The Society for American Music
Bulletin, Volume XXV, no. 1 (Spring 1999)
Organizing Orpheus: Protecting the American Orchestral Musician, 1890-1910
By Robert Schmaltz, University of Southwestern Louisiana
The ongoing struggle of the professional musician to gain respectability over the last two hundred
years in the United States is one in which unions have played a major, if not universally appreciated,
role. One issue hotly debated in the history of early trade unionism was whether such organizations
should practice exclusivity or inclusivity toward foreign-born musicians. The philosophical and
practical struggle of wills, although well documented, has remained only cursorily examined;
hence, the present article.
Up until 1896, the National League of Musicians (NLM) was the primary union for musicians. Its
organizational philosophy, which permitted the enrollment of only those individuals who met the
union's artistic standards, effectively excluded a large pool of working musicians deemed
unacceptable.1 When the NLM collapsed in the wake of the competition from the
1896 chartering of the American Federation of Musicians (AFofM) by Samuel Gompers's American
Federation of Labor, the standard appeared to have relaxed as the AFofM considered as professional "any
musician who receives pay for his services." Many NLM members joined the union and it expanded from a
modest base of 3,000 musicians in 1897 to eventually include 424 locals serving over 45,000
members in both the United States and Canada.2
The AFofM was bound by its charter to welcome into membership a far more broadly defined cadre of
"professionals." Although their definition of the term proved to be significantly different than
that of the older organization, the leadership of the Federation shared the NLM's distrust of
"foreign musicians" and both unions were heavily involved with lobbying efforts aimed at
strengthening the Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885. Unionists in general considered this
legislation to be crucial in their fight to restrict the importation of foreign workers, and the
musicians' unions repeatedly cited it in their efforts to restrict the use by American
orchestras of musicians procured from beyond the union's jurisdictional boundaries.3
The NLM happily claimed a membership comprised of highly skilled "artists"; thus, when a Congressional
amendment in the mid-1890s called for the exclusion of artists from regulation by the
Alien Contract Labor Law, that legislation ceased to be of value as a protectionist tool for
the union. Even after its amendment, the AFofM continued to attempt to invoke this law,
however, by claiming that foreign musicians were laborers and as such, subject to its
restrictions. After being generally rebuffed by the courts, unions were forced to shift
their emphasis to other measures in their efforts to control the employment of musicians. Perhaps
the most effective of these involved the controversial "six-month rules," established at first by
individual locals and later given the weight of the national organization. These residency
requirements provided that "foreigners" could not become members of a union local (and hence
could not accept a permanent position) until they had lived in the United States for one half
year.
One of the first ensembles to find itself targeted was the Chicago Orchestra and its legendary
music director, Theodore Thomas. Thomas agreed to organize the new ensemble in Chicago, using
as a nucleus his "Unrivaled New York Orchestra," a superb ensemble with which he had toured
the East in a series of "farewell concerts" in the spring of 1891. The public remarks of
Chicago businessman Charles Norman Fay, the moving force in the effort to establish a world class
orchestra in Chicago, endorsing the conductor's "search of the world for vigorous and enthusiastic
master musicians" only served to fuel union concerns.
The NLM's Chicago local took exception to this wholesale importation of players and formally
questioned the provisions of Thomas's contract with the Orchestral Association of Chicago at its
March 1891 convention in Milwaukee. Much to the annoyance of Maestro Thomas, a Chicago delegate
introduced a resolution which called upon Local 1 of New York City to annul the contract as being
"detrimental to the character and standing of the musicians of Cicago and their local (#4)." The
resolution further contended that the Thomas agreement violated the Alien Contract Labor Law by
importing foreign players to Chicago. Clearly, the local defined "foreign import" in very broad
terms; it appeared to be just as concerned over a flood of "foreigners" from New York City as from
Europe. In the event that Thomas refused to cancel the contract, this resolution called upon their
brother unionists in New York's NLM Local 1 to hold Thomas amenable to its bylaws and discipline him
accordingly. The autonomy enjoyed by NLM locals assured that Chicago "concerns" could only be expressed
to New York as a "request" for action; the national office was effectively powerless to enforce a
uniform standard.
Thomas took a dim view of what he considered to be unwarranted union interference. Soon after the
events which occurred at the union convention became public, the conductor issued the following testy
response:
I shall select my players where I find them; and will bring them from New York or go to Europe
for them if necessary. If there are good men in Chicago I will use them . . . I do not work for
money or business. I work only for art.4
Apparently the conductor had difficulty in finding local talent, for the orchestra assembled by
Thomas, which numbered eighty-six men, included only twenty-four musicians from the Chicago area.
