Winterson of my discontent

Since I can't seem to think of anything to write about, I might as well argue with Jeanette Winterson. That's not an obscure figure of speech: I really do have a bone to pick with her. Flicking through this month's Gramophone, I came across Jeanette's (sorry, I don't feel scholarly enough tonight to call her "Winterson) little article at the back, the usual "Classical Music and Me" kind of spot. It's pretty innocuous stuff and this is not some kind of vitriolic taking to task. She likes Wagner and Natalie Clein and other things and good for her; she's just edited a collection of opera-themed short stories (called Midsummer Nights) so I suppose in some ways she and I are probably kindred spirits.

But. There's one comment she makes which bothered me. And it still bothers me. She said she detests (I think that was her word — I don't have the magazine here to check) surtitles in opera. She thinks they get in the way of what she deems the essential experience of opera, which she describes as "surrendering". Even leaving aside for now the obvious absurdity of trying to encapsulate the operatic experience in a single concept, let alone a single word — not to mention the mistake of imagining that what you consider the essence of opera is, or should be, the essence of everybody else's experience too — I cannot entirely comprehend this wholesale dismissal of surtitles.

She thinks they get in the way. And she says, blithely, as if it were the most obvious thing in the world, that you don't really need them anyway, because you can figure out what's going on onstage by reading up on the story beforehand. (I'm paraphrasing here, but only slightly.) I confess, I am amazed. I would have thought of all people, a writer, somebody to whom the sublime complexity language is presumably a vital concern, would see that surtitles have a great deal to offer. Maybe they can  present an occasional visual or mental obstacle, but let's not forget the huge obstacle they clear away — as far as possible, they remove the language barrier. 

Surtitles allow us to appreciate more than just the broad strokes which a synopsis provides: they give us all the detail. Yes, the music on its own says a hell of a lot  — I'd never say otherwise — but there is a reason opera uses music and words. The words — the specific words which that librettist chose and that composer set, the words which that character is singing and that singer is interpreting — matter. And OK, maybe they don't matter to everybody as much as they do to me. Despite the title of this blog, I've no desire to rehash the ancient parole/musica argument, and having admonished Jeanette for doing so, I'm not now going to try and tell you that my approach to opera should be everybody else's. I'm extremely surprised, though, that she's happy to dismiss surtitles like this without admitting even the possibility of their contributing in a very meaningful and life-enhancing way to the operatic experience of many people. 

What I really can't get over is her suggestion that the purpose of surtitles can be served equally well by merely boning up on the plot ahead of time. As if a broad strokes understanding of the story were all that anyone could need. As if all the complex dialogue or lyric poetry or punning wit of a libretto (even a mediocre one) serve to do is add a bit more detail to a story whose full richness can still be understood from a programme note or your handy Grove. Would Jeanette suggest that reading the Wikipedia synopsis of Pride & Prejudice is as rich an experience as reading the novel, or that downloading a pixelated Artchive image of an Ingres is as good as seeing it in a gallery? Should we check IMDb and then watch foreign films without subtitles? Are the Cliffs Notes all we need after all? No, I don't for a moment imagine she'd advocate anything of the sort. An appreciation of the details, and of the style in which those details are realised, can vastly enhance our appreciation of the whole. In opera, surtitles are a fantastic way to reveal those details, and yet she urges their removal. It's beyond me.

Just think what we would lose if we functioned along the lines she's apparently suggesting. The poetic humanity of the Marschallin's "Da geht er hin". The ins and outs of Gregor v Prus. The contradictory yet curiously well-rhymed sentiments of a Rossini ensemble. The jokes in Figaro — imagine the poor singers, too, performing a comedy to an audience who can only laugh at visual humour. Even the most shameless showpiece of a rum-ti-tum bel canto rondo e scena makes a bit more sense when we can understand more than just a vague emotion, and what's the good of an old-fashioned "Sangue!" if we don't know what that man shaking his fist is actually bellowing? It's true that all of these things can be appreciated without surtitles — if one understands the language. And many of us do, whether by study or osmosis. That's not necessarily an option for everybody or at every moment, though; surtitles ensure that all the thrills of a nuanced operatic text are available to everybody who wants or needs them. 

