# Opera in Translation



## Grosse Fugue (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm no fan of opera sung in anything but the original langauge. I still feel the emotions of the aria. I did wonder however what people think of this. Any here argee with the article? Any rebuttals

http://www.operanews.com/operanews/templates/content.aspx?id=18113


----------



## ozradio (Oct 23, 2008)

I generally can't understand operas sung in English, like Handel, without a libretto anyway. Still, I prefer them in the original language.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Grosse Fugue said:


> I'm no fan of opera sung in anything but the original langauge. I still feel the emotions of the aria. I did wonder however what people think of this. Any here argee with the article? Any rebuttals
> 
> http://www.operanews.com/operanews/templates/content.aspx?id=18113


Yes, I had read the article on Opera News before, and must say that I have rarely read something as ridiculous.

There is an easy way to demonstrate to English speaking people how misguided this "professor" is. Just take an opera originally composed with an English libretto in mind, and ask yourself whether it would sound the same in another language.

Take for instance Porgy and Bess. Imagine a performance of it in Paris, translated into French.

The iconic aria Summertime woud sound like this:

"Summertime......" would become "étéeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...."

"Fish are jumping...." would become "les poissons sont en train the sauter...."

QED


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I too find Hugh MacDonald's argument rather weak. The trouble with translating libretti is that, no matter how skillfully done, one can never satisfactory simulate the rhythms, metres and sound of the original. Just compare the most common languages for opera - Italian, French, German and Russian. Each one of these languages functions in a very different way (with French and Italian being the most similar, although sounding very different). Sentences are constructed in different ways and the number of syllables required to express a simple idea can vary enormously from one language to another. And then there is the SOUND of each language, often skillfully exploited by the librettist and composer. All these things cannot be interchanged without sometimes unintentionally hilarious or painfully awkward results.

Of course, one wants the audience to appreciate the libretto and so devices like surtitles need to be more widespread, as well as full libretti and local translations in the programme book (which should be kept to an affordable price).


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I agree. In the past,before the time of the easy availability of complete opera recordings with the synopsis and English translation next to the original libretto and before the days of international casts at major opera houses, and supertitles and Metittles,opera in translation was a very good idea.
But now,at the Met and other international houses,it's totally impractical to have Italian opera singers who fly all over the globe learn to sing Italian opera in English, or French ,German,Russian and Czech etc ones to sing the operas of their countries in translation.
Opera in translation might be a good idea in some cases. Suppose the Met were to do an opera like Nielsen's Maskarade(which would be cause for rejoicing!). Danish is an obscure language an very difficult ot learn to sing,,so it would be a good idea to do it in English there.
And there are quite a few excellent Scandinavian opera singers ,who tend to speak English very well anyway for whom singing in English would not be a problem at all.
I have a DVD of a recent production from the Royal opera in Copenhagen which comes with English subtitles, and I recommend it highly to any one who doesn't have it yet.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

As someone who treasures cultural diversity I see this as ignorant attitude. I wouldn't buy tickets to translated performance. When I hear Czech opera about Czech people I want to hear it in their language. It's easiest road and lazy people would benefit but those who want true thing wouldn't, it just kills half of pleasure and goods for the mind. I even don't want to imagine what kind of bloody geezer could write something like that - certainly not someone who appreciate all that opera has to offer.

The guy writes:



> It is ironic that as English moves inexorably toward becoming a global language understood by educated people everywhere


So it was with many languages in the past. Italian, French. English as 'global' language will very likely also pass away.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

I also disagree with Hugh McDonald's view. For me opera should always be sung in the original language.

Last year I went to a local production of Don Pasquale sung in English and it just didn't work.


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

You have subtitles. If you don't think that's enough, you can learn the language.

The human voice has intrinsic value in the context of opera, it's not theatre where the only important thing is to get to know the character's feelings through spoken words. The music itself, and the sounds that are made by singing the words attached to the music, are just as important if you are to get the whole picture that the composer wanted to put forth.

