The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Story of Opera
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Story of Opera
Author: E. Markham Lee
Release date: May 8, 2025 [eBook #76044]
Language: English
Original publication: London: The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd, 1909
Credits: Jane Robins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STORY OF OPERA ***
Transcriber’s Notes:
Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_
in the original text.
Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold=
in the original text.
Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals.
Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs.
Deprecated spellings have been preserved.
Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected.
_The Music Story Series_
EDITED BY
FREDERICK J. CROWEST.
THE
STORY OF OPERA
_The Music Story Series._
3/6 net per Volume.
_Already published in this Series._
THE STORY OF ORATORIO. By ANNIE PATTERSON,
B.A., Mus. Doc. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF NOTATION. By C. F. ABDY
WILLIAMS, M.A., Mus. Bac. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF THE ORGAN. By C. F. ABDY
WILLIAMS, M.A., Mus. Bac. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF CHAMBER MUSIC. By N. KILBURN,
Mus. Bac. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF THE VIOLIN. By PAUL STOEVING.
With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF THE HARP. By W. H. GRATTAN-FLOOD,
Mus. Doc. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF ORGAN MUSIC. By C. F. ABDY WILLIAMS,
M.A., Mus. Bac. With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF ENGLISH MUSIC (1604-1904)—
MUSICIANS’ COMPANY LECTURES.
THE STORY OF MINSTRELSY. By EDMONDSTOUNE DUNCAN.
With Illustrations.
THE STORY OF MUSICAL FORM. By CLARENCE LUCAS.
_This Series, in superior leather bindings,
may be had on application to the Publishers._
[ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.]
[Illustration: _Emery Walker Ph. Sc._
_Sir Arthur Sullivan, M.V.O., Mus. Doc._
_Painted by Sir John Everett Millais, Bart., P.R.A._]
[Illustration: MASCAGNI.]
The
Story of Opera
BY
E. MARKHAM LEE
M.A.; Mus. Doc., Cantab.
London
The Walter Scott Publishing Co., Ltd.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons
1909
Preface.
HistorieS of Opera are not very numerous: there have been many articles
and essays in various magazines, dictionaries, and so forth which have
presented more or less concise synopses of the gradual development and
growth of the Operatic Art. Some of these, notably the one in Grove’s
_Dictionary_, are excellent, but a work of such bulk is not for the
everyday reader, nor, generally speaking, for the amateur. Beyond these
magazine and dictionary essays the number of books—at any rate in the
English language—solely on Opera is very limited, and from the nature
of the case, those that exist soon get out of date.
In the present work an attempt has been made, so far as space has
allowed, to give some brief account of every notable School of Opera
of which anything is known. It is not claimed that the advance of
the Art will not necessitate constant additions to or alterations of
these pages. Even in the short space of time that has elapsed since
the body of this book on Opera was written, such features as the
rise in popularity of Puccini’s operas, or of such modern works as
Debussy’s _Pelleas and Melisande_, the permission of the censor to
play Saint-Saëns’ _Samson and Delilah_ on the English stage, and the
slight wane in interest on the part of the English public for Wagner’s
operas, have made imperative the rewriting of many paragraphs and the
modification of others.
Every attempt, however, has been made to bring the book up to date, and
if in the Chapters on Modern Operas and in the Appendices there may be
omitted names which some may consider should have been included, it
must be borne in mind that in the twentieth century opera composers
spring up like mushrooms, and often disappear from public gaze with
equal rapidity. Works of bygone generations can be criticized and
placed as successes or failures, but in these days of strenuous output
one cannot speak with any certainty as to what is ephemeral and what
is enduring. Our own times are too close to us, and must be left for
future historians to pronounce judgment upon. Hence only the most
notable and brilliant successes amongst modern operatic works are,
generally speaking, recorded.
It is hoped that the Chapters on “What is Opera?” and “How to listen
to and enjoy Opera” may touch to some extent on new ground and may be
helpful to the amateur. Appendix A has entailed an enormous amount
of work, and although it contains, of course, nothing that cannot be
gathered from other sources, it is trusted that the information thus
compiled and placed under one heading may be of use and of interest to
the student of Opera. The tabulated State Grants in Appendix B will
show, what is perhaps not generally known, how badly off England is in
this matter as compared with many other countries.
The book is offered in all sincerity to those who care to read it.
There are, possibly, mistakes and errors. If this be so, I will ask
my good friends to point them out to me, in the hope of my having an
opportunity of availing myself of such corrections in a second edition
of this work.
E. M. L.
WOODFORD GREEN,
_November 1909_.
Contents.
CHAPTER I.
WHAT IS OPERA?
PAGE
What is Opera?—Derivation of term—A musical work—An
artificial product—Its justification—Emotional effect
of music—Hybrid opera—Modern taste demands one medium
of expression—A definition—Music an accessory to
opera, but an important one 1
CHAPTER II.
DIFFERENT SCHOOLS CORRESPONDING WITH THE
GROWTH OF MUSICAL ART.
The centuries see little change in the elements of the
drama—Growth of opera concurrent with the progress
of the art of music—Points of difference between
early operas (Monteverde, etc.) and those of Scarlatti
and later writers—Birth of the aria—England and
France of the same date—Opera buffa—Musical
empiricism—Gluck—His followers—Varying subjects
treated—Italian opera—Abuses by the singers—Wagner
and modern opera 7
CHAPTER III.
THE REFORMERS OF OPERA: MONTEVERDE, GLUCK,
AND WAGNER.
Reforms, and the reasons thereof—Monteverde’s
influence—Musical innovations—The stage discards music
of the ecclesiastical order—The beauty of Scarlatti’s
arias—Their weakness—Gluck—Gluck’s explanation of his
reforms—Triumph of his methods—Another retrogression—
Rossini—Wagner—The leit-motif—Influence on subsequent
composers—Will further reforms become necessary, and
what shape will they take? 18
CHAPTER IV.
THE BEGINNINGS OF OPERA.
Early commencement of opera—The Bardi enthusiasts—What
they achieved—Peri and Caccini—A logical
commencement—Its imperfections 32
CHAPTER V.
EARLY ITALIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH
OPERA.
Monteverde—Scarlatti—Cambert—Lully—Keiser—Purcell—Handel
in London—Handel’s rival, Buononcini—Handel’s operas
now obsolete by reason of their lack of dramatic truth 39
CHAPTER VI.
THE OPERAS OF GLUCK AND THE GREAT COMPOSERS.
Gluck and his masterpieces—Mozart—Beethoven—Weber
and romantic opera—_Der Freischütz_—Other
operas—Schubert—Opera writing a distinct form of
composition—The small influence of the really great
composers upon opera 48
CHAPTER VII.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_a_) THE ITALIAN SCHOOL (CIMAROSA TO VERDI).
The Italian school—Opera buffa—The Neapolitan
school—Piccini—A notable contest—Cimarosa—Rossini:
his _Barber of Seville_—Recitative and its
significance—_William Tell_—Bellini and
Donizetti—Verdi: his early and later operas 63
CHAPTER VIII.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_b_) THE GERMAN SCHOOL (KEISER TO NICOLAI).
Keiser and his successors—Hiller—Real German
opera—Spohr—Marschner—Operatic interest not centred
in Germany at this time 76
CHAPTER IX.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_c_) THE FRENCH SCHOOL (RAMEAU TO AMBROISE THOMAS).
Rameau—Divergence of methods—The successors
of Gluck and Piccinni—Méhul—Cherubini and
Spontini—Meyerbeer—Auber—Gounod—Bizet—Reasons
for the popularity of _Faust_ and
_Carmen_—Offenbach—Délibes and Lalo—Thomas 81
CHAPTER X.
ENGLISH OPERA OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND PART OF
THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
_The Beggar’s Opera_—Arne—Bishop—Balfe—Wallace—Goring
Thomas—Sullivan—Living writers 91
CHAPTER XI.
WAGNER AND HIS OPERAS.
Wagner’s early days—At Würzburg—At Königsberg—At Riga—At
Paris—_Rienzi_—Dresden—Zurich—Munich—Triebschen
—Bayreuth—Death—Wagner’s methods—_The Flying Dutchman_
—_Tannhäuser_—_Lohengrin_—_Tristan and Isolde_—_Die
Meistersinger_—_The Ring_—_Parsifal_—Wagner’s continued
development 98
CHAPTER XII.
MODERN OPERA SINCE WAGNER’S REFORMS.
Wagner’s influence—No mere copying—Modern “Melos”—Use
of the orchestra—His harmony—Men of a younger
generation—The Slavs 116
CHAPTER XIII.
SLAVONIC OPERA.
Early Russian composers—Glinka—Dargomijsky—Borodin—César
Cui—Tchaïkovsky—Polish opera—Bohemian opera—Dvôrák
—Other European countries 122
CHAPTER XIV.
OPERA TO-DAY IN ITALY, GERMANY, FRANCE, AND
ENGLAND.
Boito—His interesting personality—Puccini—Mascagni—
Leoncavallo—Cilea—German composers—Goldmark and
Humperdinck—The French school—Saint-Saëns—Massenet
—Bruneau—English composers—Stanford—Mackenzie—
Cowen—Corder—Bunning, etc. 130
CHAPTER XV.
OPERATIC ENTERPRISE IN ENGLAND.
Subsidized opera—Opera an educative factor—Objections
to subsidies—Advantages—English opera—Opera companies
—Covent Garden—The Royal Opera Syndicate—History of
opera in this country—Travelling companies—The Carl Rosa
Company—The Moody-Manners Company—The outlook 150
CHAPTER XVI.
HOW TO LISTEN TO AND ENJOY OPERA.
Feelings of disappointment—Expectations—The language
difficulty—Why the story is hard to follow—What we go
to the opera to hear—Some suggestions—To grasp the
story—To realize the style of the music—Re-hearing
necessary—How to begin to study opera—What is
necessary for its enjoyment 163
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CHIEF OPERA HOUSES OF THE WORLD.
Covent Garden—La Scala—San Carlo—Venice—Rome—Paris and
the Grand Opera—Vienna—Budapest—Prague—Berlin—Dresden
—Munich—Bayreuth—Russia—Other European countries—
Egypt—America 172
CHAPTER XVIII.
OFFSHOOTS AND CURIOSITIES OF OPERA.
Operetta—Musical comedy—Ballad opera—Masque—Ballet—
Objections thereto—Curiosities of construction—
Pasticcio—Mixed language—Stereotyped casts—Curiosities
of stage requirements—Wagner’s supernatural requirements
—Curiosities of the music—Vocal cadenzas 185
CHAPTER XIX.
A CHAPTER OF CHATTER.
Opera and politics—_Lohengrin_ in Paris—Opera non-lucrative
to the composer—Jenny Lind’s contract—Modern fees—
Royalties—Librettists—Metastasio and Scribe— The
prima donna—Stories of singers and composers 199
APPENDIX A.—Chronological List of Composers of
Opera, Great Singers, Conductors, etc. 215
APPENDIX B.—Financial Aid Granted to Operatic
Schemes from State or Municipal Funds 248
APPENDIX C.—Glossary of Terms mainly used in Opera 255
APPENDIX D.—List of Instruments used in the
Orchestras of Composers of Different Periods of Opera 260
APPENDIX E.—Bibliography of Opera 263
List of Illustrations.
PAGE
SIR ARTHUR SULLIVAN _Frontispiece_
Photogravure from the Painting
by Sir John Everett Millais, P.R.A.
ALESSANDRO SCARLATTI 20
RICHARD WAGNER 26
JEAN BAPTISTE LULLY 42
DOMENICO CIMAROSA 64
GUISEPPE VERDI 72
JOHANN ADAM HILLER 78
NICOLA PICCINI 82
J. OFFENBACH 88
GIACOMO PUCCINI 130
PIETRO MASCAGNI 132
RUGGIERO LEONCAVALLO 136
SIR A. C. MACKENZIE 146
BAYREUTH THEATRE 181
MADAME MELBA 200
CHAPTER I.
WHAT IS OPERA?
What is Opera?—Derivation of term—A musical work—An
artificial product—Its justification—Emotional
effect of music—Hybrid opera—Modern taste demands
one medium of expression—A definition—Music an
accessory to opera, but an important one.
[Sidenote: =What is Opera?=]
What is Opera? A question easy to ask, but one that by no means finds
so ready an answer; the definitions, “A drama set to music,” “A musical
play,” and so forth, being but loose and inaccurate, and not conveying
any real idea as to that which they seek to define.
[Sidenote: =Derivation of Term=]
The term “Opera,” derived, or rather abbreviated from the words “Opera
in Musica” (Works in music—_i.e._, a musical work), may be at once
seen to be only a convenient title that has found favour by its brevity
and through lack of a better: translate it and read “works,” and we may
see that it is a meaningless term in all else than that it is something
created.
And what is this “something” that has been created, that is in people’s
mouths so often, and that we designate by the word “Opera”? The least
cultured will be able to answer that it is a work for the stage, in
which music plays a prominent part: that it is this, and something
more, must be shown as we study its rise and development.
[Sidenote: =A Musical Work=]
Let us go a little deeper in our search for a definition. In studying
real opera we shall find that not only is it a dramatic production,
and that music plays an important part in it, but that any spoken
dialogue is foreign to its nature. It is therefore a continuous musical
work, uninterrupted by speeches or sentences spoken by the natural
voice—sung throughout, the music being illustrative of the story that
is being unfolded, and accompanied by appropriate gesture and action.
Evidently, then, Opera is a very artificial production; for although
under some circumstances one may indeed burst forth into spontaneous
song, it is difficult to imagine any considerable number of connected
incidents or episodes in one’s life which would naturally suggest
music, to which music would be a fitting accompaniment, or which would
demand vocalized words for the adequate expression of the sentiments
aroused by them.
[Sidenote: =An Artificial Product=]
Fierce rage, passion, death agonies, jealousy, quarrelling on the one
hand, and wit, humour, ordinary dialogue on the other—instances of
these are more or less commonly met with in our ordinary experiences,
and as such they are frequently and naturally reproduced on the stage.
But feelings or emotions called up by such events are by no means
naturally expressed by musical sounds; and yet in opera we find such
emotions, such conditions frequently constituting some considerable
portion of the subject-matter of the piece; and since all is sung, it
follows that musical expression of these emotions must necessarily be
rendered.
Opera, then, must be admitted to be a thing of artificiality. Some
will say, “Since the introduction of music into a dramatic work admits
an unreal element into that which might otherwise receive a natural
interpretation, how can its existence be justified?”
[Sidenote: =Additional Emotional Effect of Music=]
The answer to this is, that whatever may be the feelings or actions to
be expressed by the stage characters, proper and suitable music will
express them with far greater intensity and far greater power than will
spoken words or mere gesture. Such are the emotional qualities of the
art of music that a phrase of quite ordinary significance in words may
become, if wedded to expressive music, a thing of beauty and life; an
emotional feeling may be roused in the auditor that the mere spoken
word could never have touched. In the case of words that may themselves
contain beautiful ideas, their loveliness can be greatly enhanced by
the addition of music, their meaning intensified, their impressiveness
doubled.
Artificial, then, as Opera is, and must be, it can justify its
artificiality: a drama is put upon the stage, and in order that
its situations, its sentiments, and its meaning may be more fully
expounded, music is called in to elucidate, to express, and to
beautify. Admitting the possibility of this—which no one who has the
least feeling for music, or who is at all moved emotionally by the art
of sweet sounds, can deny—we find that Opera justifies its existence,
despite its unreality and its unlikeness to life.
[Sidenote: =Hybrid Opera=]
But all Opera is not sung throughout: there is a large number of
musical works under this name having spoken dialogue. Justification for
these is more difficult, for it may be readily understood that one form
of expression should be used throughout, and that this modified form of
Opera (known as Singspiel), being neither one thing nor the other, is
a hybrid form, which really has no right of admission to the title of
Opera at all. The fact that it is often effective and highly popular
hardly excuses its violation of art form. Of this more anon, for so
many plays of this kind with musical numbers were written at a certain
period of the history of the art and were classed as operas, that their
claims cannot be overlooked. But modern taste in opera demands that one
medium of expression be made use of throughout, and thus a return has
been made to the early and more artistic form of “Opera in Musica”—the
true form, of which the Singspiel is only an offshoot.
[Sidenote: =A Definition=]
We may answer our question, then, “What is opera?” in some such manner
as this: An opera is a play designed for the stage, with scenery,
costumes, and action used as accessories as in all stage plays, but
with the additional use of music to intensify the meanings of the lines
which are uttered by the characters, to generally heighten the effect
produced by the other combined arts, and to add an emotional element
that might otherwise be lacking.
[Sidenote: =Music an Accessory, but an Important One=]
Let us notice that music is only an accessory to the play: an important
one, it may be granted, but yet only an accessory. It has been through
failure to recognize this limited position of music in opera that
accounts for thousands of operas never being heard now. The exaltation
of the music at the expense of plot, action, and dramatic fitness has
caused the downfall of many a promising operatic composer. Public taste
has been to blame, but in the long run it has always veered round to a
proper appreciation of the truly artistic; it has made many mistakes,
but sooner or later, guided by some master mind, it has discarded the
false and taken to the true and real form of opera, with the result
that most operas written to-day are consistent wholes, dominated by one
general idea, and written upon one fixed governing principle.
Opera, then, generally speaking, is an Art form, in which a stage
play is presented with all usual accessories, but with the important
addition of continuous music: this is a general definition, but one
of which there are so many modifications that we must turn aside for
a moment to trace how it happens that so many forms and varieties of
opera as there seem to be have sprung into existence.
CHAPTER II.
DIFFERENT SCHOOLS CORRESPONDING WITH THE GROWTH OF MUSICAL ART.
The centuries see little change in the elements of
the drama—Growth of opera concurrent with the
progress of the art of music—Points of difference
between early operas (Monteverde, etc.) and
those of Scarlatti and later writers—Birth
of the aria—England and France of the same
date—Opera buffa—Musical empiricism—Gluck—His
followers—Varying subjects treated—Italian opera
—Abuses by the singers—Wagner and modern opera.
[Sidenote: =Little change in the Drama=]
The changes that have taken place in opera during the short three
hundred years which constitute the life of modern music are far more
prominent and important than those that have been undergone by the
ordinary dramatic work: the arts of elocution, gesture, and stage
action are very old ones, and have seen little radical change for
many centuries. Great progress has been made through the use of
modern mechanical devices and inventions in the mounting of all stage
pieces—_i.e._, in the scenery employed, the lighting, and stage
effects generally: these all appeal to the eye; but the appeal to the
ear is not, in an ordinary dramatic work, more powerfully made than it
was in the days of the Greek dramatist. But when music is added, then
appeal to the ear of a most powerful kind takes place, and during the
whole life of the youngest of the Arts the improvements and growth in
musical technique and expression have been grafted upon opera with
continuously progressive power and effect.
[Sidenote: =Growth concurrent with the progress of the Art of Music=]
Now, since opera has demanded for its representation an art that has
been in a state of continuous growth, it will follow that the different
classes of opera will closely correspond with the different styles and
schools of music: we shall find therefore that the earliest operas were
only able to employ crude and undeveloped music, none better being
available; that as musical skill and knowledge grew, as additional
instruments were added to the orchestra, as knowledge of forms
developed, so all these improvements found their way into operatic
music, with the result that the difference between say a seventeenth
and an eighteenth century opera is a very wide one, while a vaster
difference still may be seen between one of the eighteenth and one of
the late nineteenth century.
We may briefly examine the causes of these differences, taking the dawn
of all modern music (about 1600 A.D.) as the starting-point.
[Sidenote: =Points of difference=]
If we take the operas of the first few years of the seventeenth
century, what do we find? That the form of tonality in use was the mode
and not the scale; that time (_i.e._, measured music), as we now know
it, did not exist; that harmony, as we now know it, did not exist; and
that the instruments of the orchestra (although some have survived),
were in the main instruments which have fallen into disuse, many of
them having no modern counterparts. It needs little pointing out that
this form of opera must have sounded very different to its successors.
[Sidenote: =Monteverde’s innovations=]
The next important innovations, generally accredited to =Monteverde=,
include the dramatic effects of _pizzicato_ and _tremolo_ passages
for the stringed instruments—devices which have been used with the
happiest results by all composers of subsequent date. Such devices,
unknown in church music anterior to this time, or even in the music
written for instruments only without voices in the church style, are
most effectively employed for the illustration of certain situations
on the stage: the mere introduction of these alone is sufficient to
separate this school of opera from that which preceded it.
[Sidenote: =Use of Orchestra=]
But Monteverde’s inventions or adoptions did not stop here, for it was
he who first added many instruments to the orchestra; not only did he
employ additional instruments, but he used them in such a way as to
wed certain characters or situations to music in which certain sets of
instruments were employed, thus anticipating the much later Wagnerian
device of accompanying certain ideas by a fixed theme, or by particular
combinations in the orchestra.
[Sidenote: =Adoption of Melody=]
So far the music of the opera was confined to recitative: that is, to
the musical rendering of the dialogue without regular rhythm or melody.
Another period of opera opened out altogether, when composers began to
adapt portions of the dialogue to regular formal melody of a rhythmic
nature, and in the diatonic scale, much as we now know it.
Credit for this is generally given to =Cavalli=, and his example was
followed by a well-known early opera writer, =Alessandro Scarlatti=.
The recitative of the latter took, too, a richer shape and form,
inasmuch as it was now often accompanied by the whole of the orchestra,
instead of merely by the continuous bass, completed by harpsichord
harmonies.
[Sidenote: =Birth of the Aria=]
Scarlatti, however, may claim a more still important innovation, the
adoption of set forms: his ideas were often cast into lyrical shapes,
his solos were often arias of definite mould, and above all, he
deliberately adopted the _Da Capo_ Aria in the majority of his works.
This _Da Capo_ Aria would be described by a student of modern form as a
“Ternary” movement, in so far as its first part was entirely repeated
after the performance of a contrasted middle section. That Scarlatti’s
invention killed itself by its own popularity is a matter to be spoken
of elsewhere: suffice it to notice that the introduction of the “_Da
Capo_” Aria brought into existence a new form of opera, different to
all that had gone before.
[Sidenote: =England and France=]
Meanwhile opera was progressing in Germany, France, and England, each
school having certain distinguishing characteristics. Purcell’s work
in England was unlike that of any Continental opera composer, and his
melodies have a boldness, freedom, and ring about them quite their own:
English music of the period was a reflex of the national character,
straightforward, honest, and vigorous. At the same time, Lully in
France was developing quite another side of opera, by the introduction
of the ballet, a form that has been retained till within quite recent
times by the French.
[Sidenote: =Opera Buffa=]
Handel, although the success of his operas killed, for the time being,
all English-born ideas, added little or nothing to the forms of
Scarlatti; he practically left opera where he found it, nor were his
works as widely known on the Continent as in England. More importance
may be attached to the rise, on the Continent, of a lighter form of
opera, entitled “Opera Buffa,” in contradistinction to which opera
proper received the title of “Opera Seria.” This delightful type had
its rise in the _intermezzo_ played between the acts of a dramatic
piece, and only gradually obtained a separate existence: from the early
attempts of Pergolesi and others there sprung an entirely new class of
work, which had great influence on the history of opera generally.
Another step towards the now universally known form of opera was made
when Logroscino invented the Concerted Finale, bringing several of
his characters on to the stage at the same time, and giving them a
simultaneous share in the music.
[Sidenote: =Musical Empiricism=]
Let us notice that all these improvements effected _in the music_
gradually led composers away from the true object of its use in opera,
namely, that of enhancing the general effect produced; the music began
to be looked upon as so important and so interesting on its own account
that all dramatic considerations were allowed to lapse. Meanwhile the
personalities of the singers, as opposed to that of the characters they
were personating, and their vocal abilities were thrust forward to the
exclusion of almost all else.
[Sidenote: =Gluck=]
This brought about an entire change of method, the dramatic and
far-seeing composer Gluck remodelling opera entirely, and endeavouring
to bring it, with the added resources made possible by the improvements
in musical technique, into line with the consistent ideas of the
Florentine amateurs, who endeavoured to reproduce opera on the model of
the ancient Greeks.
[Sidenote: =Gluck’s Followers=]
Gluck’s reforms had a very wide influence upon the history of opera,
which will be more fully dwelt upon in another place; an influence that
may be traced in the magnificent efforts of the group of German masters
that followed in the general lines laid down by him in their adherence
to dramatic truth and fitness. Moreover, these composers, the greatest
that the world has ever known, were developing the resources of music
of all kinds, and their achievements in the field of composition
generally were reflected in their writings for the stage. Consequently,
we find in the operas of Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, and Schubert an
advance in musical technique corresponding with the rapid strides which
the art of music as a whole was then making.
[Sidenote: =Varying Subjects Treated=]
And again, their varied and diverse temperaments led them into widely
different directions in their search for libretti, a point in which
they were followed by Spohr, Marschner, Cherubini, Spontini, and
others. The whole range of the field of opera was widening out, and
the subjects selected for treatment were no longer solely classical or
cast into classic mould, but included the romantic, the chivalrous,
the supernatural, the plebeian, and other types of plot and character;
these wide differences were of course reflected in the music.
Another point to be noticed about this period of opera is that the
orchestra employed began to settle down into definite shape, the
constituent instruments being those which form what we now call the
classical orchestra. These instruments are such as are to be found
(with one or two exceptions) in the orchestra of to-day, and such
operas therefore admit of reproduction at the present time, because,
although other instruments have been added to those which form the
ordinary classical orchestra, no radical changes in methods of scoring
have taken place since the time of Mozart, Beethoven, and Weber.
[Sidenote: =Italian Opera=]
Opera had now become so many-sided an art form that it will be
impossible in this brief _resumé_ of its history to follow it through
all its varieties; the principal of these were the “Opera Comique”
of the French, the Ballad Opera of the English, and the melodic and
tuneful form of Italian opera, which claims Rossini as its shining
light, and which, by its other sons, Donizetti and Bellini, attracted
and riveted public attention in Europe for so long.
[Sidenote: =Abuses by the Singers=]
In the Italian form of opera, the aggressive and encroaching qualities
of the _prime donne_ threw certain portions of the music (_i.e._, their
own arias and songs) into such prominence as to dwarf all else. Abuses
were again to the fore; the solo singers, male as well as female, made
the opera; plot, action, suitability, dramatic fitness—all mattered
little so long as there were plenty of flourishes, vocal cadenzas, and
roulades.
[Sidenote: =Wagner=]
As in the days of Gluck, a strong man arose to revolutionize the whole
trend of things, to turn the music back into its proper channel, to
stop its overwhelmingly preponderant importance, and to restore harmony
among the arts employed for the proper rendering of musical drama.
This man was Wagner, beyond whose achievements opera has as yet moved
no step. His methods of orchestration, his additions to the ordinary
orchestra, his devices of guiding themes, and of the continual
employment of song-like (although unrhythmic) melody, known as _Melos_,
constitute so many new features in the history of opera.
Modern opera, since his time, has presented us with nothing
sufficiently fresh to justify for itself the claim to have had any
radical influence in operatic development. The resources of the
technique of the art, the increased freedom with which remote discords
and far-fetched modulations are attacked, the greater facility
exhibited by composers in welding various themes together, and in
their use of the orchestra, are only a following of the principles and
practices of Wagner. Since his mighty operas were produced there is no
epoch-making event to chronicle.
Thus, side by side with the development and progress of the composition
and practice of music, opera has developed and progressed, from
the days of the simple monodic school, to the complex polyphony of
the twentieth century. This has been briefly, and without detail,
demonstrated above; and we now turn to a more analytical examination of
the various phases of opera. Before doing this, however, it will be as
well to examine a little more deeply into the causes of the somewhat
frequent checks in its history, which we have cursorily mentioned, and
of the reforms and uprootings of the abuses which have constantly
hindered its growth: a brief enquiry into those abuses will help us
more clearly to understand what opera really should be, and also how
much is due to those stalwart heroes of opera who have defied the
whole of the civilized world in their efforts to establish, or to
re-establish, it upon a proper basis.
CHAPTER III.
THE REFORMERS OF OPERA: MONTEVERDE, GLUCK, AND WAGNER.
Reforms, and the reasons thereof—Monteverde’s
influence—Musical innovations—The stage discards
music of the ecclesiastical order—The beauty of
Scarlatti’s arias—Their weakness—Gluck—Gluck’s
explanation of his reforms—Triumph of his
methods—Another retrogression—Rossini—Wagner—The
leit-motif—Influence on subsequent composers—Will
further reforms become necessary, and what shape will
they take?
[Sidenote: =Reforms=]
The word reformer is here used in its original sense, for each of the
composers named in the heading to this chapter had very considerable
influence in the reconstitution and re-casting of the structure of
opera in his day.
These were the men who, perhaps more than all others, were not content
to leave opera in the groove in which they found it: for at the
respective periods in which they lived opera had drifted into grooves,
and it was the influence of these composers that arrested its progress
in the various wrong directions in which they found it drifting; they
set themselves first of all to stem the currents that were carrying
opera astray, and then constructed new works as examples of what could
and should be done.
Hence we call them the reformers, and may now examine into the
achievements of each of them in turn, noticing the condition of things
that prevailed when they first entered the field, their influence upon
it, and the result of their work.
[Sidenote: =Monteverde’s Influence=]
First of all, Monteverde. So many innovations are connected with his
name, that he would appear to have been a reformer of music in general;
it is not certain, however, that all that history credits him with is
really his due. But this is certain, that opera before his time was a
very different thing to opera subsequent to that period.
The efforts of the early Florentine amateurs, the Palazzo Bardi
enthusiasts, of whom more anon, had been towards the production of
opera on the lines of the ancient Greek play. This was opera as
Monteverde found it. He, original thinker and worker that he was,
applied the same daring innovations to his operatic music which he had
employed in his compositions for the church. These consisted mainly in
an utter disregard for the principles of strict counterpoint, and a
free use of unprepared discords.
[Sidenote: =Musical Innovations=]
Now these discords, harsh and ill-sounding, when performed by a number
of voices without accompaniment in the church, made a very different
effect in the opera-house: the effect of a solo voice, accompanied by
instruments, was very different to that of a chorus; and discordant
passages, which violated both the spirit and the meaning of sacred
words, were quite in their place—nay, more, they frequently heightened
the dramatic intensity of the situation when used in opera. So great
was Monteverde’s success, so dramatic and expressive his music, that
all composers since his day have followed in his footsteps, and have
composed operas on the model of free and unfettered writing originated
by him.
[Sidenote: =The Church style of Music given up for the Stage=]
His novelties of orchestration; his use of instruments, grouped quite
in the modern manner for accompanying certain characters, or for
defining particular situations, have already been touched upon; and
these characteristic features continue to give him a very prominent
position as a reformer of early opera. By him the complexion of matters
was utterly changed, and the groove of writing in the church style for
the stage, prevalent until his day, was left for ever.
[Illustration: SCARLATTI.]
[Sidenote: =The beauty of Scarlatti’s Arias=]
A century and more later we find a new reformer in Gluck. What had
happened in the meanwhile? Opera had fallen under the great and
commanding influence of Alessandro Scarlatti, whose methods, if
not amounting to reform, had certainly led to abuse. It has been
mentioned that he invented the _Da Capo_ Aria; this was at first a
welcome feature, because it gave point and meaning to the music,
more definiteness of idea, and greater unanimity of design. Compare
it with what had gone before, an endlessly dreamy musical recitation
without form, without symmetry or rhythm, without set melody; the
only attributes of the older style were its dramatic intensity and
truth. And then Scarlatti appeared upon the scene; invented beautiful
melodies, and cast them into regular mould, so that an audience knew
that it only had to wait while a second part was gone through, to hear
again a first part that had perhaps given much pleasure: it was a kind
of encore, granted without trouble or uncertainty. We can imagine the
melody-loving Italians of the day welcoming this beautiful and artistic
innovation.
[Sidenote: =Their weakness=]
But the beauty and charm of the idea compassed its own ruin; for,
being but a formal procedure, it did not equally suit every situation;
indeed, it may readily be understood that there must have been very
many occasions when it was little short of absurd, for stage purposes,
to go twice through the same emotional aspects and crises. In the
operas, and in many of the oratorios of our own master, Handel, we may
hear, and perhaps it may be confessed, be wearied by this inevitable
repetition; for the sense of appreciation in music is readier than it
used to be, and the more truthfully dramatic music of later generations
tends to render almost intolerable a long, unchanged recapitulation of
something already heard.
But apart from its dramatic unfitness, the real mischief of the _Da
Capo_ Aria lay in the fact that it attracted too much attention from
the plot. Each of the principal singers in the caste demanded that he
or she should have at least one example to sing, whether it suited
the exigencies of the situation or no. The audience went to the opera
house, not to hear an opera performed, but rather to delight in a
series of bravura airs, and exercises in vocal agility, performed by
popular singers. The real origin of opera was lost sight of, dramatic
considerations were practically ignored, and the performance became of
a lyrical, rather than of a dramatic, nature.
[Sidenote: =Gluck 1714-1787=]
Now Gluck, curiously enough, had written many operas on this plan
before it occurred to him to try to reform it; but his artistic nature
at last revolted against the absurdities of works of this type,
successful though he had been in the production of such. After much
thought and labour he set himself the task of remodelling the music, in
a manner which can best be explained by quoting his own words, written
in the prefix to the score of _Alceste_:—
[Sidenote: =Gluck’s explanation of his Reforms=]
“When I undertook to set the opera of _Alceste_ to music, I resolved to
avoid all those abuses which had crept into Italian opera through the
mistaken vanity of singers and the unwise compliance of composers, and
which had rendered it wearisome and ridiculous, instead of being, as
it once was, the grandest and most imposing stage of modern times. I
endeavoured to reduce music to its proper function, that of seconding
poetry, by enforcing the expression of the sentiment, and the interest
of the situations, without interrupting the action, or weakening it by
superfluous ornament.... I have been very careful never to interrupt
a singer in the heat of a dialogue, not to stop him in the middle of
a piece, either for the purpose of displaying the flexibility of his
voice on some favourable vowel, or that the orchestra might give him
time to take breath before a long sustained note.... My object has been
to put an end to abuses against which good taste and good sense have
long protested in vain.... There was no rule which I did not consider
myself bound to sacrifice for the sake of effect.”
[Sidenote: =Triumph of his Methods=]
From these quotations we may form some idea both of the serious errors
that had crept into opera and of the thorough nature of the reforms
which Gluck contemplated. He had many, and severe, battles to fight
before he gained public opinion to his side; but eventually he brought
the artistic world round to his point of view, with the result that a
complete change of method was again adopted by composers: the progress
of opera, which had drifted into a wrong channel, was again headed in
the right direction by a masterly hand, and for some time a more real
and genuine school of opera held the boards.
[Sidenote: =Another Retrogression=]
But history repeats itself. Years passed away and operas were written
both good and bad: Mozart, with his beautiful and delicate pen;
Beethoven, with his imperishable picture of the faithful wife; Weber,
the composer _par excellence_ of Romantic opera; Spohr, and others
all left their influences—and in the main thoroughly artistic and
beautiful ones—upon music drama. To this chain of great classics there
succeeded, however, a group of lesser luminaries whose tendencies were
less truthfully artistic, whose leanings were popular rather than
æsthetic, and whose influence was to a great extent mischievous.
[Sidenote: =Rossini, 1792-1869=]
Most grievous of such offenders was Rossini, whose gifts of ready and
spontaneous melody led him sadly astray. His knowledge of effect was
wonderful, but his methods were of the clap-trap order, and although
there are admirable points in his work, its appeal was made to popular
taste rather than to the musician, and popular taste is a fickle
thing. For a while, Rossini, with his sensuous melodies, his whirling
_crescendi_, his tricky orchestration, carried Europe with him—into
wrong paths; for the taste for such things is not a healthy one, nor
can the appetite always be satisfied by a glut of sweetmeats.
Besides Rossini there was, as always, a host of imitators who follow
their hero at more or less respectful distances, producing works which
were pleasant enough but had little or none of the material that makes
for endurance, even though the whims, fancies, and tastes of some of
our _prime donne_ are responsible for their production, now and again,
even in the twentieth century.
Opera, indeed, during all this period was again straying from the
right lines: again the singers, with their executive abilities, were
distracting attention from the equally important dramatic meaning of
the works performed. Again the aria and duet were usurping the place
of music which should have been defining the stage situation, and
conveying to the ear of the auditor a tone-picture to match the scenic
representation, and to help to carry on the action of the piece, which,
indeed, during these vocal performances suffered much from stagnation.
[Sidenote: =Wagner, 1813-1883=]
It needed a strong hand to stem the tide on this occasion, and a strong
hand was available in the person of Richard Wagner, whose efforts have
revolutionized opera to so great an extent that it is unlikely that any
great work for the stage will ever be conceived in the future which
will not show traces of his influence. For he took no half-measures,
but went to the root of the matter, and that in so thorough a way
that he really invented an utterly new phase of expression. Until his
employment of the kind of music which we call _Melos_ (a continuous
stream of melody without definite rhythm, tune, or cadence) music in
general, and more especially operatic music, had always, from the
time of the early composers of the Monodic School, paid some little
regard to form and shape. But Wagner, whose great idea it was that in
the rendering of opera the arts of Music, Action, Poetry, and Scenery
should stand on an equal footing, was unable to allow attention to be
devoted to the music in the very special way in which it was drawn when
set forms of song or air were admitted. It overturned the balance which
he deemed so desirable, and threw into prominence _one_ art at the
expense of the others.