Maybe reading them does prevent the exact romantic "surrender" which Jeanette desires (and requires?) but her surrender is not necessarily yours or mine, nor is surrender necessarily what we're seeking. I also have trouble agreeing that reading does absolutely prohibit fullblown intoxication. And if it does, you can always just not read them. There's no need to dislike them or wish them away — they're not compulsory, so just ignore them. Lord knows, I do. Most of the seats I book don't let me see them anyway. If it's something I'm particularly obsessed with, then I'll do my best to learn the text beforehand: that, for me, is the only real replacement for surtitles. 

Whether I do without them or not, and whether I can see them or not, I'm very happy indeed that they're there. 

Opera isn't what I say it is, or what Jeanette Winterson says it is, or in fact what anybody says it is. It's whatever you, in the moment, know it is. There are all kinds of ways and means to appreciate it, to understand it, to love it madly. Surtitles are now an important part of that for a lot of people. I believe their potential to enrich the operatic experience far outweighs their potential to distract. Jeanette believes otherwise. But at least my blogging drought is broken at last. Take that, Winterson. 

Comments

[Thomasina]

I'd humbly and respectfully add that, even when a singer is using a language in which I am fluent, I don't always catch all the words. Such is the reality of musical text setting, orchestras, acoustics and the operatic singing style, and in moments like those I'm glad for surtitles.

[Barbara]

I have lived through both eras--with and without surtitles, and I can see both sides of the argument. In my opinion they completely transform the experience of Wagner who loves extended philosophical scenes which don't project as drama at all.

The skill of the surtitle writers is improving over time. The best solution is the one used in New York and Vienna where each audience member gets his own screen which he can then turn off if he wants. In Vienna you may even select a language.

[Sarah]

That's the thing. I think they're important enough that the choice should be there whenever possible. Suggesting they shouldn't be there at all, I find bizarre

[James Black]

I think surtitles above and alongside the proscenium arch are obtrusive and get in the way of a deeper understanding of opera. Surtitles distract the audiences attention away from the action on the stage and are a crutch for low level processing of meaning. Why should all patrons be subjected to the distraction surtitles? The system of individual screens at least gives patrons a choice to either turn them on or off. Poor articulation of language is also a big problem. Some of the Italian and German singing that passes for opera in Australia would be unacceptable in many Italian ad German companies where audiences expect idiomatic singing as a given. A beautiful sound is nothing if it doesn't convey the essential meaning of the drama/words sung.

[Andrew]

I have heard Winterson speak passionately of her fear that we are losing the ablility to think in abtsract or even complex terms because we are 'dumbing down' our use of the English language in so many facets of our lives. She argues that we don't make the neccessary efforts to keep it alive, and I suspect this is what she is doing here; admonishing audiences to be capable of NOT having to use surtitles. I'm sure she sneaks a look every now and again in those long Wagner passages! However I'm equally sure that she feels the need to be an advocate of protecting and preserving the original language with all it's complex and abstract thoughts and perhpas she feels surtitles 'dumb these thoughts down' no matter how accurate the surtitles may be.I agree with James that the Met's system is perfect: you can sneak a look every now and again whilst still being challenged to work hard yourself.

[Sarah]

To be fair, it's probably a bit wrong of me to deduce an all-encompassing position from a short and reasonably lite [sic] magazine column. What Andrew says sounds more like what I'd expect to hear from somebody like Jeanette Winterson. And yet the fact remains that in this column at least, she seemed to suggest that all one needed to know what in general terms "what was going on", and that one could do that simply by brushing up on the plot. Perhaps she did intend something deeper than reading a synopsis but it didn't sound like it.
I've never experience a seat back surtitle system so can't compare, but personally I can't say I've ever felt really distracted by surtitles, wherever they've been. But that's just me, and as we know, I'm easily transfixed by diva...

[Philip]

This is a good discussion to be having. We all have our personal preferences regarding surtitles, and for me (as for many) it varies from opera to opera, production to production. Increasingly I don't use surtitles, for reasons which I won't go into now. I'm posting because I want to introduce another element to the discussion, and that is the future of opera. I'm sure everyone who posts here is passionate about opera, and no doubt we all want to see it survive and even thrive, but if we do not offer ways to make productions more accessible to new audiences, we're in trouble. And in short, that means offering surtitles.

[Thomasina]

I've experienced seat-back translations. The positive: you can turn them off or ignore them, and (in some places) nominate a language of choice. The negative – assuming you are referring to them – is the continual shifts of focus the eyes must make to move between the translation and the stage. At best this is merely annoying, for some eyes it would be a right pita. At least with surtitles above the stage it's simply a matter of adjusting the angle of your gaze.

