Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera

Author(s): Henry Louis de la Grange

Source: Studia Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, T. 31, Fasc. 1/4 (1989), pp.
253-270
Published by: Akadémiai Kiadó
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/902335
Accessed: 10-06-2016 03:26 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Akadémiai Kiadó is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia
Musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera
Henry Louis DE LA GRANGE
Paris

In Mahler's time the United States did not have a good reputation among
German and Austrian musicians. They all knew, of course, that in the New
World there were quite a number of immigrants of (Ierman origin for whom
music was a necessity. It was a reminder of their country of origin and helped
to keep their little community together. Nevertheless, apart from Karl Muck
at the Boston Symphony and Anton Seidl at the Metropolitan and the New
York Philharmonic, the majority of European conductors gave the general
impression of having gone to the United States only because they felt they
had not achieved adequate recognition in Europe. A few star conductors,
however, like Feli2c Mottl and Richard Strauss, consented to go there for short
visits and handsome financial rewards.
Of all the European conductors of the time, Mahler seemed perhaps the
one lemt likely to be tempted by America. In 1907, after ten years as director
of the Vienna Opera, he was at the height of his fame. And yet it was then
that he decided, to everyone's surprise, to cross the Atlantic. The decision wm
not lightly taken: his letters show clearly that the United States had been
depicted to him as the country of the almighty dollar and grasping million-
aires, a country in which culture was neither a tradition nor a need, but simply
an ornament of society for whom making money left little time for art. But,
unlike Richard Strauss, Mahler was quite incapable of accepting any engage-
ment solely for the purpose of making rnoney. It required therefore an excep-
tional combination of circumstances to persuade him to turn his back on
Europe and accept a position in the United States.
The reasons which made him leave Vienna are not part of our subject
today. Let me just say, briefly, tha,t the main ones were the frequent journeys
that his success as a composer had led him to make to conduct his works,
and the inability of the Court officials to realise that no famous conductor
would ever again agree to spend a11 his time directing the Vienna Opera. There
criticism in the press of his frequent absences. It was decided therefore to

St?wdia 71I?ssicoloSica Academtae Scientiartbm H?snvaricae 31, 1989

Akademiai Riado, Btbdapet

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
254 H. L. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera

appoint Felix Mottl in his place, a decision that would subsequently be frus-
trated by the Bavarian court's refusal to release Mottl from his contract.
Mahler then realised that they would let him go without even being certain
of finding a replacement for him. He felt, therefore, that they underestimated
him, and were virtually throwing him out of an institution to which for ten
long years he had devoted the best of his abilities and energies, to the detri-
Irlent of his health and his creative work. To obtain his release, and the award
of the pension to which he was in principle entitled, he had to promise in
writing never to conduct again in Vienna. Since at that time of offer had come
from Germany either, his decision to accept the offer he had received from
the Metropolitan Opera was the obvious thing to do, especially since the pro-
posed salary for four months there was much higher than he received for a,
whole year at the Vienna Opera.
For his part, Heinrich Conried, managing director and lessee of the Metro-
politan Opera, was compelled to take new measures to combat fierce compe-
tition from the new Opera opened the previous year in New York by Oscar
Hammerstein, a cigar merchant who had become a millionaire and whose
artistic policies were infinitely bolder and more enlightened than (:onried's.
Engaging a conductor of international renown was part of his programme of
reforms. The first meeting between Mahler and Conried took place in Berlin
in June 1907. (:onried offered Mahler a salary of 5000 dollars a month (25,000
crowns) for periods which could last from two to six months in the year.
Assuming he spent three months a year in New York, Mahler would earn 75,000
crowns, more than double his salary in Vienna, and would moreover not have
to take on any administrative responsibilities. He would thus be able to devote
the whole of the remainder of the year to composing.
The events of the summer of 1907 the death of little Putzi, the diagnosis
that Mahler had a serious cardiac defect a11 that is too wellknown for me
to have to describe it in detail here. On his return to Vienna at the end of
August, Mahler, who had so far not been able finally to commit himself,
learned that Felis Weingartner had agred to succeed him. In September he
met Conried again in Munich and ultimately opted for a stay of four months.
Finally he agreed, for an additional salary of 5000 dollars or 25,000 crown
(half, the sum he had asked), to go to New York a fortnight in advance for
rehearsals, not a large sum if one remembers that Caruso was paid at that time
1400 dollars per performance ! During these negotiations Mahler complained
repeatedly of "petty-mindedness" displayed by Conried who had, for example,
insisted as a condition of his appointment that he would not touch wine or
alcohol for the whole period of his stay. He had never before been taken for
an alcoholic ! . . . A month before his departure for New York Mahler was

Studia Musicoloaica Academiae Scientiurum Hunaaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera 255

astound to hear that (:onried wm about to relinquish his post, but the news
did not trouble him unduly since he had been careful to include in his contract,
which was for four years, a clause to the effect that in would be immediately
terminated if there were a change in the management.
Many of Mahler's friends and acquaintances had already crossed the
Atlantic Franz Schalk, Lilli Lehmann, Moriz Rosenthal, and Gerhard
Eauptmann, for example. The picture they gave him of America was not
encouraging. He could hardly see himself sacrificing at the altars ofthealmighty
dollar, free enterprise, strident publicity and spoilt stars, a11 things which he
detested. Just before leaving he confided his doubts to Richard Strauss. As
usual, their conversation, as told by Karl Moll in his memoirs, brings out the
contrast between their characters. Strauss simply shrugged his shoulders and
replied smiling: "B?t Mahler, yo?£ will never grow ?£p. Over there, all you have
to do is to get ?p on the /(. . .] and do this (bests time with his 7snds), then yo to
the cash-desk and do this (holds o?t his 7gnd for money)?" /("Aber Mahler, Sie
sind und bleiben ein Kind. Da dr?iyben stellt man sich ans P?lt und macht so
(Geste des Taktschlayens) - nachher geAt man an die Kasse (aeste des Geld-
zahlens) ."]1

