# Opera in English



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

English National Opera has opened a debate on opera sung in English.

My own view is that with surtitles and with libretti and synopses widely available on the internet there is no need now for opera to be sung in any other than its original language. I saw ENO's _Rigoletto_ and while the singing was superb, the words were clumsy. Looking at it from another angle, I'm seeing _Peter Grimes_ in Lyon later this year and I'd be terribly disappointed if it was sung in French. (It's not)

Also I actually enjoy hearing the language being sung even if I don't know what all the words mean.

However the theatre was full for _Rigelotto_, so maybe I'm in the minority.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

I wouldn't care to listen to Handel's operas sung in English or to listen to his oratorios in other language than English. Words fuse with the music at the moment of composition.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I usually can't understand the English anyway.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

The original language is very much a part of the art. Why meddle with it?


----------



## Yashin (Jul 22, 2011)

Whilst I enjoy hearing the Italian, German, French, Czech and Russian operas I do have a huge soft spot for opera in English.

I am a big fan of the Chandos opera in English label. 

Nowadays with so many of us downloading from iTunes, deezer, spotify et al....we don't get synposes or libretti.

Listening in English often opens our ears and expands our understanding and enjoyment of the opera in its original language.

Not all operas work in translation to English. Some on the Chandos series are wonderful...the La Boheme, Tosca, Turandot, Werther and La Traviata to name a few.

I am all for opera in English.


----------



## Oreb (Aug 8, 2013)

In general I don't like the idea of operas being translated for singing - it seems to me that the composers had a certain set of words (i.e. vowel and consonant combinations) in mind when they wrote the music and I can't help but think that changing those vowels and consonants must on some level change the composition. 

I also think that particular notes are intended to go with particular emotion/word clusters and I very much doubt that it's generally possible to accurately replicate those in the course of a coherent translation. 

All that said, some performances transcend this limitation. Goodall's Wagner, for example, while saddled with an English version (which is, admittedly, better than most) is of such majesty that I can overlook the problem. Still, for me in general, original language is the best.


----------



## Cloud (Feb 17, 2014)

Original language is the only way for me. If people have difficulty with subtitles, what is wrong with familiarising oneself with the story beforehand?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I like foreign languages. The easiest way to learn is when you get a "song" stuck in your head and the words run on a loop until you find out what's it all about


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

I can speak and read fluent in Russian but operas I need subtitles does matter in English or Russian, or Lithuanian I need subtitles.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I appear to be in a minority. Perhaps it was because ENO first got me into opera. Good singers, good orchestra, good production and (hopefully) an excellent translation won't leave anyone wanting.

Translation (in its many areas) is an artform of its own, particularly when the words need to be sung. I enjoy finding out how certain passages are rendered, and have occasionally had a go at it myself. Comic operas seem particularly suitable for English translations, especially as the audience will laugh at what is sung/spoken rather than when something appears in the surtitles. (Singers seem to hate that!) Whether every translation is a well done? That's another matter.

Look, now you've gone and made me put on the Goodall Ring records! Act I of Twilight of the Gods, I think it will be.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Levanda said:


> I can speak and read fluent in Russian but operas I need subtitles does matter in English or Russian, or Lithuanian I need subtitles.





Itullian said:


> I usually can't understand the English anyway.


Haha, yeah, exactly. I find that even in watching/listening some of my most beloved English language operas -- _Porgy and Bess_ or _Peter Grimes_ for instance -- I can usually only approximate what the singers are saying without the assistance of the libretto or surtitles. So singing foreign language operas in English in and of itself doesn't help me understand the nuances of the drama any better. Besides, there are many times where a translation can't possibly capture the essence of the original, like in the scene in Act III of Die Meistersinger where Beckmesser jumbles the words of the prize song. The way Wagner plays different words off each other in a humorous mash-up in German cannot be communicated to a foreign audience. And you're losing something invaluable in the translation process, the perfect lyrical beauty that's achieved by the great composers who seamlessly blend the words and music.

Not that I'm completely against it in concept, but in weighing the pros and cons I'd choose to listen to the original if possible almost every time.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Alexander said:


> Translation (in its many areas) is an artform of its own, particularly when the words need to be sung. I enjoy finding out how certain passages are rendered, and have occasionally had a go at it myself.


I agree, it's fun. Especially trying to make sense of the mess google translate throws at you! but in the opera house I prefer the original. That being said, I would have gone to see ENO's Rigoletto if the production didn't look so iffy.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I was rooting around for the Wagner quote I was thinking of, then I clicked the ENO link above and read it there. I think that article (although it's nothing new) puts the translation issue into a historical context.

To some degree the Wagner quote (below) counteracts the view about honouring the composers' intentions, and the tendency of many modern opera-goers to be too precious about it, certainly lacking the openness of Wagner and Verdi. Both were passionate about communicating with the audience.

Wagner to an Australian journalist: _I hope you will see to it that my works are performed in 'English': only in this way can they be intimately understood by an English-speaking audience. We are hoping that they will be so performed in London._ Given that opera-goers frequently came armed with librettos and translations back then I don't think the advent of surtitles would have altered Wagner's view on this.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2014)

To borrow an old phrase, so much gets lost in translation. Especially in an opera, when you try to translate, some of the meaning is going to be lost in the effort to fit the translation into the music, in terms of the sounds, rhyming, as well as the time span. Some have done this effectively, but it adds too much complexity. Yes, with digital downloads, you don't always get libretti with your download, but if you have the ability to download music, then it should be a piece of cake to also find and download the libretto - a simple google search will provide numerous choices. 

I say keep it in the original language.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

Alexander said:


> I was rooting around for the Wagner quote I was thinking of, then I clicked the ENO link above and read it there. I think that article (although it's nothing new) puts the translation issue into a historical context.
> 
> To some degree the Wagner quote (below) counteracts the view about honouring the composers' intentions, and the tendency of many modern opera-goers to be too precious about it, certainly lacking the openness of Wagner and Verdi. Both were passionate about communicating with the audience.
> 
> Wagner to an Australian journalist: _I hope you will see to it that my works are performed in 'English': only in this way can they be intimately understood by an English-speaking audience. We are hoping that they will be so performed in London._ Given that opera-goers frequently came armed with librettos and translations back then I don't think the advent of surtitles would have changes Wagner's view on this.


There's certainly a legitimate argument to be made for it, and ideally it could help an audience member more "intimately" understand the story. It definitely has it's advantages over surtitles, which often give basic summaries of what's being said in more wordy passages. In a way it's a simple matter of give and take and what you value more; greater dramatic clarity or aesthetic harmony. Unfortunately I find for me, in practice, it isn't that simple of an exchange. I usually misunderstand or simply fail to interpret words or entire phrases even in English due to the characteristics of classical singing; complex rhythmic deliveries, the elongation of vowels, characters singing in ensembles, etc. For me, following a libretto with the original language and translation side by side is the most effective way to thoroughly understand the intricacies of the poetic drama.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

Some time ago, I heard The Magic Flute sung in English. I found I actually prefer it in German. I should mention that my German is decent -- my mother is Austrian -- but the translation was rather clumsy at times, and some of the opera seemed almost to be heavily re-written in order to make the words fit the music.

I also have heard a rendition of Carmen in English, and I positively loathed it. (I must also say that my French is better than my German, thanks to having lived in Quebec for five years as a child.) I shall do no more than mention that abomination by Oscar Hammerstein that is Carmen Jones. 

A note on Italian. Almost all words end in vowels, so making rhymes is not a problem in that language.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Opera in English is good if you believe the drama should be understood. I remember getting into staged opera when I heard The Flute and also Cosi in English. Really good staging and singing in clear English so what is going on can be followed, of course, it is pointless if you cannot understand the words! I prefer this if I am watching an opera live on stage because it aids the drama. Of course if you are in the cinema or watching on TV then subtitles are readily available.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden (May 5, 2013)

I guess we get the best of both worlds today. In Verdi and Wagner's time, you either sat with your head in your lap following the words to understand their meaning but missed out on all the theatricals on stage, or took in the spectacle with little understanding of its meaning. Now I can sit with a libretto at home to fully appreciate the all the little details of the dramatic construction, and when I see an opera live I'm fine with simply being guided by the surtitles and experiencing the power of live theater.


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

Well honestly for me even opera in Russian I have trouble to keep up with worlds so I want subtitles. Last week I watched opera War and Peace it was in Russian I choose English subtitles just to understand words.


