THE THREE GIANTS OF "FRENCH" OPERA

by Tom Kaufman


INTRODUCTION

Meyerbeer Fan Club Home page

UPDATED APRIL 4, 1998

Around the middle of the nineteenth century (roughly from 1830 to 1865), French opera was dominated by a non-Frenchman: the great Meyerbeer. But two Frenchmen were not too far behind him: Auber, and Halévy. Adolphe Adam should also be mentioned, while Ambroise Thomas and Charles Gounod entered the scene somewhat later. Hector Berlioz, now so greatly revered, was unsuccessful as an opera composer at the time, but managed to keep himself busy both as a reviewer and by writing a major treatise on modern instrumentation.

To give an idea of the one time standing of Meyerbeer and Auber, when the London International Exhibition of 1862 commissioned each country's most illustrious composer to write music for the occasion, the choices were Verdi from Italy, Meyerbeer from Germany, and Auber from France. Had there been room for a second representative from France, there is little doubt that it would have been Halévy. During this period, D. F. E. Auber was to French opéra comique what Meyerbeer was to French grand opera. Of course, both of them crossed over, with Auber writing some important grand operas (most notably La muette de Portici and Gustave III, and Meyerbeer some important opera comiques (L'étoile du Nord and Dinorah), but their greatest successes were in their own specialties. Halévy's triumphs were almost equally split between the two styles, but, thanks to the great success of La juive were more significant in the area of grand opera.

Verdi has increased in popularity ever since, and well he should, but Auber, Halévy and Meyerbeer fell out of favor in the early years of the twentieth century for any number of reasons. These include:

• That opera has started to be looked at in a different light after the first world war. At one time, it had been looked at primarily as entertainment for the beourgeoisie, but as a wider range of popular entertainments became available (first the cinema, then TV), opera became more of a diversion for the "intelligentsia", who were more likely to be influenced by the views of the "musical elite".

• The attention that was being paid to some of the critical writings of both Wagner, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Berlioz. Many of their negative comments were to be repeated ad nauseum, often by "musicologists" who had never had an opportunity to hear much of the music of Meyerbeer and his contemporaries, if anything. And if they did hear them, one has to wonder whether they did so with open minds and open ears. Thus, the Meyerbeer operas are now accused of such divergent sins as

• Being spectacles for their own sake.

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. Others failed because the music (not the spectacle) failed to please. 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

. • That the music sounds synthetic, flabby and overcalculated.

General statements such as this are meaningless. What is synthetic music, or flabby music, or overcalculated 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 beorgeois 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 successfull 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 Jewish music (obviously referring to Meyerbeer and possibly Halévy) is bereft of all expression, characterized by coldness and indifference, triviality and nonsense.

This statement, which was made by Wagner, is more of the same balderdash. To take anything that Wagner said about Meyerbeer seriously would be akin to asking Metternich what he thought of the Italian risorgimento movement.

• In the crucial years from around 1925 to 1965 there were far too few performances of the French grand operas of the period to really permit any valid evaluation. Worse, during the early 1950s, there were hardly any recordings. Getting a 78 rpm version of the great Act IV duet from the Huguenots had proved to be a real challenge, while the Act V duet from Le prophète was totallly impossible. It was not until 1958 that a pirated version of Gli Ugonotti became available, 1961 for La juive, 1963 or so for a totally unsatisfactory L'africana, 1968 for Roberto il diavolo, 1971 for Le prophète (a German version was on the market briefly before that). Thus, it was virtually impossible to challenge some of the earlier mistatements about Meyerbeer and his contemporaries.

• The lack of voices who could sing the grand operas, especially those of Meyerbeer, and the high cost of staging them.

• The lighter works started to be regarded as being of a lower order, and, being opéra comiques contained too much spoken dialogue to make them palatable to non French speaking audiences.

Finally, in the post war period, the French had less interest in reexamining their 19th century musical culture than the Italians, as is shown by the fact that far fewer "forgotten rarities" were revived in France than in Italy. This may partially be due to the fact that they did not really regard Meyerbeer as one of their own, while the Germans were apparently too influenced by their reverence for Wagner.

The fact that many of these so-called arguments don't really hold water is beside the point. They were still used, and could only be refuted by the few people who had ignored the musical establishment, and investigated Meyerbeer and his contmeporaries on their own.

