Vocalist.org archive


From:  natural@w...
Date:  Tue May 16, 2000  2:19 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist-temporary] "s" in Jesus


At 06:17 PM 05/15/2000 -0600, DIANE M. CLARK (MUSIC DEPARTMENT) wrote:
>natural@w... (Do you have a name?) wrote:
>
> >>I have to admit, I'm stumped. I don't see how anyone could
>publish such nonsense. I don't doubt there are choral traditions
>that drop h's in latin, but all the choral recordings I've ever
>heard of latin texts pronounce the h's.
>
>I know for a fact that all h's were sounded in classical latin,
>
>+++++
>
>Sorry to disappoint you,

There's no way you could disappoint me, because I don't know you
well enough to expect anything of you :)

>but what Melanie quoted is standard info in any
>diction book on sung Latin.

Then how do you account for all those recordings of latin choral
works? (including religious music) Are all those recording
artists on the wrong page? Or are they just not well enough
educated to accept your authority?

> That's why I challenged your statement about no
>silent letters in the first place. It's true that h's were sounded in classi-
>cal Latin, but sung liturgical Latin has traditionally been pronounced more
>like Italian (since that's where the church started using Latin).

That's very close to what I said a few sentences later. Read
what I write if you want to criticise. Don't take a sentence out
of context and make assumptions from it. You know what happens
if you "assume". I can see how my "no silent letters" statement
may have sounded pretty absolute, though.

I had already moved on from church usage - after
recommending that the original questioner do whatever she was
directed to do. There's lots of different kinds of churches one
might be called upon to perform in. Each one has its standards
and practices. I'm pretty sure there are even Roman Catholic
parishes that use other standards of pronunciation.

> Just
>because one hears something performed a certain way does not make it right or
>definitive.

nor does the fact that you teach something make it necessarily right or
definitive. Nor does the fact that it's in the books you
consider standard make it right or definitive.

> Many countried do sing Latin in their own special way, but the
>standard info is what Melanie quoted.

Lots of things were standard a hundred years ago, or perhaps
just a few years ago, that look pretty silly today. The material
Melanie quoted contains distortions (if not outright lies) about
"ancient manuscripts." What is that reference doing in there if
not in an attempt to shore up a doubtful pronunciation? Is that
what you look for in a standard?

If you mean "standard for the catholic church" - well, ok,
that's a perfectly reasonable place to have standards -
especially when singing there, and that is the locus of the
original question, but I had moved on, having already pointed
out that when singing in any institutional setting one really
ought to do it the way they want to hear it or risk the
consequences.

But in any other venue, evidently this is not a standard much
followed, especially by recording artists - serious artists
knowing that their work will be judged by posterity usually seem
to choose more rational pronunciations.

One final point: many liturgical texts are ancient in origin, so
it really wouldn't be wrong to pronounce them the way their
authors heard them.

Sometimes teachers are the hardest heads to crack. but I
usually succeed eventually. I try to write as clearly as I can,
but sometimes there isn't time to consider all the ways I might
be misunderstood. It's only email, after all :)







emusic.com