The Formation of the Opera Company: 1894

print this page

Although the Metropolitan turned away from German opera in favor of French and Italian opera in 1891, German opera' s triumph was conclusive and undeniable. Prior to 1884, Wagner's major operas had yet to be performed on an American stage, but after reigning for seven years at the Metropolitan, German opera, especially Wagnerian opera, became part of the standard repertoire. Over those seven years, the American public came to admire not only German music, but all things German ? German science, philosophy, economics, and the military. For two centuries, music had been dominated by Italians, but by 1890 the triumph of Wagner had engendered German music supremacy. German dominance at the Metropolitan may have been short-lived but was the Metropolitan's most important contribution to American opera culture to date.(5, pp. 244-45)

Unsurprisingly, after only three years of French and Italian opera, during the 1891-1894 seasons, the tide was beginning to turn back towards German opera. The Italian and French troupes demanded higher salaries which precluded lower ticket prices. Americans loved opera, but they most especially loved Wagner opera. More importantly New York had Anton Seidl, the most popular conductor in the country, who attracted large crowds wherever he appeared.(26) New York was ready for the return of German opera, but however unlikely it may have seemed, Damrosch, not Seidl, prompted the return of German opera to New York.(23, v XII, p. 676)

During those three years with only French and Italian opera, Damrosch had become obsessed with returning German opera sung in German with the German spirit to New York, having learned from his father that this was the only “real” opera.(23, v. XII, p. 676) On February 13, 1894, Damrosch conducted Die Walküre in German for charity. Unlike Tannhäuser performed in Italian to rows of empty seats a few weeks earlier,(25) the German performance sold out weeks in advance, necessitating a second performance on February 17.(11)(36) The audience responded with such zeal that Damrosch produced two additional operas sung in German ? Götterdämmerung and Tannhäuser. The troupe performed these three operas for a total of eight performances in March and April.(4, p. 105) William bought tickets totaling $100 for the Tannhäuser performance on April 9 for the benefit of the German Press Club.(Diary, 1894-03-31) On that evening William worked at home while his daughter Paula and her husband Louis von Bernuth, Louise Albertine Steinway (widow of William’s brother Albert), and friends attended the performance.(Diary, 1894-04-09) The New York Times critic called it the most depressing performance ever witnessed of that music drama(32) while The New York Herald's critic was far more positive.(7) No matter their opinion audiences reveled in these German operas and remembered them for a long time,(11) vindicating Wagner's operas performed in German.(29)

Spurred by this excitement, Damrosch approached Henry Abbey and Maurice Grau at the Metropolitan about a season of German opera, but they refused, citing audience apathy. Damrosch disagreed, arguing that music lovers would attend when the operas were performed under the most ideal conditions. Although Abbey and Grau doubted its success, they agreed to rent the Metropolitan to Damrosch to conduct his own season.(3)(4, p.106) After consulting with friends, including William Steinway (Diary,1894-04-14) who predicted great success,(4, p.107) Damrosch invited music lovers to the home of Miss Mary Callender and Miss Caro De Forrest in mid-April where he proposed a short season of opera for the following autumn.(4, p.106)(35) He promised to secure the best German artists along with the greatest scenery and costumes for these productions. One hundred sixty-five members enrolled in the Wagner Club to support the opera season and elected an influential General Committee including Mrs. J. West Roosevelt, Mrs. William Jay, Mrs. Arthur Dodge, Miss Mary Callender, Miss Caro De Forrest, Mrs. J. Pierpont Morgan, Mrs. E.H. Harriman, and Mr. William Steinway, the only man on the committee.(35)

To Damrosch's dismay, Seidl, as Wagner's chosen conductor, promptly prepared his own season of German opera. He met with the Seidl Society on April 18 at the home of Dr. Carl Beck.(40) Founded in 1889 by Laura Langford Holloway, a socialite, journalist, and author, the Seidl Society organized lectures, dinners, and receptions to promote music culture and sponsored Seidl's concerts in Brooklyn.(16) Seidl outlined his season and reported his negotiations with several German artists(40) including Max Alvary, Nicholas Rothmuehl, Milka Ternina, and the tenor Anton Schott, who attended this meeting.(33) He noted that several gentlemen had promised to help finance the operas, but agreed to name only one of those potential donors, William Steinway.(40) After also obtaining Abbey and Grau's support at the Metropolitan, Seidl's supporters mailed out 5,000 circulars to promote the season.(30) Seidl understood that even with the pledged subscriptions they would be more successful if he and Damrosch could unite,(31) but realized that with the tensions between them that was unlikely to happen.(24)

