillo distributed the first English language Sonido 13 magazine. More like a pamphlet than a periodical, the magazine was just four pages long and frankly promotional in content. It contained one article introducing Sonido 13, a reprint of excerpts from reviews of the March 1926 concert, and an open letter by Carrillo to the editors of Le M?nestrel in response to a series of articles printed in that publication the previous January. 259 The review excerpts creatively hid the hesitations expressed by most critics, splicing sentences with no ellipses or other indications of editing. The following three issues of the Sonido 13 magazine were bilingual, for the most part written in Spanish by Carrillo and others, and translated by Mary Lindsey- Oliver into English. 260 The bilingual issues are between twenty and twenty-five pages in length?much larger than the single four-page English language issue. Although the same length as the earlier Spanish language Sonido 13 magazines, they have about half the information, because space is allotted to the translations. Each bilingual issue contained one significant theoretical article, usually excerpted from Carillo?s previously published theoretical treatises. 259 E.C. Grasi, ?Reconstruire,? Le M?nestrel, 2 Jan. 1926, 34; E.C. Grasi, ?Reconstruire,? Le M?nestrel, 29 Jan. 1926, 45. Although the editors of Le M?nestrel never printed Carilo?s leters, they did include a short notice about the League of Composers? concert [se Maurice L?na, ??tats-Unis,? Le M?nestrel 26 March 1926, 152]. 260 Copies of the Sonido 13 magazine can be found in the Carilo Archive and the Biblioteca of CENIDIM. Carilo?s folowers published aditional magazines under similar titles, but these sem to be the last magazine publications by the composer under this title. 109 The first bilingual edition, dated 13 October 1926, was an expanded version of the small English-language issue mentioned above. It included extensive excerpts from newspaper reviews of the League concert, and a reprint of the open letter to Le M?nestrel that Carrillo had first printed in the English language magazine. Of primary interest in the 13 October issue are the advertisements for three business ventures, each related to Carrillo?s mission to propagandize on behalf of microtonal compositional techniques. In the first advertisement, the ?Grupo 13,? managed by bassist Emil Mix, announced their willingness to work-for-hire as an ensemble, claiming a specialty in all kinds of microtonal music. Another advertisement promoted a musical academy giving instruction in microtonal music and non- microtonal masterworks. The third advertisement was for the magazine itself and it appended a new subtitle to the publication??The Herald of America?s Musical Culture??borrowing Pan-American language from the profile article about Carrillo printed in Century Magazine in 1915. 261 While the advertisements found in the October issue give some indication of the activities Carrillo wished to embark upon in New York and how he hoped those activities would be regarded, the theoretical writings found in the November and January issues demonstrate how Carrillo wished to convey the tenets of Sonido 13 to a new audience. The 13 November issue provided an analysis of ways Sonido 13 might assist contemporary composers of all genres, broadening the appeal of the theory beyond those interested in microtonal music. The 13 January 1927 issue?s 261 Mar?a Cristina Mena, ?Juli?n Carilo: The Herald of a Musical Monroe Doctrine,? The Century Magazine, March 1915, 753. For more information about this article and its significance, se Chapter 1. 110 theoretical article provided further justification for the creation of a new system of composition and notation. The promotional language in the Sonido 13 treatises and the magazines published in the U.S. give some indication of the image Carrillo wished to cultivate in New York. In both Mexican and U.S. publications Carrillo frequently referred to the ?revolutionary? aspects of ?Sonido 13.? 262 Such references appear to reflect Carrillo?s desire to ally his inventions with the political, social, and cultural changes of the Mexican Revolution. However, the word ?revolutionary? has a double meaning?in this context it also refers to Carrillo?s attempts to link his theory to the broader modernist movement. Words such as ?progress? 263 or ?advance? 264 are frequently found in Carrillo?s writings. Although Carrillo?s claims of nationalism and modernism were linked in his promotional material, only the experimentalist language resonated with New York critics and journalists. Theoretical Treatises While in New York, Carrillo wrote two theoretical books that explained aspects of Sonido 13?Pre-Sonido 13 and Teor?a L?gica de la M?sica?and began a third, Las Leyes de Metam?rfosis Musicales. Although they were not available until several years later, these books indicate some of the principal theoretical problems absorbing the composer during the late 1920s. Pre-Sonido 13, written around 1926 262 ?El Sonido Num. 13 ? Algunos Antecedentes,? Pl?ticas Musicales (M?xico: Juli?n Carilo, 1923) 225-274; ?The Thirtenth Sound,? Musical Advance, May 1923, 1; ?Teor?a del Sonido 13,? El Universal, 17 Sept. 1924, sec. 1, p. 4. 263 Ibid. 264 Ibid. 111 and published in 1930 offers, ?a general rectification of the musical system now in use, and . . . the first fully developed music theory and logical notation for equal temperament.? 265 It does not explore the tenets of the Sonido 13 compositional technique; rather it explains the inherent problems, as Carrillo perceived them, in current musical practices. Although problems with existing practices in temperament and notation had absorbed Carrillo since at least 1911, when he proposed alternate note spellings at a musical congress in Rome, Pre-Sonido 13 is the first text in which Carrillo formally presented these ideas as antecedents to his microtonal compositional techniques. Teor?a L?gica de la M?sica, 266 is an expanded version of his early theoretical articles about Sonido 13. It offers a more complete description of Carrillo?s notational system, including its applicability to microtonal music, and a description of the tones and scales employed in his microtonal music. By 1927, when Carrillo wrote Teor?a L?gica de la M?sica, he had already presented ideas for a new notation in Musical America 267 and alluded to the creation of a new notational system in the program notes for the League concert. However, although instances of composition using numeric notation occurred in Sonata Casi Fantas?a, it is important to note that as of this date, Carrillo had not used the notation in a systematic way. The reasons were probably practical: numeric notation proved difficult for accomplished musicians to follow, as it was substantially different from common practice. 265 Carilo, Pre-Sonido 13, M?xico: Privately Published, 1930. 266 Carilo, Teor?a l?gica de la m?sica, M?xico: Privately Published, 1938. 267 Se ?Mexican Composer Proposes New Quarter-Tone Notation,? Musical America, 15 August 1925, 18. 112 Leyes de Metamorfosis musicales and the composition of Concertino It was a different, but equally practical concern that motivated Carrillo to write a third book in New York, Leyes de Metamorfosis musicales. 268 In that book, Carrillo explained the technique of metamorphosis whereby the composer exercises systematic mathematical manipulation of the numerical spelling of a note to arrive at a transformation of a musical line. For example, as demonstrated in example 4-2, if one had a quarter-tone piece with C as tonic, then the numerical spellings would be as follows: C=0, C+1/4=4, C#=8, C+3/4=12, D=16, etc. Using ?Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star? the original first phrase?s numeric spelling of the melody would be 0, 0, 56, 56, 72, 72, 56. If one wanted to metamorphose by half, one would merely divide the numbers by 2: 0, 0, 28, 28, 36, 36, 28 leading to a melody that sounds quite a bit different: C, C, D+3/4, D+3/4, E+1/2, E+1/2, D+3/4. In Leyes de Metamorfosis musicales, Carrillo frequently alludes to his use of metamorphosis in Concertino. For example, he states: Use of metamorphose to the double can be heard in my orchestral ?Concertino,? mentioned previously. In this work, soloists use quarter- tones, 8 th -tones, and 16 th -tones. In the orchestral accompaniment, the quarter tones are metamorphosed to the double for the orchestra which accompanies on a semitonal basis. 269 No specific examples are provided in the document, but his use of the technique is found in the very first line of Concertino, where a metamorphosed version of the initial theme was played in the orchestra part [Example 4-10]. The 268 Carilo, Leyes de Metamorfosis musicales (M?xico: Privately Published, 1949). 269 Ibid., Translation in Belamy, 414. 113 theme retains its identity by maintaining the same rhythm and a similar tonal orientation. 270 Example 4-10: Comparison of this example from the beginning of the Concertino with example 4-5, from the beginning of the Sonata demonstrates the practical application of Carrillo?s metamorphosis technique. Permission to reprint an excerpt of the score granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. Addition permission granted by the current publishers, Carl Fischer, in behalf of Jobert. 270 The notation in the earliest extant manuscript in the Carilo archives is the new, numeric notation; there is some indication that the score used in performance was in altered traditional notation. 114 Metamorphosis was just one of several techniques employed in the new arrangement of Concertino. Metamorphosis to the double provided a limited solution, only assisting the re-composition of sections in quarter-tones?smaller divisions remained too small after doubling to be played by traditionally tuned instruments. As a result, highly microtonal sections, such as the passage reproduced as example 4-6, were often changed beyond recognition. Meanwhile, microtonal solo passages were copied microtone-for-microtone from one score to the other. The resulting piece is one that sounds far more tonal than its predecessor. Using metamorphosis, many quarter-tone sections were literally converted into tonal equivalents. Highly microtonal sections were re-composed, decreasing the importance of microtonal passages to the structure of the piece. Only solos and decorative passages were retained in their entirety, pushing the role of the microtone further into the foreground. After Sonata Casi Fantas?a: Other Compositions In addition to converting Sonata Casi Fantas?a into the orchestral Concertino, Carrillo wrote at least two string quartets while in New York. Both works are more conservative than the experimental Sonata Casi Fantas?a. The Atonal Quartet, dedicated to Debussy, does not employ quarter-tones; rather it demonstrates Carrillo?s familiarity with the styles common in early 20 th -century music. 2 Bosquejos, alternatively titled 2 Balbuceos and perhaps better known by the titles of the two movements ?Meditaci?n? and ?En Secreto,? is a short, restrained composition, demonstrating Carrillo?s facility in writing quarter-tone music for strings. In these works the microtones serve two purposes almost exclusively: they are included in 115 scalar passages, adding a feeling of super-chromaticism, and they are used as leading tones. Most notes receiving any harmonic, agogic, or melodic emphasis belong to the traditional pitch collection and establish a dominant tonal system. As in many of Carrillo?s works for strings, 2 Bosquejos includes experimental gestures outside the Sonido 13 approach, asking the performers to play using difficult extended techniques such as harmonics and open strings. 271 Neither 2 Bosquejos nor the Atonal Quartet was performed in New York while Carrillo was living there. It is possible that 2 Bosquejos was performed in Philadelphia after the composer left the U.S. A note held in the Carrillo archive, written in the composer?s hand and dated 1951, records the performance of the quartet on 7 December 1928, by the ?Cuartetto de Filadelfia.? 272 An issue of the Sonido 13 magazine printed in June 1928, announces plans by the ?classical quartet of Philadelphia? to perform 2 Bosquejos, but includes no performance date. 273 If the performance occurred in early December 1928, as Carrillo recalled in the 1951 note, it was not noted in the principal Philadelphia newspapers. Reception of Concertino While 2 Bosquejos and the Atonal Quartet were composed and, in one case, possibly performed with little fanfare, a flurry of press surrounded the world premiere of Carrillo?s Concertino. Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra performed the Concertino three times?twice at the Music Academy in Philadelphia (3 and 4 March 271 For a deper analysis of ?Medetaci?n? and ?En Secreto,? se Ricardo Miranda, ?Romantiscismo y contradici?n en la obra de Juli?n Carilo,? Heterofon?a 129 (July-December 203): 67-80. 272 Autograph score, 2 Balbuceos, Carilo Score Archive, Carilo Archive. 273 ?Carnegie Hal, Nueva York: Orquesta de Filadelfia dirigida por Leopold Stokowski,? Sonido 13, 13 June 1928, 2-31. [privately published by El Comite de los 13, Pro-Juli?n Carilo.] 116 1927) and once at Carnegie Hall (8 March 1927). Collectively these performances generated enormous publicity for Carrillo and his music. Reviews appeared in nearly every major paper published in Philadelphia and New York. Stokowski, already admired among the U.S. musical elite, lent his support to Sonido 13 through an informational leaflet distributed at every performance. After explaining the microtone?s natural placement in the evolution of music history, Stokowski turned to the Carrillo work: I have studied this music with Mr. Carrillo and find that its inner construction is true to itself . . . beneath an apparent complexity lies simplicity and a fabric of well-balanced tone-relation. Personally I must make a great effort of mental and oral concentration in listening to it, or I overlook much of its subtlety of tone combination. Mr. Carrillo claims no more for it than that it is an experiment and an attempt at a new departure and it is in that sense that we present it to the public. It is a voyage to an unknown land of infinitely rich new possibilities, which so far have been very little developed . . . . a land which asks the friendly interest of the Old World of music because it has sprung from it, just as the culture of our New World has sprung from that of the Old. 274 The information in the leaflet was supplemented by a demonstration of the microtonal scales and the instruments performing them, which preceded the performance of Concertino. Both the leaflet and the demonstration were frequently alluded to in reviews of the concert. Although New York critics often mentioned their familiarity with the theory through the League concert, it appears that Stokowski?s implicit endorsement of Sonido 13 spurred many critics, otherwise disinclined to value the work, to listen to and write about the Concertino. Perhaps as a consequence of Stokowski?s endorsement, reviews of the Philadelphia Orchestra performances were numerous and lengthy. Carrillo and his 274 Leopold Stokowski, ?Quarter-Tones,? Program insert for Philadelphia Orchestra concerts, March 2, 4, and 8, c. 5, v. IV, exp. 40, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 117 music were the primary focus of the reviews; most gave extensive explanations of the compositional methods and instruments employed. Although fewer critics disputed the value of Carrillo?s experimental approach in Concertino, the evaluation of his music remained similar to that rendered after the League performance: it did not live up to expectations. Leonard Liebling wrote for the majority when he stated, ?The present reviewer also concentrated manfully, and almost until it hurt, but truth compels the admission that he failed to discern a great deal of value or beauty, either in the sound or meaning of the music.? 275 Although Liebling?s review was extensive, like other critics he spent very little time evaluating the work, ?The composition itself,? he went on to write, ?lean in content, being experimental, need not engage criticism.? 276 Instead, most reviewers concentrated on the innovations found in the work, only writing one or two sentences about the quality of the composition. The Philadelphia Orchestra concert in Carnegie Hall prompted the first (and only) major article about Carrillo and his music in La Prensa, the principal Spanish- language paper of New York. The author described the long and loud applause accorded Concertino and the lines of well-wishers greeting the composer during intermission. Missing from the throng, according to the author, were the Mexican supporters commonly observed by reporters for the paper at concerts featuring Mexican performers. ?We don?t remember seeing one Mexican,? the reviewer recalled: ?The commentaries from the short reception [at intermission] and from the 275 Leonard Leibling, ?New Style Music by Mexican Tone,? New York American, 9 March 1927, scrapboks, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 276 Ibid. 118 critics in the press the next day, deserve to be heard by those jealous individuals who undervalue (or scorn) Carrillo in his native country.? 277 Only one of the examined reviews noted the thematic similarities between Sonata Casi Fantas?a and Concertino. 278 Even New York critics, who frequently compared the two performances, did not describe the Concertino as an arrangement of the Sonata. While Carrillo openly admitted the relationship between the pieces in his Sonido 13 magazine and subsequent writings, Stokowski did not draw attention to the relationship between the two works in his program notes. As the performances were a year apart, it is unlikely critics would have remembered the themes sufficiently to describe the similarities and differences of their treatment in the works. Yet the absence of this sort of analysis, common in reviews of Stokowski?s arrangements for orchestra and of Segovia?s arrangements for the guitar, underlines the superior importance the avant-garde aspects of Carrillo?s work held for critics and audiences. Rather than offering formal and technical analyses, articles about Carrillo?s music concentrated on the unfamiliar: strange-looking and sounding instruments, the invented notation, and, of course, the microtonal filigree. Carrillo and New York from 1928 to 1932 Two significant events in Carrillo?s career attracted attention from the New York press during the years between 1928 and 1932, after Carrillo returned to Mexico City: the recording of his Preludio a Col?n by the Havana ?Grupo 13? in 1928 and Stokowski?s participation in a concert of microtonal music in Mexico City in 1931. 277 Jos? Miguel Bejarano, ?De Musica: Nueva York escucha el ?Sonido Trece,?? La Prensa [n.d.], scrapboks, Carilo Archive, exico City. 278 Marion Bauer, ?Music in New York,? Musical Leader, 17 March 1927, 6. 119 The formation of a ?Grupo 13? in Havana, Cuba was an enormous boon to Carrillo and his compositional techniques. The group was led by Angel Reyes, who also composed works using the Sonido 13 technique. It performed Sonido 13 music in Havana during the late 1920s and early 1930s. In January and February of 1930, Carrillo and Reyes brought the group to New York where they gave frequent demonstrations of microtonal music and occasional chamber concerts. These performances, unlike those given by the League or the Philadelphia Orchestra, seem to have been held in apartments or music studios and open to a select, invited audience. Small notices about the demonstrations appeared in several music periodicals. 279 The demonstrations were probably intended to help the group promote their recording of Preludio a Col?n, which had recently become available in the U.S. This was the first phonograph recording of Carrillo?s Sonido 13 music. Disques, a little magazine written for collectors of classical music recordings, gave the Sonido 13 record a long and positive review that quoted extensively from reviews of the 1926 and 1927 concerts. 280 The recording was re-issued in 1939, prompting another review in American Music Lover. 281 Preludio a Col?n became the best known of Carrillo?s works, perhaps made more accessible through this recording and those that followed. After the publication of Carillo?s score in Henry Cowell?s New Music Quarterly 279 Marion and Flora Bauer, ?Music in New York,? Musical Leader, 13 February 1930, 8; ?Thirten Sound Shown? Musical America, 10 February 1930, 40; ?Artists Everywhere,? Musical Courier, 22 February 1930, 40. 280 ?Music of the Future,? Disques 1, no. 3 (May 1930): 105. 281 ?Record Notes and Reviews,? The American Music Lover 5, no. 7 (Nov. 1939): 254-264. 120 Editions in 1944, 282 it was possible to follow Carrillo?s notation along with the recording. Stokowski in Mexico, 1931 Stokowski made his first visit to Mexico in January 1931. During the trip he conducted the Mexico City ?Grupo 13? in a performance of Carrillo?s ?Fantas?a Sonido 13.? News of Stokowski?s planned trip first appeared in Mexican newspapers in mid-December, prompting Carrillo to write the conductor: As I know of your interest in everything meaning progress in Music, I will be extremely pleased, in the event you carry out your trip, to offer you a concert with a special program with my works . . . I am just waiting to confirm the news of your trip, which I heartily desire to be true, to begin preparing the Mexican public to welcome you as you deserve . . . 283 Over the following weeks, Stokowski agreed to conduct the concert, and Carrillo fulfilled his promise, writing letters to officials in the Mexican government asking that Stokowski be awarded various titles and honors. In early January, Carillo wrote Stokowski again: I am very pleased to learn that your coming to Mexico is a fact. I feel [it] to be my duty in this occasion to demonstrate to you with everything within my power, my appreciation for your kind interest in my new music I am trying to put through in the world. Mexican newspapers have published a suggestion I have made to the Secretary of Public Education, to the President of the National University, and to the favor of the city asking them to extend to you, on your visit here, the highest honors the representatives of the Mexican culture and the city can offer and to which you are justly entitled. This suggestion has been published by important papers of 282 Carilo, Juli?n, ?Preludio a Cristobel Col?n,? New Music 17, no. 3 (April 194). 283 Carilo to Stokowski, 18 Dec. 1930, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 121 Mexico such as El Universal, El Universal Gr?fico, El Nacional Revolutionario, and others. . . 284 In return Stokowski was kind to Carrillo during his visit. He rehearsed numerous times with the Grupo Sonido 13, often mentioning his participation to Mexico City reporters and singing the praises of Carrillo and his compositional method. Stokowski?s praise was enormously important to Carrillo who created postcards of a picture of himself bestowing a medal on Stokowski [Example 4-11]. To this day, the manuscript copy of the work Stokowski conducted, Fantas?a Sonido 13 contains a note written in Carrillo?s hand, ?Using this score, Leopold Stokowski directed the Sonido 13 Orchestra of Mexico City . . .? 285 284 Carilo to Stokowski, 5 Jan. 1931, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. 285 Carilo, ?Fantas?a Sonido 13? in La m?sica de Mexico 3, no. 3, ed. by Julio Estrada (Mexico: UNAM, 198). 122 Example 4-11: Carrillo made these postcards to commemorate the Mexico City Grupo Sonido 13?s performance with Stokowski and the medal Carrillo bestowed upon the conductor. Permission to use the photo granted by Carmen Viramontes in behalf of the Archivo Juli?n Carrillo. However, despite Carrillo?s excitement and pride at performing with Stokowski, the performance with the Mexico City Grupo 13 was not the principal reason for Stokowski?s visit. The trip was arranged by Frances Flynn Paine, president of the Mexican Arts Association, a New York organization formed to advance the spread of Mexican culture. She had been promoting Ch?vez?s ballets for several years and had been unable to find opportunities to premiere these works in the U.S. 286 One purpose of the trip was to persuade Stokowski to premiere Ch?vez?s ballet music with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Probably under her guidance, Stokowski had telegrammed Ch?vez in December 1930, asking if Stokowski might guest conduct the 286 For more information about this topic, se Chapters 4 and 5. 123 Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico (OSM). 287 That request was granted and plans for the performance unfolded in a series of telegrams and letters to follow. 288 Ch?vez, like Carrillo, made arrangements to honor and fete the conductor when he came to town. Both men advocated on Stokowski?s behalf in the Mexico City press; their well-known antipathy for one another seemed to spur a competition as each attempted to bestow greater hospitality, generosity, and honorifics than the other. By the time Stokowski arrived in Mexico, there were plans for two performances, one 24 January with the OSM and another 1 February with the ?Grupo 13? of Mexico City. Arrangements had been made to grant the conductor the title of Guest of Honor of the City of Mexico, and honorary director of the National Conservatory and the OSM. During his visit, a devastating earthquake in Oaxaca prompted the creation of a second benefit concert with the OSM on 1 February, which was followed by the previously planned concert with the Grupo Sonido 13. Carrillo and Stokowski turned this concert into a benefit event as well. Perhaps as a result of the composers? activities on Stokowski?s behalf, an article about the conductor appeared in El Universal and El Exc?lsior nearly every day of his stay in Mexico City (January 20 - February 2). In El Universal alone, at least seventeen major articles discussed Stokowski or the performances he conducted during the trip. Several of these articles began on the front page of the paper, but, despite their size, very of them examined Stokowski?s activities with both Mexican composers and performing groups. Interviews, often conducted with one of the 287 This corespondence can be found in the AGN. Stokowski to Ch?vez, 20 Dec. 1930, c. 1, v. II, exp. 93, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Printed in Spanish translation in: Epistolario selecto de Carlos Ch?vez, edited by Gloria Carmona (M?xico: FCE, 1989). 288 Leters and telegrams from Dec. 1930 ? Jan. 1931, c. 1, v. II, exp. 93, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 124 composers present, were usually limited to either Stokowski?s involvement with the OSM or the Grupo 13. Even in reviews of the two February 1 st concerts, beginning hours apart, critics writing about one performance virtually ignored the existence of the other, reflecting the continuing divide between the adherents of Ch?vez and those of Carrillo. The few accounts of Stokowski?s travels printed in the U.S. press also treated his performances with the Grupo 13 and the OSM separately. For example, Marian Tyler, in an article for the New York Times, described Ch?vez?s music and Stokowski?s plans to conduct the OSM, but wrote nothing about Carrillo. 289 Months later, an account of the Grupo 13 performance appeared in the paper, with no attempt made to link the two events. 290 Similarly, The Philadelphia Inquirer printed a photograph of the conductor with Carrillo, without any indication in the caption of other performance plans. 291 Altogether, the attention paid Stokowski?s first visit to Mexico in the U.S. press was scant, far less than the attention he received from Mexican writers and critics. During the next few years, it appeared that Ch?vez?s 1931 campaign to woo Stokowski had been far more successful than Carrillo?s similar efforts. When the conductor returned to Mexico a year later, he publicized the upcoming performance of Ch?vez?s H.P. with the Philadelphia Orchestra and Opera. 292 The friendship between Ch?vez and Stokowski was cemented during the preparations for that premiere; many subsequent performances of Ch?vez?s music with the Philadelphia 289 Marian Tyler, ?Native Mexican Art,? NYT, 1 February 1931, 8. 290 ?Friends of Music Decade,? NYT, 5 April 1931, 10. 291 ?Medal for Stokowski,? The Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 Feb. 1931, sec. B, p. 18. The picture printed was a croped form of the photo found on the postcard reproduced above. 292 Se Chapters 4 and 5. 125 Orchestra followed, most conducted by the composer. In 1937, the music critic Leonard Loreau wrote Stokowski from Paris to request help finding performances for Carrillo?s music. Evangeline, Stokowski?s wife, who had accompanied Leopold on his trips to Mexico, 293 forwarded the letter to Ch?vez, attaching a note, ?I have just received this letter. I do not even know who Juli?n Carrillo is nor Leonard Loreau...? 294 Although Evangeline Stokowski, newly married to Leopold at the time of the Concertino performances, did not remember Carrillo, others within the New York music community did, despite rapidly declining attention toward Sonido 13 music in the U.S. press. Ch?vez?s friends, including Aaron Copland 295 and Edgar Var?se, 296 questioned Ch?vez about his compatriot?s activities. In one letter about the upcoming plans for the Pan-American Association of Composers, Var?se asked, seemingly referring to an earlier conversation, ?How do you feel toward Carrillo? Would it not be better to have him with us than against?? 297 No written responses to such inquiries have been found within the holdings at the Archivo General de la Naci?n, in Mexico City, and the New York Public Library. However, given the antipathy between the two men, it is unlikely that Ch?vez raced to promote Carrillo and his music. 298 293 Oliver Daniel, Stokowski: A Counterpoint of View (New York: Dod, Mead, and Company, 1982) 277. 294 Evangeline Stokowski to Ch?vez, 2 Feb. 1937, c. 1, v. I, exp. 86, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 295 Copland to Ch?vez, 17 Jan. 1929, Corespondence, Folder 13, Ch?vez Colection, NYPL. 296 Var?se to Ch?vez, 8 Feb. 1926 and 3 Feb. 1928, Corespondence, Folder 18, Ch?vez Colection, NYPL 297 Ibid. 298 Leonora Savedra recals seing corespondence from Var?se to Ch?vez among the AGN holdings in which the French composer described Carilo?s music as not very ?sincere.? Author?s corespondence with Savedra, 24 April 208. 126 As for Leopold Stokowski, the conductor did not participate in a performance of Carrillo?s music for a decade following the arrival of Loreau?s letter. However, in 1948, following a meeting in New York in 1947, Carrillo and Stokowski began to correspond once again. 299 Responding to inquiries about a new work that might accommodate a tonal orchestra, Carrillo sent the conductor Horizontes. This work was performed in several U.S. cities during 1951 and 1952. In 1960, after receiving encouragement from Stokowski, Carrillo composed Balbuceos for 16 th tone piano, which was premiered in Houston, Texas. Carrillo?s New York Legacy? During 1926 and 1927, Carrillo attracted more attention from the New York press than any other Mexican composer. However, he was unable to engage the attention of the New York music community during the years following his visit. The attraction to Sonido 13 was part of a larger interest in microtonal approaches to composition within that community. Carrillo?s music was appealing to such audiences, because it offered them the opportunity to hear microtonal works?a rarity in New York, where such works were more frequently discussed than performed. As a consequence, writers for music magazines and newspapers followed Carrillo?s career, alerting their readers of his theoretical innovations and plans to share them. A number of factors made it difficult for Carrillo to arouse interest in his music after he left New York. While critics and audiences believed that his theories were valuable, they did not think the same of his music, often writing that the theory would be best employed by other composers. The fate of Carrillo?s Sonido 13 works 299 One leter documenting this meting is, Carilo to Stokowski, 3 Dec. 1948, Carilo Archive. 127 was further cemented by the very aspects that New York audiences and critics praised?its musical advances. Attention toward the ?new? was by definition short- lived as audiences became enamored of newer techniques and newer practitioners. By the time Carrillo was presenting work with more aesthetic appeal in the U.S., such as 2 Bosquejos and the recording of Preludio a Col?n, attention had moved elsewhere and the composer was unable to encourage a wide-spread evaluation that might have vaulted him back into the limelight. Although considered a modernist composer by New York critics, Carrillo never became part of the inner-circle of modernist composers and patrons active in New York during the 1920s. The existing evidence indicates continuing friendships with some members of his ?Grupo 13,? especially the bassist Emil Mix, and occasional correspondence with Leopold Stokowski. Unlike his compatriot Ch?vez, it appears Carrillo did not benefit from the influential patronage bestowed by Blanche Walton, Alma Wertheim, Claire Reis, and others. Nor was he able to maintain influential friendships with New York composers. The single performance with the League of Composers was not replicated with that group or any of the other small modernist performance groups. Without others to speak for him, Carrillo could not maintain interest in his music after leaving New York. While the Latino expatriate community encouraged performances of Ponce?s music and provided Ch?vez with valuable New York connections, the community gave Carrillo very little support and attention, perhaps further impeding his U.S. career. Carrillo?s very public battle within the Mexican press probably foreclosed any access to goodwill within the expatriate community, as alluded to in the single article 128 about his work to appear in La Prensa. As a consequence Carrillo and Sonido 13 received scant attention from La Prensa and no known performances from Latino social or cultural organizations in New York. Carrillo?s attempts within the mainstream New York press and the Sonido 13 magazine to portray his works and compositional method as a nationalist product of the Revolution or an embodiment of Pan-Americanism did not resonate with New York critics and audiences. The Revolutionary trope, while common in Carrillo?s writing, rarely appears in the interpretations of New York critics, who saw the work as exclusively modernist. Many within Mexico City?s music community dismissed Carrillo?s Sonido 13 compositional techniques before hearing his music, accusing the composer of departing from accepted scientific precepts and musical aesthetics. When, in 1925, Carrillo finally presented a concert of new works in Mexico City, very few newspapers reviewed the event. New York audiences, by contrast, were initially excited by the theoretical concepts presented in his early Sonido 13 writings. Yet when presented with examples of music using his experimental theory, critics agreed that Carrillo?s theory offered possibilities best exploited by other composers. Because of the difficulties inherent in performance, New Yorkers were not exposed to the repeated and frequent hearings probably necessary to understand the Sonido 13 music and theory. Having failed to dazzle during the momentary opportunities offered by the League and Philadelphia performances, Carrillo was unable to create a significant following for his theories or music in New York for the next several decades. 129 Chapter 5: Ch?vez?s Early Years in New York, 1925-1931 Carlos Ch?vez was a central figure in musical life during the middle third of the 20 th century. Effectively the leader of Mexican musical life from his first appointment as director of the Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana in 1928, at the age of 29, until his resignation from that position fifteen years later, Ch?vez also served as director of the National Conservatory (1928-1933), chief of the Department of Fine Arts (1933-1934), and held other government posts. Perhaps more importantly, Chavez composed music that would come to represent ?mexicanidad? throughout the world. That style, which can be found in the early Aztec ballet, El Fuego Nuevo (1921), the mid-career Xochipilli (1940), and the emblematic Sinfon?a India (1936), combines contemporary compositional techniques with primitivist rhythmic drive, placing an invented Aztec sound in an international modernist setting. The composer regarded early visits to New York as pivotal to his career. Ch?vez?s first trip began in December 1923 and lasted until March 1924, and the second began in September 1926 and lasted until July 1928. Both visits, undertaken when Ch?vez was 24 and 27 respectively, resulted in important performances of his music in New York. By the end of his second visit, Ch?vez had made significant contacts among modernist musicians, ?Mexico Vogue? adherents, and leftist intellectuals. His growing reputation in Mexico and his continued contacts with New York musicians, artists, and intellectuals served Ch?vez well. When he returned to the U.S. a third time in March 1932 to promote the Philadelphia Orchestra premiere of his ballet, H.P., Ch?vez became the subject of numerous articles in the U.S. press and 130 began to develop a nationwide following. This performance and the press that accompanied it marked the true beginning of Ch?vez?s U.S. career. After 1932, Ch?vez became the principal representative of Mexican classical music for U.S. audiences, a status he retains to this day. Although Ch?vez was a controversial figure in Mexican musical life, he remained well-respected and even revered in the U.S. He returned many times to the United States, often as a guest conductor presenting his own music. When conducting, performing, or lecturing in the country, he was usually feted in the U.S. press. The enormity of Herbert Barrett?s published clipping collection covering the years 1936 to 1950 attests to the composer?s popularity in the U.S. in the years following the H.P. premiere. 300 Accounts of Ch?vez?s life and career inevitably include some reference to his first few trips to New York. General biographies such as those by Robert Parker 301 and Roberto Garc?a Morillo 302 highlight the most important performances and events of these early years. More focused articles and dissertations by Parker, 303 Leonora Saavedra, 304 and Antonio Saborit 305 provide additional details about Ch?vez?s U.S. career during the 1920s and early 1930s. Parker chronicles Ch?vez?s attempts to compose and find performances for his ballets. Saborit describes the disappointments Ch?vez faced while trying to build a career in New York, also focusing on the stage 300 Herbert Baret, ed., Carlos Ch?vez: North American Pres (New York: Herbert Baret, 1950). 301 Robert Parker, Carlos Ch?vez: Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983). 302 Roberto Garc?a Morilo, Carlos Ch?vez: Vida y Obra (M?xico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1960). 303 Robert Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3-4 (194): 81-88. 304 Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201). 305 Antonio Saborit, ?Mexican Gaities: Ch?vez en la Babilonia de hiero? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas, edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (M?xico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Belas Artes y Literatura, 202) 139-148. 131 works. Saavedra demonstrates the effects of Ch?vez?s New York experience upon his Mexico City career and the identity he presented to both Mexican and U.S. audiences. This chapter provides a more thorough account of Ch?vez?s first two trips to New York City in an attempt to uncover some of the reasons why he and his works came to represent Mexican classical music to U.S. audiences. With that aim, the narrative here is as multi-faceted as possible: it describes public performances and their critical reception, private performances and the social interactions that surrounded them, and many of the embryonic plans for performances that were cancelled or simply fell apart. It also chronicles Ch?vez?s non-performance activities in New York, including his published and unpublished writings of the period, the music analysis lessons he offered in his living room, and his active social life. Because of its scope, the chapter examines a wider array of compositional genres than Parker?s article, spans a greater number of years than the article by Saborit, and, unlike Saavedra?s work, focuses upon Ch?vez?s U.S. career rather than his development as a composer and public figure. The chapter can be divided into roughly four sections: the first chronicles Ch?vez?s 1924 trip to New York, the second his activities in Mexico City between visits, the third his 1926-1928 trip to New York, and the fourth his activities in Mexico City upon returning in 1928. In the course of the narrative, the chapter reveals new information about Ch?vez?s New York activities and re-examines previously known information in a new light. The greatest amount of space in the chapter is dedicated to Ch?vez?s second trip to New York, as it is that trip that seems to have most directly resulted in the overwhelming success he encountered in the U.S. in later 132 years. Particular attention will be paid to Ch?vez?s previously unexamined participation in the 1927 production of Fiesta by communist playwright Michael Gold. A thorough investigation of the early years of Ch?vez?s friendship with composer Henry Cowell, which is widely recognized but usually deemphasized in biographies, is also included in this chapter. While acknowledging the importance of the 1926-1928 trip, this account also recognizes that Ch?vez?s growing renown in Mexico City from 1925 to 1932 contributed to his U.S. success. As correspondence demonstrates, 306 Ch?vez made a concerted effort to share his Mexico City triumphs with his New York friends, thereby insuring that his rising status at home would be noted in New York artistic circles. Ch?vez?s First New York Visit In 1922, when Ch?vez embarked on his first journey outside Mexico, he was searching for a community of like-minded modernists. Through a handful of concerts featuring his own compositions, Ch?vez had become a reputed modernist in Mexico City. Hoping to be able to publish and perform his works, Ch?vez traveled to Europe and then, after briefly returning to Mexico City, to New York. Ch?vez found that European musical life did not resonate with his own experience. In a letter to Aaron Copland written years later, Ch?vez noted: European musicians are of the worst kind: conductors, pianists, violinists, singers and so on are mere ?prima donna? minded people? 306 Ch?vez to Cowel, 25 October 1928, Dane Rudyar to Ch?vez, 24 February 1928; Richard Buhling to Ch?vez, 13 August 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35; Blanche Walton to Ch?vez, 5 October 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37; Franscisco Agea to Ch?vez, 6 October 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN: ?Los prospectos y peri?dicos se los he ense?ada a todos los amigos y todos se han interesado mucho: los Quintanila, Anita, Cumpson, McPhe. A otros gentes que he visto no se los he ense?ado porque no los he tenido a la mano, pero les he platicado largamente acerca la organizaci?n, etc.? 133 they are very important to themselves . . . We must not accept to be in the hands of foreign conductors and interpreters whose mind and heart (if they happen to have any) is far away of the spirit and culture of this new world. 307 In contrast, Ch?vez found that New York offered him a vibrant modernist musical life with a ?new world? sensibility. Once in New York, Ch?vez found his way to writer Jos? Juan Tablada, a Mexican writer living in the city and a member of the expatriate Mexican community participating in the ?Mexico Vogue.? Tablada wrote ?Nueva York de D?a y de Noche,? an influential column in El Universal and ran a bookstore in New York that became a meeting place for Mexican expatriates. He was responsible for establishing New York followings for the work of Miguel Covarrubias and ?Tata Nacho?. Among Tablada?s connections was the composer Edgard Var?se, the head of the International Composers? Guild (ICG) and one of the most public faces of modern music in New York. In 1921 Var?se composed Offrandes, setting Tablada?s poem ?La Croix du sud.? 308 Tablada introduced Ch?vez to Var?se, and Var?se arranged a premiere of Ch?vez?s Otros Tres Ex?gonos under the auspices of the ICG, 8 February 1925. It was the first significant performance of Ch?vez?s music in the United States. Otros Tres Ex?gonos was performed last on a program including works by B?la Bart?k, Henry Cowell, Carlos Salzedo, Anton Webern, and William Grant Still. 309 The three songs that make up Otros Tres Ex?gonos are settings of poems by Carlos Pellicer, Ch?vez?s friend and contemporary. Along with Tres Ex?gonos, they 307 Ch?vez to Copland, as quoted in Howard Polack, Aaron Copland (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 199) 22. 308 For more about Ofrandes, se Malcolm MacDonald, Var?se: Astronomer in Sound (London: Kahn and Averil, 203) 91-103. 309 A copy of the complete program can be found in the Archivo Ch?vez, AGN: Programas E.U., c. 2, v. I, exp. 1; Programing statistics for the ICG can be found in R. Alen Lot, ??New Music for New Ears?: The International Composers? Guild? JAMS vol. 36, no. 2 (Sumer 1983): 26-286. 134 form a six-song cycle of abstract poems about love. While the first three present romantic, idealized versions of love, the second three, performed for the ICG concert, deconstruct romantic utopias with surreal images of accidental disasters. Each of the three poems depicts an off-course journey. In the first, a ship crashes into the moon; in the second, the heart ?mortgages sunsets? to create a life for itself; in the last poem, passengers on a cruise ship submit to the temptations of mermaids, abandoning their destination. The song settings display experimental qualities often associated with the music performed for the ICG. The timbre alone is unique, tweaking the sound of the string quartet by substituting flute/piccolo and oboe/English horn for the violins and bassoon for the cello. Meanwhile the vocal line frequently forgoes its traditional prominence, fading into a supporting role. The melodies themselves are disjointed, reminiscent of Schoenberg?s expressionist approach in Pierrot Lunaire. Yet the brilliance of the work is not embodied in the experimentation itself, but rather in the way Ch?vez employs such techniques to illuminate the Pellicer poems. The composer is particularly adept at musical representations of the physical motions Pellicer describes. For example, at the beginning of the second song, a repeated pattern in the instruments, particularly the oboe, appears to depict the mechanical sounds and motions of the crashing ship, while a static vocal line captures the steady but errant direction of the ?misled? heart [Example 5-1]. 135 Example 5-1: The vocalist sings, ?Donde va mi coraz?n por esta luminosa avenida?? on a steady stream of C half-notes, only changing to F# on the last syllable of ?avenida.? Meanwhile the other instruments, particularly the oboe, here represented in the treble line of the piano reduction, depict the wandering heart with disjunct lines in irregular meters. Reduction by author. By the time of the performance, Ch?vez had returned to Mexico where he received reports of the concert by letter, telegraph, and newspaper review. The composer?s close friend, writer Octavio G. Barreda, noted in a letter: You know me well so you won?t think what I?m going to tell you is cajolery: your Ex?gonos was the best. Even better, unique. You have no idea how they applauded and the impression it gave. They had played pure rubbish . . . and the people were tired. Suddenly, a (very good) tenor voice and a big sonority. We were revived. In addition, the acclaim of the program, the exoticism of the author, a Mexican, contributed enormously [to the success]. 310 Var?se telegrammed Ch?vez, conveying a similar sentiment, ?Ex?gonos enthusiastically received. Sung excellently by [Colin] O?Moore. Congratulations.? 311 The following May, Tablada wrote in his column for El Universal that Ch?vez?s work 310 ?Me conoces bien para no pensar que lo que te voy a decir es coba: tus Ex?gonos fueron lo mejor. M?s bien lo ?nico. No tienes idea c?mo se aplaudi?, y la impresi?n que dejaron. Se hab?an tocado puras tonter?as . . . Y la gente estaba cansad?sima. De pronto, voz de tenor (muy Buena) y una gran sonoridad. Resucitamos. Adem?s, el r?clame del programa, y lo ex?tico del autor, mexicano, contribuyeron en mucho.? Octavio G. Bareda to Carlos Ch?vez, 8 February 1925 in Gloria Carmona, ed. Epistolario Selecto (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989) 53-55. 311 Telegram, Varese to Ch?vez, 1 February 1925, Folder 18, Ch?vez Colection, NYPL. 136 had, ?passed the ?acid test? and was applauded by no less than the ?Guild? along with [the music of] Erik Satie, Schoenberg, Casella, Var?se.? 312 The riotous applause described by Barreda, Var?se, and Tablada, did not inspire an immediate embrace of the composer in the New York musical press. The concert was widely reviewed in the New York press, but critics did not dwell upon Ch?vez?s work. 313 To the contrary, some did not even hear it, because it was programmed last on a long program. 314 Among those that stayed to listen, many grouped it, without extended comment, with the other modernist works. Others devoted a few words to the composition, expressing distaste for the aesthetic found therein; for example, Ernest Newman called the work, ?fifth-rate Poulenc.? 315 Ultra-modernism in Mexico After returning to Mexico, Ch?vez retained fond memories of the modernist music community of New York. He despaired when comparing it to that of Mexico City, writing to Var?se: the conditions of the fight [for modern music] in Mexico are horrible. I am the only one and I have to conquer a sea of resistance. Here a few have a clue that Debussy exists; they do not know Mussorgsky much less those who followed Debussy. 312 . . . a Ch?vez Ram?rez, cuya obra musical ultra moderna pas? el ?acid test? y fue aplaudida nada menos que en el ?Guild? de Compositores Internationales, junto a Erick Satie y Shoemberg, Casela, Var?se.? Tablada, ?Nueva York de D?a y de Noche,? El Universal, 31 May 1925, sec. 1, 3. 313 Reviews included: Olin Downes, ?Music,? NYT, 9 February 1925, 15; Lawrence Gilman, ?Music,? NYHT, 9 February 1925, 1; W.J. Henderson, ?Composers? Guild Gives Concert,? N.Y. Sun, 9 February 1925, 13; Ernest Newman, ?Music,? New York Evening Post, 9 February 1925, 15; ?Those Modernists,? Musical Courier, 29 October 1925, 29 (extended quote from Newman writing for London Sunday Times); H.J., ??First Time? Numbers Sponsored by Guild,? Musical America, 14 February 1925, 9. 314 Lawrence Gilman wrote, ?The length of the concert prevented our waiting to hear Mr. Colin O?More sing ?Thre Hexagons,? by the Mexican composer Carlos Ch?vez . . . though a partial hearing at a rehearsal had made us eager to know them beter,? NYHT, 9 Feb. 1925, 1. 315 Ernest Newman, ?Music,? New York Evening Post, 9 Feb. 1925, 15. 137 I have given only three concerts (I send you the programs) but there isn?t any money, it isn?t possible to play the chamber works that I like, Octandre and Pierrot. The public won?t pay for that and there is no help from the state because of the horrible financial conditions of the Government. For that reason it appears to me very important to continue the campaign in the press that I have initiated. After this article by Vuillermoz about Schoenberg, there will be (next Sunday) one that I wrote about you (it will be published with the caricature by Covarrubias). For December I am preparing two piano solo concerts with two excellent piano students of mine, on which one will hear other works of Schoenberg, Stravinsky, ?los seis,? etc. In this manner, I believe the public will be sufficiently prepared for the presentation of Octandre and Pierrot. 316 The campaign for modern music in Mexico City that Ch?vez planned to wage was similar to Var?se?s own modern music campaign in New York. 317 It was a three- pronged effort involving the creation of modernist compositions, performances of such works, and the distribution of informative publicity about the international modernist movement. Between 1924 and 1926, before Ch?vez?s second visit to New York, the composer wrote articles about musical life for El Universal, El Exc?lsior, El Globo, Revista de Revistas, and La Antorcha. 318 From these articles, certain 316 ?Es bien poco porque las condiciones de lucha en M?xico son horibles. Yo soy el ?nico y tengo que vencer un mar de resistancia. Aqu? apenas tienen idea de que existe Debusy; no conocen a Mousorgsky ni mucho menos lo que sigue de Debusy./ He dado solamente tres conciertos (lo mando los programes) pero no hay dinero, no ha sido posible tocar las obras de conjunto que yo quiere, Octandre y el Pierot. El p?blico no paga esto y la ayuda oficial es nula por las p?simas condiciones financieras del Gobierno./ Por eso me pareci? muy importante comenzar por la campa?a de prensa que he iniciado. Despues de ese art?culo de Vuilermoz sobre Schonberg saldr? (el pr?ximo domingo) uno que yo escrib? acerca de usted (publicar? al? la caricatura de Covarubias)./ Para deciembre preparo dos audiciones de piano solo con dos excelentes pianistas disc?pulos m?os, en que har? o?r otras obras de Schonberg de Stranvinsky de ?le seis,? etc./ De esta manera creo que el p?blico queda ya suficientemente preparado para la presentaci?n de Octandre y Pierot.? Ch?vez to Varese, 20 Nov. 1924, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 317 For more about Var?se?s campaign in NYC, se Carol Oja, Making Music Modern (Oxford University Pres, 200). 318 For a list of articles se Roberto Garc?a Morilo, 230-237. For reprints of some of the articles se Ch?vez, Obras v. I and I, ed. by Gloria Carmona, (Mexico: El Colegio Nacional, 197). For more 138 aesthetic leanings begin to emerge. As his letter to Var?se?s indicates, Ch?vez?s principal concern appears to be the development of modern music in Mexico City. Specifically, Ch?vez wishes to make contemporary music familiar to Mexico City audiences and advocates for the cultivation of a school of contemporary Mexican composers independent from Europe. In articles written for the modernist cause, Ch?vez routinely singled out certain composers and compositions for praise or disdain. At least two of Ch?vez?s articles from this period launch attacks at Carrillo and his Sonido 13 theories. Although possibly motivated by personal animosity, Ch?vez couches his reservations about Sonido 13 in terms of the modernist cause. In his article ?Importation in Mexico,? Ch?vez finds Sonido 13 music objectionable because it possesses neither the innovative qualities nor the independence from Europe that Ch?vez envisions for the Mexican modernist movement: either we convert ourselves definitively into Europeans in the sense that we establish ourselves with them, that is to say Mexican life would be the same as European life, or we forge the basis of our nationality in such a form that we don?t see ourselves in the imported things to which I have been referring in this lecture. If we were more European, we would establish magnificent shipping lines like the ones between New York and the English ports, direct or wireless cable services, that would give us practical ways to better our daily life. In that case, short hair would have become stylish before, and in place of hearing, in 1924, simple chromatic scales in quarter tones as a grand novelty in Mexico, we would have heard from 1906 a musical work organized and complete using quarter tones and in 1920 the chamber music of H?ba, also with quarter tones . . . 319 about Ch?vez?s music journalism in Mexico, se Leonora Savedra. ?Los Escritos Period?sticos de Carlos Ch?vez,? Inter-American Music Review, 10, no. 2 (Spring-Sumer 1989): 7-91. 319 ?Y por eso yo lego a la siguiente concluci?n: es preciso que M?xico defina su situatci?n: a nos convertimos definitivamente en europeos en el sentido de que nos fundamos con elos, es decir que la vida Mexicana sea la misma vida europea, o forjamos las bases de nuestra nacionalidad en tal forma que no nos veamos en los lamentables casos de importaci?n a que me he referido en el curso de esta 139 Ch?vez believed the music of Var?se, on the other hand, modeled the sort of work Mexicans should create. One of Ch?vez?s articles, as mentioned in the letter quoted above, was entirely devoted to a complementary analysis of Var?se?s work. 320 Another article mentioned V?rese and his music alongside that of Stravinsky and B?rtok, as work that should become better known in Mexico. 321 In order to create the ideal music environment described in his articles, Ch?vez also cultivated the performance of modern music through the organization of concerts. 322 He produced two series of concerts at the Escuela Preperatoria, the first consisting of three concerts performed the late summer of 1924, and the second consisting of two concerts advertised as ?Musica Nueva? in late 1925. Ch?vez?s own music was featured prominently on every one of the concerts; however, he also introduced music by others entirely new to Mexico City audiences. Composers featured on these programs included Stravinsky, Falla, Debussy, Milhaud, Var?se, Satie, and Poulenc. Although modernism is the most pervasive aesthetic apparent in the chamber concerts Ch?vez presented, and it is this aesthetic that is most frequently emphasized in reviews of the concerts, the first few programs also demonstrate Ch?vez?s interest in cultivating a separate national musical identity. One program presented Ch?vez?s Imagen Mexicana, a Romantic-style piano composition based pl?tica./ Si fu?ramos m?s europeos, se establecer?an magn?ficas l?neas de vapor como las entre Nueva York y los puertos ingleses, servicios cablegr?ficos directos, o inal?mbricos, que nos proporcionar?an medios pr?cticos para hacer vida com?n. Entoces, el pelo corto se hubiera puesto de moda antes y en lugar de o?r en 1924 como una gran novedad en M?xico, hubi?ramos o?do desde 1906 una obra musical organizada y completa sobre cuartos de tono y en 1920 la m?sica sinf?nica de camera de H?ba, tambi?n sobre cuartos de tono y en 1920 la m?sica sinf?nica de camera de H?ba, tambi?n sobre cuartos de tono . . .? Ch?vez, ?La Importaci?n en M?xico,? La Antorcha, 1 Oct. 1924, reprinted in Obras I, 51-61. 320 Ch?vez, ?Antecedents and Consequences,? Eolus, January 1927, 12. 321 Ch?vez, ?M?xico y la M?sica,? El Globo, 25 Feb. 1925, reprinted in Obras I, 81-85. 322 For more about Ch?vez?s concert series se Savedra, 137-156. 140 upon a canci?n melody. Another included three canciones by ?Tata Nacho? and a series of Inca works found in the Rene D?Harnoncourt collection. Last, but most importantly, Ch?vez continued to create his own compositions, constantly experimenting with new styles and sounds. In works such as 36 (1923), H.P. (4 th movement, c.1926), and Energ?a (1925), Ch?vez tried to convey the sound and spirit of the modern machine. Ch?vez wrote three small Sonatinas (1924) for cello and piano; violin and piano; and solo piano that demonstrate experiments with sonority and form. The ballet Los Cuatro Soles (1925), also composed during this period, extends the exotic indianist aesthetic first explored in El Fuego Nuevo (1921). Ch?vez the modernist returns to New York Armed with a pile of new manuscript scores and experience as a critic and concert organizer, Ch?vez returned to New York in 1926. As in Mexico, many of Ch?vez?s activities in New York were related to the promotion of the modernist cause. Most of the works by Ch?vez performed in the U.S. from 1925 to 1932 were modern or ultra-modern in approach, without any overt reference to nationality. Such works included Energ?a and the Piano Sonata, each performed multiple times during the period in question. The short piano works ?36,? ?Fox,? ?Blues,? and ?Pol?gonos,? often programmed as Four Mexican Pieces, exhibited modernist musical experimentations. 323 Yet there were early indications that the public identity Ch?vez would present in the U.S. during this second trip would be more nationalist than that presented 323 Despite the title, Savedra has shown these works to be separate from Ch?vez?s interest in mexicanist composition. Se Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others,? 136-174. 141 during the 1924 visit. The first Ch?vez work performed upon the composer?s return to the U.S. was the ?Dance of Men and Machines,? which would become the fourth movement to the ballet H.P. It was presented at the ICG concert on 28 November 1926. 324 Unlike the previously performed Ex?gonos, which contains no musical or poetic references to nationality, the score to ?Dance of Men and Machines? exhibits a combination of modernist and nationalist compositional techniques, demonstrating Ch?vez?s skill in both types of composition. The opening bars establish a harsh modernist machine aesthetic that pervades the entire movement. Often compared to Arthur Honegger?s Pacific 231 (1923) and Sergey Prokofiev?s Le Pas d?acier (1925- 26), this sound was popular among New York modernists at the time, used most obviously by John Alden Carpenter in his ballet, Skyscrapers (1923-24). After a machine-inspired modernist beginning, Ch?vez introduced a melody, as a Mexican son, drowning out the sound of the machines. The interplay between ?mechanical? sections dominated by rhythmic repetition and more melodic consonant sections continues throughout the movement [Examples 5-2 and 5-3]. Example 5-2: Machine sounds from ?Dance of Men and Machine? emphasizing a mechanical pull between duple and triple meters. Meas. 20-24. Piano reduction by author. 324 ICG Program, 28 Nov. 1926, v. I, c. 2, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 142 Example 5-3: Mexican melody from ?Dance of Men and Machines,? meas. 34-38. Piano reduction by author. In the program notes, written by the composer, Ch?vez explained the rationale behind the work and the use of modernist and nationalist music therein: H.P. is the name of a ballet I am now finishing. The intention of this work is neither to describe mechanical processes nor to relate the spirit of the work to the aesthetics of machines. Horse Power certainly makes one think of machines, but I do not consider them objectively except for the sake of the vitality they posses . . . The ballet H.P. is made up of three tableaux which suggest objectively the life of all America. Yet both the visual work (setting and costumes) by Diego Rivera, as well as the music have their own proper and autonomous life. The fragment of the work on this program is the Danse of Men and Machines from the third tableau. Indian tunes (sones mariaches) will be found in my music, not as a constructive base, but because all the conditions of their composition?form, sonority, etc.?by nature coincide with those in my own mind, inasmuch as both are products of the same origin. I believe that in art the means of exteriorization used are distinct and proper to each manifestation of an individual mind and that, in so far as these manifestation coincide with the manifestations of the national or universal mind, their means of exteriorization will coincide or differ also. Thus it happens that in this music of mine certain treatments of the strings, the lack of vibrato indispensable to the quality of the sound, the scraping bow, a certain insistence of the shrill instruments in their high registers, certain rhythms, simple and exhausting at the same time, certain deformations of a natural feeling for pure tonality, and the structural characteristics (horizontal rather than vertical) are some of the particularities which reveal the spirit of my country. 325 325 Ibid. 143 The composition and the program notes accompanying it seem to show Ch?vez positioning himself as a nationalist, Vogue-inspired, exotic Mexican composer. 326 Yet there are also signs that Ch?vez felt ambivalent about an overtly nationalist identity. The exposed placement of the sones makes it clear that Ch?vez?s use of these melodies was purposeful. However, in the notes, the composer appears to deny intention, claiming that such melodies are simply part of his music, because he is Mexican, rather than being placed in the music as an expression of mexicanidad. At the same time, Ch?vez wants to broaden the definition of mexicanidad; he asserts that the same nationalist identity found in the sones applies to extended techniques, dissonance, and writing for extreme ranges. Furthermore, Ch?vez implies, the exoticism here does not indicate a retreat from his previous ultra-modern stance. Rather, this 20 th -century Mexican composer would like to be perceived as modern and nationalist?musically advanced and exotic. If Ch?vez chose to submit this work to the ICG for performance, because he thought the nationalist elements of the work would appeal to a New York audience, he failed. The turn toward nationalism in ?Dance of Men and Machines? did not effect a radical change in Ch?vez?s reception by New York critics. As in the first performance of his music under the auspices of the ICG, Ch?vez?s work was programmed at the end of a long concert, preventing some critics from staying to listen to it. 327 Most reviewers that remained to listen until the end of the program had 326 For a diferent analysis of these notes, se Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others,? 162-167. 327 Reviews included: Lawrence Gilman, ?New Music Given by Composers? Guild at Aeolian Hal,? NYHT, 29 November 1926, 13; W.J. Henderson, ?odern Works Given in Concert,? Sun, 29 February 1926, 24; Olga Samarof, ?Music,? New York Evening Post, 29 November 1926, 15; Leonard Liebling, ?Futuristic Music at Two Concerts Cause of Wonder,? New York American, 29 November 1926, 7; Irving Weil, ?usic: Guild and League Make the Wek-end Lively with New Works,? New York 144 very little to say about ?Dance of Men and Machines.? Among well-known New York critics, only Olin Downes, writing for the New York Times, reserved significant column space for ?Dance of Men and Machines.? He drew particular attention to the elements that made this work distinct from others on the program: The sounds are usually shrill and highly discordant: jangling out of the chamber orchestra come the mangled fragments of Mexican ditties, gone mad, as it were with the revolving age. ? If Mr. Goosens, conducting the odd piece of Ch?vez had suddenly pirouetted and turned like a whirligig on his pedestal, it would not have been surprising. 328 Although the review was not positive, observing that the audience ?listened and laughed? to ?a confounding mixture? of folk tunes and machine sounds, it emphasized the exoticism of the composer and the work. 329 However, despite its colorful and evocative language, Downes? one-paragraph description did not garner widespread attention for Ch?vez and his music. Fiesta Fiasco Following the performance of ?Dance of Men and Machines? in November 1926, there were no significant public performances of Ch?vez?s music in New York until April 1928. Newly discovered evidence shows that during this period Ch?vez composed the incidental music to Michael Gold?s play, Fiesta, for the production of the work by the New Playwrights Theatre that was scheduled to take place in the Evening Journal, 29 November 1926, 27. Gilman and Liebling admited they left early and did not hear Ch?vez?s work. 328 Olin Downes, ?Music: More of the Ultra-Moderns,? NYT, 29 November 1926, 16. 329 In a continuation of their long-standing feud, Carilo re-published portions of Downes? review in his Sonido 13 magazine. 145 spring of 1927. 330 Due to a series of disagreements, the performance was cancelled. Ch?vez described his role in the 1927 production of Fiesta in a letter to Alfonso Pruneda written in May 1927, after the decision not to perform the work had been made. 331 In his letter, Ch?vez explained the inherent appeal of Gold?s offer to work with the New Playwrights Theatre group. Several of the ?radical revolutionary writers? forming the New Playwrights Theatre?Em Jo Basshe, John Dos Passos, Francis Edwards Paragoh, Michael Gold, and John Howard Lawson?had written acclaimed leftist theatre works that had been performed in New York. Three of them, Gold, Dos Passos, and Lawson, were also affiliated with New Masses, the principal Communist intellectual publication of New York. Gold was the chief editor for the publication. Ch?vez knew many of the New Playwrights Theatre founding members through his friend Egmont Arens, who was also an editor at New Masses. New Masses was one of the most important outlets for ?Mexico Vogue? sentiment, and it included many articles, photographs, and drawings depicting post- Revolutionary Mexican culture and governmental institutions in complementary terms. Ch?vez provided Pruneda an index of the articles and drawings with Mexican subjects that had appeared in the magazine. The index contained over twenty items and a reference indicating their location within the journal. ?You will note by the dates,? Ch?vez wrote Pruneda, ?that there has not been one number of New Masses in which they did not speak in favor of Mexico and against North American imperialism 330 Corespondence aluding to this plan includes: Dos Pasos to Ch?vez, 17 July 1927, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Egmont Arens to Ch?vez, 5 May 1927; Mike Gold to Ch?vez, undated; Dos Pasos to Ch?vez, undated; Ch?vez to Pruneda, 4 May 1927, c. 2, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 331 Ch?vez to Pruneda, 4 May 1927, c. 2, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 146 . . .? 