Conclusion

Before reading through the score in the Eastman archives, I assumed that Pajaro used traditional Filipino instruments in the Philippine Symphony, similar to how Lucrecia Kasilag orchestrated her works. Finding that the symphony consisted of standard western orchestral instruments caused me to reconsider the story that I wanted to tell in this paper. I think this paper was a fruitful exercise in challenging assumptions. I initially conceived of the introduction of Western music theory and composition in the Philippines as solely a tool for colonialism, suppressing the voices of Filipino musicians. There is truth to that; the United States and the Philippines were in a relationship of unequal power dynamics, with the United States extracting land and resources from the Philippines in addition to imposing an education system from a place of paternalism. However, it is still important to remember that Filipino musicians were able to find their own voice even amongst the restructuring of education and the arts in the early 20th century. For Pajaro, this meant composing in a compositional style that hybridized his two main education institutions: the UP Conservatory and the Eastman School of Music. Pajaro achieved this in his doctoral dissertation by drawing upon but manipulating traditional forms and harmonies taught at the UP Conservatory, while also adhering to orchestration principles taught by Bernard Rogers. Perhaps it was Eastman, then, that served as his launching point to promote Filipino music and composers over the rest of his career. 

Of course, there is still much work to be done on this project; there’s more of the first movement to cover, after all. There’s also more to his life that we don’t know, for the only documentation is in the Philippines. What I hope this paper does is spark interest in Eliseo Pajaro’s music and encourage others to study the music and lives of Filipino composers.