Opera Surtitles

I have yet to attend an opera, but I, for one, would definitely want surtitles, or at least a full copy of the libretto. I know my local opera house does use surtitles. One needn't catch every word, but it definitely helps to be able to figure out what's going on.

I believe the Vancouver Opera ain't too bad either - or was it Seattle doing an entire Ring two years ago?

Yes, a Ring cycle was performed a couple years back in Seattle. Reviews were mixed. There were the expected raves from local yokels, but more experienced Wagnerians had more reservations. (It was also sold out about a year ahead of time.)

I took a look at the upcoming opera season around here, and only Offenbach's The Tales of Hoffman interests me. I may attend it. The rest of the season is full of the Italian operas I do not like - why the hell is Puccini so popular? I tried Tosca and it sucks. The only "Italian" opera I have heard that I like is Falstaff. (I'm looking forward to treating myself to Nono's opera, but I hardly think that is an Italian opera as generally understood.) I'd love to head to the Met or to San Francisco, but the wife would cut me off from hardware upgrades were I to do that.

Throb
to get back to the question, I've come to the conclusion that I'm better off not looking at them. With them I lose the visual spectacle by concentrating too much on what they say, they can also be well out of sync with what's being sung.

A couple of year ago, I attended a study day at the ROH for Tristan und Isolde. I was amazed at the sheer level of detail that they went to with the musical phrasing of the singing. Certainly on the day, the singers and director, were both very anti-surtitles, complaining that audiences were not really listening to the singing any more as they were too busy following the plot. The director, went even further and partly blamed Wagner for the fact that it was near impossible to hear the singers in a reasonably sized opera house. He suggested we went to ENO and heard Montiverdi's Coronation of Poppea instead - what turned out to be an extremely good recommendation.

For me I've suffered the opposite, of having attended several performances at the ENO, where it's been near impossible to hear anything apart from the odd word in every phrase all evening. Even at the ROH, I've attended English opera where it would have been nice to have surtitles - personally I find them invaluable. I'd go even further and say that despite the reasonable to good quality of some ENO productions, I really think it's time they reevaluated thier purpose, and that there's little reason for continuing singing opera in English.

BTW, I saw the production of Khovanshchina first time round, and I'd also highly recommend it.

David

I don't understand the rationale behind singing in english at ENO. The theory is that this communicates better with an Anglophone audience. This may have been true when the company was founded, but technology has overtaken this policy. In practice, a large proportion of what is sung is unintelligble and so the audience is worse off than if the singing was in Italian (for example) with English surtitles.

shazeera,

don't let your preconceptions be a barrier to some great opera in London. Get yourself to ENO, no problems with jeans and sneakers there. You can usually get tickets on the day for £3. The 'cheaper' parts of Covent Garden are not that elitist either. You'll get some people looking down their surgically enhanced noses at you if you venture into the crush bar (stalls area) dressed like that, but that's their problem isn't it?

duncan

Email: djcritchley at hotmail.com

I have to say I'm in two minds about them. When watching an opera DVD, you can quite quickly ignore subtitles whilst reading every word, just as when viewing an involving foreign language film - after a while you're hardly conscious that they're there. In the opera house, I don't know.... I would imagine that every installation has to be judged within the context of its own theatre as to its helpfulness or intrusiveness. I too have heard tales of ricked necks [usually in the best seats, as well!] and the general criticism that it turns the audience into passive rather than active observers. From what I gather, the general consensus worldwide is that they are a Good Thing, and if you object to them, then just don't look. Easier said than done, I suspect! I'll just have to make my mind up when I see some.

To put this in context, ENO are for me my home team, and like any good supporter, I buy my season ticket, and have done so for the last 20 years, and so have seen pretty much everything they've done since 1980 [and the really good stuff five or six times !]. With regard to the ROH, for me it's sort of a Man. City / Man. Utd sort of a thing, - I used to go [a long time before surtitles] but in those days it was very much a question of big names trundling off the plane and giving their version of whatever, no matter what everybody else was doing. This usually meant a lot of standing about with a bit of gratuitous semaphore at particularly fraught moment. Things may have changed, and I really should give it another go, although there is only so much money I'm prepared to devote to opera and I spend quite a lot already!

