Sung Russian for the Low Male Voice Classical Singer

Home , Akanye, Blue (opera), Esther (Weisgall opera)

Sung Russian for the Low Male Voice Classical Singer: The Latent Pedagogical Value of Sung Russian with a Fully Annotated Bibliography and IPA Singers’ Transcriptions for Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52: Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak

Daniel A H Mitton

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts, Music Performance Graduate Department of the Faculty of Music University of Toronto

Sung Russian for the Low Male Voice Classical Singer: The Latent Pedagogical Value of Sung Russian

Daniel A H Mitton

Doctor of Musical Arts, Music Performance

Graduate Department of the Faculty of Music University of Toronto

2020 Abstract

Low male voice classical singers (LMVs) are a statistical rarity (R. Miller 2008). Their relative scarcity notwithstanding, the research undertaken in this thesis shows that LMV-specific voice pedagogy resources do exist, including a rich body of Russian vocal literature suitable for the

LMV. This thesis positions singing in Russian as beneficial for LMV classical training by examining how secondary palatalization and the presence of the [i] vowel in sung Russian promote a fronted tongue, and how the prevalence of its default dark-a allophone [ɑ] facilitates a low, stable larynx. Both of these vocal tract configurations are hallmarks of fine classical singing technique (Bozeman 2013). To measure how much of net phonation time is spent singing in these corresponding vocal tract configurations, I operationalized Musorgsky’s Sunless and

Kabalevsky’s Op. 52 Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak using an enhanced version of Pacheco’s Graphic-Statistic Method (Pacheco 2013). The resulting data were overlaid with values reflective of resonances of the LMV vocal tract to show where acoustic ‘pitches of turning’ fall in this repertoire (D. Miller 2000; Godin and Howell 2015). I found that the fR1/fo interaction so important to treble voices singing in ‘whoop’ coupling is largely irrelevant to

LMVs. Instead, it appears that LMV vocal acoustic concerns mostly involve developing an awareness of the fR1/2fo interaction an octave lower that marks the transition between singing in

ii open and close timbre; this is the primary acoustic registration event of male voices (Bozeman

2013). From an acoustics perspective, being able to identify where a given voice should appropriately ‘turn over’ is an important pedagogic diagnostic ability that normalizes how an unforced, well-coordinated timbral transition sounds and feels. I created newly annotated vocal scores for these two song cycles to make it easy to identify open and close timbre and other acoustic turning events at a glance. Considering these cycles with the analytical methods offered here equips teachers with another way to inform appropriate LMV repertoire selection. Future scholars may use this approach to investigate other voice types and national repertoires.

iii

Acknowledgments

Robert Nesbitt is my good heart. He cheer-leads my continuing education, and is central to my life’s two great passions: to love my family, and to make good art. Bob’s love and support make my work possible. This doctorate is half his. Thank you, Husband. 143.

Andrew Thompson, thank you for always having my back. Sustaining a balanced life outside of the doctoral process is tricky. Reminding this potentially dull boy to play is trickier. Thank you.

The personal interactions I’ve enjoyed with Kenneth Bozeman have deepened my understanding of ‘cover’ and other aspects of practical vocal acoustic phenomena. Thank you.

Dr. Judith Fisher lent her keen eye to an early draft, improving its tone and clarity. Thank you.

Dr. Joshua Glasner brought structure to my methodology by sharing his lab template. Thank you.

Dr. Craig Grayson kindly shared his welcome insights on my transcription work. Thank you.

My friend Dr. Ian Howell’s thoughtful insights opened up new avenues of thought and new research directions that I would have been unlikely to initiate on my own. Thank you.

Dr. Alexei Kochetov’s calm, scholarly input was a great and generous gift. Большое спасибо.

Professor Lorna MacDonald’s editing acumen significantly improved this paper. Thank you.

Dr. Julia Mikhailova’s knowledge of Russian improved my data collection. Большое спасибо.

I learned many important and valuable lessons from my voice teacher Dr. Wendy Nielsen over our six years together. I bring these lessons forward into my own teaching life. Thank you.

Over the past five years my supervisor Professor Steven Philcox facilitated the completion of my final DMA recital credit by producing my final recording project, and has generously invested many hours discussing, reviewing, and editing my work. Thank you.

Dr. Nicholas Perna expanded my thoughts on the acoustic model explored here. Thank you.

Thank you to the unnamed folks who contributed to my doctoral experience in ways seen and unseen, exposed me to new ideas, inspired me to think differently, and asked great questions.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Tables ...... xi

List of Figures ...... xii

List of Appendices ...... xviii

Chapter 1 ...... 1

Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Research questions ...... 2

1.2 Additional aims and objectives ...... 3

1.3 Scope statement ...... 3

1.4 A note on International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) notation ...... 4

1.5 A note on pitch notation ...... 4

1.6 A note on ‘formant’ (i.e. vocal tract resonance) notation ...... 5

1.7 Open and closed vowels vs. open and close timbre ...... 6

1.8 Summary ...... 7

Chapter 2 ...... 8

Literature Review ...... 8

2.1 Russian lyric diction resources ...... 8

2.2 Linguistics texts that discuss Russian articulation ...... 14

2.3 Applied vocal acoustics texts ...... 15

2.4 Paradigms for quantifying the singing voice ...... 17

2.5 Voice pedagogy texts that address the LMV ...... 19

2.6 Summary ...... 21

Chapter 3 ...... 22

Low Male Voices (LMVs) ...... 22 v

3.1 LMVs defined ...... 22

3.1.1 LMV physical indicators ...... 22

3.1.2 Fach and the LMV ...... 23

3.2 LMV-specific training ...... 24

3.2.1 The LMV and ‘registration’ vs. laryngeal registers ...... 26

3.2.2 The LMV zona di passaggio ...... 29

3.2.3 LMV training essentials: falsetto and head voice ...... 30

3.2.4 Cover ...... 31

3.2.5 Open/close timbre, yell/whoop coupling, and micro-crossings ...... 32

3.3 Finding LMV-appropriate Russian vocal literature ...... 33

3.4 LMV presence in classical voice pedagogy ...... 34

3.5 Summary ...... 35

Chapter 4 ...... 36

Sung Russian ...... 36

4.1 Some shared traits between sung Italian and sung Russian ...... 37

4.2 The basis of articulation ...... 38

4.3 Prosody: Russian as a stress-timed language ...... 42

4.4 Open syllabification for singing ...... 44

4.5 The Russian Cyrillic alphabet ...... 45

4.6 The sung Russian vowels ...... 48

4.6.1 The familiar [i] ...... 51

4.6.2 Closed-e, [e] ...... 52

4.6.3 Smallcaps-i, [ɪ] ...... 52

4.6.4 Velar-i, [ɨ] ...... 53

4.6.5 Open-e, [ɛ] ...... 54

4.6.6 Bright-a, [a] ...... 54 vi

4.6.7 Dark-a, [ɑ] ...... 55

4.6.8 The sung Russian schwa: turned-v [ʌ] ...... 55

4.6.9 The contestable [o] ...... 56

4.6.10 Reliable [u] ...... 57

4.7 The sung Russian consonants ...... 57

4.7.1 Bilabials ...... 59

4.7.2 Labiodentals ...... 59

4.7.3 Dental/Alveolars ...... 59

4.7.4 Sibilants ...... 61

4.7.5 Postalveolars ...... 61

4.7.6 Palatals...... 61

4.7.7 Velars ...... 61

4.7.8 Obstruents ...... 62

4.7.9 Coronal consonants ...... 62

4.8 The Russian phonemes in order of frequency ...... 63

4.9 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction” (2012) ...... 64

4.9.1 Notation for Russian lyric diction singers’ transcriptions ...... 65

4.9.2 Palatalization...... 67

4.9.3 Assimilation, reduction, fronting, deletion, and reconstitution ...... 68

4.9.4 Voicing assimilation across the word boundary ...... 71

4.9.5 Russian syntax and necessary breaks ...... 73

4.9.6 Doubled consonants in sung Russian ...... 73

4.10 Summary ...... 73

Chapter 5 ...... 74

Methods ...... 74

5.1 Generating original IPA transcriptions ...... 75 vii

5.2 Data collection for the Graphic-Statistic Method...... 76

5.2.1 Introduction ...... 76

5.2.2 Methods ...... 76

5.2.3 Conclusion ...... 78

5.3 LMV fR1 locations for Russian lyric diction target vowels ...... 79

5.3.1 Introduction ...... 79

5.3.2 Method ...... 79

5.3.3 Results ...... 81

5.3.4 Discussion ...... 82

5.3.5 Conclusions ...... 83

5.3.6 Equipment information ...... 84

5.4 Summary ...... 84

Chapter 6 ...... 85

Results ...... 85

6.1 Introduction to Sunless and overall trends ...... 85

6.1.1 Sunless 1: В четырёх стенах (Within four walls) ...... 89

6.1.2 Sunless 2: Меня ты в толпе не узнала (You did not recognize me in the crowd)...... 92

6.1.3 Sunless 3: Окончен праздный, шумный день (The idle, noisy day is done)...... 94

6.1.4 Sunless 4: Скучай (Be bored) ...... 98

6.1.5 Sunless 5: Элегия (Elegy) ...... 101

6.1.6 Sunless 6: Над рекой (On the river) ...... 105

6.2 Introduction to Kabalevsky Op. 52 and overall trends ...... 106

6.2.1 Op. 52 no. 1, Тебе ль меня придётся хоронить (Sonnet 81) ...... 108

6.2.2 Op. 52 no. 2, Трудами изнурён, хочу уснуть (Sonnet 27) ...... 111

6.2.3 Op. 52 no. 3, Люблю, но реже говорю об этом (Sonnet 102) ...... 113

viii

6.2.4 Op. 52 no. 4, Когда на суд безмолвных, тайных дум (Sonnet 30) ...... 115

6.2.5 Op. 52 no. 5, Бог Купидон дремал в тиши лесной (Sonnet 153) ...... 117

6.2.6 Op. 52 no. 6, Не изменяйся, будь самим собой (Sonnet 13)...... 120

6.2.7 Op. 52 no. 7, Ты – музыка (Sonnet 8)...... 122

6.2.8 Op. 52 no. 8, Ты погрусти, когда умрёт поэт (Sonnet 71) ...... 124

6.2.9 Op. 52 no. 9, Уж если ты разлюбишь - так теперь (Sonnet 90)...... 126

6.2.10 Op. 52 no. 10, Увы, мой стих не блещет новизной (Sonnet 76) ...... 128

6.3 Discussion ...... 131

6.4 Summary ...... 132

Chapter 7 ...... 133

Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 133

7.1 Conclusions ...... 133

7.2 Next steps ...... 135

Bibliography ...... 138

Appendix A: Fully Annotated Bibliography ...... 146

A.1 Vocal literature resources ...... 146

A.1.1 General lyric diction resources ...... 147

A.1.2 Sung Russian resources ...... 150

A.1.3 Interpretive analysis and genre guides ...... 156

A.1.4 Scores ...... 159

A.2 Voice pedagogy resources ...... 161

A.2.1 General singing instruction ...... 161

A.2.2 LMV-relevant texts ...... 172

A.2.3 Applied vocal acoustics texts...... 177

A.2.4 Other singing voice research resources ...... 187

A.3 Linguistics resources ...... 193 ix

A.3.1 General linguistics texts ...... 194

A.3.2 Texts concerning the basis of articulation ...... 195

A.3.3 Russian–specific resources ...... 199

A.3.4 Other relevant linguistics research ...... 204

Appendix B: Sunless fR1/nfo Interactions ...... 206

B.1 Sunless 1: В четырёх стенах (Within four walls) ...... 207

B.2 Sunless 2: Меня ты в толпе не узнала (You did not recognize me in the crowd) ...... 208

B.3 Sunless 3: Окончен праздный, шумный день (The idle, noisy day is done) ...... 209

B.4 Sunless 4: Скучай (Be bored) ...... 211

B.5 Sunless 5: Элегия (Elegy) ...... 212

B.6 Sunless 6: Над рекой (On the river)...... 215

Appendix C: Kabalevsky Op. 52 fR1/nfo Interactions ...... 217

C.1 Op. 52 no. 1, Тебе ль меня придётся хоронить (Sonnet 81) ...... 217

C.2 Op. 52 no. 2, Трудами изнурён, хочу уснуть (Sonnet 27) ...... 219

C.3 Op. 52 no. 3, Люблю, но реже говорю об этом (Sonnet 102) ...... 221

C.4 Op. 52 no. 4, Когда на суд безмолвных, тайных дум (Sonnet 30) ...... 223

C.5 Op. 52 no. 5, Бог Купидон дремал в тиши лесной (Sonnet 153) ...... 225

C.6 Op. 52 no. 6, Не изменяйся, будь самим собой̆ (Sonnet 13) ...... 227

C.7 Op. 52 no. 7, Ты – музыка (Sonnet 8) ...... 229

C.8 Op. 52 no. 8, Ты погрусти, когда умрёт поэт (Sonnet 71) ...... 231

C.9 Op. 52 no. 9, Уж если ты разлюбишь - так теперь (Sonnet 90) ...... 233

C.10Op. 52 no. 10, Увы, мой стих не блещет новизной (Sonnet 76) ...... 235

Appendix D: The Russian Alphabet Song...... 237

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Ten Russian lyric diction print resources compared by notation styles ...... 10

Table 2.2: Vowel phonemes by author ...... 13

Table 3.1: LMV zone di passaggio ...... 30

Table 4.1: Russian Cyrillic alphabet with obsolete letters ...... 47

Table 4.2: Grayson’s Russian lyric diction consonant inventory ...... 58

Table 4.3: Phoneme frequency rankings ...... 63

Table 4.4: Degrees of sung Russian vowel assimilation ...... 70

Table 5.1: Vowel data rubrics ...... 77

Table 5.2: Word cues for target vowels ...... 80

Table 5.3: LMV informant fR1 and fR2 values ...... 81

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Sunless 3, m. 35 ...... 33

Figure 4.1a-b: The neutral and palatalized configurations of the speech organs in Russian ...... 41

Figure 4.2: Grayson's Russian lyric diction vowel inventory ...... 49

Figure 4.3a-j: Grayson’s sung Russian vowel inventory modeled on Bolla ...... 50

Figure 4.4: Combined vowel appearances in both Sunless and Kabalevsky Op. 52 ...... 64

Figure 5.1: Legend of operationalization values ...... 76

Figure 5.2: LMV informant fR1 and fR2 values expressed as pitch ...... 82

Figure 5.3: My pitches of turning between open and close timbre, one octave below fR1 ...... 82

Figure 5.4: Bozeman's bass pitches of turning ...... 83

Figure 6.1: Sample Detail of Data Entry Spreadsheet ...... 86

Figure 6.2: Sunless overall range and tessitura ...... 88

Figure 6.3: Sunless vowel proportions as percentages of net phonation time ...... 88

Figure 6.4: Sunless overall vowel distribution grouped as front vs. central vs. back ...... 89

Figure 6.5: Sunless 1 data collection worksheet ...... 89

Figure 6.6: Sunless 1 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 90

Figure 6.7: Sunless 1, m. 6...... 90

Figure 6.8: Sunless 1 vowels in open and close setting ...... 91

Figure 6.9: Sunless 1, m. 17 (possible 3fo/fR1 tuning) ...... 91

Figure 6.10: Sunless 1 vowel frequency ...... 91

Figure 6.11: Sunless 1 vowel distribution by gross oral posture ...... 92 xii

Figure 6.12: Sunless 1 approaches to [ɑ] ...... 92

Figure 6.13: Sunless 2 data collection worksheet ...... 92

Figure 6.14: Sunless 2 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 93

Figure 6.15: Sunless 2, m.9...... 93

Figure 6.16: Sunless 2 vowels by open and close setting ...... 94

Figure 6.17: Sunless 2 vowel frequency ...... 94

Figure 6.18: Sunless 3 data collection worksheet ...... 94

Figure 6.19: Sunless 3 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 95

Figure 6.20: Sunless 3, m.35 ...... 96

Figure 6.21: Sunless 3, m.7...... 96

Figure 6.22: Sunless 3 vowels in open and close setting ...... 96

Figure 6.23: Sunless 3, mm. 39-41...... 97

Figure 6.24: Sunless 3 vowel frequency ...... 97

Figure 6.25: Sunless 3, mm. 17-22...... 97

Figure 6.26: Sunless 4 data collection worksheet ...... 98

Figure 6.27: Sunless 4 range, tessitura and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 99

Figure 6.28: Sunless 4 vowel frequency ...... 99

Figure 6.29: Sunless 4, m.5...... 100

Figure 6.30: Sunless 4 gross oral postures...... 100

Figure 6.31: Sunless 4 vowels by open and close setting ...... 100

xiii

Figure 6.32: Sunless 5 data collection worksheet ...... 101

Figure 6.33: Sunless 5 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 102

Figure 6.34: Sunless 5, m.31-32...... 102

Figure 6.35: Sunless 5, mm.34-36...... 102

Figure 6.36: Sunless 5, m.41 ...... 103

Figure 6.37: Sunless 5 distribution of >fR1, open, and close timbral occurrences ...... 103

Figure 6.38: Sunless 5, mm.1-3 ...... 103

Figure 6.39: Sunless 5 vowel frequency ...... 104

Figure 6.40: Sunless 5 adjacent fronting agents ...... 104

Figure 6.41: Sunless 6 data collection worksheet ...... 105

Figure 6.42: Sunless 6 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 105

Figure 6.43: Sunless 6, mm.27-29...... 106

Figure 6.44: Sunless 6 vowel distribution ...... 106

Figure 6.45: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall range and tessitura ...... 107