332 In the same letter, Ch?vez claimed that Gold had offered assurances that Fiesta would be in the same spirit as the articles about Mexico published in New Masses. Ch?vez agreed to look at a script but said he would probably refuse the offer, citing a full schedule of composing music for his own projects. Upon viewing the script he became more inclined to refuse the commission. He felt that the script was ?dangerous,? because the portrayal of the Indian was needlessly negative. Nonetheless, Gold was able to convince Ch?vez to arrange six or eight canciones for use in the Fiesta performance. The New Playwrights hired Robert Milton, a well-known Broadway director, for their production. Milton, according to Ch?vez, ?knew a lot about Broadway, and New York in general, but was completely ignorant about Mexico.? 333 As the date of the production neared, Ch?vez and Covarrubias began attending rehearsals. As directed for the New Playwrights Theatre, stereotyped images implied by the script were over-emphasized, presenting what Ch?vez and Covarrubias felt to be an unfair portrayal of their country and its people. Following a final dress rehearsal in front of an invited public, Ch?vez argued against the production of the work. The premiere was cancelled. During the weeks after the cancelled premiere, Ch?vez received a series of explanatory and apologetic notes from Gold, 334 Arens, 335 and Dos Passos. 336 Nonetheless, according to Ch?vez, the gossip mill was still churning. 332 ?Ud. se dar? cuenta por las fechas, no ha habido un n?mero del ?New Mases? en que no se hable en favor de M?xico y en contra del imperialismo norte-americano . . .? Ibid. 333 ?nos dimos perfectamente cuenta de que Sr. Milton sab?a mucho de Broadway y de Nueva York en general pero, ignoraba completamente M?xico, sus circunstancias sus problemas, etc. etc. etc, y por raz?n misma de las obras ?broadway? o de cualquiera otro car?cter que ha dirigido toda su vida, no entend?a lo que le dec?amos.? Ibid. 334 Mike Gold to Ch?vez, undated, c. 2, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 147 In May 1927, the same month he wrote Pruneda, Ch?vez sent a telegram to his friend Octavio Barreda asking him to help Ch?vez get a job at the Mexican consulate. Although, as he had told Gold, Ch?vez was working on a number of projects of his own, he had been unable to secure performances of his works. Meanwhile, Ch?vez?s compatriot and sometime-rival, Juli?n Carrillo, was captivating the attention of the New York public with his microtonal Concertino, performed in Philadelphia and New York in March 1927. The Fiesta debacle worsened an already difficult situation for Ch?vez, sending the composer into what appears to have been an uncharacteristically depressed mood. Hearing that Octavio Barreda?s brother had abandoned his post at the consulate, Ch?vez wrote: Barreda, inform me whether the auxiliary position in Chicago formerly held by your brother remains vacant. I beg you insistently to consider me for this vacancy . . . Thank you very much for your support, which will permit me to stop depending any more on musical vicissitudes.? 337 Ch?vez did not receive the post; the consulate informed him that it had already been filled. 338 By July 1927, gossip about the Fiesta debacle had quieted. Ch?vez wrote Dos Passos, ?Your letter from May came to me opportunely and I thank you for the clarifications that it makes. This matter is now satisfactorily ended.? 339 335 Egmont Arens to Ch?vez, 5 May 1927, c. 2, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 336 Dos Pasos to Ch?vez, undated, c. 2, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 337 ?Bareda inf?rmame puesto auxiliar su hermano quedar? vacante. [??]iendose Chicago suplicole (stet.) encarecidamente considerarme lenar dicha vacante . . . Agradeceriale much su apoyo que permitiriame no depender m?s vicisitudes musicales.? Telegram, Ch?vez to Mexican Consulate, 27 May 1928; Telegram, Consulate to Ch?vez, 28 May 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 338 Ibid. 339 Ch?vez to Dos Pasos, 17 July 1927, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 148 Non-Public Performances Although the year and a half between November 1926 and April 1928 must have been a bleak period for Ch?vez, the composer was slowly making a name for himself within the music community of New York. Perhaps Ch?vez?s most fruitful endeavor of the period was the creation of a strong and broad network among members of the New York music community. He did this, in part, by actively participating in the thriving social life of 1920s New York. To parties Ch?vez often brought a friend or two from the Mexican expatriate community?most frequently the artist Miguel Covarrubias, 340 the pianist Francisco Agea, 341 or the painter Rufino Tamayo. 342 Probably Ch?vez and his friends shared stories of Mexico and talked about their creative work. At such parties, Ch?vez was also able to meet musicians he admired and hear their compositions or performances. For example, through a Pro-Musica event at the home of Blanche Walton, he was introduced to Bart?k and the violinist Joseph Szigeti. 343 At a party in the home of the Alma Wertheim, Ch?vez heard works by Marion Bauer and Roy Harris. 344 Egmont Arens, who had been involved with the plans to stage Fiesta, continued to be a good friend to Ch?vez, giving him free tickets to performances, inviting him to his home, 340 References to Ch?vez?s habit of socializing with Covarubias can be found in: Reis to Ch?vez, [n.d., 1928?], c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 341 Numerous leters from Agea to Ch?vez indicate that they participated in the same social circle. E.g.: Agea to Ch?vez, 5 Nov. 1928; Agea to Ch?vez, 6 Oct. 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 36, Varios Biogr?ficos Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; an invitation from Ruth Arens to Ch?vez instructs him to bring Agea as wel: Arens to Ch?vez, [n.d. 1927?], c. 1, v. II, exp. 63, Corespondencia personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 342 Tamayo, Ch?vez?s romate, was invited to, among other things, a diner gathering at the home of Wiliam Grant Stil: Stil to Ch?vez, 14 Oct. 1926 and 26 Feb. 1927, c. 6, v. I, exp. 51, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 343 The invitation can be found in the Ch?vez archive: Walton to Ch?vez, 5 Feb. [1927?] 1 a.m., c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 344 The invitation can be found in the Ch?vez archive: Wertheim to Ch?vez, 9 Feb. [1927?] 8:30 p.m. c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 149 and, later, collaborating in a plan to perform Ch?vez?s works with the People?s Symphony Orchestra. 345 Ch?vez also shared his music at New York social events. In a letter to his stepmother, Cowell reported that a Blanche Walton party held 19 March 1928 had featured Ch?vez playing his own compositions. 346 Archival research did not reveal any programs for these casual concerts, yet we can surmise that the composer played his recent works for piano, including the Sonatina, the small ?Mexican Pieces,? the Third Piano Sonata, and sections of his ballets, El Fuego Nuevo, Los Cuatro Soles, and H.P. A two-piano arrangement of El Fuego Nuevo dated 1921 (copyright 1925) suggests that Ch?vez and a performer-friend, most likely Agea, played the entirety of this ballet at social events they attended. Both Walton and Wertheim went on to support Ch?vez in other ways. During the late 1920s, Walton campaigned for Cowell to publish Ch?vez?s music in New Music. In 1930, Wertheim arranged for the publication of the Piano Sonatina with the publishing house she ran, Cos Cob Press. 347 It appears that it was at parties or social events that the writer Paul Rosenfeld, and composers Aaron Copland and Henry Cowell first met Ch?vez. These three men became the composer?s most ardent advocates within the New York artistic community, writing articles, finding performances, and arranging publication of his scores. The efforts of Rosenfeld, Copland, and Cowell brought significant attention to 345 The performance with the People?s Symphony Orchestra would end up being canceled as described in a leter held in the Ch?vez archive: Ch?vez to Cowel, 25 Oct. 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 346 Henry Cowel to Olive Cowel, n.d., Box 18, Folder 25, Cowel Colection, NYPL. 347 The corespondence about this publication is described in Oja, ?Cos Cob Pres and the American Composer,? Notes 45, n. 2 (December 198): 27-252. 150 Ch?vez and his music starting in 1928. Without these men or others like them, it is unlikely that Ch?vez would have been able to establish a career in the U.S. Rosenfeld Rosenfeld?s activities on behalf of Ch?vez are perhaps best known. Beginning in February 1927, he wrote about the composer in the Dial, 348 Scribner Magazine, 349 The New Republic, 350 and Modern Music 351 and included long profiles of the composer in his books, By Way of Art, 352 An Hour with American Music, 353 and Discoveries of a Music Critic. 354 His activities on behalf of Ch?vez extended beyond Rosenfeld?s duties as a writer and critic. He also hosted a party to share Ch?vez?s music, 355 and appears to have used any available opportunity to promote the young composer. For Rosenfeld, the embrace of Ch?vez?s music was part of a larger re- imagining of American identity. In December 1926, just a few months before his first article about the composer, Rosenfeld returned from a year?s hiatus from his job as music critic for The Dial. His first column upon return included very little about musical life; instead it described an eye-opening cross-country trip by train, ostensibly taken during Rosenfeld?s months of respite, ?Evidently the westbound 348 Rosenfeld, ?Musical Chronicle,? The Dial, February 1927, 175. 349 Rosenfeld, ?New American Music,? Scribner?s Magazine, June 1931, 624. 350 Rosenfeld, ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932, 273. 351 Rosenfeld, ?American Composers VII: Carlos Ch?vez,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 153. 352 Rosenfeld, ?The Americanism of Carlos Ch?vez? in By Way of Art: Criticisms of Music, Literature, Painting, Sculpture, and the Dance (New York: Coward McCan, 1928). 353 Rosenfeld, ?Carlos Ch?vez? in An Hour with America usic (Philadelphia: J.B. Lipincot, 1929). 354 Rosenfeld, ?Ives, Haris, Copland, Ch?vez, Reiger,? in Discoveries of a Music Critic (New York Harcourt-Brace, 1936). 355 Described in: Ch?vez to Pruneda, 5 March 1928, c. 12, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 151 track led to a whole. . . . Strikingly new was a desert quilted of pink and poison-green patches, crumby slopes upholstered in dusty plucked velvet, livid convict hills branded across their villainous fronts.? In this environment, Rosenfeld explained, ?lay the penetralia [sic] of the continent, the secret essence of America, the mysterious projection of a long dormant idea.? 356 Articles about Ch?vez and his work, published in the months and years that followed, make clear Rosenfeld?s belief that the composer?s music was one embodiment of this ?secret essence of America? found in the southwest, along the Mexican border. It is with this new definition of America in mind that Rosenfeld finds in Ch?vez?s music, ?a buzzing, rustling, cackling quality that evokes the desert, the rattling of pods, the cackling of the redman in his dusty pueblos.? 357 Although neither the composer nor his Mexican audience would have summarized the varied landscape of their country with such a barren image, 358 Rosenfeld, anxious to create an exotic revision of American identity, saw in Ch?vez what he knew of the U.S.- Mexico border. Rosenfeld had not traveled widely through the continent, but his definition of ?America? was broad, encompassing Latin America as well as the U.S. In an article published in Scribner?s Magazine in June of 1931, Rosenfeld described Ch?vez?s music along with that of ?a handful of composers scattered between Boston and Brazil,? including Heitor Villa-Lobos, Carl Ruggles, Roger Sessions, Aaron Copland, 356 Rosenfeld, ?Musical Chronicle,? The Dial, December 1926, 529. 357 Rosenfeld, ?American Composers VII: Carlos Ch?vez,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 153. 358 Se Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201) 159-160. 152 Roy Harris, and Edgar Var?se. Rosenfeld juxtaposed the music of these composers with that of the Europeans: These original pieces compare favorably not only with the elder American music . . . They compare favorably with the contemporary European musical product. True, the American movement sports no masterly ability approaching Schoenberg?s, no rhythmic invention approximating Strawinsky?s, no fire and force proportionable [sic] to Bloch?s. Scarcely one of the western composers shows the frequently careless but nonetheless healthy luxuriance of Milhaud, Hindemith, and several of their coevals. The new movement is still spotty and uncertain, only slowly gaining body and headway. . . But where the average European composer is excessively doctrinaire, the American is agreeably na?ve. We only rarely find him, as even the best of his transatlantic fellows, arriving at the articulation of his idea by the circuitous route of theory. He is far more intuitive, expressing his coming world-feeling spontaneously. In this lies his advantage. For, spontaneity and na?vet? in music is like grace in the spiritual life: the sign of strength, regeneration, and inspiration: and the sole satisfaction. 359 Copland Like Rosenfeld, Copland wrote and advocated on behalf of Ch?vez. In addition, Copland organized one of the most important performances of Ch?vez?s music in New York, and helped him make connections within the circle of composers and patrons associated with the League of Composers. Copland included Ch?vez?s works in the first Copland-Sessions concert held in April 1928; it marked the first significant performance of Ch?vez?s work since the November 1925 ICG concert. The program included the premiere of Ch?vez?s third Sonata, dedicated to Copland, and the first performance where all three of Ch?vez?s Sonatinas were played together. The works were performed at the middle and end of the program, insuring that even 359 Rosenfeld, ?New American Music,? Scribner?s Magazine, June 1931, 624-632. 153 critics who could not stay until the end of the performance heard some of Ch?vez?s music. This concert was an enormous boon to Ch?vez?s U.S. career. Finally, critics appeared to see some value in the work. A reviewer for the New York Herald Tribune called the Sonata ?vigorous and forthright.? 360 Winthrop P. Tyron, writing for the Christian Science Monitor observed, ?[Ch?vez] represented the younger group of the advance guard?the practice squad of skirmishers?most praiseworthily, displaying caution and at the same time determination.? 361 Downes also praised the work, describing the performance in typically vivid terms, ?[Ch?vez] used Mexican Indian themes with primitive joy, but without softness or mercy. If he did not scalp, he tomahawked the keyboard . . .? 362 In addition to providing Ch?vez the opportunity to premiere his Sonata and hear his Sonatinas performed, Copland promoted the composer and his music through an article published in The New Republic the very next week. Titled ?Carlos Ch?vez?Mexican Composer? it cast Ch?vez as the harbinger of a new form of nationalist composition. Copland found the roots of Ch?vez?s nationalist style in the short Piano Sonatina: [The Piano Sonatina] is refreshing, original music with a kind of hard charm and a distinctly Mexican flavor. No Indian melodies are actually quoted in this ?Sonatina??Ch?vez had begun to rethink the material so that only its essence remained. Here and there a recognizably Mexican turn of phrase can be discerned, but as a whole the folk element has been replaced by a more subtle sense of national characteristics. As Debussy and Ravel reflected the clarity, the delicacy, the wit and the formal design of the French spirit, so Ch?vez had learned to write music which caught the spirit of Mexico . . . Thus, 360 ?Young Composer?s Work Opens Concert Series,? NYHT, 23 April 1928, 13. 361 Winthrop P. Tyron, ?Two American Modernists,? CSM, 26 April 1928, 10. 362 Olin Downes, ?Music,? NYT, 23 April 1928, 20. 154 single-handed he has created a tradition which no future Mexican composer can afford to ignore. If I stress this point, it is because I feel that no other composer who has used folk material?not even B?la Bart?k or de Falla?has more successfully solved the problem of its complete amalgamation into an art-form.? 363 In addition to viewing Ch?vez as a Mexican nationalist composer, Copland, like Rosenfeld, viewed Ch?vez as part of a Pan-nationalist program. 364 In the conclusion to his article for The New Republic, Copland wrote: [Ch?vez] is one of the few American musicians about whom we can say that he is more than a reflection of Europe . . . We cannot, like Ch?vez, borrow from a rich, melodic source or lose ourselves in an ancient civilization, but we can be stimulated and instructed by his example. 365 Copland?s promotion of Ch?vez and his music did not end with the 1928 Copland-Sessions concert and the subsequent profile article in The New Republic. He continued to include Ch?vez?s music in the concerts he organized, reference Ch?vez?s music in his writings, and help Ch?vez establish and maintain U.S. contacts. Copland also performed and lectured about Ch?vez?s music upon occasion. 366 Copland was especially influential in the League of Composers circle. It may have been through Copland that Ch?vez met Minna Lederman, the editor of Modern Music, and Claire Reis, the president of the League. These women were increasingly helpful to Ch?vez during the 1930s and 1940s. Copland also helped Ch?vez arrange the publication of his Piano Sonatina with Alma Wertheim?s Cos Cob Press. Correspondence indicates 363 Copland, ?Carlos Ch?vez?Mexican Composer,? The New Republic, 2 May 1928, 32-323. 364 Savedra also discuses Ch?vez?s relationships with Rosenfeld and Copland, with particular atention to the varied definitions of ?Mexican? that were aplied. Se Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others,? 136-174. 365 Ibid. 366 Program, Cleveland Museum of Art, ?The Youngest Generation of American Composers,? lecture- recital by Aaron Copland, 27 January 1929; Program, Concert of American Contemporary Music, 16 December 1931, 8:15, Aeolian Hal; Program, ?Concerts of Recorded Music,? 13 December [1928?], c. 3, v. 5, exp. 14, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 155 that Wertheim was consulting Copland about what to publish, and Copland was sending her Ch?vez?s scores to consider. 367 Cowell Cowell supported Ch?vez and his music through writings, concerts, and the publication of his scores. During the 1920s and early 1930s, Cowell?s efforts to promote Ch?vez and his music were at least as vigorous as those exhibited by Rosenfeld and Copland. However, Cowell did not write as many long eloquent articles about the composer. Furthermore, he did not enjoy as deep or long-lasting a friendship with Ch?vez as Copland. Perhaps for these reasons, the Cowell-Ch?vez relationship has not been given the emphasis or attention it deserves. 368 During the late 1920s, Cowell was responsible for organizing many of the smaller concerts in both California and New York that included works by Ch?vez. Just a month before the Copland-Sessions concert, Oscar Zeigler performed ?36? at the New School concerts organized by Cowell in New York. Richard Buhling performed the Piano Sonatina on a New Music Society concert in San Francisco on 24 October 1928. 369 On the 27 November 1928 New Music Society concert, also held in San Francisco, Dorothy Minty and Marjorie Gear performed Ch?vez?s Violin 367 This arangement is described in: Ch?vez to Copland, 2 January 1929, c. 3, v. 5, exp. 14, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Se also Oja, ?Cos-Cob Pres.? 368 Although Parker, Polack, and Bergman Crist have each devoted an article to the Copland-Ch?vez relationship, to my knowledge no such article has analyzed the Cowel-Ch?vez friendship. In Ch?vez biographies by Parker and Garc?a Morilo, Cowel receives scant atention; similarly, in the Cowel biography by Michael Hicks and the study of the New Music concerts and publications by Rita Mead, Ch?vez is rarely mentioned. A forthcoming Cowel biography by Joel Sachs may shed more light on the mater. 369 Program reprinted in Rita Mead, Henry Cowel?s New Music (An Arbor, Mich.: UMI, 1981) 9- 103. 156 Sonatina. 370 Cowell organized the initial concert of the Pan American Association of Composers, held in New York?s Birchard Hall on 12 March 1929, which included Ch?vez?s Piano Sonatina and 36. 371 It is likely that Cowell introduced performers Richard Buhling, Winifred Hooke, Arthur Hardcastle, and Wesley Kuhnle to Ch?vez?s music. 372 Many of these artists were based in the West and brought Ch?vez?s music to new audiences in San Franscisco and Los Angeles. It appears that Buhling was a particularly ardent advocate on behalf of Ch?vez; in letters to the composer, Buhling reported that, in addition to performing the Piano Sonatina with the Cowell?s New Music Society, he ?played it several times for small groups privately, in Carmel, in Los Angeles, in Berkeley, etc.? 373 Cowell also arranged for the publication of several of Ch?vez?s scores through the New Music Quarterly (NMQ), a periodical that printed and distributed scores by lesser-known avant-garde composers?scores that would not be accepted by more traditional presses. NMQ first published a Ch?vez score in 1928, the Violin Sonatina, which marked the first publication of Ch?vez?s music in the U.S. Other publications followed including ?36? in 1930, the Piano Sonata in 1933, and Seven Pieces for Piano in 1936. When Cowell and Var?se formed the Pan American Association of Composers in 1928, Ch?vez was considered a critical member of the group. Initially, 370 Ibid., 103-105 371 A list of concert dates and repertoire is provided in Dean Rot, ?The Pan American Asociation of Composers,? Anuario Interamericano de Investigaci?n Musical 8 (1972): 49-70. 372 Evidence of Cowel?s promotion of Ch?vez?s music to various performers can be found in: Cowel to Ch?vez, no date; Cowel to Ch?vez, 26 April 1931; Kuhnle to Cowel, forwarded to Ch?vez, 15 October 1929, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 373 Buhling to Ch?vez, 16 March 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 157 the organization appointed Ch?vez one of the Vice-Presidents and consulted him frequently. Together Cowell and Ch?vez planned to publish a bilingual music periodical, as an outlet for the PAAC. 374 As a Vice-President of the PAAC, Ch?vez issued invitations to composers throughout the Western Hemisphere to join their cause. In the weeks that followed, Ch?vez became disheartened at the response among Latin American composers, many of whom declined the invitation to submit manuscripts for performance. Despite this response, the PAAC leadership made a resolution to move ahead without widespread support, only performing the works of those who had agreed to participate, and severely limiting the amount of Latin American music on the programs. Ch?vez was dismayed at this turn of events and wrote a formal letter of dissent to the PAAC leadership. 375 In November 1928, Cowell wrote to Ives that Ch?vez had resigned from the PAAC because of ?disinterest.? 376 Although Ch?vez?s name remained on the stationary and concert programs, his involvement with the organization declined. Nonetheless, Cowell resolved that Ch?vez?s music should be represented on PAAC concerts. Cowell wrote numerous letters to Ch?vez begging him to continue to submit new works to the PAAC. 377 As a consequence of Cowell?s efforts, Ch?vez?s music was performed through the PAAC at their concerts in New York and abroad. 374 Initial plans may be found in: Henry Cowel to Olive Cowel, 2 February 1928, Box 18, Folder 24, Cowel Colection, NYPL. 375 Ch?vez to PAC composers, 12 April 1928, c. 5, v. V, exp. 81, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 376 Quoted in Mead, 106. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a formal resignation on Ch?vez?s part, but given the recent conflict about Latin American composers in the PAC programs, Cowel?s acount to Ives sems logical. 377 Se, for example, a leter from Cowel to Ch?vez, 1 February 1931, ?I am sory you have not time to send me your score, as I wished very much to present it. The Pan-Americans present thre chamber orchestra concerts in New York this season . . . I dislike intensely to leave you out of these programs ? perhaps we may present your ?Sonatina,? as it is the only available work.? c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 158 Despite conflict about the PAAC, the idea of a bilingual journal about modern music continued to interest both Ch?vez and Cowell, as demonstrated by several letters exchanged about the topic. 378 Understandably, given Ch?vez?s reservations about participation in the PAAC, after a few months the prospective journal was no longer considered to be a PAAC outlet. Less understandably, neither Ch?vez nor Cowell seemed able to finalize decisions about the content, funding, and editorial responsibilities?each frequently assuming that the other was willing to commit the majority of the time, energy, and monetary capital required. 379 These crossed-wires fated the journal to fail; years later the Pan American Union, under the leadership of Cowell?s good friend, Charles Seeger, would undertake a similar project, creating the Pan American Union Bulletin. 380 Just a month after Copland?s article appeared in The New Republic, Cowell published his own feature article about Ch?vez in Pro-Musica Quarterly. 381 Later in the summer Ch?vez was featured in an article by Cowell for Aesthete Magazine. 382 The interpretation of Ch?vez?s music presented in these articles is quite different from that presented by Copland and Rosenfeld: 383 378 These leters are found in AGN and NYPL colections: Ch?vez to Cowel, 13 February 193; Cowel to Ch?vez, 21 February 193, ibid. Ch?vez to Cowel, 29 April 1932, Box 3, Folder 4; Henry Cowel to Olive Cowel, 2 February 1928, Box 18, Folder 24, Cowel Colection, NYPL. 379 Ibid. 380 Corespondence about the journal has ben translated and made available. Se Savedra, ?The Social Thought of Seger and Ch?vez? in Understanding Charles Seger, Pioner in American Musicology, edited by Bel Yung and Helen Res, Urbana: University of Ilinois Pres, 199. In the corespondence excerpted by Savedra, it is clear that Seger participated in the original plans for the bilingual journal and that Ch?vez was consulted extensively about the creation of the Pan American Union Buletin. 381 Cowel, ?Carlos Ch?vez,? Pro-Musica Quarterly, June 1928, 19-23. 382 Cowel, ?Four Litle Known odern Composers,? The Aesthete Magazine, August 1928, c. 2, v. VI, exp. 107, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 383 Although the statement sems to counter that of Copland in The New Republic (se fotnote 349), it apears from a leter Cowel wrote to Ch?vez that the submision to Pro-Musica ocured before Cowel had read Copland?s article: ?I was delighted to se Aaron?s article in The New Republic and, of 159 Ch?vez is a composer of music. He is also a Mexican; but although his music may have been somewhat influenced by his nationality, his claim to recognition as a composer is not based on his country, but upon the actual worth [of] his music itself. He does not seek to put forth works which are based on Mexican folk-themes, although he is an authority on them, but writes his own music, to be judged irrespective of nationality. 384 American Composers on American Music (1933), a collection of essays edited by Cowell, includes an essay by Copland about Ch?vez that is very similar to Copland?s previous writings about the composer. In the introduction to the book, Cowell classifies Ch?vez, along with the Cubans Alejandro Garc?a Caturla and Amadeo Rold?n as one of the composers ?who have developed indigenous materials or are especially interested in expressing some phase of the American spirit in their works.? 385 The categorization in the American Composers introduction either expressed deference to Copland?s point of view, or reflected a change in Cowell?s interpretation of Ch?vez?s music. It is also possible that Cowell reconsidered his interpretation in light of Ch?vez?s attempts to compose nationalist Mexican music during the years between the publication of the article in Pro-musica (1928) and the publication of American Composers (1933). In other articles published during the late 1920s, Cowell evaluated Ch?vez?s music in purely modernist terms. For example, in the article for Aesthete Magazine, 386 Cowell examines the techniques Ch?vez employs in his composition, without any reference to Indianist programs or quotations of folk music. In an article for Modern course, heartily concur with his opinion of your high rank in American music. My article wil apear (as far as I know) in the next Pro-Musica . . .? Cowel to Ch?vez, 1 May 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 384 Cowel, ?Carlos Ch?vez,? Pro-Musica Quarterly, June 1928, 19. 385 Cowel, ed., American Composers on American Music (New York: F. Ungar, 1962). 386 Cowel, ?Four Litle Known Modern Composers,? The Aesthete Magazine. August 1928, c. 2, v. VI, exp. 107, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 160 Music about terminology, Cowell used an example from Ch?vez?s Energ?a to illustrate ?contrapuntal polytonality.? 387 Although Cowell pointed to Ch?vez?s Aztec ballets as some of the composer?s best work, he did not spend time analyzing these works or drawing parallels between the ballets and Ch?vez?s non-programmatic work. In both 1928 articles, Cowell acknowledges the influence of Mexican culture upon Ch?vez?s music while arguing that the technical aspects of the compositions are more important. Lessons, Lectures, and Writings In addition to composing, socializing, and promoting his new work, Ch?vez taught and wrote several articles about music while in New York. 388 During February and March 1928, Ch?vez offered a music analysis class in the living room of his Greenwich Village apartment. In preparing his lectures he developed ideas about Mexican music and his own public identity that would resurface over the next few years in writings and interviews. Ch?vez titled the first set of classes, intended to be half of a two-part course, ?The Primitives.? The lectures introduced students to music around the world beginning with the Middle East and ending with two classes about the Indians of the Americas. While a few early lectures were dedicated to basic analytical techniques, no lessons were devoted to classical music in the Western tradition. 389 This ?world 387 Cowel, ?New Terms for New Music,? Modern Music, May-June 1928, 21. 388 Ch?vez, ?Antecedents and Consequences,? Eolus, January 1927, 12; ?Technique and Iner Form,? Modern Music, May-June 1928, 28. 389 Notes, c. 5, v. IV, exp. 43, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 161 music? approach was unusual for the time and positioned Ch?vez as an expert in the exotic. Despite the global topics found in lecture notes for ?The Primitives,? Ch?vez did not seem to encourage a nationalist interpretation of his music in the musical press during most of his stay in New York. His first two articles published in the U.S., ?Antecedents and Consequences? (Eolus, 1927) and ?Technique and Inner Form? (Modern Music, 1928), are modernist in approach. The first analyzes the music of Edgard Var?se, and Var?se?s place within music history. 390 The second studies the relationship between large-scale and small-scale forms within a composition. 391 It seems that for the 1928 article for Modern Music, Ch?vez purposely avoided writing about nationalist music; the request from Modern Music editor Minna Lederman was to write about ?popular and serious music,? 392 an assignment that would have allowed ample discussion of Mexicanist approaches to composition. Instead, Ch?vez wrote the technical article described above, which contained no reference to nationality. Ch?vez?s reaction to Lederman?s request might reflect the same ambivalence about nationalism in music that can be found in Ch?vez?s program notes for the ICG ?Dance of Men and Machines? performance (November 1926), which was quoted at length in an earlier section. The September 1928 issue of Musical America marked a significant change in Ch?vez?s presentation of his public identity. To the author of the large cover story article, Barthold Fles, Ch?vez took great pains to present himself as, foremost, an 390 Ch?vez, ?Antecedents and Consequences,? Eolus, January 1927, 12. 391 Ch?vez, ?Technique and Iner Form,? Modern Music, May-June 1928, 28. 392 Mina Lederman to Ch?vez, 15 April (1928?), c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 162 exotic Mexican. When comparing his own music to that of the ?average Latin American,? Ch?vez observed: This contemporary music in France and Germany, and that from Russia, sounds logical coming from those countries in their present condition. But when I turned to my own composing again, it was like going out of doors, away from European civilization. Twice a year, at home in Mexico City, my family went to the country . . . In this way I often was able to observe and study primitive Indian festivals and this is the life that burns in my mind. 393 Similarly, the third article of Ch?vez?s published in the U.S., ?The Two Persons,? 394 demonstrates a departure from the resolutely cerebral and modernist stance found in previous writings. Instead of treating compositional techniques, as in his previous articles for Eolus and Modern Music, Ch?vez analyzed the relationship between a composer and his audience, probably as a reflection of his new job as conductor of the OSM in Mexico City. Starting sometime in the spring of 1927, 395 Ch?vez began to generate ideas for a book proposal. Ch?vez?s articles for Eolus, Modern Music, and Musical Quarterly, cited above, and his lecture notes for ?The Primitives? 396 formed the core material for an early book outline, probably created in 1927 or 1928. In the initial plans for the book all of its three sections were closely modeled on his New York lectures. As in his New York analysis course, the first part of the book adapted information from articles that had been published in the U.S. and Mexico. 