For me, it's all about the theatrical experience. If I want vocal perfection, I can turn to CD's, but the best performance available in my own home is but a pale shadow of an average performance in the theatre, and to my mind thinking otherwise means you've completely misunderstood the form. Opera is not a dry academic recital beautifully recorded, it's a messy human breathing fallible business, and magical things happen in the darkness. Disbelief is suspended and no matter how many times you've seen it, a small silly part of you will think that maybe this time things will turn out alright for Butterfly, and perhaps, just perhaps, Pinkerton will come back. He doesn't, your eyes well up and you start worrying if your contacts are about to land on the woman in front's head. Todd, maybe when you've seen some Puccini you might understand. The reason his operas still crowd the repertory is that they're concise [all around 2 hrs], packed with great tunes, but most importantly they carry a lethal dramatic punch. Tosca particularly, - watching Scarpia hatch his evil plans as a counterpoint to the rest of the congregation singing the Te Deum to the accompaniment of swelling organ chords at the end of Act 1 before a swift curtain is just about as good as it gets - the hair on my back is standing up just thinking about it! Maybe a little circumspection before wild generalisations is in order. You've moved your goalposts a couple of times already in the short time you've begun to think about opera, and believe me if you like the form at all, you will gradually come round, and maybe go a little pink when you read your last few posts on the subject.....trust me.

For me the cherishable thing about ENO is that they present work that is dramatically coherent & contains respectable acting, together with physically plausible casting in well-rehearsed ensemble productions that explore, challenge and take risks. Having said that, over the years I've seen dull heritage stuff, and things that were completely bonkers [Ken Russell's 'Princess Ida' is best forgotten, I think]. Interestingly, the Calixto Bieito 'Un Ballo in Maschera'
, which stupid columnists seem to think is at the root of ENO's current woes, was one of the most powerful and effective things I've ever seen there.

The Coliseum has its own special problems - it's really too big for opera [far bigger than the ROH David, BTW] and, being designed for variety / music hall the accoustics are generally variable. As circumstances have permitted, I've gradually moved down from the balcony [where the sound is lovely, but mid range vocal clarity suffers] to the Dress Circle, - and even there it's variable [at the back it's complete crap, and not as good as the balcony at a fifth of the price]. Currently, I'm at the very front [thanks to a friend in the booking office] of the Upper Circle which, apart from the odd Stalls comp is the best so far, - and even then Khovanshchina was largely unintelligable, hence the original question. I understand that ENO are considering the LCD in the back of the seats option, as part of their £40m restoration, together with some serious electronic tweaking of the overall sound. Purists will no doubt be horrified, but I can't say I much mind.

Mostly, of course, it depends on the opera. If the vocal line is written with clarity in mind [and I've always found Wagner a paragon in this respect David, although haven't seen T&I - that's a treat for June 5th!]there isn't a problem. Pelleas too is as clear as crystal, although I've always found it a very long evening. It's Strauss & the other noisy buggers that give the problems. As to ENO forgoing english, even with surtitles I rather doubt it. As well as the audience understanding what's going on, having the cast at one with the language they're wittering on in brings enormous dramatic advantages. I suppose there could be a gradual shift towards english language operas [Handel, Britten, 20thC US etc] but I would imagine that there's enough demand for Mozart, Puccini, Verdi & all the other coach party toffee rustlers in English to keep them going just as they are.

Shahreza, - I think you're demented ... any uppitiness that you imagine is purely illusory. I don't think I've ever worn anything other than jeans and sneakers to the opera, and never once felt out of place. In fact, ENO's audience looks largely as if it's been strangely uprooted en masse from Marks & Spencer and the nearest leather bar [which might, I suppose, be intimidating for some], and I think at the ROH it's pretty much the same. At Glyndebourne you may have a point, but that is more to do with corporate hospitality and stupid aspirational picnics than anything else. 48% of ROH seats are £48 or under, and at ENO you can get a balcony seat for £6.50. My front of the Upper Circle seats are £26 a pop. This compares quite favourably with a first division football match, and in the case of ENO balcony seats with West End cinema. The weird idea that opera is necessarily elitist is usually only held by those who want it to be so, but to deny yourself an evening of economical musical delight because you find the publicity/hot air [?] cringing is plain daft. Berlioz's Les Troyens is just about to start, so I suggest you log on to www.eno.org snaffle a ticket sharpish, and I'll see you there.

throb

Quite a post, Throb. Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by throbnorth:
Todd, maybe when you've seen some Puccini you might understand. The reason his operas still crowd the repertory is that they're concise [all around 2 hrs], packed with great tunes, but most importantly they carry a lethal dramatic punch....Maybe a little circumspection before wild generalisations is in order. You've moved your goalposts a couple of times already in the short time you've begun to think about opera, and believe me if you like the form at all, you will gradually come round, and maybe go a little pink when you read your last few posts on the subject.....trust me.

throb

---

Possibly. You should realize that my initial dislike of opera was fueled by Italian opera. My local classical station plays a different opera each Saturday, and these are broadcasts from the best opera houses - the Met, the Lyric Opera, the Royal Opera, and so on. I tried for years to listen to various operas, almost always either Puccini, Rossini, Verdi, or Bellini, and almost never Wagner, Strauss, Berg, or the others I have found I like. I've tried about a dozen "Italian" operas since I began listening in earnest and only Falstaff really works for me. I greatly appreciate German, French, and Czech opera, but the Italian operas I have heard just don't float my boat. I've tried watching a couple of productions on television, too, and I just cannot get into them. I will attend an opera when one comes along that intrigues me - hell, if Les Troyens were staged here or in Seattle, I'd be on the phone as soon as the box office opened - but I have to go with what I like.

