Advertise on ChoralNet
Need advice on the proper pronunciation of a word in a piece for a competition, thx! =)Date: March 15, 2010 by mickey lau
 Dear all,
My Junior Choir is going to sing a song called "Lightning!" for their Music Festival competition next Monday and I was advised by my colleague who's the head of the English Department to include pronouncing the "t" sound in the word "lightning". Is it correct? As I've checked several online dicts with audio pronunciation and all of them omitted the "t" sound. Are both acceptable, with and without the "t" sound? I want to make sure I'm pronouncing the word correctly. Please advise, many many thanks,everyone!
Mickey =) Replies (8): Threaded | Chronological
Tom Carter on March 15, 2010 11:24am
Mickey,
I think you've brought up something that could be related to "pedagogical differences."
People in one pedagogical camp believe in crisply articulating most consonants, including the "t" in "lightning."
People in the opposing camp would suggest that such articulation is actually counter-productive, jarring listeners and distracting from both meaning and music every T ime one of the Z e C onsonan T s P o P S ou T. These folks (I'm one of them), believe in a more natural and conversational voicing of consonants. "The words should be completely understandable, with appropriate choral diction," the Conversationalists might say, "but the consonants should not be over or hyper-articulated."
So, I would encourage you to pronounce "lightning" as most of us would in normal conversation -- with the tip of the tongue hitting the hard palette at the "t," but without that subsequent explosion of air which turns the "soft 't'" into a "hard 't'." (And thanks to John, below, for the more technical verbiage of "stopped 't'" and "plosive 't'.")
As I write this, I'm imagining myself watching Grease, with the guys singing "Greased ligh T ning." I have observed similar attention to consonants in musical theatre performances, and it's always a clear indication of the vocal director's pedagogical inclination. And to my experience, it's always distracting -- unless it's done for comic effect.
Now, everything I've just written might be completely irrelevant to your particular case -- your head of the English department might just pronounce it "ligh T ning." (Tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto, lightning, ligh T ning... :-)
OR, this could be related to dialect or accent. For example, your English department head might be aware that the piece is based on a New Zealand folk legend, and they might know that New Zealanders pronounce it "ligh T ning." (This is just a hypothetical example -- I don't know how New Zealanders pronounce it!)
OR, the context of the word might be sufficiently dramatic (with heightened emotionality) for listeners to accept a hyper-articulation -- "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword" being one example.
FWIW,
Tom
Stephen Stomps on March 15, 2010 2:18pm
Recently, I was very excited about hearing an internationally revered choir sing in concert. Not long into the concert, I began to itch because I could not hear the text of any of the languages because of the picket fence erected by the unnaturally accented consonants very precisely placed. The plosives and fricatives became objects of adoration and jenuflection unto themselves and had nothing to do with expressive, communicative language whichever language was sung. Tom's example shows the shapened pickets of the fence in front of the meaning.
S
on March 15, 2010 12:15pm
Mickey: At first I thought this was a dumb question, since I can't concieve of "lightning" without a "t," but then I realized what your question actually is:
Should the "t" be a stopped "t" or should it be a plosive "t"?
For a stopped "t" the tongue briefly stops the "t" against the upper gum (and stops the air stream) before proceeding to the "n," while for a plosive "t" the air pressure behind the tip of the tongue is released in a puff of air and the tongue then has to move back into place before it can form the "n." That tends to give a distorted pronunciation of a voiced "Laheet-tuh-ning."
In this case I would definitely coach a stopped "t" because that is the sound most used in conversational speach, while the plosive "t" is associated more with the exaggerated diction of a very self-conscious and dynamic preacher.
I believe I picked up this distinction from my mom, who worked with and thoroughly understood Fred Waring's dictum that a choir must pronounce all the sounds in all the syllables, but do so in a natural and conversational way rather than an exaggerated way.
For what it's worth,
John
on March 15, 2010 12:48pm
Everything I've read here looks like great advice.
The only thing I would add is that you should also consider the context of the piece. I don't know this particular song so I can't really make a judgement. I would tend to agree with using the stopped "t". However if the piece is using the word in a poetic, rhythmic way maybe you would consider a plosive "t".
Have you been able to hear any recordings?
on March 15, 2010 1:21pm
I should think that a decision on how to pronounce the "t" it would depend on the genre of the piece in question (e.g., classical, folk song, jazz, spiritual, etc.) and the tempo. If it were a classical setting in a slow tempo, or a passage of recit., for example, then a gently plosive "T" might be appropriate. Without knowing more about the setting, the tempo, and the text source itself, it seems difficult to offer a definitive answer. MIckey, perhaps you can clue us in as to composer, text source, tempo, etc.
Sarah Johnston
on March 16, 2010 9:13am
Kenyon and Knott: A Pronounciation Dictionary of American English gives [la?tn??] as the only acceptible pronounciation which can be nearly impossible sing in a natural way without over-enunciation. (Unless, of course, these are meant by the composer to actually be lighTning strikes).
There is a colloquial variant, especially amoung young people, in which the plosive t is totally replaced by a glottal utterance more like a grunt or a hiccup which is not what you want,either. The unvoiced labial-alveolar plosive (t) and the voiced labial-alveolar nasal (n) are initiated in the same way: the tip of the tongue touches the alveolar ridge. The glottal-t is a voiced glottal plosive which involves the vocal chords which does not involve either the tip of the tongue or the alveolar ridge--it is a glottal stop and the t is never phonated.
I\'m playing with these variants as I write. I am certainly not happy with a fully phonated t as is the following n with the undesirable -uh in between. BUT I am not unhappy with the result if I place the tip of my tongue to the alveolar ridge and extend the length of contact as I move to phonate the n without glottal involvement.
NB: the Latin word sanctus can pose a similar problem. I was left nearly breathless in the ROTFLOL sense, when the clinician chose the unfortunate choice of demanding the festival choir ENUNCIATE (writ large) every syllable in addition to the added -uh between the sanc and tus. By the time this had been thoroughly ingrained and rehearsed, the result sounded much more like SOCK IT TO US. Remember my picket fence? This was a whole palisade fortress wall!
S
on March 16, 2010 9:31pm
Too much detonation on the T in lightning might cause the word to be mistaken for lightening.
on March 19, 2010 8:28am
Hi everyone,
Sorry for the late reply as I was so up to neck in rehearsals and teaching at school in the past week. All your valuable advices about the proper pronunciation of "lightning" are very much appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to advise! =) My colleague has checked the word via Daniel Jones' dictionary and thought it's the most correct way to pronounce it. Plus, the context of the piece does require the choristers to sing dramatically. Enclosed is a brief description of the context of the piece. The tempo of the piece ranges from 126 to 132, hence, a fairly quick piece to perform. LIGHTNING! Enclosed is a link where you will find the recording of the song under "Music for 2009" called " Lightning 2-part". Please scroll down the list to find it if you'd like to listen to it. Apparently, the choristers who sang in the original recording did omit the plosive "t" and that's why I was puzzled. Thanks again if anyone of you will offer your two cents worth here again. I've already told my choristers to sing the word with the plosive "t" and making sure they don't drag it to sound like "lightening". However, if any of you do consider it wrong to bring out the plosive "t" in "lightning", I'll correct them immediately as our competition is just two days away. Many, many thanks once again for advising, everyone!!!! Fingers crossed xx http://www.greggilpin.com/listen.php
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