Mahler almost certainly knew nothing of the story behind the founding
of the Metropolitan Opera by the Vanderbilts, a family of millionaires whom
the New York social establishment regarded as upstarts and "new people".
That was why Mrs. Astor, the queen of old New York, prevented them from
buying a box at the old Opera, the Academy of Music. In New York, having a
box at the Opera did not mean that you were interested in music, but simply
announced to everyone that you belonged to high society. Nor did Mahler
know that the main concern of the rich New Yorkers who came to the Opera,
at least on subscription nights, was to "be seen" rather to see. On those nights
the conversation in the boxes often continued after the curtain had risen. In
fact, the Metropolitan was only outwardly a temple of the arts. In reality it
was a theater in which "the royalty born of success in business" could display
the success. The enormous auditorium, built in 1883, took up almost the whole
of the building into which it had been squeezed, a building which could not be
extended because the site on which it stood was too small. Even the foyers
were limited in size. There was no space to store the scenery, which meant
that the stage sets had to be cut to the minimum. This didn't bother anyone
in a city where, traditionally, the main interest was in the singing. What was
more, New York society really liked only Italian opera. The owners of boxes,
the stockholders, who were all-powerful because they owned the building itself

1 Karl Moll, Unveroffentl?>chte Memo?>ren

Studia MusucoloSiza Acaaemzae Scientiarum Hunvaricae 31, ]989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
256 H. L. De la Grange: Mahler and the Metropolttan Ojpera

and appointed the managers, went so far as to put a strict limit on the number
of Wagnerian evenings during the subscription performances, the only ones
they attended in large numbers. In 1901 Conried's predecessor had had the
temerity to break their rule and programme "Trq,stan" for the opening night
of the season, the most important social event of the year. To show their
disapproval and annoyance, most of the subscribers boycotted the performance
and went off into the country.
But it must also be remembered that there was in New York a sizeable
contingent of German immigrants who were passionately interested in Wagner.
Conried was accordingly the first to wage a bloody battle against the Wagner
family, which enabled him to stage "Parstfal" for the first time outside
Bayreuth. This, and the engagement of Caruso, were the two master strokes
of (:onried's Metropolitan years. He organised a publicity campaign of unpre-
cedented scale, had special trains coming from the four corners of America
and, for once, a carefully thought-out stage production which made this per-
formance of the last of Wagner's dramas a sensational event not only in New
York, but in the country as a whole. With it he scored one of the most brilliant
commercial successes in the entire history of New York opera, making a net
profit of almost $100,000. On the other hand, the cancellation, two years later,
of the premiere of "Salome", insisted on by the banker J. P. Morgan, the
richest and most powerful man in New York, cost him almost the same amount
Conried nevertheless left the New York Opera with a considerable fortune,
mostly acquired at the Metropolitan. For in those more fortunate times it
was still possible to make money at the Opera, provided one was willing to
compromise on artistic quality. Making money indeed was Conried's chief aim
in a11 he did, and it required the keen and unexpected competition from
Hammerstein, who publicly accused him of knowing nothing about opera, to
make him engage a conductor of Mahler's stature and offer him a salary which
was very generous by the standards of those days.
In a climate such as this, it was obvious that Mahler would not find it
easy to exercise his artistic abilities freely, aspecially since, on his arrival, in
December 1907, New York was still suffering from the shock of the first stock
exchange crash in its history, which had occurred two months earlier. This
catastrophe had had an irnmediate effect on the Metropolitan's receipts by
reducing the number of subscribers. Conried had thus lost part of the profts
made in previous years. Fortunately, in signing his contract, Mahler had stipu-
lated conditions which guarantied that some at least of his requirements would
be met. The only commitment that Conried did not keep was that of making
Mahler conduct concerts at the theatre. Mahler fitlally embarked on this new
period of his career with a curious naixture of feelings enthusiasnl for a new

Stt4dta Mq4stcolovtca Academtae Sczentiarz4m Hz4nyaricae 3], ]989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De la G/ranye: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera 257

country whose freedom from prejudices pleased him, a pragmatism which

enabled him to make necessary concessions, and a desire to educate the New
York public by doing his best to improve the quality of performances. For
the moment, the two operas he had agreed to conduct were "Tristczn-' and
"Ftdelio". Once in New York he decided with Conried to add three others
to his repertory for the season: "Dte Watkt4re", "Siegfrted", and Mozart's
'Don Ciovannt' .
On their arrival Mahler and Alma were immediately invited to lunch by
Conried, and so were able from the start to assess the pretentiousness and
sulgarity of his character as revealed by the combination of sumptuousness
and bad taste with which his apartment was furnished. Fortunately, Mahler's
sense of humour enabled him to cope with such situations. However, he and
Alma were not a happy couple in those winter months of December January
1908. Putzi's death had left terrible scars. Instead of bringing them together
again in a feeling of shared grief, it had only accentuated their profound dis-
agreements. Their second daughter Anna, who might perhaps have made their
stay more cheerful, had stayed in Europe with her grand-parents. Mahler was
still convinced that he had a serious cardiac complaint, with the result that
during the whole of his first season at the Metropolitan he spent a large part
of his free time in bed and was careful not to get over-tired. It was only in the
course of the following summer that he realised how e2raggerated his fears
had been.
The rehearsals for "Tristan" lasted only nine days, much less than the
two or three weeks Mahler had thought necessary in Vienna to prepare a new
production. For the role of Isolde he had a star of the first magnitude, Olive
Fremstad, an American of Swedish origin, trained in Berlin by Lilli Lehmann,
and who had begun her career as a contralto. She had already sung other
Wagnerian roles, but this was her first Isolde. It is probable that Mahler had
akeady rehearsed her in the role in Europe, and with particular care. One of
the critics drew attention to her "apparent calm", her "economy of gesture",
both qualities which Mahler considered essential for opera and which he took
great pains to teach his Viennese singers. Brangane, the American Louise
Homer, also rated ae one of the leading singers of the Metropolitan, where she
was to have one of the longest careers on record. Kurwenal was sung by Anton
von Rooy, one of the most popular Wotans of the Bayreuth Festival.
It was with the tenors, however, that Mahler was to have the most trouble.
For Tristan he had been promised Alois Burgstaller, a protege of Cosima
Wagner and a frequent performer at Bayreuth. But he said he was ill, and so
had to be replaced already in the first performance by Heinrich Knote from
Munich, who had just made his debut in New York. On his return to Germany,