Figure 6.46: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall vowel distribution ...... 107

Figure 6.47: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall gross oral postures ...... 108

Figure 6.48: Op. 52 no. 1 data collection worksheet ...... 108

Figure 6.49: Op. 52 no. 1 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 109

Figure 6.50: Op. 52 no. 1, mm.35-38 ...... 109

Figure 6.51: Op. 52 no. 1 vowels by open and close setting ...... 110

xiv

Figure 6.52: Op. 52 no. 1 vowel distribution ...... 110

Figure 6.53: Op. 52 no. 1 vowel-adjacent fronting agents ...... 111

Figure 6.54: Op. 52 no. 2 data collection worksheet ...... 111

Figure 6.55: Op. 52 no. 2 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 112

Figure 6.56: Op. 52 no. 2, mm.48-52 ...... 112

Figure 6.57: Op. 52 no. 2 vowels by open and close timbre ...... 113

Figure 6.58: Op. 52 no. 2 vowel frequency ...... 113

Figure 6.59: Op. 52 no. 3 data collection worksheet ...... 113

Figure 6.60: Op. 52 no. 3 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 114

Figure 6.61: Op. 52 no. 3 vowel frequency ...... 115

Figure 6.62: Op. 52 no. 3, mm.18-20 contiguous palatalized consonants ...... 115

Figure 6.63: Op. 52 no. 4 data collection worksheet ...... 115

Figure 6.64: Op. 52 no. 4 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 116

Figure 6.65: Op. 52 no. 4, mm.10-12 ...... 116

Figure 6.66: Op. 52 no. 4, mm.35-37 ...... 117

Figure 6.67: Op. 52 no. 4 vowel frequency ...... 117

Figure 6.68: Op. 52 no. 5 data collection worksheet ...... 117

Figure 6.69: Op. 52 no. 5 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 118

Figure 6.70: Op. 52 no. 5, mm.66-70 ...... 119

Figure 6.71: Op. 52 no. 5 vowel frequency ...... 119

Figure 6.72: Op. 52 no. 5 vowel-adjacent fronting and nonfronting agents ...... 120

Figure 6.73: Op. 52 no. 6 data collection worksheet ...... 120

Figure 6.74: Op. 52 no. 6 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 121

Figure 6.75: Op. 52 no. 6 vowel frequency ...... 121

Figure 6.76: Op. 52 no. 7 data collection worksheet ...... 122

Figure 6.77: Op. 52 no. 7 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 123

Figure 6.78: Op. 52 no. 7 vowel frequency ...... 123

Figure 6.79: Op. 52 no. 7 open and close vowel distribution ...... 124

Figure 6.80: Op. 52 no. 7, m.10 ...... 124

Figure 6.81: Op. 52 no. 8 data collection worksheet ...... 124

Figure 6.82: Op. 52 no. 8 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 125

Figure 6.83: Op. 52 no. 8 vowel frequency ...... 126

Figure 6.84: Op. 52 no. 8 vowel-adjacent fronting agents ...... 126

Figure 6.85: Op. 52 no. 9 data collection worksheet ...... 126

Figure 6.86: Op. 52 no. 9 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 128

Figure 6.87: Op. 52. no. 9 vowel frequency ...... 128

Figure 6.88: Op. 52 no. 10 data collection worksheet ...... 128

Figure 6.89: Op. 52 no. 10 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio ...... 129

Figure 6.90: Op. 52 no. 10, mm.54-56 ...... 130

Figure 6.91: Op. 52 no. 10, mm.72-74 ...... 130

xvi

Figure 6.92: Op. 52 no. 10 vowel frequency ...... 130

Figure 6.93: Op. 52 no. 10 vowels set in open and close timbre ...... 131

xvii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Fully Annotated Bibliography ...... 146

Appendix B: Sunless fR1/fo Crossings ...... 206

Appendix C: Kabalevsky Op. 52 fR1/fo Crossings ...... 217

Appendix D: The Russian Alphabet Song...... 237

xviii

Chapter 1 Introduction

This thesis discusses the latent pedagogical value of sung Russian. Framing its argument from physiological and acoustic perspectives, it makes a case for incorporating Russian vocal repertoire into the training regimens of low male voice (LMV) classical singers. This is done by discussing how the shapes of the vocal tract required by sung Russian reflect established LMV classical singing objectives. A fronted tongue and a low stable larynx are two vocal tract configurations known to be hallmarks of well-coordinated classical singing. This thesis considers how palatalization in Russian and the common presence of the [i] vowel promote a fronted tongue, and how the prevalence of backed lyric diction targets such as sung Russian’s [ɑ] facilitates a low, stable larynx. This study further combines applied vocal acoustics data with a simple method of statistical analysis to examine the fR1/nfo interactions encoded into two Russian song cycles for LMV.

This is the first thesis to apply an acoustico-statistical approach to classical Russian vocal literature for the LMV. It responds to Pacheco’s “invitation to other researchers to give their own contributions” issued in his article where his Graphic-Statistic Method is introduced.1

Research for this thesis involved a broad survey of the literature to locate LMV-specific mentions. The interdisciplinary nature of this inquiry draws on vocal literature resources, voice pedagogy texts, and linguistics resources. Each is described at length and its relationship to this thesis is made clear within each entry in the Fully Annotated Bibliography of Appendix A. A subset of texts that directly address the research questions posed in § 1.1 is contrasted in Chapter 2’s literature review.

Contrary to initial assumptions that voice pedagogy underserves LMVs, and correspondingly that suitable LMV-specific training and repertoire options are scarce, LMV mentions do exist and are integrated into several voice pedagogy texts (see §§ A.2.1 and A.2.2).

1 Alberto José Vieira Pacheco, “Angelica Catalani’s Voice According to a Method of Statistical Analysis,” Journal of Singing 69, no. 5 (May/June 2013): 567.

1 2

The work of Dr. Craig Grayson plays a key role in this thesis. After surveying other available English-language Russian lyric diction resources, I have adopted his subset of symbol selections for the Russian lyric diction phonemic inventory (see § 2.1).2 Grayson cites copiously and refers to peer-reviewed work outside his own, linking his own work to established linguistics resources in a way that is exceptional among Russian lyric diction resources. He discusses aspects of the mechanics of Russian pronunciation for unamplified singing that other print resources implement sporadically, or not at all (see §§ 2.1 and A.1.2 for descriptions of other Russian lyric diction resources, and § 4.9 for a detailed account of Grayson’s work). Most of the available Russian lyric diction print resources contain obvious notation errors. Some appear to be based on variants of Slavicist or Americanist notation instead of International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) symbols. Others supplement with symbols that fall outside the IPA canon. None include the degree of nuance that Grayson’s work explains methodically. Grounded in contemporary language science, Grayson's dissertation best serves the research questions. It forms the foundation of the original transcription work offered here in Appendices B and C, and drives my choice of the ten vowels tracked in the data collection described in § 5.2.

1.1 Research questions

The following questions guide this inquiry:

1) What is the phonemic inventory of Russian lyric diction? What are the vocal tract configurations required to perform these phonemes?

2) Does a LMV singing in Russian encounter any meaningful acoustic events such as acoustic turning points, micro-turnings, or vowel migrations through the LMV zona di passaggio?

3) Do emergent connections in response to these questions suggest that singing in Russian supports the performance goals of the developing LMV classical singer?

2 Craig M. Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction: A Practical Guide with Introduction and Annotations and a Bibliography with Annotations on Selected Sources,” DMA dissertation, University of Washington, 2012.

1.2 Additional aims and objectives

1) To discuss options through which non-Russian singers can acquire facility with challenging aspects of sung Russian (i.e. a strategy for mastering palatalization, and a strategy for creating a singing-optimized velar-i [ɨ]).

2) To assemble and share a curation of LMV-specific voice pedagogy resources.

3) To add to the body of singers’ resources with original IPA singers’ transcriptions for Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52: Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak.3

1.3 Scope statement

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the features of sung Russian and their application to the development and training of low male voice classical singers. It is not to suggest that sung Russian is a panacea that will guarantee well-coordinated, technically secure singing.

The scope of this inquiry includes: defining the physical and acoustic parameters of low male voices; performing a survey of the literature that examines vocal pedagogy, lyric diction, and linguistics texts dealing with low male voices and Russian articulation; performing a method of simple statistical analysis on Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52 Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak; and providing original singer’s IPA transcriptions for these two song cycles.

The scope of this inquiry does not include a methodical comparison/contrast of other voice types or other national song literatures. In the context of this thesis, I feel that this kind of comparison would suggest that singing in Russian is better or worse than singing in another language. This line of reasoning can potentially be interpreted as imposing a value judgment on other cultures

3 Richard Taruskin, On Russian Music (Berkely: University of California Press, 2009), 1: Taruskin justifies certain Latin-character orthographies for Russian composer names that differ from the traditional spellings used elsewhere, e.g. “…Mussorgsky (spelled Musorgsky in accordance with the Russian orthography; the English—or is it just American? —word ‘busing,’ once a battle cry in Boston, refutes the alleged spelling rule that mandated the double ‘s’).” This thesis adopts Taruskin’s defensible spelling conventions.

4 whose languages clearly function well vis-à-vis their folksongs, lullabies, liturgical songs, and popular musical entertainment.

1.4 A note on International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) notation

IPA symbols can be used descriptively or prescriptively.4

Linguists transcribe descriptively when they strive to capture as much phonetic detail as possible with a very high level of specificity. By contrast, lyric diction coaches use IPA notation prescriptively to instruct singers in recreating idealized lyric diction targets for maximally resonant, unamplified singing.

Some of the conventions governing singer’s transcriptions deviate from established linguistics practice. For example, linguists use square brackets ([ ]) to mean a narrow transcription that gives very fine detail (such as notating unreleased stops or coarticulative lip-rounding). The phonemic transcriptions used in singing should probably be bounded by forward slashes used as brackets (/ /), also known as virgules or solidi, to align with orthodox IPA practice. However, the use of square brackets for singers’ IPA transcriptions is persistent in lyric diction print literature, and has become so commonplace that it is now seen as a convention of this literature, therefore this practice has been loosely adopted in this thesis.

Whereas linguists may prefer to use [a] or [a̙ ] for the Russian /a/-allophone, this thesis aligns with established Russian lyric diction resources by using [ɑ] for this lyric diction target that is slightly backed for singing (see Table 2.2). See § 2.1 for a review of ten Russian lyric diction sources.

1.5 A note on pitch notation

This thesis uses scientific pitch notation, where a musical pitch’s letter-name is paired with a subscript number corresponding to its octave.5 Each octave is numbered sequentially from C to

4 International Phonetic Association, Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 5 Robert W. Young, "Terminology for Logarithmic Frequency Units," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 11, no. 1 (1939): 134.

C. C2 (64.41 Hz) is informally called ‘Low C’ and is two ledger lines below the bass staff. An octave above Low C is C3 (138.59 Hz), the second space on the bass staff. An octave above that is C4, commonly called ‘middle C’ (261.63 Hz), and so on. A semitone below middle C is B3

(246.94 Hz), and a whole tone above middle C is D4 (293.67 Hz). In accordance with The Journal of Singing’s conventions for article submissions, flat pitches (♭) are represented in-text here by a combination of a capital letter plus the lowercase letter ‘b’ as in: Bb (B-flat). Sharps (♯) in this thesis are represented in-text by the octothorpe, #.

1.6 A note on ‘formant’ (i.e. vocal tract resonance) notation

Discussion of resonances of the vocal tract is central to the vocal acoustics analysis in Chapters 5 and 6. In vocal acoustics literature, “formant” is a contested word that is often used interchangeably with “resonance”. This terminology was popularized in Donald Miller’s Resonance in Singing (2008), and in his 2000 dissertation “Registers in Singing” which preceded that book. The notation of these resonances in vocal pedagogy literature as Fn imprecisely implies a functional equivalence between the formant of the vocal tract and the vocal tract resonance itself.6 We currently understand vocal tract resonances as specific frequency regions that boost nearby voice source harmonics. On a spectrogram these local acoustic maxima look 7 like peaks. Using the extra letters in fR1, fR2, etc. serves as a visual reminder of “resonance” rather than “source” or “formant.”8 Following suit with this choice in notation, the phrase

‘resonance(s) of the vocal tract’ is used where other texts might use ‘formant(s).’ Likewise, fR1 is equivalent to the phrase ‘first vocal tract resonance,’ fR2 for ‘second vocal tract resonance’ and so on.

6 Kenneth W. Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Applications for Teachers and Singers (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2013), 11: “In some voice acoustic disciplines, the term formant is not used for the peak resonance frequencies of the resonator, rather for the spectral peaks of the radiated sound, reflecting how the resonator has filtered voice source harmonics. For such disciplines, tube resonances (the potential of the tube to filter and transfer sound from the glottis to the lips) and formants (the actual spectral peaks of the radiated sound) would only be identical if the resonance peaks are tuned precisely to source harmonics, so conversely, if harmonics land precisely at resonance peaks. However, most singing voice literature does not make this distinction, using the term formant as equivalent to vocal tract resonance.” 7 Joshua Glasner, “From 1.4.2 Spectral Analysis of Voices,” unpublished folio, n.d [2019]. 8 Ingo R. Titze et al., “Toward a Consensus on Symbolic Notation of Harmonics, Resonances, and Formants in Vocalization,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137, no. 5 (2015): 3006.

1.7 Open and closed vowels vs. open and close timbre

The lyric diction phenomenon of open and closed vowels is not to be confused with the acoustic phenomenon of open and close [kloʊs] timbre. (See also § 3.2.5.)

From a lyric diction perspective, a vowel’s open or closed quality refers to the physical configuration of the oral space. Singers trained in Italian lyric diction understand how to contrast a singable closed-e [e] with its open-e [ɛ] counterpart. A closed vowel such as closed-e [e] positions the tongue dorsum as close to the roof of the mouth as possible for that vowel without creating a constriction. Conversely, an open vowel such as open-e [ɛ] positions the tongue further away from the roof of the mouth.

Timbral openness and closeness is an acoustic phenomenon controlled by the sung pitch’s proximity to the frequency of the first resonance of the vocal tract (fR1) of the vowel being sung.

When the sung pitch (which we will equate here with fo, or the frequency of oscillation) occurs an octave or more below the fR1 of the vowel being sung, it is said to be sung in ‘open timbre.’

The further below fR1 that the sung pitch sounds, the more open and complex the sung tone is perceived to be. By contrast, as the sung pitch approaches fR1, the simpler warm vowels (and the warmer bright vowels) will sound.9 When the sung pitch occurs within the octave below the first resonance of the vocal tract, it is said to be delivered in ‘close timbre.’ Because the manifestation of open and close timbre is governed by ongoing pitch and vowel interactions in real time, singers are constantly (and largely subconsciously) shifting between these adjacent registration qualities in performance. Bozeman writes:

When the second harmonic crosses above the first formant, the timbre is heard to close or turn over. This crossing is the primary acoustic registration event of male voices. Close [kloʊs] timbre (voce chiusa in Italian) is variously described as seeming domed, tipped, smoother, higher in sensation in the head, and somewhat less direct (covered). This occurs when the sung pitch is less than an octave below the first formant of the vowel being sung. It is a necessary component of Western

9 Ian Howell, “Advanced Vocal Registration for Countertenors: A Lecture & Recital,” (presentation, New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA, November 23, 2015), 9.

classical upper voice training, since unlike other vocal styles, it enables the upper range to occur without loss of timbral depth or warmth.

Turning over is accomplished by retaining depth (tube length), vowel shape, and

relative vowel closeness – all of which maintain the [fR1] frequency location –

until the second harmonic has surpassed the [fR1] frequency. It is accompanied by some degree of passive vowel modification, a change in the vowel quality that is the result of maintaining the tube shape while the pitch and its harmonics move, in contrast to active modification, which involves a deliberate shape change with a resultant retuning of formants.10

1.8 Summary

This thesis seeks to connect the physical shapes of the vocal tract required for sung Russian with the shapes of the vocal tract required for optimal classical singing. This thesis will examine two Russian song cycles from an acoustic viewpoint by using an enhanced version of Pacheco’s Graphic-Statistic Method that combines vowel (resonance of the vocal tract) and pitch (harmonic) data. The representations produced from this data permit the quick location of LMV passaggio events and acoustic pitches of turning encoded in this repertoire. The approach explored here is conceivably applicable to other voice types and other national vocal literatures.

What follows in Chapter 2 is a literature review surveying English-language Russian lyric diction print resources, texts on Russian articulation, applied vocal acoustics resources, paradigms for quantifying the singing voice, and voice pedagogy texts that concern themselves with the low male voice.

10 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 23.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Appendix A offers a Fully Annotated Bibliography of one hundred fifty-seven texts drawn from three bodies of work: vocal literature resources (§ A.1), voice pedagogy resources (§ A.2), and linguistics resources (§ A.3). The literature review undertaken here discusses a subset of these texts that directly address the research questions posed in § 1.1.

2.1 Russian lyric diction resources

Manukyan, Grayson, and Dailey have each completed recent dissertations with literature reviews that capture many of the available English-language Russian lyric diction resources. Their work will not be repeated here. Manukyan draws on Challis, Piatak and Avrashov, and Richter in her discussion of a multitude of sung-Russian-adjacent resources.11 Grayson compares the work of

Belov, Piatak and Avrashov, Richter, and McMaster’s chapter in Sheil’s book.12 (Grayson’s influential work is treated separately here with its own section, see § 4.9.) Dailey covers Belov, Grayson, Olin, Piatak and Avrashov, Richter, and McMaster in Sheil. Dailey further proposes two useful conceptual divisions: fast-track guides, and independent study guides.13 Fast track guides such as those published by Belov, Challis, Piatak and Avrashov, and Richter offer ready- made transcriptions meant to be learned by rote. Independent study guides such as those published by Cox, Grayson, Griffiths, Thomas (in Karna’s book), Olin, and McMaster (in Sheil’s book) aim to equip the reader with enough training in Russian Cyrillic and Russian lyric diction to generate original transcriptions with some independence. Specific notes on each of these resources appear in §A.1.2.

11 Kathleen Manukyan, “The Russian Word in Song: Cultural and Linguistic Issues of Classical Singing in the Russian Language,” PhD dissertation, Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, 2011. 12 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 2012. 13 Sarah S. Dailey, “Songs of the Mighty Five: A Guide for Teachers and Performers,” DMA dissertation, Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, 2013, 63-64.

8 9

I compare the notation conventions of ten Russian lyric diction authors in Table 2.1. As a reminder, these authors are notating prescriptively with performance conventions in mind, and not descriptively as is the goal of the linguists who study spoken Russian (see §§ 1.4 and 5.1).

Six of the authors in Table 2.1 do not syllabify their transcriptions. Grayson and Karna use the IPA-sanctioned period for this purpose, McMaster employs a hyphen, and Piatak and Avrashov use a space. Significantly, because it is essential to Russian vowel reduction practices (see §§ 4.3 and 4.9.3), all ten authors mark stress: six with the IPA primary stress marker [ˈ], three (Cox, Olin, and Richter) with an acute diacritic directly over the stressed vowel, and one (McMaster) with a grave diacritic. Belov, Grayson, Piatak and Avrashov, and Thomas indicate consonant doubling with the IPA length marker [ː]. The others either simply double the IPA consonant symbol when needed, or they do not indicate consonant doubling at all.

Richter and Cox seem to employ Slavicist practices (in particular the notation of postalveolar fricatives, e.g. ⟨š⟩ vs. [ʃ] and ⟨ž⟩ vs. [ʒ]), a choice that agrees with their biographies as Western scholars who have lived and worked in Russia. Other Russian lyric diction print authorities compared here seem to base their notation conventions on the International Phonetic Alphabet with the exception of native Russian speaker Olin, who, despite labeling a column in her table on p.6 ‘IPA,’ seems to lack an acquaintance with IPA symbols. She publishes an eclectic mix of capital letterforms, an italic ⟨b⟩, and an inexplicable black-letter capital-I ⟨ℑ⟩ for the voiced postalveolar fricative [ʒ]. A vigilant editor can rectify this in future editions of her important book.

b̹ d ̹ f ̹ g ̹ k̹ l ̹ m̹ n̹ p ̹ r ̹ s ̹ ʃ ː̹ t ̹ tʃ ̹ v̹ ç z ̹ ʒ ː ̹ Belov ˈ ː a ɑ b d e ə ɛ f g ɣ i ɨ j ̹ k ʟ m n ɔ p r s ʃ t ts u v ɑ x z ʒ b̧ d¸ f ̧ ɡ k¸ l¸ m ̧ n¸ p r¸ ş ʃʃ ţ tʃ v̧ x ̧ z ̧ Challis ¸ ̧ ˈ a ɑ b d e ə ɛ f ɡ i ɨ ǐ ¸ k l m n o p r s ʃ t ts u v x z ʒ Cox b' d' f' ɡ' k' l' m' n' p' r' s' šč t' č v' kh' z' ´ a b d e f ɡ ɣ i ï ÿ y ' k l m n o p r s š t ts u v kh z ž bʲ dʲ fʲ ɡʲ ɣʲ kʲ lʲ mʲ ɲ pʲ rʲ sʲ ʃʲː tʲ tʃʲ vʲ xʲ zʲ Grayson . ˈ ː a ɑ b d e ɛ f ɡ ɣ h i ɪ ɨ j ʲ k ɫ m n o p r s ʃ t ts u v ʌ x z ʒ b̹ d ̹ f ̹ g ̹ ɣ k̹ l ̹ m̹ n̹ p r ̹ s ̹ ʃ ʃ̹ ̹ t ̹ tʃ v̹ x̹ z ̹ Griffiths ̹ ̹ ̹ ˈ ɑ b d e ə ɛ f g ɣ i ɨ ĭ ̹ k ʟ m n ɔ p r s ʃ t ts u v ʌ x z ʒ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ ̢ McMaster (Sheil) b d f ɡ k l m n p r s ʃ t tʃ v x z - ` ɑ b d e ə ɛ f ɡ i ɪ ɨ j ̢̢ k ɬ m n ɔ p r s ʃ t ts u v x z ʒ SS tS Olin ´ a b d e ə ɛ f g i i :i k L M N o p R s S t Ts u v x z ℑ Piatak & Avrashov ᶀ ᶁ ᶂ ᶃ ᶄ ᶅ ᶆ ᶇ ᶈ ᶉ ᶊ ʃtʃ ƫ ʧ ᶌ ᶍ ᶎ ␠ ˈ ː ɑ b d e ə ɛ f ɡ i ɨ j ̡ k l m n o p r s ʃ t ts u v x z ʒ b̹ d ̹ f ̹ ɡ ̹ k̹ l ̹ m̹ n̹ p ̹ r ̹ s ̹ š̹š̹ t ̹ č̹ v̹ z ̹ ž̹ž̹ Richter ´ ɑ b d e ɛ f ɡ ɣ h i y j ̹ k l m n o p r s š t c u v w x z ž Thomas (Karna) ɕɕ tɕ . ˈ ː a b d e ə ɛ f ɡ h i ɪ ɨ j ʲ k l m n o p r s ʃ t ts u v ʌ x z ʒ

Table 2.1: Ten Russian lyric diction print resources compared by notation styles Each entry in Table 2.1 features two lines. The bottom line shows how the author indicates syllabic division if at all; how they identify word stress; whether they use a symbol for lengthening consonant duration; and finally, the phonemes: the vowels, ‘hard’ (nonpalatalized) consonants, glide [j], and the palatalization indicator used by each author. The top line shows how that author notates ‘soft’ (palatalized) consonants in their transcriptions, if at all.

10 11

The notation of the majority of consonant phonemes is remarkably uniform among these ten authors, with a few notable exceptions. Challis notates the voiced palatal approximant glide [j] as ⟨ǐ⟩, Cox as ⟨y⟩, Griffiths as ⟨ĭ⟩, and Olin as ⟨:i⟩. Otherwise all ten authors agree on the symbols that correspond to the letterforms ⟨b d f g k m n p r s t v x z⟩. There seems to be a correspondence between the sources that include the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] (the regressively voiced version of [x]) and those that are also thoughtful about other nuanced aspects of their transcriptions, such as contextual fronting and vowel reduction.

Notation for the unpalatalized and palatalized versions of the voiced alveolar lateral approximant /l/-allophone vary from author to author. Some of these notation choices are patently inappropriate, for example [ʟ] is the voiced velar lateral approximant, and [ɬ] is the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative. Both exist in the constellation of possible phonemes considered by the IPA, yet neither is applicable to authentic sung Russian. Grayson is the sole author to use [ɲ] for his palatalized nasal. All other sources use some version of [n] qualified with a diacritic except Olin, who simply notates an unqualified ⟨N⟩. Piatak and Avrashov notate the affricate [tʃ] with an outdated ligature [ʧ]. This has been replaced with two discreet symbols: [t] plus [ʃ], understood as a single phoneme, to which Grayson appropriately attaches a palatalization marker [ʲ] to show that this is a ‘soft’ affricate in sung Russian. Most of these authors use [ʃ] to transcribe the ‘hard’ letter ⟨ш⟩, but probably due to their Slavicist inclinations, Cox and Richter use ⟨š⟩. Olin uses a capital-s ⟨S⟩ for this phoneme.

Each of these ten authors transcribes the ‘soft’ letter ⟨щ⟩ differently. Most indicate the increased duration of this consonant by doubling its assigned symbol. Belov and Grayson pair its symbol with the length marker [ː]. Cox uses the compound notation ⟨šč⟩, which might seem to suggest that he advocates the pronunciation of this letter as [ʃtʃʲ]. Thomas uses [ɕɕ]. Grayson and Richter include the consonant [h] in their Russian lyric diction inventories for rare interjections or exclamations such as ⟨ага!⟩ (aha!) [a.ˈha]. Other resources reviewed here employ [x] or [ɣ] for this purpose, e.g. [a.ˈxa] or [a.ˈɣa]. One final anomaly is Richter’s standalone inclusion of [w]

12 with the caveat, “This sound occurs only in the Latin words used in the text of the song The Seminarian.”14

Perhaps the most striking variation among these resources is how they notate palatalization. Before 1989, the International Phonetic Association advocated a specialized subset of sixteen symbols that incorporated palatalization hooks: [ᶀ ᶌ ᶃ ᶁ ᶎ ᶄ ᶅ ᶆ ᶇ ᶈ ᶉ ᶊ ƫ ᶂ ᶍ ᶋ]. The sole resource in Table 2.1 that uses these now-outdated characters is Piatak and Avrashov, published in 1991 (two years after the IPA discontinued them). Modern linguists who use the IPA now pair the superscript [ʲ] with standard consonant symbols to show secondary palatalization: [bʲ vʲ gʲ dʲ zʲ kʲ lʲ mʲ nʲ pʲ rʲ sʲ tʲ fʲ xʲ ʃʲ]. The sole resource in Table 2.1 that uses the IPA-approved palatalization marker [ʲ] is Grayson. Thomas acknowledges [ʲ] but does not employ it in his transcription examples. Olin does not explicitly indicate palatalization at all. Belov, Griffiths, and Richter improperly use the combining subscript half-ring [ ̹ ], which in orthodox IPA usage means “more rounded,” not “palatalized”. Challis uses a cedilla [¸] for this purpose. McMaster uses retroflex hooks [ ̢ ]. The widespread repurposing of predefined symbols in Russian lyric diction literature demands attentive reinterpretation for those encountering these singers’ transcriptions.

Vowel choices among these sources vary (see Table 2.2). Seven of the ten use [ɑ] as their default sung /a/-allophone. Cox and Thomas use [a]. Olin does not provide IPA transcriptions; her information is notated with Russian Cyrillic. Belov, Challis, and Grayson employ both [a] and [ɑ], which suggest that they advocate some level of contextual fronting. Challis inconsistently transcribes the /a/-allophone (e.g. she transcribes ⟨как⟩ (how) and ⟨так⟩ (so) as [kak] and [tak], yet neither /a/ is interpalatal (see § 4.9.3), therefore these vowels might more consistently be transcribed by others as [kɑk] and [tɑk]). Cox is the only source that does not use [ɛ] as a sung /e/-allophone. The degree to which an author employs nuanced vowel reduction can be inferred by the presence of [ɪ] in their phonemic inventory (Grayson, McMaster, and Karna use [ɪ]; Cox uses ⟨ï⟩ for this purpose). Belov, Griffiths, and Thomas use both vowel reductions [ə] and [ʌ], while McMaster, Olin, and Piatak and Avrashov use only [ə]. Challis and Richter lack a neutral vowel reduction in their transcriptions. Belov has invented a non-IPA vertically compressed

[ɑ]-character [ɑ] to represent a vowel reduction that can arguably be notated using the orthodox

14 Laurence R. Richter, Mussorgsky’s Complete Song Texts (Geneseo: Leyerle Publications, 2002), xii.

IPA symbol, [ʌ]. Grayson uses [ʌ]. Velar-i is mostly transcribed as [ɨ] with two outliers: Cox uses ⟨ÿ⟩ and Richter uses ⟨y⟩. Belov, Griffiths, and McMaster use [ɔ] as their sung /o/-allophone while the other seven agree with Grayson’s choice of [o]. All ten agree on [i] as their sung Russian /i/-allophone, and [u] as their sung Russian /u/-allophone.

Author Notation choices Total vowel phonemes Belov i e ɨ ɛ ə a ɑ ɑ ɔ u 10 Challis i e ɨ ɛ a ɑ o u 8 Cox i e ï ÿ a o u 7 Grayson i e ɪ ɨ ɛ a ɑ ʌ o u 10 Griffiths i e ɨ ɛ ə ɑ ʌ ɔ u 9 McMaster (Sheil) i e ɪ ɨ ɛ ə ɑ ɔ u 9 Olin i e i ɛ ə a o u 8 Piatak & Avrashov i e ɨ ɛ ə ɑ o u 8 Richter i e y ɛ ɑ o u 7 Thomas (Karna) i e ɪ ɨ ɛ ə a ʌ o u 10

Table 2.2: Vowel phonemes by author

Most of the authors listed here do not elect to transcribe the level of vowel reduction that Grayson teaches. Richter’s transcriptions in particular seem especially conservative in this regard, and perhaps this is reflected in his seven-vowel inventory, the briefest of all the sources reviewed here. Richter also regressively palatalizes consonant clusters through [rʲ], when [rʲ] has no assimilative power.15

What Dailey classifies as independent study guides would foster the independence necessary to generate reliable original transcriptions such as those found in Appendices B and C. However, her so-called fast-track guides can and do fill a role as invaluable references. The breadth of Belov’s and Richter’s work must be considered despite their idiosyncrasies, and do not necessarily invalidate the work of these experts. However, Grayson’s “Russian Lyric Diction”

15 Bruce L. Derwing and Tom M. S. Priestly, Reading Rules for Russian: A Systemic Approach to Russian Spelling and Pronunciation (Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1980), 85-86.

(2012) offers a more in-depth, consistent, logical, and detailed understanding of language science, lyric diction practice, and Russian stage tradition. His work is comprehensive and well- cited, empowering the motivated reader to create their own transcriptions with a workable level of independence. Grayson is also a native English speaker, approaching his work from the perspective of one who has intentionally acquired a deep knowledge of sung Russian. His work forms the foundation for most of the lyric diction assertions made in this thesis.

2.2 Linguistics texts that discuss Russian articulation

Bolla’s Conspectus (1981) is singular in offering specific images and illustrations of the individual speech-level Russian phonemes, a subset of which serve as templates for the vocal tract configurations required to deliver these phonemes (see Figures 4.3a-j in § 4.6).16 That Bolla’s work involves a single informant is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it ensures a certain consistency, but on the other hand it raises questions of individual idiolect. A larger informant pool would enable useful comparisons between informants to better understand personal differences in how the articulators act.

Jones and Ward’s The Phonetics of Russian (1969) was posthumously completed by Ward.17 Jones had published an earlier version of this material, The Pronunciation of Russian in 1923 in partnership with another scholar, Trofimov, but it is no longer in print. Phonetics was conceived as a resource for those who wish to learn about the phonetic system of spoken Russian. One particularly important aspect of this book is its illustrated phoneme-by-phoneme approach that contrasts selected Russian phonemes with their English counterparts when possible. These diagrams lack Bolla’s precision, but remain useful references. Co-author and lifelong Slavophile Daniel Jones is credited with inventing the vowel quadrilateral that is used in linguistics and lyric diction training. Derwing and Priestly also contributed a handbook on Russian speech pronunciation, Reading Rules for Russian: A Systemic Approach to Russian Spelling and Pronunciation (1980).18 Perhaps the reliable information given in their authoritative, factual, and

16 Kálmán Bolla, A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1981). 17 Daniel Jones and Dennis Ward, The Phonetics of Russian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). 18 Derwing and Priestly, Reading Rules for Russian.

15 well-cited manual on spoken Russian is most accessible through the filter of Grayson’s 2012 dissertation which focuses instead on the application of this information to lyric diction for singers. With this understanding, Derwing and Priestly’s book likely functions best as a primary resource for verification, rather than as immersive reading.

Another resource that offers some interesting thought around the general configuration of the articulators in spoken Russian is Borissoff’s “Basis of Articulation” (2011).19 Borissoff writes from the perspective of a linguist interested in accent reduction for pronunciation teaching. His work on the basis of articulation lends itself well to understanding one model of how skilled singers can deliver convincing performances in a broad range of sung languages (e.g. English, French, German, and Italian), including sung Russian. Borissoff draws on the foundational work of Beatrice Honikman in her 1964 essay “Articulatory Settings,” published as a chapter in D. Abercrombie et al’s In Honour of Daniel Jones (1964).20 Honikman’s elucidation of tongue settings for various languages as the ‘set’ or ‘gear’ of their articulatory features is an attractive framework for the teaching of lyric diction. The basis of articulation is not universally accepted among linguists because it can be challenging to verify instrumentally.21 Heinrich argues that is it impossible to verify.22 However, Gick et al provide the first instrumental evidence.23 Wilson writes a more detailed discussion about this controversy.24

2.3 Applied vocal acoustics texts

To discuss meaningful acoustic events such as acoustic turning points, micro-turnings, and vowel migrations through the LMV zona di passaggio that an LMV might negotiate while singing in

19 Constantine Leo Borissoff, “Basis of Articulation and Articulatory Setting in Pronunciation Teaching: Focusing on English and Russian,” Masters diss., Birbeck College, University of London, 2011. 20 Beatrice Honikman, “Articulatory Settings,” in D. Abercrombie, DB Fry, PAD MacCarthy, NC Scott, and JLM Trim eds. In Honour of Daniel Jones (London: Longman, 1964), 73-84. 21 Ineke Mennen et. al. “Measuring Language-Specific Phonetic Settings,” Second Language Research 26, no. 1 (2008): 13-41. 22 Heinrich P. Kelz, “Articulatory basis and second language teaching,” Phonetica 24, no. 4 (1971): 193-211. 23 Bryan Gick et al., “Language-specific articulatory settings: Evidence from inter-utterance rest position,” Phonetica 61, no. 4 (2004): 220-233. 24 Ian Lewis Wilson, “Articulatory settings of French and English monolingual and bilingual speakers,” PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, 2006, 8-9.

