sign in sign up
<<
Home , Alfred Cellier, Arthur Sullivan, David Russell Hulme, George Grossmith, Gilbert and Sullivan, The Yeomen of the Guard

334 Notes, December 2018 exclusively in extracts and arrange- as a collection of potential hit — ments (including, most likely, the “Isis” as airs to sing and to , by oneself, that appeared in Amsterdam in 1677), for one’s friends, to enjoy while doing, should we not rather adopt the same to learn by heart? focus? What would happen if, rather than attempting to recreate a unified Rebekah Ahrendt “work,” we began to appreciate Utrecht University

CRITICAL EDITIONS OF W. S. Gilbert and . . Full Score. Edited by Colin Jagger, with . Oxford: Oxford Uni - versity Press, 2016. [Contents, p. iii; preface, p. v–vii; sources, p. vii–x; ed- itorial method, p. xi–xv; critical commentary (with appendices), p. xvi– xxxv; dramatis personae & orchestra, p. xxxvi; score, p. 1–407; musical appendices, p. 408–20. ISBN 978-0-19-341313-9. $95.] W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. The Yeomen of the Guard. Vocal Score. Edited by Colin Jagger. Oxford: , 2016. [Contents, p.v; introd., p. iv; textual notes, p. v–vi; dramatis personae, p. vi; score, p. 1–204; appendices, p. 205–9; index of vocal ranges and dialogue, p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-338920-5. $23.50.] W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. . Full score. Edited by Gerald Hendrie, with Dinah Barsham, and Helga J. Perry. (The , 6.) 3 volumes. New York: The Broude Trust, 2017. [Part A, and act I: publisher’s pref., p. vii; acknowledgments, p. ix–x; contents, p. xi–xii; ed- itorial policies, p. xv–xix; sigla, p. xxi; dramatis personae & instruments, p. xxiv; score, p. 1–331. Part B, act II: contents, p. vii–viii; editorial poli- cies, p. xi–xv; sigla, p. xxvii; score, p. 1–194. Part C, commentary: con- tents, p. vii–viii; introduction, p. 1–17; , p. 21–62; critical appara- tus, p. 65–157; musical appendices, p. 161–90; literary appendices, p. 193–211; bibliography, p. 215–17. ISBN 0-8540-3006-X. $350 (inclusive of all three parts).]

Looking back, what was the most sig- hole their oeuvre, regarding the pieces nificant work for the English (or even as little more than a string of clever English-language) musical stage of the words spat out over innocuous accom- nineteenth century? Of the titles that paniments. The patter songs may be come to my mind, the bulk if not the among the most memorable—and cer- whole of the short list would be from tainly the most easily and frequently among the collaborations of William S. parodied—aspects of the Savoy operas, Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. These but they have only contributed to the fourteen works are remarkably varied, too-easy dismissal of the lot. although there is an unfortunate ten- For more than a century now there dency not only in popular culture but has been a steady stream of publica- in music history textbooks to pigeon- tions about the G&S canon, but the li- Music Reviews 335 brettist has been somewhat better of sources available—manuscripts served than the composer. It is easier to (Sullivan’s as well as Gilbert’s, letters as write about words than about music. well as lyrics), the license copies, the Moreover, Gilbert’s texts have been various published and scores. more readily available—not only with a This difference is significant, as the mu- number of early authorized editions, sical sources contain vital evidence for but particularly from serious attempts understanding what was or was not per- at a scholarly edition. While Reginald formed—what was set and scrapped, Allen’s The First Night Gilbert and and what was never set at all. Sullivan: Containing Complete Librettos of So much for the words, but what of the Fourteen Operas, Exactly as Presented at the music? I am not the first to bemoan Their Premiere Performances, together with the paucity of credible editions of Sulli- Facsimiles of the First-Night Programmes van’s half of this collaboration. At least (New York: Heritage Press, 1958) is not as far back as 1928, quite what it claims to be, it at least emphasized this point with patriotic made the enthusiast aware of variants incredulity: in the quasi-sacred texts. Allen tried to Owing to the fact that the full scores establish the text as originally per- are unavailable, people are obliged to formed, relying with too much confi- form their estimate of the music from dence on the reading of the libretto the published vocal scores with the distributed (as far as he could deter- accompaniments transcribed for pi- mine) at the premiere of each show. ano. These are not ill adapted for the Starting in the 1980s, em- practical purpose of rehearsing, but ployed a