From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: Supertitling
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:34:04 GMT

In article <+#fnlr+.jfh@netcom.com> jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) writes:

>In article <Btp9nG.MuI@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) 
>wrote:

>If anything kills opera in the next few decades (which seems unlikely to
>me), I think it will be cost.  The kind of intimate experience which makes
>live opera really worthwhile can't be obtained in the large houses which
>must be built in order to have enough income. 

Yes, they always say they "need" to build huge new houses, but I would 
love to see the figures on how that works sometime.  It always seems
that the bigger houses also carry more overhead with them, needing a lot
more cash just to keep the building going.  I wonder how that balances
out with the extra income they get from more paying customers?  I guess
they're thinking in terms of the times when they have a smash hit and
sell out the house -- the bigger the auditorium, the more bodies they
can admit.

>>You *have* to keep your
>>eyes on the stage in the opera, if you're serious about getting
>>everything the medium has to offer.

>Some of the time, but not all of the time.  There are certainly stretches
>in the Ring, for example, when everyone is just standing around singing.

Nope.  They are not just standing around singing (would you say the
people in Hamlet are "just standing around talking"?).  They are
communicating vital things, interacting with each other and with
themselves with great subtlety.  If you're really *following* it,
there's plenty going on even during Wotan's narration (which I, and
other Ring-o-philes, find one of the most gripping parts of the
tetralogy).

>That's partly because singers are sometimes hired for singing skill+volume 
>rather than singing skill+acting ability.  Again, the big-house problem.

That's an argument in favor of good productions in appropriate
surroundings, with which I agree.  But in such a production, there's no
let-down in terms of communication from stage to audience.

>>As an alternative:  Why has everybody given up on performing opera in
>>translation?

>Good question.  Why is it so many choral conductors think that they have to
>do works in german that no one in the chorus can pronounce properly and no
>one in the audience could understand anyway?  I think there's a little bit
>of inferiority complex there. 

It's interesting to look back a few decades (not many, either) and 
realize that universal facility with languages was not expected to be
part of everybody's equipment then.  People either got away with, say,
lousy French, or performed in their own language.  A recording like
Tibbett's of Loewe's ballad "Edward" or Plunkett-Greene's of "Der
Leiermann," both in the singer's native English, remind us of what we've
lost in insisting on original languages under all circumstances.

>>Don't bother to write attacking me as an "elitist" (meaningless word
>>anyway) -- I've been called worse.  All I am is an opera lover who
>>doesn't want his favorite medium to fizzle away to nothing.

>I think I'll bother anyway.  What's elitist about your attitude is idea
>that everyone has the time to devote to memorizing libretti.  If you want
>audiences to understand the opera, and you want those audiences to be large
>enough to pay the production costs, you'll have to compromise.  There just
>aren't enough Patrons Of The Arts to keep things going. 

When did I ever say I was against compromise?  (And anytime you don't
have an audience of Italians for an Italian opera, to take one example,
you have compromise of some sort.)  I'm the one proposing opera in
translation!  I just don't see why the necessary compromise has to
destroy the live interaction in the process, as I have found
supertitling to do.  (Audiences reading while they watch are removing
themselves one step from the stage -- they're "appreciating" or "keeping
up with" the action rather than involving themselves in it.)

>You might say "I don't care if big productions are done anymore.
>Everything can be done by groups like I.U. and Pocket Opera."  For old
>works, yes, but where will new works then come from.  It's not reasonable
>to expect composers to starve, but only big companies can afford to pay for
>new works.

When did I say I don't care if big productions are done?  We need them.
We need other kinds as well.

In New York, for instance, I think the Met is right to eschew
supertitles ("over my dead body," Levine has said).  And I think NYCO
ought to be doing most of their operas in English translation, as they
used to.  (Of course, they once performed in a human-scale house, too.)

In London, Covent Garden uses supertitles for some performances, not for
others (and they announce which are which in advance).  English National
Opera is committed to opera in English, and its director wrote a very
extensive article in OPERA magazine not long ago about their stand
against supertitles ("audiences like them, we are told," he remarks at
one point; "well, they like public hangings, too, but that doesn't mean
they should get everything they want").  It's well worth reading.

Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical