Microfilms International 300 N

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 review those musical theatre pieces that are perceived to be popular or commercial. When a musical moves from Broadway, where it is expected to make a prof­ it, to a subsidized opera house, where its inclusion in the repertory is determined (at least in part) by non­ commercial considerations, it also moves from the realm of drama criticism into that of opera criticism. Second, though operas, operettas and musicals share identical elements of music, drama and dance, the latter two forms do not maintain an obvious hierarchy in which the musical component dictates the nature and extent of the drama and dance. A hallmark of operatic form is the dominance that music maintains in its hierarchy of elements. The more consistent musical texture of opera attests to the ascend­ ency of its musical component. Musicals are more likely to contain long stretches of dialogue interspersed occa­ sionally with musical numbers which are musically unre­ lated to one another. So in the case of evaluating opera, where music so fully determines the formulation of the 3

a r tis tic work, a music c ritic might well be considered more qualified to pass judgment on the work.

The circumstances outlined above have led to charac­ teristics that are peculiar to opera reviews. This study concerns the identification and analysis of those charac- teristics along with a comparison of opera reviews to concurrent criticism of commercial musical theatre.

Conclusions of the study are based on a sample of reviews appearing over a period of twenty-three seasons in two major New York newspapers. The newspapers chosen as sources were the New York Times and the New York Herald

Tribune.^ A decision was made to limit the study to the

New York press, because it clearly offered a complete, readily available record of daily theatrical and operatic criticism. Though the limitation undoubtedly imparted a parochial quality to the investigation, the province being examined was throughout the period one of the cultural capitals of the world; conclusions drawn from the study could be expected, therefore, to be widely applicable without the inclusion of other North American cities (San

Francisco, Chicago, or Montreal, for example), where oper­ atic and theatrical activity was more sporadic, and where

O Frequently referred to in this study as the Times and the Herald Tribune. 4 journalistic coverage of such activity was both less com­ plete and less available for scholarly examination.

The duration of the period under study offered defin­ ite advantages. A span of twenty-three years was consid­ ered short enough to assure thorough assessment of the available documents. On the other hand, the period was deemed long enough to offer an opportunity to detect trends in critical style and attitudes.

The particular years chosen (1943-1966) yielded a logical segment of inquiry for operatic, theatrical and journalistic reasons. In the first place, 1943 marked the opening of Oklahoma!, generally acknowledged to be a land­ mark in theatre history. That opening signalled the be­ ginning of a period during which "book" musicals dominated the professional musical stage. That dominance continued until the late nineteen-sixties, when “concept” musicals such as Cabaret (late 1966) and Hair (1967) prompted c ritic s to note what many of them considered to be the first significant development in musicals since Oklahoma!.

The period thus exhibited coherence in musical theatre style.

In addition, starting with the 1 9 4 3 -1 9 4 4 season made sense in that it coincided with the founding of the New

York City Opera Company. To choose a slightly earlier period would effectively restrict the opera reviewers' 5

comments to productions of the Metropolitan Opera. All

twenty-three seasons covered by the study enjoyed the

presence of two professional companies. Selecting a per­

iod early enough to take advantage of reviews of the

Manhattan Opera Company (1906-1910) would entail a d is­

tinct disadvantage inherent in earlier reviews: names of

reviewers were not cited in the articles; the process of

verifying authorship would involve a time-consuming in­

quiry of no particular scholarly merit.

The 1965-1966 season provided a logical ending for

the study, because it was the last season of performances at the Metropolitan's original opera house at 39th Street and Broadway. That season also marked the New York City

Opera's move to Lincoln Center. The double watershed occasioned by these operatic developments was reinforced

by a major change in the world of journalism. The New

York Herald Tribune suffered a raonths-long strike from which it never recovered. The paper that succeeded it,

the World Journal Tribune, differed greatly from its pre­ decessor in its coverage of the arts. Most importantly, key staff changes were prompted by the strike. For in ­ stance, beginning with the 1966-1 9 6 7 season, Walter Kerr,

the mainstay of the Herald Tribune theatre staff, became a

critic for the Times. Comparisons in style of criticism 6

between the papers would be rendered incoherently complex.

Furthermore, the World Journal Tribune ceased publication after only a few months. Considering all of these short­ comings, continuation beyond the 1 965-1 9 6 6 season seemed inadvisable.

The choice of these particular dailies from among the half-dozen major newspapers that existed during the period was equally well justified. The Times was the most in­ flu en tial daily publication in America throughout the period; its reviews were widely quoted and reprinted.

Until its demise, The Herald Tribune was the major New

York rival of the Times in the area of arts coverage.

Between them they employed the major reviewers of the day, including Brooks Atkinson, Walter Kerr, Howard Taubman,

Olin Downes, Virgil Thomson, Paul Henry Lang and Harold C.

Schonberg. Enlarging the sample to include other popular dailies of the time would not have added any reviewers with influence equal to those mentioned above. Moreover, the Times is the newspaper of record for the City of New

York. It is thus fully indexed and available throughout the United States and in cultural centers in other coun­ tries. The Herald Tribune, though not indexed, is also widely available on microfilm. Restricting the inquiry to these two sources lessened the chance of missing an im­ portant review or reviewer within the period; errors 7

arising from omission or manipulation of data were nearly

impossible, because the sources were so easy to recheck.

There was also a subsidiary reason for lim iting the

analysis to reviews appearing in the two selected papers,

for the Times and the Herald Tribune displayed sufficient­

ly different journalistic styles to prompt comparison.

The general approach of the New York Times was encyclopae­

dic and authoritative. The eight-column format and rela­

tive scarcity of photographs reinforced its staid emphasis

on written rather than pictorial reporting. Its policy in

the area of the arts was to cover all events of major

significance, and most of minor significance as well. The

effects of that policy were particularly apparent in its

music articles. There an attempt was made at least to

chronicle New York debuts—not only professional debuts,

but in many cases amateur ones as well. In addition to

mentioning them by way of short notices, some assessment was usually attempted in the form of a review.^

The Herald Tribune. on the other hand, made a more popular appeal in its general format and editorial poli­ cies. It included more photographs, shorter articles, a page of comic strips and a Hollywood gossip column.

^The difference between a notice and a review is defined on page 19. 8

Though its coverage of the arts was second in thoroughness

only to the Times, artistic events that were deemed to be

of minor importance were often neglected.

The following examples serve to illustrate the dif­

ference in thoroughness between the papers. When either

of the major opera houses reintroduced a production into its repertory, the reappearance of the work was usually reviewed in the Times; it would at least receive a notice.

The Herald Tribune would not necessarily cover such an event,^ though the presence of an internationally promin­ ent singer or conductor in the performance would usually assure some mention. Debuts at one of the major opera houses were always covered by the Times. If the debut occurred in an otherwise unnotable performance (e.g., an unheralded tenor's debut in a season's final performance of an opera^) coverage in the Times might well take the form of a brief notice rather than a review. The Herald

Tribune would probably ignore so minor a musical event altogether.

Differences between the publications were far less apparent in their treatment of musical theatre. If one

^An early example is the Times review (March 1, 1944) of the Metropolitan Opera's Die Goetterdaemmerung. The Herald Tribune did not review the performance.

^Times, 8 November, 1947. 9 ignores the Sunday editions (in which the Times excelled in the extent of its coverage), the two papers could be considered equally thorough in their treatment of musical theatre activity. That equality can be explained at least in part by the fact that nearly all reviews appearing in daily editions were devoted to evaluating new productions.

The practice of reassessing productions to determine the effects of cast changes, repetition, scenery upkeep, sharpness of choreography, etc., was not introduced until the end of the nineteen-sixties. Before that time, the evaluation of a previously reviewed production was prompt­ ed only by the return of a company from a national tour for a second Broadway stin t, or by the assumption of a major role by a noted star.^

In comparing the degree of completeness of coverage of musical theatre as opposed to opera, one circumstance becomes clear: the choice of what events to treat in the arts pages of a newspaper had more to do with journalistic necessity than with artistic or critical concerns. Broad­ way theatres presented the press with numerous, well-de­ fined events throughout the theatrical season in the form

7Up until the mid-nineteen sixties, stars usually would not take over an already established role on Broad­ way. Beginning with Hello Dolly, however, producers began to succeed in wooing big-name entertainers as replacements on Broadway; the trend came too late to affect the sample used for this study. 10 of premieres and major revivals. Once the tally of raves, pans and mixed reviews had been taken and duly published in Variety, however, the reviewing of subsequent perform­ ances was apparently deemed not to be newsworthy.

The city’s operatic institutions did not present the same array of clearly designated major events. To be sure,- certain performances indisputably qualified to be reviewed: production premieres, return to the repertory of acclaimed productions or performers, and local debuts of international stars, for example. A handful were consid­ ered important enough to warrant front-page coverage.

That distinction was more likely to be bestowed by the

Herald Tribune. Yet even the staid Times was capable of journalistic rapture when an operatic performance of great magnitude took place; it not only featured a front­ page review of Birgit Nilsson's Metropolitan debut, but

Q also commented on the performance on its editorial page.

Beyond the few events which unquestionably merited attention in the press, however, the operatic season was composed of performances whose newsworthiness was far more doubtful. For instance, the first professional New York performance of Peter Grimes on February 12, 1948, command­ ed coverage from both the Times and the Herald Tribune. A

^Timss, 20 December, 1959, sec. 4, p.6. 11 succeeding performance on February 24 offered only the novelty of three different singers in the leading roles, the Herald Tribune did not review the second performance.

Olin Downes of the Times not only reviewed it at length, but also used the second review to refine and amplify his initial opinion of the work itself. He was prompted to do so by what he perceived to be an improvement in quality in the second performance. There was no way of knowing ahead of time which performances would stand out in the reper­ tory.

As previously stated, if a performance had any claim to distinction whatsoever, the Times would cover it. As a season progressed, as opera companies delved deeper into their standard repertories, and as roles were more fre­ quently assumed by fam iliar company regulars, even the obligatory nod from the Times was likely to be reduced to a notice, or to a review so brief as to take on the appearance of a filler at the end of another news story.

In the case of the Herald Tribune, reviews merely became scarcer as the season progressed, producing only periodic bursts of interest to reflect changes in the repertory cycle—for example, the inevitable introduction of Wagner­ ian repertoire at the Metropolitan Opera, which happened annually in late January or early February until the advent of Rudolf Bing's managership. 12

Differences in the consistency of journalistic cover­ age between New York's opera and musical theatre critics may be attributed largely to corresponding differences in theatrical production systems. The series of well-de­ fined, journalistically exciting events, noted as being typical of the commercial Broadway theatre, resulted from its long-run system of production. The repertory system of New York's opera companies elicited journalistic in­ terest far more sporadically. Barring the few indisput­ ably important performances of opera in any season, choice of which opera performances were to receive full-length reviews was more heavily influenced by the taste and judgment of individual editors and critics. Because opera critics exercised more personal judgment in selecting the performances they criticized, an analysis of the types of operas most often reviewed during the period can yield important information concerning critical preferences, as well as trends in critical attitudes toward the operatic Q repertory.7

In the period under investigation, articles concern­ ing opera totaled more than 3000 in the Times alone.

However, because the primary concern of this study is the

g The results of such an analysis can be found on pages 140-141 below. 13

reviewing of opera rather than the journalistic reporting of opera events, not all articles were evaluated. To

begin with, general articles—those that dealt with per­ sonalities in the field of opera, reports of a season's repertory, historical studies of particular operas and their production records, and biographical sketches of composers and singers of previous periods—were eliminated from the category of material under scrutiny (although many such articles were read in the course of the investi­ gation). What remained were items dealing with a particu­ lar performance or series of performances. All such a rti­ cles appearing in the New York Times between 1943 and 1966 were read; however, since a significant portion of the study depended on a comparison of topics within the re­ views, a further narrowing of subject articles was neces­ sary in order to arrive at a sample appropriate for anal­ ysis.

The next step was the elimination of all notices. In his study entitled The Origin and Development of Dramatic

Criticism in the New York Times. 1 8 5 1 -1 8 8 0 , John Rothman distinguished between a notice and a review in the follow­ ing manner: a review is an article of ten lines or more and is usually composed of two or more paragraphs; a notice is seldom more than a five-line paragraph and 14 resembles an advertisement for the subject perfornance.^

Such a distinction is appropriate for the manner and period of Rothman's investigation. But for the purposes of the present study, a different division between the two types of articles was required. As journalistic coverage of the arts evolved in the twentieth century, some arti­ cles, though accorded a headline and many inches of column space, simply were not devoted to commenting on the quali­ ty of a performance. Conversely, other a rtic le s, though composed of no more than twenty to fifty lines of print, were clearly published with the intention of assessing the artistic merit of a performance. A portion of a long article that displays the characteristics of a notice follows:

CALLAS' NIGHT AT THE MET The Return

By John Molleson

Maria Callas last night made a triumphant return to the Metropolitan Opera House, giving the Met and an elegant audience one of the most exciting evenings of opera in a generation. The soprano who has become a legend in her own time, for temper, temperament and an elec­ trifying stage presence, was greeted by an ova­ tion from a crowd that included celebrities from the ranks of art, politics, society and indus-

John Rothman, "The Origin and Development of Dram­ atic Criticism in The New York Times, 1851-1880" (M.A. Thesis, New York University, 1949), p. 7. 15

try. Among the listeners was Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, who was the guest of Rudolf Bing. Others in the glittering audience included such diverse personalities as Walter Lippmann, Mike Nichols, Rita Hayworth, Sens. Jacob K. Javits, J. William Fullbright and Edward F. [sic] Kennedy, Rise Stevens, Tony Randall, Leon­ ard Bernstein, Giovanni Martinelli, Robert Mer­ rill and Bidu Sayao. Jackie, in an off-the-shoulder acquaraarine [sic] gown was cheered when she made her appear­ ance in Mr. Bing's box. Standees crowding the rail also applauded opera stars they recognized in the audience. But the lu s tie st bravos went to the star of the evening. It was Maria Cal­ las' night.

The a rtic le continues for a total of over five hundred words. John Molleson, its author, was a regular staff member of the Herald Tribune, though he was not a music critic. This particular article was cited because it formulates no judgment of the performance. The only statement that could possibly be construed as evaluative is the opening one. As the article continues, it becomes clear that the excitement referred to in that sentence was engendered by Callas's decision to return to the Metropol­ itan, rather than by the quality of the performance, because much of the excitement he described took place before the curtain went up.

On the other hand, an article composed of only thir­ ty-one lines of print (not much more than a filler) clear-

•*• •'•H e ra ld Tribune, 20 March, 1965. 16

ly belongs to the category of review:

MIMI AT CITY OPERA SINGER'S FIRST ROLE

Tusa Santo, soprano born here of Italian parents, undertook the role of Mimi in "La Bo- heme" last night at the City Opera. It was not only her debut with the City Center company, but also her first appearance in public. If the personable young singer did not cover herself with glory, it spoke the better for her ability as a singing actress, for Miss Santo was very much the shy ingenue, and as much in command of her stage presence as she was of her pretty voice. She sang easily and— on the whole--quietly, but with a good range of ex­ pression and vocal color and with power for the climaxes. She should be a valuable addition to the company. Rudolf Petrak contributed some gracious— and some rather strained—singing as Rodolpho; Eva Likova was a vivacious Musetta; Theo Bayle did a fine, ly rical job in the third act as Marcello; Arthur Newman, Raffaele Arie, Richard Wentworth, Emile Renan and Nathaniel Sprinzena completed the cast. Julius Rudel was the con­ ductor. C.H.

Though far briefer than the article about Callas excerpted above, the Boheme piece is clearly intent on conducting an evaluation of the performance under consideration, and thus qualifies as a review. Almost every article consid­ ered during the twenty-three season period clearly fell into either the evaluative or non-evaluative category. An exception occurred following a gala New Year's Eve per­ formance of Fledermaus:

^ Times, 20 October, 1951. 17

SERENADE TO BING WINS HIM OVATION

Rise Stevens Interpolates Lyric Tribute in *Fledermaus' for packed house at ’Met'

The audience of 3,700 that packed the Met­ ropolitan Opera House last night for a special New Year's Eve performance of Strauss' Fleder- maus gave an ovation to Rudolf Bing, the general manager. The demonstration came when Rise Ste­ vens as Prince Orlofsky stepped forward and sang some interpolated verses about the Metropoli­ tan's new impressario. The verses came in the Prince's song "Cha- cun a Son Gout." After explaining that in the Prince's party anything went, including hanging on the chandeliers, the new lyrics by Howard Dietz pointed out that it was not so at the Metropolitan. There what Mr. Bing decreed was law. Sang Miss Stevens:

"If he is in a Wagnerian mood We're forced to strain a lung And serve the ponderous musical food Of 'Goetterdaeramerung.' But if he feels the surge of an urge To charm the Op'ra House With Viennesy tunes that emerge As light as the 'Fledermaus,' The spring in Bing can turn off a dirge And turn on Johann Strauss."

At the conclusion of the new verses Miss Stevens pointed her extravagantly long cigarette holder at Box 23, where Mr. Bing was sittin g , and the show was stopped while he received sev­ eral rounds of applause. The performance was the third of the season for the new revival and it was conducted again by Eugene Ormandy. There was only one singer in the cast who had not been heard in the opera in the previous presentations—Charles Kullman, who played Eisenstein, the husband. Mr. Kullman was clearly chosen on the prin- ciple governing the selection of everyone else in the excellent cast. He is an artist with a voice capable of doing a r tis tic justice to the music being sung, and, at the same tim e, one who looks well in the part and can act i t with 18

genuine comic flair. This meant that the company remained a first-rate ensemble. Patrice Munsel, as Adele, again got a huge hand for her song "Look Me Over O nce." Ljuba Welitch was t.he Rosalinda, Richard Tucker the Alfred; John Brownlee, the Dr. Falke; Jack Gilford, the jailer; Hugh Thompson, the warden; Nana Gollner the Ida, and Paul Franke, the lawyer. Because of the l i l t of the show, members of the audience began humming Strauss waltzes. It was not a bad welcome for the New Year. R.P.

This review was quoted in full in order to show the pro­

portion of evaluative to non-evaluative material that it contains. Only the four underscored sentences can be characterized as evaluative; thus, eighty percent of the review is concerned with reporting facts associated with the event, rather than commenting upon it. S till, the article should be categorized as a review, because some evaluation of the performance is offered. Looking at the matter from a journalistic viewpoint, a review is like an editorial. Although an ed ito rial may be devoted almost entirely to the description of a problem or situation, the inclusion of a single opinion, no matter how brief, justi­ fies its removal from the news pages, and its placement with other articles of opinion.

It should be stressed that the inclusion of so much society coverage with critical evaluations was rare, par-

1 O Italics mine. Times, 1 January, 1951. 19 ticularly for a member of a newspaper's critical staff (as

Ross Parmenter, who wrote the Fledermaus review, was). In cases involving artistic events that also qualified as newsworthy social events (such as Maria Callas's return to the Met as Tosca), society columns and reviews appeared side by side, each devoted exclusively to its own topic.

The delineation between reviews and society notices re­ mained characteristic throughout the period, although limited mention of the social functions connected with a performance remained common practice in opera reviews even in the mid-nineteen sixties.

Succinctly stated, then, the present study differen­ tiates between reviews and notices in the following way: a review is an article of any length that describes and evaluates a single performance; a notice may describe a performance or the circumstances surrounding a perform­ ance, but makes no attempt to offer critical judgments.

The distinction that a review must cover only a single performance is important. Articles dealing with more than one performance were eliminated unless they could be assessed as two separate reviews that were, for typographical reasons, included under one headline. In many such cases, a series of asterisks or an extra space between paragraphs marked a definite separation between the reviews. In instances where critics freely drew com­ 20

parisons among operas, or between single operas and a season's repertory, data was rendered too complex and ambiguous for large-scale categorization and evaluation.

For the same reason, reviews of double or triple bills were also excluded.

Articles appearing in the New York Times during the period under investigation that conformed to the stated definition of a review were evaluated and recorded with the following information:

1) The citation (date, page, and author)

2) The approximate length of the review (counted in

lines of type)

3) The three major topics covered by the reviewer

A) The title of the opera being reviewed.

The method employed in finding the reviews is described in

Appendix A.

Over 1650 reviews were listed with the above informa­ tion. As cataloguing progressed, however, it became ap­ parent that some further qualification in the selection of reviews for complete analysis should be made for two rea­ sons. First, the total number of subject reviews had to be reduced to a level at which more than the most cursory examination would be possible. After all, if an equal 21

number of reviews were found in the Herald Tribune, more

than 3300 reviews would be involved. Second, the specifi­

cations (length and type of performance) of the opera

reviews had to be aligned with the nature of the theatri­

cal reviews against which they would be compared. The

source decided upon for the theatrical reviews was New

York Theatre C ritic s 1 Reviews. a compendium of reviews

appearing in New York newspapers since 1940. Using that

source made the task of gathering musical theatre c riti­

cism very simple, and thus very unlikely to omit a review

of importance, although certain restrictions resulted from

using that periodical as a source. All reviews appearing

there are of Broadway productions only. Reviews of trav­

eling productions and of visiting companies from abroad

were included only if they took place in Broadway thea­

tres. Some reviews of operas were included in New York

Theatre Critics* Reviews on a limited basis. It occurred

when companion pieces concerning a single performance were

written by both music and drama critics of a newspaper.

It should be stressed that by the time consideration

was being given to assuring a degree of uniformity between

the opera and musical theatre sample reviews, a prelimin­ ary survey had been made of all New York Times opera

reviews that conformed with the criteria listed on page 19 above. A fair idea of the entire spectrum of criticism 22

produced by opera critics had already been obtained. Upon examining the nature of musical theatre reviews available in New York Theatre Critics* Reviews, the following qual­ ificatio n s were also imposed on the opera sample before further analysis proceeded:

1) The reviews of foreign correspondents—often not

even regular staff members of the newspapers—

cannot be considered representative either of

American journalism or of American criticism.

2) Reviews by regular newspaper staff members of

productions taking place outside New York often

dwelt on performance practices and audience

preferences of the locale where the performance

took place. Discussion of the out-of-town opera

company's season in relation to the subject

performance also lent the air of an overview

article to such reviews.

3) Reviews of productions whose degree of profes­

sionalism was questionable were discounted.

Unlike the musical plays criticized in New York

Theatre Critics* Reviews, some of the opera

productions reviewed by the Times were of doubt­

ful professional quality. Such was particularly

the case with touring productions. Because the 23

musicals being criticized were unquestionably

(according to both legal and union standards)

professional, the further analysis of opera

reviews was limited to those that covered per­

formances of major resident and touring com­

panies. The overwhelming majority of reviews

were thus unfortunately limited to those that

evaluated productions of the Metropolitan Opera

and the New York City Opera. The alternative of

including the productions of other companies of

varying degrees of professionalism, such as the

New Opera Company, the After Dinner Opera Com­

pany, the Amato Opera Company, and so on (the

list is quite extensive), offered little in the

way of widening the applicability of compari­

sons .

4) Reviews of fewer than 350 words (300 if a tabu­

lation accompanied the review) were not included

in comparisons with musical theatre reviews.

Such short reviews composed an important aspect

of an opera critics’ duties, particularly during

the earlier part of the period under investiga­

tion. The same cannot be said of musical thea­

tre critics for reasons already enumerated on

page 12. A critic of the musical theatre was 24

presented with a series of major events to cov­

er, most of them being new plays or new produc­

tions. An opera critic was responsible for

reporting on the day-to-day progress of reper­

tory opera companies. Justifiably his reports

often dealt with matters of narrower scope than

the premiere of a new production. More often

than not, they focused on the debut of a single

artist in an otherwise familiar cast and produc­

tion (as in the example cited on page 16 above.

In fact, a survey of the reviews qualifying for

extended analysis in this study reveals that

nearly all reviews by musical theatre critics

deal with new productions, while only about a

quarter of opera critics' reviews assess new

productions.^

Thus, in order to ensure that comparisons made between opera and musical theatre criticism were based on similar kinds of reviews, the sample of qualifying opera reviews was reduced to conform to the last four qualifications listed above. Qualifying opera reviews are thus defined as corresponding articles appearing in both the New York

Times and the New York Herald Tribune that:

^Based on data presented in Appendixes A and B. 25

a) Described and evaluated a single, professional

operatic performance that took place in New York

City between September, 1943, and May, 1966,

b) Were written by a staff member of one of the

above mentioned newspapers, and

c) Exceeded 350 words (300 words if headed by a

tabulation).

Item (c) contains the proviso concerning tabulation, be­ cause it was found that when a tabulation of cast and production personnel did not occur at the head of an article, the same information was almost invariably in­ cluded somewhere in the text of the review.

The task of limiting the musical theatre reviews proved to be much simpler. Only two exclusions from materials available in New York Theatre Critics' Reviews were necessary to create a sample appropriate for compari­ son with opera reviews. First, articles dealing with plays accompanied by incidental music were not considered as samples of musical theatre; nor were plays for which one or two special songs had been composed. The elimination of such material was simple, because the tabulations head­ ing the reviews in question labeled them as dramas or as comedies and described the contributions of composers as

"incidental music," "special songs," or the like. In the 26 handful of doubtful cases, the comments of critics in the reviews themselves clearly categorized subject works ei- ther as musical plays or as plays with incidental music.

Second, criticism of musical revues was eliminated. This step was taken because a single revue might be composed of materials representing many periods, composers, lyricists and playwrights, making large-scale comparisons difficult.

In addition, musical revues have less in common with operas than any other type of popular musical theatre.

Their exclusion from consideration left a more homogeneous musical theatre sample, capable of yielding more unquali­ fied contrasts with the opera sample.

The resulting sample of musical theatre reviews ful­ fills the same three requisites as those listed on page 25 above, with the sole substitution of "musical theatre" for the word "operatic" in point (a).

The method used to examine a rtic le s in this study bears a lim ited resemblance to that employed in Form

Criticism,^ a system of inquiry utilized by Protestant

Biblical scholars in the twentieth century. The primary objective of Form Critics has been to gain better under­ standing of Scriptural (particularly New Testament) wri­ tings by determining how extant texts reflect a variety

^•^Formgeschichte—form history — in the original Ger­ man usage. 27 of social, literary, and oral-historical traditions.

Typically, Form Criticism involves establishing the literary context that was prevalent at the time an ancient writing was composed. The process is referred to by Form

Critics as Sitz im Leben, or setting in life. Sitz im

Leben is accomplished first by identifying the literary form. In some cases, like an epistle or the Sermon on the

Mount, such identification is self-evident. Other, less familiar forms—like apothegms, proverbs, and legal say- ings—appear in the context of larger forms, and can be clearly appraised only by comparison with other extant writings, both sacred and secular.

Once the literary form of a specimen has been estab­ lished, a detailed analysis of its structure may ensue.

In the case of a Pauline epistle, each statement is scru­ tinized to determine its place in the structure of the entire epistle, and its relationship to statements that serve similar structural purposes in other sacred and secular epistles. For example, the opening statement of an epistle served the purpose of a salutation which, according to the custom of the day, almost always included information about the sender and recipient, as well as a formal greeting. By comparing one of Paul's salutations with hundreds of contemporaneous salutations from a vari­ ety of letters, a modern reader can gain a richer under­ 28

standing of Paul’s relationship to the receiver of his

missive, of the rhetorical ploys that Paul employed at the

very outset of a le tte r to lend weight to succeeding

arguments, and of the cunning way that seemingly perfunc­

tory, formal language in a salutation could be used to

broach a delicate subject that would be further developed

in the body of an epistle.

In addition to characterizing each statement of a work along structural lines, a Form Critic examines the traditions of writing in any discipline that may have affected the composition of a subject work. In the case of an epistle by Paul, the phraseology of contemporaneous intructional handbooks illum inates Paul's practical ex­ hortations, theological tracts and gospel texts clarify statements of faith, and standard prayers offer useful touchstones for supplications contained in the epistle.

An investigation of prevailing myths of the period is also usually performed in order to make clear otherwise cryptic allusions.

Finally, determination of a writer’s purpose consti­ tutes an important part of Form Criticism. An epistle, for example, may have been written as a response, as a follow-up to an earlier letter by the author, as an en­ couragement in times of trouble, as an admonition against 29 following an unwise course, or for some other reason.'

Identification of the practical purpose behind a passage often reveals motives of an author that are otherwise obscure.

The preceding techniques have not been relentlessly applied to every aspect of this investigation of opera reviews. Despite obvious differences in materials and forms under examination, however, the present study shares a number of methods and aims with Form Criticism. To begin with, review characteristics are, whenever possible, related to circumstances that prevailed at the time of writing. Structural tendencies, for instance, are linked to the kind of performance taking place (i.e., an opera premiere, a production premiere, or an old production re­ evaluated). Topical content is similarly linked to the production environment in which a subject performance took place.

As in Form Criticism, individual statements within reviews are examined to determine their relationship to the structure of an entire article. That structure is, in turn, compared to those of hundreds of other reviews, enabling categorization by structural type. Also, author­ ial purposes have been identified and ascribed to state­ ments, whenever such purposes can be clearly demonstrated in the context of the review itself or by reference to 30

other writings by the author.

Form Criticism usually reaches beyond such immediate sources in an attempt to identify the larger literary context in which a writing was created. In the case of this study the background is provided by a large sample of musical theatre reviews. Reference to the sample fa­ cilitates distinguishing unique characteristics of opera reviews from qualities that are shared by theatrical c rit­ icism in general. A classic Form Critique would probably go even further by relating opera reviews to traditions of essay writing prevalent in the early-to-mid-twentieth century. Extending the study in that direction would entail extensive investigations of a purely literary na­ ture, which are beyond the scope of this essentially the­ atrical study.

As the following presentation unfolds, the appropri­ ateness of applying the methods of Form Criticism to a comparative study of opera reviews will become increasing­ ly evident. Each pair of qualifying reviews provided a set of multiple reports of a single event; over a period of years, a single production was reported on by several different reviewers. The study sample thus affords a subject for analysis whose synoptic nature is highly con­ gruent to parallel accounts of events in the New Testa- 31 raent. The techniques of Form Criticism were developed to identify and classify differences in such parallel ac­ counts, and to offer -plausible explanations for those differences. Since this study of opera reviews also seeks to isolate, define, and explain variances in synoptic reports, the techniques of Form Criticism have proven eminently applicable. Furthermore, just as a Form Crit­ ique emphasizes environmental factors responsible for the structure and content of ancient writings, the present study offers details of the cultural, critical, and social milieux in which qualifying reviews were written, in order to account for attributes peculiar to opera criticism.

Before presenting this study's findings, a brief review of other investigations in the area of opera re­ views is appropriate. The only previous dissertation to concentrate on the subject of.opera criticism was written by Theodore L. Fenner, and is en titled Leigh Hunt o n

Opera: The Examiner Years. The dissertation is mainly a biographical and historical study. Since the subject of

Fenner's dissertation is an early nineteenth century c rit­ ic, no significant relationship exists between that inves­ tigation and the present study.

Other dissertations with at least marginal associa­ tion to the topic of opera reviews are listed in the bibliography. A few have been written on the subject of 32

journalistic musical criticism, tut none concentrates on opera reviews. One study written by Lloyd Weldy, entitled

Music Criticism of Olin Downes and Howard Taubman in the

Sunday New York Times E dition, 1924-1929 and 1955-1960, lent some assistance in defining the place of the two critics within the realm of music criticism. However,

Weldy's study is largely a digest of over four hundred

Sunday artic le s, with l i t t l e additional commentary. It does not focus on either critic's abilities as an assessor of theatrical performances, and its investigation ends before Taubman became a theatre critic for the Times. Its scope and subject are thus clearly different from those of the present study. CHAPTER II

THE STRUCTURE OF OPERA REVIEWS

Reviews that qualified for inclusion in the survey were analyzed to determine if patterns of structural sim­ ilarity could be detected. The patterns that emerged helped to establish generic classifications appropriate to most reviews in the sample.

A cautionary note should, however, be sounded about the dangers of establishing genera as absolute norms, and of the use of archetypes to describe genera. Employment of such archetypal criticism was a common and accepted practice in Renaissance criticism.*1 Modern critics have, however, tended to dismiss the method as arbitrary and ambiguous. Whenever literary examples are raised to the level of absolute archetypes, there arises a likelihood that individual works compared to the archetypes will fall short of complete congruity.

An attempt has been made to avoid that pitfall by

^Castelvetro, for example, interpreted Aristotle's Poetics as favoring the use of Oedipus Rex as a yardstick against which all other tragedies could be measured.

33 34 utilizing more than one example to substantiate proposi­

tions whenever possible. In addition, cross-references are made to reviews that appear in a variety of contexts

within this study. The sample of reviews is so large that even relatively spurious claims could be supported by seeking out anomalous examples. Cross-referenced cita­ tions- utilize reviews that were chosen for reasons other than direct verification of a point at issue. They thus assure that contentions are being substantiated by speci­ mens that are truly representative. Despite the precau­ tions, structural types defined in this chapter are in­ tended as generalizations; individual reviews may vary in minor particulars from-the models presented.

With the above qualifications in mind, it may be asserted that two ways of organizing articles were used in a majority of cases. The first, most frequently.employed way is illustrated by the example written by Olin Downes and reprinted below. It appeared in The New York Times in

1952 and serves as a model for the succeeding discussion.

1 Carmen' Returns to Metropolitan Rise Stevens Sings Title Role —Guarrera and Tucker Also Take Principal Parts

CARMEN Opera in four acts by Georges Bizet. Text by Meilhac and Halevy founded on the novel by Merimee. Staged by Tyrone Guthrie. Decor and costumes by Rolf Gerard. Choreography by Zachary Solov. Conducted by Fritz Reiner. At 35 the Metropolitan Opera

Carmen. .Rise Stevens Micaela Nadine Conner Frasquita .Lucine Amara Mercedes. Margaret Roggero Jon [sic] Jose Richard Tucker Escamillo ...Frank Guarrera Dancairo. George Cehanovsky Remendado Alessio de Paolis Zuniga. . . Osie Hawkins Morales Clifford Harvuot

"Carmen" was restored to the Metropolitan repertory last night in more ways than one, and with a final effect that was a sensation. As a whole this was a memorable performance. Excep­ tion could be taken to the details of scenery or stage business. The net effect was swift and vivid and dramatically significant in a most refreshing degree. The final scenes, treated in a completely new and original way, caused an explosion of applause and cheering after the curtain had fallen. Miss Stevens1 Carmen is her most important and individual accomplishment up to this date. It has allure, finesse, seduction in a degree highly exceptional. Passages of it can be tuned up or tuned down. As an impersonation it is arresting and communicative, and it is sung with rich color and dramatic accent. Mr. Tucker is not normally a distinguished actor, and did not attain any strong effect in this direction till his final scene, which proved to be very exciting. He sang beautiful­ ly, with elegance, style and feeling. Miss Conner sang charmingly and made so much of her scene with Jose of the first act and her pretty song of the third that she almost created a Micaela who was a believable human being instead of an operatic puppet with duet and an aria. Guarrera is Outstanding Outstanding was Mr. Guarrera's Toreador, superb in every way, gallant, romantic, proud of bearing; singularly successful in the delivery of the Toreador's song, which is no easy task for any baritone. The effect of this passage and indeed of the whole act at Lilias Pastia's 36

den was immensely enhanced by the imaginative setting of the scene, the flaring lights, the dancing shadows, the greeting of Escamillo when he sang of his triumphs of the bull-ring. There were passages of unnecessary exagger­ ation, obviousness, superfluity, more especially in the f ir s t act, where the dramatic idea is often misrepresented. Carmen is not lifted on the shoulders of adoring men who have just been seeking her favors, for a sex-starved Jose to gaze upon. Carmen does not hypnotize Jose as soon as she lays eyes on him. She is the one who comes as women and casts [cats?] come—Jose's words in the story—when they are not called. The stage is here full of human impediments. The scenery is shoved so close to the front that the effect is cramping, claustrophobic, with long flights of steps that are unnecessary and impede rather than aid the action. The chorus of street urch­ ins is given a position and importance entirely out of proportion to its place in the scene. The boys mock the soldiers and trail after them; they do not line up front stage and show off to get a hand. The scene in the mountain gorge of the third act is magnificent and fantastical, marred only, last night, by inept lighting. The chorus was admirable. It was persuaded to act, and to sing with nuance as well as tonal impact. One had the great pleasure of attending a production that started out unpromisingly, and became a crescendo of interest and of thrilling, dramatic power to the end.

As is readily apparent, the article may be divided neatly into three sections: an introductory paragraph in which the general attitude of the reviewer toward the per­ formance under consideration was succinctly put forth, a series of succeeding analyses in which specific aspects of the performance were evaluated in greater detail, and a

^Times. 1 February, 1952. 37

closing statement that recapitulated the general impress­ ions indicated in the opening paragraph. That a sim ilar tripartite pattern was found in opera reviews throughout the period is not startling, since the structure described above and illustrated in the article by Olin Downes is a common essay technique. Still, the structure was employed very often, occurring in sixty-one percent of the reviews that qualified for the survey.^ Even when one grants the commonness and the suitability of tripartite organization for presenting a well-rounded critical assessment, such frequency is surprising.

The opening statement allowed an opportunity for the reviewer to achieve a number of tasks simultaneously. It could express the critic's overall attitude toward the subject opera and performance. (Downes found that on the whole it was "a memorable performance.") It might also indicate to the reader what the review would concentrate on. The opening statement in the Downes example exhibited a moderate tightening of focus. The fact that the Met had mounted a new production prompted Downes to concentrate on matters of staging and scenery. His opening remarks con­ firmed these topics to be of importance to the review.

o Statistics and tables presented in this and ensuing chapters are based on data presented in Appendixes A and B. 38

Opening statements avoided the recounting of particular plot points, the presentation of extended criticism of specific numbers, or the weighing of individual perform­ ers' strong and weak points during the course of a per­ formance. Rather, when a new production was under scru­ tiny, the overall quality of the entertainment was charac­ terized. If the opera being performed were an unusual addition to the operatic season, a c ritic might use an opening statement to formulate his attitudes toward the opera and its place in the standard repertory.^ With more commonly performed operas, a brief sentence or two could serve to clarify those attitudes and allow a critic to get on with the matter at hand—evaluation of the performance.

Downes did not even expend that much attention on the script or score; Carmen, after all, resides at the heart of the repertory of every major opera house. It is the very embodiment of an operatic warhorse, performed more often than any save perhaps Aida, La Boheme, and La. Travi- ata. Reviewers assessed performances of it annually. Re- evaluations of the opera's score and libretto were un­ necessary, because readers with even the most casual expo­ sure to opera were familiar with Carmen, and with critical attitudes toward the work.

^See the review of L

An introductory statement might also describe the so­ cial circumstances surrounding a performance. The opening night of a season at the Metropolitan Opera usually prompted some comment on the g litterin g crowd that had assembled for the occasion. Early in the period a sub­ stantial portion of performances, particularly at the

Metropolitan, were set aside for the benefit of local charities; the benefit nature of the performance would usually receive a nod from the critic in his introduction.

Also, throughout the period, special performance galas marked important milestones in a company's history. In­ troductory statements in such cases might combine an over­ all assessment with a description of the social signifi­ cance of a performance:

Ezio Pinza's appearance as Don Giovanni in Mozart's opera last night at the Metropolitan Opera House was the official celebration of his twentieth anniversary as a leading artist of the institution with which he first appeared as the Priest in Vestale [sic] on Nov. 1, 1926. Mr. Pinza was honored on this occasion by various ceremonies—by the artists of the com­ pany, who assembled on the stage after the final scene to congratulate him, and by the presenta­ tion of a silver bowl back of the stage, with the thanks of the Board of Directors and the management inscribed upon it. But these gra­ cious observances were less significant than Mr. Pinza's performance itseLf, and its rapturous reception by the audience.

^Times, March 21, 1946. 40

Olin Downes then continued by offering specifics concern­ ing the performance. Within the scope of his introductory remarks he succeeded in evoking the ceremonial nature of the occasion and in implying how the excellent portrayal by Pinza dominated the event. He also delineated the scope of his review, indicating that it would, by and large, be devoted to Pinza’s performance.

Although opening statements in trip a rtite reviews frequently achieved all of the tasks illustrated in Olin

Downes's Carmen example, slight variations might occur.

Take, for example, Virgil Thomson’s criticism of the same performance, which appeared in the Herald Tribune:

[The article begins with a headline and tabula­ tion essentially identical to the one quoted on page 34.]

Serious and Stylish

Everybody has done well by the new "Carmen" production at the Metropolitan, which had its first hearing last night. Rolf Gerards's sets are pretty to look at and not hard to play in. His costumes, though not always convincing, have some agreeable sombre harmonies. Tyrone Guth­ rie's scenic direction is fresh and mostly quite vivid. The singing is excellent. The whole stage, vocally and visually, shows signs of much care taken. And Fritz Reiner's musical handling from the pit is a marvel of clarity and anima­ tion. The production is unquestionably a suc­ cess. * * * This does not mean that it is faultless. 41

Everybody will find some detail to regret. There are those who will miss Micaela's absent yellow braids. Others will be amused to note in the last act among the Toreador's luggage a green innovation trunk. All will find it hard in the third act to distinguish the chief actors from the chorus, so low are the lights and so darkly is everybody dressed. It can scarcely fail to cause comment, too, when a solo dancer appears in Roman violet, a color usually reserv­ ed in Spain for the higher clergy and for the penitential seasons. And Rise Stevens dressed for a bullfight (and for her death scene) in a black and white Victorian dinner gown complete with decolletage and train, has already caused questions to be asked as to what the decorator had in mind. * * * My own reserve regards the placing of the last act indoors instead of out. The locale is either the Toreador's dressing room (though I never saw such a sumptuous one), or a hotel suite. In any case there is a party, and cham­ pagne is drunk. Then everybody but Carmen goes out, and Don Jose comes in (apparently without opposition from servants or doormen). Now here occurs a curious thing. Placing the scene in­ doors has enormously augmented Carmen's chances of survival. So much so, in fact, that her death seems quite useless. Outdoors she was really caught. Her assailant was armed, and he could run faster than she could. Indoors neith­ er can run much. They can only maneuver around among the tables and chairs. Any resourceful g irl would either have rung for help or (this effort failing) have picked up a champagne bot­ tle and cracked him over the head. Believe me, in that set Carmen did not need to die. * * * Rise Stevens and Nadine Conner, Richard Tucker, and Frank Guarrera make a fine cast. I hope they will be kept together. Mr. Guarrera is the least happy vocally, but he looks fine in his pearl grey Sevillian suit. As a Toreador dressed for the rink [sic], I missed white stockings and the pig-tail. But there I go again enumerating details that displeased me. The production all round is serious, handsome, stylish. I suspect that I shall remember it as 42

£ the most convincing I ever saw.

Thomson’s opening remarks suggested a scope broader than that contained in the succeeding material. If the introductory paragraph were actually indicative in this regard, some particular attention would have been paid to the orchestral performance. The reviewer's failure to do so may have been due to an inability follow his organiza­ tional plan—caused by the rush to meet a press deadline; after all, he admitted to wandering from the points he wished to make ("But there I go again . . ."). More remarkable than this minor variance is the fidelity Thom­ son’s review displays to the tripartite formula—an open­ ing section that sets the background for a series of specific criticisms, followed by a brief concluding.state­ ment .

Before proceeding to treat the portion of opera re­ views that deals with specific criticisms, it should be noted that introductory statements did not always coincide with the introductory paragraph or paragraphs. In the examples afforded by the two reviews of Carmen above, they did so coincide, but observe the opening of a review by

Alan Rich of Eugene Onegin:

^Herald Tribune, 1 February, 1952. 43

Sad, sweet and as lovely as a dream, Tchai­ kovsky's "Eugene Onegin" returned to the Metropol­ itan Opera on Saturday night after an absence of five years. Its return would be welcome under any circumstances, but the nature of its f ir s t act plot--girl chases man—makes it[s] revival just the thing for a Leap-Year February. Despite the irresistible surge of its lyric flow, however, it is an opera full of problems, some of which the present production solved, some not. A crucial problem is that of language. The Met's version purports to be in English. If so, it is a language beholden neither to Shakespeare nor to Mickey Spillane. It is a gelatinous ooze of clumsy verbiage, in which nouns and verbs side­ swipe jsach other like amoebae in a drop of pond water.

The introductory remarks ended in the middle of the second paragraph with the declaration: ", . . it is an opera full of problems, some of which the present production solved, some not." The position of the paragraph break is cer­ tainly justifiable from the writer's (or more likely, the editor's) point of view, but for the purposes of this examination, there is no doubt about where introductory background material ended and criticism of particulars began. Up to that point the reviewer had confined himself to statements that set a critical agenda for the specifics of his commentary. The first specific topic—the quality of the libretto's translation—is just one of the problems mentioned in the introductory remarks, yet description and

^Herald Tribune. 17 February, 1964. 44 evaluation of that specific topic begin in the midst of a paragraph.

Once a critic had made some broad opening assertions, he usually continued by concentrating on a series of com­ partmentalized assessments of various aspects of the per­ formance, returning to general commentary only at the end of the review. Just as introductory remarks were suggest­ ed by the kind of performance being reviewed, so were the content and range of subjects in the body of the review.

As previously pointed out, the Carmen reviews treated a performance that marked the return of a very well-known opera to the repertory in a new production. The perform­ ers of the major roles were familiar to opera audiences and to the reviewers; the news story, therefore, undoubt­ edly resided in the quality of the new production. The focus of the specific criticisms in these reviews was narrow considering the circumstances of the performance.

More typically, the conductor would receive more than the cursory mention in Thomson's introduction; neither review­ er provided criticism s of tempos, quality of orchestral playing, or control of ensemble. The absence of comment on the non-vocal musical performance is especially sur­ prising in light of the fact that a new stage production always entails many extra orchestral rehearsals and a resultant rethinking of the musical values of an opera by 45

the conductor.

On the other hand, though the scope of both reviews

is narrow, there is a discernable difference in the

breadth of coverage between the articles. Downes's review

divided specific commentary between accounts of the sing­ ing, the acting and the production. Thomson's review is, in effect, a criticism of the physical production alone, with only perfunctory nods to the singers and the conduct­ or. Reviews could be even more restricted in the topics they covered, reserving almost all evaluative comments for

O the performance of a single artist.

In both Carmen reviews the criticisms are presented serially, with little interplay between the separate judg­ ments. The serial nature of the comments is particularly apparent in Downes's review where the cast is counted off and evaluated one after another—a very common occurrence in reviews throughout the period. However, opera critics did not invariably judge each performance on its own merits; they often relied heavily on comparison as a c r itic a l tool. Not only would they compare the work of members within a single cast—

Mr. Edelmann gave us a Wotan of considerable no­ bility who sang resonantly and with deep color.

O See Francis Perkins's review of Tosca on page 54. 46

Color, on the other hand, was no part of Miss Harshaw's work, which made her Bruennhilde . . . a rather dim and unfocused figure."y

—-but they would also draw comparisons that ranged beyond the bounds of the performance that they were reviewing at the time, as in Howard Taubman's I960 review of Simon

Boccanegra:

It would be too much to expect that Mr. Guarrera could achieve the subtlety and compas­ sion that Mr. Warren, who had sung Simon a decade ago, brought to the part.

Such comparisons did not consist of mere bald-faced score- keeping on the part of reviewers, but rather, were usually employed when comparison was journalistically unavoidable.

In the case of Taubman's review, Guarrera was assuming the role of Boccanegra only because of the untimely death of

Leonard Warren. Warren was generally granted to have been the greatest Verdi baritone of his generation; eschewing the comparison would have been of little point under the circumstances. Furthermore, the comparison amounted to no more than a parenthetical comment in the context of the entire review; the parallel drawn between performances accounts for only about one-seventh of the specific criti-

^Herald Tribune, 6 February, 1958.

•^Herald Tribune, 16 March, 1960. 47

cisra of Guarrera's performance. Comparative criticism

therefore did little to alter the essentially compartment­

alized nature of the series of evaluations in the body of

a review. More often than not, comparisons were used as

bridges between succeeding comments.

Returning to consideration of the sample Carmen re­ views, one finds that the progression of evaluations did not follow a prescribed order; that is to say, they did not necessarily begin with the most important subjects, nor did they proceed from most the favorable comments to the least favorable. In the case of the Downes review, the specific comments began with an extended appraisal of

Stevens's performance of the title role. That judgment was, however, neither the most detailed (his commentary on staging was longer) nor the most favorable (he reserved highest praise for Guarrera). As previously stated, Thom­ son's review rambles a bit, even by his own admission.

Furthermore, he does not really form well-rounded opinions of anything except the physical production.

The preceding is not an assertion that critics con­ sciously avoided organizing specific criticisms in the bodies of tripartite reviews. In fact, proceeding from favorable to unfavorable judgments, or from matters of greater to lesser importance, were two ways of organizing 48 such m aterial.^ Another was to adopt a 'ladies first' attitude, in which the reviewer performed a run-down of the cast from highest to lowest vocal category. S till another typical arrangement involved a critic's listing all of the elements that he considered negative about a performance, saving the single aspect that he enjoyed as a

'saving grace' of the production. This approach is illus­ trated by an example involving a performance by Birgit

Nilsson, in which Harold C. Schonberg, after berating every other aspect of a Metropolitan production of Goet- terdaemmerung, ends his specific criticisms with the fol­ lowing :

At least there was Miss Nilsson, big­ voiced, accurate, thrilling in sound. Her con­ ception of Bruennhilde continues to grow. At every performance there is an added bit of stage business that adds to the total conception.

Tripartite structure allowed reviewers great freedom in the manner of organizing their specific criticisms, because the shell of introductory and concluding materials that surrounded these specifics lent an air of logic and purpose to the article as a whole. No matter what logic was employed in organizing specific criticisms, the com-

^See discussion concerning doubtful classification of review structure on pages 63-67 below.

^ Times, 15 November, 1963. 49

partmentalized nature of the evaluations usually did not

vary.

The concluding sections of the Carmen reviews were also typical. In the first place, they were brief; it was noted throughout the period that conclusions were general­ ly much shorter than introductions. Second, they reaf­ firmed general observations made in the opening sections

(in Downes's case, the fact that the performance of Carmen got better as it went along; in Thomson's, that the pro­ duction was successful). Included with such recapitula­ tion was a succinct summation of the reviewer's opinion of the enterprise.

In sum, then, the most frequent form that opera criticism took was tripartite, including:

1) An introductory section that performed one or

more of the following functions:

a) indicated the agenda of topics to be

treated in the review;

b) created a critical background for specific

criticisms;

c) described social aspects attendant upon the

performance;

2) A series of criticisms that:

a) sometimes utilized comparison as a point of 50

departure for critical discussion, but that

avoided extended comparison as a basis of

evaluation;

b) as a result of the above characteristic,

tended to be compartmentalized, exhibiting

little relationship to other criticisms in

the series;

3) A concluding section that did one or both of the

following:

a) summarized the author’s overall attitude

toward the opera and production;

b) reiterated a theme or assessment raised in

the opening section.

Similarly clear divisions are apparent in opera reviews

that adhered to the tripartite structure of introduction/ critical specifics/summary.

