• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

A descriptive analysis of Arthur Bird's Suite in D

Dissertation
Author: Andrea Elizabeth Brown
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate Arthur Bird's (1856-1923) Suite in D for double wind quintet. This study presents a biographical sketch about the composer and a descriptive analysis of the Suite in D in order to bring attention to this turn of the twentieth-century American composer and the substantial number of works Bird created. Existing, accessible information focusing upon Arthur Bird and his music is limited. Therefore, it is important to provide conductors and performers with another resource as they study and perform the chamber wind works of Arthur Bird is important. In conjunction with the written document, a lecture recital was presented in which the work was performed in its entirety. The performing ensemble included students from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Music. The lecture recital took place on Sunday, March 21, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. in the Organ Recital Hall. The analysis process involved three aspects: the study of the musical score for Suite in D, evaluation of reference recordings, and researching of documents about the composer's life and music. After a brief introduction, the document presents a brief biographical sketch about Bird and his music as it pertains to the Suite in D including Bird's early years in Boston, Massachusetts, and his musical education in Europe. Also included in the study are descriptions of Bird's compositional output, criticism, personal and professional relationships, and activity later in life. The biographical section concludes with a description of the compositional origins and historical context of the Suite in D. Following the biographical information is a descriptive analysis of the Suite in D examining aspects of formal organization, harmonic content, melody, and rhythmic vocabulary. Performance considerations of the Suite, as well as conclusions, complete the study. Due to the orchestrational craftsmanship, harmonic interest, and melodic content, Bird's music is considered to be meritorious among work by American and European art music composers during the turn of the twentieth century.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1

II. COMPOSER’S BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION & HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SUITE IN D......................................................................4

Biographical Information.............................................................................4 Oeuvre Highlights and Criticism.................................................................9 Historical Context and Criticism of Suite in D..........................................13

III. ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................17

Movement I: Allegro moderato.................................................................17 Form and Harmonic Content.........................................................17 Melodic Content............................................................................19 Rhythmic Vocabulary....................................................................21 Movement II: Andante moderato...............................................................22 Form and Harmonic Content.........................................................22 Melodic Content............................................................................23 Rhythmic Vocabulary....................................................................25 Movement III: Allegretto quasi allegro.....................................................26 Form and Harmonic Content.........................................................26 Melodic Content............................................................................27 Rhythmic Vocabulary....................................................................29 Movement IV: Allegro con fuoco..............................................................29 Form and Harmonic Content.........................................................29 Melodic Content............................................................................31 Rhythmic Vocabulary....................................................................35

IV. PERFORMANCE CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................37

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.........40

Summary....................................................................................................40 Recommendations for Further Study.........................................................41

vi

BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................. 43

DISCOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 45

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Page

Figure 1. Bird, Suite in D, Movement I, measures 1 - 8 (Theme 1A)...........................19

Figure 2. Bird, Suite in D, Movement I, measures 45 - 52 (Theme 2A).......................20

Figure 3. Bird, Suite in D, Movement I, measures 75 - 78 (Closing Theme) ...............20

Figure 4. Bird, Suite in D, Movement I, measures 121 - 124........................................21

Figure 5. Bird, Suite in D, Movement I, measures 234 - 242........................................21

Figure 6. Bird, Suite in D, Movement II, measures 1 - 9 (Theme 1).............................24

Figure 7. Bird, Suite in D, Movement II, measures 18 - 22 (Theme 2).........................24

Figure 8. Bird, Suite in D, Movement II, measures 62 - 65...........................................25

Figure 9. Bird, Suite in D, Movement III, measures 9 - 16 (Theme 1)..........................27

Figure 10. Bird, Suite in D, Movement III, measures 25 - 28 (Theme 2)........................28

Figure 11. Bird, Suite in D, Movement III, measures 75 - 82.........................................28

Figure 12. Bird, Suite in D, Movement IV, measures 1 - 12 (Theme 1A)......................32

Figure 13. Bird, Suite in D, Movement IV, measures 13 - 14 (Theme 1B).....................32

Figure 14. Bird, Suite in D, Movement IV, measures 53 - 65 (Theme 2A)....................33

Figure 15. Bird, Suite in D, Movement IV, measures 93 - 96; 99 - 105..........................33