----------



## Dongiovanni (Jul 30, 2012)

It may need good subtitles and some studying, but I strongly prefer original language, no matter what language it is.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

In general, I prefer the original language, even though I understand little of the words being sung ..... although it appears to have been quite common for opera to be sung in translation, somehow, it doesn't sound 'right', but I'm not sure if this is beacuse we become accustomed to hearing it sung a certain way

For example, I was listening yesterday to a marvellous mezzo, Zara Dolukhanova sing Schubert in Russian ... and even though I speak neither language, the Schubertski version sounded distinctly peculiar. Not sure, though, that I would be able to tell the difference with less familiar repertoire - for example Sibelius' songs sung in German (or even distinguish the differences that the language would make to the singing).


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> I agree, it's fun. Especially trying to make sense of the mess google translate throws at you! but in the opera house I prefer the original. That being said, I would have gone to see ENO's Rigoletto if the production didn't look so iffy.


"Woman is fickle
False altogether
Just like a feather 
Borne by the breezes."

No need to suffer through that. Easy enough to find out what La Donna e mobile means.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I definitely prefer opera in its original language, so long as there are surtitles to help. As so many have already said, when people are singing even in one's native language, you can miss words and find the song not readily comprehensible. When we went to see English Touring Opera's 'Agrippina' last autumn, it was in English, but with slightly twee surtitles summarising the scene. 

I relied on those surtitles, because I often hadn't the foggiest what they were singing about. 
It was a very funny production, but the humour depended on stage business and the acting and gestures of the singers, especially Agrippina, who was superb. So again, the English translation was redundant.

The whole production might just as well have been in the original Italian.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

Revenant said:


> "Woman is fickle
> False altogether
> Just like a feather
> Borne by the breezes."
> ...


But you're quoting one of the most famous arias in opera!

The dilemma for the translator is whether to go poetic or vernacular. No doubt he'll be criticised whatever he does. (Or she, of course).

Plume in the summerwind
Waywardly playing
Ne'er one way swaying
Each whim obeying;

Thus heart of womankind
Ev'ry way bendeth,
Woe who dependeth
On joy she spendeth!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think opera in the original language is best if I speak that language. I speak English.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I think opera in the original language is best if I speak that language. I speak English.


There are hundreds of English operas to enjoy and Handel wrote some in English.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

Alexander said:


> But you're quoting one of the most famous arias in opera!
> 
> The dilemma for the translator is whether to go poetic or vernacular. No doubt he'll be criticised whatever he does. (Or she, of course).
> 
> ...


If he sang such flowery and obnoxiously cloying Wordsworthian doggerel, Sparafucile would have stabbed him several times, regardless of how much Maddalena pleaded!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

and whilst stabbing, he would have sung in equally flowery language!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> and whilst stabbing, he would have sung in equally flowery language!


No. Sparafucile was terse and concise. He would have kept repeating "Mio nome e Sparafucile, e questo e pe' te'" (Sicilian regional dialect, as per GII).


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Revenant said:


> No. Sparafucile was terse and concise. He would have kept repeating "Mio nome e Sparafucile, e questo e pe' te'" (Sicilian regional dialect, as per GII).


Borgognone = Burnley so it would be a Lancashire dialect


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Revenant said:


> If he sang such flowery and obnoxiously cloying Wordsworthian doggerel, Sparafucile would have stabbed him several times, regardless of how much Maddalena pleaded!


:lol:

..........................................


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Revenant said:


> No. Sparafucile was terse and concise. He would have kept repeating "Mio nome e Sparafucile, e questo e pe' te'" (Sicilian regional dialect, as per GII).


since when was opera realistic?


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

Alexander said:


> The dilemma for the translator is whether to go poetic or vernacular. No doubt he'll be criticised whatever he does. (Or she, of course).


That is really one of the major problems, isn't it. I'm thinking of the 2 1/3 translations of Dante's _Divine Comedy_ that I have. One is by Dorothy Sayers (yes, the woman who wrote the Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries). Sayers has a very clunky translation, undoubtedly because she attempted to keep Dante's rhyme scheme and meter. (OTOH, her notes are excellent, and you do need notes to keep track of things such as 13the century Italian politics, theology, mythology and so on.) I have another translation by John Ciardi, whose notes are worse but whose translation is far more readable -- Sayers was a scholar, Ciardi was a poet. I suspect that Ciardi, who attempted to render the poem in 20th century American idiom, may have gone a bit too far in the freedom of his verse. The 1/3 of a translation is a translation of _The Inferno_ by Robert Pinsky, who is a better poet than Ciardi but whose notes are the worst of the three.