[Illustration: WAGNER.]
[Sidenote: =The Leit-Motif=]
Consequently, with wondrous energy, skill, and in the face of the usual
relentless opposition, he gradually worked his way to the construction
of what was, until his time, an absolutely unknown form of dramatic
accompaniment. In so far as it was continuous, and expressive of the
stage situation, it resembled the music of the Italian composers who
preceded Scarlatti. But the great and original innovation of Wagner was
his use of melody (a feature non-existent in the works of the Monodic
writers); not melody of the stereotyped nature which we designate
as tune, nor even the rhythmic, square-cut, and often beautifully
appropriate melody of a Mozart or a Beethoven. Wagner’s melodies
were so constructed that they had, generally speaking, definite
signification: every subject (or _leit-motif_, as it was called) was
intended to suggest to the mind of the hearer some definite idea
connected with something occurring upon, or suggested by the stage.
Not that the entrance of a certain character was always accompanied by
certain music; rather, a deeper psychological problem was offered, the
words sung calling up definite ideas, or such suggestions being left to
the music alone on occasion.
And for this type of theme Wagner chose either certain definite
passages or fragments of melody, such as the opening phrase of
“Parsifal”—
[Music: Melodic Leit-motif. (Wagner’s “Parsifal.”)]
or certain chord progressions, such as the following:—
[Music: Harmonic Leit-Motif. (Grail Theme, “Lohengrin.”)]
or sometimes characteristic methods of orchestration. Moreover, since
the stage action or words would very often describe or suggest many
ideas at the same time, these themes would be often superimposed; with
the result that the music of Wagner’s operas—at any rate the later
ones—is not so much a stream of melody as a flow of many combined
melodies, working together in contrapuntal richness and fertility into
a harmonious whole, which can be listened to either casually (in which
case it may or may not please the auditor) or after considerable study,
when it will undoubtedly awake interest and admiration.
Now, between this kind of opera and that of the Rossini school it is
very evident that a very vast amount of difference exists. Whereas in
the latter the hearer had his ear delighted and tickled, without any
trouble to himself, to his immediate satisfaction, the Wagner operas
demand careful attention, study, and oft-rehearing for intelligent
appreciation.
The lazy, pleasure-loving portion of mankind was immediately up in arms
against such startling methods as these, and even to-day, although the
Wagner-cult is a very considerable one, it is to be doubted whether
the real tastes of the majority of operatic listeners are not rather
for something demanding less careful and close attention. Whether
this be so or no, the point remains that Wagner’s innovations, when
once understood and grasped, were seen to be so dramatically true and
fitting that all composers of operas, since his works became widely
known, have come under his influence, and have in large measure framed
their dramatic music on the lines laid down by him.
Here, then, was another revolution, and an important one. Formal melody
still exists on the stage, but the continuous inter-connecting links
of _melos_ are derived from Wagner, while the wondrous harmonies and
chord combinations which he was the first to introduce into the realm
of opera, have been so many additions to the material which the modern
composer has for manipulation.
Since Wagner there have been no reformers; we do not yet see in what
direction reform is to come. If we are to rely on history, which
certainly seems to repeat itself with regard to opera, we are probably
slowly trending in some wrong direction or other. What that wrong
direction is we shall only know when some mighty master mind has turned
us out of it. It may be that the Wagner operas, which seem at the
present time to be the height of dramatic perfection, may yet contain
many serious flaws, either in workmanship or in method; this much is
certain, that no imitator of Wagner has achieved permanent success:
the Colossus stands alone, and none can vie with him on his own ground.
But opera must go on: if the Wagner reforms cannot be successfully
adopted and used by others, operas will be written (as they are being
written) on other lines. Some of these new works will be good and
some bad, but the present seems to be a period of interregnum such as
succeeded the times of Monteverde and of Gluck. We are experiencing a
spell of more or less unimportant operatic production which will, in
all probability, go on slowly in some wrong direction until the brain
of some clear-sighted and gifted genius has discovered that we are all
astray, and will alter the whole course of things. Until his advent we
have no name to add to our list of reformers of opera.
CHAPTER IV.
THE BEGINNINGS OF OPERA.
Early commencement of opera—The Bardi
enthusiasts—What they achieved—Peri and
Caccini—A logical commencement—Its imperfections.
It is a curious and interesting fact that the birth of opera should be
due more or less to accident, and should owe its origin to a group of
amateurs: but so it is, and to the blind gropings in the dark after a
something (they knew not what) of a small circle of polished scholars,
we owe the form of opera as we have it to-day.
It is impossible to trace back to the earliest times the addition of
music to a stage play; from the constant references to the use of the
art made by the Greek poets, we know that it was a handmaid to the
drama from very early times. In the Middle Ages, too, there is plenty
of evidence to show that, at certain stated intervals in the course
of the drama, music was introduced; but such music as this was always
written in the church style of the period, and had no significance of
its own.
It was the annoying and incongruous presentation of polyphonic music
(written in strict contrapuntal style, and in the church manner) with
the performance of dramas, in which such music was utterly out of
place, that led the band of amateurs mentioned above to search for a
more suitable means of clothing the dramatic ideas and stage situations.
[Sidenote: =The Bardi Enthusiasts (1585, about)=]
[Sidenote: =What they Achieved=]
This band of dilletanti is generally known by the name of the “Palazzo
Bardi” coterie, from the fact that their chief representative was a
certain Count Bardi, and that their meetings were usually held at his
palace in Florence. This city was, at the period of which we write
(the last part of the sixteenth century), highly interested in the
masterpieces of literary antiquity, more especially in the magnificent
dramas of the older Greek poets. Although the Florentines knew that
these tragedies had some form of musical accompaniment, they were quite
in the dark as to what that music was; they felt, however, that the
one and only prevalent kind of music of their day—_i.e._, sacred
music, was by no means adequate for the expression of the ideas to be
represented. The Bardi amateurs therefore turned the steps of their
native musicians towards other paths, and induced them to write music
of a kind which they believed to be dramatically fit and suitable. That
this music was a failure does not matter in the least, for although
it was unable to give any genuine idea of what these enthusiasts
sought—namely, a reproduction of Greek tragedy consistent with its
original form—it invented a new medium and method of expression,
of which composers soon availed themselves in setting to music the
dramatic productions of the day. The first of these early composers
to achieve success in this field was Peri, who produced in 1594 (or
1597) _Daphne_, and a few years later, in 1600, _Euridice_. _Daphne_
was semi-privately performed, but _Euridice_ was put before the world,
and achieved such success that its method and style of composition were
soon taken as models for stage music. Hence the date 1600 is assigned
as that of the birth of real opera; the same year seeing the production
of the first real oratorio, as we now understand the term. We quote the
whole of the short prologue to the earliest known opera:
Prologue to “Euridice”
[Music: Prologue to “Euridice.” (Peri, A.D. 1600.)
LA TRAGEDIA.]
Io che d’al te sospir vagae di pianti
spar s’or di doglia or di minacie volto
Fei negli ampi teatri al popol fol to scolorir
di pieta voltie sembian ti.
while for an example of early operatic dance-music the final
“Ritornello” from the same opera may serve as illustration.
[Music: Final Ritornello in Peri’s “Euridice.”
Questo Ritornello va riplicato più volte, e ballato da due Soli del
Coro.]
[Sidenote: =Peri and Caccini=]
Peri led the way; others followed. In a short decade the North of Italy
produced a whole school of writers who had grafted their ideas on those
of the composer of _Euridice_, chief among them being Caccini, who
won great fame in the new style. But the chief merit must be accorded
to Peri, for it was to him that we owe the invention of the dramatic
recitative; that is to say, instead of coupling the dialogue to music
that might have been designed for the church, as his predecessors
had been content to do, he endeavoured in his operas to allow the
singing voice to depict the ideas expressed by inflections such as
would be made by the speaking voice under similar circumstances. As he
himself tells us in his preface to _Euridice_, he watched the various
modifications in sound made by the speaker in ordinary conversational
dialogue, and sought to reproduce these in music: “Soft, gentle speech
by half-spoken, half-sung notes on an instrumental bass; more emotional
feelings by melody of more disjunct character, and at a quicker rate,”
etc.
[Sidenote: =A Logical Commencement=]
Thus was opera, in our modern meaning of the term, begun, and this,
too, on a proper, logical, æsthetic basis. It was in 1600 a new form,
an untried and questionable innovation; but it contained the elements
of strength and endurance, and by rapid steps grew and developed, until
within a few short years all other methods of accompanying stage plays
by music were obsolete, and the new “Monodic” style held unquestioned
sway.
[Sidenote: =Its Imperfections=]
Crude it certainly was, for modern tonality, as we understand it, was
still undeveloped; harsh and ugly much of its music must have been,
for melody was unknown, time was practically non-existent, and of
form there was none. And yet, in so far as it sought in its music to
faithfully reproduce the dramatic situation, such work was more truly
of the essence of opera than many another of more recent date and of
greater success. Unlike the polyphonic choral music of its date, it
will not bear performance in our own day, yet for it must be claimed
truth, strength, and clearness of aim; as pioneer work it has been
invaluable.
CHAPTER V.
EARLY ITALIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH OPERA.
Monteverde—Scarlatti—Cambert—Lully—Keiser—Purcell—Handel
in London—Handel’s rival, Buononcini—Handel’s
operas now obsolete by reason of their lack of
dramatic truth.
[Sidenote: =Monteverde, 1568-1651=]
Opera in Italy, after its initial stages, as represented by the works
of Peri and Caccini, fell under the commanding sway of Monteverde,
of whose influence we have already said much in the chapter upon the
“Reformers of Opera.” An example of his melodious, although, of course,
somewhat crude style, may be seen in the “Moresca” which we append:—
[Music: Fragment of a “Moresca” (Dance) from Monteverde’s “Orfeo”
(1609).]
Monteverde was followed by his pupil Cavalli, who worked in Venice, and
who improved the recitative; in his operas, male sopranos (Castrati)
were first employed on the stage, a practice in vogue for many years
subsequently. Cavalli also foreshadowed the aria, or set melody,
soon to become so prominent a feature of Italian opera. Among other
prominent composers of this period are Cesti and Legrenzi, Caldara and
Vivaldi.
[Sidenote: =Scarlatti, 1649-1725=]
These men, however, stand completely overshadowed by that Colossus
of early opera, Alessandro Scarlatti. Naples was the scene of his
activity, and here he wrote, amongst countless other compositions, over
one hundred operas, most of which made their mark. In Scarlatti we
have the turning-point between antiquity and modernity in stage music.
Of course his operas sound old-fashioned to us, but it would be quite
possible to listen to them, whereas those of a former date could only
have antiquarian interest if produced now. His great genius for melody
caused him to modify very considerably the stiff, though dramatically
correct, recitative of earlier composers, and to substitute beautiful,
and sometimes inappropriate, airs in its place.
In this dangerous method of exalting the music at the expense of the
other arts employed in music drama he was followed by almost all
composers for very many years—until, in fact, the recognition by
Gluck of the falseness of the situation. Opera writers there were
by the hundred: the names of most of these are now forgotten—many
remembered; Rossi, Caldara, Lotti, Buononcini, all had their successes,
and contributed in various degrees to the development of early Italian
opera.
[Sidenote: =Cambert, 1628-77=]
But before this, Opera had found its way to France; the world-renowned
_Euridice_ had been performed in Paris as early as 1647, and its
influence was quickly felt. Masques and ballets had been staged before
this time, but Robert Cambert was the first French writer to produce
opera. At first successful, Cambert was ousted from his deservedly
high position as the founder of French opera by the unscrupulous and
brilliant Lully.
[Sidenote: =Lully, 1633-87=]
For Lully “came, saw, and conquered.” Although an Italian,[1] his
name is one of the most prominent in the history of opera in France.
Coming from Florence to Paris at an early age, he quickly saw his way
to improving on the popular operas of Cambert, and his inventive and
fertile talent soon put the older writer into the background. Lully’s
great gift lay less in aptitude for the conception of melody, or even
in his skill with the orchestra, than in the powers he possessed of
writing truly dramatic and suitably expressive recitative. Moreover,
he employed his chorus as an integral factor in the situation, not as
a mere collection of puppets encumbering the stage; he is credited,
too, with the invention of the “French” overture, a form in which an
introductory slow movement is followed by another in quick fugal style,
with a third short dance movement to conclude. Like Scarlatti in Italy,
Lully in France towers high above all opera composers of that period,
and his mark upon French Grand Opera exists till this day.
[1] The name is often spelt with _i_, not _y_.—ED.
[Illustration: LULLY.]
[Sidenote: =Keiser, 1673-1739=]
Germany at the same period can boast of no name of like importance, but
operatic development was taking place in this country also, the chief
agent in its progress here being Keiser, who produced a great number
of operas in Hamburg. Although not the first to write such works in
Germany, he is important as being an early factor in the popularization
of opera during the forty years in which he laboured in this direction:
he had also many followers, among whom must be named Handel, who wrote
a few operas for Hamburg at an early period of his career. German opera
at this time, however, gave but little promise of the grand future
before it: the operas of Keiser and Hasse contain but few indications
of the glories of a school of composers that includes Mozart,
Beethoven, and Weber.
[Sidenote: =Purcell, 1658-95=]
And what was England doing at this period? One genius of the highest
rank, some would say the greatest child of music that England has ever
produced, was at work in the form of Henry Purcell, whose too short
life was in part occupied by the composition of opera. Spontaneity of
melody, freshness and boldness of thought, and rare dramatic conception
are the chief characteristics of the works of our early English master.
Many of these are operas by courtesy only, for in only one of them,
_Dido and Æneas_, is the music continuous throughout; this, however,
may claim for itself the title of the first English opera. Before this
time (about 1675) masques and plays had employed music incidentally,
but _Dido_ is the earliest known instance of its continuous use.
Purcell did not follow up his early operatic success, most of the other
stage works, such as _King Arthur_, containing spoken dialogue. It
is unfortunate for England and her musical sons that the dominating
personality of Handel so soon overshadowed all other musical life in
this country: the wholly sound and æsthetically true national influence
of Purcell would undoubtedly have been large, and it is not too much
to say that an early school of genuine English opera might have
flourished, had it not been that the great Saxon composer was, within a
few years of Purcell’s death, turning his attention to the production
of opera in London.
[Sidenote: =Handel, 1685-1759=]
For although Handel produced operas in Germany, in Italy, and in
England, it was in London that the very large majority of his pieces
first saw the light, and that he achieved the greatest success. Between
the date of the first performance of _Rinaldo_ at the Haymarket,
February 24th, 1711, and that of his last opera, _Deidamia_ in 1741,
Handel composed no less than forty-two grand operas. With indomitable
energy, and in face of very frequent misfortune, he poured forth these
works, many of which contain powerful music. Undeterred by failure, he
took one theatre after another in London, sometimes making much money,
at other times becoming bankrupt. The final stage in Handel’s operatic
career was brought about by a lengthy and expensive rivalry between
him and a clever Italian composer, Buononcini, who had been brought to
England by an influential body of nobles and politicians whom the fiery
Handel, and his supporters, had offended. The dispute became more than
a musical one, and developed social and political sides: an amusing
epigram by one John Byrom neatly sums up the situation:—
“Some say, compared to Buononcini,
That Mynheer Handel’s but a ninny;
Others aver, that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a candle;
Strange all the difference there should be
’Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.”
[Sidenote: =Handel’s Rival=]
The sentiment of the two last lines was probably voiced by many,
especially as both composers were men of great talent and capable of
producing excellent work. In the end, the genius of Handel triumphed,
but at the expense of both his pocket and his health; bankruptcy and
paralysis came upon him, and he in future turned his attention to the
more lucrative and less expensive art form, Oratorio.
[Sidenote: =Handel’s Operas Obsolete=]
That we have been the gainers thereby is undoubted, for whereas many
of his oratorios are constantly performed, and are of commanding
interest, few would care to sit through a performance of any of his
operas, or indeed those of any of the composers mentioned in this
chapter. It is not so much that the music is expressed in the idiom
of a bygone era, for the style of Handel’s oratorio and opera music
is, especially in the arias, very similar; and we are frequently able
to listen with pleasure to old works, written for the clavier and for
stringed instruments by the Continental contemporaries of the men of
this period. It is rather that the dramatic situation is so absurdly
poor, that the stereotyped method of procedure in the distribution of
the airs, the concessions to the solo singers and the character of the
music given to them, and the stiff, unnatural use of the chorus in
these operas, combine to make their presentation to-day a matter of
artistic impossibility.
CHAPTER VI.
THE OPERAS OF GLUCK AND THE GREAT COMPOSERS.
Gluck and his masterpieces—Mozart—Beethoven—Weber
and romantic opera—_Der Freischütz_—Other
operas—Schubert—Opera writing a distinct form
of composition—The small influence of the really
great composers upon opera.
The methods of Christoph Willibald Gluck, and his influence upon
all that came after him, have already been touched upon. Unlike the
operas of Monteverde, the works of the later reformer still hold the
boards, and therefore a little consideration to these may now be given,
seeing that they influenced the composers of all schools and of every
nationality.
We may safely ignore the many works written on old methods and
produced during the first forty years of the composer’s life; they
are practically as obsolete as those of Monteverde. But those written
under the strong convictions forced upon him by comparative failure
in England are of great importance, and are interesting, not only for
the models they set to others, but also for the beauty and worth of the
musical ideas which they contain.
Those that have the greatest claim to notice have the following
titles:—
_Orfeo_ (1762), produced in Vienna.
_Alceste_ (1767) ” ”
_Paris and Helen_ (1769), produced in Vienna.
_Iphigenia in Aulide_ (1772), produced in Paris.
_Armida_ (1777), produced in Paris.
_Iphigenia in Tauride_ (1779), produced in Paris.
[Sidenote: =Gluck’s Masterpieces=]
Of these works, the famous story of Orpheus and Euridice has perhaps
the most dramatically beautiful musical setting, and is more often
heard than are the other operas; be it borne in mind, however, that
even in this masterpiece there is much that sounds antique both in
method and in form; this is of necessity the case, when one considers
the date at which Gluck wrote and the comparatively backward state of
the art of music in the mid-eighteenth century.
Gluck’s type of melody may be discerned from the following quotation:—
The commencement of the famous Aria, “Che faro,” from Gluck’s “Orfeo.”
[Music]
Che faro senza Euridice! dove andro
senza il mio ben? Che faro dove andro,
Che faro senza il mio ben.
[Sidenote: =Mozart, 1756-91=]
Gluck, even in his later works, never reached the height of musical
technique that was attained to by a young and glorious composer who was
his contemporary for thirty years—almost the whole of his short life.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had other models to guide him, for the works
of Grétry, Piccini, Sacchini, Benda, Cimarosa, and others were known
to him, and in his scores we find a summing up of, and an improvement
upon, all operatic music previously penned.
Mozart handles the orchestra in a more modern and a vastly more
masterly way than any of his predecessors; his operas, too, deal with
such a variety of subject that they show infinitely more resource and
diversity of treatment than those of Gluck, which were all written
on the “grand” model. We feel that we have to do with men and women,
creatures of flesh and blood, and not with far-away, shadowy classic
shapes, whose appeals to our sympathies must naturally be less vivid.
His melodies, too, of round, full outline, possess a richness of
expression and a warmth that is not always discernible in the older
master; and in addition we have vivacity, charm, and piquancy in the
lighter scenes which had no place in the products of the more severe
school. Two examples of Mozart will serve to illustrate his style. The
first shows him in a lyrical mood,
A fragment of a Mozart “Canzone,” “Voi Che Sapete” (The Marriage of
Figaro).
[Music]
Voi, che sapete che cosa è amor,
Donne, vedete s’io l’ho nel cor.
while the second gives us the composer in more dramatic guise.
The famous passage from Mozart’s “Don Giovanni” when the Commandant
appears.
[Music]
Don Giovanni, by thee invited,
Here behold me, as thou’st directed.
Mozart’s most successful operas are:—
_Idomeneo_ (produced at Munich, 1781).
_Die Entführung aus dem Serail_ (produced at Vienna, 1782).
_Le Nozze di Figaro_ (produced at Vienna, 1786).
_Don Juan_ (produced at Prague, 1787).
_Die Zauberflöte_ (produced at Vienna, 1791).
These, the most popular of which are _The Marriage of Figaro_ and _Don
Juan_, are written, for the most part, in the then prevalent Italian
style. German opera, as a distinct national product, was not yet born,
and although Mozart’s _Magic Flute_ was a step in this direction, it
is his Italian works that raise his name to so high a pinnacle in the
temple of operatic fame. The bright and sparkling _Figaro_ is to be
heard in every country and in many languages, while its more sombre
companion, _Don Juan_, with its highly dramatic and noble music, is
even more widely performed.
[Sidenote: =Beethoven, 1770-1827=]
Beethoven, with his solitary opera, _Fidelio_, produced in Vienna,
1805, is a landmark. Although Italian in form to a great extent, this
work shows tendencies towards that school of romantic thought which
was so soon to become the characteristic feature of the best period
of German opera; the music, carefully wrought and intrinsically
beautiful, makes large appeal to the emotions; although in reality only
a “Singspiel,” there being spoken dialogue, it is generally classed
with grand opera, its music being so noble and dignified. An example of
the greater modernity of Beethoven’s style may be seen in the subjoined
passage.
Adagio opening of Beethoven’s “Leonora,” Overture No. 3, introducing
the theme of Florestan’s Air in Act III.
[Music]
[Sidenote: =Weber, 1786-1826=]
Romantic opera (_i.e._, opera in which the influence of the romance
school of literature, as opposed to the classic, is felt) owes its
prominence in the first place to Carl Maria von Weber. The music of
such operas differs from that of the more classical models in its
greater richness of harmony, its more remote and poignant use of
discords, its sudden and unexpected turns of modulation, and its
more picturesque orchestration. Although there are many suggestions
of romantic opera before his day, it is to Weber that the credit of
the foundation of this school of composition is, as a rule, usually
ascribed. With his wonderfully beautiful work, _Der Freischütz_, he
led the way into a vast, and as yet comparatively unexplored field;
other composers were ready enough to follow him, but his leadership is
unquestionable.
[Sidenote: “=Der Freischütz=”]
The opera _Der Freischütz_ lent itself particularly to the new mode of
treatment: its story deals with the weird and the supernatural, and
thus seems to demand a form of treatment distinct and different from
that accorded to the calm and stately libretti of the older schools
of opera. In his setting of this story, Weber made slight use of the
conventional Italian methods; it is a German opera, pure and simple,
with constant reference to the Volkslieder, and a noticeable absence of
the stereotyped conventionalities of Aria and Ensemble.
Here is a short illustration from the famous “Incantation Scene”:—
Fragment from the Incantation Scene of “Der Freischütz.”
[Music]
Ere descends tomorrow’s sun, deeds of darkness
will be done, u-hu-i, u-bu-i, u-hu-i.
(_The clock strikes twelve in the distance._)
CASPAR (_speaking through the music_): “Zamiel, by the wizard’s skill
appear! Zamiel, hear me, hear!”
[Sidenote: =Other Operas=]
_Der Freischütz_ was produced in Berlin in 1821. Like so many other of
the finer old operas, it is a “Singspiel,” but for all that it still
holds the boards, although modern taste in serious opera now prefers
the continuous use of one means of expression—namely, music. It is
almost the only opera of Weber’s that is ever heard, for _Euryanthe_,
produced in Vienna in 1823, and _Oberon_, produced in London in 1826,
in spite of their beautiful music, are unfortunately so poor from the
dramatic point of view as to be almost intolerable, while the earlier
operas previous to _Der Freischütz_ do not show the composer at his
best.
In Weber, whose one great work has had an untold influence upon
operatic composers, we meet the last of the great masters (from
an operatic point of view) until Wagner. Schubert, Schumann, and
Mendelssohn were all so versatile that they achieved some success in
opera; but it must be confessed that for any abiding result their work
has had, they might not have composed such works at all. Lesser stars
in the musical firmament, such as Spontini, Marschner, and Meyerbeer,
have had greater and wider reaching influence in this particular branch
of musical art.
[Sidenote: =Schubert, 1797-1828=]
This is partly owing to the fact that these three mighty men of music
were of a non-dramatic nature: Schubert more often turned to the stage
than did Schumann or Mendelssohn, and his beautiful melodies and
skilled knowledge of effect helped on his operas towards success in
their day; but even his most popular examples, _Fierabras_ and _Alfonso
and Estrella_, very rarely obtained a hearing. Mendelssohn’s early
works, _The Wedding of Camacho_ and his fragment of _Lorelei_, are
also comparatively unimportant, while Schumann’s _Genoveva_ cannot be
classed among the list of works in the ordinary repertoire.
It is curious and interesting to notice how small a share those who
have reached the topmost pinnacle in the musical temple have had in
the development of opera; while the influence of the great classical
and romantic composers has been exerted with immense sway over almost
every other form of the art, and while that influence has elevated and
exalted such art forms to dignified and poetic heights, they have,
with the single exception of Mozart, left opera almost unaffected.
[Sidenote: =Opera Writing a distinct form of Composition=]
The heroes of opera, Gluck and Weber, were of far less importance as
all-round composers than many of the masters whose operatic efforts
they completely eclipse. Whereas without Gluck and Weber it would be
difficult to conceive the position of opera to-day, we must admit that
they have had little influence over other branches of composition.
[Sidenote: =The Small Influence of the really great Composers=]
On the other hand, the names of those most honoured in the art of
composition appear seldom or never upon the operatic play-bill. The
great contrapuntist, Bach, wrote no music for the stage; Haydn, the
so-called “father” of the sonata, the string quartet, and the symphony,
only composed a number of unimportant light operas; Beethoven, the
perfecter of form and design, one solitary, though notable, example;
Schubert, the unrivalled composer of songs, a few early works;
Mendelssohn, the calm and classic writer of the oratorio, and of the
beautiful orchestral overtures, a few boyish pieces; Schumann, the
daring inventor of so many harmonic and rhythmic designs, and the
composer of many a masterpiece of pianoforte and chamber music, again
a solitary and little known specimen. Brahms, the great apostle of
absolute music, and of the classical school, followed Bach in leaving
the stage severely alone.
Mozart stands out as the one great composer who rose to the highest
point of eminence, not only as a creator of sonata, quartet, symphony,
and choral work, but also as a consistently great and successful master
of opera. All honour to the great versatility of his immeasurable
genius!
CHAPTER VII.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_a_) THE ITALIAN SCHOOL (CIMAROSA TO VERDI).
The Italian school—Opera Buffa—The
Neapolitan school—Piccini—A notable
contest—Cimarosa—Rossini: his _Barber
of Seville_—Recitative and its
significance—_William Tell_—Bellini and
Donizetti—Verdi: his early and later operas.
[Sidenote: =The Italian School=]
Italy was the birthplace of modern opera, and for generations the
language of opera was Italian, irrespective of the nationality of
the composer. Thus a large number of the operatic works of Gluck and
of Mozart, both of whom rank as German masters, were to libretti
in Italian. On the contrary, many Italian-born musicians, such as
Cherubini and Spontini, devoted their best efforts to Grand Opera in
France. When speaking of the Italian school, therefore, it must be
understood that the language of the libretto and the class of opera are
taken into account, rather than the nationality of the composer.
[Sidenote: =Opera Buffa=]
Side by side with Grand Opera, as typified by Gluck, there grew up a
lighter and less serious form of musical play known as “Opera Buffa.”
At first designed as an interlude or intermezzo between the acts of
a serious drama, this new and bright art form was so fascinating as
to quickly justify for itself a separate existence. It was mostly
harmonious in character, and the music was, appropriately, of slighter
texture. It flourished most luxuriantly in Naples, from which fact the
composers of these charming little operas are generally classed as the
“Neapolitan school.”
[Sidenote: =The Neapolitan School=]
[Sidenote: =Piccini, 1728-1800=]
[Sidenote: =A Notable Contest=]
Logroscino (born about 1700), who invented the connected series of
separate movements known as the Concerted Finale, and Pergolesi
(1710-36), who wrote a famous example of this kind of opera under the
title _La Serva Padrona_, are two notable members of this little band
of composers. In addition to these may be named Jomelli, Sacchini,
Galuppi, Paisiello, and Piccini, the last-named being specially famous
through his contest with Gluck, a musical duel yet more notorious than
that between Handel and Buononcini already mentioned. For Piccini, a
man of great talent though not of genius, was brought to Paris in 1776
and pitted against the reformer Gluck, whose revolutionary methods
of procedure met with anything but favour in certain quarters. The
rival composers, strongly backed by their respective supporters, fought
bitterly for pre-eminence, with results only too disastrous to the
poor Italian maestro, who was very unfortunately handicapped. For we
read that on the night of the first production of the work, which was
seriously intended to beat Gluck on his own ground (the same subject
for a libretto—viz., _Iphigenia in Tauride_—having been chosen),
his music was almost wrecked by the prima donna of the occasion, that
good lady being hopelessly intoxicated; whereupon men exclaimed, “Not
Iphigenia in Tauride, but Iphigenia in Champagne!” In spite of his
merits, this composer of eighty operas is now hardly known, except in
connection with this famous controversy.
[Illustration: CIMAROSA.]
[Sidenote: =Cimarosa, 1749-1801=]
A more famous Neapolitan is Cimarosa, whose sparkling work, _The
Secret Marriage_, is still played to-day. On the occasion of its first
performance at Vienna in 1792, the Emperor was so delighted with it
that he ordered its repetition on the same evening, thoughtfully
providing the artistes with supper between the performances. Cimarosa’s
other works, although charming and sometimes of great beauty, are now
practically dead: his fame was soon eclipsed by that of the young and
rising Mozart.
[Sidenote: =Rossini, 1792-1868=]
With the success of Mozart and Weber in German opera, and the
desertion of the Italian methods in favour of the French by Cherubini
and Spontini, Italian opera lay for a while under a cloud. This was
dispersed by the furore created by the operatic creations of Rossini,
who, although by no means a very skilled or capable musician, had a
rare knowledge both of effect and also of the kind of thing to which
the general public loves to listen. Melodic gifts were his, and when
one adds a certain clever and tricky use of the orchestra and an
evident desire to give the singers the most vocal and effective music
that he could possibly invent, we can readily understand how successful
was this facile composer.
[Sidenote: “=The Barber of Seville=”]
The earliest of his operas to win him fame was _Tancredi_, a grand
opera produced in 1813. This was followed after an interval of two
years by the production of one of his best known works, _The Barber of
Seville_, an excellent example of Opera Buffa. Its overture is well
known, and introduces samples of that effective device, cheap and yet
wondrously convincing, known as the “Rossinian _Crescendo_.” This is
attained, as will be seen, by the use of a simple figure of melody
begun very softly and continued with greater and greater degrees of
power and more and more instruments. In spite of its simplicity and
obviousness, its effect is an intoxicating one, and is an example of
the simple and yet unfailing means by which Rossini attracted his
public.
Example of a Rossini “Crescendo,” from the Overture to “Il Barbiere.”
[Sidenote: =Recitative=]
The whole opera, with its brilliant bravura voice passages, its
grandiose effects of double thirds, and its periods of climax, is
particularly characteristic of its composer. Rossini produced a vast
number of operas, both serious and comic; in the former he made a great
innovation when he wrote _Otello_ in 1816. We have already frequently
mentioned that in Grand Opera the music must be always continuous;
this, however, does not imply a continuous series of airs, duets, and
choruses. These were divided by passages of blank verse or dialogue,
which correspond to the passages of dialogue with which we in England
are so familiar in the productions of Gilbert and Sullivan. When these
passages were _spoken_, as in Beethoven’s _Fidelio_ or Weber’s _Der
Freischütz_, the work, however tragic in subject, was not termed “Grand
Opera” at all, but rather “Comic Opera” or “Singspiel.” When, however,
_all_ was sung, then the term “Grand Opera” was applied.
But a difference was given to the musical setting of such passages to
that allotted to the more lyrical portions. At first, when there were
no lyrics, as in the early Monteverde operas, the musical setting was
of the same character throughout; after the introduction of the Aria
into opera by Scarlatti, the intermediary dialogue was often set to
music of a _parlante_ (or speaking) nature, generally without time
divisions or musical accent: this portion of the music was termed the
Recitative.
So unimportant was this Recitative considered from a musical point
of view that no trouble was taken in the writing of it—it was a
necessary evil. Mozart, we find, on one or two occasions, entrusted
its composition to his pupil Sussmäyr. Moreover, the orchestra rarely
played the accompaniment to it, this task being entrusted to the
harpsichord; even the part for this was not written out, only a bass
with figures being provided. It will thus be seen how small a degree
of importance was attached to the music of these connecting links:
such recitative was termed “Recitativo secco,” and of this our first
quotation from Peri is a good example. (See page 35.)
Both Monteverde and Gluck had made attempts at relieving the dulness
of this method of accompaniment by the introduction not only of the
orchestra, but also of fitting and suitable music on certain occasions.
Rossini revived this plan in _Otello_, and since then it has been
generally employed in all serious opera. From the fact that the
instruments of the orchestra are necessary for its proper presentation,
this form of recitative has received the name of _Recitativo
Stromentato_.
[Sidenote: “=William Tell=”]
Rossini’s operas have mostly gone the way of all such light and trivial
music, but among the more long-lived specimens may be named _La
Cenerentola_, _Gazza Ladra_, and _William Tell_. The last-named, with
its popular overture, is a work of much better class than its brethren,
and was written some long period after the others, when Rossini
himself began to be dissatisfied with his earlier works. The fact,
however, remains that he can never have taken himself as a very serious
musician, for the last forty years of his life were spent in idleness
and he wrote practically nothing.
[Sidenote: =Bellini and Donizetti=]
What has been said of the operas of Rossini applies also in very large
measure to those of his followers—Mercadante, Pacini, Bellini, and
Donizetti, all of whom wrote on the same empty plan. Of these four the
last-named produced works which have had the greatest longevity, and,
thanks to certain _prime donne_ who have more belief in the beauty
and skill of manipulation of their voices than they have love for the
real and artistic in music, some are still to be heard during every
opera season. The most famous Bellini opera is _Norma_, while _La
Sonnambula_ runs it a close second. Donizetti is remembered by _Lucia
di Lammermoor, Lucretia Borgia, La Favorita, La Fille du Régiment, and
L’Elisir d’Amore_.
[Sidenote: =Verdi, 1814-1901=]
More worth attaches to the many beautiful works of the last of this
school, Verdi, who lived to so ripe an age and so modernized his
methods that his later operas all belong rightly to a post-Wagner
period. But in his early scores Verdi wrote entirely on the Italian
model, and although of sterner mould than Bellini and Donizetti,
his works bear a close family resemblance to those of his immediate
predecessors. Like them, Verdi had a ready gift of melody. Such operas
as _Ernani_ (1844), _Rigoletto_ (1851), _Il Trovatore_ (1853), and _La
Traviata_ (1853)—the last-named having been written in the short space
of one month—are replete with energy and vigour and full of broad and
sometimes somewhat vulgar tune. These works still hold their position
on the stage, and appeal to those who love easily grasped and tuneful
music, coupled with interesting dramatic action.
[Illustration: VERDI.]
For years Verdi wrote operas on this popular plan, producing the
familiar _Un Ballo in Maschera_ as late as 1859. But the influence
of the methods of Wagner was creeping over him, and (although he
never attempted to follow the master to the full) it is evident in
his grand opera _Aïda_, produced in 1871. This work, rich and glowing
with local colour, and with a plot whose action is laid in Egypt, is
a stepping-stone between the earlier and later operas, and shows the
music of its composer in a transition stage. Here is a type of Verdi’s
ready gift of melody:—
Radamès’ first Aria in “Aïda” (Verdi).
[Music]
Celeste Aïda forma divina mistico serto di luce e fior
[Sidenote: =Verdi’s Later Operas=]
_Otello_, produced in 1887, and _Falstaff_ in 1893, when its wonderful
creator was just upon eighty years of age, are modern operas in the
real sense of the expression. The old Verdi is to a great extent laid
aside, and these marvellous and powerful works, while still exhibiting
great freshness of melody, give evidence also of such masterly use of
the orchestra, and such perfect wedding of words with music as is only
to be found in the music of the most modern days. So that in Verdi’s
operas we stretch hands across the chasm that divides the simple,
melodious, old-fashioned works from the complex polyphonic modern
examples, and note in his compositions a movement and progress parallel
with that made in all other branches of musical art during a similar
period of its history.
CHAPTER VIII.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_b_) THE GERMAN SCHOOL (KEISER TO NICOLAI).
Keiser and his successors—Hiller—Real German
opera—Spohr—Marschner—Operatic interest
not centred in Germany at this time.
[Sidenote: =Keiser and his Successors=]
A good start was given to German opera, as we have already shown, by
Keiser, who wrote over one hundred operas for the Hamburg house. The
fact that after his decease the centre of interest shifts partly to
England (where Handel was at work), and still more to Italy, does not
mean that German composers were idle. True, many of them were writing
operas on the Italian plan, and therefore must be classed with the
Italian school, and even the greatest sons of German soil were content
to produce their masterpieces in foreign capitals rather than at home.
Thus it is that we find Gluck bringing out all his important works in
Vienna or Paris; Mozart his at Prague, Munich, or Vienna; Beethoven his
only specimen in Vienna.
The work done on German soil must not, however, be passed over lightly.