Russian, we must turn to the literature on applied vocal acoustics.25 Hoch’s article “The legacy of William Vennard and D. Ralph Appelman and their influence on singing voice pedagogy: reflections after 50 years (1967-2017),” frames the year 1967 as a turning point for fact-based voice pedagogy.26 The two books he writes about, Appelman’s The Science of Vocal Pedagogy (1967) and Vennard’s Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic (1967), are early texts in the nascent discipline of acoustic voice pedagogy that emerged from the foundational work carried out by Helmholtz.27

Berton Coffin’s Overtones of Bel Canto (1980) profiles an intricate system of active vowel modification that is a precursor to Bozeman’s work in vocal tract tuning strategies.28 Of particular interest are LMV-specific passages such as the section on p. 114 regarding Low Notes for Basses. Donald Miller’s 2008 book Resonance in Singing and the 2000 dissertation it is based on, “Registers in Singing” were designed to apply scientific principles from physiology, aerodynamics, and acoustics to classical singing technique.29 They evidence the important shift from metaphorical, articulator-based voice pedagogy to acoustic voice pedagogy with their focus on terminology, registration, the application of spectral analysis to the singing voice, fR1/nfo interactions, and several experiments exploring how intensity, pitch, and noise (non-periodic phonation) affect registration. The reader is encouraged to consult Chapter 4 of Davids and LaTour’s Vocal Technique (2012) for their concise introduction to harmonics and vocal tract resonances.30 Another popular 21st-Century resource, McCoy’s Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. (2012) is a modern voice pedagogy text that includes a chapter on applied vocal acoustics

25 See § 3.2.5. 26 Matthew Hoch, “The legacy of William Vennard and D. Ralph Appelman and their influence on singing voice pedagogy: reflections after 50 years (1967-2017),” Voice and Speech Review 11, no. 3, 2017: 308-313. 27 Dudley Ralph Appelman, The Science of Vocal Pedago (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1967); William Vennard, Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic, 5th ed. (N.C.: Carl Fischer, 1967). 28 Berton Coffin, Overtones of Bel Canto: Phonetic Basis of Artistic Singing with 100 Chromatic Vowel-Chart Exercises (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1980). 29 Donald Gray Miller, “Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice.” (Voice Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen, 2000); Resonance in Singing: Voice Building through Acoustic Feedback (Princeton, NJ: Inside View Press, 2008). 30 Julia Davids and Stephen LaTour, Vocal Technique (Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc. 2012).

17 and the nature of the vocal tract as a quarter wave resonator.31 Amid all of this development, vocologist and founder of the National Center for Voice and Speech Ingo Titze has maintained a multi-decade career as a voice researcher, having published too many foundational books and articles alone and in collaboration with other voice science stakeholders to discuss here.

Kenneth Bozeman’s two books, Practical Vocal Acoustics (2013) and Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy (2017) offer practical insights into applied vocal acoustics in a very accessible writing style.32 His 2008 article “Registration Strategies for Training the Male ‘Passaggio’” offers several practical vocalises to explore different registration possibilities, and is adaptable to LMV instruction despite its conception for the tenor voice.33 Likewise, his 2010 article “The Role of the First Formant in Training the Male Singing Voice” features many useful strategies that are equally valid for LMV training.34 His 2018 article “Vowel Migration and Modification” invokes Howell’s work in psychoacoustics, specifically the phenomenon of absolute spectral tone colour, to connect the fR1 with the percept of an ‘under-vowel,’ and fR2 with the percept of an ‘over- vowel’.35 Bozeman’s writings provide much of the source material for this thesis’s discussion of acoustic pitches of turning and the fR1/nfo data analyzed in Chapter 6.

2.4 Paradigms for quantifying the singing voice

A way to quantify this repertoire was needed in order to draw objective connections between sung Russian and the performance goals of LMV singers. The Graphic-Statistic Method introduced in Pacheco’s “Angelica Catalani’s Voice” (2013) allowed Pacheco to operationalize vocal literature and extrapolate some convincing mathematical relationships that evoke

31 Scott McCoy, Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. (Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2012). 32 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Applications for Teachers and Singers (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2013); Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy: Motivating Acoustic Efficiency, (Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017). 33 Kenneth W. Bozeman, “Registration Strategies for Training the Male ‘Passaggio’,” The Choral Journal 48.12, 2008: 59-72. 34 Kenneth W. Bozeman, “The Role of the First Formant in Training the Male Singing Voice,” Journal of Singing 66.3, 2010: 291-297. 35 Kenneth W. Bozeman, “Vowel Migration and Modification” VoicePrints 16. 2, 2018: 32-38. Ian Howell, “Parsing the Spectral Envelope: Toward a General Theory of Vocal Tone Color.” DMA Thesis, New England Conservatory of Music, 2016.

18 qualitative aspects of the singer’s voice.36 Godin and Howell’s expansion of Pacheco’s Graphic- Statistic Method in their 2015 presentation poster was my first exposure to presenting data on the resonances of the vocal tract in a way that corresponds with net phonation time. See § 5.2 for my application of this approach.

In his 2000 dissertation “Registers in Singing,” Donald Miller models an experiment wherein he uses vocal fry to ascertain his fR1 locations.37 His work serves as a template for the methodology outlined in Chapter 5, specifically the values reported in Table 5.3 in § 5.3.3.

Smirnova and Chistikov have published a modern study of 2.5 million phonemes drawn from a large body of Russian literary classics, playwrights, manuscripts of interviews and public lectures from various web resources.38 By extension, their work equips us with a sense of how often individual vocal tract shapes occur in spoken Russian. Their study supersedes Kučera and Monroe’s earlier A Comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech, and German (1967), where Tables 4 and 5 from their book give relative frequencies for all segmental phonemes in Russian expressed as a percentage, and compares these values with those in Czech and German.39 Because of the much larger sample and more detailed account of vowel reduction and assimilation in their study, Smirnova and Chistikov’s work provides an important point of comparison for the analysis carried out in Chapter 6.

Titze, Maxfield and Walker discuss measuring resonances of the vocal tract with consumer grade (at-home) instruments: “A primary objective of this study was to determine if singers with limited access to laboratory instrumentation could personalize an F1–F2 vowel chart for the

36 Alberto José Vieira Pacheco. “Angelica Catalani’s Voice According to a Method of Statistical Analysis,” Journal of Singing 69.5, 2013: 557-567. 37 Donald Gray Miller, “Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice,” Voice Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen, 2000. 38 Natalia Smirnova and Pavel Chistikov, “Statistics of Russian Monophones and Diphones.” SPECOM-2011 Proceedings. 14th International Conference on Speech and Computer, Kazan, Russia, 2011: 218-223. 39 Henry Kučera and George K. Monroe, A Comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech, and German (New York: American Elsevier, 1968).

19 purpose of understanding voice timbre in singing styles.”40 Stark’s Groningen Protocols form another precedent, chronicling laboratory measurements undertaken by Stark as the sole informant in an effort to quantify some of the phenomena discussed in his book Bel Canto.41 These two resources inform my approach as the sole informant for the in-home acoustic experimentation carried out in § 6.3.

2.5 Voice pedagogy texts that address the LMV

Three broad categories of texts can help us to discuss the performance goals of the developing LMV classical singer and how they are addressed through the literature. They are: 1) voice pedagogy texts intentionally focused on the LMV, 2) books of LMV-appropriate vocalises, and 3) reference texts to help locate appropriate LMV repertoire.

General method books that mention LMVs in passing are commonplace in the voice pedagogy landscape (see § A.2.1 for specific LMV mentions in texts meant for a broader voice pedagogy audience). However, those focused specifically on the LMV are few. Three titles stand out. Lablache’s A complete method of singing for the bass voice is full of musical examples and practical exercises for the bass voice, and extracts from this historical work can easily form part of good LMV instruction today.42 Notably its largest chapter is on The Embellishments of Singing, where much attention is dedicated to ornamentation. After some brief instructional prose, Nava’s Practical Method of Vocalization for Bass or Baritone dedicates the vast majority of his book to vocalises of progressive difficulty.43 Both Lablache and Nava offer notated bass cadenzas, and those in Nava are particularly numerous and useful. Miller’s eighth and final book, Securing Baritone, Bass-Baritone and Bass Voices, is perhaps even more practical in this regard since the technical exercises he offers are extracted from targeted LMV repertoire, ensuring their

40 Ingo Titze, Lynn M. Maxfield and Megan C. Walker, “A Formant Range Profile for Singers,” Journal of Voice 31:3, 2016: 382.e9-382.e13.

41 James Stark, Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 227-258.

42 Luigi Lablache, Complete Method of Singing (Boston: Oliver Ditson, 1850).

43 Gaetano Nava, Henry Blower ed., Practical Method of Vocalization for Bass or Baritone (New York: G. Schirmer. 1899).

20 relevance.44 Miller applies a 21st-century fact-based understanding to LMV physiology and technique, including sections on chiaroscuro, cover, agility, resonance, and laryngeal position.

Several vocalise collections for the LMV exist. Those by Abt, Concone, Marzo, and Panofka are widely available and suit LMV technical and musical goals.45 They each represent structured, incremental approaches to technical skill-building for LMV, and most of these resources are arranged in order of progressive difficulty.

While § 3.3 offers a more thorough list of reference texts that catalogue appropriate LMV repertoire, four of them will be discussed here. Coffin’s Singer’s Repertoire IV: Baritone and Bass, 2nd ed. (1960) is organized topically, with a good selection of Russian repertoire (44 songs by 15 composers) that is indexed by popular anglicized titles.46 Ord’s Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice (1994) answers a common frustration at not being able to locate LMV-suitable repertoire.47 His work exponentially supersedes Coffin’s by cataloguing over two thousand pieces for LMV with identifying information for each piece (i.e. composer, opus, title, cycle or edition), with a subjective difficulty rating based on each piece’s musical and technical demands. Ord has also released a smaller, 2002 collection for beginning bass that includes a selection of musical scores.48 Finally, Arneson and Athey-Janka’s Literature for Teaching: A Guide for Choosing Solo Vocal Repertoire from a Developmental Perspective (2014) includes a brief section on suggested arias for beginning bass.49 This useful volume also models how a rating system with rubrics can be applied or adapted to any vocal literature not

44 Richard Miller, Securing Baritone, Bass-Baritone and Bass Voices (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). 45 Franz Abt, Practical Singing Tutor for All Voices: Baritone or Bass, Op. 474 (New York: G. Schirmer, 1893); Giuseppe Concone, 40 lezioni, op. 17 (per basso o baritono) (Milan: Ricordi, 1987); Eduardo Marzo, ed., The Art of Vocalization: Bass (Boston, MA: Oliver Ditson Company, 1906); Heinrich Panofka, The Art of Singing, 24 Vocalises, op. 81 (for alto, baritone or bass) (Melville, NY: Belwin Mills, 1900). 46 Berton Coffin, Singer’s Repertoire Part IV: Baritone and Bass, 2nd ed. (New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960). 47 Alan J. Ord, Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice (Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1994). 48 Alan J. Ord, Songs for Beginning Bass Voice (Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2002). 49 Christopher Arneson with Lauren Athey-Janka, Literature for Teaching: A Guide for Choosing Solo Vocal Repertoire from a Developmental Perspective (Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2014).

21 already listed in its broad catalogue. This equips teachers of LMVs with a practical strategy for assessing new or uncommon repertoire.

2.6 Summary

The texts discussed here along with those in Appendix A span vocal literature resources, voice pedagogy resources, and linguistics resources. This curation of texts supports the pedagogical rationale of connecting LMV training with sung Russian in this thesis. Chapter 3 focused the discussion on the low male voice itself.

Chapter 3 Low Male Voices (LMVs)

This chapter functions as a pedagogy primer for the LMV, establishing the parameters for how LMVs work as a necessary first step toward understanding how sung Russian can benefit LMV training.

What are some defining characteristics of the low male voice (LMV)? How does fach apply to the LMV?50 Do LMV singers share common physical characteristics? How has classical voice pedagogy addressed the LMV?

3.1 LMVs defined

For the purposes of this study, LMVs include post-pubertal bass-baritones and basses whose general vocal range may reasonably span C2-F4 with the understanding that individual LMVs may be able to sing lower/higher. LMVs may experience a secondo passaggio registration event, or ‘break,’ in the region of C4-D4 (see § 3.2.2). As medium male voices, baritones are excluded from this definition.

3.1.1 LMV physical indicators

While there is perhaps as great an overall physical variation among LMVs as there is among people in general, it has been anecdotally reported that “a number of low-voiced males have long necks and prominent larynges”.51 Doscher concurs, further mentioning a traditional LMV lip- rounding, tube-lengthening resonance strategy: “In contrast, basses and low baritones often have large and rather long necks. When they sound their lowest notes, their lips generally are pursed and projected (long, narrow aperture).”52

50 See § 3.1.2. 51 Miller, Securing, 4. 52 Barbara M. Doscher, The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice, 2nd ed. (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 1994), 104.

22 23

A deep speaking voice has been found to accurately suggest aspects of body size and shape in the human male.53 Physical indicators of voice category include the dimensions of the larynx, the structure and configuration of the vocal tract, and overall body build.54 One study suggests a correlation between laryngeal anatomy and singers of various voice classifications.55 In that study, the vocal folds of the professional basses examined were found to average 20.9mm in length. In another study, researchers confirmed that LMVs have significantly longer vocal folds than sopranos; in addition, LMV vocal fold width was found to be significantly larger compared to all other groups.56 That study further reorients its focus away from simple fold length in favour of vocal fold mass and vocal tract dimensions as more reliable indicators of voice type.

To summarize, the lower sung pitches characteristic of the LMV are facilitated by a larger laryngeal structure with correspondingly wider, bulkier, and longer vocal folds seated in a longer vocal tract.

3.1.2 Fach and the LMV

Fach, loosely translated from the German as ‘compartment’ or ‘subject,’ is a construct used by the German opera system to classify classical singers. It can serve as a useful framework for German opera houses and their singers alike. A house may assign multiple roles suitable to a singer of a particular fach, but typically will not require that same singer to perform roles outside his fach.

With so many variables in the repertoire and among voices, the exact criteria comprising fächer (the plural of fach) can be challenging to pinpoint. Kloiber’s Handbuch der Oper is the standard reference for corresponding opera roles to fach designations.57 It lists four possible LMV

53 Sarah Evans, Nick Neave and Delia Wakelin, “Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: An evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice,” Biological Psychology 72 (2006): 160- 163. 54 Miller, Securing, 3. 55 Friederike Roers, Dirk Mürbe, and Johan Sundberg, “Predicted Singers’ Vocal Fold Lengths and Voice Classification—A Study of X-Ray Morphological Measures,” Journal of Voice 23, no .4 (2007): 408-413. 56 Hans Larsson and Stellan Hertegård, “Vocal Fold Dimensions in Professional Opera Singers as Measured by Means of Laser Triangulation,” Journal of Voice 22, no .6 (2007): 734-739.

57 Rudolf Kloiber, Wulf Kunold and Robert Maschka, Handbuch der Oper, 12th ed. (Munich: Bärenreiter, 2007).

24 categories: Charakterbariton, Spielbaß (Baßbuffo), Schwerer Spielbaß (Schwerer Baßbuffo), and Seriöser Baß. An alternative American resource, Boldrey’s Guide to Operatic Roles & Arias offers four similarly overlapping LMV categories: Bass-baritone, Comic Bass, Lyric Bass, and Dramatic Bass.58

LMVs undergo dramatic structural and vocal changes. Like singers of all voice types, a LMV- outcome singer’s ongoing physical development and evolution in his technical facility will affect his self-identification with a fach. Wise voice teachers should therefore resist making pronouncements about where a developing voice is likely to settle. Developing LMVs who exhibit a short range require patience and suitable repertoire selection to accommodate their current abilities while preparing for further development. Vennard offers:

I never feel any urgency about classifying a beginning student. So many premature diagnoses have been proved wrong, and it can be harmful to the student and embarrassing to the teacher to keep striving for an ill-chosen goal. It is best to begin in the middle part of the voice and work upward and downward until the voice classifies itself.59

Outside Germany, casting decisions in opera are less tethered to the fach system. And fach is effectively irrelevant in non-opera ventures. For example, the same oratorio role or art song can bear interpretation by many different voices.

3.2 LMV-specific training

A set of standard technical principles is widely applicable to all voices, and the LMV is no exception. Posture/alignment, respiration and breath economy, articulation, and integrated communicative intent are all fundamental. Because so much has been written about these basic aspects of singing elsewhere, this information will not be repeated here. See § A.2.1 for a selection of relevant texts that explore these aspects of classical technique.

58 Richard Boldrey, Guide to Operatic Roles & Arias (Redmond: Pst… Inc., 1994).

59 William Vennard, Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic, 5th ed. (New York: Carl Fischer, 1967): 78 (para. 279).

One goal of classical singing is the consistent stabilization of a comfortably lengthened vocal tract. The vocal tract is essentially a tube that extends from the glottis to the lips. The vocal tract can be lengthened by extending one end or the other. This can mean protruding the lips or establishing a free, low, stable larynx. When the larynx stabilizes in a free, low position, the locations of the resonances of the vocal tract become predictable. This laryngeal stability is the 60 prerequisite for any predictable fR1/nfo tuning.

