Campbell Vertesi

I have had sooo many arguments/discussions about this with both my opera singing friends and my non-opera singing friends, and rather confusingly i have found myself on both sides of the argument at times.

From a singing point of view I enjoy the feel of the original language of an opera, the way the composer set those original words.

However there is a strong reason for good translations to be used in theatres and opera houses. I think it is very difficult to truly express a drama to an audience in a language foreign to them. Surtitles and so forth lead the eye away from the stage; and in much the same way as using a cellphone whilst driving can be a hazard, surtitles can lead to loss of concentration. Albeit without as many tragic consequences.

something to bear in mind is also the intentions of the actual composer. Verdi for one, upon seeing an opera in London, was distraught to see the opera performed in Italian. His point being that he had worked so hard on the drama, and here it was going over the audiences heads. He personally oversaw translations into french as we know, so translations of his operas were not a problem for him. Mozart oversaw german versions of his italian operas.

Poulenc went so far as to insist that his operas were performed in the language of the country of performance.

There is also the small question of people saying 'you can't hear the words anyway, so why bother with singing it in english?'. Poor diction is no basis for a decent argument.

We opera buffs/singers can get too uptight about original language performances.

Good point about decent english language operas mind you, Campbell!

Yeah, good thing you ducked, 'cause that was me throwing a 20 lb. dictionary at your head, dude!  OMG, what *have* you started?

Seriously, I think we should NOT sing anything more in translation.  Cold turkey, stop ENTIRELY.  Get better translations for the supertitles, make them less obtrusive (or how about this, anyone who wants the translations gets (or rents, like the little tour thingys at a museum) a little handheld device that scrolls the translation for them.

The rest of us can just watch the opera in peace, already.

Double seriously, the lyrics are part of the aria!  The original language is INTEGRAL to the sound of the music!  How much more ardently can I put this:  It's NOT THE SAME MUSIC IF YOU CHANGE THE WORDS!  Not for the performer, certainly, you know as well as I it makes it soooo much harder to sing in translation (Ruth & Thomas are an excellent case in point - what are we going to do, retranslate EVERYTHING every 5-10 years to keep current?) and it really sucks for the audience that knows & loves the opera in the original, it just doesn't sound right!

That having been (beaten to death) said, I do agree we need to stage more operas that were written originally in English.  What the hell is this chip on our shoulder?

That having been (bludgeoned to death) said, I further more think that THE STATE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN THE US IS ***** DEPLORABLE *****.  Everyone else around the world speaks at least 1 or 2 other languages fluently, and it is positively shameful to watch like Putin (okay not Putin, but let's say some of the younger Russian, Chinese etc diplomats) speak English not just fluently but idiomatically at that.  (Every one knows what "idiomatically" means, don't they???) 

Sometimes it really seems as if many foreign leaders speak better English than, um, our "Leader" but that's a whole other discussion

I am therefore decidedly (1) AGAINST singing in translation, (2) decidedly FOR singing more operas written in English (when's the next production of Dr. Atomic, I'd like to know.  And while we're at it WHERE THE HELL DO YOU BUY A SCORE?  I'd like to learn that aria for an audition, if anyone doesn't mind toooo tooo terribly!)  And I am like lifetime passionately decidedly (3) FOR AMERICANS FUKING LEARNING TO SPEAK (AND THEREFORE LISTEN TO OPERAS IN) OTHER LANGUAGES.

OMG, what *have* you unleashed???  (BTW, now go check out my most recent post, Mr. Newlywed Basso Profundo!)

Ariadne

"Spinto Sopranos Rock the (Opera) House!"