17 Stdia Musicoloaica Academiae Scientustum B"n¢are 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
258 H. l. De la Grange: Mahler and the Metrojpolstan OApera

Knote wrote an article which was reproduced in the American press. In it he

claimed that Mahler had called him "the best W nertcm tenor he h ever 7Suxd
to desl wtth". It is unlikely that Mahler went as far as that, but he certainly
preferred him to the Heldentenor of the Vienna Opera, Erik Schmedes, who
took on the role at the Metropolitan the following year. The critics however
had strong reservations about both of them. The most surprising thing i,^ that
Burgstaller complained of one illness after another throughout the whole of
the season, and finally only sang Tristan once under Mahler, not in New York
Opera which Mahler found most disheartening, that of neverending changes
in the cast. But it seems that even at that time Wagnerian tenors were almost
as rare birds as they are today.
No stage designer is mentioned either on the posters or in the programmes
or in the critics' accounts of any of the Metropolitan's productions of that
period. All we know is that for "Tristcm", two years later, Toscanini was able
to use the sets from La Scala, which implies that Mahler had to make do with
those of the New York production of 1886. As for the stage director in New York
as in Vienna, no mention is made of the person responsible. It was no doubt a
joint effort between Mahler and Conried, but the theatre's own producer also
took part, at lea.st in an executive role.
As for Mahler, he seems to have decided to push ahead come what may
and not allow hiuself to be unduly affected by any of the traditional Metro-
politan shortcomings. He displayed great tact and patience during rehearsals,
making suggestions rnather tha giving orders, always in the mildest of tones
possible. Considering the many rumours that had come through from Vienna
concerning his violent temper, everyone was surprised and quite disarmed by
his extreme politeness. Even the musicians said how delighted they were to
be treated with such consideration. He was not unduly upset even when
Chaliapin arrived late at rehearsals and teased his partners by singing the
"Don Giorclnni" recitatives in Russian. He accepted without argument the
immense cuts that had to be made in the Wagner scores because the perfor-
mance started at eight o'clock, he who had fought tooth and nail in Vienna
for uncut performances.
But there were limits to his politeness. This became clear on the very first
day of rehearsal when he insisted that another rehearsal of the chorus else-
where in the theatre should immediately be stopped because it prevented him
from hearing the orchestra. It was clear too when he took offence at the ugliness
of the stage props used for the first Finale of "Don Giorclnni": "People will
think thclt the bclll is beiny held in one of the pcllace kitchens" he complained, but
still stopped short of losing his temper. Another continuing cause of complaint
for him, in the "Don Giorclnni" and the " Ftdelto" productions,wasthepoor

Stud?a Musicolosica Academiae Scie,ntiarum Htznvaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolttan Opera 259

quality of the chorus. One Boston critic declared quite bluntly that it was
"Cz disyrG^ce for a first-class OperG^".
Reading the press reports of the time, it emerges that some critics, and
in particular Henry Krehbiel of the Tribune, who was soon to become Mahler's
mortal enemy, suffered from insuperable inferiority complexes because they
felt they were underestimated by the Europeans. The extravagant praise with
which Mahler's arrival was announced certainly upset Krehbiel, with the result
that he kept on reminding his readers that other great orchestral conductors
in the German tradition had already visited New York, for example Seidl and
Mottl, both of whom had conducted "Tristcm". Each of Krehbiel's articles
seemed to be aimed at showing off his own culture and erudition. The first
one he wrote on Mahler, which was one of the most favourable ones, already
pointed out that "MclAler is a newcomer whose clppeclrance here, while full of
signiftcance, is not likely to excite one hcllf of the interest in New York that his
depclrture from Europe did on the other stde of the wclter" (Tribune, 2/3.1.08)
For the entire period of Mahler's activity in New York, the most balanced
articles were invariably those which Richard Aldrich wrote in the Sunday
Times. Commenting on Mahler's first Wagner performances, Aldrich con-
gratulated him on being able to restrain the orchestra so that the voices could
be heard without effort. "And yet, the orchestrcll pclrt hud clll its becluty, clll tts
dramcltic power cmd effectiveness; it hcld clll the contrclst clnd vclricltion of power,
clecent cmd cltmclx." (Sundcly Times, 7.1.08.)
William Henderson, the much-feared critic of the New York Sun, also
approved of the way Mahler "was yentle wtth the brclsses" and had done full
justice to "the vclriety, the delicacy, the finesse clnd the exquisite color scheme of
this mclrvellous score when tt is recld with refined art and not torn to shreds in an
clttempt to treclt it with turbulence". However, amid this chorus of praise one or
two voices were raised to accuse Mahler quite simply of lacking passion. The
most eloquent of these protesters was Lawrence Gilman, the critic of Hclrper's
Weekly. He reproached Mahler with unusual virulence for his "clncllyticcbl . . .
Order of mind"; "his clttitude is detclched, riyorously objective"; "he disclosed
the intimate subtleties of the Tristan score notiny esosbped his marvellously
penetrattny scouttny". Gilman continues: "But Mr Mahler fails tn considerable
measure to lay bare the heart of the 7nusic. There is a yreater and a deeper 'Tristan
and Isolde' than that which he makes known. His fastidtous taste, his admirclble
discretion, his respect for the voice parts, his horror of obvious effets, lead him,
in the end, astray. In thts music is the miyAtiest, the most unconfined emotional
declarcltion that the art of the world ccm show. This tncomparclble score tncom-
parclble alike in its flaminy passion and its superlative beauty issued from the
brain of Wclyner at white heat. Not to make evident and trresistible its fiery ecstasy,