Only one other clear organizational method was found

to recur with any regularity among full-length, qualifying reviews. The second, and simpler, way was the listing of all material according to magnitude. In such a scheme, the most important or most generalized material opened the article; each succeeding topic exhibited a diminution in importance and an increase in specificity. Typically, topics treated at the end of the article also commanded 51 less column space than opening topics. The review re­ printed below exhibits this kind of arrangement, which hereafter is referred to as 'priority* structure. Prior­ ity structuring occurred far less frequently than tripar­ tite structuring, accounting for only thirty-six percent of qualifying reviews in the survey. Still, an arrange­ ment that appears in over one-third of the sample must be deemed significant.

'Faust' Is Given At Metropolitan With Singher

French Barytone Is Heard as Valentin First Time Here; Pelletier Conducts

By Jerome D. Bohm

"FAUST" opera in four acts, music by Charles Gounod, book by Jules Barbier and Michel Carre, first performance of the season at the Metropol­ itan Opera House Saturday night. The cast:

Faust...... Raoul Jobin Mephistopheles ....Norman Cordon Valentin ...... Martial Singher Wagner...... John Baker Marguerite...... Licia Albanese Siebel...... Irra Petina Martha...... Doris Doe Conductor ...... Wilfred Pelletier Stage Director Herbert Graf Chorus Master. ..Giacomo Spadoni Ballet Master. •Laurent Novikoff

This first presentation of Gounod's "Faust" at the Metropolitan Opera House Saturday night pursued a largely placid course, achieving real dramatic distinction only in the remarkable acting of Valentin's death scene by Mr. Singher. Had the French barytone been able in this, his first delineation of Valentin here, to match his extraordinary ability as an actor with equally 52

impressive vocalism his interpretation of the role would have gained immeasurably in effect­ iveness. But his delivery of most of his music, including the aria, "Avan f sic 1 de quitter ces lieux," was marred by throatiness of production, especially in the higher portions. It seems too bad that so intelligent an artist should not have learned to employ his sufficient, if not remarkable, vocal resources more expertly. The Marguerite of Miss Albanese is not one of her most satisfying delineations from either the vocal or histrionic aspects. Much of the music of the role does not lie well for her. Some of the most dramatic portions, such as the Church Scene, demand a voice with more solid, fu ller low and middle tones than Miss Albanese has at her disposal, so that her negotiation of this episode was most ineffectual. But even when she was able to utilize her brilliant upper register, Miss Albanese sang with an excess of caution which precluded a telling revelation of her music and her conveyance of the Jewel Song (from which she omitted a ll tr i lls ) was disap­ pointing . Mr. Jobin, whose father had died the day before the performance, was understandably not quite at his best; but much of his work follow­ ing his aria "Salut deraeure," was tonally agree­ able and his style throughout the performance was admirable. The most consistently good sing­ ing of the evening was contributed by Mr. Cor­ don, whose characterization of Mephistopheles bore the imprint of his high intelligence at all times, and Miss Doe sang capably as Martha. Mr. Pelletier conducted a judiciously paced perform­ ance of the score and the orchestra played well for him.

In comparing the opening of this review to those of

Carmen quoted earlier, the most immediate impression is of the rapidity with which criticism of an individual per-

^ Herald Tribune, 10 January, 1944. 53

formance was presented. No explicit evaluation of the production as a whole was offered. A reader discovers only that Bohra thought the performance was ’’placid'1 from a dramatic standpoint. While the melodramatic plot of Faust certainly demands more than a placid delivery, no other hint is given of the degree of unfavorableness in the judgments that followed. Instead, Bohm launched directly into a complete appraisal of Valentin.

His selection of that role to begin his evaluation seems at first to be peculiar in a review that is arranged in order of magnitude. The role of Valentin comprises no more than a half-hour of singing in an opera that runs about three hours, not counting intermissions. The reason for his choice becomes apparent later in the review, for

Bohra implied that he had heard all of the other leading players before. Albanese’s Marguerite, Jobin's Faust, and

Cordon’s Mephistopheles were all known quantities. Sin­ gher, on the other hand, was relatively new to New York and had never sung Valentin locally before. More than that, one portion of his portrayal was the most memorable element of the evening to the reviewer. In such circum­ stances, the selection of performances of minor roles as leading topics of criticism was not unusual in priority reviews. Indeed, when a part that really dominated an 54 opera was assumed for the first time by a newcomer to the local scene, a reviewer's preoccupation in evaluating that single artist sometimes relegated every other judgment to a level of extraneousness. Take, for example, Francis

Perkins's 1955 review of Tosca on the occasion of Tebal­ di's first appearance in the part in this country. It is, in essence, the review of a single performance: Tebaldi's.

His assessment of her work comprised more than half of the review; the next most lengthy evaluation is sketchy and undeveloped in comparison:

By Francis D. Perkins

A New 'Tosca* [sic]

Renata Tebaldi sang Tosca for the f ir s t time here last night when Puccini's fifth opera was repeated at the Metropolitan Opera House as the annual benefit for the Free Milk Fund for Babies, Inc. The applause after "Vissi d'arte" stopped the show for three minutes, but the appeal of her singing in that aria was far from the only feature of the Italian soprano's im­ pressive impersonation. Walter Cassel's Scarpia was also new to the Metropolitan, although it is well known to City Center audiences, and Giusep­ pe Campora, as Mario, completed the trio of principals who die violent deaths. Mme. Tebaldi's Tosca was emotionally vivid and individual, while faithful to the music and the drama. It carried dramatic conviction throughout, not only in the character's outspo­ ken and passionate measures, but also in the quieter episodes which lead to and follow the climaxes. As a whole, her impersonation must have been carefully studied and thought out. but it left a main impression of spontaneity, of constant expressive communication. It told of unified singing and significant action, and 55

especially of the use of a wide range of vocal color and volume for musical and dramatic pur­ poses achieved with striking success. Vocal strength was not employed indiscrim­ inately; the hard, penetrating but entirely focused quality of her climactic top notes was in accord with the situations for which they were employed; softer and ingratiating timbres marked her singing when the action had a differ- ‘ ent atmosphere. The quiet, almost resigned beginning of "Vissi d'arte" provided a remark­ ably effective contrast with what had just gone before; emotion was not vented indiscriminately; the role had dignity as well as dramatic force. Mr. Cassel, making his first Metropolitan appearance after ten years’ absence, combined Scarpia's ruthlessness with a due suggestion of pervasive, if sometimes forgotten aristocracy; his generally well schooled singing also re­ flected the nature of the role and its varying expressive atmospheres. Mr. Campora was in good voice and emotionally convincing. Louis Sgarro as Angelotti, Calvin Marsh as the jailer and Rosalind Elias as the shepherd sang their as­ signments for the first time at the Metropoli­ tan, and Fausto Cleva conducted a well integ­ rated and spirited performance.

One need only read the opening sentence of the article to obtain the author's justification for his narrow focus:

"Renata Tebaldi sang Tosca for the f ir s t time here last night. . . ." Every other aspect of the performance was routine next to the debut in this role of an already well- established international star. Though the roles of An­ gelotti, the jailer and the shepherd were also being assumed by new artists, those were merely walk-ons amount­ ing to a few sung lines. The fact that Perkins mentioned

^ Herald Tribune, 9 March, 1955. 56 them at all was probably considered fair notice, particu­ larly in the Herald Tribune, which was far less likely to chronicle the comings and goings of minor artists than was the Times. Outside of Tebaldi's first Tosca, the perform­ ance was even more routine than the one of Faust described by Bohm.

As with the preceding reviews in this chapter, Per­ kins was criticizing a staple of the repertory. Clearly, the newsworthy aspect of performance was the appearance of

Tebaldi, already an international star and destined to become one of the most celebrated proponents of Puccini repertory in her day, yet at the time of Perkins's review s till relatively unknown to local audiences. She had made her New York debut only a year earlier, and as the example above illustrates, critics had not yet run the gamut of superlatives; in many respects they had not yet even described her voice or stage manner fully. Tebaldi was the news story, and so Tebaldi received the critical attention.

The only opinion expressed in the opening paragraph concerned Tebaldi—her performance was "impressive." The priority nature of the review is apparent from the opening statement. The usual introductory material concerning the benefit nature of the performance was compressed into a subordinate clause, after which Perkins continued with a 57

specific example of Tebaldi's expertise. Allowing just one more sentence of diversion, he mentioned the two other principals, but did so without evaluation or description.

He then proceeded directly to examine what he had already set up as the matter of greatest magnitude: Tebaldi's debut in the role.

Like tripartite reviews, priority-structured reviews presented their judgments in serial, compartmentalized form. Judgments of seven specific aspects of the perform­ ance occurred in Bohm's review, four in Perkins's; each aspect was dealt with as a separate entity with even less transitional material than was exhibited in the tripartite review examples. Earlier topics were not returned to for the purpose of contrast or comparison.

Another typical feature of both reviews is the place­ ment of comments concerning the orchestral performance at the end of the articles. In choosing that subject to close their reviews, the critics made a gesture toward returning to a more generalized topic and, thus, toward imbuing the articles with a sense of conclusion. Even so, the treatment of orchestral commentary in both examples conforms to priority-style structure. Bohm's Faust review treats the final subject in a cursory, even off-handed way. Perkins's attitude is expressed a bit more strongly, 58 but even more tersely. Incidentally, his final statement cannot be construed as a comment on the performance as a whole, but rather on those parts of the performance for which the conductor was responsible--the preparation of the orchestra and the maintenance of ensemble between orchestra and stage. Still, the tone of the Tosca re­ view's conclusion suggests an even greater broadening than was apparent in Bohm's article.

Though both c ritic s may have thought that the con­ ductors' contributions were telling factors in the quality of the performances, their manner of assessing those con­ tributions minimized their importance in the review. The leading assessment of Bohm's review has already been noted to concern a role that did not directly affect even a quarter of the opera. The performances of conductor and orchestra, on the contrary, affected the pace and aural texture of the entire entertainment. Does the critic's lavishing of six times as much column space on the per­ formance of a supporting role reveal a lack of proportion in the review? Similarly in Perkins's article, the penul­ timate clause devoted two-and-a-half times as many words to the perfomance of three minor roles that encompassed only a few minutes of singing; moreover, the roles were so perfunctorily performed as to elicit not one word of judgment. The same question of proportion thus arises. 59

In both cases, the answer is a journalistic, not a c riti­ cal one, for importance in performance does not always translate into importance in a review, where newswor­ thiness is the prime determinant of priority. Both Pelle­ tier's and Cleva's interpretations of the scores were familiar, previously evaluated aspects of the productions.

Therefore, though the reviewers may have valued the con­ tributions of conductor and orchestra, the journalistic necessity of emphasizing the novel elements in otherwise routine repertory performances made the diminution of orchestral commentary inevitable.

The fact that reviewers could offer quick reassess­ ments of previously evaluated conductors and at the same time comment on an aspect that affected the pace and texture of an entire performance may account for the frequency with which orchestral judgments rounded off priority reviews. Comments on the orchestra or conductor concluded such reviews nearly half of the tim e .^ Gen­ erally the assessments were no more prominent than the ones that ended the two reviews above, yet they usually carried the same indication of finality. The sense of conclusion associated with comments on non-vocal musical

^48.5% of priority-structured reviews taken from a random 5-year sample (1951-1955). 60 performance may in part arise from the very fact that ending a review with an evaluation of conductor and orch­ estra became a convention independent of other structural considerations. In no way, however, can the mildly con­ clusive nature of the last comments in the two priority reviews cause one to confuse them with conclusions that occur at the end of tripartite reviews. In the first place, the priority-style endings did not recapitulate any material from the openings of the reviews. In the second place, neither deals with the theatrical/musical experi­ ence in general, but rather with just one musical aspect of performance.

The proportion of coverage granted to individual topics in reviews—especially priority reviews—was great­ ly affected by one other journalistic consideration, that of the press deadline. It was suggested that Virgil

Thomson's tripartite review of Carmen rambled because of the haste required in composing it; priority reviews seemed to be even more obviously shaped by the pressure of a deadline.

A reviewer typically rushed out of a performance in the middle of the last act to limn out his opinions as best he could so that the deadline could be met. The circumstances necessitated his treating the most striking aspects of the production first; once coverage had been 61

afforded them, topics of less crucial significance might be included. The resulting arrangement of topics was often so simple as to bring into question whether or not such reviews were at all consciously organized. The most newsworthy feature of the evening's performance was des­ cribed and evaluated; then the next most important, and so on, until the space alotted to the reviewer had been filled. Priority-style organization provided a structure that allowed the critic to curtail a minor judgment on the spur of the moment without destroying a sense of logical flow and cohesiveness. If the final items on a critic's list seemed sketchily treated, their diminution could scarcely be termed disproportionate. They were, after all, the less notable elements of the entertainment.

Priority reviews tended to stress their opening topics to the extent that one or two major judgments dominated the articles in the same way that Perkins's judgment of Tebal­ di crowded out the other evaluations. Cassel did, indeed, receive a cursory assessment, but the subject of Campora's performance received no more than nine words of specific judgment—hardly distinguishing it from the catalogue of minor players that followed.

Cataloguing cast and production personnel was also noted to be a more common practice in priority than in 62

tripartite reviews. Of what possible value was such a catalogue? In the absence of a tabulation at the head of a review, the listin g of personnel formed a record of bare statistics. For the regular operagoer it might even be argued that a listing of the cast provided a notion of the quality of a performance. The catalogue could (for the cogniscenti, at least) call forth aural recollections of singers mentioned and thus give a fairer idea of what the totality of the operatic experience was like. Beyond that, a catalogue seemed to be no more than a filler, the sole purpose of which was to ensure that a blank space did not appear at the end of an article in print.

In short, then, the priority review structure offered a primitive yet effective way of meeting a deadline. By adhering to this structure, a critic could cover the salient points, apportioning column space according to his evaluation of the magnitude of each topic. Furthermore, he could arrive at a priority structure almost without conscious effort simply by calling to mind succeeding aspects of the production; such aspects would usually come to mind in order of descending importance. With little additional organization, the order of a reviewer's recall would determine the order of the article itself.

Thus, as in deciding which operas were to be re­ viewed, journalistic considerations also exerted strong 63

influence over the very structure of reviews themselves.

In most instances, of course, the journalistic concerns that urged a concentration on an attention-getting aspect were identical, or nearly so, to the critical concerns of the reviewer; Perkins the critic was just as preoccupied with Tebaldi as Perkins the journalist. When such was not the case, critical objectivity tended to suffer.

Tripartite and priority arrangements occurred in ninety-seven percent of the reviews surveyed. The indivi­ dual figures of sixty-one percent for tripartite struc­ tures and thirty-six percent for priority structures should be considered approximate for the following reason: some reviews seemed to exemplify little more than nominal conformity to one type or another. For instance, some reviews followed a strictly priority-style arrangement until the last sentence, at which point the reviewer summed up his opinion of the entertainment. Sometimes the summations were unrelated to introductory material, and in a few instances appeared to be appended afterthoughts, used as f il le r to make up an allotment of column space.

Whenever such an appendage clearly summarized opinion and consisted of at least a full sentence, the review was deemed to be tripartite (if the article began with a general introduction). 64

Conversely, some reviews began with a general intro­ duction and moved on to treat a limited number of topics with roughly equal completeness. Though the favorableness or magnitude decreased slightly with each succeeding top­ ic, there was no suggestion of cataloguing, or any other clue that the articles were drawing to a close. They simply ended abruptly, as in this Goetterdaemmerung re­ view:

Deszo Ernster repeated his familiar hollow­ voiced, though unusually massive and well-stud­ ied Hagen. His is the kind of singing that gives at times a pitchless quality, but his impersonation is very finished. One might have wished for more beauty of timbre in Set Svan- holm's singing, but his projection of words, music and characterization may always be relied upon.

A sense of incompleteness prevails at the end of such a review, particularly when a general introduction began the article; one expects the initial judgment to be reaffirmed or refined.

On first encountering this kind of review, one might be led to think that the cause of the ungraceful ending was an editor's simply lopping off the end of a submitted text. Information from two prominent sources belied that supposition. According to Howard Taubman:

^Herald Tribune, 14 December, 1951. 65

At the Times, the critic made all the deci­ sions about length. No trimming was ever done on any of my reviews.

Harold C. Schonberg concurred:

Senior critics generally have all the space they want. But the Times works on space sched­ ules and has to have an idea of what is coming up. 1000 words (a l i t t l e more than a column) should take care of a long review. The music editor gives the copy and makeup desks the length of the other assigned reviews, and the reviewer learns to stick with his alotted space. By and large, it works.

These statements make it clear that any sense of incom­ pleteness at the end of a review resulted from a critic's style, not an editor's pencil.

The Goetterdaemmerung review seems to demand a reso­ lution that simply was not written. Under pressure to meet the deadline, the critic may have begun the review with every intention of writing a summation, but as press time approached, found that the artic le was too long to fit the limits allotted to him. In that case, he would be forced either to trim some of the comments in the body of

* H. Howard Taubman, Response to Questionnaire, 11 September, 1984 (MS). This and all other citations of questionnaires were written by the designated respondents in answer to questionnaires sent in 1984. All responses have been quoted v irtu ally in fu ll here and elsewhere in this study.

1 8 Harold C. Schonberg, Response to Questionnaire, 4 September, 1984 (TS). 66 his review to make room for concluding remarks or to let the review stand in its seemingly incomplete state. That some reviews were bound to go into print in an unpolished state was inevitable. The pressure of a press deadline was even openly expressed in reviews on a number of occa­ sions, as in Paul Henry Lang's 1958 review of Otello:

I am sorry that I cannot report on the final act. It is quite conceivable that Miss de los Angeles excelled in the "Willow Song" in a way that compensated for her lack of high drama­ tics. But this review had to be written. At times it is a blessing that the critic must leave before the end; in "Otello" it is a sorrow.

No matter what the cause of these variations, a sta­ tistical problem from the fact that an incomplete tripar­ tite review might be mistaken for a priority-structured review; the only difference is a sense of in-completeness in the former that is difficult to judge with certainty.

Therefore, all reviews without conclusions that followed a pattern of diminishing favorableness, generality, or mag­ nitude were judged to be priority reviews. The problem might also have been solved by placing any doubtful review in a 'variant' category; that was done only when a review did not conform to most of the qualities attributed to one of the two types of structures.

^ Herald Tribune, 28 February, 1958. 67

The problem of mere nominal conformity to one struc­ ture or the other is insignificant if one takes the re­ sulting statistics as approximations: a scant two-thirds of opera reviews followed a tripartite structure, while a generous one-third followed a priority structure. Though classification percentages must be deemed approximate, it is s till noteworthy that only three percent of the reviews surveyed showed little or no conformity to one of the two structures. The variant sample was so small (28 reviews) that it could not reliably suggest a trend to the varia­ tions. For the most part, variant reviews rambled along with no apparent cohesive element. (See the review of Die

Fledermaus on page 17.) At other times a reviewer would seem to be making a point at the outset of an a rtic le , but would abandon whatever theme he was pursuing in a rush to cover more aspects of a production.

The prevailing structures found in opera reviews were found to recur in reviews of musical theatre with only minor differences. The following example, written by

Howard Barnes, illustrates the similarity in approach:

A musical play of great distinction has made its advent at the Majestic. "Allegro" is no ordinary song and dance production. Con­ ceived by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II in the happiest of collaborations, and staged to split-second perfection by Agnes de Mille, this is a show to be remembered with "Show Boat," "Oklahoma," or whatever other blend of 68 melody, drama and ballet which might contend for top honors in its field. The Theatre Guild has launched its thirtieth season magnificently. Although there are no well known stars in the cast and musical comedy conventions are rather rudely violated, the offering is a consummate theatrical achievement and an electrifying ent­ ertainment . * * * Rodgers may not have written his most haun­ ting score for this fable of a small town doc­ tor's son, taking the curious buffets of fate from his birth in 1905 to a crucial decision th irty -fiv e years later. Much of the music is subordinated to a plot of depth and emotional power. The t i t l e number serves to accompany a superb bit of de Mille choreography, in which the frenetic aspects of modern living are under­ lined in no uncertain manner. At the same time, the gifted composer has w ritten such eloquent tunes as "A Fellow Needs a Girl," "You Are Never Away" or "So Far," which will distinguish juke boxes across the land. * * * Hamraerstein, on his part, has w ritten a cohesive libretto and pertinent lyrics to make a true "musical play." With the strictest of chronology, he has traced the career of Joseph Taylor jr. with unerring touches, employing a sort of Greek chorus to commentate on events in the biography, capturing the spirit of the *20s, when the hero went to college, fe ll in love and got trapped by an ambitious sweetheart and fal­ ling back on straight pantomime for the most moving chapter in the work. He has had superla­ tive aid from Miss De Mille, who emerges as a great director in addition to a celebrated dance arranger in "Allegro." In addition Jo Mielziner has devised a fluent and simple decor and Lucin­ da Ballard has designed perfect costumes. It may seem remiss to have neglected the performing for so long in a review, but the fact remains that it is so beautifully integrated in a boldly exciting and original show that it can attend applause. Annamary Dickey is splendid as Joe's mother, who bequeaths him an abiding dig­ nity and integrity. John Battles is perfect as the hero and Roberta Jonay succeeds in being both romantically attractive and venomous as the 69

prideful sweetheart and wife. William Ching gives a fine account of himself as the elder Taylor and Muriel O'Malley has a resplendent moment or two as grandma. Meanwhile Gloria Wills does a superlative bit as a campus tramp and John Conte steadies every scene in which he appears as Joe’s best friend. "Allegro” has bitter overtones, as it celebrates a rather frenzied era, but it is a memorable musical comedy. ^

The review displays remarkable similarities to the examples of tripartite opera reviews, as well as a few minor variations.

The similarities are patent. The introduction con­ tains general material including an overall assessment, an indication of the scope of the review, and a placement of the production in a historical-social context (the opening of the Theatre Guild's thirtieth season). The body of the review is composed of a series of compartmentalized judg­ ments. The conclusion is much shorter than the introduc­ tion, it returns to general commentary, and it recap­ itu la te s a theme f ir s t mentioned in the opening portion

(Introduction: "This is a show to be remembered . . .";

Conclusion: ". . . it is a memorable musical comedy.")

The only discernable variation from the norm estab­ lished by the opera examples cited earlier, is the large number of judgments offered by Barnes. It was usual for

^ Herald Tribune, 11 October, 1947. 70 an opera critic to propound a few well-framed opinions and either to ignore minor production personnel, or to rele­ gate them to the catalogue at the end of the review.

Barnes, on the contrary, grants a brief comment on all major, and a few minor aspects of the performance, giving his entire review the appearance of a catalogue. In all, thirteen specific judgments are offered. By comparison, the largest number of specific evaluations found in any opera review cited in full in this study is twelve, and that occurs in a review that is twenty-five percent longer than Barnes's . ^ No other opera review cited has so many individual assessments.

An objection may be raised that Barnes had to divide his comments among many more aspects because he was evalu­ ating a world premier. So far, the only opera reviews presented have been those dealing with old operas, and most of them have also dealt with old productions as well.

Even reviews of new operas were unlikely to cover so many aspects. Olin Downes's review of the world premiere of

The Troubled Island by William Grant Still is roughly contemporaneous to Barnes's Allegro review. The article by Downes is longer, yet it presents fewer specific judg­ ments, each of which is more developed than the ones in

O *1 See review of La_ Cenerentola. p. 271. 71 the musical theatre review. The following is an excerpt concerning costuming:

The costuming was contingent on the limited re­ sources of the producing company, but the stuffy gorgeous uniforms that sprinkle the historical tragedy of Dessalines and his murder with an element of humor, and the costumes of the Hai­ tian natives, which seem born of the sun and the brilliantly colored terrain, added materially to the success of the evening.

Compare Barnes’s costume criticism: "Lucinda Ballard has designed perfect costumes."

Or consider Downes’s treatment of just one portion of the score:

The opera goes along melodiously and with a rather astonishing fluency in the first act, but it is long in coming to dramatic grips. The music of the Negroes gathering for their revolt is not over-exciting is in fact conventional. The prelude of the orchestra establishes a de­ gree of a nocturnal and premonitory mood. The lullaby that Celeste, the slave, sings to her child is agreeable and not too obvious. Then, immediately impressing the beholder by her voice and her personality appears Azelia—Miss Pow- ers— and immediately something has happened. Drums have been heard before in dramas and oper­ as in Haitian subjects. They evoke fairly good theatre, recurring as the effect does in each follows, and preluding the final trage

All a reader learned of Rodgers's score from Barnes was

22Times, 1 April, 1949.

23Ibid. 72

that it was haunting and that three of the tunes were eloquent. The disparity in specificity between the re­ views can only be partially explained by the difference in length. Downes used,fifty percent more column space, but his individual criticisms were more detailed than the additional space would warrant. More significantly,

Downes limited the number of topics with which he dealt, and so was able to treat each more fully. Opera reviewers became accustomed to focusing on a few novel aspects in repertory performances. So their habit of concentrating on a few we 1*1-developed assessments extended to their treatment of world premieres as well.

There is another reason for opera reviewers' willing­ ness to ignore minor elements in production: opera review­ ers were likely to see and even review scores, librettos, production elements, conductors, and singers more than once. Theatre critics rarely reassessed musical plays, let alone productions and individual performances. If an opera reviewer was unable to mention a minor element of the entertainment that impressed him, he would likely have an opportunity to redress the omission in a later review.

A theatre critic had but one chance to evaluate every aspect and all performances in a production; little won­ der, then, that musical theatre reviews frequently resem- 73

bled laundry lis ts —one brief judgment following another.

Priority-structured reviews of musical plays also

followed the pattern observed in opera reviews with one

exception: musical theatre critics were more likely to

begin priority-structured reviews with general material,

making them resemble the beginning of tripartite reviews,

as in the following example by Lewis Nichols:

Last week the Gilbert and Sullivan "H.M.S. Pinafore" was moving down the river in "Memphis Bound," and last night it drifted to the Coast with "Hollywood Pinafore." This George S. Kauf­ man revision, whereby the lass who loved a sail­ or becomes a lad who loved a salary, should be much better than it is. . . .

Although this appears to be a typical opening for a tri­

partite review, Nichols went on to deal with the topics of

libretto and score, acting and singing in order of magni­

tude. He even ended his review with a catalogue that resembles strongly the typical ending of a priority-style opera review:

George Rasely has the part of a director; Shir­ ley Booth is funny as a columnist called Louhed- da Hopsons ("Little Miss Butter-Up"), and Mary Wickes is wry as a secretary. Mr. Kaufman has directed and Jo Mielziner has designed the set­ tings. ^

2^Times, 1 June, 1945.

25Ibid. 74

There is no sense in this conclusion that the review was

cut off by an editor or even that Nichols had not written

all that he wished about the performance. The facts that

Kaufman had directed and Mielziner had designed were men­

tioned in the opening tabulation of the review; Nichols

was clearly using the closing sentence as a filler and had

obviously said all that he had wanted to in the review.

More significant that any minor variations that ap­

peared in structural details, however, is the difference

in frequency of occurrence among the three structural

types (tripartite, priority, and variant).

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF STRUCTURAL TYPES: OPERA VERSUS MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS (ALL QUALIFYING REVIEWS)

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE STRUCTURAL TYPE OPERA REVIEWS MUS. TH. REVIEWS

Tripartite 61% 80%

Priority 36% 6%

Variant 3% 14%

The tripartite arrangement prevalent in opera reviews ap­ peared with even greater regularity in articles written by drama critics; the occurrence of priority-structured re­ views is far less frequent; reviews with variant struc­ 75 tures increase from statistical insignificance to a level at which trends might be detectable.

Greater tripartite predominance was probably occa­ sioned by the desire of theatre critics to make clear their overall impressions. The success or failure of theatre productions relied on the overall assessment of theatre critics in a way unparalleled in the opera world.

The trade paper Variety, for instance, tabulates and pub­ lishes a statistical summary of a play's reception by critics—either favorable, mixed, or unfavorable. In the same way, producers of a musical production with few advance sales tote up the raves and pans in order to determine whether or not to keep the show running. With so much at stake theatre critics reiterate their overall impressions so as not to be misunderstood. Brooks Atkin­ son said some rather uncomplimentary things about Flower

Drum Song in his review, including:

Although "Flower Drum Song" is beautiful to look at and is populated by many winning young people, it does not have the v ita lity of "South Pacific" or "The King and I"—both of them musi­ cals with a similar Oriental flavor. and,

Given another Oriental theme, Mr. Rodgers has written a pleasant score that does not.seem so original as some that have preceded it. °

^ Times, 2 December, 1958. 76

Having done so, Atkinson weighs his final words carefully and comes up with a decidedly mixed conclusion:

"Flower Drum Song" is not one of their master works. It is a pleasant interlude among some most agreeable people.

Opera critics usually had no such compelling reasons for reiterating their overall opinions. In most cases the productions they were assessing had already been reviewed; to restate general impressions at the beginning and end of their articles would amount to needless redundancy. Thus, old productions were twice as likely as new productions to

O O receive priority-structured evaluations. In addition, the future of opera productions did not rest so completely on critics' opinions of them. When the Metropolitan spent considerable sums remounting staples of the repertory, those reraountings would remain in public view for a few seasons regardless of critical reaction. Even productions of new operas were assured a lim ited number of perform­ ances in a season's schedule; the make-or-break aspect attendant on most Broadway opening nights was mitigated in opera houses.

27Ibid.

2 8 New productions in the sample were treated with priority-structured reviews thirty-nine percent of the time; old productions, nineteen percent of the time. 77

The higher incidence of variant structures in musical theatre reviews is, at least .in part, a statistical aber­ ration; eighty-one percent of variant-structure musical theatre reviews were the product of one critic, Walter

Kerr. It was noted that other theatre reviewers of the day produced variant-structured reviews in roughly equal proportion to their musical counterparts, which is to say not often. The three critics who published most often after Kerr resorted to variant structure far less often:

Brooks Atkinson used it only six percent of the time;

Howard Taubman, one percent of the time; Howard Barnes, not at all during the period. The abnormally high inci­ dence of variant structure (thirty percent) in the per­ iod's most prolific reviewer calls for looking at the data in two ways, both with and without Kerr's reviews. One of the reasons for selecting so long a period for examination was to provide a sample of reviews large enough not to be affected by the idiosyncrasies of a single critic. For­ tunately, eliminating Kerr's reviews from consideration leaves a sample large enough (363 articles) to be consid­ ered representative. When considered without Kerr, then, the sample of musical theatre reviews produced a rate of variant structures more in line with that found in opera reviews. 78

TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF STRUCTURAL TYPES: OPERA REVIEWS VERSUS MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS (OMITTING REVIEWS BY WALTER KERR)

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE STRUCTURAL TYPE OPERA REVIEWS MUS. TH. REVIEWS

Tripartite 61% 88%

Priority 36% 8%

Variant 3% 4%

Looking at the sample in this manner reinforces two impressions: the overwhelming predominance of tripartite structure in the entire theatre sample recurs in the sample without Kerr's reviews, and the diminution in num­ bers of priority style reviews is also virtually the same, whether or not Kerr is included. One can only conclude that the high incidence of variant structures in Kerr's reviews of the period reflects an individual style.

While Kerr's variant approach to organizing reviews may not have been representative of the period as a whole, it produced a body of reviews large enough (sixty-one) to warrant investigation for other recurring organizational methods. Walter Kerr included re-creation of a theatrical experience as one goal of his reviewing . ^ By making such

^Bladell, Roderick, "An Analysis of Walter F. Kerr's Theatrical Criticism" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969), p. 14. 79 re-creation a goal, Kerr aligned himself somewhat with an impressionistic approach to criticism. Like many impres­ sionist critics, Kerr was himself an artist; he wrote and directed for the theatre. There is also a sense in Kerr's reviews that artistic sensibility is more important than rigid criteria in judging art, or in Pater's words:

What is important . . . is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperament, the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects. . . . To him all periods, ty pes, schools of taste, are in themselves equal.

The parallels between Kerr and impressionist critics should not be carried too far, however. In the f ir s t place, there is no trace in Kerr's criticism of the elit­ ism so rampant in the work of impressionists; Kerr's quest to recreate theatrical experiences sought to widen reader­ ship, not to limit understanding to an initiated few. In the second place, Kerr never relinquished the evaluative function of his criticism in favor of description or re-creation alone.

How did Kerr's critical approach affect the structure of his reviews? Most of Kerr's departures from prevalent structures did not exhibit many similarities to each oth-

O A Walter Pater, The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry (London: Macmillan and Co., 1877), p. x. 80 er; they seem to have been formed by the forces of the impressions that Kerr wished to recreate. In many cases he would begin his review by portraying a moment or image from the performance in great detail, as in this excerpt from his 1958 review of Flower Drum Sons:

Perhaps the precise character of Rodgers and Hamraerstein's "Flower Drum Song" is best indicated by a number that ambles into easy life in the middle of the first act and keeps on ambling until it has stopped the show cold. Larry Blyden, as a San Francisco night-club operator who has drifted sinfully away from the strict, old-world, and altogether charming man­ ners of his Chinatown forebears, is in the pro­ cess of unloading a bride who has been assigned to him. The girl, enchantingly played by a modest and wistful creature named Miyoshi Umeki, is pliant in almost every way. As Mr. Blyden, via a wry and sunny Oscar Hammerstein lyric, describes the loutish husband he is bound to be (he is not only generally unreliable, he eats lichi nuts in bed), Miss Umeki listens attentively, nods understandingly and indicates that—Oriental code or no Oriental code— she is not going to in s ist on her legal rights. At his urgent request, she will sweetly give him up. ("I accept your proposal not to marry me, but I must ask my father.") She is docile in other ways, too. As the fetching rhythm of "Don’t Marry Me" begins to make itself felt, she is willing to follow her renegade suitor into a lazy investigation of light and easygoing American footwork. Unaccus­ tomed as she is to soft-shoe shenanigans, and feeling a bit sheepish about her inexperience, she takes Mr. Blyden’s hat into her upraised hand and waves it loyally as she joins him in a delectable double-truck. The moment, arranged by choreographer Carol Haney with an appreciative look in director Gene Kelly's direction, is a joyful experiment in innocence flirting with sophistication. It outlines, in a few graceful and grinning vaude- 31

ville gestures, nearly everything that libret­ tists Oscar Hammerstein and Joseph Fields have to say: that there are two generations in China­ town, that one of them is fond of blind dates, hep lingo ("that’s bop, pop") and Thunderbirds, and that the wiser will probably prevail.- By the time Mr. Blyden and Miss Umeki have drifted into the wings, a gentle and genial meeting of cultures has been impishly accomplished.

At this point, Kerr’s review was more half over, yet he had not delivered himself of a general appraisal of Flower

Drum Song. To be sure, readers had a fair idea that Kerr found the musical enjoyable, but that notion was implied only through the presentation of a single, detailed des­ cription. The remainder of the review is a standard run­ down of production personnel, with an evaluation of each.

Indeed, if the excerpt above were eliminated from the review, the remainder would serve as a short example of tripartite structure. The effect, then, is of an extended prelude, offered for the sole purpose of giving readers an impression of the performance that could not be communi­ cated by objective discourse.

The total effect of the Flower Drum Song review is rather disjointed. On occasion, Kerr organized his essays more completely by reintroducing an opening specific as­ pect again and again throughout the article, creating a

•^Herald Tribune. 2 December, 1958. 82

unifying motif, as in his review of the musical Christine;

And she is so beautiful. It's Maureen O'Hara I'm speaking of, as if you didn't know. I haven't checked the prices at the 46th Street, and I don't know what your plans are for the next several evenings, but it is always conceivable that it will be worth something to you in time and money just to go and stare at the most dazzling red-headed porce­ lain doll ever to make it, however precariously, across Shubert Alley. Should you decide on this reckless l i t t l e flier, you will also discover that Miss O'Hara's pipes have a nice Irish pitch to them, and' a good many of our standard musical-coraedy girls might well envy not only the smile but the sweetness she gets into a sort of Moslem jig called "Ireland Was Never Like This," not to mention a perfectly straight ballad—sung under big, batting eyelashes--labeled "Room in My Heart." * * * The compliments are now over. Miss O'Hara has a difficulty, which is that she is unable to repulse anybody. Clearly she has been unable to repulse the authors and the management who per­ suaded her to appear in this bargain-basement version of "East is West" out of "The King and I." But she is also utterly unable to shake loose of her leading man. She tries, dear thing, she tries. The first act contains no fewer than three scenes in which she t i l t s her chin, raises her voice an octave in a manner favored by young leading ladies in summer camps, turns unsteadily in one high heel and tries to get out of there. At 10:20, as I sped up the aisle of the theater, she was still trying to escape from the little town of Akbarabad, India. * * * But there are obstacles. The uncredited direction, and a rather tricky central platform on which nearly everything takes place, are two of them. On one stormy exit, for instance, she has barely trille d out "Oh, I can't stand the sight of you!" and spun for the wings when she is forced to stop dead, look down, carefully 83 place her dainty feet on the steps that confront her, and delicately wend her way to the dres­ sing-rooms. And librettists Pearl S. Buck and Charles K. Peck jr. are stubborn. They want their race­ conscious Lady Christine FitzSimons [sic] to stay in Akbarabad with a great many race-con­ scious Indians who desperately need typhus in­ jections and operations on their eyes but who will simply not accept such benefits from anyone as sunny and well-meaning as Miss O'Hara. So they invent excuses to keep the lady on the premises and the show plodding along. There are a great many desultory conversations ex­ plaining what is happening off stage, such as "This was a nice sleepy little town before you took over" (but we haven't seen her take over) and "The people do not want you" (but everybody who passes is smiling broadly). After awhile [sic] there seems to be so l i t t l e happening on stage and so much happening off, that you get an almost uncontrollable urge to call "Hello, out there!" * * * During a ll of this Miss O'Hara is required to s it so much that, should the show run, she will probably gain weight. The dancers, lucky souls, will not. Every fifteen minutes or so choreographer Hanya Holm gathers together her truly skilled troupe, including a few obviously genuine Indians who know how to behave like cobras, for a swift rattle of ankle-bells and a roar of percussion in the pit. Miss Holm's work seemed to me to be excellent, and generally uncalled for. In spite of the presence of an orechestra [sic], a sizeable score from composer Sammy Fain (it is Hollywood Viennese, but sometimes quite pleasant), and all those dancers stripped where Akbarabadians strip, "Christine" is not really a musical. It is a sandwich. There is a layer of international goodwill (including "The Unicef Song"), a layer of Oriental passivity ("It was fate, it was Karma"), a layer of straight cara­ mel ("We will climb as high as the pine trees or beyond them to the junipers"), a layer of simple vulgarity (dignified native girls slipping into a Charleston), and what amounts to a rather stingy single setting from Jo Mielziner. Paul 84

Francis Webster's lyrics add to the rummage-sale effect upon occasion by being su fficien tly un- lyrical to fit into the plot ("I have been taught that science is the alpha and omega and the key" or "I walk alone in a mood of defiance, with all ray science"). And, though leading man Morley Meredith sings well and Nancy Andrew's brassy tones are heartening, the heaped-up snack is indigestible. And she is so beautiful.

The introduction to this article is again marked by an avoidance of explicit general evaluation. (The only hint to Kerr's prevailing attitude was contained in the two words: "however precariously.") It focused on the per­ formance of a single artist. As the review continued, it became clear that Kerr developed his preoccupation with

Maureen O'Hara into an extended conceit that was applied to almost every judgment offered in the a rtic le . For instance, Kerr did not simply dismiss the lib retto as undistinguished; instead, he cast his aspersions in terms of O'Hara's in ab ility to say no to a bad script. A less- than-ideal leading man was seen as an impediment to the actress. Even the unsatisfactory direction and setting were dealt with in terms of the star.

Although Kerr sprinkled these specific references throughout the article, his review by no means focused on a single performer. In each case his mentioning her led

•^Herald Tribune, April 29, 1960. 85

him logically into a discussion of one aspect of the

performance after another. Then, having attacked or ex­

cused almost every person connected with the enterprise

for the show's unmitigated affront to Maureen O'Hara, Kerr

finally managed to formulate a half-dozen words to summar­

ize his attitude toward Christine: . . the heaped-up

snack is generally indigestible." But he did not end his

review with this truncated summation. Rather he concluded

by re-summoning an initial vision, that of the leading

lady. In a separate paragraph he wrote simply: "And she

is so beautiful."

Beginning his review with statements that did not en­

compass the entire performance did not, in itself distin­

guish Kerr's review from many of those by music critics—

witness Francis Perkins's review of Tosca on page 54.

Perkins and other music critics, however, would start with

specifics when the scope of the entire review was narrow,

and they would proceed from restricted opening statements

to individual criticisms of even greater specificity.

Kerr, on the other hand, went on to treat a wide range of

topics having no apparent relationship to O'Hara's loveli­ ness .

Instead of treating each individual criticism as a

compartmentalized entity, Kerr related each assessment to

the unifying motif. Without the presence of the motif, 86

his essay would appear as a rambling series of disjointed pronouncements. In this variant arrangement, Kerr’s over­ all assessment was not presented at the outset, to be supported by enumerated examples in the remainder of the article; instead, the specific evaluations made throughout the article revealed the critic's attitude a bit at a time. The cumulative effect of those evaluations ex­ pressed the author’s general opinion. That is the main reason for the curtness of Kerr's summarization—to say any more would weaken the force of the image he had con­ jured at the outset of the review. In Kerr's review of

Christine, then, the recurrent image took precedence even over his opinion of the show. The result of this unortho­ dox approach is a playful, tongue-in-cheek article. Kerr was able to poke gentle fun at his own libidinous reaction to a pretty actress, simultaneously creating for himself the character of a mooning adolescent.

Kerr was not the only drama c ritic to depart from standard review structure. Others would sometimes do the same, particularly after Kerr burst upon the New York theatre scene in 1952 with his free-wheeling, impression­ istic style. Coincidentally, Brooks Atkinson's review of

Christine exhibits a variation that uses recurrent state­ ment of theme to unify his review in the same way that 87 that Kerr used an image motif. Like Kerr, Atkinson began his review with the description of a single performer:

Since "Christine" is set in India it is fortunate that Bhaskar is in the cast. He is an attra ctiv e young man who twice puts everything into focus by dancing with the rippling, liquid movements characteristic of his native land. The audience at the Forty Sixth Street Theatre last evening would have been happy if Bhaskar could have gone on elaborating in the idiom of Indian culture.

He also closed his review by recreating the image:

. . . Bhaskar, smiling, frank and supple, is its most w i nning performer. The book lets him alone.

It must be admitted that vestiges of three-part organiza­ tion were retained by Atkinson. The review contained a rather standard summation of the critic's overall atti­ tude. Furthermore, Atkinson introduced fairly early the notion that the performance was not entirely satisfactory by stating: ". . . the pleasures of 'Christine' are curtailed by the limitations of Broadway."^ Atkinson used that statement as more than a description of his attitude toward the performance, however, for it also served as an introduction to a theme that would run

33The Times, April 29, 1960.

34Ibid.

35Ibid. through the remainder of the review. He mentioned Broad­

way specifically five more times, in each case underscor­

ing how all aspects of the production seemed to be limited

by association with Broadway conventions:

As the composer, Sammy Fain has made a few polite gestures towards the modes of Indian music. But his heart belongs to Broadway.

Left to its own devices, 'Christine' keeps returning to the fleshpots of Broadway for the things it really believes.

No, Broadway is not ready for a musical drama about India. °

The last, most sweeping judgment came not at the end of the review, but almost exactly at its center, between comments about a particular actor and criticism of the lib retto .

Atkinson did not, therefore, adhere to a tripartite structure that proceeded from general introduction to specific development to general conclusion; rather, he started with a specific image, then introduced a general theme that recurred with regularity throughout the review, even in his final evaluation:

Everyone has tried to be as mystic and mys­ terious as possible in "Christine." But Broad-

36Ibid. 89

0 7 way keeps pulling them back.

His restatement of the Broadway lim itation theme was

framed in terms no more general than the other references

cited above. It came, then, not so much as a summation of

his attitude as a reiteratio n for the sake of emphasis.

Moreover, Atkinson closed, not with the general assess­

ment, but like Kerr, with the recreation of a particular

image conjured in the opening; in Atkinson's case, that of

the dancing youth, unfettered by the conventions of the

libretto.

Though Atkinson departed slightly from conventional

ways of framing his essay, he actually strengthened the

sense of unity by organizing his specific opinions around

a central conviction that could be considered to transcend

his judgment of a particular musical play. In effect, he

is saying: this is what happens when Broadway conventions

are unbendingly applied to incompatible material.

The general impression created by these deviations

from tripartite and priority structures is of a more free-

spirited, informal, personal approach to criticism. The impression may not be entirely accurate; some of the sense of spontaneity associated with variant review structures may arise from their very rarity. As already noted, drama

37Ibid. critics (with the exception of Kerr) utilized the three- part arrangement even more than opera critics. Encounter­ ing one of the more unusually constructed reviews was accompanied by a sense of freshness that probably, there­ fore, had more to do with the sheer novelty of connecting elements in a different way, rather than with the intrin­ sic ability of a variant structure to treat topics more appealingly.

So, a certain advantage in freshness was gained by departing from standard organizational formulas, but that advantage was counterbalanced by a tendency for variations in structure to attract attention to themselves. For example, Kerr's extended conceit involving Maureen O'Hara left a reader first and foremost with an impression of the author's cleverness; Atkinson's recurrent theme, with an impression of the author's scholarliness. In neither case was attention focused exclusively on the subject at hand— the production being evaluated. In the case of Christine, one might raise the argument that the show was such an unqualified failure as to warrant the intrusion of clever­ ness and scholarship as antidotes to unrelieved, dreary reportage. Such an attitude ignores the fact even monu­ mentally bad productions employ the sincere efforts of well-meaning participants. To treat their endeavors as no 91 more than an excuse for a self-serving display, of clever­ ness or scholarship would be cavalier. Furthermore, un­ bridled self-absorption has the dangerous potential of leading reviewers to value a bon mot more than a well- reasoned judgment, and a clever construction more than an honest opinion. Walter Kerr and Brooks Atkinson never became so preoccupied with their constructions as to lose sight of their primary evaluative purpose. In Kerr's case, he was probably too intimately involved in a variety of theatrical enterprises in a creative capacity to lose the sense of what it was like to be criticized. Brooks

Atkinson, throughout his career, always seemed more in­ clined to blame unbearable evenings in the theatre on a general wrong-headedness in the entertainment—a failure of individually admirable components to mesh into a pleas­ ing whole.

In sum, opera critics and musical theatre critics tended to organize their ideas according to a three-part plan that proceeded from a general opening section, to a development of specific evaluations, to a closing section that offered concluding judgments and often recapitulated general materials found in the opening. The primary al­ ternative to the tripartite arrangement substituted a simple order-of-priority structure, which treated the most newsworthy or most general topics first, and which elimin­ 92

ated concluding comments. Reviewers of musical theatre favored tripartite over priority structure more than opera reviewers, probably because they perceived a need to clar­ ify opinion with regard to the overall theatrical experi­ ence.

Departures from these two structures were uncommon in opera reviews, and the few variations did not exhibit any organizational trends. Musical theatre reviews deviated from standard organizational procedures with higher fre­ quency; however, most of the deviations occurred in the work of one reviewer, Walter Kerr. His departures were occasioned by a desire on his part to recreate theatrical experiences for his readers. His articles were sometimes organized around recurring motifs and his articles were marked by a sense of novelty and freshness. CHAPTER III

MAJOR OPERA REVIEW TOPICS

. . . in opera, the final summation must be in terms of song . . .

Despite the absurdities of its violently melodramatic plot, there is decided dramatic forcefulness in this opera [La. Gioconda 1 when it is sung by voices capable of meeting its exac­ tions . ^

She moves well and is a competent actress. But no soprano makes a career of acting. Voice is wJiat counts, and voice is what Miss Price has.

The big news of the evening was Richard Tucker's Manrico, his fir s t on any stage, actually. . . . He was in superlatively good voice last night, investing the flow of the Verdian legato with all the power and the glory that he commands at his best. Visually he was . . . well, he was Richard Tucker. But who goes to "Trovatore" to look?4

The preceding excerpts from opera reviews throughout

•'•Times 15 November, 1946.

^Herald Tribune 26 January, 1945.

^Herald Tribune 12 December, 1963.

4Times. 28 January, 1961.

93 94

the survey period suggest that opera critics tended to

emphasize singing in their evaluations. Statistical ob­

servations bear that impression out; singing appeared as a

major topic in eighty-nine percent of qualifying reviews.

That opera criticism preoccupied itself with musical ex­

pression is hardly a startling assertion, but that it so

strongly favored one aspect of musical expression is cause

for further comment.

Of the six possible topics considered in the survey,

three were musical:

A = Orchestra and Conductor B = Singing E = Musical score and three were non-musical:

C = Acting D = Production elements F = Libretto

They appeared as major topics at the following rates:

TABLE 3

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF MAJOR TOPICS IN OPERA REVIEWS

TOPIC FREOUENCY OF OCCURRENCE

B (Singing) 89% C (Acting) 57% D (Production Elements) 39% A (Orchestra and Conductor) 38% E (Score) 25% F (Libretto) 16% 95

If critics had displayed as much concentration on musical topics as they did on singing, a wide discrepancy between coverage of musical and non-musical topics would have resulted. On the contrary, as shown in Table 3 above, the next most common topic was a non-musical one

(acting). Moreover, when adding up all major topics, the difference in frequency of appearance between musical and non-musical topics is not overwhelming:

TABLE 4

COMPARISON OF MAJOR TOPICS IN OPERA REVIEWS: MUSICAL VERSUS NON-MUSICAL ELEMENTS

TOPIC CATEGORY % OF TOTAL MAJOR TOPICS

Musical Topics 56%

Non-musical Topics 42%

Miscellaneous Topics 2%

There is, however, another way of categorizing the topics than along the lines of their musical or non­ musical affiliations. They might also be considered ac­ cording to whether they deal with the transient aspects of performance, or with more permanent aspects that carry over from one performance to another. Transient aspects include: 96

A = Orchestra and Conductor B = Singing C = Acting

Permanent aspects include:

D = Production elements E = Score F = Libretto

Breaking down topics according to this criterion yields a greater discrepancy in percentages of total major review topics than occurred between musical and non-musical top­ ics :

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF MAJOR TOPICS IN OPERA REVIEWS: TRANSIENT VERSUS PERMANENT ELEMENTS

TOPIC CATEGORY % OF TOTAL MAJOR TOPICS

Transient Topics 69%

Permanent Topics 29%

Miscellaneous Topics 2%

At least part of the reason for the predominance of comments concerning vocal musical performance is the fact that singing is both a musical and a transient performance element. The preponderance of singing criticism is, how­ ever, even more overwhelming than the breakdown in Table 3 suggests. Statistically, when a review dealt with only one topic, that topic was singing eighty-four percent of 97

the time; when a review dealt with only two major topics, one of the topics was singing seventy-eight percent of the time. Furthermore, non-statistical observation indicated that when two or three topics appeared in a review, vocal musical performance tended to receive more attention than the accompanying topics. An examination of the seven com­ plete opera reviews quoted in this study substantiates the impression. These particular reviews were selected to exhibit a number of different characteristics, including structural, journalistic, topical, and stylistic aspects of opera criticism . Yet as a group they reveal that material devoted to the criticism of singing generally exceeds material devoted to other major topics.

Vocal criticism by opera critics sought to accomplish three things: evaluation, description, and prescription.