Ok, now I see where you were coming from this morning.  The words off the presses, still flying through cyber space, and here I present you with a project that illustrates the point you are arguing.  How Ironic?  I tend to side with the second commentator, who more than made her point against translations, so I wont bother.  I do however think that in the case of Operas for children, or Operas that are meant to introduce Children to the art form, translations should be used.  It works in Hansel and Gretel, and in your example of The Magic Flute.  I do think to an extent, there is a "you have to be this tall, to ride this ride," rule when it comes to Opera.  I can't imagine torturing six year olds through an Opera of any substantial length in a foriegn language.  That being said, at a certain point people do need exposure.  Would it kill people to read the libretto before the opera, or do some research?  Opera is not like TV, you do not just sit there like a lump on a couch and expect it to do all of the work.  Opera is an art form that utilizes your mind and imagination.  It invites you on a journey.  America has never been culturally aware.  Would it kill us, as an audience, to appreciate an art form in its original language?  God knows, we expect other countries and cultures to know and deal in the English language.

I could be wrong but I believe that Aaron Copland's The Tenderland, has never been performed as a fully staged opera, only as a concert opera.  Sad huh?

Hey all- nice to see a good argument getting started!  Some response:

Double seriously, the lyrics are part of the aria!  The original language is INTEGRAL to the sound of the music!  How much more ardently can I put this:  It's NOT THE SAME MUSIC IF YOU CHANGE THE WORDS!

As was mentioned by ricolas, most composers worked to have their operas translated into native languages when they were produced abroad.  But the language is an integral part right, whether Verdi knew it or not?  Don Carlos was originally composed in French - but all the world sings it in Italian now.  Both versions were "approved" by Verdi, but we've latched onto the translation of the original.  Strauss was a leading exponent of having Die Fledermaus performed in English translation.  No one seems to have a hard time listening to these operas in "translation".  So what's wrong with English?

what are we going to do, retranslate EVERYTHING every 5-10 years to keep current?

Sure.  Theatres, composers, publishers... anyone can pay for their own translation.  It isn't exactly rocket science.  Heck - we have an assignment in one of our classes, to translate the entire opera that each of us is working on.  It's not a 20 minute job, but it's perfectly do-able!  There's no need for a "standard" translation that everyone must conform to.

Corinne - Opera is certainly an art form with a lot of depth.  We all know that the more you study a piece or a composer, the greater your appreciation.  But does there have to be a minimum study bar for appreciation?  Given that the ushers will never quiz audience members before allowing them into the theatre, would you rather: 1) have the audience pulled out of the moment by supertitles, and get a lessened impact of the opera by never REALLY knowing what's being said or 2) have the audience understand exactly what is going on and why, at the expense of greater effort on the part of the performer?

I know what my choice is.  

For the record, I hate singing in English. It's my worst language. But still, I'd rather do the extra work and have the audience understand and empathize with me than leave them in the dark, or demand a minimum level of study to let them enjoy my art.  

Right you are, Corrine!  Those are good points.

Cam, when you say you think we should re-translate all the operas currently in any house's rep every 5-10 years after all, are you saying new supertitle translations or new "singable" translations?

I have to say, much as I um... dislike the Ruth & Thomas Martin Magic Flute translation, for instance, in the realm of "singable" translations, there really aren't many good  solutions to some of those syllable-rhythm challenges, and there aren't really many other good solutions to the translated word choices either, since they obviously set themselves the goal of writing a singable, *rhyming* translation.

Ugh.  For the most part, I am highly dubious whether some of these translations draw audiences in or push them away.  Sheesh... I have a hard enough time not laughing at some of the translations, and I'm the one doing the singing!

???

"Spinto Sopranos Rock the (Opera) House!"

"For the record, I hate singing in English. It's my worst language. But still, I'd rather do the extra work and have the audience understand and empathize with me than leave them in the dark, or demand a minimum level of study to let them enjoy my art. "

I have to say that I agree with Campbell on this. I have sung operas in both the original and translated (Fledermaus and Flute to name two) and I much prefer singing in the original when I can, however I think this is to forget the point of an opera which is to tell a story.

There is much disagreement about this at my college however. We are doing a russian opera shortly, and I am not convinced that doing it in the original language is the right choice from an audience perspective. From our perspective as singers in training it is very good for us for a number of reasons, but that is a different matter!