Stars of the second magnitude, such as Hasse (1699-1783), who wrote
over one hundred operas, and Graun (1701-1759) have their place among
the constellations. They are not important either in their influence
upon opera generally nor upon German opera in particular, since their
work was almost exclusively done to Italian libretti on the prevailing
Italian model; but they both had great influence upon Adam Hiller, who
has a distinct place in the history of opera.
[Sidenote: =Hiller, 1728-1804=]
For it is very largely to Hiller that the credit of the foundation of
the “Singspiel” may be allotted. This form of opera, to which we must,
of necessity, allude frequently, seeing that it was the form very
largely in vogue at the time of Mozart, Beethoven, and Weber, although
possibly derived in the first instance from the French operetta, soon
justified its existence as a distinctly German form of art.
Hiller raised it from a mere collection of songs, and adopted an able
and dramatic method in setting the words to forms of larger outline and
of more complex development. His chief works are _Der Dorfbarbier_ and
_Die Jagel_, both of which sometimes gain a hearing to-day. Without
doubt he had something to do with the success attained by Weber and
Mozart, for although their settings of similar “song-plays” are
infinitely superior, their work is certainly more sure by reason of the
leadership he gave them. The pioneer in a new land seldom reaches its
utmost limits.
[Sidenote: =Real German Opera=]
Hiller’s operettas were German and not Italian, and that also must
have affected Mozart and Weber, for they were able to notice the
deeper appeal made on a German audience by a performance in the
vernacular, and both eventually followed suit. Until the production of
_Der Freischütz_ at the Berlin Opera House in 1821 there was little
to justify such a course, but after that date we find many composers
writing German operas, and founding a school of composition which
includes such names as Spohr, Marschner, Lortzing, Lindpaintner, and
Nicolai.
[Sidenote: =Spohr, 1784-1859=]
Spohr’s greatest operatic work, _Faust_, was actually staged at
Frankfort two years before _Der Freischütz_ first saw the light of day.
Although very popular both in Germany and England for many years, this
opera rarely gets a performance now, it having been entirely eclipsed
by Gounod’s work of the same title.
[Illustration: J. A. HILLER.]
Besides _Faust_, Spohr wrote many other operas, following Weber to
a large extent in romanticism of method, although the peculiarly
chromatic genius of his music never leaves one in doubt as to its
authorship. The most successful of these are _Zemir and Azor_,
_Jessonda_, _Der Berggeist_, and _Der Alchymist_, all almost entirely
forgotten now. The popular song with sopranos, “Rose Softly Blooming,”
comes from the first-named of these.
[Sidenote: =Marschner, 1796-1861=]
A still more faithful follower in the footsteps of Weber was Heinrich
Marschner, who loved the demoniacal and the weird, and gloated over
them in his music. His operas, the most famous of which are _Der
Vampyr_, _Hans Heiling_, and _The Templar and the Jewess_ (founded on
Scott’s _Ivanhoe_), still have a hold on German affections. The study
of _Hans Heiling_ is held to have had a great influence over Wagner at
the time he was composing _The Flying Dutchman_.
Many composers of this school and this date remain in our memories
through the more or less frequent performances of their most successful
work. Among such may be named Lortzing (1803-1852), composer of
_Peter the Shipwright_ (a story dealing with Peter the Great’s life
in the shipbuilder’s yard at Zaandam); Flotow (1812-83), composer of
the tuneful and popular _Martha_; Kreutzer (1782-1849), Lindpaintner
(1791-1856), and Nicolai (1810-49). The overture to the last-named
composer’s _Merry Wives of Windsor_ is world famous. Peter Cornelius
(1824-74) and Goetz (1840-76) each composed a well-known opera, _The
Barber of Bagdad_ and _The Taming of the Shrew_ respectively.
[Sidenote: =Operatic interest not centred in Germany at this time=]
The fact that the Germans at this time did not produce composers of
greater operatic eminence is due largely to the fact that the grandeur
and charm of French grand opera was drawing many devotees and many
composers to Paris. While Italy had its brilliant Rossini and Verdi
to uphold the traditions of national opera in their own land, there
was no composer of German opera on a like eminence, or one that could
successfully vie with the ever-increasing magnificence and interest of
the grand opera of Paris. To that brilliant episode in the story of the
opera we will now turn our attention.
CHAPTER IX.
SOME LESSER STARS IN THE OPERATIC FIRMAMENT.
(_c_) THE FRENCH SCHOOL (RAMEAU TO AMBROISE THOMAS).
Rameau—Divergence of methods—The successors
of Gluck and Piccini—Méhul—Cherubini and
Spontini—Meyerbeer—Auber—Gounod—Bizet—Reasons
for the popularity of _Faust_ and
_Carmen_—Offenbach—Délibes and Lalo—Thomas.
The Italian Lully had no small share in founding what afterwards became
a school of Grand Opera in Paris. As we have already said, he was so
jealous of his fame that he brooked no rivals; so powerful was he, too,
at Court that he was instrumental in keeping in the background every
other aspirant to fame in his own particular line. So that we have to
wait for some years before we find any notable name in France so far as
operatic development is concerned.
[Sidenote: =Rameau, 1683-1764=]
Rameau is the next composer to be mentioned. His fame is not so
great as that of his predecessor Lully, nor are his works so full of
vivacity and brightness. But he was a capable and skilled workman,
and did much for French opera; his music is pompous and antique, nor
does it compare in interest with that of the versatile Jean Jacques
Rousseau, who wrote at least one work, _Le Devin du Village_, which
enjoyed very many years of popularity.
[Sidenote: =Divergence of Methods=]
The last-named work, moreover, did not pretend to belong to the genus
“Grand Opera,” but was an “Opera Comique,” a branch of art in which
the French have always excelled: indeed, from about this date (1760
_circa_) opera in France was diverging into two lines, one looking
towards Grand Opera, and taking exalted, serious, or tragic themes for
treatment, the other having the production of Comic Opera, with all its
variety of scope and more human subjects of interest, as its aim; the
course of these two must be followed, as indeed they ran to a great
extent, side by side.
Much was due to the opening, in 1762, of the new “Opera Comique”
Theatre in Paris, at which composers obtained a hearing, whose music
was not fit for the Opera House proper, and who would not, moreover,
have attempted work in the larger and more serious forms.
[Illustration: PUCCINI.]
[Illustration: PICCINI.]
[Sidenote: =The Successors of Gluck and Piccini=]
Such men were Monsigny (1729-1817), Grétry (1741-1813), and Philidor
(1726-1797). They were at work in Paris shortly after the Gluck-Piccini
contest, and wrote operas which pleased by their simplicity,
brightness, and tunefulness; all of them being of the order of the
German “Singspiel”—_i.e._, with spoken dialogue. But it must be
remembered that these composers, although they flourished subsequent to
Gluck, had not imbibed his principles; nor did the light forms of opera
which they, in the main, set themselves to write, leave much room for
the exemplification of such. Consequently, when the operas of Mozart,
constructed with artistic unity of principle and upon logical lines,
began to obtain a hearing in Paris, such works as theirs soon dropped
out of fashion.
[Sidenote: =Méhul, 1763-1817=]
Of more importance is Méhul, who, while still writing in the main for
the Opera Comique, did so in a thoroughly artistic manner, taking
Gluck as his model. He was a man of considerable originality, who made
the curious experiment of leaving out the violins of the orchestra
throughout the whole of his opera _Uthal_, with the idea of giving
a cold, vague effect. However successful in that respect, it may
be safely prophesied that this was done by Méhul for the first and
the last time. His most popular work was _Joseph_, a story dealing
with the Bible narrative. One of its tunes is well known to pianists
through the fact that Weber wrote a set of very interesting pianoforte
variations upon it.
[Sidenote: =Cherubini and Spontini=]
We must now turn our attention to two Italian composers, who belong
to France through the fact of their having produced almost all their
important works on the boards of either the Opera Comique or the
Académie. Cherubini (1760-1842) wrote two or three great works, such as
_Les deux Journées_ (1800), _Les Abencerages_ (1813), and _Ali Baba_
(1833). The first-named, known in England as _The Water Carrier_,
although classed as opera comique, approximates in its music more
to what Beethoven wrote in _Fidelio_ and Weber in _Der Freischütz_
than to the ephemeral productions which were the fashion of the hour.
Cherubini’s music is that of a man who preceded all composers of the
“romantic” period, and therefore sounds antique and colourless to
modern ears; nevertheless it is solid and good, and far superior to
much of the same date.
Spontini (1774-1851) is spoken of by Naumann the historian in the
following words:—“No other composer has succeeded in infusing into the
music the spirit of _heroism and glory_ which prompted the victorious
exploits of Napoleon, in portrayal of which Spontini created a kind of
artistic expression, the influence of which has extended to the present
day.” His chief works, replete with grandeur and magnificence, are _La
Vestale_ (1807), _Fernand Cortez_ (written at the request of Napoleon
in 1809 on a Spanish subject, partly with the idea of conciliating the
Spanish), and _Olympia_ (1819).
Other composers of the period include Boieldieu (1775-1834), who wrote
the world famous _La Dame Blanche_, Isouard (1777-1818), Adam, Halèvy,
Hérold (the composer of _Zampa_), and many another. The names of these
composers pale before that Titan of French Grand Opera, whose advent
upon the scenes we must now note—Meyerbeer.
[Sidenote: =Meyerbeer, 1791-1864=]
Meyerbeer, a German by birth, having first seen the light of day
in Berlin, and, withal of Jewish origin, produced operas in Italy,
Germany, and France; his choicest efforts were lavished upon his operas
for the Paris Académie, and his name is now always classed with French
music. He had wonderful gifts, which he sometimes abused, for his
music seeks the _effective_, irrespective of its artistic unity or the
reverse.
In his lifetime he was lauded to the skies, and afterwards just as
bitterly denounced. Wagner, who really learned much from him, speaks
of him as “a miserable music-maker, a Jew banker to whom it occurred
to compose operas.” It must be admitted that Meyerbeer’s music is
often vulgar and conventional, but his masterpiece, _The Huguenots_,
contains some fine writing, and is specially noticeable for the clever
and striking use made at several points in the progress of the story of
Luther’s grand old hymn-tune, “Ein Feste Burg.” This chorale is used as
a kind of _leit-motif_ for the persecuted Huguenots, and forms a most
effective foil to much of the other music of the opera.
The opening of the Chorale, from Meyerbeer’s “Les Huguenots.”
[Music]
In his most famous works, _Robert le Diable_ (1831), _Les Huguenots_
(1836), _Le Prophète_ (1849), _Dinorah_ (1859), and _L’Africaine_
(1864), Meyerbeer shows his knowledge of effect, both vocally and
orchestrally. Although over-elaborate and pompous, these operas are
still performed at fairly frequent intervals, seeing that they are
effective from a stage point of view, and also extremely gratifying
to the singers, without descending to that inanity which so often
characterizes operatic music written to please vocalists.
[Sidenote: =Auber, 1782-1871=]
Passing over that eccentric genius, Hector Berlioz, who made a few
bids for popularity in operatic composition, with remarkable lack
of success, we must notice the brilliant Auber, whose light-hearted
music filled the Opera Comique audiences with delight for many years.
Although only known to us in England by the overtures which are so
popular with sea-side orchestras and amateur bands, his operas are
still popular enough on the Continent. He wrote both for the Grand
Opera and the Opera Comique, his most lasting successes being achieved
in the latter field; of the larger type, _Masaniello_ is the best
known, and is important as inaugurating a new career for French grand
opera, in so far as it breaks from the classic model of Gluck and
his followers and incorporates elements of the newer romance school.
Of the lighter works, _Fra Diavolo_ is one of the most successful.
Auber will be remembered not only for the vivacity and brightness of
his music, but also for his fascinating and clever employment of the
orchestra, for which he wrote with consummate ease and invariable
excellence.
[Sidenote: =Gounod, 1818-93=]
In Gounod we meet the composer of _Faust_, probably the most popular
opera that the world has ever known. The reasons for its popularity
are not hard to seek—an easily understood and well-known story, a
succession of bright, melodious, and yet good musical numbers, and an
amount of opportunity for the stage management beyond the average—all
these things have tended to keep _Faust_ constantly before the
opera-goer.
_Faust_ was produced in 1859, and although its orchestration may sound
thin, and its melodies appear ultra-square to those who are accustomed
to feast on the sonorous melody of Wagner, it yet pleases and is likely
to please. It is the best of the Gounod operas, and quite outpaces
other efforts by the same composer. Of these, _Romeo and Juliet_ is
the most often heard, but there are others, such as _The Mock Doctor_,
_Philémon and Baucis_, and _Mireille_, which latter Gounod always said
was his best opera.
[Illustration: OFFENBACH.]
[Sidenote: =Bizet, 1838-75=]
If _Faust_ holds first place for popularity with the masses, it is
closely followed in this respect by the _Carmen_ of Bizet, a work
of greater dramatic power, and offering much that is fresh in its
scoring and its ingenious use of Spanish colouring and rhythms. The
performance of _Faust_ or _Carmen_ is fairly certain to fill any
provincial opera-house, and we find these works to be very often the
mainstay of the touring companies. Indeed, statistics show the number
of performances of these works to exceed that of all other operas, and
in 1881 the number of times _Carmen_ had been performed exceeded, as
was ascertained in Berlin, that of all the representations of Weber
and Wagner’s works put together. But Wagner’s music enjoys so large a
share of public attention at the present time that the proportion of
performances of these operas is probably now considerably less.
[Sidenote: =Offenbach, 1819-80=]
Contemporary with Gounod and Bizet was Jules Offenbach, a composer of
comparatively low aim but with a certain amount of musicianly skill and
a sure knowledge of effect. His operas are mostly comic, but in their
day they enjoyed a _furore_ by no means limited to the Parisian public.
His output was enormous, nearly seventy operas standing to his name;
of these the most famous is _Orphée aux enfers_; his most ambitious
effort, _Les Contes d’Hoffmann_, was only completed just before his
death. Written only for the pleasure of the time, there is little of
any lasting merit in his work.
[Sidenote: =Délibes and Lalo=]
Of higher standard, although his attention was in the main given
to comic opera, is the music of Léo Délibes (1836-91), composer of
the operas _Le Roi l’a dit_ (1873), _Lakmé_ (1883), and the ballet,
_Coppélia_. Lalo (1823-92) is best known by his work, _Le Roi d’ Ys_,
often staged and containing much good music. Victor Massé (1822-76)
composed _Paul et Virginie_ and many other works which gained
popularity.
[Sidenote: =Thomas, 1811-96=]
With brief mention of Ambroise Thomas, a musician much influenced by
Gounod, who wrote two works at least of enduring quality, _Mignon_
(1866) and _Hamlet_ (1868) for the French opera, we must for the
present leave this school of composition, returning to it anon to make
mention of a number of brilliant men of talent still happily alive
and at work to-day adding their quota to the fabric reared by their
predecessors.
CHAPTER X.
ENGLISH OPERA OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND PART OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
_The Beggar’s Opera_—Arne—Bishop—Balfe—Wallace—Goring
Thomas—Sullivan—Living writers.
We have not much to boast of, so far as English operatic music
is concerned, from the death of Purcell to about the middle of
the nineteenth century. Purcell’s work, in its limited field, was
excellent, but Handel’s powerful personality attracted so much
attention to the Italian methods of composition that no other style
found real favour for many years.
[Sidenote: =The “Beggar’s Opera”=]
Opera, of course, existed in England, but it was of the Italian order:
indeed, there was so much said against the unfortunate English language
as a medium of vocal expression, that native talent had little or no
chance of distinguishing itself. The only work that stands out during
this period as being essentially English was a curious medley of songs
and airs called the _Beggar’s Opera_ produced in 1728, but even
this was arranged by Dr. Pepusch (a German)! The old genuine English
tunes were, however, used in this, and its one or two successors, but
the music is not of a serious type. The airs are simple and simply
harmonized, and make no comparison with the Handel or Buononcini
operas. Moreover, they are so short that we may quote the whole of one
as an example.
Song from “The Beggar’s Opera,” arranged by Dr. Pepusch.
[Music]
Pretty Polly say,
When I was away,
Did your fancy never stray to some newer lover?
Without disguise;
Heaving sighs;
Doating eyes;
My constant heart discovers,
Fondly let me tell,
Fondly let me tell!
O pretty, pretty Poll.
[Sidenote: =Arne, 1710-78=]
One of the first Englishmen to write Opera on the prevalent Italian
model was Thomas Arne, whose chief work was _Artaxerxes_; he also wrote
many masques or plays with incidental music. To us of to-day he is best
known as the reputed author of “Rule Britannia,” and of the popular and
tuneful setting of Shakespeare’s words, “Where the Bee sucks.”
The English style of composition of this period, which is in the
main vigorous, manly, and bold, was not at all suited to the taste
of the fashionable public, who were led to believe that the florid
and effeminate Italian airs were the only tune method of operatic
composition; consequently we are not surprised that native talent was
overlooked and ignored, and that we have nothing to show that will
compare with what was going on in Italy, Germany, and France at a
corresponding period.
Arne’s name is still remembered and his tunes sung, but the same can
hardly be said of his followers and successors, Shield, Storace, Kelly
and others. Although these men attempted dramatic composition in the
style of Arne, they had no very definite model upon which to work,
and they were more successful in the glee and madrigal than in stage
work. We hear some of their songs now and then, but their influence on
national opera was very slight indeed.
[Sidenote: =Bishop, 1786-1855=]
The eighteenth century is indeed a period of blank in English operatic
history, and in spite of the work of Henry Bishop, who wrote effective
concerted numbers, the earlier part of the nineteenth century has but
little more to show. Bishop was content to leave the English “Ballad
Opera” where he found it, although he had the ability to found a
natural school of opera had he had the requisite energy and initiative.
[Sidenote: =Balfe, 1808-1870=]
The first English composer after Arne to produce anything attaining to
real popularity, and to really deserve the name of opera, was Balfe,
who, following an example set by John Barnett in his opera _The
Mountain Sylph_, produced in 1835 _The Siege of Rochelle_, and eight
years later the well-known _Bohemian Girl_. That these operas are not
of a particularly exalted type must be admitted; the airs are tuneful
and mostly commonplace. There can be no comparison, for example,
between the _Bohemian Girl_ and _Faust_, because although both make
a ready and immediate appeal, the artistic standard is much lower in
the English than in the French work. But still the work of Balfe was
an immense advance on the poorly constructed ballad opera that had
hitherto found acceptance, and it helped to pave the way to higher
ideals and better methods.
Type of Balfe’s melody “The Bohemian Girl.”
[Music]
When other lips and other hearts
Their tale of love shall tell,
[Sidenote: =Wallace, 1814-65=]
On about the same plane is Wallace, whose most popular work is
_Maritana_—even more trying to listen to (for the cultured hearer)
than the _Bohemian Girl_. These works, although poor and of no interest
to the musician, yet play a part in the education of the people. Those
quite unenlightened in the forms of opera can make a good start by at
first listening to works of this type; and as their experience grows,
so their taste will undoubtedly improve, and ripen to an appreciation
of better things. The admiration of the crowd for such works as these,
although now less than formerly, is not to be altogether condemned,
seeing that it may in some cases be the means of raising the masses to
an appreciation of something better and more musically satisfactory.
As musical education in England gradually improved, so we find our
composers more artistic in their outlook and more solid in their
work. The operas of Benedict (1804-85) and Macfarren (1813-87),
although seldom performed now, are the output of talented and cultured
musicians, who possessed, moreover, gifts of melody and dramatic
characterization which must not be overlooked. Benedict’s best opera
was _The Lily of Killarney_, produced in 1862.
[Sidenote: =Goring Thomas, 1851-92=]
Greater heights still were reached by Goring Thomas, who wrote
_Esmeralda_ and _Nadeshda_, both works of merit, and from which
excerpts are frequently given in our concert rooms.
[Sidenote: =Sullivan, 1842-1900=]
Last amongst deceased English composers of opera may be named Arthur
Sullivan, who wrote one serious opera, _Ivanhoe_ (1891), and a host
of delightful works of slighter scope to which it is hard to give a
class-name. They are not quite of the opera comique type, nor do they
partake of the farcical nature of “Opera Bouffe.” Perhaps a nondescript
term such as “Light Opera” answers as well as any other to the
charming, harmonious, graceful class of “Singspiel” which found such
favour not only in England, but in the case of some works (such as _The
Mikado_), also on the Continent. Their popularity, immense some twenty
years ago, now appears to be somewhat on the wane; but they are still
models of refinement and of good sound musicianship.
[Sidenote: =Living Writers=]
[Illustration]
More serious attention has, however, been paid to opera in English by
composers still living than by any named in this chapter. To these some
consideration must be given, after we have noticed to some extent the
Wagner operas and their influence.
CHAPTER XI.
WAGNER AND HIS OPERAS.
Wagner’s early days—At Würzburg—At Königsberg—
At Riga—At Paris—_Rienzi_—Dresden—Zurich—
Munich—Triebschen—Bayreuth—Death—Wagner’s
methods—_The Flying Dutchman_—_Tannhäuser_
—_Lohengrin_—_Tristan and Isolde_—_Die
Meistersinger_—_The Ring_—_Parsifal_—
Wagner’s continued development.
The name of Wagner is the most interesting in all the annals of opera.
We live too far away from the days of Lully and of Gluck to feel more
than a shadowy interest in the personality of these men, although it
was very marked; and in the case of more modern composers of pronounced
character and distinctive achievement, such as Meyerbeer, Spontini, or
Verdi, none can approach the great Richard Wagner in interest or in
fascination. Since he is not only the most striking of opera composers,
but also one whose work is judged, practically, by his efforts in this
field alone of all musical art, we need have no hesitation in giving,
in his case, a slightly more developed biographical notice than has
been possible for men of less operatic repute.
[Sidenote: =Wagner’s Early Days=]
Richard Wagner, a junior member of a large family, was born in Leipsic
in 1813 (May 22nd). His father died early, and his mother soon married
again. Richard’s step-father, Geyer, was instrumental in introducing
the boy to the stage, as he was an assistant at the Court Theatre at
Dresden. Moreover, he perceived artistic instincts in the boy, and had
him properly educated.
Wagner’s earliest dramatic effort was made at the age of fourteen,
when he wrote a great tragedy _à la_ Shakespeare; forty-two of his
characters were slaughtered in the first four acts, so for the
_dénouement_ they were in part resuscitated as ghosts! These early
attempts may cause us to smile, but in them may be seen the power to
grapple with work on a large scale, which was so characteristic a
feature of the man’s later life.
He struggled to master the pianoforte, very unsuccessfully, and also
wrote the usual pianoforte sonatas and pieces. His education, proceeded
with at Dresden and Leipsic, was of a very broken nature, and he was a
bad pupil: his inclination being to study Weber and Beethoven rather
than Latin and Greek; consequently he was always uneasy and desirous of
escaping from the trammels of education.
[Sidenote: =At Würzburg, 1833=]
This he did when he was about nineteen years of age, taking a post as
chorus master at the Würzburg theatre, and writing at the age of twenty
his first opera, _The Fairies_; this work and its successor, _Das
Liebesverbot_, need not detain us, except to record that the latter
had two productions at Magdeburg in 1836, Wagner having gone there to
act as conductor. Of these the first was a failure, the second was
to an audience consisting of Wagner’s landlady, her husband, and a
Polish Jew. After this the Magdeburg theatre retired gracefully into
bankruptcy, and with it went the conductor.
[Sidenote: =At Königsberg, 1836=]
Being attracted by a certain Wilhelmina Planer, who was acting at
Königsberg, Wagner’s next steps were directed to this small town, where
he married his lady-love, and also received the directorship of the
opera. Bankruptcy fell to the lot of this theatre also, and Wagner
shifted to Riga, where he found better work on a more secure footing.
[Sidenote: =At Riga, 1838=]
Riga had a good opera-house, and so inspired the ambitious composer
that he longed to scale greater heights, and set out for Paris. He went
by sea to London, being well-nigh wrecked off the coast of Norway, and
received impressions which are ably recorded for us in his setting of
the story of the _Flying Dutchman_, composed shortly after the voyage.
[Sidenote: =At Paris, 1839=]
Crossing to Paris, Wagner lived for some time on the very verge of
starvation; he had had introductions to Meyerbeer and other persons
of influence in the French capital, but no one wanted the work of an
unknown German composer, and he was forced to earn a living as best
he could by arranging fantasias from popular operas, and turning out
tuneful melodies for the cornet. His wife cheered him on and did her
best, but misfortune dogged him, for a little theatre that agreed to
produce _Das Liebesverbot_ failed before the day of production came.
[Sidenote: “=Rienzi=”]
Undaunted, Wagner continued his work on the score of his first real
opera _Rienzi_, which is founded on Lytton’s novel of the same name.
Its music is modelled after the style of Meyerbeer, and of the grand
opera of Paris. The Wagner of reform was not yet born: before his
crusade could start, its author must be convinced of the futility of
the older methods, and as a struggling composer he had at present as
his great idea the problem of making both ends meet; consequently in
_Rienzi_ we do not find anything to specially arrest the attention,
nor is the work looked upon by serious Wagnerians as worthy of
consideration; it had its importance, however, in gaining Wagner a
hearing, being produced at Dresden in 1842.
[Sidenote: =Dresden, 1842=]
Wagner went to Dresden to prepare the work for performance, and settled
down there, taking up the duties of Hofkapellmeister. During his
sojourn in the Saxon capital he produced _The Flying Dutchman_ (1843)
and _Tannhäuser_ (1845). But in the latter year Wagner got himself into
political troubles, and had to fly the kingdom. He settled down to a
roving life in Paris and Switzerland, working at _Lohengrin_, which was
produced by Liszt at Weimar in 1850.
[Sidenote: =Zurich, 1852-55=]
While living at Zurich he sketched the libretto of the _Ring_, a
gigantic cycle of four operas, of which more anon. In 1855 he came to
England as the conductor of the Philharmonic Society’s concerts for
the year. A good deal of disapproval with his methods and his work was
experienced by him in this country, and he returned to Zurich to take
up his work again there, settling down not only to the _Ring_, but also
to the newly-conceived _Tristan_.
[Sidenote: =Munich, 1861-65=]
In 1860 Wagner’s period of exile was at an end, and he returned
to German soil and composed the most German of his operas, _Die
Meistersinger_. Shortly afterwards he went to dwell in Munich, beneath
the eye of his patron, King Ludwig II. of Bavaria, who financed
him until the end of his life. The monarch and the composer were
hand-in-glove with each other, so much so that in the year 1865 the
latter had perforce to leave the Bavarian capital, returning to Swiss
soil for six more years.
[Sidenote: =Triebschen, 1866-72=]
The well-known village of Triebschen, on the lake of Lucerne, was
Wagner’s home during this period, during which most of the detail work
of composition of the _Ring_ was polished off and in part produced. In
1870, his first wife having died, Wagner married Cosima von Bülow, a
daughter of his friend Liszt. This is the present Madame Wagner, who
rules all at Bayreuth to-day with so firm a grip.
[Sidenote: =Bayreuth, 1872-83=]
In 1872 Wagner returned to his patron, Ludwig II., who encouraged him
to devise schemes to raise £45,000 to build a theatre where he liked,
and after his own design; Bayreuth, a small Bavarian township, was
pitched upon, and here a theatre was erected and opened in 1876. It was
built with special reference to Wagner’s idea that every seat in the
house should have a complete view of the stage, and should therefore
be on a slightly higher level than the seat in front of it; and also
that the orchestra should be out of sight beneath the stage. Special
arrangements for the remarkably heavy stage scenes and mechanical
devices necessary for the production of the _Ring_ were also made, and
all was successfully brought to a happy issue by three performances
of that cycle in full, under the well-known and happily living great
Wagnerian conductor, Hans Richter.
[Sidenote: =Death=]
After a further visit to England in 1877, Wagner returned to Bayreuth
and wrote his last work, _Parsifal_, which was produced at the new
Opera House in 1882. Early in the following year Wagner died at
Venice, but his body was taken to his home, “Wahnfried,” and there
interred. Bayreuth is to-day the goal of many pilgrims, people of all
nationalities assembling for the performances of the _Ring_ and other
works, which generally take place during the summers of alternate years.
[Sidenote: =Wagner’s Methods=]
In our chapter upon the Reformers of Opera we noted the methods by
which Wagner brought music into its proper sphere—namely, that of
an adjunct to the work of the stage; we need not here recapitulate
his theories of the absolute necessity of the music helping, rather
than hindering, the dramatic action. Let it be borne in mind that he
set before himself the object of eliminating all that was unworthy
in the methods of his predecessors, and found himself unable, in the
greater part of his work, to accept the set aria, duet, or other
concerted movement, in their place substituting a continuous, rich,
and fully-scored accompanied recitative, consisting very largely of a
series of melodies, heard singly or in combination; each melody, or
_leit-motif_ (which might, however, be also a chord-progression, or
characteristic combination of instruments), being meant to bring to the
mind of the listener, through his ear and brain, a definite train of
thought.
[Sidenote: “=The Flying Dutchman=”]
Wagner did not by any means arrive at this conception straight away.
_Rienzi_, with its spectacular effects and showy music, is an avowed
copy of Meyerbeer and the grand opera methods. A step in advance was
taken in _The Flying Dutchman_. The story is the well-known one of the
sailor doomed to perpetually sail his vessel for ever and ever, being
allowed to touch land once in seven years only; his chance of salvation
being that some woman will voluntarily give herself to him; then only
may he find peace. Senta, the heroine of the opera, offers to do this,
in spite of her affection for her promised lover Erik; she clings to
her determination, in spite of all entreaties of father (Daland) and
lover, and throws herself into the sea as the Dutchman’s ship sails
away. This proves her devotion, and the ship sinks; its wanderings now
over at last.
The “Curse” Motive, associated with the “Flying Dutchman.”
[Music]
The music in this early work is still roughly divided into solo, duet,
and chorus, and shows only a few traces of the Wagner of the future;
the fine overture, with its well-known passages depicting the angry,
stormy waves and the other sea portions of the work, were largely
inspired by Wagner’s own perilous voyage in 1838. It contains much fine
music, but much also that is dull and unconvincing.
[Sidenote: “=Tannhäuser=”]
_Tannhäuser_ deals with the story of the knight who leaves the world,
his affianced bride, and his duties, for the unhallowed delight
of Venus. Tiring at last of these, a chorus of pilgrims on their
way to Rome moves him to penitence, and he returns to the court of
the Landgrave of Thuringia, whose daughter Elizabeth welcomes back
Tannhäuser her beloved. He, however, cannot refrain from boasting of
the joys of his impious haunts, and is banished from the Court, to
seek forgiveness at Rome. Elizabeth prays in solitude for him, but the
pilgrims return without him, he eventually reappearing in despair, for
the Pope has refused him absolution. He desires to return to Venus, but
Wolfram, his friend, reminds him of Elizabeth, who has died of grief;
her funeral procession passes, and Tannhäuser falls dead by her bier,
just as messengers from Rome announce his ultimate forgiveness by the
Pope.
“Venusberg” Motives, “Tannhäuser.”
[Music]
[Music]
To all concert goers the _Tannhäuser_ music is familiar by the
overture, based mainly on the pilgrims’ chorus and the Venusberg music,
and by the song of Wolfram to the Evening Star. Throughout the opera
the scoring is fine and effective, and the _leit-motif_ makes a few
definite appearances; it is a step towards Wagner’s goal, but only
an early one. The music is continuous throughout each act, and less
definitely split up than in the _Dutchman_; a good deal of the success
of _Tannhäuser_ depends on its spectacular opportunities, the grand
scene in the second act with the majestic march offering special scope
in this respect.
[Sidenote: “=Lohengrin=”]
In _Lohengrin_ we meet with one of the most popular of Wagner’s works:
Lohengrin, an unknown knight, appears in a boat drawn by a swan, as it
were by magic, to succour Elsa of Brabant, wrongfully accused of the
murder of her brother by Frederic of Telramund, and Ortrud his wife:
he defeats Telramund in a duel, and Elsa bestows her hand upon him.
Ortrud nurtures revenge, and suggests that Elsa has married a nameless
adventurer. Elsa, although she has promised never to question Lohengrin
as to his name, or origin, falls a prey to insinuation and to anxious
curiosity: she elicits from him that he is son to Parsifal, guardian of
the Holy Grail, and now his origin is known, the swan will come to bear
him away once more. At his departure Ortrud suggests that the swan is
none other than the brother whom Elsa is under suspicion of having made
away with, but Lohengrin, by the power of the Holy Grail, restores her
brother to her, and then sails away, leaving her for ever.
The mystical beauty of the “Grail” (see p. 28) theme, with its
distinctive and original scoring for flutes and string harmonics,
always throws the hearer, at the outset of the Prelude, into the right
mood for this work. The music is not throughout at an equally high
level, but there is a greater consistency than in the earlier works,
and more use is made of guiding themes. The well-known “Bridal Chorus,”
so often played at weddings, occurs in the second act, and adds greatly
to the spectacular opportunities afforded; there is beautiful writing,
also, in Elsa’s procession to the Cathedral, and in Lohengrin’s
“Farewell.”
[Sidenote: “=Tristan and Isolde=”]
_Tristan and Isolde_ is an exposition of a legend which narrates how
King Mark of Cornwall sends his trusty knight Tristan to bring back
for him from Ireland a bride, Isolde. The knight and the maiden, under
charm of a love potion administered by the maid Brangäne, fall in love
with each other during the voyage, and on their return are neither
of them faithful to King Mark. The followers of the latter surprise
them, and Melot stabs Tristan, who is then conveyed to his castle in
Brittany. Here he pines away in longing for Isolde, and dies just as
she reaches the shore.
The combined themes of Tristan’s Sufferings and Isolde’s Love-longing.
[Music]
This opera has been described as one long love duet, with occasional
interludes: there is very little action or movement, and it is the
surpassing beauty of the music which accounts for the wondrous hold the
work has upon the cultured public. It is the manifestation to the full
of Wagner’s ideas of the propriety of music for illustrative purposes,
and the music is a continuous stream of surging sound, passion laden.
The chromatic nature of the themes intensify the emotionalism sought
to be conveyed: such music can never be popular in the ordinary
interpretation of the word, but as an illustration of the musical
expression of the beauty and passion of love it is unapproachable and
inimitable.
[Sidenote: “=Die Meistersinger=”]
_The Mastersingers of Nuremberg_ is the one work of Wagner embodying
touches of humour. It is sometimes called a comic opera, but this is
to give it a misleading title: humorous it is in parts, but these are
separated by long stretches of music of a serious and dignified nature.
The plot is concerned with the old guild of Mastersingers, entry to
which was hedged about by numberless petty restrictions in the middle
ages. Walther, a young knight, seeks entry, since it is only as a
master singer that he can hope to win the hand of Eva, daughter to
Pogner, who awards her as the prize to the composer and singer of the
most beautiful song. Beckmesser, another candidate for the fair Eva,
is also umpire to the guild, and thus has an unfair advantage over
Walther when he sings the song which he hopes will gain him admission.
He breaks every possible rule, and is hopelessly rejected. But Hans
Sachs, the shoemaker, is convinced of the beauty of Walther’s song,
and induces the other masters to give him another hearing. Beckmesser
breaks down in a comically hopeless attempt at the final competition,
and Walther, with a beautiful and impassioned “Prize Song,” wins the
coveted award.
“The Mastersingers.”
[Music]
The dignified overture, with its contrapuntal skill in combined themes,
the songs sung by Walther at various periods in the development of
the story, the curious and humorous lute music allied to Beckmesser’s
quaint verses, the noble monologue for Hans Sachs, the dance of the
apprentices, and the quintet of the principal characters which occurs
late in the opera, are all features of musical interest. The story
allows more scope than in the other music dramas for numbers in set
musical form, with the result that we have several delightful excerpts
from this work which are quite capable of effective performance
apart from the stage setting. For the rest, the music is in Wagner’s
advanced manner, but often in lighter style than is usual with him; a
natural sequel to the humorous nature of many of the scenes which the
music portrays.
[Sidenote: “=The Ring=”]
The cycle of four operas written on the same set of legends,
_Rheingold_, _Die Walküre_, _Siegfried_, and _Gotterdämmerung_, is
conveniently spoken of as the “Ring.” The term is derived in the same
way as is the word cycle or circle, and expresses a complete or rounded
group of ideas: it is not in any way taken from the actual golden ring
which figures largely in the plot as the desired object around which so
much of the story centres. It is not possible here to go into detail
as to the plots of these four operas; they may and should be studied
before hearing the work, by means of one of the numerous handy volumes
on the subject which have been published during recent years. Suffice
it to say that each of the operas is a complete work in itself, the
shortest being _Rheingold_, which is in one long act lasting about two
hours: the longest is _The Dusk of the Gods_, which plays for about
five hours. _Die Walküre_ and _Siegfried_ are each of them ordinary
operas in three acts.
The legendary story of the Nibelungs forms the basis of the operas,
and with it is combined the birth of Siegfried, child of earth-mortal
and of war-maiden (Walküre), his life, death, and the general fall of
the gods. The conception of the “Ring” was somewhat fortuitous. Wagner
started with the story of Siegfried; he then found that he must explain
that by telling the story of Brünnhilde, the war-maiden. To make this
clear, a prelude (Rheingold) was necessary for the explanation of the
presence of the cursed gold which lies buried beneath the Rhine, and
over which gods and mortals fight and contend.
In the _Ring_, Wagner’s use of _leit-motiven_ and general principles
reach their highest consummation. The music has its supreme moments of
beauty, which are apparent to every auditor. For him who would sound
these works to their fullest depths, study and concentrated thought
are, in addition, necessary. In most cases, full enjoyment of the
wondrous beauties and complexities of the scores will only come after
hearing and much rehearing.
