No more French vowels in Latin!
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Ugh.

    This whole argument about the accents of different nationalities and their effect on the pronunciation of chant has become a tiresome exercise.

    As I said before, our own Holy Father chants with a Bavarian accent . . . so, should he be bully ragged and berated for not falling into line with one group's particular take on correct pronunciation? (Reductio ad absurdum).

    I agree that within the U.S. there are some serious problems of regional accents to overcome (Boston, Texas, the Deep South) . . . my particular favorite is the Midwestern "chewed" R. We do the best we can to get volunteer singers in our choirs to roll, flip or modify, but some never quite get it. The important thing is that the "R" is a constant in our language. Long and short vowels and the schwa are also a constant in our language, but not necessarily in foreign languages, such as French, which is the accent that started this whole rather ridiculous thread.

    How's about we all become masters at the IPA system? Go over to Wikipedia and read the article. It makes the Solesmes pronunciation guide look like instructions for making instant coffee.

    I'll say it again: These vagaries of accent from nationality to nationality are what make the different renderings of Latin pronunciation wonderfully dynamic; I've never had a problem understanding the Latin being sung by French choirs, but there are a fair number of American choirs, singing in English no less, whose diction is so awful that one can't comprehend the words being sung.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    This thread helped me to pay more attention to the diction. The discussion is not about bullying or anyone's preference to a certain way of singing. It's about helping each other, especially among the musicians, who can also in turn help priests who are busy with other things. I learned a lot from "The singers Manual of Enlgish Diction" by Madeline Marchall when I had a chance to study with a voice teacher. I just looked at it again, lots of valable info, may seemed tedious but can make a huge difference when you pay attnetion to those details. On the back of that book I found "The Singer's manual of latin Diction and phonetics" by Robert Hines. MA, or anyone who is more interested in correct diction, do you know whether this book is worth to buy. it's pretty expensive. Thanks.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I found some comments by Prof. Mahrt on the pronunciation of Latin in his chapter of A Performer's Guide to Medieval Music.



    The pronunciation of the text is an interesting problem. "Church Latin" is essentially a modern Italian pronunciation. It as, as well, a close approximation to a generalized European pronunciation (with the most marked exception being the soft c, which was generally pronounced ts rather than ch). But there is good evidence for quite varied national pronunciations, especially in the later Middle Ages, and even today a national pronunciation of Latin by German, or French, or English speakers can be easily identified by most listeners. Remarkably we are as reluctant to use a historic English pronunciation as the French are to use a French one. Moreover, there is good reason to work on the Carolingian pronunciation, since it is surely a significant component in the highly inflected rhythms of the first-generation notation. Compromise pronunciations are traditionally made: the English, for example, have advocated continental vowels and English consonants. A useful compromise musically is to modify the Italian vowels imperceptibly in the direction of the French; this can give considerable suppleness and agility in the singing.

    Practical musicians may have to address specific problems of American pronunciation. Pure vowels are important, maintaining exactly the same sound for the entire duration of the syllable; such diphthongs as Ky-uh-ri-e or Is-rah-ee-yel and plosive pronunciations of t, p, and k should be avoided; a special case of the last is the current British aspiration following the k of Kyrie (approximating a German ch as in ich): Khhy-ri-e.

  • Quite reasonable observations from Prof. Mahrt. Ah! If we only knew what the Carolingians sounded like - then we could imitate Them... via our accents.
  • Sorry for bringing this worn thread back. I mainly wanted to respond to Mia's question.

    Mia, sorry not to respond earlier. Seeing as you'll be at the Colloquium, I can pass along more specific diction resource ideas then. For now, I seem to remember that the Hines book has a good reputation...

    Chonak, with immense respect for Dr. Mahrt, I wonder about the value of a largely historical approach to this problem.

