It is a prevalent idea that all departures from the published text are due either to caprice, or to vanity and a desire for personal display on the part of the soloist. As though singers had a monopoly of these defects!

Let us consider some of the princ.i.p.al causes of such changes in the text, and the reasons why these modifications do not always appear in the published versions.

In the original editions of many of the earlier operas, as those of Mozart, etc., the unaccompanied recitative (_recitativo secco_) is not barred. As with the plain-chant of the church, only the _pitch_ of the tone is indicated. Its _length_ was left to the discretion of the artist, who was supposed to be familiar with the accepted style of delivery termed "_recitativo parlante_." The example is from the recitative "Dove sono," in Act III of _Le Nozze di Figaro_, by Mozart:

[Music: E Susanna non vien! Sono ansiosa di saper]

This should be sung as below:

[Music: E Susanna non vien! Sono ansiosa di saper]

The subst.i.tution of another note for the one actually written, both in Recitative and Aria, was also strictly regulated under the system or convention then in vogue, one perfectly understood both by composer and singer.

In all the earlier Italian operas, and in the English oratorios of Handel, this system was followed:

[Music: Recit. "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive"

Messiah

Handel

(sung)

Emmanuel;

(printed)

and shall call his name Emmanuel;]

[Music: Aria. "I know that my Redeemer liveth"

Messiah

Handel

(sung)

liveth

(printed)

I know that my Redeemer liveth]

[Music: Recit. "Non piu di fiori"

La Clemenza di t.i.to

Mozart

(sung)

Vitellia! costanza

(printed)

Ecco il punto, o Vitellia! d'esaminar la tua costanza]

[Music: "In questa tomba"

Beethoven

(sung)

oscura

(printed)

In questa tomba oscura]

This subst.i.tution, therefore, of another note--a tone or semitone higher or lower, according to the phrase--is not only legitimate but essential in all music written in the Italian manner.

Another cause of changes being necessary in the vocal part of many of the older cla.s.sic writers, particularly of oratorio, is the frequently faulty syllabic accentuation. I have already mentioned this defect in the chapter on Accent. Handel, for instance, although living nearly all his life in England, never became quite master of its language; hence the numerous cases of the misplacing of syllables in his oratorios. This defect is also noticeable, but not in the same degree, in his Italian operas. The books of _Elijah_ and _St. Paul_ (Mendelssohn), and _The Creation_ (Haydn), were originally written in German, and therefore suffer somewhat in this respect when the translated English version is given. This fault is also noticeable in the English versions of Bach's _Pa.s.sion_ (St. Matthew), and Mendelssohn's _Psalm CXIV_. In the first quoted of these two works, in the response for Double Chorus to the question, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?" the accent falls on the first syllable "_Ba_-rab-bas"; in the second of the two works (_114th Psalm_), the accent is placed on the last syllable, thus: "Hal-le-lu-_jah_." Neither of these accentuations is in accordance with English custom.

A singer, therefore, is perfectly justified in rearranging the syllables in order that, as far as possible, the musical and verbal accents shall coincide. But there are rigorists, unaware of the usages and conventions previously spoken of, who are very severe in their judgment when any deviation is made from the printed score with which they follow the performance of cla.s.sic works. Such severity is unmerited, because unjust. Although such persons sometimes inveigh against any and every change from the strict letter of the printed music--ignorant of the possibility, that only in this way can its spirit be respected--the changes in a mult.i.tude of cases are essential because due (1) to reverential deciphering of an obsolete musical notation, (2) to improvements in musical instruments, or (3) to the sanction and authority of the composer himself.

Sometimes it is an orchestral conductor who reproaches the solo singers with their want of respect for the composer, because he hears at times interpolations or changes which find no place in his own score. The singers are accused of "altering the composer," of "taking liberties with the text." And yet these very changes may be traditionally correct; they may be in accordance with rules and conditions prevalent at the time the music was written, and employed on account of a desire to interpret the composer's own intentions, and not from mere vanity or caprice.

Nor are these necessary changes and departures from the printed scores of the cla.s.sics confined to the vocal parts of the music composed by the old masters. As a matter of fact, the deviations which, in performance, are sometimes made from the printed edition of a musical composition, arise from a variety of causes.

One of these is the discrepancy that exists between various editions of the same work; and sometimes the confusion is complicated by different versions having been prepared by the composer himself. This is notably the case with Gluck's _Orphee_, first written to an Italian libretto by Calzabigi and produced at Vienna. When Marie Antoinette called her former Viennese singing-master, Gluck, to Paris, she gave him an opportunity of displaying his genius by facilitating the production of his _Iphigenie en Aulide_ at the Opera, in 1774. Its enthusiastic reception recalled to the composer the like success which had attended the production of his _Orfeo_ at Vienna. He immediately set to work to revise it for the Paris Opera, and fit it to a new French text, the latter supplied him by Moline.[2]

[Footnote 2: Sir George Grove, in the "Dictionary of Music and Musicians," P. 611, says that the French text is by _Moliere_! This is a self-evident error.]

But the t.i.tle-role in the original Italian version was written for, and sung by, Guadagni, an artificial contralto (_contralto musico_).

In its newer French dress the part was transposed and rearranged for the tenor Legros; who, judging from the extreme alt.i.tude of the _tessitura_ employed, must have possessed either a _haute-contre_, or a very high light-tenor voice, and who may have employed the falsetto.

This high _tessitura_, combined with the fact that the pitch has risen considerably since it was composed, renders the French version impracticable for tenors of the present day. Here are the concluding bars of the famous air as written in the original Italian version, and the same phrase as altered by Gluck, when produced in Paris.

[Music: "Che far senz' Euridice?"

Dove andr? Che far? Dove andr senza il mio ben?

(As originally written by Gluck for the Italian version, Vienna.)]

[Music: "J'ai perdu mon Eurydice"

Sort cruel, quelle rigueur! Je succombe a ma douleur, a ma douleur, a ma douleur!

(As altered by Gluck for Paris; sung by the tenor Legros. From a ma.n.u.script copy, Bibliotheque de l'Opera.)]