The NLM was ineffective in this matter; the national leadership -- apparently aware of the weakness of
their position -- withdrew its formal motion of censure on the assurance of the New York delegates that
they would call upon Maestro Thomas and "undertake the necessary action." It remains unclear as to
whether the New York local ever talked to Thomas; in any event the union appears to have backed away
from any further confrontation, at least temporarily.
Union organizers experienced even less success in their effots to influence the hiring practices of
the country's most respected ensemble, the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Major Henry Lee Higginson, the
visionary patron of the BSO, was not shy in espousing a philosophy which permitted no external interference
in the ensemble's artistic affairs. The philanthropist's views are evident in a letter to his
friend Otto Dresel, penned in October 1888. In speaking of his relationship with his conductor, Otto Gerick,
Higginson affirmed:
I have never exercised any supervision; I have never urged him, and am not in a position to do so . . . . The
conductor must lay out his plans, of course make his programs, find new men if he loses the old ones,
either by their going or by his dismissal of them for ill conduct or for want of ability . . . . He is
free and unfettered in all these matters, has no government officer, inspector, or director to
bother him.5
When Gerick was replaced by Arthur Nikisch, the conductor of Leipozig's Stadt Theatre in 1889, the
Musician's Protective Union, a local not yet affiliated with any national union, initiated a challenge
to the appontment. The argument -- that Nikisch's employment constituted a violation of Alien Contract
Labor Law -- was similar to that leveled in Chicago by the NLM against Thomas. It too failed. Higginson,
if anything, became even more antiunion in his views. As he stated:
We have had to meet the chief of the Musician's Union, and to discuss its affairs with him. The union
specifies in a way the number of rehearsals, the pay for the musicians, the number of concerts,
etc., and that interferes with the engagement or dismissal of men. As I hold that all these
points are very important for the good of the Orchestra and must rest with me or my conductor, I
see no need nor use for the union. We pay more, ask entire control of the men, and see to it that they are
well paid, have pensions, and also get outside work if possible; therefore the union cannot benefit
them. We can keep the orchestra at its present level or even higher only by asking such work as
our conductor thinks essential. . . . On no other terms can I go on and pay a large subsidy, and not
control -- all this for the sake of art.6
That the confrontation between the union and orchestra management over Nikisch's employment was an
isolated event substantiates that Higginson's managerial philosophy was accepted by most musicians
in the orchestra.
In New York the conflicting philosophies of that city's two most important orchestral ensembles
were clearly demonstrated by their respective solutions to the question of "foreign imports."
Until well after the turn of the century the New York Symphony enjoyed a qualitative advantage
over its rival, the Philharmonic, by virtue of its policy of hiring of the most highly qualified
musicians, regardless of citizenship. The New York Philharmonic, like the London Philharmonic upon
which it was patterned, prided itself on its traditional organization as a cooperative society of local
musicians. As such it was not inclined to import players more expert than its members. Thus,
union restrictions placed upon musical imports were not a major concern of the Philharmonic
at this stage in its history.
Union efforts to control hiring thorugh the imposition of residency requirements were viewed as
a threat to their autonomy by most orchestral conductors, and, as a result, the "six-month rule"
was repeatedly challenged with wildly varying results. In 1891 Walter Damrosch engaged Adolphe
Brodsky, a Russian violinist, as the concertmaster of the New York Symphony. In this case the
conductor was successful in his effort to persuade the union to waive its rule, arguing that an
individual possessed of the requisite ability could not be obtained locally. Two years later,
however, when Damrosch attempted to obtain NLM permission to import a Scandinavian to lead
his cello section, the outcome was quite different; this time the union took a hard line and
publicly lambasted the conductor and his organization for its "repeated attempts to import
rafts of pauper musicians."7 Damrosch once again argued that his motives were "purely
artistic" and that the individual chosen was the best musician available to fill this important
position. The conductor urged the NLM not to enforce the "obnoxious" residency requirement, stating
that "it prevents a foreign musician from coming here and earning his own living as nine-tenths
of the members of this union have done."8
The whole affair became sufficiently heated that Damrosch, prompted by the unexpectedly strong
opposition to this appointment, offered his resignation. Faced with an escalating crisis, the
instrumentalists of the New York Symphony found themselves in the middle of a predicament. By 1893
their local was strong enough to enforce the impositon of stiff penalities upon members who performed
with non-union musicians.9 At a second meeting, the musicians were apprised of the
management's decision to retain Damrosch, and that Anton Hegner, the conductor's choice as the
principal cellist, would be hired over NLM objections. The concert series continued as
scheduled and the union did indeed levy fines on its members. It appears likely that the musicians
expected that Damrosch and Alexander Bremer, the union's president, would work out a compromise.
There was, however, no negotiation.
The crisis reached a climax on Sunday, 17 December 1893, the date of a second concert in the
Symphony's annual series. The following is a musician's account of the event:
When we were seated Mr. Hegner took his place. Not a sign of disturbance appared, but the men looked
worried and pale. The opening number was the overture to Phedre by Massenet, the first bars of
which are played by the brass. Maestro Domrosch's stick descended. Not a sound. The tension was
frightening. The conductor pleaded with his men, begging them to help him in what he considered to be
a rightful cause. At such a moment once forgot the audience. . . . The baton again descended.
Silence and absolute stillness.10
The New York Times story entitled "Damrosch Waved in Vain" reported that "the audience
became excited and Mr. Damrosch nervous." The conductor then provided the following statement from
the podium:
I regret to say that my men refuse to play with Mr. Hegner, my imported cellist. I am very sorry
that this has happened. The audience will have their money refunded at the box office.11
The public, sympathizing with Damrosch, greeted a member of the orchestra's strike committee with
boos and catcalls when he attempted to read a statement outlining the musician's concerns. Two days
after the non-concert fiasco, the Symphony Society announced the cancellation of its twenty-five-week,
one hundred concert season. The Times reported that "the orchestras which Walter Damrosch
has worked so hard for the last three years to establish is a thing of the past."12 Although
the action of the New York Symphony musicians in this incident proved as unpopular with the public
as similar work stoppages have been in the intervening years, it effectively served notice that,
for better or worse, growing union power could no longer be ignored. In this case the management
eventually found itself forced to capitulate on all important issues in order to salvage the
remainder of the season.
The New York Symphony strike of 1893 was the first in a major U.S. orchestra and the sole legacy of
the NLM. Although outside of New York it was too weak to effect similar results -- a fat that subsequently
contributed to the decision of several of its strongest locals to petition the AFofL for affiliation
as the American Federation of Musicians in 1896 -- the union's victory here underscored themes that would
emerge many more times in the years to come.
Unlike Higginson's Boston Symphony, which continued to hire the finest instrumentalists regardless
of nationality or citizenship, Damrosch, as a result of the 1893 strike, found himself confronted
with a local union capable of enforcing the decree requiring that is members be given priority
in hiring. If no available New York player was judged to be satisfactory, then the search could
be expanded to include musicians from other locals; but, on no account could a foreigner,
under the union's rules, be employed except as a soloist, until elected to the union after a
completion of a six-month residency requirement.
Damrosch again found himself the target of a union action in 1905. Early in that year the conductor --
believing French woodwind players to be the best in the world, and envious of the several Paris-trained
players in Boston -- contracted five outstanding French musicians, and once again a strike threat was
issued. This time the threat came from the local chapter of the new AfofM, a fact that
allowed Damrosch the recourse to appeal to the national board of the union to which the locals
were answerable.13 When the national convention of the union convened in Detroit during
May 1905, Damrosch was there to address the officers of its executive board. Over the local's strident
objections, the national officers agreed upon a compromise that would admit the five "imports" into
the union immediately. As a consequence of his failure to "properly advertise" these orchestral
openings, Damrosch was assessed a fine of one thousand dollars.14
Damrosch payed the fines "under protest" on 31 May having lost only a few weeks of his new
musician's services.15 The agreement did nothing to resolve the basic issues thus assuring
that the conflict would resurface. Ironically, the 1905-6 orchestral season was canceled in
Cincinnati -- the home of hte AFofM's local #1 and its national president, Joseph N. Weber -- over
an impasse between the union and the management of the Cincinnati Orchestra relating to conductor
Van der Sucken's hiring practices.
Evidently any public outcry at this run of events was insufficient to bring about a lasting solution. During
the first week of July 1907, newspapers throughout the country carried a report that the American
Federation of Labor and the afiliated American Federation of Musicians had reaffirmed its opposition
to permitting members to perform with "imported musicians." Once again the union leaders vowed to
appeal to the Bureau of Immigration in their effort to bar the hiring (except under union guidelines
i.e., adherence to the residence requirement) of musicians of other than U.S. citizenship. Emil Paur
and the Pittsburgh Orchestra became the next target.
Although the Pittsburgh confrontation which once again centered on hiring crucial personnel in
Europ, was resolved prior to the beginning of the 1907-8 season,16 the tug of war between the
national leadershop of the AFofM and the Pittsburgh organization, was watched closely by the
concerned managements of other major American orchestras. One Chicago newspaper offered the following
analysis:
[I]t is the probable contention of the federated musicians that there are at present in America a
sufficient number of musicians to supply all the wants of the Pittsburgh Orchestra. . . . This is not a
new contest, nor is it a new effort to fit art to the standard of trade unionism. New York is
frequently torn asunder by the efforts of its musicians to prevent the importation of other
musicians from the countries which the first comers left behind.17
The author of this article then voiced what had already become a major criticism of the union's
position:
The Federation of Musicians is constantly employed in an effort to fasten a grip upon American
msuic and musicians that will insure its position as a closed corportation from the decrees of
which there shall be no appeal.
Not every spokesman for music in the United States was as quick to dismiss the union's stand as
without merit. The American Federation of Musician's protectionist position in fact was reflective
of a growing "America first" movement that affected the country on several fronts in the years
prior to the United States' involvement in the "great war." An excerpt from an editorial published
in the Musical Courier, one of the industry's most widely circulated journals, is exemplary:
There are those . . . who have the silly habit of looking with patronizing contempt upon the
organization known as The Federation of Musicians, which opposed the importation of Foreign musicians to
supply the Cincinnati Orchestra, thus bringing about the disbanding of the orchestra.
Marc A. Blumenberg, the Courier's editor, continues by citing Joseph N. Weber, the AFofM's national
president:
I recognize that this is a far reaching question. Many people condemned us as soon as they heard
that we were disposed to object ot the importation of foreign artists . . . but I have no fear that
the American people as a whole will not jump at conclusions . . . Suppose an orchestra leader is
looking for a first violinist, an orboist or a horn player; suppose he searches the country
over without success and finally finds the man he wants in Berlin. Would we object to getting this
man? Not if we were certain that the leader had looked about in America first . . . Emphatically
I say (that) we are not opposed to art. We want the American people to have the best art obtainable
but we believe that if America is ever to have a symphony of her own she must begin to giver her own
sons a fair chance.18
The preceding events are only a part of the chronicle of confrontation, exclusion, compromise,
and occasional accommodation in the history of unionism in American musical enterprise. The most
surprising finding of this history is that nearly all of the sanctions initiated by unions against
the orchestras of this era involved the issue of job security. Questions of wages and benefits
appear to have had far less importnace for the musicians of one hundred years ago than tenure.
Orchestra managements, for their part, tied issues of absolute quality and artistic integrity
to their desire to retain sole control in matters of hiring and retention. Sadly, it would appear that
all too often, both union and management viewed their respective priorities to be mutually
exclusive.
Notes
1. A resolution, published immediately following the NLM's founding convention in 1886, states the
organization's intention "to prevent imposters nad impecunious musical quacks from practicing
their knavish arts and infirm capacity in public.
2. This figure is taken from the high-water mark of union member ship in the 1970s. George
Seltzer, Music Matters: The Performer and the American Federation of Musicians (Metuchen,
N.J.: Scarecrow pres, 1989), 10.
3. For a generic discussion of the Alien Contract Labor Law, see Gary M. Fink, ed., Labor
Unions (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977).
4. Thomas's negative view of musician's unions can be traced back to 1885, when he was confronted
with the opposition of the city's musicians over his intent to import a Belgian oboist to play in
his New York orchestra. See Seltzer, 15.
5. M.A. DeWolfe Howe, The Boston Symphony Orchestra, 1881-1931 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1931), 88.
6. Howe, The Boston Symphony, 90.
7. George Martin, The Damrosch Dynasty (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1983), 131.
8. The New York Times carried a thorough account of the Damrosch-Hegner affair. Quotes relating
to this issue have been published in the following 1893 issues: 15 December, 3:4; 17 December, 9:7;
18 December, 4:7; and 19 December, 8:1.
9. Figures quoted in Martin, Damrosch, 131-2, indicate that the New York local stipulated fines of
ten dollars for the first offense, twenty for a second; and expulsion thereafter -- this at a time
when thirty dollars per week was excellent pay for an orchestral player.
10. Martin, Damrosch, 1932.
11. New York Times, 18 December, 4:7.
12. New York Times, 19 December, 8:1.
13. NLM locals were esentially autonomous.
14. New York Times, 21 July 1905, 2:2.
15. New York Times, 1 June 1905, 20:3.
16. See accounts in the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, 28 June 1907; 2 June 1907; the Pittsburgh
Dispatch, 2 June 1907; and the Pittsburgh Press, 29 June 1907, among others.
17. Taken from an article originally printed in the Chicago Inter-Ocean; quoted here
from a reprint in the Pittsburgh Gazette Times, 28 July 1907.
18. Pittsburgh Gazette Times, 28 July 1907.
19. Marc A. Blumenberg, editor, "From Paris," an editorial in The Musical Courier, June 1907.
Robert F. Schmaltz holds the Ruth S. Grand Endowed Professorship in Music at the University of
Southwestern University. He is a frequent contributor to "Symposium," as well as to CMS regional
and national meetings and is a former president of the Southern Chapter.
Updated 6/15/99