    'A useful compromise musically is to modify the Italian vowels imperceptibly in the direction of the French; this can give considerable suppleness and agility in the singing.' There is such an incredible difference between Italian and French vowels. One palette has 5 fairly distinct colors, the other 16+ shades. I am very intrigued as to what he could have meant by this.

    Interesting, though. Makes me want to read up on Carolingian pronunciation.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    To my surprise, there actually is information about the Carolingian pronunciation available: a few published academic books and a 1902 dissertation available on-line.
    It looks rather incomprehensible to me today, but I'm sure it's clearer to people with a background in linguistic change.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks, MA. I might be wrong on this since I'm not a voice major. One time an expereienced MD gave me a tip on vocal excercises for pure vowels. He added a bit of French ''o". (but "imperceptibly!") I think this can help making the vowels sound light but at the same time not too bright? Whether it's French or something else, we can use them to make our singing beautiful and also work towards more unified diction?
    I'm looking forward to meeting you at the colloquium. I hope to learn not just from the classes but from other musicians I meet there.
  • Many thanks, Chonak. This will be a treasure, and a useful one at that, to stand beside McGee et al's Singing Early Music. We should bear in mind, though, that try as we might (whether 'we' are German, English, American, French, etc) we will still speak whatever language we are trying to learn/mimic with our own native tongue, which will impart its 'accent'. So, unless we are one of those very few who learn, for instance, to speak with a 'perfect' Parisian accent, our speach will always have hallmarks of our mother tongue; we will be obvious Germans, French, Italians, or regional Americans speaking Latin, 'Carolingian', Italian, etc. in accents that inevitably vary though we apply a given standard of vowel quality. We can seldom pronounce living languages in the manner of 'native speakers' - so much greater is the problem of speaking historical languages as they were spoken/sung by those who lived with them in any arbitrarily chosen decade. This is not to imply, however, that much cannot be learnt from the effort; from singing chant as it might well have sounded in any given century and locale is, indeed, to get more deeply into the world of chant, the world of our ancestors, and the world of this song as a still living cultural and spiritual reality for those of us who are alive now.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Recognizing the different accents and working towards unified sounds are definetely two different matters and seemed to be perpetuating in this thread. In another words, it seemed to me many people here are probably agreeing but talking two different matters that are related. Also, degrees of musicians' sensitivity to certain aspects of the musical elements can very, and I think we can respect them.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    "We can seldom pronounce living languages in the manner of 'native speakers' "

    Is that always true? I am told by Japanese speakers that I do not have much of an accent when I speak Japanese (although my grammar is another story)... then again, I started learning Japanese when I was nine. I guess when you're a child you pick up those kinds of things easier. But wouldn't it be possible for language-savvy people with lots of practice to abolish an accent? Why do we have to take accents as a matter of course? I mean, it's definitely possible to lessen accents with learning and practice. If you pick a language up out of a book, you will have a much heavier accent than if you learned it from a native speaker. So while maybe we can't erase them, we can make them better in some regards, no?
  • Jam -
    I think all your assertions are correct. A key word in my statement is 'seldom'. There are those who, as you say, have a talent for assimilating the speach of others. (Somewhere above I cited the Bach Collegium Japan as an example.) To teach an entire choir of volunteers to sing 'Carolingian' according to this or that research, however, would be arduous if at all possible; and even then it would be relative to the educated opinion of one or another scholar as to how this language was spoken in a given decade. If you can speak Japanese with no trace of an accent and proper vocal inflections I admire you. I think musicians have a greater than average ability in this regard because of our acute sensitivity to sound.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    I would never expect a choir to learn to sing any language perfectly--

    but strides could be made toward a certain goal, if people could decide what that goal should be, in Latin's case. I don't know what I think about it, myself. I tend toward simpler vowel systems, because Japanese only has five vowel sounds (ah ee oo eh oh) and it seems like anyone ought to be able to make those sounds, and make them clearly.

    I don't speak with no accent whatsoever... just passably. I don't sound American, I guess. kind of generic.