Kaufman lecture

WHY DID MEYERBEER AND HALÉVY FALL FROM GRACE
AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?
A TALK FOR THE BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF THE BIRTH OF
JACQUES-FROMENTAL-ELIE HALÉVY NEW YORK 11 APRIL 1999
By

TOM KAUFMAN

This is a recapitulation and updating of my keynote talk at the symposium in New York City on April 11, 1999. Some points are amplified, and it has been slightly rewritten to make it more suitable for “publication” rather than “presentation”.

I think that we are all aware of the tremendous popularity of French grand opera in general, and Meyerbeer and Halévy in particular during the 19th century, and of the unbelievable disappearance of these works from the repertory during the 20th. Actually, it is relatively easy to explain the decline of many of these operas after the turn of the century. There really was nothing unusual about it, since the operas of many Italian composers suffered the same decline. If anything, if we are to measure popular success by endurance over the decades following the premiere, the historical record proves works like La Juive and Les Huguenots lasted longer in the repertory than many works by Donizetti or the early Verdi. But what is both unusual and surprising is that while there has been a tremendous revival of bel canto operas, this did not happen with Meyerbeer and Halévy. Thus, a virtual failure in the 19th century like Donizetti’s Maria Stuarda (less than 40 productions) has had any number of performances and recordings in recent years, while La Juive is still largely forgotten.

Many reasons have been advanced for this phenomenon, and all of them probably contribute to it. They include such factors as their length, the cost of staging them, and the lack of suitable singers. Yet, the length of many Wagner operas does not stop them from being done, and large sums are available to stage modern works which have no chance of filling the house. The lack of suitable singers might be a factor today, but they certainly were available during the 1950s and 1960s. Yet, with the exception of a few notable revivals there really was very little along these lines. These revivals include Les Huguenots at La Scala in 1962 with Franco Corelli, a few badly cut performances of La Juive with Richard Tucker, an occasional L’africaine with Placido Domingo, the Paris Robert le Diable with Sam Ramey and the Met Le Prophète with Marilyn Horne.

Perhaps part of the blame can be placed on a lack of popular demand for these works, and, perhaps a lack of desire on the part of great singers to perform them. Why should a leading dramatic coloratura want to sing Valentine in Les Huguenots, where she is but one of seven stars, when she could just as easily do Norma, where she is the star? And why should she learn a major new role if she has no expectation of ever singing it again? But I really believe that the key factor is one of the perception of these operas, not only with the musical decision-makers (or musical elite), but the general public as well.

I would place much of the blame on what is taught in “Opera 101” if we are dealing with a music major, or what a young opera fan picks up in his or her first exploration of classical music and/or opera. Opera 101 will, of course, be taught by an “establishment” type, who knows what the general public should like. And that is primarily Mozart, Verdi, Wagner, Strauss and Puccini. On the other hand, newcomers to opera will, especially if they live in the U.S., do their exploration by attending performances, listening to Metropolitan broadcasts, and purchasing CDs, both of complete operas and recitals by favorite artists. Their chances of encountering Meyerbeer or Halévy in any of these range from slim to none. At some point in their development as an opera fan, they are likely to pick up a copy of a history of opera or a book on great composers. And it is there that they will first encounter Meyerbeer and Halévy. But will what they read about them be favorable? Will it result in their wanting to explore these composers further, or will it result in encouraging them to stay away? As we will see later, this first introduction to Meyerbeer and other composers of French grand opera usually ranges from condemnation with faint praise at best, to outright negativity at worst.

More importantly, perhaps, the operatic “powers that be” are almost invariably music majors, and are probably subjected to much more “operatic correctness” than the casual opera lover. It is probably too much to expect that someone who has been taught all of his or her life that French grand opera is, at best “passé”, will think differently, or even explore that repertory. To give an example of what happens, an acquaintance of mine, who needed information on Robert le Diable, decided to call a prominent professor and conductor at a leading musical conservatory. The individual involved had never even heard of Robert le Diable. Yet, that was one of the most successful works in the history of the Opera.

When I mentioned the subject matter of this lecture to a friend with more orthodox (politically correct, if you wish) tastes they thought I was talking about a conspiracy by Wagnerites to denigrate Meyerbeer. Of course not, I replied. “No conspiracy, as such, what happens instead is that when a musicologist publishes a book, no matter how honorable his or her intentions, they necessarily copy (usually rewording) what has been said before. No matter whether it is right or wrong. Although it is natural to use the references that will be most helpful in making the desired point. This includes opinions, "bon mots", and "facts". Nor would it be possible for the author of a history of opera to attend each opera discussed--or listen to recordings of these. So, to some extent, they can be forgiven for taking these shortcuts.

