He didn't say he just goes to the opera for the music. He asked why people go who *can't* hear the music. If you can't understand the logical difference, it's your brain that's damaged.
I tell you what, if I went to the opera and that was going on in front of me, I'd insist on my money back, and I'd never go again.
michael adams posted
No, it's not, because the former can be provided without inconveniencing other people, while the latter can't.
In order to see the performance *and* hear it, of course.
Oh dear. Another retard. The opera is a visual as well as an auditory experience. If you went to the opera... yeah!
Excluding? In your case, one.
It's not just that. Signing is a totally different language and does not have a letter-by-letter, word-by-word or even sentence-by-sentence correspondence with English. It may be their first language.
Had you been a regular attender or even bothered to read the prospectus beforehand, you'd have been aware that perfomances with signing are flagged as such with a big BSL beside them. In the case of this Spring's Carmen only one performance out of the 12 is signed.
That being for Monday March 12th
Many of the other productions offer no signed perfomances at all.
So either some people didn't bother to check beforehand, or were simply taken for mugs by the ticketing agency. But were equally clueless in either case, I'm afraid.
michael adams
...
Sometimes, you go to a particular performance because the date suits your diary.
Except that they can't be heard by deaf people. Which deaf people presumably regard as an inconvenience even if you don't.
And even if the alternative language point is temporarily disregarded for the moment, many subtitles don't actually represent what's actually being said, often with comical consequences.
Which is quite simply wrong. The only programmes to be signed are repeats of programmes shown earlier. Even if your bogus point about films was true, these transmissions wouldn't be unique and those fims would be subject to numerous repeats both before and afterwards.
michael adams
...
This doesn't appear to answer my question. How many deaf people cannot read text subtitles but can understand sign language?
George posted
Haven't been since moving out of London years ago. But if I did decide go to the opera again, I wouldn't expect to have to read up on the politics of disabled lobbying groups before buying a ticket. BSL? WTF?
Probably they had no idea that such things happened.
In which case it's fine to take their money for an experience they can't enjoy? Remind me never to go again.
But why chose a performance where you know beforehand that you're going to be spending a lot of the time (whenever you notice the arm waving at the side) wondering why half the audience are there at all ?
At least unlike Hugh you weren't moved among the OAP's. Who at a guess, along with deaf people paying full price, probably get any last minute concessionary tickets that are going.
michael adams
...
Please tell me why deaf people go to an opera.
Please tell me why your parents didn't educate you properly.
They did - in that the major point of an opera production in the music. Signing cannot even attempt to compensate for that.
I swould say deaf people who cant read Englsih probably arent interested in watching TV either
I see you can't answer the question except with an ad hominem riposte
says it all really.
All mouth, no trousers
To watch a theatrical performance in company with other people, and to take in the atmosphere as far as is possible.
Which presumably are the same reasons you go to opera yourself.
As opposed to listening to a recording of the same in your living room, either in sound alone. Or quite possibly a hi definition DVD or Blu Ray of a performance which you can watch on your TV which may range from say 20 to 70m inches along with the matching sound bar or similar
michael adams
...
In which case why not, assuming that there is one, do as I suggested earlier; simply stay at home and listen to a critically acclaimed recording of a particular opera ?
I'm no music buff but I'd imagine that even with the best performers they're going to have off-nights, which real music buffs who go regularly would be able to identify fairly easily.
So that if a person is a music buff, and goes when one of the performers is having an off-night, then their evening will be spoiled.
Whereas if they're not a music buff, and one of the performers is having an off night, then not only will they not realise the fact, ignorance being bliss in this particuar case, but they would have heard a much better performance had they stayed at home and listened to a CD instead.
michael adams
...
Sorry, but if you are deaf, how do you listen to to a recording of an opera?
That statement was in reply to Richard's question -
Given which, why don't "you" do as I suggested earlier ? Why not simply stay at home and listen to a critically acclaimed recording of a particular opera ?
"You" are the one who's claiming that the main point of an opera production is the music. Nobody else. In which case why aren't "you" happy simply staying at home, and listening to a critically acclaimed recording ?
michael adams
...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.