There is an Italian phrase, _tradurre e tradire_ -- "translation is treason". Any attempt to translate something from one language to another has inherent difficulties. That's not to say it can't be done at all, or even done well. Villion's « _Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?_ » was brilliantly translated by Dante Gabriel Rossetti as "Where are the snows of yesteryear?" My Old Testament professor, a man I would deem capable of making such a judgment, said that the King James Version's 23rd Psalm was better poetry than the Masoretic Hebrew. On the other hand, I have a translation of Karl Barth's _The Epistle to the Romans_ that is excessively literal -- the sort of translation that any reasonable language teacher would hand back and say, "Now write this in English." (Michael Flanders rendering "La Belle Dame Sans Merci" as "The Beautiful Lady Who Never Says 'Thank You'" just flashed though my mind. Oh, well.)

So the real problems with translations are (1) being faithful to the original text, (b) rendering the text into reasonable English and (iii) in the case of text to be set to music, having the text match the music. Unless one can do all three, it simply is not going to work.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

There seems to be a trend in recent years to produce more literal translations that sound decidedly clumsy - an unfortunate trend, imo.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

^ speaking of literal translations, check out the English subtitles on *this one* (you need to turn the captions on, normally they are off). I was in hysterics. Bless their heart, whoever did it. Btw, it's well sung.


----------



## katdad (Jan 1, 2009)

I've both attended and performed operas translated into English. The problem is simple: it's essential that the rhythm of the translation be close to the original syntax, otherwise the singing is just clumsy. Original librettos were written for the most part by very skilled poets, essentially. Any attempt to translate needs to be therefore done by a superb writer who's fluent in the original and the recipient language. The writer must also be cognizant of the music itself, and to blend words with music. So the challenge is extensively difficult and not always successful.

Should this be done at all? Well, I'm okay with the effort and really don't have any objections to a company performing operas in English (or in any other vernacular language rather than the original). But it's a lot harder task than might be first imagined.

After all, we've got surtitles and those are terrific, a great boon to opera. And let's face it -- hearing the singers in a language we understand doesn't always guarantee we will understand what they're singing. In fact, usually not. So translating operas into the vernacular is essentially spinning cobwebs.


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

sospiro said:


> Borgognone = Burnley so it would be a Lancashire dialect


I thought Rig was asking him what wine had made him tipsy enough to offer his services as a hit man. Sparafucile replied that no, it was no wine from southern Italy. It was burgundy!


----------



## Revenant (Aug 27, 2013)

deggial said:


> since when was opera realistic?


Since no time. It's supposed to be good, though.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

deggial said:


> ^ speaking of literal translations, check out the English subtitles on *this one* (you need to turn the captions on, normally they are off). I was in hysterics. Bless their heart, whoever did it. Btw, it's well sung.


What a find! Yes the subtitles are _unusual_ (!) but I enjoyed it.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Quinn Kelsey (with a little help from Iain Paterson and Stuart Skelton!) explains the challenges he faced singing the role in English in ENO's Rigoletto.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

My sister sang opera for 15 years in a medium sized German opera house starting in the mid sixties. All operas were translated into German and this was the custom all over Germany except for perhaps Berlin or Munich. She felt they had the right idea and likes opera in the vernacular. I do agree with subtitles it is not a big issue now, but the Germans showed no snobbery about the original language. One still needs subtitles for sopranos whatever the language, not just my beloved Joanie.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingélou said:


> There seems to be a trend in recent years to produce more literal translations that sound decidedly clumsy - an unfortunate trend, imo.


I never will understand why anyone needs a singing translation. They always sound akward and don't fit the music.


----------



## Nervous Gentleman (Mar 15, 2014)

deggial said:


> ^ speaking of literal translations, check out the English subtitles on *this one* (you need to turn the captions on, normally they are off). I was in hysterics. Bless their heart, whoever did it. Btw, it's well sung.


