# Diction



## Diminuendo (May 5, 2015)

First I have to admit that I don't speak Italian, French or German. But I can recognize if its done properly. There are singers who have perfect diction, so you can hear perfectly how they massacre the language. And then there are singers who do both well. I myself prefer good diction and if the singer also knows the language properly all the better. My favorite tenor Di Stefano has divine diction and he also sings in French properly. Then there is Corelli whose French singing is so exciting, that I don't care that his French is not very good. Bad diction is why I don't like Joan Sutherland that much. Undoubtedly a great singer, but not my cup of tea.


----------



## Camillorf (Jul 18, 2014)

I can't speak any of the three languages you mentioned but, like you, I too have a problem with lack of clarity. I feel the same about Joan Sutherland. Whilst I admire everything she has achieved on a technical level, the fact that I can never tell which vowel she is attempting to sing prevents me from enjoying her. I think poor diction takes so much away from a performance, both in terms of expressiveness and in terms of the music itself.


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Joanie is a mush mouth.
On the good side you have di Stefano, Lanza and Steber for starters. There are others but these came to mind first.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Camillorf said:


> I can't speak any of the three languages you mentioned but, like you, I too have a problem with lack of clarity. I feel the same about Joan Sutherland. Whilst I admire everything she has achieved on a technical level, the fact that I can never tell which vowel she is attempting to sing prevents me from enjoying her. I think poor diction takes so much away from a performance, both in terms of expressiveness and in terms of the music itself.


Joan Sutherland is one of my favorite sopranos, but of course more for her tone, her technique, and her personal warmth (yes, I feel this comes across in her recordings) than her enunciation -- which, however, was sharper during the 1970's than it was during most of the 1960's (though it was probably best at the very start of her career).

A funny thing (though probably something of a no-brainer) is this: when I listen to Sutherland while following along with the text in a libretto, I can hear the words quite well, but not so much when I'm just listening without any printed text. On the other hand, I'm far from being fluent in Italian (though I am of Italian descent). The foreign language I know best is Spanish; all of the French and most of the German I know I've learned from opera. I'm very much a "timbre" person: for better or for worse it's the sheer sound of the singer's voice that's the most important factor in deciding whether or not I like that singer. Diction is certainly very important, but it's something I tend not to think about very much as a thing in and of itself. I have noticed when singers have excellent diction. The first example that comes to mind is Bryn Terfel, though I suppose you could say that his foreign languages are "accented" -- i.e. I can hear his British accent when he sings in Italian, French, etc. (not that I, personally, mind this).


----------



## nina foresti (Mar 11, 2014)

Truth to tell, Joan was one of my top favorite sopranos early on. Her "Art of the Prima Donna" is unexcelled. At that time she had not adopted that mushier middle till her mate Bonynge decided that he wanted her to get deeper.
I recall driving down the road with her high note blaring away at a red light. The person next to me hearing it gave me a big smile and a thumbs up sign.


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Diction, diction,diction...If you don't work hard with diction then I am not interested in hearing your performance - please don't take offence as none is intended - Its only business. For diction its just about impossible to beat Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau:


----------



## Camillorf (Jul 18, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> Joan Sutherland is one of my favorite sopranos, but of course more for her tone, her technique, and her personal warmth (yes, I feel this comes across in her recordings) than her enunciation -- which, however, was sharper during the 1970's than it was during most of the 1960's (though it was probably best at the very start of her career).
> 
> A funny thing (though probably something of a no-brainer) is this: when I listen to Sutherland while following along with the text in a libretto, I can hear the words quite well, but not so much when I'm just listening without any printed text. On the other hand, I'm far from being fluent in Italian (though I am of Italian descent). The foreign language I know best is Spanish; all of the French and most of the German I know I've learned from opera. I'm very much a "timbre" person: for better or for worse it's the sheer sound of the singer's voice that's the most important factor in deciding whether or not I like that singer. Diction is certainly very important, but it's something I tend not to think about very much as a thing in and of itself. I have noticed when singers have excellent diction. The first example that comes to mind is Bryn Terfel, though I suppose you could say that his foreign languages are "accented" -- i.e. I can hear his British accent when he sings in Italian, French, etc. (not that I, personally, mind this).