However, whatever the motivation, the results are just as disastrous to any attempt at arriving at the truth. Let me use just give a few examples--all of which have the same train of thought.

1. The erstwhile success of French grand opera is meaningless because the public was so materialistic, and had such rotten taste. Consider Grout's statement in an earlier edition of the History of opera:

"The state of musical taste in Paris (that is to say, in France) from 1840 to 1870 is sufficiently illustrated by three facts; the adoration of Meyerbeer, the neglect of Berlioz, and the craze for Offenbach."

Basically, Grout likes to dictate taste. Consider another statement he makes elsewhere, talking about Les troyens not having a public: “Public or no public, the work ought to be produced regularly until conductors, singers and audiences are made to realize its greatness. To give a better idea of where Grout is coming from, here is another quote, talking about Martha: “A sentimental old-fashioned piece, which has inexplicably survived while many better operas have been forgotten. Finally, he devotes five pages to Tristan and one sentence to Don Carlos.

Without going into detail on other published criticisms of the French public, the "nay sayers " completely forget that Meyerbeer was just as popular in the rest of the world, from St. Petersburg to California. In fact, all of his later operas were written as much for London as they were for Paris. And Berlioz's Benvenuto Cellini was no more successful in London than in Paris.

Actually, some pretty damning and equally meaningless condemnations of the French bourgeoisie were published elsewhere, including the Internet.

On Italian opera: Just as a cicisbeo will forever be repulsive to my feelings, so it is with Italian music.

On Meyerbeer: Of what do they consist? Melodies for whistling, harmony for the educated, instrumentation for the Germans, contra dances for the French, something for everybody--but there's no heart in it.

Considering his statement about Italian music, I would say that there is no sense in what he says. I think his problem with Meyerbeer was that a German was expected to limit himself to German type music. To quote Pleasants: "to the younger men, made suddenly aware of a German identity by the accomplishments of Haydn, Mozart, Weber, Beethoven and Spohr, the spectacle of Meyerbeer living in Italy and writing Italian operas in the style of Rossini smacked of betrayal. His subsequent Parisian successes merely made matters worse."

It is too much for a good protestant when he hears his most hallowed song bawled forth from the stage, too much for him when the bloodiest drama in the history of his church is reduced to a rustic farce simply to earn money and notoriety. The thing is outrageous from beginning to end, from the overture with its silly religiosity to the end, when we are all supposed to be burned alive. What is left after Les Huguenots but actually to execute criminals on the stage and to make a public exhibition of whores?

There is a bit of prudery here, and more than bits of chauvinism, as well as a lot of jealousy. But none of it reflects on the music. Still, one wonders what his reaction to Strauss' Salome would have been.

This is perhaps the most often repeated of the accusations, and the one taken most seriously by musicologists, although it should have been laughed into oblivion. Yet, Wagner neither states exactly what he means, nor does he provide examples. But, for many years, Wagner was so worshipped that every utterance took on the weight of a proclamation from a beloved near deity. There are as many definitions as Clinton has definitions of sex. The accusation will be discussed in detail below, using Grout's interpretation.

That Jewish music is bereft of all expression, characterized by coldness and indifference, triviality and nonsense. And much more -- he tends to go on and on.

To give credence to Wagner's opinion of Meyerbeer, whom he hated, is akin to giving credence to Hillary's opinion of Monica or King George III on the American Revolution.

Grand opera is one of the crosses we have to bear, together with such things as epidemics, the three per cent devaluation and the excavations of the Metro.

A very clever remark probably prompted largely by jealousy, especially when you consider that at least 8 French grand operas were far more successful than his own Pelleas.

The music of Huguenots is so strained that even the anxiety to massacre unfortunate Protestants does not altogether excuse it.

• Striking and brilliant musical numbers inadequately motivated by the dramatic situation.

What is adequate motivation? But, at least he recognizes the sterling qualities of these numbers.

Yes, this is what Meyerbeer did, and why not? To have done anything else--i.e. Not giving them what they want, a la Berlioz, would have both invited failure and cheated the public of the price of admission.

• The key to Meyerbeer's success was his ability to meet the demands of the public at every level, and in abandoning himself to this aim he abandoned the possibly higher aim of leading popular taste instead of following it.

This is untrue, although Meyerbeer, Halévy and Scribe were no musical revolutionaries in the same sense that Wagner was. Like their Italian contemporaries, they constantly added new twists, new ideas, but, unlike Wagner or even Berlioz, never went so far ahead of their audience that they could not be understood. Examples of their innovations (and there are many) include the highly dramatic confrontation between two or even three protagonists, memorable characters such as Eleazar in La Juive and Fides in Le Prophète, very appropriate use of coloratura (Comme un éclair precipité), and the development of the French basse noble.

