NEWSLETTER JULY, 1971/VOL. 4, NO. 2

1972 NATIONAL CONFERENCE

The 1972 National Conference of the Society will be held April 7-9 at the Peabody Conservatory in Baltimore. Robert Hall Lewis (Goucher College and Peabody) will be in charge of concerts and arrangements, assisted by Jean Eichelberger Ivey (Peabody). John Clough (University of Michigan) will arrange panels and papers.

Members having topics to suggest for panels, discussions, or papers should begin to think even now about writing to John Clough.

1971 NATIONAL CONFERENCE

The Sixth Annual National Conference of the Society , held at the University of Houston the weekend of April 16-18, provided elements of both continuity and contrast with previous conferences. The greatest contrast was probably the geographical location. For many participants, the conference provided the first opportunity to visit Houston, and for some the state of Texas. A pre-conference visit Friday morning to the Manned Spacecraft Center not only allowed a first-hand view of such famous sights as Mission Control and the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, but also recalled the fact that the Fifth Annual Conference had taken place during the perilous flight of Apollo 13.

Considering the present concentration of membership in the East Coast regions, it is not surprising that slightly fewer members attended this year than last. What was more significant for the future of the Society is that the conference was held in another part of the country and that representation at the conference was nation-wide. Th,e setting was indeed appropriate for the frank and objective history of the Society with which David Burge opened the conference. His appraisal of the organization's successes and failures in achieving its original goals stimulated much informal discussion throughout the weekend , culminating in the general meeting Sunday morning devoted to "A.S.U .C.: Its Accomplishments and Its Future." These events enclosed a packed program of four conc~rts and three panels. In all, works of some twenty-four composers were presented, representing a wide spectrum of styles. The nature of new music was whimsically called into question by the inclusion of three Scriabin Etudes and Joseph Lamb's Ethiopia Rag in the program of the University of Texas New Music Ensemble . Since copies of the Conference program are being mailed with this newsletter, concert listings are not given here.

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY

OF UNIVERSITY COMPOSERS

The three panel discussions provided interesting echoes and comparisons with panels at the Santa Barbara Confer­ence two years earlier. Some of the participants of the Santa Barbara panel on electronic music were involved in the Houston discussion of "Computer Synthesis of Sound : New Ideas." Charles Dodge's progress report on the musical potentialities of speech synthesis computer programs was perhaps the only "idea" new to most of the conferees. What emerged from presentations of the other panelists was more an indication of a new trend. The past five years have seen the development and dissemination of general purpose computer sound generation programs and attempts (through FORTRAN and ALGOL translation) to make these widely available . It appears that the next several years will witness increased specialization both in the develop­ment of programs for specific models of computers and in the use of segmented special purpose programs. Barry Vercoe's MUSIC 360 (written for the IBM 360 series) and Hubert Howe' s MUSIC? (written for the Sigma 7) make possible much faster operating times and make it more feasible to generate complex instruments or larger numbers of simultaneous voices.

A panel on "The Nature of Continuity in Music" raised questions similar to those touched upon in the Santa Barbara panel, "Should Composition be Taught?" Both panels stimulated much audience participation, although the current panel was divided in the presentation between historical and compositional continuity.

Many composers continue to be puzzled by the func­tions of performing rights organizations and the intricacies of copyright law. The discussion by Leonard Feist (Na­tional Association of Music Publishers) and Herman Finkle­stein (General Counsel of A.S.C.A.P.) focused attention on the necessity for copyright reform and on the obligation of educators to recognize the rights of intellectual property and to compensate creative artists for their work. It was implied, if not stated, that A.S.U.C. as an organization could do more than It does toward countering the attitude among educators that an artist is sufficiently repaid if his work is studied and performed and that he should not object to the use in schools of royalty free reproductions.

Although much needs to be done toward increasing membership and providing more activities at the regional level, most members left the Houston conference with an optimistic view of the Society's future .

- David Cohen University of Arizona

NEWS FROM THE REGIONS

A number of changes in Regional Chairmanships may be noted in the listing at the end of the Newsletter. The Society owes its thanks to retiring National Council members Clifford Taylor, Otto Henry, and David Cohen.

