New-York tribune., 1919-03-16

the absurdity of it's plot. All the critics
IN town made merry over these things,
though their opportunity to study the
opera was as nothing compared with
that of the man or men who recon-
mended it for performance. The crit
ic's judgment may prove to be wrong
and that of the hundred or more clap
pers and shouters who gave the COM
poser an opportunity to show himself
before the curtain half a dozen times
may prove to be right. If so, it will be
evidence in favor of the contention that
neither words nor dramatic situations
the meaning of which depends on an
understanding of the words signify in
lyric drama--that the music and the
singer suffice. But that notion was
upset last Wednesday night by the
circumstance that the interest of the
audience apparently reached its climax
when the penny-dreadful melodrama
was at the height Of its absurdity and
the music had dcgenerated into a mere
orchestral delineation of physical con-
flict.
Before pursuing the discussion and
bringing back to mind the two operas
which we think ought to have had a
better chance to show themselves
worthy of life, let US make apprecia-
tive record of what the present Metro
politan Opera Company, under the di-
rcction of Mr.. Gatti, has done for
American composers. Almost at the
beginning of the present regime Mr.
Otto II. Kahn announced that it would
be the policy of the house to encour-
age opera in English. In pursuance of
this policy Mr.. Converse's "Pipe of
Desire" promised in the prospectus Of
the preceding year, was produced in
March, 1910. After two performances
at the Metropolitan Opera House and
one at the Century Theatre under the
auspices of the Metropolitan Company
it went to its grave. It's plot was
amateurishly fantastic and lacking in
dramatic interest, but its English, as
English, was pure and its music was
scholarly, always dignifed, sometimes
beautiful, but seldom dramatically ef-
fective. Mr.. Converse, having written
much good music in other forms, was
not discouraged, but kept on compos-
ing operas. Perhaps, like Mendelssohn
at the height of his fame, he is still
hoping that after writing five or six
operas he will create one that will live.
That is the spirit that inspires genius.
"Natoma," Spanish-American lyric
melodrama, by Kidding and Herbert,
commissioned by Hammerstein, rejected
(wisely, we think) by Mr. Gatti, made
its way onto the Metropolitan stage
through the agency of the Phila-
delphia- Chicago company in February,
1911. 1t had large enough element
of popularity in it, coupled with Mary
Gardens personality, to keep it alive
several years outside of the local in
stitution.
"Mona" and "Cyrano''
The operate competition established
by the Metropolitan company gave birth
to "Mona," by Messrs. Brian Hooker
and Professor Horatio Parker, which
had its first reprezc cntation on March
IA, 1912, and received four perform
ances. Then came "Cyrano de Ber-
gerac," book after Rostand's play by
Mr.. w. j. Henderson, music by Walter
Damrosch, on February 27, 1918. 1t
was loudly acclaimed by the Metropol-
itan management, the composer, who
had had it in hand ten years, saw in it
the foundation of English opera in
America (at least, he said so in one
of two speeches from the stage on the
first night, but it was sent into the
limbo of castaway things after five per-
formances. Mr.. Gatti attempted an ex-
pertinent on June "a, 1914, with "Made-
Stewart, after play by Decourcellcs
and Thibaut, but the pretty French
butterfly was crushed by Mr. Victor
Herbert's ponderous music, and it died
speedy and unregretted death. On
March 8, 1917, came "The Canterbury
Pilgrims" by Percy MacKaye and Rcgi-
nald de Koven, and, the war having
created Il need destined to supnlant
what had hitherto been more or less
unselfish policy, last season we had
Mr.. Claimants "Shanewis," which has
Won the distinction Of entering on u
second year Of existence. Nov VIC have
"The Legend" ard "The Temple
Dancer"
We have singled out "Monav and
"Cyrano" ae the operas in this list
which seemed TO US deserving Of n
larger effort 10 preserve them than
was made In their behalf. The fact
that "Mona" did not achieve enough
success to lead Mr.. Gatti TO keep It
In the rcpertory at least another year
was deplorabie at the time, and still
Is deplorable. The fault, beyond doubt
lay largely in the work itself, but had
the attitude of the Metropolitan com
pany in 1912 been like that which it
was compelled to assume later by the
untoward circumstances wrought by
the world war it is likely that
/ the opera would have received a
revision at the hands of its authors
which might have saved it from the
not wholly deserved fate which befell
1t. We are not quite sure, but that
more ardent desire or greater