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
|
