| Subject: |
|
Re: HOT TOPIC - Text Message (language in opera) |
| Name: |
|
James Conway |
| Date Posted: |
|
Sep 17, 07 - 6:37 AM |
| Email: |
|
james.conway@englishtouringopera.org.uk |
| Website: |
|
http://www.englishtouringopera.org.uk |
| Message: |
|
Much ink has been spilled on the subject of language in opera; the least interesting expenditure of ink has related to performing in the language of composition with surtitles in the predominant language of the audience, or sung in the predominant language of the audience, or even sung and surtitled in that language at the same time.
The relation of word and text is far more complex than suggested in such controversy. So, too, is the issue of duration and apprehension. In a typical Handel aria the text may be repeated 8 or 12 times in an A section, in different patterns of repetition, in different patterns of pitches, with varying (and probably deepening) expressiveness. Then, after a contrasting B section, the whole thing is repeated with vocal ornamentation - drawing on the particular expressive palette of the singer – deepening still further the understanding of the emotional state portrayed in the aria. Obviously, meaning is being conveyed at a different speed, and with a different intensity, than it would be during a passage of recitative. The stage director only works against that intensity by filling up the time with naturalistic business; likewise, the flashing surtitle screen, digitally displaying the text as it is sung, does little to reflect the complexity of the experience, the fullness of the emotional state. It is something – but not always something valuable.
I would contend that during arias, at least, gradual apprehension of musical form, and gradual apprehension of the meaning of words (words defined by the pitches setting them and the varied patterns of repetition just as much as by any literal meaning), is the richest and most faithful objective. That seems to me to be reflected in the layout of the word book that would have been distributed at its London performances under Handel’s direction: the recitative is translated (including passages that he suppressed before the premiere, but which aided understanding of the plot), settings described (for settings have ever been suggestive, the theatricality of stage machinery remarkably consistent in its effects), and when it comes to an aria there is an editorial comment about the emotional state of the character which the aria describes, leaving the audience to deal with it in a complex, gradual way – as opposed to immediate comprehension.
I cannot see why immediate comprehension should be the goal of any operatic –nay, artistic – experience. Clarity is the great value, certainly – but clarity is not to be equated with simple-mindedness. Clarity of purpose in direction, clarity in relationship to musical form, clarity (and suggestiveness) in design are all vital, as is clarity of diction in singing. But I protest that there is much cant talked about clarity of diction in opera sung in English (it’s simply not much of a subject in Germany, where most opera is sung in German, or in Italy, though it does enjoy a rather chauvinistic vogue in France), chiefly voiced by people who wouldn’t have any idea if diction was good in other sung languages. Of course diction is a value, of course singing in words, using words to create expressive impact, is crucial – but it simply is not all about immediate comprehension. It’s not a sitcom on television, with the volume control hoiked up to fill the sitting room… I digress.
I (might as well start another paragraph in the first person, as it’s an opinion) feel we are generally unsophisticated in the ways in which we consider displaying text in theatres, and that we should catch up to the sophistication of the forms of theatre we present. From a design point of view, digital display fonts, colours and screens, designed as they are for contrast and clarity, rarely have anything to do with production design or theatre architecture. To say that Mimi and Rodolfo’s poetic first meeting looks banal when reduced to display there is to understate the case considerably; to say that it’s artistic to segment the text of the scene according to the number of letter-spaces available on that screen is risible; to flash high-velocity comic dialogue there when it is sung in English on the stage is downright stupid, unless it being presented, laudably, for a the hearing-impaired members of the audience.
The issue of ‘captioning’ for the large percentage of the lyric theatre audience that is hearing-impaired is an important and complex subject, and a challenge to a society that holds access as a value. I’d contend that this issue, too, needs to be addressed with subtlety; if the attempt is to reproduce the experience of the fully hearing audience, then the reproduction is of a complex situation, and not necessarily an immediate literal representation of text and stage noise. Deliberate ambiguities, delayed and prolonged apprehension, dynamic variation: surely we have to think of reproducing these, as well. Though it’s pleasing to set it out that way in a policy statement, ther |
|
Replies:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
Home
bravenet.com