Liquescent note on a vowel
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Our schola is singing "Pscha Nostrum." ( Easter communion. This is our second attempt of singing Proper so far. This is a pretty challenging one.) There's a liquescent on "lu" at the second to the last 'alleluia' (sol, la) Are we supposed to sing "lu-i' on those two notes of the liquescent and 'a' septerately on the dotted punctum? I don't know what else you can do to sing that liquescent. This is one of the most beautiful chant (that we know of). I want to do it well. Please help. Thanks.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,198
    You got it!
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    I could be wrong, but I am fairly sure that the liquescent is not telling you to sing "lu-i" at sol-la. I would sing the second note of the liquescent a touch more softly than the previous note.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks, for the posts.

    Robert, if we sing the liquescent note just lightly, it would be singing as podatus. And I even check the Triplex and it has a different sign than podatus. But two groups I heard, CD (solesmes monks) and the one from St. Jogues site, which are in different styles but both done very nicely, sing it like a podatus. Liquescent note is to isolate the second vowel of a diphthong (if it's over the consonants it is to seperate them.) If "lui" from 'alleluia' is a diphthong and supposed to be seperated on liquescent, I wonder why those schola are not doing it? Is it musically unsatisfying for them, so change the neum to sing as podatus? How other scholae are doing this?
  • Leon
    Posts: 6
    The Epiphonus note on the lu is asking for the ee sound of the ia. That is why it is there. It is calling for special attention to the syllable. If it was not there, you would have the usual lu lu ya. There is no softening on a liquescent note. It takes the full value of a punctum. See and listen to A Gregorian Chant Master Class, Chapter 4 and the Gregorian Chant Practicum, Page 126.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    singing "ah le lu ee ah" rather than "ah le lu yah" is perfectly acceptable--very Greek, actually.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Now I'm thinking maybe "i" is not a diphthong of 'lui' of "alleluia"; it is the first sound of "ia" as in 'Ya' from 'Yahweh," ('i' acting as' y,' like'j') then the 'i' should not be seperated from 'a,' which means we have to ignore the liquescent note and sing it as a podatus for 'lu". (and 'ia' on the following dotted punctum.)
    I think this is important; how we sing 'alleluia,' especially when it is involved with God's name, I would like to sing it correctly.
  • StDenisStDenis
    Posts: 15
    You are absoluetely correct, miacoyne, in your suggestion that "i" is not a diphthong. As such, it should never be pronounced as "ah leh lu ee ah," even on a liquescent neume. Rather, it should always be pronounced "ah leh loo yah." The reason for this is found in the etymology of the word, which is neither Latin nor Greek. Rather, "Alleluia" is a Hebrew word meaning "Praise to Him Who Is." It is a compound word, which includes, as you posit, a contraction of Yahweh, which is always pronounced "jah" and never "ee-ah." Unfortunetly, the Greek language, both in the Septuagint and the NT, is forced to fit a foreign phoneme into an alphabet that lacks a glide /j/ sound. Instead, iota, has similar qualities, was utilized to produce the word αλλελυια (with rough breathing over the first alpha, diasresis over iota, and an acute accent over the penult alpha).

    When the Greek was transliterated into Latin, further complications resulted, including the omission of an aspirate. While some books spell it "alleluia," we should always understood it as "allelu-ja," as found in the Vatican edition. In Latin, among other languages, it is possible to have approximant consonants, such as this palatal "j" in "alleluja," which form semivowels with the true vowel following them. And as we all know, the Latin "j" is also written as "y" or, more frequently, "i." This all results in great confusion. How can we tell the difference between a true vowel "i," one which can form diphthongs, and the semivowel "i/j" which is really a gliding consonant. If you doubt what I'm saying, just look a Latin pronunciation guide, even the one found in the introduction of the Liber Usualis (the debate over French pronunciation notwithstanding). You would find "alleluia" as an example under the consonant "j," along with "Jesus," "cuius," etc., and not under any vowel or common diphthong. To illustrate this concept, consider the English word "you." This "y" sound, which is also found, for example, in German or Polish as "j," is never pronounced "ee-u," no matter the musical context or the disposition of the director. The same principle should apply with "alleluia."

    This all being said, it's my humble opinion that we should never attempt to seperate the "i" out. We should preserve the purity of God's Name. Stick to "ah leh loo yah"!

    PS:

    A note of liquescence, at least as I see it. I think two arguments are of merit, the first perhaps a little less logically sound!

    First, I challenge anyone to find a monastery where they sing "ee-ah," even on liquescent neumes. I'm fairly certainly you won't find one. I don't think this would be because of musical or stylistic ignorance on the part of the monks, but merely the continuation of tradition and proper pronunciation.

    Second, take a look at Dom Cardin'es "Gregorian Semiology." His chapter on liquescence includes a review Dom Mocquereau's "classificiations," which include a category of "vowel-/j/-vowel" patterns seperate from other diphthongs. Even within this /j/ grouping, there is a great diversity of interpretation depending on context and meaning. In the end, we must remember that it is "text, melody, and expression" (in that order of importance) which determine the manner in which one interprets chant, especially when it comes to the ambiguous liquescent neume.