The purposes were simultaneously expressed in many c riti­ cal comments:

She [Mary Curtis-Verna] has a full, rich voice with a velvety quality, particularly in the middle range. There is resonance and size in the top tones, too, and she can sing stirrin g ly when the voice is firmly anchored. If she would only learn to sing a pianissimo and make an effort to shade a bit, she could add variety and subtlety to her work that would give it distinc­ tion.

^Times, 20 March, 1959. 98

Indeed, purely descriptive passages were almost never found in opera criticism; any descriptions offered were present to serve evaluative aims. In the same way, evalu­ ation entailed at least some description; once a critic exceeded the bounds of saying "The voice is good" or "The voice is bad" he entered the realm of describing the q u alities he found to be favorable or unfavorable. Pre­ scription, on the other hand, need not be evident or even implied in a review. Olin Downes's assessment of Erna

Schlueter's debut at the Metropolitan Opera in 1947 con­ tains a fairly lengthy evaluation that is totally devoid of prescriptive qualities:

The Metropolitan Opera Association, not­ withstanding its long and glorious history, its roster of the greatest names that music-drama of the last sixty years has known, attained a new distinction last night when it presented the first "Tristan und Isolde" of the season. For it gave one of the dullest performances of "Tristan" that we recall, with a new Isolde who is certainly, beyond doubt or peradventure, the worst impersonator of the title part in our considerable experience of the opera. She is Erna Schlueter, who on this occasion made her American debut. She sings very badly, explosively, off pitch, with tones that are customarily shrill and unsteady. Very occasion­ ally, in isolated phrases, sung softly and with­ out forcing, was there evidence that originally, before a vicious vocal method shot it to pieces, a good voice was there. Prevailing justice was done neither to tone nor text.

^Times. 27 November, 1947. 99

Viewed in this manner, vocal criticism in opera was almost always descriptive and evaluative; on occasion it could be prescriptive as well. Some of the most extensive vocal descriptions served to introduce new singers to a critic's reading public. Unlike Downes's savaging of Schlueter, most were, fortunately, much more favorable:

The voice is a good, sound instrument, well trained and well placed. It has range, and if it is not huge it is so well focused it gives the effect of more than ample size. Mr. Gedda controls it admirably; his top tones come easily and have resonance and he can sing pianissimo without loss of quality. What may be lacking in abundance are the warmth and sensuousness of the tenors on whom the southern sun has shone from childhood, but in another role Mr. Gedda may surprise. Singing in French, he was careful to adapt his vocal style to a musical idiom in keeping with a crisp and pointed language. There was manliness in his singing in the first scene, and in the garden scene he sang "Salut deraeure" with nicety of phrasing and ardent feeling. He carried his share of the love duet with effectiveness. In short, he will do.7

They could even approach esctasy:

Birgit Nilsson is the possessor of a magni­ ficent voice, a clear unobstructed, powerful soprano of extraordinary brightness that can cut through the orchestral phalanx without ever being shrill, without giving the impression of forcing, or even of any effort. And Miss Nils­ son, to whom high B flats and C's are just

7Times, 2 November, 1957. 100

tones, perhaps a little higher than the ordinary run, but otherwise of no particular concern, can go down the scale all the way to an A--and she s till sings a firm soprano, not the chesty moan most sopranos emit at such unfortunate spots. Power and brightness are rare enough endow­ ments, but this artist can sing, too, and super­ latively well. Her mezza voce is just as lumin­ ous as her soaring forte, and her pianos, gentle and lovely, still carry. Her musicianship is unquestionable, as are her serious artistic attitude and careful study of her role.

In general, such vocal descriptions were free of the jargon of vocal classification that is popular in Europe, especially Germany. There, to describe a singer as a soprano is a bare beginning of classification. The grada­ tions are subtle and numerous: soubrette, lyric colora­ tura, lyric soprano, lyric spinto, dramatic coloratura, dramatic soprano, high dramatic soprano, and character soprano. In the United States critics shunned the termin­ ology, but they clearly subscribed to the theory that singers should maintain their careers within a narrow compass of the repertoire. Only rarely would a singer receive praise in a wide range of roles. Eleanor Steber, for example, sang everything from Sophie in Per Rosenkava- lie r to Massenet's Manon, to Donna Anna, to Tosca, to

Marie in Alban Berg's Wozzeck— all to c ritic a l praise.

Also rarely, a singer would astound critics by successful­

^Herald Tribune, 19 December, 1959. 101

ly accomplishing a complete change of vocal type as in the

cases of Margaret Harshaw and Regina Resnik:

The most important feature of last night's performance of Wagner's "Flying Dutchman" at the Metropolitan Opera House was Margaret Harshaw's singing of the Senta role, in w'hich she aston­ ished everyone, because she sang this part with its exceptionally high range so brilliantly and well. Up to this time Miss Harshaw has sung contralto parts on this stage. Her singing of Senta's music, which lies especially high and makes inordinate demands—vocal and dramatic— upon the interpreter, was not only a vocal tour de force, but a highly artistic interpretation.

• •••••••••••••••*••••••• Other singers have raised their range and gone soprano from a mezzo or contralto placing. The change has usually been obvious, especially before the voice settled to the new tessitura. But one wonders if Miss Harshaw isn't really a soprano in the f ir s t place. Her tones had not only pitch but ring, as if to the manner born.

Miss Resnik began her career at the City Center quite a few years ago and then moved on to the Metropolitan Opera. She started as a soprano and several seasons ago decided to con­ vert herself into a mezzo-soprano. This was a wise decision on several counts. The voice has a natural mezzo timbre, and in this range Miss Resnik does not have to strain for top tones. greater comfort has come greater security. u

But c ritic s were quick to c ritic iz e singers who chose roles that were inappropriate to their vocal category:

^Times, 23 November, 1950.

^Times. 17 October, 1958. 102

Special interest naturally centered in the company's new tenor, Mr. Tucker, who had the misfortune to make his initial appearance in a formidable role too heavy for his essentially lyric type of voice. . . . he must be heard in a part more congenial to him before final judgment can be made of his capabilities.

or for taking on roles for which they were not yet vocally prepared:

Miss Patrice Munsel, though a young woman of phenomenal talents, is far from being pre­ pared for present glory. She has an unschooled voice of wide range and considerable power. In one or two passages it was clear that if she learns how to use it properly before she uses it up she may well have a great career. . . . If she continues to abuse it in public as she did last night, it may well in short time turn into a cracked whisper. . . . The idea that any female voice of seventeen is ripe for big time is the sheerest folly to entertain.

Reviewers would even take an opera's management to task if they felt that the source of vocal mismatching originated with a musical director or general manager. Once Harshaw had made the vocal switch described above, critics scolded the Met for continuing to cast her in mezzo roles:

Margaret Harshaw as Waltraute impressed the lis ­ tener once again with the remarkable vocal pro­ gress she has been making. Since she has en­ tered the classification of soprano of late, we

^^Times, 26 January, 1945.

^ Herald Tribune. 5 December, 1943. 103

should not be severe on her for the lack of quality in the lowest tones of a mezzo-soprano part. The responsibility lies with those in charge of casting. J

Such chiding was common throughout the period, and reflects the prescriptive aspect of vocal criticism. The most common vocal diagnosis proffered by critics was that singers were performing roles that were too heavy for their voices. The review of Tucker's debut above illus­ trates such a diagnosis. Prescriptions were sometimes im- plied--in order to perform better, singers should avoid repertoire for which they are unsuited. But at other times advice could be quite explicit, and could range beyond matters of vocal category, as in the case of Virgil

Thomson's lecture to Zinka Milanov.

I wish Miss Milanov would practice more at home. She has a beautiful voice and a taste for the bravura style. Unfortunately, bravura sing­ ing is always a failure unless based on the daily exercise of scales and arpeggios. Over­ confident and underexercised, Miss Milanov in­ variably, in moments of temperamental enthusi­ asm, sings off pitch and with ugly tone. This is not only unfortunate but unnecessary. An artist of her abundant natural gifts is foolish not to acquire a mastery over them. She would be a great singer if she could bring herself to accept the necessary routine of perfection and if she could refrain from getting excited.

^ Herald Tribune, 14 December, 1951.

•^Herald Tribune, 16 December, 1944. 104

It is important to note that the majority of critical scoldings were not at all mean-spirited. Their tone was generally sincere, and in some cases, constructive, as in a subsequent evaluation of Milanov by Virgil Thomson:

Zinka Milanov has always had a beautiful voice; but her singing has rarely heretofore given complete pleasure, because of a persistent tremor which made her pitch unclear. In last night's performance of Don Giovanni [sic] at the Metropolitan Opera House she sang the role of Donna Anna with a reformed vocal mechanism. . . . How she has cured her tremolo I do not know, but the transformation is nothing short of sensa­ tional. It is to be hoped that she will now start practicing her scales every day, which are s till not quite perfect, and take some good les­ sons in gesture. Her pr esent mastery merits these final perfections.

If the problem was bad judgment or training on the part of a singer, and if critics thought the flaw correctable, they would continue to harp year after year. Tenors were favorite targets for critical scoldings. Even more than

Tucker in the example of his debut above, Giuseppi Di Ste- fano was treated like the critics' own vocal student:

Mr. Di Stefano brings a welcome personable­ ness to the role of Faust, as well as a persua­ sive tenor voice, a voice which would have sounded far better if he had used it in less consistently open fashion. His high "C" in "Salut demeure" was emitted with exceptional fullness and so well controlled that he was able

^ Herald Tribune, 14 December, 1945. 105

to taper it off to a still resonant piano, but one high "C" does not make a performance or even an aria. For the greater part of "Salut de- meure" was "whitely" sung, without sufficient "legato" to make it stylistically impeccable. In the all too few phrases during the evening that Mr. Di Stefano covered his tones, the full beauty of his voice provided the satisfaction which would be consistent if he could learn to produce his voice with closer adherence to a vocal line.

More than five years later, the same attempt to reform

Di Stefano's technique was being attempted:

Mr. Di Stefano has accentuated some bad habits in the years since he last was here. That he has a glorious voice was proved by his "Salut! demeure," in which he mounted to a fortissim o high C and then took a diminuendo on it. Unfor­ tunately, he also spent considerable time push­ ing his voice; and his mannerism, constantly em­ ployed, of sliding into a note rather than look­ ing it square in the eye, is neither pleasant nor subtle. Certainly some basic musicianship on this tenor's part would not blight his voice and jpy.ght even add to a new dimension to his art.

Only rarely would a vocal prescription be tinged with facetiousness, even sarcasm:

Roberta Peters was not in good voice as Gilda. She started out shakily, and never did gain full control. And at this stage of her career, she would be well advised to keep away from high notes. Courage is all right, but some discretion is also an admirable asset. Discre-

^ Herald Tribune, 24 December, 1949.

^Times, 10 December, 1955. 106

tion would have avoided the misses at the end of "Caro nome" and the end of the third act duet. °

In this passage Harold C. Schonberg was really casting a

purely evaluative remark in the phraseology of prescrip­

tive criticism. "At this stage of her career she would be well advised to keep away from high notes." In the first place, Peters was only thirty-five years old at the time of the review; the Schonberg remark implies that she was in her waning years. Furthermore, his suggestion that she avoid high notes was not intended as serious career ad­ vice: her stock-in-trade was high-flying coloratura roles like the Queen of the Night, Zerbinetta, and Rosina in The

Barber of Seville. To take his counsel seriously would mean quite literally to end her career. More than twenty years later Peters was s till to be heard singing Gilda at the Metropolitan Opera; Schonberg's comment must therefore be interpreted as either jocular or sarcastic or wrong.

It should also be re-emphasized that such tongue-in-cheek advice was rare. For the most part, vocal prescriptions were forthright and well-meant.

An account of these vocal prescriptions has been de­ tailed here because the prescriptive aspect of opera c rit­ icism recurs in the treatment of other topics as well.

^ Times, 17 February, 1966. 107

Opera critics seemed to feel a proprietary interest in the success of local opera companies and of the singers who performed in them, which prompted them to offer sugges­ tions for the improvement of performances.

Because vocal musical performance so dominated opera reviews, the judgments rendered by critics concerning singing tended to be the most complete, carefully pre­ pared, and imaginative:

By the third act, Miss Sutherland was flawless. Her cadenza with the flute in the Mad Scene was as exciting a piece of singing as the lyric stage can show today. Her well-articu­ lated t r i l l s , the precision of her scales, the security in her upper range and, in addition, the good size of her voice were a throwback to a style of singing that is supposed to be extinct. The quality of her voice is one of extreme beauty. Some have called it cool, and it is true that it is produced with very little vibra­ to. This listener does not find it cool at all. It is silvery, delicately colored and capable of extraordinary nuance. In addition, the voice has body. In coloratura it does not thin out but is produced in a full-throated manner.

Compare the preceding evaluation of Sutherland's vocal performance as Lucia di Lammermoor by Harold Schon­ berg with Francis Perkins's account of Eleanor Steber's acting in her first Metropolitan Tosca:

Miss Steber's impersonation of Tosca was

^Times, 27 November, 1961. 108

individual, expressively outspoken and dramati­ cally convincing, especially in the latter two acts. In the first act there was a lesser sense of spontaneity and assurance, although Tosca's emotions were clearly revealed, and her sudden wrenching of her hand from Scarpia’s at her exit was an effective touch. Later portraiture of the Roman actress seemed entirely integrated and persuasive throughout the role's extensive emotional range of appeal, defiance and vengeance.

These two excerpts were chosen in part because they des­ cribe performances of roles with different demands: Lucia is considered to be a part in which technical vocal excel­ lence is the sine qua non, while Tosca requires a singing actress to communicate the verismo emotions of what Joseph

Kerman called the "shabby little shocker," of a libretto.

Schonberg succeeds in conveying an idea of Sutherland's vocal performance; Perkins barely outlines Steber's por­ trayal. The wealth of detailed analysis offered in Schon- berg's assessment is simply absent in Perkins's. More­ over, the description of Sutherland's singing is merely excerpted above; it is actually more than twice as long in toto, while the description of Steber's acting is quoted in full. Nor was such prolixity uncommon in opera crit- ics' treatment of matters vocal. 9 i

More than mere length differentiates between acting

^ Herald Tribune, 10 February, 1958.

21 Cf. excerpts concerning Gedda and Nilsson, p.99. 109

and singing criticism in opera reviews, however. Note

Perkins’s reliance on words and phrases that give the

impression of technical jargon, and yet fail to describe

either the performance or the technical means by which

Steber communicated emotion: "expressively outspoken,"

"dramatically convincing," "integrated and persuasive,"

"extensive emotional range."

Opera critics' words tended to become longer whenever

they started to write about acting. Indeed, acting itself

was more likely to be called "histrionism" than acting.

After devoting hundreds of words to Sutherland's singing

in the review cited above, Schonberg finally delivered

a twenty-eight word description of her acting performance.

It included the following obscure pronouncement: "With

this kind of voice, though, acting is supererogatory."

In addition to being longer, the words employed by opera critics to describe acting were frequently more imprecise. The word "temperament" appeared dozens of times in qualifying reviews. It was used to describe interpretive aspects of a singer's performance, as in the following examples:

One had supposed, in advance, that the voice and temperament so fitted to the Brobdig- nagian demands of Strauss' score would be out of place in this classic masterpiece.

^ Times, 4 February, 1950. 110

Miss Tourel did beautiful work vocally, though her dramatic temperament, what there is of it, is quite unsuited to farce.

Marie Powers is now well known for the richness of her voice, her temperament and abil­ ity in characterization.

In the first example temperament implies a passionate pre­ disposition to fulfill the demands of certain roles; it was required by critics for emotion-charged parts like

Tosca, Elektra, or Santuzza. Temperament would, for exam­ ple, be required to perform Carmen, but not Micaela. The second citation sets up dramatic temperament in implied opposition to comic or farcical temperament. A great comic singer-actor might not necessarily fare well in tragic operas and vice versa. In the final excerpt its meaning is widened to encompass the ability to portray emotions. In some cases the word was applied even more vaguely to mean the ability to act: A good actor has temperament; a bad actor does not. Incidentally, the word was most often used by reviewers when writing about the performances of women; only rarely was it used in refer-

^ Herald Tribune, 15 March, 1945.

^ Times. 16 March, 1950. Ill

ence to male singers. 2 5

Another overworked, indefinite term used to evaluate acting performance in opera was "tradition," as in:

Lauritz Melchior's Parsifal, one of his first tenor roles, which he learned at Bayreuth, is the one of which he knows exceptionally the tradition.

In addition to the contorted syntax, Olin Downes's comment on Melchior's interpretation contains another perplexing element. In the context of the review, the remark is meant compliraentarily, though no explanation of operatic acting tradition was offered in the article. (None was offered in any qualifying review of the period.) Critics who referred to the acting tradition of a role did so because the singer being evaluated had utilized movements, gestures or inflections of great exponents of the role. 2 7

In any other theatrical situation in the mid-twentieth

25One such exception can be found in an evaluation of George London's first peforraance of Boris Godunov in New York. Virgil Thomson employed the word thus: "His dramat­ ic skill and temperament are far above current operatic standards." The quotation can be seen in context on page 113 below. Herald Tribune. 7 March, 1953.

^ ^Ti m e s, 11 March, 1948.

2 7Sim ilarly, c ritic s praised singers' knowledge of the vocal musical traditions of roles, which might include use of proper trills, grace notes, alternate high notes, shading, and dynamics not specified by the composer. 112 century, the notion of an actor's basing a performance on wholesale borrowing of stock movements, gestures, and in­ flections would not be considered praiseworthy by critics.

Opera critics, however, certainly deemed the approach to be satisfactory, because they never faulted an actor for displaying knowledge of a role's acting tradition.

The reliance on vague, trite terms like tradition and temperament, and the tendency toward verbose, obscure pro­ nouncements betray uncertainty on the part of music c rit­ ics when dealing with acting matters. The mere fact of that uncertainty would not in itself be startling in view of the domination of opera's dramatic elements by musical considerations. The hesitancy becomes significant, how­ ever, when one considers that acting was the second most prevalent topic of reviews of the period. Reviewers felt inspired or compelled to make at least some mention of the the quality of singers' interpretations often enough to place acting in a prominent position among other topics.

If numerous cast members were mentioned and evaluated, a series of cursory, undeveloped and vague assessments could amount to a considerable portion of a review, and thus qualify acting comments as a major topic without including a single in-depth opinion on the subject.

Reviewers' tenuousness in acting matters became most pronounced when a singer renowned for acting performance 113 was being evaluated. Take, for example, Virgil Thomson's review of a 1953 performance of Boris Godunov at the Met, which featured George London in the role of the Tsar.

Thomson's comments on London's acting are quoted in full:

George London, who heads the vocal cast, was received with shouts and long sustained applause at the end of his Mad Scene. And indeed his histronic [sic] projection in the later moments of this had been most powerful. . . . His dramatic skill and temperament are far above current operatic standards. . . . At cer­ tain moments last night he did have something of the psychological intensity [of Chaliapine], As I finish writing, my agents in the house telephone me that Mr. London received an even greater ovation for his death scene than he had had at the end of Act Two. Eleven curtain calls attested the public's pleasure in his work. I am not surprised. London is a singing actor of unusual powers.

The critic obviously thought that London's success in the role was due to his acting ability, yet his treatment of the subject relies on the the uninformative cliches that have already been noted. The only other support he offers for his judgment is reference to audience reactions.

Simplistic appraisals like Thomson's were particular­ ly prevalent in the early years of the survey. The latest example of acting cited above was written in 1961, and that review evaluated a singer known to possess limited acting prowess. By the nineteen-sixties reviewers seemed

^ Herald Tribune, 7 March, 1953. 114 fully capable of rising to the occasion when a great singing actor commanded the stage:

The whole act . . . was a stunning study in humanity. Callas never once betrayed the woman in Tosca to the unsubtle and cheap tigress that others have wrongly found there. Her murder of Scarpia was brilliant, because it was not the act of a murderess. It was a study in fear, in the instinct of self-preservation, that swept aside all memories of what others have here accomplished. The third act was no less magnificent. . . . For once . . . this act seemed culmination rath­ er than anticlimax. Her work here was, in a sense, the synthesis of simplicity and triumph, and the final accents of horror were intoned with no sense of grotesquerie. . . . Miss Callas does not wear clothes in a traditional operatic manner. She wears them as though they belonged to9 her and belonged at the same time to the opera.

Although improvement in the quality of acting criticism was evident between the nineteen-forties and the nineteen- sixties, a constancy of purpose on the part of music critics remained—their primary goal continued to be the evaluation of singers' interpretive abilities, rather than description for the sake of recreating a performance for readers of the review. When descriptions appeared, they tended to be both analytical and subservient to the pre­ sentation of an evaluation.

Unlike opera critics' vocal assessments, their cora-

^Herald Tribune, 20 March, 1965. 115 ments on acting avoided detailed prescription. On the rare occasions that they offered advice, it was so under­ developed and unjustified as to betray either ignorance or lack of concern about acting matters on the part of re­ viewers. Virgil Thomson's complimentary reaction to Mil- anov's reformed vocal technique (page 104) contains just such a prescription in the phrase: "It is to be hoped that she will now . . . take some good lessons in gesture.

Her present mastery merits these final perfections." No­ where in the article is there a diagnosis that Milanov's acting lacks finesse; indeed, there is no detailed account of her acting interpretation at all. Similar superficial­ ity characterizes prescriptive acting comments throughout the period. The reason for the comparative shallowness of such comments is clear: Opera critics approached diagnosis and prescription of acting from a base of knowledge that was more restricted than the one they possessed for their singing criticism.

Only acting and singing appeared as major topics in a majority of opera reviews. Next in frequency occurred comments concerning the topics of production and orches­ tral elements (thirty-nine and thirty-eight percent, res­ pectively). Whenever a c ritic faced a brand new produc­ tion, he was, of course, more likely to formulate extended opinions of the work of directors, choreographers, and 116 scenic designers. When a new production was occasioned by the world or local premiere of an opera, however, the subject of production elements was often crowded out of major topic status by a concern for evaluating the score and libretto completely.

TABLE 6

PRODUCTION ELEMENTS AS MAJOR TOPIC: FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE IN OPERA REVIEWS

PRODUCTION ELEMENTS OCCURRED PERFORMANCE CATEGORY______AS A MAJOR TOPIC

(1) World Premiere Opera 18% (2) Local Premiere Opera 48% (3) Opera Previously Seen Locally 73% (4) Old Production Re-evaluated 36%

As Table 6 clearly shows, production elements were most likely to be a major topic when an opera that had previously been seen locally received a remounting. When that occurred, reviews like the Carmen examples cited on pages 34 and 40 often resulted.

Opera critics approached the subject of physical production with a great deal more confidence than they exhibited as a group when dealing with acting. Unlike their acting criticism , which could be made up of a long series of undeveloped judgments, their assessments of production elements tended to be more complete, well- 117 reasoned, and.authoritative. Furthermore, criticism of physical production was not a feature of opera reviews that grew as the period under study progressed; it ap­ peared fully developed as soon as the post-World War II economy enabled local companies to mount new productions to replace the old ones that, in many instances, pre-dated the Great Depression.

One of the more remarkable early verdicts concerning a production appeared in a series of reviews by Olin

Downes, in which he detailed his objections to the Lee

Simonson/Herbert Graf Ring cycle, which opened in 1948. A portion of one article appears below:

One does not like to keep picking upon Lee Simonson's new scenery, but it is impossible to agree with it, even on the grounds of the direc­ tions plainly written in the libretto. The lighting at the end of the first act is quite incredible. The great door which has flung open is clearly stated as revealing a beautiful val­ ley bathed in moonlight. This illumines the shadowy interior which should be but half light­ ed, ostensibly by a flickering fire. "The pair," says the stage direction, "can now sud­ denly and plainly behold each other." Lo! Sieg- mund and Sieglinde sat tight clasped in the glare of several blazing lights shining down from a box on one side of the stage. The won­ drous expanse of the moonlit valley in the spring night was conspicuous by its absence, at least from this correspondent's seat. What he saw was a small wooded hillock which more or less choked the doorway, while the blaze of light was inside the hut and the valley was by comparison in shadow. In this scene, also, a tree of such propor­ tions as never was on land or sea bulges out for 118

nearly half the width of the stage from one side; the fire is tucked away insignificantly behind some other scenery, the room is therefore greatly reduced in size and this is not at all suggestive of the primitive dwelling "built around the stem of a great ash tree, which forms the center." We do not ask that a modern stage a r tis t necessarily follow every dotted "I" and crossed "T" in Wagner's stage direction, although Wagner himself was no mean stage artist, and always knew very well what he wanted. His stage direc­ tions are uncommonly complete and explicit. But if an original idea is dispensed with then some­ thing better, or as good but more moJern in character, should be substituted for it. ^

This is only about half of what Downes had to say on the subject of Simonson's set for Die Walkuere; in all, his four-article series includes more than a thousand words devoted to the new mounting of Wagner's cycle. The ex­ cerpt above exemplifies the conservative, literal bent that characterized critical attitudes toward production during the period. Downes may have disclaimed an affinity for following "every dotted 'I' and crossed 'T'" in a libretto, but critical reactions to new scenic techniques and approaches, particularly early in the period, gainsay that disclaimer. Innovation for its own sake was not only disallowed, but was also frequently derided:

. . . "Don Giovanni" has been reconditioned-- that is, a single set has replaced the familiar

^ Times, 14 January, 1948. 119

settings which demand constant change. The "reconditioning" in this instance consists of carrying the stage of the Met two blocks south to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, where it has been fitted with a circular ramp of the kind that gets vehicles hurriedly in and out of the crowded building. This ramp, which connects two archways, is fuchsia in color and unattractive beyond belief. And since everything that hap­ pens takes place either on it or in front of it, the circular platform leads to untold theatrical oddities. By forcing all of the happenings onto one non-utilitarian set, each scene clashes mightily with its predecessor, and the whole continuity is thrown out of joint. Nc, "recon­ ditioning" is no solution. Another method must be found.

The complaint of Jay Harrison cited above was stated in a wisecracking style that was not uncommon among reviewers

--particularly at the Herald Tribune—when referring to scenery that they did not appreciate. Virgil Thomson claimed that Lee Simonson's rendering of Valhalla

. . bears such a clear resemblance to the Cornell Medical Center (amplified to Radio City proportions) that it suggests some massive real estate development entitled, perhaps, "The Val­ halla Apartments."

Jerome D. Bohm, in describing another scene from the same production just a week later wrote:

The third act . . . strongly resembles a proraon-

•^Herald Tribune. 11 December, 1953.

•^Herald Tribune. 8 January, 1948. 120

tory in Fort Tryon Park. One wonders whether the Valkyries were sufficiently accomplished as masons to build such perfect steps as those leading up to the farthest protruding ledge. Perhaps they occupied their time in masonrv between carrying slain heroes to Valhalla. 3

For no discernable reason opera critics, who in most other respects maintained a moderate level of seriousness in their remarks, could not resist levity in their comments concerning scenery.

Unwarranted innovation was not the only target of the light-hearted critical barbs; the wearied conventions of operatic scenery could also come under fire, as they did when Paul Bowles described the Met's time-worn sets for

Lucia di Lammermoor; "... as sumptuous as the in terio r of a provincial Masonic temple."3^ In general, however, the traditional path was the one urged by reviewers until the mid-nineteen-fifties. By then critics had made numer­ ous tran satlan tic junkets in order to file summertime reports on the European festivals, and had come under the influence of Wieland Wagner's production philosophy, as executed in Bayreuth. Suddenly local operatic scene design seemed hopelessly outmoded, and the new approach was urged:

33Herald Tribune, 14 January, 1948.

3^Herald Tribune, 26 November, 1943. 121

The Metropolitan Opera has junked the old- fashioned production of "Parsifal" that has seen service since 1920, and yesterday afternoon it introduced a new one. An effort has been made to bring "Parsifal" into the present. . . . It is only partly successful because the Metropolitan has not dared to go all the way, as Wieland Wagner's Jiroduction of "Parsifal" has done at Bayreuth. ^

Beyond the move toward acceptance of a more modern produc­ tion philosophy (which included the use of projections in place of painted backdrops, unit settings for complicated multi-scene works, and non-realistic, figurative lighting) opera c ritic s did not reveal strong predelictions for particular styles. Rather, they seemed to base their favorable or unfavorable impressions either on textual justification (as in Downes's review of Die Walkuere) or on a subjective judgment of beauty or ugliness (as in Jay

Harrison's reaction to the fuchsia ramp in Don Giovanni).

In matters of staging, critics applied the same con­ servative criteria; critical treatment of staging was, however, not nearly so extensive as that afforded to scenic design. New staging created for old opera produc­ tions often received no evaluation at all, and sometimes completely new productions elicited comments only about their scenery. Directorial work was more likely to be

^ Times, 25 March, 1956. 122 mentioned if the opera was a comedy. In most cases, critics adhered strictly to Browning’s dictum: "Less is more.” They clearly favored directors who did not over­ burden singers with complicated business, even if the result proved less than stirring:

Mr. Graf's work deserves a special note of appreciation. Because he has made his career as a regisseur in the opera house there has been a tendency to take him, like "Trovatore," for • granted. In the decade of Rudolf Bing's manage­ ment, the accent has been on glamorous stage directors from the drama, and some of them have done very well, indeed. But Mr. Graf has gone on staging operas year after year without furor and with consistent dependability. Choice examples of his insight have been his ''Rigoletto'' and "Don Giovanni." This "Tro­ vatore," in its modesty and directness, is an­ other endorsement of his ability. Action is as natural as it can be in broad theatre of this sort, and no one is obliged to sing within a strait jacket of obligatory movement. °

Unflashy dependability was highly appreciated by reviewers of the period. Taubman's remark above concerning a

"strait jacket of obligatory movement" is telling; directors were most often castigated on the grounds that they had provided too much for the singers to do on stage.

Olin Downes's favorite word to describe the fault was

"superfluous":

Mr. Graf supplied superfluous detail in the

^ Times, 27 October, 1959. 123

drinking, song and at some other moments of the evening.

The stage management was again sluggish and unimaginative, with superfluous details which accomplished nothing. . . .

There were passages of unnecessary exag­ geration, obviousness, superfluity, more espe­ cially in the f ir s t act. . . .

Complaints about overly detailedstaging would not in

themselves be remarkable; similar objections can be found

in reviews of musical—and even non-musical— theatre. The

predeliction for severe simplicity becomes apparent only after noting that directors were seldom similarly chas­ tised for giving'too little direction to singers. Early in the period stage directors were almost never faulted for allowing static, full-front delivery of arias and ensembles.

On balance, favorable reaction to staging was tersely stated; unfavorable reaction elicited prolonged and de­ tailed denunciations. As with scenic criticism, however, reviewers' attitudes toward staging practices became less tradition-bound during the mid-nineteen-fifties. Before

^ Times, 30 November, 1948.

^^Times, 11 December, 1948.

^ ^Times, 1 February, 1952. 124

that time, critics were likely to dismiss any straying

from operatic convention almost out of hand. Olin Downes

frequently objected to minor compositional changes, as in

Graf's 1948 Goetterdaemmerung:

One asks if the old way of placing Gunther at the left of the stage by the Gibichung portal, as formerly done, would not. have made him more visible to the audience and a stronger agent of the drama .... Dr. Graf, earlier in the same scene, indul­ ges momentarily in a strange penchant for putting members of the chorus in the grand scene of the oath on the spearheads, in the foreground, be­ tween the beholders and the principals. . .

Indeed, Downes even went so far as to cite the following credo at the end of a review of JLe Nozze di Figaro;

The principle should obtain in the restaging of an opera that if you cannot do as well, or better, than what has already been done, then leave well enough alone.

By the late nineteen-fifties, deviations from staging tradition were much more likely to be greeted favorably:

Throughout the evening no one was wandering aimlessly or standing around staring at the con­ ductor. Mr. Graf once more demonstrated not only his own remarkable talents, but proved what real­ ly superior operatic staging can be achieved by a

^ Times, 30 January, 1948.

^ Times, 21 November, 1953. 125

regisseur who is an opera man first and last. The way he staged the Don's champagne aria was a little masterpiece. At this juncture in the opera, Don Giovanni usually plants his feet firmly on the ground, clutches a glass and lets go with his celebrated presto aria. Last night, Mr. Siepi sang just as fast, but performed a pantomime—getting dolled up for his next exploit—that made his aria a vital piece of theater. And so it was throughout the evening.

Unlike the greater acceptance of non-traditional

scenic approaches, critics' openness to new ideas of stag­

ing did not spring primarily from exposure to European

mise en scene, but rather to two innovations that took

place in New York itself. The first innovation was al­

ready referred to in Taubman's tribute to Herbert Graf on

page 122 above: "In the decade of Rudolf Bing's manage­

ment, the accent has been on glamorous stage directors

from the drama . . . ." Among Bing's importations from

the straight dramatic theatre were Joseph Mankiewicz,

Alfred Lunt, Cyril Ritchard, and Garson Kanin. Their

efforts were greeted with more approbation from critics as

the decade progressed. Moreover, their successes undoubt­

edly had the effect of instilling Graf, the Metropolitan's

long-time regisseur, with fresh ideas, which he was able to apply to his own new productions, and to the restaging of old productions as they reappeared in the repertoire.

^Herald Tribune, 1 November, 1957. 126

The second source of change in staging practice arose in the New York City Opera. Beginning in 1944 as a low- budget alternative to grand opera at the Met, the City

Opera gained a reputation in the late nineteen-forties for excellent ensemble playing and for imaginative, innova­ tive production approaches. The critics welcomed innova­ tion at the City Opera that they would have viewed more skeptically at the Metropolitan for three reasons. First, reviewers were willing to grant that monetary restrictions forced the smaller company to seek alternatives to the traditionally opulent way of mounting old operas. Second, the City Opera relied on unusual operas, and particularly on twentieth-century operas, as attention-drawing (and audience-drawing) options to the Metropolitan’s fare of established classics. Such non-standard repertoire pro­ vided more congenial subjects for new staging ideas. Fin­ ally, and perhaps most importantly, the City Opera could not afford to engage singers of great international dis­ tinction. Their appeal, therefore, rested on an ability to present performances that were noted for well-knit ensemble, theatrical consistency, and innovation. A ser­ ies of landmark productions in the late nineteen-forties and early nineteen-fifties--including Ariadne auf Naxos,

The Love of Three Oranges, Turandot, and La Cenerentola— established the City Opera as the company of theatrical 127

excellence in New York:

The New York City Opera Company led from strength when it opened its fall season at the City Center last night. The opera was Rossini's "La Cenerentola," and the production was the imaginative one that charmed the town when it was unveiled last spring. It is s till a charm­ er—opera and production—and it makes for as gay an evening in the theatre as is to be found anywhere along Broadway. . . . This production undoubtedly has found a following of its own, just as has the City Center. There was a large audience representa­ tive of some of the liveliest and most thought­ ful elements in the city's cultural life. It liked what it heard and saw. J

Critics, then, became willing to grant that an audience might occasionally go to opera to look as well to l i s ­

ten. ^ The New York City Opera Company continued to grow in critical esteem through a variety of financial and managerial vicissitudes. By the late nineteen-fifties it had attained a position of indispensability to the city's cultural scene. Yet during the entire period it never shed the reputation of being 'minor league' opera, when compared to the Metropolitan. It used that critical a tti­ tude to its advantage by continuing to investigate new repertory and new production techniques; in doing so, City

Opera exposed local c ritic s to innovative staging prac-

^ Times, 9 October, 1953.

^Cf. Harold Schonberg's com'ment on I_l_ Trovatore at the beginning of this chapter (page 93). 128

tices in the context of fully professional productions.^

As is apparent from the examples cited, production

criticism by opera reviewers also exhibited a strong ele­

ment of prescription. Unlike their vague, abrupt diag­

noses of acting, opera critics 1 opinions of most produc­

tion aspects were formulated in greater detail and with

greater clarity. Reviewers even displayed a familiarity

with contemporary techniques that enabled them to advocate

approaches with which they agreed.

One area of production that did not command signifi­

cant critical attention was choreography. More than any

other aspect of performance, dance was likely to be shunt­

ed off to critical specialists. Harold Schonberg attrib­

uted the practice to critical reticence in dealing with a

technically complex art form outside a music reviewer's

area of expertise:

If it's a major ballet, the dance c ritic gets to the opera and writes about it. Most music c ritic s do not have the expertise. That does not stop them from remarking on especially silly ballets. Goodness knows I did.

Howard Taubraan suggested a threefold reason for lack of

^Extended description of City Opera's experiments and c ritic a l reaction to them in the 1950's are included in Martin L. Sokol's The New York City Opera: An American Adventure (New York: Macmillan, 1981), pp. 67-165.

^Schonberg, Response to Questionnaire. 129

dance criticism in opera reviews, which is a little more revealing of the preferences and predispositions of music c ritic s:

I suppose music critics do not write often about ballet in opera because they do not feel qualified, they are indifferent to dance, or they think what they see doesn't deserve men­ tion .

On the few occasions that dance critics wrote evaluations to accompany opera reviews, their tone was, for the most part, patronizing and negative. It was generally granted throughout the period that opera dance was mediocre dance.

An inescapable conclusion that arises from the statements of Schonberg and Taubman is that the execrable quality of operatic ballet was partly the product of music critics' ignorance or indifference. After all, opera managements were unlikely to expend artistic and financial resources on improving an aspect of performance routinely ignored by music critics.

Comments devoted to orchestral performance as a major topic appeared with roughly the same frequency as those devoted to production (thirty-eight percent and thirty- nine percent respectively). These percentages are a l i t ­ tle misleading, however, because at least some judgment of

^Taubman, Response to Questionnaire. 130

orchestra or conductor appeared in a majority of reviews in the survey (seventy-nine percent). In many cases the judgments took the form of single-sentence evaluations and

A Q therefore might be considered minor topics. As suggest­ ed in the previous chapter (page 59), the high incidence of such single-sentence evaluations can in part be attrib­ uted to the convention of ending priority-structured re­ views with comments on the orchestra. Because priority reviews accounted for only thirty-six percent of total qualifying reviews, however, it must be assumed that opera critics considered inclusion of at least nominal evalua­ tion of orchestral performance to be important in all kinds of reviews.

Opera critics could undoubtedly wax eloquent on per­ formances they thought outstanding, as Howard Taubman did when he reviewed Karl Boehm’s interpretation of Don Gio­ vanni :

Karl Boehm, who was head of the Vienna Opera for a time, makes his New York debut as a conductor. His in terpretation is in the Vien­ nese tradition, which is Mozart’s, after all. His tempos are a shade slower than those we are accustomed to, but at no point is he leaden-

A full-scale survey was not performed to determine the frequency of production as a minor topic; however, a five-year survey (1948-1952) revealed that production elements received at least single-sentence assessments only fifty-one percent of the time. 131

footed. And in a scene like the first-act fin­ ale he builds a climax of irresistible power. The music, for the most part, has a chance to unfold without loss of lightness and grace. The singers are encouraged to phrase with dis­ tinction of style and beauty of tone. Exacting a ria s lik e "Mi tra d i" and "Non mi dir" can achieve a blend of refinement and brilliance. The music as well as the singer has air to breathe. Because he adores Mozart Mr. Boehm has a high regard for every nuance. He has seen to it that subtle touches for voice and orchestra have their proper attention. The result is a contin­ uous flow, not merely an emphasis on the set numbers. "Don Giovanni" emerges as it should — an integrated music drama.

Critics could also excoriate performances they viewed unfavorably with assurance and with technical knowledge of a score. Paul Henry Lang reviewed the same Metropolitan

Opera production of Don Giovanni a few seasons later; he obviously thought Lorin Maazel did not measure up to Karl

Boehm's standard as a Mozart conductor.

And now about the man on whom it depends how this "joyous drama" unfolds on the stage and in the pit. Lorin Maazel is a martinet who does not seem to feel that this score is covered with the flesh and nerves of human beings and informed with a living spirit of poetry. But even the brisk and seemingly authoritative beat hides all manner of weaknesses and insecurities. Mr. Maazel is not a bona fide opera conductor, he cannot take in both stage and pit at one glance, which is the sine qua non of operatic conduct­ ing, and does not make up his mind fast enough which of the two should be favored in a given situation. As a result neither the singers nor

^^Times, 1 November, 1957. 132

the orchestra received adequate guidance. There was l i t t l e finesse in the orchestra; the horns had a bad day, the harpsichord was dull and recalcitrant (what ever happened to the nice bright instrument they used to have?), and there was plenty of inaccuracy directly attributable to the conductor's ambiguous—and late—cues. But above all, Mr. Maazel's tempos were lamentably wrong—every allegro was whipped to a presto—and I must take my hat off to these wonderful singers who averted disaster by singing breathlessly yet never missing a turn. Something should be done about this great Met production to rescue it; the Met is no place for conductors who are learning the trade on the job.

N on-statistical observation noted more commentary concerning orchestral performance of Wagnerian scores than any other. Such performances received more attention for two reasons. First, Wagner wrote more syraphonically than other opera composers. His through-composed music dramas were not broken into a series of showcases for singers, but maintained a consistent, thickly scored texture•more akin to symphonies than to earlier opera repertoire. The sheer size of Wagnerian orchestras rival symphonies as well. The concurrent skill required by a conductor to allow singers to be heard without sacrificing instrumental nuance and detail of orchestration made Wagner's music dramas the pinnacle of ambition for conductors of the nineteen-forties and -fifties at the Met. Only Richard

Strauss's scores presented similarly complex problems, but

•^Herald Tribune, 2 November, 1962. 133 with the exception of Per Rosenkavalier and Salome.

Strauss's operas did not enjoy the frequency of perform­ ance accorded Wagner's work during the period. For these reasons, performances of Wagner and Strauss resulted in orchestral matters attaining major topic status fifty-five percent of the time, as opposed to th irty -eig h t percent for operas in general.^

Despite the obvious expertise and interest exhibited by opera critics for orchestral matters, their run-of-the- mill assessments seldom approached the depth or complexity of the Don Giovanni reviews excerpted above. Instead, their judgments tended to be sketchy, uninformative, and drearily repetitive. The following excerpts comprise the total extent of orchestral criticism in each review.

Wilfred Pelletier conducted with comprehension, yet did not succeed in arousing much spontaneity or intensity in the performance.

Mr. Stiedry's discourse of the orchestral score was well-paced and imbued with the necessary breadth of style and eloquence.

Mr. Cleva conducted steadily and with control.^

C -i Trends in critical and managerial (including con­ ductors') attitudes toward Wagner's works are clearly documented in: Irving Kolodin, The Metropolitan Opera, 1883-1966 (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1966).

^ Times. 9 January, 1944.

^ Herald Tribune. 13 December, 1949.

-^Times, 10 March, 1954. 134

Dimitri Mitropoulos' conducting was worthy of the merits of one of the Metropolitan's foremost recent productions.

Fausto Cleva conducted with unusual vigor.

Opera critics' treatment of orchestral performance was, therefore, paradoxical. Although fully capable of dis­ coursing at length on the subject, reviewers were often content to offer unstressed, superficial summations of their opinions about conductors and musicians. Such off­ handed summary evaluations proliferated because the nature of orchestral performance in opera is undeniably incident­ al when compared to concert circumstances; for although the crucial responsibilities of tempo, tone, and audibil­ ity in opera reside with the conductor, the playing of a pit orchestra does not embody the entire operatic perform­ ance. The sound emanating from the most flattering pit is muffled when compared to that heard in a concert hall, where the total impact of a performance— both auditory and visual—is produced by orchestra and conductor. In addi­ tion, many opera scores afford few opportunities for or­ chestral brilliance. For example, in early Verdi operas

(unlike later German Romantic works already referred to)

^ Herald Tribune. 8 April, 1960.

^ Times. 2 December, 1965. 135

small ensemble numbers dominate a work and are frequently

accompanied by no more than a soft "oom-pah-pah-pah" from

the orchestra. If tempi are satisfactory, and if orches­

tral detail is not completely effaced, not much is usually

written by critics. The brevity or even absence of or­

chestral commentary in reviews of early nineteenth-century

operas by Bellini, Donizetti, Rossini, and Verdi stands in contrast to the prominence of such commentary found in reviews of Wagner and Strauss works. The extent of mater­ ial devoted to conductor and orchestra during the period consequently reflected complexity of score and prominence of orchestration as well as more obvious determinants, such as the circumstances surrounding a particular per­ formance (for instance, the debut of a conductor) and the quality of the conducting and playing itself.

Paul Henry Lang's review of Maazel's conducting, quoted earlier, shows that prescriptive orchestral criti­ cism, like vocal criticism, could be addressed directly to the opera management. ("Something should be done about this great Met production to rescue it; the Met is no place for conductors who are learning the trade on the job.") The circumstances that aroused Lang's strongly phrased exhortation to the management of the Metropolitan are unusual—the debut of a very young conductor whom the reviewer clearly thought incapable of fulfilling his 136

professional responsibilities. A much more common ap­

proach was to suggest precise improvements in certain

particulars. Again, the suggestion could be made to the

opera management:

If the City Center would only engage another six or eight fiddlers, the scrappy little orchestra would sound so much better. Such a spirited production really deserves a full complement in the pit.

On the other hand, specific suggestions for improvement

might be addressed to the conductor himself, as Alan Rich

did with the tempos of the waltzes of Per Rosenkavalier:

There was also the b rillian t work of Thomas Schippers in the pit, again a Metropolitan first for this opera. This was also an inventive job, imaginative, well-paced, ^ little tight in some of the waltz music . . .

Also as in vocal criticism, reviewers would pay compli­

ments to artists who had apparently followed their advice

with commendable results. Alan Rich did just that in a subsequent review of the same Rosenkavalier production:

Thomas Schippers' conducting was another element that, while splendid the first night, seemed to have improved over the invervening weeks. He got a lot more of the sleazy elegance into the

•^Herald Tribune, 1 April, 1955.

•^Herald Tribune, 14 October, 1964. 137

C Q waltz episodes . . . 7

The aspect of conducting that received the most attention

in this kind of specific recommendation was tempo, fo l­

lowed by maintenance of ensemble, with dynamic level third in frequency. Comments about the quality of the musicians themselves were far less frequent, and when they occurred, they were usually made without elaboration or advice (as in Lang's "the horns had a bad day . . page 132).

The least variable aspects of performance, score and libretto, received least mention by opera critics for an obvious reason: operas new to New York comprised only seven percent of total qualifying reviews. Among those new operas, however, treatment of score and libretto was a significant source of major topics.

TABLE 7

OCCURRENCE OF SCORE AND LIBRETTO AS MAJOR TOPICS: OPERA REVIEWS OVERALL VERSUS OPERAS NEW TO NEW YORK

TOPIC FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OVERALL OPERAS NEW TO NEW YORK

Score 25% 96%

Libretto 16% 80%

•^Herald Tribune, 3 November, 1964. 138

Operas that had already been appraised at their premieres were, of course, unlikely to receive full reassessments in subsequent reviews, and operas from the standard reper­ toire were even less likely to prompt comments on matters relating to their music. S till, exceptions would occur, particularly if a reviewer wished to campaign for more frequent performances of a work he thought slighted by opera management.

"Don Carlo1' had its premiere in Paris ninety years ago, and it has not, even in Italy, become a standard repertory piece like "Traviata" and "Aida." The reasons are understandable. It re­ quires outstanding singers, even in some of the minor parts. It contains surefire arias like "0 don fatale" and big ensemble numbers like the auto-da-fe scene, but because Verdi reworked it when his powers were increasing, it has often a subtlety of facture which allies it spiritually to "Otello." . . . "Don Carlo" has enough magni­ ficent music to make it one of the most reward­ ing evenings any opera house can offer. With this production the Met lives up to its artistic calling.

Similar campaigning was apparent for some (at the time) obscure operas, which reviewers clearly hoped would enter the category of occasionally produced works.

"Dialogues of the Carmelites" . . . is a major work, a beautiful and subtle opera, and one hopes it becomes a repertory piece. Whatever reservations one has about the performance, the

60Times, 18 March, 1957. 139

difficulties are not so insurmountable that they cannot be ironed out without too much trouble. And in any case, the feeling of the opera comes through. *

Harold Schonberg's argument for support of Dialogues of the Carmelites seems to have been divided between opera management and the public. Some c ritic a l campaigning ignored the management completely and spoke directly to the critic's reading audience:

Mozartians rejoice. "Don Giovanni," the master's grandest opera, returned to the Metro­ politan Opera last night in a grand new produc- tixon* • • • Listen to the score and note how swiftly and surely Mozart probes into the heart of each character. With a vocal phrase or a flashing comment in the orchestra, he tells you how his people feel and often how he feels about them. In the eighteen measures in F minor for the three basses early in the opera, he differenti­ ates three divergent personalities and foreshad­ ows the drama's ultimate confrontation.

At other times fla tte ry of producers was employed in support of a critic's favorite score:

"The Four Ruffians" is a delectable little bon-bon of a comic opera, or "opera buffa," essentially after the classic Italian tradition. It is a work in a special genre, delightfully contrived by l i b r e t t i s t and composer .... The opera company that within three weeks'

^Tines, 4 March, 1966.

^ Times, 11 January, 1957. 140

time can give the world premiere of an opera so demanding as "The Dybbuk," and the American pre­ miere, done with such excellent taste and ef­ fect, of "The Four Ruffians," can iiideed point with pride to such accomplishments.

Campaigning for particular works and for certain styles

(e.g., Baroque or Post-Romantic operas) represented the prescriptive aspect of musical criticism. Reviewers were diagnosing a weakness in a company's repertoire and pre­ scribing the remedy of producing more often the works or styles that they preferred.

One incidental result of all this campaigning was that reviewers revealed personal preferences about stand­ ard repertoire. Favorable disposition toward particular operas is clearly asserted in the examples quoted above; antipathy toward operas in the standard repertory was not usually stated so overtly in daily reviews. Critical displeasure with such works was reserved for longer ana­ lytical articles in Sunday editions. At times, however, negative feeling toward segments of the repertory could be gathered from subtle inferences over many years. Virgil

Thomson, for instance, though he professed admiration for some Wagnerian operas, avoided reviewing them. In ten years (1944 - 1953) only seven qualifying reviews of Wag­ ner's works were penned by him. That was a time when

^ Times, 19 October, 1951. 141

Melchior, Flagstad, Traubel, Svanholra, and Varnay were holding forth at the Met in what many consider the golden age of Wagnerian performance. Still, Thomson, the chief music critic who had first choice, left evaluating that repertory to other reviewers on the Herald Tribune staff.

Regardless of personal critical attitudes toward an opera classic,^ the right of such a work to be revived was considered almost unassailable. In the entire sample of qualifying reviews, critics seriously questioned the right of only two pre-twentieth-century operas—Lakme and

La Gioconda— to places in the modern repertory, and even

£ \ S La Gioconda had its defenders.

Thus, if a critic disliked a certain category of operas, he was likely to elect not to cover performances of those works rather than carry on a campaign to drive them from the repertory. The reason for this evasive approach is obvious: each segment of the repertory had its own rabid aficionados. Lovers of Wagner were easily able to get Parsifal returned to the repertory even though the production was thirty years old, and despite Rudolf Bing's

f\ L "Classic” is defined in this study as a pre-twen­ tieth-century work enjoying at least occasional perform­ ances during the period under investigation.

See Noel Strauss's comment on page 93. 142 personal coolness toward the piece:

Wagner's "P arsifal,” which has become a ritu al as much as i t is an opera, returned last night to the Metropolitan Opera repertoire. It was absent last year, Rudolf Bing's first as general manager and those who cherish the work asked to have it back.

