OPERA

The 'Boheme' wrangle: Puccini vs Leoncavallo

AT A BUFFET supper in 1947, Sir Neville Cardus mentioned to a small group, which included myself, that Leoncavallo had composed an opera La Boheme at approximately the same time as Puccini. I had not known this and, because of the worldwide acclaim that Puccini's opera had received, presumed that Leoncavallo's effort would be consigned to oblivion. After all, I reasoned, no one could trump the inspirational outpourings of melody that Puccini had achieved. In those days I was very enthusiastic about opera and, alas, also very naive.

Opera was virtually dead in Australia and 78s were still the record medium; the only operas in the catalogues were the safe ones, those proven by time to be eternal. I never envisioned hearing Leoncavallo's opera and quite forgot that it existed until I came unexpectedly across a recording of it (S-462/3) in the

mid 1960s. It was bought out of curiosity, having shed much of my naivete through the intervening years, as well as having acquired a much wider appreciation of opera.

The performance was fairly good but I was still a long way from understanding what was happening, because of an incredibly garbled booklet that accompanied the set. The libretto was in Italian only and my Italian was barely up to the struggle at the time. To complicate things further, text cut from the recording was printed in the libretto, sometimes out of order. I looked to the synopsis of the plot in the hope of elucidation. This turned out to be not a synopsis of Leoncavallo's libretto but of Puccini's. It was all hopelessly unhelpful.

Now, with the arrival of the recent Orfeo recording (S 023823 F), produced in Direct Metal Mastering, it is possible to make my evaluations without clouds of obscurity to confuse me.

The maxim says that comparisons are odious, but I think not. In the case of the two operas by Puccini and Leoncavallo I would say that comparisons are inevitable and utterly necessary if one is to hold a proper appreciation of both without prejudice, for there are enough common tangents even though the conception and approach of each composer to the same source is so very different.

Each opera is called La Boheme and each was derived from Henri Murger's novel Scenes de la Vie de Boheme. It is more than twenty years since I last read that novel but I remember enough to realise that Leoncavallo's work lies more closely to the heart of Murger's novel than does that of Puccini. Ironically, it was Leoncavallo himself who set Puccini upon the path of composing his La Boheme.

Leoncavallo had a hand in shaping the libretto of Puccini's Manon Lescaut, which became a success after its premiere in 1893. Leoncavallo, too, had just established himself with equal success when his opera I Pagliacci was premiered the previous year. At this stage of their careers both composers were on the way to international recognition. Leoncavallo had just completed a libretto based on Murger's book and, knowing that Puccini was searching for a new libretto, offered it to him. Puccini, however, declined the offer. Yet Puccini must have been intrigued because eventually he engaged Giacosa and Illica to produce a libretto for him, although along his own guidelines: altered scenes, altered situations, altered secondary characters. Some time later, Puccini told Leoncavallo that he was working on a version of La Boheme. Leoncavallo, who was in the process of setting his own libretto, was shocked and outraged by the news; he felt betrayed and their 54 CAMPAIGN MAY 1983

RICHARD WALKER examines the pros and cons of the two versions of La Boheme, Puccini's and Leoncavollo's, and finds they complement each other. He discusses the similarities and differences in the two operas.

friendship ended forever as a result.

Puccini's La Boheme was premiered in February, 1896. Even though Toscanini conducted that performance (and. henceforth became a champion of Puccini's operas), it must have been a mediocre affair, for the critics were little more than luke-warm about the new opera. Fortunately for Puccini, subsequent productions proved to be outstanding successes and the opera went on to become one of the most popular in the world, a place which it still holds.

Giacomo Puccini

Leoncavallo's La Boheme was produced in the following year, 1897. It was received moderately but it has always lived in the shadow of Puccini's work and gradually fell into neglect. This is a pity. Anyone who has had the good fortune to hear Leoncavallo's work, who has given some study to it and who really knows it, will realise that this neglect is unwarranted and that the opera deserves to survive in its own right.

Puccini centred his work firmly around Rodolfo and Mimi, using Marcello and Musetta as a contrasting but secondary pair of lovers. Schaunard and Colline are subordinate to the love interest but they are important in establishing the amoral world of the Bohemians, the carefree artists devoted to sexual freedom and an 'enlightened' thinking that produced a blase irresponsibility towards society. Act 3 is the only one in which they do not appear. Puccini's plot, however, is extremely well integrated although it diverges from the true spirit of Murger, enough almost to become a different story.

Story? Murger's novel is really a kaleidoscope, slices of life loosely connected in a sleazy Parisian background, -the Latin Quarter, during the middle years of the reign of King Louis Philippe. In this respect Leoncavallo's libretto is far more truthful to the original characters. Puccini plays down the ribaldry, obviously because he wants to change Mimi's character and free her from the taint of licentiousness. Leoncavallo chooses to leave the characters much as they are in Murger's novel. But each opera progresses in a different way to the same climax: the scene in Rodolfo's attic at the end of which Mimi dies.

To clarify this, here is a lay-out of the acts in each opera.

PUCCINI:

Act 1: An attic shared by Rodolfo and Marcello.

Act 2: The Street Outside the Cafe Momus.

Act 3: A winter dawn at the Barriere d'Enfer, one of the toll-gates of Paris.

Act 4: Same as Act 1.

LEONCAVALLO:

Ruggiero Leoncavallo

Act 1: The Mezzanine of the Cafe

Momus, reached by a central staircase and with a partially exposed billiard room. Christmas Eve, 1837.

Act 2: The courtyard of Musette's lodgings. April, 1838. Act 3: Marcello's attic, beyond which is the landing and doorway to Rodolfo's attic. October, 1838. Act 4: Rodolfo's attic. Christmas Eve, 1838.

In Leoncavallo's opera, the six main characters meet in Act 1 and their characters are developed fairly completely by the end of the act. Colline is presented as the forgetful-professor type

philosopher and then disappears from the opera with the end of Act 1. By contrast, Schaunard becomes very important, he dominates Act 1 and most of Act 2. He also has Eufemia (non-existent in Puccini's work), his feather-brained paramour whom he treats with assumed disdain whilst she is constantly fawning upon him. As in Puccini, Schaunard saves his friends from starvation in Act 1 but in a different way: he bets on and wins a game of billiards.

Similar incidents and articles appear in each opera but do so within quite different contexts: rent day, Mimi's bonnet, an out-of-tune D note, a mock brawl with household 'weapons'. and Musetta's pawning her jewellery for a doctor and medicine (the last incident is the exception; it runs more or less parallel in each opera).

Secondary characters are different in each opera. Benoit, Alcindoror and Parpignol do not appear in Leoncavallo's work; instead we have Gaudenzio, proprietor of the Cafe Momus; Barbemuche, a wealthy patron of the

Cafe Momus; Durand, a residental concierge; and a tenant on the First Floor, all used (as in Puccini) to engender comedy. However, Leoncavallo also. introduces Viscount Paul in Act 2, a serious persona who, because of his wealth, induces Mimi to leave Rodolfo because of circumstances beyond their control but the one Murger created a grisette who fluctuates between sex and money. Act 2 ends, not with a frollicking band parade as in Puccini, but with a night-time uproar reminiscent of that at the end of Act 2 of Wagner's The Mastersingers of Nuremberg.

Another difference of importance is that Leoncavallo has made Marcello a tenor and Rodolfo a baritone. This could be quite confusing to anyone who is not familiar with Leoncavallo's opera and is over-familiar with Puccini's, especially since Leoncavallo's treats both love affairs with much the same degree of prominence. It is wise and necessary to follow Leoncavallo's libretto carefully to gain a full appreciation of the work.

It is worth noting that Leoncavallo makes certain there is no mistake about the period in which the opera is set. Puccini makes a passing reference to coins bearing the profile of Louis Philippe in Act 1 (our only guide) but Leoncavallo firmly pinpoints the time by giving precise dates and quoting from contemporary music of this time: a quote from Meyerbeer's opera Les Hugenots (1836), in vogue during the years of Murger's setting (1837-1838), and by having Schaunard improvise an aria in Rossinian style, Rossini being the most popular composer of the day, especially in Paris where he was residing. The last thing to deal with is Leoncavallo's score. It is very lyrical and weaves some fine melodies behind the action scenes as, for instance, the bickering scene between Schaunard and Gaudenzio in Act 1. There is also the delightful waltz, a real winner, for Marcello and Musette in the finale of Act 1. All the Bohemians and their mistresses have arias, some duets or small ensembles which are very appealing, even if none reaches the singular distinction of those composed by Puccini.

But be sure that Leoncavallo's musical achievements are by no means deserving of peremptory dismissal. His La Boheme merits acceptance and I hope some visionary entrepreneur will consider mounting a production of it. It takes its place beside Puccini's opera without a loss and in a complementary way. Regarding the plot, Leoncavallo's La Boheme has been scripted with a similar difference from Puccini's just as Auber's Manon Lescaut has been from Puccini's Manon Lescaut.

The new recording does the work long overdue justice. Engineered by Direct Metal Mastering, the quality, ambience, depth and music is first class; it deserves to be among nominations for the bestengineered recording of 1983. The performance too, gathers a cast who understand what they are doing and all of whom sing well. Marcello is particularly suited to Franco Bonisolli's voice (a tenor in great demand among the Opera Houses of Germany) while Lucia Popp is near ideal as Mimi. The Chorus and Orchestra of the Bavarian State Radio, Munich, conducted by Heinz Wallberg have placed opera lovers in their debt through the confident assurance with which they have presented this work in a brilliant performance after all its years of neglect.