The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1893-02-03

| salad comedy" "lf L Were YOu." Both
OF these people possess marked ability, and
with n vehicle exactly suited to their differ
ent styles their dcnominating of them
selves as 1.-The American Kendals" will not
seem SO utterly preposterous as ut present
| THE Mountebanks" was put OH ut the
Garden theater, understand, much sooner
than was expected owing, it is said, to the
| fact that LA Cigale" seemed to have ex-
hausted it's drawing power; but if what I
hear be true tho prospect is not overen-
couraging for the new opera, for New York
has had n surfeit of that class of amuse-
ment during the last quarter. 1t is even
alleged that business Mt the Casino with
"The Fencing Master" while still good, is
not nearly so heavy rs it was few weeks
back.
Leaves of Shamrock stereotyped
Irish melodrama, which was brought out
| at the Windsor thcater with j. Z. Sullivan
| as the star, seems to have caught the pop
| ular fancy and will doubtless be success
on the road. Sullivan showed considerable
ability in his treatment of the rather del
icate role of Carroll DAILY, and his singing
of rollicking Irish songs can scarcely be
surpassed by any actor in similar line of
work on the American stage.
If j. NJ. Barrie, the English novelist and
playwright has done what Nat Goodwin
claims, he is open to the charge of conduct
which is, to say the least, scarcely profess
sional Goodwin asserts that he bought
the American rights of Barres play,
walker, London" and that he banked
upon shadowgraph scene, which is called
for by the manuscript. L. S. Willard comes
along and produces another play by Barrie,
THE Professors Love Story" in which the
shadowgraph scene makes great big hit.
Goodwin is said to feel aggrieved and
fDr l.;
rect, Mr.. Barrie no more owns that scene
than does the man in the moon Mr. Good
win is now the proprietor, and he can legal
ly protect his rights Us we'll against Mr.
Barrie us against some individual who had
seen the play and appropriated the idea,
which, by the way, is an exceedingly old
and rime covered device
see that, according to recent decision
of the Vienna court of appeals, Il ibretto is
merely an accessory of an opera and is
subordinate in both interest and value to
the music. A moments reflection will con-
vince any one-except perhaps IA composer
of the fallacy of this proposition, ut least
in so far rs it refers to comic opera The
librettist makes the story which gives color
to the musicians work. He furnishes stan
zas so written as to admit of those little
tricks of melody which make songs popu-
lar. He works up to the climaXes so deity
and paints the funny man so faithfully that
the composers music is appreciated by the
audience, WHICH has been skillfrlly led into
the proper channel by the iibrettist.
In short, the book makes or mars the
opera in nine cases out of ten. If the IL
bretto is good, really fine music is possible;
otherwise, not. Naturally there are excep-
tions, as in the case of The Fencing Mas
ter" the libretto of which is really very
bad, but this only helps to prove the rule.
And besides do not believe that the opera
would have lived had it not been presented,
as it was, with n phenomenal cast and
phenomenal costumes and accessories.
Take the case of Gilbex and Sullivan.
Study their operas carefully, and you will
see that those which succeeded were those
which had good librettos. Several with
good music were comparative failures-as,
for instance, The Yeomen of the Guard"-
because the books were not meritorious. 1t
would therefore seem that the decision of
the court in Vienna was faulty ut least to
the extent of asserting that the libretto is
subordinate in value to the music This
much, think almost any one will admit,
although contend that the libretto is not
subordinate even in Importance to the mu-
sic of n comic opera. OcTAvUs COHEN.