From: mgresham@dscatl.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Supertitling
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:06:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: dscatl.46980
Reply-To: mgresham@dscatl.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: Digital Systems Co,  Atlanta, Ga

In article <BuBrDz.n4I@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.020719.16782@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:
>>It's a lovely sentence, but what does it mean? Surtitles are no more
>>extraneous than librettos and programs, either of which, in the hands of
>>an insensitive nearby person, can be far more distracting than any
>>surtitles. 
>
>So what?  Did anybody say they were in favor of people perusing
>librettos and programs during the performance?  Those are indeed equally
>destructive; away with all of 'em.  (Something being "no worse" than
>another doesn't make it *good*.)

But I have the same feelings about "total theater" at times
("sets! lights! costumes! effects!") when its production values
overwhelm the music, singing, and drama -- precisely the approach
taken by the "popular theater" to attract a more "general"
audience.

>>The image he creates attempts to convince that somehow the
>>performers and audience must change their ways in order to accommodate
>>this new technical device, thus causing some kind of delicate balance to
>>crumble into rubble. I don't see that the performers have any kind of
>>adjustment to make, especially if the timing is improved. The greater
>>part of the audience "adjusts" by getting a little more eye exercise,
>>which is better than the maladjustment of ignoring words they don't
>>understand.
>
>And thereby stops paying real attention to the performance onstage.
>That is the point.  You may say "flipping one's eyes to another spot to
>read, and back, doesn't hurt my concentration" but it certainly does.
>[...]
>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 think the technical innovations are less to make the performers
and individual audience members conform as it is to make the
audience as a *body* conform...by that I mean to build an audience
demographic that is broader, more "general" audience wanting
entertainment than an audience which has come to enjoy opera as it
is or has been.  This is a marketing issue, and attracting a
larger, more "general" audience is the politically correct
position among management circles to raise money and also to meet
certain social guidelines now almost universally demanded by
grant-giving agencies, particularly governmental.

>>The short answer
>>to "why bother" is that if the performers weren't used to bothering they
>>wouldn't be there in the first place. 
>
>But if such aids are the norm, will the next generation of performers
>(the ones about to start college training, let's say) ever start
>bothering?  We have already seen a generation of opera singers for whom
>such niceties as tonal focus, dynamic control, precisely tuned
>enunciation, are by and large dispensible luxuries.  Audiences don't
>seem to notice if they're missing, so "why bother" is indeed the
>prevailing attitude.  That mediocre level then becomes what the next
>generation *aspires* to (and falls short of).  Next stage, projection 
>and timing are dispensible too.  Who needs 'em?

Again, it's "entertainment value" values.  I would less say the
dwindling attention span and demise of live theatrical values is
less due to things like supertitling as they (and supertitling
itself) are due to the broad appeal of TV and other electronic
media as the principal idea of "what a voice should sound like".

I can imagine that what we now call the "traditional operatic
voice" also developed somewhat due to cultural and technological
shifts years ago.  Certainly dramatic techniques in the legitimate
theater (as well as the very size of theatres) have been impacted
by TV and by economic changes.

I cannot say that these have been totally for the better or
totally for the worse.  But if you want certain values to survive,
you do have to take an active part in making them survive.

>Who affects one's career, if not the general operagoer who creates the
>demand (and, in the long run, the standards)?

And the long run is getting shorter.

But perhaps supertitling would not be an issue if operas were
performed in the native language of the performance location.
(Which addresses the "general audience" issue without the
technical addition.  Although I could argue both sides,
for language of the audience as well as the sonic value of the
original language.)


Cheers,

--Mark Gresham

dscatl!mgresham@gatech.edu

==========================
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical