This is true of all of the languages
but it may true that it’s easier to understand this and hear this in English
than it is in languages you don’t speak. What am I talking about? Music goes
fast and/or slow but the speed of the sounds of language stay the same. In the
word “you”, if slowed down considerably, there are three sounds – [i] [j] and
[u]. However, if it is sung correctly, no matter how slow the song, the word
should have just two sounds – [ju]. The first two sounds happen almost
simultaneously. This may seem rather self-evident but it’s very common for text
to get mushier and mushier as the melody gets slower and slower. Think of the
“Star Spangled Banner.” Sing it until you get to the word ‘proudly’ and then
slow way down. The first syllable of that word has 3 sounds – [p], [r], and
[a]. The final sound should happen almost immediately but most people make a
huge deal out of the first two sounds and by the time they get to the [a], the
sound which ‘sings’ the most, they’re out of time. The [a] should jump off the
[pr] so that the language has zip and energy. Otherwise there is the feeling
that the singer is singing as if swimming in molasses. Language has zip even if
the melody doesn’t.
To illustrate this point with videos it’s hard to come up with a bad example unless you use a singer who is so hopelessly amateurish it’s hard to get past the bad singing to pick out what you’re supposed to be listening for. So, here are two videos. The first is a Canadian called Marie-Nicole Lemieux who I don’t know at all and who has a fine voice and for the most part expresses herself pretty well. But as you listen, hopefully you’ll notice that she constantly sounds behind the beat and the language isn’t crisp at all. I’m curious to know if you think at first listen that this sounds fine. You may think that this sort of use of language is ok – after all, you can understand what she’s singing.
Secondly, we have the same song (Benjamin Britten’s “The Ash Grove”) sung by Peter Pears, for whom Britten arranged the folk song. Notice how crisp and clean his version is though it’s a tad slower. He had a very enigmatic voice so try to get past the voice itself and concentrate on the diction and the speed of the linguistic sounds.
What do you hear that’s different in the two singer’s approaches to diction? Can you understand one more than the other? Does one appear to be singing notes and syllables whereas one is singing words?
Let me know.
Marie-Nicole Lemieux (This song goes until about 3:05. She sings more but you’re only responsible for ‘The Ash Grove’
To illustrate this point with videos it’s hard to come up with a bad example unless you use a singer who is so hopelessly amateurish it’s hard to get past the bad singing to pick out what you’re supposed to be listening for. So, here are two videos. The first is a Canadian called Marie-Nicole Lemieux who I don’t know at all and who has a fine voice and for the most part expresses herself pretty well. But as you listen, hopefully you’ll notice that she constantly sounds behind the beat and the language isn’t crisp at all. I’m curious to know if you think at first listen that this sounds fine. You may think that this sort of use of language is ok – after all, you can understand what she’s singing.
Secondly, we have the same song (Benjamin Britten’s “The Ash Grove”) sung by Peter Pears, for whom Britten arranged the folk song. Notice how crisp and clean his version is though it’s a tad slower. He had a very enigmatic voice so try to get past the voice itself and concentrate on the diction and the speed of the linguistic sounds.
What do you hear that’s different in the two singer’s approaches to diction? Can you understand one more than the other? Does one appear to be singing notes and syllables whereas one is singing words?
Let me know.
Marie-Nicole Lemieux (This song goes until about 3:05. She sings more but you’re only responsible for ‘The Ash Grove’
How interesting!
ReplyDeleteMarie-Nicole sounds clearly late because she thinks the consonants on the beat instead of the vowels. It can be dangerous. In this case, I believe she sounded ok because the pianist was adjusting the time for her but with an orchestra, it might not work so well.
Peter Pears sounded super clear. His elisions were more clear then Marie-Nicole's. His vowels were more opened too. Also, he sounded less legato which was affected by his crispy singing. His rhythm was more pulsing as well.