Church Latin, or anything else in the Church, is not defined by Italy alone. Deo Gracias!

This said as someone who clings to his French O vowels until death.

M. Jackson Osborn,
I concur with your rationalization and have observed what you describe, notably with Germans... Yes its human, but so is going flat and playing lots of wrong notes, etc. Even considering limitations, we should strive to do our best with diction. I'm also aware of the general history of vernacular imposition on Latin, and it makes perfect sense. (Would love to hear the Erasmus complaint.)

Still, the French are so vulgar (pun intended) about this. If the text of the chant is to be illuminated, to have primacy, and the text is in Latin, shouldn't the singing have more than a slight flavor of Latin? I consider that the Italianate Latin basically has five vowels, while the French has more than three times that amount... Sometimes the French distortion of the vowels goes so far as to obscure the text, and can't we all agree that is problematic?

To be clear, I love singing in French and have nothing against French or France per se.

But- this goes for Gavin, too- it seems reasonable that Italian would be the standard for Latin over French, considering the old empire which gave life to the language was centered in (now) Italy, and not in France. Also, modern French is a much different bird than the French that would have been spoken when the chants were written...

What I am left to ponder is this. Could it be that the French take such immense pride in their language that their tongues simply will not bend when speaking other ones? I'm just askin'.

I'm so glad this came up. I'd like to know correct "O" sound. As singing Mum says, I want to sing it as correctly as possible. Our latin teacher says latin "o" should sound like 'O' as in 'caught.' I listened mostly to French singing chants, It seems 'O' in 'Gloria' is different from 'O! Jesu." When we do vowel exercises in our shcola, how much open or close our lips is an issue.
When the children sings Kyrie XVI, I asked to focus on more closed 'o' sound (and demonstrate) at the end, and it was amazing that by doing that ,they even corrected the singing of the last 6 notes on "O.'

CharlesW - The only problem with such a resurrection would be figuring if we are meeting Sisseroh or Kickeroh! I learned Latin in northeast Ohio, modified by northern California and central Texas and I figure that's just about the right balance. Marc Anthony would be proud. As our schola long ago accepted, when somebody comes up to us with a correction to our pronunciation we shall respond with an insistence that they join!

Oh, bosh on the whole classical Latin approach. I will never sing "mikki magna" since it's a) ugly, and b) closes off airflow.

:-P

I'm with ya, Pes.
I'm also glad we didn't get mired in this bog down at the Winter Intensive in SD. A couple of issues (ecce "mihi=mee-kee") came up which Maestro Turkington deftly put to rest, I suspect just to keep momentum. But I distinctly remember his consistent usage of the more open "e" formation because I will never forget one of the worst episodes of my undergrad years. In choral teaching pedagogy, I was presenting a "how-to sing Latin diction in 10 minutes" to the class. At the time, I used the more open "e" as well, so the somewhat mitigated "ah-lay-LOO-yah" was demo'd. However, present in the class was a visiting Israeli choral conductor, who excoriated me after the presentation mercilessly for polluting that particular vowel; "had I never read this, never heard that..." It seemed his irritation went on for hours while my professor and the class squirmed in their seats. Needless to say, from that I've always deferred to Roman Latin pro-and enunciation as is found in most of the recent books and pamphlets.

As a vocal pedagogue, I am less concerned with "correct" pronunciation of Latin than with efficient vocal production; as a conductor, with beauty of tone. No sooner would I allow my French choir to sing the "oi" in "gloire" as in the American English "cat" than my English-speaking voice students to sing "how high the sky" with four different main vowel sounds.
While French, Germans, and Italians might pronounce the phoneme [o] slightly differently, it is still essentially the same sound. (Incidentally, two Germans or two Italians would also pronounce it differently, and any one person would sing it differently on different pitches). The same goes for [a]. However, if one has so much [^] (as in "truck") in their "a" vowel that it no longer sounds like [a], then that is not a regional variant; it is inefficient vocal production. In short, I approve of regional variants so long as they approach the same ideal. What I absolutely cannot abide is the singing of Mozart with so-called "German" Latin by non-Germans simply because Mozart was a Germanic composer, which seems to be de rigeur in certain choral circles.

incantu, any chance you will be at the Colloquium? I am a vocal pedagogue as well, and would love to meet you.

In my teaching I find that pure vowels do impact efficient vocal production, and that striving for (relatively) correct Latin diction helps production immensely. This is especially the case when working with a group of people who are not matching vowels. Certainly native speakers or anyone else will pronounce any vowel in a slightly different matter.

But I maintain that many recordings of French speakers singing Latin chant are well outside a spectrum of modest variety. The French is often superimposed to such a degree that it obscures the Latin, which is what drives me nuts.

Most amateur singers are led by their ear to mimic the sound of what they hear. And if they are learning their notes from a recording, they are also most often unwittingly absorbing and putting to muscle memory everything else they hear. After so many years directing and singing in a variety of choirs, I have found that, regardless of the finer pronunciation choices a director makes, modeling, including diction, is really vital to achieve a cohesive sound.

I am pleased to abide by the pronunciation of vowels as recommended in the Liber Usualis. (page xxxvj)

A as in father
E as in red
I as in feet
O as in for
U as in moon
Y treated as the Latin I

then AE = OE = E

That about does it. Keep in mind that this "Roman style" of "liturgical" pronunciation of Latin is different from "Ecclesiastical" Latin which retains a difference between long and short vowels.

It's ironic that the SOlesmes brothers sing the vowels in that bizarre fashion because they're the ones who edited the Liber Usualis and the frontmatter with the pronunciation guide ... which they blatantly ignore.

Pes, I've actually heard more than one distinguished choir interpret the vowels as the opposite: "Eh-LAY-ee-sawn."
I defer to my more knowledgeable and less loquacious colleagues with simply going for the unified vowel solution under any situational circumstances.

David Andrew: Ditto and Bravo!

I guess I better stay out of this, because I actually like the way the French pronounce Latin.

You can put me firmly in the Italianate Latin camp--I try to get my schola to stick to 5 vowels. Here in the DC area, many people come from various parts of the country--and abroad--so choirs have to deal with the variations of vowels from various regions. Then there are the many diphthongs that English speakers use without even realizing it.

Then there's the constant battle against the Amerrrican Arrrrr.

Actually it was in France from 1309 to 1377 during which time 7 Bishops of Rome resided in Avignon. ;-)

The French speak English with an accent, just as the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, etc. And, they each speak each other's languages with accents as well.

Why on earth should we expect, simply because Latin is a universal language of the Roman Rite that these other nationalities should be expected to pronounce Latin without an accent that is peculiar to their own language? As one who has struggled to learn and speak French, I'm aware that there are vowels inherent in the French language that are totally alien to the universe of English vowels; the various ways that the "e" can be pronounced, or the "o", for example.

Our own Holy Father pronounces Latin with a Bavarian accent. Shall we berate and bullyrag him for not pronouncing the language of the Rite for which he is the supreme leader? Shall we insist that our Pontiffs only come from Italy since that's where Rome is located? Sarcasm back on, Yurovidi.

I'm ashamed at the arrogance displayed in this thread by certain members who I'm sure are otherwise both tollerant of diversity (in the true sense, not the PC sense) and also intellectually honest in their positions.

Mary Ann, you said that "considering the old empire which gave life to the language was centered in (now) Italy, and not in France." Can we not admit that it was the Franks who created "Gregorian" chant, though? Personally, I like the regional variants as long as the vowel sounds don't send the notes out of tune. Vive l'difference!

For those who value diversity over unity in diction, do you apply the same ideas to other aspects of music?

I mean, if a schola were to sing a very sharp fa and a very flat ti... would it bother you? Do you have an issue with the standardization of pitch, which is also quite different in various parts of the world?

Slight varieties in latin pronounciation, varieties in listners' aritistic sensibilities to them. I think we can respect that. I wonder how it would sound when those French schola sings with American midwest schola, Korean schola...together in an international gathering.
Certain level of varieties from different regions and ethnic groups are unavoidable. But also I want to think that after the Church took Latin as Her universal language and Gregorian chant as Her song, the spirit of universality has to be present in singing Gregorian chant in liturgy, over one's preference to a certain diverted form. I think the pronunciation guide in LU (the common book ) can be our guide either it is done by French or someone else. If it's not an accepted guide, maybe we should have one. (maybe latin scholars can come up with something better if they think it's not good, until then we have LU) Also I don't understand why people keep talking about how latin is used before it became the Church's official language. Does it really matter? Maybe it wasn't as diginified as other languages. But our almighty God often uses and raises the lowly to a high place. I don't see how latin is used as a secular language before it became sacred should affect how it is used now.

It's true that the chant was contributed mainly by the Franks, but (as mentioned above) it was still Latin chant. If the Solesmes brothers aren't going to go by their own material, why did they publish it in the first place?

In any case, it makes sense to me from a linguistic standpoint to use the pronunciation from the same geographical area where the language was originally centered, rather than from somewhere far away on the other side of the Rubicon.

From a vocal standpoint, it makes sense to me to use nice, open, sunny, Italianate vowels rather than pinched-off, nasal, Frenchified ones where there is a choice. If I were singing Après un Rêve, I would use French vowels; but not if it were Post Somnium.

I would also point out that the little sojourn in Avignon is referred to as the "Babylonian Captivity," not "The Church's Holiday in the South of France." I certainly wouldn't go Frenchifying Latin based on a little hostage situation like that.

I concur with Yurodivi and David Sullivan's position on the sense of Italianate vowels. Yurodivi makes total sense- 'If I were singing Après un Rêve, I would use French vowels; but not if it were Post Somnium.'

And I would answer Chonak's question on English and its standardization the same way Yurodivi did. That's my approach in performing and teaching.

CharlesW,
It seems you are a reasonable AND humorous organist. What a delightful rarity! :)
There are so many levels of singers, but a trained singer in good vocal condition can adapt vibrato so its not excessive.

Maureen,
Good points in all. You are right that no one is forcing me to buy Frenchified CDs. However, I regret that they are used for pedagogical purposes because I think the mushy diction has not been a gift to those who want to sing chant well. I also have several in my own library because of their historical value. But I can only take a little at a time. :)

The following is from "Understanding the Latin Mass: Hear and Learn the Words of the Novus Ordo"
by Marion P. Smedberg

"Latin, by being an unchanging language, protects the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and helps to keep the Church true to Tradition. Appreciate the beauty of Latin as a sacred liturgical language, which unites Catholics around the world and over the centuries. And take every opportunity to celebrate the music composed for the Latin liturgy; for it is truly a "treasure of inestimable value," as the Second Vatican Council stated in The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy.

Regarding the correct pronunciation of Latin words, vowels, and consonants, we are not concerned with the delicate question of how the ancient Romans pronounced their native language but only with the pronunciation of the living Liturgical Latin of the Church. Our aim, therefore, in compliance with the wishes of Pope St. Pius X (as well as of his successors), is to pronounce and speak Latin more Romano (in the Roman style). Referring to this Liturgical Pronunciation of Latin, Pope Pius XI, in a letter to Card Dubois of Paris, expressed himself: "Not content like Our Predecessors, Pius X and Benedict XV, simply to approve this pronunciation, We Ourselves express the keenest desire that [ . . . ] every nation shall endeavor to adopt it when carrying out the liturgical functions."



French is a very pretty language, and many people are attracted to it, including me (very much). But heavily French accented Latin should not be overrated because of our attraction to a certain lagnuage.
In regard to the grammar, as a non Enlgish speaker, I see Latin is less confusing than Enlgish. (although there are lots of rules to remember) English has so much exceptions and different pronounciations. It's just people who are used to that language don't seem to notice that. Our schola started a latin class, and the instructor has emphasized to start with English grammar. And many grown ups were embarrassed how little they knew about the grammar, and how little the public school teach grammar these days. Some of home schooled teens in the class were very well equipped to learn latin and understood much better than many adults in the class, because many home schooled children are still learning disciplines of the grammar.

M. Jackson Osborn,
Your main point seems to be that accents in Latin are not troubling. Is this really about celebrating regional charm or ignoring an important aspect of vocal training? With respect, I would ask again,
if you value diversity over unity in diction, do you apply the same ideas to other aspects of music?

I mean, if a schola were to consistently sing a very sharp fa and a very flat ti... would it bother you? Do you have an issue with the standardization of pitch, which is also quite different in various parts of the world?

Clear, unified vowels are important to tone production and artful choral singing. Since no one is speaking Latin as a native speaker, it is a good idea to have a standardized way to pronounce the vowels, at least to attempt this.

MA -
Your points are well taken, and do indeed reflect my own frequent concerns. 1) Concerning accents, there are, actually, some that disturb me more than others whether one is singing in Latin OR English - for instance, some characteristics of a Bostonian accent are quite less grating than most characteristics of a Texas accent (and, one could list further parallels). Most of us would not be averse to a British accent, whereas we likely would consider a Georgia accent in need of tutoring. Others of us would, doubtless, have their own lists of pleasurable ('educated') and not pleasurable ('un-educated') accents in singing. My point, then, was not so much concerned with my prefered ideal, but with the reality that accents exist everywhere and that some we accept as 'kosher' and others we do not. Some are more maleable than others in reaching conformity to our Cultivated & Conventional Standard of Church Latin as put forth in many texts and chant books. But, even when we tutor our singers as needed to adjust to that Convention, traces of accent will inevitably remain: it is ineluctible that, even when following the 'rules' for pronouncing Church Latin, the results will vary from North to South to West, or from language to language. It takes much intense tutoring to obliviate congenital vocal habits (such as getting Texans to sing 'our', not 'are'). And, when we have got our singers where we want them we may well find that the singers from another place sound just as good to us but different if not better. So, to address your impression of my point: some accents Are troubling... others are not. This means, to me, that this is more about vocal aesthesis than about a mythical proper pronunciation of Latin. 2) You raise the question of pitch. Of course, 'out of tunness' bothers me. But this question is, also, not without qualification, and, like that of accents, may be more one of aesthetics than of an arbitrary system of tuning. Is, for instance, an organ playing out of tune if it is in mean-tone (or singers if they are attempting to reconstruct what pre-well tempered ears heard)? The answer is, naturally, yes and no. Thus, tuning, too, is not an absolute in all performing situations. But, relative to the tuning system that is being applied to a given musical endeavour, 'out-of-tunness' is obviously a negative experience.

An aside on the 'accent question' - the Bach Collegium Japan, whose recording of B's Easter Oratorio I have been listening to, is an astounding group to hear, and an example of how, in fact, some people, when determined, can overcome their own native speech (in this case, Japanese) to imitate the speech of others. If one heard this group without knowing who they were, one would be utterly certain that they and their original instrument orchestra were Bach scholars from Leipzig. But, this is an example of a very dedicated scholarly society whose goal has been the mimicking (I use the word non-pejoratively, perhaps 'mastery' would be better) of the objective artistic characteristics of a musical culture other than their own. To the extent that their Bach is, in fact, better than that of some Germans!