The most zealous Wagnerites divided their support between the Damrosch and Seidl camps. Those who supported Seidl considered him the preeminent Wagnerian conductor, having obtained first-hand knowledge of the scores and conducting from the composer. Wagner had commended Seidl for learning to conduct all the minute details,(6, p. 163) learning all the degrees of shading,(6, p. 248) and penetrating the innermost secrets of the dramas.(6, p. 253) Seidl was now the conductor that Wagner had prophesied. Americans responded enthusiastically: women poured out their love, stood on their chairs, and shouted their delight.(16) His supporters believed him to have “communed with God himself,” (30, p. 148) likened him to a “demigod,”(6, p.150) and feared that any conductor other than Seidl would embarrass himself, denigrate Wagner, and once again spell the ruin of German opera.(34)

Although acknowledged as the most popular and successful Wagnerian conductor, Seidl possessed neither the business acumen nor the social contacts of Damrosch. He rejected most acquaintances so developed few close friendships.(6, p. 136-7) He shunned society, so the public knew him only through his conducting.(6, p. 161) His reticence precluded him from entrepreneurship and engineering business projects. Had Laura Langford Holloway not founded the Seidl Society, he would have had little but the Philharmonic to conduct in the early 1890s.(16)

Unlike Seidl, Damrosch had never studied with Wagner or any of the great conductors to learn the skills necessary for conducting opera. Critics pondered why he had never done so in order to remedy his shortcomings.(27) He refused to study with Seidl, considering him to be cold, unfriendly, and self-absorbed. Damrosch complained that the press favored Seidl only because of his professional relationship with Wagner.(4, p. 77) Unlike Seidl and Thomas, who had earned their greatness, the press considered Damrosch had greatness thrust upon him when he inherited his father's positions at the Oratorio and Symphony Societies and the second position at the Metropolitan.(27)

While Damrosch lacked conducting experience, he understood the business of opera better than Seidl and more importantly had influential friends who could finance the productions.(28) He was said to have soared to such “dizzying heights” among the socially elite that no other conductor, including Seidl, could ever aspire to his exalted position among them.(41) In 1887 while sailing to Europe, Damrosch met Andrew Carnegie whose friendship would span his lifetime. Carnegie soon presided as President and Chief Financial Supporter over the Oratorio and Symphony Societies, then later at Damrosch's urging, financed the music hall for those societies that would bear his name.(4, p. 90-95)

A year after their first meeting, Carnegie introduced Damrosch to James G. Blaine, the Congressman and future Secretary of State who would soon become his father-in-law.(4, pp. 95, 103) Damrosch married Blaine's daughter Margaret on May 17, 1890, at her parents' home on Lafayette Square in Washington DC in the presence of President and Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, Vice President and Mrs. Levi Morton, Chief Justice Melville Fuller, General and Mrs. William Sherman, Colonel and Mrs. John Hay, Mr. and Mrs. Chauncey Depew, Sir Julian and Lady Pauncefort, various Secretaries, Senators, Representatives, Justices, and Ministers from various countries.(4, p. 103)(37)

In February 1891, nine months after the Damrosch-Blaine wedding, the press reported that backers including the Vanderbilt brothers, William, Cornelius, and George; their brothers-in-law, H. McKay Twombly and W. Seward Webb; J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie had guaranteed Damrosch $50,000 annually to transform the New York Symphony Society into a permanent orchestra.(17)(22) Carnegie's new music hall, whose planned opening would occur just a few months later in May, would house the concerts.(23, v. XIV, p.707) Though never proven, rumors persisted that Damrosch's father-in-law, Secretary of State James Blaine, brought Carnegie government contracts in exchange for financing the music hall and the Symphony Society.(30, p.187) A few days after the press announcement The Musical Courier critic predicted that the venture would fail under the conductor's incompetence.(41)

Although the zealots were divided between the two conductors, overall the music community desired the return of German opera above any particular conductor. Some anticipated that two rival companies could be financially viable and interesting, providing them with more opportunities to hear opera under two different conductors,(24) but the ever practical businessman William Steinway understood that the German community could never support two seasons and that bidding wars would increase production costs. If he could unite the two conductors, they could create a far superior and more financially secure season.(4, p. 107)(9)(10)

William met with each conductor over two weeks in April in an attempt to unite them for one season. After his initial meeting with Damrosch, they spoke on two additional occasions: on April 19 after the press announced William's financial support for Seidl,(Diary, 1894-04-19) and again on April 25 after Damrosch obtained support from the Wagner Club.(Diary, 1894-04-25) During these conversations William urged him to unite with Seidl, reminding him that the American public considered Seidl the preeminent Wagnerian conductor and that his cooperation with Seidl would prove that he intended to found his company on the broadest and most generous conditions.(4, p. 107) A few days later William met with Seidl and Henry Krehbiel, The New York Daily Tribune music critic and avid Seidl supporter. The three had “quite a conference” about the possibility of the two conductors combining forces.(Diary,1894-04-30)