We should respect the composers and approach their work of art as envisioned by them, rather than changing *it* to meet our lazy demands.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

If my seven-year-old can manage to watch opera and read the subtitles I can't see why the general public can't.


----------



## jflatter (Mar 31, 2010)

In the UK the 2nd biggest opera company is the English National Opera based in London who sing only in English but who put on some interesting productions from time to time. They have the Parsifal which Baden Baden used in their recent DVD directed by Nicolas Lehnhoff being revived next month. Furthermore they are also staging The Damnation of Faust (they always use the English translation of the title) which is being directed by Terry Gilliam. They also like many other companies put on some duff productions. I am going to see the Parsifal and will report on that in the appropriate thread. 

Charles Mackerras lead the company through the 60s and many of of his pioneering works realting to Janacek were originally sung in English. Which probably helped with their appeal becoming more enduring. 

Roughly around 12 months ago I saw The Gambler by Prokofiev where the Royal Opera made the unusual decision to stage the piece in English. I think that due to the music and the singspiel nature of the work it was the right move. Otherwise the humour could have been lost in subtitles.

However I do not follow Hugh Macdonalds view on this. I don't think that there is a right and a wrong on this. I don't think we should take an elitist view that all operas should be sung in their original language. I can see why the Met have staged certain operas in English at Christmas time. You have to remember that they are businesses and needed to put bums on seats. Therefore they need to attract new audiences as far and wide as possible.

The Royal Opera in the UK actually got heavily criticised by many of the press critics for not putting on Hansel and Gretel in English. If you see my 'what you seen recently' thread, I have mixed views about that as well.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no right and wrong answer in this and that sometimes we need to go with the flow a little bit.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

It's a much more complicated issue than it might appear. Translation is a subject that is extremely complex and interesting. My short answer would be no, it can't / shouldn't be done. My longer answer would be that due to the nature of translation, it would require someone who is a genius in the art of translation to the same degree that, say, Mozart was a musical genius, in order to get a translation that works both semantically, rhythmically, and aurally.

Douglas Hofstadter (who you may or may not know as the author of the Pulitzer winning "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" which is, in my estimation, one of the great achievements of the 20th Century) has addressed the issue of translation in several of his works, most notably "Le Ton Beau de Marot", in which he challenges dozens of his friends to translate a simple poem written to a child, and as he analyzes their results he muses on the complexities of translation and conflicting demands made upon translators.

Can't really do the book justice but I can't recommend it (and all of Mr. Hofstadter's writings) highly enough.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

rgz said:


> It's a much more complicated issue than it might appear. Translation is a subject that is extremely complex and interesting. My short answer would be no, it can't / shouldn't be done. My longer answer would be that due to the nature of translation, it would require someone who is a genius in the art of translation to the same degree that, say, Mozart was a musical genius, in order to get a translation that works both semantically, rhythmically, and aurally.
> 
> Douglas Hofstadter (who you may or may not know as the author of the Pulitzer winning "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" which is, in my estimation, one of the great achievements of the 20th Century) has addressed the issue of translation in several of his works, most notably "Le Ton Beau de Marot", in which he challenges dozens of his friends to translate a simple poem written to a child, and as he analyzes their results he muses on the complexities of translation and conflicting demands made upon translators.
> 
> Can't really do the book justice but I can't recommend it (and all of Mr. Hofstadter's writings) highly enough.


There is one more case scenario: when it's done with the composer's supervision, and with some musical alterations made by the composer. So it's not like it can't be done with decent results.

But generally speaking, there is a lot to be lost in translation. This is more complex than merely translating a literary text, due to the sounds, rhythms, and metric of the language, like I have demonstrated in post number 3 above. And another big argument against translation is the fact that it doesn't even add that much to the audience's comprehension. Operatic singing imposes different stresses to words, privileges vowels over consonants (listen to anything by Joan Sutherland and you'll see what I mean), and is generally difficult to understand without the written text even when the opera is sung in the audience's native language. Recently I saw a critic saying of a _Hansel und Gretel_ version in English intended for the consumption of American children that "in order to prevent the children from having to follow English subtitles for a version in German, it was translated into English so that the children had to follow English subtitles for a version in English.":lol:

So, translations (especially those done by some Joe Nobody hundreds of years after the death of the composer therefore without his input) don't even help that much, get in the way of the musical aspects of an opera, and are in my opinion an aberration that should be avoided at all costs.

