Microfilms International 300 N
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has -been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8518954 Herrig, Robert Arthur OPERA REVIEWS AS THEATRICAL CRITICISM The Ohio State University Ph.D. University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Herrig, Robert Arthur All Rights Reserved OPERA REVIEWS AS THEATRICAL CRITICISM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Arthur Herrig, B.A., M.A. # s}: # sjc :{s The Ohio State University 1985 Reading Committee: Approved By George Crepeau Adviser // Donald Glancy Department of Thea tre U Alan Woods Copyright by Robert Arthur Herrig 1985 For Michael Nur der Freundschaft Harraonie mildert die Beschwerden; Ohne diese Sympathie ist kein Glueck auf Erden. Die Zauberfloete ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge Donald Glancy, aca demic adviser, for his assistance in organizing the text and for suggestions of ancillary studies that have en riched this investigation. He also wishes to thank the staffs of The New York Public Library, Forty-Second Street Branch, Forty-Third Street Annex, and Lincoln Center Branch for their help in gathering materials. The staff of the Ferguson Library, Stamford, Connecticut, was also helpful. Background information concerning the New York opera scene was furnished by Aldo DiTullio, Mary Ellen Pracht, and Thomas Martin. Margaret Wise assisted in preparation of the typescript. The responses of Harold C. Schonberg and H. Howard Taubman to questionnaires submitted by the author have proved most valuable and are deeply appreciated. VITA October 26, 1949 . , Born - Rome, New York 1970 ........................................ B.A., cum laude, Wittenberg University Springfield, Ohio 1972 ........................................ M.A., Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio 1975-1978 & 1979-1980 Assistant Professor, Theatre Wittenberg University Springfield, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Dramatic Criticism Studies in Theatre History and Criticism. Professors Donald Glancy and John Morrow Vocal Studies. Professor John Muschick PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Actors’ Equity Association Screen Actors' Guild American Theatre Association iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION...................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... iii VITA..................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................... vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1 II. THE STRUCTURE OF OPERA REVIEWS......................................33 III. MAJOR OPERA REVIEW TOPICS ............................................... 93 IV. SPECIAL INFLUENCES ON OPERA REVIEWS ...................... 177 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................246 APPENDIXES A. THE METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA ON OPERA REVIEWS...................................265 B. THE METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA ON MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS. 306 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 326 v L IS T OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of Occurrence of Structural Types: Opera Versus Musical Theatre Reviews (All Qualifying Reviews) ............................................................... 74 2. Comparison of Occurrence of Structural Types: Opera Reviews Versus Musical Theatre Reviews (Omitting Reviews by Walter Kerr) .......................................... 78 3. Frequency of Occurrence of Major Topics in Opera Reviews ............................................................................ 94 4. Comparison of Major Topics in Opera Reviews: Musical Versus Non-Musical Elements ...................................... 95 5. Comparison of Major Topics in Opera Reviews: Transient Versus Permanent Elements ...................................... 96 6. Production Elements as Major Topic: Frequency of Occurrence in Opera Reviews ............................ 116 7. Occurrence of Score and Libretto as Major Topics Opera Reviews Overall Versus Operas New to New York. 137 8. Comparison of Occurrence of Major Topics: Musical Theatre Versus Opera Reviews ..................................... 152 9. Comparison of Major Topics in All Reviews: Transient Versus Permanent Elements ........................................... 153 10. Comparison of Major Topics in All Reviews: Musical Versus Non-Musical Elements ........................................... 153 11. Frequency of Occurrence of Topics E and F: Lang’s Reviews Versus All Reviews ............................................... 224 vi LIST OF TABLES— Continued Table . Page 12. Comparison of Occurrence of Structural Types: Taubraan’s Opera Reviews Versus Opera Reviews Overall . 230 13. Comparison of Occurrence of Structural Types: Taubman’s Musical Theatre Reviews Versus Musical Theatre Reviews Overall .............................. 231 14. Comparison of Occurrence of Major Topics: Taubman’s Opera Reviews Versus Opera Reviews Overall . 232 15. Comparison of Occurrence of Major Topics: Taubman’s Musical Theatre Reviews Versus Musical Theatre Reviews Overall .............................. 233 16. Favorability of Opera and Musical Theatre Reviews. 251 17. Favorability of Gilbert and Sullivan Reviews .................. 252 18. Opera Review Statistics - New York Times ........................ 278 19. Opera Review Statistics - New York Herald Tribune. 291 20. Musical Theatre Statistics - New York Times...........................308 21. Musical Theatre Statistics - New York Herald Tribune .................................................................... 316 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The development of operatic criticism in the popular press has produced a type of review that differs from journalistic criticism of theatre in general. With few exceptions* those who evaluate opera for newspapers are music critics; the subjects of their reviews range from concerts and recitals to operettas. Conversely, the bounds of drama critics almost never extend to include opera; on the rare occasions that such reviewers find themselves judging operas, they are quick to indicate that they are operating outside their usual sphere of exper tise.^ The very same drama critics do not, however, hesi- Most notably, George Bernard Shaw wrote musical criticism for the Star and the World before becoming a theatrical critic for the Saturday Review. An example in the twentieth century is Howard Taubman, who served as New York Times music critic for more than twenty years before becoming drama critic at that newspaper. When the operatic status of a musical piece was in doubt, both a music c ritic and a drama c ritic might be assigned to report the event. For example, the New York Herald Tribune covered The Rape of Lucretia (December 30, 1948) and Regina (November 1, 1949) by assigning both How ard Barnes and Virgil Thomson to the opening performances. 1 2 tate to judge commercial musical theatre, even operetta, despite the fact that those more popular forms contain the same.elements of music, drama and dance that comprise the grandest of operas. The division of critical disciplines can be attribu ted to two factors. First, as already implied, drama critics tend to