17* Stzzdia Mqzsucolovica Acade.miae Scienturum Hunaarizae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
260 H. L. De La G>ranye: Mahler and the Metropolstan Opercw

its unique ardor is to be unfaithful not alone to tts spirit, but to tts letter . . . It ts
not extravayant to say that so tame, so ineffectual, a performance of the last act
of this mustc drama has not been heard in New York.".. . "The music was,
to be frank, emasculated, shorn of almost all tts ylory and tts strenyth." Others,
like Samuel Chotzinoff, who later became the collaborator and intimate friend
of Toscanini, had suffered for a long time, and often without knowing it, from
the perpetual fortissimo of Alfred Hertz, Mahler's predecessor as conductor of
"Tristan". Chotzinoff wrote: "There was a severity about Ma7wler's interpreta-
tion that, stranyely enoql,gh, heightened both its sensuousness and its suspense . . .
he was 'riding' the orchestra with the calculated sureness of the master trainer, at
one moment curbtny tt to a crafty balance between tt and the voice on the staye,
at another ytviny tt its head as it raced alone. Perhaps at certain clirnaxes he was
too solicitous for the voice. . . It was an entirely new 'Tristan' for me. Now at
last I knew how Wagner should sound."2
The premiere of "Tristan" took place on the ist January, 1908. When, a
month later, Mahler gave "Die Walkure", Fremstad again appeared, as Sieg-
linde, but Brunhilde was interpreted by Johanna GEadski, a GEerman soprano
who was very popular in New York and whose violent dislike for Fremstad
was wellknown. It was said that on one occasion she had deliberately rubbed
the studs of her breastplate on Fremstad's arm until the blood came, main-
taining the while an exquisite smile. Fortunately, the two divas only appear
together in one scene of the last act, otherwise the rehearsals would certainly
have been stormy. The first performance on the 7th February suffered from
a run of back luck, since Fremstad and Van Rooy were both indisposed and
Burgstaller hadnot really recovered from his "cGbtarrh" ofthe previous month
and could hardly get through the first act. Fortunately, Mahler "hetped and
sustained" the singers with encouraging glances, and also toned down the
orchestra, especially in the first act, but without sacrificing expressiveness.
According to the Herald, "he played ?bpon the orchestra as though it were an
?,nstrument". In the second act, however, according to the critic of the Sun,
"he let loose a torrent of ylorious, vivifyiny tone". The stage production seens
to have shown something of his influence, since Fricka's rams were omitted,
and in the second act the stage was in almost total darkness during the Todes-
verkundiguny. And, what was still quite unusual at the time, the horses of
the last act were replaced by racing clouds projected onto a gauze backeloth.
Unfortunately, the Walkure was not as popular as "Tristan", and only the
best seats in thestheatre were filled the night of the pre.niere. The moderate
appetite of the New Yorkers for Wagner was also demonstrated by the stnall

2 Samuel Chotzznoff, Days at the Mourn. Harper and Row, 196O, S. 121 ff.

Studia Musicolosica Acaaemiae Scientiarum Eunvaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De La Grange: MahRer and the MetropolEan Opera
261

number of performances of the two productions; five for "Tristan" and four
for the "Walkibre", plus one of each at Philadelphia, were the Metropolitan
played every Tuesday night, and another at the end of the season at Boston,
to which the company moved every year for the month of April. The premiere
of "Stegfried", which Mahler also conducted towards the end of the season,
was also unlucky the weather was terrible and New Yorkers that evening
were only interested in the performance of Debussy's "Pelleas and Melisande"
at the Hammerstein Opera, with Mary Garden as the heroine.
In January, when Contied's departure was announced, the Metropolitan's
board of directors suggested to Mahler that he should take his place. By that
time, however, he had realised that there he could never be happy with con-
ditions at the Metropolitan. He therefore refused the offer. He had in any case
made up his mind that he would never again accept the post of administrator.
He said however that he was prepared to continue as conductor and producer.
He suggested that Alfred Roller should be engaged as stage designer. But he
was not to have his way since it was decided to bring in GEiulio Gatti-Casazza,
former director of the Milan Scala, as manager, and he gave preference to the
designers with whom he had already worked. Mahler was thus faced with the
prospect of losing a large part of the influence he had enjoyed under Conried.
He was not even informed officially of the decision not to engage Roller. He
did know however that GEatti Ca^azza intended to bring with him from Italy
a young conductor who was already much spoken of Arturo Toscanini. At
first he had no reaeon to worry unduly about the prospective newcomer. Had
he not himself in Vienna engaged an Italian conductor for the Italian repertory ?
On the other side of the Atlantic, in Milan, Toscanini said that he was delighted
to work alongside an artist of the quality of Mahler, and that he admired him
greatly and preferred to have him as a colleague rather than some nonentity.
It was not until several months later that the quarrel, which seemed inevitable
in view of Toscanini's ambitions, was to break out between them.
But we have still to say something about the other two productions that
Mahler supervised during his first season. For "Don Giovanni", which he con-
ducted at the end of January and for the first time in his life in Italian, he
had a wonderful cast: Marcella Sembrich, a soprano of Polish origin whose
popularity equalled that of Caruso, as Zerlina; a first-rate American prima
donna, Emma Eames, as Elvira; Johanna Gadski as Anna; Alessandro Bonci,
a tenor from Romagna and rival of Caruso, as Ottavio; the famous NTeapolitan
baritone Antonio Scotti, one of the stalwarts of the Metropolitan right up
until 1933, in the title role, and finally, Fedore Chaliapin, who had come to
make his debut in New York, as Leporello. Opinions in the press were by no
lneans unanimously favourable to Chaliapin, they disliked his uncouth "gutter-