People talk about updated stagings being a violence done to work. Well, sometimes yes, they are, but at least the musical aspects are mostly intact in these versions. Opera in translation in my opinion is a much bigger violence done to the work.

Call me a purist, but I can't stand it, it irritates me profoundly, and often when I try one of these works I can barely finish it. I have left a Magic Flute in the middle because it was translated into English - a fact I had unfortunately failed to realize when I bought the ticket. I felt like asking for my money back, thinking - "come on, don't mess with my Mozart, I didn't knowingly sign up for this travesty!"

The only thing that irritates me more in the world of opera is a pregnant Brunnhilde!:scold:


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Aramis said:


> So it was with many languages in the past. Italian, French. English as 'global' language will very likely also pass away.


Yep. Mandarin is coming!!!


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm all for titling. I must say, though, that a translation can be very good. I remember a performance of La Cenerentola in Finnish, where the funny sextet in the second act

_Questo è un nodo avviluppato, 
Questo è un gruppo rintrecciato. 
Chi sviluppa più inviluppa, 
Chi più sgruppa, più raggruppa_

was translated ingenuously, with all the rolled r's in the right places, so that the audience burst out laughing.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Herkku said:


> I'm all for titling. I must say, though, that a translation can be very good. I remember a performance of La Cenerentola in Finnish, where the funny sextet in the second act
> 
> _Questo è un nodo avviluppato, _
> _Questo è un gruppo rintrecciato. _
> ...


This is unfortunately the exception rather than the rule. I've had my share of ackward-sounding translated arias.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

I think English is rather different than many other languages. It really doesn't sound like any of the (other) major opera languages (as in intonation, rhythm, etc), and so it is very difficult to translate opera into English. But there are other language pairs that do work. One example, funnily enough, is French and Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), and also Norwegian (I've only heard this sung in Bokmål) and German.

But, with that said, I am against operas in translation. I've heard quite a few good ones, but I do believe that they should be sung in the original language.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Aksel said:


> *I think English is rather different than many other languages. It really doesn't sound like any of the (other) major opera languages (as in intonation, rhythm, etc), and so it is very difficult to translate opera into English*. But there are other language pairs that do work. One example, funnily enough, is French and Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk), and also Norwegian (I've only heard this sung in Bokmål) and German.


English is a stress-timed language - the stresses occur at relatively regular intervals and intervening syllables are squished in between.

Try saying:

1 2 3 4
1 and 2 and 3 and 4
1 and a 2 and 3 and a 4
1 and then a 2 and then a 3 and then a 4

It takes more or less the same amount of time and then intervening syllables are pronounced very quickly, with the vowel sounds being reduced to a shwa (the first "a" sound in "banana")

French and Italian are syllable-timed languages, all syllables occur at roughly regular intervals.

If you do a similar exercise in these languages the amount of time to say the long version will increase.

I have read that German is also a stress-timed language, but due to the different and quite rigid word order, the stresses are likely to occur in different places in German and English, which would also make it hard to translate from one to the other in an opera.

Interestingly I've just read that Norwegian is stress timed so that would invalidate my argument if it translates well into French.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

mamascarlatti said:


> English is a stress-timed language - the stresses occur at relatively regular intervals and intervening syllables are squished in between.
> 
> Try saying:
> 
> ...


Hmm. Interesting. Well, you can see for yourself, I guess. But I'm not sure how much you'll get out of it since, you know, it's in Norwegian.