[Sidenote: “=Parsifal=”]
Wagner’s last opera, _Parsifal_, returns to the subject of the “Holy
Grail,” and is entitled a Sacred Festival Drama. Its composer’s wish
was that it should be performed at Bayreuth only, and for more than
twenty years this request, backed also by copyright laws, was followed.
Recently, however, in New York and in Amsterdam enterprising managers
have, much against Madame Wagner’s wish, put it before their patrons.
According to all accounts it is less impressive in an ordinary theatre
than amidst the quiet surroundings of Bayreuth, and it seems to be a
work unsuited for general performance, and one that should only be
given at a suitable time, in a suitable place, and before an audience
thoroughly in sympathy with the subject. Its performances in England
have so far been restricted to the concert-room, when its Prelude, the
Good Friday music, the chorus of Flower Girls, and other excerpts are
sometimes given.
The story deals with the dual relationship of the hero, Parsifal, in
his service to the Holy Grail (guarded by Titurel and Amfortas), and
in his contact with the temptations of the world, as exemplified by
Klingsor, with his magic charms, and Kundry, his most beautiful and
ravishing assistant. Parsifal maintains his spotless innocence, spite
of all temptation, and eventually opens up a way of salvation to the
fallen Amfortas, and to all the knights of the Grail whose faith had
languished and faded.
The music throughout is of intensely devotional feeling and of a
religious fervour, varied only by the strains that accompany Kundry and
the Flower Girls: the use of the guiding-theme is less prominent and
important in this work than in the case of the _Ring_ operas, nor are
the principles of its composer so closely followed out. Its sincerity,
poetry, and depth always command our admiration and attention, even if
the charm be not always so apparent as in some of the earlier operas.
[Sidenote: =Wagner’s Continued Development=]
Betwixt first and last in Wagner is a great gulf fixed: his was a
nature that was content to go on only from strength to strength. Unlike
Meyerbeer or Rossini, who were mostly content to write opera after
opera upon the same general outline, the same broad pattern, Wagner
always presses on towards a closer realization of an ideal form of
work which he has set himself for achievement. Hence the cumulative
power displayed in the wondrous series of music dramas of which we have
attempted to give some slight account in this chapter.
CHAPTER XII.
MODERN OPERA SINCE WAGNER’S REFORMS.
Wagner’s influence—No mere copying—Modern
“Melos”—Use of the orchestra—His harmony
—Men of a younger generation—The Slavs.
The last of the revolutionists has left an indelible mark upon operatic
history. As we have before said, there has been nothing since the time
of Wagner which can lay claim to having advanced the art of opera,
nothing new has been done, and it is not easy to see on what lines
anything fresh can be attempted.
[Sidenote: =Wagner’s Influence=]
But composers have not been slow to take advantage of the new methods
introduced by that Colossus among opera writers, whose innovations
have altered the whole aspect of things, both in stage management, in
the wedding of suitable music to a really dramatic libretto, in the
use of the _leit-motif_, and in the writing of _melos_, accompanied by
characteristic and definitive use of the orchestra.
[Sidenote: =No mere Copying=]
It is not too much to say that every composer of opera, since Wagner’s
later works became known, has come under the influence of the great
master, consciously or unconsciously. It is not inferred that modern
musicians have taken the system of guiding themes and used them
systematically in the manner in which they are used in the _Ring_:
this has indeed been attempted, sometimes on quite a large scale, and
sometimes with success, more often with failure; for mere imitation
of Wagner’s methods have always spelt failure. The systematic use
of guiding themes has, however, become common, not only in dramatic
music, but even in abstract music, and occasionally in the oratorio, as
witness Elgar’s _Apostles_.
[Sidenote: =Modern Melos=]
But whether the guiding-theme plan has been adopted or no by late
nineteenth century composers of opera, there is no doubt that all have
been influenced by the _melos_ and accompanied recitative of Wagner.
The new, richly-constructed musical dialogue, if we may so term it,
which he was the first to treat in so characteristic and individual a
manner, became a new tool in the hands of composers. The tool is one
which turns out attractive work and has been plentifully laboured with:
its results are apparent everywhere, in the modern dramatic passages
that differ as widely from the Mozartean recitatives as they in turn do
from those of Scarlatti. The main difference is due to the polyphonic
blending of themes in the orchestral accompaniment: they may or may
not be guiding themes, but in any case they are superimposed to a much
greater extent than was the case in the simple chordal recitative
sections of earlier days.
[Sidenote: =Use of the Orchestra=]
Wagner’s use of the orchestra, too, unquestionably led the way for
much of the modern scoring; the rich completeness of a whole family
of instruments of the same timbre has found many admirers, and modern
orchestration has a resonance and a roundness which is hard to find in
music prior to his time. The tendency to-day is to use more and more
instruments, and to group them according to their characteristic tone
colour, thus offering a palate of greater scope and variety.
[Sidenote: =His Harmony=]
It must be borne in mind, too, that Wagner’s simultaneous use of many
themes brought into prominence the possibility of the use of many
uncommon harmonies. We will not say he invented these, because it is
difficult, if not impossible, to find any that have not occurred in
the writings of that marvellous contrapuntist, J. S. Bach; but whereas
in the older master their use is fortuitous and rare, they become in
Wagner of frequent and designed occurrence—hence the ear accepts
them eventually, although sometimes at first repelled. These many new
harmonies are part of the legacy bequeathed to a younger generation by
the Bayreuth maestro.
We have seen how Verdi, the greatest of Wagner’s contemporaries, was
influenced by the German composer, and how his whole style underwent
transformation as he imbibed deeper and deeper of the fountain of new
methods and ideas which sprung from the study of such works as the
_Ring_. Nor was Verdi alone of those of whom we have already spoken in
being thus influenced, although the traces of such influence are not
everywhere so apparent. Gounod, Ambroise Thomas, Sullivan, and many
another wrote works during and after Wagner’s lifetime which owe at
least something to what their composers had learned from him.
[Sidenote: =Men of a Younger Generation=]
But it is only natural that fuller results should be seen in the men of
a younger generation, men happily alive and at work to-day, in various
countries and of various nationalities. To these we may now devote a
little attention. That they have by no means slavishly copied Wagner is
of course readily admitted; at the same time it cannot be maintained
that they have in any way advanced upon his work, and their success is
largely dependent upon their ability to seize upon the chief merits
of his models and to combine with them some of their own particular
features of temperament, and of their individuality of style.
The chief modern composers of opera living to-day are—
(_a_) German—Goldmark, Humperdinck, Richard Strauss.
(_b_) Italian—Boito, Puccini, Mascagni, Leoncavallo,
Cilea, Mancinelli, Franchetti.
(_c_) French—Saint-Saëns, Massenet, Messager, Bruneau,
d’Indy, Charpentier, and Debussy.
(_d_) English—Mackenzie, Stanford, Cowen, Bunning,
Corder, de Lara, Ethel Smyth, McCunn, and others.
[Sidenote: =The Slavs=]
Before saying more about these composers, whom we can conveniently
treat under the headings of the different nationalities to which they
belong, we may turn aside a moment for a consideration of a school of
composition that possesses peculiar and characteristic features of its
own—namely, that of the Russian and Slav races. The most prominent of
its representatives have lived and worked since the time of Wagner,
but the strong national characteristics of the Slavs have prevented
his influence from being so apparently marked as it is in the case
of composers of the more western nations. The opera writers of this
school are, in many cases, still living, but as death has taken from us
Glinka and Tchaïkovsky, and more recently Dvŏrák, it will be as well to
treat of the Slav composers in a separate chapter, making some slight
endeavour to grasp some outline of the distinctive features which are
theirs, and which colour all their compositions, whether for the stage
or otherwise.
CHAPTER XIII.
SLAVONIC OPERA.[2]
Early Russian composers—Glinka—Dargomijsky—Borodin—
César-Cui—Tchaïkovsky—Polish opera—Bohemian opera
—Dvŏrák—Other European countries.
The operas of the Russians, Poles, and Bohemians, in so far as they
possess points of individual interest, do so by virtue of their natural
characteristics. It is unnecessary, therefore, to trace back the
history of Opera in these countries to its foundation, as we should
find that, in the main, it was a borrowed and foreign art, employing
only methods that had derived their origin elsewhere, generally in
Italy.
[2] Those interested in the Development of National Opera in Russia are
referred to four exhaustive papers read before the Musical Association
by Mrs. Newmarch, under this heading, and published in the volumes of
the Proceedings for 1900, 1902, 1903, 1904 respectively.
[Sidenote: =Early Russian Composers=]
Although, therefore, we find that opera in Russia was produced as
early as 1737 on the Italian model, and even in the vernacular with
some attempt at national style in 1756, these early attempts soon
gave way before the popular style of light Italian pieces, and the
work of such composers as Volkov, Titov, and Cavos may be passed over
as unimportant in the history of opera. Even the music of that much
greater musician, Anton Rubinstein, so far as his dramatic work goes,
is a negligible quantity, in so far as it is Teuton in style and
without distinction or national signification.
[Sidenote: =Glinka, 1804-57=]
The acknowledged pioneer in this school was Glinka, who wrote but one
work of lasting worth, _A Life for the Czar_. This opera, however,
laid such hold upon the Russian peoples as to have become the most
popular opera in their repertoire, and we are told that it is played
invariably for the opening night of the season both at Moscow and at
St. Petersburg. It is intensely national in subject, and although the
music shows many traces of Italian influence, which is not surprising
considering its date of production (1836), there is still much that has
its origin in national song and folk theme. Glinka afterwards wrote
and produced a still more national, but less successful, work entitled
_Ruslan and Ludmilla_.
Glinka’s one popular opera is not only important in itself; it is still
more worthy of notice as the stimulating motive which enabled a large
number of younger Russians to write works of a similar nature. It
must be conceded that to Englishmen the names of these men are hardly
anything but names; yet in their own country they mean much more to
the people than do the names of our English composers to the majority
of us in this country. Unfortunately, intense enthusiasm and natural
fervour has by no means found its way at present into English music.
The extremely intimate nature of the music of the operas written by
such men as Dargomijsky, Serov, César-Cui, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Borodin,
Tchaïkovsky, and Arensky, while making for their popularity in the
country of their production, is a factor against their performance in
England, where the folk-songs and themes introduced would be unknown
and unappreciated.
[Sidenote: =Dargomijsky, 1813-68=]
Dargomijsky, who has been claimed as the founder of modern Russian
opera, wrote two fairly well-known works, _The Water-Sprite_ and _The
Stone Guest_, the story of the latter being closely allied to that
of Mozart’s _Don Giovanni_. In his operas Dargomijsky seems to have
been more or less unconsciously working on the lines of Wagner in the
construction of his intermediary recitative sections, and his whole
method is one of greater advancement than that of Glinka. His chief
follower was Moussorgsky (1839-81), a composer much influenced also by
Wagner. The latter was also an able literary critic; his most famous
work was entitled _Judith_.
[Sidenote: =Borodin 1834-87=]
Borodin, a capable chemist as well as a skilled musician, has a name
for the composition of clever examples of chamber music. To the
operatic repertoire he contributed _Prince Igor_, a work following
Italian methods to some extent, but still possessing much that stamps
its Russian origin. It is one of the few members of its class which is
bright and cheerful in tone, with an absence of that pessimism which is
the prevalent feature of so much Russian music.
[Sidenote: =César-Cui 1835-=]
César-Cui has composed _Ratcliff_, _Angelo_, _The Flibustier_, and
five other works, the last mentioned having been produced in Paris.
Cui is still living (1909), and is well known for his able literary
articles and contributions to the Russian journals and magazines.
Rimsky-Korsakoff (born in 1844) has written several works, among them
_Pskowitjanka_ and _The May Night_. Up to the present, although some of
his orchestral music has found representation in England, we have not
yet had any opportunity of passing criticism upon his operatic flights.
[Sidenote: =Tchaïkovsky 1840-93=]
The name of Tchaïkovsky is well enough known in the concert rooms of
England, and, indeed, of the world. Of all Russian composers his is
the name to conjure with, and although one cannot pass unrestrictedly
favourable criticism upon all that he composed, we undoubtedly owe to
him a very great deal that is surpassingly rich, beautiful, and likely
to endure. His genius, however, did not shine at its brightest in the
theatre, and although, like the Bohemian Dvŏrák, he was attracted
again and again to the stage, his work has not met with such universal
success as it has done in other spheres.
In England only one opera of his, _Eugene Oniegin_, has been produced;
but several more fine works proceeded from his fertile pen, some of
them still very popular in their own country. The chief are _The
Oprichnik_ (1872), _Eugene Oniegin_, _Joan of Arc_ (1880), _Mazeppa_
(1883), and _The Enchantress_ (1887). Tchaïkovsky attempted many
styles, but his individuality was always apparent, sometimes with
good results and sometimes not. When the subject of the opera was in
accordance with the general trend of his thought, the result was a
felicitous one, but he holds a lower place as a writer of opera than is
his possession as a creator of symphony, song, and tone poem.
[Sidenote: =Polish Opera=]
The sister country of Poland has at present made little claim to
achievement in the opera house: the national dances, the polonaise,
valse, mazourka, etc., have been utilized by Glinka very effectively,
but the only record of Polish opera to hand is the work of the great
pianist, Paderewski, whose _Manru_ has recently come to light. Its
music is described as German rather than Polish, and it is not likely
to found a new school of composition.
[Sidenote: =Bohemian Opera=]
Of more interest is the national opera of Bohemia, with its
headquarters at Prague. Among its earlier composers we find the names
of Tomaschek, Nepravnik, and Fibich. More important than these is
Smetana (1824-84), who settled in Prague in 1866, at a time when
national freedom of thought and language was gaining position in
Bohemia. Smetana took advantage of the enthusiasm with which everything
national was greeted, and by his incorporation of the folk-songs of the
people into his operas, introduced to his country a new form of opera
which at once took root and flourished there. The melodies he chose
were dear to the hearts of the people; moreover, they were simply and
yet effectively treated, with due knowledge of and consideration for
stage-effect; consequently Smetana’s operas are in Bohemia looked upon
as the realization of a national ideal. We know little of them in this
country, save that the overture to the _Bartered Bride_ is a popular
item in the repertoire of our orchestral societies; but he wrote many
other works, such as _Dalibor_, _Der Kuss_, and _Libusa_.
[Sidenote: =Dvŏrák, 1841-1904=]
His pupil and follower, Dvŏrák, whose name as a composer of symphonies
and chamber music is an exalted one also wrote much for the stage;
indeed, just before his death a new opera by him, _Armida_, was
produced in Prague. But his success, although so great and well
deserved in other fields, is not comparable with that of Smetana, nor
has he ever in the same way touched the hearts of the people. Other
works by him are _King and Collier_ (1874), _Wanda_ (1876), _Der Bauer
ein Schelm_ (1877), _Demetrius_ (1882), and _Rusalka_ (1901). His
operatic essays are unknown in this country, nor are any works of other
Bohemian composers offered for our pleasure in England so far as the
theatre is concerned. There is, however, a promising young group of
composers working at Prague, of whose doings we may some day hear more
than at present.
[Sidenote: =Other European Countries=]
It may here be convenient to glance at the conditions that govern
opera in some of the other European countries, which give evidence of
a certain amount of activity; this has, in the main, confined itself
up to the present within its own borders. The Scandinavian composers,
such as Gade, Grieg, Sinding, etc., whose names are world known in
other fields, have nothing to show us in respect of opera. The opera
houses of Christiania and Copenhagen are active and busy, but they
produce little indigenous opera, nor does the fame of that little
travel very far. The Spaniards and Portuguese also have no claim to
fame as composers of opera, the name of Arrieta, we take it, being
little known, although he is the most famous of Spanish musicians so
far as dramatic writing is concerned. Interest in the opera of these
countries is the work of the specialist, rather than of the general
writer; and we now turn to the conditions of opera as they obtain
to-day in England and in the sister countries of Germany, France, and
Italy.
CHAPTER XIV.
OPERA TO-DAY IN ITALY, GERMANY, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
Boito—His interesting personality—Puccini—Mascagni
—Leoncavallo—Cilea—German composers—Goldmark
and Humperdinck—The French school—Saint-Saëns—
Massenet—Bruneau—English composers—Stanford—
Mackenzie—Cowen—Corder—Bunning, etc.
To-day the art of operatic composition appears to be returning for its
best results to its much loved home, Italy: it is the young Italian
composers, among all its devotees of all nationalities, who appear to
be putting forth the strongest work. Contemporary English, French,
and German operas, with a few notable exceptions, are rarely heard
beyond the borders of the land which gives them birth, but the works of
Mascagni, Puccini, and Leoncavallo find a home in every opera-house.
[Sidenote: =Boito, 1842=]
At the outset of our review of living Italian opera composers we
meet the strange figure of Arrigo Boito, more famous for his one
completed opera than are many composers who have endowed the world
with dozens of such works. The charm of his personality has aided its
success, while the ill fortune which dogged its birth and its intimate
relationship to a great home have also contributed to its world-wide
fame.
[Sidenote: =His interesting Personality=]
Not that Boito’s _Mefistofele_ is a work in the repertoire of every
opera-house; rather, its performances seem to be limited in number,
and yet all the world knows of its composer as the capable litterateur
and musician who, amidst intense excitement, brought his _Mefistofele_
before the Milanese public at La Scala in 1868, and by the novelty of
its form and musical treatment so displeased a very large number of
his would-be admirers, that he fell from the height of popularity to
which expectation had elevated him almost to the depth of extinction
so far as his musical efforts were concerned. _Mefistofele_ has been
rewritten; it was a work in advance of its time, and honour must be
given to Boito for the artistic beauty of his conceptions, and for his
courage and skill in the wielding of them to the ultimate conviction of
an unwilling public. This fascinating but tantalizing composer still
stimulates interest by the fact that he keeps two other and newer
operas, _Nero_ and _Orestiade_, in his desk, and refuses, at any rate
for the present, to bring them to the light. He has received the degree
of Doctor of Music from the University of Cambridge, and at a concert
given to celebrate the event in 1893 the author had the pleasure of
taking part in a performance of the Prologue to _Mefistofele_ under his
bâton. Verdi’s last two operas are to libretti by Boito.
Commencement of Vocal Scherzo from Boito’s “Mefistofele.”
[Music]
Siam nimbi volanti dai limbi, nei santi
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: =Mascagni=]
We now come to a composer whose music, or part of it, at any rate,
must have been heard by everybody; we speak of Pietro Mascagni, whose
most famous opera, entitled _Cavalleria Rusticana_, is probably the
most popular modern work in the operatic repertoire. It was produced
in 1890, and soon attained to fame; this was due, to some extent,
to the introduction of a new device—namely, the performance of an
orchestral intermezzo dividing the work into two parts, the curtain
remaining up and disclosing an empty stage (a street scene). Possibly
the original intention in leaving the curtain up was to prevent the
buzz of conversation which always accompanies its fall, and precludes
the possibility of careful attention to the music; but in this instance
the music is so melodious, tuneful, and cleverly scored that it assured
the success of the opera. Succeeding works from the same pen, _L’Amico
Fritz_, _I Rantzau_, _William Ratcliff_, _Iris_, and others, have not
yet found equal success.
[Sidenote: =Leoncavallo=]
Very frequently coupled upon the same play-bill with Mascagni’s
_Cavalleria_ is the short modern Italian opera, _I Pagliacci_ (The
Strolling Players), the work of Leoncavallo, and written upon much
the same general lines as its forerunner; its prologue, for a solo
baritone, is popular in our concert halls; in the opera it occurs as
part of the overture, the singer pushing his way through the curtain,
and retiring again after his performance, before the stage scene is
actually disclosed. Leoncavallo has written many other works, but his
chief distinction of later date has been that upon him has fallen the
choice of the German Emperor to write a typically German opera on the
subject of _Roland of Berlin_. The work was produced in Berlin in
1905, but without giving full satisfaction, the general opinion being
that a German composer should have been chosen to clothe so essentially
national a subject with music, and that Leoncavallo’s attempt was
uninspired, grandiose, and lacking in the elements of beauty.
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: =Cilea=]
Other followers of Mascagni are Giordano, composer of _Andrea Chenier_;
Spinelli, chiefly known by _A Basso Porto_; and Franchetti. More
famous than these is Francesco Cilea, a young composer of promise,
whose one work that has been submitted to English audiences, _Adriana
Lecouvreur_, contains music of great beauty and charm. The method of
Mascagni is closely followed, even to the introduction of a tuneful
and charmingly scored intermezzo, but there is independence of melodic
phrase and real grip in the music. _Adriana_ was originally produced at
Milan in 1902, and was staged at Covent Garden during the autumn visit
of the San Carlo Company two years later.
[Sidenote: =Puccini=]
Undoubtedly the greatest of the modern Italian composers is Giacomo
Puccini, who has made himself famous not merely by one opera but by
several. His earlier works, _Manon Lescaut_, etc., hardly represent
him at his best, although they contain much fine music; but in _La
Bohème_ (produced in 1896), in _La Tosca_, and most of all in _Madama
Butterfly_ (1904), this clever musician has found himself and has
risen to great heights. He is most happy in the way in which his music
paints the situation to be depicted, and he has a most wonderfully
ready power of melody. The continuous use of distinctive and rhythmic
melody and the absence of any definite characterization by means of
the _leit-motif_ differentiates his work very largely from that of the
Wagner School—it is altogether on a lighter basis, but the melody has
an irresistible attractiveness, which accounts largely for the favour
which his operas are finding at the present day. Such straightforward
lyrical writing as the theme which usually accompanies Sharpless the
Consul (in _Madama Butterfly_),—
[Music]
or the more tenderly impassioned themes, such as this one from
the love duet which closes the first Act of the same opera,
Love Duet, from “Butterfly.”
[Music]
will convey some idea of the style which this composer adopts. His next
promised opera is to be upon an American subject, _The Girl of the
Golden West_.
[Illustration: LEONCAVALLO.]
[Sidenote: =German Composers=]
[Sidenote: =Goldmark, 1830=]
Germany to-day can hardly be held to have produced such an array of
familiar names, but that of Humperdinck has become famous through
his setting of the delightful fairy tale _Hansel and Gretel_. There
is, however, still living a senior to Humperdinck in the person of
Goldmark, whose _Cricket on the Hearth_ has been performed in this
country. Goldmark was born as long ago as 1830, and became famous by
his opera, _The Queen of Sheba_, produced in Vienna in 1875: he has
penned much music, and other operas, but the two above named are his
best known contributions to operatic literature.
[Sidenote: =Humperdinck=]
More interesting, because his fairy opera has been seen by almost
everyone, is Humperdinck, who has skilfully applied Wagnerian methods
to opera on a comparatively light subject. The story of _Hansel and
Gretel_, from Hans Andersen, is worked up into a charming plot, and if
some of the incidents seem, upon the modern stage, somewhat trivial and
childish, the music is so perfect in form and matter that the ear is
delighted throughout. The use of folk-songs and simple melodies which
appeal to all, is supplemented by a wonderfully capable and polyphonic
use of the orchestra, which shows the master hand in every bar of the
score.
From Humperdinck’s “Hansel and Gretel” Overture, showing three
important Motives.
[Music]
_Hansel and Gretel_ can be appreciated alike by the smallest child
and by the skilled musician, and therein lies its great charm, for
much study must usually precede appreciation of work so elaborate and
complex. Humperdinck’s succeeding works, several in number, have not
risen to the same level, either of beauty or of popularity: his recent
opera, _Die Heirat wider Willen_, was produced with a fair measure of
success under Strauss at Berlin in April 1905.
[Sidenote: =Richard Strauss=]
Richard Strauss, the well-known composer of orchestral tone poems, has
made several bids for fame in opera: his early works, such as _Guntram_
and _Feursnot_, have not called so much attention as have _Salome_,
produced at Dresden in 1906, and the _Elektra_ staged in 1909 (January
25th). Strauss writes very boldly, with the most cacophonous lack of
blend between orchestra and voice, as this example, culled at random
from _Elektra_, will show.
Fragment from Strauss’ “Elektra” (1909).
[Music]
Ich habe solche
Angst mir zittern die
Knie bei Tag und Nacht
Other living composers of German opera are Max Schillings; Weingartner,
the great orchestral conductor; Siegfried Wagner, son of the great
master; Nessler, composer of _The Trumpeter of Sákkingen_ (a
wonderfully popular work, which, however, is not of the first rank),
and many others whose fame may or may not be enduring. Modern German
opera since Wagner has hardly, with the exception of _Hansel and
Gretel_, the distinction, power, and originality which we find in the
followers of the young Italian school.
[Sidenote: =The French School=]
More famous are the men of the French school, the natural followers
of Gounod, Ambroise Thomas, and their fellows. Progress is noticeable
from the type of music which prevails in _Faust_ in the works of such
composers as Saint-Saëns, Massenet, and Bruneau, and the influence of
Wagner is quite apparent. But in French opera the traditions which
belonged to the “Académie” of old, and which have descended to the more
modern “Grand Opera,” combine with a certain Gallic grace and charm to
preserve individuality to this school.
[Sidenote: =Saint-Saëns 1835=]
Foremost among French composers in every branch of the art is that
versatile and gifted man, who has just missed becoming a genius,
Camille Saint-Saëns. Like Boito, he possesses an interesting
personality, prominent amongst his characteristics being a habit he
has of suddenly disappearing for months together from the eyes of a
world of which he has grown temporarily weary. He will then come back
from some half civilized or totally barbarous district of Africa or
elsewhere, bearing with him piles of manuscript, which soon finds a
ready publisher. The music so composed often bears some impress of
the surroundings amidst which it has been penned, which adds in no
small degree to its acceptance by the public. Saint-Saëns has written
many operas both for the Grand and the Comique stage without any very
marked success: the work best known in England is _Samson and Delilah_,
a dramatized version of the Bible story. As such, by the censorship
of stage plays that exists in England, this was not allowed to be
performed in its original condition until the year 1909; but it then
became as popular as it is on the Continent, where its beautiful and
impassioned music finds many admirers. Saint-Saëns’ _Henry VIII._
is, of his other works, the best known. The list also includes
_Proserpine_, _Ascanio_, _Phryne_, and _Les Barbares_. His last work is
_L’Ancètre_, produced at Monte Carlo in 1906.
[Sidenote: =Massenet, 1842=]
[Illustration]
Jules Massenet is the author of many operas, of which mention may
be made of _Le Roi de Lahore_, _Hérodiade_, _Manon_, _Le Cid_,
_Esclarmonde_, _Werther_, _Thaïs_, _La Navarraise_, and _Le Jongleur
de Notre Dame_. _Hérodiade_ is really a dramatic version of the Bible
story of St. John and Salome. By a few trivial alterations of names and
lines it was so altered as to pass the Lord Chamberlain’s censorship,
and was produced at Covent Garden in 1904. The general atmosphere of
the sacred subject, however, still hovered over it, and to English
taste it was unpleasing and unpopular: it is perhaps the best of the
Massenet operas, _Manon_ and _La Navarraise_ approaching it nearest
in popular esteem. His latest success is _Le Jongleur de Notre Dame_,
produced at Monte Carlo in 1902.
[Sidenote: =Bruneau, 1857=]
A most earnest and serious minded composer, who more closely follows
Gluck and Wagner in his desire for operatic truth, is Alfred Bruneau,
one of the finest of French musicians. From the first his style has
been revolutionary, and owing to crudities somewhat hard to accept; but
while sometimes musically deficient, his dramatic grip and sincerity
of purpose are so strong that there is doubtless a future before his
operas. _Le Rêve_, _L’Attaque du Moulin_, _Messidor_, and _L’Ouragan_
are the names given to his chief works, the third named of these being
perhaps the best. Bruneau was fortunate in securing the services of
the late M. Zola as his librettist, several prose-poems by the great
novelist having been entrusted to his care.
André Messager has chiefly distinguished himself by a charming light
work, _La Basoche_, which has had much attention at English hands.
Dubois, Paladihle, and others are still at work in the field of French
opera, but perhaps its most prominent modern representative is Gustave
Charpentier, whose opera _Louise_ (1900) has made a great hit, and
shows possession of great gifts from which much more may in the future
be expected. Vincent d’Indy, another of the younger school, is the
composer of a fairly successful work, _Fervaal_.
[Sidenote: =Debussy=]
Claude Debussy, a composer who has written an amount of successful
music of an unique kind, in that it employs mostly a scale of whole
tones, rather than one of tones and semitones, produced in 1902 an
opera based on Maeterlinck’s _Pelleas et Melisande_. This original and
distinctive work has become highly popular, and was performed at the
Covent Garden season of 1909. Here is a fragment showing the composer’s
curious use of whole tones.
Debussy’s “Pelleas and Melisande.”
[Music]
[Sidenote: =English Composers=]
With the exception of Sir Hubert Parry, all the chief living composers
of English nationality have made a bid for fame in Grand Opera, but
with only partial success. Those whose efforts appear to have led to
the best results are Stanford and Mackenzie. Unfortunately for us,
there is in this country less opportunity for operatic composers than
in almost any other: works when written have little chance of being
staged, unless perhaps semi-privately. Occasionally the management
of the Grand Opera invites a work from an English musician, but even
then it is sometimes coupled, as was the case with Bunning’s _Princess
Osra_, with the condition that it be performed in a foreign language.
Opera is not the hobby and delight of the man in the street, as it
is in many Continental countries, and the works that find favour
at Covent Garden seem to be chosen according to the wishes of the
boxholders and members of the syndicate. After all, it is these that
supply the sinews of war, and therefore the English public at large has
no just cause for complaint. If the English public will come forward
and support national opera schemes, as it is constantly being invited
to do, there would be some hope for English opera composers. Under
present conditions opportunity is infrequent, although when it comes it
is generally seized by those concerned.
[Sidenote: =Stanford, 1852=]
Undoubtedly the pluckiest attempts to wrest fame from grudging
audiences in this respect has been made by Sir Charles Stanford.
Undeterred by failure, indifferent success, and lack of appreciation,
he has made repeated efforts in opera. His earliest were in Germany,
where _The Veiled Prophet of Khorassan_ (Hanover) and _Savonarola_
(Hamburg) came to light. Later on came the _Canterbury Pilgrims_,
produced at Covent Garden in 1884. Some success attended the
last-named, but it was many years before it found a companion, _Shamus
O’Brien_ not appearing until 1896. Stanford is an Irishman, and the
subject particularly suited his individual temperament. The work,
confessedly less in the grand opera style than that of the romantic
comic opera, enjoyed great favour for a short time, and contained
charming music. Of still more importance is his last born, a version of
_Much Ado about Nothing_, staged at Covent Garden in 1901, the music of
which, although unequal, contains some fine moments.
[Illustration: _Photo_] [_Russell & Sons._
SIR A. C. MACKENZIE.]
[Sidenote: =Mackenzie 1847=]
Mackenzie’s operas are _Colomba_ (1883), _The Troubadour_ (1886), and
_The Cricket on the Hearth_. The last-named still awaits a hearing,
and promises to be of much interest. A lighter work of the Savoy
type was also written by this composer, and had a good run. A bid
for popularity, in the shape of a small and trifling but musically
interesting operetta, produced at one of our largest music halls in
1905, was also made by Mackenzie. Of such innovations as this, and
their purport, we may say more anon.
[Sidenote: =Cowen, 1852=]
Frederic Cowen seems to have lost heart, so far as operatic enterprise
is concerned. The list of his essays in this form of art are _The Lady
of Lyons_ (1876), _Thorgrim_ (1890), _Signa_ (1893), and _Harold_
(1895). The general opinion of these is, that while containing much
music that is genuinely charming and beautiful, there is not enough
dramatic virility or depth of idea to carry so exacting a work as a
grand opera to a successful issue.
Mr. Frederick Corder has completed many operas, only one of which,
_Nordisa_, has been produced, and this as long ago as 1886. Mr. Hamish
MacCunn, a Scotch composer, is answerable for the music to _Jeanie
Deans_ and _Diarmid_. Miss Ethel Smyth is one of the rare instances
of a member of the fairer sex rising to any point of distinction in
operatic composition: her one-act work _Der Wald_ (“The Wood”)[3]
achieved considerable success in England a few years back, and her
music is held in still higher esteem in Germany, where her last opera,
_The Wreckers_, has had great success.
[3] Performed at Covent Garden, July 1902, and distinctly Wagnerian
in style. The opening woodland scene music is as original as it
is delightful, and evidences the real ability of this native lady
composer.—ED.
[Illustration]
_Princess Osra_, produced at Covent Garden in 1902, is the work of a
young Englishman, Herbert Bunning, who simulates the modern Italian
method, and from whom more may be heard ere long. Mr. de Lara has
produced _The Light of Asia_, _Amy Rosbart_, and _Messaline_, while
other workers in this direction may include Mr. Somerville, Alick
McLean, Edward German, and Franco Leoi.
English opera suffers much from lack of opportunity, still more from
absence of individuality. Were English composers able to graft on to
their style some trace of natural characteristics, as we find the
Russians and Bohemians of to-day have done, there is little doubt but
that their productions would command a greater interest and a more
enduring success.
CHAPTER XV.
OPERATIC ENTERPRISE IN ENGLAND.
Subsidized opera—Opera an educative factor—Objection
to subsidies—Advantages—English opera—Opera
companies—Covent Garden—The Royal Opera Syndicate
—History of opera in this country—Travelling
companies—The Carl Rosa Company—The Moody-Manners
Company—The outlook.
[Sidenote: =Subsidized Opera=]
In England we stand, so far as operatic enterprise is concerned, on
a different footing to most of the Continental nations, in so far as
there is no Government support nor State aid to Opera. It is a care in
the economy of most of the European Governments that an annual grant
should be made towards the expenses of the Opera House. The subsidies
so granted vary in different countries and in different towns, but the
main idea in all cases is the same, to provide a certain amount of
money so that there may be an opera-house more or less always open,
to which the people may go on payment of quite small sums and witness
really good performances.
[Sidenote: =Opera an Educative Quantity=]
In such countries as these, Opera is looked upon not so much as a
luxurious amusement as an educational factor, capable of instilling
artistic ideas into the plebeian mind, and in common with picture
galleries, public statues, and beautifully kept gardens, inculcating an
appreciation of the beautiful in art.
In Paris, for example, a sum of £32,000 is given annually for the
support of the Grand Opera House, while a further sum of £12,000 is
granted for the Opera Comique, the deficit arising from the numerous
expenses incurred for singers, orchestra, stage hands, etc., being
met by these grants. As a _quid pro quo_ the Government demands the
distribution of free seats to certain persons and societies to a
very large proportion of its subsidy. This may or may not represent
a hardship to the management, for whereas the seats thus given might
possibly have been all sold, it is more than probable that on the
majority of occasions there would have been much spare room which is
thus filled.
[Sidenote: =Objections to Subsidized Opera=]
Besides the objections that returns in the shape of gratuitous
entrances must be allowed there is the further and more serious one,
that the reins of power sometimes fall into the hands of inartistic
and unmusical persons. This is less likely to happen in a city of
culture, such as Paris, than in some of the smaller German towns, when
the control of such matters is left to the Intendant of the place, who
holds despotic sway and works matters according to his own sweet will.
So that it often happens that a certain class of opera, or a certain
little particular clique of singers, obtains a hearing to the exclusion
of almost all else.
[Sidenote: =Advantages=]
But these possible dangers can hardly be said to counteract the
benefits which are conferred by the regularly paid subsidy: the
money paid assures a large portion of the working expenses, and the
management of the Opera House knows that the doors will not have to
be closed for lack of the sinews of war, but that all the year round
performances may be given, if not daily, at least at very frequent
intervals. Such vexed questions as control of the repertoire and of
the choice of singers, of course, may and do occur; but so far as
the man in the street is concerned, there is always the opportunity
presented of hearing opera, of hearing it well done, and of extending
his knowledge and critical power, to say nothing of the addition to the
artistic pleasures of his life.
[Sidenote: =English Opera=]
In England we have no State aid, with the result that we are not in
a position to be able to hear opera all the year round. During the
three months of the “Grand” season the prices are high and the hours
somewhat prohibitive. The desirability of some Governmental subsidy
has been warmly advocated by Sir Charles Stanford and others, and were
such an amount as that granted by the French for their Opera House
given to Covent Garden, there is little doubt that we should be able to
hear Grand Opera whenever we liked to go, at moderate prices.
This undoubtedly would be a great advantage to the general musician,
and to some members of the public, but it has yet to be shown that
there is a public willing to gather in sufficient numbers to fill a
large house for the greater number of the nights of the year: it would
be quite possible to have the money and the house opened, and yet
no audience sufficient to justify a performance. It seems a little
doubtful whether, at present, the English lay mind is quite ready for
the scheme: indeed it is to be feared that an appreciation of opera is
not sufficiently wide-spread through the rank and file of the English
people to justify any such scheme for the time being. Free tickets
to students, and the like, in return for a grant, might do something
towards filling the house, but unless the general public would evince
sufficient interest in the scheme to come nightly in large numbers,
the purpose in view would be defeated. We do not appear to have the
natural inborn love of opera so common amongst continental peoples,
and until our national education is more advanced it is not very likely
that a State grant would be of ultimate practical value.