    And remember, too, liquesence, in the words of Cardine himself, is not an essential or required element of interpretation. Don't feel bound to "fit it in."

    +SDG+
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    "As such, it should never be pronounced as "ah leh lu ee ah," even on a liquescent neume. Rather, it should always be pronounced "ah leh loo yah." The reason for this is found in the etymology of the word, which is neither Latin nor Greek."

    Explain Byzantine chant, then!! I have heard it sung that way in Eastern churches all over the place. BUT perhaps doing that in a Latin song would be strange. I have heard Byzantine chant in Latin from Ensemble Organum but I guess things are different nowadays.
  • StDenisStDenis
    Posts: 15
    I knew that would be brought up! :)

    Koine Greek and Modern Greek are different "languages." From what I have experienced, Greek parishes are for the most part using modern pronunciation of ancient, essentially Koine, prayers But, I'm not Orthodox, so I don't know 100% whether that's universal. I would attempt to explain it this way...

    As you may know, the Greeks got "iota" happy as they were developing their modern phonology and a lot of stuff was lost--most of the diphthongs, in fact. My guess is a lot of people, not realizing the root of the word, began to pronounce it "ee-ah," since -ια is not one of the eight Greek diphthongs. What else could they do? This stuck. Now, I've heard it both ways in the East...I do not find "ee-ah" at all attractive. But, Latin is not a "living" language like Greek, so we shoud try to find the most ancient usage, which I think is "ah le loo yah."

    However, speaking of the East, consider the Slavic churches, which used a liturgical language from the 800s. I've a lot of experience with the Ukrainian and Ruthenian traditions, and even though they use the vernacular, their "alleluia" has remained the same--always with a glide /j/. Аллилуйя = Alliluja. Never "ee-ah."
  • St Denis -
    Thanks for a very enlightening rationale and lesson. Perhaps the archaic English spelling, Alleluya, makes the best sense after all. This is very consistent with the pronunciation which I have always taught, whether singing in English or Latin, laying stress upon 'Ya-weh'. As a curious aside, however, as regards 'ee-ah' - there are those who maintain that this is a Tudorism. Some, even, use it in singing early English music; for instance, in Byrd's Sacerdotes Domini, singing al-le-lu-ee-ee-a. It does sound quaint, and may or may not reflect actual Tudor speech.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    I like the "ee ah" in Byzantine stuff. It just seems to fit. But for Latin stuff, hey, I guess we ought to go with the Latin way of doing it. Consistency is good.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    St Denis. I'm very grateful for your post. Your explanation really confirmed my decision. Inspite of the popuar textbooks on chants that I cherish very much, I am going with "ia" (as ya) not seperated. I decided to sacrifice musical theory and go with the text. (I quess in order to sing liquescent not as podatus on "lu' is to slightly accentuate the liq. note.? I have to look further into this.) And I think it's very very important since we sing "alleluia" all the time, we should be very careful on this. Thanks.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    My understanding of the liquescent is that the tongue moves to the position of the following consonant without the voice changing the tone of the vowel. It's very easy to do when the next consonant is "N" - the tongue changes position at the very front of the mouth. I guess in this case the tongues position needs to change further back in the mouth - without swallowing it!
  • Leon
    Posts: 6
    Thanks for all the excellent info. Then I guess the question is: why do my Gloria Dei, Solesmes and Dr. Marier CDs have a gentle e sound on the liquescent lu ia? Are they out of date or should I get my hearing checked?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Well, no one can make always perfect judgement, even the prefessionals are still improving their performances and scholars are correcting their theories. When there is a controversy, we have to study, research and try out to make your own choice. Music is not like math, 1+1is not always 2 in music. That's one of the reason why music is beautiful and more challenging; therefore, it is both intellectually and artistically satisfying than any other subject, at least to me.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Perhaps I need my hearing checked...I'm not familiar with Gloria Dei or Marier recordings, but on several generations of Solesmes recordings, and on other chant recordings I have from all over the interpretative map, I hear no "ee" on the liquescent" "lu ia". I hear a slight softening of sound but the same "u" syllable. This seems in line with the introduction to the Liber Usualis: "[liquescent notes] are printed in smaller type but this does not affect their duration nor their execution, except in that they must be sung lightly. They occur [. . .] or to introduce the semi-consonants j or i (ejus, alleluia)."

    I suspect the idea here is that singing the preceding note more softly helps to make the pronunciation clear. In a live acoustical environment, the u spread over two syllables at the same intensity would create a build up of sound that could drown out the semi-consonant j sound, making it sound like "allelu-a".
  • Leon
    Posts: 6
    Thanks. I’m on my way to the audiologist to see if they have something for a tin ear.
  • Leon
    Posts: 6
    Deleted