I'm less interested in tunes or great drama, per se, than with the quality of the text, the development of the music, and how the two interact. I think that's why I love Strauss, Berg, and some Wagner. While drama obviously plays a big role in these cases, tunes are generally less important, especially in Berg. And I have a hard time suspending disbelief. That is why I watch little television, see few movies, and read relatively little fiction, though I am working on that last point. I don't get as involved in the drama but pay more attention to details, if you will. I think we listen for different things in music, throb. Maybe I will grow to like Puccini, et al, but I’m not holding my breath.

[This message was edited by Todd Arola on MONDAY 27 January 2003 at 05:19.]

quote:

---

For me, it's all about the theatrical experience. If I want vocal perfection, I can turn to CD's, but the best performance available in my own home is but a pale shadow of an average performance in the theatre, and to my mind thinking otherwise means you've completely misunderstood the form………

……For me the cherishable thing about ENO is that they present work that is dramatically coherent & contains respectable acting

---

throbnorth,

I'm not sure what your experience of the ROH is, but very few of the performances that I've seen have been damaged by jet-setting stars. Going back a few years, I saw Pavarotti (for the grand sum of £7, AND I was wearing black jeans) in "Un Ballo in Maschera" who was wearing his own costumes (so didn't fit in with the rest of the production), his acting was non-existent, and he kept wandering off the stage whenever he felt like a drink of water. Even then, hearing a great voice in the theatre, was way above any performance you will be able to hear on your sistem at home, and although it's not one of my favourite operas, the evening was very enjoyable.

Whilst I've seen many good productions at ENO (and I plainly haven't seen anywhere near as many as you) and still go as often as I can, I've seen very few that I would describe as great. A great performance requires most - I don't think you ever get all - of the elements (singing, acting, conducting, orchestra playing and production) coming together. Although the productions at ENO may sometimes have good acting, the singing is rarely as good, the playing and conducting is usually good but not inspired and the productions often look plain cheap - under those conditions I find suspension of disbelief doesn't come quite so easy. This can be compounded by the operas being sung in an inappropriate language (Italian ones in particular seem to suffer) in a theatre that's generally too large so you often cannot hear or understand what is going on.

I'd really like to see ENO succeed - opera suffers enough from clichéd comments like shahreza's. Does opera suffer from hype? Compared to what? It's not in the same league as a Hollywood movie or a major sporting event. Do posh people go to opera, yes, but so what, the event is not put on solely for them. It's for anyone who wants to buy a ticket, and whilst it's not cheap, it's not out of whack with London theatre prices or Premiership football prices.

However, ENO needs to come up with some radical ideas if they are going to survive. Moving away from singing in English would be a positive step forward.

David

[This message was edited by David Hobbs-Mallyon on MONDAY 27 January 2003 at 12:35.]

The one time I've been to the Real Thing was Macbeth, sung in foreign, and there were surtitles advertised which I was quite pleased about...

But my seat was sufficiently well under the theatre balcony that I couldn't see them, and as it turned out I didn't miss them. I knew the story well enough that I could follow the plot, and I could actually look directly at the acting and staging rather than have one eye on that and one eye on the words.

So "it depends"...

Pete.

I go to the LA Opera and up in the high balcony it isn't such a difficult thing to watch the supertitles as well as the action (line of sight is closer). It is distracting in criticle moments to be reading instead of listening but I would not want to be without them as my language skills are limited. I do get the occaisional word or two. Heck I even have trouble when they are sung in English as the words are so stretched and manipulated. but it is the performance and staging that are so powerful.

glenn

David, - my ROH experience is really limited to about twelve performances in the 70's [which I now realise was not by any means a golden period]. Like you, I was in the cheap seats and at the mercy of one or two pillars, but nevertheless I enjoyed every single performance - to varying degrees; it was the convenient booking system [amongst other things] of ENO that drew me in and has made me a regular ever since. More, I will admit, a devoted enthusiast than a connoisseur, I just love opera with a strange and irrational passion, which is all the more surprising given that initially I loathed it [indeed all vocal music], which is why I view Todd's conversion with a predatory and fascinated gleam.

Seeing Pavarotti must have been an amazing experience, - I wish I'd seen Domingo a while back, when one might have had the benefits of both a voice and a performance.

