Savoy Curtain-Raisers Ed. by Christopher O'brien (Review)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Savoy Curtain-Raisers ed. by Christopher O’Brien (review) James Brooks Kuykendall Notes, Volume 73, Number 2, December 2016, pp. 345-349 (Review) Published by Music Library Association DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/not.2016.0146 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/638261 Access provided by Music Library Association (12 Feb 2018 17:50 GMT) Music Reviews 345 dandy returning to his native Calabria from the Viennese librettos include such desig- Paris where he has indulged in partying, nations, and the roles Da Ponte wrote for gambling, dancing, and philandering. In Mandini and Benucci indeed refuse to fit his entrance aria he tries out the different into the dramatic categories associated with languages of which he has learned snip- them. In none of his dramas can Benucci’s pets, considering whether to present him- role be described as more ridiculous than self to his father in Spanish, English, Mandini’s, and even if we find remnants of German, or French. Later forced to pass the traditional types in the distinction be- himself off as a marchese, in his second tween the “serious” aristocrat Count aria included in the volume he addresses Almaviva and the “comical” servant Figaro, his fiancée with Parisian mawkishness in this distribution of roles was reversed in broad legato phrases while communicating Axur, re d’Ormus, in which Benucci sang the in the buffo style with his father and the entirely serious role of King Axur, while real marchese under his breath. Mandini took the role of the buffoon Link devotes a large part of her introduc- Biscroma. In Il burbero di buon cuore and Una tion to a discussion of Mandini’s voice type cosa rara their characters belong to the and dramatic Fach. As the term “baritone” same social class, and Mandini sang a low- had not gained currency in the 1780s and class character in L’arbore di Diana (Benucci 1790s, he was often referred to as a mezzo did not sing in this opera), whereas carattere, whereas Benucci was sometimes Benucci appeared as a gentlemanly officer described as a buffo caricato. Having in Così fan tutte. Therefore, I find it difficult emerged with Goldoni’s reform, these to agree with Link when she associates the terms roughly correspond to the modern buffo caricato and the mezzo carattere with the distinction between baritone and bass: social class of the characters, and then ap- whereas the singing style of the mezzo carat- plies the terms to Mozart’s operas (p. xiv). tere was largely lyrical (as distinct from the We do no service to Mozart and Da Ponte, I more embellished style of the high tenor), think, when we try to fit their operas into the style of the buffo caricato was more the very categories against which they re- speech-like, and often involved a disjunct acted. Like the rejection of the old stock line, shorter phrases, and repeated notes. characters, the rejection of the traditional The designations were primarily dramatic, Fächer was a central part of Da Ponte’s re- however. Traditionally, the mezzo carattere form, again in line with Diderot’s and roles were relatively serious: they were of- Lessing’s rejection of similar categories. ten lovers or intriguers lacking the exalted Ultimately, this had ideological reasons: heroism and tenderness of the tenor Figaro and Leporello are not caricatures roles, while the roles of the buffo caricato but highly nuanced individuals who may were more straightforwardly ridiculous and provoke laughter but also inspire sympathy, caricatured. just like their masters. In my view, one of the problems of apply- ing these labels to the two stars of Joseph’s company is that they are almost exclusively Magnus Tessing Schneider found in librettos printed in Italy: none of Stockholm University MUSIC FROM THE SAVOY THEATRE Savoy Curtain-Raisers. Edited by Christopher O’Brien. (Musica Britannica, 99.) London: Stainer and Bell, 2015. [Table of contents, p. xv–xvi; pref. in Eng., Fr., Ger., p. xvii–xix; introd. in Eng., p. xxi–xxxiii; the sources, p. xxxiv–xxxix; editorial notes, p. xl–xlii; select bibliog., p. xliii–xliv; acknowledgments, p. xlv; facsims., p. xlvi–li; score (with dramatis personae and synopses), p. 2–191; appendices, p. 192–97; list of sources, p. 198; notes on the textual commentary, p. 199–200; textual commentary, p. 201–4. Cloth. ISMN 979-0-2202-2431-7; ISBN 978-0- 85249-943-6. £100.] 