|
Albion
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: December 09, 2013, 05:02:44 pm » |
|
Yes, in the course of a customarily lengthy IRR review (by Graham Rogers), there are some decidedly questionable remarks -
"to modern ears much of [Sullivan's] serious music is unpalatably worthy, sometimes to the point of turgidness" - any specific works being referred to here?
"numbers such as the delightful dancing duet for the Devil and village girl Jacqueline [...] provide welcome flashes of Gilbert and Sullivan-esque spontaneity", presumably amidst the wasteland of otherwise unpalatable turgidity.
"Rebecca Evans is more than equal to the operatic demands of [Philip's] bride Saida" - I'm sure that Saida would wish to have been Philip's bride! Come on, the plot's not that difficult to follow.
"Sullivan's most ardent fans cannot deny that by 1898 - two years after the premiere of La boheme - his resolutely Mendelssohnian style was very old-fashioned, and there is too little here of the compelling excitement which shines through his Gilbert collaborations" - well no Mendelssohn work I've ever encountered sounds like the music in this opera and the hoary old chestnut of comparative chronology really should be put to bed: Sullivan was Sullivan, Puccini was Puccini, get over it!
Nevertheless the review concludes "it is an important work offering much to enjoy, deserving of this first-class advocacy. Chandos is to be thanked and congratulated on a very worthwhile and rewarding endeavour"!
Confusing, perhaps? It reads like two disparate reviews forced into an uneasy compromise.
::)
|
"A piece is worth your attention, and is itself for you praiseworthy, if it makes you feel you have not wasted your time over it." (Sydney Grew, 1922)
|
|
|
|
|
|