But "Parsifal" is "Parsifal." It is sure of its public and its appeal. When Mr. Bing tried one year to leave it out of the repertoire at the Easter season, he found out that a mana­ ger at the Metropolitan could not make all the decisions, and he had to restore it to its traditional place. 7

In the same way, proponents of Italian opera showed equal willingness to support their preferred type of opera, regardless of what critics thought:

Well, we are stuck with "La Gioconda" and there is nothing one can do about it.

Even as unrelenting a critic as Lang was forced to admit that public sentiment decreed the inclusion of La Gioconda in the Metropolitan season. Opera companies were bound to produce seasons that accommodated a wide tastes; their survival depended on it. The proprietary in terest that critics felt toward the success of local opera companies,

66Times, 5 April, 1952.

^ Tiaes, 24 March, 1953.

^ Herald Tribune, 27 December, 1960. 143

mentioned previously, precluded continuous attacks on the matter of repertory. Furthermore, churning out repeated diatribes against unfavored segments of repertory usually proved an exercise in futility; the public would have its

Gioconda *s.

Up to this point, the treatment of score as a major topic has been dominated by considerations of repertory.

That domination is inevitable, because every word that opera critics wrote about an opera score tended to define its place in the repertory. Another important purpose for presenting extended passages of musical analysis was the creation of contexts against which individual aspects of performance (vocal and orchestral) could be judged. Ob­ serve how Harold Schonberg's comments on the demands of

B ellini's score of La, Sonnambula twice lead logically to his appraisal of Sutherland's execution:

The last 10 minutes contain the two best, and also the best-known, arias of the opera—the sweet, sorrowful, long-phrased, "Ah, non credea" and the pyrotechnical, "Ah, non giunge." "Ah, non credea" is one of the best examples of the cantabile side of bel canto singing, and Miss Sutherland is one of the few living singers who can do it justice. Perhaps the only one. Her breath seems unlimited, her voice is bigger than ever and has gained in color. She takes the phrases with a tremendous vocal arch, almost making a vocalise of them. . . . "La Sonnambula" is a singing opera. In the early 19th century, singers were expected to de­ part from the printed note; if they did not do 144

so, it proved to the audience that they had no taste, no skill, no technique. Miss Sutherland has thus made quite a few changes in the vocal part (in a few duets she even trades lines with the tenor). With the combination of authentic style and vocal bravura she brings to the bel canto operas, she is the one singer of our generation who has been able to give us an idea of what Bellini and the others must have sounded like more than 100 years ago. y

Schonberg built his criticism of Sutherland first by de­

scribing a demand of the score, then by assessing her

ability to meet the demand. In doing so, he deviated from

the compartmentalized approach that prevailed in treatment

of most subjects. Similar blending of comments on score

and voice occasionally occurred in opera reviews, but

critics more often set aside a paragraph immediately fol­

lowing an introductory paragraph in which they s-tated the

demands of a score.

Opera c ritic s ' evaluations of scores overshadowed

their assessments of librettos in the same way that their

singing criticism dwarfed their treatment of acting. This assertion is made with one important reservation: libretto appeared as a major topic in only one hundred fifty-nine reviews (sixteen percent of the sample). This small num­ ber approaches a limit at which generalized judgments are open to question. With this qualification in mind, it may

^^Times, 6 December, 1963. 145 be stated that opera critics seemed to be more conversant with the literary trends from which librettos arose than they were with acting technique. Unlike the subject of acting, which might attain major topic status by reason of a series of unrelated and underdeveloped assessments, libretto was either given a well-rounded assessment or could not be considered a major topic. As illustrated in

Table 7, libretto was most often a topic of discussion when an opera new to the local area was being evaluated.

Even under those circumstances, one in five reviews of new operas omitted substantial discusssion of libretto.

Opera critics exhibited ambiguous attitudes about the contribution of librettists, and about the power of lib­ rettos to move audiences in opera. They seemed to admire plausible stories that were first and foremost dramatical­ ly charged. In approaching new librettos critics insisted on emotionally gripping plots. Paul Henry Lang took issue with the lib re tto of Frank Martin's The Tempest on these grounds:

"The Tempest" is not so much dramatic as it is poetic. The projected crimes are abandoned at their inception, even the remorse is not genuine. The characters neither change nor develop. Prospero retires and prepares himself for death; there is neither bitterness nor ela­ tion in his attitude and he suffers no pain. There is much in this play that sounds like the great poet's farewell and there are thoughts that represent the summation of wisdom free of 146

illusion. No real passion disturbs its peace, and love, too, glows gently, for no obstacles have to be surmounted. It was foreordained that a musical setting of this play would be static, and indeed Frank Martin's work is a sort of scenic oratorio with­ out theatrical values. It has no dramatic pow­ er, no action, and nothing ta which music can fasten itself with conviction.

Even in berating his pet-hate classic, La Gioconda, Lang refused to list the opera's plot as one of its shortcom­ ings, though it is probably the most broadly melodramatic story in operatic literature:

It is a faded opera, often praised for its effective melodrama and almost as often con­ demned for its lack of substance. The melodrama need not be challenged.

While c ritic s seemed to agree on the necessity of an emotionally involving libretto, however, they almost never credited librettists with furnishing them. The picture, that emerges from daily reviews of operas is one of bril­ liant composers hemmed in by the restrictions of inept librettos supplied to them by literary hacks. Their dis­ dain for librettists stemmed in part from the undeniable fact that few lib r e tti s ts became renowned for any work done outside of their collaborative efforts with a single

^ Herald Tribune. 12 October, 1956.

^ Herald Tribune, 27 December, 1960. 147 composer—da Ponte, Scribe, Boito, von Hofmannsthal — the list is quite short. There were, of course, composers who wrote their own librettos, but the only one to create a sizable oeuvre was Richard Wagner. Another reason was that most prolific composers seemed perfectly capable of producing successful operas with a variety of librettists.

These reasons, however, do not fully explain critics' pat­ ronizing attitude. Mozart and Strauss each relied very heavily on a single collaborator. Yet never was Don

Giovanni referred to as Mozart's and da Ponte's opera, nor was mention ever made of Per Rosenkavalier by Strauss and von Hofmannsthal.In both cases the operas were routinely treated as products of a single man's genius.

Debussy's "Pelleas and Melisande" is not only a dream of a ll that is lovely in music and declamation. It is, for all its vague and pseu­ do-Merovingian penumbra, a really moving- drama about love and death in a French family.^

It is as though Virgil Thomson, who wrote the above ex­ cerpt, did not realize that the "moving drama about love and death" he admired and the "vague penumbra" he disliked were both the products, not of Debussy's genius, but of

Maeterlinck's. Outside of the tabulation, the libret­ tist's name was not even mentioned in that review. Nor

^ Herald Tribune. 27 January, 1944. 148

was Thomson's neglect unusual; Olin Downes's review of the same performance did not mention Maeterlinck either.

A similar disregard for the contribution of libret­ tists was apparent right up to the end of the period.

Paul Henry Lang produced the following analysis of Le nozze di Figaro in the early nineteen sixties:

Mozart, at the end of an opera, leaves his people on our conscience; his operas have an after-life. "Figaro" requires an alert audience to seize the refined shades of its wit and, al­ though there is plenty of humor on the surface, this is not the essence of Mozart's art but rather a veil for the more subtle shafts from his nimble mind. The opera is delicately light, the listener is enveloped in a delicious atmo­ sphere, and the generous-hearted composer's laughter, his sardonic humor, and his tender sympathies are contagious. Yet the comedy also conveys a serious warning: do not play with fire, for love is a serious thing whether it affects servant or master. ^

What of the "subtle shafts" from the minds of Beaumarchais and da Ponte? They apparently interested Lang not at all, for they are not mentioned anywhere in the text of his review.

C ritical neglect of lib r e tti s ts extended to old and new operas alike. Aida was assessed by thirty qualifying reviews during the period of this study, yet not one

^ Herald Tribune. 12 January, 1962. 149 mentioned Verdi's collaborators--Cam ille du Locle and

Antonio Ghislanzoni—except in tabulations. In reviews of world premiere operas with original librettos, material devoted to score usually dwarfed that devoted to text.

Howard Taubman, in his review of Vanessa's premiere of­ fered a clue to the discrepancy:

Librettos, however, are only the skeleton [sic], as Mr. Menotti, himself a composer of parts, would be the first to concede. The burden rests on the composer. ^

The conclusion suggested by Taubman's comment and by the other circumstances cited is that opera critics did not value greatly the structural contribution of librettists.

Indeed, when the structure of an opera was mentioned, critics were more likely referring to a musical progres­ sion (e.g., from recitative to aria to ensemble). Only occasionally would even partial credit be given to the l i b r e t t i s t for the shape of that progression. Howard

Taubman granted a typically grudging nod to Boito in 1958:

. . . this rOtello1 is a work compounded of tem­ pestuous emotion and affecting compassion. Here Verdi, with the help of his inspired librettist, Arrigo Boito, walks at least hand in hand in greatness with Shakespeare. And if it would not scandalize the worshipers of the English lan­ guage's proudest ornament, one would venture to

^ Times, 16 January, 1958. 150

suggestLJ;hat Verdi has gone even beyond Shake­ speare .73

Note, however, that Taubman set up his comparison in a way that would just as easily have allowed the judgment: they

(Verdi and Boito) have gone beyond Shakespeare. It is clear that he considered the achievement to be primarily

Verdi’s. In the same way, critical judgments throughout the period minimized the importance of librettists. They were viewed either as the humble helpmeets of Romantic geniuses (as in the case of Boito) or, worse, as bumbling scribblers whose lack of craftsmanship and high-mindedness triv ialize d composers’ works (as in the case of Carl

Haffner and Richard Genee, who wrote Die Fledermaus with

Strauss):

Johann Strauss’ music for "Die Fledermaus" is indestructible. It has supported a thin plot for decades, and it has been the justification for version after version of the operetta. . . . The dialogue that binds the tunes together is creaky, and as it was spoken last night by most of the cast it was heavy going. But . . . you can't go wrong with a song w riter like Johann Strauss.

As mentioned previously, however, opera reviewers were far more capable of discoursing intelligently about

7^Times, 28 February, 1958.

^Times, 9 April, 1953. 151

texts than they were about acting. Observe how incisively

Harold Schonberg identified the quality he objected to in the libretto of Menotti's The Last Savage, how he offered a specific illustration of weakness in the opera (the cocktail scene), and how he presented a recognizable com­ parison (a television serial) to his readers:

As for the libretto, if the drama critics sank their teeth into it, they would shake it to pieces. As satire, it is on an ABC level. Its basic message may have some point, for do not sociologists assure us that America is a matri­ archy? In Mr. Menotti's world, women are strong and men are weak; and women use the weapon of sex to move men to their w ill. But the obvious way in which the message is put across, and the shallow presentation of society in the cocktail scene [described in detail earlier in the re­ view], has all the intellectual force of a tele­ vision serial.

Such passages reveal a competence on the part of opera c ritic s , which, if exercised, would have resulted in greater comprehensibility in their textual critism. Crit­ ics were unwilling, however, to extend their c ritic a l vision to recognize librettists who were not also compos­ ers of pieces being assessed. Collaboration was either ignored or severely downplayed. Taubman's "the burden rests on the composer" is an apt summation of opera c rit­ ics' attitude.

^ Times, 24 January, 1964. 152

The preference accorded review topics by musical

theatre critics was predictably different from that shown

by opera critics. Table 8 below compares the frequency of occurrence of topics in both kinds of review.

TABLE 8

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF MAJOR TOPICS: MUSICAL THEATRE VERSUS OPERA REVIEWS

TOPIC CATEGORY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE AS MAJOR TOPICS MUSICAL REVIEWS OPERA REVIEWS

Libretto 90% 16% Acting 79% 57% Production 50% 39% Score 38% 25% Singing 13% 89% Orchestra 1% 38%

The differences are considerable. In the first place, the overwhelmingly prevalent topic of musical reviews, libret­ to, was the least important topic in opera reviews, while singing, the predominant topic of opera reviews, was next- to-last in topic frequency in musical reviews. Secondly, the transient or permanent nature of topics exerted an influence on frequency of occurrence similar to that shown in opera reviews. In the case of musical theatre reviews, however, the influence was inversely proportional: 153

TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF MAJOR TOPICS IN ALL REVIEWS: TRANSIENT VERSUS PERMANENT ELEMENTS

TOPIC CATEGORY % OF TOTAL MAJOR TOPICS

MUS. TH. REVIEWS OPERA REVIEWS

Transient Topics 34% 69%

Permanent Topics 66% 29%

Misc. Topics (less than 1%) 2%

Musical theatre review topics, however, sp lit much more impressively than did opera reviews along rausical/non- musical lines, with non-musical topics showing overwhelm­ ing predominance:

TABLE 10

COMPARISON OF MAJOR TOPICS IN ALL REVIEWS: MUSICAL VERSUS NON-MUSICAL ELEMENTS

TOPIC CATEGORY % OF TOTAL MAJOR TOPICS

MUS. TH. REVIEWS OPERA REVIEWS

Musical Topics 19% 56%

Non-Musical Topics 81% 42%

Misc. Topics (less than 1%) 2%

The data in Table 10 indicate that musical topics received meager attention from musical theatre critics. Non- 154 statistical examination of the reviews not only strength­ ens that impression, but also suggests that emphasis of non-musical topics was so great that many musical theatre reviews contained no musical analysis at all, or musical analysis of such brevity as to be inconsequential. Lewis

Nichols's review of Carousel offers an appropriate subject for examination. This particular review was chosen be­ cause Carousel's score is among the most admired of the period. It received performances in European opera houses and maintained c ritic a l approval for a long period; over forty years later it was to be included in the repertory of one of America's leading opera companies, the New York

City Opera. Surely, then, Carousel represents the kind of musical that would likely prompt more extensive musical comment than, for instance, a piece like High Button

Shoes. which, though received well by c ritic s, did not have the musical pretensions (or the musical cohesiveness) of Rodgers and Hammerstein's work. All comments concern­ ing musical aspects of Carousel are underscored in the review.

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein 2d, who can do no wrong, have continued doing no wrong in adapting "Liliom" into a musical play. Their "Carousel" is on the whole delightful. It spins and whirls across the stage of the Majes­ tic, now fast and rousing, now nostalgic and moving. To. i t « the composer of the team has brought one o f the most beautiful Rodgers 155

s c o r e s , and the l y r i c i s t some of his best rhymes. The Theatre Guild, offering the play as its farewell to the season and on its.twenty- sixth birthday, has given it an excellent pro­ duction with Rouben Mamoulian to direct, and Agnes de Mille for the dances. The Majestic is across the street from the St. James, where "Oklahoma!” is stationed; the pair of Rodgers- Hammerstein shows w ill be able to wink at one another for a long time to come. * * * In deciding to make a musical play of Fer­ enc Molnar's "Liliom," the pair automatically adopted a couple of heavy millstones. One is "Oklahoma!" and they got around that by not trying to imitate themselves. The other is the familiarity most audiences have with "Liliom." This they conquered by following the story quite closely as to incident, changing only the time and locale. "Carousel" is set on the New Eng­ land coast toward the end of the nineteenth century. Its principal figure s till is a barker in a carnival, he still commits suicide after an abortive holdup, he goes to heaven and comes back again to do his one good deed. There is a new ending, but one that does not violate the spirit of the original. At the beginning of the play, where scene and mood must be established, "Carousel" moves a l i t t l e slowly, but a_s soon as Mr. Rodgers has warmed his keyboard and Mr. Hammerstein his pen, chance complaints evaporate. The composer is offering all types of song. "June is Bustin' Out All Over" is a cheerful, rousing number; "If I_ Loved You" is excellent of the type implied by its name. "What's the Use of Wond'rin" is very good, so is "You'll Never Walk Alone." There is ballet music. soft music and sentim ental, and connecting themes. Mr. Hammerstein has worked hard on his lyrics; some of them are funny, some factual, some aiming at nothing higher than to be pleasant. In the lyric to "This Was a Real Nice Clambake" he can make his audience hungry for an immediate shore dinner. As ly ric is t, Mr. Hammerstein must have a great admiration for the c a st, which sings the words audibly and well. John Raitt is Liliom under the name Billy Bigelow. He has an excel- 156

lent and powerful voice and is not afraid to use it. He perhaps is hot as good an actor as a singer; he lacks the easy swagger and arrogance which goes with the character. Jan Clayton is a charming Julie, and can also sing; Jean Darling is Julie's friend and Eric Mattson the la tte r ’s husband. Christine Johnson is fine in the role derived from that of the photographer with whom Julie and Liliom lived, and Jean Casto has the part of the carousel’s owner. Miss de Mille has built up two main dances. One is a hornpipe, which is light and gay; the other is ballet which Billy sees as he looks down from heaven upon his daughter. This last is perhaps not up to Miss de M ille’s final score, although Bambi Linn, late of the rival across the street, is in it. Mr. Mamoulian has directed the whole thing so as to stress the music, which is eminently proper, and to set forth every pleasant angle possible. "Carousel" lacks comedy in its usual sense, only one role— that of Billy's nemesis and played by Murveyn Vye--approaching the normal forms of musical play humor. Jo Mielziner has designed good settings, simple for a New England seacoast, whimsical for heaven, and Miles White has cos­ tumed everyone nicely. But "Carousel" remains a Rodgers-Hammerstein offering, and as sych is a good turn on and to the spring theatre.

The review exhibits the structure described as tri­ partite in the last chapter. General introductory mater­ ial (with a reference to the end of the theatre season) comprises the portion before the asterisks, which were probably inserted by an editor or typographer. More par­ ticular judgments follow, and the article concludes with a one-sentence summation, which refers again to the season.

With regard to Nichols’s handling of topics in the

^Italics mine. Times, 20 April, 1945. 157

review, one is immediately struck by the fact that libret­ to (book and lyrics) is the only topic treated with any more than extreme superficiality. It accounts for about thirty percent of the specific comments contained in the body of the review. Despite the brevity of the entire article, the critic offers us considerable information: the plot closely follows that of Liliom (details are offered); the ending is different; the book is unlike those of other musical plays because it contains less humor. What is more, the only memorable specific comment of the review concerns the mouth-watering lyrics to "This

Was a Real Nice Clambake."

Remarks devoted to production and score are next in order of length, each comprising about seventeen percent of specific comments. The diminution in the force of these assessments, compared to those about lib retto , is marked. They are made up of mere catalogues of production and performance personnel with a word or two of judgment thrown at each. "'What’s the Use of Wond'rin' is very good, so is ’You’ll Never Walk Alone'"—it is difficult to conceive of less informative evaluations. What purpose is served by observing that "You'll Never Walk Alone" is good? From the ti t l e one might suppose it to be a love song with lyrics like "Now that I have found you/You'll 158 never walk alone." At the very least he might have des­ cribed the music as a stirrin g inspirational hymn. Pro­ duction aspects fare only slightly better—"Mr. Mamoulian has directed the whole thing so as to stress the music, which is eminently proper, and to set forth every pleasant angle possible." Unelaborated remarks like these appear to be either ambiguous or ludicrously oversimplified.

Remaining topics include singing and acting. Each commands about ten percent of the column space devoted to specifics. These topics are even more shallowly treated, though a vague impression is given of the musical excel­ lence of the cast; no clear impression at all is offered of their acting. No mention is made of orchestral quality or leadership.

The Carousel review offers a fair example of how topics were treated by musical theatre critics during much of the period. It is a short review, but review length seemed to make little difference to the pattern of empha­ sis on libretto at the expense of treatment of other topics. Of the other topics, acting was the most likely to break through the restrictive supremacy of libretto as a major topic. One season after the Carousel review,

Nichols devoted considerably more attention to acting in a review of Annie Get Your Gun, which included this descrip­ tion of Ethel Merman's performance: 159

By now, Miss Merman is regarded as heaven's gift to the musical show, and there is nothing about the new one to detract from that reputa­ tion. They have given her the part of Annie Oakley, who shot with Buffalo B ill's show, and Miss Merman is deadly with a rif le over her shoulder. . . . She can be initiated into an Indian tribe in such a way the event is singu­ larly funny. Herbert and Dorothy Fields, as lib r e ttis ts , quite often have le ft her working in something of a void, but she has worked there before and can handle the situation adequately. Her inflections give a leering note to even sedate lyrics, and the toss of her head would be a credit to Bill’s show, as it is to that of Rodgers and Hammerstein. y

Such complete analysis of a single performance, however, was exceedingly rare during the nineteen-forties and early

-fifties. When it occurred, it was prompted by exception­ al performances by established stars like Merman.

Another interesting aspect of this excerpt is how it integrates criticism of the book with that of the star.

In a review that elsewhere handles its topics in a typi­ cally compartmentalized fashion, Nichols breaks off in the midst of his performance comments to render a brief as­ sessment of the libretto, after which he concludes his paean to Merman. Mixing these two aspects was an occa­ sional practice on the part of musical theatre reviewers, particularly early in the period, when reviews were short­ er, and when consideration of press deadline was more

79IiJies> 17 May, 1946. 160

Q A crucial. Reviewers made a single paragraph serve double duty in such situations; they could evaluate a performance and at the same time fill the reader in on plot points:

Celeste Holm, who once graced "Oklahoma!" with her presence, does the chief performing in the new Forty-fourth Street hit fBloomer Girl 1 and she does it to perfection. As the re­ calcitrant daughter of a hoop skirt manufacturer in an Eastern manufacturing town, who falls in love with a Souther er while helping the under­ ground railway to spring slaves, she has a part which demands great versatility. Whether she is flaunting bloomers, making love, singing or clowning, she is triumphant. John C. Wilson, the producer of "Bloomer Girl," thought she could carry a big musical. She does.

Almost a third of Howard Barnes's paragraph is not really performance criticism at all, but a recounting of the story. This mix of acting and libretto commentary was the most common departure from the compartmentalized treatment of topics to occur in musical theatre reviews; it paral­ lels the blending of score and singing topics in opera reviews described on pages 132-133.

Aside from libretto and acting, musical theatre crit­ ics treated topics by making bare listings of their likes and dislikes, presented without elaboration or even justi-

o n Description of how circumstances changed late in the period under study is contained on pages 237-239.

^ Herald Tribune, 6 October, 1944. 161

fication. Presenting criticisms in the form of lists

vitiated the importance of topics receiving less attention

from theatre reviewers in a way that selective evaluation

of fewer aspects would have avoided. The reasons for the

prevalence of this approach have already been suggested in

Chapter 2 (pages 63-65). The way that theatre c ritic s

handled the topic of production further illustrates both

the causes and results of cataloguing.

Production elements appeared as a major topic in half

of the qualifying musical theatre reviews. The frequency

of occurrence as a major topic was somewhat higher than in

opera reviews. The higher percentage of new productions

and the greater emphasis on dance in musical theatre accounts for the discrepancy. As pointed out in Table 6

on page 116, however, there are three kinds of new produc­

tions: world premieres, local premieres, and new produc­

tions of works previously seen locally. The statistics in

that table indicate that a new production of a work pre­ viously seen locally (Category 3) elicited most comment concerning production in opera reviews. The same is true for musical theatre reviews; when a new production of a

previously seen musical play was mounted, production ele­

ments were a major topic of reviews sixty-four percent of the time. On the occasions when that occurred, reviewers' 162 comments could be more than just a string of unrelated assessments of staging, scenery, and choreography. Take, for example, the extended passage that Walter Kerr wrote on George Abbott's pacing of an Oti Your Toes revival in

1954:

But you have to keep pinching yourself, and refocusing your eyes, each time one of these re­ membered treasures turns up. You have to keep telling yourself how much you like them, in or out of context—so powerful is the pall that the drowsy evening casts. Some ghoulish genie, enemy of all things theatrical, is at work from the outset. An opening vaudeville trio, sure­ fire if anything was ever sure-fire, goes limp. A nicely-orchestrated choral salute to 'good' music turns inexplicably hollow. A no-holds- barred satire on classical ballet, intended as a slambang topper to the first, act, finds l i t t l e more humorous to do than have the principal male dancer tread on the haughty ballerina's toes. The second act is in the same unlooked for trouble; one of those transformation scenes in which a casual backstage atmosphere turns into a dazzling onstage vision—and which can normally be counted on to get applause, if nothing else— is laboriously achieved to utter silence.

Brooks Atkinson's review of the same performance offers nothing so well developed, but it at least contains a fully-developed evaluation of Balanchine's contribution:

. . . every Broadway musical show includes an abundance of talent and represents a long period of hard work. The current version of "On Your Toes" is no exception. Mr. Abbott has staged it with pace and versatility. With expansive set­

^ Herald Tribune. 12 October, 1954. 163

tings by Oliver Smith and carnival costumes by Irene Sharaff, it looks smart, vital and con­ temporary. George Balanchine, the choreographer of the original production, has fitted it to spirited dances that suit Broadway without blurring the signature of their composer. "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue," macabre and garish, is as stun­ ning as it was originally.

It is logical that interest in aspects of production would

be piqued when a previously seen work was remounted. In

the cases quoted above the overriding concern seemed to be

whether the producing team fulfilled its responsibility of

providing fresh realization of the potentialities offered in the script and score. Atkinson thought the responsi­ bility had been met; Kerr did not (though both agreed that the revival was unsuccessful on the grounds of a dated book).

Musical theatre c ritic s did not usually deal with

'classics' in the sense defined for opera critics (cf. page 141, footnote). The only pre-twentieth-century works presented professionally during this period on Broadway were by Gilbert and Sullivan. In the late nineteen- fifties Tyrone Guthrie presented a number of non-tradi- tional interpretations of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas that provoked reactions similar to those of opera critics

^^Times, 12 October, 1954. 164 when questions of tradition arose. For the most part critical reaction followed Kerr's:

No doubt there w ill be purists a ll over New York City this morning arguing over whether director Tyrone Guthrie's entirely fresh and free-hand staging of "Pinafore" is better than the D'Oyly Carte's, or perhaps just capriciously different from the D'Oyly Carte's. Never mind the why or wherefore. It's charming. . . . This "Pinafore" is quaint and cozy and thoroughly delightful on its own terms, which are approximately those of a nineteenth-century sampler with a meaningful wink in its eye. If I had to cast a purist vote—and do you think I wasn't going to?—I would say that the original W. S. Gilbert notion, presumably echoed today in the D'Oyly Carte tradition (no doubt with some forgetfulness added) of severely formalizing everything in order to kid the very formalities of this kind of romantic nonsense seems to me a slightly stricter, and slightly richer, comic inspiration. The coolness and the imperturb­ ability in the face of so much deranged passion adds one more nuance to the blandly nutty tex­ ture. But let us grasp the gifts we are given and not dwell unduly on Mr. Gilbert's Olympian perfection. I am sure Sir Arthur Sullivan would have loved what Mr. Guthrie has done.

Only about half of what Kerr wrote about the production is quoted here; Atkinson also wrote extensively (and favor­ ably) about Guthrie's approach. But when the D'Oyly Carte company reappeared a couple of seasons later, it allowed traditionalist Savoyard Judith Crist to respond:

Face it. There are no Savoyards like the Savoyards— as the D'Oyly Carte company proves

^ Herald Tribune. 8 September, 1960. 165

instantly with the opening of its four-week stand at the City Center. During the seven years since its last vis­ it, we've had a number of Gilbert and Sullivan presentations by a variety of homegrown compa­ nies, some of them very good indeed. But in the interim, I suggest, even the most devout fans may have forgotten the simple elegance, the perfection and polish of performance and the fidelity of a D'Oyly Carte production. The reminder is sheer delight. Through lovely uncluttered sets, in cos­ tumes of brilliance and beauty, glide and dance a medley of characters . . . with none of the patronizing modernizations that "great direct­ ors" are fond of foisting on G & S. "3

Whenever drama critics perceived that a musical play had the qualities of a repertory classic, they reflected that perception by abandoning the overwhelming preoccupation with libretto that marked their other criticism. In such instances, their reviews began to look remarkably like those of opera critics. In the eighty-six percent of musical theatre reviews that showed critics assessing works they had never before seen, however, critical atten­ tion was divided among so many novel elements (including the dominant element, libretto) that production comments achieved major topic status only by virtue of the typical series of undeveloped evaluations.

Critical reportage of an unusual production aspect that appeared in the early nineteen-sixties serves to

^ Herald Tribune, 14 November, 1962. 166

illustrate how isolated the worlds of opera and musical

theatre were. In 1964 a musical comedy that had been a

commercial success in Italy was imported to Broadway.

That musical, Rugantino, received mixed reviews and did

not hold the stage for long. The fact that the play was

being performed in Italian prompted the producers to find a production technique that would overcome the language

barrier. Howard Taubraan described it this way:

The method of the superimposed subtitle in Eng­ lish has been adapted for "Rugantino." A wide, narrow panel . . . hangs under the false proscenium. There it is out of the way when the scenery revolves, as it does often. When a set comes to rest, the panel is lowered, and the English subtitles are flashed on its thin screen. No more than two lines can be fitted into this space but the synchronization is careful and apt. . . . The system might be recommended to some English-speaking plays and musicals whose per­ formers whisper and mumble so that no one beyond the fifth row can hear them.

Walter Kerr agreed that the system worked very well:

The English su b titles, . . . dropped in gently from the heavens, are entirely informa­ tive in Alfred Drake's translation, and are no bother at all once you've learned when you can afford to take your eyes off the stage proper.

^ Times, 7 February, 1964.

^ Herald Tribune, 7 February, 1964. 167

Twenty years later the use of such subtitles was to become a wide-spread answer to making opera more accessible to a popular audience. It was to be incorporated by the New

York City Opera for all foreign language performances, and proliferated among regional opera companies throughout

North America. In retrospect, the form of theatre that such su b titles most logically could serve, was the one whose staple was performance in a foreign language: opera.

Yet Kerr did not mention such a possibility in his review.

Even more surprisingly, Taubman, who spent twenty-five years as a music c ritic , did not make the suggestion — in spite of the fact that he set aside column space to make a jocular recommendation for its use. The omission implies that the techniques of the commercial theatre were not routinely thought of as appropriate to the operatic stage,

Q Q even at the end of the period under investigation.

Analysis of score in musical theatre reviews followed the pattern already described and illustrated in the Car­ ousel review. Scores as such were not much considered; rather, ’tunes' were criticized. Nichols did, indeed, make a stab at describing the cohesiveness he admired in the music: "There is ballet music, soft music and sen ti­ mental, and connecting themes." Either a limited grasp of

Q Q Further discussion of this point can be found on pages 260-261 below. 168

the topic prevented him from saying more, or the subject simply did not interest him. Otis Guernsey, in his review of the same performance, came a little closer to describ­ ing the specific elements that distinguished the score:

The show has been assembled with the unmis­ takable Rodgers-Hammerstein touch. You will find few "breaks" in "Carousel"--it flows smoothly through the music and dialogue .... Since ther.e is very l i t t l e time for comedy in "Carou­ sel," the score is a series of variations on the theme of love or sorrows; it avoids monotony only bly [by?] its excellence. In it is set a b r il­ lian t diamond of .a number en titled "If I Loved You," repeated in nearly every scene, asking and deserving to lie called the song of the Broadway musical year.

Otis Guernsey’s more perceptive evaluation of the score was, however, a rarity. Usually music criticism by the­ atre reviewers amounted to no more than that found in

Nichols’s review, or in the review of Allegro on pages 67-

69--a rundown of songs and dances with a word of praise or calumny for each.

In no review of the period did criticism of singing rival the complexity of acting criticism. Since a rundown of the cast list was'a common practice in musical theatre reviews, singing managed major topic status in thirteen percent of qualifying reviews. That rate of occurrence

^ Herald Tribune, 20 April, 1945. 169 does not approach the level of acting criticism in opera reviews (whose rate of occurrence was fifty-seven per­ cent). Furthermore, no musical theatre review of the period offered vocal criticism of a length or complexity to rival the acting assessments that appeared occasionally in opera reviews in the nineteen-sixties (cf. Alan Rich's evaluation of Callas as Tosca on page 113).

Ignorance of vocal method and lack of concern for vocal beauty do not explain musical theatre critics' dis­ regard of singing. After all, Howard Taubraan had, as music c ritic , proved himself well conversant with the terminology of vocal criticism, and he had often produced lengthy, even inspired descriptions of singing. His re­ view of Gedda's first New York performance (page 99 above) gives ample evidence of his interest and talent. When he became theatre critic, however, he fell into the same routine of judging vocal performances with simple, non- descriptive phrases, even single words. The following excerpt from his review of Anyone Can Whistle is all that he has to say about singing in the article:

Lee Remick as the nurse . . . sings and dances with sp irit. Harry Guardino . . . joins her in a pleasant duet "With So L ittle to Be Sure Of."9a

9^Times, 6 April, 1964. 170

The extent of those comments is typical of Taubman's treatment of singing in his theatre reviews. According to

Taubman himself, the change in his reviews did not arise from any alteration in his critical approach:

My approach did not change, but what I did find was that most performers in opera came to it with a life-time's training, while some in musical theater seemed to have little or no musical exper­ tise .

It is significant, however, that Taubman never expressed a patronizing attitude toward the musical abilities of per­ formers. If anything, his standards for singing were not as stringent as those of his colleagues, as illustrated in the following two assessments of Peter Marshall's singing in the musical Skyscraper. The first is by Taubman, the second by

Kerr.

A tall, personable performer, Mr. Marshall . . . sings "Everybody Has a Right to Be Wrong" with a fervor to melt a girl's heart.

. . . Peter L. Marshall is very cheerful company as the architect (though heaven knows this is the one role in which a singer, an unmistakable sing­ er, might have been cast).

Howard Taubman, Response to Questionnaire.

^^Times, 15 November, 1965.

^Herald Tribune, 15 November, 1965. 171

The difference between opera and theatre critics in the matter of vocal criticism seems to stem from a dis­ crepancy between what was expected from performers in each genre. Highly specialized, highly trained opera perform­ ers are, at a minimum, expected to execute comparatively d iffic u lt musical tasks. The manner in which they meet the challenges of those tasks forms a good subject for extended comment. Relatively unspecialized theatre per­ formers must execute a much wider range of tasks, each of which has a lower level of difficulty (and which individu­ ally requires less training) than opera singing. When a performer meets the challenges of all the tasks necessary to a successful musical theatre portrayal, the accomplish­ ment is no less remarkable, but each aspect of the accom­ plishment, in and of itself, does not usually inspire the same effusiveness from critics. In fact, a successful performance in musical theatre is likely to elicit a series of equally favorable reactions (her singing was beautiful, her acting was convincing, her dancing was right on the button) that bear a more-than-passing resem­ blance to the catalogue form that entire musical theatre reviews often exhibit.

The quality of orchestral accompaniment simply did not matter to musical theatre reviewers. It attained 172 major topic status only five times in five hundred twenty reviews. All five reviews were of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas. Significantly, operetta oddities like Robin

Hood. Sweetheart. The Red Mill, and Yours Is My Heart did not elicit extended critical commentary. Once again, the standard repertory nature of the Gilbert and Sullivan pieces resulted in musical theatre reviews taking on as­ pects of opera reviews. Theatre critics were simply more familiar with the music and with multiple orchestral in­ terpretations of Sullivan's work. They went to the the­ atre with aural expectations that were either fulfilled or unfulfilled. Their command of specifics in the score allowed them to write with more confidence on the subject, as in Brooks Atkinson's 1952 review of The Mikado:

A great deal remains to be done before the company can evoke the s p irit of G ilbertian hu­ mor. At present, you would hardly suspect that "The Mikado" is a comic opera with a dry, crack­ ling, sententious point of view. The entrance music for the Mikado, both in the overture and in the second act, is played with a ponderous tempo that destroys the wit of one of Sullivan's most ironic compositions. Most of the humorous music is played as though it were an ode to an expiring frog—literal and lethargic.

Even if this passage does not rival the complexity of ex­ tended orchestral criticism in opera reviews, it displays

^ Times, 21 October, 1952. 173

a well-thought-out opinion expressed with clarity and panache.

Another remarkable characteristic of Atkinson’s a rti­ cle is the prescriptive tone that the remarks assume. In no other musical theatre example, in this chapter or the last, did a reviewer assume such a tone. The reason is evident: Atkinson was taking on the role of advisor, as was so often done by opera critics. He was revealing a proprietary interest in the success of a new repertory company. He concluded his review this way:

Those of us who have an unreasonable fond­ ness for those pieces of Victorian raillery, with their perfect manners and their mischievous satire, are w illing to share the growing pains with the company. The object all sublime is very much worth while. But the growth has to be in the direction of fantastic humor—of dryness, lightness, mimicry and style. And the style has to be impeccable. Without a witty style there is very little that is worth saving in the topsy-turvy world of Gilbert and Sullivan. At present, Mr. Chartock's company has nearly everything except the crisp, sardonic style that is the essence of Savoy opera. That is why the current "Mikado" is promising, but s t i l l unresolved and ragged. The company have learned the tunes, the lines and the business. But they have not yet caught the petulance of Gilbert’s humor nor the satiric parts of Sulli­ van's score.

A similar prescriptive tone crept into most Gilbert and

95Ibid. 174

Sullivan reviews, underscoring the influence that the pro­ ducing milieu had on reviews. In a theatrical scene dominated by independently produced long-run shows, pre­ scription was inappropriate. The musical was either a hit, a flop, or a mixed bag. Repertory was quite a dif­ ferent matter. It encouraged reviewers to take a longer view of the work, of performers, and of production person­ nel, and to make suggestions for improvement. Outside of

S. M. Chartock's attempt to establish a permanent Gilbert and Sullivan troupe, however, no repertory existed for professional musical theatre in New York. The reviews produced by theatre critics were therefore appropriately devoid of prescription; instead, they concentrated on description and evaluation.

In summary, opera reviews and musical theatre reviews were each dominated by single topics. In the case of opera, it was singing; in musical theatre, it was libret­ to. The predominance of these topics tended to render material concerning other aspects cursory and underdevel­ oped in comparison.

The situation was particularly exacerbated in musical theatre reviews, in which acting was the only other topic to receive well-rounded assessments from critics with any regularity. Other topics to achieve major topic status 175 usually did so only by virtue of critics' stringing to­ gether a number of unconnected and unelaborated judgments.

Opera critics, on the contrary, were more likely to limit the number of subjects in a review. They could do so more easily than musical theatre critics, because the repertory nature of professional opera production did not require them to evaluate every single aspect of a perform­ ance—even of a world premiere. Thus, even subjects that rarely achieved major topic status received well-rounded treatment on those occasions that opera reviewers chose to emphasize them.

Early in the period opera critics produced acting criticism that was marked by ambiguity, reliance on jar­ gon, and oversimplification. The quality of acting criti­ cism improved through the period, however, and by the mid- nineteen-sixties, it rivaled that produced by musical theatre critics, especially in its ability to describe performers' work vividly.

The singing criticism of musical theatre critics was even less detailed and less coherent than the acting criticism of opera reviewers. Unlike the latter, however, singing criticism in musical theatre reviews showed no increase in complexity or clarity during the period. The disparity was not primarily caused by lack of interest or expertise on the part of theatre reviewers, but rather by 176

the specialized nature of opera singing that commanded more attention and required more technical explanation.

Topics dealing with musical aspects of performance dominated opera reviews; topics dealing with non-musical aspects dominated musical theatre reviews. Topics dealing with transient aspects of performance dominated opera reviews; topics dealing with permanent aspects of produc­ tion dominated musical theatre reviews.

Finally, all topics elicited prescriptions for im­ provement from opera reviewers. Musical theatre critics usually refrained from prescription, making recommenda­ tions only when a company offered Gilbert and Sullivan operettas— the only musicals that had an aura of repertory classics. CHAPTER IV

SPECIAL INFLUENCES ON OPERA CRITICISM

The description of opera reviews presented thus far has been based on quantified analyses of data gathered from the research sample. Non-statistical impressions have been included only when they elucidated or reinforced statistical observations. This chapter describes a number of influences affecting opera reviews that became apparent during the gathering of data for Chapters I, II, and III.

Studying these particular influences separately from structural and topical matters is appropriate for one or more of the following reasons:

1) Presentation of the material requires citation

of sources not included in the study sample. In

such instances, an attempt has been made to

select representative examples from among thou­

sands of reviews read in the course of research,

rather than long-sought-after-anomalies chosen

to prove a point.

2) The material demands more subjective evaluation

177 178

than has been allowed elsewhere in this study.

It might, for example, involve irregularities of

history or personality that are difficult to

gauge quantitatively. Care has been taken to

present logical justifications in each case, but

because the justifications are based primarily

on logic, rather than on statistics, separation

from data-based judgments has been deemed appro­

priate.

3) The influence described is peculiar to opera,

having no parallel in musical theatre. Statis­

tical evidence has already suggested explana­

tions for such peculiarities, including the

influences of the repertory system and of musi­

cal dominance in opera.

One aspect of opera reviews that has little parallel in the musical theatre is critical recognition of audience response to a subject performance. On occasion a theatre critic might mention in passing that a particular number stopped the show. Reportage of audience reaction in opera reviews was both more frequent and more extensive. In rare instances i t could dominate a c ritic 's comments, as in this 1946 example from the Times. After a brief in tro ­ duction explaining the circumstances of the performance, 179

the review continued:

Mr. Breisach, who had conducted the opera f Fidelio 1 as long ago as 1923 in Europe, never before had directed its production here, but his work last night was so electrically charged and so full of authority and comprehension that he received, after only perfunctory applause at the beginning of the performance, three ovations after his work had got under way and the finely paced performance had been appreciated by the audience that filled the house to the lim it of standing room. The biggest ovation came, rightly, at the end of the "Leonore No. 3 Overture,” played--as was Mahler's custom in Vienna—between the two scenes of the second act, with the "Fidelio Overture" at the beginning of the opera. The precision, the balance, the eloquence of the performance richly merited the storm of cheers and applause it brought forth. The other two ovations came at the beginning of the second act and at the close of the opera, when Mr. Breisach had to make several bows from the stage.

Every judgment passed in the review is tied to audience reaction. Such complete deference to spectator reaction was not, however, the norm. More frequently, a reviewer would use a brief report of audience reaction only once in a review—either to bolster a particular opinion of his own:

The great coronation [in Boris Godunov ] , which should be one of the most overwhelming choral passages in all opera, a passage of prodigious pomp and grandeur, was done with so little son­

^Times, 27 March, 1945. 180

ority and so l i t t l e sp irit that it got but a flicker of applause- - this scene which should sweep away the house. or to serve as an introductory or concluding element:

The danger at the Metropolitan Opera last night was not that Maria Meneghini Callas would fail to finish "La Traviata" but that the audi­ ence would not let her start. When the great golden curtains parted on the first act and Miss Callas was discovered on the stage, the audience set up such a clamor of shouting and applause that one could hear nei­ ther the orchestra nor the singers. It persist­ ed quite long as time is measured in a theatre while Fausto Cleva continued to conduct tena­ ciously. When it let up, Miss Callas and her colleagues, it turned out, were singing.

It is a pleasure to record that this ser­ ious and careful rendering of a great work, the greatest operatic work of our century [Pelleas et Melisande1, provoked a lively state of enthu­ siasm in the audience and much good talk in the intermissions. "An opera one can believe" is the way one musician described it. And that goes for the performance, too.

Responses of audiences were not, however, reported only when critics agreed with the popular reaction. Vir­ gil Thomson obviously did not react the same way as the audience at the performance of I_1 barbiere di Siviglia described below:

^Times, 23 November, 1945.

^Times, 7 February, 1958.

^Herald Tribune, 27 January, 1944. 181

The audience last night applauded violently (there may even have been a claque present) and roared with laughter throughout. The show seemed to be having a huge success. Myself I found it depressing .... I wanted style and precision in the dramatic rendering comparable to the high polish and sharp edges of the music­ al score. . . . I did not get it. Apparently others got, if not that, something they were royally pleased with. They were luckier than

The tone that Thomson took in describing his difference of opinion with the audience was more generous than that usually taken, especially when a claque was suspected of being a factor in the response. His reference to the claque is representative of a rivalry that existed between critics and claques throughout the period. Claques have never been as prominent in the United States as in South­ ern Europe, where they are an indispensable, if not exact­ ly cherished, part of the opera scene. In New York, only the Metropolitan had a thriving claque throughout the period. Claques were not prominent at the City Opera be­ cause of the higher percentage of American singers there;

Americans have, as a group, battled claques even in their

£ bastions of strength in Italy. Furthermore, singers at

^Herald Tribune. 20 February, 1954.

^A vivid description of how the claque operated at La Scala in the nineteen-sixties was included in Beverly Sills's popular autobiography Bubbles: _A Self Portrait, (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1976), p. 141. 182

the City Opera were, for the most part, young performers who had neither the money nor the need to manufacture demonstrations of audience approval. At the Met, the claque was most prominent at the debuts of Southern Euro­ pean singers who had already made reputations in their homelands. Such performers were already used to paying off claques at home, and they certainly had more to lose if their debut performances were greeted with boos and catcalls from a disgruntled claque. Southern Europeans were also more likely to specialize in the traditional

Italian repertoire, which afforded more opportunities for a claque to exhibit approval (or disapproval) than German or contemporary works, at which audiences might hold ap­ plause until the end of acts.

Critics sometimes reacted to the demonstrations of claques with only mild resentment, especially if the debu­ tant were as talented as Giuseppi Di Stefano:

Giuseppe di Stefano [sic] . . . revealed the makings of a valuable operatic a rtis t. Being Italian, he was applauded for more than that, of course. And though a part of the applause was certainly the work of an engaged clacque [sic], there was enough le ft over, and all round the house, to make it clear that the boy was having a real success.

^Herald Tribune. 26 February, 1948. 183

Thus, critics might grudgingly tolerate favorable respon­ ses generated by a claque. They were, however, vehemently opposed to any organized negative responses. Howard Taub- mari went so far as to offer his assistance to the Met in battling negative claqueurs:

There was one thing that happened last night that deserves the Metropolitan manage­ ment's attention. After Mr. Baum had finished singing "Cielo e mar," the audience applauded him deservedly. Through the sound of the ap­ plause there could be heard concentrated bursts of booing. These were clearly the deliberate work of a small group. Now booing can be a salutary thing in an opera house, when it is warranted. Last night, however, it was a nuisance and an outrage. It ought not to be tolerated, particularly if an­ other singer's friends are behind the job. If the management needs some help in ferreting out the malefactors, this corner caji give it a hint as to how to go about the task.

In some cases even favorable claque support could be so boisterous that it had a marked negative effect on c r iti­ cal reactions.

Alfredo Kraus, the Spanish tenor, has been re­ ceiving good word-of-mouth notice the last few years, and he has been the principal in quite a few recordings. . . . Mr. Kraus is good-looking, slim (as tenors go) and handsome, and he made his entrance with the aplomb of one to whom entrances are no novelty. But he has not been blessed with a voice that is going to make a lasting impression

®Timej3, 10 March, 1955. 184

in vocal history. It is of decent size and good texture, up to the bridge notes. Starting above the staff, it is produced in a constricted man­ ner, and the very high notes are really squeezed out. The- claque earned its money. After each of Mr. Kraus's solos, there were great yells of bravo, much clapping and cheering. Yet one turned around and looked at rows upon rows of serious, even glum faces, people sitting on their hands. The claqueurs, if not Mr. Kraus, were in supreme form. There was no sitting on hands when Cornell MacNeil was singing. The American baritone, in the t i t l e role, was in best voice, which means smooth, supple, resonant singing. His top notes boomed out without effort, his scales were equalized from top to bottom, his voice sounded like biLbbling velvet. He is one of the great voices.9

Harold Schonberg's dismissal of Kraus's talents was ob­

viously affected by what he considered claque support for

the young Spaniard. His charge of payoffs is, however, questionable. Spanish-speaking New Yorkers were noted for

their loyalty when singers from Spain and Latin America— including Delia Rigal, Victoria de los Angeles, and Placi- do Domingo—made their debuts. The reviewer's comparison of reactions to Kraus with those to MacNeil heighten suspicion. One can recreate the scene in the opera house from his description; New York's Latin American population came out in large numbers to hear a tenor with whom they were already familiar from recordings of zarzuelas as well

9Times, 17 February, 1966. 185

as of operas. Their reactions were supportive and uncrit­

ical, and they probably irritated the non-Spanish-speaking

contingent in the audience, who, upon meeting one of their

own in the person of Cornell MacNeil, responded with

cheers and applause in kind. In the chaos of chauvinistic

reactions that ensued, the debut of Kraus was lost. He

did, of course, go on from his less-than-completely-suc-

cessful Met debut to forge a brilliant international ca­

reer. Only Luciano Pavarotti was to enjoy greater acclaim

in the lyric Italian repertoire during the period.

Schonberg did not, therefore, offer one of his usual­

ly astute vocal assessments on that occasion. In most other reviews of debuts, some allowance was made for nervousness inherent in the high-tension situation of appearing for the first time at one of the world's pre­ miere opera houses. Such allowance was granted even to seasoned veterans like Tito Gobbi,^ Eileen F arrell,^ and

Elizabeth Schwartzkopf,^ on the occasions of their de­ buts. Furthermore, the fault found with Kraus (that his top voice was produced in a constricted way), is a fault typically associated with nervousness in reviews through­

^ Times, 14 January, 1956.

^ Herald Tribune, 7 December, 1959.

^Herald Tribune, 3 November, 1964. 186

out the period. Schonberg might have steered a more prudent course of withholding final judgment until Kraus had been heard in other roles. Indeed, unless a debut performance was an unqualified success (or an unmitigated disaster) reserving final evaluation was the norm. Scores of reviews contained passages like the following one, which assessed the debut of another famous Spanish singer, and which, significantly, was also written by Schonberg himself:

The one defect in' the soprano's vocal equipment— though this may have been due to the strain of the debut—appears to be a lack of quality in the upper range, above an A. In that region, fortissim o notes sounded edgy and not too pleasant in timbre. However, more than a single Marguerite will be necessary to gauge Miss de los Angeles' ac­ complishments. Future appearances as Mimi and Butterfly will help to round out the picture. J

The tentativeness of Schonberg's remarks about de los An­ geles contrasts sharply with his startlingly final assess­ ment of Kraus: "But he has not been blessed with a voice that is going to make a lasting impression in vocal hist­ ory." The length and tone of his denunciation of the

"claque's" support of Kraus suggests that Schonberg was moved by their overenthusiasm to render a more negative

^ Times. 19 March, 1951. 187

judgment than he would have handed down in the absence of

such demonstrative approval in the audience.

At other times, critics distinguished claque response

from that engendered by nationalistic feelings. Italian-

Americans, of course, also comprised an important segment

of the Metropolitan's audience, and when a prominent Ita l­

ian singer debuted, they came out in force to support

their own. In the case of a 1947 performance of Tosca. which marked the f ir s t joint performance at the Met of a noted Italian singing couple, Pia Tassinari and Ferruccio

Tagliavini, Olin Downes clearly understood that audience reaction did not necessarily depend either on the quality of performance or on a paid claque:

When Mr. Tagliavini, whose fine chesty tones had a buzz in them in the opening act, confronted Scarpia, and flung out his defiant song of liberty, it is possible that the many of Italian descent in the audience heard something more than clarion tones—something of the vindi­ cation of the land of their ancestors, now ris­ ing from defeat, integrating as a free republic. Was it astounding that the long-sustained outcry of "Vittoria! Vittoria!" brought salvos that seemed to shake the place? The opera was banged home, one way or another, and great was the rejoicing.