:lol:

That was me who created the subs a couple of years ago. I acquired copies of two different vocal scores and an English translation and then like a crazy person I carefully subtitled each and every line, frequently re-ordering the words whenever necessary to try to keep them in synch as much as possible with the vocals. I was afraid that the final result might look a bit, er, eccentric! :lol: But after working on it for so long I lost all perspective!

I have a number of other custom subbed opera videos at my YouTube channel and another half dozen waiting to be completed and posted. I am currently finishing off revising English subs for the 1965 color film of "Hary Janos." Not surprisingly, I've grown sick of the whole business and I have to drag myself to the computer to work on these. Hopefully I'll be able to finish all those that I started.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Nervous Gentleman said:


> :lol: That was me who created the subs a couple of years ago. I acquired copies of two different vocal scores and an English translation and then like a crazy person I carefully subtitled each and every line, frequently re-ordering the words whenever necessary to try to keep them in synch as much as possible with the vocals. I was afraid that the final result might look a bit, er, eccentric! :lol: But after working on it for so long I lost all perspective!


Great to have the actual sub-titler on here!



Nervous Gentleman said:


> I have a number of other custom subbed opera videos at my YouTube channel and another half dozen waiting to be completed and posted. I am currently finishing off revising English subs for the 1965 color film of "Hary Janos." Not surprisingly, I've grown sick of the whole business and I have to drag myself to the computer to work on these. Hopefully I'll be able to finish all those that I started.


It must be an incredibly difficult thing to do. This may seem a stupid question but do you need to be fluent in the original language?

I've never heard of Háry János but I'm going to look for a recording. Good luck with the subs.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I finally took a look at this subtitled video. Haven't watch it all, but I like the use of language. People seem adverse to the idea of using the great vocabulary of the English language, particularly the usage of near-archaic words.


----------



## Nervous Gentleman (Mar 15, 2014)

Alexander said:


> I finally took a look at this subtitled video. Haven't watch it all, but I like the use of language. People seem adverse to the idea of using the great vocabulary of the English language, particularly the usage of near-archaic words.


Ha ha... Yeah, I have a real love for the old stuff: 18th, 19th-century English literature. More particularly when I worked on that project I would purposely opt for a word that resembled the original Italian (no matter how archaic it sounded). It's amazing how many English words resemble words with similar meaning in other European languages, but then I suppose that's not very surprising.

In answer to another question above: no, I am not fluent in any of these languages. I am, however, fairly adept at making use of innumerable online dictionaries and translators and then comparing these to the professional translations that I acquire and make minor adjustments whenever I think it necessary to keep the words somewhat in synchronisation with the vocal lines, e.g. if there is a particular emphasis on a word, but the available translation necessarily places that word's equivalent in a word order that is unworkable, I won't scruple to play around a bit with the phrasing, although sometimes the results can appear somewhat convoluted.

So much of opera is dependant upon the skillful interplay between music and text that a grammatically correct translation will completely obscure this interplay, particularly in instances when the musical emphasis falls on a certain phrase. This becomes particularly evident and problematic when adapting translations for use in subtitles.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Nervous Gentleman:


> So much of opera is dependant upon the skillful interplay between music and text that a grammatically correct translation will completely obscure this interplay, particularly in instances when the musical emphasis falls on a certain phrase.


How right you are!!! I never listen to an opera without the libretto handy. The emotional resonance and intellectual insight gets supercharged to the n-th degree when you do so. . . every word, syllable, and phrase.


----------



## msegers (Oct 17, 2008)

Nervous Gentleman said:


> :lol:
> 
> That was me who created the subs a couple of years ago. I acquired copies of two different vocal scores and an English translation and then like a crazy person I carefully subtitled each and every line, frequently re-ordering the words whenever necessary to try to keep them in synch as much as possible with the vocals. I was afraid that the final result might look a bit, er, eccentric! :lol: But after working on it for so long I lost all perspective!
> 
> I have a number of other custom subbed opera videos at my YouTube channel and another half dozen waiting to be completed and posted. I am currently finishing off revising English subs for the 1965 color film of "Hary Janos." Not surprisingly, I've grown sick of the whole business and I have to drag myself to the computer to work on these. Hopefully I'll be able to finish all those that I started.


I am quite a fan of *Nervous Gentleman*'s Youtube discoveries. As the person who first mentioned one of his videos said, you can get them with or without subs. Especially since where I live, I cannot attend live performances, I cherish opera videos, and for me English subs are a deal-breaker. If there are no English (or Spanish) subs, I don't bother.