I agree with Philip: in an English-speaking country surtitles are essential to putting new audiences (heck, even rusted-on subscribers) at ease so they can focus on the opera as entertainment.

[James Black]

Sarah, a moving ribbon of light at the periphery of one’s vision in a darkened theatre is bit of distraction diva worship or not. It is hard to avoid unless you a wearing specially designed blinkers which frame out peripheral vision.

Where is the evidence that surtitles attracts new audiences or brings people closer to opera? The Sydney subscriber base looks pretty much the same to me for many years now. Despite surtitles and other modernising trends quite a number of people don't come back after the intermission. This says a lot about the lack of engagement when people walk out early.

Surtitles serve to dumb down the audience and put people at ease in a way that "following the bouncing ball" does in Karaoke entertainment. Surtitles pander to the base cultural desire for simplistic meaning which makes for passive and lazy audiences.

The real visceral experience of opera is through the direct engagement to the sung drama rather than via the filter of the extraneous, projected text.

David Pountney, the highly respected British theatre and opera director, nailed it when he said: "surtitles are a celluloid condom inserted between the audience and the immediate gratification of understanding."

[Andrew]

James, there is plenty of evidence that a new audience is being (and has been over the last 20 years or so) drawn to GOOD opera. Sadly many of the smaller and sometimes inferior opera companies have not embraced innovation both in product and marketing and have gone under. Surtitles are one of these innovations and there have been plenty of studies done by many reputable opera companies resulting in an understanding of their worth.

I agree, they can dumb down an experience. However if they are one of the innovations needed to keep this art form alive then I gladly welcome their continued use.

I began my passion for opera as a high school student and relied heavily in the newly introduced surtitles at OA to gain un understanding of what was going on. The fact that I rarely use them now is a result of years of hard work on my part as much as using them when they were useful. I wouldn't begrudge someone else taking the same path to discovery, as lazy as it may be!

[david]

James' comments are so utterly pretentious and lacking in any proper understanding as to why any single member of an opera audience would choose to engage with and use surtitles. He has lumped all who engage with them amongst other invictives as being "lazy" and "passive"!!??

I have been attending opera in this country for many years and I do my research on operas I am unfamiliar with, I listen to recordings and seek to find ways to expand my knowledge. Sometimes I choose to go totally lacking in any knowledge or understanding and discover the new opera for the first time.

If and when I choose to use the surtitles depends on and is contingent on so many things. For example seeing Rusalka sung in Czech a language that I have no comprehension of meant that at certain moments terrific clarity came to me through the translation of the sung text. It was wonderfully elightening for me. There were moments when I chose not to use them-Rusalka's invocation to the Moon for example. However, this is not laziness or passivity or basenes or being dumbed down or as Poutney says seeking "immediate gratification". I find this both insulting and stupid.

Poutney's respectability or otherwise is totally irrelevant to my enjoyment in seeing opera and using the surtitles as a part of the total experience and it does not qualify him to make judgements on why people use them or not.

James I consider myself to be a generally well informed opera goer who loves the total experience which varies from opera to opera and really find your broad brushstroke denouncement to be as I said from the word go totally pretentious!!

[Sarah]

James, do you not think that surtitles might, for some people at least, have the potential to further, rather than hinder, "direct engagement to the sung drama"? Could they not actually aid - for an audience member so inclined - in a deeper understanding of the relationship between text and music?

I'm wary of any attempt (even though I'm sure I unwittingly make such attempts myself) to definitively categorise a "correct" operatic experience. It seems to me that there are as many ways to engage with opera as there are audience members - it's different for everyone - and if surtitles enable some people to come to a deeper understanding and enjoyment (let's not forget enjoyment!) of a particular opera, then should they really be denied that opportunity simply because of the risk that it might encourage laziness in others? (And I'm probably going to get yelled at for this, but - what's wrong with a bit of laziness once in a while? Everyone has their guilty pleasures, in any artform.)

Of course, a part of that multiplicity of operatic experiences is that some people feel their own engagement would be bettered by the total removal of surtitles, so I don't think there's ever going to be a solution that satisfies everybody.

But here's what I wonder. Which is more likely: that newcomers will be put off by the lack of surtitles (and attendant comprehension) or that seasoned operagoers will be driven away because of their presence? I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to think it's the former - in which case, I think they're worth the risk. For all the grumbles, I'm yet to hear of someone so thoroughly disgusted by surtitles that they've chosen to deprive themselves of live opera altogether. It's entirely possible such people exist, but I'd guess they're a minority. I know I'd endure far worse tortures before even considering giving it up.