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

For most classically trained musicians, Arthur Bird (1856-1923) would not rank among the most renowned composers of Western Art music of the late 19 th century. Most would also not know that he was an American composer. Arthur Bird was, in fact, a contemporary of Edward MacDowell, Arthur Foote, and George Templeton Strong, and was among the first to successfully bring American music to the attention of both Europeans and Americans. Loring credits Bird as being America’s first composer of ballets and exceptional chamber music for winds. 1

Although Bird composed both vocal and instrumental music in many genres, his contributions to the chamber wind literature are considered among his finest work. Performances of his chamber pieces for winds are infrequent, yet they are performed and recorded more often than the remainder of his oeuvre. Bird’s works for chamber winds include two works for double wind quintet of substantial length and content, Suite in D and Serenade, and the Marche Miniature for woodwind nonet. This study focused on the earlier of the two larger works, the Suite in D. The purpose of this study was to present a descriptive analysis of Arthur Bird’s Suite in D for double wind quintet. Biographical information relevant to Bird’s career as

1 William C. Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird: An Explanation of American Composers of the Eighties and Nineties for Bicentenial Americana Programming, No Publisher: Atlanta, 1974: 2.

2

a composer and a descriptive analysis of the Suite in D in an effort to bring more attention to an American composer of substantial creative output at the turn of the century. The existing, accessible information regarding Arthur Bird and his music is limited. Therefore, it is important to provide conductors and performers another resource for study and performance of the work of Arthur Bird. Dr. William Cushing Loring (1914-2002) completed much of the previous research. Loring was a graduate of Harvard and a successful urban sociologist. After he retired, Loring focused on his interest on American art and music and became a docent at the Smithsonian's Museum of American Art. Loring worked with Scarecrow Press to develop a series of more than 20 books on various North American composers, including The Music of Arthur Bird: An Explanation of American Composers of the Eighties and Nineties for Bicentenial Americana Programming (1974). 2 Loring’s 1974 publication, along with his two other documents written in the 1940s, made him the most published expert on the subject of Arthur Bird. There is no evidence available to suggest that Loring was more than an amateur musician; therefore, his musical analysis commentary is lacking in detail and relies on comments of Bird’s contemporaries and critics. All three of the sources written by Loring referenced in this document lack a bibliography or reference list. Since Loring is unable to be contacted, much of his source material remains unidentified. Despite the

2 Claudia Levy. “William Loring Dies; Urban Sociologist.” Washington Post, Jan.9, 2002.

3

lack of source information, Loring’s work remains the primary source of data concerning Arthur Bird and his music. The document presents a biographical sketch about Bird including a discussion of his early years and education, his compositional output and criticism, personal and professional relationships, and late activity. The descriptive analysis of Suite in D focuses upon the form, melody, harmonic content, and rhythmic vocabulary of each of the four movements. This analysis is followed by a discussion of performance considerations for the work, as well as conclusions regarding the Suite in D among the repertoire of chamber music for winds and Arthur Bird’s presence among the ranks of American and European art music composers.

4

CHAPTER II COMPOSER’S BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE SUITE IN D

Biographical Information Arthur Homer Bird was born on the Watertown-Cambridge township line in Massachusetts on July 23, 1856. 3 Bird was raised in this rural area on a farm owned jointly by his father, Horace Bird, and his uncle, Joseph Bird. 4 Beyond vocations as farmers, Bird’s father and uncle were known in the New England area as singing teachers, hymn and song writers, and editors of singing books used to develop music reading. 5 Horace and Joseph Bird were friends of Lowell Mason and were involved in the activities and teaching at Mason’s Boston Academy of Music. Horace Bird was also an active performer – most notably on organ. In addition, he led evening singing schools in the Boston area and some of his music pupils included the children of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. 6

With all of the music around him, it is not surprising that Arthur Bird became interested in music. His father, Horace, became his primary teacher and provided most of his American musical training. With this training, Bird became one of five of Horace’s

3 William C. Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” Musical Quarterly 29:1, January 1943, pp. 78-91: 78. 4 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 19. 5 Tawa, Nicolas E. Sweet Songs for Gentle Americans: The Parlor Song in America, 1790 – 1860. Bowling Green University Popular Press: Bowling Green, OH, 1980: 194. 6 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 78.