346 Notes, December 2016 Although the Gilbert and Sullivan canon The editorial committee of Musica has received substantial attention in the Britannica is therefore to be commended secondary literature (not only the occa- for backing Christopher O’Brien’s edition sional scholarly study, but also an astound- of Savoy curtain-raisers, even if this vol- ing number of specialist treatments ume’s main accomplishment is to give us produced by the most diligent of the innu- an impression of the amount of material merable devotees), many aspects of the im- that has been lost. O’Brien has selected two mediate periphery of Gilbert and Sullivan works, each by a composer who had served have remained less examined—in particu- as one of Sullivan’s assistants: François lar their impresario Richard D’Oyly Carte, Cellier’s Captain Billy (1891), and Ernest his production companies, and his Savoy Ford’s Mr Jericho (1893), both with librettos Theatre and Hotel. The most brilliant ex- by Harry Greenbank (whose most memo- ploration of the economic forces driving rable works were the musical comedies A the Savoy complex is Regina Oost’s Gilbert Gaiety Girl and The Geisha, collaborations and Sullivan: Class and the Savoy Tradition, with Sidney Jones). To a certain extent 1875–1896 (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, O’Brien’s selection is dictated by source sit- 2009), a monograph deserving much wider uation. In this respect Captain Billy is an ob- attention than it has yet received. Oost un- vious choice: O’Brien had access not only covers audience expectations for a night to the autograph full score, but also three (or afternoon) at the Savoy, and scrutinizes distinct sets of orchestral parts, as well as Carte’s attempts to anticipate his audi- two “editions” (or, to be more accurate, is- ence’s desires and spending habits. While sues) of the contemporaneous vocal score hardly one of Carte’s significant innova- as published by Chappell & Co; moreover, tions, his use of companion pieces—either a prompt book from the Savoy Theatre and a “curtain-raiser” before the feature presen- the proof copy of the libretto submitted to tation, or an “after piece” to follow it—is the Lord Chamberlain’s office for licensing noteworthy because of the creators he se- round out a nearly comprehensive set of cured to write them. Alfred Cellier, Harry sources. Mr Jericho is a very different matter: Greenbank, George Grossmith, Basil Hood, no full score (neither autograph nor manu- and Edward Solomon each made his name script copy) is known; a complete set of or- in more substantial ways than writing com- chestral parts exists, although it is split be- panion pieces, but their careers owed tween two different owners; the published something to Carte’s investment in their vocal score is the sole source for the vocal creative capacities. parts, and includes also the full libretto; the While the companion pieces sometimes license copy of the play is reported to be a enjoyed revivals (i.e., an old curtain-raiser typescript rather than a proof of the pub- brought back in a pairing with a new larger lished libretto. The edition does not list a work), they were not expected to be any- separate published libretto among the thing more than ephemeral, and they have sources, although there is at least one ex- all but disappeared from the stage. Some tant copy (held by the Harvard Theatre indeed have virtually ceased to exist, with Collection). perhaps only a printed libretto extant. Why was Mr Jericho selected, given the Sometimes vocal scores were published, or less-than-ideal source situation? This ques- a few songs issued individually, which sug- tion is not addressed, and I found myself gests that they held some market share in wishing that in place of Mr Jericho were ex- the glut of Victorian music publishing. amples from the earlier companion-piece Chappell & Co. had the monopoly on pub- repertory, such as After All (1878) by Alfred lishing most of the Gilbert and Sullivan col- Cellier with words by Frank Desprez. laborations, and it may be significant that (Alfred was François’s brother, and was his the companion pieces were often issued by predecessor as Sullivan’s assistant; more- more marginal publishers—an indication, over, he was later to compose the 1886 perhaps, that Chappell did not think them smash hit show Dorothy—a significant work a worthwhile investment. In any case, the that deserves an edition in its own right, if known surviving materials can but offer an sufficient source material is extant.) After incomplete picture of a complex theatrical All first appeared as an afterpiece in the milieu. original run of H.M.S. Pinafore, and was re- Music Reviews 347 vived a few times thereafter. While the au- on the edition. At that time, however, they tograph score is lost, the original perform- were “not yet accessible” (p. xxxviii n. 45). ing parts survive, as well as the published At a few places the score requires two per- vocal score and libretto, so that its source cussionists (exceptionally for the Savoy situation is rather similar to Mr Jericho, and repertory); it is not clear from the source it is only about half the length.