Studying English taught us how to write and think better, and to make articulate many of the inchoate impulses and confusions of our post-adolescent minds. We began to see, as we had not before, how such books could shape and refine our thinking. We began to understand why generations of people coming before us had kept them in libraries and bookstores and in classes such as ours. There was, we got to know, a tradition, a historical culture, that had been assembled around these books. Shakespeare had indeed made a difference—to people before us, now to us, and forever to the language of English-speaking people.

Finding pleasure in such reading, and indeed in majoring in English, was a declaration at the time that education was not at all about getting a job or securing one’s future. In comparison with the pre-professional ambitions that dominate the lives of American undergraduates today, the psychological condition of students of the time was defined by self-reflection, innocence, and a casual irresponsibility about what was coming next.

William M. Chace, ‘The Decline of the English Department’ , The American Scholar online

My stress, my experience. All very well for me, because I went on to teach it.  But for all the others, while there’s no evidence that their degrees in English led to blasted lives, the traditional liberal writ had long ceased to run. English Departments at their height – as Chace points out, a height briefly occupied in the middle years of the 20th century -  were preparing students for a world which no longer existed.

 

ç

 

Amongst the little comparison-cults on YouTube there’s one for Olympia’s aria, as you’d expect, since every coloratura soprano wants to sing it. Sumi Jo is there,  and Sutherland (late performances – don’t go there) and the recent crop of French divas.

Don’t miss Natalie Dessay in rehearsal for her first Olympia, where the voluble director is Roman Polanski.  Dessay marks most of the time, taking instruction from choreographer, director, conductor, but we get a bit of it at pitch when Hugues Cuenod enters. You get to hear the underlay of the voice.

There’s also a brief clip from that performance:

And (unmissable!) Dessay singing the whole piece in a production at Orange.

Finally, a contrasting product from  Patricia Petibon in what must have been a hugely enjoyable recital.

 

Here in full, the Wikipedia plot summary of La Vie Parisienne (1866).

Act 1

The story begins at the railway station, where the employees boast of all the wonderful places in France. Soon, Baron and Baroness Gondremarck arrive from frozen Stockholm for a Parisian holiday and ask tour guide Joseph Partout to show them the city’s glittering night life. Finally, Pompa di Matadores, a Brazilian millionaire, arrives to spend a fortune in the capital.
Act 2

Métella, a demi-mondaine with a heart of gold, reads a letter from Baron Gondremarck’s friend, Baron Frascata, asking her to give Gondremarck the same pleasure she once had given him.

Act 3

At a party, the guests vow to make their pleasure long lasting as they eye one another, waiting to see who will make the first move. Bobinet rises to greet the crowd with a drinking song. The champagne flows and Baron Gondremarck (and everyone else) gets drunk. The party turns into a wild, sensual debauch.
Act 4

The Brazilian millionaire is offering a masked ball. Métella, anxious to win back Gardefeu, is in league with the Baroness, who wants to extricate her husband from the perils of Parisian life. The Brazilian and Gabrielle, the pretty glover, discover the virtues of love at first sight. All ends happily.

So: in Act 1, the characters assemble and – the curtain falls. In Act 2, Métella reads a letter, perhaps silently, broodingly, facing upstage. In Act 3, however, all hell breaks loose. I very desperately want to see this operetta.

Theme Tweaker by Unreal