Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1922-04-01
';leas Vary
'bOut Art
! of Singer

1lsicslly, let him heed what pa
RSna of the grand opera last week
= fQruand had to say about
S7fy Qarden, it's general director
NJ leading light. No matter
Wat one may think of Mary Gar
N As p singer and an actress, he
1{ ho sure that some some great
pd has been there before him,
cause even the eminent crit
do not agree.
AS Nearly as one can make out
YelEhing evidence without per
Sn2l bias, the popular idea is
Eat Mary Garden cannot sing.
L PERHAPS more exactly it is that
1le As first and far foremost an
tress with her singing voice en-
ely q side line and not salts
/ ftory one. This idea is support
Il BY one school of critics which
$ been instrumental in mould
3 the opinion of the musical
blic to large degree.
But there is another school of
isical critics which calls the
her old fashioned. 1t says that
ary Garden can sing and ranks
r with the few real artists of
9 day. 1t is headed by James
lneker, whose opinion to many
the last word. Margaret Ander-
q, editor Of the Little Review" /"
also her champion and seems to
ase a Mary Garden who is a
n artist and not a spectacular
rformer. She likes her because
s Is creative and anyone who is
at is a real artist, she believes.
< Huneker says of her "In New
Mrk Mary Garden is the supreme
Whmplar. She sounds the COM
X modern note. She sings and
acts and the densely woven
b is impossible to disentangle.
It#a tone of her natural rich
rk voice but takes on the tint
5 of the situation.
4 ANVery year the space that sep
lhates the lyric from the dramatic
G@ is shrinking. Today acting
singing are inextricably
S8f1ded, and / can conceive of
thing more old fashioned and
IA |stulpded than the Wagnerian
a}N drama as interpreted in the
& N1atic terms of the old Wagner
| *inging. They walked, rather
dAled, through the mystic maz-
Sl0k the score, shouted or scream
me music, and generally were
MALICIOUS bores."
NBut quoting Huneker is per-
pB carrying us rather far away
Ia Portland and what Salem
tics thought Of Mary. They, like
re- eminent critics do not agree.
WITS. William Burghardt, Jr.,
oils a champion of Mary Gar
lspoke of her thus: MARY
rden's voice is adequate for all
swishes to express. 1t is old
,shipned these days to say that
{ y cannot sing, for she has SO
ny things to compensate for
rvoice not being a CALI Curci. !"
MIS-. Asahel Bush did not find
.ry Garden pleasing in any re-
let and, in fact, found the en-
9 season of opera disappointing.
was greatly disappointed in
lry Garden, although had
sn. told by musicians that she
lid not sing. l found that she
no voice at all and does not
sn act we'll" The orchestra Mrs.
sf found more satisfactory.
Mrs. John R. Sites on the other
nd was charmed with Mary
rden and said of her, "Mary
rden does not need to open her
uth to be wonderful. Her voice
marvellous and her acting is
peTb, and with it all she is very
acious."
Mrs. William Everett Anderson
ls hot disappointed in the sing
for she said she was not sup
sed to be singer, but an act
IS. Mary Garden never was
Apppsed to be singer" she said.
ho does not even touch the
cater singing artists. She is an
tress."
The acting and singing of
ary Garden cannot be separated
3 from the other" said Mrs.
ederick Thielsen, "they are
tuderfully blended. l love the
lskiness and richness of her
tRe, which seems to depict her
1otions so we'll" She also re-
liked upon the scenery of Mon
Wanna which, she said, made
l1eautiful picture at the close.
NFank G. Deckebach, it would
'rear, was very well satisfied
49, the performance of Mary
lF1en. Her singing is accept
|lt. but her acting is superb"
aid.
MISS Elizabeth Lord was agree
~ surprised with the perform
lce of the singer actress. CAL
ough l had heard Miss Garden
fore in That's, l was agreeably
rprised with her voice. She is a
actress"
Real enjoyment of the perform
ee Of Mary Garden was expert
esd by Mrs. w. E. Kirk, who
q pot expect to be SO well pleas
She is a greater actress than
N|nger," she said, but her voice