Jon Johanning wrote:

>Another parallel, of course, is with the eternal Wagner question.
>Those who are sure they see characatures of Jews in Alberich, Beckmesser,
>Klingsor, etc., want nothing to do with him, but to me the weight of the
>argument falls on the glories of the music.  ...
>
>Another case that has occurred to me is that of the Brecht/Weill pieces.
>I can imagine that people who feel strongly about the evils of Stalin and
>Stalinism might object to the support of this political tendency on the
>part of Brecht, especially.  But again, I think that the works themselves
>in this case have a message which is independent of the association of the
>author with Stalinism. ...

I understand what Jon means, but really feel these are totally different
to his objections to G&S.  With both Wagner and Breacht/Weill the objection
seems to be through association; with G&S, Jon actually objected to the
language used by the 19th century Gilbert and thought it may offend a late
20th century audience.

With a constant change in attitudes, ideas, morals, vocabulary, we will
always face things which were accepted in their day, but become offensive
in a changing environment.  Perhaps for this reason, many productions of
G&S "adapt" the lyrics - and I see little wrong with that.  But I do feel
that to charge him with offences which did not exist when he was writing
is misplaced.

Incidentally, it is rather strange that both Gilbert and Sullivan
considered the work they did together far inferior to that which they did
alone.  Sullivan much preferred his "serious" work - as did Gilbert.  The
fact that both of them have found fame with works they both considered
inferior is ironic to say the least.

Jonathan