Classical Music Forum banner

PC - or non PC; that is the question...

  • Non-pc art music should never be performed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Perform it with irony & satire

    Votes: 2 5.3%
  • Perform it with textual or setting emendations

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Perform it with warnings in the programme notes

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Play it straight; let the audience judge or empathise

    Votes: 30 78.9%
  • Other possibilities? Give details

    Votes: 1 2.6%

PC - or not PC?

8K views 43 replies 20 participants last post by  Ukko 
#1 · (Edited)
PC - or not PC; that is the question!

It's hard nowadays to stage without apology a new production of Shakespearean plays like 'The Merchant of Venice', 'The Tempest' (Caliban), and 'The Taming of the Shrew'.

Music too, especially opera, has often been written from a viewpoint that was acceptable in its day but now no longer. A good example is Rameau's Les Indes Galantes, written to commemorate the visit to Paris of some chiefs from Native American tribes ('American Indian' / 'Red Indian' in the past). The setting is really just a peg to hang a love story on, but naturally it embodies the attitudes of 18th century France to native peoples - the idea that they were more innocent, free from the corruptions of civilisation, not materialistic, and happier.

This attitude meant no harm - on the contrary, held by more educated members of society, it went against the more racist view of the peasants who would have seen these Native Americans as brutal savages without the same rights as Europeans. But nowadays people see the Augustan view ('Lo, the poor Indian') as unacceptably paternalistic & condescending.

So - I wanted to hear the music, went on YouTube, and what did I find?

A version with 'post-modern irony':



A choral version (with a few knowing smiles):



Or a purely instrumental version:



It seems a pity to me that audiences can't make the necessary leaps of empathy and just enjoy the work in the spirit in which it was written; in Rameau's case at least, where in my view no great harm is done. Of course, there may be a blatantly offensive but artistic piece which must be treated in a pc way if it's performed at all.

But that's what I'm asking? How do you prefer your non-pc masterpieces to be staged?

It's possibly a rarefied topic so maybe there won't be all that many replies, but in a year or two, the thread will have gathered some interesting viewpoints. Thank you in advance! :tiphat:
 
See less See more
#3 · (Edited)
Thank you, Hilltroll - I'm entirely in agreement.

I posted the poll because of Rameau, but I'd be interested (& also grateful) to hear of other works which cause 'a pc-problem'.

I think some of the resetting of operas, as well as to make them 'more relevant', may also be to make them more pc & culturally acceptable. Monteverdi's 'Poppea' presents Nero somewhat unhistorically in a sympathetic light; the English Touring Opera's current production sets the story in Stalinist Russia.
 
#4 ·
I strongly dislike the top excerpt in my opening post, with pipe-smoking 'Indian' heroine & facial gesticulations to suggest how absurd Rameau's idea is. It's hard to concentrate on the music with all that distraction going on.

I would guess that in fifty years time, this sort of approach will be seen not only as cultural vandalism, but as utterly ridiculous.
 
#5 ·
I voted to let the audience decide. However ...

Steven Foster's minstrelsy has now become almost unsingable because our tastes and opinions have changed so much. It is almost impossible to see any circumstance, other than historical research where they would be acceptable. Similarly, songs like Dixie because of their associations have become frowned upon. The same argument has been applied to the German National Anthem because of its triumphal overtones.

I find textual emendation unacceptable, especially with regard to hymns, e.g. “right hand of God” has been changed to “mighty” or “strong” hand of God, so that no left-handed people won’t feel insulted. Jesus is referred to as “God’s only Child” rather than “God’s Only Son.” The words “darkness” or “blind” can no longer be used to symbolize spiritual ignorance.
 
#7 · (Edited)
I am also of the opinion that it is best for audiences to make up their own minds. In the case of opera or drama, there is of course scope for different productions to shift the emphasis of their performance. But in the case of novels or visual arts there is no "middle-man" as such, i.e. the audience is left on their own to make of the art what they will.

For example the novels "Huckleberry Finn" and "Robinson Crusoe" regularly get termed "un-PC" for making use of racial stereotypes. In addition, the painting "Olympia" by Manet is branded racist, perhaps understandably:

Painting Textile Art Illustration Drawing


(Sorry but I can't think of any musical examples off the top of my head!)

Nevertheless, all this raises the question (much discussed in the various Wagner threads!) about whether we should excuse artists of the past for holding views which are considered racist by modern standards, even if they were the accepted views of the day. Whilst I can understand if people personally find it hard to enjoy art which they find offensive, I am of the opinion that these works of art are cultural/historical documents and should not be removed from the national consciousness because they do not conform to modern standards.
 
#11 ·
But at the same time, surely you can sympathise with a Jew for choosing not to watch the Merchant of Venice because they find it offensive. Some people might be happy to laugh along at the racial stereotypes because they were "acceptable at the time" but for others this might cause genuine discomfort. It is a bit harsh to call these people "stupid."
 
#10 · (Edited)
I'm divided here.

Playing it straight will of course offend some people, but as the great philosopher Steve Hughes once pointed out: "If you're offended, you're offended. Nothing happens." Also, PC people need to be kept on their toes so they don't relax in their efforts to drag the rest of us into modernity.

On the other hand, it would be tempting to have all non-PC stuff edited out from those non-PC plays and operas, since the playing time would then be shorter, and I would be able to return home sooner to do other stuff.
 
#12 ·
I'm divided here.

Playing it straight will of course offend some people, but as the great philosopher Steve Hughes once pointed out: "If you're offended, you're offended. Nothing happens." Also, PC people need to be kept on their toes so they don't relax in their efforts to drag the rest of us into modernity.

On the other hand, it would be tempting to have all non-PC stuff edited out from those non-PC plays and operas, since the playing time would then be shorter, and I would be able to return home earlier in the evening and do other stuff.
:lol: Ah - hadn't thought of that!

But your first paragraph has reminded me that art & music these days is supposed to be edgy - to provoke - to jolt us out of our complacency - in short, to offend us. In these cases, it's not cool to be offended.

Weird world! :rolleyes:
 
#13 ·
I'm more uncomfortable with venues resurrecting works of the past with overtly racist or sexist content and submitting it to audiences for uncritical approval. An ironic or even censored performance might--or might not--be better than none at all. We've all got access to uncut or "straight" versions of older works via dvd or other media, and we're free to seek them out. I prefer performances of older works that express an opinion that's defensible, interesting, or new.

Having said that, I prefer new music, films, and artworks that push the envelope. I don't want to be made uncomfortable about obviously stupid ideas from the past that continue to limp along--but I do want to be made uncomfortable about the ideas I currently, uncritically hold. I'd be appalled at a censored screening of a new film by Lars von Trier or opera by Thomas Ades.
 
#14 ·
My main problem is with changing works of art. I'm not a hardcore purist, but most of the time I'd rather see a work of art the way an artist intended. That said, works of art are often changed and not just for PC reasons. The version of Swan Lake we all know and love has been cut up and mangled by Riccardo Drigo; what's removing a racial slur here and there?
 
#15 ·
And if the artist included a non-PC item with the intention for it to be "no big deal", because that non-PC item wasn't a big deal at the time, then maybe removing it now would be truer to the artist's intentions, since keeping it would only elevate that small non-PC item into a "really big deal", which was clearly not what the artist intended.
 
G
#16 ·
Whilst I recognise the issue Ingenue raises, I have a problem with the terms 'PC' and 'non PC'. As I understand it, political correctness refers to the inappropriate or over-zealous application of a particular political viewpoint to things that don't require it. In England, a typical (mythical) example was of the school where children were taught to sing 'Baa Baa Green Sheep' in the belief that to sing about black sheep was in some way racist.

Unfortunately, this has led to a backlash, where the term 'PC' is now used to reject any challenge to racist, sexist, ageist thinking. (A parallel example is 'health and safety gone mad' where perfectly reasonable rules to keep us safe are now quoted as infringing on our civil liberties to do what we want.)

An intelligent audience may be trusted to listen to an unrevised opera and realise that what is presented is no longer 'right thinking' (I use the term for shorthand - it's not a good one) but if the standard of national debate in the media about political topics is anything to go by, some audience members will need a hand to see that our perceptions of American Indians is not as crude and unrealistic as it once was.
 
#19 ·
Perform it straight was my vote. Audiences' interpretation will change over time but the music stays as it is over time.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Any kind of revisionism is wrong. History needs to be looked at, whether from political or artistic standpoints.
Whatever was, was! The Victorians spent a lot of money and damaged a great many paintings by having fig-leaves or other such nonsense painted over "the naughty bits".
As for books, for not allowing certain books to be read because they are considered racist in today's world is no different to
Hitler having books burned or Stalin locking up composers or writers until they towed the party line.
No! where does this idiocy end? If someone feels offended by Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice", they don't have to go to it.
That is their right. However it is not their right to insist that no one else should see it, or much worse, only see it as they have it edited and bowdlerized. (Look up that word - bowdlerized - and you will understand what I mean)

Some on this forum will remember the days of the Lord Chamberlain's Office in Great Britain which had, until 1968, when it was
abolished, the right to stop or forbid performances which they though were not fit for the public. We can all laugh at it when we saw it depicted in the film "Shakespeare in Love", but it was no joke.
I remember the hullaballoo at CG in 1965 of the staging of Schoenberg's Moses and Aaron. Peter Hall, who directed, was so unhappy at the female chorus members feeble attempts at portraying the requisite behavour for the orgy, that he went around the corner into Soho and hired half a dozen professional "strippers" to liven things up.
It took a great deal of persuasion to stop the LCO from closing the production down. It had to be toned down so much that
the "ladies" hired for the occasion were seriously under employed.
Thankfully those days are now gone.......or are they really?
 
