No 39 -- Winter 1992–3 Edited by Michael Walters
In the Education section of THE TIMES on 23 November 1992, appeared an article by Susan Elkin advocating the return of productions of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas in schools. I quote below the important passages, and the correspondence which resulted in the letters page. This includes an unpublished letter of mine and my subsequent discussion with the letters editor.
How many of today's young people can "whistle all the airs from that infernal nonsense Pinafore"? Precious few. As 1992 marks the 150th birthday of Sir Arthur Sullivan, this is an ideal time to revive Gilbert and Sullivan productions in schools. The educational gain would be considerable. As a precocious six–year old, I was the only child in the class to know the meaning of the word "elliptical" when the teacher used it in connection with the earth's orbit. Why? I had seen The Mikado at the school where my father taught. That schoolboy Mikado lingered lovingly over "elliptical billiard balls" and grandiloquently mimed the shape. Gilbert's libretti are rich in vocabulary, as well as being fun. He loved juxtaposing the pompous words with simple synonyms, so as the script or song rattles along, one is left in no doubt what the words mean ...
Gilbert and Sullivan are out of fashion. Schools are choosing Bugsy Malone, Annie, Grease and other American ephemera for their annual shows. Try as I might, I can find no linguistic or musical interest in these. The words are banal and – dare I say? – sometimes ungrammatical. They encourage sloppy diction, often in an inauthentic mid–Western drawl. The repetitive and unmemorable music has to be crooned from the throat into a microphone. These "musicals" lack both depth and quality. One or two professional companies are mounting new productions of Savoy Operas this year to honour Sullivan's centenary–and–a–half. I doubt anyone will want to exhume Grease in 130 years' time. So, I urge schools to follow the example of English National Opera and the New D'Oyly Carte. Gilbert and Sullivan's gems are part of the English heritage, and our children are entitled to experience them. What more enjoyable way could there be to investigate "cross–curricular themes"? SUSAN ELKIN
Sir, Susan Elkin ("Oh for a song to sing O!", November 23) rightly points out that there is much to be gained from school performances of Gilbert and Sullivan. My school has mounted two fully staged performances recently – Trial by Jury and The Mikado. However, she is quite wrong to criticise schools for investigating other genres. Any stage performance is an ideal method of educating across the traditional boundaries of the curricular subjects, irrespective of its theme. Ms Elkin obviously revels in the parody and pastiche in Sullivan's scores. Surely it is easier for students to appreciate these nuances after performances of works such as Magic Flute or Dido and Aeneas? Many Britten operas, for instances, are planned round the talents of school musicians. I would always shy away from asking any but the very best of school violinists to tackle a G&S part. When it comes to Bugsy Malone and Grease we should never forget the exacting demands for dancers that would vie in difficulty with any bunch of G&S sailors merrily turning the capstan. No musical style is to be damned, none should take precedence. G&S should take an equal place with all styles. Perhaps, then, one Savoy operetta every five years?
Sincerely, SIMON BERRY (Director of Music) Lady Margaret School, Parson's Green, SW6. Nov. 25.
Sir, Susan Elkin believes that "the educational gain" of schools performing G&S operettas "would be considerable". So might the vocal loss. These works were written for mature singers. They require a reliable vocal technique, strong projection (spoken and sung) of the "rich vocabulary", and plenty of stamina. Even as a trained singer I have always found G&S hard on the voice; the closing chorus of The Mikado feels as demanding as Beethoven's Choral Symphony. School–age voices, female as well as male, are at a very sensitive stage of development and should not be overstressed, no matter how mature they may sound. Indeed, it is the precocious, enthusiastic youngsters who are at greatest risk of permanent damage. Even if all the notes are there, unless a child has learned the correct method of breathing it is unlikely that he or she will be able to sustain a role written for an adult.
Yours sincerely, HAZEL R. MORGAN, 80 Rickstones Road, Witham, Essex. Nov. 27.
