Dear Randy and Vocalisters
You wrote:
>That's the point of pure vowels in a sense, they're recognizable. The
>modification of vowels in the lower portion of the female voice especially
>makes them unrecognizable. This is not a vowel line, but a variation of the
>schwa phoneme line.
Your least sentence is not clear to me. Do mean that any vowel that
is not defined according to some standard is not a vowel? Or that a
vowel that is pronounced differently from your understanding of its
pronunciation is not a legitimate vowel?
Every Diction teacher I know has quickly become aware of the
different vowel pronunciations that occur within their classes once
they begin to teach correct pronunciation for that classes native
language. In addition to this great discrepancy of pronunciation is
the fact that each student is not capable of even hearing vowel
differences until such differences are constantly repeated. Teaching
such a course is an eye opener and tends to destroy the concept of
"pure" vowels rather quickly.
However, there is always a need for vowel definition such that a text
may be understood. Any time a vowel in a word is changed and the
word becomes some other word, text understanding is damaged. But
migration around "pure" vowels is common and often necessary. It
should not become a trademark nor a personality of the singer but
rather a necessary alteration to achieve some other goal than a
strict production of a predetermined "pure" vowel sound.
I know of no language in which any vowels are consistently pronounced
the same way, whether in speech or song. Even the French, who try to
control their pronunciation more carefully than most have great
variation in their spoken and sung language. It is always a goal
that a common standard be used for singing any language but that
common standard is mostly a benchmark, not an absolute.
--
Lloyd W. Hanson, DMA
Professor of Voice, Pedagogy
School of Performing Arts
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
|
|  |
