question about latin mass pronunciation/transcription??
Please see attached (Capture) for what I think is the wrong way to transcribe this:
"la-u-da-mus" (with a note under "la" and "u") (Capture is from a score pdf from IMSLP.)
I'm pretty sure that it should instead be
"lau-da-mus" (with "lau" on one note, dashes on the next note, as per Capture 2))
but my latin diction understanding is not nearly as good as my italian, german, and french.
This is from the Te Deum that closes Act 1 of Puccini's Tosca.
Thanks,
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Capture.PNG | 70.55 KB |
| Capture 2.PNG | 3.42 KB |
Comments
I don't see any difference between your two screen-shots, but the correct underlay of Latin texts is a common problem. I suggest you check Ron Jeffers' book on sacred Latin texts for an authoritative reading of this.
The underlay of Latin texts in many early editions is problematic for a number of reasons; a lot of the 19th- and early 20th-century published editions uploaded to IMSLP are particularly unreliable. Unless you can find a really clear autograph ms of the work (try searching on RISM ), you'll need to consult a recognised reference such as Jeffers, and make an editorial decision based on your source editions and the best modern scholarship you can find.
I'm not an expert on Latin either, but I think you miss something. There is no "Latin diction": in English it is pronounced as English-Latin, in German as German-Latin (listen to a German recording of Carmina Burana). And in Italian, above all, Latin is regarded as "old Italian", and pronounced largely as Italian. So "la-u-da-mus" seems very natural. Actually, I think that in English-Latin this seems quite natural too: you would not pronounce it like the English word "laud" (equal to "Lord", unless like me you are rhotic, and pronounce the 'r').
In reply to I'm not an expert on Latin by Imaginatorium
First- apologies, Capture 2 is, in fact, the same as Capture. Capture 3 (attached) is what Capture 2 was supposed to look like.
This subject is certainly more involved than I would have thought, and thanks to Recorder485 and Imaginatorium for your well-thought responses. I'm going to do some more research, and will post my results here.
For what it's worth- when I was first trained in Latin diction (for singing purposes only, English is the only language that I can converse in) I was told that there was some sort of authoritative document issued by the Catholic church that defined how the mass was to be pronounced. Since this goes back to the mid 1970's, my memory on this is certainly not to be relied on. But I was always told that the first syllable of "laudamus" was pronounced as the dipthong in "how now brown cow". Imaginatorium's response is certainly an eye-opener, indicating that there are regional differences. Also, I have a number of recordings of masses by groups from different countries; I will re-listen to those as well.
Thanks,
In reply to First- apologies, Capture 2 by marty strasinger
See http://www.theholymass.com/part8.htm and http://www.patriciagray.net/Latin/
In reply to First- apologies, Capture 2 by marty strasinger
FWIW, when I asked a similar question of my consulting choral editor, she stated that dipthongs are not used in Latin. But the Jeffers book has been adopted as a standard for this sort of thing by a large portion of the choral directors working today.
In reply to FWIW, when I asked a similar by Recorder485
The first 10 web sites that I researched, plus the 2 that JoJo provided, all indicate that "au" is a dipthong, pronounced as the "ou" in "house".
In reply to The first 10 web sites that I by marty strasinger
Check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbb-kaurSW0
And for "Gaudete" check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDc2FD-vy8M ;-)
In reply to Check by Jojo-Schmitz
Did you see my Gaudete attempt? I only posted it a short while ago...
In reply to The first 10 web sites that I by marty strasinger
@marty strasinger, I do not know if it can be helpful to you:
line 1 as you write
line 2 as you sing
see attached
In reply to @marty strasinger, I do not by Shoichi
Shoichi,
Thanks very much.
In reply to I'm not an expert on Latin by Imaginatorium
Since the pdf in question is from an opera by Puccini, his librettist was Italian, and presumably the engraver of the pdf was as well, it makes sense that it would be engraved in an Italianate manner "la-u-da-mus".
I looked up some hard copies of masses that I've sung in years past, and noticed that non-Italian composers (Beethoven, Gounod) put the "lau" of laudamus on a single note, while Puccini put it on two notes. This tends to re-enforce Imaginatorium's statement about Latin being pronounced similar to Italian by the Italians, and otherwise by non-Italians.
In reply to Since the pdf in question is by marty strasinger
For urtext editions, transmitting the 'composer's intention' is considered of paramount importance, even if the composer obviously 'erred' in some manner according to modern standards of musical scholarship. OTOH, if you are trying to produce a 'practial' or 'performance' score, you have a bit more leeway in what you can/should write. In an urtext, it must always be possible for the user to determine whether a particular note, text, or other score marking appeared in the source, or if it is an editorial change or addition. In a non-urtext performance score, the editor makes the corrections he thinks necessary, and adds a general statement in the foreword or other intoductory text material explaining how and why he did what.
In short, for any serious edition of a work, the editor should indicate any and all changes he has made from the specified source edition(s) he used. This can be done by bracketing editorial changes, or by comments in the critical report (which should specify the measure number, instrument or voice, and beat/note number), or both.