Of course, this brings up a question to which there is no pat, easy answer. Where do a composer’s obligations lie? Is it to the audience that pays to attend his operas, or is it to the theatre that needs to sell tickets in order to recoup costs. Could it be to himself in order to proselytize his own musical ideas, or to future generations who might be more ready to accept these ideas than the first night audience? I would respectfully suggest that it is a combination of these obligations, but that the first two are of greater importance than the others are.

Meyerbeer was guilty. But, in effect, this is what every composer did, especially Wagner. The latter strongly believed in lengthy monologues (Grout describes them essentially as melodies strictly molded to the text with a semi-realistic declamation of the words; Hanslick more simply as declamatory recitatives), and they can be found all over his operas. Quite excessively, some might feel. But Grout does not complain.

Here again, there are any number of operas, parts of which were rewritten later, where there are several different styles. But my favorite example, 1881 Simon Boccanegra, is still a masterpiece.

This is a peculiar indictment of Meyerbeer, as the term "spectacle" is virtually a synonym for opera itself. It sounds more like an indictment of the entire genre. "Spectacle" operas were a very important part of the 19th century musical scene, starting perhaps with Spontini's La vestale and ending with Massenet's Esclarmonde or even later. Aida was a spectacle opera. So was Les Troyens. Some succeeded, generally because of the quality of the music, and the interest in the characters and the story. All of them combined public scenes (with spectacle) and private scenes where much of the dramatic interactions took place. Some of the finest music of Juive, Huguenots and Prophète is in such confrontations (and soliloquies) in the private scenes.

General statements such as this are meaningless. What is synthetic music, or flabby music, or over-calculated music? Music by German composers has often been praised for its "science". Is Meyerbeer to be condemned for it?

• That the daring harmonies and brilliant orchestration sound pallid because they were used for so cynical a purpose.

Finally, an admission of something of value in Meyerbeer, but how can something sound daring and pallid at the same time? What is cynical about pleasing audiences? Is there a hint here that Parisian bourgeois audiences did not deserve pleasing because they were bourgeois? Or because they were either not "high-brow" enough or too "high-brow." that statement seems like it must have been written in a 1984 type of society.

• That they are period pieces, designed to appeal to a bourgeoisie of a by-gone era.

This sounds like more bashing of the French bourgeoisie. Most successful operas were written to appeal to the audience that was likely to pay good money to hear and see them. Would today's audiences be likely to enjoy Meyerbeer if given the chance? Absolutely, if Meyerbeer were presented as being a great composer rather than as a historical curiosity. If you tell people that something is only being given because of it's historical importance, rather then because of its musical value, they are apt to agree that it has no musical value.

• That Meyerbeer was a dead end. Nobody could seem to imitate him with much success.

There have been any number of operas which show a very strong influence of Meyerbeer, and which were successful. To name a few: Halévy's La Juive, Gounod's Faust, Wagner’s Rienzi, Goldmark's Konigin von Sheba, Verdi’s Don Carlos and Aida. Of course, we have to ask what is meant by success--a triumphant premiere, a long performance history, or both? Now, if the same statement had been made about Wagner, there might have been a certain amount of truth to it. How many really successful operas written largely in Wagner’s style can you name? There are, of course, a number of operas with moderate to heavy Wagnerian influence, such as Pelleas et Melisande and many of the operas by Richard Strauss. Even though that is the case, I would maintain that there is much more of Meyerbeer in Don Carlos, than of Wagner in Pelleas et Melisande or Salome.

Having stated the magnitude of the problem, we should look at possible solutions, and at what we, as members of the Meyerbeer Fan Club can do about it. Yes, we can make an impact on the repertory, but we have to work hard to do it. Still, with the availability of the Internet, it is much easier for individuals to be heard. Here are just a few of the things we can do: --

1. When we are lucky enough to have a chance to attend performances of operas by Meyerbeer or Halévy, we should go.

2. When their operas are released on CD, we should get them, and recommend them to our friends, provided, of course, that we like them.

3. Once the Discussion page of the MFC is reopened we should initiate topics for discussion, and participate in discussions started by others.

4. We should attempt to write and publish essays and articles in publications we respect and/or subscribe to. If possible, we should attempt to refute some of the negative arguments we hear so often. Or, we could pick an unfamiliar work in this genre, research it, and then publish an article about it. The most successful such operas in the 19th century that are yet to be done in recent years include La reine de Chypre and Charles VI by Halévy, as well as Haydée by Auber.

5. We should contact “decision makers”: singers, opera house managers, conductors, and record company executives telling them what operas we would like to hear.

6. If we give lectures on opera to the general public, we should try to include excerpts by Meyerbeer and Halévy.