397 The second part concerned the artist and his public, borrowing heavily from the article for Musical Quarterly. 393 Ch?vez quoted in Barthold Fles, ?Ch?vez Lights New Music With Old Fires,? Musical America, 15 September 1928, 1. 394 Ch?vez, ?The Two Persons,? Musical Quarterly 15, n. 2 (April 1929): 153-159. 395 The first mention of the bok found in the Ch?vez corespondence: Ch?vez to Pruneda, 4 May 1927, c. 12, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 396 The lectures are found in: Notes, c. 5, v. IV, exp. 43, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 397 A list of Ch?vez?s articles published in Mexico may be found in Garc?a Morilo; the articles Ch?vez published in U.S. periodicals have ben cited above. 163 The last section included various chapters about Mexican music, including a significant portion about Mexican Indian music and borrowing from his lecture notes for ?The Primitives?. 398 Ch?vez presented his ideas to several friends in New York before returning to Mexico in the summer of 1928. The book is loosely described in correspondence as being about ?Indian music? or ?Mexican music,? although even the earliest outlines seem to include material outside this general topic. Alma Wertheim expressed ambivalence about the book, writing Ch?vez, ?somehow this is not the time for that book for you?something is being forced.? 399 Paul Rosenfeld was more encouraging, recommending the book to Helen Black of the publishing house Coward-McCann. 400 Although he never published the book, Ch?vez?s notes show that over the next several years, he often returned to the book idea, writing and editing many outlines, revising prose, and thinking of ways to include ideas from his articles and lectures in the book. Subsequent plans also included significant material from his articles and lectures in Mexico City. Later versions placed less emphasis on this topic and more emphasis upon Ch?vez?s new professional activities such as his work with the Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico and his teaching in the National Conservatory. At some point, perhaps under the impression that the book would have a better reception in the U.S., Ch?vez hired a translator; English-language versions of several chapters survive in the Ch?vez archive. 398 Notes, caja 5, v. II, exp. 25, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 399 Wertheim to Ch?vez, 6 April 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 400 The recomendation is mentioned in: Black to Ch?vez, 25 May 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 164 Ballets Several of the Ch?vez profile articles by Rosenfeld, Copland, and Cowell referred to Ch?vez?s Aztec ballets as among his best and most innovative works. Nonetheless, following the cancellation of Fiesta, the composer could not seem to arrange performances for any of his stage works, including the Aztec ballets. In addition to promoting his three ballets- El Fuego Nuevo, Los Cuatro Soles, H.P. ? two of which were complete? Ch?vez participated in the early planning stages of many productions that were never realized. 401 Among the proposed projects detailed in correspondence and preserved notes are: a puppet play titled ?Love?s Dilemma,? 402 an unidentified ?Chaplin Style? production, 403 and two ballets: ?The White Prince? 404 and ?La Mulata de C?rdoba.? 405 Ch?vez?s most frequent collaborators in these stage projects were his close friends, the painter August?n Lazo, the sketch artist Miguel Covarrubias, and the writer Octavio Barreda. Barreda, the author of ?Love?s Dilemma? submitted several scripts and scenarios to Ch?vez hoping to pique the composer?s interest in collaboration. The surviving scripts include a plan for an 401 For more about Ch?vez?s stage works during this period se: Robert Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet? and Antonio Saborit, ?Mexican Gaities.? Parker and Saborit make reference to some of the same documents in their articles, but I have found it easiest and clearest to cite the primary source that I have also examined. 402 Draft scenario, c. 5, v. II, exp. 35, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 403 Cited in: Covarubias to Ch?vez, 20 July 1927, c. 3, v. V, exp. 19, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 404 Cited in: Lazo to Ch?vez, [n.d.], c. 7, v. II, exp. 81 Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 405 Cited in: Lazo to Ch?vez, 2 July 1925, c. 7, v. II, exp. 81, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 165 untitled Pi?ata ballet, 406 a loose outline titled, ?La adoraci?n de los Reyes,? and a third plan titled, ?Judas: Escenas del S?bado de la Gloria.? 407 Numerous people and organizations were approached to investigate the feasibility of producing these various projects. Irene Lewissohn of the Neighborhood Playhouse considered productions of ?Love?s Dilemma? and Los Cuatro Soles. 408 Lazo approached Cocteau about the production of ?La Mulata de C?rdoba.? 409 Ch?vez corresponded with the conductor Goosens about performances of Los Cuatro Soles, ?Love?s Dilemma,? and H.P. 410 Ch?vez also wrote the dancer Adolph Bolm about possible performances of ?The White Prince? and Los Cuatro Soles. 411 Despite these attempts, no one agreed to stage any of the proposed works. Probably in the late summer or early fall of 1927, Frances Flynn Paine became Ch?vez?s manager with the express purpose of arranging productions of El Fuego Nuevo, Los Cuatro Soles, or H.P. She came very close to setting up a performance of El Fuego Nuevo. 412 The performance was to occur in conjunction with an exhibit of Mexican art at the Art Center in New York, which Paine was also managing. 413 After Paine and Ch?vez agreed to cover most of the production costs, S.L. Rothafel, the 406 It is posible that Bareda?s idea of dancing fruit outlined in the Pi?ata balet proposal was incorporated into the production of H.P. in 1932. 407 Found in: Bareda to Ch?vez, 5 August 1924 and 28 June (1926?), c. 2, v. IV, exp. 3, Corespondencia Personal; Notes, c. 5, v. II, exp. 35, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 408 Her responses to Ch?vez?s are found in the AGN: request Lewisohn to Ch?vez, 29 March 1927 and undated, c. 7, v. IV, exp. 101, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Lewisohn to Ch?vez, undated, c. 2, V. II, exp. 37, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 409 Described in: Lazo to Ch?vez, 2 July 1925, c. 7, v. II, exp. 81, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 410 Request found in: Ch?vez to Gosens, 21 Sept. 1927, c. 10, v. V, exp. 129, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 411 Documented in: Ch?vez to Pruneda, undated, c. 12, v. II, exp. 73, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Bolm to Ch?vez, 26 Oct. 1926 and 19 March 1926, c. 2, V. IV, exp. 72, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 412 Parker describes Paine?s relationship with Ch?vez and her work as Ch?vez?s manager in more detail in ?Ch?vez and the Balet.? 413 Delpar, 136-137. 166 owner of the Roxy Theatre, indicated that his theatre would host the event, signing a contract in July 1927 to produce the ballet by the end of the year. With this understanding, Ch?vez and Paine began collecting the native instruments called for in the score, including a large, expensive shipment of whistles and gourds. Over the subsequent weeks, Rothafel changed his mind, making increasingly stringent demands on the performance and finally canceling it altogether. Paine?s threats to sue Rothafel were futile; he was resolved to forgo the performance and Paine learned, upon consulting a lawyer, that Rothafel?s case was incontestable. The Art Center exhibit of Mexican folk art occurred in 1928. The same year ceramic displays created from August?n Lazo?s designs for El Fuego Nuevo were displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, plans for the performance of El Fuego Nuevo were temporarily abandoned. When Ch?vez returned to Mexico City in the summer of 1928, not one of the stage works had been produced and there were no viable plans for productions in New York theatres or concert hall. Ch?vez Returns to Mexico City, 1928-1932 Upon returning to Mexico City after his first trip to New York, Ch?vez displayed an increased interest in promoting modernist music; upon returning from his second trip to New York, Ch?vez displayed an increased interest in infusing Mexican modernist music with indianist nationalist references. Moreover, after 1928 Ch?vez had a greater platform from which to advance his various causes. Prestigious appointments as director of the Orquesta Sinfonica Mexicana and the National Conservatory gave him ample opportunities to shape the musical repertoire and 167 aesthetic of Mexico City. Once again, Ch?vez advanced his agenda in Mexico through composition, performance, and publicity. During the summer of 1928, Ch?vez was appointed director of the Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana. Although a minor organization at the time, Ch?vez immediately initiated a series of reforms to professionalize the orchestra, and the group quickly grew in prestige. The repertoire for the season, selected by Ch?vez and the orchestra?s Board of Advisors, included works by Var?se, Stravinsky, Debussy, and Carpenter, signaling the orchestra?s willingness to perform avant-garde works. 414 The programs also listed several performances of nationalist works by Mexican composers, including Ch?vez?s El Fuego Nuevo, Ponce?s Chapultepec, and Jos? Rol?n?s El Fest?n de los Enanos. 415 In October 1928, Ch?vez gave a series of eight lectures for the Extension Department of the National University. Several of these appeared to have been adapted from his living room analysis classes in New York, including lectures about the music of China, Native Americans, and Mexican music. The last two lectures, part of a section on ?Contemporary Music? reflected the knowledge he had gained while in New York. One lecture was devoted entirely to jazz and another analyzed the work of Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Copland. 416 In December 1928, Ch?vez was appointed director of the National Conservatory and instituted sweeping reforms. He redesigned the composition curriculum to reflect his own self-taught approach, encouraging students to create 414 For an analysis of the orchestra?s repertoire se Franscisco Agea, 21 A?os de la Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico (Mexico: OSM, 1948). 415 Ibid. 416 Programs and notes for these lectures can be found in: Notes, c. 5, v. IV, exp. 4, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 168 their own individual approaches to the art. Ch?vez also reshaped the research branch of the curriculum to emphasize popular indigenous music and musical innovation. 417 Articles by Ch?vez published in El Universal during this period demonstrate an increased concern for the problems facing Mexican musical institutions and a curiosity about nationalism in Mexican music. For example in 1929 and 1930, three of the ten articles by Ch?vez published in El Universal presented the activities of the National Conservatory and Ch?vez?s plans for its development: ?Una nueva actividad del Conservatorio Nacional? (6 Sept. 1929), ?El Conservatorio en 1929? (5 Jan. 1930), and ?El Conservatorio Nacional y la m?sica en M?xico? (27 Sept. 1930). 418 Two additional articles addressed related topics; in ?M?xico no neccesita doctores ni bachilleres en m?sica? (25 June 1929) and ?La m?sica, la Universidad y el Estado? (3 July 1929), Ch?vez presented his view of an ongoing student strike at the Conservatory. 419 With the exception of ?El monumento a Debussy? (17 August 1929), the other articles Ch?vez published that year in El Universal contained analysis of the popular music of Mexico. 420 Ch?vez also composed during these years, completing two small piano works ?Pol?ganos? and ?Unidad,? the Sonata for Four Horns, the Second String Quartet, Tierra Mojada, and H.P. 421 Nonetheless, Ch?vez?s pace of composition slowed because his time was consumed by other professional activities. Despite his efforts to promote the creation and collection of the national music of Mexico, Ch?vez?s own 417 A ful description of Ch?vez?s inovations may be found in Parker, Modern Day Orpheus. 418 A complete list of the articles Ch?vez published in Mexico, along with ful citations can be found in Roberto Garcia Morilo, 230-237. For reprints of some of the articles se Ch?vez, Obras I. 419 Ibid. 420 Leonora Savedra. ?Los Escritos Period?sticos de Carlos Ch?vez.? 421 Parker, Modern Day Orpheus. 169 compositions from the period reflect a mix of approaches. Only H.P. has a nationalist program and a populist approach. The other works, especially Pol?ganos and Unidad, are modernist abstractions. Ch?vez?s Reputation in New York, 1928-1932 At the same time Ch?vez was cultivating modernist and mexicanist music in Mexico City, his reputation was growing in New York, aided by his increased prominence in Mexico City. Whereas there were three significant performances of Ch?vez?s music during his two-year residency in the city, there were numerous performances during the years that followed. For example, the Pan American Association of Composers included Ch?vez?s works on concerts given 12 March 1929, 21 April 1930, 11 June 1931, and 16 February 1932. 422 Similarly, the Copland- Sessions concerts included Ch?vez?s works in concerts held on 17 June 1929, 16 March 1930, and 16 December 1931. 423 Meanwhile performer friends, including Buhling, Cumpson, Hardcastle, Leach, and Kuhnle continued to perform Ch?vez?s works on their recitals. 424 Ch?vez?s increasingly warm relationship with Claire Reis of the League of Composers also demonstrates his growing popularity among New York modernists. 422 A list of PAC concerts and repertoire is found in Dean Rot, ?PAC, 1928-1934.? 423 A list of Copland-Sesions concerts and repertoire is found in Oja, ?The Copland-Sesions Concerts and Their Reception in the Contemporary Pres,? The Musical Quarterly 65, n. 2 (April 1979): 212- 229. 424 Programs and description of concerts found in: Buhling to Ch?vez, 16 March 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos Program, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Bethoven Asociation, 13 April [n.d.], c. 4, v. II, exp. 35, Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Cowel to Ch?vez, 26 April 1931, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; ?Mexican Sonata on Program,? DePauw University, April 193, c. 5, v. I, exp. 6, Prensa Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Program, Leach and Shefeild, 24 October 1929, c. 4, v. II, exp. 35, Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Kuhnle to Cowel, forwarded to Ch?vez, 15 October 1929, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 170 In an early letter dated 8 February 1927, Reis asked Ch?vez to send her scores, wanting to forward them to the composer?s committee so they might consider a work for performance. 425 No performance resulted from this exchange. During his 1928 interview with Barthold Fles for the Musical America cover story, 426 Ch?vez expressed the hope that the League might produce his ballet, Los Cuatro Soles. However, a few weeks later, Reis wrote to Ch?vez to inform him that the League could not stage it. 427 A different air pervades correspondence with Reis a few years later. The League requested a composition from Ch?vez for performance in the 1929/1930 season; after negotiations about which work might be best, 428 the League presented the Mexican Pieces for piano in their 2 February 1930 concert. 429 That concert represented the first performance of Ch?vez?s work at a League concert. In March 1930, Reis wrote Ch?vez to ask him if he might be persuaded to submit a work for a competition of ballet compositions. 430 Ch?vez agreed but quickly became distracted with his duties in Mexico City and failed to submit his entry by the deadline. In December 1930, Reis began to plan a concert of Latin American music, asking Ch?vez to help select the compositions to be performed and to submit one of his own 425 Reis to Ch?vez, 8 February 1927, c. 10, v. II, exp. 81, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 426 Barthold Fles, ?Ch?vez Lights New Music With Old Fires,? Musical America, 15 September 1928, 1. 427 Reis to Ch?vez, 10 October 1928, c. 10, v. II, exp. 81, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 428 The negotiations may be found in: Reis to Ch?vez, 3 Dec. 1928; Ch?vez to Reis, 16 Nov. 1928; Reis to Ch?vez, 5 Nov. 1928, c. 7, v. II, exp. 85, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 429 Program, League, 2 Feb. 1930, c. 4, v. II, exp. 35. Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 430 Her request and the exchange that folowed are documented in: Ch?vez to Reis, 6 March 1930; Reis to Ch?vez, 23 April 1930; Ch?vez to Reis, 18 September 1930; Reis to Ch?vez, 25 September 1930, c. 7, v. II, exp. 85, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 171 works for performance. 431 Using the information Ch?vez gave her, Reis created a League performance of Latin American works in March 1932. The continued advocacy of Ch?vez?s New York friends, especially Rosenfeld, Copland, and Cowell, were critical to Ch?vez?s growing reputation in the city after his departure. However, their enthusiasm for the composer, and the positive response they received from producers and audiences were surely related to Ch?vez?s growing prominence in Mexico?s musical life. Most of Ch?vez?s friends heard of his appointment as director of the Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana and head of the National Conservatory, informed through the composer?s letters or by word of mouth. Ch?vez distributed prospecti of the first few seasons liberally, enlisting the help of his former student, Franscisco Agea, who was still living in New York City. 432 The prospecti for the OSM excited New York modernists anxious to see a large symphony orchestra integrating avant-garde works into their repertory. 433 Ch?vez?s plans for the OSM and the National Conservatory also made it clear that he could and would return the many favors bestowed upon him by U.S. colleagues. In the first few seasons, Ch?vez performed works by those who had arranged performances of his music in the U.S.?Cowell, Copland, and Var?se. Compositions by Copland and Var?se were also included in a series of chamber 431 Reis to Ch?vez, 19 December 1930, 16 January 1931, 30 November 1931, c. 7, v. II, exp. 85, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 432 Franscisco Agea to Ch?vez, 6 October 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Varios Biogr?ficos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN: ?Los prospectos y peri?dicos se los he ense?ada a todos los amigos y todos se han interesado mucho: los Quintanila, Anita, Cumpson, McPhe. A otros gentes que he visto no se los he ense?ado porque no los he tenido a la mano, pero les he platicado largamente acerca la organizaci?n, etc.? 433 Evidence that these plans were shared can be found in: Ch?vez to Cowel, 25 October 1928; Dane Rudyar to Ch?vez, 24 February 1928; Richard Buhling to Ch?vez, 13 August 1928, al in c. 2, v. II, exp. 35, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Blanche Walton to Ch?vez, 5 October 1928, c. 2, v. II, exp. 37, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 172 concerts Ch?vez organized at the conservatory in 1930. 434 Several New Yorkers who had been kind to the young composer were listed on OSM stationary, programs, and publicity material as honorary board members including: Claire Reis, Aaron Copland, Paul Rosenfeld, E. Robert Schmitz, and Edgar Var?se. Observing the exchange of favors between Ch?vez and his U.S. friends, Cowell wrote to his father: ? anything we do for Ch?vez will come back to us in Mexican connections; he is to play my synfonetta this fall with his orchestra in Mexico City, and my concerto later also promises to arrange [sic] for solo recitals there for me and also in Guadalajara; also he arranged to have me write for Ulises, the great Mexican cultural paper . . . 435 By sharing his ongoing Mexico City projects with members of his influential New York network, Ch?vez was able to increase his New York reputation even while absent from the city. Friends and associates gladly worked on his behalf, knowing that, should they ever decide to cultivate a Mexico City audience, Ch?vez would help them in turn. Meanwhile, Ch?vez demonstrated his willingness to exchange favors by including works by New York composers on his Mexico City programs and by shaping the Honorary Board of the OSM to reflect his connections in New York. Ch?vez in New York before 1932 This chapter represents an examination of Ch?vez?s activities in New York between 1925 and 1932. Although Ch?vez scholars have long recognized the importance of Ch?vez?s early New York visits to his career, and several studies of the period exist, this chapter introduces new information and reinterprets previously 434 Programs, 24 June 1930, 1 July 1930, c. 5, v. 1, exp. 8, OSM Prensa, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 435 Henry Cowel to Hary Cowel, n.d., Folder 25, Cowel Colection, NYPL. Ulises was a wel- known smal literary magazine edited by Salvador Novo and Xavier Vilarut?a, who were friends of Ch?vez. 173 known evidence. Ch?vez?s participation in the cancelled 1927 production of Fiesta has not been included in previous accounts of his 1926-1928 New York visit. Yet it is an important event, explaining the desperation found in Ch?vez?s correspondence of the period and indicating the extent of his involvement with leftist intellectuals participating in the ?Mexico Vogue? through their articles in New Masses and play productions with the New Playwrights Theatre. Ch?vez?s friendship with Henry Cowell is widely acknowledged by scholars, but it is little studied. Although Copland and Rosenfeld are considered more influential figures in Ch?vez?s career, the evidence presented here demonstrates that, at least during the earliest phase of Ch?vez?s U.S. career, Cowell?s efforts to disseminate Ch?vez?s music were as grand and as effective as those exerted by Copland and Rosenfeld. Understandably, most histories about Ch?vez?s career from 1928 to 1932 concentrate on his activities in Mexico City. However, even though these were critical years in Ch?vez?s Mexican career, they also informed the creation of his U.S. career. Narratives concentrating on Ch?vez?s Mexico City activities during 1928- 1932 tend to emphasize the ways his New York experiences shaped his response to new appointments and responsibilities but ignore the ways Ch?vez was using his new prestige in Mexico City to bolster his New York reputation. This account uses correspondence to demonstrate that the influence flowed both south and north; just as Ch?vez?s New York experiences shaped his approach toward performance and composition in Mexico City, Ch?vez?s Mexico City appointments increased his New York reputation. 174 The discoveries and insights presented in this chapter show the true breadth and diversity in Ch?vez?s New York network, formed during the mid-1920s and maintained and cultivated from Mexico City during the ensuing years. The network and reputation Ch?vez formed in New York during the 1920s served as a foundation upon which he built his U.S. career. Without such a foundation, the performance of H.P. probably would have only elicited momentary excitement; with it, Ch?vez was able to use H.P. as a vehicle to launch a long and successful U.S. career. 175 Chapter 6: H.P. and Ch?vez in U.S. Musical Life after 1932 On 31 March 1932 the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Philadelphia Grand Opera premiered Carlos Ch?vez?s ballet, H.P. The performance and the press attention surrounding it represented a turning point in Ch?vez?s U.S. career. The Ch?vez works performed in the U.S. during previous years were chamber pieces presented at modern music concert series with relatively small audiences. Numerous attempts to arrange for the presentation of longer works, especially his ballets, at venues that would allow for large audiences had been unsuccessful. That changed with the premiere of H.P., which was the first time one of Ch?vez?s ballets was presented in a large orchestral hall in the U.S. Furthermore the audience had been courted through local newspapers?such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times?as well as newspapers across the U.S. The attention newspaper writers and editors gave the premiere far exceeded any notice given Ch?vez and his compositions during the previous decade; over 65 articles about the event appeared in 35 different publications. 436 Although many Philadelphia and New York reviewers despaired at what they perceived as flaws in the performance, these critical evaluations did not reach most U.S. readers, who were more likely to see the pre-performance publicity, read about the politically appealing aspects of the scenario, and digest post-performance accounts describing the prestigious audience. Thus, despite serious reservations from some critics about the value of H.P., the publicity surrounding the work helped Ch?vez become a fixture in U.S. musical life. After the premiere, Ch?vez often 436 Se Apendix F for a list of articles and reviews about H.P. 176 served as an informal cultural ambassador for Mexico during a period when U.S.- Latin American ties were being strengthened. The work in question was the least ?Aztec? of Ch?vez?s early ballets. Whereas the plots of El Fuego Nuevo and Los Cuatro Soles presented stories from Aztec mythology, H.P. presented a vague plot about U.S.- Latin American economic and cultural interdependence, with no specific references in the scenario to Aztec culture. The central figure in the ballet was ?H.P., the man,? costumed to look like a piece of jointed machinery. Accompanied by a four-movement ballet-symphony ?H.P., the man? traveled from a northern, modernist environment (first movement) to Latin America (movements two and three) and then returned to the north (movement four). Fellow collaborators in this endeavor were Leopold Stokowski, who conducted the work, Diego Rivera, who designed the sets and costumes, and Catherine Littlefield, who provided the choreography. By 1932 Stokowski and Rivera were familiar to U.S. audiences, whereas Littlefield was less well-known. Stokowski, a genius at publicity and performance, had directed the Philadelphia Orchestra for a little less than twenty years at the time of the H.P. premiere. He became known for his interest in artistic experimentation, serving as a conduit between the new modernist aesthetic and general symphonic audiences. 437 The previous year Stokowski had collaborated with the League of Composers and the Philadelphia Grand Opera 438 to present the U.S. premieres of Alban Berg?s Wozzeck, Igor Stravinsky?s Oedipus Rex, and Prokofiev?s Le Pas d?Acier, attracting 437 Oliver Daniel, Stokowski: A Counterpoint of View (New York: Dod, Mead, and Company, 1982). 438 The Philadelphia Grand Opera participated only in the production of Wozeck. 177 audiences from Philadelphia, New York, and other areas as well. Although concerts featuring the Stravinsky and Prokofiev works were performed in both New York and Philadelphia, for the Wozzeck premiere, audience members from New York had to travel to Philadelphia if they wanted to see the performance. And, according to press reports, they did; W.J. Henderson wrote that, ?a special train went hence to convey New Yorkers to the scene of action.? 439 Interest was so great that Stokowski arranged another performance of Wozzeck, this time at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City. Unlike Stokowski, Rivera was not a permanent fixture in Philadelphia public life but he was, at that time, a cause c?l?bre in the U.S. When H.P. premiered, Rivera had just finished a large one-man show at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City that had been widely reviewed and lauded in the national press. 440 Before the New York show, Rivera had completed several murals in California; these works had also been examined and reviewed in the New York press. 441 Of the three, Littlefield possesses the least recognizable name today. Nevertheless she may have been slightly more familiar to Philadelphians and New Yorkers of the time. She had worked as a Ziegfeld dancer during the 1920s. Subsequently she served as the premiere danseuse and ballet director for the 439 As quoted in Daniel, 263. 440 Examples include, ?Rivera Here Ready for Painting,? NYT, 15 November 1931, 31; Edward Alden Jewel, ?Art: Work of Mexicans Exhibited,? NYT, 17 November 1931, 30; Edward Alen Jewel, ?Art: An Impresive Exhibition,? NYT, 2 December 1931, 28; Edward Alen Jewel, ?An Artists Ses Mexico,? New York Times, 27 December 1931, 10; ?Rivera?Greatest Mexican Painter,? Literary Digest, 23 January 1932, 12-14. 441 Se, ?Art Out of Town,? NYT, 30 Nov. 1930, sec. x, 12; ?Art Centre of the World,? NYT, 19 July 1931. 178 Philadelphia Grand Opera. She was married to Philip Leidy, a prominent Philadelphia attorney. H.P. represented the first time her choreography was presented in public. 442 With Stokowski, Rivera, Littlefield, Ch?vez, and their friends publicizing the premiere, the performance was bound to attract a great deal of attention. Indeed, although torrential rains plagued Philadelphia the day of the performance, the concert hall was full. Despite the enthusiasm apparent in the press before the premiere, most critics agreed that the performance itself was a disappointment, revealing the hurried preparations of the composer and orchestra, the inexperience of the choreographer, and the lack of consensus among the collaborating parties. During the 1930s, Ch?vez assumed increasingly prominent guest-conductor roles, usually directing performances of his own works. Meanwhile, he retained his position of importance in Mexico as leader of the Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico (OSM) and director/professor at the National Conservatory. His U.S. performances and innovative programming and teaching in Mexico received attention in the U.S. press. 443 Very quickly, Ch?vez became the principal representative of Mexican music in the U.S. After establishing a reputation in both countries, he stood in an ideal position to cultivate U.S.-Mexico cultural exchange, a project he promoted vigorously, partly through the maintenance of U.S. friends and contacts. 442 For more information about Litlefield se Nancy Broks Schmitz, ?A Profile of Catherine Litlefield,? Ph.D. Dis., Temple University, 1986. 443 For reviews of Ch?vez?s concerts in the U.S., se Herbert Weinstock, ed., Carlos Ch?vez: North American Pres, 1936-1950 (New York: Herbert Baret, 1950). Examples include, ?Music in Mexico,? NYT, 26 August 1934, sec. x, 5; ?Ch?vez?s New Symphony,? NYT, 7 October 1934, sec. x, 7; Elgin Groseclose, ?New Music in Mexico,? NYT, 28 July 1935, sec. x, 5; ?Mexican Composers,? NYT, 26 January 1936, sec. x, 7; Verna Arvey, ?Mexico?s Significance in Present Day Music,? Etude, February 1936, 79; Elgin Groseclose, ?Mexico?s Artistic Development,? NYT, 8 November 1936, sec. x, 7; ?Mexico?s Orchestra,? NYT, 23 ay 1937, 167; Oliver Daniel, ?Down to Mexico,? Etude 58, no. 3 (March 1940): 150-151, 198; Verna Carleton Milan, ?Latin America Draws Record Audiences from United States,? Musical Courier, 1 October 1941, 1; Charles Pore, ?Music in Mexico,? The Musician, September 1941, 140. 179 Previous accounts of the H.P. premiere have concentrated on reviews of the performance, the creation of the score, and on the roles of Stokowski, Rivera, and Littlefield. Robert Stevenson?s article about Ch?vez in the U.S. press includes a section about the reception of H.P. 444 The articles cited are among the most useful but they do not represent all the views expressed. Robert Parker?s article about Ch?vez?s compositions for the ballet 445 describes the plans leading to the performance and many of the critical reactions after the performance but does not examine the many non-critical articles printed before and after the premiere. In their biographies, both Parker and Roberto Garc?a Morillo analyze the score to H.P. and Ch?vez?s compositional process, leaving aside much of the critical reception history. 446 Oliver Daniel, 447 Jeffrey Belnap, 448 and Nancy Brooks Schmitz 449 have written about the roles of Stokowski, Rivera, and Littlefield (respectively), but none establish the importance of the performance to Ch?vez?s career. This chapter offers a more comprehensive examination of the press coverage surrounding the premiere than those offered in articles by Stevenson and Parker; a more multi-faceted narrative than those presented in major Ch?vez biographies; and an account more focused on Ch?vez than those presented by Daniel, Belnap, or Brooks Schmitz. It describes many aspects of the performance, beginning with the initial plans formulated during Stokowski?s 1931 trip to Mexico and ending with a summary of Ch?vez?s career during the decade following the H.P. premiere, showing 444 Stevenson, ?Carlos Ch?vez: Visto por la prensa E.U.,? Heterofon?a 73 (1981): 3-11. 445 Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Dance Chronicle 8, no.s 3 and 4 (194): 179-210. 446 Parker, Carlos Ch?vez: Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus (Boston, Mas.: Twayne Publishers, 1983); Garc?a Morilo, Carlos Ch?vez: Vida y Obra (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1960). 447 Oliver Daniel, Stokowski: A Counterpoint of View (New York: Dod, Mead, and Company, 1982). 448 Jefrey Belnap, ?Diego Rivera?s Greater America,? Cultural Critique 63 (Spring 206): 61-98. 449 Nancy Broks Schmitz, ?A Profile of Catherine Litlefield,? Ph.D. Dis., Temple University, 1986. 180 how Ch?vez and his music enhanced cultural relationships between the U.S. and Mexico. In-between it analyzes newspaper articles and notices about Ch?vez and H.P. printed before the performance, details the flaws critics found in the performance itself, and examines reviews and articles about H.P. published after the performance. Most importantly, the chapter demonstrates how the H.P. premiere positioned Ch?vez to embark on an enormously successful U.S. career. Plans and Preparations Initial plans for the premiere of H.P. were made in the summer of 1931 during Leopold Stokowski?s first trip to Mexico. A few months earlier, Frances Flynn Paine, acting as Ch?vez?s manager, had persuaded Stokowski to join a group from the Mexican Arts Association on a trip to Mexico in 1931. While in Mexico, Paine introduced Stokowski to Ch?vez; 450 during their meetings, Stokowski heard material from Ch?vez?s ballets, El Fuego Nuevo, Los Cuatro Soles, and H.P. Stokowski made tentative plans to stage one of the ballets through a collaboration between the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Philadelphia Grand Opera. It would be the second cooperative endeavor between the organizations?the U.S. premiere of Wozzeck, which occurred during the previous season, had been the first. Although it appears that Stokowski may have briefly considered one of the more ?Aztec? ballets, 451 a few months after returning to the U.S., he conferred with Paine, and together they decided that H.P. would be the most suitable work for the 450 Stokowski was the subject of many newspaper articles while in Mexico; se Chapter 4 for a description of Stokowski?s interactions with the pres in Mexico. 