5

eleven children to earn all or part of their living with a career in music. 7 By the age of 12, Bird had succeeded his older sister, Helen, as the organist of the First Baptist Church of Brookline, Massachusetts, and began earning the funds to study music abroad. 8

Because of his musical talent, Bird’s family sent him to Germany after his high school graduation in 1875 to study organ and piano with E. Rohde, A. Haupt, and A. Loeschorn. 9 Bird remained there until 1877, when he returned to North America and was appointed organist at St. Matthew’s Church in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Along with his organist position, Bird taught at the Young Ladies’ Academy, founded the first men’s chorus in the province of Nova Scotia, and began to compose. A few of these works remain although they are without opus numbers and are unpublished. They include a work for solo violin with accompaniment, a soprano solo with organ accompaniment, and a short work for string quartet. 10

Four years later, for unknown reasons, perhaps an intensifying interest in composition, Bird left Nova Scotia and traveled to Berlin again. In Berlin, he studied composition and orchestration with Heinrich Urban whose other notable pupil was Ignacy Jan Paderewski (1860 - 1941). 11 Bird studied with Urban until 1883 and

7 Ibid, 79. 8 Ibid, 79. 9 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 13. 10 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 79. 11 Elson, Louis Charles. The History of American Music. MacMillan & Co.: London, 1904: 216.

6

composed his first and second compositions to which he gave an opus number: Suite in E major for String Orchestra, Op. 1 (1882) and Three Pieces for Piano, Op. 2 (1882). 12

In 1884, Bird met the composer Franz Liszt, and the two men became involved in an important and influential professional relationship. Bird impressed the composer with a performance of his own piano pieces for Liszt’s seventy-fourth birthday. Bird became a pupil and devoted disciple and spent most of the next two years studying with Liszt in Weimar. Liszt became influenced Bird’s orchestration and tone color choices – most notable in Bird’s tone poem, Carnival Scene, Op. 5 (1884). Liszt also consoled the young composer after a critic attacked an early performance of Carnival Scene, Op. 5. When the critic stated that Bird should be committed to an asylum for writing such music, Liszt wrote that if Bird did indeed go, “he would be pleased to go with him.” 13

German and American recognition and success occurred for Bird in 1886. Early during 1886, Bird conducted his first concert with Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, which included his Symphony in A Major for Large Orchestra, Op. 8 (1885), First Little Suite for Large Orchestra, Op. 4 (1884), and Concert Overture in D (1884). The concert brought Bird recognition in Berlin as a “musician of great ability and originality.” 14

During the summer of the same year, Bird returned to America to attend the annual meeting of the Music Teachers National Association and to officiate as the director of the Milwaukee Music Festival, which Liszt attended. Bird also presented an

12 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 80. 13 William C. Loring. Arthur Bird: His Life and Music. No publisher: Newton Centre, MA, 1941: 4. 14 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 80.

7

organ recital at the Boston Music Hall and in Halifax, and performed several piano recitals. Bird was also able to attend the American premiere of his Carnival Scene, Op. 5 in Chicago that summer. 15

The performance of Bird’s Second Little Suite for Orchestra, Op. 6 (1885) at the Milwaukee Music Festival, with the composer conducting, was highly acclaimed. A review from the festival in the Milwaukee Sentinel stated that he was:

the most prominent of American composers, and the best known in the old country . . . he deserves to be especially praised for having invented an array of splendid new orchestral combinations . . . Mr. Bird’s compositions are played by the great orchestras of Berlin, Weimar, Leipzig, Munich, and other large German cities, where he is considered to be the only American representative composer. 16

Following the Milwaukee appearance, Bird returned to Berlin to present his well- received, new ballet, Rübezahl, Op. 13 (1888) written especially for the Royal Opera. Bird immediately transcribed the work for piano four hands for more profitable commercial consumption. 17

Bird’s last year of intense compositional activity was 1887. Almost half of his compositional output, Op. 4 through 23, came from the period of 1885 - 1887 18 . The slowing of Bird’s compositional activity after 1887 correlated with his marriage to Wilhelmine Waldmann on February 29, 1888. Bird’s new bride was a widow with ample income and her financial support enabled him to slow his prior fervor of composition.

15 Ibid, 81. 16 Ibid, 81-82. 17 Ibid, 82-83. 18 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 60-69.

8

Waldmann thrived within a musical circle that easily combined with Bird’s, and the couple enjoyed a luxurious suburban home that attracted artists from all over Europe. Loring wrote “the Walter Damrosches and Morris Bagby never visited Berlin without visiting the Birds.” 19

Bird’s comfortable life in Germany kept him away from his home country and led to a loss of contact with Bird and his compositions. Bird was elected to the National Institute of Arts and Letters in 1898 20 and was included in the seventh volume of Who’s Who in America: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Living Men and Women of the United States published in 1912, however, his music remained underappreciated. 21 The disconnect between Bird and his homeland is a likely reason for the lack of knowledge and performance of his works in America. Another possible cause was that many of his works were published with titles in French or German, without his approval, further reinforcing his invisibility in the United States. 22

