Conductors in Britain, 1870–1914:Wielding the Baton at the Height of Empire by Fiona M. Palmer (review)

In March 1894, Bach's St Matthew Passion, conducted by Charles Villiers Stanford, was performed extremely badly at the Queen's Hall. Among the many complaints by the critic of the Pall Mall Gazette who reviewed the performance were of poor-quality soloists (some of them foreign), an 'unfeeling' chorus, and an incompetent conductor. As the critic asked of Stanford, 'but is he—well is he?—quite the ideal conductor of Bach's music?' This negative review facilitated a letter to the editor from some musical heavyweights with their honorifics proudly displayed: A. C. MacKenzie P.R.A.M.; G. Grove, Director R.C.M.; Otto Goldschmidt, late Director of the Bach Choir; Walter Parratt, Master of the Queen's Musick, and C. Hubert H. Parry. But some readers were not convinced by their defence and for days afterwards the Pall Mall Gazette published letters from readers and eye- and ear-witnesses testifying that the Bach performance was indeed as poorly executed as the paper's critic had claimed.

This brief episode in British musical history presents a number of tantalizing prospects for scholarship. They include the history of Bach performance practice, the politics of the cultural cringe, the probable lack of rehearsal time given to orchestras, the training of choruses, lackluster conducting, and the many reasons why an elite group of London's musical establishment felt the need to defend the status quo. Arguably of more interest is the tone in which the Pall Mall Gazette allowed this copy to go to press. The use of italic in the expression 'well is he?' was rare, reserved for only extreme situations. Two further points are worth mentioning: the general public rallied to defend the critic (and undermine The Establishment) and the Gazette willingly published their letters. More to the point, the Gazette felt the need to bring Stanford's conducting to account.

This example of the performance of the St Matthew Passion in 1894 and the issues it raises are brought to bear on a much wider and comprehensive scale in Fiona M. Palmer's latest book. She charts the development of the profession of the conductor in Britain and the 'contribution and outlook of individual personalities, their relationships with involvements with concert-giving institutions, the challenges of the repertoire, and the changing expectations of audiences and critics whose consumption of art music was gathering pace' (p. 12). After an introductory chapter, there are four main chapters that examine the careers of pairs of conductors: Julius Benedict and William Cusins (ch. 2); Joseph Barnby and Arthur Sullivan (ch. 3); Frederic Cowen and Alexander Mackenzie (ch. 4); and Dan Godfrey, Jr and Landon Ronald (ch. 5). This pairing of conductors is methodologically innovative but risky in terms of balance and comparison. However, Palmer gets the balance and connections right and blends and weaves their achievements, controversies, and musical lives into a fascinating narrative.

The fortunes of these conductors are not examined in isolation. Palmer is careful to provide a context for her discussion of the immigrant composers such as Charles Hallé and August Manns. Further connections to conductors and conducting in Europe—and occasionally elsewhere, such as the United States— provide a compelling context in which the British experiences of conducting can be understood. Also considered at points throughout the book is Wagner's influence on local conductors.

Palmer explains the complexity of the role of the British conductor in the first chapter in the case of Michael Costa. As keyboard player, composer, and conductor, he had a typical portfolio career and held a raft of different conducting jobs during turbulent times of the Philharmonic Society when it was plagued by poor management and lack of direction. Costa's musical and management skills turned the Philharmonic around. Over time, he became known as an autocratic conductor but effected...