451 Se Daniel, 281-282. 181 occasion. 452 The H.P. score and scenario offered two elements that were probably appealing to Stokowski: modernism and exoticism. The conductor had demonstrated a predilection for both aesthetic traits in his programming. 453 One supposes that H.P. had particular appeal to Paine as well, for the proposed production involved one of her favorite Mexican artists?Diego Rivera?as a costume and scenery designer. However, when Ch?vez asked her to explain her preference for H.P., Paine alluded to the exoticism of the scenario and the involvement of Rivera but did not state her reasons directly: We think H.P. best because it has an international character and the whole thing will be such an agreeable surprise to the public. I am very anxious to show as many sides of the Mexican culture as possible and the theme, music, and d?cor of H.P. is perfect. 454 Although Ch?vez does not offer his opinion in the extant correspondence, one imagines that the choice of H.P. ran contrary to his own preferences. After all, the scores to El Fuego Nuevo or Los Cuatro Soles were complete, whereas the H.P. score required a significant amount of work to finish. Upon receiving Paine?s letter, Ch?vez, in addition to his duties with the OSM and the Conservatory, was faced with the enormous task of writing and revising his ambitious and incomplete symphonic- ballet. According to biographer Garc?a Morillo, at this point the first and fourth movements had been written, and Ch?vez had generated ideas for the second and third movements, composing the sections marked Danza ?gil and Sandunga in 452 Evidence of these discusions may be found in, Ch?vez to Paine, 20 March 1931; Paine to Ch?vez, 6 April 1931; Paine to Ch?vez, 1 May 1931, c. 9, vol. II, exp. 82, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Se Parker, ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet,? Dance Chronicle, 8 (1985). 453 For an acount of Stokowski?s programing habits se, Daniel. 454 Paine to Ch?vez, 1 May 1931, c. 9, vol. II, exp. 82, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 182 1926. 455 However, these ?southern? movements remained incomplete until very shortly before the performance. 456 The second movement appears to have been particularly problematic. When the OSM performed the work in symphonic form in December 1931, it played the first, third, and fourth movements?the second was not yet finished. 457 Anxious correspondence among Paine, Stokowski, and Ch?vez dating from the first months of 1932 indicates that the second movement was not sent to Stokowski until February because the composer had not yet completed the orchestration. 458 Writing after the premiere, Ch?vez?s friend and champion Paul Rosenfeld blamed this urgency and lack of preparation for the apparent flaws in the score and performance: Indeed, for all its beauties, the ballet in several respects gives evidence of a process of composition hesitantly protracted over a period of six or seven years. And it would seem the part of a critical intelligence not to have let as gifted and creative a composer as Ch?vez make his first appearance before the musical public with this particular work in its present state, and to have postponed its production until it was finished once and for all, and perfectly finished. 459 Pre-Concert Publicity The publicity efforts for H.P. were multi-faceted, targeting those interested in both modernist and Mexicanist expression in music, dance, and plastic arts. 455 Garc?a Morilo, 47-48. 456 For further investigation se Garc?a Morilo and Parker, ?Ch?vez and the Balet.? 457 Garc?a Morilo and Parker both describe this concert. 458 Such leters include, Paine to Ch?vez, 6 February 1932, c. 9, v. II, exp. 82, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN; Paine to Ch?vez, 6 February 1932; Ch?vez to Stokowski, 6 January 1932; Stokowski to Ch?vez, 7 January 1932, c. 1, v. II, exp. 93, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Se also Parker, ?Ch?vez and the Balet.? 459 Rosenfeld, ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932, 274. 183 Stokowski appears to have been at the helm of these efforts, leading a publicity campaign worthy of the gala event he had in mind. He began making press announcements about the premiere in mid-January 1932 nearly three months before the concert. This first announcement was reported in Philadelphia, 460 New York, 461 and Mexico City 462 newspapers. Shortly following it, the Pennsylvania Museum of Art opened an exhibit of Diego Rivera?s work. Rivera?s sketches for the H.P. costumes and sets were featured in the exhibit. 463 As Stokowski planned his second trip to Mexico to research Mexican culture for the production of H.P., Mexico City newspapers chronicled his every move, telling readers about his travels and production plans; their interest continued through and after the premiere. 464 When Stokowski returned to the U.S. in mid-February, newspapers throughout the U.S. published articles about the research trip and the planned performance of H.P. 465 Meanwhile Ch?vez?s circle of friends began to plan social and musical events around the premiere as well. By March, prominent Philadelphia families had placed 460 Anouncements published in Philadelphia include, ?Plan Balet Premiere,? Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 January 1932; ?Stokowski wil Conduct Balet?s World Premiere,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 18 January 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 461 Notices published in New York include, ?To Give Mexican Balet,? NYT, 18 January 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 462 Anouncements in Mexican newspapers include, ?Stokowski to Conduct Mexican Balet,? El Universal, 19 January 1932; ?World Premiere of Mexican Balet at Philadelphia,? Exc?lsior, 18 January 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. Several of these anouncements were published on English language pages, which catered to the U.S. expatriate population, in Spanish language newspapers. 463 Descriptions of the exhibit may be found in, Philip N. Youtz, ?Diego Rivera,? Buletin of the Pensylvania Museum 27, no. 146 (February 1932): 101-103; Dorothy Grafly, ?Art,? Morning Public Ledger, 4 February 1932. 464 Such articles include, ?Leopoldo Stokowski Sali? para Mexico,? El Universal, 19 January 1932; ?Ha Salido Para Mexico el Maestro Stokowski,? Excelsior, 19 January 1932; ?El Eminente M?sico Leopoldo Stokowski Lleg? Ayer a Veracruz,? El Universal, 8 February 1932; ?Sali? para ichoacan el Maestro Stokowski,? Exc?lsior, 9 February 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 465 Examples include, ?Stokowski Back for Premiere of Mexican Balet,? Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 1 March 1932; ?Stokowski Returning, Likes exican Music,? NYT, 17 February 1932; Bridgeport Post, 12 February 1932; St. Cloud, Minasota Times, 12 February 1932, ?H.P. 1926- 1932,?c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 184 announcements in local newspapers notifying the public of social gatherings scheduled to take place before, during, and after the performance, making H.P. a society event, as well as a cultural outing. Over fifty articles about the premiere were published in the U.S. press in advance of the performance. One two-paragraph notice, likely pulled from a press release or wire report, appeared in at least ten different newspapers. 466 That notice announced Stokowski?s recent return from Mexico; it emphasized his interactions with native populations and the exotic aspects of his travels. The theme of authentic exoticism was highlighted in several longer articles about the work. A headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer informed readers that ?Stokowski ?went primitive? and Dipped into Communism to Get Atmosphere for H.P.? 467 In the article, Stokowski informed readers that he had studied ancient native dance and music practices of the Mexican Indians. Perhaps to emphasize H.P.?s exotic appeal, Stokowksi programmed Ravel?s Spanish Hour to complete the March 31st program. Stokowski?s attempts to draw attention to aspects of the planned performance were enhanced by the frequent publication of Rivera?s costume sketches, which included depictions of tropical fruit, mermaids, and sailors. There were other avenues through which modernist audiences may have found out about and become excited about the upcoming H.P. premiere. Performances of Ch?vez?s chamber works timed to occur shortly before the premiere allowed those 466 Example, ?Stokowski in Mexico for Opera Atmosphere,? Grenvile, Ohio Advocate, 10 February 1932. Similar articles apeared in newspapers around the country. ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 467 ?Stokowski ?went Primitive? and Diped into Comunism to Get Atmosphere for ?H.P.,?? Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 March 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 185 attending to become more familiar with his music. The concerts were arranged through Ch?vez?s connections within the New York music community, especially the circle around the League of Composers. In cooperation with Ch?vez, Claire Reis, the president of the League of Composers, planned a concert of Latin American music for 6 March 1932, just a few weeks before the premiere of H.P. 468 The program featured Ch?vez?s Sonatina for Violin and Piano and was reviewed in East-Coast newspapers and magazines. 469 Reis also notified the conductor Alexander Smallens that Ch?vez would be in New York and Philadelphia during the weeks leading up to the premiere of H.P. Smallens remembered meeting the Mexican composer through Alma Wertheim, during one of the many private concerts she held in her home. He wrote Ch?vez requesting the composer?s participation in a chamber concert to be held in Philadelphia. 470 Ch?vez performed his own Sonatina for Piano 14 March 1932 in Philadelphia. This performance was reviewed widely in the Philadelphia newspapers and some New York music periodicals. 471 While Reis and Smallens arranged ancillary concerts of Ch?vez?s music to augment his reputation, Minna Lederman, editor of Modern Music, the official magazine of the League, published a boat set design and a coconut costume design, 468 Some of the plans for this concert may be found in, Claire Reis to Ch?vez, 19 Dec. 1930; Ch?vez to Reis, 7 January 1931, ?League of Composers,? c. 8, v. I, exp. 85, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 469 Reviews include, ?League to Give A Pan-American Program,? NYHT, 28 February 1932, sec. VI, p. 7; H.. ?Music in Review,? NYT, 7 March 1932, 20; F.D.F.,?Composers? League Gives Works from 7 Countries,? NYHT, 7 March 1932, 1; C., ?New York?s Round of Concerts and Recitals: League of Composers,? Musical America, 25 March 1932, 26. 470 Alexander Smalens to Ch?vez, 21 February 1932, ?1932 Corespondencia General,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 74, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 471 Examples include, ?Chamber Concert,? CSM, 26 March 1932, 7; Samuel L. Laclar, ?Music,? Public Ledger, 15 March 1932, 1; E.F. ?Music Group Gives ?Modern? Program,? Philadelphia Record, 18 March 1932, 12; ?Philadelphia Hears Premieres of Works by Antheil and Ch?vez,? Musical America, 25 March 1932, 27. 186 created by Rivera for the H.P. production, in the March-April issue of the magazine. For the May-June issue, she arranged for Paul Rosenfeld to write a profile article of Ch?vez which was accompanied by a Rivera sketch of Ch?vez. Marc Blitzstein wrote a review of the H.P. performance for the same issue. Lederman sent Ch?vez increasingly insistent letters during March, requesting that he sit down for an interview with Rosenfeld. 472 In the end, Ch?vez was unable to give Lederman all the material she requested. Nonetheless, Modern Music published the planned sketches and article in addition to a review of the performance, giving Ch?vez and the H.P. premiere a relatively large amount of space. The Pan American Association of Composers also aided the H.P. publicity effort. On February 16, Nicolas Slonimsky led a concert under the auspices of the PAAC at the New School of Social Research that included Ch?vez?s Energ?a as well as works by Henry Cowell, Carl Ruggles, Amadeo Rold?n, Charles Ives, and Adolf Weiss. During much of February and March, similar concerts were performed in cities throughout Europe. 473 Notices about the PAAC concerts appeared in New York newspapers and periodicals throughout the spring. 474 Meanwhile Copland solidified plans for the first Yaddo festival, to be held in April and May of 1932. A notice printed in late March announced plans to program Ch?vez?s music alongside that of George Antheil, Roy Harris, Walter Piston, Roger 472 For example, Lederman to Ch?vez, 2 February 1932; 10 March 1932; undated, c. 7, v. II, exp. 84, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 473 Concerts were held in Berlin, Viena, Prague, and Budapest. Se Carlos Salzedo ?The American Left Wing,? Eolus, April 1932, 9-29. 474 These notices include, ?Activities of Musicians Here and Afield,? NYT, 7 February 1932, sec. x, 7; Paul Stefan, ?Viena Aplauds Concert of Works by Modern Pan-American Composers,? Musical America, 25 March 1932, 25; ?Berliners Hear American Music under Slonimsky,? NYHT, 27 March 1932, sec. VI, 7; ?Pan-American Program Given in Vienese Hal,? NYHT, 3 April 1932, sec. VI, 8. 187 Sessions, and Virgil Thomson. 475 On Sunday, 27 March 1932, Ch?vez?s name appeared in three different articles printed on the first music page of the New York Herald Tribune: one about the Yaddo festival, another about the PAAC concert in Berlin, and a third announcing the upcoming performance of H.P. 476 Although much of the publicity propagated by Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra emphasized the ?exoticism? of the subject matter of the ballet and its authors, modernists such as Rosenfeld also perceived the H.P. premiere as part of Stokowski?s effort to promote contemporary music. 477 In his review of the performance, Rosenfeld noted that Stokowski had programmed H.P. as only the first in a series of little known modernist compositions performed by the Philadelphia Orchestra within a short, two-week period. The day after the premiere of H.P., the Philadelphia Orchestra offered a program consisting of works by U.S. contemporary composers, many of them premieres, which was broadcast by radio throughout the country. 478 A few days later they gave the U.S. premiere of Schoenberg?s Gurrelieder. 479 Those with little or no interest in music, dance, or visual art may have been drawn to the H.P. premiere through publicity, given the many society events that were held in conjunction with the premiere. The society pages of the Philadephia 475 ?American Composers Wil Met at Yado to Give and Discus New Works.? NYHT, 27 March 1932, sec. VI, 7. 476 ?Berliners Hear American Music Under Slonimsky,? ?Ch?vez?s Mexican Balet, H.P, to be Given in Philadelphia,? ?American Composers Wil Met at Yado to Give and Discus New Works,? NYHT, 27 March 1932, sec. VI, 7. 477 For the ful review se, Rosenfeld, ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932, 274. 478 Reviews of this concert include, Paul Rosenfeld, ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932, 273; Linton Martin, ?Stokowski Defends Modern Musicians,? The Philadelphia Inquirer, 3 April 1932, 13; Samuel L. Laclar, ?Music,? Public Ledger, 2 April 1932, 4. 479 Preview articles include, ?American Premiere by the Orchestra,? Public Ledger, 3 April 1932, 1; ?Stokowski to Lead ?Gurelieder? in American Premiere,? Philadelphia Inquirer, 3 April 1932, 8; Lawrence Gilman, ?Schoenberg?s Unique Cantata to be Sung,? NYHT, 3 April 1932, sec. VI, 7. 188 Evening Public Ledger listed several events. For example, Ch?vez met with those lucky enough to be invited to the home of Baron and Baronness Rodolphe M. D. Schauensee several days before the performance. 480 The day of the performance the Samuel Woodward family held a dinner in celebration of the premiere. 481 Ms. Edward Curtis Bok, the patron of the Philadelphia Orchestra, and society members Mrs. Biddle, 482 and Miss Anna M. Reed and Miss Emma Ross, held gatherings in their boxes at the opera house where the ballet was performed. 483 Even audience members without an invitation to one of the many gatherings could be assured to see and be seen by the elite of Philadelphia and New York. The Performance The publicity for H.P. was undeniably successful, attracting a large, eager audience to the premiere. By 27 March 1932, just a few days before the performance, John Martin of the New York Times was urging his readers to, ?rush off to Philadelphia rejoicing.? 484 Meanwhile, those intending to attend the performance were stymied; Alma Wertheim telegrammed Ch?vez in a panic, ?Can you get two seats for me Thursday evening? Box office has none left.? 485 A writer for the 480 A notice may be found in, Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 21 March 1932. ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 481 A notice may be found in, Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 2 March 1932. ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 482 No first name is given in the notice. It is presumed that the ?Mrs. Bidle? mentioned maried into the Bidle family, prominent Philadelphians descended from Wiliam Bidle (1630-1712) and Sarah Kemp (1634-1709). 483 Notices for these social events can be found in, Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 24 March 1932, 27 March 1932. ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 484 John artin, ?The Dance: A Mexican Balet,? NYT, 27 March 1932, sec. X, 1. 485 Wertheim to Ch?vez, 25 March 1932, c. 2, v. I, exp. 74, Corespondencia OSM, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 189 Christian Science Monitor reported that 2,000 applications for tickets had been returned. 486 Although it was stormy the night of the premiere, those able to secure tickets braved weather and traffic to attend the performance. Audience members included the rich and famous of Philadelphia and New York. New York Times dance critic John Martin observed, ?The audience consisted not only of Philadelphians . . . but also of more than a Pullman car full of pilgrims from New York and less formal delegations from other cities.? 487 Audience members included the John D. Rockefellers, Mary Louise Curtis Bok, George Antheil, and Mexican Ambassador Jos? Manuel Puig Casauranc, accompanied by his wife and Frances Flynn Paine. 488 In the end, it is clear that the publicity and anticipatory excitement led to unreasonably high expectations. Catherine Littlefield had never choreographed an entire ballet. Diego Rivera was absorbed with other high paying commissions. The score had been finished only weeks before the premiere, preventing extensive editing and rehearsal time. The general consensus by local cultural critics and society writers was that, ?It was more of a sensation before it began than after it was over.? 489 Although there was general applause, resulting in several tableaus after the conclusion of the performance, one critic saw many audience members quietly gathering their things and walking out of the hall. 490 486 ?Carlos Ch?vez?s Mexican Balet,? CSM, 9 April 1932. 487 Martin, ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932, sec. X, 1. 488 References to the society members in atendance may be found in, Robert Reis, ??H.P. Presentation is Swel Ocasion but Lacks Timely Proletarian Touch,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932, 1; Hary L. Hewes, ?Briliant Throng Deifes Rain for ?H.P.? World Premiere,? Public Ledger, 1 April 1932, 1. 489 Robert Reis, ??H.P. Presentation is Swel Ocasion but Lacks Timely Proletarian Touch,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932, 1. 490 Henry C. Beck, ??H.P.? Makes Premiere Here with a Bang as Sparkplugs Go Into a Song and Dance,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932, 1. 190 One can understand the experience of the performance by examining its source material, including the score, programs, and detailed reviews by Marc Blitzstein for Modern Music 491 and John Martin for the New York Times. 492 Examination of this material reveals that, in addition to occasional flaws in the music, design and choreography, a general lack of consensus among the personnel as to the purpose and direction of the ballet resulted in a confused and confusing performance. The lack of consensus is apparent from examination of the various descriptions of the work the collaborators provided. A souvenir program book printed three descriptions of the work: one by Ch?vez, another by Rivera, and a third by Philip Leidy, Littlefield?s husband, who had been entrusted with the program notes by the Orchestra. The very first summary of the ballet to be presented to the public was by Stokowski and printed in Musical America months before the premiere. 493 These notes emphasized the narrative arch of the work, describing it as a journey from north to south and back again. The program notes written by Philip Leidy were available to all those at the performance. They were printed in both the small Orchestra playbill and in the larger souvenir version. These notes revealed a different emphasis, perhaps representing the views of his wife, the choreographer. While the travel was implied in the sub- headings affixed to the movements??Dance of the Man, H.P.,? ?A Cargo Ship at Sea . . ,? ?A Ship in the Tropics,? and ?The City of Industry??it was not the focus of Leidy?s notes. Rather Leidy thought the ballet expressed an idealistic vision of cooperation: 491 Blitzstein ?Forecast and Review,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 164-166. 492 Martin, ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932, sec. X, 1. 493 Quoted in Daniel, 283-284. 191 The Ballet H.P. symbolizes the relations of the Northern Regions with those of the Tropics, and shows their inter-relationships . . . The Ballet depicts the fact that the North needs the Tropics, just as the Tropics need the machinery of the North, and attempts to harmonize the result. 494 Only the ?souvenir? version of the program contained notes by Ch?vez and Rivera?probably among the greatest clues to the creators? conceptions. Ch?vez avoids the idea of ?inter-relationship,? instead claiming to present ?expressions that are natural to our daily life.? The combination of Northern and Southern music, he explains, is merely a reflection of reality, ?Groups of people of diverse characters and regions, North and South, mingle constantly in the grand ferment of this, our American Continent.? 495 Rivera?s concept, as presented in the program, is even more abstract than that presented by Ch?vez, ?H.P. is not an exposition of ideas or propaganda for or against this or that point of view, but the unfolding of plastic and musical incidents whose theme is in accord with the rhythm of our aspirations, interests, and the necessities of our social existence.? 496 Collectively the notes leave the listener rudderless; they present an abstract idea imperfectly agreed upon by the authors and producers of the work. While all of the notes refer to a combination of aesthetic influences from North and South America, it is uncertain whether these forces are in conflict, perfect agreement, or floating about in a Pan-American ambiance. Moreover, the disagreements in program notes seemingly reflected real misunderstandings in conception. 494 H.P. Program, c. 4, v. II, exp. 34, Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 495 H.P. Souvenir Program, c. 4, v. II, exp. 34, Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 496 Ibid. 192 As the work unfolded, the score, scenario, choreography, and costuming furthered the confusions presented in the program notes. From the descriptions provided by Martin, Blitzstein, and others, it appears that each movement seemed to offer different problems to audience members. The first movement established the general spirit of disagreement. Ch?vez subtitled H.P. a ?symphonic-ballet? and the opening movement is, as would be expected, written in a loose sonata form. The scenario describes the movement as a conflict between ?H.P., the man,? ostensibly represented through the modern music, and ?unknown forces surrounding him which he seeks to subdue.? 497 The description in the scenario implies two oppositional thematic areas and, in keeping with this impression, Ch?vez presents two very distinct sonic worlds at the outset of the first movement. The first, ?modern? area is characterized by a mechanical rhythmic drive and dissonant crashes between mobile, repetitive parts. A melody struggles to emerge but is routinely drowned by a noisy, dissonant orchestra. Finally, the orchestra quiets and a trumpet shouts the second theme, a tune closely related to the melodic snatches emerging from the din of the modernist section [Example 6-1]. While the first thematic section is governed by inexorable rhythmic patterns, often presented through a duple time signature, the second theme flows freely between time signatures and duple-triple patterns. 497 Ibid. 193 Example 6-1: In first movement of H.P., the trumpet introduces full Mexican melody into a modernist context, shown here in the fourth measure of the example. 194 The score does not make it clear whether ?H.P., the man?s? attempt to conquest ?unknown forces? was successful. Because Ch?vez did not establish separate tonal areas to distinguish between the thematic areas, the recapitulation does not definitively mark the triumph of one thematic area over another, leaving the trajectory of the ballet?s plot unclear. Furthermore, most of the last thirty seconds of the movement present a rousing collective restatement of the melodic second theme. Only the last few measures depart, presenting a more abstract, although still tonal, descending pattern followed by a loud, jarring, tutti concluding chord [Example 6-2]. Example 6-2: The chord at the end of the first movement is shown here in the strings. In the full score, all the instruments play together, excepting the double bass and the percussion. An E pedal tone in the double bass sustains into the next movement. Rivera did not sharpen the supposed dichotomy between ?H.P., the man? and the ?unknown forces? around him through the costuming. The coils and joints on the ?H.P., the man? costume, supposedly meant to evoke machinery parts, also recall drawings of Pre-Columbian Native Americans?a frequent subject in Rivera?s art. To make matters worse, Rivera?s sketch of the costume, probably among those on 195 display at the Parkway museum, depicted the dancer in a wide ?primitive? stance [Example 6-3]. 498 Example 6-3: Rivera, Diego (1866-1957), The Man, costume design for the ballet (Horsepower). 1927. Watercolor and pencil on paper, 20 7/8 x 29 3/8?. Gift of Abby Aldrich Rockefeller to the Museum of Modern Art. Image used courtesy Art Resource, the Museum of Modern Art, and Banco de M?xico (in behalf of the estate of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo). In the first movement the cognitive dissonances created by the disunities of the score and scenario with the costuming were made worse by the forceful dominance of the musical element. Martin wrote: Nowhere is this musical top-heaviness more detrimental to the production as a whole than in the opening scenes which, according to the program, is danced by the man, H.P., ?in the plenitude of his intellect, sentiments and physical powers.? This plenitude seems 498 For aditional analysis of Rivera?s visual contributions, including his reliance and references to earlier works, se Belnap, 85-86. 196 inordinately slight when it is embodied in one human figure while an orchestra of 114 pieces looses intricate mazes of sound. H.P. would have to be embodied in a very active ensemble, or preferably appear as a hypothetical pervading essence, to match the music. 499 The second movement suffered from a different set of flaws. The last movement to be written, it was certainly composed with the Philadelphia premiere in mind. By the dictates of symphonic form, it is slow and lyrical. According to the synopsis, it depicts a ?Cargo Ship at Sea Symbolizing the Commerce Between the North and South.? Despite the indication of ?northern? music in the subtitle, this movement, like the third, exclusively explores ?southern? dance themes; here the music presents a dance agile and a tango. Unfortunately, the movement demonstrates some of Ch?vez?s weaknesses as a composer. As Blitzstein observed, ?Since Ch?vez?s music is hard, not soft, literal, brutal and unperfumed, we were offered the paradox of a ?Southern? composer dealing most successfully with the ?Northern? aspects of his theme.? 500 The most obvious problems in the second movement occur in the transitions between sections. Although each section has a distinct melodic and rhythmic identity, there is very little attempt to move seamlessly from one theme to another. The change from the dance agile to the tango is abrupt and the shift from the tango to the conclusion is mitigated by a wandering, inconsequential interlude. References to the first movement, heard in the first and last sections, add to the coherence of the work as a whole but do little to bind the long second movement together. The deficiencies of the score were amplified by the lack of rehearsal time, leading Martin to remark, ?The theme of the dance is excellent, but its development 499 Martin, ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932, sec. X, 1. 500 Blitzstein ?Forecast and Review,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 164-16. 197 leads nowhere. A ragged performance made it impossible to tell whether the intention was to move the dancers in canon or whether they were merely off-beat some of the time.? 501 The synopsis indicates that by the end of the scene, ?all are swept by the frantic pleasures of the rhythm, syncopation, and dance,? but, according to Martin, ?nothing appears but confusion.? 502 In the third movement, there is a change in tempo and mood as the composer evokes a ?Ship in the Tropics.? Although the subtitle to the movement does not indicate locale, it seems clear from score and costumes that Ch?vez and Rivera had agreed this section of the ballet would specifically refer to Mexico. Rivera, for his part, decided to depict the Tehuantepec Indians so commonly idealized in his paintings. Ch?vez, meanwhile, used widely known Mexican folk dance patterns, including a zandunga and huapango, to situate the movement in Mexico. In January, Littlefield traveled to Mexico to learn about Mexican dancing, probably in anticipation of having to choreograph just such a scene. In concept, the third movement provided the ideal platform to display Ch?vez?s knowledge of Mexican folk music, Rivera?s expertise in Tehuana culture, and Littlefield?s research in Mexican dance. Understandably, part of the excitement about the premiere revolved around Rivera?s drawings for this movement?s costumes; his evocative depictions of Mexican fruit costumes were widely reprinted in the press before the performance. 503 501 Martin, ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932, sec. X, 1. 502 Ibid. 503 Examples of these drawings were published in the folowing contemporary periodicals and newspapers, Rivera, ?The Cocoanut? and ?On the Boat? [sketches] Modern Music, March-April 1932, inside cover and 14; ?Banana? and ?The Sugar Cane? [sketches] Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 27 March 1932, 1. 198 However it appears from descriptions that a series of basic misunderstandings between Rivera and Littlefield led to disaster. Frida Kahlo, Rivera?s wife, wrote to a friend: It turned out to be a porquer?a . . . not because of the music or the decorations, but because there was a crowd of insipid blonds pretending to be Indians from Tehuantepec and when they had to dance the zandunga they looked as if they had lead instead of blood. To sum up, a pure total cochinada [piggery]. 504 Blitzstein, perhaps less inclined to view Rivera?s work in a positive light, noted: [Rivera?s] costumes were good in their way, the way of the mummers parade; enormous papier-mach? pineapples, cocoanuts, bananas, and palm trees peopled the stage . . . They took up so much room that the logical choreographic plan should have been modeled on the simple d?fil?; instead of which, everybody was made to dance, the Big Fish got in the way of the Grand Pineapple, and the stage was invariably messy and ugly to look at. 505 In the final movement Ch?vez, as might be expected, returned to the thematic ideas and material found at the beginning. This music, already familiar to some modernist audiences from the performance with the International Composers? Guild [ICG] in 1926, once again juxtaposed ?northern? and ?southern? themes [Examples 6-4 and 6-5]. The modernist sections of this movement reflected Ch?vez?s interest in machines, apparent in other modernist works such as Arthur Honegger?s Pacific 231, Sergei Prokofiev?s Pas d?acier, and John Alden Carpenter?s Skyscrapers. Ch?vez used the idea in several other works written in the mid-1920s, including Energ?a and 36. This aspect to the fourth movement struck Martin as outmoded, ?Imitations of 504 As quoted in, Parker, ?Ch?vez and the Balet,? 192. 505 Blitzstein ?Forecast and Review,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 164-166. 199 machinery and labor have become a bit common and more than a bit unconvincing.? 506 Example 6-4: The Northern Music of Movement IV, measures 20-24, piano reduction by author. Example 6-5: The Southern music of Movement IV, measures 34-41, piano reduction by author. The dance themes of the second and third movements seem to indicate strongly that the ?southern? music of H.P. is Latin American. While the scenario certainly suggests that the oppositional ?North? presented in the first movement is the U.S., the national identity is made explicit in the fourth movement when Ch?vez quotes the melody to ?The Streets of New York,? a well-known tune at the time. 507 Much like Satie in Parade, he dedicates one section to the ?American Girl,? but rather than the pigtailed grown-child of the French ballet, the H.P. girl is a prohibition-era flapper. Moments of southern melody occur but, in stark contrast to the first movement, these moments are overwhelmed by the relentless mechanistic northern sections. Whereas movement one ambiguously ended with a melodic southern section punctuated by a jarring final chord, the last measures of the fourth 506 Martin, ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932, sec. X, 1. 