James Zehm wrote:

>I say a little preparation goes a long way, and if the audience don't
>want to prepare itself, they are not really interested of the opera,
>and then one shouldn't maybe offer the opera to them at all!
>*thinkingofsomethingsimilarwhichRimsky-KorsakovsaidabouttheParisaudience*

I'm surprised you don't have them all shot, the lazy bounders!

You're imposing a very strict set of rules to what is after all a form of
entertainment.  The aim is to communicate, not to prevent communication.
By all means do opera in the language of the country it is performed in, if
you detest surtitles that much.  I don't think you'll get much support from
international opera singers who would have to learn each role in at least
a dozen languages.  (You could ban them, too, from appearing if they don't
know the language!) And it doesn't do much for an international audience.

The biggest argument against translation is that you lose the sound of the
original, which is part of its music.

So what are we left with, if we want to appeal to an audience that may
not have time or inclination to undertake detailed preparation? Drop that
majority and you'll play to dwindling houses, and ultimately play to noone
after you go broke.

Finally, to really follow dialogue and singing line by line you need
to follow a libretto, which is well nigh impossible in the dark and in
generally cramped seats.  So what's wrong with putting up a curtailed
version of the text where everyone who wants to can see it? And pretty
well get the gist of what's going on moment by moment.

There are elements of this debate that remind me of puritanism, and a
puritan is defined as someone who is plagued by the awful thought that
someone somewhere MIGHT possibly be enjoying themselves.  Lighten up folks
and let the overture begin.

Eric Kisch