In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

10 the Cleveland orchestra in the World (1965–68) Touring the Soviet Union and Europe, 1965 the exchange of performing artists, including soloists, dance companies, and orchestras , played a role in the post–World War II world ideological struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. the American National theatre and Academy (ANtA), which had managed the Cleveland orchestra european tour in 1957, had come under the new Cultural Presentations Program of the United States Department of State. the Boston Symphony orchestra (1956), the Philadelphia orchestra (1958), and the New york Philharmonic (1959) had already visited the Soviet Union. for its tour in 1965, the State Department chose the Cleveland orchestra from seven organizations proposed by its Music Panel, chaired by leopold Mannes. the Cleveland tour of europe and the Soviet Union would be the longest foreign tour yet undertaken by an American orchestra—eleven weeks, from April to June 1965. the orchestra and its members were ambassadors not only for Cleveland but for the nation as well. tensions with the Soviet Union had eased somewhat since Stalin’s death in 1953, but the cold war continued. A representative of the State Department, terrence Catherman, briefed orchestra members on tour etiquette. We were cautioned not to wander too far from hotels and not to photograph what the Soviets considered military targets, including railroad stations, airports, and any views from an airplane. the Soviet authorities could confiscate film and cameras and could make arrests for infractions of their rules with the slightest provocation. Currency restrictions were strictly enforced and black market activity severely punished . these conditions added to the pressures of performing.1 Szell exerted a strong hand in planning the itinerary and limiting the number of concerts. Unlike 1957, he would have relief: louis lane and robert Shaw would 224 . chapter 10 conduct a few concerts. Both local concert sponsors and the State Department urged more concerts in more cities and travel on concert days to increase profits for the former or political capital for the latter. Szell limited the number of concerts and made sure of sufficient rest after travel, so the orchestra would stay at top form. He succeeded so well that at the last concert of the long tour, Szell could say to a Cleveland reporter: “I feel better than ever and actually fresher than at the end of a regular Cleveland season. So does the orchestra—as they told me. Although we are just finishing what amounts to a 42-week season, the weeks of the european tour were interspersed with many and well-spaced rest days and rest periods so that everybody is actually feeling fresher at the end of the tour than at its beginning, where the fatigue of the regular season was still being felt.”2 In advance of the tour, Szell had to deal with numerous local sponsors’ requests for entire programs, specific works, and even conductors. At the beginning of his vacation in Switzerland on June 22, 1964, Szell was not pleased. Without a secretary , he wrote several letters and sent copies of some he received to Barksdale: “Just arrived in Zurich (Helene is already in england), I find on this supposedly first day of my vacation more mail than ever and have been drudging at the typewriter for hours. Well, never mind. Here is the news.” He was still drudging in August when he wrote his friend Margareta ebert, who had relayed the dissatisfaction with Szell’s Stockholm program of her boss, the Swedish impresario Helmer enwall, and his suggestion of a few “sure fire” works, such as a tchaikovsky symphony or Dvořák’s New World. Szell stated that they would not have any tchaikovsky symphony in their tour repertoire. the Dvořák was lane’s Soviet repertoire alone. Szell remarked: “this piece, beautiful as it is, has in America distinctly receded into the ‘Pops’ category and we cannot tour with it [there]. Altogether it must be remembered that we do not and cannot play all the time those 3–5 hackneyed Symphonies which the managers consider ‘sure fire’ and which ‘bring down the house’ no matter which conductor and which orchestra is playing them. our task is, on the contrary, to show that we can have that kind of audience success with pieces that are not necessarily considered ‘sure fire’ but are great music and will be uniquely performed.” Szell suggested a compromise of Meistersinger Prelude, Barber Piano Concerto, “(sensational piece, very Public-like and yet interesting...

Share