My most recent experience of one of his videos was of _La Wally_, which is not even available on a professional DVD. Not only does he offer the video (which can be found elsewhere), but also he provided subtitles. It was, for me, an amazing experience to get to know an opera that was never performed at the Met but four times, and I am so grateful to him.

I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for him to create subtitles - in terms of language and technology. You can find his Youtube index page (with his assortment of rare operas with subtitles) here.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I copied a post from the "What Opera Are You Listening To" thread (original post) over to here for discussion:



Fritz Kobus said:


> I finally figured out what is wrong with all these sung-in-English operas. The music and singing can be wonderful, and so it is here, but the bare fact is that English is just not a beautiful sounding language. It is as simple as that. Oh, the translation can further damage it but mainly I think it is the language. German, Italian, Russian, French all sound beautiful, but what is it about English?





NickFuller said:


> I'd disagree that English isn't a beautiful language. There's Shakespeare, for a start.
> (Is German a beautiful language?)
> 
> English mayn't have the long, open vowels of Italian, but it's a flexible language that draws on both Germanic (Saxon) and Latin (Norman) roots. It gives itself to clever wordplay. Think of W. S. Gilbert, Cole Porter, Noel Coward, Tom Lehrer, and Stephen Sondheim!
> ...


I am afraid that I am not familiar with any of the referenced people you note. My Shakespeare experience is very limited, other than Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream and one book I had to read in high school. I would have to go back and listen to my written-in-English operas to see if they work better for me. I have a few, Gloriana for one.

Also your point about German. It does seem like a harsher sounding language, yet Flotow's Martha flows beautifully in German, and I can't bear to listen to the Italian or English translations of Martha.

On the other hand Giulio Cesare works for me in several languages, especially the English translation staring Janet Baker and Valerie Masterson (on Video and CD).


----------



## peeknocker (Feb 14, 2012)

Ha ha... Nervous Gentleman and myself are one and the same. I forgot that I accidentally created two different accounts for this site. Oops...


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Fritz Kobus said:


> I copied a post from the "What Opera Are You Listening To" thread (original post) over to here for discussion:


Hello!



> I am afraid that I am not familiar with any of the referenced people you note.


Five of the cleverest wordsmiths in English. Gilbert was the other half of G&S (_Pirates of Penzance_, _The Mikado_). 
Coward was a mid-20th century English playwright (_Hay Fever_, _Private Lives_, _Blithe Spirit_) and entertainer; his most famous song is probably "Mad Dogs and Englishmen". "The Stately Homes of England" and "Mrs. Worthington" are also fun.
Cole Porter and Stephen Sondheim wrote Broadway musicals. Porter's hits include "Anything Goes", "You're the Top", "I Get a Kick Out of You", and "It's De-Lovely". 
Sondheim's musicals include revenge thrillers (_Sweeney Todd_), Mozartean comedies (_A Little Night Music_), kabuki historical pieces (_Pacific Overtures_), fairy tales (_Into the Woods_), and reflections on art (_Sunday in the Park with George_). They're structurally ingenious, with sophisticated wordplay and nuanced characterization. His most famous song is "Bring On the Clowns".
Tom Lehrer was a Harvard mathematician who wrote satirical, often blackly humorous, songs; "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park", "When You Are Old and Gray", "Clementine", "Oedipus Rex", and "I Hold Your Hand in Mine". Brilliant internal rhymes.



> My Shakespeare experience is very limited, other than Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream and one book I had to read in high school. I would have to go back and listen to my written-in-English operas to see if they work better for me. I have a few, Gloriana for one.


Reading Shakespeare in class is like studying a film script rather than watching the movie! Speaking of which: Kenneth Branagh's movies are really entertaining; try his _Hamlet_ and _Love's Labours Lost_. Also, the _Richard III_ with Ian McKellen set in an alternate '30s; it's an update that works.

I haven't heard _Gloriana_, but I've seen two other Britten operas live, both done by Opera Australia. _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ was one of the most magical nights I've had at the opera; this was Baz Luhrmann's production, set in the India of the Raj. (



) _Billy Budd_ is terrific - a big, almost Verdian opera, with three strong male roles, a moral dilemma, and impressive choruses. Have you seen the '60s BBC production?