Later activity included only two trips to the United States for the Birds. The first was in 1897, which involved an American performance of his opera, Daphne, and introducing his wife to his relatives. Another trip to the United States was in 1911 to visit relatives in Massachusetts for several weeks and to discuss the possibility of writing an

19 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 83. 20 W. Thomas Marrocco and Warren Apple. "Bird, Arthur H." In Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/ grove/music/03121 (accessed April 5, 2010). 21 Albert Nelson Marquis, ed. “Bird, Arthur.” In Who’s Who in America: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Living Men and Women of the United States.” Vol. 7 (1912-1913). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner: London, 1912: 172. 22 Loring, Arthur Bird: His Life and Music, 9.

9

American opera. The First World War and the post-war depression prohibited any later travel to the United States. 23

The post-war depression also affected the Bird’s livelihood. A loss of their financial investments caused the Birds to sell their lavish home in suburban Berlin and move permanently to their apartment in the city’s Kurfürstendamm district. To supplement their income Wilhelmine Bird began to write the “woman’s page” in a Berlin newspaper because of her highly reputed culinary and needlework skill. Bird began to add to the income from his occasional compositional work and teaching by contributing articles to American musical publications such as the Musical Leader. 24

On December 22, 1923, Arthur Bird became suddenly ill and died while riding a suburban train. William Loring stated that he died suddenly and peacefully, without causing anyone to notice until the train came to its final stop. His wife, now twice a widower, contributed the autograph scores in her possession to the United States Library of Congress in 1924. 25

Oeuvre Highlights and Criticism As a composer, Arthur Bird was described as “the most promising American composer of the middle and late Eighties.” 26 He was the first American to obtain

23 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 84. 24 Ibid, 84-5. 25 Ibid, 85. 26 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 16. A quote by the former conductor of the Boston Symphony, Arthur Nikisch in April, 1912.

10

commissions in Germany, France, and the United States. 27 Bird wrote for nearly every form of art music and type of ensemble. His oeuvre is extensive considering his relatively short period of intensely active composing prior to 1891. A listing of the number of works by genre includes:

Three works for the theater (two ballets and one comic opera) Eighteen works for orchestra Two works for military band Five works for solo instruments with chamber orchestra Fifteen works for chamber ensemble (including three for chamber winds) Eighteen works for piano four-hands (several are arrangements of other works) Thirty-one works for solo piano Ten works for organ (possibly more) Nine works for harmonium Fourteen works for voice. 28

Loring stated that Bird’s “use of rich harmony and much modulation produces lustrous sound and luminous color.” 29 Throughout his writing, Bird exhibited a proficiency for combining melodies and tone colors. Loring also stated that Arthur Bird had three particular compositional strengths: (1) his musical representations of scenes similar to the subjects of American Luminist painters (light and landscapes), (2) composing within dance forms, and (3) composing works communicating some form of humor. 30

27 Ibid, 16. 28 Ibid, 60-69. 29 Ibid, 3. 30 Ibid, 17. According to the Grove Art Online Dictionary, Luminism is the American landscape painting style of the 1850s-1870s, characterized by effects of light in landscapes, poetic atmosphere, through the use of aerial perspective, and a hiding of visible brushstrokes. The style was superseded by Impressionist technique. Leading

11

Loring states that thematic material in Bird’s compositions was usually influenced by melodies and rhythms that he heard growing up in New England. Several exhibit the influence of what Bird heard in the singing schools where his father and uncle taught. Others exhibit influence of the dances and folk songs of Irish Americans, the American South, and several European countries. 31

A self-described “conditional modernist,” Bird exhibited a tendency to use the language of the visual arts in his writing. He wrote, “Music is a medium which permits a sense of movement in space and time not possible to the graphic artist.” 32 Bird appreciated the artistic representation and sensitivity to color and light in the work of American Luminist painters; however, he felt music was able to communicate imagery more efficiently than the visual arts. 33

Bird’s orchestral writing was compared to Georges Bizet in 1889 because of his use of intriguing tone color. 34 About his compositional style, Bird stated that his goal was “to paint ideas skillfully in glowing, original, and perfectly toned colors, and to be a successful seeker, finder, and opener of new and original orchestral effects.” 35 Bird, as did critics, considered his most important work to be his second ballet, Rübezahl (1888). Other important works for orchestra included Carnival Scene, Op. 5 (1884), First and

American Luminists were Fitz Hugh Lane (1804-1865), John F. Kensett (1816-1872), Martin J. Heade (1819-1904), Jasper Francis Cropsey (1823-1900), and Frederick E. Church (1826-1900). 31 Ibid, 18. 32 Ibid, 11-12. 33 Ibid, 21. 34 Ibid, 4. 35 Ibid, 8.