This is the only clip of a French opera (really an operette, but oh well (Carmen translates rather well too, but I don't know if there are clips of it out there)) translated into Norwegian that is on Youtube.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Some time ago I psoted in other thread some fragmnts of German Turandot:











I find it awesome. But I do realize that it's wrong and caused by fact that back in these times there was no possibility of giving live performance a subtitles.


----------



## Herkku (Apr 18, 2010)

I still relish Donizetti's Mary Stuart with Janet Baker and Rosalind Plowright and the fact that it's a translation doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Herkku said:


> I still relish Donizetti's Mary Stuart with Janet Baker and Rosalind Plowright and the fact that it's a translation doesn't bother me at all.


And in a way, it is better because the story takes place in England, so why not English? I like it but also like it in Italian.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Add me as one who prefers opera sung in the language written. Period!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

nina foresti said:


> Add me as one who prefers opera sung in the language written. Period!


Me too so I second this.



Florestan said:


> And in a way, it is better because the story takes place in England, so why not English? I like it but also like it in Italian.


No Florestan this has nothing to do with taking place in England.

Opera's should be performed like the composer wrote them.


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Me too so I second this.
> 
> No Florestan this has nothing to do with taking place in England.
> 
> Opera's should be performed like the composer wrote them.


Wagner approved of translation. Verdi wrote the same Opera in French and Italian. ON here I think we forget they were men of the Theatre. Orchestra's and Chorus's were under rehearsed by today's standards. There were no perfect CD's to compare to. And the TalkClassical member tends to be well informed or familiar with the plot which is not so true of the average theatre goer. But a good performance in the language of the audience is a wonder.

ON Disc it makes sense to (mostly ) record in the original language, but if you have ever been thrilled by a translated performance in the Theatre you will know that also has it's place. I realise you are only expressing a personal opinion and that's fine too, but with surtitles I fear translations are finished and I for one think something from our grand theatrical tradition will be lost. If the connection with the audience isn't direct and personal we may as well all be watching on the big screen miles from the theatre.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Belowpar said:


> Wagner approved of translation. Verdi wrote the same Opera in French and Italian. ON here I think we forget they were men of the Theatre. Orchestra's and Chorus's were under rehearsed by today's standards. There were no perfect CD's to compare to. And the TalkClassical member tends to be well informed or familiar with the plot which is not so true of the average theatre goer. But a good performance in the language of the audience is a wonder.
> 
> ON Disc it makes sense to (mostly ) record in the original language, but if you have ever been thrilled by a translated performance in the Theatre you will know that also has it's place. I realise you are only expressing a personal opinion and that's fine too, but with surtitles I fear translations are finished and I for one think something from our grand theatrical tradition will be lost. If the connection with the audience isn't direct and personal we may as well all be watching on the big screen miles from the theatre.


Even though I will always prefer original language, that's a really good response. I enjoy Don Carlo and Don Carlos but only because they were written contemporaneously and it was Verdi's wish.

I came late to opera and my first live experience was _Don Pasquale_ by English Touring Opera. I knew the opera well, having listened to it and also by watching this wonderful DVD










I was traumatised that not only was it being sung in English, they changed the *very first line*  Don Pasquale didn't look at his watch and sing 'It's nine o'clock' he just sang 'where's the doctor' I remember slumping down in my seat, feeling cheated and despondent. I did stay to the end but vowed no more opera in translation.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

In general these days I tend to prefer opera in the original language, particularly if I already know that opera well. Even when operas are performed in English, you'd be hard pressed, in most cases, to understand much of what is being sung.

However it was not always so. Listen to, say, Britten's recording of his own *The Turn of the Screw*, the first of his operas to be recorded in the 1950s, and you will hear clear, unforced, easily understood English, even from the high voices. Listen to English speaking singers of the past (Kathleen Ferrier, Maggie Teyte, Joan Hammond, Peter Dawson, Heddle Nash for instance) and you will understand most of what they are singing. Good diction is no longer prized.

When the English National Opera performs in English, but uses surtitles to aid comprehension, well they might as well be singing in the original language anyway.


