I’m going to Juliet and Romeo tonight
mainOr Delilah et Samson, Isolde und Tristan, Eurydice e Orfeo.
The new equality drive starts here, at Opera du Rhin.
Comments
MOST READ TODAY:
-
Uncategorized
Tensions simmer in London concert audience
From the weekly review by Fiona Maddocks in…
-
News
Rattles, father and son, give first concert together
Sacha Rattle writes: So excited for this concert!…
-
Uncategorized
Jump-in of the week
For those with a literal turn of mind,…
-
Opera
Scotland farewells a flamboyant head of music
A fond tribute by Tim German to a…
It should read OperaduRhin; Alsace-Lorraine is no longer German, Dear Norman.
It will always be German in our hearts…
So far, everyone is missing the point of this article.
We’re not talking about the national affiliation of l’Opéra du Rhin, but rather what this world is coming to in securing a cultural revolution of changing titles and labels in order to be politically correct.
One could not let this “modern denomination” pass unnoticed, so I thought it was humorous enough to share with Norman!
You might also ask “why has it in the past been ‘politically correct’ to give the first name in a dyad to the male?” I actually find “Gretel and Hansel” humorous. Please lighten up!
I would write an extensive reply, but I have 3 operas to listen to before the day is out: Dido and Aeneas, Bianca e Falliero and Beatrice and Benedict.
you mean Dildo and Aenus, Bianca and Fellatio, Beatrice and Buono-dick.
The first one is old (as old as the word “dildo,” I expect) — an oldie but goodie, although misspelled — the second is not bad although nobody knows the opera; and the last, well… nice try.
As long as the music isn’t changed, I’m good with it. Why not? And, responding to a previous comment, shouldn’t we now be saying “Lorraine-Alsace”?
Bess and Porgy?
by Ira and George Gershwin!
Ira Gershwin was a man, so there is no particular reason why his name should come first according to the agenda of this article. Or is the agenda to also give greater recognition to poets than to composers?
Lighten up.
Chloe and Daphnis…
God, I am sick of this garbage.
Did you see their description of the production?
Apparently, it draws “parallels between the children’s rite of passage and today’s social and environmental concerns.”
Because you can’t just tell a story, I suppose.
Perish the thought. No chance to virtue-signal.
Isn’t Gretel the smart one? Does it not matter that ‘Hansel und Gretel’ is more euphonious?
Sullivan and Gilbert.
Roebuck and Sears.
Circuses and bread.
Potatoes and meat.
Cheese and wine.
Liszt and Brahms.
And there goes the Cockney rhyming slang.
Not many will get that, these days…(I appreciated it, though).
I saw a Prokofiev “Romeo and Juliet” at LA Phil and they were gay males (Romeo and Julian?)
Most distasteful and inconsiderate for us conservatives.
To many of today’s directors, “Most distasteful and inconsiderate for us conservatives” would likely be considered the highest praise possible.
Anyway, in Shakespeare’s day, Romeo and Juliet were played by guys. As was everyone else. Glenda Jackson has played King Lear and Maxine Peake has played Hamlet. You wouldn’t get me there, but it’s THEATRE. Get over it.
Of course that’s true, but in Shakespeare’s day, the boy actors who played female roles as FEMALES and not as deviants. Hence the difference.
Deviants??
In those days, it was social tradition. The opposite these days is iconoclasm.
There’s a gay “Swan Lake” out there too (by Matthew Bourne), just so you know.
The production against which the Animal Protection Society protested so vehemently.
P.S. Reminds me of a witticism by someone or other:
“A conservative is someone who believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time.”
It might have been pithier if he’d said ‘a second time’.
It is a philosophical and logistical problem, so: a ‘philogistical’ one. Tristan und Isolde is suppressing the female, but the only other possible version Isolde und Tristan suppresses the male. Given the suppression of females over the ages, turning the titles around would be a compensatory measure, but it is still not equal. And so it is with all the couples in opera and theatre. Better is; inventing an entirely new title which is PC.
Tristan und Isolde: Der verfluchte Getränk
Pelléas et Mélisande: La Chevelure Catastrophique or: Un Amour Incompréhensible
Romeo and Julliet: Dangerous Balcony Climbing
Etc. etc…
Don’t worry – you’ll never see a production of Fennimore and Gerda no matter which name they put first.
More’s the pity. It’s beautiful.
Provocations aside, is there a general pattern to the ordering of duplets ?
Porgy & Bess – how Bess influenced Porgy, Lady and the Tramp, Samson & Delilah – again the lead and the influencer, thus the difference In framing between The King and I vs Anna and the King. Victoria & Albert, vs William & Mary – obvious. But Laurel & Hardy – wasn’t Hardly the more significant ? Ladies and Gentlemen vs Mr & Mrs, why is a Black & White TV that way round. Why Flanders & Swann, Gilbert & Sullivan, but George & Ira Gershwin ? Why apples & pears not pears and apples, why not pepper & salt, or vinegar and salt ? Bangers go on top of the mash, but pudding goes under the custard, and Fish goes beside Chips. Brimstone is added to Treacle, I’ve no idea how Bubble relates to Squeak. Why the less significant leads in Nuts & Bolts, Is it a pattern of significance, or familiarity, or sexism, or the longer word often sounds better first ? Or the good old English rules that are generally not followed ?
All insights welcomed.
I would like to help but I searched low and high, forth and back, fro and to, down and up to no avail.
The word order is governed by linguistic imperatives (greater obstruction is normally followed by less – think about what’s happening in your mouth when you say the words) so the reversals will seem particularly disruptive.
Well… they’ll try it and eventually they will decide (or their public will decide for them) that it’s silly, and they’ll stop. No need to get worked up about it in the meantime.
They and They
This is about “virtue signaling”, at best it’s harmless; at worst, mildly irritating.
In her latest novel (The Searcher), the author Tana French (b 1973) provides an exemplary definition of “virtue signaling”.
The main character – Cal – is reflecting on his daughter’s boy friend:
“Ben damn near lost his mind over the importance of using the proper terms for people in wheelchairs, and he clearly felt pretty proud of himself for doing that, but he didn’t mention ever doing anything useful for one single person in one single wheelchair, and Cal would bet a year’s pension that the little twerp would have brought it up if he had. And on top of that, the right terms change every few years, so that someone who thinks like Ben has to be always listening for other people to tell him what’s moral and immoral now. It seems to Cal that this isn’t how a man, or a woman either, goes about having a sense of right and wrong…. Everyone was always talking about talking, and the most moral person was the one who yelled at the most other people for doing the talking all wrong.”
In a nutshell, the measure of virtue is not words, but deeds. Words, not deeds, are the stock in trade of most politicians. It is a skill they have developed over years of practice, and their blind followers are satisfied by simply modelling them.