"Experimentalists and independents are favored": John Edmunds in conversation with Peter Yates and John Cage, 1959-61

Notes, June, 2008 by Amy C. Beal

It is not a list of the presently most admired, nor the best, nor anything else needed to justify it. But I'll bet you my intuition against yours that, in another 20 years these are the composers who will stand out, as their predecessors Varese and Copland stand out now against Carpenter and Deems Tayior--do you remember Carpenter and Deems Taylor! That is the reason for this list. Read the Introduction. ... Be brave. Be calm. Be positive. Before all else be prejudiced. Let them come your way, as I have done 25 years. (36)

As Yates continued to dispute his friend's choices, Edmunds, equally prickly, responded that he would not back down on a single point.

The list will include No Schuman, Piston, Menotti, or Hanson. Riegger was an oversight--and I've set up a full bibliography for him. Barber's out for the reason I mentioned earlier today--he's not a fighting name. Don't be rigid--just because I started with him that is no reason to be saddled beyond recall. He'll be in the next list of conservatives--the good boys. Why do you tell me Nancarrow shouldn't be in? He ISN'T. (37)

Indeed, though Yates had already submitted his essay, the pair continued to argue about the place of Barber (among others). Edmunds clarified further the true, yet officially unspoken division between the two lists--volume 1: "experimentalists and independents"; volume 2: "conservatives--the good boys." Edmunds wrote:

Of course it was a mistake to include Barber in the bibliography. His is not a fighting name--a point you make abundantly clear in the course of your introduction. He is a libera! conservative and will fit excellently and appropriately into the sequel--the 1960 bibliography, which is to include Piston, Menotti, Thomson, Hanson, and many more distinguished and honorable contributors to the wealth of American music. The present list will include only experimentalists and independents. (38)

The hardening of these categories continued. A few days later Yates elaborated on his own view about what qualities defined the lists, the strategies involved in these decisions, and his assessment of the place of various composers' work within ranks of "radicals," "consenative-radicals," "academics" or "membership [in the] experimental group."

I would prefer to keep Barber on the inside edge of the radicals, where to be honest your original putting him there convinced me, after initial hesitation, that he does belong; to keep him there, if necessary, as a measuring stick, using the commentary 1 have about him. Then Menotti would tie the two lists together at that joint. I am convinced that the motivating urge of Barber's best music is the same as Copland's, to get as far out as he can in spite of every urge to draw back. They arc really much alike, and the "mature" Harris and the semi-successful Hovhaness belong there too. Sessions is a rather special case, but all these conservative-radicals, who are more than radical enough for the broad public, should be kept together. When you get into the true academics, like Piston, Porter, Hanson, and so on, the conservativism dominates. No, I am very much opposed to withdrawing Barber, not because of taste but for strategic reasons. Riegger, however, must be added. I still believe you have exaggerated the clever but musically ungifled Brant. I can't find a note of his which bears comparison with the better work of Imbrie, Bill Smith, Shifrin. He is, like Schuman, in a strategic position, which he exploits by using tricky names. Have you ever really listened to his music? He is far more conservative, essentially, than Barber. Besides a conservative listing, you should have a third "native American" listing--looking for a title which signifies non-European native-born conservatives by taste and training but experi-mentai by contagion to include several of the names above, with possibly Ross Lee Finney as their mentor--though this might be the correct place for Porter--in comparison, say, with Sessions. . . . Do you want to send me the Introduction for rewriting when you have decided on the membership of this experimental group, or can I make my changes all over the proof ? (39)