much more thoroughgoing they are rather clumsily arranged, approach, appearing most recently in and give an incomplete idea of the his The Complete Annotated Gilbert & composer’s original conceptions. . . . Sullivan (20th Anniversary Edition It seems incredible that the British [New York: Oxford University Press, people should be denied access to 2016]). Bradley looked well beyond the the work of one of their greatest mu- published librettos and subsequent au- sicians in its only proper and authen- thorized editions, scrutinizing the pre- tic form. (Sullivan’s Comic Operas: A production copies submitted for license Critical Appreciation [London: Edward from the Lord Chamberlain’s office, as Arnold, 1928], 216–17.) well as the early promptbooks and Gilbert’s sketches and drafts extant now This is not the place for recounting the at the . Even so, Bradley gradual change in this situation. A did not consult musical sources, and good summary has been given by thus has no substantiation for annota- David Russell Hulme (“Adventures in tions such as “In early performances Musical Detection: Scholarship, Edi- Elsie had a longer solo here” (p. 922). tions, Produc tions and the Future of Far surpassing Bradley in a compre- the Savoy Operas,” in The Cambridge hensive attempt at textual authority is Companion to Gilbert and Sullivan, ed. The Variorum Gilbert & Sullivan, edited David Eden and Meinhard Saremba by Marc Shepherd and Michael [Cambridge University Press, 2009], Walters. To date, only one volume 231–42). Indeed, it was Hulme’s disser- has appeared (New York: Oakapple tation (“The of Sir Arthur Press, 2015), containing the first four Sullivan: A Study of Available Auto- operas. Although their edition presents graph Full Sores” [PhD diss., University only the verbal text, Shepherd and of Wales, 1986]) that established the Walters draw upon the full range field of Sullivan source studies, and his 336 Notes, December 2018 own edition of (Oxford Uni- both versions of this are in situ— versity Press, 2000) is clearly the model indeed, the printed sequence of the two for Colin Jagger’s edition of The Yeomen versions of no. 5 in the individual parts of the Guard, for which Hulme also varies “according to the ease of page served as “consultant editor.” (Herein- turns” (FS, p. 104). As both versions are after, Jagger’s full score will be cited as given the same item number, some “FS”; the vocal score as “VS.”) confusion seems inevitable in rehearsal. Jagger’s Yeomen is very accurately de- This situation set me wondering scribed as “a scholarly performing edi- whether there would ever be a produc- tion” (VS, p. iv). Jagger has collated tion that would opt entirely for the sources relevant to the work from its original version over the one that su- origins through the D’Oyly Carte revi- perseded it. I doubt it. Although Fair- sions of the 1920s, seeking to present a fax is a rather despicable character, and text as authorized by its creators—not there’s something of an appropriate6 necessarily that of the first night (al- swagger to the Allegro pesante 8 of the ready before the premiere Gilbert and original (indeed, with a touch of Sullivan had agreed on cuts to be made Verdian brindisi), somebody in 1887 immediately after the first night), but clearly recognized that the original set- in the settled state of its original run. ting did not do justice to Gilbert’s exis- He has nonetheless borrowed clarifica- tential lyric—the lyric that the librettist tions from later versions of the text— would later choose to be inscribed on particularly stage directions indicating the memorial monument for Sullivan characters’ entrances and exits, some on the Victoria Embankment. Sullivan’s of which remained unspecified in print second setting (Andante espress., par- even after Gilbert’s supervision of not tially reworking ideas from the first set- only the 1887 premiere but also revivals ting) is justly celebrated. A production in 1897, 1906, and 1909. (One of these of Yeomen without it? It would be like a even now seems curiously to function production of Carmen that replaced more as an observation than a direc- the famous Habanera with Bizet’s first tion: “In the meantime, the Chorus have attempt, “L’amour est un enfant de [sic] entered” [FS, p. 301; VS, p. 145].) bohème!” In either case I can only The back cover of both the FS and imagine a performance in which the VS announce that this edition “returns original is immediately followed by an to what was performed during the origi- exclamation equivalent to “O Freunde, nal Savoy run,” but the inclu- nicht diese Töne!” before launching sion of material that never once was into the familiar version. performed in that run suggests that the Desirable as it is