Throughout these negotiations, the conductors' supporters campaigned for their favorite with William. Mrs. King, Felix Kraemer, the operatic soprano Fanny Hirsch, Anton Schott, the operatic tenor who had sung under both Damrosch and Seidl,(6, p. 253) and Mrs. Catherine Abbe, a local pianist, called William in support of Seidl, while Mrs. Arthur Dodge related her support for Damrosch.(Diary, 1894-04-23) Further alienating the two groups, Damrosch later discovered that a Seidl supporter had warned the singer Rosa Sucher and others that his financial difficulties could be risky for them.(3)

Although Seidl doubted the two could work together, Steinway had apparently convinced him that the business plan would be essential for success, so consented to unite with Damrosch.(Diary, 1894-05-02)(10) Encouraged, “Uncle Bill” as Steinway was affectionately known, tried to reconcile the two conductors at a meeting at Liederkranz Hall,(39) but Damrosch, in Washington, DC to perform at the wedding of his sister-in-law Harriet Blaine,(2)(38) did not arrive as expected, having discovered William's letter only after the proposed meeting time.(Diary, 1894-05-01)

On May 2, The New York Herald printed an interview with William(Diary,1894-05-02)(2) who acknowledged he was “highly gratified” that he had united the conductors for a joint season. Steinway added: The people of this city may congratulate themselves indeed at the prospect before them of an opportunity to hear the best German music. I am exceedingly happy that these two leaders have consented to be jointly identified with the proposed season of opera, and we shall bend our energies to make the season a grand one in every sense of the word. We are already assured of the hearty support of many influential persons, and there is no question of the success of a German opera season under such bright auspices.”(2)

William nearly succeeded, and believed he had succeeded, but misrepresented the alliance as the conductors had yet to come to an agreement.(10)(12) They finally met the night of May 2 at Liederkranz Hall but sat with their backs to each other, refusing to speak(39) until William arrived about 11:00 P.M.(10) Point by point William argued his case. They both approved the financial arrangements but continued to clash over their artistic agendas. Damrosch feared the Metropolitan arrangement would once again prevail with Seidl conducting the better operas and leaving him the “left-overs.”(18)

After listening to William's entreaties for several hours with no conciliation, the three agreed to meet again the following evening,(18) Steinway being convinced the two would agree to collaborate at that time.(12) Early the following morning Seidl arrived at Steinway's office to discuss the situation with the “busiest man in the metropolis.”(18) He informed William that after much agonizing he had concluded that their arguments precluded him from working with Damrosch ever again,(12) and as Damrosch had donors who would secure him against a deficit,(14) he had decided to withdraw and allow Damrosch to conduct the season on his own.(Diary, 1894-05-02)(12) Steinway immediately notified Damrosch of Seidl's decision. According to Damrosch, William was furious and told him that “I am now with you heart and soul and here is my check for twenty-five hundred dollars for which I will take subscription seats for your season in different parts of the house.”(4, p. 108) Steinway later notified the press that he had “tried very hard” to convince Seidl to reconsider but to no avail. He further reassured them that “the season will undoubtedly be given and I am very hopeful of its success.”(15) That evening Damrosch and Steinway finalized a subscription list.(Diary,1894-05-02)

The animosity did not subside with Seidl's withdrawal; the two conductors continued their feud. Seidl defended his position in a letter to The Musical Courier stating that “German opera can only be directed by one high in authority, fully and solely responsible for the artistic outcome, and finding also that, by reason of experience, past achievements and demonstrated competency, I am more likely to be such a man than Mr. Damrosch, but for the present he can control the financial means more easily than I ? considering too that influential Germans, like Mr. Steinway, are not of my opinion concerning the direction of the enterprise ? I shall, for the present, refrain from pursuing my plan....” Seidl also refuted Damrosch's argument that this was a war between two great leaders, arguing that only the public could include him among the great conductors ? Hans Richter, Hermann Levi, and Felix Mottl. He further contended that Damrosch would now have the opportunity to prove his claim that he was a peer to those three great conductors. Damrosch countered that he had never put himself in the same class as the three great conductors and further stated that: “Mr. Seidl had apparently no very well defined plans, his principal motive seeming to be simply prompted by a spirit of opposition.”(20)

The Musical Courier concurred with the conductors' decision but aligned with Seidl, explaining that certainly Damrosch would concede that Seidl was the more competent and experienced conductor. An Evening Post writer opined that no opera would be preferable to mediocre German opera under Damrosch but would defer criticism until Damrosch had the opportunity to fulfill his promise of first rate performances. The critic could not refrain however from stating the obvious: that Mr. Seidl had proven himself the more successful and should be the conductor to affix German opera in America.(19) For a time Seidl's supporters, primarily Anton Schott, disseminated false reports that Seidl continued to plan a season of German opera in the spring.(21)