[these two letters appeared in THE TIMES on 5 December. On 12 December two more appeared]
Sir, I cannot agree with the sentiments expressed by Hazel R. Morgan (letter, December 5) that Gilbert and Sullivan operas place a strain on the vocal technique of young school singers. If the rehearsals and coaching for the operas are handled with care, such productions can do much to help the development of the voice, not to mention the gains for character enhancement and general confidence. I have produced many school operas over a period of 25 years and many pupils who took lead character parts ended up studying at one of our leading music establishments.
Yours faithfully, GRAEME E. HALL. Cherry Tree house, Hacheston, Woodbridge, Suffolk. Dec. 7.
Sir, I disagree with Miss Morgan's suggestion that Gilbert and Sullivan operettas were "written for mature singers"; they were written for singing actors, such as appear in West End musicals today. The one exception to this was when a part was written for a specially imported singer, such as Elsie in The Yeomen of the Guard. In my days as a director of music, I frequently and successfully mounted school performances of Gilbert and Sullivan. I have no reason to think that they ever did any harm to the pupils' voices; one of my former pupils, who made his first singing appearance as the Judge in Trial by Jury, is now a professional opera singer. The sad fact is that there is so little singing going on in schools today that any attempt to discourage schools from mounting performances of operettas with which the children can identify is to be deplored. Many of them find this the ideal bridge between pop music and the classics.
Yours faithfully, CHRISTOPHER W. REDWOOD, Hunter's Farm, 31/33 Main Road, Wilford, Nottingham. Dec. 7.
Sir, Christopher W. Redwood's statement that G&S operas were written for singing actors "such as appear in West End musicals today" is incorrect. It is true only of the comic roles. For the last 15 years I have been researching the careers of the creators of roles in the G&S operas, many of whom were trained singers with operatic and concert experience. The fact that a number of them went on to musical comedy careers is a reflection of the quality of voice (to which the gramophone recordings of the period testify) which was used in musical comedy of that time (as opposed to today). There were indeed several "imported" singers, for whom a part was specially written, but Geraldine Ulmar who played Elsie in The Yeomen of the Guard was not one of these. Prior to creating this role, she had taken over Rose Maybud in Ruddigore, played in revivals as Josephine in Pinafore, Mabel in The Pirates of Penzance and Yum–Yum in The Mikado. She subsequently created Gianetta in The Gondoliers. Geraldine Ulmar was in fact primarily a musical comedy actress, and her pupils include Jos Collins and Evelyn Laye.
Yours faithfully, Michael P. Walters 15 December 1992
Dear Mr. Walters, Although we thank you for your letter to the editor, dated December 15, which was read with interest here, we regret that we were unable to publish it.
Yours sincerely, Derek Barnett. 22 December 1922
Derek Barnett, Esq., Letters Department, The Times,
1 Pennington Street, LONDON E1 9XN
Dear Sir, Thank you for your acknowledgement letter dated 22 December. postmarked 29 December and received by me on 30th. It may be presumptuous of me to question your decision, but I would be very interested to know your reasons for declining to publish my letter of 15th December 1992. I wonder if it was because you felt my comments to be inaccurate, trivial, or badly written, or if you merely felt that the correspondence had run long enough, and was no longer of interest to readers. The fact remains that Christopher Redwood's comments are wrong, and should not remain unchallenged. In this connection I enclose a short paper [the article printed above] which I prepared some time ago, and which may be of interest to you. I would add that it contains only a very short summary of the information I have compiled on the subject.
Yours sincerely, Michael P. Walters 5 January 1993
Dear Mr. Walters, Thank you for your courteous letter of January 5, addressed to Mr. Barnett. We do not normally give reasons for our decision not to publish a particular letter: however, let me hasten to assure you that we certainly did not consider your letter to be "inaccurate, trivial or badly written". The fact is that our columns are under constant and relentless pressure – we receive between 200 and 300 letters every day. With the best will in the world (I write as a confirmed Gilbertian) we could not regard Mr. Redwood's error* as sufficiently heinous to merit continuing the correspondence.
Yours sincerely, R.E.G. Sachs, Deputy Letters Editor 8 January 1993.
* if "error" it was.
[No doubt he is right, but I am sorry he added the asterisked footnote, which only proves that he hadn't read the article! Ed.]
Web page created 9 September 1998