The tolerance that Downes showed toward non-musical for­ ces' influencing reaction toward opera was, however, not

^ T i m e s , 27 December, 1947. 188 typical. More often, critics demanded that performances be judged on artistic merits alone, as did Virgil Thomson in his evaluation of the same performance:

Both have middle-sized voices, neither huge nor picayune. And both have a way, even when bawling Puccini for the Met's faith fu l Italo - American trade, of making you want to hear them in something more refined, say, in Rossini or B ellini, or even in Mozart. One suspects they are good artists in every way, steady, depend­ able and not without a taste for the higher reaches of musical style. . . . The rest of last night's cast was inferior. So were, according to this snobbish reporter, the audience's taste reactions. Any loud note, good or bad, got an ovation. Such a reception for Miss Tassinari was heart-warming, of course, and, on the whole, even in the estimation of your critic, deserved. He merely regretted that her "Vissi d'arte," which was not her best work, was rewarded more vociferously than anything else anybody did a ll evening. I suppose that gratitude for honest singing was partially the content of the demonstration. In 50 far as it was, those are his sentiments too.

Even Thomson did not attrib u te the unwarranted audience response to the efforts of a claque, and he held the artists free from blame in whipping up audience approval.

Intentional manipulation of audience response was what critics objected to.

They also viewed any attempt by performers to gain fame or notoriety outside the opera house with great

^Herald Tribune, 27 December, 1947. 189 suspicion. As the period progressed, opera singers became more adept at wielding the press and other news and enter­ tainment media to attract journalistic and public atten­ tion to" their careers. Robert Merrill, Eileen Farrell, and Dorothy Kirsten all became more familiar to the public at large than their predecessors by appearing in motion pictures and on television. No other singer of the per­ iod, however, was so successful at manipulating public attention as Maria Callas. Callas was the first opera singer since Caruso to attract so much acclaim outside the opera house, and, frankly, opera c ritic s did not quite know how to handle it. That her fame affected their reviews is unquestionable; Jay S. Harrison felt obliged to open his review of Lucia di Lammermoor with this admoni­ tion :

If people stop regarding Maria Callas as a flaming prima donna, stop talking about her and begin to. listen, they are likely to discover that she is a perfectly proper soprano, more skilled than most, less gifted than some. But as long as she remains a cocktail-time conversa­ tion piece, a figure resembling in the popular imagination a combination of Duse, Borgia and Electra, her real values can never be explored with even a modicum of detachment. If last night at the Metropolitan, for example, the individual listener arrived with any preconceived notions . . . °

•^Herald Tribune, 14 February, 1958. 190

—and there, of course, was the rub. Listeners seemed to be arriving at the opera house with preconceived notions, and they were not notions put there by music critics, but by the force of the singer's own personality, both on and off stage.

Callas was able to win over some critics by stead­ fastly refusing to cash in on her celebrity on stage:

Say for Miss Callas that she made no effort to whip up hysteria by any devices other than sing­ ing and playing Violetta. Her performance, on the whole was that of an artist.

But most New York critics never considered Callas serious­ ly as a singer:

In sura, all the tenderness and brilliant acting in the world cannot compensate for the lack of a true ajid beautiful voice; this is opera, not a play.18

Thus, on the basis of her present performance this much is sure: her soprano is not big, nor is it of a quality even approaching velvet. Indeed, there are moments, especially in the top register, when the tines in her voice prick the ear like barbs. Also she has a perceptible wobble and her scale is n e ith e r even nor smooth.

^ Times, 7 February, 1958.

^ Herald Tribune, 7 February, 1958.

^ Herald Tribune, 16 November, 1956. 191

But now we come to matters vocal, and the story is less pleasant. Miss Callas is operat­ ing these days with only the remnants of a voice. Her top, always insecure, now is merely a desperate lunge at high notes. She sings almost without support, and her tones are shrill, squeezed and off center.

The most striking aspect of reviews about Callas is that c ritic s usually devoted at least as much column space to audience reaction to her performance as they did to com­ mentary on her singing its e lf. There was l i t t l e hint, however, that they attributed the enthusiasm to the influ­ ence of a claque. Most were simply at a complete loss to describe what qualities made Callas the legendary singer of her time. A few, like Alan Rich, 2 1 were content to describe elements of her performance that were particular­ ly striking. Almost without exception, New York opera critics failed to recognize that Callas would in future appear as the most influential opera singer of the mid­ twentieth century, responsible not only for sparking a rebirth of interest in the bel canto repertory, but also for setting a new standard in operatic acting that re­ quired all succeeding singers to attempt a level of dra­ matic achievement that had not previously been expected of opera performers. The irascible tone that tinges reviews

^ Times, 20 March, 1965.

21 See review excerpt, pages 113-114 above. 192 of her Metropolitan performances suggests that the wild, uncritical approbation of adoring audiences provoked re­ sentment on the part of critics that their opinions did not really count for much in light of Callas's inexpli­ cable ability to move audiences to ecstasy.

Critics had many complaints about audience behavior, however, that had nothing to do with Callas or even with the comparative merits of a given performance. The fre­ quency and length of applause, for example, were also often prescribed by critics. Applause for scenery was considered gauche, though c ritic s had l i t t l e effect on suppressing the practice during the period. It was appar­ ently taken for granted by audiences that Wagnerian music dramas were not to be punctuated with applause after every high note, for very little comment was made about inappro­ priate applause in that kind of opera. Critics argued for similar consideration at Italian operas. Paul Henry Lang made the following lengthy appeal in a 1957 review of Don

Carlo:

That the supreme moment of the confrontation of the doubt-wracked King and the implacable Car­ dinal should be interrupted by prolonged howling is a sad commentary on the sensitivity of those responsible. Mr. Stiedry turned around, waving his hands, he wanted to continue to save the drama but the thoughtless audience would not let him. This is not enthusiasm for great art. It is behavior suitable for a vaudeville show. If it could be made clear that applause within the 193

acts is not desired by the singers or the man­ agement, most of tire public would, I am sure, be willing to reform.

Opera critics' acknowledgments of audience reactions to performances, therefore, ranged widely in extent, a tti­ tude and intensity. They might focus on a reaction to a single moment, as in the last example above, or they might cite the general level of enthusiasm over the entire evening, as in the case of Virgil Thomson's review of

Pelleas et Melisande on page 180. They could use audience reaction to bolster opinions that they held, or.they could chide audiences for disagreeing with their own assess­ ments. Sometimes responses that seemed to be manufactured by claques were shrugged off; at other times the same kind of audience manipulation adversely affected reviewers' opinions.

If critics generally mistrusted audience responses engendered by non-artistic influences, however, they them­ selves were not completely successful in banishing such considerations from their own critical responses. Only rarely could such influences be described as social or political in origin. As has already been noted, refer­ ences to social events and benefits tied to performances were common, particularly early in the period. In addi-

^ Herald Tribune, 18 March, 1957. 194 tion, one other major social factor had more impact on opera reviewers than on their theatrical counterparts: racial segregation. No parallel concern for racial equal­ ity appeared in musical theatre criticism. Even musicals that might have prompted parenthetical remarks about the state of race relations—Lost in the Stars. South Pacific.

Flower Drum Song—were greeted with reviews that are re­ markable for their lack of social commentary. The absence of editorializing was in part prompted by the greater extent of racial integration that existed in American professional theatre. The New York musical theatre scene was certainly no paragon of equal opportunity for minority performers, but Blacks, Whites, and Orientals had at least appeared together in the same plays. In addition, plays dealing with the American racial experience (most notably

Uncle Tom’s Cabin) had received performances for decades on the American stage. Such was not the case in profes­ sional opera in America. Virgil Thomson had produced his

Four Saints in Three Acts with an all-black cast (over the objections of his lib rettist 9 ? ), and the Metropolitan had

9 ^ Gertrude Stein wrote to Thomson: "Your Negroes may sing and enunciate ever so much better than white artists, but I s t i l l do not like the idea of showing the Negro bodies. It is too much what modernistic writers refer to as 'futuristic.1 I cannot see its relevance to my treat­ ment of my theme." Quoted in Kathleen Hoover and John Cage, Virgil Thomson: His Life and Music (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1959), p. 81. 195 presented Jonny sp ielt auf and The Emperor Jones with

Laurence Tibbett playing both title roles in blackface.

Those exceptions may be dismissed on the grounds that they employed segregated casts, and their plots did not concern

Black culture or experiences.

The first real breakthrough for minorities in opera came with the performance of Camilla Williams as Cio-Cio-

San in a 1946 New York City Opera production of Madama

Butterfly. At that time both the Times and the Herald

Tribune made prominent mention of the fact that the ". . . young Negro soprano made her debut in a part which had not hitherto been taken here by a member of her race. Miss

Williams was the winner of the Marian Anderson Award in

1943 and 1944. . . ."24 Otherwise, however, the two reviews steered clear either of 'open campaigning for greater participation by Blacks in opera or of compliment­ ing the management of the City Opera for its open-minded­ ness. Instead they simply gave Williams highly favorable notices that were, nonetheless, scrupulously fair in pointing out the one shortcoming of the debutante:

It was only in the lower register that the tones were often lacking in substance and vitality, in an otherwise highly praiseworthy vocal account of the role.

^ Herald Tribune, 16 May, 1946.

^ Times. 16 May, 1946. 196

The reception accorded Marian Anderson at the Metro­ politan Opera in 1955 was naturally much more extensive.

She had been an established concert artist since 1925, when she had appeared with the New York Philharmonic. In addition, the Met had been segregated for over seventy years, whereas the City Opera had integrated its company only three years after its founding. Increased press coverage probably also reflected a heightened journalistic consciousness of racial issues in the wake of the nation­ wide civil rights movement; the landmark Brown versus the

Board of Education of Topeka decision by the United States

Supreme Court had occurred less than eight months before

Anderson's debut, so the country was preoccupied with racial matters. Despite the much wider press coverage of the event, however, the critics themselves remained scru­ pulously honest in their evaluations. Paul Henry Lang displayed a low-key reaction, relegating the following passage to the middle of his review.

It was a pleasure to see Marian Anderson, the distinguished Negro contralto on our great operatic stage, an honor—and a privilege for us—long overdue. Hers too is a very difficult role which calls for an ample voice and good control of the widely separated vocal regions, both of which she supplied freely. Miss Ander­ son, who was acclaimed with frenetic applause, is to be commended especially for the excellent part she took in the complicated ensembles. These call for a great deal of experience which, of necessity, she could not have had. But a 197

great artist always prevails.^

The picture created by Lang, while generous, did not fail to note Anderson's lack of experience. The remark that opens the paragraph is, of course, political; it has nothing to do with the artistic quality of performance.

Under the circumstances, however, the comment seems digni­ fied and appropriate. His intention was clearly to play down the clamor that had nothing to do with how a singer sang, while s till making clear his position that Anderson had every right to perform at the Metropolitan.

Olin Downes, in writing of the same performance, went much further than Lang in allowing the social aspects of the occasion to shape his review. It must be remembered that Anderson's debut role, Ulrica, has but one scene.

She is the least prominent of the major characters in the opera. Downes nonetheless opened his review thus:

History was made last night when Marian Anderson, the famous Negro contralto, as one of the fruits of her distinguished career, sang for the first time in the Metropolitan Opera House and for the first time in opera on any stage.

He then went on to devote over sixty percent of his review

^ Herald Tribune, 8 January, 1955.

^ Times. 8 January, 1955. 198 to recounting Anderson's performance in minute detail. In doing so he was as scrupulously fair as Lang in the matter of evaluation. Although he concluded that the debutante had ". . . stamped herself in the memory and the lasting esteem of those who listened,' 9 ft he did not fail to point out problems of wavering pitch and lack of breath sup­ port— Anderson was, after a ll, fifty-tw o at the time of her debut. The fact that the contralto displayed less than complete command over the role only reinforces the notion that Downes's devoting a majority of his review to her performance was motivated by other than artistic con­ siderations. In producing so long a dissertation, Downes revealed a capacity for subjecting critical principles to extra-aesthetic influences. The three most likely influ­ ences in the case of the Anderson review were:

1. Journalistic considerations made Downes concen­

trate on the newsworthy aspect of the perform­

ance, which was, undoubtedly, Anderson's debut.

2. Downes saw the possibility of improving vocal

performance at America's leading opera house by

enlarging the pool of eligible singers. The

Metropolitan's restrictive casting policies had,

28Ibid. 199

after all, resulted in the opera-going public's

missing Anderson in her prime and Paul Robeson

altogether, and they were considered to be among

the finest American vocalists of their genera­

tion .

3. Downes believed Anderson's debut represented a

social or p o litic a l advance of such magnitude

that emphasis on her performance was appro­

priate.

The first consideration undoubtedly exerted the strongest influence on Downes. The second could even be deemed a quasi-aesthetic consideration. Nevertheless, one cannot discount completely the socio-political aspect of Downes's preoccupation with Anderson. In the nineteen-fifties the

Times had already assumed a position as one of the leading liberal institutions in the United States. Its general editorial policy certainly favored the Metropolitan's action of integrating its company. It even saw f it to single the event out for specific comment on the editorial page on the day following Downes's review:

Every real music lover must be delighted over the triumphant debut of Miss Marian Ander­ son at the Metropolitan Opera House. Happily, it was a triumph not merely for Miss Anderson but for the whole world of the fine arts. Not that there was ever any doubt that Miss 200

Anderson would acquit herself magnificently. She has long since proved her right to be called one of the truly great singers of our time. But it is a deep satisfaction to know that her art has received this especial accolade on which she set some store. We deplore the very fact that this debut should have to have the news significance that it does. Miss Anderson has broken another bar­ rier of unthinking prejudice, and that is news. We wish that the whole story were simply that another glorious voice had been heard in the Metropolitan, for that is, after all, the part of the story that really means something to all of us as human beings who are blessed by the ministration of music.

Insofar as Downes owed his position to the editors at the Times. his views must be considered an extension of the newspaper's editorial policies during the period of his tenure. It should be remphasized, however, that though the extent of Downes's coverage may have been influenced by journalistic or even political considera­ tions, the judgments themselves exhibit a balanced report­ age that neither overlooked flaws in the execution of the role nor masked the fact that Anderson was a very mature singer, whose voice no longer retained the vigor of youth.

Overt appeals to open up opportunites for Blacks did not end with Anderson's debut. Almost two years later

Howard Taubman was s till campaigning vigorously, as evi­ denced by his review of Mattiwilda Dobbs's debut as Gilda:

^ Times, 9 January, 1955. 201

Mattiwilda Dobbs, a Negro girl from Atlan­ ta, was entrusted with one of the beloved prima donna roles at the Metropolitan Opera last night— Gilda in "Rigoletto." She proved that she was equal to the opportunity. The day is not far off when an artist's color or race will not require special emphasis. But Miss Dobbs is one of the history makers. Two seasons ago Marian Anderson and Robert Mc- Ferrin joined the Metropolitan; Miss Dobbs, making her debut last night, was the third Negro to become a principal singer in the theatre where for seven decades none had been welcomed, though there had been worthy candidates. . . . This first "Rigoletto” of the season repre­ sented the Metropolitan in fine fettle. It also showed that the old house, in its hospitality to Miss Dobbs, was continuing to move forward while being faith fu l to its trust, which i s to seek out able artists whoever they may be. u

Taubman's comment concerning the need to take note of "the history makers" continued the theme already begun in the

Times editorial quoted above. Indeed, the review contains

one of the most extended passages concerning social mat­

ters in the study sample. His observation about the day

coming when a singer's race would not cause comment was

prophetic. Five years later, when Leontyne Price debuted, only the Herald Tribune referred to her race; Ronald Eyer

made these comments:

. . . the currents of excitement ran deep and swift as the curtain was about to rise on the first appearance on an opera stage here of Leon­ tyne Price, Negro soprano, and Franco Corelli,

^ Times. 10 November, 1956. 202

young Italian tenor. For the edification of embattled house­ wives, Ku Kluxers, and other assorted patriots of the Confederacy, be it noted that the Metro­ politan is now fully integrated to the honor of the house and the inestimable enrichment of the operatic art.

Nine years after Taubman's prophecy, Shirley Verrett's debut at the City Opera provoked lengthy favorable comment in both the Times and Herald Tribune. In the case of

Verrett, however, preoccupation with her portrayal could be fully justified on aesthetic grounds. Her debut role was Carmen, a character who, unlike Ulrica, dominates the entire opera. More significant than the length of the comments is the fact that nowhere in either the Times or the Herald Tribune was mention made of Verrett's race.

The reviews of the period under investigation thus relate the progression of a social issue's influence on artistic criticism. At the outset, critics' treatment re­ flected a journalistic curiosity that was piqued by the novelty of a social situation. As that situation devel­ oped into a national cause celebre, the curiosity was augmented by ed ito rial advocacy. By the end of the per­ iod, critics apparently perceived the point of their advo­ cacy to have been won, although there is ample evidence

•^Herald Tribune, 28 January, 1961. 203

that racial discrimination continued in the hiring of

stagehands, musicians, and even male minority singers.

Perhaps the novelty of the issue had diminished to the

extent that critics questioned the efficacy of further

encouragement in reviews.

Compared with the issue of racial equality in the opera house, other social factors played little part in opera criticism of the period. A few reviews alluded to

World War II and to the postwar recovery. A clear example of such allusion has already been presented in Olin

Downes’s review of Tosca. (See above, page 187.) Another performance of Tosca during the war e licited these com­ ments from Virgil Thomson:

No opera has a more up-to-date story than "Tosca." It could have taken place in Vichy, France, .department of the Alliers, any week during the last three and a half years. I know personally everybody in it--th e actress, the painter, the political refugee and the gentleman who holds the position of police chief through the services he renders to the occupying power at the expense of his own countrymen. Like a great many other stories formerly thought to be hokum, it has come true now. And Puccini’s music has sort of come to life again with it. Not that it had ever really died. But it had gone a little tawdry; at least the hokum of it did not appear very distinguished during [the] Depression decade. But the times are heroic; and a new definition is needed, perhaps of what is and what is not distinguished.

^ Herald Tribune, 22 February, 1944. 204

The length and fervor of Thomson’s social commentary were especially remarkable in light of the fact that it ap­ peared in a review of the very first production of a new opera company, the New York City Opera. The reviewer devoted almost one-third of his column space to explaining the social significance of script and score. That Thomson took advantage of the timeliness of the opera to make a political comment about the Vichy regime showed how patri­ otism could openly intrude into critical commentary.

Noel Strauss’s review of Lohengrin a year later exhibited a tolerance born of the unconditional Allied victory; it was, however, no less political in its conno­ tations :

The choice of this particular masterpiece for the opening night was a happy one. In selecting a German opera to start off the sea­ son, the management displayed a spirit of toler­ ance, JE o r which it cannot be too highly lauded.

And by the end of 1946, Virgil Thomson was showing a similar softening of heart:

The opera itself [Haensel und Gretel 1 is full of sweetness and pleasant tunes. It offers German sentiment at its most acceptable, German family life at its most touching. . . . Children and grown-ups respond to it and feel better for

^ Times, 27 November, 1945. 205

having heard it. Its performance as a Christ- mastide ceremony is always welcome. I hope it will be continued. I also hope that some of the children now wandering homeless in the German forests will be protected by angels while they sleep, as Hansel and Gretel were, and that awake they may foil the forces of evil that surround them and eventually rejoin their families, those that still have families living.

But whether exhibiting open-hearted tolerance or patriotic fervor, a ll such comments were peculiarly detached from the aesthetic purposes of reviewing operas.

By any reckoning, the greatest influences on reviews of the period were the personal styles and attitudes of the five major newspaper critics of the period: Olin

Downes, Virgil Thomson, Paul Henry Lang, Howard Taubman, and Harold Schonberg. Although the data sample for the study was deemed large enough to preclude undue influence by a single reviewer, those five accounted for over half of the qualifying reviews. Each one of them contributed a large enough sample of his own work to make generaliza­ tions about individual critical approach possible. In addition, examining the background that each of the five brought to his career as a critic is useful in understand­ ing the origins of the ch aracteristics that have already been identified as being peculiar to opera reviews.

•^Herald Tribune, 28 December, 1946. 206

The traditional approach to reviewing is best repre­ sented in the writings of Olin Downes. He was Music

C ritic at the Times from 1924 to 1955, immediately suc­ ceeding Richard Aldrich, who had served in the same posi­ tion since the turn of the century. A relatively unbroken convention of music criticism therefore held sway at the nation's leading newspaper for over half a century.

Downes actually seems more traditional than a close reading of his criticism supports. The false impression is created by a curiously old-fashioned use of language.

His reviews are marked by excruciatingly correct grammar O C and overly complicated syntax. Harold Schonberg, in his book Facing the Music, recalled the difficulty of editing

Downes's work:

One of my jobs after I joined the Times in 1950 was to take care of Mr. Downes's copy. There never was copy like it. He may have been the only journalist in history to write his reviews in longhand and then correct them on the type­ w riter. It was a mess, and only one man in the composing room could decipher it. When I worked on Mr. Downes's Sunday pieces, I found it much easier to retype everything and start from there.

O C See examples above, pages 34, 98, and 111.

•^Harold C. Schonberg, Facing the Music (New York: Summit Books, 1981), p. 20. 207

Howard Taubraan contributed the Preface to a posthumous an­ thology of Downes’s reviews in which he concurred with

Schonberg’s assessment, offering the following explana­ tion :

Writing came hard to Olin. Part of the trouble, I think, was psychological. He be­ lieved that gaps in his formal education had handicapped him. Actually, he wrote with a vividness and eloquence that were irresistible. There was another reason for Olin's inces­ sant struggle with words. This was his unflag­ ging conscientiousness. He was possessed by a demon that drove him to seek to improve and improve. . . . He was almost never satisfied. He would finish what looked like a fine piece and would irvstantly tear into it, revising and im­ proving .

Downes’s reviews, therefore, owed their formal stiffness to the fact that they were largely reorganized (perhaps even rewritten) by editors, and to an over-insistence on correctness by a critic who found writing a constant trial. Such punctiliousness is easy to understand in light of Downes’s often-expressed feelings of inferiority about his education. Although he had taught briefly at both Boston University and Harvard Summer School, he held no earned degrees. In particular, his background did not

O *7 H. Howard Taubman, Preface to Olin Downes on Music, ed. Irene Downes (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), pp. i i- x ii. 208

prepare him to evaluate opera, and at the beginning of his

career with the Boston Post, he avoided reviewing any

opera for almost an entire season, partly because he felt

unqualified, but also because, in the words of Howard

Taubman, he felt ". . . rather superior to it, regarding O Q it as something less than a serious art form.'1-3

Downes’s insecurity about criticizing opera, combined

with his initial aversion to it, resulted in a disastrous

f ir s t opera review, in which the twenty-year-old c ritic accused Geraldine Farrar, then twenty-six, of being an immature performer. That inauspicious beginning helps to explain why Downes’s succeeding negative judgments about opera performances were relatively mild. He could, on rare occasions, deliver wholly negative assessments that held no ray of sympathy or encouragement for a performer.

(See his evaluation of Erna Schlueter's Isolde on page 98 above.) But for the most part his aspersions were less harsh than those of his colleagues. Furthermore, there is rarely a hint of sarcasm or facetiousness in Downes's reviews. Extended examples of his criticism already cited give a fair idea of the seriousness with which he present­ ed his judgments. In short, his style exhibited a gentle­ manliness, which, at its worst, bordered on the genteel.

3®Ibid . , p . viii. 209

That elevated approach did, however, have the advantage of

avoiding pettiness and gratuitously cruel denunciations of

performers.

Downes's conservative rejection of experimentation in

opera production has already been described. (See above,

page 118.) Unfortunately, there were too few new operas

produced in New York in the decade following World War II

to judge adequately if that attitude extended to experi­

mentation in the crafting of opera scores and librettos as

well. The Metropolitan Opera under the direction of Gat-

ti-Casazza had produced more new American operas than under either Edward Johnson or Rudolf Bing, and in 1935

Downes wrote a Sunday overview a rtic le in which he drew surprising parallels between American works that had been

produced traditionally in the opera house and works that had been written.and produced without what he called

"operatic accessories." The five works that he found most

significant in the first half of the nineteen-thirties

were Peter Ibbetson, The Emperor Jones, Porgy and Bess,

Four Saints in Th^ee Acts, and, most startling of all, The

Green Pastures:

What have these works, if anything, in com­ mon? Four of them have this very important feature in common: that they rest upon success­ ful dramas. They are of the American popular theater rather than the great opera house of European traditions. Dramatists, not opera 210

librettists, in every case supplied the mater­ ial. . . . The fifth work f Four Saints in Three Acts 1 was a special, modern, highly stylized and sophisticated setting of symbolistic verse, also dramatic implication, by Gertrude Q hfl-l n

Downes's l i s t of in flu en tial works included The Green

Pastures because it fit his broad definition of opera:

. . . opera, or music drama, whatever else it may or may not be, is drama which employs music as an indispensable agent of expression; drama which, without music, would be incomplete if not entirely impotent. Perhaps we are free and easy with our definitions, but we go so far as to claim that this operatic principle, either in a highly evolved or a very elementary guise, may be found in works as far apart as Tristan und Isolde and The Green Pastures. Which la tte r, any specialist will tell you, is no opera at all like one. But we hold to the con-

That is hardly the view of a reactionary in the raid- nin eteen-thirties. Though Downes may have started his opera-reviewing career with a curious blend of naivete and skepticism, by the time he came to write the 1935 article he was thoroughly conversant with the theatrical trends that were affecting opera. He also differentiated with fair accuracy between lasting influences, like Gershwin's employment of jazz idioms, and sty lish aberrations like

^ Times, 20 October, 1935.

4 0 Ibid. . 211

Thomson's Four S aints. which, though undoubtedly a b r i l ­ liant creation, did not belong to the mainstream of Ameri­ can culture.

The only new composers whose works were produced with any frequency after World War II were Benjamin Britten and

Gian Carlo Menotti. Neither of them could be described as operatic trail-blazers, but Britten was the more forward- looking of the two, and Downes did not like his operas.

He considered them gimmicky and over-cerebral. He cer­ tainly did not foresee that Britten would be the only composer of the nineteen-forties and -fifties whose work would retain international prominence beyond the period.

As with performers, however, Downes was cautious about completely discounting new composers or operas.

Olin Downes, then, exhibited an unusually complex combination of conservative and liberal elements in his criticism. He was generally conservative in the style of his writing as well as in his attitudes toward music and production techniques; he was liberal, even radical, in his willingness to accept a wide range of musical theatre works into the operatic canon.

The ways that Downes justified his opinions are as important as the reactions themselves. The two excerpts from the 1935 Sunday a rtic le above ’showed a concern on 212

Downes's part for definition and categorization. The long portion of his review concerning Lee Simonson's design for

Wagner's Ring (above, pages 117-118) exhibited a parallel inclination to define at length his criteria for judgment.

One also occasionally encountered maxims (as cited on page

124 above), extremely generalized rules-of-thumb, that

Downes utilized in justifying evaluations.

That critical technique stresses objective standards rather than subjective impressions. The advantage of such an approach was that it had the effect of making Downes's judgments seem less a result of personal whim, and more a product of immutable values. But the approach had a corresponding disadvantage of diminishing the force of immediate impressions gained from specific performances.

Those impressions were invariably filtered through the set of criteria before they reached the printed page. As a result, Downes's articles seem less spontaneous than those of some of his contemporaries. It must be granted, how­ ever, that Downes was extremely successful in maintaining consistency in the application of his standards; that is to say, he did not state contradictory criteria to justify opinions that varied from one review to the next. The other renowned critic of the period, Virgil Thomson, was not so consistent in his application of standards. 213

When the Herald Tribune convinced Virgil Thomson to

head its music staff in 1941, it was hoping to inject

freshness, even sassiness, into local daily criticism.

For a few years, at least, Thomson fulfilled the function

of shaking up the New York musical scene. His criticism,

like his music, strongly reflected an American-rooted

education. His early academic preparation might even be

described as provincial, coming as it did from Kansas

City, Missouri, public schools and from Kansas City Junior

College, where Thomson was a member of the first gradua­

ting class. He did receive a degree in music from Har­ vard, but he was twenty-three years old before he started

studying there, and by that time he had already attained a pragmatic Midwestern outlook that was to remain evident in his daily reviewing over twenty years later. After Har­ vard Thomson joined the tide of American expatriate art­ ists who journeyed to Paris, and for a while he studied with Nadia Boulanger. But his associations remained Amer­ ican. As Kathleen Hoover pointed out in Virgil Thomson:

His Life and Music,

Thomson shared the expatriates’ discontent, but not their disaffection. The human and the esthetic potentialities of America remained as real to him as to Stephen Vincent Benet, Van Wyck Brooks, and the others whose loyalties stayed with their roots. If anything, distance strengthened America's hold on him. . . . home- 214

spun Americana was.to remain the chief substance of his expression.

The most significant of his associations during those years was, of course, with another famous American-in-

Paris, Gertrude Stein. It was in collaboration with her that he produced his most famous work, Four Saints in

Three Acts. Though the work enjoyed an in itia l success with Paris's cognoscenti when they heard Thomson play and sing it for them privately, Four Saints was first heard and seen publicly in America, in a historically important production designed by Florine Stettheimer, and featuring the cast of scantily-clad Black performers that shocked and titillated avant garde intellectuals. Some critics considered it the most important American opera of the nineteen-thirties. Thomson consequently approached his critical work with a self-assurance, even cockiness, that was born of the already considerable success he had at­ tained as a creative artist. If Olin Downes was the dean of American musical critics at that time, Thomson was the enfant terrible. At first he was noted for a willingness to render uncommonly frank denunciations of New York's musical institutions. By the mid-nineteen-forties, how­ ever, his reviews were not so much adventurous as quirky.

^Hoover and Cage, Virgil Thomson, p. 41. 215

There was no question that when he began, there was no one else writing about musical performance who had a deeper practical knowledge of opera, but Thomson's negative eval­ uations sometimes appeared to be nitpicking, even capri­ cious. Thomson's daily reviews were certainly more opin­ ionated than those of his contemporaries; that is to say, he sometimes focused more attention on his own opinions than on subject performances. Reviews would express a position about the way an opera should be presented and then gauge a performance's ability to fulfill his expecta­ tions. Sometimes Thomson became so preoccupied with his own trains of thought that he wandered from the purpose of evaluating a particular performance. He admitted doing as much in a 1947 review of Louise at the Metropolitan:

[Louise] . . . is no tender bourgeoise wrapped up in pink silk shirtwaists all for love. She is a working girl brought up on Socialism, add­ ing thus to the normal revolt of youth a certain political and philosophic education. She would leave home shortly in any case. Her mother knows this only too well and hopes to keep her under guard till an offer of legitimate marriage in her own class turns up. Louise, however, is more interested in emancipation than in working; and when Julien offers her, along with Socialist conversation and the independence of the art­ ist's life, the full doctrine and practice of free love, it is perfectly clear that the family is not going to see much more of her. Even if Julien should not pan out, her decision is made. Home and mother have lost. Here I am telling what the opera "Louise" ought to be like instead of what it was like 216

last night. ^

There is, of course, nothing wrong with approaching eval­ uation with a technique that emphasizes standards; the advantages of the method have already been described in the examination of Olin Downes's style. But Thomson's opinions—though sometimes stated forcefully and at length—cannot be described as 'standards,' because that term connotes a degree of invariability; Thomson's opin­ ions were, on the contrary, volatile.

The inconsistency becomes apparent when one examines

Thomson's reviews over a period of years. Opinions stated with intense finality are found to change drastically from one review to another. The following example serves to illustrate the irregularity of his approach. Thomson frequently advocated the instilling of national qualities into the performance of operas. His own creative works rested on the use of hymn-like and folk-like melodies and harmonies that labeled them indelibly as American. When a

French opera was put before the public, he favored either

French singers, or singers who understood and conveyed the essence of French style:

Vocally the production fPelleas et Melisande1 is none too happy, because nobody in the cast, ex-

^ Herald Tribune, 13 December, 1947. 217

cepting Martial Singher, and some of the time Lawrence Tibbett, sings anything recognizable as the French language, and because it happens that a correct and beautiful articulation of the French language is the chief stage business of that opera.

He held the same to be true for Italian opera:

Salvatore Baccaloni and Virgilio Lazzari did classical clowning as Bartolo and Basilio, and they sang, of course, with their customary com­ mand of the Italian style.

Cesare Sodero and his principal a rtis ts gave the work |~La Bohemel, moreover, a genuinely Italianate reading. It was warm, and it did not drag. . . . Last night the wonderful thing took place that happens a ll too rarely these days. Italian singing actors, working under an Italian conductor before an audience that was pretty largely Mediterranean, gave us real Italian Opera. Not ham Italian opera, but the real thing, the kind in which the play and music come alive because the cast knows what the show is all about and is singing, everyone of them, the same piece.

Less than two years after that endorsement of a warm Ita l­ ianate reading of Lei Boheme. Thomson re-evaluated the same production with a non-Italian cast. The repudiation of his earlier criterion is both complete and confusing:

^ Herald Tribune, 15 February, 1945.

^ Herald Tribune. 15 March, 1945.

^ Herald Tribune. 11 January, 1947. 218

Far smoother than average was last night's "La Boheme," the first of the season, at the Metropolitan Opera House. The absence of Ital­ ian singers from the major roles may be credited in part for the graciousness of the performance, because Puccini's music does seem to bring out the lowest element in the Italian musical nature without .having at all that effect on foreign a rtis ts .

To state so flatly an aversion to hearing Puccini sung by

Italians is, to say the least, bizarre. It appears even

more outre in light of Thomson's long-held practice of

promoting national qualities in performance.

A charitable reading of the last two passages might

seek to ju stify the change in attitu d e as merely an evolu­

tion in critical values.^ That explanation is hardly tenable when one considers the short amount of time that had elapsed between the two reviews. Furthermore, Thomson did not permanently abandon his preference for nationally idiomatic performing. Less than two months later he was praising Chloe Elmo, Giuseppe di Stefano, and Italo Tajo for their "fine Italian singing and stage work" in a

^ Herald Tribune, 17 December, 1948.

^Another daily reviewer of the period asserted that such evolution was inevitable: "The passing of a decade or two brings changes in both views and perspectives, while the ideological battles settle into well-dug trench­ es. Unless a critic is considered a mere reporting auto­ maton, he must undergo experiences that change his outlook and judgment, and he must take risks and at times abandon his defenses." Paul Henry Lang, A_ Critic at the Opera (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1971), p. 9. 219

AO performance of Puccini's Gianni Schicchi. °

Calling such variable opinions "standards" would be a misnomer. It may have been that Thomson was unable to reconcile a desire to apply standards with an urge to react spontaneously to each a r tis tic experience. In any event the resulting judgments often appear capricious.

Thomson would, from time to time, plant c ritic a l bombshells— like his remark about Puccini's music bringing out the worst in Italian singers—without regard for con­ formity or logic. In such instances, he seemed to be trying to live up to a reputation of being the Bad Boy of

American Music. His habit of including gratuitous incon­ sistencies cast doubt on the seriousness of all his asser­ tions. Thomson's music was surely marked by playfulness; perhaps his criticism was also produced with tongue in cheek. In that case, comparative inconsistencies could be attributed to occasional employment of irony or sarcasm.

If Thomson indeed intended to poke fun at aspects of opera or of opera criticism, his technique was simply too obscure or too ambiguous to be successful. For example, a troubling passage appears in a 1945 review of a perform­ ance of Per Rosenkavalier, which featured Lotte Lehmann's last New York performance as the Marschallin: "Experts

^ Herald Tribune, 15 February, 1949, p. 10. te ll me that Miss Lehmann's Marschallin was a 'great performance,' and I believe them."^ Should the statement be taken as incredibly naive criticism or as a purposely facetious remark? The latter course is most likely in the context of the remainder of the review. But at whom was fun being poked? At Lehmann? At "experts”? At Thomson himself? The remainder of the review gives no clue; though Thomson expressed reservations about the opera, those reservations were clearly stated, whereas the sar­ casm leveled at Lehmann's performance is not at all clear.

And what of his admonition to Zinka Milanov: "I wish Miss

Milanov would practice more at horae"?*^ The tone of the remark seems more suited to a harping vocal coach than to a newspaper critic--unless, of course, the chiding was meant in fun. But humor in journalistic opera criticism is usually more pointed, more easily grasped by the public at large. The obscure targets and purposes of Thomson's jokes make interpretation of his remarks very difficult.

From the end of the nineteen-forties onward, Thomson made fewer frivolous pronouncements. Perhaps he had learned to adjust his writing pace in order to cull rash, illogical remarks before press deadlines, or he may have

^ Herald Tribune, 24 February, 1945.

^^See page 103 for complete quotation. 221 assumed a routine in which he no longer felt compelled to stir up excitement by making outrageous comments. In any event, by the time he quit daily reviewing in 1954, his style conformed more nearly to that of other critics.

Upon Virgil Thomson's retirement from daily reviewing responsibilities at the Herald Tribune, the paper appoint­ ed as his successor a man whose background was quite different. Whereas Thomson was a practical man of music,

Paul Henry Lang had the strongest scholarly credentials of any music c ritic of the period.. Born in Hungary, Lang received his early education at Heidelberg and at the

Sorbonne; later he earned a doctorate at Cornell Universi­ ty. In his scholarly writing, Lang showed an ability to encompass both wide-ranging subjects and highly special­ ized topics. His Music in Western Civilization was for many years a standard music history text in American colleges, while his biography of George Frideric Handel was, at the time of its publication, considered the defin­ itive work on that composer.^

The confidence displayed by Lang in assuming the position at the Herald Tribune was, therefore, rooted in

C 1 Gerald Abraham greeted Lang's book very favorably: "The outstanding value, then, of the biographical part of Lang's book lies in its clear, undistorted vision. . .. The c ritic a l part of the book has a p arallel duty to perform—and performs it with even more devastating effi­ ciency.'' Times, 25 September, 1966, Sec. VII, p. 24. 222 intellectual rather than practical expertise. Unlike Olin

Downes, he held very strong, very specific opinions about opera that he had developed since childhood European asso­ ciations with the art form. The fact that his only pub­ lished anthology of music reviews was entitled Critic at the Opera indicates the importance he attached to the operatic portion of his criticism.

Lang displayed impatience with the narrowness of standard operatic repertory. It spanned only one hundred th irty years, from Le, nozze di Figaro to Per Rosenkava- l i e r . Within that compass Romantic and late-Romantic works held sway; operas by four composers—Verdi, Puccini,

Wagner, and Strauss-accounted for about half of all qualifying reviews. Concert repertoire manifested more adventurousness on the part of both management and the concert-going public, a fact that Lang applauded even as he bemoaned the situation in opera:

I did not encounter staged performances of opera e arlier than Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice. . . . As to contemporary opera, I must ruefully admit that while most concert audiences are con­ servative, a circumstance well understood and exploited by those in control of our public musi­ cal life, none are more stubbornly conservative than lovers of opera. The usual lag between aud­ ience acceptance and a developing art is consid­ erably larger in opera than in recital music.

5 9Lang, Critic at the Opera. p. 10. 223

Lang did not campaign against frequent performances of

works by the four major composers mentioned above; he

could display a grudging tolerance for occasional forays

into the then-obscure world of early Verdi, even when he

considered the results to be less than satisfactory.^ He

did, however, campaign against over-production of what in

his opinion were lesser nineteenth-century works.^

Although he professed a willingness—even a propensi­

ty—to change his critical assumptions,^^ he appeared in

practice to be the most doctrinaire daily critic in the survey. One explanation for the apparent rigidity of

Lang's approach may be found in his Preface to C ritic at

the Opera, in which he stated:

Since the Herald Tribune had a most en­ lightened and liberal policy concerning the treatment of the arts, neither I nor my col­ leagues were held to any strict journalistic "code" and could follow our own bent and style. The good old "Trib" recognized that in the c rit­ ic's soul too there is a creative spark. This freedom permitted me to spend more time and space in discussing the works than in reporting on the performance. . . .

•^Herald Tribune, 24 November, 1956, and 25 October, 1960.

^See review excerpts, pages 142 and 146 above.

^See note on page 218 above.

r Lang, Critic at the Opera, pp. 11-12. 224

Lang's assertion that his reviews concentrated on the operatic works themselves is borne out by s ta tis tic a l

evidence. Table 11 indicates that the subjects of score and lib re tto appeared with greater regularity as major

topics in Lang's reviews than in the sample as a whole:

TABLE 11 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF TOPICS E AND F LANG'S REVIEWS VERSUS ALL OPERA REVIEWS

TOPIC______FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE LANG'S REVIEWS OVERALL REVIEWS

E (Score) 43% 25% F (Libretto) 32% 16%

Using daily reviews as a pretext for expounding on textual and musical analysis of already established works inevi­ tably resulted in Lang's reviews seeming less immediate and more academic. Articles by Lang often even appeared to be largely composed before the performance. Take, for example, the complete review of La_ Cenerentola reprinted on page 271. Nothing through line number forty-three of the seventy-five-line review required Lang's seeing the subject performance. Almost sixty percent of his review might, thus, have been composed beforehand. The insertion of a few well-honed comments about the singers and conduc­ tor served to round off the review. 225

The tendency to emphasize personally held opinions, already noted in Virgil Thomson's reviews, was thus even more marked in the reviews of Lang. Unlike Thomson, however, Lang maintained a consistency of approach that warrants calling his opinions 'standards.' It was Lang's frequent practice of devoting half or more of a review to delineate those standards that made him appear academic and doctrinaire.

Howard Taubman, who was chief music c ritic at the

Times during most of Lang's tenure at the Herald Tribune, was far more journalistic in his approach. His reviews— even extremely short ones written early in his career-- were thoughtfully composed, and his opinions were lucidly stated. But a larger portion of Taubman's reviews con­ sisted of specific responses to particulars of perform­ ance. The resulting articles were more impressionistic, recreating the atmosphere and the excitement of a night at the opera for readers. There was, of course, a corre­ sponding loss of reflectiveness in his reviews, but both

Taubman and Downes felt the place for reflective articles was the Sunday edition:

We discussed often the arguments for waiting a day before writing a review, and he [Downes] could see that it would relieve some of the pressure. But in the end he felt that there was 226

no better way than to set down one's reactions in the heat and haste of the moment. No time, perhaps, for the ultimate chiseling of a phrase, but the gain was tremendous. There was time only for honesty and the warm immediacy of the response. There might be occasion in the Sunday article to reflect and expand, but in the review written to a deadline one had to capture the mood and spirit of an event as one still held them fresh in mind. '

Taubman's ability to dash off a thoughtful and well- organized article so quickly no doubt arose from a unique combination of education and background as a newspaperman.

His academic credentials included a bachelor's degree from

Cornell University. When he joined the Times staff in

1930 he had already worked as a general reporter for the

New York Post. A sense of down-to-earth reportage charac­ terized Taubman's reviews. His position as New York's most powerful music critic coincided with a change in the social make-up of opera audiences, for after World War II, opera became less the preserve of the upper class, and more a pastime of the middle class. Certainly the stiffly patrician style of Downes suited the earlier audience, just as Taubman's more straightforward and accessible approach appealed to a new generation that attended opera more for diversion than for social status.

■’^Taubman, Preface to Olin Downes on Music. p. xii. 227

Another asset of Taubman's reviews was the clarity with which they defined the cultural significance of events in the opera world. The article that greeted

CQ Birgit Nilsson's debut performance at the MetJO began in a way that immediately signalled the importance that he attached to the event.

Birgit Nilsson filled the Metropolitan Opera House last night with the glory of the finest Isolde since the unforgettable days of Kirsten Flagstad two decades ago. In her New York debut the Swedish soprano assumed one of the most demanding roles in the repertory and charged it with power and exalta­ tion. With the voice of extraordinary size, suppleness and brilliance, she dominated the stage and the performance. Isolde's fury and Isolde's passion were as consuming as cataclysms of nature. Before the f ir s t act was over a knowing audience at the Met's new production of ''Tristan und Isolde" was aware that a r e at star was flashing in the operatic heavens.9

Little attention was given to establishing criteria of judgment in the passage; instead Taubman was offering his readers a suggestion of the thrill that raced through the

Old Met on what he considered a historic night. Perhaps more important than his skill in reporting that event, however, was Taubman's ability to convince the Times that the story deserved front-page coverage. Harold Schonberg

C Q JOSee also Lang's article, page 99 above.

^9Times, 19 December, 1959. 228 recognized Taubman's editorial prowess this way:

He was a brilliant newspaperman and, I believe, the greatest music editor that any American newspaper has ever produced. He had been around for a long time, was news-oriented, had links everywhere, and was always being tipped off to big stories. In a period when no newspaper was very interested in music stories, Taubman was constantly on page one.

Taubman's introductory and concluding remarks often served to explain the limits within which a performance was being judged, as the following excerpts from a 1959 review of Un ballo in maschera:

If the Metropolitan Opera did not have per­ formers like Mary Curtis-Verria, it would have to invent them. A repertory company involved in a long season in which more than a score of operas are presented must have singers like the Ameri­ can soprano who are prepared to step in and do exacting roles proficiently at short notice.

To be candid, this was the Met's second team for "Un Ballo." Fortunately, it has been assem­ bled from what the sports world would call a strong and deep bench.

By defining so exactly the limits of expectation inherent in the performance of a ’second-string' cast, Taubman was able to render more positive judgments in the body of his review without in the least compromising his critical

^Schonberg, Facing the Music, p. 20.

^ Times, 20 March, 1959. 229

perspective. Defining limits of expectation is, of course, one way of implying critical standards. But note how expeditiously and how imaginitively Taubman set his standards in his introduction and conclusion. The remain­ der of his article concentrated on specific description, rather than on an elaboration of standards that performers either met or failed to meet. His a rtic le consequently assumed a more positive air, encouraging artists by devot­ ing the majority of specific comments to their strengths, rather than dwelling unduly on their weaknesses. Still, the perspective of opening and closing remarks left no doubt that his reaction was less than ecstatic.

The most astonishing aspect of Taubman’s career was, of course, the fact that he became Chief Drama Critic of the Times after more than twenty-five years as an editor and c ritic in its music department. The change was not capricious; Taubman's early journalistic duties had been varied, giving him experience in many fields of reportage.

He had also been familiar with the New York theatre scene since childhood:

In the 1920's, thanks to the Leblang cut-rate ticket agency under Gray's Drug Store on Times Square, I could see two plays for the price of one, and many Saturdays I would s it through a matinee, then an evening performance, at a total cost of $1. . . . Even a disappointing play was 230

preferable to the movies and certainly to no play at all.

Taubman's split career allows a singular opportunity

to test how strongly individual style affects the form and

content of reviews. When Taubman wrote as a music critic,

his articles did not show particularly close conformity to

the norms for occurrence of structural type established by

opera reviews in general:

TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF STRUCTURAL TYPES: TAUBMAN'S OPERA REVIEWS VERSUS OPERA REVIEWS OVERALL

STRUCTURAL TYPE FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE TAUBMAN OPERA OVERALL OPERA

Tripartite 75% 61%

Priority 21% 36%

Variant 2% 3%

As an opera reviewer Taubman was more likely to present his ideas in tripartite form. His strong editorial and

journalistic background enabled him to apportion his writ­ ing more meticulously, so that he nearly always hadroom for concluding remarks when he desired them. Despite that discrepancy, Taubman came a bit closer to approximating

f \ 9 Taubman, The Making of the American Theatre (New York: Coward McCann, 1965), pp. 11-12. 231

the structural norms for operatic reviews than for musical theatre reviews. He resorted to priority structure twen­ ty-one percent of the time, a rate more than two-and-a- half times that for musical theatre reviews overall.

TABLE 13

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF STRUCTURAL TYPES: TAUBMAN'S MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS VERSUS MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS OVERALL

STRUCTURAL TYPE______FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE

TAUBMAN MUS. TH. OVERALL MUS. TH.63

Tripartite 95% 88 %

Priority 4% 8 %

Variant 1% 4%

As Table 13 clearly shows, when Taubman became a reviewer of musical theatre, his reliance on tripartite structure rose to a level that exceeded even the extraordinarily high one common among theatre reviewers in general.

Taubman showed a much closer fid elity to opera reviews in the topics he chose to stress.

f i ^ Structural figures used in the musical theatre column exclude the reviews of Walter Kerr, whose idiosyn­ cratic reliance on variant structures caused an abberation in the sample as a whole. (See pages 70-71.) The remaining sample included over two hundred reviews not written by Taubman or Kerr. 232

TABLE 14

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF MAJOR TOPICS TAUBMAN'S OPERA REVIEWS VERSUS OPERA REVIEWS OVERALL

TOPIC CATEGORY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE TAUBMAN OPERA OVERALL OPERA

Musical Topics 55% 56%

Non-Musical Topics 41% 42%

Miscellaneous Topics 5% 2%

Transient Topics 61% 69%

Permanent Topics 34% 29%

Miscellaneous Topics 5% 2%

Even in his treatment of individual topics, Taubman followed the norms set forth in Table 3 (page 86). The only remarkable deviation was a tendency to stress produc­ tion elements more than was usual among opera critics and a corresponding tendency to stress acting somewhat less.

When Taubman switched from opera to musical theatre criticism, his emphasis of topics made a nearly perfect realignment to the norms set by other theatre critics (see

Table 15 on page 233).

In Howard Taubman's case, then, a clear shift in topical and structural tendencies took place. A tentative 2 3 3

TABLE 15

COMPARISON OF OCCURRENCE OF MAJOR TOPICS: TAUBMAN'S MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS VERSUS MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS OVERALL

TOPIC CATEGORY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE TAUBMAN MUS. TH. OVERALL MUS. TH.

Musical Topics 15% • 19%

Non-Musical Topics 85% 81%

Miscellaneous Topics 0% less than 1%

Transient Topics 66% 66%

Permanent Topics 34% 34%

Miscellaneous Topics 0% less than 1%

conclusion might be drawn that factors extrinsic to a reviewer's own personal approach to criticism largely dictates the form and content of reviews. The conclusion must be judged tentative because Taubman's opera reviews vary somewhat from tendencies seen in opera reviews over­ all, particularly in the matter of structural preference.

Another reason for caution in accepting Taubman's case is that it is unique. It is difficult to imagine any other music critic making the transition with such authority.

Despite the remarkable versatility displayed in Taub­ man's career, one detects a certain weariness in his later 234

musical theatre reviews. Perhaps the grind of thirty-plus years of daily reviewing was finally taking its toll. He certainly showed incredible stamina, reviewing every major musical to open on Broadway between 1960 and 1965. Those reviews exhibit fine, balanced reporting and more than a few sparks of critical wit:

If it weren’t for disturbances on the stage and in the pit, "Subways Are for Sleeping" would be. The new musical, which arrived last night at the St. James Theatre, stumbles as if suffer­ ing from somnambulism. Its book is dull and vapid, and its characters barely breathe. Occa­ sionally it gives off a burst of energy, like a man struggling to stay awake, but the effort is not sustained. Someone must have slipped it barbiturates instead of Benzadrine. . . . Hardly anyone seems to believe in the musi­ cal's main thesis that it’s fun to sleep in a subway or museum or to walk a poodle once a day (well-trained dog, Lancelot) to earn $1.50 for a meal. At the end "Subways Are for Sleeping" reaffirm s its faith in money-making. At least that's worth staying up for.

But sometimes a longing for the disciplined approach of the opera house was apparent. Taubman claimed that his approach to reviewing did not change as he moved from music to drama,

. . . but what I did find was that most performers in opera came to it with a life-

^ T i m e s , 28 December, 1961. 235

time's training while some in the musical thea­ ter seemed to have l i t t l e or no musical exper­ tise.®5

Moreover, he thought that some of the musical plays he was asked to evaluate were simply not worth the trouble:

. . . there were miserable offerings, especially in the theatre, when it would have been a mercy to be relieved of the duty to stay to the end.

Taubman was not an operatic, or even a musical spe­ cialist; his opera reviews strike one as having been written by a cultured observer of the opera scene who rendered judgments with authority and clarity. The same might be said of his theatre reviews; he was no drama­ turge, but his opinions were always well-reasoned and incisively presented.

Harold Schonberg, in many respects, carried on in the

Taubman tradition. Like his predecessor, Schonberg was basically a product of New York education and culture. He received degrees from Brooklyn College and New York Uni­ versity and, also like Taubman, gained wide-ranging jour­ nalistic experience while s till a young man. Unlike Taub­ man, however, Schonberg did have a musical specialty:

^Taubman, Response to Questionnaire.

66Ibid. 236

piano. He had studied throughout his childhood, and

though he claimed that he never became much of a pianist, he was frequently assigned to cover piano recitals, es­ pecially when he started with the Times;

I did know more about the piano and its lit­ erature than the other members of the depart­ ment, and Mr. Taubman was constantly sending me to cover piano recitals. After a while, I think, I was typed by the music world as (a) a frustrated pianist, and (b) a critic who knew only the piano. As a matter of fact, I had spent more time at the Metropolitan Opera—and at the Salmaggi Opera at the Hippodrome too— than I had in the concert halls when I was growing up. But it may be true that I have more of an emotional.affinity to the piano than to the voice. . . .

Although Schonberg produced an occasional article on sub­ jects of personal interest (including chess and travel), one could not imagine his moving like Taubman from the position of music c ritic to drama c ritic . His interests were simply too specialized for that. He even professed to be so ignorant of non-classical music that he was unable to write an obituary for Bing Crosby when asked to do so by a senior editor; he had never heard Crosby sing.88

What kind of opera reviews did the musical specialist

^Schonberg, Facing the Music, p. 22.

68Ibid . , p.15. 237

produce? Schonberg's reviews are more accessible than his background would suggest. The articles do contain more than the normal amount of technical in fo rm atio n ,^ but even the most casual dilettante would have little trouble grasping most of Schonberg's points. One reason for his readability has already been suggested:^ he avoided jar­ gon, even in extended discourses on specific musical mat­ ters. Another factor that undoubtedly contributed to greater clarity was a change in the Times's policy of publishing reviews as soon as possible after the perform­ ance. Harold Schonberg has claimed credit for the change:

It was ray idea, in the early 1960’s, to hold over opera reviews so that the entire work could be heard. In my case, space for the third edition was held, so the review did come out the next morning anyway. Today the reviews are held a day or more.

Avoiding the rush to press seems a sane and prudent course to pursue when doling out doom to the egos of artists and the purses of producers or of producing organizations.

The arguments against such delay (see Taubman's comments on page 225 above) were not, however, frivolous, and over

^For instance, his criticism of Sutherland quoted above on page 107.

^See page 143-144.

^Schonberg, Response to Questionnaire. 238

twenty years after Schonberg’s policy was initiated at the

Times. Taubman still expressed reservations about the practice:

Yes, there are advantages in having a day or two to reflect. There are also losses— especially in spontaneous response, which is what, after all, the ordinary theatergoer exper­ iences .

Schonberg was able to solve the problem by continuing to write his reviews as if to a deadline.

I can only speak for myself in saying that the delay made no difference. I always went direct­ ly from the opera house or concert hall to the typewriter, and s till do, while the sound is hot in my ears. I find that the longer I am a_way from the event, the more tepid the response.

His solution preserved the freshness of immediate eval­ uation, while relieving the pressure that might provoke an injudicious comment or a confusing construction. It also eliminated much of the need for preparing sizable portions of reviews beforehand. In that way, the practice may actually have resulted in an increase in spontaneity.

Another interesting characteristic of Schonberg’s style was his ability to blend descriptions of his impres-

72Taubman, Response to Questionnaire.

7 ^Schonberg, Response to Questionnaire. 239

sions with clear statements of his bases for judgments.

The passage concerning Sutherland's performance in La

Sonnambula (page 143 above) is typical. The critic moved

easily back and forth between statements that explained

the challenges facing the artist and detailed descriptions

of how she met the challenges.

Schonberg was to continue as Senior Music Critic at

the Times for twenty years and was generally considered to

have been the most powerful music critic in America. With

the demise of the Herald Tribune in 1967 the Times became

the only daily newspaper to offer extensive coverage of

opera in New York, so his opinions carried a great deal

more weight than had those of his predecessors. Earlier

c ritic s had written at a time when as many as a half dozen

dailies were being published. A greater diversity of

opinion had thus been offered. Schonberg's influence was

enhanced even more by his being awarded a Pulitzer Prize for his criticism in 1971. Greater caution might well have resulted from increased power; on the contrary, right up to the end of the survey period (and extensive sampling of reviews after 1966) indicated that Schonberg continued to deliver praise and reproof as forthrightly as had

Downes and Taubman.

Special influences that affected opera criticism may 240

be summarized as follows. First, opera reviewers took much greater note of audience responses to performances than did their theatrical counterparts. They emphasized audience reaction in part because opera is by nature a competitive entertainment, in which records of curtain calls are kept as a matter of course. Furthermore, the presence of claques in some opera houses can artificially alter the tempo and mood of a performance, thus warranting comment by critics. The fact that operas are often per­ formed in foreign languages by foreign artists encourages responses that reflect ethnic pride rather than artistic appreciation. In addition, the repertory nature of opera production encourages the development of personality cults, because more attention is focused on the performing artists when a familiar work is presented (particularly in an old production). Critics often feel it to be a respon­ sibility to distinguish between responses to personality and responses to artistry.

Second, social and political concerns appeared to a greater extent in opera reviews than they did in reviews of musical theatre. The reason for greater social concern on the part of music critics is not completely clear. In the case of the campaign for racial equality, the greater degree of integration in New York theatre (compared to 241

opera) might account for the discrepancy.

On the other hand, World War II certainly affected

the performers and audiences of both opera and theatre,

yet only in opera reviews does one find commentary refer­

ring to the war with any regularity. Even when Winged

Victory (a patriotic musical that featured personnel from

the United States Air Force) was produced on Broadway in

1943, the reviewers, though unrealistically favorable, J7 ^

concentrated exclusively on the quality of the perform­

ance; they did not take advantage of the opportunity

either to bolster our fighting boys or to denounce the

fo e.

Of greater importance than the preceding influences

.were the personalities and styles of individual critics

themselves. One way of characterizing the five most im­

portant reviewers of the period is according to how jour­

nalistically they approached their critical tasks. The

term 'journalistic* in this context does not imply simple

reportage of events without inclusion of opinion. Rather,

the term is used to indicate the following qualities in a

review:

7 ^Howard Barnes, for instance, wrote: "Winged Victory is a fine war play, a fine play and a stupendous piece of theater. It gives incomparable distinction to the sea­ son." Herald Tribune, 22 November, 1943. 242

a) an appearance of having been composed, for the

most part, after viewing the theatrical event;

b) a use of easily understood language, and a cor­

responding avoidance of lengthy technical or

historical explanations; and

c) an appeal to widespread readership through the

creation of colorful, attention-getting descrip­

tions of performances.

Howard Taubman exhibited the strongest adherence to those qualities. He possessed a simple, concise writing style that sprang from his education, and from early experiences as a general news reporter. The newspaperman's approach exhibited by Taubman accounts for the success with which he made his transition from the music to the drama desk at the Times. Harold Schonberg was only slightly less jour­ nalistic in style. The major difference was that he tended to place greater emphasis on the technicalities of music and of performance. Olin Downes's major deviation from plain-spoken directness was an elevated (and at times convoluted) prose style that limited the lucidity of his remarks.

Paul Henry Lang and Virgil Thomson were basically 243

non-journalistic in their approaches t.o criticism. Lang

chose an academic method, which reflected extensive prep­

aration, but which also suggested that substantial por­

tions of some reviews were written before seeing the

subject performances. Thomson's reviews were the most erratic of the group. His writing displayed a playfulness

that cast doubt on whether his remarks could be taken at face value. Toward the end of his daily reviewing career, however, Thomson began to conform to a less whimsical and more straightforward style.

Another way of categorizing the major reviewers is by the degree to which they stressed set standards in render­ ing their judgments. Lang was the critic most likely to formulate elaborate criteria for evaluating individual aspects of a production—so much so that he sometimes focused more attention on the criteria than on the evalua­ tions. Lang applied his standards very uniformly, showing little change in outlook on artistic issues of the day.

Virgil Thomson, likewise, stressed criteria strongly in reviews. In the case of Thomson, however, the criteria could shift drastically without apparent justification.

The impression thus created is that of a critic who could not reconcile an inclination to set rigid standards with a contradictory urge to base his criticism on subjective 244 perceptions.

Olin Downes emphasized standards slightly less. At times they wduld appear thoroughly formulated, taking up a substantial segment of an article. At other times they were so succinctly stated that they took on an aphoristic quality. Harold Schonberg displayed an ability for artful blending of thoroughly stated criteria with intense des­ criptions of performances. The resulting articles were rarely abstruse; instead, the descriptions served to il­ lustrate his points in a way that made otherwise dry explanations of technical points more palatable to read­ ers .

Howard Taubman generally avoided extensive presenta­ tion of critical standards. His judgments of operas seemed to be based on pragmatic criteria of appropriate­ ness, ability to generate interest, and originality, but such criteria were not explicitly stated.

Although the individual tra its of contemporaneous theatre critics were not studied so closely as those of opera reviewers, they exhibited, as a group, a high degree of fidelity to the journalistic qualities outlined above.

At the same time, musical theatre reviews rarely contained elaborate explanations of critical standards. The only exception could be found in reviews by Brooks Atkinson toward the end of his career, when he sometimes devoted 245

substantial portions of articles to justifying his opin­ ions, particularly when he was delivering a negative judg­ ment. ^ Those justifications often included detailed analysis of qualities Atkinson thought essential to suc­ cessful musical theatre.

^ S ee discussion of his review of C hristine, pages 86-89 above. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A detailed analysis of over fifteen hundred reviews has confirmed the hypothesis made at the outset of this study: significant differences have existed between daily journalistic criticism of opera and that of commercial musical theatre. The differences have been caused by a number of factors. First, opera has been dominated by the musical aspect of its expression to a greater extent than musical theatre. As a result, musical topics like sing­ ing, conducting, and score have received substantially more attention from opera critics than from drama critics.

Another factor that has contributed to the dominance of musical topics is a common background shared by critics who evaluate opera. The credentials of all of the major c ritic s during the period under investigation included training or experience in music, and a corresponding ab­ sence of formal theatrical training. Even the least edu­ cated of the major music reviewers in the study (Olin

Downes) had studied music as a youngster and had worked as

246 247 a piano accompanist at the outset of his career.^

The strong effect of musical considerations on criti­ cism was anticipated. The extent of the repertory sys­ tem's influence on opera reviews was not so fully expect­ ed. That system of production figured prominently in so many ways that it must be considered the single most important factor in differentiating opera reviews from other theatrical criticism.

Operas have remained in the repertories of major opera houses for decades (in European opera houses, for centuries). Critical attention thus tends to dismiss the constant elements of score and libretto more often than when those elements are novel (as in the case of commer­ cial musical theatre). Because opera critics devote most of their articles to the re-evaluation of operas and operatic productions, their reviews are shorter and con­ centrate on fewer topics than theatre reviews. They also are more likely to follow a priority structure that ar­ ranges topics in order of magnitude, and that eliminates concluding summations. Such summations are often unneces­ sary, because previous reviews of the same production may already have included general attitudes of the critic.

Along with a diminution of score and libretto in

^Downes, Olin Downes on Music. p. viii. 248 opera reviews, the classical repertory system also calls for more complete treatment of transitory aspects of sing­ ing, acting, and conducting. That encouragement stems in part from the fact that operatic repertory is dominated to an even greater extent by star performers than is the production system of the commercial Broadway stage. Clas­ sical repertory is popularly thought of as a situation in which the great works of art that comprise a cultural heritage are lovingly recreated without emphasis on the current artists who perform in them. That preconception is simply not accurate. Nor is the idea that commercial musical theatre is a milieu that exists only to exploit star names, a medium in which scripts are treated as mere adornments to be tailored to the personalities of popular artists. To be sure, Broadway producers can alter entire productions to suit a given star, but the same can be said for operas: The Magic Flute was w ritten for Emanuel

Schikaneder, Norma for Giuditta Pasta, Manon for Marie

Heilbronn—to name just three examples.

Once such personality-oriented art works gain the status of classics in the repertory, opera stars have some latitude in matters of interpretation and presentation, in effect re-forming the work to suit their own strengths and weaknesses. During much of the study period, opera stars routinely furnished their own costumes, their own 249

gestures—in short, their own personas— to a variety of

productions. The adoration of their fans could take up so much time as to lengthen noticeably the duration of per­ formances .

An opera manager who relies on famous operatic titles to f i l l an opera house will not be an opera manager for long. On Broadway, to the contrary, shows regularly out­ live the presence of the stars who opened them. Mj^ Fair

Lady went on for years after Rex Harrison and Julie An­ drews le ft the cast. Some productions have even done respectable business without the presence of stars to draw audiences. During the period under study, revivals of

Oklahoma!, West Side Story, and Brigadoon enjoyed modest successes, though none had a star's name on its marquee.

On Broadway, a t i t l e alone.can sell a show. In a c la ssi­ cal repertory situation, it matters not so much that

Carmen is being presented, as that a particular singer will be performing Carmen.

Toward the end of the the nin eteen -fifties, more emphasis was found to be placed on the work of stage directors as well, but that emphasis did not extend much beyond reviews of new productions. Second or third re- evaluations—even of productions that reflected daring directorial interpretations—reverted to coverage of sing­ 250

ers and conductors. Such re-evaluations, it should be

remembered, made up almost two-thirds of qualifying opera

reviews; shorter, non-qualifying reviews were still more

likely to deal with old productions. The absence of a need to evaluate all aspects of a production in a single article may help to explain why social and political concerns appear more frequently in opera reviews; musical theatre critics must cover so many aspects of production that there is seldom time to treat tangential topics like the political ramifications of a production or script.

The influence of the classical repertory system also extends to the favorability of reviews in opera, ensuring more positive reactions by critics in two ways. First, a large portion of any opera season is devoted to repertory classics: works that by definition have found favor with critics for decades. With few exceptions (e.g., those works that fall out of critical favor yet still retain public appeal), repertory pieces inevitably garner more favorable critical comments, on average, in two of the six topic categories (score and libretto). A season of Broad­ way musicals has no similar assurance of critical approba­ tion for its offerings; indeed, either the score or the libretto or both are likely to fail to meet with complete critical approval.

The second way that a repertory system produces more 251

favorable comment is by offering the opportunity of

limiting or eliminating production elements that are un­

successful through astute management, or, failing that,

through trial and error. If critics unanimously scorned the performance of a singer in a certain role, their antipathy was likely to provoke a change in casting by the opera management (a simpler matter in the days before contracts were negotiated years in advance). In some instances an entire production was scrapped when critics found it inappropriate (e.g., the Met's 1953 production of

Le nozze di Figaro). On the other hand, when a production is successful, the management has the option of keeping it in the repertory for decades until the critics demand a less threadbare background (e.g., Joseph Urban's Parsifal. used at the Met from 1920-1955). A clever general manager can consequently assemble operas, productions, singers, and conductors to meet with critical approval in a way that is not available to a Broadway producer.

TABLE 16

FAVORABILITY OF OPERA AND MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEWS

EVALUATION PERCENTAGE OF REVIEWS OPERA MUSICAL THEATRE

Favorable 66% 39% Mixed 22% 16% Unfavorable 13% 45% 252

As a result, opera reviews were generally more favor­

able than reviews of commercial musical theatre. (See

Table 12 above.)

The only type of Broadway production that elicited

reviews as favorable as operas were Gilbert and Sullivan

operettas. Although the relatively small number of quali­

fying theatrical reviews devoted to Gilbert and Sullivan

(thirty-two) renders statistical analyses less than con­

clusive, the overwhelming reversal of critical favorabili­

ty is persuasive:

TABLE 17

FAVORABILITY OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN REVIEWS

EVALUATION % OF G & S REVIEWS

Favorable 72%

Mixed 16%

Unfavorable 12%

The scarcity of Gilbert and Sullivan reviews may preclude extended statistical analysis, but careful read­ ing of the thirty-two qualifying reviews leaves one with the distinct impression that theatre critics responded to the Savoyard operettas with articles that resembled opera reviews in other respects as well. They concentrated on fewer subjects, tended more toward priority structure, and 253

emphasized musical topics more than was the case with

standard commercial musicals. They even devoted more at­

tention to transient aspects of performance than was cus­

tomary in other musical theatre reviews.

What accounts for the fact that Gilbert and Sullivan

reviews by drama critics resemble opera reviews rather

than other musical theatre criticism? Deviations from the

latter cannot be attributed primarily to significant dis­

crepancies between the forms of operetta and Broadway

musical. Both forms often contain similar proportions of

music and dialogue. The creators of American musicals may

have devoted more attention to the integration of those

elements, and they certainly took greater pains to make

dance flow more logically out of other actions. But as

the "book" musicals of the nineteen-forties and -fifties

have taken on the patina of period pieces, they have also

begun to resemble operettas: tuneful, old-fashioned music­ al plays whose locales—whether turn-of-the-century Maine,

fairy-tale Scotland, or nineteenth-century Siam—offered

composers and librettists opportunities of producing works

that were exotically unrelated to Tin Pan Alley. More­ over, even the works that were occasionally produced under

the name of "operetta"—European-style pieces like Lehar's

Das Land des Laechelns, Strauss's Wiener B lut, and Her­ 254 bert's Chocolate Soldier—failed to elicit responses from theatre critics that differed substantially from reviews of other Broadway fare.

A factor other than the operetta nature of Gilbert and Sullivan works must have been responsible for their garnering reviews that resembled those of opera. The most likely cause is the classical repertory character of Gil­ bert and Sullivan presentations during the period. The

Savoyard operettas were the only established classics in

Broadway musical literature; critics took for granted the quality of score and libretto. The other operettas listed above did not enjoy the same kind c ritic a l acclaim or familiarity. Gilbert and Sullivan works appeared regular­ ly on Broadway throughout the period. They were thus similar to works in opera repertory, insofar as they received re-evaluations from critics several times during the period. Furthermore, the majority of qualifying re­ views of Gilbert and Sullivan were also evaluating the works in repertory circumstances (primarily in productions by the D'Oyly Carte and S. M. Chartock companies). The repertory factors that provoked more favorable responses in opera reviews (see pages 250-251) were, therefore, also influential in the case of Gilbert and Sullivan.

A very limited number of performances during the period were reviewed by a combination of music and drama 255 critics. The resulting body of reviews was unfit for statistical analysis for two reasons. In the first place, the total number of reviews (approximately twenty) was too small for the drawing of general conclusions. Secondly, some of the performances were covered by two reviewers from a single newspaper; the results were companion a rti­ cles that concentrated on the specialty of each critic.

The inclusion of such ’specialty' assessments with general reviews was not appropriate, since the former consciously avoided treating every aspect of an entertainment.

When the Times assigned a single music critic and the

Herald Tribune a single drama critic to cover a perform­ ance, or vice versa, the resulting articles substantiate the influence of production milieu on reviews. When the subject performance was of a classical repertory nature

(e.g., a D'Oyly Carte performance of Iolanthe^), the re­ sulting assessments resembled opera reviews; when the subject performance was of a new work, produced indepen­ dently of a repertory season (e.g., Britten's The Rape of

Lucretia, directed by Agnes de Mille at Broadway's Zieg-

O feld Theatre ), the resulting assessments resembled mu­ sical theatre reviews.

^Herald Tribune and Times, 13 January, 1948.

^Herald Tribune and Times, 30 December, 1948. 256

In short, then, the nature of the entertainment, the

background of the evaluator, and, most importantly of all,

the production environment were the three factors that

accounted for most of the differences between opera and

musical theatre reviews. One other minor influence should

also be cited: opera was generally held in higher esteem

than popular musicals by c ritic s in the survey. The

attitude was stated obviously, even bluntly, by some c rit­

ics. Cesare Siepi's return to the Metropolitan, after appearing in an unsuccessful musical entitled Bravo Gio­

vanni , was greeted the following way by Paul Henry Lang:

To Cesare Siepi all we can say is "Bravo Giovanni" and welcome- back from the musical slums to the place where you really belong.

In addition, Lang used the word "Broadway" as a pejorative

term in other reviews. For instance, when he took issue

with Cyril Ritchard's direction of Le nozze di Figaro at

the Met, he accused him of treating the opera like a

"Broadway f a r c e . V i r g i l Thomson faulted Ljuba Welitch's

Musetta for its "preoccupation with show business on its lowest level.The New York City Opera's inclusion of

^Herald Tribune, 2 November, 1962.

'Herald Tribune, 31 October, 1959.

'Herald Tribune, 31 January, 1952. 257

The Cradle Will Rock in a season devoted to American opera

prompted Howard Taubman to include an elab o rate

justification in his review; he finally came down on the

side of the management:

If the New York City Opera were narrow­ minded about its jurisdiction, it would not bother with "The Cradle Will Rock." But it takes a liberal view of its responsibilities to American opera and it properly has included this free-wheeling creative work.

Understandably, in view of his eventual switch to drama

reviewing, Taubman was the opera reviewer who displayed

the most tolerance of Broadway's increasing influence on

opera. When the Metropolitan mounted a glossy revival of

Offenbach's La^ Perichole, he even expressed delight:

Move over, Broadway, and make room for the Metropolitan. With its new production of Offenbach's "La Perichole," which opened last night, the old opera house traveled uptown into the gay, tinseled land of show business.

The Met may not know all the ways of show business, but it is trying hard to learn. Broadway beware.

Paul Henry Lang was predictably less enchanted with so

light-hearted an enterprise. Although he grudgingly granted that the Metropolitan probably should include it

^Times, 12 February, 1960.

^Times, 22, December, 1956. 258 in the repertory, he took advantage of the opportunity to deliver another slap at commercial musical productions:

Offenbach's "La Perichole" is not quite in keep­ ing with the liturgy used at the Met. . . . At least, when such a work is presented here, the operatic elements do not have to be camouflaged, as on Broadway, and the vocal and orchestral forces are of a high order.

Curiously, theatre critics seemed to share the a tti­ tude that opera was on a higher artistic plane than com­ mercial musicals. While music critics used "Broadway" as a derogatory term, drama critics used "opera" as a compli­ mentary terra. When Kurt Weill and Langston Hughes turned

Street Scene into a musical, Howard Barnes expressed his ecstasy by calling it "a modern opera which is not to be dismissed lightly."■*■*■* Walter Kerr greeted The Most Happy

Fella by using "opera" in a similarly complimentary way:

Mr. Loesser loves the rich, rolling, exhil­ arating cadences that can spill out into an auditorium whenever a musical show approaches the freedom and the melodic fury of opera, or at least operetta.

Kerr thought Cesare Siepi's talents "absurdly wasted" on

Broadway when the opera singer starred in Bravo Giovanni.

^Herald Tribune, 22 December, 1956.

•^Herald Tribune, 10 January, 1947.

^ Herald Tribune, 4 May, 1956. 259

The element that Taubman enjoyed most about that show was its one operatic element, the voice of Siepi:

If you admire a first-rate voice, you'll take pleasure in "Bravo Giovanni." Cesare Siepi has brought the richest and best cultivated vocal instrument to Broadway since Ezio Pinza made the transition from the Metropolitan Opera to "South Pacific." Still a member of the Metropolitan in good standing, Mr. Siepi comes close to giving light­ weight tunes an illusion of quality. Although he is a distinguished singer of the great Mozart and Verdi roles, he does not patronize musical comedy.

Ezio Pinza and Helen Traubel were greeted by the c ritic s as great personages whose decisions to grace the Broadway stage were boons to commercial theatre.

Drama critics' admiration of opera was not unanimous, to be sure. Brooks Atkinson found many aspects of opera too formal^ and even Howard Barnes preferred his Bizet adorned with Broadway appurtenances:

What matters is that "Carmen Jones" is not "Car­ men," but what "Carmen" might have been had it achieved a more perfect balance of theater, spectacle, song and dancing in the first place.

Despite these exceptions, however, drama critics generally

^ Times, 21 May, 1963.

References to such formality appear in the Times on 28 October, 1952, 28 December, 1954, and 1 December, 1955.

•^Herald Tribune, 3 December, 1943. 260

viewed opera as having elements that the commercial the­

atre might well emulate. On the other hand, Broadway

represented a slickness and ballyhoo that (save for Taub­

man) music c ritic s thought best avoided in the opera

house.

The difference in c ritic s ' attitudes toward the art forms that they evaluated resulted in a corresponding difference in tone. The musical theatre reviews tended to

be more informal, resorting to humor more frequently, and technical explanation less often. As noted in Chapter 2, the informality also allowed an imaginative writer like

Kerr to present his ideas in a freer form, with more extended metaphors, and without conformity to regularized structure.

Herbert Lindberger, in his examination of opera's place in culture and society entitled Opera: The Extrava­ gant Art, argued that the nature of opera presentation in the twentieth century emphasizes classics from the past, which are less immediately accessible—even to devotees— than are the works of other elite art forms.

Opera . . . occupies a unique position in our culture: a form of high art distinctly more lofty in its modes of expression than the other forms that attract serious attention; a form whose adherents . . . [are] often willing to grant it an uncommon degree of commitment. . . . It is no wonder that they constantly demand mediation in the form of guidebooks, program and 261

record-album notes, and introductory lectures.

Though Lindberger does not refer directly to daily review­ ers, his assessment of opera's need for mediation helps to explain the difference in tone and content that exists between opera reviews and musical theatre reviews. In a way, opera c ritic s mediate between the art form and the audience, providing glossaries and background information to their readers. In an extreme case, like that of Paul

Henry Lang, an opera c ritic 's a rtic le s may be so devoted to interpretation that they end up resembling record-album notes more than they do other theatrical criticism. By extension, commercial musical theatre does not offer the same impediments to facile comprehension by its audience; little need for interpretation by musical theatre critics therefore exists. Their reviews may concentrate on straightforward evaluation and on pure description for the sake of diverting rather than instructing the reader.

Extensive reading of opera and theatre reviews that appeared in the Times after 1966 have indicated that the patterns of structural form, topical occurrence, critical attitu d es, and tone of expression did not change much in the two decades following the period studied. The great-

^Herbert Lindberger, Opera; The Extravagant Art (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 16. 262 est single development was a noticeable increase in the finesse and polish of reviews. Schonberg (and his suc­ cessor, Donal Henahan) benefitted from the change in poli­ cy that allowed reviewers to take as much time as they needed to complete an article—either by publishing it in a later edition on the same day, or by delaying publica­ tion for a day or two. The loss in immediacy feared by

Taubman came not so much from critics' mulling over their evaluations as from the simple fact that two or three days' delay diminished the news aspect of the review in the mind of the reader. As noted by Schonberg,^ they had the option of writing their reviews immediately after the performance anyway, with the sole difference of not having to rush the composition.

An informal survey of reviews between 1920 and 1943 allows a preliminary assertion that the patterns found in the survey were established at least two decades earlier.

The main differences noted in earlier samplings were a large number of reviews (even long reviews) that were unsigned, and an even greater number of very short, no­ tice-like reviews. Sometimes only a single opinion would be expressed in the short articles, which often did not exceed twenty lines of print, and which were obviously

^See page 238 above. 263

being used as fille r s . The same kind of artic le was

somewhat less prevalent in the nineteen-forties, and by

the end of the study period they had ceased to exist.

The limitations of this study did not allow a number of related inquiries that nonetheless might prove of scholarly value. A comparison of opera reviews to evalua­ tions of other musical forms would yield still more in­ sights into the peculiar juxtaposition of theatrical and musical elements in opera criticism. How, for instance, do reviews of concert-style opera performances differ from those of staged works? Do music critics use essentially the same criteria for judging singing and acting in a solo recital as they do in a fully mounted operatic production?

Does criticism become more formal when its subjects are purely musical events like concerts and instrumental reci­ tals, instead of hybrid musicodramatic forms? In addi­ tion, a study comparing daily reviews with criticism in weekly and monthly magazines might also yield significant findings.

This study's conclusion that the repertory production system of opera has exerted a strong influence on the form and content of reviews could be further substantiated by comparing many reviews of repertory productions with those of the stagione system prevalent in parts of Europe and in 264

American cities outside New York.

Finally, the methods of Form Criticism, which proved to be useful in examining opera reviews, may have applica­ bility to other dramatic investigations. Authors of com­ parative textual studies in particular would find adoption of such techniques to be advantageous. APPENDIX A

THE METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA ON OPERA REVIEWS

To ensure that all qualifying reviews would be in­ cluded in the study, a survey of all citations under the heading "Opera: Reviews and Notes" in The New York Times

Index was performed. That source aided in eliminating many articles out of hand, without even the necessity of physically checking the citation in the Times itself. For instance, a listing in the index might include information that indicated an article had concerned an upcoming pro­ duction: "M. Berger on preparations for performance; illus."^ Such an article was obviously concerned with upcoming repertoire. The majority of citations, however, gave no indication of the type or length of articles.

A few citations were followed by the designation

"(rev)," which indicated a review of major importance.

Many articles meeting the qualifications set forth in

Chapter 1, however, were not represented by that designa­ tion in The New York Times Index; the elimination of

^The New York Times Index for the Published News of 1959, s.v. "Opera: Reviews and NotesT *1

265 266 articles solely on the basis of the absence of "(rev)" in the citation was impossible. Therefore, all qualifying citations that were either unmarked or ambiguously marked in the index were physically checked in the Times itself.

The source used for examining the Times was the University

Microfilm Edition.

If a cited a rtic le proved to be a notice, it was not necessarily read thoroughly. A headline like "SULLIVAN

WILL SING ROLE IN ’PARSIFAL'" 2 appearing above a brief item would eliminate that article from further considera­ tion even without reading; it clearly dealt with an upcom­ ing performance and was probably based on a press release from the Metropolitan Opera's public relations staff.

After the pertinent data had been gathered from re­ views appearing in the Times, a chart was made of all citations that conformed to the criteria listed on pages

24-25. A search of the Herald Tribune for corresponding reviews was then conducted. In most instances, reviews were found on the very same date as noted for the Times.

Some performances received such brief coverage that they could be eliminated at once. In other cases, no corres­ ponding review could be found. The Times always printed its reviews on the first day following the performance;

2Times, March 18, 1957. 267 the Herald Tribune would sometimes delay publication by one day, especially in the case of Saturday performances, whose reviews appeared in the Monday edition. Therefore, in cases where no corresponding citation could be found in

The Tribune, the search continued to the next day's edi­ tion. If no review were found within two days of the

Times citation, the performance was considered as unre­ viewed by the Herald Tribune.

For each performance that received qualifying reviews from both newspapers, the information appearing in Tables

18 and 19 (pages 280-305) was recorded in eight columns.

The columns devoted to the citation, critic identifica­ tion, producing company and production class can be. thor­ oughly understood by referring to the key that appears on pages 278-289. The remaining four columns require some further explanation.

The column that lis ts the t i t l e of the opera has been somewhat abbreviated. In most cases the opera is listed by its native-language title. The only exceptions are

Eastern European operas, which, for typographical reasons, are listed by a title in English translation. Slight abbreviations have also been used where necessary; for example, Die Entfuehrung aus dem Serail becomes simply

Entfuehrung.

The major topics of the review were usually easy to 268

discern on a single reading. No more than three major topics were listed. Seven topic categories were consid­ ered :

a) orchestra, which includes all references to the

non-vocal musical performance, i.e., the conduc­

tor and quality of his performance, as well as

any references to the quality of the orchestral

playing or to the ensemble between stage and

pit;

b) singing, which encompasses comments on the sing­

er's voice, technique, musicianship, and singing

diction;

c) acting, which refers to any treatment of the

non-musical aspects of performance, including

"temperament," physical aptness to the role

(exclusive of make-up or costume considera­

tions), and execution of dances;

d) production aspects, including descriptions and

evaluations of staging, choreography, scenic de­

sign and execution, and the facilities and

acoustics of the theatre in which the perform­

ance took place; 269

e) the musical score, extending to comments on the

composer, musical cuts and orchestrations;

f) the lib retto , as well as references to the au­

thor or authors, to any translation used or to

cuts in any non-musical portion of the perform­

ance;

g) miscellaneous comments, including introductory

remarks, general comments on the quality of the

performance that mention no specific aspects,

and reports on the audience, its behavior and

reactions — considered a major topic only when

such comments were extensive enough to lend the

quality of a notice to the review (usually 25%

or more of the text).

It was discovered after a preliminary examination of three years of opera reviews that the brief format of daily newspaper reviews did not generally treat more than three topics in detail. In the few cases where the choice of the third topic was doubtful, an actual line count was performed to determine which topic received more attention from the c ritic . If that method did not produce an ob­ vious hierarchy, a judgment was made based on the position and forcefulness of the critic's comments. As an example, 270 comments concerning Category B (singing) often substan­ tially consisted of a listing of the cast toward the end of a review:

James Pease sings Hans Sachs with a sense of style and with a suggestion of reserve. Ru­ dolf Petrak, doing his f i r s t Walther with the company, strained a little, but his singing had a lyrical feeling. Frances Yeend is a sensitive Eva; David Lloyd sings David with freshness; Margery Mayer is pleasant as Magdalene; Oscar Nataska is a dignified Pogner; Emile Renan real­ ly sings, and does not overplay, Beckmesser; Lawrence Winters brings a touch of poetry to the night watchman, suid the other mastersingers fit into the picture.

Despite a few comments that refer to acting and interpre­ tation, this segment is mostly concerned with vocal per­ formance. Yet the passage also serves as a catalogue of the cast—a common occurrence whenever a review was not headed by a tabulation. A passage of similar length that described and evaluated in detail a conductor's interpre­ tation of a score would receive greater consideration as a major topic. The necessity of resorting to such fine distinctions happened rarely; most opera reviews clearly exhibited one, two, or three dominant topics.

In order to describe fully the method used to cate­ gorize topics, a sample review is printed below in a way that illustrates how major topics were determined.

3Times. March 15, 1951. OPERA PAUL HENRY LANG "La Cenerentola"

1[ When I was a young man, fe e lin g my way in the 2[ labyrinth of music, I was told that Italian opera 3[ is for those who want easy entertainment without 4[ any real emotion, music composed with the most 5[ rudimentary knowledge of counterpoint and orchest­ 6 [ ration. For profundity as well as masterly writ­ 7[ ing you take German opera. This sage guidance 8[ used to be doled out not only by Germans, but also 9[ by grave Mus. Docs from Oxford and Cambridge. 10[ I was particularly reminded of the silliness 11[ of this dictum last night at the handsome perform­ 12[ ance of Rossini's "Cenerentola" by the City Center 13 [ Opera.

14[ Here we were, listening to a true-blue 15[ Italian opera buffa composed well over a hundred 16[ years before "The Silent Woman" a modern buffa by 17[ Strauss heard for th e first time here only two 18[ weeks ago at the same theater. The Strauss opera 19[ was a good one, entertaining and enjoyable, lack­ 20 [ ing neither in counterpoint nor in brilliant orch­ 21[ estration, neatly framed and glazed. But it was 22 [ far outdistanced by the "frivolous" Italian's old 23 [ score slapped together in a few weeks. 24 [ Here music appears as in a negligee, but what 25 [ delectable shapes and lines show through it at 26 [ every turn, for indeed, this music is alive, glor­ 27 [ iously alive,

28 [ and neither the silly story

29[ nor the 30 [ apparent absence of learning can stop it from 31 [ sparkling and from imparting irresistible gaiety. 32 [ But is this "learning" really absent? Rossini 33 [ does not use counterpoint because he does not need 34 [ it. All he needs is a situation that permits the 35 [ assembling of a handful of singers in an ensemble, 36 [ and the sparks fly. And surely such a phenomenal 37 [ knowledge of the lyric stage represents skill and 38[ artifice of the highest order.

39[ The performance was a revival of the original 272

40[ production heard here four years ago. It had the 41 [ same imaginative scenery and costumes by Rouben 42[ Ter-Arutunian, and Michael Pollock’s staging was 43[ brisk and lively as it should be in a buffa. 44[ There are signs, however, which indicate that this 45 [ liveliness is about to get out of hand. "Ceneren- 46[ tola" can take a lot of hamming, but it should not 47[ be overdone. It is really not necessary with such 48[ an able cast of singing actors.

49[ Frances Bible sang the difficult mezzo color- 50[ atura part of Angelina with security and tender- 51 [ ness—there is tenderness in this capital comedy. 52[ Her two sisters, Regina Safarty and Jacquelynne 53[ Moody, were just as amusing as they were accorap- 54[ lished in the ensembles.

55[ Ralph Herbert, 56[ the crusty and most entertaining Don Magnifico; 57[ John Reardon, the crafty servant,

58[ and the stout 59[ voiced Arthur Newman as Alindoro [sic], were, all 60[ of them, in great good form and delighted us when 61 [ they joined the ladies in the fast ensembles with 62[ their rapid-fire delivery. Giuseppi Baratti, 63[ debutant Italian tenor (Ramiro), sings nicely and 64[ intelligently, but his voice is very small and he 65[ has few reserves.

66 [ Throughout the performance one felt the sure 67[ hand of the conductor Arturo Basile. He knows how 68 [ to keep a just balance between stage and pit and 69[ the style is in his bones. The cooperation he 70[ received from the orchestra—a thin orchestra— 71[ could have been a little better.

72 [ This is a very enjoyable offering and highly 73[ recommended to the public. I am sorry th a t I 74[ cannot report on the last scene which, if memory 75[ servea well, is the crowning portion of the opera.

Even a cursory reading of this review yields a clear

^Herald Tribune, October 20, 1958. 273 impression that the reviewer treats three major topics: the score, the singing, and the performance of the orches­ tra (Topics E, B, and A, respectively). Separating the review by lines, as done above, allows an analysis of how the general impression is specifically created.

Lines 1 -1 3 and 72-75 should be classed as Topic X

(miscellaneous comments) under the c rite ria listed on page 269. The remarks at the beginning are introductory in nature, and address no specific aspect of the perform­ ance or the opera under consideration. The closing com­ ments summarize the author's attitude and present a quali­ fication to his ability to judge the performance. (He did not see the end of the opera).

Lines 14-38 are devoted to the score and the composer

(Topic E), with the exception of a five-word reference to the libretto on line 28.

Production aspects (Topic D) are the concern of the next paragraph (lines 39-48). The last two sentences of that section deal with the cast's getting out of hand and resorting to hamming; such a subject might reasonably be classed as acting commentary. The context, however, plainly indicates that the reviewer considers the stage director to be responsible for the over-exuberance of the cast.

Lines 49-65 are primarily taken up with evaluating 274

the singing (Topic B). There is a two-line interruption

(5 5 -5 7 ) that specifically cites the acting of two members of the cast. The lines immediately preceeding (5 2 -5 4 ) are somewhat ambiguous; they have been classed with the other vocal comments because:

1) The reviewer’s judgment that the singers were

amusing probably refers to their execution of

the music—the sisters' music is certainly amus­

ing in its sound.

2) The reviewer states that they were "accomplished

in the ensembles." The use of the plural, "en­

sembles," makes it certain that he is referring

to the execution of the tricky vocal ensembles,

and not to their ensemble acting.

Finally, lines 66 -7 1 deal with matters classifiable as Topic A (orchestral). It might be argued that the simple forty-eight-word segment does not deserve inclusion among major topics, particularly when another topic (mis­ cellaneous comments) takes up so much more space in the review without being included. Frankly, the scope of the reviewer's discussion of conductor and orchestra barely qualifies the paragraph to be considered as a major topic; still, he expresses well-developed judgments on three 275

orchestral matters, and one of those--the quality of the

instrumental playing--is one of only two reservations

expressed about the performance. Moreover, miscellaneous comments were judged to be a major topic only when they

became so prominent as to make a review resemble a notice

(an example of such an a rtic le appears on page 17). The miscellaneous comments in the Cenerentola review provide a critical background for Lang's specific judgments, and in no way obscure the fact that the article is critically evaluative rather than journalistically descriptive.

Lang's review was not chosen randomly, but as an example; its arrangement and content represents a median number of d iffic u ltie s in classifying comments. Many reviews were easier to. classify, because they dealt with only one or two topics. On the other hand, some articles did not present topics so neatly or obviously. Sometimes problems arose in categorizing topics because single sen­ tences contained references to two or even three topics, comparing and contrasting those topics in a complicated manner: "H er achievement was a combination of action and song, so blended that you could not separate a phrase of music here from a gesture there.How can Howard Taub- man's description of Licia Albanese be neatly categorized?

^Times. 1 January, 1949. 276

Does it concern acting or singing? The problem was avoid­ ed by treating the entire review as the context in which the major topics appeared. By approaching the task of identifying topics in this way, the labeling of each and every statement became unnecessary. A sentence like Taub- raan's was considered in the context of the review as a whole. If sufficient other material concerning acting were included, then Topic C would be cited as a major topic. Even if Taubman had continued his complicated mixture of acting/singing comments for the majority of the review, no problem would arise; indeed the listing of major topics would become simpler, since in that c a s e both

Topics B and C would be cited.

Characterizing reviews as favorable, mixed, or unfav­ orable was performed according to the following guide­ lines :

1) A review was considered favorable

a) if the majority of evaluative comments

were favorable, or

b) if there were a substantial minority

of favorable comments ending with a

positive overall evaluation. 277

2) A review was considered mixed if the positive

and negative comments were fairly equal and the

critic expressed mixed feelings in his summa­

tion.

3) A review was considered unfavorable

a) if the majority of evaluative comments

were unfavorable, or

b) if there were a substantial minority

of unfavorable comments ending with a

negative overall evaluation.

Finally, each review was examined for structural characteristics described in Chapter II and designated as having either a tripartite or a priority structure. If a review fit neither category, it was labeled as variant. 278

KEY TO READING TABLES 1 8 AND 1 9

COLUMN I - CITATION

The CITATION column describes the location of each opera review as follows: month/date/year:page number. Citations refer to Section

One of the cited newspaper unless otherwise noted.

COLUMN I I - CRIT

CRIT stands for the critic who wrote the review:

TABLE 18 TABLE 19 THE TIMES THE HERALD TRIBUNE JB s s John Briggs AB = Arthur V. Berger ED = Edward Downes JB Jerome D. Bohm OD = O lin Downes WB = William Bender RE = Raymond Ericson RE = Ronald Eyer AH as A llen Hughes JG = John Gruen HK s Howard Klein JH = Jay S. Harrison RP = Ross Parmenter AH =s A llen Hughes AR = Alan Rich PL as Paul Henry Lang ES = Eric Salzraan FP = Francis D. Perkins HS = Harold C. Schonberg AR =3 Alan Rich NS =3 Noel Straus JR =3 Judith Robison TS = Theodore Strongin ES = Eric Salzraan HT = H. Howard Taubman LS 3= Louis Snyder UN = Anonymous VT as V irg il Thomson

COLUMN I I I - OPERA

The title of the opera that is the subject o f th e review is listed in the OPERA column.

COLUMN IV - COMPANY

The performance's producing organization:

MET = Metropolitan Opera IND = Independent Producer NYC = New York City Opera MNC = Metropolitan Opera N ational Company 279

COLUMN V - PROD CLASS

PROD CLASS is an abbreviation for Production C lassifications.

Each performances was classified as one of the following:

1 = World Premiere 2 = Local Premiere of a Previously Produced Work , 3 = New Production of an Older Work 4 = Old Production Re-evaluated

COLUMN VI - MAJ TOPIC

The major topics of the review are listed in the MAJ TOPIC col­

umn. No more than three topics are listed. Seven possible topics

were considered:

A = Non-vocal musical performance E = Score Including comments on conducting, orch F = Libretto estral playing, and musical ensemble X = Misc. Comments B = Vocal musical performance C=Non-musicalperformance D = Production elements Including comments on d ire c tin g , scene design, and the theatre facilities.

COLUMN VII - EVALUATION

The EVALUATION column reports the favorability of the reviewer's

attitude toward the topics of the review.

+ = Favorable o = Mixed - = Unfavorable

COLUMN V III - STRUCTURE

One of three structural types is listed for each review in the

STRUCTURE column (see Chapter II):

T = Tripartite P = Priority V = Variant 280

TABLE 18

OPERA REVIEW DATA - THE NEW YORK TIMES6

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

11/23/43:18 0D BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BCX _ V 11/25/43:40 0D TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 AB + T 11/29/43:70 0D FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 AB + T 12/5/43:63 OD MIGNON MET 4 ABX 0 V 12/20/43:43 NS TANNHAEUSER MET 4 ABC + P 12/30/43:12 OD NORMA MET 4 ABE + T

1/9/44:45 NS FAUST MET 4 BCX o p 1/15/44:11 OD FALSTAFF MET 4 CEF + T 1/27/44:14 OD PELLEAS MET 4 AB + T 2/4/44:12 OD TOSCA MET 4 BCE + T 2/5/44:13 OD AIDA MET 4 BE + T 2/9/44:15 OD DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 ABD + T 2/16/44:15 OD DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABD + T 2/22/44:26 OD TOSCA NYC 3 ABD + T 2/26/44:22 OD IL TROVATORE MET 4 BD + T 11/10/44:24 NS MANON LESCAUT NYC 3 BEF + P 11/28/44:27 OD FAUST MET 4 BCD o T 12/2/44:27 MS AIDA MET 4 BD o T 12/3/44:56 OD DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABD o V 12/8/44:27 NS CARMEN MET 4 ABC o T 12/15/44:25 NS DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC 0 P 12/16/44:19 NS NORMA MET 4 B + P 12/28/44:24 NS FIGARO MET 4 AB 0 P 12/29/44:11 NS IL BARBIERE MET 4 AB + P

1/5/45:12 OD PELLEAS MET 4 ABE + T 1/6/45:16 OD ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4_ ABF + T 1/13/45:15 OD MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABC + T 1/26/45:17 NS LA GIOCONDA MET . 4 BC 0 P 2/3/45:16 OD DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 ABD + T 2/4/45:36 NS TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BC + P 2/15/45:25 NS PELLEAS MET 4 BC — P

6A key to the number and letter codes used in the chart can be found on pages 278-279.

^The performance is rated as an old production, although new scenery was lent by the Chicago Opera for the last scene. 281

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

2/24/45:16 OD ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BC 0 T 3/15/45:27 NS IL BARBIERE MET 4 B - P 3/29/45:18 NS PARSIFAL MET 4 AB + T 4/13/45:15 NS FL. HOLLAENDER NYC 4 ABD + P 4/19/45:23 NS FAUST NYC 4 BCD - P 9/28/45:17 NS TOSCA NYC 4 BC o P 10/4/45:26 OD BARTERED BRIDE NYC 3 BDF — T 11/27/45:17 NS LOHENGRIN MET 3 AB + T 11/29/45:26 MS FIDELIO MET 4 ABF 0 T 11/30/45:18 NS RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC — T 12/4/45:33 MS ROMEO/JULIETTE MET 4 BCD 0 T 12/7/45:27 NS MEISTERSINGER MET 4 AB 0 P 12/14/45:25 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 AB + P 12/15/45:13 NS TANNHAEUSER MET 4 AB — T 12/16/45:31 MS LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC + T 12/29/45:18 OD CARMEN MET 4 BCD + T

1/26/46:19 HT DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC _ P 3/7/46:31 NS PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC — P • 3/21/46:33 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BCX + P 5/10/46:14 NS RIGOLETTO NYC 3 ABD 0 P 5/16/46:28 NS BUTTERFLY NYC 3 BCD + P 10/11/46:28 OD ARIADNE/NAXOS NYC 2 BDF + T 11/12/46:37 OD LAKME MET 4 BEF - T 11/16/46:15 OD SIEGFRIED MET 4 ABC + T 11/17/46:61 NS FAUST MET 4 ABX 0 P 11/19/46:40 OD AIDA MET 4 BDE + T 11/21/46:42 NS TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 11/22/46:28 OD BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BEF + P 11/30/46:12 OD ENTFUEHRUNG MET 3 ACD — T 12/2/46:71 NS IL BARBIERE MET 4 BC 0 P 12/6/46:27 HT DIE WALKUERE MET 4 AB + T 12/28/46:10 OD HAENSEL/GRETEL MET 3 ADE + T

1/11/47:22 HT LA BOHEME MET 4 BX + T 1/31/47:17 NS TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABX 0 P 3/14/47:26 HT PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + T 4/10/47:35 OD ANDREA CHENIER NYC 3 BC + T 4/17/47:34 OD SALOME NYC 3 BCE + T 4/24/47:31 NS CARMEN IND 4 ABC + P 10/3/47:30 OD WERTHER NYC 3 ABE 0 P 10/24/47:18 HT DON GIOVANNI NYC "3 BCD + T 11/8/47:11 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + T 282

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJEVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRITOPERA PANYCLASSTOPIC ATION TURE

11/11/47:34 0D UN BALLO MET 4 ABF T 11/13/47:33 HT MANON MET 4 BC 0 T 11/14/47:29 NS TANNHAUESER MET 4 AB o P 11/15/47:10 HT ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 ABC 0 P 11/18/47:37 0D DON GIOVANNI MET 4 AB 0 P 11/20/47:40 HT IL TROVATORE MET 4 BC + P 11/28/47:49 0D TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BCD — T 12/6/47:13 0D AIDA MET 4 BCD 0 P 12/13/47:11 0D LOUISE MET 4 ABC 0 T 12/17/47:41 RP LUCIA MET 4 BC + P 12/27/47:9 0D TOSCA MET 4 BCD + T

1/8/48:31 0D DAS RHEINGOLD MET 3 BCD 0 . T 1/14/48:30 0D DIE WALKUERE MET 3 BCD — P 1/22/48:35 OD SIEGFRIED MET 3 ABD + T 1/30/48:21 OD GOETTERDAEM. MET 3 ABD + T 2/1/48:52 NS MANON MET 4 BC o P 2/13/48:27 OD PETER GRIMES MET 2 BEF 0 P 2/26/48:27 HT RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + T 3/20/48:9 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BCD + T 3/26/48:24 OD PELLEAS NYC 3. BCD + T 4/2/48:27 CH TOSCA NYC 48 BC + P 10/8/48:31 NS TOSCA NYC 4 ABC o P 10/15/48:28 OD FIGARO NYC 3 ACD + T i0/29/48:31 OD AIDA NYC 3 BCD + P 11/30/48:34 OD OTELLO MET 4 BCD + T 12/1/48:36 OD L'ELISIR MET 4 BCE + P 12/2/48:38 OD L' AMORE/TRE RE MET 4 BCE 0 , T 12/3/48:33 OD GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 BC + T 12/11/48:12 OD LOUISE MET 4 BCF — P 12/15/48:47 OD CARMEN MET 4q BCD — T 12/17/48:39 NS LA BOHEME MET 49 ABD + P 12/30/48:24 NS DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + P

2/5/49:10 OD SALOME MET 3 ABC + T 4/1/49:30 OD TROUBLED ISLAND NYC 1 DEF 0 T 9/30/49:29 HT ARIADNE NYC 4 BF + P

O °An old production with a new first act setting.

9An old production with a new first act setting. 283

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/7/49:35 HT ROSENKAVALIER NYC 3 BCD + T 11/2/49:33 HT LOVE/3 ORANGES NYC 3 ACF + T 11/22/49:35 OD ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC + T 11/24/49:47 OD MANON LESCAUT MET 3 BEF + P 11/29/49:32 HT SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 3 BEF o T 12/2/49:34 OD TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC o T 12/13/49:45 OD DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BCD o P 12/22/49:15 HT DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BCX + T 12/24/49:10 OD FAUST MET 4 BCE + T

1/5/50:29 OD FIGARO MET 4 ABC + T 1/26/50:23 HT FAUST MET 4 AB + P 2/4/50:98 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 2/17/50:27 OD KHOVANCHINA MET 2 DEF + P 4/7/50:22 HT TURANDOT NYC 3 BD + T 9/22/50:35 HT TURANDOT NYC 4 BD 0 T 9/30/50:13 HT FAUST NYC 4 ABD + T 10/14/50:13 OD MEISTERSINGER NYC 3 ABD + T 11/7/50:33 OD DON CARLO MET 3 BDE + T 11/10/50:34 OD FL. HOLLAENDER MET 3 BCD + P 11/18/50:11 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BCD o T 11/21/50:38 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 11/23/50:54 OD FL. HOLLAENDER MET 4 ABD + P 12/2/50:7 HT TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BCD + T 12/13/50:36 OD FAUST MET 4 BCD — T 12/21/50:35 OD DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 3 BCD + T

1/6/51:10 OD ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC + T 1/23/51:23 OD TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BCX — T 1/26/51:30 NS DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 ABC — P 2/8/51:27 NS SIEGFRIED MET 4 BC + P 2/16/51:22 NS GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 BC — P 3/7/51:40 OD FIDELIO MET 4 DEF + P 3/15/51:37 HT MEISTERSINGER NYC 4 BCD + P 3/23/51:16 OD MANON NYC 3 ACD + T 10/5/51:23 OD THE DYBBUK NYC 3 EF + T 10/19/51:22 OD QUATRO RUSTEGHI NYC 2 DEF + T 11/14/51:37 OD AIDA MET 3 BCD o P 11/16/51:21 OD RIGOLETTO MET 3 BCD + P 11/19/51:18 NS FIGARO MET 4 BCD + P 11/26/51:21 NS LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC 0 P 12/1/51:6 HT DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 BCX + T 12/8/51:9 OD MANON MET 4 ABC — P 284

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRITOPERAPANY CLASSTOPIC ATION TURE

12/14/51:36 OD GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 ABD + T 12/29/51:8 OD COSI FAN TUTTE MET. 3 BCD + T

1/31/52:23 HT LA BOHEME MET 4 BC _ T 2/1/52:16 OD CARMEN MET 3 BCD + T 2/2/52:9 OD GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 B + T 2/19/52:24 OD ELEKTRA MET 3 BCE + T 3/5/52:34 OD ALCESTIS MET 3 ABD + T 3/17/52:17 NS MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABC + T 3/21/52:19 HT ROSENKAVALIER NYC 4 BCD + T 4/4/52:23 OD WOZZECK NYC 2 CDE + P 4/5/52:18 HT PARSIFAL MET 4 BCD + P 4/17/52:35 HS ANDREA CHENIER NYC 4 BCD o P 9/19/52:18 OD TOSCA NYC 4 ABC 0 T 9/22/52:19 NS DON GIOVANNI NYC 4 ABC + P 9/26/52:18 JB AIDA NYC 4 BCD c P 10/10/52:21 HT BUTTERFLY NYC 3 BCD + X 11/11/52:24 OD FORZA/DESTINO MET 3 DEF + T 11/27/52:50 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + T 12/3/52:44 OD DON CARLO MET 4 BCD + T 12/9/52:41 OD MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABC + T 12/17/52:43 OD LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BC + T

1/8/53:32 OD LA BOHEME MET 4 BD _ P 1/16/53:17 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + T 2/15/53:61 OD RAKE’S PROGRESS MET 2 CEF — T 2/24/53:20 HT TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 3/7/53:13 OD BORIS GODUNOV MET 3 DEF 0 P 3/24/53:37 HT PARSIFAL MET 4 AB 0 T 3/27/53:30 OD CENERENTOLA NYC 3 BDE + T 4/3/53:18 HT REGINA NYC 3 CEF + T 4/9/53:31 HT DIE FLEDERMAUS NYC 3 BCD + T 10/9/53:32 HT CENERENTOLA NYC 4 BCD + T 10/15/53:44 HT HAENSEL/GRETEL NYC 3 BCD + T 10/23/53:19 OD DER PROZESS NYC 2 BDE — T 10/28/53:37 RP BUTTERFLY NYC 4 BCD 0 P 11/17/53:36 OD FAUST MET 3 BCD + T 11/21/53:11 OD FIGARO MET 3 BCD 0 P 11/23/53:31 NS LA BOHEME MET 4 BCD + P 11/28/53:12 OD PELLEAS MET 3 BCD + T 12/11/53:42 OD DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BCD 0 T 285

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/28/53:15 OD TANNHAEUSER MET 4 ABD + T

1/12/54:18 OD BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BCD 0 T 1/27/54:23 HS RAKE’S PROGRESS MET 4 ABD — T 2/5/54:15 OD DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BCD + P 2/9/54:23 HT LUCIA MET 4 BC + P 2/19/54:22 HT BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 ABC + P 2/20/54:8 OD IL BARBIERE MET 3 ABD + T 3/10/54:9 OD NORMA MET 4 BC + T 4/2/54:22 OD TENDER LAND NYC 1 AEF — T 4/16/54:16 HT FALSTAFF NYC 3 ABD + P 9/30/54:38 HT AIDA NYC 4 BCD 0 T 10/16/54:12 JB HOFFMANN NYC 3 ABD + P 10/21/54:31 HT ROSENKAVALIER NYC 3 BCD o P 11/12/54:15 OD MEISTERSINGER MET 3 BCD + P 11/13/54:12 HT IL BARBIERE MET 4 BCD + T 11/17/54:37 OD ANDREA CHENIER MET 3 BCD + T 12/4/54:15 OD MANON MET 4 ABC + P 12/10/54:36 HT FIGARO MET 4 ABD + P 12/20/54:33 OD DON CARLO MET 4 BCF o T

1/8/55:11 OD UN BALLO MET 4 ABC + p 1/13/55:31 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD 0 T 1/21/55:18 HT LA BOHEME MET 4 BC + P 1/27/55:17 OD TANNHAEUSER MET 4 AB + P 2/1/55:25 OD OTELLO MET 4 BC o T 2/10/55:28 OD LA BOHEME MET 4 BCD + T 2/11/55:18 OD ARABELLA MET 2 BEF _ P 2/25/55:18 HS ORFEO/EURIDICE MET 3 BD + T 3/4/55:19 OD TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 3 ABD o T 3/9/55:21 OD TOSCA MET 4 BCD 0 T 3/18/55:32 JB ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BCD + P 3/19/55:12 JB RIGOLETTO NYC 4 ABD + T 3/25/55:20 OD DON PASQUALE NYC 3 BDE — T 4/1/55:22 OD LUSTIGEN WEIBER NYC 3 BCD + T 10/6/55:23 HS LUSTIGEN WEIBER NYC 4 BCD + T 10/14/55:23 HT GOLDEN SLIPPERS NYC 3 AD + T 10/22/55:22 HT TROILUS NYC 2 BDE + T 11/15/55:38 HT HOFFMANN MET 3 ABD + T 11/18/55:21 RP RIGOLETTO MET 4 ABD + T 11/19/55:22 HT LOHENGRIN MET 4 ABD + P 286

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUG CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

11/28/55:26 HT COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 ABD + T 12/3/55:13 HS ANDREA CHENIER MET 4 BCE + P 12/9/55:32 HT TOSCA MET 3 ABD + T 12/10/55:18 HS FAUST MET 4 ABC + T 12/17/55:18 HT FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BDF 0 P 12/24/55:9 HT DON PASQUALE MET 3 ABD + T

1/12/56:24 HT MEISTERSINGER MET 310 ABD + T 1/14/56:12 HT TOSCA MET 4 ABC + T 1/21/56:19 HT BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 ABC + P 1/28/56:11 HT FIGARO MET 4 BDX 0 T 1/31/56:34 RP LA BOHEME MET 4 BCD + P 2/7/56:27 HT ROSENKAVALIER MET 3 ABD + T 2/18/56:13 ED UN BALLO MET 4 BCX + T 2/24/56:20 HT ZAUBERFLOETE MET 3 ABD + T 3/1/56:36 HT IL TROVATORE MET 4 BCD + P 3/15/56:37 HT MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BDE + T 3/29/56:22 HT TROILUS/CRESS. NYC 4 BCE + T 4/5/56:25 HS IL TROVATORE NYC 3 BCD 0 T 4/17/56:27 HT MOTHER/US ALL IND 3 DEF + T 9/21/56:31 HT OPHEE/ENFERS NYC 3 ABD - T 9/26/56:27 HT MIGNON NYC 3 ABD + ' T 9/28/56:24 HT SUSANNAH NYC 2 BEF + T ' 10/12/56:35 RP DER STURM NYC 2 BDE — P 10/30/56:1 HT NORMA MET 4 BCX + T 11/1/56:46 HT MEISTERSINGER MET 3 ABC + P 11/2/56:32 HS RIGOLETTO NYC 3 ABD 0 P 11/3/56:26 HT DON PASQUALE MET 4 BDE + T 11/5/56:42 HS LA BOHEME MET 4 ABC + T 11/6/56:32 JB IL TROVATORE MET 4 AB + P 11/10/56:15 HT RIGOLETTO MET 4 BCX + T 11/14/56:40 HT AIDA MET 4 BCD + P 11/16/56:24 RP TOSCA MET 4 BCD + T 11/24/56:17 HT ERNANI MET 3 BDF + T 12/4/56:51 HT LUCIA MET 4 BC + T 12/22/56:12 HT LA PERICHOLE MET 3 BCD + T

1/8/57:28 HT ARABELLA MET 4 ABE + T

^Revised settings, restaged by Yannopoulos. 287

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJEVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANYCLASS TOPICATIONTURE

1/19/57:13 HT DAS RHEINGOLD MET 3 BDF + T 1/23/57:25 HT DIE WALKUERE MET 3 ABE + T 1/31/57:19 HT SIEGFRIED MET 3 ABD 0 T 2/8/57:17 HT GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 ABC + T 2/22/57:25 HT LA TRAVIATA MET 3 ABD + T 3/2/57:19 HT ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 ABX + V 3/8/57:21 HT LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BDE + T 3/18/57:32 HT DON CARLO MET 4 BDE + T 4/1/57:21 HS PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + T 10/10/57:39 HT TURANDOT NYC 3 ABD + T 10/11/57:21 HT SUSANNAH NYC 4 ACX + T 10/18/57:18 HT LA VIDA BREVE NYC 3 BDE + P 10/25/57:24 HT MACBETH NYC 3 BDE + T 10/29/57:36 HT EUGEN ONEGIN MET 3 DEF 0 T 10/31/57:41 HT ENTFUERUNG NYC 3 ABD + T 11/1/57:30 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 3 ABE + T 11/2/57:14 HT FAUST MET 4 BCD + V 11/7/57:43 RP LA PERICHOLE MET 4 BCD + P 11/14/57:41 RP DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 11/23/57:11 HS ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABD 0 P 11/30/57:12 HS FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BCD + P 12/5/57:46 HT CARMEN MET 4 ABD + T 12/17/57:46 HT ORFEO/EURIDICE MET 4 BDE + T 12/20/57:30 HT FIGARO MET 4 ABD + P 12/23/57:17 RP LUCIA •MET 4 BCD + P

1/16/58:33 HT VANESSA MET 1 BEF + T 2/3/58:27 HT TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BCX + P 2/6/58:23 HS DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + T 2/7/58:17 HT LA TRAVIATA MET . 4 BCX + T 2/10/58:27 ED TOSCA MET 4 ABC + P 2/11/58:36 HT TRNSPSED HEADS IND 2 DEF - T 2/14/58:17 JH LUCIA MET 4 BC + P 2/20/58:30 HT BUTTERFLY MET 3 BDE + T 2/28/58:18 HT OTELLO MET 4 BCD ■ + T 3/1/58:11 HT TOSCA MET 4 ABC + P 3/21/58:18 RP PARSIFAL MET 4 ABD + P 3/28/58:30 ED TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BC + T 4/4/58:19 HT BALLAD BABY DOE NYC 2 DEF + T 4/11/58:21 HT LOST IN STARS NYC 3 DEF 0 T 4/14/58:22 HT TAMING/SHREW NYC 4 BDE + T 288

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TORE

4/18/58:19 HT REGINA NYC 4 BDE + T 4/24/58:36 HT GD SOLD SCHWEIK NYC 1 DEF 0 T 5/1/58:35 RP SUSANNAH NYC 3 BDE + T 10/8/58:40 HT SCHWEIGSAME FR. NYC 2 BEF + T 10/17/58:33 HT CARMEN NYC 4 ABC + T 10/20/58:34 HT CENERENTOLA NYC 4 ABD + T 10/24/58:38 HT RAPE/LUCRETIA NYC 3 CEF - T 10/28/58:41 HT TOSCA MET 3 BDX + T 10/30/58:36 HT BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BC + T 10/31/58:32 RP RIGOLETTO MET 4 BCD + P 11/10/58:37 HT BUTTERFLY MET 4 BCX + P 11/19/58:44 HT ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 ABD + T 11/28/58:35 HT DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 ABD + T 12/4/58:53 HT MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BCE + T 12/10/58:53 HT OTELLO MET 4 BC + T

1/3/59:11 HS UN BALLO MET 4 ABC o P 1/8/59:26 HT VANESSA MET 4 BEF + T 1/16/59:34 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD + T 1/23/59:18 HT MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABD + T 2/6/59:20 HT MACBETH MET 3 ABD + T 2/12/59:25 HT LOHENGRIN MET 4 BC + P 3/6/59:21 HT WOZZECK MET 3 ABE + T 3/16/59:28 HT DON CARLO MET 4 BCD + T 3/20/59:27 HT UN BALLO MET 4 BCX + T 3/23/59:26 ES RIGOLETTO MET 4 BCX + T 3/24/59:47 HT WOZZECK MET 4 BCX + T 3/31/59:24 HT MARIA GOLOVIN NYC 3 EFX + T 4/3/59:21 HT STREET SCENE NYC 3 DEF + T 4/10/59:22 HT WUTH. HEIGHTS NYC 2 DEF — T 4/27/59:22 HT SIX CHARACTERS NYC 1 BEF — T 10/9/59:23 HT COSI FAN TUTTE NYC 3 ABD + P 10/27/59:43 HT IL TROVATORE MET 3 ABD + T 10/29/59:37 HT MANON MET 4 ' ABD + T 10/30/59:31 RP TOSCA MET 4 ABC + P 10/31/59:15 HT FIGARO MET 3 ABD + T 11/5/59:40 HT LA TRAVIATA MET 4 ABC + P 11/10/59:56 HT AIDA MET 4 BCD + P 11/26/59:56 HT ZIGEUNERBARON MET 3 ABD + T 12/3/59:47 HT PELLEAS MET 4 BCD + T 12/9/59:59 JB FAUST MET 4 BD 0 T 289

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/11/59:41 HT FIGARO MET 4 AB 0 T 12/19/59:1 HT TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 3 ABD + T

1/14/60:29 HT FL. HOLLAENDER MET 4 ABF + T 1/18/60:31 HT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD + T 1/29/60:15 HT FIDELIO MET 3 ABE + T 2/2/60:40 JB FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 ABX + V 2/10/60:43 HT DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABD + T 2/12/60:23 HT CRADLE/ROCK NYC 3 DEF o T 2/15/60:21 RP THE CONSUL NYC 4 BC + P 2/19/60:22 RP AIDA MET 4 BC 0 T 3/2/60:43 HT SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 3 BDE + T 3/16/60:43 HT SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BCX + T 3/31/60:39 HT TOSCA MET 4 BCX + P 4/8/60:26 HS SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 B + P 10/13/60:42 HS ROSENKAVALIER NYC 4 ABD + T 10/20/60:44 RP INSPECTOR GEN. NYC 2 EF - P 10/25/60:41 HS NABUCCO MET 3 BDE o T 10/26/60:45 ES MANON LESCAUT MET 3 ABD + P 10/28/60:23 RP BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 ABD o T 10/29/60:27 RE LA BOHEME MET 4 ABD o P 10/30/60:84 HS CARMEN MET 4 ABC o P 11/19/60:12 RP ARABELLA MET 4 BCD + P 11/26/60:12 HS L'ELISIR MET 3 BCD + T 12/7/60:57 HS ALCESTIS MET 3 BDE o T 12/20/60:45 HS SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BCD + V 12/27/60:25 HS LA GIOCONDA MET 4 B + T 12/30/60:14 RP MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BC + P

1/17/61:41 RP TANNHAEUSER MET 4 ABC + P 1/26/61:34 RP TANNHAEUSER MET 4 ABC + P 1/27/61:17 HS MARTHA MET 3 BCD — P 1/28/61:12 HS IL TROVATORE MET 4 ABC + T 2/1/61:30 HS TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + T 2/14/61:46 HS ELEKTRA MET 4 CDE + P 2/21/61:41 RP AIDA MET 4 BC + T 2/25/61:3 HS TURANDOT MET 3 ABD + T 3/11/61:14 HS WOZZECK MET 4 CEF + P 3/17/61:26 HS DON CARLO MET 4 ABC — P 3/23/61:29 HS PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + T 10/13/61:31 HS WINGS OF DOVE NYC 1 BEF o T 290

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/24/61:43 HS FANCIULLA/WEST MET 3 BEF + T 10/25/61:32 HS COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 BCD + T 10/27/61:25 HS THE CRUCIBLE NYC 1 EF o T 10/30/61:34 HS LOHENGRIN MET 4 AB + P 11/6/61:48 AR TURANDOT MET 4 ABC + T 11/7/61:40 HS AIDA MET 4 BCD + T 11/13/61:40 AR HOFFMANN MET 4 BCX + P 11/27/61:36 RE LA PERICHOLE MET 4 AB + V 11/27/61:35 HS LUCIA MET 4 BCE + V 12/11/61:43 HS GOETTERDAEM. MET 3 BD + T 12/13/61:52 RP FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BCD + T

1/12/62:28 HS FIGARO MET 4 BCD _ T 1/26/62:20 HS UN BALLO MET 3 ABD + T 2/1/62:21 RP TOSCA MET 4 ABC + T 2/2/62:25 RP GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 ABC + P 2/3/62:12 HS SALOME MET 4 ABC — T 3/10/62:10 ES LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BE + P 3/17/62:17 HS ELEKTRA MET 4 BCE o P 3/26/62:35 HS TURN OF SCREW NYC 2 CEF + T 3/29/62:28 AR THE CONSUL NYC 4 ADE + T 4/2/62:27 HS TOSCA MET 4 BC + P 10/5/62:29 HS LOUISE NYC 3 CDE + P 10/6/62:13 AR TURN OF SCREW NYC 4 CD + T 10/12/62:42 RP PASSION J . WADE NYC 1 EF 0 T 10/13/62:16 RE FIGARO NYC 4 BCD + T 10/15/62:34 HS CARMEN NYC 3 ACD o P 10/16/62:35 HS ANDREA CHENIER MET 4 BEF o T 10/25/62:46 RE DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 BC + P 11/2/62:25 HS DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + T 11/12/62: RE ERNANI MET 4 ABD + P 11/20/62:41 HS ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC + T 11/26/62:36 RP IL BARBIERE MET 4 BCD + T 12/1/62:16 HS ' PELLEAS MET 4 ABE + T

4/26/63:26 HS MIDSUMMER N. D. NYC 2 CEF T 10/11/63:42 HS GENT. BE SEATED NYC 1 CEF — T 10/15/63:46 HS AIDA MET 3 ABD — T 10/17/63:40 RP LA BOHEME MET 4 BC 0 T 10/18/63:34 HS MANON MET 3 BCD — P 10/21/63:41 HS LA TRAVIATA NYC 3 BCD - P 291

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/25/63:36 HS DON GIOVANNI NYC 3 BCD o T 11/1/63:27 HS DON CARLO MET 4 ABE + T 11/7/63:31 RP FAUST MET 4 BCD o P 11/15/63:28 HS GOETTERDAEM. MET 4 B — T 12/6/63:39 HS LA SONNAMBULA MET 4 BCE + P 12/12/63:48 HK IL TROVATORE MET 4 BCD + T 12/16/63:43 HS LA TRAVIATA MET 4 B + T 12/26/63:36 HS ARIADNE/NAXOS MET 4 BEF - T

1/24/64:20 HS LAST SAVAGE MET 1 CEF _ V 2/10/64:22 RE OTELLO MET 4 ABC + P 2/17/64:27 HS EUGEN ONEGIN MET 4 ABC + T 3/7/64:12 HS FALSTAFF MET • 3 ACD + T 3/20/64:28 RP MACBETH MET 4 BCD + P 5/7/64:32 LC PORGY AND BESS NYC 4 BCD + P 10/2/64:32 HS BORIS GODUNOV NYC 3 BEF + T 10/5/64:42 RE CARMEN NYC 4 BC + P 10/9/64:33 HS NATAL. PETROVNA NYC 1 BEF — V 10/13/64:46 HS LUCIA MET 3 BCD + P 10/14/64:52 RE ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BC + T 10/19/64:40 HS SAMSON/DALILA MET 3 ABD + T 10/23/64:32 HS SALOME NYC 4 ABC + T 11/3/64:25 RE ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BC + P 11/14/64:34 HS DON PASQUALE MET 3 BCE + T 11/27/64:45 HK FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BC + T 12/10/64:62 RE SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BCE + P 12/19/64:23 HK HOFFMANN MET 4 ABC + T

1/4/65:36 RE AIDA MET 4 ABC + P 1/14/65:46 RE TURNADOT MET 4 AB + P 2/1/65:30 RE COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 BCD + P 2/4/65:23 HS SALOME MET 3 BCD + V 2/13/65:11 HK SALOME MET 4 BC + P 2/20/65:17 HS WOZZECK MET 4 BDE — T 2/23/65:38 HS DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + T 3/5/65:37 HS KAT. ISMAILOVA NYC 2 BEF o T 3/6/65:17 HS PORGY AND BESS NYC 4 BEF — P 3/13/65:16 HK MIDSUMMER N. D. NYC 4 ABC o P 3/15/65:38 RE VANESSA MET 411 EF + T

^M inor re v isio n s made by composer and l i b r e t t i s t . 292

TABLE 18— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

3/19/65:28 HK ST. OF BLEEKER NYC 4 ADF o p 3/20/65:17 HS TOSCA MET 4 BC 0 T 3/26/65:29 HK LIZZIE BORDEN NYC 1 EF o T 9/28/65:2 n HS FAUST MET 3 BDX - P 9/29/65:5 HS QUEEN OF SPADES MET 3 BCE + T 10/14/65:52io RE BUTTERFLY MET 4 ABC + P 10/16/65:ll12 RE DON CARLO MET 4 BC + P 10/26/65:52 AH MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BC + P 10/28/65:46 HS CAPRICCIO NYC 2 AEF o T 10/30/65:39 RE FALSTAFF MET 4 ABC + P 11/4/65:59 HS CENERENTOLA MNC 3 BCD - T 11/5/65:32 RE MISS JULIE NYC 1 EF - T 11/5/65:32 HS BUTTERFLY MNC 3 ABD + T 11/9/65:50 HS FAUST MET 4 BC + T 12/2/65:46 HS FANCIULLA/WEST MET 4 CEF + T 12/17/65:43 HK L'ELISIR MET 4 BC + T 12/23/65:18 RE FAUST MET 4 BC + P 12/25/65:17 HK L'ELISIR MET 4 ABC + T 12/30/65:17 RE AIDA MET 4 AB + T

1/10/66:14 HK FIDELIO MET 4 ABX + T 1/15/66:15 RE SALOME MET 4 BD + P 1/18/66:32 RE FANCIULLA/WEST MET 4 BX — T 1/30/66:23 TS DON GIOVANNI MET 4 AB + P 2/8/66:34 RE UN BALLO MET 4 AB + T 2/23/66:42 HS DON RODRIGO NYC 2 DEX + V 3/4/66:25 HS CARMELITES NYC 2 BDE + T 3/10/66:28 HS DANTONS TOD NYC 2 EF — T 3/11/66:42 RE PARSIFAL MET 4 ABD + T 3/21/66:36 HS TANNHAEUSER MET 4 BC + T

This review and the two following were originally deliv­ ered on WQXR, the radio station of the New York Times, and print­ ed in a special supplement, because of a press strike.

12Appearance of the review was delayed by a press strike. 293

TABLE 19

OPERA REVIEW DATA - THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE14

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRTT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

11/23/43:19 VT BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 ABF + P 11/25/43:29 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 11/29/43:12 VT FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BEF - P 12/5/43:14 VT MIGNON MET 4 ABC - V 12/20/43:20 JB TANNHAEUSER MET 4 ABC + P 12/30/43:20 VT NORMA MET 4 ABE + P

1/10/44:8 JB FAUST MET 4 ABC 0 P 1/15/44:14 VT FALSTAFF MET 4 ABE + T 1/27/44:11 VT PELLEAS MET 4 AB + T 2/4/44:15 VT TOSCA MET 4 ABC 0 T 2/5/44:6 VT AIDA MET 4 ABC + P 2/9/44:12 JB DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 ABC + T 2/16/44:14 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + P 2/22/44:16 VT TOSCA NYC 3 BFX + T 2/26/44:17 VT IL TROVATORE MET 4 ABE 0 T 11/10/44:16 VT MANON LESCAUT NYC 3 ABC + T 11/28/44:19 VT FAUST .MET 4 ABD 0 T 12/2/44:7 JB AIDA MET 4 ABC 0 T 12/3/44:47 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + P 12/8/44:19 JB CARMEN MET 4 ABC — P 12/15/44:17 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + P 12/16/44:7 VT NORMA ' MET 4 BD + T 12/28/44:9 VT FIGARO MET 4 ABF 0 T 12/29/44:9 JB IL BARBIERE MET 4 ABC + P

1/5/45:10 VT PELLEAS MET 4 ABD + T 1/6/45:7 JB ZAUBERFLOETE MET AB + P 1/13/45:7 VT MEISTERSINGER MET 415 BEF + T 1/26/45:12 VT LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BD + P 2/3/45:7 JB DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 ABC + P 2/5/45:11 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 2/15/45:15 VT PELLEAS MET 4 ABC + P

14A key to the number and letter codes used in this chart can be found on pages 278-279.

■^The performance is rated as an old production, although new scenery was lent by the Chicago Opera for the last scene. 294.

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

2/24/45:6 VT ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABE o V 3/15/45:16 VT IL BARBIERE MET 4 ABC — P 3/30/45:22 JB PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + P 4/13/45:15 VT FL. HOLLAENDER NYC 4 AB + P 4/19/45:19 JB FAUST NYC 4 ABC — P 9/28/45:16 JB TOSCA NYC 4 ABC 0 P 10/4/45:19 FP BARTERED BR. NYC 3 BDF o T 11/27/45:19 VT LOHENGRIN MET 3 ABD 0 T 11/29/45:21 FP FIDELIO MET 4 ABC o P 11/30/45:23 UN RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + P 12/4/45:20 VT ROMEO/JULIETTE MET 4 ABC — T 12/7/45:16 FP MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABC 0 T 12/14/45:25 VT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD + P 12/15/45:8 JB TANNHAEUSER MET 4 AB — P . 12/17/45:17 FP LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC + T 12/29/45:6 JB CARMEN MET 4 ABC o P

1/26/46:9 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 AB _ T 3/7/46:19 UN PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC — ' P 3/21/46:19 VT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + T 5/10/46:21 FP RIGOLETTO NYC 3 ABC 0 P 5/16/46:22 JB BUTTERFLY NYC 3 BCD + T 10/11/46:21 VT ARIADNE NYC 2 ABE + T 11/12/46:22 VT LAKME MET 4 ABD o T 11/16/46:7 JB SIEGFRIED MET 4 ABC + P 11/18/46:18 JB FAUST MET 4 ABC o P 11/19/46:26 JB AIDA MET 4 ABC + P 11/21/46:25 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 11/22/46:23 VT BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BCD + T 11/30/46:9 FP ENTFUEHRUNG MET 3 BDE o T 12/2/46:20 FP IL BARBIERE MET 4 BC + P 12/6/46:28 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BCD — p 12/28/46:9 VT HAENSEL/GRETEL MET 3 BDE + T

1/11/47:12 VT LA BOHEME MET 4 ABC + T 1/31/47:12 AB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC o P 3/14/47:14 JB PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + V 4/10/47:17 JB ANDREA CHENIER NYC 3 ABC o P 4/17/47:20 VT SALOME NYC 3 BCD — P 4/24/47:19 FP CARMEN IND 4 BCD + P 10/3/47:23 JB WERTHER NYC 3 BDE + P 10/24/47:16 VT DON GIOVANNI NYC 3 BCD + T 11/8/47:9 VT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD + T 295

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

11/11/47:24 VT UN BALLO MET 4 ABC + T 11/13/47:23 FP MANON MET 4 ABE + P 11/14/47:19 JB TANNHAUESER MET 4 ABC 0 P 11/15/47:8 AB ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 ABD - P 11/18/47:23 JB DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + P 11/20/47:23 VT IL TROVATORE MET 4 BC + T 11/28/47:20 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC - P 12/6/47:8 FP AIDA MET 4 ABC 0 T 12/13/47:8 VT LOUISE MET 4 BCF — T 12/17/47:17 AB LUCIA MET 4 ABC + P 12/27/47:10 VT TOSCA MET 4 BC + T

1/8/48:19 VT DAS RHEINGOLD MET 3 BD + T 1/14/48:13 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 3 ABD o P 1/22/48:16 FP . SIEGFRIED MET 3 BCD + P 1/30/48:15 JB GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 3 BCD + P 2/2/48:12 VT MANON MET 4 BCD o T 2/13/48:16 VT PETER GRIMES MET 2 DEF + T 2/26/48:20 VT RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + T 3/20/48:8 AB DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 3/26/48:17 VT PELLEAS NYC ABC + T 4/2/48:19 JB TOSCA NYC 416 BC 0 P 10/8/48:18 JB TOSCA NYC 4 BC - P 10/15/48:21 FP FIGARO NYC 3 ABD + P 10/29/48:16 VT AIDA NYC 3 BCD + T 11/30/48:22 VT OTELLO MET 4 ABC + T 12/1/48:21 FP L’ELISIR MET 4 ABE + P 12/2/48:23 JB AMORE/TRE RE MET 4 BCE 0 P 12/3/48:22 JB GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 ABC + P 12/11/48:9 FP LOUISE MET 4 BCF 0 P 12/15/48:27 FP CARMEN MET 417 BC o T 12/17/48:21 VT LA BOHEME MET 41 BCD + T 12/30/48:11 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC + P

2/5/49:8 VT SALOME MET 3 ABC + T 4/1/49:18 FP TROUBLED IS. NYC 1 CEF — T 9/30/49:17 FP ARIADNE NYC 4 ABC + T

^An old production with a new first act setting.

1 7An old production with a new first act setting. 296

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/7/49:17 JB ROSENKAVALIER NYC 3 ABC + T 11/2/49:16 VT LOVE/3 ORANGES NYC 3 EF + T 11/22/49:25 VT ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC o T 11/24/49:31 FP MANON LESCAUT MET 3 BCE 0 T 11/29/49:22 VT SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 3 ABE + T 12/2/49:32 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 AB + P 12/13/49:27 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC o P 12/22/49:22 JB DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC 0 P 12/24/49:7 JB FAUST MET 4 BC o T

1/5/50:19 VT FIGARO MET 4 ABC + T 1/26/50:19 JB FAUST MET 4 BC + P 2/4/50:7 VT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + T 2/17/50:18 VT KHOVANCHINA MET 2 AE + T 4/7/50:12 VT TURANDOT NYC 3 BDE + P 9/22/50:18 FP TURANDOT NYC 4 BCD + T 9/30/50:6 VT FAUST NYC 4 ABD + T 10/14/50:6 JB MEISTERSINGER NYC 3 ABD + P 11/7/50:19 VT DON CARLO MET 3 BD + P 11/10/50:18 VT FL. HOLLAENDER MET 3 BDF o T 11/18/50:6 JB DON GIOVANNI MET 4 AB 0 P 11/21/50:22 AB DON GIOVANNI MET 4 B o P 11/23/50:31 JB FL. HOLLAENDER MET 4 BC + P 12/2/50:5 JB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 AB o P 12/13/50:31 FP FAUST MET 4 ABC o T 12/21/50:19 VT DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 3 ABD o T

1/6/51:6 JB ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BC + P 1/23/51:19 VT TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 AB + T 1/26/51:12 JB DAS RHEINGOLD MET 4 AB — P 2/8/51:8 JB SIEGFRIED MET 4 BC + V 2/16/51:15 JB GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 B + P 3/7/51:22 VT FIDELIO MET 4 ABE + T 3/15/51:25 AB MEISTERSINGER NYC 4 BD + T 3/23/51:23 VT MANON NYC 3 B + T 10/5/51:13 VT THE DYBBUK NYC 3 BEF + T 10/19/51:17 VT QUATRO RUSTEGHI NYC 2 BCE o T 11/14/51:1 VT AIDA MET 3 BCD + T 11/16/51:16 FP RIGOLETTO MET 3 BC + P 11/19/51:13 AB FIGARO MET 4 BCD + T 11/26/51:13 AB LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC o V 12/1/51:6 AB DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 ABC + P 12/8/51:6 FP MANON MET 4 BCD — P 297

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/14/51:23 AB GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 BC . + P 12/29/51:6 VT COSI FAN TUTTE MET 3 DF + T

1/31/52:15 VT LA BOHEME MET 4 BCD + T 2/1/52:12 VT CARMEN MET 3 D + T 2/2/52:6 AB GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 BC + P 2/19/52:18 VT ELEKTRA MET 3 BC + T 3/5/52:17 VT ALCESTIS MET 3 BD + T 3/17/52:15 AB MEISTERSINGER MET 4 BC + P 3/21/52:19 VT ROSENKAVALIER NYC 4 BC + T 4/4/52:16 VT WOZZECK NYC 2 ABD 0 T 4/5/52:7 FP PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC + P 4/17/52:23 FP ANDREA CHENIER NYC 4 BEF + P 9/19/52:19 AB TOSCA NYC 4 ABC o V 9/22/52:16 JH DON GIOVANNI NYC 4 ABD 0 T 9/26/52:12 AB AIDA NYC 4 AB 0 P 10/10/52:17 FP BUTTERFLY NYC 3 BCD + P 11/11/52:19 VT FORZA/DESTINO MET 3 BDE 0 T 11/27/52:23 JH DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 12/3/52:26 AB DON CARLO MET 4 BC o P 12/9/52:35 JH MEISTERSINGER MET 4 BCD 0 T 12/17/52:25 FP LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BEF + P

1/8/53:20 VT LA BOHEME MET 4 BD T 1/16/53:13 VT DON GIOVANNI MET 4 B + T 2/15/53:34 VT RAKE'S PROGRESS MET 2 EF + T 2/24/53:17 AB TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BC + P 3/7/53:12 VT BORIS GODUNOV MET 3 BCE + T 3/24/53:21 JH PARSIFAL MET 4 ABC 0 T 3/27/53:14 VT CENERENTOLA NYC 3 BD + T 4/3/53:15 AB REGINA NYC 3 DEF + T 4/9/53:19 VT DIE FLEDERMAUS NYC 3 DEF — T 10/9/53:17 JH CENERENTOLA NYC 4 ABC + T 10/15/53:31 JH HAENSEL/GRETEL NYC 3 ABD + T 10/23/53:8 VT DER PROZESS NYC 2 DEF — T 10/28/53:20 JH BUTTERFLY NYC 4 BCD — T 11/17/53:25 VT FAUST MET 3 ABD + T 11/21/53:6 VT FIGARO MET 3 ABD o T 11/23/53:15 JH LA BOHEME MET 4 BC 0 P 11/28/53:9 VT PELLEAS MET 3 ABD + T 12/11/53:23 JH DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BCD — T 298

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/28/53:15 VT TANNHAEUSER MET 4 BCD + T

1/12/54:19 FP BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BC o P 1/27/54:12 JH RAKES PROGRESS MET 4 BCE 0 T 2/5/54:13 FP DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC + P 2/9/54:23 FP LUCIA MET 4 BC + P 2/19/54:19 JH BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BC + P 2/20/54:9 VT IL BARBIERE MET 3 BD — T 3/10/54:22 JH NORMA MET 4 BDE 0 T ' 4/2/54:17 JH TENDER LAND NYC 1 EF + V 4/16/54:13 JH FALSTAFF NYC 3 BD o T 9/30/54:18 JH AIDA NYC 4 BCD o T 10/16/54:6 FP HOFFMANN NYC 3 ABC + P 10/21/54:24 PL ROSENKAVALIER NYC 3 ABD + T 11/12/54:14 PL MEISTERSINGER MET 3 ABF + T 11/13/54:6 JH IL BARBIERE MET 4 BCD + T 11/17/54:25 PL ANDREA CHENIER MET 3 BDF + T 12/4/54:9 JH MANON MET 4 BCD + T 12/10/54:19 PL FIGARO MET 4 BCF + T 12/20/54:13 JH DON CARLO MET 4 BCX - T

1/8/55:6 PL UN BALLO MET 4 ABC + P 1/13/55:17 PL DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BDF _ T 1/21/55:15 JH LA BOHEME MET 4 BC + T 1/27/55:15 FP TANNHAEUSER MET 4 AB + P 2/1/55:22 PL OTELLO MET 4 ABD + T 2/10/55:16 PL LA BOHEME MET 4 ABC + P 2/11/55:18 PL ARABELLA MET 2 BEF + T 2/25/55:13 PL ORFEO/EURIDICE MET 3 BDE o T 3/4/55:13 PL TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 3 BCE + P 3/9/55:20 FP TOSCA MET 4 BC + P 3/18/55:17 JH ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC o T 3/19/55:8 JH RIGOLETTO NYC 4 AB + T 3/25/55:16 PL DON PASQUALE MET 3 ABE + T 4/1/55:12 PL LUSTIGEN WEIBER NYC 3 BCE + T 10/6/55:111/6 JH LUSTIGEN WEIBER NYC 4 BCD + T 10/14/55:20 JH GOLDEN SLIPPERS NYC 3 DE. — T 10/22/55:9 PL TROILUS/CRESSIDA NYC 2 ADE + T 11/15/55:20 PL HOFFMANN MET 3 BCD o T 11/18/55:11 JH RIGOLETTO MET 4 BCD o T 11/19/55:7 JH LOHENGRIN MET 4 BC + T 299

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA ■ PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

11/28/55:13 PL COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 ABD + T 12/3/55:6 JH ANDREA CHENIER MET 4 BC 0 T 12/9/55:13 PL TOSCA MET 3 BCD + T 12/10/55:7 JH FAUST MET 4 ABC 0 T 12/17/55:9 JH FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BC — T 12/24/55:5 PL DON PASQUALE MET 3 BC + T

1/12/56:16 LT MEISTERSINGER MET 3I 8 ABC + P 1/14/56:6 JH TOSCA MET 4 BC + T 1/21/56:6 PL BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 BCE + T 1/28/56:4 PL FIGARO MET 4 ABD — T 1/31/56:17 FP LA BOHEME MET 4 BCE 0 P 2/7/56:19 PL ROSENKAVALIER MET 3 ABF + T 2/18/56:6 JH UN BALLO MET 4 BC + T 2/24/56:10 PL ZAUBERFLOETE MET 3 ABD + T 3/1/56:19 PL IL TROVATORE MET 4 ABC + T 3/15/56:18 JH MANON LESCAUT MET 4 ABC — T 3/29/56:16 PL TROILUS/CRESSIDA NYC 4 BE + T 4/5/56:15 PL IL TROVATORE NYC 3 ABD 0 P 4/17/56:17 PL MOTHER/US ALL IND 3 BEF + T 9/21/56:10 PL OPHEE/ENFERS NYC 3 EF — T 9/26/56:18 JH MIGNON NYC 3 BCD — T 9/28/56:12 FP SUSANNAH NYC 2 EF 0 P 10/12/56:10 PL DER STURM NYC 2 DEF — T 10/30/56:1 PL NORMA MET 4. BCD + T 11/1/56:19 PL MEISTERSINGER MET 3 BC + P 11/2/56:12 FP RIGOLETTO NYC 3 BCD ■+ P 11/3/56:9 JH DON PASQUALE MET 4 BCD + T 11/5/56:21 JH LA BOHEME MET 4 ABC + T 11/6/56:12 JH IL TROVATORE MET 4 BC + T 11/10/56:6 PL RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + P 11/14/56:18 PL AIDA MET 4 ABC 0 T 11/16/56:14 JH TOSCA MET 4 BC + T 11/24/56:6 PL ERNANI MET 3 ABE 0 P 12/4/56:22 PL LUCIA MET 4 BCE 0 P 12/22/56:7 PL LA PERICHOLE MET 3 BEF + P

1/8/57:15 PL ARABELLA MET 4 BCE 0 T 1/19/57:6 PL DAS RHEINGOLD MET 3 ABD + T

18 Revised settings, restaged by Yannopoulos. 300

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

1/23/57:15 JH DIE WALKUERE MET 3 BE o . T 1/31/57:14 PL SIEGFRIED MET 3 ABE o T 2/8/57:13 PL GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 BEF + T 2/22/57:9 PL LA TRAVIATA MET 3 ABD o P 3/2/57:6 PL ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 AB + T 3/8/57:10 JH LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BD o T 3/18/57:12 PL DON CARLO MET 4 BEF + P 4/1/57:9 PL PARSIFAL MET 4 AB + P 10/10/57:18 PL TURANDOT NYC 3 ABE + T 10/11/57:14 FP SUSANNAH NYC 4 EF + T 10/18/57:15 PL LA VIDA BREVE NYC 3 BE + T 10/25/57:14 PL MACBETH NYC 3 BDE + T 10/29/57:1 PL EUGEN ONEGIN MET 3 BE o P 10/31/57:22 PL ENTFUEHRUNG NYC 3 BDE + T 11/1/57:16 PL DON GIOVANNI MET 3 ABD + T 11/2/57:11 JH FAUST MET 4 B o V 11/7/57:22 JH LA PERICHOLE MET 4 BCD + T 11/14/57:14 JH DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + P 11/23/57:9 PL ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC + T 11/30/57:7 PL FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BEF + P 12/5/57:19 JH CARMEN MET 4 BC — V 12/17/57:20 PL ORFEO/EURIDICE MET 4 BCE - T 12/20/57:13 PL FIGARO MET 4 ABC + T 12/23/57:14 FP LUCIA MET 4 BC + P

1/16/58:1 PL VANESSA MET 1 BEF + T 2/3/58:12 PL TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABD o T 2/6/58:13 JH DIE WALKUERE MET 4 BC — T 2/7/58:1 PL LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC o T 2/10/58:12 FP TOSCA MET 4 BC + T 2/11/58:11 PL TRNSPSED HEADS IND 2 EF — P 2/14/58:12 JH LUCIA MET 4 BC + T 2/20/58:14 PL BUTTERFLY MET 3 ABD + T 2/28/58:10 PL OTELLO MET 4 ABC + T 3/1/58:7 FP ' TOSCA MET 4 BC + P 3/21/58:11 PL PARSIFAL MET 4 BEF — T 3/28/58:12 FP TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 BC + P 4/4/58:1 JH BALLAD BABY DOE NYC 2 EF + T 4/11/58:12 PL LOST IN STARS NYC 3 EF o V 4/14/58:14 PL TAMING/SHREW NYC 4 EF + T 301

TABLE 19— Continued

- COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

4/18/58:11 FP REGINA NYC 4 BEF + P 4/24/58:17 JH GD SOLD SCHWEIK NYC 1 DEF o T 5/1/58:14 JH SUSANNAH NYC 3 DE + T 10/8/58:17 PL SCHWEIGSAME FR. NYC 2 BEF . + T 10/17/58:14 JH CARMEN NYC 4 BC + P 10/20/58:12 PL CENERENTOLA NYC 4 BCE + T 10/24/58:17 FP RAPE/LUCRETIA NYC 3 EF 0 P 10/28/58:1 PL TOSCA MET 3 BCX + T 10/30/58:17 JH BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 • BC o T 10/31/58:10 FP RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + T 11/10/58:17 JH BUTTERFLY MET 4 BC + T 11/19/58:21 JH ZAUBERFLOETE MET 4 BC + T 11/28/58:14 JH DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 BC + P 12/4/58:25 JH MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BC — T 12/10/58:22 FP OTELLO MET 4 BC + T

1/3/59:4 PL UN BALLO MET 4 ABE + T 1/8/59:12 JH VANESSA MET 4 BC + T 1/16/59:11 PL DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC + T 1/23/59:8 PL MEISTERSINGER MET 4 ABC + T 2/6/59:9 PL MACBETH MET 3 ABD + T 2/12/59:12 JH LOHENGRIN MET 4 B 0 P 3/6/59:8 PL WOZZECK MET 3 ACD + T 3/16/59:13 PL DON CARLO MET 4 AB o T 3/20/59:11 PL UN BALLO MET 4 AB 0 T 3/23/59:11 FP RIGOLETTO MET 4 BC + P 3/24/59:16 PL WOZZECK MET 4 ABF + T 3/31/59:13 PL MARIA GOLOVIN NYC 3 BEF 0 P 4/3/59:12 JH STREET SCENE NYC 3 CEF + T 4/10/59:10 PL WUTH. HEIGHTS NYC 2 CE + T 4/27/59:11 JH 6 CHARACTERS NYC 1 EF 0 T 10/9/59:15 PL COSI FAN TUTTE NYC 3 ABC + T 10/27/59:22 PL IL TROVATORE MET 3 BDX + T 10/29/59:14 JH MANON MET 4 BEX 0 . T 10/30/59:10 FP TOSCA MET 4 ABC + P 10/31/59:6 PL FIGARO MET 3 D — T 11/5/59:18 AH LA TRAVIATA MET 4 AB + T 11/10/59:22 AH AIDA MET 4 B o P 11/26/59:16 JH ZIGEUNERBARON MET 3 BCD — V 12/3/59:18 PL PELLEAS MET 4 AEF o T 12/9/59:24 JH FAUST MET 4 BC — T 302

TABLE 19— Continued

- COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/11/59:14 PL FIGARO MET 4 BC 0 T 12/19/59:1 PL TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 3 BCD + T

1/14/60:14 PL FL. HOLLAENDER HET 4 ABF + T 1/18/60:11 FP DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABD + P 1/29/60:12 PL FIDELIO MET 3 ABD o T 2/2/60:14 JH FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 ABC 0 V 2/10/60:16 PL DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABC + T 2/12/60:11 PL CRADLE/ROCK NYC 3 EF - P 2/15/60:11 AH THE CONSUL NYC 4 CEF + T 2/19/60:12 PL AIDA MET 4 BC o T 3/2/60:17 PL SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 3 BEF + T 3/16/60:22 JH SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BC + P 3/31/60:18 JH TOSCA MET 4 BC + P 4/8/60:13 FP SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BC + T 10/13/60:18 JH ROSENKAVALIER NYC 4 BDE o T 10/20/60:19 JH INSPECTOR GEN. NYC 2 EF 0 T 10/25/60:12 PL NABUCCO MET 3 BDE 0 T 10/26/60:19 JH MANON LESCAUT MET 3 ABC — T 10/28/60:13 PL BORIS GODUNOV MET 4 ACE + T 10/29/60:8 FP LA BOHEME MET 4 BC + P 10/30/60:19 PL CARMEN MET 4 ABC 0 P 11/19/60:8 FP ARABELLA MET 4 BCE + P 11/26/60:11' PL L'ELISIR MET 3 BCE + T 12/7/60:23 PL ALCESTIS MET 3 BDE o T 12/20/60:14 PL SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BX o T 12/27/60:10 PL LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BE 0 T 12/30/60:8 RE MANON LESCAUT MET 4 BCD - P

1/17/61:19 RE TANNHAEUSER MET 4 BC + P 1/26/61:12 FP TANNHAEUSER MET 4 BC + P 1/27/61:10 PL MARTHA MET 3 DEF o T 1/28/61:7 RE IL TROVATORE MET 4 BC + P 2/1/61:14 PL TRISTAN/ISOLDE MET 4 ABC + P 2/14/61:16 PL ELEKTRA MET 4 BCF + T 2/21/61:17 FP AIDA MET 4 B + P 2/25/61:6 PL TURANDOT MET 3 ABE + T 3/11/61:7 PL WOZZECK MET 4 CEF + T 3/17/61:15 PL DON CARLO MET 4 BCE — T 3/23/61:14 RE PARSIFAL MET 4 BCD — P 10/13/61:15 PL WINGS THE DOVE NYC 1 CEF + T 303

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRU( CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION TORE

10/24/61:19 PL FANCIULLA/WEST MET 3 BEF o T 10/25/61:18 PL COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 BCD + T 10/27/61:11 PL THE CRUCIBLE NYC 1 CEF + T 10/30/61:13 FP LOHENGRIN MET 4 BC + P 11/6/61:17 PL TURANDOT MET 4 AB — T 11/7/61:16 PL AIDA MET 4 BCD — T 11/13/61:12 RE HOFFMANN MET 4 BCF + P 11/27/61:12 FP LA PERICHOLE MET 4 BC + P 11/27/61:13 PL LUCIA MET 4 BCE + T 12/11/61:16 PL GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 3 BDF — T 12/13/61:18 RE FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BD + P

1/12/62:12 PL FIGARO MET 4 ABE T 1/26/62:9 PL UN BALLO MET 3 BDF + T 2/1/62:10 RE TOSCA MET 4 BC — P 2/2/62:7 RE GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 BC + P 2/3/62:6 PL SALOME MET 4 ABF o T 3/10/62:6 PL LA GIOCONDA MET 4 BEF — V 3/17/62:8 PL ELEKTRA MET 4 BEF + T 3/26/62:8 RE TURN OF SCREW NYC 2 EF o T 3/29/62:14 PL THE CONSUL NYC 4 CEF + T 4/2/62:11 PL TOSCA MET 4 BC + P 10/5/62:14 RE LOUISE NYC 3 CDE + P 10/6/62:8 FP TURN OF SCREW NYC 4 BCF + P 10/12/62:10 PL PASSION/J. WADE NYC 1 CEF o T 10/13/62:8 FP FIGARO NYC 4 BC + P 10/15/62:13 PL CARMEN NYC 3 ABC 0 T 10/16/62:19 PL ANDREA CHENIER MET 4 BEX o T 10/25/62:13 JR DIE FLEDERMAUS MET 4 ABC + T 11/2/62:12 PL DON GIOVANNI MET 4 ABC o T 11/12/62:12 FP ERNANI MET 4 BCE + P 11/20/62:19 PL ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC o T 11/26/62:12 PL IL BARBIERE MET 4 ABC + T 12/1/62:6 JG PELLEAS MET 4 BCE + T

4/26/63:15 PL MIDSUMMER N. D. NYC 2 BEF + T 10/11/63:11 AR GENT. BE SEATED NYC 1 EF _ T 10/15/63:15 AR AIDA MET 3 BDX + P 10/17/63:22 LS LA BOHEME MET 4 ABC 0 T 10/18/63:12 JG MANON MET 3 BCD _ p 10/21/63:14 ES LA TRAVIATA NYC 3 BCD + P 304

TABLE 19— Continued

COM­ PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATION' TURE

10/25/63:14 ES DON GIOVANNI NYC 3 BCD + T 11/1/63:12 AR DON CARLO MET 4 BC — P 11/7/63:13 AR FAUST MET 4 BCD - P 11/15/63:13 AR GOETTERDAEMMER. MET 4 ABC o T 12/6/63:10 AR LA SONNAMBULA MET 4 BCE + T 12/12/63:18 AR IL TROVATORE MET 4 ABC + T 12/16/63:15 AR LA TRAVIATA MET 4 BC + P 12/26/63:11 JG ARIADNE MET 4 BEF 0 P

1/24/64:1 AR LAST SAVAGE MET 1 EF + T 2/10/64:13 WB OTELLO MET 4 BC + P 2/17/64:14 AR EUGEN ONEGIN MET 4 BDF 0 T 3/7/64:8 AR FALSTAFF MET 3 AD + T 3/20/64:13 AR MACBETH MET 4 BCD — T 5/7/64:13 AR PORGY AND BESS NYC 4 CEF + T 10/2/64:11 AR BORIS GODUNOV NYC 3 DE - T 10/5/64:15 AR CARMEN NYC 4 BC + P 10/9/64:12 AR NATAL. PETROVNA NYC 1 BEF - T 10/13/64:16 AR LUCIA MET 3 BD 0 T 10/14/64:19 AR ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 BCD o P 10/19/64:16 AR SAMSON/DALILA MET 3 BDE + T 10/23/64:14 LS SALOME NYC 4 BCF + T 11/3/64:10 AR ROSENKAVALIER MET 4 ABC + P 11/14/64:6 AR DON PASQUALE MET 3 BCD + T 11/27/64:14 LS FORZA/DESTINO MET 4 BC + T 12/10/64:16 AR SIM. BOCCANEGRA MET 4 BEF + P 12/19/64:6 JG HOFFMANN MET 4 BC + T

1/4/65:12 AR AIDA MET 4 ABC + P 1/14/65:10 AR TURNADOT MET 4 BCF + P 2/1/65:10 WB COSI FAN TUTTE MET 4 BCD 0 P 2/4/65:12 AR SALOME MET 3 BCD + V 2/13/65:8 JG SALOME MET 4 BC — P 2/20/65:8 AR WOZZECK MET 4 BCE + T 2/23/65:18 AR DIE WALKUERE MET 4 ABD 0 V 3/5/65:12 AR KAT. ISMAILOVA NYC 2 DEF + T 3/6/65:8 me PORGY AND BESS NYC 4 BC + T 3/13/65:66 LS MIDSUMMER N.D. NYC BE + P 3/15/65:16 AR VANESSA MET 41 ACE + T

IQMinor revisions made by composer and lib rettist. 305

TABLE 19— -Continued

COM- PROD MAJ EVALU- STRUC- CITATION CRIT OPERA PANY CLASS TOPIC ATTON TURE

3/19/65:15 WB ST. OF BLEEKER NYC 4 AEF T 3/20/65:1 AR TOSCA MET 4 BC + T 3/26/65:18 AR LIZZIE BORDEN NYC 1 CEF 0 T 9/28/65:22 AR FAUST MET 3 BCD + T 9/29/65:21 AR QUEEN OF SPADES MET 3 DEF + P 10/8/65:12 AR DON CARLO MET 4 BC + P 10/14/65:21 LS BUTTERFLY MET 4 BC + P 10/26/65:16 AR MANON LESCAUT MET 4 ABD — T 10/28/65:14 LS CAPRICCIO NYC 2 BEF o T 10/30/65:11 ES FALSTAFF MET 4 D + T 11/4/65:15 AR CENERENTOLA MNC 3 • BD + T 11/5/65:13 AR. MISS JULIE NYC 1 BEF — P 11/5/65:13 ES BUTTERFLY MNC 3 BCD + P 11/9/65:16 AR FAUST MET 4 BC + T 12/2/65:14 AR FANCIULLA/WEST MET 4 BC + T 12/17/65:10 WB L'ELISIR MET 4 BC + P 12/23/65:90 AR FAUST MET 4 B + P 12/25/65:4 AR L'ELISIR MET 4 ■ BC + T 12/30/65:10 AR AIDA MET 4 ABC 0 T

1/10/66:80 AR FIDELIO MET 4 BCE 0 P 1/15/66:8 AR SALOME MET 4 BCD + T 1/18/66:13 JG FANCIULLA/WEST MET 4 BC + P 1/31/66:11 AR DON GIOVANNI MET 4 BC + ■ T 2/8/66:13 AR UN BALLO MET 4 AB + T 2/23/66:16 AR DON RODRIGO NYC 2 CDF + T 3/4/66:11 AR CARMELITES NYC 2 BDF 0 T 3/10/66:13 AR DANTONS TOD NYC 2 DE — T 3/11/66:11 AR PARSIFAL MET 4 DEF + p 3/21/66:13 ES TANNHAEUSER MET 4 BCD — T APPENDIX B

THE METHOD OF COLLECTING DATA ON THEATRE REVIEWS

The method used in collecting and recording data from theatre reviews differed in only one major respect from that used for opera reviews. The column used for record­ ing the producing company was eliminated, because no pro­ ducing organization devoted to mounting musicals remained active during the entire period. Almost all of the pro­ ductions listed would be designated as independently pro­ duced. In the opera listings, the designation of the company is helpful in distinguishing between two different productions of the same opera. The Metropolitan and New

York City companies often had identical operas in their active repertories.

The elimination of the company column also allowed space for presenting the title of musicals more fully—a helpful feature, considering the obscurity of many of the titles. Even so, some titles had to be abridged in order to f it the confines of the chart, particularly toward the end of the sample period, when titles of greater length,

306 307 like I t ’s ja Bird. I t ’s ja Plane, It's Superman and The Roar of the G reasepaint and the Smell of the Crowd came into vogue.

In all other respects, the charts are comparable, but since the number of columns differ, and since the manner of citation and the identification of reviewers’ initials must be explained, a separate key for reading Tables 20 and 21 has been included on pages 3 0 8 -3 0 9 . 308

KEY TO READING TABLES 2 0 AND 21

COLUMN I - CITATION

The CITATION column indicates the date that the review originally appeared. No page citation was necessary, because over ninety-five percent of the articles appear in New York Theatre Critics' Reviews.

The handful that are not available in that publication can readily be found by referring to the index on the front page of the cited Herald

Tribune issue under "Amusements,1' or to The New York Times Index.

COLUMN II - CRIT

CRIT stands for the critic who wrote the review:

TABLE 3 TABLE 4 THE TIMES THE HERALD TRIBUNE BA = Brooks Atkinson HB = Howard Barnes LC = Louis Calta PB = Paul V. Beckley LF = Lewis Funke JC = Ju d ith C ris t PG = Paul Gardner OG = Otis L‘. Guernsey, Jr SK = Stanley Kauffmann WK = Walter Kerr LN = Lewis Nichols HK = Howard Kupferberg HT = Howard Taubman BM = B ert McCord

COLUMN III - MUSICAL PLAY

The title of the musical that is the subject of the review is listed in the MUSICAL PLAY column.

COLUMN IV - PROD CLASS

PROD CLASS i s an abbreviation for Production Classifications.

Each performances was classified as one of the following: 309

1 = World Premiere 2 = Local Premiere of a Previously Produced Work 3 = New Production of an Older Work 4 = Old Production Re-evaluated 4D = Special Classification for D'Oyly Carte (see note, page 311)

MAJ TOPIC

The major topics of the review are listed in th e MAJ TOPIC c o l­ umn. No more th a n three topics are listed. Seven possible topics were considered:

A = Non-vocal musical performance E = Score Including comments on conducting, orch­ F = Libretto estral playing, and musical ensemble X = Misc. Comments B = Vocal musical performance C = Non-musical performance values (acting) D = Production elements Including comments on directing, scene design, and the theatre facilities.

COLUMN VI - EVALUATION

The EVALUATION column reports the favorability of the reviewer's attitude toward the topics of the review.

+ = Favorable o = Mixed - = Unfavorable

COLUMN VII - STRUCTURE

One o f three structural types is listed for each review in th e

STRUCTURE column:

T = Tripartite P = P rio rity V = Variant 310

TABLE 2 0

MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEW DATA - THE NEW YORK TIMES1

PRODMAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPICATIONTURE

10/8/43 LN ONE TOUCH OF VENUS 1 CEF + T 11/12/43 LN WHAT’S UP 1 CF - P 11/18/43 LN A CONNECTICUT YANKEE 3 CEF + T 11/22/43 LN WINGED VICTORY 1 DEX + T 12/3/43 LN CARMEN JONES 1 DF + T

1/14/44 LN JACKPOT 1 CEF _ T 1/29/44 LN MEXICAN HAYRIDE 1 CEF + V 4/10/44 LN FOLLOW THE GIRLS 1 CDF + T 4/21/44 LN ALLAH BE PRAISED 1 DEF - T 4/25/44 ■ LN HELEN GOES TO TROY l 2 BCF + T 5/19/44 LN DREAM WITH MUSIC 1 DEF - T 8/22/44 LN SONG OF NORWAY 1 BCF + T 10/6/44 LN BLOOMER GIRL 1 DEF + T 11/8/44 LN ROBIN HOOD 3 DEF — P 11/17/44 LN SADIE THOMPSON 1 DEF — T 11/23/44 LN RHAPSODY 1 CEF — P 12/29/44 LN ON THE TOWN 1 DEF + T

1/11/45 LN A LADY SAYS YES 1 BEF _ T 1/29/45 LN UP IN CENTRAL PARK 1 DEF — T 3/15/45 LN DARK OF THE MOON 2 CF — T 3/23/45 LN FIREBRAND OF FLORENCE 1 CDE — T 4/20/45 LN CAROUSEL 1 DEF + T 6/1/45 LN HOLLYWOOD PINAFORE l 3 CF 0 P 7/19/45 LN MARINKA 1 CEF 0 T 9/7/45 LN MR STRAUSS GOES/BOSTON 1 DEF — P 9/23/45 LN CARIB SONG 1 CDF — T 10/8/45 LN POLONAISE 1 CEF - T

key to the number and letter codes used in the chart can be found on pages 308-309.

Helen Goes to Troy is a revised version of Jacques Offen­ bach's La Belle Helene.

O "Hollywood Pinafore is a parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. P in a fo re . 311

TABLE 20— Continued

PRODMAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATIONTURE

10/27/45 LN THE RED MILL 3 CEF 0 T 11/9/45 LN GIRL FROM NANTUCKET 1 CEF — T 11/12/45 LN ARE YOU WITH IT? 1 BCE + P 11/23/45 LN THE DAY BEFORE SPRING 1 DF 0 T 12/22/45 LN BILLION DOLLAR BABY 1 CDF o T

1/7/46 LN SHOW BOAT 3 BCD + T 1/22/46 LN NELLIE BLY 1 CF - . P 2/7/46 LN LUTE SONG 1 CDF 0 P 2/14/46 LN THE DUCHESS MISBEHAVES 1 CDF — T 4/1/46 LN ST. LOUIS WOMAN 1 CEF — T 5/17/46 LN ANNIE GET YOUR GUN 1 CDE + P 6/1/46 LN AROUND THE WORLD 1 DEF — T 9/6/46 BA YOURS IS MY HEART 1 BEF — T 9/18/46 BA GYPSY LADY 1 CEF — T 11/5/46 BA PARK AVENUE 1 EF — T 12/6/46 BA IF THE SHOE FITS 1 CEF — P 12/27/46 BA BEGGAR'S HOLIDAY 1 BEF + T 12/27/46 LF TOPLITZKY/NOTRE DAME 1 CF - P

1/10/47 BA STREET SCENE 1 BE + T 1/11/47 BA FINIAN'S RAINBOW 1 CEF + T 1/22/47 BA SWEETHEARTS 3 C + V 3/13/47 BA THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER 3 CDF X T 3/14/47 BA BRIGADOON 1 DEF + T 4/4/47 BA BAREFOOT BOY W/CHEEK 1 CD o T 10/3/47 BA MUSIC IN MY HEART 1 BEF — T 10/4/47 BA UNDER THE COUNTER 1 CF — T 10/10/47 BA HIGH BUTTON SHOES 1 BCF + T 10/11/47 BA ALLEGRO 1 CDF + T 12/30/47 BA THE MIKADO 4D4 BC + T

All D'Oyly Carte revivals are listed as old productions with a qualifying "D" after each citation. A span of five to six years usually separated visits of the company, suggesting that some elements of setting and staging might have been new. On the other hand, D'Oyly Carte productions never varied much from their predecessors, the aim of the production personnel seemed to be more preservation than innovation. Other productions of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, most notably those of S.M. Chartock and the Stratford, Ontario, Festival, are listed as new productions. 312

TABLE 20— Continued

PROD MAJEVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATIONTURE

1/27/48 BA THE GONDOLIERS 4D CEF + T 1/30/48 BA LOOK, MA, I'M DANCIN' 1 CDF + P 2/3/48 BA YEOMEN OF THE GUARD 4D DEF o P 2/10/48 LF PATIENCE 4D CEF + P 5/7/48 BA SALLY 3 CF — T 6/4/48 BA SLEEPY HOLLOW 1 CDF + T 9/17/48 BA HEAVEN ON EARTH 1 CF — T 9/21/48 BA MAGDALENA 2 EF — T 10/12/48 BA WHERE’S CHARLEY? 1 CEF + V 10/20/48 BA MY ROMANCE 1 BEF — T 11/15/48 BA AS THE GIRLS GO 1 CD + T 12/31/48 BA KISS ME KATE 1 CEF + T

4/8/49 BA SOUTH PACIFIC 1 BCE + T 7/16/49 BA MISS LIBERTY 1 DEF — T 10/5/49 LF THE MIKADO 3 ACD o T 10/11/49 BA PIRATES OF PENZANCE 3 ABC — T 10/31/49 BA LOST IN THE STARS 1 EF + T 11/1/49 BA REGINA 1 CDF — T 11/26/49 BA TEXAS, L I'L DARLIN’ 1 CF — T 12/9/49 BA GENTLEMEN PREF BLONDES 1 CF + T

1/7/50 BA HAPPY AS LARRY 1 CF _ T 2/3/50 BA ARMS AND THE GIRL 1 BCF 0 T 3/24/50 LF GREAT TO BE ALIVE 1 CF — T 4/25/50 BA PETER PAN 1 CDF + T 5/19/50 LF THE LIAR 1 CF — T 10/13/50 BA CALL ME MADAM 1, CEF + T 11/3/50 BA THE BARRIER l 5 CF — T 11/25/50 BA GUYS AND DOLLS 1 CF + T 12/14/50 BA LET’S MAKE AN OPERA 2 EF — P 12/22/50 BA OUT OF THIS WORLD 1 CEF - T

1/30/51 BA THE MIKADO 4D ABC + T 2/13/51 BA THE GONDOLIERS 4D BC + T 3/30/51 BA THE KING AND I 1 BDE + T 4/19/51 BA MAKE A WISH 1 CDF 0 T 4/20/51 BA TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN 1 CDF + T 5/15/51 BA FLAHOOLEY 1 DF — T

^The Barrier received an earlier, semi-professional produc­ tion at Columbia University. 313

TABLE 20— Continued

PRODMAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL FLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

5/30/51 BA OKLAHOMA 4 CEF + T 6/14/51 BA COURTIN' TIME 1 CF o T 6/22/51 BA SEVENTEEN 1 CDF + T 10/9/51 BA MUSIC IN THE AIR 3 CEF + V 11/2/51 BA TOP BANANA 1 CF + T 11/13/51 BA PAINT YOUR WAGON 1 CDF + T

1/4/52 BA PAL JOEY 3 CEF + T 3/22/52 BA 3 WISHES FOR JAMIE 1 DF — T 4/17/52 BA 4 SAINTS IN 3 ACTS 3 BDF 0 T 5/6/52 BA OF THEE I SING 3, CDF + T 5/9/52 LF SHUFFLE ALONG I 6 DEF — T 6/26/52 BA WISH YOU WERE HERE 1 DF — T 10/15/52 BA BUTTRIO SQUARE 1 CF — T 10/21/52 BA THE MIKADO 3 ACD 0 T 10/28/52 BA MY DARLIN' AIDA 1 BDF - T 11/11/52 BA IOLANTHE 3 BCF + T

2/12/53 BA HAZEL FLAGG 1 CDF + P 2/19/53 BA MAGGIE 1 EF — T 2/26/53 BA WONDERFUL TOW 1 CEF + V 3/10/53 BA PORGY AND BESS 3 BCD + T 5/8/53 BA CAN-CAN 1 CDF + T 5/29/53 BA ME AND JULIET 1 DEF — T • 9/1/53 BA OKLAHOMA! 3 CDE o V 9/9/53 BA CARNIVAL IN FLANDERS 1 BCF — T 12/4/53 BA KISMET 1 CDF - T

3/6/54 BA GIRL IN PINK TIGHTS 1 CDF _ T 4/9/54 BA BY THE BEAUTIFUL SEA 1 DEF + T 5/14/54 BA THE PAJAMA GAME 1 CEF + T 5/20/54 BA FLEDERMAUS 3 BEF 0 T 10/1/54 BA THE BOY FRIEND 2 CDF + T 10/12/54 BA ON YOUR TOES 3 DEF 0 T 10/21/54 BA PETER PAN 1 CDE + T 11/5/54 BA FANNY 1 CDF + T 12/2/54 BA MRS. PATTERSON 1 CF o T 12/3/54 BA HIT THE TRAIL 1 CDF — T 12/28/54 BA ST. OF BLEECKER STREET 1 DF + T

^Shuffle Along is a reworking, with book, of a "Negro Revue" that was originally presented in New York in 1921. 314

TABLE 20— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/31/54 BA HOUSE OF FLOWERS 1 CEF - T

1/28/55 BA PLAIN AND FANCY 1 CEF 0 T 2/25/55 BA SILK STOCKINGS 1 CDF + T 4/19/55 BA ANKLES AWEIGH 1 CF - T 5/6/55 LF DAMN YANKEES 1 CDF + T 5/27/55 LF SEVENTH HEAVEN 1 CDF - P 9/28/55 BA IOLANTHE 4D ABC + T 11/11/55 BA THE VAMP 1 CDF - V 12/1/55 BA PIPE DREAM 1 BEF + T

3/16/56 BA MY FAIR LADY 1 CEF + T 3/23/56 BA MR. WONDERFUL 1 CF — T 5/4/56 BA THE MOST HAPPY FELLA 1 BEF + T 6/14/56 BA SHANGRI-LA 1 CDF - T 11/16/56 BA L I’L ABNER 1 CEF o V 11/30/56 BA BELLS ARE RINGING 1 CDF o T 12/3/56 BA CANDIDE 1 BEF + T 12/7/56 BA HAPPY HUNTING 1 CDF + V

3/28/57 BA BRIGADOON CDF + T 4/15/57 BA SHINBONE ALLEY 1 CEF o T 4/29/57 BA LIVIN' THE LIFE 1 CDF - T 5/15/57 BA NEW GIRL IN TOWN CDF 0 T 5/22/57 BA SIMPLY HEAVENLY 37 CF + T 9/27/57 BA TOST SIDE STORY 1 DEF + T 10/18/57 BA COPPER AND BRASS 1 CF - V 11/1/57 BA JAMAICA 1 BEF - T 11/7/57 BA RUMPLE 1 CF - P 12/20/57 BA THE MUSIC MAN 1 CDF + T

1/24/58 BA THE BODY BEAUTIFUL 1 CEF _ T 2/5/58 BA OH CAPTAIN! 1 CF — T 2/22/58 BA PORTOFINO 1 CF — T 12/2/58 BA FLOWER DRUM SONG 1 DEF + T 12/23/58 BA WHOOP-UP 1 CEF — V

^Simply Heavenly was originally produced off-Broadway. 315

TABLE 20— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

2/6/59 BA REDHEAD 1 DF o V 3/10/59 BA JUNO 1 CEF - V 3/20/59 BA FIRST IMPRESSIONS 1 CEF - T 4/24/59 BA DESTRY RIDES AGAIN 1 DEF - T 5/12/59 BA ONCE UPON A MATTRESS CDF + T 5/13/59 BA THE NERVOUS SET 28 CF o T 5/22/59 BA GYPSY 1 CDF + T 10/8/59 BA HAPPY TOWN 1 CF - T 10/23/59 BA TAKE ME ALONG 1 CDF 0 T 11/17/59 BA THE SOUND OF MUSIC 1 DEF 0 T 11/24/59 BA FI0RELL0 1 CDF + T 12/8/59 BA SARATOGA 1 BDF - T

2/11/60 BA BEG, BORROW OR STEAL 1 DF - T 3/9/60 BA GREENWILLOW 1 BEF + T 4/15/60 BA BYE BYE BIRDIE 1 CDF 0 T 4/28/60 AG FINIAN'S RAINBOW 3 CDF + T 4/28/60 BA WEST SIDE STORY 4 CDF + T 4/29/60 BA CHRISTINE 1Q CEF - V 5/12/60 BA THE KING AND I 39 BEF + T 9/8/60 HT H.M.S. PINAFORE 3 BCD + T 9/30/60 HT IRMA LA DOUCE 1 CDF + T 10/18/60 HT TENDERLOIN 1 DEF 0 T 11/4/60 HT UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN 1 CEF - T 12/5/60 HT CAMELOT 1 CEF 0 T 12/17/60 HT WILDCAT 1 CDF - T 12/27/60 HT DO RE MI 1 CEF + T

1/17/61 HT THE CONQUERING HERO 1 CDF _ T 3/3/61 HT 13 DAUGHTERS 1 CDF - T 4/4/61 HT HAPPIEST GIRL IN WORLD 1 CDF 0 T 4/14/61 HT CARNIVAL 1 CDF + T

O The Nervous Set was originally produced in St. Louis and enjoyed a short run in that city before coming to Broadway.

9This production of The King and I was a refurbished version of the original production. The original Jerome Robbins choreography was "recreated"; credits for settings and costumes went to Mielziner and Sharaff, the original creators. A new cast appeared in the produc­ tion, which was financed by the City Center Light Opera Company. 316

TABLE 20— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

5/18/61 HT PORGY AND BESS 3 BCE + T 5/19/61 HT D0NNYBR00K 1 CF + T 9/7/61 HT PIRATES OF PENZANCE 3 DF + T 10/4/61 HT SAIL AWAY 1 CF + P 10/11/61 HT MILK AND HONEY 1 CDF + T 10/13/61 HT LET IT RIDE 1 CDF — T 10/16/61 HT HOW TO SUCCEED . . . 1 CEF + T 10/24/61 HT KWAMINA 1 CDF + T 11/3/61 HT KEAN 1 CDF + T 11/20/61 HT THE GAY LIFE 1 CDF + T 12/28/61 HT SUBWAYS/FOR SLEEPING 1 CDF - T

1/29/62 HT A FAMILY AFFAIR 1 CF o T 3/16/62 HT NO STRINGS 1 DEF + T 3/20/62 HT ALL AMERICAN 1 CF — T 3/23/62 HT I CAN GET IT/WHOLESALE 1 CEF + T 5/9/62 HT A FUNNY THING HAPPENED 1 CDF + T 5/21/62 HT BRAVO GIOVANNI 1 BEF o V 10/4/62 HT STOP THE WORLD . . . 2 CEF — T 10/22/62 HT MR. PRESIDENT 1 CEF — T 11/12/62 HT NOWHERE TO GO BUT UP 1 CF — T 11/14/62 HT THE MIKADO 4D BCE + T 11/16/62 LF THE GONDOLIERS 4D DEF + P 11/19/62 HT LITTLE ME 1 CDF 0 T 11/21/62 PG PIRATES OF PENZANCE 4D DEF + T

1/7/63 HT OLIVER! 1 DEF Tio 3/19/63 HT TOVARICH 1 CF o T 4/16/63 HT SOPHIE 1 EF _ T 4/21/63 HT HOT SPOT 1 CF _ T 4/24/63 HT SHE LOVES ME 1 CEF + T 10/1/63 HT THE STUDENT GYPSY 1 CEF — T 10/4/63 HT HERE’S LOVE 1 CDF o T 10/18/63 HT JENNIE 1 CDF — T 11/4/63 HT TAMBOURINES TO GLORY 1 BEF — T 11/19/63 HT THE GOLDEN AGE 1 CEF + T 12/9/63 HT GIRL WHO CAME SUPPER 1 CEF — T

Taubman's reviews of Oliver! and Tovarich originally ap­ peared in a publication entitled Firstnite. because of a newspaper s tr ik e . 317

TABLE 20--Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAT CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

1/17/64 HT HELLO, DOLLY! 1 CDF + T 2/7/64 HT RUGANTINO 2 DEF + T 2/17/64 HT FOXY 1 CF + T 2/28/64 HT WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN? 1 CEF - T 3/27/64 HT FUNNY GIRL 1 CDF + T 4/6/64 HT ANYONE CAN WHISTLE 1 CDF - P 4/8/64 HT HIGH SPIRITS 1 CDF + T 4/16/64 HT CAFE CROWN 1 CF — T 5/27/64 HT FADE OUT - FADE IN 1 CDF + P 9/23/64 HT FIDDLER ON THE ROOF 1 CEF + T 10/21/64 HT GOLDEN BOY 1 CEF + T 10/28/64 HT BEN FRANKLIN IN PARIS 1 CDF - T 11/11/64 HT SOMETHING MORE 1 BCF - T 11/24/64 HT BAJOUR 1 CDF + T 12/16/64 HT I HAD A BALL 1 CDF - T

2/8/65 HT KELLY 1 CDF _ T 2/17/65 HT BAKER STREET 1 CDF + T 3/19/65 HT DO I HEAR A WALTZ? 1 CDF 0 T 4/26/65 HT HALF A SIXPENCE 1 CDF 0 T 5/12/65 HT FLORA, THE RED MENACE 1 BCF — T 5/17/65 HT ROAR OF GREASEPAINT 2 CDF - T 10/5/65 HT PICKWICK 2 CDF - T 10/11/65 HT DRAT! THE CAT! 1 CDF — T 10/18/65 HT ON A CLEAR DAY . . . 1 CEF 0 T 11/11/65 HT THE ZULU AND THE ZAYDA 1 CEF — T 11/15/65 HT SKYSCRAPER 1 CF + T 11/23/65 HT MAN OF LA MANCHA 1 BCF + T 11/30/65 HT ANYA 1 CEF + T 12/11/65 HT THE YEARLING 1 DEF — T 12/15/65 HT LA GROSSE VALISE 1 DF — T 12/28/65 HT MARAT/SADE 1 DF + T

1/31/66 SK SWEET CHARITY 1 CDF _ T 3/19/66 SK POUSSE-CAFE 1 CDF T 3/30/66 SK IT 'S A BIRD/SUPERMAN 1 CDF + T 5/16/66 SK A TIME FOR SINGING 1 CDF — T 5/25/66 SK MAME 1 CDF + T 318

TABLE 21

MUSICAL THEATRE REVIEW DATA - THE HERALD TRIBUNE11

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/8/43 HB ONE TOUCH OF VENUS 1 CDF + T 11/12/43 HB WHAT'S UP 1 CF — T 11/18/43 HB A CONNECTICUT YANKEE 3 CEF 0 T 11/22/43 HB WINGED VICTORY 1 DE + T 12/3/43 HB CARMEN JONES 1 BDF + T

1/14/44 HB JACKPOT 1 BCF 0 T 1/29/44 HB MEXICAN HAYRIDE 1 BCF o T 4/10/44 HB FOLLOW THE GIRLS 1 CDF + T 4/21/44 HB ALLAH BE PRAISED 1 CF — T 4/25/44 HB HELEN GOES TO TROY l 12 CDF + T 5/19/44 HB DREAM WITH MUSIC 1 CDF — T 8/22/44 HB SONG OF NORWAY 1 CEF 0 T 10/6/44 HB BLOOMER GIRL 1 CDE + T 11/8/44 HB ROBIN HOOD 3 DEF — T 11/17/44 HB SADIE THOMPSON 1 BCF + T 11/23/44 HB RHAPSODY 1 DEF — T 12/29/44 HB ON THE TOWN 1 CDF 0 T

1/11/45 HB A LADY SAYS YES 1 EF _ T 1/29/45 0G UP IN CENTRAL PARK 1 DF + T 3/15/45 HB DARK OF THE MOON 2 CF o T 3/23/45 HB FIREBRAND OF FLORENCE 1 BEF + T 4/20/45 0G CAROUSEL 1 DEF + T 6/1/45 HB HOLLYWOOD PINAFORE l 13 CF + T 7/19/45 HB MARINKA 1 CEF o T 9/7/45 HB MR STRAUSS GOES BOSTON 1 BDF — P 9/28/45 HB CARIB SONG 1 DF — T 10/8/45 HB POLONAISE 1 CEF - T

11A key to the number and letter codes used in the chart can be found on pages 308-309. 12 x Helen Goes to Troy is a revised version of Jacques Offenbach's La B elle Helene.

13Hollywood Pinafore is a parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. P in afo re. 319

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

10/27/45 HB THE RED MILL 3 CEF T 11/9/45 HB GIRL FROM NANTUCKET 1 CF — T 11/12/45 0G ARE YOU WITH IT? 1 CEF + T 11/23/45 HB THE DAY BEFORE SPRING 1 CF o T 12/22/45 HB BILLION DOLLAR BABY 1 CDF + T

1/7/46 HB SHOW BOAT CDF + T 1/22/46 HB NELLIE BLY 1 CF — T 2/7/46 HB LUTE SONG 1 CDF + T 2/14/46 HB DUCHESS MISBEHAVES 1 CEF — T 4/1/46 HB ST. LOUIS WOMAN 1 CEF — T 5/17/46 HB ANNIE GET YOUR GUN 1 CDF + T 6/1/46 HB AROUND THE WORLD 1 DEF — T 9/6/46 HB YOURS IS MY HEART 1 BEF — T 9/18/46 HB GYPSY LADY 1 CEF + T 11/5/46 HB PARK AVENUE 1 . CF o T 12/6/46 HB IF THE SHOE FITS 1 CEF — T 12/27/46 HB BEGGAR'S HOLIDAY 1 CEF _ T 12/27/46 0G TOPLITZKY/NOTRE DAME 1 DEF - T

1/10/47 HB STREET SCENE 1 BEF + T 1/11/47 HB FINIAN'S RAINBOW 1 DEF o P 1/22/47 HB SWEETHEARTS C + T 3/13/47 HB THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER CEF o T 3/14/47 HB BRIGADOON 1 DF + T 4/4/47 HB BAREFOOT BOY W/CHEEK 1 CD o T 10/3/47 HB MUSIC IN MY HEART 1 CEF — T 10/4/47 HB UNDER THE COUNTER 1 CF — T 10/10/47 HB HIGH BUTTON SHOES 1 CDF — T 10/11/47 HB ALLEGRO CDF + T 12/30/47 HB THE MIKADO 4D14 BCE + T

1 All D'Oyly Carte revivals are listed as old productions with a qualifying "D" after each citation. A span of five to six years usually separated visits of the company, suggesting that some elements of setting and staging might have been new. On the other hand, D'Oyly Carte productions never varied much from their pre­ decessors, the aim of the production personnel seemed to be more preservation than innovation. Other productions of Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, most notably those of S.M. Chartoclc and the Stratford, Ontario, Festival, are listed as new productions. 320

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

1/27/48 HB THE GONDOLIERS 4D CEF + T 1/30/48 0G LOOK, MA, I'M DANCIN* 1 CDF 0 T 2/3/48 HB YEOMEN OF THE GUARD 4D CEF + T 2/10/48 0G PATIENCE 4D CF 0 T 5/7/48 HB SALLY 3 CEF + T 6/4/48 HB SLEEPY HOLLOW 1 CDF . - T 9/17/48 HB HEAVEN ON EARTH 1 CF - T 9/21/48 HB MAGDALENA 1 CEF — T 10/12/48 HB WHERE'S CHARLEY? 1 CF 0 T 10/20/48 HB MY ROMANCE 1 CF — T 11/15/48 HB AS THE GIRLS GO 1 CF 0 T 12/31/48 HB KISS ME KATE 1 CEF + T

4/8/49 HB SOUTH PACIFIC 1 CEF + T 7/16/49 HB MISS LIBERTY 1 CDF — T 10/5/49 HB THE MIKADO BCD 0 T 10/11/49 HB PIRATES OF PENZANCE BC - T 10/31/49 HB LOST IN THE STARS 1 CEF + T 11/1/49 HB REGINA 1 CDF - T 11/26/49 HB TEXAS, L I'L DARLIN' 1 CF - T 12/9/49 HB GENTLEMEN PREF BLONDES 1 CDF + T

1/7/50 HB HAPPY AS LARRY 1 CDF _ T 2/3/50 HB ARMS AND THE GIRL 1 BCF 0 T 3/24/50 HB GREAT TO BE ALIVE 1 CF — T 4/25/50 HB PETER PAN 1 CF + T 5/19/50 OG THE LIAR 1 CEF — T 10/13/50 HB CALL ME MADAM CF + T 11/3/50 OG THE BARRIERl 15 CEF 0 T 11/25/50 HB GUYS AND DOLLS 1 DEF + T 12/14/50 HB LET'S MAKE AN OPERA 2 BF - T 12/22/50 OG OUT OF THIS WORLD 1 DEF o T

1/30/51 OG THE MIKADO 4D BC + T 2/13/51 BM THE GONDOLIERS 4D BCF + P 3/30/51 OG THE KING AND I 1 CDE + T 4/19/51 OG MAKE A WISH 1 CEF + T 4/20/51 OG TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN 1 CF — T 5/15/51 OG FLAHOOLEY 1 BF — T

l^The Barrier received an earlier, semi-professional production at Columbia University. 321

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

5/30/51 0G OKLAHOMA! 4 EF + T 6/14/51 0G COURTIN’ TIME 1 CDF - T 6/22/51 0G SEVENTEEN 1 CF - T 10/9/51 BM MUSIC IN THE AIR 3 CF - T 11/2/51 WK TOP BANANA 1 CF + T 11/13/51 WK PAINT YOUR WAGON 1 CDF - V

1/4/52 WK PAL JOEY 3 CDF + T 3/22/52 WK 3 WISHES FOR JAMIE 1 CD + T 4/17/52 WK 4 SAINTS IN THREE ACTS 3 CDE + T 5/6/52 WK OF THEE I SING CEF - T 5/9/52 WK SHUFFLE ALONG l 16 DEF — T 1 6/26/52 WK WISH YOU WERE HERE X CDF — T 10/15/52 WK BUTTRIO SQUARE 1 F - T 10/21/52 WK THE MIKADO 3 BCD - T 10/28/52 WK MY DARLIN' AIDA 1 DF o T 11/11/52 WK IOLANTHE 3 CF + T

2/12/53 WK HAZEL FLAGG 1 CDF _ T 2/19/53 WK MAGGIE 1 CF + T 2/26/53 WK WONDERFUL TOM 1 BCE + V 3/10/53 WK PORGY AND BESS 3 BCD + T 5/8/53 WK CAN-CAN 1 CDF + V 5/29/53 WK ME AND JULIET 1 CDF o V 9/1/53 WK OKLAHOMA! 3 CD + T 9/9/53 WK CARNIVAL IN FLANDERS 1 CF — T 12/4/53 WK KISMET 1 CDF o T

3/6/54 WK GIRL IN PINK TIGHTS 1 CDF _ V 4/9/54 WK BY THE BEAUTIFUL SEA 1 CF o T 5/14/54 WK THE PAJAMA GAME 1 CDE + T 5/20/54 WK FLEDERMAUS 3 CDF — P 10/1/54 WK THE BOY FRIEND 2 CF + T 10/12/54 WK ON YOUR TOES 3 CDF — T 10/21/54 WK PETER PAN 1 CDE + T 11/5/54 WK FANNY 1 CDF o V 12/2/54 WK MRS. PATTERSON 1 CDF 0 V 12/3/54 WK HIT THE TRAIL 1 CDF — V 12/28/54 WK ST OF BLEECKER STREET 1 CF o V

1 £iShuffle Along is a reworking, with book, of a "Negro Revue" th a t was o rig in a lly presented in New York in 1921. 322

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

12/31/54 WK HOUSE OF FLOWERS 1 BCF - T

1/28/55 WK PLAIN AND FANCY 1 CF + V 2/25/55 WK SILK STOCKINGS 1 CEF + T 4/19/55 WK ANKLES AWEIGH 1 CF - T 5/6/55 WK DAMN YANKEES 1 CF 0 T 5/27/55 WK SEVENTH HEAVEN 1 CDF - P 9/28/55 WK IOLANTHE 4D CD + T 11/11/55 WK THE VAMP 1 CEF - T 12/1/55 WK PIPE DREAM 1 CEF - T

3/16/56' WK MY FAIR LADY 1 CDF + V 3/23/56 WK MR. WONDERFUL 1 CDF - V 5/4/56 WK THE MOST HAPPY FELLA 1 EF 0 T 6/14/56 WK SHANGRI-LA 1 CF - T li/16/56 WK LI'L ABNER 1 DF - V 11/30/56 WK BELLS ARE RINGING 1 CF + V 12/3/56 WK CANDIDE 1 DEF - T 12/7/56 WK HAPPY HUNTING 1 CEF 0 V

3/28/57 WK BRIGADOON CDF + T 4/15/57 WK SHINBONE ALLEY 1 CF - T 4/29/57 WK LIVIN' THE LIFE 1 CDF - T 5/15/57 WK NEW GIRL IN TOWN DEF - V 8/21/57 PB SIMPLY HEAVENLY 3I 7 CF + T 9/27/57 WK WEST SIDE STORY 1 DEF + V 10/18/57 WK COPPER AND BRASS 1 CDF - V 11/1/57 WK JAMAICA 1 BEF - T 11/7/57 WK RUMPLE 1 CEF — V 12/20/57 WK THE MUSIC MAN 1 CEF + V

1/24/58 WK THE BODY BEAUTIFUL 1 CEF _ T 2/5/58 WK OH, CAPTAIN! 1 CF — T 2/22/58 WK P0RT0FIN0 1 CF - V 12/2/58 WK FLOWER DRUM SONG 1 DEF + V 12/23/58 WK WHOOP-UP 1 CEF - V

•^Simply Heavenly was originally produced off-Broadway. 323

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAY CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

2/6/59 WK REDHEAD 1 CDF + V 3/10/59 WK JUNO 1 CDF - V 3/20/59 WK FIRST IMPRESSIONS 1 CDF — V 4/24/59 WK DESTRY RIDES AGAIN 1 CDF - T 5/12/59 WK ONCE UPON A MATTRESS DEF + V 218X 1 Q 5/13/59 WK THE NERVOUS SET F - T 5/22/59 WK GYPSY 1 CF + T 10/8/59 WK HAPPY TOWN 1 DF - V 10/23/59 WK TAKE ME ALONG 1 CEF + T 11/17/59 WK THE SOUND OF MUSIC 1 DEF 0 V 11/24/59 WK FI0RELL0 1 CDF + T 12/8/59 WK SARATOGA 1 BDF - T

2/11/60 WK BEG, BORROW OR STEAL 1 DEF — V 3/9/60 WK GREENWILLOW 1 CEF — T 4/15/60 WK BYE BYE BIRDIE 1 CDF + V 4/28/60 JC FINIAN'S RAINBOW 3 CEF + T 4/28/60 WK WEST SIDE STORY 4 DEF + • V 4/29/60 WK CHRISTINE X1Q CDF — V 5/12/60 HK THE KING AND I 319 CDE + T 9/8/60 WK H.M.S. PINAFORE 3 CD + T 9/30/60 WK IRMA LA DOUCE 1 CEF — T 10/18/60 WK TENDERLOIN 1 CDF — T 11/4/60 WK UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN 1 CDF + V 12/5/60 WK CAMELOT 1 CEF 0 V 12/17/60 WK WILDCAT 1 CDF — V 12/27/60 WK DO RE MI 1 CDF + T

1/17/61 WK THE CONQUERING HERO 1 CDF _ V 3/3/61 WK 13 DAUGHTERS 1 CDF — V 4/4/61 WK HAPPIEST GIRL IN WORLD 1 CEF o V 4/14/61 WK CARNIVAL 1 CDF 0 T

xoThe1 8 Nervous Set was originally produced in St. Louis and enjoyed a short run in that city before coming to Broadway.

^This production of The King and I_ was a refurbished version of the original production. The original Jerome Robbins choreo­ graphy was "recreated”; credits for settings and costumes went to Mielziner and Sharaff, the original creators. A new cast appeared in the production, which was financed by the City Center Light Opera Company. 324

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PLAT CLASS TOPIC ATION TURE

5/18/61 JC PORGY AND BESS 3 CDE + T 5/19/61 WK DONNYBROOK 1 CF + T 9/7/61 WK PIRATES OF PENZANCE 3 BCD — T 10/4/61 WK SAIL AWAY 1 CF - T 10/11/61 WK MILK AND HONEY 1 CDF o T 10/13/61 WK LET IT RIDE 1 CDF - T 10/16/61 WK HOW TO SUCCEED . . . 1 CDF + T 10/24/61 WK KWAMINA 1 CDF — T 11/3/61 WK KEAN 1 CDF — T 11/20/61 WK THE GAY LIFE 1 CDF — V 12/28/61 WK SUBWAYS FOR SLEEPING 1 CDF - T

1/29/62 WK A FAMILY AFFAIR 1 CDF + T 3/16/62 WK NO STRINGS 1 CEF 0 V 3/20/62 WK ALL AMERICAN 1 CF - T 3/23/62 WK I CAN GET IT/WHOLESALE 1 CEF + T 5/9/62 WK A FUNNY THING HAPPENED 1 CEF + T 5/21/62 WK BRAVO GIOVANNI 1 CDF — P 10/4/62 WK STOP THE WORLD . . . 2 CEF — V 10/22/62 WK MR. PRESIDENT 1 CEF — T 11/12/62 WK NOWHERE TO GO BUT UP 1 CF — T 11/14/62 JC THE MIKADO 4D BCF + T 11/16/62 HK THE GONDOLIERS 4D BCD + P 11/19/62 WK LITTLE ME 1 CDF + T 11/21/62 JC PIRATES OF PENZANCE 4D CD + P

1/7/63 WK OLIVER! 1 CEF ij.20 3/19/63 WK TOVARICH 1 CF o V 4/16/63 WK SOPHIE 1 BEF — V 4/21/63 WK HOT SPOT 1 CEF — T 4/24/63 WK SHE LOVES ME 1 CF — V 10/1/63 WK THE STUDENT GYPSY 1 CDF — P 10/4/63 WK HERE'S LOVE 1 CDF 0 V 10/18/63 WK JENNIE 1 CEF — V 11/4/63 WK TAMBOURINES TO GLORY 1 CEF — T 11/19/63 WK THE GOLDEN AGE 1 CF — V 12/9/63 WK GIRL WHO CAME/SUPPER 1 CEF 0 T

9 n "^Kerr's reviews of Oliver! and Tovarich originally were broadcast over CBS radio; they first appeared in print in a public- • ation entitled Firstnite, because of a newspaper strike. 325

TABLE 21— Continued

PROD MAJ EVALU­ STRUC­ CITATION CRIT MUSICAL PUT CLASS TOPIC ATIONTURE

1/17/64 WK HELLO, DOLLY! 1 CDE + T 2/7/64 WK RUGANTINO 2 CEF - T 2/17/64 WK FOXY 1 CDF 0 V 2/28/64 WK WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN? 1 CF o T 3/27/64 WK FUNNY GIRL 1 CF + V 4/6/64 WK ANYONE CAN WHISTLE 1 CF - T 4/8/64 WK HIGH SPIRITS 1 CDF + V 4/16/64 WK CAFE CROWN 1 CF - T 5/27/64 WK FADE OUT - FADE IN 1 CF - T 9/23/64 WK FIDDLER ON THE ROOF 1 CDF 0 T 10/21/64 WK GOLDEN BOY 1 CDF + V 10/28/64 WK BEN FRANKLIN IN PARIS 1 DEF - T 11/11/64 WK SOMETHING MORE 1 CEF - V 11/24/64 WK BAJOUR 1 CDF - V 12/16/64 WK I HAD A BALL 1 CEF - V

2/8/65 WK KELLY 1 CDF _ V 2/17/65 WK BAKER STREET 1 CDF - T 3/19/65 WK DO I HEAR A WALTZ? 1 DEF 0 T 4/26/65 WK HALF A SIXPENCE 1 CDF 0 T 5/12/65 WK FLORA, THE RED MENACE 1 BCF - V 5/17/65 WK ROAR OF GREASEPAINT 2 CEF - T 10/5/65 WK PICKWICK 2 DEF - T 10/11/65 WK DRAT! THE CAT! 1 CDF + V 10/18/65 WK ON A CLEAR DAY . . . 1 CDF - T 11/11/65 WK THE ZULU AND THE ZAYDA 1 CF - T 11/15/65 WK SKYSCRAPER 1 CDF + T 11/23/65 WK MAN OF LA MANCHA 1 BDF 0 T 11/30/65 WK ANYA 1 F — V 12/11/65 WK THE YEARLING 1 DF - T 12/15/65 WK LA GROSSE VALISE 1 CDF — V 12/28/65 WK MARAT/SADE 1 DF - T

1/31/66 WK SWEET CHARITY 1 CDF o T 3/19/66 WK POUSSE-CAFE 1 CDF — T 3/30/66 WK IT ’S A BIRD/SUPERMAN 1 CDF — T 5/16/66 WK A TIME FOR SINGING 1 CDF - T 5/25/66 WK MAME 1 CDE + V BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich, Richard. Musical Discourse from the New York Times. London: Oxford University Press, 1928.

Atkinson, Justin Brooks. Brief Chronicles. New York: Coward McMann, 1966.

______. Broadway. New York: McMillan, 1970.

______. Broadway Scrapbook. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1947.

______. Tuesdays and Fridays. New York: Random House, 1963.

Bellinghiere, Joseph J. "A Methodology for a Content Analysis of Theatre Critics' Reviews." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1973.

Berk, Ellyn. "An Analysis and Comparison of the Aesthet­ ics and Philosophy of Selected Music Critics in New York, 1940-1975." Ph.D. dissertation. New York Uni­ versity, 1978.

Bladell, Roderick. "An Analysis of Walter F. Kerr's The­ atrical Criticism." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969.

Blymer, Louise. "Journalistic Dramatic Criticism: A Sur­ vey of Theatre Reviews in New York, 1857-1927." Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1959.

Brockett, Lenyth. "The Newspaperman as C ritic: The New York Drama Reviewers." Educational Theatre Journal 5 (October, 1953):240-246.

Downes, Olin. I $<2 Your Own Music Critic. Garden City, NY: Hanover House, 1941.

326 327

Downes, Olin. Olin Downes on Music. Preface by H. Howard Taubman. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957.

______. Ten Operatic Masterpieces. New York: C. Scrib­ ner's Sons, 1952.

Fenner, Theodore L. "Leigh Hunt on Opera: The Examiner Years." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967.

Harrington, Daniel J. Interpreting the New Testament. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1979.

Hensley, Jack. "A History of the Theatre Section of the New York Times as a. Record of the New York Commercial Theatre." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wiscon­ sin, 1965.

Hoover, Kathleen and Cage, John. Virgil Thomson: His Life and Music. New York: T. Yoseloff, 1959.

Kerr, Walter. "The D ictatorial New York C ritics." The Theatre Annual 10 (1952):20-27.

______. How Not to Write a_ Play. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955.

______. Journey to the Center of the Theatre. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1979.

______. The Theatre in Spite of I t s e l f . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.

Kimes, William H. "Walter Kerr: The Critic as Theorist." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1976.

Knapp, Daniel B. "Early Twentieth Century Dramatic Crit­ icism and the Idea of Progress." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1955.

Kolodin, Irving. The Metropolitan Opera. 1883-1966: _A Candid History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966.

Lang, Paul Henry. C ritic at the Opera. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.

______. George Frideric Handel. New York: W. W. Norton, 1966. 328

______. Music in Western Civilization, New York: W. W. Norton, 1941.

Lindberg, Herbert. Opera; The Extravagant Art. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1984.

McNeeley, Jerry Clark. "The Criticism and Reviewing of Brooks Atkin.son." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1956.

McKnight, E. V. What is Form C riticism ?. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Morehouse, Ward. "Dramatic Critics." Theatre Time. Sum­ mer, 1951, pp. 13-14.

Mueser, Barbara. "The C riticism of New Music in New York." Ph.D. d issertatio n , City University of New York, 1975.

Nathan, George Jean. "First Nights and Passing Judg­ ments." Esquire. January, 1940, pp. 7 5 -1 1 8 .

Pater, Walter. The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poet­ ry. London: MacMillan, 1877.

Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

Rothman, John. "The Origin and Development of Dramatic Criticism in the New York Times, 1851-1880." Mas­ ter’s thesis, New York University, 1949.

Schonberg, Harold. Facing the Music. New York: Summit Books, 1981.

______. Response to Questionnaire, (TS) 4 September, 1984.

Sills, Beverly. Bubbles: k Self P o r tr a it. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976.

Sokol, Martin L. The New York City Opera: An American Adventure. New York: Macmillan, 1981.

Taubman, H. Howard. The Making of the American Theatre. New York: Coward McCann, 1965. 329

______. Music on My Beat. New York: Coward McCann, 1956.

______. Opera. Front and Back. New York: Scribner's Sons, 1938.

______. Response to Questionnaire, (MS) 11 September, 1984.

Thomson, Virgil. The Art of Judging Music. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.

______. Music Reviewed. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.

______. Music. Right and Left. New York: Greenwood Press, 1951.

______. The Musical Scene. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945.

______. The State of Music. New York: W. Morrow, 1939.

______. A Virgil Thomson Reader. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981.

Wallace, Raymond V. "Theatre Critics for Daily New York Newspapers, 1960-1970." Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, 1973.

Walters, Walter H. "Representative Trends in American Theatrical Criticism from 1900-1940." Ph.D. disser­ tation, Western Reserve University, 1950.

Weldy, Lloyd. "Music Criticism of Olin Downes and Howard Taubman in the New York Times Sunday Edition, 1924- 1929 and 1955-1960." University of Southern Califor­ nia, 1965.

West, L. Edna. "Contemporary Broadway Criticism." Mas­ ter's Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1952.