The Great Orchestrator: Arthur Judson and American Arts Management

Introduction: Confronting the Silent Giant

introduction Confronting the Silent Giant I n late April 1956, Howard Taubman, music critic for the New York Times, wrote one of the most influential articles of his career. Taubman, who had assumed the chief critic position just nine months earlier, was deeply dismayed by the health of the New York Philharmonic. As he later recalled: I took over the number one spot in September 1955, [and] I began to go to all the main events of the Philharmonic. . . . I found what was happening deplorable. [The conductor] was struggling; the orchestra was shot; the entire enterprise was in grave trouble.1 In a special Sunday feature that coincided with the Philharmonic’s final concert of the season, he unleashed a blistering eight-column critique entitled “The Philharmonic—What’s Wrong with It and Why.” Taubman’s assessment was not knee-jerk. Much of what he articulated—slumping subscriptions, undisciplined performances, stagnant programming, rudderless leadership— had all been stated in the press in previous years. But the sentiments had never been assembled in one place, nor expressed with such clarity and passion . The stakes were high, argued Taubman; the Philharmonic was not only the “fulcrum” of live orchestral music in New York but also an important American institution. He cautioned: Orchestras, like any other organizations, can have poor years. One unsatisfactory season need not cause alarm; it may be written off as unlucky and forgiven. But the Philharmonic’s prestige has been waning in recent years, and the 1955–56 season seems to this observer another step in a process of deterioration. Such a situation must not be allowed to occur.2 Doering_Text.indd 1 12/10/12 3:06 PM 2 . inTrODucTiOn Taubman’s criticism did not fade as end-of-the-season assessments often do. The Times printed a steady stream of reactions from its readers both for and against Taubman’s analysis. Meanwhile, music critics at other papers, such as Paul Henry Lang at the Herald Tribune, published equally strong critiques about the Philharmonic’s “deteriorating” health.3 Clearly there was something to Taubman’s claims, and the Philharmonic needed to respond. The first public sign of change came in September, three weeks before the start of the 1956–57 season. The Philharmonic announced that its longtime manager, Arthur Judson, had resigned. Judson’s resignation carried frontpage status in the Times in part because Taubman had called for it in his April piece. Taubman had singled out Judson’s multiple management interests, particularly his management of conductors and soloists, as an ongoing area of concern, if for no other reason than it looked bad. Taubman had noted: It should be emphasized that there is not the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. But disaffected people, with or without axes to grind, keep insisting that the Philharmonic is being used. . . . Would it not be better if there were an independent management in charge of the orchestra?4 The resignation’s front-page status was also due to Judson’s position in the music industry. This was no ordinary front office employee. In addition to thirty-four years of service at the Philharmonic, Judson was without question the most powerful music manager of the time and arguably in all of American music history. For nearly forty years, Judson had reigned over an empire of management interests that extended into every corner of the concert music scene. His résumé included the concurrent management of two major orchestras (the Philadelphia Orchestra and the New York Philharmonic ), the establishment of important artist management firms (Concert Management Arthur Judson and Columbia Concerts Corporation, which later became CAMI), the creation of one of America’s first radio networks (United Independent Broadcasters, which later became CBS), and the management of nearly every important conductor of the period. Judson’s various positions and interests had placed and kept him at the center of American classical music for half a century. Judson had also been an unshakable presence at the New York Philharmonic since 1922, a steady and respected hand who seemed impervious to controversy. He had weathered the organization’s biggest challenges, including mergers with other orchestras, labor disputes, financial fallout from the Depression, and a revolving door of principal conductors. Even when troubling questions surfaced in the 1940s about the conflicting interests he repDoering_Text .indd 2 12/10/12 3:06 PM confronting the silent Giant . 3 resented (i.e., both the orchestra and the...