Lots of interesting thoughts here! As a non-singer audience member, I thought I'd throw a few more in. . . . mostly, I'd like to defend surtitles. I find them a good compromise between those who feel only the original language really fits the music and those who want to make sure opera is heard as drama. I don't find them any more distracting than subtitles in a foreign film, and I'd much rather read subtitles than put up with dubbing. Occasionally I find them distracting but only because I'm a compulsive reader -- I have the same trouble with labels in art museums. The point was made above about the difficulty of finding singable translations; I think we should also remember that just as 18th and 19th century theatrical styles survive only because they've been preserved in opera and ballet, so the 18th and 19th century language, accurately translated, would often strike us as too flowery -- you can sing things in Italian that you couldn't speak in 21st century English. Also, granting the point about the lack of foreign languages in America, even those who know Italian, French, and/or German would also need to know Czech, Spanish, and Russian and many some Scandinavian languages. I think surtitles have really made audiences more comfortable with an expanded repertoire; one of the reasons we get an endless diet of the same stuff is that  after a while people know what's going on. As for whether it's asking too much for the audience to read the libretto beforehand . . . well, sometimes it is. I'm pretty immersed in the art form, but I (and I'm speaking for non-singers here) just run out of time. Also, given the comparative rarity of new items in the opera house, I often prefer to go in cold and experience the work fresh, rather than bone up beforehand. I was in Bayreuth this summer for the first time, where of course they have no subtitles, and even though I read the librettos beforehand and am fairly familiar with the works anyway (so that I could tell you generally what was happening at any given point), there's lots of significant line-by-line stuff that doesn't come through unless you're fluent in German (also I understand Wagner's German is deliberately archaic even by 19th century standards). I started attending opera in the last few years before surtitles became common, and I've never understood why they get such a bad rap. I'm more likely to be taken out of the drama by coughing, rattling programs, whispering, etc., than by glancing quickly at a translation. And they're also being used now for works in English -- what do you think of that? I have mixed feelings, but I think this has to do with differences in the way audiences hear or listen to music.

Anyway, that's probably enough from me. . . .  I think it was Ariadne who asked about Dr Atomic? The Met Maniac website says it's on the Met's 08-09 schedule. I think it was also scheduled for Chicago but I don't know exactly when. I hope you enjoy it more than I did -- I was hugely disappointed in it, basically because of the libretto.

And can I give a shout-out to two of my favorite American operas? The Rake's Progress and 4 Saints in 3 Acts. I think we'd all be happy to see more American operas performed. . . .

Patrick

Oooooh!  Now Patrick's done it!!!  (Yes, I asked about Dr. Atomic, btw).  You brought up a great topic, there, Patrick:

Can we talk about the QUALITY OF THE LIBRETTO for a moment?

More American  operas would mean more & better quality American opera libretti, Dear Readers.  Back in the day, libretti were based on books written by, or outright written by, GREAT AUTHORS.

It doesn't surprise me that American operas ... aren't so successful.  We need to nab the BEST AUTHORS FOR LIBRETTI.  (Sorry to shout, this really gets me going.)  No wonder Dr. Atomic was unsatisfying!

Come on now, follow me here.  The original story of Don Juan/Giovanni was written by Byron.  The original Marriage of Figaro was written by Beaumarchais.  What if Stephen King wrote an opera libretto or an opera was based on one of his books?  Tom Clancy?  Patricia Cornwell?  Maya Angelou?  Jane Austen?  Someone who wrote or writes in (American or British) English who's worth reading might actually have a chance of being worth singing, right?

Hell, I'd even take a libretto written by one of those Harlequin Romance writers, at this point!

Grrrrr..... Thoughts anyone?

ariadne

"Spinto Sopranos Rock the (Opera) House!"

It is interesting to note, Cam, that while the Metropolitan Opera Broadcast of Die Zauberflöte was done in English, subtitles were still projected in the theatres. 