Region II (Chairman Allen Brings, Queens College) held a successful symposium of graduate student compositions May 15 at Sarah Lawrence College. It is hoped that a different school each year will host the symposium. May 17 the Region gave a program at Columbia University, with performers including the Da Capo Chamber Players playing the music of Robert Moevs, Allen Brings, Ludmila Ulehla, Stefan Wolpe, Raoul Pleskow, Joan Tower, and Mario Davidovsky.

Region III (Chairman Robert Hall Lewis, Goucher College), in addition to being the host Region for next year' s Conference, hopes to repeat its successful Regional meeting held in Baltimore in March.

Region V (Chairman Richmond Browne, University of Michigan) will elect a new Chairman in the fall. Members of the Region may nominate themselves or others by writing to Browne.

The Regions were decided upon in 1968. Members may wish to note the distribution of states:

Region I: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa­chusetts, Rhode Island;

Region II: Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico;

Region III: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Delaware;

Region IV: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Caro­lina, Tennessee, Virginia;

Region V : Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michi­gan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin;

Region VI: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas;

Region VII: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah;

Region VIII: Arizona, Southern California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada;

Region IX: Alaska, Idaho, Northern California, Ore­gon, Washington.

Members in Canada or Mexico should consider them­selves affiliated with the Region nearest them in the United States.

ASUC MEMBERS IN ACTION

Richard Bunger has been awarded a Martha Baird Rockefeller grant with which he has commissioned fellow ASUC members Olly Wilson and Jon Appleton to compose works for piano in ensemble with college student musicians. On May 22 Bunger and violist Milton Thomas appeared with the National Symphony in Washington, D.C., as soloists in the world premiere of Henri Lazarofs Ricercar for Piano, Viola, and Orchestra.

Joel Chadabe has been given a grant to build a portable synthesizer by the New York State Cultural Council Foundation. Chadabe is currently working on his new Ideas of Movement at Bolton's Landing, in which he will perform with Moog equipment using his newly-designed control system.

Barney Child's When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloo'med for chorus, concert band, and soloists, a recent commission from the Wisconsin State University at River Falls, was premiered there May 19.

Karl Korte is finishing a Guggenheim year spent mostly in the new electronic studio at SUNY, Binghamton. His R emembrances for flute and tape was premiered May 21 by Samuel Baron, and will be heard soon on WBAI and on the Pacifica Network. Korte's Second String Quartet was played May 10 by the Lenox Quartet at the opening of the Second Annual May Festival of Contemporary Music at the · New School in New York City.

Robert Hall Lewis will hear his Symphony No. II premiered in October by the Baltimore Symphony Orches­tra. His Toccata for Solo Violin and Percussion is a recent CRI release.

Donald Martino is currently finishing his Concerto for Violoncello and Orchestra, a commission for cellist Aldo Parisot.

Lawrence Moss has had two premieres in recent months. His Ariel was first performed in March by Bethany Beardslee in New Haven; a commissioned orchestral work , Paths, was premiered at the University of Chicago in May with Eugene Narmour conducting.

John E. Price will again teach "The Role of the Black in Western Music" as a summer course at Eastern Illinois University. His Scherzo I for Clarinet and Orchestra will be performed during the California meeting of the National Association of Negro Musicians at San Francisco State College.

Elliott Schwartz' Island for orchestra, premiered in Rotterdam at the Gaudeamus International Music Week last

fall, received its first U.S. performance by the Portland Symphony Orchestra in February. His Signals has recently been released by Deutsche Gramophon.

Marilyn J. Ziffrin is in residence at the MacDowell Colony during May. Her In the Beginning ... was performed in December by the Percussion Ensemble of the University of Indiana.

A 1970 list of members is included in the new Proceedings IV of the Society, just off the press. Members in good standing should have received their copy by now; if not, please write the Executive Committee in New York. Proceedings JV covers the 1969 Conference in Santa Barbara; editors Paul Lansky and Barney Childs are hard at work on Proceedings V and VJ

AWARDS AND PRIZES

Adolphus C. Hailstork, a graduate composition student with H. Owen Reed at Michigan State University, is a co-winner of the annual Ernest Bloch Award Competition 1970-71 for his choral composition Mourn Not the Dead. The Competition is sponsored by the United Choral Society of Cedarhurst, N .Y.

The sixth annual Bowdoin College Contemporary Music Festival, May 6-8, featured William Albright's Danse

. Macabre (a newly-commissioned work), and Edwin Lon­don's Enter the Madmen for chorus and instruments. Co-winners of Bowdoins' competition for new music John Heiss and Lawrence Widdoes also heard their works premiered at the Festival. All of these works are to be published by the Bowdoin College Music Press. The Festival's featured performers, the Aeolian Chamber Players, will present their eighth consecutive summer series of concerts at Bowdoin this season. The Aeolians include violinist Lewis Kaplan, founder of the group; Jonathan Abramowitz, cello; Erich Graf, flute; Lloyd Greenberg, clarinet; and Walter Ponce, piano.

SUMMER INSTITUTES

The Summer Electronic Music Institute at the University of New Hampshire will be held from July 19 to August 13, 1971. Information about the course, taught by Hubert S. Howe, Jr. (Queens College) and John E. Rogers (New Hampshire), is available from the University's Division of Continuing Education, Huddleston Hall, Durham, N.H. 03824.

A workshop in Electronic Music for school music teachers, taught by Jean Eichelberger Ivey, will be offered at the Peabody Conservatory, Baltimore, Maryland, from July 12 through 16.

Arizona State University will offer a Seminar in Com­puter and Synthesized Music during its first term of summer school. The course is being taught by David Cohen, director of ASU's new electronic music studio (housed in a beautiful new eight-story building designed by Taliesin Associates). The University's new Contemporary Music Ensemble, directed by Frank Spinosa, has completed a successful first season.

COMPETITIONS

Columbia University has established the Walter Hinrich­sen Award for Composers to be given every fall. The $3,000 stipend will take the form of a commission, a recording, or a publication. Winners will be chosen on the basis of their entire work. At times the award will be an advanced fellowship for a doctoral candidate in music at Columbia. Professors Chou Wen-Chung and Jack Beeson are in charge of the program.

COMPOSITIONS AVAILABLE

The Newsletter will publish notice of ASUC members' works available whenever space is free. Send particulars­title, instrumentation, timing, terms, etc.-to the Editor.

RICHMOND BROWNE

Chortos I (1968), semi-improvised work for speech chorus, five minutes, commissioned by the Church of Christ, Yale University .

Chortos JI (1970), includes Chortos I with the addition of tubular bells, musical saw, power saw, and small flash­lights, about fifteen minutes, commissioned by the Univer­sity of Connecticut.

Available from the composer; terms to be arranged.

DONALD MARTINO

Concerto for Piano and Orchestra, 27 minutes; 3,2,3,3; 4,2,3 ,l; 3 perc.; celesta, harp ; strings. Commissioned by the New Haven Symphony Orchestra. Score and 2-piano reduction available.

Concerto for Wind Quintet, fifteen minutes, commis­sioned by the Berkshire Music Center and the Fromm Foundation.

Published by Ione Press (E. C. Schirmer, Boston).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Barney Childs, Johnston College, University of Red­lands, Redlands, California 92373, as of 1 September 1971.

Karl Korte, Professor of Composition, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, as of September 1971.

CHAIRMAN REVIEWS ASUC HISTORY

(The following summary of the first years of the ASUC was presented by National Chairman David Burge as the opening address of the 1971 Houston Conference. In collecting his material, Burge corresponded with several dozen members, most of whom have been with the Society since its inception. Portions of some of that correspondence are directly quoted.)

******************* The American Society of University Composers was

conceived and formed in 1965 by a group of composers living in and around New York City. These seven men, Benjamin Boretz, Donald Martino, J. K. Randall, Claudio Spies, Henry Weinberg, Peter Westergaard, and Charles Wuorinen, acting as the first Executive Committee, sent out invitations to numerous composers throughout the country to become founding members, to which some fifty-six responded affirmatively. It was then announced that the American Society of University Composers was formed "as a professional organization for composers in American universities." Aims and principles were estab­lished and stated. General membership was declared " open to qualified professionals" with student membership "open to graduate students in composition." The invitation to join also announced the First Annual Conference to be held in New York City in April, 1966.

To what must have been the considerable surprise of the original executive committee, April Fools Day, 1966, found some 130 composers jammed into facilities not meant for quite that number at New York University to hear seminars, lectures, colloquia and, at Columbia University, concerts. Many in attendance were motivated by a very conscious curiosity as to what sort of an organization had been dreamed up by this small group of easterners; all were motivated by a perhaps subconscious feeling that such an organization was needed and at the same time ... suspect.

These latter feelings surfaced at the first general business meeting during which the original Executive Committee, having devoted hundreds of hours to laboriously formulat­ing goals and operational procedures, contacting and recontacting composers throughout the country, found themselves challenged on a variety of matters in the most vehement manner . The charge that the Society had been set up and was going to be run by a dictatorial eastern clique was made, and this remained for some time the most damaging of the many birth pains of the organization. If it may be suggested that the actions and attitudes of this original hardworking and dedicated Executive Committee were occasionally paternalistic, it must also be admitted that reactions from some sectors were often comparably juvenile.

In spite of the fact that nearly all who attended this first conference found it valuable and stimulating, and in spite of the fact that membership soon went beyond two hundred, the internal problems that were in evidence in that first business meeting continued to stir feelings of hostility and animosity that boiled over in the Second Conference in St. Louis in 1967. The original Executive Committee resigned at that time, and a less viable organiza­tion might have folded right there. That this did not happen is again indicative of the fact that many of us feel a strong need for a national organization of composer-teachers. In fact, the Society emerged from the St. Louis meeting with the determination to develop the sort of national organiza­tion that the founders had envisaged.

Many people contributed to the rebuilding process which now took place. Among them one must certainly single out the three years of tough and skillful work by National Chairman Randolph Coleman and the hard nuts­and-bolts work of the "new" Executive Committee, whose members at first were Hubert S. Howe, Jr. , Harvey Sollberger, Richmond Browne, Joel Mandelbaum, Ben Johnston, and Roy Travis.

It was soon after this meeting that the National Council was named the policy making organ of the Society. The Executive Committee, it was determined, existed to imple­ment that policy. This is the administrative structure as we find it today: each of the nine regions elects a chairman who serves on the National Council. Decisions concerning the policy and operation of the Society are formulated by this representative group, including (since 1970) the deter­mination of who is asked to serve on the Executive Committee. It is most important that every member and potential member understand this; whatever ill feelings may once have existed concerning a geographical hierarchy in the Society have no basis in present fact.

I detail all this simply because I am surprised to find that these past animosities still lurk in the minds of many and are often used as a rationale for non-participation. Com­plaints are made , for example, of a "stylistic monopoly", an "effect of exclusivity", or a " polarization in terms of a 'kind' of music." I do not believe the recent activities of the Society bear out these statements.

In 1967 the Summer Institute took place at Tangle­wood, greatly assisted by a grant from the Fromm Foundation. The first issue of the Newsletter, very capably edited by Jean Ivey, appeared the following January. It has since been published three times yearly. Now under the editorship of Richmond Browne, it continues to provide in a condensed format a considerable amount of informative material concerning national, regional and individual activi­ties both within and outside the Society.

Clifford Taylor directed the 1968 conference in Philadel­phia. Unfortunately, it coincided with the assassination of

- Martin Luther King, which curtailed both activities and attendance to an understandable extent. During the sum­mer of 1968 an excellent Summer Institute in Ann Arbor was directed by Harvey Sollberger. Peter Racine Fricker's beautifully planned 1969 Conference at Santa Barbara followed , and members began to be able to read transcripts of conference lectures and panels in the Proceedings, edited first by Tuck Howe and now by Paul Lansky , published under a partial subsidy from the Ditson Foundation.

1970 found the Annual Conference at Dartmouth, where it coincided nicely with the Third International Electronic Music Competition under the direction of Jon Appleton. Ed London arranged the 1970 Summer Institute for student composers , with lectures, discussions and score readings at the beautiful Allerton Estate outside Urbana, and concerts at the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts on the University of Illinois campus.

All of the National Conferences to date have been planned by the national executive body of the Society working closely with a local Conference planner; among the virtues of such meetings a knowledge of a given Region' s compositional activity must be ranked . This is the point in dispersing the various sites; while we meet here in Houston in 1971 for Jeffrey Lerner's largely Southwestern gathering, plans are being made for a 1972 Conference in Baltimore to be directed by Robert Hall Lewis.

The most tangible results, therefore , of the first five years of the Society are the Annual Conferences, the Summer Institutes, the Newsletter and the Proceedings. There have also been a number of regional conferences, especially in the midwest and the east. And due to the efforts of many individuals a workable administrative structure is now in operation.

********** I would like to return to the original prospectus of the

Founding Committee (as the original Executive Committee is now called) in order to evaluate to some degree the

, Society's achievements in the light of the ideals envisioned in 1965 by that committee and, conversely , to evaluate these original goals as they may be tempered by the experiences of these five years.

Three goals are found in the original prospectus of October , 1965. The first : "I. The establishment of both general and curricular standards for the wide range of subject matter relevant to the compositional discipline ." With regard to progress in this area, Carlton Gamer writes "it is difficult to gauge the degree of success. What standards we have succeeded in articulating are probably an

indirect by-product." However, as many have pointed out to me , the apparent underplaying of this goal does not necessarily lessen its importance to all of us. Claudio Spies comments " It seems to me that we could spend more time talking about what is of concern to our students: namely, that we teach them well, and that discussions of methodol­ogy in the teaching of theory would be very much to the point. . . One of the ideas that impelled us to start the Society was precisely that it could become the means through which the teaching of theory could be improved, and through which members could be stimulated into reconsideration , periodically , of such questions as might be raised by the aptness or ineptness of different theoretical approaches."

Richmond Browne adds to this "the Society [must] reconsider its role in education. Composers function in their institutions increasingly as theorists . This is as it should be . Theorists tend to be more organizational than 'pure' composers. If the Society took theory very seriously (and I think it should) more members, and perhaps more active members, might emerge. Theory is too important to leave to the CMP! ! ! Theorists must be encouraged to act as more than just teachers- they (acting as performers, com­posers , etc.) can help re-establish the important image of the musician functioning across the board ."

Looking again at the original statement, note that it begins by proposing "The establishment of both general and curricular standards ... " . Having discussed this at length with a number of people, I believe it can be stated that it is not the intent of the A.S.U .C. to propose or sanction a specific compositional curriculum, much less establish itself, heaven forbid, as an accrediting organization in compositional studies. Upon reflection, many of you who are concerned with curricular studies on your campus may agree with me that it would be easier to do these latter things- setting up a specific curriculum and pronouncing judgment on its implementation- than it will be to maintain a continuing dialogue concerning itself with the exchange of ideas relating to general standards of teaching theory and composition, and with relative priorities within "the wide range of subject matter relevant to the compositional discipline," as the original statement concludes. In other words it is always easier to set supposedly objective forms rather than to maintain a meaningful discussion of content, but it is just the latter that many feel it is important to emphasize in a society of university composers. The goal remains valid ; its implementation remains ahead of us.

I would like to add a cogent statement from a letter by Allen Brings: "If the Society . .. hopes to play the role of standard bearer on the university campus, it might be better advised that the quality and success of its own programs will speak more effectively than all the resolutions passed at

its National Conference. Because in most institutions composers are usually in the minority, the A.S.U.C. provide university composers the opportunity to do together what they cannot do individually. In this lies the Society's greatest strength."

This leads us logically to the second area of action in the original prospectus: " 2. The establishment among univer­sity composers of a collective means of representing their interests, both within the academic community and to the intellectual and political communities at large." This, perhaps purposely, is the vaguest of the three goals, and may have caused the most initial misunderstanding. To this point , Tuck Howe writes "The vague way in which some of the objectives had been stated led to the most unrealistic expectations . . . Many people seriously felt that the organi­zation could transform society, or the role of the composer in the University , or the status of their own work, etc ., etc."

There is a division of opinion among members as to the importance or feasability of this goal, the collective representation of composers' interests, in the context of the Society. It must be admitted that little has been done in five years to implement it , perhaps in part because of this division of opinion. Some feel that we are and should be primarily teachers, and that better teaching should be our main concern as composers. Others feel, however , and I quote Carlton Gamer again , that the A.S .U.C. should "encourage administrations to create 'composer-in­residence' positions for composers already teaching in our universities (not for some guy, however talented, brought over from Europe!), wherein their teaching load would be adjusted to give them time to compose 'on the job' . .. " Carlton also speaks of the need to "assist the university composer to find an audience off the campus. Off-campus concerts (especially in large cities), publications, and radio and/or TV productions immediately suggest themselves."

In five years the Society has not established the capability of significantly influencing university administra­tors, nor does it seem to be moving in that direction, though it is potentially capable of doing so. Nor has it aroused significant enthusiasm among the membership for projects that benefit the individual as a composer in the way of recordings, publications, etc. The A.S.U.C. Radio Show, of which you have read in the Newsletter, is moving slowly, but moving. Other modest but workable projects , such as Allen Brings' interlibrary loan program for Region II , have failed , as he writes, "because we unrealistically expected a burning desire from members alone to maintain it." Again it appears that the "representation of composers' interests" to a significant degree is beyond the present means of the Society, though none of us would want to dismiss this as a goal for the future . It appears now that the

vast amount of time, measured in man- and woman-hours needed for this sort of thing overbalances present interest; in fact , the primary interest in the Society lies elsewhere , which brings us to the third and final objective outlined in the original prospectus:

"3. The improvement of communication within the profession: the development of means for disseminating essential professional information through performance, publication, and the provision of regular opportunities for professional dialogue." I suggest that by far the most important accomplishment of the Society has been to bring composers of diverse interests into association with each other, most notably at the conferences and summer institutes. It has given these composers an opportunity to find out what is happening elsewhere and to let others know what they are doing. As Tuck Howe writes "Perhaps it will always be that the Society's most important accomplishments will be intangible : how do we measure the value of what is gained by meeting our colleagues and hearing them talk and hearing their music?" He also suggests that five years' experience has given us more realistic expectations than at first , and adds that "the central problem [of the Society] will always be one of accepting its limitations . .. Even if its accomplishments do not measure up to our expectations, this does not minimize the effect of what has actually been achieved, and over the years we may find that the Society will have come further along than we have realized."

**********

If the A.S.U.C. is to become increasingly effective and influential in its activies in the future, if any of the three goals discussed here are to be more fully realized , it seems to me there are three matters to be investigated : greater participation by individual members, more regional activity throughout the country, and money. To participate in the Society one may attend conferences, volunteer to present papers or to appear on panels, submit scores for perfor­mance at Society functions, send news of one's school to the Newsletter, maintain an active contact with one's regional chairman, see to it that the Society establishes a "presence" on one' s own campus- and a host of other matters could be mentioned. As to regional activity , upon which truly national growth of the Society can be founded , I am surprised that a number of people feel that there has been little success . I personally feel that it is far to early to know what can be accomplished , especially in areas of small population such as my own (Region VII) . Another five years may give more definitive answers. However , my own tenure as chairman of the National Council has indicated , as it indicated to my predecessor , Randy Coleman, that a great deal of responsibility for the success of any region , large or small , lies with the regional chairman. The national

chairman may remind , suggest, plead- but the regional chairman must do the work. We have had some mighty efforts from such men as Allen Brings in Region II , Clifford Taylor in Region III , and Randy Coleman in Region V. In other areas the spade work still needs to be done. On the other hand, no one has the right , in so young an organization, to sit back and complain, since every member is eligible to be chairman of his region , or at least to cooperate as best he or she can with the present chairman.

Finally, money. The primary sources of funds for the Society are membership dues and a very limited number of grants. Money is needed to publish the Proceedings and the Newsletter, to help finance conferences and summer insti­tutes, to pay for mailings of various kinds . The paid-up membership in 1969 was 191 ; in 1970, 183 . If one accepts .the figure indicated by the CMS Directory that five hundred persons work seriously in composition at reason­ably major schools in the United States, that number is not too bad. I have the feeling, however, that there are probably more than twice that many university composers if one counts those not covered by the Directory , and certainly there are far more people teaching theory­perhaps 1500 or more. I estimate that present Society activities could properly be funded with something between three hundred fifty and four hundred paid-up members, or about twice the current number. Dues from such a membership would allow bills for publications to be paid more promptly. Regional activities could be better sup­ported, and officers of the Society would not be forced to take out of their own pockets the considerable expenses of attending such necessary meetings as that of the National Council and Executive Committee in New York each September (a meeting required by the rules of the Corporation, by the way, and without which planning would be nearly impossible) .

I hope it is clear that I am not asking for a larger membership only to provide the Society with more funds, just as I would not ask anyone to join who does not feel it would be to his advantage. However, I am constantly surprised to meet composers around the country who have not been contacted by the Society, who in many cases do not know about the organization, but who almost invari­ably are interested in joining and participating in such a group . Contacting these people is not just the concern of the national chairman and the regional chairman, it should be the concern of all members to inform colleagues of the existence and activities of the Society.

To aid members in doing this a new brochure was printed earlier this year. Each member should have copies of this brochure for distribution. It includes a brief description of the aims and activities of the Society in addition to membership and application information.

Last fall I asked the National Council and the Executive Committee to redefine one rule concerning former mem­bers which I know, from personal contacts, has bothered some individuals. This is simply that those who have allowed their membership to lapse may rejoin without being required to pay back dues . It might also be noted that , although the annual dues cover the period Ja@ary first to December thirty-first of a given year, arid a non-paying member is considered delinquent after the April Conference, anyone-new member or old- paying after September first will be considered as paid-up through the following year.

**********

In five years the A.S.U.C. has achieved a certain stability in its operations. It has developed an operational st ructure which enables it to function as a national organization . The crises that were so much a part, perhaps a necessary part , of its first years are now history. Of the principal objectives outlined by the Founding Committee it has been most successful in improving communication within the profes­sion through conferences, institutes and publications. It is hoped that, through increased membership and increased regional activity combined with significant thinking , plan­ning and participation in the implementation of this and other objectives by officers and members, the Ameri­can Society of University Composers will continue to grow as a valuable organization in the musical life of this country and Canada and in the professional lives of each of us.

David Burge

Newsletter of the American Society of University Composers, July, 1971.

CHANGES IN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Society extends thanks to five persons who are leaving the Executive Committee at this time. Elaine Barkin, Charles Dodge, Carlton Gamer, Edward Levy, and Raoul Pleskow have completed their terms of service.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

You might want to save this issue of the Newsletter to show to colleagues in the future- just for the information in David Burge's history of the Society.

Next year the Newsletter will move its timing up. Issue dates will be October 1, February 1, and June I-deadlines a month earlier.

After a year on the job, I would say that the great fun is in getting letters from so many composers with their own views to express. Of course one composes-no one can really help that process-but one also functions in a world of music transference ... and to do that you have to keep in touch! It's clear that everyone has his own network of friends and sources, but for the kind of information which ought to be quick "public" knowledge ... dates, job changes, awards, performing group opportunities, success in teaching or research ... only a quickly disseminated letter like this one can serve. If you read about someone you know here, smile! ... and write me a note about yourself.

Richmond Browne, Editor ASUC Newsletter School of Music University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF UNIVERSITY COMPOSERS, INC.

A non-profit corporation in the state of New York.

Executive Committee

c/o Department of Music Columbia University New York, N.Y. 10027

Richmond Browne, University of Michigan Barney Childs, University of Redlands, California John Clough, University of Michigan Paul Lansky, Princeton University John Rothgeb, University of Texas (Austin) Nicolas Roussakis, Columbia University Joan Tower, Columbia University Barry Vercoe, Princeton University Gerald Warfield, Princeton University

National Council I John Rogers, University of New Hampshire

II Allen Brings, Queens College III Robert Hall Lewis, Goucher College,

Johns Hopkins University IV Donald Macinnis, University of Virginia V Richmond Browne, University of Michigan

VI Jeffrey Lerner, University of Houston VII David Burge (Chairman), University of Colorado

Vlll Richard Bunger, California State College at Dominguez Hills

IX . Homer Keller, University of Oregon