And talking about Shakespeare and opera in English, Barber's _Antony and Cleopatra_ is beautiful. Here's Leontyne Price, who created the role: 






> Also your point about German. It does seem like a harsher sounding language, yet Flotow's Martha flows beautifully in German, and I can't bear to listen to the Italian or English translations of Martha.
> 
> On the other hand Giulio Cesare works for me in several languages, especially the English translation staring Janet Baker and Valerie Masterson (on Video and CD).


Is it that Handel's opera is more of a vehicle for singing, so the words, in a way, don't matter as much?

The advantage, though, of translation is singers can sing in their own language, and the audience can understand it. It's more immediate, and less risk of mispronunciation. It was the norm in the 19th century; and Wagner wanted his operas/music dramas staged in the local language.

Translation, though, can make the opera sound weird. Like you with _Martha_, operas sung in translation can sound slightly off. The original music was written to fit a text; in translation, the stresses and emphases often change. And translation can also change the style. Operas done in English (even Berlioz's!) often sound like Gilbert & Sullivan (which may be why G&S prepared me for opera). _Aida_ in French sounds like Meyerbeer or Gounod; Meyerbeer's _Africaine_ or _Prophète_ in German sound almost Wagnerian. But there are some great translations; I know you think highly of the Chandos _Ring_, and I've seen a brilliant _Barber of Seville_ in English.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

NickFuller said:


> Translation, though, can make the opera sound weird. Like you with _Martha_, operas sung in translation can sound slightly off. The original music was written to fit a text; in translation, the stresses and emphases often change. And translation can also change the style. Operas done in English (even Berlioz's!) often sound like Gilbert & Sullivan (which may be why G&S prepared me for opera). _Aida_ in French sounds like Meyerbeer or Gounod; Meyerbeer's _Africaine_ or _Prophète_ in German sound almost Wagnerian. But there are some great translations; I know you think highly of the Chandos _Ring_, and I've seen a brilliant _Barber of Seville_ in English.


Well you've given me a whole lot to digest. I have the Leontyne clip going in the background and, as always, she sounds great! And the words sound good too, like they were meant to be sung that way.

My other opera originally written in English is Balfe's Bohemian Girl.

Gilbert and Sullivan does not work for me, so far. In fact, my sung-in-English Martha has a Gilbert and Sullivan rollickingly goofy character to it, and I find it a bit I have not found the G&S effect on other opera done in English though.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

I own the Chandos Opera in English recordings of LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR and TOSCA. Both are superb, IMO. That said, the main attraction of these recordings, for me, is the singing-as-singing and the conducting, rather than the fact that they're in English. It's not that the translations don't (mostly) sit well on the music -- or that English is not a beautiful language (whether it is or isn't is strictly a matter of opinion) -- it's just that the music of Donizetti and Puccini sounds much better in Italian.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Yesterday I tried two originally composed for English language. I like both of these. The stories are wonderful. There is much great singing. But overall they do not keep my interest musically like Italian, German, and Russian opera do. But that is more the music, and the singing in these is quite good.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bellinilover said:


> I own the Chandos Opera in English recordings of LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR and TOSCA. Both are superb, IMO. That said, the main attraction of these recordings, for me, is the singing-as-singing and the conducting, rather than the fact that they're in English. It's not that the translations don't (mostly) sit well on the music -- or that English is not a beautiful language (whether it is or isn't is strictly a matter of opinion) -- it's just that the music of Donizetti and Puccini sounds much better in Italian.


I have that Tosca and it is pretty good. Also on second listen to Eugene Onegin I am appreciating that I can make out most of the words and am actually following better than with the DVD since the DVD does not usually have the entire libretto reproduced in the subtitles.










I have a lot of these operas in English. As I recall, a few more that are pretty good include The Flying Dutchman and The Thieving Magpie. In fact, I only had the English for Thieving Magpie and recently got an Italian set, but still prefer the English set.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Pugg said:


> ​
> *Mozart*: Cosi Fan Tutte
> 
> E. Steber, B. Thebom, R. Peters , Tucker et al
> ...


This is the only one I really like, when in a very good mood I sing all the parts.:lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

This one has very clear English that I can easily follow.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Many years ago I saw "Marriage of Figaro" in English. In the week or so before the performance I played the original version many times, so that the music was in my head.

Great experience.


----------