[Sidenote: =Opera Companies=]
Operatic enterprise in England, then, depends upon private initiative:
this means, of course, that there are different bids for fortune made
from time to time by various companies and syndicates. This has been
so for many years, even so long ago as the days when Handel made a
venture on his own account, in opposition to the band of wealthy titled
folk who set up Buononcini to oppose him: and in so far as rivalry is
provocative of effort, the existence of different companies makes for
good. One body in England is, however, almost unique in being able to
spend freely on singers, orchestra, and accessories.
[Sidenote: =Covent Garden Opera=]
This body is the Royal Opera Syndicate, formerly generally known as the
Royal Italian Opera, the scene of whose labours is Covent Garden. Here
another point, in which we differ from the Continental nations, must be
noticed, and that is, that we have in England no Opera House. The Grand
Opera of our London season is held at Covent Garden, which is nothing
but an ordinary theatre, although a very large one; whereas in France
and Germany the Opera House is practically sacred to the performance
of opera. We have no building of a similar nature. Covent Garden, for
instance, is the scene of musical festivals, sometimes of promenade
concerts, of fancy dress balls, and various other functions, it being
devoted to opera only at certain seasons of the year. The Royal Opera
Syndicate runs a season of Grand Opera from the end of April until the
end of July—a three months’ season, performances being given nightly.
[Sidenote: =The Royal Opera Syndicate=]
For financial support the syndicate depends upon subscribers, who
take boxes and stalls for the whole of the season: the boxes, prices
for which are very high, are taken by the King and Court, wealthy
and titled people, and also wealthy and untitled people; in short,
subscribers to the opera are fashionable, and members of “society”
rather than musical. Seeing, however, that they provide the backbone of
the enterprise, it is only natural that the syndicate should feel bound
to consult their tastes; it thus happens that we rarely get opera in
the vernacular, society preferring the words in either French, German,
or Italian. To much the same cause is due the somewhat lamentable fact
that opera by English composers rarely obtains a hearing. Besides the
subscribers for boxes, etc., ordinary members of the public can obtain
entrance at prices that are somewhat high: stalls cost a guinea each
per performance (on special occasions twenty-five or thirty shillings),
and the topmost gallery—from which, however, one can see well and
hear better—is priced at half-a-crown; there are, of course, various
intermediate prices.
Admission is expensive, but a good performance is now almost a
certainty, and much thanks is due to the Royal Opera Syndicate for
this. In years gone by the chief centre of interest used to be the
_prima donna_ or principal tenor, all else being relegated to a
slipshod background; but of late years the Syndicate has laid out
much money in altering and improving the stage and stage machinery;
new scenery has been painted, and the operas newly dressed; the
best singers available are engaged, and a good orchestra, with good
conductors, adds no little to the performances. Reliance is placed, in
the main, upon certain attractive operas, but interesting novelties and
_quasi_-novelties are from time to time introduced, and the whole thing
may be said to be well done.
[Sidenote: =History of Opera in this Country=]
This was not always so, and the fortunes of Grand Opera in England
have fluctuated according to the financial state of the companies
responsible for its production. Opera always appears in this country
to have been largely dependant upon fashionable supporters, from the
times of the old Opera House in the Haymarket up to the present day.
Covent Garden has had its ups and downs; it was really dubbed “Opera
House” in 1847, having formerly been given over to ordinary theatrical
uses, chief of which, so far as opera is concerned, was the production
of Weber’s _Oberon_ in 1826, while Bishop’s operas all saw the light
upon the same boards. Italian opera prevailed from 1846 to 1885, when
the company came to financial grief. Opera was then carried on by Señor
Lago, Sir Augustus Harris taking over the reins from 1888 to 1896.
Since that date it has been in the hands of the present Syndicate.
In addition to the ordinary three months’ season, the Syndicate has
of late preceded their ordinary operatic productions by one or more
presentations of specially prepared and rehearsed performances of
Wagner’s _Ring_. For these special care and detailed work is given, and
higher prices are charged; while the Wagnerian conductor, Richter, is
placed in command. Of late years the Syndicate has experimented with
opera in English: the _Ring_ of Wagner, the _Meistersinger_, _Madama
Butterfly_, and other operas have been performed in English, and, in
the main, by English and American artists, with great success. These
English performances have been held during short seasons given at
different periods of the year to the grand season proper, and the
admission fees have been slightly less. The Syndicate also occasionally
lets the house to the Moody-Manners and other opera companies.
Although not exclusively given over to the purposes of opera, Covent
Garden is, in the main, an “Opera House”; the ambitious title is,
however, also claimed by many a suburban and provincial theatre,
absolutely without meaning or reason, seeing that operas are rarely
heard within their walls. Many attempts have periodically been made
to provide London with an Opera House, a notable instance being the
fine building now known as the Palace Theatre of Varieties; this house
was intended as the home of English national opera, and Sullivan’s
_Ivanhoe_ started the venture in 1891, but neither that work nor any
other could, in all probability, fill a theatre night after night
without some financial support to fall back upon; and although various
plans are in the air, a permanent Opera House does not seem to be a
very quickly realizable possibility.
[Illustration]
[Sidenote: =Travelling Companies=]
[Sidenote: =The Carl Rosa Opera Company=]
[Sidenote: =The Moody-Manners Opera Company=]
After the Royal Opera Syndicate, with the opportunities it affords
for hearing Grand Opera, the Englishman owes most to the various
travelling companies, some of them very good, whose work, although
occasionally heard in the Metropolis, is mostly done in the provinces.
Of these the most famous, in its palmy days, was the company formed
by Mr. Carl Rosa in 1875, and which is still in existence, although
its inceptor died some years ago. Originally, performances given by
Mr. Carl Rosa took place in London, and during the seasons of 1875
and following years the Princess’ Theatre, The Lyceum, The Adelphi,
and Her Majesty’s Theatre were the scenes of many a successful
presentation; among works first brought to light under Mr. Rosa’s
_régime_, or subsequently by the company bearing his name, may be
mentioned Cowen’s _Pauline_ and _Thorgrim_, Thomas’ _Nadeshda_ and
_Esmeralda_, and Hamish MacCunn’s _Jeanie Deans_. Even more important
than the production of these novelties was the work done by Mr. Rosa
in putting before the English public for the first time operas of
such acknowledged excellence as Cherubini’s _Water Carrier_, Wagner’s
_Dutchman_ and _Lohengrin_ (in English), and other works of similar
calibre. Although still doing good work, the company has hardly, since
its founder’s death in 1889, lived up to its earlier achievements,
and the new operas performed are infrequent in appearance. London is
no longer its home, although suburban theatres often welcome one of
its various constituent travelling parties; its work lies more in the
provinces, especially in the larger commercial cities of the North of
England. Perhaps more to the fore, at the present day, is the company
founded in 1897 by Mr. Charles Manners and Madame Fanny Moody. Several
plucky attempts have been made by these artists to provide a really
efficient series of presentations of standard operas at comparatively
low prices in London. This has been achieved by limiting the expenses
incurred upon vocalists. While therefore it can hardly be claimed for
the Moody-Manners company that the exponents of the leading characters
of the operas are singers of the first rank, there are compensating
advantages in the greater artistic unanimity of the chorus-singing and
acting, and of the general stage management. Another feature of the
London performances has been the occasional adoption of a scheme of
short illustrative lectures given before the curtain, as to the plot,
music, and composer of the work about to be rendered.
It is said that Mr. Manners loses money annually in London to gain it
again in the provinces; he has certainly been courageous in taking
Covent Garden and other large houses for long series of performances,
some of _quasi_-novelties, which cannot have been financially
successful. The repertoire contains some works of the first magnitude,
and the main company gives very good performances. Other features of
the scheme to be noticed are the prizes occasionally offered in public
competition for new works, and a “school” attached to the company,
and travelling with it, where young vocalists are trained and given
opportunity for placing their abilities before the public. Besides the
chief company, there are four other branches from the same parent stem
travelling and performing in various parts of the world.
Mr. Manners recently endeavoured to form an “Opera Union,” and some two
thousand persons signed a form agreeing to support and take tickets
for an English opera season in London; when, however, the scheme was
ripe only a few hundred of these actually subscribed, and the idea had
therefore to be relinquished.
Mention must be made of the generous action of the music publishers,
Messrs. Ricordi, who in 1905 offered a prize of £500 for the best
English opera. This was gained by Dr. Edward Naylor of Cambridge for a
work entitled _The Angelus_, staged and performed by the Royal Opera
Syndicate on January 27th, 1909; the work had a poor reception, and was
only played twice.
Other schemes are frequently put before the public, and although in
some cases they are too short-lived, and in others not of sufficiently
high aim to call for special mention, there is no real lack of
opportunity in England in the twentieth century of hearing opera fairly
well done. No comparison with Continental standards can be made in
the provinces, conditions being so different; but the opera season at
Covent Garden can vie with all rivals, and there is a gradual increase
throughout the country, both of persons capable of appreciation of
operatic enterprise and of artistic perception, which will not allow of
slipshod presentations or performances.
[Sidenote: =The Outlook=]
Undoubtedly much remains to be done before we can claim for the English
as a nation an equal amount of that fondness for opera which is so
notable a characteristic of our Continental brethren; that we are
moving somewhat slowly in that direction is perhaps, for the present,
sufficient matter for congratulation. Lovers of opera in the vernacular
have not so very much to encourage them as to the ultimate realization
of the ideas they cherish, but those who are content to be satisfied
with progress that is steady, if still slow, may see in England of
to-day much in the growing appreciation for better music on the part of
the masses upon which to congratulate themselves, and upon which also
to build hopes for the future.
CHAPTER XVI.
HOW TO LISTEN TO AND ENJOY OPERA.
Feelings of disappointment—Expectations—The language
difficulty—Why the story is hard to follow—What
we go to the opera to hear—Some suggestions—To
grasp the story—To realize the style of the music
—Re-hearing necessary—How to begin to study opera
—What is necessary for its enjoyment.
In penning such a chapter as this, I have no desire to lay down the law
to those older and wiser than myself, nor do I wish to be didactic,
or to instruct where no instruction is needed. The musician and the
opera-_habitué_ will not need telling how to listen to opera, nor how
to enjoy it; nor should I be thanked for attempting the task.
[Sidenote: =Feelings of Disappointment=]
At the same time it must be borne in mind that to the very large
majority of young persons their first introduction to opera raises a
feeling of disappointment. People vary much, and there are those to
whom the charm of music is so great that the most unfamiliar harmonies
will convey delight to their ears and satisfaction to their mind. But
this is exceptional rather than the rule, and it is to be feared that
the neophyte, visiting the opera in a state of glorious ignorance,
generally comes away with an inglorious feeling of unrealized ideals
and unattained expectations.
[Sidenote: =Expectations=]
To the average school-girl, for example, opera suggests various
fascinating details read about in books and papers; such as beautiful
singing, the presence of fashionable and brilliant persons, possibly
of royalty; tiaras of diamonds and gorgeous costumes, and a thousand
and one other trifles which may or may not come up to expectation. Even
if they do, the excitement of such extraneous attributes as these soon
palls, and the girl is left to reflect on the opera itself, which is
perhaps the most fruitful source of disappointment.
For I would here assume what I take to be generally the case, namely,
that the boy or girl paying a first visit to the opera has no real idea
as to what is in store for them; and the excitement of the first entry
into the large and brilliant house, with its crowd of well-dressed
people experienced, a series of miniature shocks awaits the novice,
whom, for sake of example, we may take to be an averagely intelligent
and musical girl of sixteen.
[Sidenote: =The Language Difficulty=]
It does not take her long to discover that she can understand the
meaning of hardly any word sung on the stage; a word or two here and
there may be caught and mentally translated, but hardly sufficient,
unless the girl be specially conversant with French, Italian, or German
to piece things connectedly together, or to gather enough to follow the
sentiments expressed: a little natural irritation at not knowing what
it is all about ensues.
[Sidenote: =Why the Story is Hard to Follow=]
The words not being caught, as they would in an ordinary play in
the vernacular, it is difficult to follow the story which is being
unfolded; an ordinary stage piece may be intelligently followed by a
deaf person by means of the eye, but in opera, situations must develop
more slowly owing to the musical setting, and there is generally, so
far as stage work is concerned, a minimum of action; it is therefore
quite possible for our young lady to leave the theatre with the very
barest notion as to the plot of the opera she has witnessed. Should
the work witnessed be of a very popular character, such as _Faust_,
various numbers in the music will appeal to her ear as being pleasantly
familiar; even in such a case as this, however, there will be much that
falls strangely, while with the majority of works the music would be
so new that only a confused general idea would be carried away. Not
following either the language or the story, the music would be but
another factor of confusion to our inexperienced girl, and especially
would this be the case if the work presented were of a modern nature,
or in a style to which she was quite unaccustomed in any phase of the
art.
Such, to my knowledge, are some of the feelings experienced by young
people taken to the opera for the first time; first impressions are
strong, and a feeling of distaste thus inculcated may be hard to
eradicate. Before considering how such wrong impressions might be
prevented, or at least modified, we must again consider briefly what we
go to the opera to hear.
[Sidenote: =What we go to the Opera to hear=]
It is not merely beautiful singing, for that can be heard more
effectively from the same artists in the concert hall, when they
are unhampered by the necessities of stage-action, costume, and
make-up. Nevertheless, there are those who are content at the opera
with this alone, hence the popularity of certain Italian operas, the
success of which depends almost entirely upon pure vocalization and
expressive singing with support of little in the way of stagecraft or
dramatic truth. Nor is it excellent orchestral playing that is the
main objective, for that, too, can be better heard in the symphony
of the concert-room. Nor is fine acting the main consideration—for
that we must visit some temple of the drama; nor is it the wonderful
development of stage appliance, the marvellous scenic displays, or
electric lighting devices that call for comment: these can be better
seen in some house mainly devoted to spectacular presentation.
It is none of these in particular for which we go to the opera, but
rather for the combination of them all, which forms the characteristic
feature of that complex aggregation of various arts of which opera is
constituted. And seeing how many-sided and complex an art-growth it is
with which we have to deal, small wonder is it that real appreciation
for its numerous points comes but slowly, and only subsequent to
experience, perhaps to study.
[Sidenote: =Some Suggestions=]
Now experience and study are just the things of which our imaginary
young friend is quite unable to boast, hence the confused and mystified
mental condition in which she, in all probability, leaves the opera
house. Although easy to diagnose, the remedy for this state of things
is more difficult to seek, but perhaps the following suggestions may be
made:—
[Sidenote: =To Grasp the Story=]
First of all, I would advise, make some attempt before going to the
opera to master the details of the plot or story; there are many
means of doing this: in all the operas published in Boosey’s Royal
Edition the plot is plainly set out at the beginning, and any work not
published there may almost certainly be found with its story simply set
forth in a book entitled _The Opera_, by Streatfield.
This done, some idea of what is taking place upon the stage can be
grasped, and even perhaps some sentences of the libretto followed.
Without such help, plots with so much movement and incident as even
_Lohengrin_ or _Siegfried_ may be hard to grasp; but do not make the
mistake of taking a copy of the music or libretto into the house with
you; the auditorium is generally too dark to admit of their use,
and even if this be not impossible, frequent cuts make following a
difficult matter.
[Sidenote: =To Realize the Style of the Music=]
Having realized the plot, try to get some idea of the _style_ of the
music, that is, whether it is an opera of the older classical school
(Mozart, Cherubini, Weber, etc.), in which case it will split up into
airs, duets, finales, etc., with music somewhat in the manner of
the familiar sonata; or if perhaps it be an Italian work (Rossini,
Donizetti, Verdi), with the same sub-divisions, but of a more tuneful
and simple nature; or if a work of the “Grand Opera” school (Spontini,
Meyerbeer), with massive stage effects and pompous musical utterances;
or again, perhaps a modern work in the Wagner manner, with continuous
non-divided music, and without definite tunes (melos and not rhythmic
air); in this latter case, one or two of the chief _leit-motiven_
might be memorized, but I would not advise this class of opera for a
first experience; it is too advanced. In any case, do not go without
some clear idea as to the manner and style of the music to be listened
to; if any of the work can be played through and made at all familiar
beforehand, so much the better.
[Sidenote: =Re-hearing Necessary=]
With some sort of nodding acquaintance with the plot and the music,
enjoyment may be attained if the work be not too complex; but even then
I would say that it is not very easy to appreciate an opera at a first
hearing; so that if opportunity arises for a second visit to the opera
house to be paid, choose the same work that you have already heard. A
first visit does little more than create an impression; a second visit
will renew old impressions and convey further ones; a third visit would
enable one to be on the look-out for special parts which have made
special appeal; a fourth visit would, as a rule, constitute thorough
enjoyment, provided the work be well performed.
Of course there are some operas which can be easily appreciated at a
first or second hearing, but these are the great minority, and I would
suggest four visits before any judgment is passed; for an ordinary
amateur to hear a new work and either praise or condemn extravagantly
is nothing more or less than presumption; the more experienced and
capable the critic, the more reserved is his judgment. Undoubtedly, for
the more complex operas, four visits, unaccompanied by private study or
by rehearing of the music, would be insufficient.
[Sidenote: =How to Begin to Study Opera=]
Begin with simple operas: such works as _Faust_ and _Carmen_, the
tunes of which are already known to a large extent, at once suggest
themselves; and perhaps in the same category, although in a very
different class, may be placed _Lohengrin_ and _Cavalleria Rusticana_;
after a course of easily grasped works, more exalted creations,
such as _Don Giovanni_, _Fidelio_, and _Die Meistersinger_, may be
approached; and finally we come to the serious works of Wagner’s
_Ring_, such operas as _Tristan and Isolde_, the beauties of which
are a sealed book to the inexperienced and the unmusical. As is the
case with every phase of every art, real appreciation can only spring
from real comprehension; that which is not understood cannot be
fully beloved. There must be a beginning and a gradual growth; love
for opera is hardly an inborn gift; rather is it a cumulative force,
fed by an ever-increasing knowledge, and by ever-widening critical
faculties. To love music, singing, or an orchestral performance does
not also necessarily imply an ability to care in the very least for so
polymorphous a work as opera, which must be a thing of separate study,
the more difficult in that it demands attention from so many points of
view.
[Sidenote: =What is Necessary for its Enjoyment=]
And when knowledge and experience are to some extent gained, become not
too critical, for that mars enjoyment; those whose love is freshest
for opera are not those unhappy critics who must perforce write a long
analytical account of a new work ere the final curtain has fallen upon
it, but rather those who have grown to cherish the musical phrases
for their own sake and for their inherent beauty, irrespective of who
may be singing them, provided the singing be good and correct. Love
for opera, although not lightly gained, is also not lightly lost; it
is a taste that endures and strengthens as time goes on and knowledge
deepens.
CHAPTER XVII.
THE CHIEF OPERA HOUSES OF THE WORLD.
Covent Garden—La Scala—San Carlo—Venice—Rome—Paris
and the Grand Opera—Vienna—Budapest—Prague—Berlin
—Dresden—Munich—Bayreuth—Russia—Other European
countries—Egypt—America.
[Sidenote: =Covent Garden=]
Architecturally speaking, our English opera house is not one of the
sights of London. Hidden away somewhat ignominiously in a side street,
it has little appearance, in spite of its size, and by no means forms
so conspicuous a feature in the way of public building as do the
majority of the houses in foreign capitals. Of the performances devoted
to opera given within its walls we have already said something, and may
therefore pass on to a consideration of the ways and doings of some of
the Continental opera houses.
[Sidenote: =La Scala=]
Turning, at first, to the sunny land where opera was born, the name
of the most famous “La Scala” Theatre at Milan at once comes to the
mind. This house has the enormous seating capacity for 3,600 persons.
Apart from its size, there is the musical and artistic interest
which this house derives from the production of many works here for
the first time. Since its opening date, August 3rd, 1778, hundreds
of operas have been staged, and the triumphs of Rossini, Meyerbeer,
Bellini, Donizetti, and Verdi have been witnessed. It is enough
to state that such works as Rossini’s _La Gazza Ladra_, Bellini’s
_Norma_, Donizetti’s _Lucretia Borgia_, Verdi’s _I Lombardi_, Boito’s
_Mefistofele_, and Ponchielli’s _La Gioconda_ first saw the light of
day in “La Scala” to establish for it a claim to notice on the part of
opera-goers. Sometime ago the municipal grant towards the expenses of
the establishment was close upon £10,000, but a five years’ contract
dating from 1902 allows only an annual subsidy of £3,900 for 50
performances, and at reduced prices.
[Sidenote: =San Carlo=]
Even older than La Scala, as it dates originally from 1737, is its
Neapolitan rival “San Carlo.” The new house, built after a fire in
1816, is of great size, and at one time vied with its Milanese brother
in the importance of new works produced; but less financial support
has been forthcoming from Naples than is the case at Milan, and
although an annual grant of £3,200 is given by the municipality, the
San Carlo productions, although of very high rank, are perhaps hardly
on a level with those at La Scala. But San Carlo has had its triumphs,
and has seen the first production of Rossini’s _Mosĕ in Egitto_,
_Zelmira_, and other works, and of Donizetti’s _Lucia di Lammermoor_,
besides numbers of other operas of less fame.
[Sidenote: =Venice=]
Although Venice looms large in the history of music, and its doings
in opera have been very considerable, there appears to be no theatre
solely devoted to this class of work, nor is there any regular
grant. It is interesting to remember that Rossini’s _Semiramide_ and
_Tancredi_ are both Venetian productions.
[Sidenote: =Rome=]
Rome in older days had pride of place amongst opera houses, and Mr.
Hadow speaks of it as being at one time the highest school in which
a musician could graduate. Here was produced Rossini’s _Il Barbiere_
and many another famous work. To-day opera at Rome, if indeed it is on
an equal level, hardly seems to be of higher importance than that in
other Italian cities. It has no subsidy at the present time, and has to
depend on its own resources for its upkeep.
[Sidenote: =Paris=]
The French opera house is, as most people know, one of the most
imposing sights of Paris; well situated and finely conceived, it is
a worthy home for that art product for which it is intended. The
history of French opera from the earliest recorded performances of the
sixteenth century is, of course, a very extensive one. So long ago as
1672 the name of Lully made Parisian opera famous, and although for a
time its home was transferred to the Palace Royal, the site has borne
testimony to many a fine building, the present one, inscribed Académie
Nationale de Musique, dating from 1874 (commenced in 1861). Although
its seating capacity of 2,156 is much less than that of La Scala, it
is the largest house in the world, and covers almost three acres of
ground, the cost of its erection being nearly a million and a half.
Besides Lully, the names of Rameau, Gluck, Cherubini, Spontini, Hérold,
Auber, Meyerbeer, and Berlioz are all indissolubly connected with the
opera of Paris: of that special class of work, the Parisian “Grand
Opera,” we have already spoken. There is no house in all musical
history that can claim so great a measure of variety and incident, nor
make such interesting reading, as that of the “Académie de Musique.”
Its fortunes have fluctuated, but it has done wonderful work, and a
mere recapitulation of names of fine operas which gained their original
production here would be far too long for quotation. The glory of
Parisian Grand Opera has always held a spell over the nations, and has
been a thing apart from all else in music; we know something of its
hold upon Wagner, and if there is to-day somewhat less of a glamour
cast by it than in the days when Lully held despotic sway, or Spontini
or Meyerbeer dominated all, there is still a charm and delight to be
found within its walls, which are difficult to equal in houses where
the traditional uses are less sacredly adhered to.
[Sidenote: =The Grand Opera=]
The French are very jealous of its traditions, and although modern
times have not allowed the direction to fall behind in their efforts
to keep pace with the strides operatic music has made under Wagner’s
influence, it is only quite recently that the works of the composer
have been welcomed in Paris. Popular feeling, partly on patriotic
grounds, for long kept his operas in the background: Parisians would
have none of them. The result has been, perhaps, even more rigidly
to preserve those customs of Grand Opera, such as the inclusion of a
ballet, which are amongst its most distinctive features.
Touching upon the question of finance, we find that the French
Government allows the very large subsidy of £32,000 per annum towards
the expenses of Grand Opera; in return, however, opera is supposed
to be staged three or four times during the week, and the prices of
admission, as compared with London, are not high (ranging from 17
fr. to 2 fr.). France loves its opera, and does not hesitate to lay
out good round sums for its support; nor are its people behind-hand
in their attendance; a crowded house is the rule rather than the
exception, appreciation, while critical, being still keen.
[Sidenote: =Vienna=]
Comparing not unfavourably in dignity of conception and splendour
of adornment with the French house is the Opera House of Vienna,
an ornament in that encircling ring of fine buildings which is so
distinctive a feature of the Austrian capital. Vienna has been the home
of so many of the giants of music that it is not surprising that it
should have witnessed the production of many a work now world famous:
Gluck’s _Orfeo_ (1762), Mozart’s _Figaro_ (1786), _Cosi fan Tutte_
(1790), and _Zauberflöte_ (1791), Beethoven’s _Fidelio_ (1805); these
alone would suffice to cause Vienna to stand high in musical fame, for
it was at Vienna that these works first came to light. Not that the
present Opera House witnessed their production, for the building which
to-day stands as an abode of opera dates from a more recent time; the
cost of its erection was £509,795. Belonging to the State, its affairs
are administered by the Lord Chamberlain’s department, any deficit
being made good from the Emperor’s Civil List.
[Sidenote: =Budapest=]
The Hungarian Opera House at Budapest also receives from the State a
subsidy of £24,208, and in addition a sum of £250 for salaries; the
Emperor supplementing this by a grant of £13,334.
[Sidenote: =Prague=]
Reference must also be made to Prague, famous for the production of
Mozart’s _Don Giovanni_ in 1787. More recently Prague has been the home
of works of the Bohemian school, as exemplified by Smetana, Dvŏrák,
Fibich, and others. Smetana’s _Bartered Bride_ was staged at Prague in
1866, and from that date to the time of the appearance of Dvŏrák’s last
opera, _Armida_, in 1904, the National Theatre has witnessed a constant
succession of works of a characteristically national tone which make an
unfailing appeal to the Czechs. The Czech theatre has a State grant of
£3,750.
[Sidenote: =Berlin=]
The Berlin Opera House also has claims to notice, for was not Weber’s
_Der Freischütz_ mounted here for the first time? Moreover, Berlin
being the capital of Germany, the house is the scene of many fine State
performances much patronized by the Royal House. The building itself,
although standing well in the fine “Linden” promenade, will not compare
with Paris or Vienna from an architectural point of view; the Opera
House and Play House of Berlin together receive £54,000 towards their
working expenses.
[Sidenote: =Dresden=]
Leipzig and Dresden have also fine theatres, the Dresden Opera House
being specially famous for its associations with Weber and Wagner.
Moreover, it is a fine building, magnificently situated in an imposing
position, and having considerable architectural pretensions. The King
of Saxony pays £31,000 for the opera, theatre, and orchestra, and also
makes good any deficit that arises. At this theatre Richard Strauss has
produced his two latest operas, _Salome_ and _Elektra_.
[Sidenote: =Munich=]
Munich has of late come to the front in operatic matters; the Court
Theatre, administered from the Civil List, has for long devoted much
attention to opera, but interest is now centred somewhat on the new
“Prince Regent” Theatre, where an attempt is being made to outvie
Bayreuth itself in the Wagner productions; fine performances have taken
place during the last few summers; the best singers available have been
engaged, and no expense spared in mounting and general details. Nor
have the performances been confined to Wagner, for representations of
Mozart’s operas have been interspersed with these. It is as yet too
early to say what influence, if any, the new Munich house will have on
the fortunes of Bayreuth, but it seems probable that a theatre even
better fitted up than Bayreuth itself for Wagnerian performances, and
in so much more central and easily reached a position, may in the near
future very prejudicially affect the fortunes of the older house.
Almost every German town of any size has its Opera House, and detailed
description of these is manifestly impossible, although very much
interest attaches to some of them; we must therefore conclude our
account of the German theatres with a short description of the theatre
built by Wagner at Bayreuth according to his own ideas of what such a
house should be.
[Sidenote: =Bayreuth=]
There is little doubt that at the present time the Bayreuth Opera
House is the most famous in the world; worship of Wagner is still
wide-spread, and the halo surrounding his name and his home casts a
glow upon the little town which he selected as the scene of his final
labours; and, therefore, from all parts of the world, when the Bayreuth
theatre opens its doors, pilgrimages are made, and devotees flock
with an intense enthusiasm which has no parallel in the case of any
other house. Moreover, until the Americans boldly pirated _Parsifal_,
contrary to Wagner’s wishes, it was here only that his last great work
could be heard; hence, to the true Wagnerian, Bayreuth is a spot sacred
and hallowed, inspiring a reverence quite distinct from that felt for
any other.
[Illustration: BAYREUTH THEATRE.]
It was in May 1872 that the foundation-stone was laid, and celebrated
with a performance of Beethoven’s _Choral Symphony_, and the completion
of the building, delayed by lack of funds, took place in 1876, when
the _Ring_ was performed; since then performances have taken place
on a grand scale at intervals of a year or two years in the summer.
Seats, which are the same price all over the house, cost £1 for each
performance; a feature in the construction was that an equally good
view should be obtained from every point of view (hence the equality
of prices); this was done by raising every seat a little above the
one immediately in front of it, and by putting each spectator where
he could see between the heads of the two persons before him. Another
feature was the submerged orchestra—_i.e._, below the level of the
floor of the house; even the conductor, although he has the stage
in view, cannot be seen by the audience, and part of the orchestra
(the brass) is actually under the stage—an experiment which seemed
doubtful at first, but which has on the whole proved successful. The
machinery and scenery were as good as could possibly be obtained, and
the management still keeps up to date in this respect. Although open to
competition both from New York and from Munich, Bayreuth seems likely
to hold its own for some years to come, whenever it may choose to open
its doors.
[Sidenote: =Russia=]
In Russia, and more especially at Petersburg and Moscow, theatrical
attendance is looked upon as an educational matter, and therefore it is
possible to see opera for fivepence! (Happy people—in that respect!)
Of course this means very large Imperial help, information as to the
exact amount of which is not forthcoming; but the two capitals have
fine houses, with interest for us in that they have witnessed the
production of most of the operas of the young Russian school; the
ballet is much beloved in Russia, and forms one of the regular objects
of representation.
[Sidenote: =Other European Countries=]
Space forbids us to go into detail as to the opera houses of Sweden
(Royal Theatre of Stockholm), Norway (National Theatre, Christiania),
Spain, Holland, Belgium (Brussels, Théâtre de la Monnaie), Denmark
(Copenhagen, Royal Theatre), or Portugal (Lisbon, San Carlos). The
latter is, however, of special interest in being one of the oldest
houses of its kind, having been erected in 1793. Information as to
the subsidies received by these and other theatres will be found in
Appendix B.
[Sidenote: =Egypt=]
[Sidenote: =America=]
Of opera houses outside Europe it will be perhaps sufficient to mention
those of Cairo and Alexandria (the former of which saw the production
of Verdi’s _Aïda_ in 1871), and the American houses (New York, Boston,
Philadelphia). The New York, the Metropolitan, and the Manhattan opera
houses witness very magnificent performances, and command the best and
most expensive talent in the world.
CHAPTER XVIII.
OFFSHOOTS AND CURIOSITIES OF OPERA.
Operetta—Musical comedy—Ballad opera—Masque—
Ballet—Objections thereto—Curiosities of
construction—Pasticcio—Mixed language—
Stereotyped casts—Curiosities of stage requirements
—Wagner’s supernatural requirements—Curiosities
of the music—Vocal cadenzas.
The chief offshoot of Opera proper is Opera Comique, or Singspiel.
This we have already described as being opera interspersed with spoken
dialogue, not necessarily of a humorous nature: the mere fact, however,
of its introduction confers on the work the title of Opera Comique in
France, or of Singspiel in Germany. When one remembers that such works
as Beethoven’s _Fidelio_ and Weber’s _Der Freischütz_ belong to this
type, it is evidently of great importance, and a very large number of
the operas already mentioned by a variety of composers come under this
heading.
[Sidenote: =Operetta=]
Next perhaps in interest is the operetta, or short opera, originally
a one-act light opera very frequently employing spoken dialogue; the
general style, moreover, is lighter and of less imposing proportions
than serious opera. In later days operettas are often prolonged into
two or more acts, and have been made very specially familiar to English
theatre-goers by the long series of works by Gilbert and Sullivan,
which, properly speaking, belong to this category.
[Sidenote: =Musical Comedy=]
Of a somewhat lower grade is musical comedy, a popular type of stage
piece making considerable use of music, but of only the less exalted
forms of the art; no serious pretensions to artistic beauty are claimed
by these works, the taste for which seems to be, at the present time,
somewhat on the wane.
[Sidenote: =Ballad Opera=]
A form of opera for which the English have always had an affection
is the “Ballad Opera,” really a string of airs, often by different
composers, thrown more or less promiscuously into a story, with
which they often appear to have no very close connection; there is
practically no concerted music, and the whole bears some sort of
resemblance to a ballad concert. The renowned _Beggar’s Opera_, which
for years was a model for English entrepreneurs, belonged to this
category, and set an example for hosts of imitators to follow; indeed,
England is only now beginning to shake herself free from the trammels
of this class of work, to which such operas as _The Bohemian Girl_ and
_Maritana_ tend to approximate. The ballad opera also took root in
America, where hundreds of such works flourished for a time, and it is
not unknown in Germany, where it receives the title of “Liederspiel.”
[Sidenote: =Masque=]
Of more artistic merit and interest is the “Masque,” which really
preceded opera; originally developing in carnival processions through
the streets of Italian towns, it was adopted in England during the
reigns of Henry VIII. and some succeeding monarchs. The plan of such
works was the presentation of some allegorical idea upon a stage with
descriptive music, both vocal and instrumental, and, in addition, a
large proportion of dancing. Campion, Lock, Coperario, and many others
took part in the composition of these divertissements, which were in
great demand for such functions as royal weddings. They were staged
in the most sumptuous manner, great attention being paid to stage
machinery, costume, etc.; much of the music has been lost, but what
remains shows it to have been excellent of its class, and effective
even in performance to-day.
[Sidenote: =Ballet=]
In early days of operatic history there was no radical difference
between the masque and the ballet; an entertainment of vocal and
instrumental music in celebration of the marriage of the Duke of
Joyeuse in 1581 (costing three and a half million francs to produce,
by-the-bye) was termed “Ballet comique de la Royne.” As an illustration
of the dance alone, which is its present signification, the ballet
appears to date from the foundation of the opera in France, with which
it has had a very close and lasting connection.
Indeed until recently grand opera without a ballet was unknown;
beginning with Lully, and continuing even up to the present day, the
ballet has maintained a position of great importance; and although it
has never appealed to the English to the same extent as it seems to
have done to our Continental brethren, it has been transported with
the works in which it was introduced, and has become a very familiar
feature to opera-goers; even so recent a work as Cilea’s _Adriana
Lecouvreur_ introduces a lengthy and somewhat annoying ballet.
[Sidenote: =Objections thereto=]
For the great disadvantage of the ballet is that it breaks up the
continuity of the story; the development of the interest of the opera
is arrested, and so far as the music is concerned a complete difference
in style is often necessary, the result being that the old train of
thought and idea is often only to be resumed with difficulty. Hence
it happens that, with a growing appreciation for artistic truth in
opera, the ballet has fallen into the background, and most operas
seen to-day do not include any performance of what is, at best, a
somewhat irrelevant interlude. A few attempts, such as that by Wagner
in _Tannhäuser_, to introduce a ballet as an integral factor in the
_dénouement_, have not been specially successful, nor have they been
widely imitated. As a separate form of entertainment, apart from opera,
the ballet has had excellent music written for it by Adam, Sullivan,
Tchaïkovsky, and others (in Russia it is a very popular amusement); but
in England its appearances are now mainly confined to the music-hall,
where it is wedded to music of a light and charming character.
[Sidenote: =Curiosities=]
A few words as to curiosities of opera; these may be grouped under two
or three different heads, somewhat as follows:—
(1) Curiosities of Construction and Design.
(2) Curiosities of Stage Requirements.
(3) Curiosities of the Music.
[Sidenote: =Curiosities of Construction=]
[Sidenote: =Pasticcio=]
The old manner of collecting a mass of heterogeneous materials in the
way of airs and songs, and of turning them into a kind of opera, is
certainly curious. The name “Pasticcio,” or “pie,” is very applicable
to this hybrid growth, which, however, has at times attained to great
popularity; one of the most famous instances of its kind is _Muzio
Scevola_, produced in 1771. his work was in three acts: the first
composed by Ariosti, the second by Buononcini, and the third by Handel;
the last-named great composer, with an easy manner of doing things
which would certainly not pass muster at the present day, also brought
out in 1738 an opera almost entirely made up of favourite airs from his
other works; an example which Gluck followed a few years later. The day
for this kind of thing is fortunately past, and no composer of serious
operatic work would revert to a procedure which is more suggestive of
the construction of a pantomime.
[Sidenote: =Mixed Languages=]
The singing by different performers in different languages at the
same time is another defunct custom; so little regard was paid to the
importance of the libretto that it used to be quite a common occurrence
for each person on the stage to sing in whatever language came easiest
to him or her; on the Continent the airs would perhaps be sung in
Italian and the recitatives in German, with an inconsistency that is
almost incredible; when, however, agility in vocalization was the
chief attraction in operatic representation, it is to be presumed that
intelligibility of utterance was not an important consideration.
