In most of the texts we sing, those local pronunciations do seem to count
for rather a lot. I've hear some of William Byrd's Latin setting in a
reconstruction of what linguists this English Latin of his time sounded
like. Well, to quote Keanu Reeves : woah! It just sounds wrong, even
although it is likely authentic. It certainly doesn't do what I, amongst
many want Latin to do - provide a smooth italianate line that somehow
smoothes out the difficulties and enhances the mystery of the texts, while
being easy to sing. We always choose out Latin, partly because of
background and prejudice, I suppose. I personally prefer to sing Byrd in an
italianate way, still authentic, since he did after all publish at least
his masses with an eye to a continental market.
There are well attested sources for stresses in both classical latin and
the mediaeval variety - contemporary poems in great amounts - though it
should be remembered that Latin stresses take the form of length of the
sounding of a syllable rather than loudness, which is how we stress things
in modern English (but not in most modern, and ancient, languages).
john
(ex cathedra, naturally)
At 05:53 AM 10/12/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Reg,
>
>I was taught to put the stress on LI...te...ram (or LI...te...ras for
>that matter). But that's not necessarily correct as, let's face it,
>nobody really knows how classical Latin was spoken, and, the later the
>Latin, the more different accents there were - German Latin, Italian
>Latin, English Latin, even, would you believe, Scottish Latin. I think
>Italians might well put the stress on the middle syllable, as you have
>done.
...
John Blyth
Baritono robusto e lirico
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
|
|  |
