From: jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow)
Subject: Re: Supertitling... and same in "Ghosts"
Organization: Credence Systems Corp. Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:12:54 GMT

Just a detail that might be useful to clean up...

In article <BuKw7A.MIs@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.022228.28379@credence.com> jeffw@or.credence.com (Jeff Winslow) writes:
|
|>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.

I'm not sure we disagree as much as all that. By "structural hints"
I meant stuff shown on supertitles, not the music itself. While I tend to
agree that taking in musical feeling is faster than verbal information, I
think it takes much longer to translate verbal information about analytical
details into something that helps you hear what is going on the music. 

For example, the significance of "this part is in F major" is likely to
take a lot longer to sink in than that of "I'm going to rip you from
limb to limb, so say your prayers".

My second reason is really a kind of restatement of your objection to my
first one. You don't *need* a bunch of hints on the proscenium to take in
the music, but if you don't know the language the only way you're going
to absorb an unknown text is if the acting is very, very good. And if you're
sitting close enough to see facial expressions on stage! 

These are the reasons why I think it's not particularly illuminating
to sarcastically suggest, as the director you quoted did, all sorts of
other things for supertitle projection, even things about the music itself.

Speaking of subtitles, *was* there any rhyme or reason to the haphazard
subtitling of the TV broadcast of "The Ghosts of Versailles"? I have to
admit I was a bit shocked there was any at all. And half the time it
seemed they had titles for the singers who were easy to understand and
not for those who were not. 

Having been sensitized to the subject by this discussion, it was interesting
to observe how I dealt with the subtitles. Much of the time I managed to
ignore them, as they usually weren't necessary. But even the times I read
them it only seemed to take a few tenths of a second, and I was focused
right back on the performance practically before the second word was spoken.
I recognize, though, that this would be easier on a TV screen than in
the opera house.
						Jeff Winslow