On Apr 29, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:
I suppose two syllables in "fire" would be pronounced more or less "Fie-yer" with the short "e" sustained, not "Fie-yerrrrr" with the "r" sustained. It IS sung differently than a melisma would be; "Fah- ire". I honestly don't know how to notate the difference.
If I see "fire" written as one syllable, slurred over two or more notes of melisma, then I assume the default interpretation is that every syllable but the last has the "ah" vowel sound and the last includes the entire "ire" sound. A clear example of this is the long melisma in #5 of Handel's Messiah, "and the desi-i-i-i-i-i-ire of all nations shall come". This is consistent with what basic "correct" choral diction would dictate for any diphthong. It would sound ludicrous to sing the final syllable of the melisma on a sustained "errr" sound, and I can't imagine anyone, not even an unschooled singer, would think to try it.
In other examples where two or more notes are slurred over a single syllable of "fire", it does feel natural to make the first syllable "fye" and sing a sustained "er" over the second (so that it rhymes with "buyer"). An example of this is the first line of the 1940s song, "I don't want to set the world on fire". Absent any tradition of how one has heard it sung before, I would guess that some singers would choose to sing "fire" like "fye-er" but some others would sing it as a single syllable like in the first example.
For this particular song, my personal choice would be to sing it like "fye-er". I think it's what the composer intended, and it's consistent with the style in which I would sing this song, which is a more colloquial pronunciation not at all like proper choral diction. Nevertheless, if I were editing the song I would not actually write out "fire" as two syllables. (Nor would I write "want to" as "wanna", even though I would surely sing it that way.) I would rather leave those choices for each singer's styling and instincts, and if some other singers choose to sing "fire" differently, so be it. As we all know from numerous examples, the same song can be successfully interpreted in drastically different styles and for someone else singing in a different style my two-syllable interpretation of "fye- er" might sound ridiculous.
I tend to believe a similar argument is going to cover almost any situation. Even if you intend "fire" to be sung as two syllables, you can notate it as one and leave it to the singer's instincts to agree or not agree. But I tend to like to give performers freedom to interpret, and I know that not all composers are like that, so I can see that a case might arise where one really does want to explicitly indicate two syllable.
Also, you might have a case where you really want to emphasize a certain rhythm. Suppose you're setting syllables in a steady pattern of eighth notes, but to continue the pattern properly you want "fire" on two eighth notes. If those two eighth notes are on the same note, it won't do at all to make it a quarter note because that would suggest a distinct change in the rhythm. You could slur the two eighth notes together anyway, and put "fire" as a single syllable below. That might communicate the idea, but for such a case I think you'd rather indicate the two syllables more explicitly.
So supposing you really do need to write "fire" as two syllables, how do you do it?
I've seen it written as "fi-re". I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've seen it more than once, and I'm pretty sure at least one was in a well-established score (something G&S maybe?) It's an imperfect solution, but I think it's understandable in context, none of the alternatives are perfect either, and there seems to be at least some tradition for it, so I would be comfortable using it if I ever faced the situation.
It's not that much different from hyphenating "i-ron" and expecting it to be sung as "eye-urn".
Side note: Personally, I pronounce "i-ron" like "eye-ruhn" even in ordinary speech, and it is a source of ongoing amusement to my wife to point out that everyone else in the world says "eye-urn". Surely I'm not the only one. Does anyone else out there say "eye-ruhn"?
I also pronounce "comfortable" as four syllable, more or less as written. That one my wife says the same as I do, but we're in the minority against those who say is as three syllables like "comf-ter- ble". Now there's an interesting puzzle. Suppose your lyric has "comfortable" and you want it to be sung in the common way on three syllables, how would you spell/hyphenate that?
There's a local ad on TV here with a jingle that ends with something like "for a reasonable price", but "reasonable" is sung like "reez- nuh-ble", with each of the first two syllables held over a long note. It doesn't bother me, but it drives my wife crazy. (And sometimes It amuses me to sing it at her just to make her squirm.) That one I suppose you could write as "reas'-na-ble".
mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
