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 cosa rara their characters belong to the and dramatic Fach. As the term “” 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 ), 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 : social class of the characters, and then ap- whereas the singing style of the mezzo carat- plies the terms to Mozart’s (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 ), 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 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 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. , Harry sources. Mr Jericho is a very different matter: Greenbank, George Grossmith, Basil Hood, no full score (neither autograph nor manu- and 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. That would description whether the timpani and other leave room for another worthy inclusion, percussion are divided into two parts or are Mock Turtles (premiered alongside Patience contained in a single part. In any case, the at the second night of operation of the timpani part has been struck-through in Savoy Theatre, 11 October 1881) by Eaton passages where the other percussion is also Faning with words by Desprez. For this playing. O’Brien notes “these deletions may work the autograph full score is extant to- date from the 1989 Glimmerglass Festival gether with a set of orchestral parts; the performances” (p. 202). An examination of Chappell vocal score seems to be the sole the originals would yield vital evidence on surviving source for the dialogue. The full this point: is the deletion in the original scores to these early works would broaden part, or is it on an intervening photocopy— our understanding of Carte’s theatrical so that O’Brien’s source was a copy of a project rather more than Mr Jericho can (marked) copy? For an edition in a series when put alongside its near contemporary of this caliber, such a speculative shortcut is Captain Billy. unacceptable. That this should slip by the The selection of repertoire notwithstand- Musica Britannica committee suggests that ing, in very many respects this volume up- they might not have valued this volume as holds the Musica Britannica standard. If I much as the others in this distinguished se- seem overly critical of it below, it is because ries. This might also explain a small num- it seems likely to me that this is the only ber of details that are confused in the intro- such edition that this repertoire will ever duction and description of sources, which get—from now until the end of time—and should have been caught in a diligent copy- as such it should really be the most thor- editing process. (The grammar and syntax ough it can possibly be. My first quibble is are fine; a few problems of content confu- that the volume has reached print too sion remain—for example, the attempt to soon. Many of its sources were held by the line up inconsistent accounts of the size of D’Oyly Carte Theatre Company, whose the Savoy orchestra with the surviving parts; complete archive was acquired by the this is a gratuitous task in any case, as such British Library in October 2015. Although performance sets may be either incomplete in the front matter Mr. O’Brien refers to or contain extra copies for one reason or this acquisition (p. xxxiv n. 42), it is clear another.) that his work was completed well before Among the facsimiles are two playbills this time. (The introduction is dated (one for each show); even if the exact dates October 2014.) What was the particular ur- during which these were used is not known, gency to bring it to print? The archive is the captions should have listed the narrow undergoing professional cataloging now window in which each of these would have (with a scheduled completion of spring appeared. For that of Captain Billy, the cast- 2017), and it is inevitable that in this list limits it to between November 1891 and process materials will come to light that no mid-January 1892; for Mr Jericho, the play- one knew were there. Such material may bill illustrated must have appeared between have eliminated several speculative sugges- 28 May and 1 July 1893. Determining these tions. For example, for Mr Jericho—the or- dates took a good bit of paging around in chestration for which, as noted above, sur- the volume and consulting a few other vives only in a set of parts—some of the sources, but there is nothing speculative parts were available to the editor only as about it, and so it seems reasonable to ex- photocopies. The original parts were in the pect that information to appear here. collection of the late renowned Savoy au- This volume does not advance any criti- thority Frederic Woodbridge Wilson cal assessment of the works themselves, and (whose estate supplied the photocopies), perhaps an edition is not really the place and these originals were already held by for that. In my own opinion—and it is one the British Library when O’Brien worked predisposed to champion this sort of 348 Notes, December 2016 neglected repertoire—I found the book, Cellier himself, as I often found the variant lyrics, and music of both works undistin- readings of OpA as reported in the textual guished throughout, and never more than commentary to be improvements in the adequate. These works are clearly products scoring (for example the elimination of the of the Savoy machine, and Greenbank’s sit- horn in No. 4 at m. 32, or the use of A uations and dialogue (but not lyrics) sound rather than B-flat clarinets in No. 8). familiarly Gilbertian. In Captain Billy, for O’Brien does not mention that a musical example, the foundling Christopher Jolly is assistant at the Savoy at the time that in search of any documentation of his Captain Billy was first produced was birth, as he has no idea how old he is. Jolly, Henry J. Wood, later to come to promi- in love at first sight with the school teacher nence as the conductor of the Henry Wood Polly Jackson, realizes the potential impro- Promenade Concerts. Might he have been priety of their relationship: the anonymous meddling copyist of OpA and OpB? The impending accessibility of I fear you have not given the matter suffi- the D’Oyly Carte archive may well shed cient consideration, Polly. How would light on Wood’s activities at the Savoy in you feel if the certificate were found, and the early 1890s, so this volume might have showed that you had married a man old been better if it had appeared in a few enough to be your grandfather? Or, pos- years’ time. sibly, I might turn out to be years Another problem occurs in the textual younger than you are. Would you like to commentary with O’Brien’s ambiguous use have it said that you had entrapped a of “orig.” Does this mean originally in the mere boy into marriage? (p. 63) source, but corrected in the source to the reading used here, or originally in the source, but editori- This is vaguely reminiscent of Gilbert’s ally emended here? With only one facsimile Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance, who has of a musical source to compare with the never seen a woman other than his nurse- edition—and that only for five measures—I maid Ruth, and is thus doubtful about had no means of answering the question. whether she is indeed beautiful. Later in I found that a few times I had to refer to the show Frederic has a similar problem the original vocal score of Mr Jericho, avail- concerning his age: although aged twenty- able as a scan online (on the Gilbert and one years, being born on leap year he is re- Sullivan Archive, http://www.gilbertandsul ally “only five and a little bit over.” Green- livanarchive.org/companions/jericho bank also uses the same “gyrate/pirate” /jericho_vs.pdf, accessed 31 August 2016), rhyme that Gilbert had employed (pp. 51– to confirm a reading (for example, Mr 52). Jericho, No. 7, m. 23 [p. 177], Winifred’s sec- This notwithstanding, the music of ond note, which is at odds with all of the in- Cellier and Ford does not come as near to struments doubling her part; O’Brien does Sullivan as Greenbank does to Gilbert. not comment on this anomaly, but it might Indeed, the overture to Captain Billy is just have been helpful for him to do so). bad—a cut-and-paste medley that lacks co- Similarly, the OpB set of parts of Captain herence. The seam between the two sec- Billy is said to be in the same hand as OpA, tions joined at measure 8 is astonishingly and that it “must have been produced later clumsy, with a bizarre elided cadence in the as some additions attributable to players of wrong key. As only one set of parts includes the OpA set have been entered by the copy- the overture, O’Brien suggests that it may ist” (p. xxxv). This sounds as if the new set not have been used in performance—and I was copied from the old—parts from parts. wonder if its loss might well be regarded as If this is so, then all of the variant readings a distinct gain to the work. Perhaps it of OpA would be found in OpB, but this should have been relegated to an appendix does not appear to be the case, at least in- in this volume rather than having pride of sofar as it can be determined by the textual place as the first music the user encounters. commentary. Of the sources for Captain Billy, one set of Naturally this volume will be of the most parts (designated as OpA) was prepared by interest to those scholars who work on a copyist who seemed to have a better sense Gilbert, Sullivan, Carte, the Savoy, and late of what to do with the orchestra than Victorian musical theater. For a treatment Music Reviews 349 of companion pieces, O’Brien’s work cur- Granted, the source situation of the rently has no rival. Even more useful in un- Gilbert and Sullivan operas is considerably derstanding the Gilbert and Sullivan works more complicated than that of the works in in context, of course, would be comparable this volume: there are good reasons that editions of the “G&S” canon. As astonish- the Broude complete edition is now in its ing as it seems, to date there are still eight fifth decade (the edition was begun in of that canon for which anything approach- 1971, but the first volume, Trial by Jury, was ing a serious critical edition has yet to ap- not published until 1994). This notwith- pear, and among these are such central standing, it is Gilbertian “topsy-turvydom” works as The Mikado, The Pirates of Penzance, that Mr Jericho should find its way into Iolanthe, and The Yeomen of the Guard. Musica Britannica before The Mikado gets Scholarly editions of these last two are due its philological due. As good as it is to have to appear any day (from Broude Brothers available a serious exploration of these and Oxford University Press, respectively). marginal works, this volume is marred by Perhaps the most significant editions in too haphazard an approach to the editorial recent years have dealt primarily with the policy, and it does not measure up to its verbal rather than the musical text: Marc companions in this distinguished series. We Shepherd’s edition of The Grand Duke (as a may regret that it is not what it might have vocal score [New York: Oakapple Press, been, but at least it opens up an aspect of 2009]) and the first volume of his Variorum this very significant theatrical moment that Gilbert & Sullivan, a scholarly edition of has hitherto been a sealed book. Gilbert’s librettos (coedited with Michael Walters [New York: Oakapple Press, 2015]) set a new standard of textual scholarship James Brooks Kuykendall for the Gilbert and Sullivan canon. Erskine College