Hi Ariadne, Sorry to be a blog whore, but if you want to read more of my thoughts on Dr Atomic you can go to my blog (http://reverberatehills.blogspot.com) and go to the first month in the archives; it's the second entry I posted, right after my "hey, I'm starting a blog" post.
You make a very interesting point about the people who write librettos (though I think Stephen King could make more money selling his tales to the movies, and the pedant in me has to point out that Don Giovanni premiered in 1787 and Byron started Don Juan in 1818 -- though to continue your point Moliere and other playwrights had written about Don Juan before Mozart did). I've actually sometimes wondered if the rarity of opera in English has actually led to a higher calibre of writer being involved just because it seems like a novelty or fairly prestigious even though the libretto is secondary to the music -- I'm thinking of E M Forster with Billy Budd, Gertrude Stein with 4 Saints and The Mother of Us All, W H Auden with his work for Henze, Stravinsky, and Britten, and Toni Morrison with Margaret Garner. I think one problem has been that for much of the second half of the 20th century until recently the natural sources of opera plots -- plays, novels, and movies -- have been in a sort of mundane "realistic" style that isn't really suited to opera's mythic and poetic style. More and more I see stylized and even poetic dramas and magic realism, so perhaps improvement is in store. . . .
And to follow up on Sean's point, surtitles are now used frequently for English works -- I'd like to hear what you singers think about that. Even the Lamplighters, a San Francisco Gilbert & Sullivan troupe, recently announced that they would now by popular demand use surtitles -- and if ever there's a group of fans that has the librettos memorized, it's the G&S crowd.

Ah yes, supertitles in English are a fascinating phenomenon.  On the one hand, it could be a side effect of works moving to big houses: in a 500 or 1500 seat house good diction can make every word understandable.  In a modern American 2500 to 3000 seat house, it's almost entirely out of the question.  On the other hand, plenty of musical theater has been (and continues to be) sung in such large halls without supertitles.  Lately musical theater has used microphones, but if you go back to the 70's or 80's... what did we do then?

Certainly Gilbert and Sullivan works better in a small house, where every word and subtle pun can carry to the audience.  It says something that the Lamplighters lasted this long with their work being comprehensible.  

But again - personally, I go for opera without supertitles.  Preferably in a small enough theater that the words can be understood... I'll never forget the experience of singing the Ballad of Baby Doe to a jewelbox theater of 500 seats.  No supertitles required, and nary a dry eye in the house.

Oh, and on a side note: I don't like the back of the seat things.  I find it harder to move my focus from near to far so often than just up and down.  Perhaps if eye movement were minimized, I'd find the supertitle experience more like a subtitled movie (which I also prefer, Patrick).  Could we put the supertitles below the action?  Perhaps projected onto the black around the orchestra pit?  Hmmm.. The best would be opera glasses (binoculars to the layman) that have a scrolling translation at the bottom.  Oooh, there's a fortune to be made there!  Where's a Venture Capital guy when you need one? 

Campbell,

Can you imagine how certain arias/excerpts of universal fame would be received if sung in English (e.g., La donna e mobile, Vissi d'arte, etc.)?

While in principle I don't disagree with you, I can't imagine a positive reception of opera favourites heard in the "wrong" language.

Also, I'm not sure that using English would make opera more marketable. So what's the point, really? I don't find surtitles inconvinient at all, after all, most lines in opera get repeated so you're not missing any action by slightly tilting your head above the stage for a second to read what was just said. With the Met's new surtitles in front of every seat, this won't be a problem at all.

Ditto for dramatical purposes. The drama in opera does not move at such a rapid pace as it does in theatre that you break the narrative by constantly looking away.

But you do have reason to duck, mister! How can you consider the Magic Flute among your favourite operas when the bass role is so dull?! For shame! (And yes, I judge operas by the bass role...who doesn't?)

I thought you may enjoy this quote by the great thinker (and libertarian) H. L. Mencken:

"Opera in English is, in the main, just about as sensible as baseball in Italian."