Ellen D Wolpin wrote:
> All the music has English translations, but they're written to be sung, > so sometimes, they're not even close. Or are those the translations one > is supposed to use?
Not if you want to sing in the roiginal language and give your audience something to understand it by.
A singing translation is something completely different and is an art form in itself. It can work with song, though IMHO most German, French and Italian song sounds better in the original - but then, I would understand enough words from the original anyway, so as not to get mystified. When it comes to a language I don't know, I'm not at all sure I wouldn't prefer to hear it in a good, and I strees a GOOD singing translation: Chopin, for example, wrote a few rather lightweight songs which I would guess need a certain amount of characterization. Much of this would be lost on me, particularly if they're performed in a hall with the house lights dimmed so I can't follow the programme translation.
With opera I think singing translation is a different matter entirely. The house lights are right down and very few theatres, as far as I know, have surtitle facilities. The words should be understood by the audience. In a place like the Met of the ROH Covent Garden, where there is likely to be an international audience, the original is certainly valid, but out in the sticks :) it is a different matter. There is strong precedent for using the verna
-- Linda ff, Cambridge
|
| |