507 For an explanation of how this melody is used se, Parker, Carlos Ch?vez: Modern Day Orpheus (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1983) 108-10. 200 movement are entirely absorbed with northern sounds. The image conveyed by the music is one of domination or rejection of southern melody, and by implication, the fruits and plants dancing through the third movement. The general synopsis, describing the choreography, characterizes this movement as one not of domination, but of synthesis, perhaps out of a desire to placate the ?northern? audience in attendance: The North with its skyscrapers, machinery, and mechanical activity. Man collects the raw materials of the earth: gold, silver, cotton, tobacco, and the machinery which enables him to dominate his surroundings, and satisfy his desire and needs. The world at work, dominated by the stock-ticker, denoting increasing wealth. Mankind?s struggle for its welfare revolts against mere material values, reverting to an insatiable desire for the natural products of the earth. Men and raw materials dance and blend into the rhythm of H.P. as the Ballet ends. 508 Local Reception Blitzstein and Martin were among those offering the most reasoned, detailed criticism of the H.P. performance. Both men appear to have wanted to like the ballet; Martin promoted the premiere in an article printed March 27 509 and Blitzstein prefaced his remarks with an admission that, ?The most important aspect of H.P. is its music (and its composer)?luckily since the music came off with the most honor.? 510 Other critics seemingly came to the performance with the sort of negative preconceptions that prevented objective responses. Those predisposed to dislike modernisms predictably complained about the musical aesthetic of the performance. Henry C. Beck wrote two reviews for the 508 H.P. Program, c. 4, v. II, exp. 34, Programas Actuaciones, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 509 John Martin, ?The Dance: A Mexican Balet,? NYT, 27 March 1932, sec. X, 1. 510 Blitzstein ?Forecast and Review,? Modern Music, May-June 1932, 164-166. 201 Philadelphia Record, one in a high-brow voice and the other low-brow, in recognition of the widespread interest in the premiere. In both guises, however, he implied that the music was unpleasant, noisome, and violated the conventions of good taste. 511 Meanwhile the writer for the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin objected to the work on political grounds, finding the anti-capitalist implications offensive: Ch?vez, as Prokofiev did in ?Age of Steel,? has mistaken the ?machine age? for an age of robots. Without grasping the drama and vitality of life in our time, without recognizing the heartbeats of the millions who make up this critical period in civilization, such works cannot advance beyond the stage of curiosities, inane and lifeless. 512 Broader U.S. Reception Much of the broader U.S. public was not exposed to the specific and pointed criticisms found in New York and Philadelphia newspapers and specialist magazines such as Modern Music. Other publications, such as the L.A. Times, Christian Science Monitor, Time Magazine, and Town and Country, published more general articles announcing the significance of the premiere and focusing on the outlines of the scenario. 513 Such publications hardly presented the performance as a disaster. Rather, the presence of a large, distinguished audience at an event featuring work by Ch?vez, Rivera, Littlefield, and Stokowski merited attention and accolades for its cache, regardless of the quality of performance. 511 Se Henry C. Beck, ??H.P.? Makes Premiere Here with a Bang as Sparkplugs Go Into a Song and Dance,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932, 1; Beck C. Henry, ?Mexican Music Outdoes Rusians as Agent of Bedlam; Grace in Pistons Hard to Find,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932, 1. 512 ?Balet, ?H.P.? an Artles Spectacle,? The Evening Buletin, 1 April 1932, 28. 513 These articles include, ?First Performance Given of ?Horse Power? Balet,? LA Times, 3 April 1932, sec. B, 14; ?Carlos Ch?vez?s Mexican Balet,? CSM, 9 April 1932, 6; ?Music,? Time, 1 April 1932, 28; H.J. Whigham, ?Music and usicians,? Town and Country, 15 April 1932, ?H.P. 1926-1932,? c. 2, v. I, exp. 2, Escritos, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 202 Paul Rosenfeld?s article for The New Republic was one of the few written for a national readership to offer a detailed description of the premiere. Although Rosenfeld, Ch?vez?s greatest champion in the U.S. press during this period, agreed that the performance of H.P. may have been ill-advised, his ringing endorsement of the composer and claim of Ch?vez?s ?growing power? softened any barbs. 514 The article appearing in Time Magazine was more representative of the national press about H.P. In this article, the author described Stokowski?s travel to Mexico and the plot, dancing, and scenery for the ballet. A one-paragraph description of the music was not complementary, but it was buried toward the end of the article and given far less prominence than Stokowski, Rivera, and their attempts at inter- cultural exchange. Similarly, although Harry L. Hewes had reviewed the production for the Philadelphia Ledger, he offered little in the way of critical commentary in his article for the Bulletin of the Pan American Union. Much of the second article was absorbed with describing the personalities involved, the preparations undertaken for the performance, and the audience attending the performance itself. The article quoted heavily from the program notes by Rivera and Ch?vez found in the souvenir booklet available at the premiere. The few quotes from reviews that were included were hardly representative?each presented a positive sentence removed from a more tempered context. 515 514 Paul Rosenfeld, ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932, 273-274. 515 Hary L. Hewes, ?The Mexican Balet-Symphony, H.P.,? Pan American Buletin, June 1932, 421. 203 After H.P. Because most readers were exposed to the less critical articles published in Time, The New Republic, Town and Country, Bulletin of the Pan American Union or the small pre-performance notices published in newspapers throughout the country, the H.P. premiere enhanced Ch?vez?s career, despite any reservations about the composer from New York and Philadelphia music critics. In fact, after the H.P. premiere, Ch?vez became an important part of musical life in the U.S. and a highly visible figure in the cultural press of the era. A series of significant performances in the mid-1930s cemented Ch?vez?s position as a prominent figure in U.S. musical life. On 28 January 1936, Ch?vez conducted a concert for CBS radio that included two works by students, U Kayil Chaac by Daniel Ayala and El Venado by Luis Sandi, in addition to his own composition, Sinfon?a India. The performance marked the U.S. premiere of all three works and Ch?vez?s first performance as a conductor in the U.S. as well. Sinfon?a India became Ch?vez?s best-known work in the U.S., one still considered synonymous with his style. Building upon his successes with H.P. and the CBS broadcast, in March 1936, Ch?vez began his career as a guest conductor in the U.S. He made his New York debut with the WPA Brooklyn Symphony Orchestra in March 1936; by the end of the month, he had also performed with the Philadelphia Orchestra; two weeks later he led the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO). At concerts with both the Philadelphia Orchestra and the BSO, Ch?vez presented yet another of his own symphonic compositions unknown to U.S. audiences?the Sinfon?a de Ant?gona. Perhaps in 204 remembrance of the premiere several years earlier, in Philadelphia Ch?vez also conducted two movements from H.P. The next season, Ch?vez led the New York Philharmonic in six concerts, also performing with the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra and the Coolidge Ensemble of Washington, D.C. At many of these concerts, the orchestra played sections of H.P., probably the selections from the first, second, and third movements that now make up the H.P. Suite. Newspaper and magazine critics wrote about these concerts with zeal, often praising Ch?vez?s skill as both a conductor and composer. 516 During the 1930s, Ch?vez became the most prominent representative of Mexican classical music in the U.S.; most scholars agree that during the first half of the 20 th century, Ch?vez, along with Alberto Ginastera and Heitor Villa-Lobos, became one of three Latin American composers recognizable to the U.S. public. Whereas during the 1920s Ch?vez received approximately the same amount of attention in the press as Ponce and Carrillo, during the 1930s his reputation in the U.S. quickly overshadowed those of other Mexican composers. Ch?vez used his position to promote those with aesthetics closely allied with his own, especially his students and prot?g?s. With Ch?vez?s help, U.S. audiences became familiar with the music of Silvestre Revueltas, Blas Galindo, Daniel Ayala, and Luis Sandi. 516 Many of the relevant newspapers cliping were reprinted in, Herbert Weinstock, ed., Carlos Ch?vez: North American Pres, 1936-1950 (New York: Herbert Baret, 1950). 205 Ch?vez as Informal Cultural Ambassador Ch?vez furthered the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration?s ?Good Neighbor Policy? 517 by organizing concerts of U.S. modern music in Mexico and performing Mexican modern music in the U.S. As director of the Orquesta Sinf?nica de M?xico, Ch?vez programmed and conducted modernist music by composers from both the U.S. and Mexico. The Orchestra became a tourist attraction in Mexico City, especially for U.S. tourists; some estimate that at times one-fifth the audience at any given concert was from the U.S. 518 Starting in 1934, Ch?vez became involved in Herbert Herring?s Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America, which led a yearly summer seminar for interested U.S. citizens in Cuernavaca, Mexico. 519 For at least the next three years, Ch?vez was featured as a speaker in the seminars and led performances of the OSM which those enrolled in the seminar attended. In 1937, Ch?vez organized the Pan- American Festival of Music, funded by the Coolidge Foundation and the Committee on Cultural Relations with Latin America. 520 It was held from the 13th to the 24th of July in Mexico City. The festival featured performances of music from throughout the Americas, including works by Roger Sessions, John Alden Carpenter, Jos? Mar?a Castro, Manuel M. Ponce, Heitor Villa-Lobos, Luis Sandi, Daniel Ayala, Walter 517 ?God Neighbor? was a term employed by the Rosevelt Administration to refer to a policy of non- intervention in Latin America. Although primarily a political and economic policy, there was a strong cultural component, which gradualy gained force during the 1930s and probably culminated in the early 1940s. That cultural component consisted of formal cultural exchange, brokered by Nelson Rockefeler?s Ofice of Inter-American Afairs, and the encouragement of les formal exchange through propaganda. A sumary of various aspects to the policy may be found in Peter H. Smith, ?Mr. Rosevelt?s Neighborhod? in Talons of the Eagle, 2 nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Pres, 200) 63-86. 518 Parker, Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus, 9. 519 Programs and advertisements for these seminars may be found in Series 7, Weinstock Colection, NYPL. 520 A description may be found in ?Pan-American Festival Lists,? NYT, 13 July 1937, 17. 206 Piston, Edward B. Hill, Candelario Hu?zar, Manuel de Falla, Aaron Copland, Jacobo Fischer, Silvestre Revueltas, Amadeo Rold?n, and, of course, Carlos Ch?vez. 521 Jacobo Fischer won the chamber music composition competition held in conjunction with the festival. The events were publicized in both the U.S. and Mexico; in New York WJZ broadcast selections from the performances. 522 A few years later, in 1940, Ch?vez programmed music for the Modern Museum of Art?s exhibit on Mexican art, funded by Nelson D. Rockefeller, who also headed the Office of Inter-American Affairs for the U.S. government. 523 These concerts, possibly the most famous concerts of Ch?vez?s career, included his own ?imagined Aztec music,? Xochipili-Macuilxochitl, as well as Blas Galindo?s Sones Mariachi, and Luis Sandi?s Yaqui Music. The program was created to demonstrate the history and variety of Mexican music; to accomplish this goal Ch?vez worked with Herbert Weinstock to create a lavish program explaining the history of Mexican music as Ch?vez perceived it. Selections from the concert were released on record within the year. Perhaps Ch?vez?s most influential contributions to U.S.-Mexican exchange of the late 1930s and 1940s occurred outside the public eye. That is, Ch?vez?s many close friendships with U.S. composers continued to flourish and these friendships not only encouraged Ch?vez?s many trips to the U.S., but also encouraged musicians in the U.S. to look toward Mexico and Latin American for inspiration and performance opportunities. Among those most influenced were five people featured prominently 521 Ibid. 522 The broadcast was listed in, ?Today on the Radio,? NYT, 20 July 1937, 21. 523 The program, which included a brief history of Mexican music and detailed program notes was widely distributed and may be found in many libraries. Herbert Weinstock and Carlos Ch?vez, Mexican Music: Twenty Centuries of Mexican Art (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1940) 207 elsewhere in this dissertation: Edgard Var?se, Henry Cowell, Nicolas Slonimsky, Leopold Stokowski, and Aaron Copland. The first three were closely associated with the Pan American Association of Composers; Stokowski and Copland got to know Ch?vez early in his U.S. career outside the PAAC and maintained long-term friendships with the composer. Each friendship represents a different avenue through which Ch?vez participated in U.S. musical life. Var?se was interested in Latin American culture before meeting Ch?vez in the mid-1930s and cultivated friendships with many Latin American musicians, artists, and intellectuals. Nonetheless, because of their friendship Var?se and Ch?vez were able to cooperate in their efforts to encourage cultural exchange. After beginning the PAAC in 1927, Var?se moved to Paris, where he befriended the Cuban writer and music critic Alejo Carpentier. 524 Together they worked on an enormous musical project provisionally titled, ?The One All Alone? that was never realized. Before returning to the U.S. in 1933, Var?se thought about first moving to Mexico, eventually declining an invitation from Diego Rivera to stay at one of the artist?s homes. 525 Upon returning to the U.S. Var?se renewed his activity in the PAAC 526 and began to develop a music section for the Society of Friends of Mexico. 527 In 1934 he completed the composition of Ecuatorial, a setting of passages from the Popul Vuh, the sacred text of the Maya. As noted earlier, Ch?vez?s friendship with Henry Cowell continued through the 1930s and 1940s as well. During the 1930s, the PAAC continued to perform 524 An extensive acount of Var?se?s return to Paris and his activities while there can be found in Malcolm MacDonald, Var?se: Astronomer in Sound (London: Kahn and Averil, 203) 213-241. 525 Ibid. 526 Carlos Salzedo to Henry Cowel, 8 Jan. 1934, Folder 29, Box 9, Cowel Colection, NYPL. 527 Var?se to Ch?vez, 8 April 1935, Folder 17, Ch?vez Colection, NYPL. 208 Ch?vez?s music and New Music printed several of Ch?vez?s scores. After Cowell visited Cuba in 1931 to perform his Concerto with Pedro San Juan?s orchestra, he excitedly described his reception in a letter to Ch?vez: I have just returned from Cuba, the first time in a Spanish-speaking country and found much of charm. I was very surprised at the extreme enthusiasm which greeted my Concerto . . . I was wondering if you would consider playing it with your Orchestra? I would be delighted to play it, at a fee which would be the price of a [rail] ticket from Los Angeles and return. I could arrange to go to Mexico City, which I am crazy to visit, anytime after this April. 528 Subsequently, Cowell wrote Ch?vez many times about possible plans to visit Mexico, often with the thought of applying for a travel grant or scholarship. 529 These plans never came to fruition; the extant correspondence in the New York Public Library and the Archivo General de la Naci?n seems to indicate that most of Cowell?s plans to visit Mexico or South America were no longer pursued after he was sent to prison in 1936. Nonetheless, while incarcerated, Cowell studied the Spanish language, asking if he might write Ch?vez in Spanish. 530 It appears that Nicolas Slonimsky was introduced to Latin American music through his performances with the PAAC. He frequently conducted Ch?vez?s Energ?a at such events. 531 Slonimsky?s most significant contributions to U.S.-Mexico exchange occurred several years later when he embarked on a tour of Latin America in 1941. In each city, Slonimsky gave a lecture-recital and collected music manuscripts for inclusion in the Fleischer Collection of the Free Library in 528 Cowel to Ch?vez, 2 Jan. 1931, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 529 Se, for example: Cowel to Ch?vez, 13 Aug. 1935, 30 May 1936, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 530 Cowel to Ch?vez, 26 Nov. 1936, 17 Feb. 1937, c. 3, v. I, exp. 48, Corespondencia Personal, Archivo Ch?vez, AGN. 531 A list of PAC programs and performance dates may be found in Dean Rot, ?The Pan-American Asociation of Composers,? Anuario Interamericano de Inverstigacion Musical 8 (1972): 62-66. 209 Philadelphia. In most cities, including Mexico City, his recitals were promoted and reviewed. 532 Before and after his tour, Slonimsky wrote several articles for the Christian Science Monitor about his Latin American music. 533 These columns, along with the other material collected, became the basis for Music of Latin America, which remains one of the few English-language surveys about 20 th -century Latin American music. 534 Partly as a result of his friendships with Carrillo and Ch?vez, Stokowski became enamored of Mexican culture and music, making several trips to the country and frequently conducting music by Mexican composers. While at the helm of the Philadelphia Orchestra, Stokowski conducted the music of all three composers studied in the dissertation. Stokowski frequently made plans to collaborate with Ch?vez; projects described in correspondence include embryonic plans for a music festival in Mexico City featuring Stokowski as a conductor, and the beginnings of a joint Hollywood project. 535 Ch?vez advised Stokowski to program Ponce?s Chapultepec in 1934 and Ch?vez began his conducting career in the U.S. when he led Stokowski?s Philadelphia Orchestra in 1936. For his part, Stokowski continued to educate himself about Mexican music, recording Revueltas? Sensamaya in 1947 and performing Carrillo?s Horizontes in 1952. 536 532 The Slonimsky Colection in the Library of Congres contains many programs and newspaper reviews from Slonimsky?s trip. 533 Se, Slonimsky, ?Music in Colombia,? CSM, 20 September 1938, 12; Slonimsky, ?Modern Peruvian Composers,? CSM, 24 August 1940, 12; Slonimsky, ?Modern Argentine Composers, CSM, 11 January 1941, 6; Slonimsky, ?The Folklore of Latin America,? CSM, 18 July 1942, sec. B, 5; Slonimsky, ?Whence the Dance in Latin America?? CSM, 8 May 1943, sec. B, 4. 534 Slonimsky, Music of Latin America (New York: Da Capo Pres, 1972). 535 These project ideas are described in Parker, Carlos Ch?vez y la m?sica para el cine,? Heterofon?a 17, no. 1 (January-March 1984): 13-27. 536 A more complete acount of Stokowski?s programing habits may be found in Daniel. 210 In 1944, Stokowski returned to Mexico to conduct a concert with Ch?vez?s OSM; unfortunately, while there he became embroiled in an argument with Ponce. 537 During the course of an early rehearsal, Stokowski was enraged to find that the score prepared for him of Ponce?s La Mort was incomplete. Somehow the ensuing discussion made clear that Stokowski blamed Ponce for the state of the score. Such an insult directed toward one of Mexico?s best-loved composers was considered insupportable by the musicians in the Orchestra and the Mexico City press, and elicited a series of printed denouncements. Apologies eventually healed the rift between Stokowski and Ponce, but Mexican critics never again expressed the same ardor for Stokowski found in earlier reviews and articles. During the late 1930s and early 1940s, Stokowski also became interested in South American culture and music. Around 1939, he conceived of a grand Latin American tour with an orchestra of young musicians, forming the All-American Youth Orchestra. This group traveled to South American in 1940, performing in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Trinidad, and the Dominican Republic. 538 The repertoire was constructed to exhibit young talent in the United States, and included Johannes Brahms? Fourth Symphony, Manuel de Falla?s ?Ritual Fire Dance? from El Amor Brujo, Maurice Ravel?s Bolero, Igor Stravinsky?s Firebird Suite, as well as an arrangement of the U.S. National Anthem. In Brazil, the Orchestra performed Hector Villa-Lobos?s M?moprec?ce. It appears from correspondence that Ch?vez?s most enduring and influential friendship with a U.S. musician was the one he enjoyed with Aaron Copland. The 537 This argument is described in Miranda, Manuel M. Ponce: Ensayo Sobre su Vida y Obra (Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 198) 87-88. 538 An acount of the tour provided in Daniel, 403-411 211 projects they participated in together are so numerous and the depth of the exchange between the two men so expansive that it would require at least one article to explore the extent of the relationship and its influence on each man?s career. 539 Copland visited Mexico for the first time in 1932, beginning composition on El Sal?n M?xico while there. Other Latin American-themed works followed El Sal?n M?xico, including Danz?n Cubano, ?Three Latin-American Sketches,? and ?Las Agachadas.? Copland returned to Mexico several times during the 1930s and 1940s, making a government sponsored stop in 1941 as part of his Latin American tour, while serving as a cultural attach? for Nelson Rockefeller?s Committee of Inter- American Affairs. Through his various administrative projects in the U.S., Copland provided a forum for Ch?vez?s music to be heard and understood. Previous chapters have described Copland?s programming of Ch?vez?s music through the Copland- Sessions concerts and the Yaddo festival, and his encouragement of the programming of Ch?vez?s music under the auspices of the League of Composers. Copland also provided opportunities for Ch?vez to propagate his ideas through Modern Music, cooperating with Minna Lederman in a project to publish a column about ?Inter- American Music.? 540 It is likely Copland also suggested Ch?vez as a speaker for the Charles Eliot Norton lectures at Harvard University. 541 Most importantly, as the friendship matured, Copland regarded Ch?vez as an intellectual and musical equal, 539 Se Howard Polack, ?M?s que Buenos Vecinos: La Amistad de Aaron Copland con Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas,? in Di?logo de Respoandores edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (Mexico: INBA, 202): 149-158; Robert Parker, ?Copland y Ch?vez: Compafleros de Lucha,? Pauta 8, no. 31 (July- Sept. 1989): 5-2; Elizabeth Crist, ?Aaron Copland and the Popular Front,? Journal of the American Musicological Society vol. 56/2 (Sumer 203): 409-465. 540 Se, for example, 6 Oct. 194, Copland to Lederman, Morelos, Mexico, Copland Colection, LC. 541 Parker, ?Companeros de Lucha,? 1-12. 212 participating in an exchange of scores, advice, and honest opinions that lasted until the end of Ch?vez?s life. The relationships described here are only part of Ch?vez?s constantly expanding and changing U.S. network. Ch?vez continued to participate in U.S. musical life in a personal way even during the 1930s and 1940s when his Mexican career was at its busiest. Even after this period, Ch?vez remained active in U.S. musical life. He worked as a guest conductor until near the end of his life, eventually conducting most of the major U.S. symphony orchestras. Late in life, Ch?vez held a series of visiting professorships, including a position at the University of California in 1966. Following a disagreement with the musicians? union of the National Symphony Orchestra of Mexico in 1973, Ch?vez relocated to New York where he lived until his death in 1978. 213 Conclusions This dissertation examines the performances of works by and activities of three prominent early 20 th century Mexican composers?Manuel M. Ponce, Juli?n Carrillo, and Carlos Ch?vez?in New York, from 1925 to 1932. These subjects are of particular interest because, during this period, New York was the cultural capital of the U.S., and home of influential communities of modernists and Mexican expatriates. In addition, the period directly precedes the premiere of Ch?vez?s ballet, H.P. with the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, which transformed Ch?vez?s career and made him the most well-known Mexican composer in the U.S. The first chapter reviews the relevant primary and secondary material. Although the central period of study is 1925 to 1932, Chapter 2 describes elements of musical life in New York during an earlier period, illustrating the existence of performances of Mexican music there from 1910 to 1925. Evidence of Mexican music performance in the U.S. is scarce in mainstream English-language periodicals, but we know from studies by John Koegel 542 and others that a vibrant recording and publishing industry brought Mexican musicians to New York during the 1910s. In addition, the Spanish language newspaper La Prensa presents new evidence of performances of Mexican music within New York?s Latino community. Within this period, the performances of Carrillo?s American Symphony Orchestra in 1915 and Ponce?s piano recital in 1916 are of particular interest. Unlike 542 John Koegel, ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos en Nueva York, c. 180 ? 1920,? Historia Mexicana 56, no. 2 (October-December 206): 53-602 and ?Del Rancho Grande y a trav?s del R?o Grande: M?sicos mexicanos en Holywod y en la vida musical norteamericana, 1910-1940,? Heterofon?a 128 (Jan.-June 203): 101-130. 214 most performances of Mexican music in New York at the time, the singular performances by Carrillo and Ponce occurred in one of the major concert halls and were reviewed in mainstream English language newspapers. Yet New York critics offered mixed reviews of Carrillo?s orchestra and negative evaluations of Ponce?s piano recital. Reviews indicate that members of Carrillo?s American Symphony Orchestra were unprepared for the concert. Promised money from a wealthy patron did not materialize and Carrillo struggled to find funding to keep the organization afloat. Despite his best efforts, the American Symphony Orchestra did not give any subsequent performances. Ponce faired even more poorly than Carrillo; although Ponce had received great acclaim for piano recitals performed in Mexico and Cuba, critics disliked his New York concert. His performance occurred two weeks after Pancho Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico, leading to anti-Mexican front-page articles in New York newspapers. Ponce?s planned recital was more nationalistic in content than Carrillo?s concert with the American Symphony Orchestra; the repertoire included Mexican canciones and larger works based on canciones. Publicity for Ponce?s recital, distributed before Villa?s invasion, was not withdrawn or edited in the days leading up to the performance. It advertised the Mexican music in his program, made obvious through titles such as Mexican Rhapsody or Mexican Ballade. The negative reviews that followed the concert alluded to the composer?s disfavored nationality. It is almost certain that evaluations of Ponce?s recital were influenced by anti-Mexican sentiments. 215 By 1925, the Revolution had ended, the negative stories about Mexico had largely disappeared from the front pages of U.S. newspapers, and participants in the ?Mexico Vogue? were fostering displays of Mexican culture in U.S. cities. In this new environment, New York critics viewed Ponce?s music in a more positive light. Three case studies presented in Chapter 3 illustrate the various contexts in which Ponce?s music was performed and evaluated. The first is that of Clarita S?nchez, a Mexican soprano who included Ponce?s music in her recitals as an expression of national identity. The second case study is that of Jascha Heifetz, who created the now famous violin arrangement of Ponce?s ?Estrellita? in what appears to have been a tribute to Mexican culture, which Heifetz admired. Last, but certainly not least, are the recitals of Andr?s Segovia. Unlike the other performances examined, these recitals do not appear to be related to the Vogue, but rather to Segovia?s personal admiration for Ponce and his music. The evidence cited above indicates that Ponce?s music was a part of New York?s musical life during the late 1920s; yet Chapter 3 represents the first examination of these performances and their critical reception. Moreover, the chapter adds to Ponce?s biography by emphasizing the momentary and circumstantial nature of the negative critical reception accorded Ponce?s 1916 recital in New York. When the critical receptions toward Ponce?s music in 1916 and, for example, 1926, are juxtaposed, the increased acceptance of Mexican nationalist music in New York?s musical life is brought to light. While Ponce?s music benefited from New Yorkers? increased interest in Mexican culture, New York critics and audiences were drawn to Carrillo and his 216 music because of the growing interest in modernist music around 1925. As examined in Chapter 4, Carrillo?s microtonal music, written using a method the composer created, called Sonido 13, attracted a great deal of attention in the New York press during the 1920s. Although there were only two notable performances of Carrillo?s music during the period of study?the League of Composers presentation of the Sonata Casi Fantas?a in March 1926 and the Philadelphia Orchestra performance of the Concertino in March 1927?articles about Carrillo, his works, and his theories appeared both before and after the performances in a wide range of publications. Carrillo lived in New York from 1926 to 1928, and while there he refined his theory, published three additional volumes of his periodical (also titled Sonido 13), and encouraged the composition of microtonal music. Other recent biographical studies have focused on Carrillo?s participation in musical life in Mexico and Europe. Chapter 4 is the first to offer a systematic evaluation of Carrillo?s activities in New York during the 1920s. Thus, it adds to his biography and explores one facet of New York?s affection for microtonal music, and, more broadly, modernist innovation of any type. Despite their prominence as Mexican composers and despite the performances of their music in New York during the 1920s, neither Ponce nor Carrillo became well-known figures there. Performances of Ponce?s music continued after the period of study, but his works never received the concentrated listening and examination required for an enduring legacy in the U.S. Carrillo was able to attract an enormous amount of attention before and during his stay in New York but once he left, interest declined precipitously. 217 Ch?vez, unlike his compatriots, was able to create and maintain a lasting legacy for his music in New York. The last two chapters of the dissertation consist of a re-examination of Ch?vez?s early career in the U.S. in an attempt to reveal some of the reasons for his success. Chapter 5 focuses on Ch?vez?s first two trips to New York, a short four-month visit starting in December 1923 and a longer two-year visit beginning in 1926. Building upon the studies of others, including Leonora Saavedra, 543 Robert Parker, 544 and Antonio Saborit, 545 I show that these were difficult years for Ch?vez but that, ultimately, he made a series of critical contacts and friends in the music, expatriate, and intellectual communities of New York. These relationships led to early performances of his music with the International Composers? Guild, the Copland Sessions Concerts, the Pan American Association of Composers, and the League of Composers. The narrative presented in Chapter 5 presents many salient details absent from other accounts, focusing on Ch?vez?s relationship with the left-wing intelligentsia associated with New Masses, his friendship with Henry Cowell, and Ch?vez?s participation in the Pan American Association of Composers. Chapter 6 concentrates on the first large-scale performance of Ch?vez?s work in the U.S. and then offers a brief summary of the career that followed it. Leopold 543 E.g. Leonora Savedra, ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music? (Ph.D. dis., University of Pitsburgh, 201) and ?Carlos Ch?vez y la construci?n de una alteridad estrat?gica? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas, edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (M?xico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Belas Artes y Literatura, 202): 125-136. 544 E.g. Robert Parker, Carlos Ch?vez: Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1983) and ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Balet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3-4 (194): 81-88. 545 Antonio Saborit, ?Mexican Gaities: Ch?vez en la Babilonia de hiero? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas, edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda (M?xico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Belas Artes y Literatura, 202) 139-148. 218 Stokowski and the Philadelphia Orchestra and Philadelphia Grand Opera premiered Ch?vez?s ballet, H.P. in March 1932. The performance was notable in many respects, including the collaboration of Diego Rivera as set and costume designer, the then- young Philadelphia Grand Opera company, and the selection of Catherine Littlefield, a neophyte choreographer. Of primary interest to this study is the fact that H.P. was the first of Ch?vez?s ballets to be presented in the U.S. and the first of his works to be presented by a major U.S. symphony orchestra to a large and distinguished audience. The H.P. premiere received an enormous amount of attention in the U.S. press both before and after the performance. 546 Critics generally concurred that there were significant flaws. Yet music historians seem to agree that the H.P. premiere marked a turning point in Ch?vez?s career, making his name known nationwide in the U.S. What might explain the contradiction between the immediate critical reception of H.P. and the legacy it left? One explanation lies in the preparations Ch?vez had made far in advance of the performance; during his first two visits to New York he had developed a circle of loyal friends and listeners who were willing to overlook one inadequately presented performance of his music. Perhaps equally importantly, the articles available to readers outside the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas were not negative reviews but previews or summaries of the ballet that contained little judgment on the performance. Those unfamiliar with Ch?vez and his music before H.P. might have read about the premiere in the national press, but the articles available to such readers indicated that the composer had contributed to an ?exotic,? high-profile performance rather than a problematic, uneven ballet performance. 546 Se Apendix F for a list of articles. 219 Ch?vez used the contacts he had formed and the media attention afforded H.P. to continue to develop his U.S. career. Following the H.P. premiere there were a number of significant performances featuring Ch?vez as a conductor directing his own music. Over the next twenty years he would lead most of the major U.S. symphony orchestras. Such performances were invariably reviewed in local newspapers. Ch?vez continued to foster U.S.- Mexico exchange by participating in several formal and informal exchanges, including organizing a Pan-American Festival in Mexico City and hosting a number of U.S. composers and artists in Mexico. Indisputably, Ch?vez?s talents as a composer, conductor, administrator, and writer enabled and furthered his U.S. career. A comparison of his early U.S. career with the U.S. careers of Ponce and Carrillo around the same time, however, reveals some of the reasons for Ch?vez?s fame in the U.S. Ch?vez?s music reached U.S. audiences at an opportune time for Latin American composition here. During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the ?Mexico Vogue? encouraged performances of Mexican music; a few years later, during the late 1930s and 1940s, the ?Good Neighbor? policy formalized an existing spirit of inter-American cooperation. Similarly, modernism flourished in New York, encouraging a studied approach to innovation that came naturally to Ch?vez. Yet, as the studies of Ponce and Carrillo demonstrated, creation of an enduring U.S. career required more than momentary association with popular aesthetic trends. Ch?vez, however, was gifted with a third advantage: a talent for creating and maintaining enduring friendships. Through his friends, Ch?vez became personally invested in U.S. musical life and U.S.-Mexico cultural exchange, 220 participating in and influencing the institutions, social environment, and performances in the U.S. music community. Thus Ch?vez became the principle representative of Mexican music in the U.S. by recognizing the current aesthetic trends, by channeling his endeavors as a composer and performer in a way that represented those trends, and by becoming a member of the U.S. music community. * * * In some senses the narratives presented in this dissertation are individual ones, belonging to the biographies of three distinct composers who shared little besides nationality. Neither the three composers nor those who performed their work formed a cohesive community in New York. The composers were not tied together by a shared aesthetic?most of Ponce?s music presented in New York was canci?n based or conservative guitar music, Carrillo?s music was microtonal, and Ch?vez?s music related to trends found in French modernism. Critics did not group the composers together in their reviews or in their evaluations of musical life in New York. It appears few musicians or critics of the time linked these three composers and their music together. Yet it would be a mistake to see the events and interactions described here as isolated from one another or from the larger historical narrative. All three composers confronted the changes occurring in Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary Mexico in their music. Ponce sought to present a Mexican national identity through his canciones. Carrillo wanted to ?revolutionize? musical thought via Sonido 13. Ch?vez searched for a way in which Mexican composers might join the modernist movement, 221 echoing the ?modernization? of Mexico City following the Revolution. When performed in New York, their music shared a specific historical moment influenced by the ?Mexico Vogue,? modernism, and New York?s musical coming of age. Furthermore, because Ponce and Carrillo?s legacies in New York did not extend far beyond 1932, all the three narratives presented here culminate with Ch?vez?s success in the U.S. after the premiere of H.P. Over the next few years it would become apparent that the New York moment Ponce, Carrillo, and Ch?vez shared during the 1920s did not continued through subsequent decades. Ch?vez exercised such prominence and power within the New York music community that his influence discouraged the presentations of diverse Mexican musical aesthetics of the late 1920s detailed in this dissertation. * * * It is hoped that future research will build upon and intersect with this study. Several forthcoming dissertations and books offer information related to that presented herein. Soon to be completed dissertations by Jennifer Campbell and Emily Ansari, explore, in part, U.S. musical diplomacy in Latin America during the Good Neighbor and Cold War periods respectively. Carol Hess is working on a book about U.S.-Latin American musical exchange, which describes U.S. perceptions of several Latin American composers, including Ch?vez. Alejandro Madrid intends to expand Carrillo reception history with a study of Carrillo?s interactions with critics in Mexico. Stephanie Stallings, a graduate student at the University of Florida, is engaged in dissertation research about the Pan American Association of Composers. Research by Ricardo Miranda, Leonora Saavedra, Gloria Carmona, Roberto Kolb, 222 John Koegel, Robert Parker, and others, continues to add to our knowledge about Mexican composers, including their activities and critical receptions in the U.S. Many paths for additional research exist which are related to the findings presented in this dissertation. Recently scholars have expressed a great deal of interest in U.S.-Latin American cultural diplomacy during and after the late 1930s, as described above. However, informal cultural diplomacy, brokered through immigrant communities, expatriate communities, and other interested parties within the U.S., existed long before WWII. Some of that activity is described in this dissertation and in various article-length studies, but the topic would benefit from additional examination. No study of Mexican classical music during the 20th century would be complete without examination of a figure absent from this dissertation: Silvestre Revueltas. While there were very few performances of Revueltas?s music in the U.S. before 1932?thus his exclusion in this study?during the next two decades, he became well-known there. A study of the critical reception of his music in the U.S. during those years is much needed and would necessarily build upon the information presented in this dissertation. Although recent research has delved more deeply into many segments of New York musical life, more work in this area remains as well. Mexican composers were not the only foreigners trying to participate in musical life in New York. Many others came to participate in the publishing, performing, and cultural opportunities offered by the city during the early 20th century. Andr?s Segovia, for example, is mentioned within this dissertation because of his close relationship with Ponce and his frequent 223 performances of Ponce?s music. Yet, although he is an important figure in his own right and his early performances exposed audiences to a technique of guitar playing unknown in the U.S., no study focuses on his U.S. performances and their critical reception. Many studies of musical life in New York examine the most avant-garde composers, performers, and societies. These are critical elements to the musical environment there at the time, but other, more conservative artists like Segovia deserve attention, in order to gain a more balanced view of New York musical life. Additional studies of Mexican music in other culturally significant U.S. cities, particularly Los Angeles and Chicago, are needed. In Los Angeles, the circle of musicians and composers participating in Henry Cowell?s New Music Society led a modernist movement distinct from that found in New York, although, as mentioned earlier, there were continuing links between musicians in the two cities. At the same time vibrant Chicano, Mexican expatriate, and Latino communities formed a large part of the Los Angeles population. Mexican and Mexican-American musicians typically included Los Angeles in their touring schedules. The movie industry in Hollywood was engaged in developing audiences in Latin America during the early 20th century and it brought many artists, including musicians, to Los Angeles to participate in Spanish-language projects. While in the city, these musicians would perform and participate in musical life there. John Koegel has investigated the activities of some Latin American musicians in Los Angeles, but more examination of the intersections between the modernist movement and Latin American cultural life in Los Angeles during the early 20th century is needed. 224 Chicago is traditionally viewed as a more conservative, less modernist musical environment. However, like New York and Los Angeles, it had the resources to create and maintain a thriving musical life, and it was the most important cultural center in the middle of the country. It also had a very active and engaged Latin American population, amidst a diverse but segmented society. A study of Latin American composers and musicians in Chicago would reveal a great deal about the musical culture in that city and serve as a counterpoint to studies of that in Los Angeles and New York. 225 Apendix A: Selected Reviews of Clarita S?nchez?s Recitals in New York 19 April 1925, Carnegie Hall, NYC [not a solo concert] ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 23 April 1925, 33. 23 May 1925, International House, NYC ?Clara Elena S?nchez Heard in Concert at International House.? Musical America, 30 May 1925, 35. ?Sociedades Hispanas.? La Prensa, 26 May 1925, 5. 16 November 1925, Aeolian Hall, NYC ?Clara S?nchez, Mexican Soprano, Gives Recital.? New York Herald Tribune, 17 November 1925, 17. ?Young Mexican Soprano in Successful Debut.? New York Sun, 17 November 1925, 27. 16 January 1926, Pan-American Union, Washington, D.C. [not a solo concert] ?Washington, D.C.? Musical Courier, 11 Febraury 1926, 51. 24 March 1926, Aeolian Hall, NYC ?Clarita S?nchez Returns.? New York Times, 25 March 1926, 20. ?Miss S?nchez, Mexican Soprano, Pleases.? New York Sun, 25 March 1926, 29. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 1 April 1926, 17. ?News of Concerts and Recitals.? Musical America, 5 April 1926, 22. 2 November 1926, Aeolian Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?De M?sica.? La Prensa, 4 November 1926, 7. ?Clarita S?nchez Sings.? New York Times, 3 November 1926, 21. 226 ?Miss S?nchez?s Singing Delights Large Audience.? New York Sun, 3 November 1926, 22. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 11 November 1926, 18. 13 February 1927, Times Square Theatre, NYC ?Se?orita S?nchez, Mexican Soprano, Sings.? New York Sun, 14 February 1927, 23. ?Spanish Song Recital.? New York Times, 14 February 1927, 14. 19 February 1928, Gallo Theatre, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?De M?sica.? La Prensa, 20 February 1928, 4. ?Clarita S?nchez Sings at Gallo Theater.? New York Sun, 20 February 1928, 17. ?Reports of New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 23 February 1928, 25. ?New York Concerts and Opera: Spanish Night by S?nchez.? Musical America, 3 March 1928, 31. 20 January 1932, Waldorf-Astoria, NYC [not a solo concert] ?Mid-Season Brings Many Concerts to New York: Escudero in Waldorf Musicale.? Musical America, 10 February 1932, 23. April 30, 1932, Roerich Hall, NYC ?Music Week.? Musical Courier, 7 May 1932, 24. ?Clarita S?nchez Aclamada en su Recital.? La Prensa, 2 May 1932, 3. 227 Apendix B: Jascha Heifetz: Performances in Mexico, Selected Reviews, and Performances of ?Estrelita? in New York 547 Performances in Mexico: 24 November 1927, 8:45 p.m., Teatro Arbeu, Mexico City 27 November 1927, 11 a.m., Teatro Arbeu, Mexico City 30 November 1927, 8:45 p.m., Teatro Arbeu, Mexico City 2 December 1927, 8:45 p.m., Teatro Arbeu, Mexico City 4 December 1927, 11 a.m., Teatro Arbeu, Mexico City 6 December 1927, 9 p.m., Teatro Degollado, Guadalajara 9 December 1927, 8:45 p.m., Esperanza Iris, Mexico City 11 December 1927, 11 a.m., Esperanza Iris, Mexico City [1st performance of ?Estrellita?] 13 December 1927, 8 p.m. Teatro Independencia, Monterrey Selected Reviews of Concerts in Mexico City (and related articles): Barajas, Manuel. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Universal, 25 Nov. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Universal, 28 Nov. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Universal, 2 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Universal, 3 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Universal, 5 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Jascha Heifetz Habla a ?El Universal,?? El Universal, 25 Nov. 1927. _____. ?El mago del violin, Jascha Heifetz, lleg? a la Capital,? El Universal, Mexico City, 24 Nov. 1927. Barros Sierra, Jos?. ?Nuestras Entrevistas con Heifetz, El Mago del Violin,? El Universal Ilustrado, 1 Dec. 1927. 547 Performance dates and article citations can be found in the Jascha Heifetz Colection at the Library of Congres, Washington, D.C. 228 Casares Mz. De A., Manuel. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 28 Nov. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 2 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 3 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 5 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 10 Dec. 1927. _____. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 12 Dec. 1927. De Caprian, Alfonso. ?Exc?lsior entrevista a Heifetz, el notable violinista Ruso que est? proximo a llegar a Mexico,?El Exc?lsior, 4 Nov. 1927. Dom?nguez Portas, A. ?Cr?nicas Musicales,? El Exc?lsior, 26 Nov. 1927. Gonzales Pe?a, Carlos. ?Oyendo a Heifetz,? El Universal, 4 Dec. 1927. ?Jascha Heifetz, Trotamundos y Continuador de Paganini,? Revista de Revistas, 20 Nov. 1927. ?La Proxima visita a M?xico de Jascha Heifetz,? El Exc?lsior, 10 Nov. 1927. Najar, Mario. ?Jascha Heifetz, el violinista maravilloso,? Revista de Revistas, 7 Dec. 1927. Ortiz de Montellano, Bernardo. ?La Cultura Musical en Mexico,? El Universal, [n.d.] Ping?ino, ?Comentos de Buen Humor,? El Exc?lsior, 8 Dec. 1927. Rosales, Hernan. ?J.Heifetz posee un violin construido en 1742, que vale m?s de $100,000,? El Universal, 6 Dec. 1927. Ru?z, R. Saucedo. ?T?picos Musicales,? Arte, 1 Dec. 1927. Sordine. ?Jascha Heifetz, el Mago,? Rotogr?fico, 30 Nov. 1927. ?Vendr? a M?xico el m?s notable joven violinista del mundo?Jascha Heifetz,? El Universal [n.d.] Nov. 1927. Selected U.S. Programs Including ?Estrellita?: 27 January 1928, 8:15 p.m., Milwaukee, Wis. 29 January 1928, 3 p.m., Carnegie Hall, New York City [repeated] 5 February 1928, 8:30 p.m., Stanley Music Club, Philadelphia, PA 229 7 February 1928, Mrs. Wilson-Greene?s Concerts, Washington, D.C. 11 February 1928, Thursday Morning Music Club, Roanoke, VA 18 March 1928, 3:30 p.m., Symphony Hall, Boston, MA [on program and repeated as encore] 28 March 1928, 8:15 p.m. New London, CT 20 April 1928, Irem Temple, Willkes-Barre, PA 4 January 1929, 8:15 p.m., Mizpah Auditorium, Syracuse, NY 9 January 1929, 8:30 p.m., New Music Hall, Cleveland, OH 18 January 1929, Fulton Opera House, Lancaster, PA 22 January 1929, Tuesday Musical Club, Akron, OH 26 January 1929, 2:30 p.m., Carnegie Hall, New York City [Encore] 27 February 1929, Hotel Statler Ballroom, Boston Morning Musicales 18 April 1929, 8:15 p.m., Chromatic Concerts Music Hall, Troy, NY 6 March 1929, Lyric Theatre, Knoxville, TN 4 April 1929, Fair Park Auditorium, Dallas, TX 14 April 1929, 2:45 p.m., Curram Theatre, S.F., CA 230 Apendix C: Segovia?s Concerts in New York and Selected Reviews, 1928-1932. 8 January 1928, Town Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?Teatrales: Andr?s Segovia entusiasma a una numerosa audiencia en el Town Hall.? La Prensa, 10 January 1928, 5. Downs, Olin. ?Music.? New York Times, 9 January 1928, 21. Gilman, Lawrence. ?Guitar Recital by a Great Musician: Mr. Segovia?s Debut.? New York Herald Tribune, 9 January 1928, 15. 11 January 1928, Town Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?Segovia Triunfa de Nuevo.? La Prensa, 12 January 1928, 6. W., M. ?Segovia Thrills Large Audience with His Guitar.? New York Herald Tribune, 12 January 1928, 25 ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 12 January 1928, 24. ?Segovia Again Charms.? New York Times, 12 January 1928, 24. 22 January 1928, Musical Forum Concert, Guild Theatre, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?De M?sica: El Encanto Espa?ol.? La Prensa, 23 January 1928, 6. Downs, Olin. ?Music.? New York Times, 23 January 1928, 18. E., F.Q. ?Segovia with the Forum.? Musical America, 28 January 1928, 22. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 26 January 1928, 26. 29 January 1928, Gallo Theatre, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?De M?sica: Otro triunfo de Andr?s Segovia en su recital de ayer.? La Prensa, 30 January 1928, 7. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 2 February 1928, 32. ?Segovia Amazes by Mastery of Guitar.? New York Herald Tribune, 30 January 1928, 8. 231 4 February 1928, Town Hall, NYC ?El arte genial y al inspiraci?n del guitarrista Andr?s Segovia obtienen Nuevo y resonante triunfo en B?way.? La Prensa, 6 February 1928, 3. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 9 February 1928, 26. 15 February 1928, Town Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?Despedida del guitarrista Andr?s Segovia.? La Prensa, 16 February 1928, 4. ?Reports of New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 23 February 1928, 12. 29 December 1929, Town Hall, NYC ?Teatrales.? La Prensa, 31 December 1928, 5. 6 January 1929, Town Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?De M?sica.? La Prensa, 7 January 1929, 5. 15 January 1929, Town Hall, NYC ?De M?sica.? La Prensa, 16 January 1929, 5. 19 January 1930, Town Hall, NYC Perkins, Francis D. ?Harold Bauer is Soloist with Music Friends.? New York Herald Tribune, 20 January 1930, 11. ?Segovia Recalled 16 Times by Audience.? New York Times, 20 January 1930, 16. 9 February 1930, Town Hall, NYC Downs, Olin. ?Andr?s Segovia Plays.? New York Times, 10 February 1930, 21. 18 January 1931, Town Hall, NYC Brock, Helen Ten. ?Teatrales.? La Prensa, 19 January 1931, 5. ?Andres Segovia Plays at Town Hall.? New York Sun, 19 January 1931, 30. 232 ?First Segovia Recital.? New York Evening Post, 17 January 1931, sec. D, p. 4. B., J.D. ?Segovia Heard in Recital.? New York Herald Tribune, 19 January 1931, 10. ?New York Concerts.? Musical Courier, 24 January 1931, 40. 8 February 1931, Town Hall, NYC ?Andr?s Segovia Guitarist Heard in Last Recital.? New York Sun, 9 February 1931, 17. ?Before the N.Y. Public.? Musical Courier, 21 February 1931, 16. ?Segovia Stirs Audience.? New York Times, 9 February 1931, 24. P., F.D. ?Segovia in Final Recital,? New York Herald Tribune, 9 February 1931, 13. 233 Apendix D: Select Articles about Juli?n Carilo and Sonido 13 Published in New York, 1925-1932 General Articles about Sonido 13: Carrillo, Juli?n. ?The Thirteenth Sound.? The Musical Advance, May 1923, 1. _____. ?Music Without Tones and Semitones.? The Musical Advance, June 1925, 1. _____. ?History and Mystery of 13 th Sound,? Musical Advance, May 1926, 3. _____. ?Is the Epoch of the New World in Sight?? Musical Advance, November 1926, 4. ?Sixteenth Tones Radiate from Whole Tones Through the Prism of Carrillo.? Musical America, 6 February 1926, 43. Spier, William. ?Mexican Composer Proposes New Quarter-Tone Notation.? Musical America, 15 August 1925, 18. _____. ?Advanced Musicians in Mexico Use Quarter-Tones and New Notation.? Musical America, 4 April 1925, 9. Articles Previewing League Performance: ?Eighth-Tone Sonata and New Whithorne Cycle to be Given in League of Composers? Concert.? Musical America, 6 March 1926, 40. ?Fractional Tone Music, An Experiment at the League of Composers? Concert.? Musical Courier, 4 March 1926, 25. ?New Native and European Compositions to Be Heard.? New York Times, 7 March 1926, sec. x, p. 6. Articles Reviewing League Performance: ?Composers? League Demonstrates New Conception in Music.? New York Herald Tribune, 14 March 1926, 22. Chotzinoff, Samuel. ?Music.? New York World ? ? Carilo preserved clipings of most of the articles listed here in his files, Carilo Archive, Mexico City. Unfortunately, for a few clipings ful citations were not given and were not found elsewhere. Articles not marked have ben identified in online and microfilmed copies of the periodical in question. 234 Downes, Olin. ?Music.? New York Times, 14 March 1926, 29. Henderson, W.J. ?Demonstrate New Musical Scale.? New York Sun, 15 March 1926, 19. Samaroff, Olga. ?Music.? New York Evening Post, 15 March 1926, 13. Sanborn, Pitts. ?The ?New? in Music.? New York Telegram, * Thompson, Oscar. ?Quarter, Eighth and Sixteenth Tones Heard at Concert of Modern Music.? Musical America, 20 March 1926, 4. Articles Published Between Performances: ?Sixteenth Tones in the ?Music of the Future.?? The Literary Digest, 27 November 1926. Fitch, Geraldine. ?No Sharps! No Flats! No Notes at All!? New York American, 7 Feb. 1927. ?Orchestral Plans of Current Week.? New York Herald Tribune, 6 March 1927, sec. vi, p. 12. ?With the Orchestras.? New York Times, 6 March 1927, sec. x, p. 12. Reviews of Philadelphia Orchestra Performances: Bejarano, Jos? Miguel. ?De Musica: Nueva York escucha el ?Sonido Trece.? La Prensa [n.d.]. * Bauer, Marion and Flora. ?Music in New York.? Musical Leader, 17 March 1927, 6. ?Carrillo Splits Musical Tones into Sixteenths.? New York Review, 26 March 1927. Craven, H.T. ?Stokowski Presents ?Thirteenth Sound.?? Musical America, 12 March 1927, 23. Downes, Olin. ?Music.? New York Times, 9 March 1927, 28. Gilman, Lawrence. ?Music.? New York Herald Tribune, 9 March 1927, 17. Henderson, W.J. ?Carrillo?s Concertino Presented.? New York Sun, 9 March 1927, 17. Henderson, W.J. ?Music and Musicians.? March 1927 * Hogan, Agnes Gordon. ?Worthwhile Music Talk.? The Philadelphia Record, 9 March 1927, 7. 235 Liebling, Leonard. ?New Style Music by Mexican Tone.? New York American, 9 March 1927, 19. Martin, Linton. ?Stokowski Shows Brand New Tones.? Philadelphia Inquirer, 5 March 1927, 7. ?Philadelphia Symphony.? Musical Courier, 17 March 1927, 12. Samaroff, Olga. ?Music.? New York Evening Post, 9 March 1927, 6. ?Success of Carrillo?s Works Here Stirs Mexican Pride.? New York Herald Tribune, [10 March 1927?] * After Carrillo Left New York (March 1927-1932): ?Artists Everywhere.? Musical Courier, 22 February 1930, 40. Bauer, Marion and Flora. ?Music in New York.? Musical Leader, 13 February 1930, 8. Benitz, Nena. ?Havana Hears ?13 th Sound.?? Musical America, 20 October 1928, 13. Dalton, Sydney. Review of Six Preludes for Piano by Julian Carrillo. 24 March 1928, 29. ?Friends of Music Decade.? New York Times, 5 April 1931, 110. ?Medal for Stokowski.? The Philadelphia Inquirer, 8 February 1931, sec. b, p. 18. [Photograph] ?Music of the Future.? Disques 1, no. 3 (May 1930): 105. ?Quarter Tones.? Musical Courier, 24 August 1929, 24. ?Thirteen Sound Shown.? Musical America, 10 February 1930, 40. 236 Apendix E: Ch?vez?s Friends and Asociates Copland, Aaron (1900-1990) ? U.S. composer associated with the modernist movement during the 1920s and with musical representations of Americana during the 1930s and 1940s. Within the modernist movement he was an organizational force. At various times he served on the Modern Music board, ran the Copland-Sessions concerts, and organized the summer Yaddo Festivals. Copland and Ch?vez enjoyed a warm, platonic, enduring friendship dating from the late 1920s through Chavez?s death in 1978. Covarrubias, Miguel ?Chamaco? (1904-1957) ? Mexican visual artist primarily remembered for his illustrations. After gaining some notice for caricatures of the Mexican artistic elite, Covarrubias moved to New York City in 1923, while still a teenager. There, with the help of Jos? Juan Tablada and Carl Van Vechten, Covarrubias quickly became part of U.S. cultural life. During the 1920s and 1930s his caricatures of famous personalities were printed in Vanity Fair, Vogue, and the New Yorker. Covarrubias also became a representative of Mexican culture in New York. In a formal capacity he collaborated with ?Tata Nacho? to create the famous tableau ?Rancho Mexicana? for the Garrick Gaieties. In private, Covarrubias was a sociable man who often talked about Mexican life to non-Mexicans in his circle. He was good friends with Ch?vez; the two men collaborated on several unrealized stage productions, attended parties together, and participated in the ill-fated Fiesta production of 1927. Cowell, Henry (1897-1965) ? U.S. composer associated with the ?ultra- modernists? of the 1920s, especially those participating in the International 237 Composers Guild. As a young man, Cowell became well known in the U.S. and Europe for his avant-garde experimentations, including performing some of his own compositions by climbing under the piano lid in order and running his hand across the strings, most famously in The Aeolian Harp (1923). Many composers admired his ideas about composition set forth in New Musical Resources (1930). During the 1920s and early 1930s, Cowell spent most of the year in California, where he ran the New Music Society and printed the New Music Editions. For several months, he would travel to New York, where he lectured and ran a concert series for the New School of Social Research. In 1928 Cowell helped found the Pan American Association of Composers, which he ran, essentially by himself, through the early 1930s. Dos Passos, John (1896-1970) ? U.S. novelist, poet, and playwright most famous for his works about American life in the 1920s. Although he would later reject Communism, during early 1920s Dos Passos was a familiar figure in Communist circles. He was an active participant in the New Playwrights Theatre and wrote for New Masses. During most of 1926, Dos Passos lived in Mexico City. When he returned to New York in March 1927, he wrote three articles about Mexican culture for New Masses, including one describing the political function of Diego Rivera?s murals. Fernandez Esper?n, Ignacio ?Tata Nacho? (1894-1968) - Mexican popular music composer best known for the canciones: "Adi?s mi chaparita," "La borachita," "Nunca, nunca, nunca," "As? es mi tiera," "Otra vez." and "Abre tus ojos." While living in New York to study music in the 1920s, ?Tata Nacho? 238 became closely asociated with the ?Vogue.? He was part of Tablada?s inner circle, collaborated with Covarubias on the Garick Gaieties tableau, ?Rancho Mexicana,? and worked as music editor for Mexican Folkways, where he published a few of his own canciones. Gold, Michael (1894-1967) ? Author and playwright best known for his novel, Jews Without Money (1930) and his numerous columns for left-wing publications. In 1917 Gold moved to Mexico, fleeing the draft for World War I. When he returned in 1920, he became an associate editor of The Liberator. A few years later he founded New Masses with his friend John Sloan. New Masses became a critical part of the leftist wing of the ?Vogue? movement, publishing numerous articles about Mexico?s culture and economy. Writers and artists published in New Masses during Gold?s tenure included prominent ?Vogue? participants Carlton Beal, John Dos Passos, David Alfaro Siqueiros, and Xavier Guerrero. Gold was also a founding member of The New Playwright?s Theatre, a leftist theatre cooperative. He wrote two full-length plays for production with The New Playwrights Theatre, Fiesta and Hoboken Blues, as well as a number of one-act plays for the Provincetown Players. His most famous contributions to the theatre were probably his mass recitations including ?The Strange Funeral in Braddock,? ?Strike,? and ?Vanzetti in the Death House.? D?Harnoncourt, Rene (1901-1968) ? Most famous for his tenure as director of the Museum of Modern Art (1944-1968), D?Harnoncourt began his career as a curator and art scholar during the 1920s, after his family had relocated from Austria to Mexico. Among his first important art shows was a collection of folk art which was 239 first displayed in Mexico City, before traveling to New York in 1930 for exhibition in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. While in Mexico, Ch?vez became acquainted with D?Harnoncourt and his collection, particularly a set of Peruvian folk songs thought to be some of the earliest Native songs available. Ch?vez programmed these songs numerous times and it appears that they influenced his own Indianist compositions. By 1933, D?Harnoncourt had permanently re-located to the U.S. where he hosted the radio program ?Art in America,? and taught at Sarah Lawrence College and The New School for Social Research before becoming affiliated with MoMA. Lederman, Minna (1896-1995) ? Editor of Modern Music, the official magazine of the League of Composers. In this role, Lederman encouraged some of the best composer-authors of her generation and the next, including Virgil Thomson, Aaron Copland, Paul Bowles, Marc Blitzstein, and John Cage. During the 1930s and 1940s, a column titled ?Inter-American Review? presented news about musical life throughout the Americas, especially in Mexico, where Lederman could rely on information through Chavez?s students. Although the readership of the magazine was small, the dialogue initiated in its pages resonated throughout the New York musical press, often initiating further commentary in the New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Musical America, and Musical Courier. Milton, Robert (1885-1956) ? Broadway and Hollywood producer, stage director, and occasional writer. Milton began his stage career as an actor but he quickly became a producer, first for Broadway productions and later for Hollywood films. In 1927, The Playwright?s Theatre hired him to direct their production of Michael Gold?s Fiesta. By that point, Milton had worked in Broadway for nearly 240 twenty years, enjoying success with such plays as, Oh Lady, Lady (1918), The Charm School (1920), and Dark Angel (1925). His Broadway career continued many years after the production of Fiesta fell apart; he went on to produce The Marriage Bed (1929) and Here Come the Clowns (1938). Paine, Frances Flynn (-1962) ? Art dealer and Mexicanist closely associated with John D. and Abigail Aldrich Rockefeller. She helped organize an exhibit of Mexican folk art in mid-March of 1928 that was originally planned to coincide with a staging of Chavez?s El Fuego Nuevo in the Roxy Theatre. While the production plans for El Fuego Nuevo were halted, the exhibit was a success and traveled to various cities in the U.S. and Canada. In 1930 she incorporated the Mexican Arts Association for the purpose of promoting Mexican culture in the U.S. It was on a trip organized by the Association that Paine was able to introduce Stokowski and Chavez, thus initiating plans for the H.P. premiere in March 1932. Pellicer, Carlos (1899-1977) ? Mexican surrealist writer and close childhood friend of Ch?vez now remembered for his collections of poetry. Together, the then- teenage Pellicer and Ch?vez worked on the literary journal Gladios. Later Pellicer served as a diplomat, professor, and museum director. He provided the lyrics to a handful of Chavez?s works including Seis Ex?gonos and ?The Reaper.? Pruneda, Alfonso (1879-1957) ? Mexican medical doctor and academic. As a boy, Pruneda studied piano performance and was poised for a career as a concert artist. However when he found himself orphaned, he turned toward a more lucrative career, becoming a medical doctor. After practicing medicine for a few years, Pruneda became a professor, eventually fulfilling the post of rector at the Universidad 241 Nacional de M?xico (1924-1928). While rector, Pruneda administered a stipend given to Ch?vez for his studies in New York. Later, after leaving his position, Pruneda served on the board of the orchestra Ch?vez directed, the Orquesta Sinf?nica Mexicana. Reis, Claire (1888-1978) ?Although an accomplished pianist in her own right, Reis?s legacy lies in her organizational efforts on behalf of modern music in New York. In 1911 she established the People?s Music League, a charity organization providing free concerts to the New York immigrant community. By the 1920s, she had turned her attention to composers, rather than audiences, becoming Executive Director of the ICG in 1922. When the League of Composers split off from the ICG in 1923, she became Executive Director of the new organization. Never paid for her activities, nonetheless leadership of the League became Reis?s full-time occupation. The first League concert to feature one of Chavez?s compositions was in 1930. After that, Reis advocated on behalf of Chavez, arranging a concert of Latin American music to coincide with the H.P. premiere. Rivera, Diego (1886-1957) ?The best known of the Mexican muralists working in the years following the Revolution. His murals presented images that celebrated workers and indigenous people for their roles in Mexican history. It is possible that Ch?vez?s early Aztec ballets were inspired, at least in part, by Rivera?s indianist murals. By the early 1930s, Rivera had developed an impressive network of patrons and clients in the U.S. as well as in Mexico. Such people collected sketches, arranged for shows, and commissioned small, expensive portraits as well as less- 242 profitable mural projects. H.P. was one of the projects from this period; Rivera designed the sets and costumes for the production. Rosenfeld, Paul (1890-1946) ? a journalist and critic known for his music commentaries. His articles were published in The Dial, The New Republic, Vanity Fair Magazine, Modern Music, The Nation, and Seven Arts. Although by the end of his life Rosenfeld had become disenchanted with the modernist movement, during the 1920s and early 1930s, he was one of the greatest proponents of modernism. Rosenfeld?s mission was to build up an American musical identity that might counter that of Europe. He was particularly entranced with Ch?vez?s music and the promise of Pan-American cooperation it seemed to offer. Rosenfeld promoted Ch?vez and his music through articles and social events. Tablada, Jos? Juan (1871-1945) ? Author, poet, and critic known for introducing the Japanese Haiku form to the Spanish language. As a young man, Tablada established himself as a modernist poet, founding the magazine La Revista Moderna. A trip to Japan in 1900 inspired a life-long fascination with Japanese culture. Because he collaborated with Victoriano Huerta during his brief rise to power (February 1913-July 1914), Tablada was forced to leave the country after Huerta was overthrown; like many other Mexicans of his generation, Tablada expatriated to New York. Pardoned by Carranza, he returned to Mexico and briefly served as a diplomat in Columbia and Venezuela. By 1920, he was back in New York where he ran a salon for Mexican expatriates and wrote a column for El Universal, ?Nueva York de Dia y de Noche.? Tablada led a movement to improve the image of Mexicans abroad through the promotion talented young Mexican artists. Ch?vez, along with visual 243 artist Miguel Covarrubias and musician ?Tata Nacho,? were among those aided by Tablada?s efforts. Var?se, Edgard (1883-1965) ? Composer closely associated with the musical vanguard of New York. Although there was a growing Modernist movement in New York before Var?se?s arrival in December 1915, over the next ten years, he became one of the most visible and vocal personalities involved. In 1921 he and Carlos Salzedo formed the International Composer?s Guild in order to present first performances of contemporary works to New York audiences. That same year, Var?se wrote Offrandes, which included a setting of French-language poems by Chilean writer Vincente Huidobro and Mexican writer Jos? Juan Tablada. After disbanding the ICG in 1927 and forming the Pan-American Association of Composers early the next year, Var?se returned to France, where he lived until 1933. While in France Var?se befriended the Cuban writer, poet, and music critic Alejo Carpentier, collaborating with him on a large composition provisionally titled ?The One All Alone,? which was never completed. Upon returning to the U.S., Var?se renewed his involvement with PAAC and began to work with the Society of the Friends of Mexico. During that same period he composed Ecuatorial (for bass voice and chamber ensemble), a setting of a prayer from the Popul Vuh, the sacred text of the Maya. Walton, Blanche (1871-1963) ? Patron associated with the ?ultra- modernists.? Probably the most accomplished pianists among the women patrons of her generation, Walton was not as wealthy as Claire Reis or Alma Wertheim. However, she owned a large home that she used to house composers and run a 244 musical salon. Enabled by Walton?s generosity, composers such as Henry Cowell, Charles Seeger, Carl Ruggles, and Ruth Crawford could afford to travel to the city, enjoy the musical life there, perhaps even work there, and return to their homes elsewhere in the country. Moreover, private concerts held in her home would often launch a young modernist?s career, as prominent members of the modernist community were sure to attend. Wertheim, Alma (1887-1953) ? Founder of the Cos Cob Press and patron supporting new music organizations, such as the ICG and the League, and individual composers, including Copland and many of his friends. Cos Cob Press proved to be an outlet for contemporary composers who could not convince traditional music- publishing houses to print their work. Composers in their catalogue included Roy Harris, Walter Piston, Roger Sessions, Virgil Thomson, and, of course, Copland. Ch?vez?s Piano Sonatina was one of the first works to be published by the press. It was among the most frequently performed of Ch?vez?s works in New York during the late 1920s. 245 Apendix F: Articles and Reviews about Carlos Ch?vez?s Horsepower in 1932 548 Pre-Performance Articles, 1932 Premiere: ?Plan Ballet Premiere,? Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 January 1932. ?Stokowski will Conduct Ballet?s World Premiere,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 18 January 1932. ?To Give Mexican Ballet,? New York Times, 18 January 1932. ?World Premiere of Mex Ballet at Philadelphia,? Exc?lsior, 18 January 1932 ?Estreno de una Obra Mexicana en Filadelfia,? Exc?lsior, 19 January 1932. ?Ha Salido Para Mexico el Maestro Stokowski,? Exc?lsior, 19 January 1932. ?Leopoldo Stokowski Sali? para Mexico,? El Universal, 19 January 1932. ?Stokowski to Conduct Mexican Ballet,? El Universal, 19 January 1932. ?Philadelphia Premiere,? Musical Digest (January 1932) 34. ?Settings and Costumes for Mexican Ballet ?H.P.? Placed on Exhibition Here,? Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 3 February 1932. Dorothy Grafly, ?Art,? Morning Public Ledger, 4 February 1932. ?Activities of Musicians Here and Abroad,? NYT, 7 February 1932. ?El Eminente M?sico Leopoldo Stokowski Lleg? Ayer a Veracruz,? El Universal, 8 February 1932. ?Sali? para Michoacan el Maestro Stokowski,? Exc?lsior, 9 February 1932. ?Stokowski Will Direct New Operas,? Trenton, NJ Times, 9 February 1932. ?Stokowski in Mexico for Opera Atmosphere,? Greenville, Ohio Advocate, 10 February 1932. [Similar articles printed in newspapers around the country] ?Stokowski Studies Dance,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 13 February 1932 ?Stokowski Returning, Likes Mexican Music,? Exc?lsior, 17 February 1932 548 Articles listed here can be found in the Carlos Ch?vez Archive, Archivo General de la Nac?on, Mexico City, Mexico. 246 ?Stokowski to Conduct in New York,? Lewiston, ME Sun, 22 February 1932. ?Diego Rivera Decoro la Obra de C. Ch?vez,? Exc?lsior, 26 February 1932. ?League to Give a Pan-American Program March 6,? NYHT, 28 February 1932. ?Stokowski is Back,? Philadelphia Star, 29 February 1932 ?Stokowski Returns Today from Wilds of Mexico,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 29 February 1932. Rivera, Diego. ?The Cocoanut,? Modern Music vol. 9/3 (March-April 1932) inside cover. [costume sketch] Rivera, Diego. ?On the Boat,? Modern Music vol. 9/3 (March-April 1932) 14. [set design sketch] Finn, Elsie. ?Stokowski Returns Thrilled Over Simple Life in Mexico,? Philadelphia Record, 1 March 1932. Hewes, Harry L. ?Stokowski Returns From Mexico with Admiration of Indian Culture,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 1 March 1932. ?Stokowski Back for Premiere of Mexican Ballet,? Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 1 March 1932. ?Stokowski Prepares to Rehearse Ballet,? Philadelphia Bulletin, 1 March 1932. ?Stokowski ?went Primitive? and Dipped into Communism to Get Atmosphere for ?H.P.,?? Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 March 1932. ??Horse Power? en Filadelfia,? El Universal, 2 March 1932. ?L. Stokowski Goes to Work on ?HP?? New York Telegraph, 2 March 1932. ?Mr. Stokowski?s Quest,? Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 2 March 1932. ?Obra Mexicana que se Est? Ensayando en la C. Imperial,? El Universal, 2 March 1932. ?Stokowski Principi? a Ensayar el Ballet Mexicano,? Exc?lsior, 2 March 1932. ?The Call of the Primitive,? Philadelphia Record, 3 March 1932. ?Hoy Se Estrena en la Ciudad de Filadelfia el Ballet Mexicano, H.P.,? El Nacional, 3 March 1932. ?Carlos Ch?vez Here,? Philadelphia Bulletin, 5 March 1932. 247 ?Composer of ?H.P.? Sees Stokowksi,? Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger, 5 March 1932. Finn, Elsie. ?Composer of ?H.P.? Arrives in Philadelphia,? Philadelphia Record, 5 March 1932. ?Preparing for World Premiere Here,? Philadephia Morning Public Ledger, 5 March 1932. [photo] ?Stokowski Opens ?Parley? on Ballet,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 5 March 1932. ?Other Music,? New York Evening Post, 9 March 1932. ?Activities of Musicians Here and Afield,? New York Times, 13 March 1932. ?Modern Mexican Ballet to Have World Premiere in Philadelphia,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 13 March 1932. [sketch of H.P., the man] ?Phil. Grand Will Give Double Bill,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 13 March 1932. ?Philadelphia Opera,? New York Herald Tribune, 13 March 1932. ?To Be Heard Here,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 13 March 1932. [photo] ?H.P. in Rehearsal,? Philadelphia Star, 19 March 1932. ?Rivera Designs setting for H.P.? San Francisco Chronicle, 20 March 1932. ?Preparing Novel Mexican Ballet,? Musical America, 25 March 1932. ?H.P. Premiere on Next Thursday,? Philadelphia Star, 26 March 1932. ?Activities of Musicians Here and Afield,? New York Times, 27 March 1932. ?Another Premiere,? Philadelphia Record, 27 March 1932. Ch?vez, Carlos. ?Ch?vez Discusses his Own Ballet,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 27 March 1932. ?Ch?vez?s Mexican Ballet, ?H.P.? to be Given in Philadelphia,? New York Herald Tribune, 27 March 1932. Martin, John. ?The Dance: A Mexican Ballet,? New York Times, 27 March 1932. Rivera, Diego. ?Banana,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 27 March 1932. [drawing of costume] 248 Rivera, Diego. ?The Sugar Cane,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 27 March 1932. [drawing of costume] ?Rivera Stage Designer,? Los Angeles Times, 27 March 1932. ?Stokowski Directs ?H.P.? in First Dress Rehearsal as Stock Attacks Moderns,? Philadelphia Record, 27 March 1932. ?World Premiere of Ch?vez Ballet,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 27 March 1932. ?Philadelphia Grand Lists 16 performances,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 28 March 1932. ?Hoy se Ejecuta en Filadelfia el Ballet H.P. de Carlos Ch?vez,? El Universal, 31 March 1932. ?To attend Premiere of H.P. Tonight,? Public Ledger, 31 March 1932. [photo of Miss Anna Wetherill] Previews and Reviews of the League, Contemporary Music Concerts, PAAC Concerts, and Yaddo Festival: ?League to Give Pan-American Program March 6,? New York Herald Tribune, 28 February 1932. F.D.P., ?Composers? League Gives Works From 7 Countries,? New York Herald Tribune, 7 March 1932. H.H., ?League of Composers Gives Modern Pan-American Music?Hamilton College Choir Sings,? New York Times, 7 March 1932. ?Modern Music to be Heard Monday,? Philadelphia Public Ledger, 13 March 1932. ?Contemporary Music Shows Little Merit,? Philadelphia News, 15 March 1932. ?3 Composers Join Society?s Concert,? Evening Public Ledger, 15 March 1932. Laclar, Samuel. ?Music: Composers Play Own Works,? Philadelphia Public Ledger, 15 March 1932. ?Modern Composers Play,? Philadelphia Bulletin, 15 March 1932. ?Music Group Gives ?Modern? Program,? Philadelphia Record, 15 March 1932. ?Philadelphia Hears Premieres of Work by Antheil and Ch?vez,? Musical America, 25 March 1932, p. 27. 249 ?Chamber Concert,? Christian Science Monitor, 26 March 1932. ?American Composers Will Meet at Yaddo to Give and Discuss New Works, New York Herald Tribune, 27 March 1927. ?Berliners Hear American Music Under Slonimsky,? New York Herald Tribune, 27 March 1927. Salzedo, Carlos. ?The American Left-Wing,? Eolus vol. 11 (April 1932) 9-29. Stein, Erwin. ?Modern Music in Vienna,? Christian Science Monitor, 9 April 1932. Reviews and Articles after 31 March 1932 Premiere of H.P.: ?Ambassador attends Ballet Here,? Public Ledger, 1 April 1932 [photo of Senor y Senora Jos? Manuel Puig] ?Artist?s Impressions of the Ballet, H.P.? Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1 April 1932. [drawing] Beck, Henry C. ??H.P.? Makes Premiere Here With a Bang as Sparkplugs Go Into a Song and Dance,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932. ?Fantastic Figures in Premiere of New Opera,? New York World Telegram, 1 April 1932. [photo of dancers in costume] ?Gauges Blended with Tropical Fruits in Philadelphia Opera,? Springfield, Massachusetts Evening Union, 1 April 1932. Hewes, Harry L. ?Brilliant Throng Defies Rain for ?H.P.? Premiere,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 1 April 1932. ??H.P.? A Bone with Little Meat on It,? Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 1 April 1932. ?Horse Power has its Opening,? Exc?lsior, 1 April 1932. Laclar, Samuel L. ?Music,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 1 April 1932. Martin, John. ?Mexican Ballet in World Premiere,? New York Times, 1 April 1932. ?News of the World Told in Pictures,? Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 April 1932. [photo of dancers from H.P.] Reiss, Robert. ??H.P.? Presentation is Swell Occasion, but Lacks Timely Proletarian Touch,? Philadelphia Record, 1 April 1932. ?Stokowski Dirigi? Ayer en Filadelfia el Ballet Mexicano de Ch?vez: H.P.,? Exc?lsior, 1 April 1932. 250 Watkins, Mary F. ?Ch?vez?s Ballet, ?H.P.? has Debut in Philadelphia,? New York Herald Tribune, 1 April 1932. ?El Ballet H.P. es muy Elogiado en Filadelfia,? El Universal, 2 April 1932. ?Despierta Inter?s el Ballet Mexicano H.P.,? El Nacional, 2 April 1932. Martin, John. ?Mexican Ballet in World Premiere,? New York Times, 2 April 1932. ?Nightmare of Pipe on Metropolitan stage,? Meriden, Conn. Record, 2 April 1932. ?Primera Presentacion del Ballet Mexicano,? El Universal, 2 April 1932. ?Se Dividen las Opiniones Sobre el Ballet, H.P.? La Prensa, 2 April 1932. ?Varied Criticism of New Ballet H.P.? El Universal, 2 April 1932. ?First Performance Given of ?Horse Power? Ballet,? Los Angeles Times, 3 April 1932. ?Operas of Week Afford Diversion for Musical Set,? Philadelphia Morning Public Ledger, 3 April 1932. ?Fue un Triunfo la Representaci?n de ?H.P.,?? El Universal, 5 April 1932. [photo collage and article] ?Carlos Ch?vez?s Mexican Ballet,? Christian Science Monitor, 9 April 1932. E.A.J., ?Mural Artists A-Tiptoe,? New York Times, 10 April 1932. Martin, John. ?The Dance: A Handicap Event,? NYT, 10 April 1932. Thompson, Oscar. ?Philadelphia Gives Ch?vez Ballet, H.P., in World Premiere,? Musical America, 10 April 1932. ?Como Fue Encomiado por la gran prensa de los Estados Unidos el Ballet ?H.P.? de Carlos Ch?vez,? El Exc?lsior, 11 April 1932. [reproduction of cartoon printed in Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1 April] ?Music,? Time, 11 April 1932. Hewes, Harry L. ?Sra. William C. Hammer, directora del la gran ?pera de Filadelphia, que habla con elogio del ballet ?H.P. de Carlos Ch?vez,? El Universal, 12 April 1932. ?Llego a Veracruz el Autor del Ballet H.P.? Exc?lsior, 15 April 1932. Whigham, H.J. ?Music and Musicians,? Town and Country, 15 April 1932. ?Figuras del Mundo Musical,? Exc?lsior, 17 April 1932. 251 ?En lo Futuro no Sera el Arte Cosa de Lujo Sino necesidad Vital? El Universal, 19 April 1932. Rosenfeld, Paul. ?American Premieres,? The New Republic, 20 April 1932. ?Who?s Who in the News,? Musical Digest (April 1932) 11. Blitzstein, Marc. ?Forecast and Review,? Modern Music vol. 9/4 (May-June 1932) 164-166. Rosenfeld, Paul. ?American Composers VIII: Carlos Ch?vez,? Modern Music vol. 9/4 (May-June 1932) 153-159. ?Editorially Speaking,? Musical Digest (May 1932) 7. Hewes, Harry L. ?The Mexican Ballet-Symphony, H.P.,? Pan American Bulletin (June 1932) 421-424. Anderson, Walter ?Horse-Powered Mexican Music,? America, 16 July 1932. 252 Bibliography Periodicals: La Antorcha, 1931-1932, Paris. Bulletin of the Pan-American Union, 1910-1948, Washington, D.C. Christian Science Monitor, 1983- Present, Boston. El Dem?crata, 1914-1926, Mexico City. El Exc?lsior, 1917-Present, Mexico City. The Literary Review, 1920-1927, New York City. Mexican Folkways, 1925-1937, Mexico City. Modern Music, 1925-1946, New York City. Musical Advance, 1913-1944, New York City. Musical America, 1898-Present, New York City. Musical Courier, 1883-1961, New York City. Musical Digest, 1920-1949, East Stroudsburg, PA. New York Evening Post, 1920-1934, New York City. New York Herald, 1835-1924, New York City. New York Herald Tribune, 1926-1966, New York City. New York Sun, 1840-1950, New York City. New York Times, 1857-Present, New York City. Philadelphia Inquirer, 1860-1934, Philadelphia, PA. La Prensa, 1913-1963, New York City. Pro-Musica Quarterly, 1925-1929, New York City. Sonido 13, 1924-1925, Mexico City. 253 Sonido 13, 1926-1927 (irregular), New York City. El Universal, 1918-Present, Mexico City. Archives consulted: Aaron Copland, Jascha Heifetz, Modern Music, and Nicolas Slonimsky Collections, Performing Arts Division, Library of Congress [LC], Washington, D.C. Carlos Ch?vez, Henry Cowell, League of Composers, Pan American Association of Composers, and Edgard Var?se Collections, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts [NYPL], New York, NY. Archivo Carlos Ch?vez, Archivo General de la Naci?n [AGN], Mexico City, Mexico. Archivo Juli?n Carrillo, Mexico City, Mexico. Additional Source Material Consulted: Agea, Francisco, ed. 21 A?os de la Orquesta Sinfonica de M?xico, 1928-1948. Mexico, D.F.: OSM, 1948. Alcaraz, Jos? Antonio. Carlos Ch?vez: Un constante renacer. Mexico, D.F.: Insituto Nacional de Bellas Artes, 1996. _____. Reflexiones sobre el nacionalismo musical mexicano. M?xico: Editorial Patria, 1991. Barr?n Corvera, Jorge. Manuel Mar?a Ponce: A Bio-Bioliography. Wesport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004. _____. ?Manuel M. Ponce: rom?ntico, moderno. ?Y la transici?n?? Heterofon?a 111- 112 (July 1994 - June 1995): 19-26. B?hague, Gerard. Music in Latin America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Bellamy, Laurette. ?The ?Sonido Trece? Theoretical Works of Julian Carrillo: A Translation with Commentary.? Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, May 1972. Belnap, Jeffrey. ?Diego Rivera?s Greater America.? Cultural Critique 63 (Spring 2006): 61-98. Benjamin, Gerald. ?Una dueda cultural saldada: la contribuci?n de Juli?n Carrillo a la m?sica del futuro.? Revista Musical Chilena 158 (1982): 60-67. 254 Bitran, Yael. ?Manuel M. Ponce: Cartas de amor desde Cuba (1915-1916).? Heterofon?a 188-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 9-23. Blackaller, E.R. La revoluc?on musical de Julian Carrillo. Mexico, D.F.: Secretaria de Educaci?n P?blica, 1969. Bloom, James D. Left Letters: The Culture Wars of Mike Gold and Joseph Freeman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Brading, David. Los origenes del nacionalismo mexicano. Mexico, D.F.: Ed. Era, 1995. Bradu, Fabienne. Antonieta (1900-1931). M?xico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1991. Britton, John A. Revolution and Ideology: Images of the Mexican Revolution in the United States. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995. Brogna, John J. ?Michael Gold: Critic and Playwright.? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Georgia, 1982. Brown, Charles T. ?A Latin American in New York: Alejandro Monestel.? Latin American Music Review 3, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 1982): 124-127. Calva, Jos? Rafael. Julian Carrillo y microtonalismo: ?la visi?n de mois?s?. Mexico, D.F.: CENIDIM, 1984. Carmona, Gloria. ?Carlos Ch?vez y la m?sica del futuro.? Pauta: Cuadernos de teor?a y cr?tica musical 12, no. 45 (January-March 1993): 5-18. _____. Carlos Ch?vez (1899-1978): Iconograf?a. Mexico: INBA, 1994. _____. ?La music de Carlos Ch?vez,? in Homenaje nacional a Carlos Ch?vez. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (SEP) 1978. 115-126. Carrillo, Juli?n and Dolores Carrillo. Juli?n Carrillo: Testimonio de una vida. San Lu?s de Potos?, Mexico:Comit? Organizador, 1992. _____. Pl?ticas Musicales. M?xico: Juli?n Carrillo, 1923. Castellanos, Pablo. Manuel M. Ponce. Compiled and revised by Paolo Mello. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, 1982. Ch?vez, Carlos. Epistolario selecto de Carlos Ch?vez. Edited by Gloria Carmona. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989. _____. Obras: Escritos Period?sticos. Edited by Gloria Carmona. 2 volumes. Mexico City: El Colegio Nacional, 1997. 255 Conti, Luca. ?Introducci?n cr?tica al ?Sonido 13? de Juli?n Carrillo.? Heterofon?a 123 (2000): 75-88. _____. ?Preludio a Col?n, Tepepan, Horizontes: proceso compositivo y estrategias formales en dos diversos fases del Sonido 13 de Juli?n Carrillo.? Heterofon?a 128 (January-June 2003): 9-32. Contreras Soto, Eduardo. ?Fonografia de Manuel M. Ponce.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 137-213. Copland, Aaron. The Selected Correspondence of Aaron Copland. Edited by Elizabeth B. Crist and Wayne Shirley. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Copland, Aaron and Vivian Perlis. Copland: 1900 Through 1942. New York: St. Martin?s Griffin, 1984. Cowell, Henry, editor. American Composers on American Music. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1933. Crist, Elizabeth. ?Aaron Copland and the Popular Front.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 56, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 409-465. Dale, Mark. ??Mi querido Manuel?: La influencia de Andres Segovia en la musica para guitarra de Manuel M. Ponce.? Translated by Eduardo Contreras Soto. Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 86-105. Daniel, Oliver. Stokowski: A Counterpoint of View. New York: Dodd Mead, 1982. Delgadillo, Luis A. Por mi honor musical: pol?mica sobre el sonido 13: p?ginas hist?ricas de mi vida art?stica. Managua, Nicaragua: Ministerio de la gobernaci?n, 1957. Delpar, Helen. The Enormous Vogue of Things Mexican: Cultural Relations Between the United States and Mexico, 1920-1935. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1992. _____. ?Goodbye to the ?Greaser?: Mexico, the MPPDA and Derogatory Films, 1922- 1926.? The Journal of Popular Film and Television 12, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 34-41. D?az Cervantes, Emilio and Dolly R. de D?az. Ponce, genio de Mexico: vida y epoca (1882-1948). Durango, Dgo.: Secretaria de Educaci?n, Cultura, y Deporte, 1998. DuPree, Mary Herron. ?Mirror to an Age: Musical America, 1918-1930.? Research Chronicle 23 (1990): 137-148. 256 Folsom, Michael Brewster. ?The Education of Michael Gold.? In Proletarian Writers of the Thirties. Edited by David Madden. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968. Gilbert, Steven E. ??The Ultra-Modern Idiom?: A Survey of New Music.? Perspectives of New Music 12, no. 1-2 (1973-1974): 282-314. Henahan, Donal. ?Andr?s Segovia: His Crusade Elevated the Guitar.? Guitar Review 70 (Summer 1987): 3-5. Hern?ndez-Hidalgo, Omar. Cat?logo integr?l del Archivo Julian Carrillo. San Luis Potos?: Editorial Ponciano Arriga, 2000. Hess, Carol A. ?Silvestre Revueltas in Republican Spain: Music as Political Utterance.? Latin American Music Review 18, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1997): 278- 296. Horowitz, Joseph. Classical Music in America: A History of Its Rise and Fall. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005. Iniguez, Francisco Javier. ?Discursos imaginarios, cultura popular y formaci?n del Estado en ?Mexican Folkways?.? Dissertation, University of California, Irvine, May 2001. Kanellos, Nicol?s and Helvetia Martell. Hispanic Periodicals in the United States, Origens to 1960: A Brief History and Comprehensive Bibliography. Houston, TX: Arte P?blico Press, 2000. Knox, George A. and Herbert M. Stahl. Dos Passos and ?The Revolting Playwrights.? Upsala, Sweden: The American Institute of Upsala University, 1964. Koegel, John. ?Compositores Mexicanos y Cubanos en Nueva York, 1880-1920.? Historia Mexicana 222, no. 2 (Oct.-Dec. 2006): 533-612. _____. ?Del Rancho Grande y a trav?s del R?o Grande: M?sicos mexicanos en Hollywood y en la vida musical norteamericana, 1910-1940.? Heterofon?a 128 (January-June 2003): 101-130. Lara Vel?zquez, Esperanza. Cat?logo de los art?culos de Jos? Juan Tablada en publicaciones peri?dicas mexicanas (1891-1945). M?xico: Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, 1995. Lederman, Minna. The Life and Death of a Small Magazine (Modern Music, 1924- 1946). Brooklyn, NY: Institute for Studies in American Music, 1983. Levin, Gail and Judith Tick. Aaron Copland?s America: A Cultural Perspective. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 2000. 257 Locke, Ralph P. ?Music Lovers, Patrons, and the ?Sacrilization? of Culture in America.? 19th Century Music 17, no. 2 (Autumn 1993): 149-173. L?pez Alonso, David. Manuel M. Ponce. Mexico City: Ediciones Botas, 1971. L?pez Moreno, Roberto. Cr?nica de la M?sica de M?xico. Mexico: Grupo Editorial Lumen, 2001. Lott, R. Allen. ??New Music for New Ears?: The International Composers? Guild.? Journal of the American Musicological Society 36, no. 2 (Summer 1983): 266-287. Lozano Herrera, Rub?n. Jos? Juan Tablada en Nueva York: b?squeda y hallazgos en la cr?nica. Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana, 2000. MacDonald, Malcolm. Var?se: Astronomer of Sound. London: Kahn and Averill, 2003. Madrid, Alejandro. ?De Mexico, concierto para Andres Segovia: Una vista al Concierto del Sur de Manuel M. Ponce.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 106-117. _____. ?Modernismo, futurismo y kenosis: las canciones de ?tropo seg?n Juli?n Carillo y Carlos Ch?vez,? Heterofon?a 123 (July-Dec. 2000): 89-110. _____. ?Writing Modernist and Avant-Garde Music in Mexico: Performativity, Transculturation, and Identity After the Revolution, 1920-1930? Dissertation, Ohio State University, 2003. Mart?n, Enrique, ed. Guty C?rdenas Cancionero. M?rida, Yucat?n: Instituto de Cultura de Yucat?n, 2006. Mead, Rita H. ?Latin American Accents in New Music.? Latin American Music Review 3, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1982): 207-228. _____. Henry Cowell?s New Music, 1925-1936: The Society, the Music Editions, and the Recordings. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1981. Meckna, Michael. ?Copland, Sessions, and Modern Music: The Rise of the Composer-Critic in America.? American Music 3, no. 2 (Summer 1985): 198- 204. Mello, Paolo. ?Hacia una nueva lista de las obras de Ponce.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 231-236. _____. ?Manuel M. Ponce, m?sico polifac?tico.? Heterofon?a 15, no. 79 (Oct.- Dec. 1982): 24-30. 258 Metzer, David. ?The League of Composers: The Initial Years.? American Music 15, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 45-69. Meyer, Donald C. ?Toscanini and the Good Neighbor Policy: The NBC Symphony Orchestra?s 1940 South American Tour.? American Music 18, no. 3 (Autumn 2000): 233-256. Miranda, Ricardo. ?D?un cahier d?esquisses: Manuel M. Ponce en Paris, 1925-1933.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 52-73. _____. ?Exploracion y s?ntesis en la musica de Manuel M. Ponce.? In Ecos, alientos y sonidos: Ensayos sobre musica mexicana. Xalapa, Veracruz: Universidad Veracruzana, 2001. 204-244. _____. Manuel M. Ponce: ensayo sobre su vida y obra. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1998. _____. ?Un poco de verdad en las cosas . . .? Heterofon?a 113 (July-Dec. 1995): 68- 72. _____. ?El Sonido de lo propio: Jos? Rol?n (1876-1945).? Mexico: CENIDIM, 1993. Mojica, Jos?. I, a sinner . . . Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1963. Moreno Rivas, Yolanda. La composici?n en M?xico en el siglo XX. M?xico, D.F.: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1994. _____. Rostros del nacionalismo en la musica Mexicana: Un ensayo de interpretac?on. Mexico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1989. Morillo, Roberto Garc?a. Carlos Ch?vez: Vida y Obra. M?xico: Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, 1960. Oja, Carol. ?The Copland-Sessions Concerts and Their Reception in the Contemporary Press,? Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 213-229. _____. ?Cos Cob Press and the American Composer,? Notes 45, no. 2 (Dec. 1988): 227-252. _____. Making Music Modern: New York in the 1920s. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Oles, James. ?For Business or Pleasure: Exhibiting Mexican Folk Art, 1820-1920.? In Casa Ma?ana: The Morrow Collection of Popular Arts. Edited by Susan Danly. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002. Parker, Robert. ?Carlos Ch?vez and the Ballet: A Study in Persistence,? Choreography and Dance 3, no. 4 (1994): 81-88. 259 _____. Carlos Ch?vez: A Guide to Research. New York: Garland Publishers, 1998. _____. Carlos Ch?vez, Mexico?s Modern-Day Orpheus. Boston, Mass.: Twayne Publishers, 1983. _____. ?Carlos Ch?vez: una panoplia de estilos.? In Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. 118-124. _____. ?Carlos Ch?vez y la musica para el cine.? Heterofon?a 17, no. 1 (January- March 1984): 13-27. _____. ?Copland y Ch?vez: Compa?eros de lucha.? Translated by Sof?a Gonzalez de Le?n. Pauta: Cuadernos de teor?a y cr?tica musical 8, no. 31 (July-September 1989): 5-22. Also in American Music, 5-4 (Winter 1987). _____. ?Leopold Stokowski y Carlos Ch?vez: contacto en Taos.? Heterofon?a 20-98, 99 (January-December 1988): 4-11. P?rez D?az, Clara. ?Presencia de Manuel M. Ponce en la cultura musical cubana.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 24-40. P?rez Monfort, Ricardo. ?Carlos Ch?vez en los a?os cuarenta: caudillo o cacique cultural.? In Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. 182-192. _____. ?Entre nacionalismo, regionalismo y universalidad: Aproximaciones a una controversia entre Manuel M. Ponce y Alfredo Tamayo Mar?n en 1920-1921.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 41-51. Pike, Alfred John and Jean Eichelberger Ivey. ?The discoveries and theories of Juli?n Carrillo, 1875-1965.? Inter-American Music Bulletin 55 (September 1966): 1- 4. Pollack, Howard. ?M?s que buenos vecinos: la amistad de Aaron Copland con Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas.? Translated by Eduardo Contreras Soto. In Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. Pollack, Howard. Aaron Copland: The Life and Work of an Uncommon Man. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1999. Ponce, Manuel M. ?Escritos y composiciones musicales.? Cultura 4, no. 4 (1917): 1- 40. _____. Nuevos Escritos Musicales. Mexico: Editorial Stylo, 1948. 260 _____. ?Carlos Ch?vez Ramirez, pianista y compositor,? Arte y Labor: ?rgano de la Uni?n Filarm?nica de M?xico 2, no.16 (1921) 7. Pulido, Esperanza. ?Diversos aspectos del nacionalismo de Manuel M. Ponce.? Heterofon?a 18, no. 3 (1986): 43-54. Pyros, John. Mike Gold: Dean of American Proletarian Writers. New York: Dramatika Press, 1979. Richard, Alfred Charles, Jr. The Hispanic Image on the Silver Screen. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992. Roberts, John. The Latin Tinge: The Impact of Latin American Music on the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Rodr?guez Lee, Mar?a. Mar?a Grever: poeta y compositora. Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica, 1994. Root, Deane L. ?The Pan-American Association of Composers (1928-1934).? Yearbook for Inter-American Musical Research 8 (1972): 49-70. Rosenfeld, Paul. Discoveries of a Music Critic. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1936. Saavedra, Leonora. ?The American Composer in the 1930s: The Social Thought of Seeger and Ch?vez.? In Understanding Charles Seeger, Pioneer in American Musicology. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1999. 29-63. _____. ?Carlos Ch?vez y la construcci?n de una alteridad estrat?gica.? In Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. 125-136. _____. ?Los escritos periodisticos de Carlos Ch?vez: Una fuente para la historia de la musica de Mexico.? Inter-American Music Review 10, no.2 (Spring-Summer 1989). 77-91. _____. ?Of Selves and Others: Historiography, Ideology, and the Politics of Modern Mexican Music.? Dissertation, Univeristy of Pittsburgh, 2001. _____. ?M?sica y vida musical en los escritorios period?sticos de Carlos Ch?vez: una fuente para la historia de la m?sica en M?xico.? Inter-American Music Review, 10 (1989): 77-91. Saborit, Antonio. ?Mexican Gaities: Ch?vez en la Babilonia de hierro? in Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. 261 Salazar, Gonzalo. ?El Otro Ponce.? Heterofon?a 118-119 (January-Dec. 1998): 219- 227. Schmitz, Nancy Brooks. ?A Profile of Catherine Littlefield.? Ph.D. Diss. Temple University, 1986. Segovia, Andr?s. The Segovia-Ponce Letters. Edited by Miguel Alc?zar. Translated by Peter Segal. Columbus, Ohio: Editions Orph?e, 1989. Shackleford, Rudy. ?The Yaddo Festivals of American Music, 1932-1952.? Perspectives of New Music 17, no. 1 (Fall-Winter 1978): 92-125. Slonimsky, Nicolas. Music of Latin America. New York: Da Capo Press, 1972. Sordo Sodi, Carmen. ?La labor de investigaci?n folkl?rica de Manuel M. Ponce.? Heterofon?a 15, no.79 (Oct.-Dec. 1982): 36-39. _____. Manuel M. Ponce, iniciador de la Etnom?sica en M?xico. Oaxaca: Ediciones de la Universidad Aut?noma Benito Ju?rez, 1973. Stevenson, Robert. ?Carlos Ch?vez visto por los Estados Unidos.? Heterofon?a (1981): 73. Stevenson, Robert M. ?Carlos Ch?vez?s United States Press Coverage.? Inter- American Music Review 3, no. 2 (Spring-Summer 1981): 125-131. Stevenson, Robert M. ?The Latin Tinge.? Inter-American Music Review 2, no. 2 (Spring-Summer 1980): 73-103. Stevenson, Robert. Music in Mexico: A Historical Survey. New York: Thomas A. Crowell, 1952. ML210.S8 Taruskin, Richard. ?Some Thoughts on the History and Historiography of Russian Music.? The Journal of Musicology 3, no. 4 (Autumn 1984): 321-339. Tello, Aurelio. ?Los v?nculos, o no v?nculos, de Revueltas y Ch?vez con Am?rica Latina: premisas para futuras investigaciones.? In Di?logo de resplendores: Carlos Ch?vez y Silvestre Revueltas. Edited by Yael Bitr?n and Ricardo Miranda. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura, 2002. Tenorio Trillo, Mauricio. ?Review: The Cosmopolitan Mexican Summer, 1920- 1949,? Latin American Research Review vol. 32, no. 3 (1997): 224-242. Vega, Aurelio de la. ?Latin American Composers in the United States.? Latin American Music Review 1, no. 2 (Fall-Winter 1980). 162-175. 262 Velasco, Jes?s. ?Reading Mexico, Understanding the United States: American Transnational Intellectuals in the 1920s and 1990s.? The Journal of American History 86, no. 2 (Sept. 1999): 641-667. Velasco Urda, Jos? and Juli?n Carrillo. Julian Carillo: Su vida y su obra. Mexico, D.F.: Grupo 13 Metropolitano, 1945. Velazquez, Marco and Mary Kay Vaughan. ?Mestizaje and Musical Nationalism in Mexico.? In The Eagle and the Virgin: National Identity, Memory and Utopia in Mexico, 1920-1940. Edited by Mary Kay Vaughan and Steve Lewis. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2006. 95-118. Wade, Graham. Andr?s Segovia. London: Robson Books, 1986. Weinstock, Herbert, ed. Carlos Ch?vez: North American Press, 1936-1950. New York: Herbert Barrett, 1950. Weinstock, Herbert and Carlos Ch?vez. Mexican Music. New York: W.E. Rudge?s Sons, 1940.