Informational Sources and Languages

[JoshLilly]

One of my pet peeves with the world of "classical" music has been, not with music or performances or recordings, but with books, articles, and speeches. Even buying CDs I can't escape it. It's in the liner notes. It's in the online reviews. It's even on the speaking CD that comes in Gardiner's Beethoven symphonies set. I'm talking about how music intelligentsia seem to assume that everyone reading (or listening) to their information is fluent in at least five European languages.

Where did this start, and how is this at all a reasonable assumption? Why do they do it? I read a book about W.A. Mozart long ago and contained therein were a myriad of untranslated sentences - and sometimes whole paragraphs - in German, Italian, and French. Why?! Why don't they translate these, if they must include the original language at all? I realise that sometimes this can be helpful to many readers, but at least they need to translate it. I don't even know anyone that knows English and German and Italian and French. I have to assume that the intended audience of this book can be counted with your fingers and toes.

Nowadays, with online articles it's not that hard to try to get a gist out of such untranslated material by using something like babelfish.altavista.com .  Unfortunately, when I was reading tons of this stuff, there was no such source. And also, I'm usually reading books about music not near a computer with such access. Anyway, regardless of the availability of seeking out translations for each and every one of these many sentences in the books, liner notes, and articles, this seems to me an idiotic practice.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume there's either some actual merit to it that I'm not aware of, or that there are a lot more people than I thought fluent in all five of those languages. Or what? What is the deal with this? Why do they think it's good to toss in so much untranslated material in so many languages? What's the benefit?


EDIT: Yes, before anyone points it out, I know that I only named four languages. I said "five" to allow for that last wildcard, which can be Russian, Hungarian, or whatever. That was done on purpose, but just want to clarify before someone replies on that and ignores the point. Not that that would ever happen on an Internet message board...

[Grazioso]

One of my pet peeves with the world of "classical" music has been, not with music or performances or recordings, but with books, articles, and speeches. Even buying CDs I can't escape it. It's in the liner notes. It's in the online reviews. It's even on the speaking CD that comes in Gardiner's Beethoven symphonies set. I'm talking about how music intelligentsia seem to assume that everyone reading (or listening) to their information is fluent in at least five European languages.

Where did this start, and how is this at all a reasonable assumption? Why do they do it? I read a book about W.A. Mozart long ago and contained therein were a myriad of untranslated sentences - and sometimes whole paragraphs - in German, Italian, and French. Why?! Why don't they translate these, if they must include the original language at all? I realise that sometimes this can be helpful to many readers, but at least they need to translate it. I don't even know anyone that knows English and German and Italian and French. I have to assume that the intended audience of this book can be counted with your fingers and toes.

Nowadays, with online articles it's not that hard to try to get a gist out of such untranslated material by using something like babelfish.altavista.com .  Unfortunately, when I was reading tons of this stuff, there was no such source. And also, I'm usually reading books about music not near a computer with such access. Anyway, regardless of the availability of seeking out translations for each and every one of these many sentences in the books, liner notes, and articles, this seems to me an idiotic practice.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume there's either some actual merit to it that I'm not aware of, or that there are a lot more people than I thought fluent in all five of those languages. Or what? What is the deal with this? Why do they think it's good to toss in so much untranslated material in so many languages? What's the benefit?


EDIT: Yes, before anyone points it out, I know that I only named four languages. I said "five" to allow for that last wildcard, which can be Russian, Hungarian, or whatever. That was done on purpose, but just want to clarify before someone replies on that and ignores the point. Not that that would ever happen on an Internet message board...

I'd say the sort of people listening to and reading scholarly books about classical music probably are, in the main, well-educated, and that includes being multilingual. And classical music is of course European in origin, and many Europeans are polyglots. That said, it would be a courtesy to translate passages that appear in languages other than the chief one of the book or article.

[Renfield]

Oh, I'd go out on a limb and say it's probably the residue of higher-echelon conservative social standards mostly prevalent in older times, that such authors of musical articles or essays fall prey to "relapsing" in, or are taught to use by their "mentors in the craft".

Otherwise, I agree with you: it is completely stupid. If I knew eight languages, the least I'd expect from myself is to be able to offer a good translation of any terms I use, when needed, not make others look for them. Unless I wanted to show off my status as an "amazing intellectual", which goes back to my first point, above.

[Cato]

As a foreign language teacher I am always ready to prescribe the learning of foreign languages as a cure for this!   

On the other hand, translations can be just as mysterious as the original: I have several companies on my "God-Awful-Pretentious-Liner Notes" list, where the English translation is often more incomprehensible than the original.  The German firm cpo is at the top of this list.  The original German texts are often deliberately abstruse, full of pseudo-jargon from psychology and philosophy, along with highly tendentious and unwittingly ironical criticisms dripping with snobbiness like a runny nose. 

You soon realize the musicologist is a first-class mirror-gazer, and that the text is not there to enlighten you, but to shine a spotlight on him.

And then these essays are translated into even worse English!   

[Grazioso]

Speaking of liner notes and translations, another good reason to broaden your linguistic skills as a classical music lover is because it's not uncommon for CD booklets to include one set of good liner notes in German, French, etc. and another shorter, weaker essay in English. Heck, the version of the classic Klemperer Fidelio on EMI that I own includes an essay by him in German that doesn't appear at all in English in the booklet.