Studia Mcologica Acadanioe Scientiarum Ilunyaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
262 H. L. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera

snipe" manners, particularly when he blew his nose in his fingers on the stage.
As always, Mahler wanted to take account of historical authenticity in the
musical performance. He did not go so far as to insist on the purchase of a
harpsichord, as he had done in Vienna, but he had a sheet of paper placed on
the strings of the piano used for the recitatives, and that produced a roughly
similar tone. At Philadelphia such "archeological researches" were deemed to
be pedantic, but in New York they were found convincing. Since the old stage-
sets had not been conceived to facilitate rapid changes, Mahler had several
scenes sung in front of the curtain. The critics were agreed that he made
"Don (Viovanni" a "music-drama", rather than the "concert costume" that
they were accustomed to seeing in New York. They also noted that his tempi
were different from the traditional ones, but curiously enough some thought
that they were faster, and others that they were slower. "What does tt matter",
wrote the critic of the Boston EveniXng Transcript, "even if traditional tempi
went, Mahler-wise, by the board. (Is not tradition the mother of d?bllness ?) It was
Mozurt altre, speaking, irreststzble, of 1908 no less than 1788, man and brother
to us all in the common tie of his music-drama." On the other hand, Krehbiel,
whose articles were now gradually becoming more venomous, accused Mahler
on the day after the premiere of having "refused to follow the tradtttonal tempt
in a few tnstances, generally to the grtevous dtsappointment of his hearers".
The "Don G/iovanni" performance during this first season gave Mahler some
of the most painful moments in his whole New York career. It was true that
Conried had done his best in the few days available to renovate the old stage-
sets, but they still left much to be desired. One of the many things Mahler
noticed W&S that the tree behind which Zerlina had to hide in the second act
had been completely overlooked. Things were even worse at Philadelphia and
Boston where the Metropolitan stage-sets simply could not be fitted it. On
one occaeion in Philadelphia, Mahler had to prolong an orchestral chord inter-
minably to give Elvira-GEadski time to get on to the stage for her aria they
had forgotten to provide a door in the appropriate place and she had to force
her way between two pieces of scenery, making the entire stage-set trembe
and allowing the public to see right into the wings. One can understand that
Mahler often thought wistfully of the Viennese productions he had prepared
so carefully. Under these conditions he wae unable to enjoy to the full the
superb voices which were put at his disposal in America. Moreover the public's
lack of enthusiavn for great art depressed him somewhat: apart from the
performances in Philadelphia and Boston, his production of Mozart's master-
piece only ran to three pervormances in New York, in spite of the brilliant caet.
And it should not be forgotten that the competition from the Hammerstein
Opera was as keen as ever, and that the first performances of Tetrazzini for

Studia Mus?coleSica Academiae Scientiarum Hunvaricae 31, ]989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De Lcl, Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera 263

example produced such a sensation that the great classics tended to be for-
gotten.
Nevertheless New York could on occasion show great enthusiasm, even
for a German opera. Mahler discovered this when conducting "Ftdelto", an
opera which had always been considered an unsuccessful work in New York,
but which gave him the greatest triumph of his entire first season. Undoubtedly
the famous Viennese stage-sets designed by Roller played a part in this, but
it was the music which most attracted attention. Mahler had slightly modified
the orchestration, but this did not provoke the bitter attacks he had suffered
in Vienna; it was acknowledged that he had "htyAtened the dramattc effect",
especially the emotional impact of the introduction to the second act. The
Czech singer Karl Burian3 relates that one day, during the first orchestral
rehearsal of that scene, he had to lie for hours flat on his back chained to the
wall while Mahler interminably corrected the musicians. The rehearsal ended
without the tenor being asked to sing, and he was only too thankful because,
he said, ;;No lFtorestan would ever have been able, wtth hts votce, to follow on from
such an tntroductzon wtthout breaktng the spell wtth the conductor and cast." And,
he added, "more zdeas came to Mahler on the podtum durtng a stngle orchestral
rehearsal than tn three weeks tn the rehearsal room!" At the first performance
Mahler was at last able to achieve the kind of "Gesamtkunstwerk" which wae
his ideal. The Boston Eventng Transcrtpt described the great wave of emotion
which seized and carried away the whole audience: "The drtvtng eloquence of
the performance . . . the dramattztng tntenszty that beat tn every phrase and accent
seemed to renew thts power and passzon. The m?rstc had mtyAt, potgnancy, trre-
ststzble emotzon. The whole theatre became Florestan's dungeon, the whole audtence
shared Leonore's patn and hope and trtumph."
But, strange as it may seem, Mahler achieved the greatest success of all
with the great "Leonore" Overture, played, ae in Vienna, in total darkness and
between the two scenes of the last act. "After stratntng every nerve to catch tts
ItyAtest ptantestmo, the hoqbse went crazy tn the dark. The rzot over Mahler eqmhalled
that over Car?sso tn 'Trovatore'," wrote the Eventng Sun. Ma2r Smith of the
New York Press also paved "t was one of the most superbly effecttre, most
wonderfully wetghed, exqutsttely balanred and drarnattcally constructed readtnss
of Beethoven's overture ever heard tn New York." Everyone agreed that the
explosion of joy, the unbridled enthusiasm and thunderous applause which
followed the overture was something unusual, unique even, in the history of
the Metropolitan.
With "FtdXelto", therefore, Mahler scored not merely a success but one