to have these extra editor is advocating yet another ver- numbers available for study, the layout sion. There are essentially five portions of the edition—placing most of this ma- of discarded material—and, of course, terial in its performing sequence rather each has its own story. Most straightfor- than as an appendix—implies that the ward of these is the original version of creators regarded these as performance Fairfax’s first song, “Is life a boon?” options in that original run. In fact, (no. 5 in act 1). This version made it each was explicitly cut, either because into rehearsals, but was discarded in of a deficiency in the number or be- favor of a new—now standard—version cause of a weakness in the overall pac- just days before the premiere. In ing. In one instance, this layout is a Jagger’s edition, the original setting ap- matter of convenience: couplets for the pears as an appendix in the back of Third and Fourth Yeomen near the be- both FS and VS, although a note in the ginning of the act 1 finale were cut just FS indicates that in the orchestral parts before the curtain went up by simply Music Reviews 337 eliminating a repeat. It is much more of Fairfax’s reprieve, so that the duet practical to include this material in situ was followed by a final passage of dia- (as Jagger does) with a repeat than logue before the finale. Sullivan’s origi- to print it separately at the end of the nal ending was overlong, considering volume—and this cut is noted in a foot- that the characters still need to be on- note (p. 193). Similarly, Meryll’s song stage (seen “going off”) when Phoebe “A laughing boy but yesterday” (no. 3a was to speak the next line of dialogue. in act 1) was a cut decided immediately His solution was to truncate the coda. before the premiere, but in fact it was When the collaborators moved the en- sung that evening (only), apparently as suing dialogue to before the duet, Sulli - a courtesy to the D’Oyly Carte veteran van expanded the ending again, but - Richard Temple, as it was this time coming to a half to his only solo number in the piece. Why segue into the finale. Curiously, Jagger Jagger does not relocate this number to includes the original longer ending an appendix is not clear to me, unless (immediately after the revised ending he is hoping it will be performed more in FS, in an appendix in VS) while not frequently henceforth. facilitating the performance of the Wilfrid’s song “When jealous tor- scene that requires it: the original ver- ments rack my soul” (no. 1a in act 1) sion of the dialogue is given as appen- was never once sung in the original dix E to the critical commentary in FS run, but rather cut about two weeks be- (p. xxxiii), but is absent altogether fore the premiere. Indeed, it was so from VS—the source that the actors thoroughly expunged that Jagger has who would speak the lines would be us- had to piece together materials from ing. Jagger errs, I think, with his editor- the original New York production—ma- ial suggestion “Attacca Finale” with the terials prepared and dispatched over- two earlier versions of the ending, as seas before the cut was made. Even so, these were not intended to lead directly the textual complications here are fasci- into the finale at all. In FS the instruc- nating, with an independent horn part tion rightly appears in brackets as an (apparently the sole survivor of yet an- editorial emendation; in VS it is with- other version of the number) dated out brackets, suggesting that it is some- fully a month after the American pre- how authoritative. miere. How this part came into exis- Jagger restores the famous duet “I tence remains a mystery, and Jagger’s have a song to sing, O!” (no. 7) to its commentary on this curiosity makes original key (D major). Indeed, he compelling reading for anyone in- makes no provision for it to be per- trigued by textual complexity (FS, pp. formed in E-flat (as has been standard xxix–xxxi). Like Meryll’s “A laughing since at least the 1897 revival). He does boy,” this song is the only solo number not dispute the composer’s authoriza- for its singer, but that is the only point tion for this change: “we are unlikely in its favor—and not a point that seems ever to be sure what Sull.’s reasons to have bothered its creators. W. H. were, but his original intention is clear, Denny, who created the role of Wilfrid, and it is almost certain that the duet was new to the company; there was no was in D during the first production” particular motive to reward him with (FS, p. xxi). He argues that “since the his own solo moment. Out it went. duet segues from the previous number The fifth discarded passage is the which sets us up for D, any other key original ending of the penultimate would seem incongruous (the music is number of the opera, the duet reprised in the Finale of Act II, where “Rapture, rapture!” Gilbert originally again it is in D)” (pp. xx–xxi). The last placed this before the announcement portion of the previous number is in G 338 Notes, December 2018

Lydian, but it is not at all clear how the discussions of textual matters and be- segue is to happen, as there is an ex- long where they are, although it would tended dialogue over music. It has no be helpful to have them listed in the conclusion, but has a repeat marked. table of contents. More puzzling is that Was the orchestra intended to cut di- VS does have an appendix 2—the origi- rectly to the duet whenever the dia- nal ending of “Rapture, rapture,” which logue finished, from whatever point in in FS is folded in alongside the main the playout (treating it, that is, as a text. VS lacks the critical commentary “vamp till ready”)? If so, the fact the last (and thus also appendices A–E), but harmony Sullivan writes is A major— has a very useful summary of “the most the dominant of the new key—is imma- significant points pertinent to the vocal terial. E-flat is certainly an arresting score” (p. v). These will no doubt be change, though incongruous seems too useful in forestalling seasoned Savo- strong a term, especially given the com- yards’ quibbles about some of the origi- poser’s authorization. Jagger’s edition nal readings that Jagger has restored. generally enables options, but not this (Another difference in VS is an “Index one: users are forced into Sullivan’s of Vocal Ranges and Dialogue,” which original key. I think this is a mistake: will certainly be useful in planning the change to E-flat may well have been rehearsal schedules.) prompted by aesthetic considerations All this notwithstanding, this is a that made an “incongruous” key worth- fine edition. Jagger has (to borrow a while. I speculate: for this strolling phrase from ) minstrel number, the ostinato drone (a “washed its face” very thoroughly, and perfect fifth sustained in bass and cello, the work is presented admirably. Origi- but with sustained chords above) ac- nal details that unaccountably went by companiment suggests a hurdy-gurdy. the wayside have been restored—partic- This effect works well on paper, but ularly in ensembles when different might it have been found too harsh in characters should have different lyrics. performance? Moving it up a semitone It is clearly designed with performance necessarily softens the string timbre by in mind, and it should give a solid tex- eliminating even the possibility of sus- tual foundation for new productions of tained open strings. Jagger may prefer the opera willing to invest in it, as well it in D, of course, but it is editorial over- as becoming the default musical source reach to discard Sullivan’s second for those of us studying the work. thoughts—as we cannot know what mo- The other edition under review here tives he might have had for this change. is the Broude Trust’s Iolanthe, in three The organization of FS is puzzling. bulky volumes totaling more than 750 There are two distinct sets of appen- pages. The publisher’s preface for the dices: at the front of the volume, follow- series describes it as “a pragmatic ing hard upon the critical commentary compromise between the scholarly and (and before the musical text itself), are the practical” (part A, p. vii), and corre- appendices A–E dealing mainly with sponding performance materials are verbal text. At the back of the volume is promised. These tomes represent the score of the original version of “Is decades of work credited to three dis- life a boon?”—labeled “Appendix 1.” tinct scholars: the late Dinah Barsham, There is no appendix 2 in FS, but her husband Gerald Hendrie (who ulti- Jagger’s appendix E (the original final mately completed the project), and dialogue, discussed above) would fit contributor Helga J. Perry. At the an- better here at the end, as an alternate nual meetings of the American Musico- performance text. Appendices A–D are logical Society, I have for the past two Music Reviews 339 decades stopped by the Broude booth early years of the D’Oyly Carte produc- to ask about the progress of their Gilbert tions. If the Oxford Yeomen becomes by & Sullivan: The Operas edition. Ronald default the standard edition of a musi- Broude’s reply that “Iolanthe is in first cal text of the work, the Broude project proof” or “second proof” (and eventu- intends to establish standard editions ally “third proof”) became a regular re- for the text tout court, not just the musi- frain of these meetings for me—but it cal text. One significant absence here is is a testimony of the painstaking dedi- Gilbert’s preliminary plot sketches and cation of the publishers to such a costly drafts for Iolanthe preserved at the project. Gilbert and Sullivan may be Pierpont Morgan Library, and not yet long overdue for a serious scholarly edi- published in any widely-available form; tion, but the Broude Trust is intent on even considering the space it would seeing that they get one. consume, this edition would have been If Oxford’s Yeomen is fine, Broude’s an obvious place to publish this (at Iolanthe is superb, and well worth the least until the relevant Variorum volume decades of waiting. It is—as with the appears), so it strikes me as an unfortu- others in the Broude series—beauti- nate omission—particularly as the edi- fully presented. The number of typo- tors cover it in a mere four paragraphs. graphical issues I detected was vanish- A lengthy description, quoting ex- ingly small (e.g., a missing rest here, tended segments, is included in some braces smushed into brackets Andrew Crowther, Gilbert of Gilbert & there), and the number of actual and Sullivan: His Life and Character (Glou- suspected errors minute. For Broude’s cestershire: History Press, 2011), 156– and HMS Pinafore, errata 68. Crowther’s work is not cited in lists for the full scores were included the Broude volume, and indeed the when the subsequent vocal scores were Broude bibliography is not only limited published, and I will communicate my but shockingly dated: of the thirty items brief list to the publisher rather than of “secondary literature and reviews of belabor a reader here. modern productions” (part C, p. 216), Broude tends toward a “one-stop only seven date from the present cen- shop” approach in this series: a com- tury (and two of these are tangential prehensive introduction to the work in the extreme). Compare this with and its genesis; a critical edition of twelve items published in the period the libretto (including two sets of foot- 1970–1990—the period, that is, when notes: one for variant readings, and a the work on this project began— second for annotations to elucidate po- despite a significant increase in studies tentially obscure references); a critical concerning the Savoy operas in recent edition of the full score (with discarded years. My sense is that the introduction numbers), with separate critical appara- is dated in a way that the rest of this tus; and supplementary materials in- edition is not. cluding some of Gilbert’s ‘Bab’ Ballads One other item that would have that served as precursors to elements been extremely valuable to users of the of the plot of the opera, and—scattered edition is a letter from Sullivan in late throughout—his comic drawings illus- October 1882 to , who trating characters at various key mo- would be conducting the New York pre- ments; for Iolanthe a fascinating extra is miere, transmitting specific instructions a collation of various arrangements of about a number of details in the score. the beginning of the “March of the Hendrie cites this letter frequently in Peers” in act 1 for onstage brass band, the critical commentary of the musical illustrating a variety of practices in the text, but the full text would be useful. 340 Notes, December 2018

Some of these instructions are truly sur- locate a copy of the revised first edition prising, as for example Sullivan’s re- that could be dated before 1911.) mark about Private Willis’s “When all D’Oyly Carte licensed amateur produc- night long,” which opens act 2: “1st tions, and for these the published vocal eight bars of song to be sung ad lib: like scores would easily suffice while not a gentleman at a public dinner without capturing every performance detail accompt” (part C, p. 132). Hendrie that the professional companies (i.e., adds a comment that “there is no evi- D’Oyly Carte’s main London company dence in extant musical sources that and his several provincial touring com- the song was actually performed this panies) would give. Much has been way.” Nonetheless, I think that this odd- made of Gilbert’s scrupulous prepara- ity merits a footnote on the relevant tion of prompt books, and insistence of page in the score—although it doesn’t faithful adherence to the letter, but get one. Hendrie does include a foot- there is no evidence to show that Sulli- note for Sullivan’s instruction that the van cared at all that the same fidelity be last phrase of the ’s given to an accurate musical text. song “When I went to the bar as a very The main textual challenge faced by young man” should be “spoken Jagger, Hendrie (et al.), and indeed through accomp,” indicating “I have any editor of the Gilbert and Sullivan taught [George] Grossmith to sing it works (or works for the musical stage thus” (cf. part C, p. 119, and part A, generally) is the lack of a single autho- p. 212). There is also a footnote regard- rized text for the whole work. Both the ing the choral echo (“I wonder”) at the Oxford Yeomen and the Broude Iolanthe end of “Oh, foolish fay”—something exhibit an editorial principle of “di- Sullivan specifies in the letter, but vided authority”: a certain state of the which remains absent from the pub- published libretto is the authoritative lished scores until the 1920s. Hendrie source for the dialogue; a certain state concedes “it was apparently an early of the published vocal score serves like- performance tradition” (part B, p. wise for the vocal parts, Gilbert’s lyrics 53)—indeed, an instruction from (which Sullivan sometimes altered), Sullivan before the first night. Such sit- and word setting; and for the instru- uations prompted me to wonder how mental lines, the ultimate authority is important it was to Sullivan that his Sullivan’s composing score, faute de published vocal scores aligned with mieux (as Hendrie acknowledges, given the details of his intentions on stage. the sketchy and at times skeletal state of Gilbert took pains to get his text the Sullivan’s autographs). This complex way he wanted it in print, both in libret- editorial situation is inevitable, and of tos for distribution at the theater and course there are very many situations in subsequently in published collections which two or more of these principal of his plays. By contrast, the small revi- authorities conflict, to say nothing of sions to the first English edition of the the many sources further down the tex- vocal score seem not to have been pub- tual chain. The editor’s task is not one lished until sometime after Sullivan’s of merely combining the authoritative death on 22 November 1900. (After elements of these three sources to pro- the initial London production closed duce a single document: that could be on 1 January 1884, the D’Oyly Carte done mechanically and mindlessly. Far company did not revive Iolanthe at the beyond this, the editor must interfere until 7 December 1901. with the readings of these principal au- That revival might have been the impe- thorities to produce what—as best can tus to make some revisions to the vocal be determined—a single authorized score, but the Broude team could not edition would have looked like, had it Music Reviews 341 only been produced. For example, in Countess, Countess, the title, the title,” the composing score, Sullivan sets an while in the autograph it reads “Yes, outburst from the chorus of Peers with Countess, Countess will be the title!” this text: Neither of these appears in Hendrie’s score (nor even in a footnote), which O lucky little lady! instead adheres to his specified earlier Her Strephon’s lot is shady; state of the vocal score, and giving in- His rank, it seems it vital, stead “But of what I’m not aware, I’m And Countess is the title, not aware!” followed by the line that is But of what I’m not aware! in all sources, “But of what I’m not (Iolanthe, act 1 finale) aware.” It is a small point, but as this Anyone familiar with Iolanthe will recog- same line is then repeated again (with nize immediately that the first four different music) to wrap up this section lines have an extra initial syllable—a of the finale, a footnote in the score syllable that may well be the composer’s would have facilitated a choice for per- addition to the text, as this version is formers who might opt (with the auto- not found in any of Gilbert’s librettos. graph and with later vocal scores) to Indeed, these extra syllables do not sur- state two lines twice rather than one vive even into the first edition vocal three times in succession; which, how- scores (English or American), and are ever, is not to say that economy of deliv- extant only in Sullivan’s autograph. ery is a particular hallmark of the Hendrie has selected the first edition Gilbert and Sullivan operas. English vocal score in its second state as To the extent that the Broude series his authority for the vocal lines and text seeks to wed the scholarly and the prac- setting, so these initial syllables are rele- tical, it is my assumption that what ap- gated to the critical commentary. But as pears on the pages of score is what per- the full orchestra (minus the scurrying formers are expected to use, while what violins) is doubling the chorus here, appears in the critical commentary is Hendrie emends the orchestral parts aimed at those pursuing a more schol- by deleting the initial eighth-note for arly approach. (Will these scores one each phrase to match the rhythm of the day be made available as cheaper pa- vocal score (part A, pp. 245f.; cf. part C, perback offprints without the critical p. 125). The alternative—blindly fol- commentary?) If I am annoyed at