[Sidenote: =Stereotyped Casts=]
To the same cause must be attributed the extraordinary fact that the
_dramatis personæ_ were the same for nearly all operas during a certain
period. Whatever the story or plot to be unfolded, it was essential
that there should be six principal characters—a high soprano, a mezzo,
and a contralto, a male soprano, a tenor, and a bass; of course slight
modifications in the character of the voices was occasionally allowed,
but the main lines followed were as above. And whether it suited the
story or not, each of these good people expected to have an important
air to sing in each act, and woe betide the unhappy composer who wrote
a more attractive piece for one of them than was supplied to his or her
rival singer. From this stereotyped form of bondage, with its horrible
artificiality, opera is now free; and it is due to the observance of
these conventions that the works of Handel and other composers, who
wrote really good music, are absolutely dead.
Apart from the construction in the form of the opera, there have
been from time to time interesting experiments made with regard to
the housing of that integral portion of it—the orchestra. Wagner’s
innovation, the placing of the band out of sight and below the stage,
although it necessitated the increase of the string sections, has
proved on the whole good; other designs have been the entire covering
in of the orchestra with a thin transparent substance, which has
had the effect of subduing the sound, but which has also proved
disastrously hot for the poor players. One idea emanated from the New
York Metropolitan, when Mr. Conried suggested the placing of the brass
players upon a movable platform, which could move up or down at will;
if it is desired that their instruments shall sound prominently they
will be raised into the air; if, on the other hand, a subdued effect
is required, they will be lowered a few feet; a long crescendo will,
presumably, be effected by a gradual elevation of this movable floor!
One has yet to wait to see this somewhat freakish invention adopted.
[Sidenote: =Curiosities of Stage Requirements=]
In days when enormous groups of performers were considered
indispensable for grand effects in opera, one reads of many
extravagances in the way of display. In modern scenic dramatic works,
in the ballet, and in pantomime, these effects are no doubt legitimate
enough; but in so far as the cumbering of the stage with voiceless
supers hardly helps on the cause of opera, it is a matter for
congratulation that these exceptional stage demands are no longer made
to any great extent.
Here, for instance, is the modest list of performers that took part in
Freschi’s _Berenice_ in 1680:—
100 Virgins.
100 Soldiers.
100 Horsemen in Iron Armour.
40 Cornets on Horseback.
6 Mounted Trumpeters.
6 Drummers.
6 Ensigns.
6 Sackbuts.
6 Flutes.
12 Minstrels playing on Turkish instruments, etc.
6 Pages.
3 Sergeants.
6 Cymbaleers.
12 Huntsmen.
12 Grooms.
12 Charioteers.
2 Lions led by 2 Turks.
2 Elephants.
4 Horses with Berenice’s Triumphal Car.
12 Horses drawing 6 cars.
6 Chariots.
A stable with 100 living horses.
A forest filled with wild boar, deer, and bears.
However magnificent and imposing in effect such a spectacle may be,
its proper sphere is not opera. With Meyerbeer, Spontini, and other
composers of grand opera these ideas have found favour; but they are
a bar to the production of their works to-day, not only on the score
of very considerable expense, but also because the artistic sense that
delights in beautiful music wedded to appropriate drama will hardly
find pleasure in such merely sensuous effects of the eye.
[Sidenote: =Wagner’s Supernatural Requirements=]
The difficulties of modern stage management occur chiefly in the
presentation of the supernatural; huge crowds are easy enough to put
upon the stage, but to make a bird fly across naturally is a more
involved matter. In so many of the Wagner operas these supernatural
features are essential elements of the situation; the Rhine maidens
_must_ appear to be swimming in real water, the bird _must_ fly ahead
of Siegfried to show him the rock on which Brünnhilde sleeps, and
round that rock living flames of fire _must_ dart and play. It is such
points as these which are difficult to stage convincingly. Has anyone
ever felt very frightened at the dragon Fafner? The fire has a way of
coming out of his mouth at the wrong time, his head and his tail seem
to have little connection with one another, and the impressive effect
of his deeply sonorous utterances is often marred by the very visible
megaphone through which they are uttered. In these strange beasts, for
which machinery is ineffective, there is still scope for improvement in
modern stage management.
[Sidenote: =Curiosities of the Music=]
Curiosities in the music occur now and then: such, for instance, is
the weird portion in the middle of Weber’s _Euryanthe_ overture, where
the curtain rises momentarily to display a gruesome tomb: such is the
thrusting aside of the stage curtain in the midst of Leoncavallo’s
_Pagliacci_ prelude for one of the characters to sing a song; such is
the curious vocal scherzo upon one reiterated note, for the chorus of
seraphim in Boito’s _Mefistofele_.
On a bigger scale is the curious experiment made by Michael in the
opera _Utal_, in writing his work without any violins in the orchestra.
Of more frequent occurrence than the omission of instruments is
the inclusion of various unusual effects, such as the introduction
of a mandoline for the serenade in Mozart’s _Don Giovanni_, of the
Glockenspiel for Papageno in the _Magic Flute_, of peal of bells in
many works, and so forth, whereas Handel sighed for a cannon, and
Tchaïkovsky actually used one in his _1812_ overture. The maximum of
stage noise in this way was probably reached by Spontini, who, in his
opera _Alcidor_ had a number of anvils upon the stage tuned to certain
notes! An anvil accompaniment, not ineffectively used, may be heard in
Gounod’s _Philémon and Baucis_.
[Sidenote: =Vocal Cadenzas=]
Among curiosities of the music must be mentioned the vocal cadenzas,
etc., written for exceptional singers; and in the days when these
singers used to include male sopranos and contraltos (termed Castrati),
the majority of singers appear to have been exceptional. For a man to
develop a high soprano voice seems not only unnatural but inartistic;
and these singers, many of them most famous, belong to an order of
things that obtains no longer, being contrary both to modern ethics
and to good taste: what the male soprano could do can usually be done
equally well by a good woman singer, and of these there is usually a
sufficient supply.
For women singers with voices of exceptional compass special music has
often been written, as witness the part of “Queen of the Night” in
Mozart’s _Zauberflöte_, much of which lies abnormally high. Even where
not written, singers of Italian opera have often introduced elaborate
and wonderful cadenzas for the purposes of display, and these,
although not tolerated in opera of the most exalted kind, may still be
frequently heard. An example of a cadenza of this kind may conclude the
chapter.
Example of a Vocal Cadenza quoted by Mozart as sung to him by Lucrezia
Agujari in 1770.
[Music]
Nowadays little of this kind of music is written for the voice, so far
as opera is concerned. The work required of the modern operatic singer
is more dramatic by nature, and makes demands upon technique of a
different order.
CHAPTER XIX.
A CHAPTER OF CHATTER.
Opera and politics—_Lohengrin_ in Paris—
Opera non-lucrative to the composer—Jenny
Lind’s contract—Modern fees—Royalties—
Librettists—Metastasio and Scribe—The prima
donna—Stories of singers and composers.
[Sidenote: =Opera and Politics=]
Now and again it happens that Opera rubs shoulders with Politics, and
acquires some importance in the affairs of nations. Lully’s power at
court in the days of Louis XIV. was notorious, and none too generously
exercised so far as his fellow musicians were concerned. But influence
with monarchs, such as that which he acquired, is exceptional and rarer
now, and less powerful than in those earlier days. Lully profited by
the royal favour bestowed on him, but some great composers have been
less fortunate.
Cherubini, for instance, was detested by the great Napoleon, who lost
no opportunity of inflicting slights upon him. Cherubini’s sympathies
were clearly manifested in his _Water Carrier_ opera, as on the side
of revolution, but distinctly contrary to the excesses to which it
often led. So enraged were some ruffians with him that he was in 1794
dragged out of his house, marched through Paris, and finally compelled
to provide music for the pleasure of his captors. Napoleon frequently
called him into his presence in order to praise other composers,
suggesting that he compared unfavourably with them. When Cherubini
replied with some little spirit, he was promptly punished by being
compelled to conduct various concerts and state performances with no
reward whatever.
On the other hand, Napoleon, for a time, could not do enough for
Spontini: he commanded the production of _La Vestale_, and rewarded
him with a present of 10,000 francs, loading him, moreover, with
praises and honours; this did not, however, last for very long, for the
downfall of the great conqueror was at hand, and anxieties and cares
claimed his attention.
[Illustration: _Photo_] [_W. Shadwell Clerke._]
[Sidenote: =“Lohengrin” in Paris=]
Political feeling has probably never run so high over operatic matters
as it did in Paris after the Franco-German war: for years no German
work was tolerated, at any rate so far as new matter was concerned, and
the determination of the management to produce Wagner’s _Lohengrin_
in 1891 was the signal for a riotous uproar. Public feeling ran high;
some of the leading singers, considering discretion the better part
of valour, caused frequent postponements of the performance by means
of convenient indispositions, and when the work actually came to
presentation cordons of police were called out to guard the opera
house, both inside and out. M. Lamoureux, who conducted, did so with a
pistol in his pocket. Opposition inside the theatre made itself felt by
an objectionable device of setting floating in the auditorium little
balloons of evil-smelling gas; while opposition in the street was met
by cavalry charges and frequent arrests. The whole occasion was made
one of political import, but fortunately commonsense prevailed, and no
serious issues resulted; happily for opera, such scenes as these are
infrequent and unusual.
In our country opera has little or no connection with political
matters, except that when some foreign potentate visits our shores, a
gala performance at Covent Garden is usually arranged as one of the
features of his visit: so far as English art or English artists are
concerned, there is, unfortunately, little use made of either on these
occasions.
[Sidenote: =Opera non-lucrative to the Composer=]
Opera is not a fortune-making business for the majority of those who
embark on such enterprise: so far as the composition of opera is
concerned, financial result is usually very small. Nowadays an opera
cannot be lightly tossed off in a few days: it is true that Handel
composed _Rinaldo_ in fourteen days, Rossini _Il Barbiere_ in thirteen
(a wonderful performance), and Pacini his _Saffo_ in four weeks; but
these are very exceptional instances, and may fitly be compared with
the labour of Wagner, who had the _Meistersinger_ and the _Ring_ on
hand for something like twenty years. Modern opera, with its polyphonic
orchestral background and amorphous movements, demands years of work,
and for the majority of those who give so much of their lives to it
there is little to show in return, so far as a monetary point of view
is taken.
Operatic management, too, is very speculative; Handel lost his whole
fortune (£10,000) and became bankrupt through his operatic ventures,
and yet his works had enormous success in their day. It is to be feared
that the example set by him has been followed by many a subsequent
manager, and is yet in store for many another.
The chief item in expenditure is, of course, the enormous amount
swallowed up in the fees paid to the singers; Handel paid Senesino
1,400 guineas for the season in 1731, and even allowing for the
greater value of money in those days, that is a comparatively small
amount. Here, for example, is the contract made by Jenny Lind with Mr.
Lumley in 1846. Far less liberal, by the way, than such a singer would
receive to-day:—
[Sidenote: =J. Lind’s Contract=]
“1. An honorarium of 120,000 francs (£4,800) for the season
(April 14th-August 20th, 1847).
“2. A furnished house, carriage, and pair of horses.
“3. A sum of £300 should she desire to have a
preliminary holiday in Italy.
“4. Liberty to cancel the engagement should she feel
dissatisfied after her first appearance.
“5. An agreement not to sing elsewhere for her own
emolument.”
It generally happens that a singer commands higher fees for private
than for public singing, the advantage of the latter being as a rule
a guaranteed number of appearances; Farinelli, for example, the chief
singer engaged by the noble faction that set up in opposition to Handel
in 1734 received only £1,500 per annum, but his private engagements
made up his income to £5,000 a year—a large one at that date. This
singer afterwards visited the court of Philip V. of Spain; that monarch
was suffering from mental depression, from which nothing aroused him
until the advent of Farinelli. The Queen was so delighted to see
her royal spouse once more interested in anything that she engaged
Farinelli at a salary of 50,000 francs to remain in Madrid; this he
did, singing the _same four songs to the King every night for ten
years_! Eventually Philip V. succumbed, but he must have been a patient
monarch.
It does not always happen that singers of equal merit receive the same
payments, some being more fortunate than others; Catalani, for example,
in 1807 received £5,000 for the season, and with her concerts and
provincial tours netted a profit for the year of £16,700. A more famous
singer, Lablache, in 1828 could only command £1,600 for four months;
while Malibran in 1835 received £2,755 for twenty-four appearances in
London, and 45,000 francs for one hundred and eighty-five performances
a few years later at La Scala.
[Sidenote: =Modern Fees=]
But these fees are as nothing compared with those commanded by the
leading singers of to-day, more especially in America, where money is
poured out like water, and where artists are retained at high fees by
one opera house, even if they do not sing a single note during the
whole season, so that a rival house should not secure their services.
It is not very unusual for a singer to receive £1,000 per performance
in the twentieth century. Madame Patti has stated that she received
£1,200 per night for two seasons of sixty nights each. Caruso has
been paid £20,000 for eighty performances, and about £8,000 per annum
for singing into gramophones; his contract for four years at £40,000
per annum with the New York Metropolitan is probably a record in this
direction.
Of course the amount received by those who compose the music never
approximate to such figures as these. For _Don Juan_ Mozart received
only 500 thalers, and for _Figaro_ 100 ducats. Weber’s payment for
_Der Freischütz_ was 80 Friedrich d’ors, out of which he had to pay
the librettist; after the treasury had netted 30,000 thalers from
this work Weber was presented with another 100! There are, however,
a few examples of fair bargains made by musicians: Spontini in 1814
was offered the then liberal salary of £750 per annum for two operas
each year in Berlin; in 1819 he accepted a ten years’ engagement at
the court of Frederick William III. of Berlin at a salary of 4,000
thalers, a benefit of 1,050 thalers, a free concert, and a pension. He
was well treated, but did not himself behave very well, allowing his
servant to sell free admissions to the theatre, and grumbling because
his first-night presentations did not bring in as much as he wished.
He finally ended by a demand for compensation for 46,850 thalers, and
that in face of the fact that he was convicted of _lèse-majesté_ and
sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment: an indignity from which his new
monarch graciously released him.
[Sidenote: =Royalties=]
Sometimes an agreement is made with the composer by which he receives a
royalty or lump sum for each performance of his work. To the composer
of an opera that takes the public fancy this spells fortune, and vast
sums have now and again been made in this way. Isouard, for example,
received for the performances of his _Cendrillon_ in Paris alone over
100,000 francs in 1810, while Rossini and others have by similar
strokes of luck easily acquired wealth. So small, however, is the
proportion of new works to-day which become popular, that the chances
of such good fortune are very small; a _Cavalleria Rusticana_ only
makes its appearance now and then, nor is the composer of such a work
often able to repeat his success.
[Sidenote: =Librettists=]
Although rarely recognized, the work of the author of the libretto
is of vast importance. In the days when the story meant little or
nothing, provided so many pegs were provided on which to hang the
“Arias,” the share of the librettist was a less conspicuous one; to-day
no inconsiderable part of the failure of an opera is due to a poor
libretto. It therefore frequently happens that composers, finding it
impossible to find a poem to please them, write their own libretti,
the chief example of this dual work being Wagner, whose dramas are
often very fine considered from a literary point of view alone.
[Sidenote: =Metastasio and Scribe=]
Most famous of the librettists of early operas is Metastasio
(1698-1782), some of whose poems were set by thirty and forty different
composers: he wrote dramas used by such composers as Handel, Hasse,
Jomelli, Porpora, Graun, Gluck, Meyerbeer, Caldara, Haydn, Cimarosa,
and Mozart. In later days mention may be made of the dramatist Scribe
(1791-1861), a French poet who provided a vast number of works for both
the Grand Opera and the Opera Comique. The list of composers who have
used Scribe’s libretti includes Auber, Adam, Boieldieu, Donizetti,
Hérold, Halèvy, Meyerbeer, and Verdi. Quite one hundred of his operas
were staged and performed, to say nothing of light dramatic and other
pieces.
[Sidenote: =The Prima Donna=]
Scattered here and there in literature that deals with opera may be
found endless stories of singers, composers, and art-patrons. Most
fruitful in providing amusing tales are the _prime donne_, whose
jealousies and bickerings, although unpleasant enough for those who
have to contend against them, make sufficiently good reading. The Prima
Donna generally knows her power, and is autocratic: there is not every
day at hand a Handel, to take such a one forcibly by the scruff of her
neck and hang her suspended from a window in mid-air until his will
is granted. When such a factious lady has a husband in the same rôle
consequences may be very bad indeed: the tenor Arsani, for example, the
teacher of the Garcias, had a wife who was a prima donna; but instead
of acting together, so jealous were they of each other, that when one
was receiving the plaudits of the audience the other would go round
into the auditorium and hiss!
Rivalry is not always, however, so apparent, and when fine singers are
willing to co-operate, very fine results are sometimes obtained. The
most notable ensemble in this respect was probably that of the four
great singers, Grisi, Rubini, Tamburini, and Lablache, a combination
of talent very seldom equalled, which delighted auditors of the early
Victorian era.
Nowadays, although a person of power, the great singer has not the
field so entirely to himself as to be able to dictate as to what he
will or will not do: a certain tenor, for example, at Marseilles early
in 1905 withdrew his promise to sing at a certain concert for the
reason that a rival tenor had been engaged. Great was his amazement to
find that this refusal by no means jeopardized the concert, as he had
hoped, but rather became an additional source of amusement; for the
management, having advertised him, determined that he should be seen
upon the stage, and a ridiculous effigy of him was brought forward, and
a trio from _Faust_ sung by other singers grouped round it. This may
not have been very dignified, or even witty, but a few drastic measures
of this kind might induce singers to be a little more reasonable in
their treatment of the public.
Strange measures are sometimes taken to prevent the success of an
opera: a hired body of fellows to hiss in opposition to the organized
claque is by no means a rare sight in a French house; but sometimes
more militant measures are taken. Rousseau’s _Le Devin du Village_, for
example, received its _coup de grace_ from the fact that in 1828 some
person (supposed to have been Berlioz) threw a huge powdered wig on to
the stage in the midst of the performance. So bad was the opposition to
Jomelli’s _Armida_, produced in 1750, that its composer flew the house
for his life by a back door. The opposition to _Lohengrin_ in Paris has
already been commented upon, but that to _Tannhäuser_, organized by the
Jockey Club in 1866, was even stronger: noise and disorder filled the
theatre; people in the pit played flageolets, while the gallery sang
riotous songs. So prejudiced was public opinion that a fair hearing was
not accorded to the work. Under these conditions it is not altogether
incredible that Merimée should have exclaimed that he could write
similar music after hearing his cat walk up and down the pianoforte!
Of composers, there are perhaps more amusing stories of Spontini than
of any other single opera writer. This very opinionated and high-handed
Italian thought much of himself, and little of all else, with the
result that his life is very amusing reading. He _would_ have what he
wanted. If his cellos could not play loud enough, they were made to
sing their parts as well; if, after six hours’ rehearsal, his prima
donna fainted, he suggested that someone with more physique should
be engaged. He did not, however, always have his own way. When _La
Petite Maison_ was produced in 1804, the audience dashed on the stage
and smashed everything, while _La Vestale_ was greeted with laughing,
snoring, and the putting on of nightcaps. His orchestra, although
moderate in volume in comparison with what often obtains to-day, was
considered very noisy, so much so that it is said that a certain
doctor who had a very deaf patient thought he might be made to hear
by attending a performance of _La Vestale_. After a specially noisy
passage the deaf man with delight turned to his doctor: “I can hear,”
said he. His remark met with no response, for the reason that the
doctor himself had been deafened by the noise.
Spontini felt such opposition very keenly: others are less affected
by hostility. When Rossini’s _Il Barbiere_ was produced at Rome in
1816, it was hooted and hissed, much to the chagrin of several of the
composer’s friends. Thinking to commiserate with him on the failure of
his work, they called at his house, expecting to find him in the depths
of despair: instead of that the maestro was safely tucked up in bed and
fast asleep.
Quotations of stories of singer and composer might fill many chapters
of such a book as this, but there are books such as Sutherland Edward’s
_History of the Opera_ and Ella’s _Musical Reminiscences_ to which
those interested may readily turn, and therefore need not be reprinted
here.
A whole wealth of amusement may be derived from the daily papers, and
to-day the impressarios of New York seem to be the most persecuted
persons in the world. Opera has its worries and troubles, but to those
who love it it is a constant source of refreshment and of artistic
joy.
Appendices.
A. CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF COMPOSERS OF OPERA, GREAT
SINGERS, CONDUCTORS, ETC.
B. FINANCIAL AID GRANTED TO OPERATIC SCHEMES FROM
STATE OR MUNICIPAL FUNDS.
C. GLOSSARY OF TERMS MAINLY USED IN OPERA.
D. LIST OF INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE ORCHESTRAS OF
COMPOSERS OF DIFFERENT PERIODS OF OPERA.
E. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OPERA.
Appendix A.
Chronological List of Composers of Opera (with names of
their chief works), Great Singers, Conductors, etc.
1535 (?). =Vincenzo Galilei= (Florence). Early
writer of music drama on the lines of Greek
tragedy.
1550 (?). =Cavalieri.= Composer of the first
oratorio, also of four music dramas. One of the
earliest composers to seek to illustrate the
meaning of the words by the music.
15— (?). =Giovanni Bardi.= The instigator of
the idea of modern opera: at Bardi’s house the
circle of dilletanti and musicians assembled and
endeavoured to resuscitate Greek drama by the
provision of suitable music.
15— (?). =Jacopo Peri.= Composer of first
real opera in the modern sense of the term;
_Dafne_ (1597) and _Euridice_ (1600) are
the titles of his works, in the monodic style.
These opened up new ground, and set a model which
other composers quickly followed.
1558. =Guilio Caccini= (Rome). Opera composer of
the monodic school; shares with Peri the merit of
founding modern opera.
1567. =Claudio Monteverde= (Cremona), 1567-1643.
Writer of many operas, intermezzi, etc.; he was
a great innovator in harmony, and also did much
to extend the use of the various instruments of
the orchestra. The earliest composer to associate
certain groups of instruments with certain of the
stage characters.
1575. =Thomas Campion= (London). English composer
of masques and ballets.
1580. =John Coperario= (London). An Englishman who
travelled in Italy, and wrote music for English
plays.
1582. =William Lawes= (Dinton). English composer
of court masques and airs.
1585. =Heinrich Schütz= (Köstritz), 1585-1672.
First German operatic composer, who also excelled
in church music.
1588 or 1590. =Nicholas Laniere= (Italy). A
foreign musician who settled in England and wrote
music for masques; one of his compositions was a
masque by Ben Johnson, “in stylo recitativo.”
1596. =Henry Lawes= (Dinton). English composer who
shared with Matthew Lock and Cook the composition
of one of the earliest English operas, _The
Siege of Rhodes_.
1597. =Benedetto Ferrari= (Venice). Helped to
found the Venetian School of Opera.
1600. =Pietro F. Cavalli= (Crema). A follower
of Monteverde, who wrote at least twenty-seven
operas, mostly for Venice, but some were performed
in Paris; a composer of dramatic power.
1600. Production of Peri’s _Orfeo_, the first
publicly performed opera.
1600 (?). =Francesco Manelli= (Venice). Shares
with Ferrari the credit of the foundation of opera
in his native city.
1604. =Giacomo Carissimi= (Marino). Great composer
of oratorio, who also wrote occasionally for the
stage.
1620. =Marcantonio Cesti= (Florence?). Follower of
Cavalli and Carissimi; wrote about twelve operas.
1625. =Giovanni Legrenzi= (Bergamo). Composer of
seventeen operas, mostly produced in Venice.
1627. The first German opera (_Dafne_) produced.
1628. =Robert Cambert= (Paris). First French
composer of opera; at first thoroughly successful,
this musician was ousted from his position by
Lully, and died in England in 1677.
1632 (?). =Matthew Lock= (Exeter). Composer
of incidental music to plays (_The
Tempest_, _Macbeth_, etc.), one of which
(_Psyche_) was published under the title of
“The English Opera.”
1633. =Jean Batiste Lully= (Florence). Migrated to
France at an early age; obtained great power at
the court of Louis XIV., and monopolized French
opera for many years. He wrote at least thirty
ballets and twenty operas. Lully died in 1687.
1635. =G. V. Draghi.= Italian composer who settled
in England and wrote incidental music and act
tunes.
1637. =Bernardo Pasquini= (Tuscany). Wrote a few
operas for Rome; a fine polyphonic composer.
1640. =Giovanni Buononcini= (Modena). Father of a
more famous son; wrote five operas, which remain
in MS.
1645. =Alessandro Stradella= (Venice?), 1645-81.
Although more famous for his church music, wrote
eleven operas.
1645. =Francesco Rossi= (Bari). Wrote four operas
for Venice.
1646. =Johann Thiele= (Naumburg). Composer of
opera and also of Singspiel. His Singspiel,
_Adam and Eve_, produced in 1678, was the
first of such works to be publicly performed
in Germany, and is interesting as being the
forerunner of many a subsequent work of the same
class which has obtained world-wide popularity.
1646. _Akebar, Roi de Mogol_, the first French
opera (words and music by the Abbé Mailly),
performed at Carpentras.
1649. =Pascal Colasse= (Rheims). Wrote many
operas, after the model of Lully.
1650. =Marais.= Composer of French opera; died 1718.
1658. =Henry Purcell= (London), 1658-95. English
composer of great dramatic power and of marked
originality. Wrote music for many masques, plays,
and for the first real English opera, _Dido
and Æneas_; had it not been for the powerful
personality of Handel, which dwarfed all other
matters musical during the time he lived in
London, Purcell might have founded a real school
of English opera. Chief works: _Dido and
Æneas_ (1677), _The Indian Queen_ (1690),
Dryden’s _Tempest_ (1690), _Dioclesian_
(1690), _King Arthur_ (1691), _Bonduca_ (1695).
1659. =Alessandro Scarlatti= (Trapani), 1659-1725.
Composer of one hundred and fifteen operas; is
important as the first to largely employ set
forms in his works. His use of the Da capo Aria,
although at first attended with success, became so
popular as to be the means of its own undoing. He
also uses the orchestral ritornello, occasionally
employed by Monteverde, and is the first composer
to make full use of the orchestra for the
accompaniment of recitative. While histrionically
interesting, little of his music would be accepted
to-day.
1659. =Francesco A. Pistocchi= (Palermo). A member
of the Bolognese school of composers.
1660. =André Campra= (Aix, Provence). Popular
writer of French opera, who attempted to combine
the features of the Italian and French schools; he
produced about thirty works of high rank.
1661. =J. A. Perti= (Bologna). Another member
of the Bolognese school; produced operas in his
native town and at Venice.
1667. =Antonio Lotti= (Venice). Produced an opera
before he was sixteen years of age, and wrote many
others in after life.
1667. =Dr. Pepusch= (Berlin). Famous German
composer who settled in London, and collected the
songs and pieces which made up _The Beggar’s Opera_,
the first of a long line of such ballad operas.
1670 (?). =Johann Conradi.= Early writer of German
opera; produced works at Hamburg.
1672. =Giovanni Batiste Buononcini= (Modena),
1672-1750 (?). Writer of twenty-two operas; mainly
famous as having been the selected composer pitted
against Handel, with disastrous results to both
parties financially.
1672. =André Destouches= (Paris). Wrote a famous
opera, _Issé_; and many other works for the
stage.
1674. =Reinhard Keiser= (Weissenfels), 1674-1739.
First important composer of German opera,
composing sometimes as many as eight in one year;
one hundred and sixteen works stand to his name,
many with the recitatives in German and the arias
in Italian.
1675. =Marc Antonio Buononcini= (Modena). Wrote an
opera, _Camilla_, which was played sixty-four
times in England during four years; brother of
Handel’s rival.
1677. Production of Purcell’s _Dido and Æneas_,
the first real English opera.
1678 (?). =Antonio Caldara= (Venice). Wrote
sixty-six operas, besides a large number of
oratorios and other works.
1680 (?). =Senesino.= Famous male soprano, who
appeared in many of the operas Handel wrote for
London; he retired from the stage in 1735 with a
fortune of £15,000.
1681. =Johann Mattheson= (Hamburg). Opera singer
and composer and a friend of Handel, in some of
whose operas he appeared.
1683. =Jean Phillippe Rameau= (Dijon), 1683-1764.
One of the early fathers of French opera, and
second only in importance to Lully; produced many
operas, and influenced Gluck, who heard some of
his works in Paris.
1684. =Francesco Durante= (Naples). Wrote
occasionally for the stage, but mostly for the
church.
1685. =George Frederick Handel= (Hallé),
1685-1759. Wrote operas for Italy, Germany, and
England. In great contrast to the music of his
oratorios, his opera music sounds antiquated and
dull; its only performance to-day is the occasional
singing of an air from one of the operas.
1686. =Niccola Porpora= (Naples), 1686-1767. Wrote
many operas, mainly consisting of florid arias and
vocal gymnastics; a wonderful singing-master, who
turned out some excellent pupils.
1698. =P. A. D. B. Metastasio= (Rome). One of the
greatest of librettists; he furnished subjects for
operatic treatment for a vast number of composers,
including Gluck and Mozart.
1699. =Johann A. Hasse= (Bergedorf), 1699-1783.
Fertile opera composer, who produced over one
hundred works with success. Hasse possessed great
gifts of melody, and was fortunate in having a
remarkably fine singer in his wife, who acted as
exponent of many of the leading parts.
1700. =Faustina Hasse= (Venice). Sang also for
Handel, and was very popular in London; her salary
for 1726 was £2,000; a great rivalry existed
between Hasse and Cuzzoni.
1700. =Francesca Cuzzoni= (Modena). Also sang for
Handel; this is the lady whom he threatened to
throw out of the window unless she sang what he
wished. She died in poverty in 1770.
1700. =Nicolo Logroscino= (Naples). Wrote comic
operas, and is credited with the invention of
the concerted finale; his operas are all in the
Neapolitan dialect.
1701. =K. H. Graun= (Wahrenbrüch). Wrote
twenty-seven operas, which contain melodies and
good arias. He is better known by his church
cantatas, especially _Der Tod Jesu_.
1703. =G. M. Caffarelli= (Naples). Famous singer,
said to have been kept by Porpora for five years
to one page of exercises and then dismissed as the
greatest singer in Europe. He had great success in
male soprano parts.
1705. =Giovanni Carestini= (Ancona). Famous male
contralto, who sang for Handel in London.
1705. =C. B. Farinelli= (Naples). Another pupil of
Porpora, who sang for the party opposed to Handel;
one of the most renowned singers the world has
ever produced.
1709. =Egidio Duni= (Matera). Seems to have
founded opera comique in France, writing many such
works for the Parisian stage.
1710. =Thomas Arne= (London), 1710-78. One
of the most famous of early English opera
writers; besides many masques (including
Milton’s _Comus_) he wrote the opera
_Artaxerxes_, which enjoyed many years of
popularity. Arne is best known to-day by the
incidental music which he wrote to Shakespeare’s
_Tempest_, the song, “Where the Bee sucks,”
being world known.
1710. =G. V. Pergolesi= (Jesi), 1710-36. A
composer of great promise, whose early death may
be much lamented. Although best known by his
church music, he had many merits as a writer of
opera. His best work in this direction is a short
operetta, _La Serva Padrona_.
1712. =J. J. Rousseau= (Paris), 1712-78, the
famous litterateur, wrote operas, the most famous
of which, _Le Devin du Village_, may claim to
have been the first opera comique; its success was
enormous, but the orchestration and some of the
details are not Rousseau’s.
1714. =Nicolo Jommelli= (Aversa), 1714-74. One
of the best composers of the Neapolitan school,
who combined skilful design with melodious and
expressive themes. Mozart thought much of his
music and extolled his operas; his sacred music
alone has come down to our day.
1714. =Cristopher Willibald Gluck= (Weidenwang),
1714-87. The first of the great reformers of
opera. Besides a very large number of works
written on old models, his newer-fashioned and
enduring masterpieces include _Orfeo_ (1762),
_Alceste_ (1767), _Iphigénie en Aulide_ (1774),
_Amide_ (1777), _Iphigénie en Tauride_ (1778).
1725. =Gaetano Guadagni= (Lodi). A great male
contralto who sang for Handel and created a
_furore_ in London.
1726. =F. A. D. Philidor= (Dreux). Famous
chess player and operatic composer; was a
prolific writer. He was the first to introduce
the unaccompanied quartet upon the stage. His
happiest essay was upon the English subject _Tom
Jones_.
1728. =J. A. Hiller= (Görlitz). Established the
Singspiel, composing fourteen of these works,
which met with pronounced success.
1728. =Nicolo Piccini= (Bari). A good composer,
now mostly remembered as the opponent of Gluck;
while the fact militated against the success of
his operas upon their production, it has kept his
memory green and has gained attention for his
music, which, although on the prevalent model of
its time, has much merit.
1729. =Guiseppe Sarti= (Faenza). Produced many
operas of great excellence, which are forgotten
to-day. His triumphs were won in such contrasted
centres as Milan and St. Petersburg.
1729. =P. A. Monsigny= (St. Omer). Composed many
forgotten operas; while possessing melodic gifts
he had little training, and his scoring and
constructive powers were weak. His best works
are _Le Déserteur_ (1769), and _Félix ou
l’enfant trouvé_ (1777).
1732. =Joseph Haydn= (Rohrau), 1732-1809, the
master who excelled in so many branches of the
art, made no serious claim to be a composer of
opera. A few works were written by him for the
stage while he was attached to Count Esterhazy,
but they can in no way compare with his labours in
other fields, nor had they any bearing upon the
growth and development of opera as an art form.
1733. =F. J. Gossec= (Hainault). A Belgian
composer of some repute in his day; his operas
were mostly written for Paris.
1734. =A. M. G. Sacchini= (Pozzuoli), 1734-86.
A composer of dramatic gifts much influenced by
Gluck, whose compositions quite overshadow those
of his follower. Sacchini wrote over forty operas.
1739. =K. D. von Dittersdorf= (Vienna). Composed
very many operas, both serious and light. He
is best known by the Singspiel, _Doctor und
Apotheke_ (1786).
1741. =A. E. M. Grétry= (Liége). A fertile
composer, very gifted for the writing of opera
comique, wrote fifty operas for Paris. He had
a knack of cleverly illustrating the stage
situation, and although his harmonies were so thin
that it was said that one could “draw a coach and
four between the bass and the first fiddle,” he
yet seems to have been more apt in his musical
conceptions than many a more cultured musician.
1741. =Giovanni Paisiello= (Tarento). May be
reckoned amongst the most prolific of Italian
composers of his period. He was one of the first
to introduce the concerted finale into serious
opera, this form having hitherto been almost
entirely confined to light opera. His _Barber of
Seville_ became so famous as almost to wreck
the production of an opera under the same title by
Rossini.
1743. =Lucretia Agujari= (Ferrara). Was a singer
of extraordinary ability and compass.
1745. =Ludwig Fischer= (Mainz). Also a singer of
great compass, having a round bass voice of two
and a half octaves. He was a friend of Mozart’s,
and sang in the production of _Entführung aus
dem Serail_.
[Music]
1748. =William Shield= (Durham). Composer to
Covent Garden Theatre; wrote operas both serious
and comic. He appears to have possessed great
melodic gifts, and his many works are notable for
their vigour and their tunefulness. He died in 1829.
1749. =The Abbé Vogler= (Würzburg), 1749-1814.
Was a man of many parts; he wrote upon theatrical
matters, and composed music for the organ, for
instruments, for the church, and for the stage.
His operatic music is perhaps of the least
importance, although his stage productions number
some sixteen pieces.
1749. =Domenico Cimarosa= (Aversa). Was in his
day a most popular composer of opera, sixty-six
fine works standing to his credit. He made his
mark more especially in his comic operas, of which
_Il matrimonio segreto_ (1792) is the best
known.
1749. =Gertrude Elizabeth Mara= (Cassel). A fine
singer, made little impression upon Mozart, but
still appears to have been a great artist. She had
a beautiful voice and great facility; she was one
of Handel’s best singers in England.
1750. =Antonio Salieri= (Legnano). Wrote
thirty-seven operas and a Singspiel. His works
were modelled upon those of Gluck, and present no
special features of interest.
1752. =J. F. Reichardt= (Königsberg). Wrote some
moderately successful operas, and some important
specimens of Singspiel, mostly for Berlin.
1752. =N. A. Zingarelli= (Naples). Was a prolific
operatic composer, who penned some thirty
operas, besides much sacred music. His style was
recommended by Napoleon to Cherubini, much to the
disgust of the last-named composer.
1754. =Peter Winter= (Mannheim), 1754-1825. Wrote
a very large number of tuneful and melodious
operas. His works have not survived to the present
day, being structurally weak, but they were very
successful during the composer’s life and for a
few years afterwards.
1756. =Vincenzo Righini= (Bologna). Was operatic
singer, composer, and conductor. His twenty operas
were many of them produced at Berlin, where he was
for some years conductor of the Italian Opera.
1756. =Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart= (Salzburg),
1756-91. The long list of Mozart’s operas (many of
them written in youth) includes _Idomeneo_
(1781), _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_
(1782), _Le Nozze di Figaro_ (1786), _Don
Giovanni_ (1787), _Cosi fan tutte_
(1790), _La Clemenza di Tito_ (1791), _Die
Zauberflöte_ (1791).
1760. =Maria Luigi C. Z. S. Cherubini= (Florence),
1760-1842. An accomplished musician in all
departments; wrote fine operas, containing a
wealth of sterling music. His chief operas are
_La Finta Principessa_ (1785), _Giulio
Sabino_ (1786), _Démophon_ (1788),
_Lodoiska_ (1791), _Médée_ (1797),
_Les deux Journées_ (1800), _Anacreon_
(1803), _Faniska_ (1806), _Les
Abencerages_ (1813), _Ali Baba_ (1833).
1760. =Aloysia Weber= (Mannheim). A vocalist
for whom Mozart conceived a great affection,
eventually, however, marrying her sister. The
part of “Constance,” in _Die Entführung aus dem
Serail_, was written for her.
1761. =Katherina Cavalieri= (Währing). Was a
singer for whom both Mozart and Salieri wrote
special parts in their operas. Mozart said of her
that “she was a singer of whom Germany might well
be proud.”
1763. =Stephen Storace= (London). Produced
some early operas in Vienna, where he formed a
friendship with Mozart. On his return to London
he produced _The Haunted Tower_ (1789),
_The Pirates_ (1792), and many other works,
which attained very great success. He is almost
the earliest example of an English composer
introducing the concerted finale.
1763. =Etienne Henri Méhul= (Givet). Had a
wonderful talent for opera, of which he produced a
great quantity of examples, in addition to writing
ballets and operettas. His best known works are
_Uthal_ and _Joseph_. Méhul died in 1822.
1763. =J. F. Lesueur= (Abbeville). Wrote a certain
number of operas for Paris, of which the best is
_Les Bardes_. The march of time has left
Lesueur behind, in company with many another composer
of considerable but not commanding merits.
1766. =F. X. Süssmayer= (Steyer). Is chiefly known
to fame as being a sort of “hack” to Mozart,
writing recitatives and filling in details for the
great and busy composer, whose factotum he was for
some years.
1766. =G. Crescentini= (Urbania). Was a famous
sopranist, one of the last of his class; he won
favour from many, including the Emperor Napoleon,
who showered benefits upon him. He not only sang
magnificently, but composed arias to suit his own
voice and special style.
1766. =Joseph Weigl= (Eisenstadt). Wrote one
famous work, _Schweizer Familie_, and many
others of less import, numbering thirty-one in
all, besides ballets.
1767. =Henri Berton= (Paris). Wrote many operas.
He is interesting, moreover, as an early instance
of a composer penning his own libretti. His music
was often written in conjunction with others, such
as Cherubini, Méhul, and Spontini.
1768. =Elizabeth Billington= (London). Was a prima
donna of exceptional compass. During a long and
varied career she appeared on the boards of many
an operatic stage in Europe; her successes were,
however, largely won in England.
1770. =Ludwig von Beethoven= (Bonn), 1770-1827.
Beethoven’s single opera, _Fidelio_, was
produced at Vienna in 1806.
1771. =Ferdinand Paer= (Parma). Was an Italian
composer of many operas, both serious and comic;
his _Eleanor_ seems to have inspired
Beethoven’s _Fidelio_.
1773. =C. S. Catel= (l’Aigle). Wrote many operatic
works for the Paris Opera. His music was looked
upon by the French public as “academic” because he
held a professorship at the Conservatoire; hence
it stood condemned before trial and had little
chance. Catel was associated with Cherubini in the
composition of one opera.
1774. =G. L. P. Spontini= (Majolate), 1774-1851.
One of the most interesting personalities in the
history of opera. Although he wrote Italian opera
for Naples, his great successes were achieved
in the field of French grand opera, of which he
remains one of the shining ornaments. His chief
operas are _La Vestale_ (1807), _Ferdinand
Cortez_ (1809), _Olympia_ (1821),
_Alcidor_ (1825); none are now performed.
1774. =C. E. F. Weyse= (Altona). Was a composer
of Danish opera, whose works, however, have not
penetrated beyond the country for which they were
written. He seems to have been one of the earliest
to introduce the Scandinavian Volkslied to the
stage.
1775. =F. A. Boieldieu= (Rouen). Is world known
by his opera, _La Dame Blanche_, produced in
Paris in 1825, one of many works, but the only
one at all known to fame. He spent eight years
in Russia writing operas and ballets for that
country, but his greatest achievements belong to
his second Parisian period.
1775. =Nicolo Isouard= (Malta). Is another
composer of works for the Parisian houses, no less
than thirty-four operas standing to his credit.
Isouard and Boieldieu were in keen rivalry, to
their great advantage, since both put forth their
best work.
1780. =Angelica Catalani.= Was the possessor of a
voice of wonderful flexibility, with a speciality
for chromatic scales. For the period at which she
flourished, she probably made more money than
any other artist. Her greatest success seems to
have been as “Susanne” in Mozart’s _Nozze di
Figaro_.
1782. =D. F. E. Auber= (Caen). Was one of the
greatest masters of opera comique; his melodious
style and piquant orchestration are models of
their kind, and have secured a lasting vogue
for his works, the best known of which are
_Masaniello_ (1828), _Fra Diavolo_
(1830), _Le Chevale de Bronze_ (1835), _Le
Domino Noir_ (1837), _Les Diamants de la
Couronne_ (1842).
1782. =Conradin Kreutzer= (Mösskirch). Wrote a
number of successful operas, his powers as a
composer of attractive arias being considerable.
His fairy opera, _Der Verschwender_, may
still occasionally be heard in Germany.
1784. =Louis Spohr= (Brunswick), 1784-1859. Is a
composer mostly known in England by his sacred
music and his violin compositions. His claims as a
writer of operas must not, however, be overlooked,
his _Faust_ being in the van with regard to
Romanticism in opera. His _Jessonda_ also met
with considerable favour, and its overture often
gains a hearing in our concert rooms.
1784. =Francesco Morlacchi= (Perugia). Was
chorus-master of the Italian Opera at Dresden,
for which town he wrote a large number of works,
successful in their day, but now never heard.
He mostly excelled in the composition of light,
sparkling, and superficial music.
1786. =Carl Maria von Weber= (Eutin), 1786-1826.
Besides many early works, which call for no
special mention, Weber’s operatic productions
include _Der Freischütz_, _Euryanthe_
(1823), and _Oberon_ (1826).
1786. =Henry Rowley Bishop= (London). Was a most
prolific writer of operas for the London theatres,
eighty-two of such works standing to his name;
many of these, however, do not merit the term
“opera” as we understand it to-day. Bishop was
most effective in his choruses and his writing for
the voice generally.
1787. =M. E. Carafa= (Naples). Wrote thirty-five
operas, which met with great success in Italy; he
is now a forgotten composer.
1790. =Alberico Curioni= (Naples?). Was a famous
tenor singer who met with great success in London,
notably in the opera _Medea_.
1790. =Nicola Vaccaj= (Tolentino). Wrote many
Italian operas, particularly for Venice. One at
least of his works was also presented in London,
where he lived for a short time.
1791. =Giacomo Meyerbeer= (Berlin), 1791-1864. Is
a very notable figure in the annals of opera, and
his best works still survive in the repertoires
of the leading houses. These are _Robert
le Diable_ (1831), _Les Huguenots_
(1836), _Le Prophète_ (1849), _L’Étoile
du Nord_ (1854), _Dinorah_ (1859), and
_L’Africaine_ (1864).
1791. =L. J. F. Hérold= (Paris). Is best known by
his _Zampa_ and _Le Pré aux Clercs_,
both of which are frequently before the public.
1791. =P. J. Lindpaintner= (Coblenz). Wrote
twenty-eight operas, mostly forgotten now. The
best seems to be _Der Vampyr_.
1792. =G. A. Rossini= (Pesaro), 1792-1868. Is
world known, if only for his _William Tell_
music. From his enormous list of operatic works,
the following may be selected for mention:
_Tancredi_ (1813), _L’Italiani in
Algeri_ (1813), _Il Barbiere di Siviglia_
(1816), _La Cenerentola_ (1817), _La Gazza
Ladra_ (1817), _Semiramide_ (1823),
_Mosé in Egitto_ (1818), _Guillaume
Tell_ (1829).
1794. =Luigi Lablache= (Naples). Was a magnificent
bass singer who delighted Europe. He excelled
in both serious and comic parts, and was a
well-equipped artist.
1795. =G. B. Rubini= (Romano). Was equally
celebrated as a tenor of the first rank. His
greatest successes were attained in Rossini’s and
Bellini’s operas.
1796. =Giovanni Pacini= (Catania). Wrote a
large number of operas, of which the best is
_Saffo_ (Naples, 1840). His works total
eighty specimens of opera alone, but most are
written upon the pattern of Rossini.
1796. =Heinrich Marschner= (Zittau). Was a
powerful composer of romantic opera. _Hans
Heiling_ is especially fine, while mention must
also be made of _Templer und Jüdin_ and of
_Der Vampyr_. His operas are conceived in a
kindred spirit to that of Weber’s.
1797. =Franz Schubert= (Vienna), 1797-1828.
Schubert’s importance as a writer of opera is
small as compared with his achievement in other
fields—such as song and symphony. The chief in degree
are _Fierrabras_ and _Alfonso und Estella_.
1797. =Saverio Mercadante= (Altamura). Wrote a
number of operas on the Italian model, of which
_Il Guiramento_ (Milan, 1837) is the finest.
1797. =Lucy Elizabeth Vestris= (London). Made
a great impression as a singer upon the opera
habitués of her day. She was the original “Fatima”
in the production of _Oberon_.
1797. =Gaetano Donizetti= (Bergamo). Wrote a
very large number of operas, which present such
opportunities to vocalists as to be frequently
produced to-day. The chief ones in the modern
repertoire are _Lucia di Lammermoor_ (1835),
_Lucretia Borgia_ (1833), _L’Elisir
d’Amore_, _La Fille du Régiment_
(1840), _Linda di Chamounix_ (1842), _La
Favorita_ (1840), _Don Pasquale_.
1798. =Giudetta Pasta= (Como). Was an Italian
singer of great charm and ability; in Rossini’s
operas she appears to have been almost unequalled.
1798. =K. G. Reissiger= (Belzig). A prolific
composer, produced many operas of an “academic”
class, which have not survived their day.
1799. =J. F. F. E. Halévy= (Paris). Wrote a vast
number of French operas, the best known of which
is _La Juive_.
1800. =Antonio Tamburini= (Faenza). Was a baritone
singer and a member of the famous “Puritani”
quartet, which delighted both London and Paris for
so many years. He excelled in his interpretation of
the baritone parts of operas of the Rossini school.
1801. =Vincenzo Bellini= (Catania). This
famous opera composer is still known by the
frequent performance of his best works—_La
Somnambula_ (1831), _Norma_ (1831), _I
Puritani_ (1835). More might have come from
this composer, had he not died at the early age of
thirty-four.
1802. =John Barnett= (Bedford). Was an English
composer of a number of operas and of music for
stage pieces. He has the credit of the first real
English opera since Arne’s _Artexerxes_ in
his _Mountain Sylph_, produced in 1835.
This is his best known work, but he wrote other
operas, such as _Fair Rosamund_ (1837) and
_Farinelli_ (1839).
1802. =Louis Niedermeyer= (Nyon). Had the
misfortune to produce several operas which were
mostly failures. He had, however, original ideas
as to orchestration, and is worthy of remembrance
for his gifts of melody.
1803. =Adolphe Charles Adam= (Paris). Wrote grand
opera, ballet music, and opera comique, being only
remembered for the last-named, for which he had
real talent. His best work is _Le Postillon de
Longjumeau_ (1836).
1803. =G. A. Lortzing= (Berlin). Wrote many operas
still popular in Germany; one indeed, _Peter the
Shipwright_, has met with considerable success
in this country. He wrote upon a model which
Sullivan so excellently employed in his light
operas.
1803. =Hector Berlioz= (Grenoble), 1803-69. An
eccentric genius among musicians. Wrote operas
such as _Les Troyens_ and _Benvenuto
Cellini_, which contain fine music, but which
have never pleased the public, and which remain
practically unperformed.
1804. =Julius Benedict= (Stuttgart). Although
a German, is always looked upon as an English
composer, his life having been spent in this
country. He is best known by his often-performed
_Lily of Killarney_, which dates from 1862.
Benedict died in 1885.
1804. =Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient= (Hamburg).
Must always remain a person of interest to
musicians, in that she created the part of Leonora
in Beethoven’s _Fidelio_ upon its revival in
1822, when that work really gained a fair hearing.
She was also an early exponent of Wagnerian parts
(Senta, Venus, etc.).
1804. =Michael I. Glinka= (Novospaskoi). Is the
earliest of Russian opera composers to be known
outside his own country, and he is important,
not only for his compositions of _Life for the
Czar_ and _Russlan_, but also in that
he founded a school of Russian opera which has
brought forth much fruit.
1805. =Luigi Ricci= (Naples). Wrote a large number
of operas, very famous in their day, but now
forgotten.
1805. =Manuel Garcia= (Madrid). The wonderful
centenarian: claims notice as the trainer of those
fine operatic artists, Jenny Lind and Catherine
Hayes.
1806. =Henrietta Sontag= (Coblenz). Was a charming
and gifted soprano of European reputation, who
delighted all hearers, and seems to have combined
a charming personality with great artistic
attainments.
1807. =J. A. Tichatschek= (Weckelsdorf). Was
a Bohemian tenor who made for himself a great
reputation in all the grand operas of the greater
masters. He was also the original “Rienzi” and
“Tannhäuser.”
1808. =A. L. Clapisson= (Naples). Was a graceful
composer of many operas which pleased in their
day, but which have had no continuance of popular
favour.
1808. =Michael William Balfe= (Dublin), 1808-1888.
Is the best known of English opera writers of
his period, and his _Bohemian Girl_ (1843)
is familiar to all. Other of his successes are
_The Siege of Rochelle_ (1835), _The Maid
of Artois_ (1836), _Blanche de Nevers_
(1863), _Il Talismano_ (1874).
1808. =Michael A. A. Costa= (Naples). Was best
known as a conductor, more especially of the
Italian opera in England. He wrote a few forgotten
specimens, but is mainly of importance as a
wielder of the bâton. Costa died in 1884.
1808. =P. L. P. Dietsch= (Dijon). Was also a
conductor. His chief claim to fame seems to have
been that he purchased the libretto of Wagner’s
_Flying Dutchman_, and clothed it with
absolutely forgotten music.
1808. =Albert Gnsar= (Antwerp). Wrote a number of
comic operas for Paris. They seem to have been
works of elegance and grace, without special
distinction.
1808. =Marie Felicita Malibran= (Paris). Performed
in opera at the age of five. She seems to have had
no rivals as a singer, and excelled in all parts
which she undertook. She created an indelible
impression upon all that were fortunate enough to
hear her.
1809. =Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy= (Hamburg),
1809-1847. The claims of Mendelssohn as a writer
of opera are not serious, and are confined to
a few early and incomplete works. The best,
musically, is the fragment of _Lorelei_.
1809. =F. Ricci= (Naples). Like his brother
Luigi, wrote operas which have not survived their
generation.
1809. =J. H. Hatton= (Liverpool). Is better known
as a writer of songs than of operas. He wrote,
however, a good deal of incidental music for the
stage, as well as one real opera.
1810. =Robert Schumann= (Zwickau), 1810-56.
Schumann’s one contribution to the field of opera
is his _Genoveva_, which is seldom heard, in
spite of many unquestionable beauties.
1810. =Otto Nicolai= (Königsberg). Was a capable
composer and conductor. He is chiefly known to
fame by his masterpiece, _The Merry Wives of
Windsor_, which was produced in Berlin in 1849.
1810. =Félicien C. David= (Cadenet). A French
composer of operas; is not to be confused with
Ferdinand David the violinist, and friend of
Mendelssohn. Félicien wrote grand operas for
Paris, and his greatest success seems to have been
_Lalla Rookh_ (1862).
1811. =P. J. A. Varney= (Paris). Is one of the
minor lights of French Opera, his works, which are
of small importance, being in the light style.
1811. =C. Ambroise Thomas= (Metz), 1811-96. Was
one of the greatest representatives of modern
French opera, who possessed real talent for
writing for the stage. He learnt much from both
Gounod and Hérold, and is best known by his operas
_Mignon_ (1866) and _Hamlet_ (1868).
1812. =F. von Flotow= (Bentendorf). Is the
composer of _Martha_, an ever-popular light
opera; the music of this, as of his many other
works, is by no means exalted, but pleases by its
melodious and tuneful attractiveness.
1812. =Giulia Grisi= (Milan). Was one of the most
famous operatic artists of last century, and the
soprano of the “Puritani” quartet (Grisi, Rubini,
Tamburini, and Lablache). Like so many artists of
that period, her great achievements were in the
works of Rossini.
1812. =Cavaliere Mario= (Cagliari). Was an even
greater tenor, who eventually married Grisi. Like
his wife he was the idol of the English and French
capitals for many seasons.
1812. =Fanny Persiani= (Rome). Was yet another
singer of Rossinian opera. She was a fine actress
as well as a vocalist, and commanded universal
admiration.
1813. =Enrico Petrella= (Palermo). Produced an
Italian opera practically every year for many
years. This composer has been dead for nearly
thirty years, and his operas seem to have shared
the same fate.
1813. =Richard Wagner= (Leipsic), 1813-83. The names and
dates of Wagner’s chief operas are:—_Rienzi_ (Dresden)
1842; _The Flying Dutchman_ (Dresden) 1843; _Tannhäuser_
(Dresden) 1845; _Lohengrin_ (Weimar) 1850; The Ring:—(1)
_Rheingold_ (Munich) 1859; (2) _Die Walküre_ (Munich)
1870; (3) _Siegfried_ (Bayreuth) 1876; (4)
_Gotterdämmerung_, (Bayreuth) 1876; _Tristan und Isolde_
(Munich) 1865; _Die Meistersinger_ (Munich) 1868;
_Parsifal_ (Bayreuth), 1882.
1813. =Giuseppe Verdi= (Roncole) 1813-1901. Verdi’s operas
are very numerous: these may perhaps be specially
mentioned:—_I Lombardi_, 1843; _Ernani_, 1844;
_Rigoletto_, 1851; _Il Trovatore_, 1853; _La Traviata_,
1853; _Un Ballo in Maschera_, 1857; _Aïda_, 1871;
_Otello_, 1887; _Falstaff_, 1893.
1813. =A. S. Dargomizhsky= (Toula). Is of considerable
importance in the development of national Russian opera;
of his works we may mention _The Roussalka_ (1856)
and _The Stone Guest_, only performed three years
after his death, in 1872.
1813. =G. A. Macfarren= (London). So well known
as a theorist; essayed many operas, of which
_Robin Hood_ was the most successful. Other
of his works are _The Devil’s Opera_ and
_Helvellyn_.
1813. =E. J. Loder= (Bath). Was an English writer
of operas, the best of which is the _Night
Dancers_ (1846).
1814. =Emma Albertazzi= (London). An English
prima donna who married an Italian. She sang in
all the chief houses of opera, but was a poor and
indifferent actress.
1814. =W. V. Wallace= (Waterford). Is known to all
by his tuneful, if ordinary, _Maritana_. He
wrote better works, and his _Lurline_ may be
mentioned.
1815. =G. Hippolyte Roger= (Saint-Denis). Was a
great French tenor, for whom Ambroise Thomas,
Auber, Clapesson and others wrote operas. He
unfortunately lost an arm, and had to give up the
stage.
1817. =Carlo Pedrotti= (Verona). Wrote Italian
operas, of which mention may be made of _Tutti
in Maschera_ and _Il Favorito_.
1817. =Aimé Maillart= (Montpellier). Won the Grand
Prix de Rome, and wrote operas which had some
measure of success.
1817. =Francesco Lamperti= (Savona). A great
teacher of singing, whose pupils include Albani,
Mariani, and Shakespeare.
1818. =C. F. Gounod= (Paris), 1818-93. Besides the
evergreen _Faust_ (1859), Gounod’s other
successes include _The Mock Doctor_,
_Philémon and Baucis_, _Mireille_, and
_Romeo and Juliet_, all of which are often heard.
1818. =J. Sims Reeves= (Woolwich). In his palmy
days was often heard in opera, the tenor parts
of many melodious operas in favour at the time
exactly suiting his methods and style.
1818. =A. N. Serov= (Petersburg). Serov was a
Russian composer who admired and followed Wagner;
his works have their place in the annals of opera
in his country.
1819. =Jacques Offenbach= (Cologne). A prolific
composer of some seventy specimens of opera bouffe
and operetta; in light works such as these he
achieved almost unexampled success, and enjoyed
immense popularity.
1820. =Jenny Lind= (Stockholm). This name is
fresh in the memory of all, although its gifted
possessor went the way of all flesh some thirty
years ago. As a singer she commanded universal
admiration, while as a woman she was looked up to
and respected by all. Her triumphs in operatic
soprano parts were such as to be seldom equalled.
1820. =Franz von Suppé= (Spalato). Was the German
equivalent of Offenbach—a prolific writer of
comic opera.
1821. =C. A. F. Echert= (Potsdam). Wrote an opera
at the age of ten, and others at a later date. He
won more fame, however, as a conductor, holding
important posts in this capacity at Paris, Vienna,
and Berlin.
1821. =M. F. P. Viardot-Garcia= (Paris). A
young sister of Malibran, attained considerable
celebrity as a singer and actress; she appeared
not only in works of the Rossini school, but in
the operas of Meyerbeer, Gluck, and others.
1821. =Italo Gardoni= (Parma). Was a tenor singer
of repute, who to a considerable extent took the
place of Mario; he sang frequently in London.
1822. =Apolloni.= Was an Italian composer who
wrote operas upon the early Verdi model, achieving
one great success in _L’Ebreo_.
1822. =Luigi Arditi= (Crescentino). Although he
composed a few operas, is more widely remembered
as a conductor, he having wielded the bâton during
many operatic seasons both in England and abroad.
1822. =César Franck= (Liége). His merits seem only
now beginning to be recognized as a composer;
wrote a small number of operas, of which the music
appears to have been heard only in the concert
room.
1822. =F. M. V. Massé= (Lorient). Wrote some
operas in the style of Auber with very great
success. A number of later works, some of which
have been produced at Covent Garden, have been
less favourably received.
1823. =Edouard Lalo= (Lille). The writer of some
excellent violin music; includes among his
writings one work, _Le Roi d’ Ys_, which is
often to be heard.
1823. =L. E. E. Reyer= (Marseilles). Is yet another
French composer of opera, chiefly known by his
_Sigurd_, produced in 1884.
1823. =Marietta Alboni= (Cesena). Was a
world-renowned contralto, who created a furore
in London. She was set up as a sort of rival
attraction to Jenny Lind, who was performing at
another theatre, and was powerful enough to hold
her own.
1824. =Peter Cornelius= (Mainz). Wrote a number
of operas, of which _The Barber of Bagdad_
seems to have been a kind of forerunner of _Die
Meistersinger_, and is enormously in favour in
Germany.
1824. =Friedrich Smetana= (Leitomischl). Is the
father of Bohemian opera, and his work, _The
Bartered Bride_, paved the way for a series
of national operas which are dear indeed to the
hearts of the Bohemians. He is important, also, as
the model upon which Dvŏràk framed much of his work.
1825. =F. R. Hervé= (Houdain). Wrote a very large
number of French operettas of a very light trend,
which are hardly likely to go down to posterity.
1826. =Mathilde Marchesi= (Frankfort). An eminent
soprano vocalist, whose influence has been
widely felt in the operatic world, not only by
her performances, but also by her teaching. Her
_Ecole de Chant_ and vocal exercises are
world known.
1826. =Ivar Hallström= (Stockholm). A Swedish
composer of operas; has produced works of a
distinctly national impress.
1827. =Marie Carvalho= (Marseilles). A French
vocalist; was at one time in the first rank of
artists of the grand opera and the opera comique.
She specially excelled in her interpretations of
the soprano characters of the Gounod operas.
1828. =Antonio Cagnoni= (Godiasco). Wrote a
number of Italian operas of moderate quality; his
attentions were mostly confined to opera buffa.
1828. =Ferdinand Poise= (Nîmes). Wrote a number of
charming light works, somewhat in the style of his
master Adam. Paris was the scene of his labours.
1829. =Anton Rubinstein= (Wechwotynecz). Bears a
name well known in many musical fields: in opera
he was hardly great, his music being non-dramatic
in character. He wrote _The Demon_ and a few
“sacred operas.”
1829. =Ciro Pinsuti= (Siena). Is indeed popular as
a writer of songs; it is not so well known that he
includes amongst his larger works operas that have
been produced at La Scala, Milan, and elsewhere.
1830. =Karl Goldmark= (Keszthely). The most
famous opera by this composer is _The Queen
of Sheba_, produced at Vienna in 1875;
subsequent and less successful productions include
_Merlin_ (1886) and _The Cricket on the
Hearth_ (1896).
1830. =Edouard Lassen= (Copenhagen). Another
writer of melodious songs; produced three
successful operas. He also succeeded Liszt as
conductor at Weimar.
1830. =Edmund Kretschmer= (Ostritz). Had at one
period a reputation as a composer of opera, which
recent years have failed to maintain.
1831. =T. C. J. Tietjens= (Hamburg). One of the
most brilliant and successful _prime donne_
of the nineteenth century; she excelled alike in
light opera and grand opera, in secular music and
in sacred. Her early death in 1877 was lamented
by all who had heard her beautiful and artistic
interpretations of the masterpieces of opera and
of oratorio.
1832. =A. C. Lecocq= (Paris). A prolific composer
of light French pieces in the manner of Offenbach.
Not to be reckoned with as serious music, his
compositions are notable for their sprightliness,
vivacity, and verve.
1834. =Pierre L. L. Benoit= (Harlebeke). Is a
Flemish composer and an apostle of a Flemish
school of composition which he endeavours to form.
Among his many works are operas and dramatic
pieces.
1834. =A. P. V. Borodine= (S. Petersburg). Is
well known as a chemist and an opera writer. His
music, national in character, is best study from
an operatic point of view in _Prince Igor_.
Borodine’s music is also well known in the concert
hall. He died in 1887.
1834. =A. Ponchielli= (Paderno). Although he died
as long ago as 1886, must be classed as a composer
of the young Italian school. His chef d’œuvre,
_La Gioconda_, often obtains a hearing.
1834. =Charles Santley= (Liverpool). Famous alike
on the stage and in the concert hall; while
his attentions have been latterly confined to
oratorio. His was a familiar figure on the Covent
Garden stage some forty years ago.
1835. =Filippo Marchetti= (Bologna). A member
of the Italian school of composers. Wrote many
operas, _Ruy Blas_ achieving great success.
1835. =César A. Cui= (Vilna). Has built up a
reputation for himself amongst Russian composers
for his works of every description, and he has an
important place amongst those who have developed
opera in Russia. _William Ratcliff_ and _Le
Flibustier_ deserve special mention.
1835. =C. C. Saint-Saëns= (Paris). One of the most
versatile and gifted of modern French composers;
has enriched the world by a few operas and by
the sacred drama _Samson et Dalila_, which
is often heard in English concert rooms. More
recent efforts include _Henry VIII._ and
_Phryne_.
1836. =Emil Hartmann= (Copenhagen). Is one of the
few operatic composers of Denmark. His music is
not heard in England.
1837. =Ernest Guiraud= (New Orleans). A
contemporary and co-worker of Délibes; wrote
_Piccolino_ and other pieces.
1837. =F. C. T. Dubois= (Rosney). The famous
French organist; has also achieved certain success
with his operas and ballets.
1837. =Joseph Huber= (Sigmaringen). A disciple of
the German school. Wrote two operas, popular in
their day.
1838. =Georges Bizet= (Paris). Is never likely to
be forgotten so long as _Carmen_ attains to a
tithe of its present popularity. This bright and
sparkling work is deservedly in the front rank of
favourite operas. Bizet wrote several unimportant
operas before _Carmen_, but his early death
prevented his giving to the world any successor to
that famous opera.
1838. =Zelia Trebelli= (Paris). A
_prima donna_ of high rank. She made her
début at Madrid, and was successful in Germany and
in London, where her appearances in Italian opera
were very frequent.
1838. =Frederic Clay= (Paris). The composer of the
popular “I’ll sing thee songs of Araby.” Wrote
several light operas for Covent Garden and other
English houses.
1839. =C. P. L. Délibes= (St. Germain du Val).
Wrote bright and sparkling music, and was most
successful in the ballet. Everyone is familiar
with his _Sylvia_, and among his operas are
_Lakmé_ and _Le Roi l’a dit_.
1839. =Carlos Gomez= (Compinos). Was a Brazilian
composer, whose opera _Il Guarany_ was
performed at Covent Garden.
1839. =V. de Goncieres= (Paris). Has produced
several grand operas, none of which have met with
continued success.
1839. =Edward Napravnik= (Königgratz). Was for a
time the conductor of opera in Petersburg, and
also wrote many national operas and songs.
1839. =Joseph Rheinberger= (Vaduz). Famous as a
writer of organ music, and of achievements in
almost all branches of composition; ventured also
into the operatic field with his work _Die
Sieben Raben_.
1840. =Hermann Goetz= (Königsberg). Was a
short-lived composer, whose opera, _The Taming
of the Shrew_, showed the possession of
extraordinary gifts.
1840. =P. Tchaïkovsky= (Votinsk). This gifted
and versatile composer is known in England only
by his _Eugene Oniegin_, so far as opera is
concerned.
1841. =Antonin Dvŏrák= (Kralup). The Bohemian
composer’s operas are hardly as successful as his
chamber music and his symphonies.
1841. =Victor Nessler= (Baldenheim). Wrote popular
operas for Germany. Their music is not of high rank,
but such works as _Der Trumpeter von Säkkingen_
enjoy great popularity.
1841. =Franco Faccio= (Verona). Is an obscure
composer of Italian opera, whose compositions
display no particular originality.
1841. =Pauline Lucca= (Vienna). A soprano vocalist
who appeared in operas of Meyerbeer and others.
Alike in Germany, Russia, and England, she
seems to have aroused the keenest interest and
excitement. Her voice was one of extended compass
and of a sympathetic quality.
1841. =Emmanuel Chabrier= (Ambert). Wrote some
operas, the best of which was _Le Roi malgré
lui_.
1842. =Carl Millōcker= (Vienna). Composer of
Singspiel.
1842. =Heinrich Hofmann= (Berlin). Wrote music
dramas and operas, and sought to compose light
works on the grand opera plan, omitting all
dialogue.
1842. =Jules F. E. Massenet= (Montand). Is one of
the most famous living composers of French opera,
many of whose works may be heard in this country.
_Hérodiade_, _Manon_, _Le Cid_,
_Esclamonde_, _Werther_, and other works
testify to his ability and industry, and he is a
factor to be reckoned with in the development of
opera in France.
1842. =Arrigo Boito= (Padua). Is the composer of
_Mefistofele_ and of the unheard _Nero_.
1842. =Edmund Audran= (Lyons). Was a famous
composer of comic opera, producing many light
works in Paris and in London.
1842. =A. S. Sullivan= (London). Composed the
opera _Ivanhoe_. He was also practically the
originator of a charming form of comedy opera. He
died in 1900.
1843. =Christine Nilsson= (Wexio). A Swedish
soprano, and yet another of that brilliant band of
gifted singers who delighted the habitués of the
opera a few decades back.
1843. =Adelina Patti= (Madrid). First appeared in
England in opera in 1861. Her successes were all
made in Italian opera, with music of the florid
type. Her appearances before the public are still
frequent.
1843. =Hans Richter= (Raab). Is one of the
greatest of conductors, and the greatest living
authority upon Wagner, whose pupil and friend he
was. Dr. Richter conducts the German performances
at Covent Garden, and was responsible for the
first production of the _Ring_ at Bayreuth in
1876.
1844. =F. Cellier= (London). Wrote light operas
after the style of Sullivan, whose manner he
successfully caught.
1844. =Rimsky-Korsakoff= (Tichwin). In the van of
modern Russian musicians. In opera he created some
successes, notably in _The May Night_. His
last opera (the 15th) is entitled _The Golden
Cock_.
1844. =Emile Paladilhe= (Montpellier). A member of
the younger French school; chiefly known by his
_Patrie_.
1846. =H. C. A. G. Serpette= (Nantes). Has also
written French operas, but of a lighter style,
pertaining to the Buffo character.
1846. =Ignaz Brüll= (Prossnitz). Has written a
very large number of operas, the best known of
which, _The Golden Cross_, has been produced
in England by the Carl Rosa Company. His operas
are of the German school.
1847. =Augusta Holmes= (Paris). Is one of the few
women writers of opera.
1847. =Alexander Mackenzie= (Edinburgh). Has
produced operas with the Carl Rosa Company, and
has also unheard works in his desk awaiting a
favourable opportunity for production.
1847. =Amalie Materna= (St. Georgen). A famous
soprano of German opera, and a great Wagnerian
singer, her impersonations of Brünnhilde being
specially fine.
1847. =Joseph Maas= (Dartford). Was a good tenor
vocalist, and an indifferent actor. Although often
heard upon the stage, he was more appreciated in
concert work.
1848. =Luigi Mancinelli= (Orvieto). Is the popular
conductor of Italian opera at Covent Garden. As a
composer he is also known, both of opera and of
oratorio.
1849. =B. L. P. Godard= (Paris). Wrote much music
in many styles. His operas did not attain to the
popularity of his chamber music or pianoforte
pieces.
1850. =Albani= (Chambly). Whose real name is Marie
Lajeunesse, is familiar to all concert goers of
the present day. Her operatic successes during the
two last decades of the nineteenth century were
many, and she sang well such parts as “Isolde” and
“Elsa.”
1850. =Zdenko Fibich= (Bohemian). Has written
operas of the type popularized in his country by
Smetana.
1850. =Robert Planquette= (Paris). Composed the
evergreen _Cloches de Corneville_, so dear
to the heart of the Frenchman. His operettas are
bright and sparkling.
1850. =Anton Siedl= (Pesth). A Wagnerian conductor
of power. He has conducted on the Continent, in
England, and in America.
1851. =A. Goring Thomas= (Ratton). This composer
of so many favourite songs, wrote the operas
_Esmeralda_ and _Nadeshda_, from which
excerpts are frequently heard.
1851. =Vincent d’Indy= (Paris). Is a prominent
modern French composer; his _Fervaal_ is a
fine dramatic work.
1851. =Tamagno= (Turin). A celebrated operatic
tenor, whose fees of £400 per night in America are
said to have created a record for male vocalists.
Tamagno died in 1905.
1851. =Jan Blockx= (Belgian composer). Is the
director of the Flemish School of Music in
Antwerp; he has written several operas, of which
mention may be made of _Princesse d’Auberge_.
1852. =Frederick Cowen= (Jamaica). The well-known
song-writer and conductor has made several essays
on opera with more or less success.
1852. =C. V. Stanford= (Dublin). Is one of the
strongest hopes of the English school of opera
composition; his various efforts, although hardly
crowned with unqualified success, are almost all
noteworthy and distinctly great in achievement.
1852. =Frederick Corder= (London). Composed
_Nordisa_ for the Carl Rosa Company.
1852. =Jean de Reszke= (Warsaw). One of the
greatest of operatic tenors, whose interpretations
of the Wagner rôles has seldom been equalled.
1852. =Barton McGuckin= (Dublin). Tenor vocalist
of repute.
1854. =Engelbert Hamperdinck= (Siegburg). The
composer of the popular _Hansel and Gretel_.
1855. =E. de Reszke= (Warsaw). Brother of the
famous tenor, and an almost equally great
baritone; excels in such parts as “Sachs”
(_Meistersinger_), etc.
1857. =Alfred Bruneau= (Paris). An extremely
modern French composer, whose striking works
create much discussion.
1858. =Giacomo Puccini= (Lucca). Is an Italian
composer whose works are now enjoying very
great popularity, quite a number of them being
constantly before the public.
1858. =R. Leoncavallo= (Naples). Is another
member of the Italian school, and the composer of
_Pagliacci_.
1859. =T. J. Paderewski= (Podolia). The
world-renowned pianist; has also composed a fairly
successful opera.
1860. =Gustave Charpentier= (French school). Has
written _Louise_, a familiar and popular work
across the Channel.
1864. =Richard Strauss= (Munich). The modern
writer of symphonic poems; has produced operas. He
is a conductor of the Royal Berlin Opera House.
1864. =Pietro Mascagni= (Leghorn). Is the composer
of the tuneful _Cavalleria Rusticana_ and
other works.