And while I'm sure it depends on the theatre, the opera in question, and both the seat and mood a person is in on any given night, I do believe it's possible to ignore the surtitles entirely, even while they're in your field of vision. I've done it, and not always with an object of worship on stage.

[James Black]

David, I will not address your comment as your feelings are too easily offended.

Please consider checking you spelling before you post though.

[James Black]

At the risk of being called pretentious – education and experience are important dimensions of musical appreciation. Andrea Bocelli’s, out of tune and out of tempo singing is excruciating to my ears but many people love him including many so-called opera lovers. Marketing hype and the internet is used increasingly to promote opera. Some websites eg. Opera Critic (provides news, articles and reviews from around the world) are even monetised with revenues from subscribers and advertisers. Prima la musica maybe a blog for the exchange of news and opinions but it also promotes artists and companies which it is obviously free to do. The extent of the diva worship on the blog amazes me though. Cheryl Barker couldn’t ask for a better publicist than Sarah. I am not sure diva worship sits well with her reviewer role for Opera Critic? Sarah, I wonder if you would ever consider criticising those your idols for any of their artistic imperfections?

Back to the issue of surtitles, in an earlier post I said the Met system is a compromise that accommodates both sides of the argument. There are other solutions that could be explored to attract new audiences and to make the opera more meaningful. Doing operas in English is a possible solution for English speaking countries. The English National Opera attracted a whole new generation of opera lovers via well crafted English translations (harmonious with the original language scores and libretti). During the Powerhouse era of the 80’s the triumvirate leadership team (Jonas, Elder and Pountney) were responsible for some of the most exciting and engaging productions in British opera. (Is Mark Elder a contender for the OA artistic position - good news if the rumour is true?) The ENO developed many singer for whose English was their native tongue (including Australians - Cheryl Barker, among others). Not all ENO singers had good diction or could be heard for that matter. Surtitles and amplification systems (described euphemistically as sound enhancement technologies) were proposed and also opposed by many. In the earlier years of the ENO, singers were forced to focus on diction but surtitles take the pressure off today. People are generally more concerned about ‘sounds’ rather that the deeper dramatic meanings and connections between the music and the sung text. What passes for Italian and German diction today would not be acceptable in many European houses. This is probably one of reasons why some of our young and inexperienced singers don’t venture overseas where it is harder to break into an increasingly competitive global market. Having said that, I think our local artists are blessed with the preferential employment policy adopted by our national and state companies despite the recent controversy surrounding allegations by disgruntled local singers about the use of foreign artists, ageism, favouritism and nepotism (some of which could be true). I think we should ditch the preferential system and I would be happy to pay more to hear the some of the world's best singers who rarely make it to our opera stages.

By the way, Sarah, I admire your yogi-like ability to ignore extraneous sensory stimulus. I find supertitles/surtitles distracting in most places (the Met and one or two other theatres excluded) in much the same way I find background noise, chatter and the wearing of perfume very difficult to ignore.

[Sarah]

Oh please. There is a difference between being aware of something and being distracted by it, that's all I was saying.
Meanwhile 1. One of the reasons this blog (and my interest in opera) began was for diva worship, that is its unapologetic nature and I don't see it changing. it's a personal blog and therefore at least partly an outlet for my personal responses. There are plenty of opera blogs offering different sorts of coverage. 2. Yes, I would consider doing so and have done so. You're not the first person to raise the point (although actually, you're only the second) but neither of my editors - both of whom are aware of this blog - has yet raised an objection.
I'd appreciate limiting this discussion to the surtitles thing - your middle paragraph raises some interesting points - rather than wholesale attacks on this blog which, however little you might think of it, is something I've put heart and soul into for five years and don't intend obliterating any time soon.

[William George]

I don't feel qualified to leap into the surtitles debate, but I do feel qualified to copy-edit. In the very post in which Mr Black upbraids David for his spelling, he misspells what should be "your", then follows up in the next post with another spelling mistake, two grammatical errors, and six errors in punctuation ( not counting the borderline "80's" ). Pots, kettles, glass houses, yadayada.... Or should that be yada yada?