times lowing the prescribed division of by the absence of a footnote in the authority—would have yielded differ- score when I feel a performer’s atten- ent rhythms between chorus and or- tion ought to be drawn to something, I chestra precisely where Sullivan set find myself also bemused to find the oc- unison rhythms. (Although early or- casional footnote that flags something chestral performing materials survive no one would ever dream of perform- and were consulted, the only known ing anyway (e.g., part A, p. 176). material extant from the original pro- Greater care might have been given to duction is a violin I part, and thus can- precisely what should appear in these not answer the question of what rhythm footnotes—and this is one way in which was played at the Savoy in 1882.) the Oxford Yeomen is so much more The last of these lines—“But of what clearly a practical edition. When I’m not aware!”—presents another Hendrie stoops to practicalities, the ef- problem. In some vocal scores—and, fect can be jarring. “The editor suggests indeed, in a revised text in the compos- the following cadenza,” he writes, sup- ing score itself—this line is preceded plying a short flourish of his own for by a sort of repetition of the one before Phyllis where Sullivan specifies only it: in later vocal scores it reads “Yes, “Long cadenza” (part A, p. 222). As this 342 Notes, December 2018 is a task that a singer, conductor, or reprised in the finale ultimo—where not répétiteur should be able to do without only I but the sustain the Ј difficulty, this editorial condescension concert f (part B, pp. 179 and 191). is a blot. The same may be said of the Indeed, the f Ј is not at all an “added annotations to the libretto, which are sixth” but harmonically essential: the eЉ sometimes quaintly expressed (noting that appears above it is a melodic disso- that St. James’s Park was “in Gilbert’s nance—and indeed not sustained in day known as a venue frequented by any of the accompanying parts in the women of easy virtue,” as if the reader more fully scored passage in the finale. should not be compelled to see the Hendrie’s misreading of this minute word prostitutes (part C, p. 36), or detail should be corrected. bizarre choices (as if “affadavit” is a If I seem overly harsh on Broude’s word with some ambiguous meaning or Iolanthe, it is because it will not be bet- no longer in common usage [part C, tered anytime soon. If the Broude p. 34]). The numerous references to Trust ever gets around to The Yeomen of “long-standing performance tradition” the Guard, there is still work to be done, seem out of place in an edition that is but Oxford’s Yeomen will suffice for the seeking to establish the settled text of foreseeable future. The two editions the initial run; a reference to “modern reviewed here must inevitably be re- performance tradition” (part B, p. 85) garded as momentous, nothing short of even more so. revelatory in what they open up to the In one instance I think Hendrie’s new scholarship of the Savoy operas. musical judgment has failed him. Near These two operas are among the collab- the end of the act 2 trio “If you go in” orators’ best works, and they finally are (at the words “It’s Love that makes published in a form that will allow the world go round!”—on the word proper consideration of their merits “Love”) he argues that an unclear note- and liabilities. Both belong in the li- Ј head in cornet I should be read as g braries of any program with any inter- (concert eЈ) rather than aЈ (concert f Ј) est in the musical stage. Oxford has as in a copyist’s score and the early managed to keep the price of their printed orchestral parts—which essen- Yeomen at least plausible for companies tially changes the harmony from ii6 to that might seek to put on the show IV in E major (part B, p. 127). The (considering that inferior performance note in the critical commentary reads materials are available for free down- “Although A[utograph] is not com- load from IMSLP). Broude’s series will pletely clear and the added sixth is not always be a stretch on the pocketbook, impossible, it seems more likely that but it truly offers outstanding value for Sullivan intended a simple A-major the money. chord here” (part C, p. 142). Hendrie offers no further justification, although he acknowledges that there is a parallel James Brooks Kuykendall passage (twice) when this music is University of Mary Washington

THE FIRST VOLUMES IN THE RICHARD STRAUSS EDITION Richard Strauss. Lieder mit Klavierbegleitung, op. 10 bis op. 29. Herausgegeben von Andreas Pernpeintner. (Richard Strauss Werke: Kritische Ausgabe, Serie II: Lieder und Gesänge für eine Singstimme, Band 2.) Vienna: Verlag Dr. Richard Strauss, 2016. [Contents, p. vii–viii;