Of course, you're right - at ENO you are never going to get Roberta & Angela, or Cecelia, Jessye or Placido or any of the rest of the gang. Nevertheless, at Khovanshchina last week we got John Tomlinson [whose Wotan has been good enough for Bayreuth for the last eight years, after all] and Willard White, also not exactly a lightweight - but stellar appearances are I will admit rare.

It's just a different ethos; for ENO, fostering vocal talent is more important than importing it, and unusual and sometimes obscure repertory performed at financial risk is deemed worth trying [e.g. Mephistophile & Don Quichotte while not being operas I would consider rushing out to buy on CD, were amazingly fun & spectacular evenings which gave you an insight into what the wilder shores of C19th grand opera are all about, and why it's worth preserving [I would love to see L'Africaine - suicide by tree ... what a hoot!].

Likewise, the recent production of Spontini's La Vestale introduced me to some amazing music - Berlioz & Cherubini's bastard father/son - Todd, you'd love it! And this in spite of pie-queen Jane Eaglen's Springeresque assumption of the title role,('F**k The Flame, I Need To Eat!)I just wish there was a decent recording. Fabulous orchestration, great choral stuff and good tunes, - what more could you want?

ENO & the ROH should, and for the most part are, complementary. As for great productions, well David, I can only assume you've been unlucky. Handel - anything ... ENO have pretty much set the benchmark as to how it's done. Britten - again, I've never seen less than excellence. Magic Flute, Love of Three Oranges , Nixon In China, Akhenaten ,Lady Macbeth, Wozzeck, War & Peace [both productions], Rake's Progress, Rigoletto, Lulu, Ballo - the list is endless. Economical looking productions are few and far between [although the current Eugene Onegin looks as if it's been sponsopred by D.F.S., and I was so appalled I don't remember anything about the singing!]. However, your description makes ENO sound largely a bit tatty and provincial, which it is not at all. Opulence and top-drawer spectacle are to be had aplenty. The only really duff performances I've seen are when core repertoire is reprised, giving younger principals a chance to strut their stuff. Thus, a second or third time out Carmen or Traviata is liable to be distinctly under par when compared with its original outing. Thus my advice would be to always always catch productions on their first run.

I think that ENO's current woes are entirely to do with bad management rather than the language its operas are performed in. Core repertoire is perversely avant garde for no good reason, some once excellent productions limp on way past their sell by date whilst others [e.g. a superb but rarely outed Falstaff disappears to be replaced by a version which is just rather different, but not quite as good. And Falstaff, whilst excellent, is not what I would think of as core Verdi - where is their new Otello or Aida?]

I just don't think that singing in the original language is going to happen, surtitles or no. Too much against ENO's core values. Hopefully, a lot of audibility problems will be solved by the Coliseum restoration. Reading a recent Guardian article, it seems that but for the benificence of the Arts Council, they would have gone bust last week, and my £200 of advance bookings with them, so I suppose I should count myself lucky. The topically terrorist Trojans [Pt 1]looks a corker by all accounts, so I'm glad that I'm still going to be able to see it.

For the future, unless they can persuade someone respectable to become artistic director, things look grim. A £40m restoration is no good unless there's something worth bringing back to it. Somehow I think they'll scrape by, but it will inevitably be a close thing.

Todd, - looking at my last post I think I seemed rather condescending, which given your many perceptive postings, especially about unusual repertoire and my lack of same is the last thing I would wish to appear. I would still say however, that listening to opera on disc is rather like listening to Shakespeare on the radio - you can enjoy it and appreciate it, but most of the point of it is missing, especially your sticking point, c19th Italian opera, when because of frequent performance and populist cultural position, practicioners really had got the measure of its potential as dramatic art. I would argue that in the c20th, opera composition was a luxury [given that there was a dramatic shift in opera's position around the turn of the century from popular to elitist art form], and few composers have had the freedom or experience to be able to fully exploit it [Strauss, & Britten excepted, maybe].

Verdi, despite his popular appeal is the most subtle of composers, and his work repays particular attention, - the big bosomed melodramatic surface is very deceptive, every opera has its own particular soundworld, and the span of his work has a depth and complexity that few other composers can match. Finding a key that resonates with your own sensibility is important, and if Falstaff appeals, then I would suggest gradually working backwards - there's a lot to discover.

throb

Very well stated, I'm rather new to opera and hated it at first till I got intrigued by Britten's Sea Passages in Peter Grimes. Glad I got to see it a second time last year here in LA with Langridge. I liked your observations on the problems facing it. It is an elitist form now as it is so expensive just like putting together a whole orchestra for a night if not for a season. Yet, there is no other experience like it. Hope the future is kinder to the performing arts. At least we have records of the past performers that are no longer around.