Jeffrey Joel wrote :
<< The only consistent thing I have noticed about discussions of tone in 17th and 18th century writings are the insistence on pure vowels. Now, the term "pure vowels" may be open to discussion, but certainly some vowels are acoustically more naturally resonant than others. And they happen to correspond to the usual five Italian vowels, which represent extremes and means of resonator positions....>>
I am a bit tired of reading about "the 5 Italian vowels", since: 1) even in Italian, the "o" and "e" can be open or closed, which makes at least 7 vowels, 2) I cannot find any reason why a [y] (French "u" or German "ü") or a German closed or open "ö" (French "eu") should not be considered (and sung) as "pure".
Depending on your native language, the concern with "pure vowels" is also very different. For an Englishman, it could mean "no diphthongs": each vowel should begin and end with the same sound. For an American, you would like to add "no nasality". For a Frenchman, the emphasis should be put on not letting the preceding and following consonants corrupt the vowel.
| Alain Zürcher, Paris, France | L'Atelier du Chanteur : | http://chanteur.net
|