[david]

James, being offended or otherwise (and I was actually more annoyed by your comments than offended) and without wanting to drag this out, I would welcome your thoughts as to why anyone such as myself who chooses to engage with the surtitles is considered by you to be "lazy" and "passive". I am neither "lazy" nor "passive" about opera and I'm still very curious as to how you come to this opinion without understanding the way I love and appreciate the operatic experience? In fairness you cannot escape the fact that your original comment was all encompassing and and labelled all who use surtitles as such. Surely you cannot really believe this to be the case?

[James Black]

William George, thank you for the copy-edit lesson. Now, what about surtitles? Every experience and opinion counts!

[James Black]

Sarah, okay there is a difference! You are aware of surtitles and say it is possible to ignore them. I am distracted by surtitles and can't ignore them.

I didn't engage in "wholesale attacks" - but rather criticised your amazing diva worship outpourings. I also raised a serious question about a potential conflict of interest when you put your critic's hat on. I am pleased to hear that you are willing to criticise singers but, as yet, I haven't read any evidence of this when it comes to Cheryl Barker. I have read criticisms of her performances from other reviewers though. She is a very good singer but not world class, to my mind. She must be close to her 50's or even older. I don't think she will develop into an international artist in the way that Lisa Gasteen and Stuart Skelton have done so early in their careers.

If you want to share your personal feelings in the public domain don't be too surprised if some people respond. I don't doubt that you have "put heart and soul" into your blog. Perhaps, if you don't like criticisms, you should consider a closed network like Facebook where you can share your personal feelings with selected friends.

[Barbara]

It is interesting to note, as was recently pointed out in an interview with Jonas Kaufmann, that Germany is both the center of operatic popularity in the world and the country where opera is most often presented in the native language. Purists object, but there it is. These two things may just go together.

You get used to it. "Warts nur ap Henry Higgins, warts nur ap" was always my favorite.

I know that my attention was much more fully engaged once surtitles started. I was recently remembering my first Lulu where I had absolutely no clue what was going on, and comparing it with a later one with surtitles.

The downside (and a fairly big downside it is) is that looking at the surtitles becomes a habit. A curiosity is that English spoken dialog is almost never surtitled, and it's often the hardest to understand.

Nice discussion. Except for the last nonsense.

[Sarah]

OK, James, fair enough. Sorry to trot out a cliché, but how about we agree to disagree. I don't think I'm ever going to be able to answer your concerns about me in any satisfactory way. At least I'm easier to ignore than surtitles.

Barbara, "Warts nur ap" is brilliant! Took me a moment to figure it out. And I think you're right that it can become a (sometimes unfortunate) habit. I have thought that I'd rather OA didn't surtitle its English language productions: I think people can get so used to checking above that they sort of forget that they're hearing their native language. But then again, if I'd been sitting way way back in the theatre, I might have felt quite differently.

[david]

How can Cheryl Barker not be classified as an international artist when she has sung since 1984 in over 15 countries for 26 companies, had an opera composed around her artistry (The End of the Affair by Jake Heggie), worked with prestigious directors and conductors, recorded three world premier recordings for opera and choral work, sung in two Olivier nominated productions, had such lumineries as Sir Charles Mackerras and Edward Greenfield state that apart from the legendary Marie Collier, no one has ever captured or sung Emilia Marty quite like she has and had the International American Record Review Magazine state that she is the best exponent at present for the dramatic Czech repertoire?? (and on and on)

To categorise this great Australian as someone who will never achieve international status is remarkably lacking in a proper appreciation and understanding of this singer's career thus far!!

As Barbara so accurately stated "nonsense"!!!

[James Black]

Yes Cheryl Barker has sung in many countries but many of her appearances have been with regional (tier 2) companies. Her performances with the big houses have been spotty. Early this year she sang Cio Cio San in Paris and the reviews were nothing special. Her Emilia Marty in Amsterdam recently was splendid though. The live recording for Chandos at the ENO is arguably one of the best recordings of the Czech opera. This is her signature role and I can certainly see her performing it again in other good houses.

Yes, Cheryl Barker is good but she is not in the same league as: Diana Damrau, Danielle de Niese, Alexandra Deshorties, Natalie Dessay, Renée Fleming, Nuccia Focile, Angela Gheorghiu , Christine Goerke, Karita Mattila, Anna Netrebko and Patricia Racette. All appear regularly with the top companies.

The diva worship stuff is overkill, hyperbole puffery and bullsh*t. This is the real nonsense - straight out of the pages of the Hannah Montana Fan Club.

[Sarah]

Thanks all, it's been interesting. Forgive me if I close the comments on this one now.