3 Karl Burian, Unveroffentlichae Mernoiren

Studia Musscolo1,ca Academuze Scientiarum Huncae 31, ]989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De LcF Grange: Mahter cFnd the Metropolitan OpercF
264

of the most significant victories of his whole career: "FtdeZio went over ltke a
bomb, and my prospects tn New York were transformed overntyAt." ["Der Ftdelto
hut machtqwg einyeschlagen thnd meine Chancen mtt etnem Schlage ganz verandert." 74
This triumph indeed proved pregnant with consequences for the future, since
it gave Orchestra.
Mahler two particularly enterprising "Comity ladies" the idea of founding a
Thus the impression Mahler retained of his first seaeon was by no means
unfavourable. True, the Americans seemed to him to be terribly lacking in
critical sense, but they knew how to show their gratitude, and had won him
over by their "broadmindedness", their "freshness" and "forthrightness". (He
refers to "die grosezfigtgen Verh4Ztnisse" and says: "Dte Xrische, Glesundhett
und G/eradhett aller Verhaltntese zzehen uns stark an)5 and this in spite of his
disappointment with the all too infrequent "artistic satisfaction" his stay had
afforded him. He attributed to the ill-will and petty-mindedness of certain
immigrants most of the malicious rumours circulating in Europe about the
United States. Before leaving for Europe, Mahler took part in the benefit
concert Conried had organised for himself, conducting the "Leonore" Overture.
Caruso, Emma Eames and many other Metropolitan singers also participated,
on this farewell occasion for their former director.
Conried's successor, Giulio Gatti-Casazza, was the first manager in the
history of the Metropolitan not to be also the lessee of the theatre, the stock-
holders having finally agreed to take over responsibility for the financial
management. Gatti's appointment had already been decided when a laet-
minute intervention by the all-powerful J. P. Morgan resulted in the appoint-
ment, as assistant manager, of Andreas Dippel, a German tenor who had for-
merly been a member of the Vienna Opera company under Mahler. Gatti wae
only informed of this after he had signed his contract, on his first journey to
New York in the spring of 1908. It was therefore with Dippel that Mahler,
before returning to Europe, arranged details of his contract for the next seaeon,
committing himself again to a three months' stay. Before leaving, he gave an
interview to the New York Sun in which he insisted on the need in future to
rehearse the German works much Inore carefully. As there were no stars of
the stature of Caruso and Selnbrich to sing them, it was essential that the
performances
should be more should be meticulously
stable than hitherto. prepared and that the casting of roles
During the summer of 1908, the first that Mahler spent at Toblach in
the Dolomites, a scandal broke out in Vienna. Felix Weingartner, Mahler's
successor as conductor of the Opera, had decided to make cuts in the score of
4 Gustav Mahler, Brzefe 1879-1911, Zsolnay, Wien, 1924, Nr. 364
5 Gustav Mahler, Brtefe 1879-1911. Zsolnay, Wien 1924 Nr. 401
StudUz Mustcoloca Academuze Sczentubrum HunSartcae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De La Grange: Mahter and the MetropoliXan Opera 265

the "Walk?bre", whereas Mahler had always insisted on doing all the Wagner
operas in their integral versions. Since Weingartner had akeady drastically
changed the production of "Fidelio" that Mahler had put together with so
much care in 1904, the press now accused him of committing a crime against
Wagner and of wilful sabotage of the work of his predecessor. The first perfor-
mance of the "Walkq4re" was almost brought to a halt by boos and catcalls
and the police had to intervene to restore order. To defend himself, Weingartner
invoked the example of Mahler who, in New York, had agreed to cuts in the
Wagner operas. In a letter to a Viennese critic, probably Julius Korngold,
Mahler explained his position vis a vis the Metropolitan. After comparing the
entire management of the establishment to that of an Italian "stayione", he
added: "Indeed, it is Italian opera which is the focal point of the whole enternprise,
German opera being viewed at present as an outsider to be allowed in only occa-
sionally. It would be impossible for me, in the four weeks at my disposal, arAl
without appearing to follow the famous example of Don Quixote, to try to reform
the staff, the public and all the rest. I must therefore for the time being accenpt the
ctBts that are ustusblly made, the priority task being to provide convincing perfor-
mances to bring back a public which has been repelled by shoddy productions,
and to pers?ade it to stay to the end of the performances. I did the same thing when
I first went to Vienna. I concentrated on raising the overa7;l level of performances
and then gradually, without saying much abotBt it, yot rid of the cuts . . . If I am
called upon to work for a lonyer period in New York, I have no doubt that with the
gradual reoryanisation of artistic conditions there I shalF be able to do the same
as I did in Vienna." / " Und in der Tat ist die italienische Oper daselbst eigentlich
der Kernpunkt des ganzen Unternehmens und die deutsche Oper gegenwartzg
mehr geduldet als bodenstandig. Ich kann nun, ohne nach ber?iAmtem Mt4ster als
Don Quichote autzutreten, unmoylich in diesen wenigen Wochen Personal, Publi>-
kum, etc. reforrnteren wollen und rnuss rntch daher zunachst dem dort q6blichen
Streichwesen f?igen. Besonders da es vor allem darauf ankommt, dus Publikum,
welches durch verwahrloste Auffuhrunyen disgustiert den selben fern bleibt, wieder
dtBrch ?bberzeuyende Leistunyen heranzuziehen und zum Ausharren bis z?bm Schluws
der Vorstellunyen zu uberreden. So tat ich es auch, als ich in Wien eintrat; ich
habe vor allern das Ntreau der Gesarntletstung gehoben und erst allmahli,ch, ohne
viel daruber zu reden, besettzgte tch dte Strtche . . . Sollte ich langere Zeit in New
York zu wtrken berufen setn, so zwetfle tch gar ntcht, dass tch mit der fortschretten-
den Sanzerung der kunstlertschen Verhaltntsse . . .]6
By the end of the first season, Mahler had understood that the Metro-
politan would only be a transitional phase in his career, and that his future

6 GustavMahler, UnbekannteBrtefe, PaulZsolnay1983,S. 195

Studia MUMCOIOSZCA Academiae Sczentiarum Hunsaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. L. De la Grange: Mahler and the Metropolttan Opera
266

in New York lay in orchestral music. He nevertheless prepared, with Dippel, an

ambitious programme for himself which included "The Marriage of Figaro"
and an American premiere of Smetana's "Bartered Bride", and only retained
"Fidelio" and "Tristan" from the previous season. During the following sum-
mer the "Tristan" production became the subject of a serious quarrel between
Mahler and the Metropolitan management, a quarrel aggravated by Andreas
Dippel's lack of frankness. The main subject in their e2change of letters was
first the engagement of Roller as stage designer for the "Marriaye of Figaro",
an engagement which finally fell through because of Roller's financial demands,
which the Metropolitan considered e2cessive. The stage settings were in the
end ordered from Heinrich Lefler, Roller's predecessor at the Vienna Opera,.
At the end of his letter informing Mahler of the breakdown in negotiations
with Roller, Dippel said he was sure Mahler would have no objections to
Toscanini conducting one or two performances of "Tristan" at the beginning
of the season, with new stage sets brought over from La Scala. It was in that
production that the Italian wished to make his Wagnerian debut in New York.
As might be e2mpected, Mahler reacted with the utmost violence.7 "While
I recently did all I could in accordance with my colleayue's wishes-to comply
with the desires of the new director, I nevertheless expressly reserved the 'Tristan'
for myself. During the previous season, I devoted much effort to the 'Tristan'
production and can justly claim that the form in which it now appears in New
York is my intellectual property. If Toscanini, for whom, without knowing him,
I have the yreatest respect (...) were to take over 'Tristan' before my return,
then obviously the production wouldW be yiven an entirely different chclracter andW
it would be quite impossible for me to take over the work again subsequently . . ."
The situation became much worse when it transpired that Gatti had definitely
promised Toscanini that he would conduct "Tristan" as his first Wagner
opera. It thus seemed impossible to appease Mahler's susceptibility and at
the same time satisfy Toscanini. The latter therefore had to back down and
make his debut with "Gotterdci,mmerung". So Mahler had gained the upper
hand, at least for the coming season. However, the tension that resulted from
this incident lasted for a long time, especially since the loudly acclaimed suc-
cesses of Toscanini could not fail indirectly to displease Mahler.
WIeanwhile, another conflict was raging at the Metropolitan, a conflict
which seemed inevitable from the start in view of the division of responsibi-
lities between Gatti and Dippel. At the beginning of the season Dippel had
clumsily encouraged five of the leading starts Caruso, Sembrich, Scotti,
Eames and Geraldine Farrer, the young and beautiful American who the

7 Alma Mahler, Gz4stav Mahler Er*nnerqgnyen qgnd Brzefe, S. 431

Studia MusicoloSica AcadKemiae Scientiarum Hunaaticae 3Z, ]989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. l. De la G>ranye: Mah7>er and the Metropo7>itan Opera 267

previous year had sung Zerlina under Mahler's direction to submit to the
board of directors a petition expressing the "wish" that Dippel's contract as
assistant manager should be e2atended. The extension was then vigorously
opposed by Gatti, who had no difficulty in demonstrating that some of Dip-
pel's initiatives had been disastrous, in particular that of dividing the chorus
into two, one part German and the other Italian, which had entailed an enor-
mous increase in costs, and also that of giving performances not only in Phila-
delphia, but also in Brooklyn and Baltimore, which made it necessary to have
two orchestras.
As in the previous year, Mahler's appearance at the Metropolitan's podium
on 23rd December 1908 was with "Tristan", a performance he enjoyed because
he had managed to restore several passages which had previously been cut.
On the night of his reappearance the performance wzs nearly cancelled because
of the indisposition of Erik Schmedes, the tenor who had recently arrived
from Vienna and immediately fallen ill, like Burgstaller the previous year.
Although he finally consented to appear, solely to save the performance,
Schmides was badly treated by the critics, and continued to have a hostile
press throughout the season. Once again Richard Aldrich and several others
praised the way in which Mahler gave the main role to the voices and held
the orchestra in check as Wagner himself had wished. Other critics continued
to complain that his emotion was more "sophistics6ted" than "warmblooded",
that he made "intellectz4al ardor take the place of human passion and intensity".
Of all the New York perforinances of "Tristan", Mahler always preferred the
one given on the 12th March 1909, the last in which the Czech tenor Karl
Burian appeared in the title role. On that occasion the critics acknowledged
that the production "had just those elements of power and passion which have
Joeen wanting in his previous interpretations", and that Mahler had "thrown all
reserve to the winds". After these last three performances, and a, matinee in
Philadelphia, Mahler effectively handed over the "Tristan" to Toscanizii, as
Alma Mahler relates. He nevertheless attended one of Toscanini's performances
but, as might have been expected, he found it-again according to Alma-
"overloaded with nuances" ["vernqbanciert"] and apparently thought no better
of it than Toscanini had of his.
For the nzain reprise of the season, Mozart's "Marriage of Fq,garo",
Mahler had got the management to agree to an astonishing total of twenty-
five rehearsals, and an entirely new production accredited to Dippel but in
which Mahler collaborated closely, with a stage set by Heinrich Lefler. The
cast was of the same quality as for "Don Grovanni" of the previous year, there
were so many star singers that Mahler had the greatest difficulty in getting
them all together for the numerous rehea,rsals the work required. The leading

Studuz MugcoloSica Acaaemiae Scientioum HunSaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
268 H. l. De la Grange: Mahler and the MetropolAan Opera