----------



## Don Fatale (Aug 31, 2009)

I'm very critical of ENO's dogma of translating everything, but I'm supportive of the concept of translation, for some operas, languages and situations, for the following reasons:

1) Smaller productions and venues where a direct communication with the audience is desired, particularly in comedies.
2) Some operas don't contain famous arias, so nobody is going to be disappointed that the tenor didn't sing _Nessun Dorma_, for example. Do we really need to hear Katya Kabanova in Czech rather than English?

ENO's recent Mastersingers had a wonderful English translation which seemed very singable. It was a pleasure to read on the surtitles, in the way a literal surtitle translation wouldn't be.

Operas/composers/languages I don't like to hear in translation:
La Boheme, Turandot, Rigoletto, La Traviata, other famous Verdi, famous Mozart, and anything with very famous arias.

Operas/composers/languages I really don't mind hearing in translation:
Duke Bluebeard's Castle, Pelleas and Melisande, Jenufa, some comedies, Handel, Wagner, anything Czech, Rimsky-Korsakov, anything obscure. I'm interested in the art and problem solving challenges of the translator. You're welcome to argue these points, but in my opera-going experience I haven't felt I'm missing out on anything when seeing these performed in English.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Don Fatale said:


> I'm very critical of ENO's dogma of translating everything, but I'm supportive of the concept of translation, for some operas, languages and situations, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) Smaller productions and venues where a direct communication with the audience is desired, particularly in comedies.
> 2) Some operas don't contain famous arias, so nobody is going to be disappointed that the tenor didn't sing _Nessun Dorma_, for example. Do we really need to hear Katya Kabanova in Czech rather than English?
> ...


You make some good points, and your choice of operas that you don't mind being translated is a good one, except I think for Debussy's *Pelleas et Melisande*. Debussy went to such lengths to set the French language in such a way that it seemed completely natural, that translation, into any language, is going to change the experience. I'd much rather hear it in the original, but then I do speak some French.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Something I've noticed is that Wagner sounds pretty good in French but quite wrong in Italian. Or, to put it the other way round, French sounds all right set to Wagner's music but Italian sounds absurd. The rhythms of German and Italian are radically different, and Italian's ubiquitous final vowel tends not to know what to do with itself (sometimes a note has to be repeated to accommodate it), whereas French, lacking strong accents, is adaptable to a variety of music, which presumably made it easy for Verdi to compose his French Don Carlos.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Don Fatale said:


> I'm very critical of ENO's dogma of translating everything, but I'm supportive of the concept of translation, for some operas, languages and situations, for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) Smaller productions and venues where a direct communication with the audience is desired, particularly in comedies.
> 2) Some operas don't contain famous arias, so nobody is going to be disappointed that the tenor didn't sing _Nessun Dorma_, for example. Do we really need to hear Katya Kabanova in Czech rather than English?
> ...


You make some good points. I broke my vow and saw ENO's _Rigoletto_ as Quinn Kelsey was singing the title role and I wanted to hear him sing. Kelsey was superb but the English translation was, for me, like finger nails on a blackboard.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"I was 45 before I spoke with Toscanini and then he attacked me for doing Debussy's Pelleas et Melisande at la Scala in French. 'You might as well do Il Trovatore in German,' he said." (Herbert von Karajan - 'Conversations with Karajan' by Richard Osborne p.56)


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

sospiro said:


> I came late to opera and my first live experience was _Don Pasquale_ by English Touring Opera. I was traumatised that not only was it being sung in English, they changed the *very first line* on Pasquale didn't look at his watch and sing 'It's nine o'clock' he just sang 'where's the doctor'


I remember reading about a quaint old-fashioned English translation of _Eugene Onegin_, where Act II started with the chorus joyously proclaiming: "Great balls in the countryside".


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I remember reading about a quaint old-fashioned English translation of _Eugene Onegin_, where Act II started with the chorus joyously proclaiming: "Great balls in the countryside".


:lol:

Rumour has it that once the surtitle for Tosca's words _Ma falle gli occhi neri!_ read "Give her a black eye"


----------