Once Damrosch had fully established himself as the official conductor, he sailed for Europe on May 10 to engage artists for his company. He carried with him two letters from Steinway: a general letter of introduction and a second, personal letter to Bernhard Pollini, the conductor of the Hamburg Opera.(Diary, 1894-05-08; 05-10) After much negotiation with Pollini and offering a generous contract, Damrosch secured Max Alvary.(1) Emperor Wilhelm II granted Rosa Sucher a leave of absence from the Royal Opera in Berlin(10) after Damrosch convinced him that she was necessary for German opera to succeed in America. He also obtained Rudolf Oberhauser, Emil Fischer, Conrad Behrens,(13) Nicholas Rothmuehl(1) and Marie Brema.(8)(13) Upon his return, Damrosch immediately informed William of his successful engagement of these artists.(Diary, 1894-07-05) Early the following year Marie Maurer arrived to join the troupe.(Diary, 1895-02-21)
(smw]

First Season: Spring 1895

Second Season: Fall 1895 - Spring 1896

Third Season and Beyond: Fall 1896 - Spring 1898

Sources:

1. “Berlin Branch Budget,” The Musical Courier, June 20, 1891, p. 11.
2. “Both Conductors Now In Harmony,” The New York Herald, May 2, 1894, p. 7.
3. “Damrosch Chats Of His Triumph,” Chicago Daily Tribune, April 21, 1895, p. 38.
4. Damrosch, Walter, My Musical Life, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925.
5. Dizikes, John, Opera in America: A Cultural History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
6. Finck, Henry Theophilus, Anton Seidl: A Memorial by His Friends, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899.
7. “For The German Press Club,” The New York Herald, May 6, 1894, p. 8.
8. “German Opera For New York,” The New York Times, July 6, 1894, p. 4.
9. “German Opera In Sight,” The New York Daily Tribune, May 3, 1894, p. 7.
10. “German Opera Next Year,” The New York Times, May 3, 1894, p. 4.
11. “German Opera Once Again,” The New York Times, February 14, 1894, p. 4.
12. “The German Opera Plans,” The New York Daily Tribune, May 4, 1894, p. 7 13. “German Opera’s Promise,” The New York Herald, July 6, 1895, p. 13. 14. “Herr Seidl's Side Of It,” The New York Herald, May 6, 1894, p. 7. 15. “Herr Seidl Withdraws Entirely,” The New York Herald, May 4, 1894, p. 7.
16. Horowitz, Joseph, “Laura Langford and the Seidl Society: Wagner Comes to Brooklyn,” www.Cedlib.org/ucpressbooks.
17. “Mr. Damrosch's Plans”, The New York Daily Tribune, February 8, 1891, p. 7.
18. “Mr. Seidl Gives It Up,” The New York Times, May 4, 1894, p. 4.
19. “Mr. Seidl’s Opera Plans,” The New York Times, April 28, 1894, p.4.
20. “Mr. Seidl Withdraws,” The Musical Courier, May 9, 1894, p. 8.
21. “More About German Opera,” The Musical Courier, May 23, 1894, pp. 8-9.
22. “New Symphony Orchestra,” The New York Herald, February 2, 1892, p. 5.
23. Odell, George, C.D., Annals of the New York Stage, New York: AMS Press, 1970.
24. “Opera In German Next Season,” The Musical Courier, April 25, 1894, p. 8.
25. “Opera In New York,” The Musical Courier, January 31, 1894, p. 47.
26. “Operatic Rumors,” The Musical Courier, February 14, 1894, p. 8.
27. “Raconteur,” The Musical Courier, February 11, 1890, p. 124.
28. “Raconteur,” The Musical Courier, April 25, 1894, p. 25.
29. “Ready for German Opera,” The New York Times, February 16, 1896, p. 12.
30. Schabas, Ezra, Theodore Thomas, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989.
31. “The Seidl Society,” The Musical Courier, April 25, 1894, p. 24.
32. “Tannhaeuser in German,” The New York Times, April 10, 1894, p. 4.
33. “Two Plans for German Opera,” The New York Daily Tribune, April 19, 1894, p. 3.
34. “Wagner and Wagnerians,” The New York Times, April 18, 1894, p. 4.
35. “The Wagner Club Formed,” The New York Herald, April 19, 1894, p. 9.
36. “Wagner’s Ring Tragedy,” The New York Times, March 29, 1894, p. 4.
37. “Wedded in Washington,” The New York Times, May 18, 1890, p. 1.
38. “Weddings Past and to Come,” The New York Daily Tribune, May 1, 1894, p. 7.
39. “A Week’s Musical Topics,” The New York Times, February 24, 1895, p. 12.
40. “Will Give German Opera,” The New York Herald, April 19, 1894, p. 9.
41. “Young Mr. Damrosch,” The Musical Courier, February 11, 1894, p. 9.