{"id":3704,"date":"2019-09-16T19:25:29","date_gmt":"2019-09-17T00:25:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pages.stolaf.edu\/americanmusic\/?p=3704"},"modified":"2019-09-16T19:30:05","modified_gmt":"2019-09-17T00:30:05","slug":"best-bros-henry-finck-edward-macdowell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pages.stolaf.edu\/americanmusic\/2019\/09\/16\/best-bros-henry-finck-edward-macdowell\/","title":{"rendered":"Henry Finck & the Construction of An American Sound"},"content":{"rendered":"

Henry Finck\u2019s 1906 article \u201cCreative Americans: Edward MacDowell, Musician and Composer<\/a>\u201d was published in Outlook<\/em>, a New York-based magazine in operation from 1893-1924. The article\u2019s opening lines casually establish Finck\u2019s authority on MacDowell by stating that in the summer of 1895 he \u201cspent a few days with Edward MacDowell in a hotel on the shore of Lake Geneva.\u201d[1]<\/a> He further drops a subtle brag that MacDowell was \u201csorely tempted to ask my advice about various details, but refrained for fear of breaking into my vacation.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>This is Henry Finck. In addition to having an impressive mustache, Finck was an American music critic. Although German and a Wagnerite, he distrusted Germany. His 18 publications include Wagner and his works: the story of his life<\/em>, Richard Strauss: The man and his works,<\/em> Songs and Song Writers<\/em>, an autobiography, and books on gardening and food. Finck was a music critic at the Evening Post <\/em>for 43 years and a lecturer at the National Conservatory of Music (alongside Dvorak).[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

The purpose of Finck\u2019s article is not consistent. The first page seem to build up to the thesis that \u201cIt is time to drop the ludicrous notion that a truly national art can be built up only on folk-songs.\u201d[5]<\/a> This theme, particularly the importance of individuality, is further developed through the third page. Finck then suddenly switches to a lengthy discussion of MacDowell\u2019s education. Interestingly, in this section Finck uses the same revering tone that he describes MacDowell using towards his own idols (particularly Liszt and Raff), even going so far as to assert that MacDowell was \u201cthe greatest pianist this country has produced.\u201d[6]<\/a> Finally, Finck ends with a quick overvi\"\"<\/a>ew of what he considers to be MacDowell\u2019s best pieces and mourns the \u201closs to American music\u201d caused by MacDowell\u2019s death. He never seems to return to his \u201cthesis\u201d that individuality is the key to building a national art. In this way the article has a unique mix of informal musicological argument and half reverent biography.<\/p>\n

I came upon this source about MacDowell while searching for more context on Dan Blim\u2019s essay \u201cMacDowell\u2019s Vanishing Indians.\u201d I was excited to find this article because it seems to contrast some of Blim\u2019s arguments. Blim\u2019s essay states that:<\/p>\n

\u201c[A] so called \u201cIndianist\u201d movement had emerged, placing Native American subjects at the fore of US musical nationalism. Pisani attributes the success of this movement in large part to the participation of Edward MacDowell, the preeminent American composer of the day, who premiered his Second Suite for Orchestra with the moniker \u2018Indian,\u2019 in 1896.\u201d[7]<\/a><\/h2>\n

While Blim only quotes Pisani on this point, he does not refute it, leading me to the conclusion that he agrees with this argument. Blim in fact seems to take the argument for granted as it is presented in the portion of the essay dedicated to context. Although it perhaps was a personal issue that I didn\u2019t catch this distinction the first time around, my first experiences with the article led me to think that Pisani\u2019s claim was indeed a central pillar of Blim\u2019s own argument.<\/p>\n

However, Finck\u2019s article gives evidence that MacDowell specifically didn\u2019t <\/em>want to create a new American sound based on Native American music. Finck states that MacDowell:<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026never indorsed the view\u2026 that a great American Temple of Music might and will be built with Indian songs as the foundation-stones. Nor has he ever countenanced the widely prevalent opinion that negro melodies form the only other possible basis of a distinctively American school of music.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/h2>\n

In combination with his own argument that individuality is the key to building\u00a0up an American school of music, Finck\u2019s interpretation of MacDowell\u2019s intentions (or lack thereof) contrasts with Pisani\u2019s claim that the \u201cIndianist\u201d movement was conscious and deliberate. Finck only speaks towards MacDowell\u2019s intentions, and because actions and intentions are not the same, it is highly plausible that both Pisani and Finck are correct. I synthesize these conflicting arguments\u00a0into the claim that MacDowell did not intend to participate in the \u2018Indianist\u2019 movement but was nevertheless accidentally a key player in the construction of a US musical nationalism.<\/p>\n

This was but one interesting tidbit in a rather long article. Other intriguing morsels that I don\u2019t have space to unpack in this blog post include:<\/p>\n