From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: Supertitling
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:21:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.022228.28379@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:

>In article <BuBrDz.n4I@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:

>>Nonsense.  You don't need to know the precise musical terms, but people
>>who are (on whatever subverbal level) aware of harmonic tension and
>>release, thematic working, etc., are indeed getting more out of the
>>performance.  Pountney's point is that these bits of info would, indeed
>>"help" in some sense -- but not in another (just like "the words"),
>>since one would not be receiving them as an integrated part of the
>>performance.

>Maybe I overstated. But to me, there is a clear difference in the magnitude
>of contribution to comprehension, between the text on the one hand, and 
>even these analytical details of the music on the other. 

The difference is not so clear to me....

>Two reasons come
>to mind: one, it takes much longer to realize the basic significance of
>structural hints than it does the text of the drama, 

I disagree completely.  One takes in a musical "feeling" (whatever may
be the reason it arises -- change of key or instrumentation or harmony
-- instantly, whether or not one knows one is doing so) pretty much
instantly.  It is FASTER than the verbal information.

>and two, intuition
>gets you farther into the music than into the words. 

Not sure what this means, or what the point of it is.  Also, I am always
distrustful of that word "intuition."  But let it pass.

>No, but equally so, the question arises - if one is as bad as the other,
>why isn't Pountney advocating getting programs and librettos out of people's
>hands during the acts with the same passion he decries surtitles? Both
>are provided by the house, are they not?

There's no objection to people perusing them before and between acts,
no?  I figure he's counting on people's courtesy to others in putting
them away while the performance is going on.  (I know that assumptions
of courtesy during performances are naive.)

>You may well argue that to do so would penalize the many who know how to
>keep quiet to solve the problems of the few who can't. But if, as I suspect,
>the number of people who like surtitles is much greater than those who are
>distracted by them, that argument would seem to lead in an undesirable
>direction.

Undesirable if you think "the majority always know best."  It would be
nice if that were always true in the arts, but....

>>                     Cause and effect are much more directly
>>demonstrable in the instance of public performance.  We've seen it
>>happen in spoken theater too: the same theaters which easily held
>>unamplified dramatic speak now have to be miked for the performers to be
>>"heard."  The acoustics of the building haven't changed, only the
>>audience's and performers' attitudes and expectations.  And again, a
>>part of it is the audience's unwillingness to really pay attention.

>I'm not prepared to argue the point. If what you say is true, I agree
>that is a cause for concern. But I am not a fan of slippery slope
>arguments generally.

Understood.  Such arguments are often bogus.  But not always.  Let's
compare notes in 20 years; I bet they'll have started miking all opera
performances by then, because singers will simply no longer be
developing big voices -- it won't be felt as a cultural necessity.
Already there is a worldwide problem in casting Wagner and the big
Verdi; there simply aren't many big voices around.  (There has never
been a superabundance of *good* big voices; now there are hardly any at
all.)

>>>I won't say it's impossible for a
>>>performer to get far if all they care about is how a relatively uninformed
>>>part of the audience feels about their work - I'm sure somebody would come
>>>up with counterexamples if I did - but I can hardly believe that's the
>>>usual case. 

>>Dream on.

>Um, what does this mean? Are you saying that the typical top-flight
>opera performer has no standards for their own work beyond the amount
>of uninformed adulation they can garner?

Stated somewhat differently, yes.  How is a performer to distinguish
between "informed" and "uninformed" adulation, if everyone but a cranky
few diehards is telling them they're wonderful?  The standards people
have for their work are what is expected of them professionally by
management/conductors/etc. and what they hear their colleagues/rivals 
doing.  If everyone seems to be satisfied, it is a very rare performer
who will demand more of themselves.

>But at
>this point I think that the main faults lie with the implementation rather
>than the concept of surtitles. 

Then we have a very fundamental disagreement, which we've probably
debated into the ground by this time.  :-)

>The ideal, at least for us mono-linguists, remains good translations
>well sung to an audience who has done its homework.

Here we agree.  (i.e., the translations are *sung*, not displayed)

Actually, this goes for those of us who are somewhat bilingual too.  I
have studied German for a long time, and have proven fairly fluent in
reading and speaking German.  And yet, the first time I listened to the
ENO recording and heard Norman Bailey singing "Farewell, my brave
child," I realized I had never really experienced Wotan's Farewell
before.  I knew what all the words meant, but I hadn't brought a
lifetime of reading, speaking, thinking, and feeling to them.  At that
point I realized what I'd been missing.

Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical