|
|
Post by awlrite4now on Sept 30, 2005 17:37:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 30, 2005 18:03:17 GMT -5
Verrry interesting! Read the article and all I can say (as a former dancer) is that any dance company whose work isn't i mmediately visible and understandable . . . needs to turn back the money they got from those arts grants! Dance is, by virtue of definition, a visual medium, and often includes mime. I can't imagine anyone needing signing to understand a Balanchine classic, for example. So . . . I say save the money it would cost to have someone interpret a dance performance, and let that interpreter use their skills where truly needed. Theatre comes to mind. Or schools. We really need Shmeep's take on this! But I did quickly run back through my memories of dance performances, and is a terp needed? Not if the dance company is doing their job! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 30, 2005 18:29:40 GMT -5
Oh good grief! This is just silly! I would feel ridiculous standing on stage waving my arms around to tell Deaf people what the music sounds like. Truth? Most Deaf people don't care what music sounds like. If they're there at all, they want to see the dancing and are probably irritated by the person standing on the stage distracting everyone. I can't speak for all Deaf people, but I don't know any who would like this kind of thing.
Signed play? Great. I finally got to go to a Broadway musical with my husband a couple of years ago. The Lion King was in Los Angeles and they offered interpretation at one show and we got tickets. All the Deaf were given really good seats up close and off to the side and the interpreters were to the side of the stage and didn't interfere with any of the action. It was fun (even though the play, while impressive in its execution, wasn't any better than the movie, which I disliked). Deaf theatre is amazing! A perfect blend of signing and speaking that includes everyone in the audience no matter what their level of hearing or signing ability.
But interpreting the sound of music? Why? Why do they do that? Even weirder to me is the fact that the interpreter is himself Deaf so he's just doing his own interpretation of something about which he has know knowledge. Sounds pretty dumb to me.
One time I was interpreting a church service for my husband. After it was over, a woman I didn't know came up to me, almost crying, and said "That was so beautiful, watching you sign that!" (Now, keep in mind I was interpreting this for my husband, who can hear just enough to find music highly irritating.) "The music was so beautiful! I just kept thinking...they should have some kind of technology so they can hook the music up to the Deaf people so they can feel it or experience it in some way..." She went on and on, her voice wavering, tears in her eyes, and I just didn't know what to do because all I could think about was how much it annoyed my husband when I practiced the piano when he was studying with his hearing aids on. I pictured him, hooked up to the instruments, jolting and cringing whenever a high note was reached, looking like he was being electrocuted, and it hit me that hearing people have no clue of how unimportant all that is to Deaf people.
I recently went to a wonderful event at Gallaudet University. It was a celebration of 50 years of dance at the only all Deaf university in the world. There was some interpretation--of lyrics--and it was usually worked into a dance routine, enhancing the performance rather than detracting from it. Some songs with lyrics were not interpreted because the dance itself was the interpretation. One Deaf guy in a wheelchair participated as well, blending in and interpreting lyrics and being a character as the others danced around him. The entire show was incredible and these dancers could have held their own on any stage, they were so talented. Most of the audience was Deaf and if someone tried to stand on a stage and tell them what the music sounded like--not the lyrics, but the music itself--well, I'm certain that would never have happened. The movement of the bodies of all the dancers was the perfect way in which to make clear exactly what the Deaf audience members needed to know about the music.
Thanks for sharing that article, awlrite4now. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 30, 2005 18:38:29 GMT -5
Just wanted to add one more thing...I have a friend in CA who is VERY Deaf and is a fan of The Grateful Dead. It's more of a cultural thing than a musical thing. Well, a couple of years ago, he got to go to a Grateful Dead concert that provided interpeting. Apparently, they tour with interpreters and have a special place up front for all the Deaf people and their friends. That sounds like a fun interpreting gig. Interpretation in that kind of situation would only enhance a performance, in my opinion. And how fun for all the Deaf people who always get good seats! Now THAT'S a good use of an interpreter's skills. Me? I detest interpreting songs at all. I have to do it every other week at the little Methodist church down the road for the dear little old Deaf people there when I interpret their church service. I have to look up the hymns and sign things I've never heard before and then I have to struggle between doing a literal or a figurative interpretation. But do I tell them what the music sounds like? Um...I think it's kinder not to.  But I think it shows in my interpretation and my expression. |
|
|
|
Post by housemouse on Sept 30, 2005 18:47:47 GMT -5
Is it a possibility that the interpreters actually distract from the dancers?
|
|
|
|
Post by shmeep on Sept 30, 2005 18:56:58 GMT -5
Is it a possibility that the interpreters actually distract from the dancers? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by maggiethecat on Sept 30, 2005 19:26:43 GMT -5
Is it a possibility that the interpreters actually distract from the dancers? Absolutely. Great stuff, Shmeep. As usual. Sorry I missed that evening at Galludet, which sounds amazing -- and also sounds as though there was a sense of perspective (and intelligence) at work. |
|
|
|
Post by awlrite4now on Oct 1, 2005 12:05:54 GMT -5
OK, I considered it politically correct overkill myself, and thought it would be terribly distracting to nearly everyone in the audience. Good dancers interpret the music, and their movement is the true beauty going on in the performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kytdunne on Oct 1, 2005 13:43:02 GMT -5
OK, I considered it politically correct overkill myself, and thought it would be terribly distracting to nearly everyone in the audience. Good dancers interpret the music, and their movement is the true beauty going on in the performance. If he's not a *part* of the dancers, then he's in the way (like listening to someone describe Cher's costumes, background videos and dancers during a concert would be in the way.) Sure, there may be people who'd find the added info interesting in a footnote kind of way, but to enhance the experience? Unlikely. Offer it on dvd. Kyt |
|
|
|
Post by hoosier on Oct 1, 2005 16:39:19 GMT -5
Everyone is sooo afraid of offending someone that they tend to want to cover their collective behinds! I would find an interpretor distracting--who do you watch,them or the dancers!!!Either way,you miss something. Sitting them closer to the orchestra or band could help with feeling the vibrations of the music ,I don't know if that would 'enhance' the experience or not. Art is meant to be intrepreted by the individual anyway.
|
|
But I think it shows in my interpretation and my expression.