#21 ·
The most common potentially non-PC thing that I can think of in classical music would be Orientalism, which nobody seems to mind much - in fact seem to feel has had a positive effect overall on the art - so play it straight.

Oh, apart from sexist gender attitudes, which might be so well discussed and pointed out in most works as to leave no need for further warning.

Casual unthinking rascism should probably be addressed in liner notes. Overt rascism either thrown in the dustbin of history or treated as a museum piece for educational discussion.
 
#22 ·
I'm fussy about these things, almost pedantic, if I have to be. I prefer to hear/read/see the author's intentions. I don't like it to be watered down. You even get this gender neutral talk in mass, which irritates me, the priest editing the readings so they're gender inoffensive. Once, there was a passage about a man farming and it became a "they" rather than "he", which was on the missalette. The other day I'm watching a modern western on Netflix and the cowboy tells his cow-wife, "I know we said we'd make all decisions together."

Yeah, and cavemen had doorbells on their caves.

I don't like PC, not because I'm old fashioned or want to be controversial, but because I just plain don't trust it. In fact, I think it's idiotic. I think it's an abuse of language and an abuse of life. It's gone too far. So, put me in the camp that says play it straight and trust that the audience has the sense to tell the difference...
 
#23 · (Edited)
PC productions might even defeat their own purposes, however well-intentioned they might be. It's almost like editing historical facts in a textbook to make them less offensive. We need to remember the mistakes of history, not ignore them...so that we don't make those mistakes again.
 
#24 ·
Yes, of course I like PCs! I have a nice one, huge screen.... Hewlett Packard, I believe.... Though my keyboard is Logitech. I also have Windows, which works nicely on it, though I don't use Chrome because of the lack of personalization control over it. Firefox I like better. :)

....I have a feeling I've gotten the wrong PC....
 
#27 ·
Ingenue, I'm not sure whether that first YouTube clip is an example of political correctness or just a crap director. Actually it's possible that, despite the unsubtle nods and winks, it could be more offensive to today's native Americans than whatever production Rameau himself might have put on. I mean, what is this director being ironic about? Seems like he or she is mocking 20th-century ideas about "Indians" rather than whatever the French people of 1736 thought, so then we must ask what's the rationale for that? The libretto seems to just call for an "American Indian" setting... nothing particularly un-PC about it, and it seems to me that one could make a perfectly respectful production without the need for changing anything. So I blame the director for making a "point" that is in fact irrelevant to anything Rameau or his librettist intended.
 
#29 · (Edited)
By the way, I think "political correctness" has now become such a loaded term that I'm not sure it has much value anymore. The actual principles behind it are what you might also call "common decency" but too often it gets used in an overly negative sense.
The great Stewart Lee once wrote (here): "I am a great fan of political correctness, even though, as one of the writers of Jerry Springer the Opera, I was routinely praised for apparently attacking it, and feel that any indignities we suffer from PC's overzealous policing are a small price to pay for all that it has achieved. Is anyone apart from Robertson's jam really inconvenienced by the extinction of the golliwog?"
He also had a bit in one of his stand-up shows where he has someone come up to him saying "You know, you can't do anything in this country any more mate, it's political correctness gone mad. Do you know, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat."
 
#30 ·
[...]
He also had a bit in one of his stand-up shows where he has someone come up to him saying "You know, you can't do anything in this country any more mate, it's political correctness gone mad. Do you know, you can't even write racial abuse in excrement on someone's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat."
"...racial abuse in excrement" is, of course, a PC phrase, and would be regarded as 'mealy mouthed' in some environs. The TC censor (at least in the previous version) extends well beyond that aversion to Middle English. We all have to tiptoe around PC to express ourselves.
 
#38 ·
And a musical work form the past, Nereffid, that you wanted to put on, but its sentiments are no longer really acceptable.
What is your preferred method of dealing with that?
First question I'd ask is, why do I want to put this on? If the overall sentiments aren't acceptable, and there's no way to fudge the issue with a clever presentation, then the work might need some sort of historical significance or other cultural value to justify its staging, and would probably need to come with a "health warning". If overall the work is acceptable but has a few dodgy bits in it, then I wouldn't object to cutting or changing those bits as long as there's no serious effect on the overall work. But it depends on the topic in question, and on the individual work.

As a hypothetical, let's say someone uncovered an unknown Handel oratorio in which every number extolled the importance and rightness of the African slave trade. Certainly it's of cultural interest, so I wouldn't object to it being performed, probably accompanied by a discussion of the relevant topics. For it to entire the repertoire I'd have no objection to someone writing a completely new text. Or let's say a new Handel opera was found that's similar in content to his others but contains one horribly racist aria - then I say take it out, or replace it (given the practices of the time, Handel would probably be OK with that approach anyway).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top