12

Third Movements from Symphony in A, Op. 8 (1885), and Third Little Suite for Large Orchestra, Op. 32 (1890). Along with several of his orchestral works, Bird’s two major works for winds are considered among his best compositions. Both of the works for double quintet were described in 1905 by Arthur Lasser as expressing a “cheerful baroque.” 36 The first, Suite in D, will be described in detail later, but the second, Serenade for Winds, Op. 40 (1898) should be mentioned as well. The Serenade, consisting of five movements, was the winner of the 1901 Paderewski Prize for the best chamber music work of “composers of American birth without distinction as to age or religion.” 37

As seen in the list of works, Bird made significant contributions to the repertoire to the music of piano, organ, and harmonium (reed organ). These efforts were generally for financial reasons since they were the most accessible for purchase and performance by the amateur musicians of the day. Because his writing for piano, organ, and harmonium intended for amateur musicians, the works were not always Bird’s most original or imaginative. 38 Bird also made a conscious decision to further the repertoire written explicitly for the harmonium, an a reed organ that was commonplace in the homes and small churches. Bird developed a normal-harmonium notation system that was included by the publisher with each piece of music purchased so that the precise stops envisioned by the composer could be interpreted precisely by the performer. 39

36 Ibid, 2. 37 Ibid, 28. 38 Ibid, 50. 39 Loring, “Arthur Bird, American,” 90.

13

Historical Context and Criticism of Suite in D The Suite in D was completed in 1889 for double wind quintet. The work was the first of Bird’s two major compositions for two flutes, two oboes, two clarinets, two bassoons, and two horns. 40 Composed in four movements, the piece is between 22 and 25 minutes in length, depending on the tempos of the performance and the use of the optional cut in the fourth movement. The piece was commissioned in 1889 by Paul Taffanel (1844-1908), the flute professor of the Paris Conservatory, and his Société de Musique de Chambre pour Instruments à Vent. Taffanel had heard Bird’s previous woodwind writing in the Nonet: Marche Miniature for Woodwinds and Opus 17 for Flute and Small Chamber Orchestra and was impressed enough with the American composer’s work to commission a work for his own ensemble. 41 Upon looking at the score, it is apparent that a virtuoso flutist commissioned the work. Solos for the first flute occur throughout, demanding extreme technical ability, especially in the Coda section of both the First and Fourth movements. The Suite in D was not assigned an opus number by Bird but has been considered his Opus 29. Information regarding the European premiere or Taffanel’s criticism of the piece is not currently available; however, the Suite in D was premiered in the United States on February 10, 1908, by the Longy Club. The program also included Quintet, Op. 8 by A. Magnard and W. A. Mozart’s Trio for Oboe, Clarinet and Bassoon. 42

40 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 29. 41 Ibid, 29. 42 Ibid, 30.

14

Several documented criticisms of the Longy Club’s premiere of Bird’s Suite in D have been documented from that evening. Harvard composer Edward B. Hill wrote:

The Suite is a pleasing and melodious composition. It is coherent and well- developed in form. It lies easily within the range of the instruments, and displays no little knowledge of their resources. Moreover, its musical sentiment is pleasing and unostentatiously fluent throughout. It does not display very pronounced individuality, neither is it reminiscent of any particular school or composer. While it does not attain either intensity or depth of expression, it nevertheless pleases by virtue of the simplicity, directness and unaffected manner in which the musical thought is unfolded. Altogether a creditable, if not remarkable composition, which displays considerable scholarship and control of resources . . . On the whole this Suite is an agreeable addition to the repertory, all too slight, of effective work for wind instruments, and as such invites repetition. 43

44

Another Boston music critic in attendance, theory professor Louis Charles Elson, wrote: 45

[Bird] is modern enough in what he has to say, and knows how to say it. He does not indulge in extremes and his musical effects are attained without any straining. From the very first of the Suite there was beautiful melody and intelligible figure treatment . . . The delicacy of the second movement, the crisp almost musette-like character of the scherzo with its difficult work for bassoons, the beautiful contrast (horns chiefly) of the trio, the attractive oboe theme with flute figuration in the finale, these are but a few points of a thoroughly commendable work. The performance was exquisite. 46

