CIK, TOE REFORMER, AND :MOZART, TOE MELODIST.
Christoph Cluck (1714-87) was a dissenter from the very start. 'His musical training had been principally in the Italian school. but he realized many of its operatic insipidities and had determined even with his first work to cut loose from sonic of the foolish conventions into xthich opera had drifted. At first he aimed to give importance to the dramatic in the libretto by means of music—something which had been overlooked by the composers of ornamental opera for decades. This experi ment Was tried with Artaserse, which, oddly enough., came on the boards the same year that Handers final opera appeared. It would be silly to contend that Gluck had 'found himself' straightway in his first opera; no composer has done that yet. in fact., he seems simply to have defied convention with no rules of his own save just this one of defiance. Now no system can grow on such a basis, and after writing several operas and traveling about, he began to lose interest in his work. He had met convention at every turn, and this constant attitude of fight on his own part wore him out. Eventually he conferred with an 'Italian poet. Calzabigi, and the two decided that the trouble of flue entire operatic situation was that the prima donna had grown too Vain and important—she dictated to the composer—and that the libretto of the day was lacking in dramatic element. This happened when Gluck was already forty-six years old, and certainly the weaknesses which he and the poet unearthed must have been known to both of them long before. But what followed was important. Calzabigi wrote a libretto on en tirely new lines, and Gluck set it sincerely to music. This was Orfco cd Ear;dire, brought out in 1762, the first attempt not only to forsake the 'oratorio' school of opera, but also to formulate a new plan by which opera might claim attention as an art form. Of course the public complained; but after a while the intelli gent ones them realized the earnestness of both poet and musician and were won over. The next opera from these pens, Aleeste, was a further improvement on the previous one, as was Paride ed Elena. Gluck now attracted the attention of the French poet Du RoHet, connected with the French Embassy at Vienna, and the two set to work to make an opera out of Racine's 1phig(iiie en. tialide. Then Gluck longed for a Paris success, and through the influence of Marie Antoinette succeeded in securing „an invitation to that city. His patron also succeeded in precipi tating the innocent composer into a political quarrel by Mine. Du Barry. How
ever, Cluck's ligr'nie achieved a hearing and afterwards a success in Paris. in the of this came one of the bitterest fights in all ope ratic history. At the bottom of it politics raged, but on the surface it seemed a controversy over :esthetic ideals. It culminated by forming two violently antagonistic parties which pitted Gluck on the one hand against Pieeini on the other. Many prominent persons took active share in the conflict, which was almost an international affair, since the outcome would control the fate of Italian opera. The two composers were duel ing with operas. Gluck composed Amide, and against that I'iccini wrote Roland. So !natters might have gone on indefinitely had it not been decided that both of them should set the same subject to music} This was 1phibn'nic ref Tauride, and Gluck triumphed because of the superiority • of his work. So dramatic verity and operatic sincerity won the day. The principles upon which Gluck had insisted and for which lie had waged suceessful war were really only those formulated by the Florentine Camerata almost two centuries earlier. It is a tribute to the Florentine noble men; though probably they bnilded better than they knew.
At this period the influence of Mozart (1756 91), the genius of melody, began to make itself felt. Except that he had a keen appreciation for the dramatic, lie was the antithesis of Gluck. Ile had no regard for the precepts of his planning predecessor; those formula over which Cluck had slaved meant nothing to him, and he suc ceeded by virtue of sheer genius. He composed with the greatest ease and rapidity, and wrote masterpieces with less care than other composers devote to writing trash. Yet his Don Giovanni is one of the greatest of the older operas. He individualized his characters musically, was alive to dramatic situations, and inclosed the whole in a network of pure melody—perhaps the most exquisite ever produced. It was more Italian than the sunny, melodious product of that coun try, but it was controlled by a genius which shone through at every bar. 'When he wrote in the vein amusing—as in Le noire di Pigaro—it made the efforts of the Italians, who created this genre, sound flimsy and trivial. When he grew serious—as in the grewsome scenes of Don (lin ranni—he foreshadowed the Wagner music drama. Yet with all these attributes Mozart himself did not change the current of the operatic stream nor did he found a school of successors. Nowhere in the history of opera is there a parallel to his case.