Like so many of the American operas that have been written since it's 1955 premiere, Susannah has a finely crafted, moving libretto – the story of "Susannah and the Elders" from the Apocrypha, updated to mid-century Appalachia – but there isn’t a whole lot going on in the score. Yet it has proven itself to be one of the real crowd-pleasers of American opera, so it is something of a mystery why when it finally arrived at the Metropolitan Opera in March, it provoked such a cry of outrage from the local music press. Bernard Holland, chief critic at the New York Times, was so incensed that after his initial negative review, he found it necessary to continue the attack in an op-ed piece a few weeks later. According to Web gossip, the Met’s reaction was equally shrill, with Joseph Volpe, the General Manager, attempting to have Mr. Holland banned from covering the Met.

Most of the criticism, from the Times and elsewhere, focused on the limitations of the score; yet there are many works in the Met’s repertoire that lack depth, but are valued for other qualities. One of this opera’s finer qualities, and one of the reasons for its enduring popularity, is that it is an excellent showcase for singers, with two very pretty soprano arias and lovely showpieces for a tenor and a baritone, as well. For better or worse, it seems that much of the audience considers opera to be primarily a vehicle for singers, and this is a contemporary work that caters to this element. Another strength of Carlyle's opera is the extraordinary way he has of capturing the feel of small-town Appalachia, both in the libretto and in his score. As a southerner, I have a soft spot for this work, because I enjoy and respect its accuracy. And it is hard to get the South down right… witness Andre Previn's  A Streetcar Named Desire, which managed to screw up despite having a libretto from Tennessee Williams.

Yet there were some problems at the Met with this production. For one thing, James Conlon's conducting drowned out his singers most of the evening. It didn’t help that Renee Fleming, who sang the title role, seemed to be holding back much of the time, pacing herself as if she were singing Brunhilde. But it is quite possible that, as one wag put it, "we might be hearing this score for the first time." Susannah is often done by the smaller companies, and this constitutes my entire experience of hearing it, so it is possible that those of us who have never heard it performed by a fully competent orchestra are used to hearing the orchestra held down. Despite this, Fleming’s performance was quite persuasive, with the sweetness of her voice enhancing the sincerity of her acting. Jerry Hadley, as her troubled brother, Sam, was equally fine, turning in his best performance in some time. John McVeigh provided a moving and believable portrayal of Little Bat. And Samuel Ramey, as Reverend Blitch, was simply sensational.  The production, borrowed from Houston and Chicago, was beautiful and effective. 

Despite the criticism, full houses greeted each performance, and this is important. As the Met timidly brings a handful of American operas to its stage, they need to succeed at the box office, so the trend can be encouraged.