Philip Hale of the Boston Herald was less complimentary in the following review: His output has not answered the promise of his younger years…The suite played last night is cheerful, amiable music, well put together, the work of a musician

43 Ibid, 30. 44 David Whitwell, “The Longy Club Season Eight: 1907-1908.” In Essays on the Origins of Western Music, http://www.whitwellessays.com/docs/DOC_834.doc (accessed February 3, 2010): 10. 45 “Recent Books of Musical Topics.” The Nation: A Weekly Journal Devoted to Politics, Literature, Science, and Art 68.1760 (1899): 227-8. 46 Loring, The Music of Arthur Bird, 30.

15

that uses easily his tools. It is fresh and spontaneous in an old-fashioned way. As far as harmonic progressions are concerned, the suite might have been written in the fifties. In fact there are progressions in the organ works of Buxtehude in the 18 th century that are more modern.

The melodies are of the square-toed variety. There is no doubt after hearing the first few measures how each tune will go on and end. The composer has no tricks, no surprises. His music is that of a prosperous man. Yet there is something pleasing about it. The unblushing frankness with which Mr. Bird adheres to orthodox forms and obvious expression is in its way admirable. 47

Despite the overall positive reviews of the work, Suite in D did not, and still has not, become a regularly performed work in the United States. The absolute cause of this cannot be determined; however, one must believe that a lack of a champion of Bird’s works in his native country in his absence was detrimental. More modern criticism of Bird’s work does exist. All three of Arthur Bird’s chamber music works for winds are included in Rodney Winther’s An Annotated Guide to Wind Chamber Music for Six to Eighteen Players (2004). About the Suite, Winther wrote that it “is a very tuneful work containing reminiscences of many composers including Mendelssohn and Schubert…It is scored in such a way as to complement the individual instruments and the overall ensemble.” 48

The Suite in D is not granted the significance or frequency of performances as Charles Gounod’s Petite Symphonie (1885), though easy comparisons could be made. The works are written for similar instrumentation (Bird employed one additional flute) and consist of the same number of movements that follow the same movement/tempo

47 Whitwell, “Longy Club Season Eight: 1907-1908,” 10. 48 Rodney Winther, An Annotated Guide to Wind Chamber Music for Six to Eighteen Players, Miami:Warner Bros., 2004: 213.

16

structure: allegro, andante, scherzo, and allegro. The works are similar in that they are both light in nature and constructed around delightfully colorful melodies. Both works were constructed in clear, definite classical forms. Of course, they both also share a common cause of conception, commissions of Taffanel, and so contain soloistic material for the first flute more so than for any other part. Gounod’s piece was, of course, written first, which could provide the possibility that future research may provide evidence that Bird heard a performance of the Petite Symphonie before he began the composition of the Suite in D.

Full document contains 54 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate Arthur Bird's (1856-1923) Suite in D for double wind quintet. This study presents a biographical sketch about the composer and a descriptive analysis of the Suite in D in order to bring attention to this turn of the twentieth-century American composer and the substantial number of works Bird created. Existing, accessible information focusing upon Arthur Bird and his music is limited. Therefore, it is important to provide conductors and performers with another resource as they study and perform the chamber wind works of Arthur Bird is important. In conjunction with the written document, a lecture recital was presented in which the work was performed in its entirety. The performing ensemble included students from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Music. The lecture recital took place on Sunday, March 21, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. in the Organ Recital Hall. The analysis process involved three aspects: the study of the musical score for Suite in D, evaluation of reference recordings, and researching of documents about the composer's life and music. After a brief introduction, the document presents a brief biographical sketch about Bird and his music as it pertains to the Suite in D including Bird's early years in Boston, Massachusetts, and his musical education in Europe. Also included in the study are descriptions of Bird's compositional output, criticism, personal and professional relationships, and activity later in life. The biographical section concludes with a description of the compositional origins and historical context of the Suite in D. Following the biographical information is a descriptive analysis of the Suite in D examining aspects of formal organization, harmonic content, melody, and rhythmic vocabulary. Performance considerations of the Suite, as well as conclusions, complete the study. Due to the orchestrational craftsmanship, harmonic interest, and melodic content, Bird's music is considered to be meritorious among work by American and European art music composers during the turn of the twentieth century.