When Sergei Prokofiev chose to adapt War and Peace for the Soviet opera stage in the 1940s, he faced both operatic conventions and Soviet ideological demands that ran counter to the philosophy and structure of Tolstoy’s sprawling masterpiece. Prokofiev’s early decision to split his opera into Peace and War, making the first a romantic love story of individuals and the second a collective story of the people’s love for Mother Russia, marked a major divergence from Tolstoy. This article explores how Prokofiev reworked Tolstoy’s philosophy of love and human connection to make his opera acceptable for the Soviet stage. Moving away from Tolstoy’s family ideal in Peace, with its basis on intimate sibling bonds, Prokofiev shifted the family to War, turning it into a national Russian family of Father Kutuzov, Mother Russia and their children – the Russian people. The opera uses choral glorification of these heroic parents to foster on a national scale the type of intimacy Tolstoy had advocated in the home.

Scholarship on Monteverdi’s Orfeo has frequently considered Orpheus’s failure to persuade Charon during his grand aria-oration, ‘Possente spirto’, in terms of style and performance. In the eyes of academics such as the Accademia degli Invaghiti (for whom Orfeo was first composed), however, these issues would have been viewed as secondary to the goal of offering moral instruction, in keeping with the Ciceronian maxim, ‘instruction is the first goal, followed by the movement of the mind, and the delight of the senses’. After assessing the compatibility of my ‘academic’ reading of Orfeo with those that have focused on the subject of music and its power, this article considers the Invaghiti’s practice and philosophy of oratory, as well as Monteverdi’s knowledge of this art. The reasons for Orpheus’s failure as an orator are then considered through a comparative analysis of ‘Possente spirto’ and the other full oration from Orfeo, La Musica’s Prologue, as well as further ‘musical orations’ from Monteverdi’s catalogue. This analysis is based primarily on the teachings of the Ancients, as interpreted in the writings of Academy member Stefano Guazzo – in particular his dialectic on ‘civil conversation’ – as well as the model presented in academy member Pompeo Baccusi’s oration, ‘In defence and praise of women’, given for the Invaghiti in 1571.

This article analyses the complicated and conflicted critical response to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera within the political, economic and cultural context of the Thatcher/Reagan era. British critics writing for Conservative-leaning broadsheets and tabloids took nationalist pride in Lloyd Webber’s commercial success, while others on both sides of the Atlantic claimed that Phantom was tasteless and crassly commercial, a musical manifestation of a new Gilded Age. Broader issues regarding the relationship between the government and ‘elite’ culture also affected the critical response. For some, Phantom forged a path for a new kind of populist opera that could survive and thrive without government subsidy, while less sympathetic critics heard Phantom’s ‘puerile’ operatics as sophomoric jibes against an art form they esteemed.