Metropolitan stars were only required by contract to sing twice a week and
were not required to rehearse on the same day as they appeared in the evening
performance. Those were the conditions a,greed, for e2a,mple, for Ma,rcella
Sembrich (Susanna) and Emma Eames (the Countess). As for Cherubino,
Geraldine Farrar, in spite of her youth, had already acquired the airs of a
prima donna. One day she said to Toscanini during a rehearsal: "But Maestro,
don't forget I am a star!" To which the conductor replied: "The only stars
I know are tn heaven, please start ayain!" The male cast was no less brilliant,
with Antonio Scotti as the Count, and the Polish bass Adamo Didur as Figaro.
Again Mahler accompanied the recitatives himself on the piano. He had suc-
ceeded in putting back several arias that had previously been omitted, and
this time the many rehearsals enabled him to give of his best. The critics
responded with wild enthusiasm, writing of the vivacity and gaiety of the
music- "which foclmed cmd sparkled and flashed like chumpagne", the perfec-
tion of the ensembles, the excellence of the acting- "the singers hud been
tranwfigured into high-class coxnedians", the close "?bnion between the orchestra
and the doinys of the stage", the "elasticity of the tempo", the "diversity of the
nuances", the "exquisite details of the phrasing". They noted Mahler's behaviour
at the desk: niS alert, nervous movements, the quick turnings of his head, the
sudden outstretch of his arms, were all in marked contrast to the almost somnolent
appearance he presents when conducting Wagner music dramas." At all the
performances the letter duet in the third act was encored. The unanimous
verdict was that nothing like this "Ftyaro" had ever been seen in New York,
with the result that it ran to six performances in New York, plus two at
Brooklyn and Philadelphia. Thus for once Mozart really triumphed at the
Metropolitan - and that thanks solely to Mahler. But in spite of everything,
the success was short-lived, for lYlany long years were to pass until another
great Mozart conductor was engaged at the Metropolitan.
But throughout this last season his mood was better than before, mainly
because the concern he had felt about his health had in large part subsided.
He frequently accepted invitations to evening parties with one or another
member of the Opera Board, and even mixed with some of the singers staying
in the same hotel as he on Fifth Avenue. The built-in defects of the Metropoli-
tan worried him less than before, because the plans for founding a "Mahler
Orchestra" were now taking shape and he had already decided to leave the
field free for Toscanini once the season was over.
Moreover, GEatti-Casazza had considerably improved artistic conditions in
the Metropolitan. Thus Mahler's last irnportant task was a production for
which the once lnore obtained very generous facilities. The work in question
was one of his favourite operas, Smetana's "Bartered Bride", and the title

Studia Mus?coloSica Academiae Scientiarum Hunaaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. l. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera 269

role was given to the Czech soprano Emmy Destinn, who had just scored a
sensational success in "Aida" on the opening night of the season. The decors
and costumes were again by Lefler, but they were reproductions of Czech
models. Arrangements were even made to bring over from Prague a dozen
dancers and a ballet mlaster to organisme the folk dances, which contributed
greatly to the success of the perforluance. The opera was sung in German, as
always on the rare occasions when a Slav opera was performed. All the critics
marvelled at the meticulous care with which Mahler prepared every detail,
"s if it had been a Mozart opera". This universal enthusiasm was also confirmed
by the exceptional number of performances sis in New York, one in Brook-
lyn and one in Philadelphia. It showed that a "national" opera with so local
and characteristic a style as that of Smetana and which seemed unlikely ever
to be popular in New York, could nevertheless score a success lasting several
months, again thanks to an outstanding production.
Nevertheless, Mahler shed no tears when he left the Metropolitan in
which he felt there was no place for him any more, and where Dippel's mis-
judgments had precipitated a financial disaster. It would be too much to say
that Gatti was sorry to see him go, but the fact remains that he especially
invited him back later to conduct exceptional performances, and Mahler
willingly accepted.
At that time Mahler had only two more years to live, two years which
would be among the most active in his life, because of the great number of
concerts he gave with the Philharmonic Orchestra, in New York and elsewhere.
In March 1910 he nevertheless found time to return to the Metropolitan
to conduct his last production. In spite of the extraordinary popularity
Tchaikowsky enjoyed in New York since he had come in person to conduct
the first performance of the "Symphonie Pathittzque", none of his operas had
ever been performed there. Mahler therefore offered to produce "The Queen
of Spades", a work which he considered Tchaikowsky's masterpiece and which
he had conducted with success in Hamburg and Vienna. At that time, the
morale at the Metropolitan was even worse than before. Someone had had the
bad idea of opening a subsidiary to the main opera house, a sort of Opera
C:ornique, the New Theatre, with its own company of performers, and which
was proving both hideously expensive and a dangerous competitor the parent
establishment, this at a time when competition with Hammerstein was keener
than ever. The financial situation of the Metropolitan had therefore gone from
bad to worse and the deficit for the season was going to beat the record of the
previous year.
The two main roles in the "Queen of Spades" were sung by Destinn and
the Austrian tenor Leo Slezak, who had been engaged by Mahler in Vienna in

Studia Mus?coloS2ca Academiae Scient7atum Hunvaricae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
270 H. L. De La Grange: Mahler and the Metropolitan Opera

1901, and who had just created a sensation as Othello under Toscanini. The
opera, the last one that Tchaikowsky wrote, made a rather melancholy conclu-
sion to Mahler's activities at the Metropolitan. For a production every bit as
meticulous as those of the previous year, the stage-sets by Lefler were again
brought over from Vienna. Once more the press, although somewhat taken
aback by the opera's unrelieved gloom, was unanimously favourables, and
four performances were given in the month of March alone. More would no
doubt have been given if Mahler had not had to go back to the Philharmonic.
According to Leo Slezak, the rehearsals for the Tchaikowsky opera were ren-
dered difficult by the lack of punctuality and frequent absences of some of
the soloists, but it must not be forgotten that the "Queen of Spcldes" formed
part of the "German" quota of the repertory and that priority was already
being given to the Italian operas. Slezak spoke of Mahler's "sadness" and
"resignation", yet others, like Emmy Destinn, whose admiration for him
bordered on infatuation, though she trembled like a leaf in his presence, spoke
of the iron discipline he imposed on the rehearsals.
Right to the last, and contrary to so many of the testimonies written after
his death and influenced by his tragic and premature end, W1ahler remained
the same conscientious, meticulous, demanding artist who spared himself no
more than he spared others. Many were the disappointments, setbacks and
heart-breaks that he experienced at the Metropolitan, but he neveryielded to
discouragement, nor did he despair of creating a new public for opera. His only
mistake was to die too soon. If he had lived on, cultural life in New York
would certainly have developed more quickly. His all too brief stay at leas
provided a new yardstick for excellence. After him, things would never be
the same again.

Studia Musicoloca scademiae Scientiarxm Bnscl,7icae 31, 1989

This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Fri, 10 Jun 2016 03:26:39 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms