| The American pianist and editor John Kirkpatrick (1905--1991) is primarily remembered today as the musical executor of Charles Ives. In this dissertation, the first full- length study of Kirkpatrick, I argue that his impact goes far beyond Ives, and, moreover, is understood most clearly through his work as an editor. Yet the significance of his contribution to American music remains largely unknown. Kirkpatrick may be partly responsible for his own low profile today---he constantly deflected attention away from himself, and when the music critic Lawrence Gilman called Kirkpatrick "an unobtrusive minister of genius" in a review of Kirkpatrick's historic premier of Ives's Concord Sonata, he captured Kirkpatrick's essential elusiveness. Nevertheless, Kirkpatrick merits study not only for the ways in which he helped shape his particular historical moment, but also for the larger musicological issues that his editions raise.;First, the particular historical moment. For those who do remember him, Kirkpatrick is thought of primarily as a pianist. I argue, however, that his main historical significance lies in his career as an editor of music. He was, and still is, mainly associated with the music of Ives. However, this association is not as simple as scholarship to date has portrayed it. Kirkpatrick's work with other, lesser-known composers formed the foundation of his editorial practice, which only later led to the extraordinary editorial license he enjoyed during his tenure as the executive editor of the Charles Ives Society (a position he held from 1973 to 1985). While Kirkpatrick had shown an interest in Ives's music since his early twenties, a comparative look at Kirkpatrick's editorial projects with composers ranging from the well-known (such as Carl Ruggles, Aaron Copland, Roy Harris, and Virgil Thomson) to the more obscure (Robert Palmer and Hunter Johnson, to name just two), shows that he did not begin to align himself seriously---and almost exclusively---with Ives until the mid-1950s.;Methodologically, this study centers on two key concepts. First, since Kirkpatrick's editions constitute the bulk of his scholarly output, I argue that editions can constitute historiographic evidence. Kirkpatrick's editions were, in a real sense, music histories. Second, I conclude the dissertation by sketching out several broad implications suggested by studying the work of editors; I consider, moreover, the degree to which collaboration---a subject examined in studies of twentieth-century improvisation, indeterminate composition, and commercial record production, but much less frequently engaged with regards to editing---can provide a fresh orientation for the writing of music history. |