Among other contemporary composers and singers of opera may be
mentioned:—
_Composers._
Eugene d’Albert
H. Bunning
Cilea
Coronaro
Hamish McCunn
A. Catalani
Delius
G. Dupont
C. Debussy
Dupais
Enna
F. d’Erlanger
Filasi
Ernest Ford
Franchetti
Glazounow
Gilson
Giordano
Galli
Edward German
J. Holbrooke
Kienzl
F. Leoi
I. de Lara
Laparra
Leroux
A. Messager
McAlpin
McLean
Edward Naylor
Orefice
Reznicika
E. Solomon
Max Schillings
Miss E. Smyth
Somerville
W. Stenhammer
Spinelli
Tasca
Tinel
Siegfried Wagner
Amherst Webber
F. Weingartner
_Conductors._
Signor Campanini
Herr Lohse
Mottl
Mahler
Frigara
Eckhold
Signor Mugnone
A. Messager
E. Goosens
W. van Norden
Nikisch
Panizza
Percy Pitt
T. Beecham
_Singers._
M. Alvarez
M. Ancona
Suzanne Adams
Signor Anselmi
Fraulein Alten
L. Arens
Signor Ballisini
Marie Brema
A. Black
Mdlle. Bauermeister
Madame Eames
Olive Fremstad
Madame Frease Green
M. Gilibert
Madame Giachetti
McHinckley
M. Hérold
Walter Hyde
M. Journet
Alice Nielsen
Agnes Nicholls
Madame Nordica
Mdlle. Olitzka
Plancon
Van Rooy
Reinl
Herr Reiss
Russ
Madame Sembrich
Herr Burrian
David Bispham
Signor Caruso
Madame Calvé
John Coates
M. Cotreuil
Herr Cornelius
Madamede Cisneros
Fraulein Destinn
Van Dyck
Dani
Mdlle. Donalda
Fraulein Delsarta
M. Dufriche
Signor Dalmorés
Knupfer-Egli
Selma Kurz
Kirkby Lunn
Zelie de Lussan
M. Lafitte
M. Maurel
Marian McKenzie
John McCormack
Madame Melba
Charles Manners
Fanny Moody
Joseph O’Mara
Blanche Marchesi
Thomas Meux
Madame Norelli
Signor Sammarco
Salignac
Scotti
M. Saleza
Madame Sobrino
M. Seveilhac
Madame Saltzmann-Stevens
M. Slezak
Fraulein Ternina
Edna Thornton
Madame Tettrazini
Vignas
Madame Wittich
C. Whitehill
Gleeson White
Appendix B.
Financial Aid Granted to Operatic Schemes from State or Municipal Funds.
(Drawn from the Government return made in pursuance of the Address of
the House of Commons of March 2nd, 1903.)
-----------+------------+--------------------+----------------------
COUNTRY. | TOWN. | AMOUNT. | COMMENTS.
-----------+------------+--------------------+----------------------
Argentine |Buenos Ayres| Nil. |Municipal taxation
Republic | | | exempted to
| | | performing Companies
| | | at the Opera.
Austria and| Vienna | Free Theatre given:|Opera House cost
Hungary | | deficit made good | £509,795 to build.
| | from the Emperor’s|
| | Civil list. |
| Buda-Pesth | £24,208 and £250 |An additional grant
| | for salaries. | from the Sovereign
| | | of £13,334.
| Prague | £3,750. |(For the Czech Theatre
| | | for 1903).
Bavaria | Munich | Municipality keeps | A sum of £12,500 goes
| | up the Court | to the general
| | Theatre. | upkeep of the
| | Prince Regent | Court Theatre and
| | Theatre (New Opera| Residency Theatre
| | House) free | in Munich from the
| | electric lighting| Royal Civil list.
| | up to £1,125. |
| Würtemberg | Deficit, averaging | House used for
| | £15,000, made | dramatic as well as
| | good by the King | operatic purposes.
| | of Würtemberg. |
| | |
Belgium | | | Subsidies granted to
| | | composers of from
| | | 500 to 1,500 francs
| | | per act on approved
| | | operas; also of
| | | from 60 to 250
| | | francs per
| | | performance.
| Brussels | Théâtre Royale de | Rent free, but many
| | la Monnaie, | conditions imposed.
| | £5,600. |
| Antwerp | Subsidy varied |
| | according to |
| | requirements. |
| | |
Bulgaria | | Nil. |
| |
Central | San José | 1897, French Opera, £4,000.
America-- | | 1898, Italian Opera, £1,200.
Costa Rica | | 1899, Nil.
| | 1900, Italian Opera, £920.
| | 1901-2, Nil.
| | 1903, Italian Opera, £480.
| | |
Guatemala | Guatemala | A varying amount. |
| | |
Salvador | San | Amounts varying | Free use of the
| Salvador | from £277 to | National Theatre.
| | £6,068 for various|
| | kinds of opera |
| | during the last |
| | 12 years. |
| | |
Chili | Santiago | An amount, about | Rent free: the same
| | £5,000, “if the | company apparently
| | municipality is | visits Chili
| | satisfied with | annually from
| | the performances.”| Europe.
| | |
Denmark | Copenhagen | Deficit on Royal |
| | paid from State |
| | Theatre accounts.|
| | |
Egypt | Cairo and | £E5,000 for 36 |
| Alexandria| operas and 24 |
| | comedies. |
| | £E4,000 for the |
| | Cairo Opera House|
| | and another |
| | theatre for |
| | upkeep. |
| | |
France | Paris | Opera, £32,000. | Rent free.
| | Opera Comique, |
| | £12,000. |
| | |
Germany | Berlin | £54,000 from the | State contributes to
| | Crown for the | the upkeep and
| | Opera House and | repairs.
| | the Play House. |
| | |
Great | | Nil. |
Britain | | |
| | |
Greece | | Nil. | Small amounts
| | | occasionally granted
| | | from Municipal Funds
| | | in various towns.
| | |
| | |
Italy | Rome | Nil. | £2,400, withdrawn
| | | in 1898.
| | |
| Milan | La Scala receives |
| | £3,900 for 50 |
| | performances. |
| | |
| Turin | Municipal Orchestra| Previous subsidy
| | lent for operatic| withdrawn.
| | purposes. |
| | |
| Naples | £3,200 for the |
| | San Carlo House. |
| | |
| Venice | Varying amounts on |
| | special occasions.|
| | |
Norway | Christiania| About £1,100 granted per
| | annum to the National
| | Theatre (not exclusively
| | for opera).
| |
Peru | Lima | Occasional grants to
| | travelling companies
| | for opera.
| |
Portugal | Lisbon | San Carlos Opera House
| | rent free.
| |
Russia | Petersburg | Details unavailable.
| and | In 1902 the sum of about
| Moscow | £300,000 was granted by
| | the Emperor to the three
| | Imperial Theatres in
| | these cities.
| |
| Warsaw | Nil. | Former subsidy
| | | withdrawn.
| | |
| Riga | Nil. | Managed by a “Guild.”
| | |
| Odessa | Opera House maintained
| | by Municipality.
| | |
| | |
Saxony | Coburg and | £3,778 to the Ducal| Rent free.
| Gotha | Court Theatre. |
| | |
| Dresden | £31,000 paid by the King,
| | and any deficit made
| | good (£15,000 in 1903).
| | |
| | Many other towns grant
| | free use of the theatre,
| | and sometimes of the
| | Municipal orchestra, the
| | scenery, dresses, etc.
| | |
Servia | Belgrade | Royal National | Used for opera
| | Theatre receives | and drama.
| | £1,720 per annum.|
| | |
Spain | | Nil: various “schools of
| | music” and orchestras
| | receive Municipal aid.
| | |
Sweden | Stockholm | Royal Theatre (mainly
| | opera) receives £3,330
| | from the Crown, and
| | £3,330 from the State;
| | also various other amounts.
| | |
Switzerland| Berne | £280 to the theatre orchestra.
| | |
| Basle | £1,000 for musical institutions
| | and the theatre orchestra.
| | |
| Geneva | £6,480 for the theatre and
| | classical concerts.
| |
| |
United | | Nil.
States | |
| |
Uruquay | Montevideo | A subsidy given to an annual
| | performance of Italian Opera.
| |
| |
Venezuela | | Nil.
| |
-----------+------------+-----------------------------------------
NOTE.—As a grant, when made, is often given
both for the drama and for operatic purposes, and sometimes
for the support of musical functions generally, such as
concerts and band performances, it is difficult to arrive
at the actual figures for opera alone. But the above
quotations will afford a general idea as to the conditions
obtaining with regard to subsidies in the various countries
to which reference is made.
Appendix C.
Glossary of Terms mainly used in Opera.
=Act.= The larger sub-divisions into which operas
are divided. Older operas were usually in five acts,
modern ones more often in three; some, as Wagner’s
_Rheingold_, in one only.
=Act Tune= or =Curtain Tune=. An old form of
instrumental intermezzo, composed for performance
between the acts. They were written for operas from
about 1650 to 1750, by such composers as Locke and
Purcell.
=Air= or =Aria=. An operatic scene for a single
voice; they were of many kinds, with titles defining the
class to which they belonged in the operas of Handel’s
day. Among these titles may be mentioned the “Aria all
Unisono,” “Aria Cantabile,” “Aria Concertante,” “Aria da
Capo,” “Aria di Bravura,” “Aria d’Imitazione,” “Aria di
Mezzo Carattere,” “Aria di Portamento,” “Aria Grande,”
“Aria Parlante.”
=Arietta.= A short aria, of less pretension than any
of the foregoing.
=Ballad Opera.= A form of English opera in which old
and well-known songs were used instead of new music;
there was little concerted music. The best example is
the _Beggar’s Opera_.
=Ballet.= An entertainment of dancing, always
a constituent feature of operas of a certain period.
=Bolero.= A Spanish dance, often introduced into the
ballet.
=Cadenza.= Vocal flourishes very common in the operas
of the Bellini, Rossini, and early Verdi school.
=Castrati.= Male sopranos, the breaking of whose voices
was prevented by artificial means.
=Cavatina.= A melodious air. Faust’s solo, “Salve
dimora,” is so named.
=Chitarrone.= A long-stringed, double-necked lute, used
by Monteverde in _Orfeo_.
=Choragos.= The leader of the chorus in Greek drama.
=Chorale.= A German hymn-tune. Effective use is made
of chorales in Meyerbeer’s _Huguenots_.
=Coloratura.= Highly ornamented vocal music, used in
such places as the “Aria Concertante.”
=Comic Opera.= Opera of a light nature, with a humorous
story. Not to be confounded with Opera Comique.
=Concerted Numbers.= The Finales and other parts of
operas of the older school. When several characters are
upon the stage, and the music describes a series of
events or some development of the story.
=Curtain Tune.= See Act Tune.
=Da Capo.= A form of Aria much used by Scarlatti,
in which the second part of the air was followed by
a repetition of the first.
=Divertissement.= A short ballet, or an instrumental
intermezzo.
=Ensemble.= A collection of most or all of the
principal characters in an opera upon the stage at
the same time.
=Entree.= See Overture.
=Entr’acte.= Music composed for performance between
the acts.
=Entrepreneur= (Fr.). The organizer or director of
a series of performances.
=Falsetto.= A false, artificial use of the voice,
employed by men mostly for singing alto parts.
=Fanfare.= A flourish of trumpets used in many operas
(_Fidelio_, _Tannhäuser_, etc.).
=Finale.= The conclusion of an opera, or of an act
thereof; in early operas often a duet or trio, but later
on a concerted number, often of very great dignity. It
was first largely used by Logroscino, and has since
become an important feature of many operas.
=Glockenspiel.= A small set of bells played from a
keyboard; used by Mozart in _Zauberflöte_ and by
Wagner in the _Walküre_.
=Gong=, or =Tam-Tam=. A bronze plate struck with
a stick; used by Meyerbeer.
=Grand Opera.= Opera on serious or tragic subjects,
with no spoken dialogue, and with everything conceived
upon a large and dignified scale. Generally used to
denote French Opera.
=Harpsichord.= One of the forerunners of the
pianoforte, and the accompanying instrument used in
the earliest operas.
=Imbroglio.= A confused passage, where conflicting
things are going on at the same time, as in the street
scene of _Die Meistersingers_.
=Impresario= (Italian). Has the same meaning as
Entrepreneur.
=Intermezzo.= A short, light musical play, originally
introduced between the acts of Grand Opera. The term
is now usually applied to an instrumental interlude.
=Leit-motif=, or guiding-theme. The distinctive piece
of melody, harmony, or scoring associated with one
character upon the stage, or with a definite idea. Its
use was perfected by Wagner.
=Libretto.= The “book,” or words of an opera.
=Lied.= German for air.
=Liederspiel.= Play of songs. This corresponds with the
English ballad opera.
=Masque.= An early form of opera which made much of
dancing and of scenic effects.
=Opera Buffa= (French, Opera Bouffe). A light opera of
very little dignity, but full of humour and comicality. It
corresponds somewhat with the English term, “Comic opera.”
=Opera Comique.= A stage play, often of serious
character, mainly set to music, but in which there is
spoken dialogue. Beethoven’s _Fidelio_ and Weber’s
_Der Frischütz_ are in this class.
=Operetta.= A short opera, generally of a light character.
=Overture.= The preliminary orchestral introduction
to an opera. It varies much in character, length, and
importance; according to its character and construction
it is not only called overture, but introduction
(intrada), entrée, Vorspiel, prelude.
=Pasticcio= (a pie). A collection of songs, duets,
etc., from various sources, woven together to form
a pleasing entertainment.
=Potp-ourri.= A collection of the favourite airs
of an opera worked up into a piece for a solo
instrument—generally the pianoforte.
=Recitative.= The less melodious and less definitely
rhythmic vocal portions of an opera. A kind of musical
declamation.
=Recitativo Secco.= Simple recitation supported only
by slight chords. (Much used by Mozart.)
=Recitativo Stromentato.= Accompanied recitative, the
orchestral part having individual interest and importance.
=Ritornello.= An instrumental interlude between scenes,
or during the course of a scene.
=Romantic Opera.= A class of opera dealing with legendary
or supernatural subjects rather than classic themes. Its
application is chiefly to operas of the Weber-Marschner school.
=Scena.= A long and important operatic solo, often in
several movements, for a solo voice. It may consist of
recitative or of aria portions, or both, but should be
dramatic in its construction.
=Scenario.= A synopsis of the plot and scenes of the
libretto of an opera.
=Secco.= (_See_ Recitative.)
=Singspiel.= The German form of opera comique, with
both music and spoken dialogue.
=Tessitura.= The _range_ of a vocal
composition—_i.e._, as to whether it lies high
or low in the compass of the voice.
=Transcription.= The more modern name for Pot-pourri.
=Tremolo.= A rapid reiteration of the same note; much
used on the stringed instruments for dramatic purposes.
=Vaudeville.= A short operetta (French), usually of
a frivolous nature.
=Vorspiel= (German). _See_ Overture.
=Zwickenspiel= (German). An intermezzo or interlude.
Appendix D.
List of Instruments used in the Orchestras of Composers
of different periods of Opera.
1. The first real Italian opera, _Euridice_, by Peri (1600)—
1 Chitarone
1 Lira Grande
1 Viol di Gamba
1 Theorbo
3 Flutes
2. Monteverde’s _Orfeo_ (1608)—
2 Gravicembali (Clavicembali)
2 Contrabassi da Viola
10 Viole di Brazzo
1 Arpa Doppia
2 Violini Piccioli alla Francese
2 Chitarroni
2 Organo di Legno
1 Regal
3 Bassi da Gamba
4 Tromboni
2 Cornetti
1 Flautino (Flageolet)
1 Clarino (Soprano Trumpet)
3 Trombe Sordini (Muted Trumpets)
Except for the smaller number of strings this orchestra is pretty well
as large as a modern full operatic orchestra, but its constitution
and effect are absolutely different, and of course in the present
day hardly producible. The gambas were used to accompany Orpheus,
the violas Euridice, the guitars Charon, the organs Apollo, and the
trombones Plato.
3. Gluck’s _Alceste_ (1767)—
2 Flauti Traversi
2 Oboe
2 Corni
3 Tromboni
2 Fagotti
2 Trombe
Strings
This, of course, is an approximation to the modern orchestra, but we
must notice the absence of clarionets and percussion instruments.
4. Mozart’s _Figaro_ (1786)—
2 Flutes
2 Oboes
2 Clarionets
2 Bassoons
2 Horns
2 Trumpets
Tympani
Strings
This is the ordinary orchestra of the “classical period” of music.
5. Weber’s _Oberon_ (1826)—
The same orchestra as Mozart’s, with the addition
of anotherp air of horns and of three trombones.
6. Rossini’s _William Tell_ (Overture), 1829—
1 Piccolo
2 Flutes
2 Oboes (Cor Anglais)
2 Clarionets
4 Horns
2 Bassoons
2 Trumpets
3 Trombones
Timpani
Cymbals
Triangle
Big Drum
Strings (with 5 solo Celli)
7. Meyerbeer, _Les Huguenots_ (1836)—
2 Flutes (Piccolos)
2 Oboes
Cor Anglais
2 Clarionets
2 Bassoons
4 Horns
3 Trombones
Ophicleide
2 Cornets
2 Trumpets
Drums
Bell
Harp
Bass Drum and Cymbals
Strings
8. Wagner, _Tannhäuser_ (1845)—
3 Flutes (one changing to Piccolo)
2 Oboes
2 Clarionets
1 Bass Clarionet
2 Bassoons
2 Ventil Horns
2 Hand Horns
3 Trumpets
3 Trombones
1 Tuba
1 Pair Tympani
Triangle
Cymbals
Tambourine
Grosse Trommel
Harp
Strings
And in addition, upon the stage—
1 Cor Anglais
2 Piccolos
4 Flutes
4 Oboes
6 Clarionets
6 Bassoons
12 Horns
12 Trumpets
4 Trombones
Triangle
Cymbals
Tambourine
9. Wagner, _Walküre_ (1856), performed 1870—
16 First Violins
16 Second Violins
12 Violas
12 Violoncellos
8 Double Basses
3 Flutes
1 Piccolo
3 Oboes
1 Cor Anglais
3 Clarionets
1 Bass Clarionet
3 Bassoons
8 Horns
2 Tenor Tubas
2 Bass Tubas
1 Contra Bass Tuba
3 Trumpets
1 Bass Trumpet
3 Trombones
1 Contra Bass Trombone
2 Pairs Drums
1 Triangle
1 Pair Cymbals
1 Rührtrommel
1 Glockenspiel
6 Harps
10. Wagner, _Parsifal_ (Prelude), 1882—
3 Flutes
3 Oboes
Cor Anglais
3 Clarionets
1 Bass Clarionet
3 Bassoons
1 Double Bassoon
4 Horns
3 Trumpets
3 Trombones
1 Bass Tuba
Drums
Strings
Appendix E.
Bibliography of Opera.
The following are the chief works upon opera in the English language:—
=Edwards, H. S.=—The Lyrical Drama.
=Matthew, J. E.=—Popular History of Opera.
=Chesney.=—Stories of the Operas.
=Edwards.=—The Prima Donna.
=Louis, Alexander.=—The Opera Glass, or a view of 100 Operas.
=Upton.=—Standard Operas.
=Barker.=—The Opera Guide.
=Spier.=—Stories of the Operas.
=Guerber.=—Stories of Famous Operas.
=Annesley.=—The Standard Opera Glass.
=Sachs and Woodrow.=—Modern Opera houses and Theatres.
=Mapleson.=—Mapleson Memoirs.
=Arditi.=—My Reminiscences.
=Fitzgerald.=—The Savoy Opera.
=Apthorp.=—The Opera, Past and Present.
=Elson.=—Critical History of Opera.
=Lahee.=—Grand Opera in America.
=Galloway.=—The Operatic Problem.
=Lawrence Gilman.=—Aspects of Modern Opera.
=Streatfield.=—The Opera.
=Nights at the Opera.=—(Delamore Press.)
=Opera.=—(Grove’s Dictionary.)
There is also a perfect mass of Wagner literature, including
biographies (such as Mr. Ashton Ellis’ colossal work), essays,
articles, books on the _Ring_ and other operas, books explanatory of
the music, etc., etc.
Index.
Adam, 85, 189, 207
Ambroise Thomas’s _Hamlet_, _Mignon_, 90
Arensky, 124
Aria from Gluck’s _Orfeo_, 50-51
—— Verdi’s _Aïda_, 73-74
Ariosti, 190
Arne, 93-94
Arne’s _Artaxerxes_, 93
Arrieta, 129
Arsani, 208
Auber, 87-88, 175, 207
Auber’s _Masaniello_, 87;
_Fra Diavolo_, 88
Bach, 61
Balfe, 94-95
Balfe’s _The Siege of Rochelle_, 95;
_Bohemian Girl_, 95, 187
Ballad Opera, 15, 94, 186
Ballet, 188-189
Bardi, Count, 33
Barnett’s _The Mountain Sylph_, 94
Bayreuth, 179, 180-183
—— Wagner’s theatre at, 103
Beethoven, 13, 14, 24, 27, 44, 55, 61, 76, 77, 99
Beethoven’s _Fidelio_, 55, 70, 84, 170, 177, 185
_Beggar’s Opera_, 91-93, 186
Bellini, 15, 72, 173
Bellini’s _La Sonnambula_, _Norma_, 72
Benda, 51
Benedict, 96
Benedict’s _The Lily of Killarney_, 96
Berlin, 178
Berlioz, 87, 175, 209
Bishop, Henry, 94, 157
Bizet, 89
Bizet’s _Carmen_, 89
Boieldieu, 85, 207
Boieldieu’s _La Dame Blanche_, 85
Boito, 130-132, 141
Boito’s _Nero and Orestiade_, 131;
_Mefistofele_, 131, 173, 195
Borodin, 124, 125
Borodin’s _Prince Igor_, 125
Bruneau, 141, 143
Bruneau’s _L’Attaque du Moulin_, _L’Outragan_,
_La Rêve_, _Messidor_, 143
Budapest, 178
Bunning, Herbert, 148
Bunning’s _Princess Osra_, 145, 148
Buononcini, 42, 45-46, 64, 154, 190
Caccini, 37, 39
Caldara, 41, 42, 207
Cambert, Robert, 42
Campion, 187
“Canzone” by Mozart, 52
Carl Rosa Opera Company, 159
Caruso, 204
Catalani, 204
Cavalli, 10, 40
Cavos, 123
César-Cui, 124, 125
César-Cui’s _Angelo_, _Ratcliff_, _The Flibustier_, 125
Cesti, 41
Charpentier, 144
Cherubini, 14, 63, 66, 84, 168, 175, 199
Cherubini’s _Ali Baba_, _Les Abencerages_,
_Les deux Journées_, 84;
_Water Carrier_, 159, 200
Chorale from Meyerbeer’s _Les Huguenots_, 86
Cilea, 134
Cilea’s _Adriana Lecouvreur_, 134, 188
Cimarosa, 51, 65, 207
Cimarosa’s _The Secret Marriage_, 65
Companies, opera, 154;
travelling, 158
Composers, stories of, 209-211
Concerted Finale, Invention of, 12, 64
Contest, a notable, 65
Coperario, 187
Corder, 147
Corder’s Nordisa, 147
Cornelius, 79
Cornelius’ _The Barber of Bagdad_, 80
Covent Garden opera, 154, 157
Cowen, 147
Cowen’s _Harold_, _Signa_, _The Lady of Lyons_, 147;
_Thorgrim_, 147, 159;
_Pauline_, 159
Curiosities of opera, 189-198
_Da Capo_ Aria, Birth of, 11;
weakness of, 21;
reform of, 22
Dargomijsky, 124
Dargomijsky’s _The Stone Guest_, _The Water-Sprite_, 124
Debussy, 144
Debussy’s _Pelleas et Melisande_, 144
De Lara, 148
De Lara’s _Amy Robsart_, _Messaline_, _The Light of Asia_, 148
Délibes, Léo, 90
Délibes’ _Coppélia_, _Lakmé_, _Le Roi l’a dit_, 90
D’Indy, Vincent, 144
Donizetti, 15, 72, 173, 207
Donizetti’s _La Favorita_, _La Fille du Régiment_,
_L’Elisir d’Amore_, 72;
_Lucretia Borgia_, 72, 173;
_Lucia di Lammermoor_, 174
Dresden, 179
Dubois, 144
Dvŏrák, 126, 128, 178
Dvŏrák’s _Demetrius_, _Der Bauer ein Schelm_, _King and Collier_,
_Rusalka_, _Wanda_, 128;
_Armida_, 128, 178
Early Russian composers, 123
Elgar’s _Apostles_, 117
Empiricism, Musical, 12
English Opera, 44-47, 91
Enterprise, Operatic, in England, 150
Farinelli, 203, 204
Fibich, 127, 178
Flotow, 79
Flotow’s _Martha_, 79
Franchetti, 134
French Opera, 42-43
French School, the, 81-90
Gade, 129
Galuppi, 64
German, Edward, 148
German Opera, 43-44
German School, the, 76-80
Giordano, 134
Giordano’s _Andrea Chenier_, 134
Glinka, 123, 127
Glinka’s _A Life for the Czar_, _Russia and Ludmilla_, 123
Gluck, 13-15, 20, 22-24, 31, 42, 48-51, 61, 63,
64-65, 71, 76, 83, 87, 98, 143, 175, 190, 207
Gluck’s _Armida_, _Iphigenia in Aulide_, _Paris and Helen_, 49;
_Alceste_, 23, 49;
_Orfeo_, 49, 177;
_Iphigenia in Tauride_, 49, 65
Goetz, 80
Goetz’s _The Taming of the Shrew_, 80
Goldmark, 137
Goldmark’s _Cricket on the Hearth_, _The Queen of Sheba_, 137
Goring Thomas’s _Esmeralda_, _Nadeshda_, 97
Gounod, 88, 141
Gounod’s _Mireille_, _Romeo and Juliet_, _The Mock Doctor_, 88;
_Philémon and Baucis_, 88, 196;
_Faust_, 88, 95, 141, 170
Grand Opera, definition of, 70;
in England, 156-162
—— French, 43, 63, 176
Graun, 77, 207
Grétry, 51, 82
Grieg, 129
Grisi, 208
Halèvy, 85, 207
Handel, 11, 43, 44-47, 64, 76, 154, 190, 191, 195, 202, 203, 207
Handel’s _Deidamia_, 45;
_Rinaldo_, 45, 202
Harris, Sir Augustus, 157
Hasse, 43, 77, 207
Haydn, 61, 207
Hérold, 85, 175, 207
Hérold’s _Zampa_, 85
Hiller, 77, 78
Hiller’s _Der Dorfbarbier_, _Die Jagel_, 77
Humperdinck, 137
Humperdinck’s _Die Heirat wider Willen_, 139;
_Hansel and Gretel_, 137, 138, 141
Innovations, musical, 20
Isouard, 85, 206
Italian Opera, 15, 39-42
Italian School, the, 63-75
Jenny Lind, 203
Jomelli, 64, 207
Jomelli’s _Armida_, 209
Keiser, 43, 76
Kelly, 94
Kreutzer, 79
Lablache, 204, 208
Lago, Señor, 157
Lalo, 90
Lalo’s _Le Roi d’Ys_, 90
Legrenzi, 41
Leipzig, 179
_Leit-motif_, the, 27, 28, 105, 107, 116, 135
Leoi, Franco, 148
Leoncavallo, 130, 133
Leoncavallo’s _I Pagliacci_, 133, 195;
_Roland of Berlin_, 133
Librettists, 206
Lindpaintner, 78, 79
Liszt, 102, 103
Lock, 187
Logroscino, 12, 64
Lortzing, 78, 79
Lortzing’s _Peter the Shipwright_, 79
Lotti, 42
Ludvig II., King of Bavaria, 102, 103
Lully, 11, 42-43, 81, 98, 175, 176, 188, 199
MacCunn, Hamish, 147
MacCunn’s _Diarmid_, 148;
_Jeanie Deans_, 148, 159
Macfarren, 96
Mackenzie, 145, 147
Mackenzie’s _The Cricket on the Hearth_, _The Troubadour_, 147
Malibran, 204
Manners, Charles, 160, 161
Marschner, 14, 60, 78, 79
Marschner’s _Der Vampyr_, _Hans Heiling_,
_The Templar and the Jewess_, 79
Mascagni, 130, 131-132
Mascagni’s _Cavalleria Rusticana_, 132, 170, 206;
_L’Amico Fritz_, _I Rantzau_, _Iris_,
_William Ratcliff_, 133
Masque, the, 187
Massé, Victor, 90
Massé’s _Paul et Virginie_, 90
Massenet, 141, 142
Massenet’s _Esclarmonde_, _Hérodiade_, _Le Cid_,
_La Jongleur de Notre Dame_, _La Navarraise_,
_Le Roi de Lahore_, _Manon_, _Thaïs_,
_Werther_, 142
McLean, Alick, 148
Méhul, 83
Méhul’s _Joseph_, _Uthal_, 83
Melody, Adoption of, 10
Melos, 16, 26, 30, 116;
Modern, 117
Mendelssohn, 59, 60, 61
Mendelssohn’s _Lorelei_, _The Wedding of Camacho_, 60
Mercadante, 72
Merimée, 210
Messager André, 144
Metastasio, 207
Meyerbeer, 60, 85-87, 98, 101, 169, 173, 175, 176, 194, 207
Meyerbeer’s _Dinorah_, _L’Africaine_, _Le Huguenots_,
_Le Prophète_, 87
Michael’s _Utal_, 195
Mixed language singing, 190
Monodic style, 38
Monsigny, 82
Monteverde, 9, 19, 20, 31, 39, 48, 71
Moody, Madame Fanny, 160
Moody-Manners Company, 158, 160
“Moresca” from Monteverde’s _Orfeo_, 39-40
Moussorgsky’s _Judith_, 125
Mozart, 13, 14, 24, 27, 44, 51-55, 61, 62, 63,
65, 66, 70, 76, 77, 78, 168, 205, 207
Mozart’s _Die Entfurhrung aus dem Serail_, _Idomeneo_, 54;
_Don Juan_, 54, 205;
_Magic Flute_, 54, 195;
_The Marriage of Figaro_, 54, 177;
_Cosi fan Tutte_, 177;
_Zauberflöte_, 177, 196;
_Don Giovanni_, 124, 170, 178, 195
Munich, 179
Musical comedy, 186
Musical empiricism, 12
Music, Emotional effect of, 34;
an accessory, 5;
polyphonic, 33
_Muzio Scevola_, 190
Napoleon I., 199, 200
Naumann, 84
Naylor, Dr. Edward, 161
Neapolitan school, the, 64
Nepravnik, 127
Nessler, 140
Nessler’s _The Trumpeter of Sákkingen_, 140
Nicolai, 78, 79
Nicolai’s _Merry Wives of Windsor_, 79
Offenbach, 89
Offenbach’s _Orphée aux enfers_, 89;
_Les Contes d’Hoffmann_, 90
Opera and politics, 199
“Opera Buffa,” 12, 64
“Opera Comique,” 15, 82, 83, 185
Opera House, Attempts to provide London with, 158;
Covent Garden, 172;
“La Scala,” Milan, 173;
“San Carlo,” Naples, 173;
“Académie Nationale de Musique,” Paris, 175;
Vienna, 177;
Hungarian, Budapest, 178;
National Theatre, Prague, 178;
Berlin, 178;
Dresden, 179;
Court Theatre, Munich, 179;
Bayreuth, 180
Opera houses, the chief, 172-184
“Opera in Musica,” 1, 5
“Opero Seria,” 12
Operetta, 185
Opera, What is it? 1;
derivation of term, 1;
an artificial product, 2-3;
hybrid, 4;
defined, 5;
growth of, 8;
reformers of, 18;
beginnings of, 42;
logical commencement of, 37;
early Italian, 39-42;
early French, 42-43;
early German, 43-44;
early English, 44-47;
small influence of great composers on, 61;
Italian school of, 63-75;
German school, 76-80;
French school, 81-90;
English, of eighteenth and part of nineteenth centuries, 91-97;
chief modern composers of, 120;
subsidized, 150;
an educative
quantity, 151;
objections to subsidized, 151;
English, 152;
Covent Garden, 154;
how to listen to and enjoy it, 163-171;
in Russia, 183;
in other European countries, 183;
in Egypt and America, 184
Orchestra, use of, 10;
definite shaping of, 14
Pacini, 72, 202
Paderewski, 127
Paisiello, 64
Paladihle, 144
Palazzo Bardi enthusiasts, 19, 33, 34
Paris, 175
Parry, Sir H., 145
“Pasticcio,” 190
Patti, Madame, 204
Pepusch, Dr., 92
Pergolesi, 12, 64
Pergolesi’s _La Serva Padrona_, 64
Peri, 34, 37, 39
Peri’s _Daphne_, 34;
_Euridice_, 34, 35, 36, 42
Philidor, 82
Philip V. of Spain, 203
Piccini, 51, 64-65
Polish opera, 127
Ponchielli’s _La Gioconda_, 173
Porpora, 207
Prague, 178
Prima Donna, the, 207-208
_Prime donne_, 15, 72, 207
Puccini, 130, 135
Puccini’s _La Bohème_, _La Tosca_, _Manon Lescaut_, 135;
_Madama Butterfly_, 135, 157
Purcell, 11, 44, 91
Purcell’s _Dido and Æneas_, _King Arthur_, 44
Rameau, 81-82, 175
Recitative, 69-71
_Recitativo Stromentato_, 71
Richter (Wagnerian conductor), 157
Ricordi, Messrs., 161
Rimsky-Korsakoff, 124, 125
Rimsky-Korsakoff’s _Pskowitjanka_, _The May Night_, 125
Romantic opera, 24, 56
Rome, 174
“Rose Softly Blooming” (song), 79
Rossi, 42
Rossini, 15, 25, 66-69, 71, 80, 173, 202, 206
Rossini’s _La Cenerentola_, _William Tell_, 71;
_La Gazza Ladra_, 71, 173;
_Otello_, 69, 71;
_Tancredi_, 66, 174;
_Semiramide_, _Mosè in Egitto_, _Zelmira_, 174;
_The Barber of Seville_, 66, 174, 202, 211
“Rossinian Crescendo,” example of, 67-69
Rousseau, Jean Jaques, 82
Rousseau’s _Le Devin du Village_, 82, 209
Royal Opera Syndicate, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161
Royalties, 206
Rubini, 208
Rubinstein, 123
Sacchini, 51, 64
Saint-Saëns, 141-142
Saint-Saëns’ _Ascanio_, _Henry VIII._, _L’Ancètre_,
_Les Barbares_, _Proserpine_, and _Phryne_, 142
Scarlatti, Alessandro, 10, 12, 21, 27, 41, 43, 70, 118
Schillings, Max, 140
Schubert, 13, 59, 60, 61
Schubert’s _Alfonso and Estella_, _Fierabras_, 60
Schumann, 59, 60, 61
Schumann’s _Genoveva_, 60
Scribe, 207
Senesino, 202
Serov, 124
Shield, 94
Sinding, 129
Singers, Abuses by, 15;
stories of, 207-208
Singspiel, 4, 5, 70, 77, 83, 97, 185
Slavonic opera, 122-128
Smetana, 127, 178
Smetana’s _Dalibor_, _Der Kuss_, _Libusa_, 128;
_Bartered Bride_, 128, 178
Smith, Miss Emily, 148
Smith’s (Miss Emily) _Der Wald_, _The Wreckers_, 148
Somerville, 148
Spinelli, 134
Spinelli’s _A Basso Porto_, 134
Spohr, 14, 24, 78
Spohr’s _Faust_, 78;
_Der Alchymist_, _Der Berggeist_, _Jessonda_, 79
Spontini, 14, 60, 63, 66, 84, 98, 169, 175,
176, 194, 196, 200, 205, 210
Spontini’s _Fernand Cortez_, _Olympia_, 85;
_La Petite Maison_, 210;
_La Vestale_, 85, 200, 210
Stage pieces, Progress in mounting of, 7
Stanford, 145, 146, 153
Stanford’s _Canterbury Pilgrims_, _Savonarola_,
_Shamus O’Brien_, _The Veiled Prophet of Khorassan_, 146;
_Much Ado about Nothing_, 147
Stereotyped casts, 191
Storace, 94
Strauss, 139, 179
Strauss’s _Feursnot_, _Guntram_, 139;
_Elektra_, _Salome_, 139, 179
Sullivan, 97, 119, 158, 189
Sullivan’s _The Mikado_, 97;
_Ivanhoe_, 97, 158
Sussmäyr, 70
Tamburini, 208
Tchaïkovsky, 124, 126, 189, 195
Tchaïkovsky’s _Eugene Oniegin_, _Joan of Arc_,
_Mazeppa_, _The Enchantress_,
_The Oprichnik_, 126
Thomas, Ambroise, 90, 119, 141
Thomas, Goring, 96
Titov, 123
Tomaschek, 127
Tonality, 9
Venice, 174
Verdi, 72-75, 80, 98, 119, 173, 207
Verdi’s _Ernani_, _Rigoletto_, _Il Trovatore_,
_La Traviata_, 72;
_Un Ballo in Maschera_, _Aïda_, 73;
_Otello_, _Falstaff_, 74;
_I Lombardi_, 173
Vienna, 177
Vivaldi, 41
Volkov, 123
Wagner, 15, 26, 73, 79, 85, 89, 98-115, 143,
157, 176, 179, 180, 189, 192;
Influence of, 116-120;
use of orchestra, 118;
his harmony, 118;
supernatural requirements, 194
Wagner’s _The Fairies_, 100;
_Das Liebesverbot_, 100, 101;
_Rienzi_, 101, 105;
_Flying Dutchman_, 79, 102, 105, 159;
_Parsifal_, 104, 113-115;
_Tannhäuser_, 102, 106-107, 189, 209;
_Lohengrin_, 102, 107-108, 159, 170, 200, 209;
_The Ring_, 102, 103, 112-113, 157, 170, 202;
_Die Meistersinger_, 102, 110-112, 157, 170, 202;
_Tristan and Isolde_, 189, 170
Wagner, Siegfried, 140
Wallace, 96
Wallace’s _Maritana_, 96, 187
Weber, 13, 14, 24, 44, 56-59, 61, 66, 77,
78, 84, 89, 99, 157, 168, 179, 205
Weber’s _Der Freischütz_, 56, 70, 78, 84, 178, 185, 205;
fragment from, 57-59;
_Oberon_, 59, 157;
_Euryanthe_, 59, 195
Weingartner, 140
THE WALTER SCOTT PUBLISHING CO., LTD., FELLING-ON-TYNE.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STORY OF OPERA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