I agree with you that in terms of timbre, Joan Sutherland produced a really nice rounded, warm sound from the bottom to the very top of her range. I must make it clear that I was in no way trying to dismiss everything she has achieved technically. Her voice was pretty much a miracle. I listened to a YouTube clip of her singing one of Maria Stuarda's arias in a concert performance in Covent Garden where she sustains, if I remember well, a high Db in the end. It sounded like the fattest Db I ever heard come out of a singer's mouth. The sheer size of her voice combined with the ease with which she sang all those fast coloratura passages is simply incredible. Not only was she a very gifted singer but she must have worked really hard to get her technique to such a high level. But when it comes to personal taste, clarity is not something I am willing to overlook. I understand what you mean when you say that her personal warmth comes across in her recordings. I get that with some singers too. But I feel like I get much more in terms of the character being portrayed when it sounds like the singer really knows what they are singing about and the text is used to maximum effect to convey drama. That is why I prefer singers like Beverly Sills, whose voice is not as big and whose sound is not as warm, but whose diction is better thus enabling her to show a greater sense of involvement with the text.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

I know French, Italian, and Spanish well enough (in this order), but all are foreign languages for me. Still I have problems with Diana Damrau singing Italian roles. Her vowels are not as open as they should be, and she has a style of singing with an almost closed mouth that does not work with latin/romance languages. She is my best Queen of the night, but one of the worst Violetta, still not as bad as Anna Netrebko...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Words and music are not merely superimposed on each other. Composers set specific words that have specific sounds and accentuations, and if they are good composers they will know how to use the sounds of words as well as to find the right mood for them. Styles of music differ in this respect; Baroque music may be more "instrumental" and relate less to the specific words being sung at the moment, but even in early music, recitative and arioso passages demand a clear projection of words to make their proper effect. Wagner made a virtual science out of the most effective way to set his language in order to make the word musical and the music articulate.

I will not listen to singers with vague diction. Enunciation is not optional. It is part of the music. Two singers I prize for their diction - among other fine qualities - are Elisabeth Grummer and Tito Schipa. When you hear such artists exquisitely etch a vocal line by means of the sounds of words and feel them speaking directly to you, you realize beyond any question that, for a singer, diction is an essential element of musicianship.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Camillorf said:


> *I agree with you that in terms of timbre, Joan Sutherland produced a really nice rounded, warm sound from the bottom to the very top of her range.* I must make it clear that I was in no way trying to dismiss everything she has achieved technically. Her voice was pretty much a miracle. I listened to a YouTube clip of her singing one of Maria Stuarda's arias in a concert performance in Covent Garden where she sustains, if I remember well, a high Db in the end. It sounded like the fattest Db I ever heard come out of a singer's mouth. The sheer size of her voice combined with the ease with which she sang all those fast coloratura passages is simply incredible. Not only was she a very gifted singer but she must have worked really hard to get her technique to such a high level. But when it comes to personal taste, clarity is not something I am willing to overlook. I understand what you mean when you say that her personal warmth comes across in her recordings. I get that with some singers too. But I feel like I get much more in terms of the character being portrayed when it sounds like the singer really knows what they are singing about and the text is used to maximum effect to convey drama. That is why I prefer singers like Beverly Sills, whose voice is not as big and whose sound is not as warm, but whose diction is better thus enabling her to show a greater sense of involvement with the text.


I agree completely with the last point you made, though I personally am not quite as enthusiastic about Sills as you are. As for the bolded part: for me it's the roundness and evenness in Sutherland's voice that sort of "stands in," to an extent, for the lack of clear enunciation. She probably would have come across as more dramatic had her diction been better...but then again, I don't know, because she doesn't seem to have had a very dramatic _temperament_. For example, her recorded Donna Anna from 1959 is pretty clearly enunciated but not very "fiery." And had she kept the good diction her voice might not have sounded so "round" and seamless as it did. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I find Sutherland's _voice_, with its evenness and technical completeness, so satisfying that I'm willing to forgive the mush-mouthed enunciation. I look at it like this: plenty of sopranos had sharper diction than Sutherland, but few if any had such a big voice combined with such agility and such a great coloratura technique. Because she had those three things in combination she was a phenomenon, the likes of which we might never see again.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Words and music are not merely superimposed on each other. Composers set specific words that have specific sounds and accentuations, and if they are good composers they will know how to use the sounds of words as well as to find the right mood for them. Styles of music differ in this respect; Baroque music may be more "instrumental" and relate less to the specific words being sung at the moment, but even in early music, recitative and arioso passages demand a clear projection of words to make their proper effect. Wagner made a virtual science out of the most effective way to set his language in order to make the word musical and the music articulate.
> 
> I will not listen to singers with vague diction. Enunciation is not optional. It is part of the music. Two singers I prize for their diction - among other fine qualities - are Elisabeth Grummer and Tito Schipa. When you hear such artists exquisitely etch a vocal line by means of the sounds of words and feel them speaking directly to you, you realize beyond any question that, for a singer, diction is an essential element of musicianship.


I'm with Woodduck on this one. Surely good diction is part of good technique. I hate to bring Sutherland up again as an example, but she is often cited as a singer with a perfect technique, but if that technique necessitates reducing every vowel to a vague "aw" sound, swallowing all consonants in order to achieve a legato, then how is that a perfect technique? Admittedly this wasn't always the case; in her early recordings her diction is actually quite clear, and her performances, to my ears anyway, are enlivened because of it. Later on her lack of diction becomes a serious impediment to enjoyment, for me anyway. Even in her famous recording of *La Fille du Regiment*, you'd be hard pressed to know what language she is singing in. Pavarotti, on the other hand, is so clear, you can hear just how bad his French is, something that also applies to Corelli in any of the French roles he sang. Their _diction_ remains superb, even when their _pronunciation_ of the language is not.

Take another example, say Sutherland's recording of Puccini's _Senza mamma_. Here she does try to sing the words, but the words cause her to have problems maintaining a pure legato line in the very first phrase _Senza mamma of bimbo tu sei morta_. To hear what I mean, listen to Scotto or Tebaldi, singers with very different instruments, but both of them have perfect diction and are yet able to maintain a smooth, effortless legato line. I don't think it has anything to do with them being Italian, because Callas, De Los Angeles and Caballe all manage it too.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

GregMitchell said:


> I'm with Woodduck on this one. Surely good diction is part of good technique. I hate to bring Sutherland up again as an example, but she is often cited as a singer with a perfect technique, but if that technique necessitates reducing every vowel to a vague "aw" sound, swallowing all consonants in order to achieve a legato, then how is that a perfect technique? Admittedly this wasn't always the case; in her early recordings her diction is actually quite clear, and her performances, to my ears anyway, are enlivened because of it. Later on her lack of diction becomes a serious impediment to enjoyment, for me anyway. Even in her famous recording of *La Fille du Regiment*, you'd be hard pressed to know what language she is singing in. Pavarotti, on the other hand, is so clear, you can hear just how bad his French is, something that also applies to Corelli in any of the French roles he sang. Their _diction_ remains superb, even when their _pronunciation_ of the language is not.
> 
> Take another example, say Sutherland's recording of Puccini's _Senza mamma_. Here she does try to sing the words, but the words cause her to have problems maintaining a pure legato line in the very first phrase _Senza mamma of bimbo tu sei morta_. To hear what I mean, listen to Scotto or Tebaldi, singers with very different instruments, but both of them have perfect diction and are yet able to maintain a smooth, effortless legato line. I don't think it has anything to do with them being Italian, because Callas, De Los Angeles and Caballe all manage it too.


I hear what you mean in Sutherland's version of "Senza mamma." A small point: I get a little irritated when she is described as having a "lack of diction." That makes it sound as though there were no words whatsoever audible in her singing during the central years of her career, which was certainly not the case. Instead, I would write: "a lack of consistent clarity," or a "lack of verbal incisiveness." And I personally don't recall hearing Sutherland described as having _a perfect technique_, but rather as having an _extraordinary coloratura technique_. Surely there's a difference: the second is more specific than the first and doesn't necessarily imply things like "faultless legato." (I have also heard her span of breath described as remarkable, though perhaps not as remarkable as Caballe's.)

For what they're worth, here are some random things about Sutherland I've noticed/learned over the years:

-- I think there was a point, maybe around 1970, when her vibrato slowed down -- not to the point of a wobble, but perhaps to the point of a "beat."

-- I read recently that even after her sinus surgery of 1960 or so she continued to have serious issues, regularly suffering from blocked sinuses and even "ear abscesses" (whatever that is, it sounds awful). What's interesting about this is that I also read where she herself insisted that she _was_ pronouncing the words clearly -- so perhaps, for some reason related to her sinus issues, the words just weren't _coming across_ clearly? Maybe the surgery "rearranged the resonating cavities," or something to that effect? (I honestly don't know; I'm just throwing out conjectures based on what knowledge I have of the singing voice.) On the other hand, she did admit that her aesthetic values were something like "tone and line first, words second," so it wouldn't seem as though "coloring the text" was ever a top priority with her.

-- I get the sense that as she aged her voice became less flexible and "easy" (like water out of a tap), something I understand happens to many if not most singers eventually. Probably this compromised her legato, the recording of "Senza mamma" being a good example.

I'm the first to admit I don't know what to make of the above points, especially #2. What I do know is that I love listening to Sutherland; I enjoy her for what she is, and I listen to other sopranos when I want to hear the qualities she didn't possess. To my mind, that's the joy of liking a wide variety of singers: there's always a trade-off.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> I read recently that even after her sinus surgery of 1960 or so she continued to have serious issues, regularly suffering from blocked sinuses and even "ear abscesses" (whatever that is, it sounds awful). What's interesting about this is that I also read where she herself insisted that she _was_ pronouncing the words clearly -- so perhaps, for some reason related to her sinus issues, the words just weren't _coming across_ clearly? Maybe the surgery "rearranged the resonating cavities," or something to that effect? (I honestly don't know; I'm just throwing out conjectures based on what knowledge I have of the singing voice.) On the other hand, she did admit that her aesthetic values were something like "tone and line first, words second," so it wouldn't seem as though "coloring the text" was ever a top priority with her.


I'm pretty sure there is something to this. The sound of a voice depends almost totally on the system of resonating cavities in the human head, which determine the overtone structure of the sound, which determines the individual timbre of the voice. Overtones certainly also play a part in distinguishing the vowels; it's well-known that the soprano voice, in its upper register, has in general great difficulty in producing certain vowel sounds, particulary the long "ee" sound, and that wise composers must avoid setting words in such a way that difficult vowels occur on high notes. We can hear this even in singers with otherwise clear diction.

I'm quite willing to believe that some part of Sutherland's diction problem was a matter of physiology - of resonances in the voice which tended to push sounds toward, or cover them with, the dreaded, anonymous "schwa." In fact I sometimes think I can hear this very thing as I listen to her: a certain "bottled-up" quality in the timbre which is an essential quality of the voice but is unfortunately detrimental to sharp distinctions among the vowels. As for consonants - well, there I can't but conclude that there was more of a choice on her part, or an accommodation to a vocal technique which could not produce an even stream of tone while at the same time articulating clearly with lips, teeth and tongue. If the latter is the case, it would have to be considered a technical fault. Ideally there should be no mutual interference between the vocal muscles which produce the tone and those which pronounce the words, so that the latter seem to "float" on the former like a water lily on a stream. In fact, the old Italian singing-masters called such diction "flower of the lips." We can hear the delicate precision of such enunciation in singer after singer who recorded early in the 20th century, and of course in many since then, though I am not alone in thinking that this refinement of vocal technique has become less common today.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Just a comment on the general subject of opera singers' diction: We talk about this or that singer's diction as being good or bad, but as for the lay listener (i.e. the person who doesn't habitually listen to opera), it seems his/her ear has to be "educated up" to the level of operatic diction. An example of what I mean: my dad is proficient in French but knows very little about opera. One day he happened to hear the recording of Pavarotti singing "Ah, mes amis" from LA FILLE DU REGIMENT -- the one GregMitchell described as clearly enunciated. My dad's reaction? "I can't understand a word of it." My point is that even if an opera singer has clear diction, as Pavarotti had, it doesn't automatically follow that the words will be readily understood by the "average guy on the street" who speaks the language being sung.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'm pretty sure there is something to this. The sound of a voice depends almost totally on the system of resonating cavities in the human head, which determine the overtone structure of the sound, which determines the individual timbre of the voice. Overtones certainly also play a part in distinguishing the vowels; it's well-known that the soprano voice, in its upper register, has in general great difficulty in producing certain vowel sounds, particulary the long "ee" sound, and that wise composers must avoid setting words in such a way that difficult vowels occur on high notes. We can hear this even in singers with otherwise clear diction.
> 
> I'm quite willing to believe that some part of Sutherland's diction problem was a matter of physiology - of resonances in the voice which tended to push sounds toward, or cover them with, the dreaded, anonymous "schwa." In fact I sometimes think I can hear this very thing as I listen to her: a certain "bottled-up" quality in the timbre which is an essential quality of the voice but is unfortunately detrimental to sharp distinctions among the vowels. As for consonants - well, there I can't but conclude that there was more of a choice on her part, or an accommodation to a vocal technique which could not produce an even stream of tone while at the same time articulating clearly with lips, teeth and tongue. If the latter is the case, it would have to be considered a technical fault. Ideally there should be no mutual interference between the vocal muscles which produce the tone and those which pronounce the words, so that the latter seem to "float" on the former like a water lily on a stream. In fact, the old Italian singing-masters called such diction "flower of the lips." We can hear the delicate precision of such enunciation in singer after singer who recorded early in the 20th century, and of course in many since then, though I am not alone in thinking that this refinement of vocal technique has become less common today.


Yeah, for a while now I've suspected that there was more to the story than simply "poor diction."


----------