Under the circumstances it is not surprising that these works are still out of favor today with any number of prominent musicologists, as is shown by an interesting statement made by Julian Budden, in his The Operas of Verdi from Oberto to Rigoletto:

"The musical pillars of the new establishment were Auber, Meyerbeer and Halévy, at whose hands grand opera achieved a complexity and scale undreamed of before. Schumann and Mendelssohn might sneer; yet, so long as one does not mistake Meyerbeer and his colleagues for great composers (and many Frenchmen at the time did so mistake them), there is no harm in admitting that Parisian grand opera was a stimulating influence all over Europe, and that it played an important part in the genesis of Wagnerian music-drama...."

In one sense, this is a rather odd statement for Budden to make, since the three composers he talks about were just as highly esteemed, perhaps even more so, in other European countries, certainly including Germany and his native Great Britain as they were in France. This was particularly true of London, where the press gave the local premiere of L'étoile du Nord twice as much space as that of Il trovatore, indicating the respective standings of the two composers in the public taste of the 1850s.

It is also interesting to note that the highest praise that Budden can bestow on them is the part that they played in the genesis of Wagnerian music drama..., rather than provide a discussion of the myriads of beauties that they have to offer. Now that so much of Meyerbeer is at least available on records, should we not look on him in terms of his own achievements, which include the composition of some of the most effective dramatic music in all of opera?

Unfortunately, most professors in musical conservatories, and most teachers of Music Appreciation tended to repeat what they read. And impressionable young people tended to believe them. And, as stated above, did not have the needed ammunition to prove otherwise.

But now, we do, so, at the risk of being accused of making the same "mistake" that Budden claimed that many Frenchmen made 150 years ago, let me say here and now that all three were great composers. What else would you call composers whose works had the degree of beauty, effectiveness, and achieved the same popularity as many of their operas? Let's look at a few works for which performance totals in Paris, at either the Opéra or the Opéra Comique are available.

Le Domino Noir 1209, Les Huguenots 1120, Fra Diavolo 909, Robert le Diable 751, Le prophète 573, La juive 562 Le macon 525, Haydee 499, La muette de Portici 489, L'africaine 484, Gustave III 168, La reine de Chypre 152

Compare these to 39 for Les Troyens and three for Benvenuto Cellini by 1956

Three of these successes (Le maçon, Haydée and La Reine de Chypre) are yet to be revived in the post-war period, so it is not possible to comment on them, except to express the hope that they be performed in the near future. But, how many of us who know the fourth act of Les Huguenots, with its Conjuration scene and final duet, the two arias of Bertram in Act III, and the grand duet (especially Isabelle's "Robert, toi que j'adore") in Act IV of Robert le Diable, the Coronation scene, Fidés monologue or her duet with her son in Le Prophète, and finally the duet between Eleazar and the Cardinal or the ensuing grand aria for Eléazar would want to be without them?

Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning, and the last few years seem to have marked what appears to be the beginning of a renewal of interest in these composers, both in performance and recordings. A few examples will suffice:

• Ricordi is planning a critical edition of the operas of Meyerbeer.

• Vienna is planning a revival of Le prophète starring Agnes Balsta and Placido Domingo.

• Wexford did an uncut L'Etoile du Nord in 1996, which is scheduled to be released by Marco Polo this October.

• Legato has just reissued the Vienna Juive (starring Carreras, Merritt and Siepi), and will shortly release the Paris Robert le Diable.

• London Records is planning a Dinorah with Sumi Jo, conducted by Richard Bonynge, and there are rumours that another Auber work is under consideration.

• Auber's Manon Lescaut, Domino Noir and Gustave III were performed in France and issued on CD during the 1990s.

• Opera Rara has released a super-complete version of Il crociato in Egitto. While it is not a French work, and is heavily influenced by Rossini, this also a spectacularily beautiful opera, with such outstanding numbers as the trio "Giovinotto cavalier", Palmide's aria "D'una madre disperata" and Adriano's "Suona funereo" in the second act.

• It is reported (as of April 4, 1998) that Marc Minkowski will produce "La Juive" at the Liège Opera House for the Halévy bicentennial in 1999, and a Vienna (Volksoper) production may also be made.

Certainly the above is enough of an indication that brief biographies and fairly exhaustive discographies for each of these composers are now appropriate.

Meyerbeer Fan Club Home page

[Halévy's Operas] [Articles] [Discussion] [Membership] [Discographies]