Christoph Willibald Gluck by Howard Patricia

Author:Howard, Patricia.
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 978-1-136-71868-7
Publisher: Taylor & Francis (CAM)

3. GLUCK RECEPTION

276. Abert, Hermann. “Die erste Kritik von Glucks Orpheus.” Gluck-Jahrbuch 2 (item 87): 105–107.

Analyzes the anonymous criticism in the Wienerisches Diarium of October 13, 1762 of the first performance of Orfeo. Contains complete text of the review and brief commentary.

277. _____. “Über Entstellungen und Parodien Gluckscher Opern.” Gluck-Jahrbuch 2 (item 87): 108–109.

Editorial footnote to Engländer (item 233). Adds details of various performances of Orfeo in the later eighteenth century, and notes deviations from the score of 1762. Mentions three Italian parodies of the opera by Paisiello, Traetta, and Da Capua, and argues that Italian parodies deride Gluck whereas French parodies (see Cucuel, item 304) offer an affectionate tribute.

278. Angermüller, Rudolph. “Kassenschlager Gluck an der Pariser Académie Royale de Musique.” De editione musices: Festschrift Gerhard Croll zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Wolfgang Gratzer and Andrea Lindmayr. Laaber: Laaber Verlag, 1992, pp. 109–124. ISBN 3 8900 7263 1. ML55 C83 1992.

Traces Gluck’s varying commercial fortunes at the Opera, arguing that for the majority of his productions he was a box-office hit, ensuring the viability of the opera house.

279. Anon. [“Iphigénie en Aulide.”] Mercure de France May (1774): 157–180. AP20 M48.

Detailed review of the opera and its immediate reception. Discusses Gluck’s reform principles as expounded in his letter to the Mercure in February 1773 (translated in Howard, item 56, pp. 106–107).

280. _____. [“Orphée.”] Mercure de France September (1774): 190–198. AP20 M48.

A comprehensive review of the opera and its performance, warmly favorable to both the poem and the music.

281. _____. [“Alceste.”] Mercure de France May (1776): 166–170; June (1776): 183–184. AP20 M48.

Brief review of the opera, not wholly favorable. Second passage records the alterations to the score following the introduction of Hercules. Compare Mairobert (item 339).

282. _____. [“Armide.”] Journal de Paris 267 (1777): 3–4.

Reviews the first performance. Appreciative of Gluck’s style in general but critical of the dramatic weaknesses of the poem. Compare La Harpe (item 334).

283. _____. [“Armide.”] Mercure de France October (1777): 150–154. AP20 M48.

A brief, curiously noncommittal review of the premiere and its reception.

284. _____. [“Iphigénie en Tauride.”] Journal de Paris 139 (1779): 558–559; 154 (1779): 619.

Reviews the first performance. Commends the integrated overture but deplores the introduction of Diana. Notes the exclusion of intrigue (“Nous ne croyons pas inutile de remarquer que le mot amour n’est pas prononcer dans le cours entière des quatres actes”) and ballet interludes. Commends the “barbaric” orchestration of the Scythians’ dances. The addition of Gossec’s ballet finale is noted briefly in the second notice. See also Gastoué (item 437), and La Harpe (item 332).

285. _____. [“Écho et Narcisse.”] Journal de Paris 268 (1779): 1090–1091; 272 (1779): 1106–1107; 222 (1780): 903–904.

Reviews the first performances of Écho. Deals mostly with the poem, criticizing its dramatic weaknesses. Warmly appreciative of the music, commending in particular the characterization of the protagonists and the fine choruses. Second notice reports changes to the score but deals mainly with the ballets; commends the designs. Third notice records further changes for the revival in 1780, chiefly cuts in the role of Amour. The Journal de Paris’s enthusiastic advocacy of the opera brought many protests.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.