In August, 1774, a French version of _Orfeo_, extensively revised, was heard and acclaimed. This confirmed the victory--the anti-Gluckists were vanquished for the time. But a permanent connection with the Paris opera did not at once result for Gluck, and the next year he returned to Vienna, taking with him two old opera texts by Quinault--Lully’s librettist--_Roland_ and _Armide_, which the _Académie_ had commissioned him to set. He set to music only the latter of the two poems, for, when he learned that Piccini likewise had been asked to set the _Roland_, and had been invited to Paris by Marie Antoinette, he destroyed his sketches. An older light operetta, _Cythère assiegée_, which he recast and foolishly dispatched to Paris, thoroughly displeased the Parisians. The opposition was quick to seize its advantage. It looked about for a leader and found him in Piccini, now at the head of the great Neapolitan school. He was induced to come to Paris by tempting promises, but was so ill-served by circumstances that, in spite of the manœuvres and the intrigues of his partisans, his _Roland_ was not given until 1778.
On April 23, 1776, Gluck directed the first performance of his new French version of _Alceste_. It was hissed. In despair Gluck rushed from the opera house and exclaimed to Rousseau: ‘_Alceste_ has fallen!’ ‘Yes,’ was the answer, ‘but it has fallen from the skies!’ In 1777 came _Armide_. In this opera Gluck thought he had written sensuous music.[16] It no longer makes this impression--the passion of ‘Tristan,’ the oriental voluptuousness of the _Scheherazade_ of Rimsky-Korsakov, and the eroticism of modern dramatic scores have somewhat cooled the warmth of the love music of _Armide_. On the other hand, the passion of hatred is delineated in this opera powerfully and vigorously enough for modern appreciation. _Armide_ is beautiful throughout by reason of its sincerity.
Piccini’s _Roland_ followed _Alceste_ in a few months, January, 1778. It was a success, but only a temporary one. After twelve well-attended performances it ceased to draw. Nevertheless it fanned the flame of controversy. The fight of Gluckists and Piccinnists, in continuation of the _Guerre des bouffons_, of which the principals, by the way, were quite innocent, was at its height. Men addressed each other with the challenge ‘Êtes-vous Gluckiste ou Piccinniste?’ Piccini was placed at the head of an Italian troupe which was engaged to give performances on alternate nights at the _Académie_. The two ‘parties’ were now on equal footing. Finally it occurred to the director to have the two rivals treat the same subject and he selected Racine’s _Iphigénie en Tauride_. Piccini was handicapped from the start. His text was bad, neither his talent nor his experience was so suited to the task as Gluck’s. The latter’s version was ready in May, 1779, and was a brilliant success. According to the _Mercure de France_ no opera had ever made so strong and so universal an impression upon the public. ‘Pure musical beauty as sweet as that of _Orfeo_, tragic intensity deeper than that of _Alceste_, a firm touch, an undaunted courage, a new subtlety of psychological insight, all combine to form a masterpiece such as throughout its entire history the operatic stage has never known.’ Piccini, who meantime had produced his _Atys_, brought out his _Iphigénie_ in January, 1781. Despite many excellences it was bound to be anti-climax to Gluck’s. Needless to say it admits of no comparison.