It can be tempting for the LMV to overdarken his sound. This may come from a sense of overcommitment to the body which can also cause pressing, flatting (pitch decay), imprecise diction, and tamped resonances of the vocal tract (an absence or imbalance of ring in the voice).

Agility practice is essential to the developing LMV. Repertoire choices with coloratura passages will usefully supplement more legato pieces. Reid asserts that

the basic principles of Bel Canto… are equally applicable and no less beneficial to all voices. Boschi and Montanagna, two great Handelian bassos, possessed a vocal facility comparable in every way to that of the lighter voices and matched their technical accomplishments in every detail.61

Suitable LMV repertoire selection can pose real challenges to both teacher and student. Much repertoire features too wide a range, too high a tessitura (the general pitch range where the melody sits, often corresponding to the relative number of high or low notes), or requires an elusive E4 which is an often-unattainable performance pitch for many LMVs until their later technical development. In the introduction to his book on LMV repertoire selection, Alan J. Ord relays:

The idea for this book came from my own frustration as a young bass at not finding suitable songs to sing both in range and tessitura. Much of the music attempted or assigned was too high in range or tessitura for an immature basso searching for high notes and very often the attempt was vocally unhealthy. Most

60 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 2013, 11-12.

61 Cornelius Reid, Bel Canto: Principles and Practices (New York: Joseph Patelson Music House, 1950), 11.

of the songs most readily available were not low enough and were more appropriate for baritone and more advanced bass, not beginning bass.62

See § 3.3 for a list of resources designed to simplify LMV repertoire selection.

3.2.1 The LMV and ‘registration’ vs. laryngeal registers

A detailed review of the historically disputed notion of vocal registers and registration is beyond the scope of this study. Fortunately, Nathalie Henrich has already produced such an overview, surveying the main views of singing voice registers from 1840 to 2006.63 Henrich suggests that the labels we assign vocal registers reflect our controversial thinking about them. She notes that voice researchers have primarily defined registers using one of two criteria: 1) laryngeal mechanism, or 2) qualitative labels based on perception. She isolates laryngeal transition phenomena (also known as ‘breaks’ or ‘passaggi’) as a means of clarifying boundaries for registers. Regarding the laryngeal registers themselves, Roubeau, Henrich and Castellengo’s 2007 study has introduced and labeled four laryngeal vibratory mechanisms M0-M3, where M0 corresponds to ‘fry’ or ‘pulse’ register, M1 to traditional ‘chest’ register, M2 to ‘head’ register, and M3 to flageolet, or ‘whistle’ register.64

The classical LMV spends the majority of his performance life in the vocal configuration that has been called M1 (mode one)65, or alternately ‘chest voice,’ ‘chest register,’66 ‘thick,’ TA-

62 Alan J. Ord, Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 1994), vii.

63 Nathalie Henrich, “Mirroring the voice from Garcia to the present day: some insights into singing voice registers” Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology 31, no. 1 (2006): 3-14.

64 Bernard Roubeau, Nathalie Henrich, and Michèle Castellengo, “Laryngeal Vibrator Mechanisms: The Notion of Vocal Register Revisited” Journal of Voice 23, no. 4 (2007): 425-438.

65 Bernard Roubeau, Nathalie Henrich, and Michèle Castellengo, “Laryngeal Vibrator Mechanisms: The Notion of Vocal Register Revisited” Journal of Voice 23, no. 4 (2007); Scott McCoy, Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. (Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2012), 146.

66 Doscher, Functional Unity, 1994, 183.

27 dominant, modal, or ‘adducted chest register’.67 In performance, rare LMV excursions into another vocal configuration known as M2 (mode two), ‘head voice,’ ‘thin,’ CT-dominant, ‘loft,’ or ‘abducted falsetto register’ can evoke great vulnerability, tenderness, gender subversion, or comedy. (The pedagogical application of M2/head/etc. in LMV training is discussed in § 3.2.3.) During the act of singing, everything in the singing system constantly and dynamically adjusts with pitch, intensity and vowel, or dramatically fails at a laryngeal transition point known as the secondo passaggio. Unless the LMV executes some kind of shift at the secondo passaggio, the continuity of the voice breaks. Even so, the highest pitch in most classical writing for LMV does not usually exceed E4 (329.63Hz). Using registration strategies, LMVs can exceed this laryngeal limit to successfully sing E4 and pitches above it.

A discussion of ‘registers’ might be enhanced by the qualifier ‘laryngeal,’ to form the expression laryngeal register(s). This allows us to talk about the specific and discrete set of contiguous pitches that Garcia says shares qualities directly related to the configuration of the folds, which he frames as a consistent mechanical principle. Garcia defines the term ‘register’ as follows:

Par le mot registre, nous entendons une série de sons consécutifs et homogènes allant du grave à l’aigu, produits par le développement du même principe mécanique, et dont la nature diffère essentiellement d'une autre série de sons également consécutifs et homogènes, produit par un autre principe mécanique. Tous les sons appartenant au même registre sont, par conséquent, de la même nature, quelles que soient d'ailleurs les modifications de timbre ou de force qu'on leur fasse subir.68

[By the word register, we mean a series of consecutive and homogeneous sounds extending from low to high, produced by the same mechanical principle, and whose nature fundamentally differs from other series of equally consecutive and homogeneous sounds produced by a different mechanical principle. All of the

67 Christian T. Herbst and Jan G. Švec, “Adjustment of Glottal Configurations in Singing,” Journal of Singing 70, no. 3 (2014).

68 Manuel García, École de García: Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, 11e édition (Paris: Heugel et Cie., 1904), 4.

sounds belonging to the same register consequentially share the same nature, regardless of the timbral or dynamic modifications imposed on them.]69

In a 1988 article, Ingo Titze suggests that changes in quality between the registers corresponds to a significant change in signal at the voice source itself. He names the primo and secondo passaggi as timbre transitions.70 Citing aerodynamic formulae and pressure waveform illustrations, Titze says that these timbre registers are linked to subglottal resonance phenomena in the trachea. He points to the major involuntary timbre transitions experienced by males and females alike in the region of 300-350 Hz (D4- F4), and relates this pitch region directly to the length of the human trachea. Since tracheas vary in length from sopranos to LMVs by ten to twenty percent, this variance maps a two-to-three-semitones’ adjustment, and neatly accounts for the correspondingly lower involuntary timbre transition (break) experienced by LMVs. Titze also proposes strategies for register equalization based on vowel modification and adjustments in glottal adduction.

Herbst and Švec offer a different framework of laryngeal adjustments based on active portions of the glottis.71 They propose a scale of gradual adjustments along the two major axes (‘breathy’ to ‘pressed’ and ‘falsetto’ to ‘chest’) which account for the singer’s fine timbral variability for enhanced artistic expression. Herbst and Švec note that a progression in glottal adduction between their declared extremes from ‘breathy’ to ‘pressed’ and from ‘falsetto’ to ‘chest’ will correspond to an increasing duration of the closed phase, a progressively decreasing spectral slope, and stronger higher harmonics which result in a more brilliant timbre.72 This study identifies trained classical male singers as operating primarily in what the researchers designate as adducted chest phonation, the option with the greatest glottal closure in their proposed four- part pedagogic model. “The main difference between the phonations in the two different registers

69 Translation Dann Mitton 2018.

70 Ingo R. Titze, “A Framework for the Study of Vocal Registers” Journal of Voice 2, no. 3 (1988): 183-194.

71 Christian T. Herbst and Jan G. Švec, “Adjustment of Glottal Configurations in Singing,” Journal of Singing 70, no. 3 (2014): 301-308.

72 Spectral slope has also been called ‘roll off’ or ‘tilt’. It can be visualized in a spectrogram as the contour revealed by the drop in intensity of harmonics above fo. See Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 4-6, 8, 27, 113, 118.

(falsetto and chest) is seen in larger vertical phase differences of vocal fold vibration, a prevalence of mucosal waves, and the duration of the closed phase.”73

While speaking specifically about laryngeal registers limits the conversation to Garcia’s range of functional pitches, speaking in terms of registration does not. Speaking in terms of vocal registration gives us a more flexible framework in which to consider the metaphorical building blocks of the laryngeal registers. Listeners perceive registration qualities as varying degrees of ease or strain, amplitude (intensity), and the essential timbral qualities of colour and complexity versus purity of tone.74

LMVs need not become locked into an approach that defaults to a holler in the higher extremes or a foggy grumble at the lower extremes. We can use vowels to cause the vocal folds to change their register configuration, to navigate the transition between chest and head registers, and to control how much depth of contact and adduction we desire in the act of singing.75 Changing the vowel effectively changes the nature and balance of the laryngeal muscular engagement. In performance, the well-coordinated classical LMV constantly and subconsciously shifts between sung vowels in their open and close forms, predetermined in relationship to their proximity to fR1. Vocal tract resonance tuning strategies use the location of fR1 to guide active vowel modification or allow passive vowel migration. It is important to understand that no universal modification works across all vowels at all pitches.76 Instead, singers must adapt their registration choices in real-time to match their interpretive choices and the demands of the vowel and pitch combinations set by the composer.

3.2.2 The LMV zona di passaggio

Classical voice training values the perception of register unification: acquiring the skill to create the illusion of seamlessness across these transition points through artful registration.

73 Herbst and Švec, “Adjustment”, 304.

74 Howell, “Advanced Vocal Registration”, 11.

75 Ibid.

76 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 26.

Passaggi are the pitch regions where one register transitions to the next; these transitions can be particularly apparent in untrained voices. The zona di passaggio is a region of contiguous notes which has also been called the middle voice or mixed voice that bridges the primo passaggio and the secondo passaggio.77 According to Miller, LMVs experience this region as an acoustic negotiation that takes place at or near the following pairs of pitches (please see § 1.5 for a note on the pitch notation used in this thesis):78

Voice type Primo passaggio Secondo passaggio

Bass-baritone A3 D4

Lyric bass Ab3 Db4

Basso profundo G3 C4

Table 3.1: LMV zone di passaggio

3.2.3 LMV training essentials: falsetto and head voice

Exploring falsetto and head voice in addition to chest voice is crucial to the developing LMV. Doing so means engaging and strengthening the thyroarytenoid (TA) and cricothyroid (CT) muscles, which change the shape and length of the vocal folds.

Reid stresses the importance of strengthening every register: “The difficulty in singing above E flat so universally experienced by basses and baritones, however, is directly attributable to the unfortunate neglect of the falsetto register.”79 Depending on the weakness of the head voice or falsetto in the presenting student singer, time must be taken to strengthen the muscles utilized in the head register. This important work can be accomplished through simple exercises that alternate pitch, vowel, and intensity to isolate the chest and head voices (register breaking), and then developing the voice’s continuity with portamenti, sirens, and the messa di voce exercise.

77 Miller, Securing, 5.

78 Ibid., 9.

79 Reid, Bel Canto, 95.

This work will allow the LMV to perceptually blend the qualities of one register into the other: the qualities of the head voice can inform the chest voice and vice versa.80

3.2.4 Cover

‘Covering’ the voice is the traditional strategy for ascending through the LMV secondo passaggio and unifying the registers of the male voice.81 Cover has also been called “coperto,” “protection,” “vowel modification,” and “turning over.” This can mean the active or passive migration of a vowel as the voice ascends through acoustic turning pitches. Doscher explains, “Covered singing is characterized by a comfortably low laryngeal position, a strong fundamental, appropriate vowel modification and a rich spectrum of higher harmonics.”82 She adds, “in addition to breath management and vocal fold factors, fR1 tuning is a crucial factor in achieving smooth register transitions as well as maintaining as much vowel integrity as possible.”83

The term cover applies to an array of fR1/nfo interactions. One option is achieved passively by maintaining the vocal tract shape while the pitch ascends, allowing 2fo (an octave above the sung pitch) to rise above the fR1 of the vowel being sung. Bozeman has called this passive modification option vowel migration.84 The aural effect of this kind of cover is most obvious on the vowels [ɛ a ɑ o], but happens nonetheless on every vowel if the vocal tract is suitably stable.

See Table 5.3 in § 5.3.3 for specific LMV fR1 values per vowel in the sung Russian vowel inventory, and Figure 5.3 for pitches of turning based on these values.

Cover can also be achieved actively, by intentionally changing the vowel itself to bring about a lower fR1 that will meet 2fo at a lower pitch. This is achieved either by rounding the vowel or closing it. This method has been called ‘vowel modification’.

80 Howell, “Advanced Vocal Registration”, 12.

81 Richard Miller, The Structure of Singing: System and Art in Vocal Technique (New York: Schirmer, 1986), 115- 129.

82 Doscher, Functional Unity, 154.

83 Ibid., 155.

84 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 26.

3.2.5 Open/close timbre, yell/whoop coupling, and micro-crossings

In addition to the three options described in § 3.2.4, it is possible to experience other subtle cover-like events, which are noticeable timbral migrations or ‘closings’ as the sung pitch ascends toward fR1. There is an audible turning of the timbre from open to close an octave below the fR1 of the sung vowel. The significance of open and close ([kloʊs], not [kloʊz]) timbre is also discussed in § 1.7. Other relevant mini-turnings include an octave-and-a-fifth below, at two octaves below, and at two-octaves-and-a-major-third below the fR1 of the sung vowel. The locations of these subtle aural closings reflect the interaction of the harmonic series with the fR1 of the vowel being sung. The harmonic series (fo, 2fo, 3fo, etc.) of the sung pitch interacts with resonances of the vocal tract in predictable ways, and an awareness of these points of turning helps the singer to allow them to take place smoothly and naturally.

A benefit of this permission for the voice to ‘turn’ is the avoidance of a stylistically inappropriate speech-like timbre of the vowel, which leads to a yell effect. When the singer opts to track 2fo with fR1, this is called ‘yell coupling.’ This strong coupling has traditionally been deemed inappropriate for classical singing, but remains a viable resonance strategy in other styles.

‘Whoop timbre,’ or perhaps more fittingly ‘whoop coupling’ occurs high in the LMV range, when the sung pitch reaches or exceeds the fR1 of the vowel being sung. For example, singing up to D4 on [i] in my voice brings on an acoustic turning event that presents the option to track fR1 along with the ascending pitch. I sing the pitches D4, Eb4, and E4 on an [i] vowel in whoop coupling if my voice enters into the acoustic arrangement where the first resonance of my vocal tract couples with the sung pitch above D4. This will temporarily raise the fR1 of my sung [i] vowel while it tracks in tandem with the rising pitch. In practical terms, we can describe this alteration perceptually as the opening of [i] slightly toward [ɪ]. Whoop sounds full and heady, mimicking the sound of a head voice adjustment. The colour of fR1 dominates the sound of whoop coupling, lending it aural presence. Opting against coupling fo with fR1 will produce a weaker iteration of the sung vowel.85 Consider Sunless 3, m. 35 beat 2:

85 Ibid., 26.

Figure 3.1: Sunless 3, m. 35

The singably low fR1 location of [i] for the LMV explains why it is possible to produce a full, sweet-sounding [i] at the top of the passaggio. This same configuration is acoustically impossible on any other vowel in the LMV range studied in this thesis (A2-E4). For example, the fR1 of [a] resonates in the LMV vocal tract at the vocally unattainable F5 (see Fig. 5.2 in § 5.3.4). Every other fR1 lies beyond the singable pitch range. See Chapter 6 for visual representations of all whoop timbre possibilities in the two song cycles shaded in red in the data collection spreadsheet screen captures.

It is important to note that no one pitch represents a consistent boundary between open and close timbres for all composed pitches. “If turning over were the result of laryngeal registration events rather than first formant locations, one would expect a voice to turn over at the same pitch for all vowels. It does not. Maintaining that view is no longer a viable pedagogic position."86 Section

5.3.2 details the method used for deriving LMV fR1 and fR2 values for each vowel in the Russian lyric diction phonemic inventory.

3.3 Finding LMV-appropriate Russian vocal literature

Several useful resources for locating appropriate Russian repertoire for the LMV in terms of vocal resources and thematic alignment are detailed in the annotated literature review given in Appendix A. The following resources offer specific assistance:

86 Ibid.

Arneson, Christopher with Lauren Athey-Janka. Literature for Teaching: A Guide for Choosing Solo Vocal Repertoire from a Developmental Perspective. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2014.

Belov, Anton, ed. Russian Romantic Art Song (Low Voice). Fayetteville: Classical Vocal Reprints, 2015.

Coffin, Berton. Singer’s Repertoire Part IV: Baritone and Bass, second edition. New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960.

Dailey, Sarah S. “Songs of the Mighty Five: A Guide for Teachers and Performers.” Doctoral dissertation. Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, 2013.

Ord, Alan J. Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1994.

Ord, Alan J. Songs for Beginning Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2002.

3.4 LMV presence in classical voice pedagogy

Notwithstanding their disproportionate statistical minority, LMVs have contributed significantly to the corpus of classical voice pedagogy with notable treatises, methods, and other voice-related resources. These include Lablache’s Complete Method of Singing (1850) and A Complete Method of Singing for The Bass Voice (1851), Bataille’s Nouvelles recherches sur la phonation (1861), Witherspoon’s Singing (1925), Kelsey’s The Foundations of Singing (1950), Appelman’s The Science of Vocal Pedagogy (1967), Vennard’s Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic (1967), and Coffin’s wide-ranging body of work which includes Overtones of Bel Canto (1980) and Historical Vocal Pedagogy Classics (1989). Alan J. Ord has produced Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice (1994) and Songs for Beginning Bass Voice (2002). Legendary Russian bass Feodor Chaliapin inspired the development of Stanislavsky’s method of acting. American bass Jerome Hines published two books: Great Singers on Great Singing (1982) and The Four Voices of Man (1997). More recently, American bass Seth Keeton co- created SongHelix with Adriana Zabala in 2019, which is an online database that allows users to locate song repertoire thematically, by keyword, or other metadata. All of these titles are discussed individually in Appendix A.

3.5 Summary

This chapter explored the general physical and acoustic properties of the LMV, and identified pitch boundaries for the LMV zone di passaggio. The range that defines the lyric bass zona di passaggio (Ab3-Db4) is overlaid on the graphs in Chapter 6 to provide a quick visual reference showing which of the sixteen sample songs feature challenging text settings that require special navigation of the LMV secondo passaggio.

Now that the parameters of the LMV have been discussed, Chapter 4 discusses the mechanics of Russian lyric diction. It reviews the phonemes used in this thesis as both lyric diction targets and as the data elements tracked in Chapter 5’s data collection.

Chapter 4 Sung Russian

Section 2.1 identified Grayson’s subset of IPA lyric diction targets. Chapter 4 describes the physiological adjustments necessary to produce these phonemes. The basis of articulation is discussed as a useful construct to help singers otherwise unfamiliar with the articulatory mechanics of sung Russian. Chapter 4 also includes practical strategies for achieving a reliable velar-i [ɨ] (see § 4.6.4), and a three-step guide to achieving reliable secondary palatalization (see § 4.9.2).

In the discussion of each vowel in § 4.6, there is commentary about its frequency of use in sung Russian. By looking at each phoneme’s proportion of net phonation time, we gain a sense of how often the tongue must be fronted in sung Russian, or backed and in a state of compliance with a lowered larynx. Both of these oral postures are sought in classical singing.

Singers are taught shapes of the vocal tract that are idealized lyric diction targets for unamplified performance. This can mean intentionally simplifying vowels toward certain baseline iterations. For example, while [ʊ] exists in spoken Russian, it does not exist in sung Russian: the only /u/- allophone that serves as a Russian lyric diction target is [u] (see the discussion of Table 2.2 in § 2.1). While instantiations of the Russian vowels are not cardinal (cardinal vowels are themselves abstractions), the descriptions in § 4.6 associate them with many of Jones’ cardinal ideals. We must bear in mind that diagrams conceived for and depicting speech-level phonemes such as those offered in Bolla’s Conspectus have no onus to reflect the additional convergent, singing-optimized vocal tract shapes necessary for optimally resonant classical singing. Therefore, suitable instantiations for singing must be instructed by informed coaches and voice teachers.

Some speech-level consonants are intentionally simplified into more singable versions such as the rendering of ⟨щ⟩ as [ʃʲː], and not [ʃʲtʃʲ] as some native Russian speakers might render it in speech. These simplifications promote a useful and familiar continuity with other sung languages, providing familiar points of access for singers otherwise unaccustomed to Russian phonemes. For example, the Russian and Italian plosives [t] and [d] share similar voice-onset times (the interval between the release of the articulatory occlusion and the onset of voicing). For

36 37 the purposes of singing, these familiar Italian plosives are effectively adopted as lyric diction targets for their ‘hard’ (unpalatalized) Russian counterparts.87

4.1 Some shared traits between sung Italian and sung Russian

Italian and Russian share traits that are beneficial for classical singing. Songs and vocalises in Italian have long been the first pieces assigned to most classical singers. Perhaps this is because sung Italian employs a conservative lyric diction inventory of seven cardinal vowel sounds [i e ɛ a ɔ o u]. Sung Russian’s ten-phoneme vowel inventory consolidates a single /o/-allophone and encompasses the Italian set along with four additions [ɪ ɨ ɑ ʌ] (see § 2.1). In step with other sung Western languages, sung Italian and sung Russian both depend on a steady balance of subglottic pressure that is the classic appoggio of bel canto technique, paired with the steady flow of vibrant tone (i.e. filare la voce) to maintain their legato. Neither Italian nor Russian employs nasal vowels, which agrees with classical efforts to keep the nasal port sealed by means of a consistently raised soft palate. Neither employs rhotic (i.e. r-coloured) vowels.

Russia directly injected its school of solo singing with bel canto practices by importing Italian composers, singers, and voice teachers in the eighteenth century.88 Masterfully sung Russian features an Italianate quality because of the predilection for musically elongated vowels, legato, and beauty of tone inherited from these Italian influencers. There is an old axiom: “To sound Russian, sing like an Italian.”89

In a January 22, 2018 NATS Chat, renowned pedagogue Janice Chapman expressed the opinion that Italian singers are the beneficiaries of a national advantage:

we knew from speech scientists that the tongue setting in the Italian language is higher than it is in, say, English or German. And also because of the way that in the Italian language the emotional intent of the word is always carried in the

87 Martin Néron, “Coarticulation: Aspects and Effects on American English, German, and French Diction,” Journal of Singing 67, no. 3 (2011): 314.

88 Richard Taruskin, "Russia (opera)." Grove Music Online, 2002.

89 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 305.

vowel and not in the consonant like we have in English. We say, “I hhhhate you!” Italians would say, “I haaaate you!” The emotion would be in the vowel. And because of that, and because of this higher tongue position, [Italians] have automatically — and for free — been put onto support. I think the Italian language setting gives them a holistic support. […] Now, if you get the tongue in an Italian position and you get some support working, you get this tremendous bonus. I call it the sweet spot, the resonant sweet spot when the tongue’s high, the larynx can also be low at the same time if the tongue’s in an Italian position because it’s higher and it’s further back than in some other languages. And so, it sets the Italians up with this marvellous advantage that their language gives them, of both being on supported airflow and having a high tongue and an even higher soft palate, and the low larynx at the same time. […] So, by adjusting the tongue {sings [i:]} if you just take the tongue back a tiny bit {sings [i:] [i:]} you find your resonant sweet spot. And that can be a sort of pivot point for all the vowels to hang from that. So, it’s just a retraining to get to the Italian vowels. But, you know, the Italian singers get support for free, really. They don’t have to fight their way around it.90

The “marvellous advantage” that Chapman is remarking on, this “pivot point for all the vowels to hang from” has a name. It is called the basis of articulation.

4.2 The basis of articulation

The basis of articulation is a linguistics construct that can be considered as a sort of language- specific home base. Some have discussed the basis of articulation as a “language specific habitual gross position” that is a “causative agent and a stabilizing centre.”91

The basis of articulation of a language can be understood as being defined by the language- specific default postures of the vocal tract during inter-speech pauses and hesitation vowels (for

90 Janice Chapman, interviewed by Kari Ragan, NATS Chat, January 22, 2018 [time stamp for this excerpt is 29:38 to 32:00].

91 Borissoff, “Basis of Articulation,” 40-41.

39 example the English: “uh…” or “er…”).92 It is where the tongue body rests and how the vocal tract is shaped by default as the experienced singer prepares to sing in each language.

Beatrice Honikman writes about this in her seminal chapter (see §§ 2.2. and A.3.2):

the gross oral posture and mechanics, both external and internal, requisite as a framework for the comfortable, economic and fluent merging and integrating of the isolated sounds into that harmonious, cognizable whole which constitutes the established pronunciation of a language.93

She likens this complex coordination with the metaphor of ‘gears,’ and offers this anecdote from her teaching experience:

Once the description of the setting [read: basis of articulation] has been given and the formula devised, it was found that a blanket term was required to cover all the details included in a formula; for want of a better, the term gear has been used quite successfully, students, at this stage, finding the expressions ‘English gear’, ‘French gear’, etc., readily intelligible. At the beginning of a practical class I would say, ‘Are you in English gear?’ – and as soon as I hear them dropping back to a foreign accent, I might remark, ‘You’re out of gear’, and it is rewarding to see how well they react and get back ‘into gear’ again.94

Among other articulatory settings, a language’s basis of articulation can be said to correspond to one of three tongue ‘settings’: advanced, neutral, or retracted. For example, English features a retracted basis of articulation.95 Lindblom’s rule of the economy of speech gestures (see § 2.5.3:

92 Ibid., 17, 21, 22, 26.

93 Beatrice Honikman, “Articulatory Settings,” in D. Abercrombie. DB Fry, PAD MacCarthy, NC Scott, and JLM Trim eds. In Honour of Daniel Jones (London: Longman, 1964): 73-84.

94 Ibid., 82.

95 Borissoff, “Basis of Articulation,” 36, where Borissoff attaches this statement to a simplified model of the variable tongue body centres adapted from Hardcastle 1976. See also pp. 42, 51, 54 where Borissoff quotes Heffner (1952), p. 55 where he quotes Gick et al (2004), pp. 56, 57, 58 where he explicitly compares the English and Russian bases to assert that: “The English basis of articulation is relatively retracted while the Russian basis is more centralised,” and p. 60.

“In human speech, extreme values and parameters are avoided”96) suggests that it may feel more natural for native North-American English speakers to use voiced alveolar approximants (i.e. the American burred-r /ɹ/), because the English default retracted tongue is already physiologically closer to that articulatory setting. This may also explain why North-American English speakers will instinctively produce apical allophones (formed with the tip of the tongue) of the plosive consonants /d/ and /t/, while native speakers of French (with a fronted basis of articulation where the mass of the tongue already sits forward in the oral space) will instinctively produce the dental allophones [d̪ ] and [t̪], which are formed with the blade of the tongue and little to no aspiration.97

Russian features a neutral basis of articulation.98 This means that in Russian, the tongue body is neither advanced (as it is in French) nor retracted (as it is in North-American English). It is centralized. But the Russian neutral basis of articulation exceptionally features two alternating versions: a non-fronted option (non-palatalized), and a fronted variation (palatalized).99 Skalozub’s work with X-Ray cinematography in the 1960s and 1970s (see Fig. 4.1) shows that both versions of the Russian basis of articulation feature a default open vocal tract, as opposed to the other languages examined in her work.100 This is the classical ideal of the gola aperta, and as a pre-phonatory posture it aligns ideally with classical voice pedagogy.

96 Ibid., 32.

97 Ibid., 14 where Borissoff quotes Viëtor (1887): “The French mode of articulation is more definite, more ‘narrow’ than ours: the tongue is in general much further forward in the mouth.” Also, Borissoff p. 15 where he quotes the comparison of English and French in Sweet’s Handbook of Phonetics (1877): “In French everything is reversed. The tongue is arched and raised and advanced as much as possible, and the lips articulate with energy. French therefore favours narrowness both in vowels and consonants, its point-consonants tend to dentality, and, compared with the English ones, have a front-modified character…” and p. 36.

98 Ibid., 36, 57, 59.

99 Ibid., 27.

100 Ibid., 27.

(a) neutral (b) palatalized

Figure 4.1a-b: The neutral and palatalized configurations of the speech organs in Russian101

The non-fronted version of the Russian neutral basis of articulation features a centralized tongue resting lower in the mouth, setting up favourable conditions for the larynx to descend.102 Borissoff says that

the Russian basis of articulation allows to produce both palatalised and non- palatalised sounds while the retracted centering of the English basis of articulation significantly restricts palatalisation. In other words, English pronunciation might be physiologically easier for Russian speakers (although with a specific strong accent) than vice versa.103

Sung Russian may predicate both a neutral resting point with less ambient tension in the articulators that favours a low suspended larynx, and a fronted tongue posture that is optimal for

101 Based on Borissoff, “Basis of Articulation,” 27, who cites Skalozub, 1979.

102 Ibid., 27, where Borissoff references Skalozub’s 1979 illustration of the neutral configuration of the speech organs in Russian in both unpalatalized and palatalized versions; p. 35 in a footnote regarding Kedrova et al.’s 2007 observation that “the Russian basis of articulation could be classified as ‘neutral’ and it [is] not as clearly expressed as in languages with fronted or retracted bases so it is more difficult to pinpoint”; p. 36; p. 57 where he cites Kedrova et al 2008: “Russian basis of articulation which is neither notably retracted or advanced and could be defined as the ‘neutral’ with the ‘general gravitation of the tongue body to the centralized position’”; p. 58 where a central position is featured in Hardcastle’s 1976 illustration of the Russian tongue profile, and further on the same page he says “The centralised nature of the Russian basis is also quite obvious from this rough comparison of the phonemic inventory of the two languages shown in Fig. 21”;

103 Ibid., 60.

42 resonant classical singing. A free and comfortable chiaroscuro timbre is facilitated by a low larynx, open throat, raised velum, and closer vowel postures.104 All of these physical outcomes align with the delivery of idiomatic sung Russian.105 Under the influence of palatalization, the degree of constriction in the pharynx is reduced.106 The technical merits of the various sung Russian consonants, as well as an expert opinion about their usefulness as downstream resistors, are discussed in § 4.7.

In the fronted version of the neutral Russian basis of articulation, the dorsum (or body) of the tongue arches close to an [i]-posture where it can most economically participate in palatalization, which pervades the Russian language. The advantage of the fronted version of the Russian basis of articulation means that when the tongue mass advances (fronts), the rest of the tongue must follow, vacating the throat which creates greater resonance space in the pharynx.107

In summary, teaching LMV singers to centralize their articulators for sung Russian may lead to less unnecessary tension in the singing system. When the tongue is free to constructively relax, the hyoid can descend, allowing the larynx to stabilize in a lower position in agreement with the neutral basis of articulation. On the other hand, when the fronted version of the Russian basis of articulation is necessary, it contributes the singing advantage of fronting the tongue mass, which then necessarily vacates the throat, creating greater resonance space in the pharynx; this is the traditional classical objective of the gola aperta or ‘open throat’.

4.3 Prosody: Russian as a stress-timed language

The ideas of syllable-timed and stress-timed languages provide useful pedagogical constructs that can help students to develop a ‘feel’ for foreign linguistic prosody in a variety of sung

104 Bozeman, Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy, 44.

105 The Oxford English Dictionary defines idiomatic as: Appropriate to the style of art or music associated with a particular period, individual, or group.

106 Brad H. Story and Ingo R. Titze, “A Preliminary Study of Voice Quality Transformation Based on Modifications to the Neutral Vocal Tract Area Function,” Journal of Phonetics 30 (2002): 501.

107 Kenneth W. Bozeman, “Remapping the Open Throat (Gola Aperta)” Journal of Singing 72, no. 2 (2015): 183- 197.

43 languages, including Russian. Broadly speaking, languages may be categorized as syllable-timed or stress-timed.108

Ever since the terms “stress-timed rhythm” and “syllable-timed rhythm” were put forward by Pike in 1945, scholars have tried to describe the rhythms of the world’s languages in dichotomous terms. Thus, Abercrombie claims that “As far as is known every language in the world is spoken with one kind of rhythm or the other.” At the same time experimental work has failed to produce empirical evidence in substantiation of these theoretical claims. Therefore, it is not surprising that experiments designed to determine which of the two rhythmic categories a given language belongs to sometimes come to contradictory conclusions.109

In principle, syllable-timed languages (e.g. French or Korean), give their syllables a theoretically equal duration. Syllable stress in syllable-timed languages often occupies a predictable position. For example, in French, the ultimate syllable is typically stressed. Musical text settings in syllable-timed languages likely exploit this inherent syllabic equality with a heightened stylistic imperative for legato. This certainly seems plausible for sung French and its style soutenu. Perhaps because each syllable shares roughly equivalent phonation time, syllable-timed languages generally lack reduced vowels. (It is common knowledge that the French schwa is its own phoneme and does not represent the reduction of an otherwise cardinal vowel.)

In stress-timed languages like English, German, and Russian, the interval between two stressed syllables is equalized, while unstressed syllables accommodate the pulse established by these rhythmic guideposts by fitting in between them. This leads to two effects: 1) unstressed syllables in a stress-timed language will occur as shorter than their stressed counterparts, and 2) unstressed syllables will sometimes undergo a kind of centralization called vowel reduction (see § 4.9.3). We see this vowel reduction in the sung English ⟨behold⟩ /bɪ.ˈhoʊld/ where the first syllable

108 Kenneth L. Pike, The Intonation of American English (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1945).

109 Snezhina Dimitrova, “Bulgarian Speech Rhythm: Stress-Timed or Syllable-Timed?” Journal of the International Phonetic Association (1998): 27.

44 reduces /i/ to the more central sung schwa substitute /ɪ/.110 Both unstressed syllables in the sung German ⟨gekommen⟩ (come) /ɡə.ˈkɔm.mən/ are effectively schwa. The stressed vowels in sung Russian feel slightly longer, while its unstressed vowels are perceptually shorter in length, and often undergo vowel reduction following specific rules. Unfortunately, syllabic stress in Russian is as unpredictable as it is in English. It must be learned either through experience, by confirmation with a native Russian speaker, or by a reliable dictionary.

For singing purposes, we will work under the simplified assumption that there is a single stressed syllable per Russian word. This stressed syllable can also be called the tonic syllable. All other syllables within a single Russian word are, by this definition, unstressed. Two forms of assimilation, the Russian practice of akanye /ˈɑ.kʌɲ.jɪ/ and ikanye /ˈi.kʌɲ.jɪ/, govern how unstressed Russian vowels reduce.111

4.4 Open syllabification for singing

Unequivocal literature on Russian syllabification would be a welcome find. Timberlake deliberates:

There is more than one algorithm for determining syllable structure. The major point of difference concerns what to do with multiple consonants between vowels, which may be assigned all to the following vowel or split between the preceding and the following syllable according to some principle.112 but despite citing Avasenov 1956, he does not settle on a useful rule of thumb. While a linguistics approach could certainly justify syllabification based on sonority profiles or even speaker intuition, this thesis follows a discipline-specific alternative. The conventions of singers’ IPA transcriptions have established a standing tradition of open syllables (syllables that terminate in a vowel as opposed to a consonant) to promote legato (continuity in the sung line through

110 Kathryn LaBouff, Singing and Communicating in English: A Singer’s Guide to English Diction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 47.

111 See § 4.9.3 for an overview of akanye and ikanye.

112 Alan Timberlake, A Reference Grammar of Russian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 79.

45 maximal vowel phonation). This practice is advocated in Vaccai’s Metodo pratico di canto italiano:

In this lesson, the presentation of unusual syllable-combinations is given, to be a guide to the pupil in the proper pronunciation. The vowel receives the full time- value of one or more notes, the consonant is to be drawn over to the succeeding syllable. This facilitates the acquiring of the legato in singing.113

Vaccai goes on to syllabize the text underlay of the Lezione 1 vocalise on p. 7 as follows: Ma- nca so-lle-ci-ta più de-ll’u-sa-to,/ a-nco-rchè s’a-gi-ti co-n_lie-ve fia-to,/ fa-ce che pa-lpi-ta pre- sso_a-l_mo-rir,/ fa-ce che pa-lpi-ta pre-sso_a-l_mo-rir.

Open syllables in singers’ transcriptions are also advocated in LaBouff’s guide to English lyric diction.114 Training in French lyric diction imposes open syllables as well. Following these examples, the Russian texts underlaid in Appendices B and C are transcribed using open syllables. It is understood that this practice disregards structural methods of understanding Russian syllable onsets and codas, for the sake of the interests of legato singing.

4.5 The Russian Cyrillic alphabet

Each Cyrillic character in Table 4.1 is identified by its letter-name given in IPA transcription rather than by the sound it might seem most likely to represent. Italic typeset versions are included here to highlight some notable differences in print appearance, particularly between lowercase г/г, д/д, и/и, п/п, and т/т. Differences in print style have no effect on pronunciation.

The modern Russian Cyrillic alphabet uses thirty-three letters. Ten of these letters are vowels (we can think of our familiar /a e i o u/ allophones as rendered twice in two series: a ‘hard’ series and a ‘soft’ series). Twenty-one are consonants. Two are non-sounding signs. The final four letters shown in Table 4.1 are characters that have been made obsolete by historical spelling

113 Nicola Vaccai, Metodo pratico di canto italiano (London: Bowerman & Co., 1832), 5.

114 LaBouff, Singing and Communicating in English, 26.

46 reforms, but nevertheless still appear in scores published before 1917. When one encounters any of these four obsolete letters, one can simply substitute its modern counterpart as shown.

Cyrillic letter Italicized version Letter name as IPA transcription

А a А a [ɑ] Б б Б б [bɛ] В в В в [vɛ] Г г Г г [ɡɛ] Д д Д д [dɛ] Е е Е е [jɛ] Ё ё Ё ё [joːʌ̯] Ж ж Ж ж [ʒɛ] З з З З [zɛ] И и И и [i] Й й Й й [i ˈkrɑ.tkʌ.jɛ] и краткое (short-i) К к К к [kɑ] Л л Л л [ɛlʲ] М м М м [ɛm] Н н Н н [ɛn] О о О о [oːʌ̯] П п П п [pɛ] Р р Р р [ɛr] С с С с [ɛs] Т т Т т [tɛ] У у У у [u] Ф ф Ф ф [ɛf] Х х Х х [xɑ] Ц ц Ц ц [tsɛ] Ч ч Ч ч [tʃʲɛ] Ш ш Ш ш [ʃɑ] Щ щ Щ щ [ʃtʃʲɑ], but also: [ʃʲːɑ] Ъ ъ Ъ ъ [ˈtvʲo.rdɨj znɑk] твёрдый знак (the hard sign) Ы ы Ы ы [ɨːi]̯ (velar-i)

Cyrillic letter Italicized version Letter name as IPA transcription

Ь ь Ь ь [mʲaxʲkʲij znɑk] мягкий знак (the soft sign) Э э Э э [ɛ] Ю ю Ю ю [ju] Я я Я я [jɑ] Ѣ ѣ Ѣ ѣ [jatʲ], ять (obsolete letter, replace with е) І і І і [i] (dotted-i, obsolete letter, replace with и) Ѵ ѵ Ѵ ѵ [ˈi.ʒɨ.tsʌ] ижица (obsolete letter, replace with и) Ѳ ѳ Ѳ ѳ [ˈfʲi.tɑ] фита (obsolete letter, replace with ф)

Table 4.1: Russian Cyrillic alphabet with obsolete letters115

The IPA values for four letters in Table 4.1 invite further explanation.

When the letters ⟨о⟩ and ⟨ё⟩ occur mid-word in the stressed position, they are accurately pronounced as [o] and [jo] respectively. However, when these letters occur alone (as in Table 4.1) or when they are word-final and stressed, they finish with a slight offglide: [oːʌ̯ ] or [joːʌ̯ ].116 This offglide is never notated in singers’ IPA transcriptions (see § 4.6.9). I have observed that many L1 Russian speakers exhibit this offglide while denying that they do it. I teach this deliberate offglide with the same understanding that English ⟨o⟩ is pronounced [oːʊ̯ ]. It should be noted that it is common for print materials including musical scores to omit the diacritic on the ‘soft’ letter ⟨ё⟩ [jo], making it appear to the untrained eye as ⟨е⟩ [je]. Non-native singers like myself find these unmarked ⟨ё⟩s very challenging to spot. To verify the presence of ⟨ё⟩ [jo], consult a native speaker and a good Russian dictionary.

The letter ⟨щ⟩ has historically been called [ʃtʃʲɑ], and this is one of the transcriptions given for its letter-name in Table 4.1. In the context of a word, Grayson transcribes this letter with the more

115 I created Table 4.1 based on my acquisition of basic Russian through SLA100H1: Elementary Russian I and SLA101H1: Elementary Russian II taken at the University of Toronto Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, reinforced by conversations with L1 Russian speakers and singing coaches, and information given in Grayson’s 2012 dissertation.

116 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 84.

48 modern rendering [ʃʲːɑ], and has coined the neologism shshokanye to describe the convention of simplifying the sung pronunciation of ⟨щ⟩ [ʃtʃʲɑ] to [ʃʲː].117 This is the form used in the transcriptions in Appendices B and C.

Finally, the vowel ⟨ы⟩, also known as ‘velar-i,’ exhibits another unwritten offglide. When ⟨ы⟩ occurs mid-word, it is accurately pronounced [ɨ]. But when it is word-final, it finishes with a slight offglide to [i]: [ɨːi̯] (see also § 4.6.4).118 Again, I have noticed that L1 Russian speakers perform this offglide perhaps unaware. Nonetheless, I teach the pronunciation of words with a final velar-i such as ⟨ты⟩ as [tɨːi̯] even though I teach the IPA notation of such words without the explicitly notated offglide, therefore: [tɨ].

While no mnemonic is universally employed to teach children the Russian Cyrillic alphabet, L2 Russian students may find the Russian Alphabet Song helpful for this purpose (see Appendix D).

4.6 The sung Russian vowels

The old maxim goes that “singers sing on the vowel.” In accordance with this received wisdom, it is generally agreed that one principle in classical singing is to award as much phonation time as possible to sung vowels.119 Because the tongue and the larynx are physically connected by the hyoid bone, any forward and upward movements of the tongue for fronted vowels (e.g. [i], [ɪ], and [e]) tends to result in a somewhat higher laryngeal position even if this is only a matter of millimeters. Conversely, the lower and comparatively more backed tongue necessary for [u] tends to facilitate a somewhat lower laryngeal position. Likewise [ɑ] (the backed dark-/a/ allophone that is the most commonly-occurring phoneme in sung Russian) shares this propensity to result in a somewhat lower laryngeal position. Phonation time on [ɑ] in sung Russian is significant (see Table 4.3 in § 4.8, and point 2 in § 6.3). This could account for anecdotal evidence that singing in Russian feels grounded and stable in the articulators. Many singers who explore this repertoire anecdotally report experiencing this grounded feel while singing in

117 Ibid., 173, 294.

118 Ibid., 94.

119 Vaccai, Metodo pratico, 7.

Russian. By identifying how often specific sung Russian vowels appear in the song literature examined here, we gain a sense of the proportion of net phonation time that is spent with the tongue fronted as part of a convergent resonator strategy, or backed and in a state of compliance with a lowered larynx, both of which are desirable technical objectives for classical singing.

Again, the singing-optimized lyric diction targets for sung Russian as described here do not directly correspond to phonemes in a linguistic sense (see the introduction to Chapter 4). The complete Russian lyric diction vowel inventory used in this thesis employs ten IPA symbols [i e ɪ ɨ ɛ a ɑ ʌ o u], with the expectation that classical singing technique will impose some necessary modifications. Fig. 4.2 below is adapted from Jones’ vowel quadrilateral published in the IPA Handbook. The ten sung Russian vowels are shown in black, while vowels outside the sung Russian vowel inventory are in gray.

Figure 4.2: Grayson's Russian lyric diction vowel inventory

What follows is a review of the ten vowels of this sung Russian vowel inventory (see § 4.1).

(a) [i] (b) [e] (c) [ɪ]

(d) [ɨ] (e) [ɛ] (f) [a]

(g) [ɑ] (h) [ʌ] (i) [o]

(j) [u]

Figure 4.3a-j: Grayson’s sung Russian vowel inventory modeled on Bolla

The illustrations in Fig. 4.3a-j are referenced from Kálmán Bolla’s A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1981): a) Plate 17, b) Plate 13, c) I created this original image in a style consistent with its counterparts here, d) Plate 15, e) Plate 10, f) Plate 3, g) Plate 2, h) Plate 23, i) Plate 6, j) Plate 19. The reader should bear in mind that these images are referenced from a speech-based resource that had no onus to consider more resonant configurations of the vocal tract for unamplified classical singing. This is perhaps most evident in the phoneme [u] (illustration 4.3j), where the tongue is obviously retracted in speech. Classical singing technique advocates that the tongue rest behind the lower front teeth when possible.

4.6.1 The familiar [i]

The close [kloʊs] front unrounded vowel (Fig. 4.3a) [i] is the second most frequently occurring phoneme in Russian, second only to [ɑ].120 To sing [i] the tongue must be fronted, which configures the oral space into alignment with a classical convergent resonator strategy. Close vowels like [i] mean that the tongue dorsum is positioned close to the roof of the mouth, with the tongue sides contacting the upper molars. Close front vowels are inherently convergent (meaning that they simulate a reverse-megaphone shape in the oral space), but still require pharyngeal space for maximum resonance in singing.

As the most fronted vowel, [i] is also the most open-throated.121 [i] shares postural similarities with the glide [j], and also with the fronted posture of the tongue for palatalization (see Fig. 4.1b in § 4.3). A fronted [i]-like starting tongue position is integral to both secondary palatalization and the gola aperta (open throat), which cooperates with the convergent resonator shape in classical singing technique.

According to the data collection carried out in § 5.2, [i] is overall the fourth most frequently phonated vowel in the songs transcribed in Appendices B and C. This difference in rank from Smirnova and Chistikoff (see Table 4.3 in § 4.8) reflects a by-product of musical text setting: Musorgsky and Kabalevsky have set other vowels, namely [o] and [u], with longer rhythmic

120 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics”, 219.

121 Bozeman, Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy, 8-9.

52 values. This increases their phonation time and slightly alters the proportion of these vowels from their spoken equivalents.

4.6.2 Closed-e, [e]

The close-mid front unrounded vowel [e] (Fig. 4.3b) is also known informally as ‘closed-e’.122 As a close front vowel, [e] is inherently convergent. This means that its tongue posture is fronted as part of a convergent resonator shape of the oral space. In sung Russian, [e] is the fronted allophone of /ɛ/ that can occur either word-initially or interpalatally.123

4.6.3 Smallcaps-i, [ɪ]

The near-close near-front unrounded vowel [ɪ] is also known as ‘smallcaps-i’. I created Fig. 4.3c as a visual reference because Bolla offers no diagram for this specific shape of the vocal tract. It is the only vowel without a cardinal reference by Jones in the sung Russian lyric diction inventory. Its presence in the sung Russian vowel inventory as a reduction through ikanye is debatable (see § 4.9.3), and those who advocate its use are listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Grayson and McMaster promote [ɪ] as a singable vowel reduction that only ever occurs in the unstressed position, where it represents the reduced realization of unstressed ⟨я⟩ or ⟨е⟩ arrived at as part of the process of ikanye. Cox notates this phoneme in this context as ⟨ï⟩. Karna says that unstressed ⟨и⟩ may also be reduced to [ɪ] which is certainly true in speech, but is questionable in singing.124 Grayson makes no allowance for that particular reduction in his rules of Russian lyric diction.

There is no data on the frequency of [ɪ] as an isolated phoneme in the Smirnova and Chistikov 2.5-million-phoneme study, where it seems to have been considered an /i/-allophone.125 [ɪ] is the second least frequently executed phoneme in the analyzed text settings of Appendices B and C.

122 Geoffrey K. Pullum and William A. Ladusaw, Phonetic Symbol Guide, second ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 255.

123 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 122.

124 Sheil, ed., The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 236-237.

125 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 221.

4.6.4 Velar-i, [ɨ]

The close central unrounded vowel [ɨ] (Fig. 4.3d) is also known as ‘velar-i’.126 It is the ninth most frequently occurring spoken Russian phoneme.127 It is the sixth most frequently executed lyric diction target in the analyzed text settings in Appendices B and C. English speakers who share my idiolect may be surprised to learn that a phoneme close to velar-i exists as the vowel in the word ‘milk’ when it is quickly and casually spoken ([mɨɫk]), or the name ‘Will’ ([wɨɫ]).

The Cyrillic letter ⟨ы⟩ maintains its pronunciation as [ɨ] regardless of whether it is in the stressed or unstressed position. ⟨Ы⟩ never occurs in the word initial position in native Russian words, nor does it ever occur after palatalized consonants. Velar-i [ɨ] is also the only /i/-allophone that can occur following a ‘hard’ consonant ⟨i.e. ж, ц, ш⟩, notwithstanding its spelling as ⟨и⟩. The letter ⟨и⟩ is also pronounced [ɨ] whenever it is in the word-initial position and preceded by a nonpalatalized consonant across the word boundary (e.g. к Игорю /kɨ.ˈɡo.rʲu/ “to Igor’s house”).

To create [ɨ], Jones and Ward offer two strategies:

Spread the lips as for [i] and then try, while still keeping the lips spread, to say [u] (the vowel in too, moon, etc.). It is essential to keep the lips in the i-position during this exercise; they must not move in the least degree. It will be found helpful to watch the lips in a mirror.128

Another method is to start from the English word book, keeping the tongue in the position for the learner’s normal pronunciation of this word but having the lips spread, instead of rounded. The result of this exercise will be a result very near to an unstressed version of [ɨ].129

From a more singer-oriented perspective, Grayson advocates the following process:

126 Pullum and Ladusaw, Phonetic Symbol Guide, 256.

127 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 219.

128 Jones and Ward, Phonetics, 33.

129 Ibid., 34.

An alternate exercise is to pronounce the phoneme /i/, noting how the air stream travels over the top of the tongue and seems to vibrate against the back of the upper teeth. Then, while continuing to speak the /i/-phoneme, imagine aiming the air stream underneath the tongue, as if to make it pass through the floor of the mouth and exit out from under the chin. This imaginary action often produces a more singable and sustainable version of the Russian [ɨ].130

Word-final ⟨ы⟩ finishes with an offglide to the fronted vowel [i] which might be narrowly transcribed as [ˈɨːi̯] (see § 4.6). Standard lyric diction resources do not include this final-fronting nuance in print, however, Russian speakers would probably agree that this inclusion yields a more idiomatic pronunciation. This offglide fronts the tongue toward the close front unrounded vowel [i], promoting a final fronted tongue configuration.

4.6.5 Open-e, [ɛ]

The open-mid front unrounded vowel [ɛ] (Fig. 4.3e) is also known informally as ‘open-e’.131 In speech, [ɛ] features a mid-dropped jaw. This divergent aspect (the opposite of a convergent one, and therefore a megaphone-shaped oral space) is ideally minimized through classical singing training.132 That is to say, the more convergently that [e] can be sung, the more the vocal tract will assist vibrator efficiency.133

4.6.6 Bright-a, [a]

The open front unrounded vowel [a] (Fig. 4.3f ) is also known as ‘bright-a’.134 This is the least frequently occurring vowel in the sung Russian vowel inventory (see Fig. 4.4 in § 4.8), a decided contrast with sung Italian. The fronted [a] /a/-allophone only occurs interpalatally in sung

130 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 94.

131 Pullum and Ladusaw, Phonetic Symbol Guide, 255.

132 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 22.

133 Ibid., 34.

134 Ibid., 255.

Russian.135 All vowels undergo some measure of fronting when adjacent to a palatalized consonant because the arched tongue narrows the space between it and the palate, but only the fronted [e] and [a] allophones are specifically recognized in Grayson’s Russian lyric diction.136 As an example of interpalatal fronting for singing, while [æ] exists in spoken Russian (for example пять (five) [pʲætʲ]), this vowel does not exist in Russian lyric diction where [a] functions as its sung value: [pʲatʲ].

Because of its comparatively high fR1 value, bright-a [a] as sung within the pitch range of the two cycles examined in this thesis can only be sung by LMVs in open timbre.

4.6.7 Dark-a, [ɑ]

The open back unrounded vowel [ɑ] (Fig. 4.3g) is also known as ‘dark-a’.137 It is sung Russian’s default /a/-allophone, and the most frequently occurring phoneme in both spoken and sung Russian (see Fig. 4.4 in § 4.8).138 While the Russian low vowel in speech is commonly described as low central /a/ (more front than the English /ɑ/ in ⟨top⟩), optimization for classical singing nudges this vowel back to [ɑ] (see § 4.9.3). Most nuanced Russian lyric diction print resources use [ɑ] as their default /a/-allophone (see Table 2.2 in § 2.1). “The more convergently the [ɑ] can be conceived, the more the vocal tract will assist vibrator efficiency.”139

4.6.8 The sung Russian schwa: turned-v [ʌ]

The open-mid back unrounded vowel [ʌ] (Fig. 4.3h) is also referred to as ‘caret’ or ‘turned-v’.140 [ʌ] functions as the sung Russian schwa.141 The sung Russian version of schwa is experienced

135 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 125.

136 Ibid., 208.

137 Pullum and Ladusaw, Phonetic Symbol Guide, 255.

138 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 219.

139 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 34.

140 Pullum and Ladusaw, Phonetic Symbol Guide, 256.

141 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 109-110.

56 further back than the conventional mid central vowel [ə]. It is the essential unroundedness of the Russian schwa that dominates the choice to graph it here as [ʌ], not [ə].142 Nevertheless, some Russian lyric diction print resources (e.g. Griffiths, Sheil, Olin, Piatak and Avrashov, and Karna) do use [ə]. The notation of Russian schwa as [ʌ] discourages the likelihood of singers with French lyric diction training to inappropriately lip-round their schwa in sung Russian.

4.6.9 The contestable [o]

The sung Russian /o/-allophone (Fig. 4.3i) is a challenging vowel to notate precisely with an IPA symbol. It is midway between the close-mid back rounded vowel [o] and the open-mid back rounded vowel [ɔ]. It is comparable to a more open version of cardinal vowel #7. Grayson devotes his Appendix K, a thirty-eight-page essay with copious citations to a discussion on whether this Russian vowel is open or closed. The symbol he settles on is [o].143 Table 2.2 in § 2.1 shows that all but three of the reviewed authors concur (Belov, Griffiths, and McMaster use [ɔ]).

[o] is the fifth most frequently occurring Russian phoneme.144 In Russian, [o] only ever occurs in the stressed position. When the orthographic letter ⟨о⟩ occurs in unstressed positions, it undergoes vowel reduction: first to /ɑ/ when word-initial or in the immediate pre-stress position, then to /ʌ/ in all other pre- and post-stress positions (see Table 4.4 in § 4.9.3).

“An idiomatic, stressed Russian /o/ is pronounced as the diphthong: [oːʌ].”145 As with the offglide for word-final ⟨ы⟩, Grayson’s is the only lyric diction resource reviewed here that commits this nuance to print.

142 Ibid., 77.

143 It is an oversimplification to say that the Russian [o] is precisely cardinal vowel 7. Other Russian lyric diction resources may use [ɔ] (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2; Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” Appendix K, 359-397).

144 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 219.

145 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 84.

4.6.10 Reliable [u]

The close back rounded vowel [u] (Fig. 4.3j) is the eighth most commonly occurring Russian phoneme.146 Because of the choices made by the composers of the two song cycles examined to set [u] on extended note values, [u] appears as phoneme with the third greatest phonation time in the text settings analyzed in this study. Whether stressed or unstressed, the Russian Cyrillic letter ⟨у⟩ always preserves its pronunciation as [u] in sung Russian and does not undergo any vowel reduction (i.e. assimilation to [ʊ]) as it otherwise may in spoken Contemporary Standard Russian. All of the Russian lyric diction authorities reviewed here agree on this (see Table 2.2 in § 2.1).

4.7 The sung Russian consonants

Ladefoged and Disner remark that many consonants are just ways of beginning or ending vowels.147 Their assertion certainly agrees with the singer’s perspective. Mechanically and acoustically, consonants function as downstream resisters. A downstream resister is any articulator position or device such as a straw that resists airflow nearer to or at the lips. “Downstream resisters share the pressure load from the lungs with the vocal folds, necessitating higher airflow through the glottis and reducing the pressure difference across the vocal folds. This inhibits pressing.”148 Consonants that can function as particularly useful downstream resisters in technical vocalises include [v z ʒ]. Austin quotes Stockhausen on the technical importance and value of sung consonants:

The obstruction which the air experiences in the articulating-cavity seems to increase the tension and to favor the contraction of the glottis, which is required for the formation of sound. The variety in the formation of the elements of speech, by momentarily relieving the vocal cords of the constant expulsion of air, forms

146 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 219.

147 Peter Ladefoged and Sandra Ferrari Disner, Vowels and Consonants, Third edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 48.

148 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 106.

short moments of rest for the voice. The emission of consonants acts on the vocal cords almost like blinking does on the eye.149

It appears from this passage that Stockhausen is suggesting that consonants actually assist efforts to achieve coordinated support and breath economy.

Table 4.2: Grayson’s Russian lyric diction consonant inventory

Table 4.2 shows Grayson’s Russian lyric diction consonant inventory populating a table of pulmonic consonants adapted from the one shown in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association.150 The Russian lyric diction targets discussed in this thesis are shown in black, while non-Russian phonemes are shown in grey. Greyed cells are deemed impossible to pronounce with human physiology. The affricates [tʃʲ], and [ts] and their voiced counterparts are not shown here. With the exception of two palatals ([ɲ] (a.k.a. [nʲ]) and [j]), Table 4.2 shows the ‘hard’ (nonpalatalized) consonants organized in columns left-to-right by place of articulation. The place of articulation is a consonant’s main point of constriction in the vocal tract where a primary active articulator (usually the tongue) contacts or approximates a passive location (often portions of the palate or teeth). As in any language, not every available place of articulation is

149 Stephen F. Austin, Provenance (Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017), 144.

150 International Phonetic Association, Handbook, front matter.

59 exploited in the Russian phonemic inventory. Most of these phonemes can also be executed in a palatalized version (see § 4.9.2). Palatalization alters the place of articulation onto the palate.

4.7.1 Bilabials

The bilabial consonants [p b m] are produced by both lips contacting one another. A noteworthy contrast for English speakers is that the lip-rounding of bilabial consonants is un-Russian: “The lips show a contraction of 7-8% at the outer measurement points. The position of the corners of the lips does not change significantly as compared to the rest position.”151 This merest hint of lip- rounding increases to 10-15% for the palatalized version of [p], [pʲ].152 Of course, lip-rounding may form part of a resonance strategy in a classical singing technical approach, in which case the production of these lyric diction targets will diverge from their spoken Russian values for the sake of greater resonance and projection. Lip-rounding is a resonance-tuning strategy tactic common among LMV singers, recalling Doscher’s quotation in § 3.1.1.

4.7.2 Labiodentals

Russian’s two labiodental consonants [f v] are produced using both the lower lip and the upper front teeth: “The active organ playing the chief role in the articulation is the lower lip, the inner edge of which is made to vibrate slightly by the frictionally issuing air; the sound is labial.”153 In their palatalized versions [fʲ vʲ], “The body of the tongue moves forward in the oral cavity, the dorsum approaches the prepalatum, considerably increasing the resonating space in the back.”154

4.7.3 Dental/Alveolars

The consonants [t d ɫ n r s z] are produced with the tongue tip against the upper teeth or part of the alveolar ridge. This production is common to Romance languages like French and Italian. Therefore these ‘hard’ Russian consonants will be familiar from diction work in other sung

151 Bolla, Conspectus, 73.

152 Ibid., 74.

153 Ibid., 84.

154 Ibid., 85.

Western languages. Their palatalized versions all involve the body of the tongue rising toward the palate (see § 2.5.2). This coordination will benefit from supervised practice.

Of particular interest may be the symbol [l]. Despite its presence in Table 4.2, the standalone IPA symbol [l] does not exist unqualified in Grayson’s transcriptions. He acknowledges two versions of Russian /l/: either ‘hard’-l (i.e. ‘alveolar-l’) [ɫ], or ‘soft’-l (i.e. ‘palatalized-l’) [lʲ]. Alveolar (‘hard’)-l features the tip of the tongue at the alveolar ridge which should come naturally to most native North American English-speaking singers with little to no extra instruction.155 Its ‘soft’ alternative is the palatalized alveolar lateral approximant [lʲ].

One option for coaching a palatalized (‘soft’)-l [lʲ] that I have found successful is to instruct the singer to arch his tongue back up to the velum and try to touch the blade of the tongue to the anterior surface of the front teeth. Then it is as if the singer peels the arched dorsum away from the velum (see § 4.9.2 on palatalization). The ‘soft’-l must not be confused with the Italian voiced palatal lateral approximant [ʎ]. Colorni says that the correct pronunciation of an Italian [ʎ] is actually slightly fricative, involving laterally escaping air between the sides of the tongue and the molars: “To say [ʎ] the tip of the tongue is in contact with the lower teeth, while the front of the tongue is raised and pressed against the front of the hard palate. The air streams out laterally over the sides of the tongue.”156 Conversely, the Russian ‘soft’-l [lʲ] involves minimal frication, with the sides of the tongue sealed against the molars so that air passes around the base of the tongue and comes up from the well of the lower teeth.157

155 Bolla, Conspectus, 100: “3. A closure is formed in the central zone of the oral cavity but the air is allowed to escape on one or both sides (unilateral or bilateral escape). Lateral. 4. The closure is formed in the region of the alveolum; and alveolar consonant. 5. The closure is formed with the tip of the tongue; it is apical. 6. The rims of the tongue are in contact with the inner sides of the teeth; a coronal sound. 7. It is apico-alveolar, i.e. the tip of the tongue articulates with the alveolum in the central zone and the air stream passes through the lateral zone. 8. It is pharyngealized, i.e. the body of the tongue fills the back part of the oral cavity and the root (radix) of the tongue approached the wall of the pharynx (radico-pharyngalis).”

156 Evelina Colorni, Singers’ Italian: a manual of diction and phonetics (New York: Schirmer, 1970), 99.

157 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 184.

4.7.4 Sibilants

The Russian lyric diction targets [s z ʃ ʒ] are familiar to singers with training in any other sung language. Their palatalized versions [sʲ zʲ ʃʲ ʒʲ] can be achieved by following Grayson’s three-step process outlined in § 2.5.2. It must be noted that [ʒʲ] is supremely rare in sung Russian.158

4.7.5 Postalveolars

The postalveolar (a.k.a. palato-alveolar) Russian consonants [ʃ ʒ] are produced with the tongue tip slightly retracted from teeth ridge. The tongue dorsum forms a narrow gap, and the root of the tongue wall approaches the wall of the pharynx while the tongue dorsum dips slightly.159 For the postalveolar affricate [tʃʲ] and its rare voiced version [dʒʲ], the narrowing is formed with the front of the tongue, near the front teeth and the alveolar ridge in a plosive-like oral closure followed by a fricative release.160

4.7.6 Palatals

Palatal consonants are produced with the tongue blade near the hard palate. Strictly speaking, Table 4.2 shows only two Russian palatal consonants, [j] and [ɲ], however the ‘soft’ affricate ⟨ч⟩ [tʃʲ] (not shown) also belongs in this category, as does the ‘soft’ letter ⟨щ⟩ [ʃʲː] (also not shown). This category radically expands once we include the palatalization of Russian consonants.

4.7.7 Velars

There are four velar consonants possible in sung Russian: [k ɡ ɣ x]. The voiced version of [x], [ɣ], is quite rare in sung Russian but will be familiar to singers with training in Spanish lyric diction. When it occurs in sung Russian, it is either as the result of the regressive assimilation of voicing, or in the word ⟨бoга⟩ [ˈbo.ɣɑ] (‘God’ in the genitive case). The place of articulation for

158 [ʒʲ] is customarily deemed outside Russian phonotactics and is exceptionally rare. In Russian lyric diction, it can occur in French loan-words like gigot (leg of mutton) [ʒʲi.ˈɡo] and gilet (vest) [ʒʲi.ˈlʲɛ]. It can also occur as a doubled cluster [ʒʲʒʲ], for example in жужжать (to buzz or hum) [ʒu.ˈʒʲʒʲatʲ] or позже (later) [po.ˈʒʲʒʲɪ]. By contrast to their Russian lyric diction realizations, the Contemporary Standard Russian pronunciation of these two words eliminates this additional palatalization: [ʒu.ˈʒʒɑtʲ] and [po.ˈʒʒɨ]. (Grayson, 174-175.)

159 Bolla, Conspectus, 90.

160 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 223.

62 velar consonants, on the velum, aligns with the site used in palatalization, and can create a site- specific awareness in the singer, perhaps encouraging or reconfirming a raised soft palate. With the exception of the (never transcribed) glottal stop [ʔ] and the exceedingly rare voiceless glottal fricative [h], velar consonants represent the furthest-back articulations in the Russian language.

4.7.8 Obstruents

Obstruents are the plosives (i.e. stops) and fricatives that involve an obstruction in the vocal tract which creates momentary back pressure (e.g. [p t k], [ʃ], or [f] and their voiced equivalents). These can be useful for sensing support (see the Stockhausen quote in § 4.8). In discussing the voiceless velar plosive [k], Miller corroborates Stockhausen’s opinion, noting that velopharyngeal closure and the corresponding momentary inhibition of the breath effectively leads to sensations of contact in the muscles of the lateral-abdominal wall.161 Another functional use for fricatives (for example, [v z ʒ]) is as downstream resisters in semi-occluded vocal tract exercises (abbreviated SOVTs: a term coined by Ingo Titze) if a straw is unavailable. SOVTs are known to exploit inertive reactance which promotes more efficient use of the vocal folds.162

4.7.9 Coronal consonants

Coronal consonants are articulated with the flexible front portion of the tongue. In Table 4.2, coronal consonants occupy the Alveolar and Postalveolar columns. They rank in the top half of all consonants used in Russian (see Table 4.3 in § 4.8), suggesting that Russian consonant production is statistically centrally localized toward the front portion of the oral space. While most languages make use of coronal sounds and Russian is not special in this respect, it is still worth noting that the dexterity required for sung Russian parallels familiar articulation goals and situates sung Russian among other, more familiar sung Western languages.

161 R. Miller, Securing, 22.

162 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 18: [inertive reactance] “can result in more overall acoustic power for less breath pressure or glottal resistance.”

4.8 The Russian phonemes in order of frequency

Smirnova and Chistikov have examined a large, stylistically heterogeneous textual corpus of 2.5 million phones drawn from the Russian classics (Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Gogol, Lermontov), modern Russian playwrights (Rasputin, Shmelev, Soloukhin, Krupin, Ajtmatov), and transcripts of interviews and public lectures from various web resources.163 They analyzed and categorized fifty-nine Russian phones (nineteen vowels and forty consonants). Their notated phonemic values have been adjusted to align with Grayson’s preferred IPA notation. Table 4.3 abridges the top forty most frequent Russian monophones, which form 90% of all the phones appearing in the text corpus:164

Phoneme Rank Phoneme Rank Phoneme Rank Phoneme Rank

[ɑ] 1 [r] 11 [sʲ] 21 [ʒ] 31

[i] 2 [ɛ] 12 [rʲ] 22 [x] 32

[t] 3 [k] 13 [z] 23 [mʲ] 33

[j] 4 [ɲ] 14 [tʃʲ] 24 [ts] 34

[o] 5 [p] 15 [b] 25 [kʲ] 35

[n] 6 [m] 16 [ʃ] 26 [pʲ] 36

[s] 7 [lʲ] 17 [ɡ] 27 [ʃʲː] 37

[u] 8 [ɫ] 18 [dʲ] 28 [bʲ] 38

[ɨ] 9 [d] 19 [f] 29 [zʲ] 39

[v] 10 [tʲ] 20 [vʲ] 30 [ɡʲ] 40

Table 4.3: Phoneme frequency rankings165

163 Phonemes are abstractions, while phones are actual instantiations of phonemes in real-world utterances.

164 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 219.

165 adapted from Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 217.

We can infer which portion of net phonation time is spent singing in analogous oral postures by looking at how often certain phonemes occur. As we parse text settings per vowel, we can begin to draw conclusions about how often the singing tongue must be fronted, or backed and in a state of compliance with a lowered larynx. This gives us some insight into how the features of sung Russian influence the vocal tract at a purely mechanical level.

The data collection performed in Chapter 5 reveals that the vowels with the greatest phonation time in the two selected groups of text settings is dark-a [ɑ], followed by [o], [u], and [i]. This finding diverges from Smirnova and Chistikov’s data shown in Table 4.3 where [ɑ] is followed by [i], then [o] and [u]. It seems likely that that the longer rhythmic durations assigned to [o] and [u] by the composers is responsible for this slight reshuffling. Figure 4.4 shows us that in the two song cycles examined in Chapter 5, the ten sung Russian vowels occur in the following order of descending frequency: [ɑ o u i ɛ ɨ e ʌ ɪ a].

Figure 4.4: Combined vowel appearances in both Sunless and Kabalevsky Op. 52

4.9 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction” (2012)

The twin purposes of Grayson’s lengthy 2012 dissertation are to review the Russian lyric diction guides available before 2012, and to propose a new comprehensive guide to sung Russian that equips the singer with tools to prepare Russian vocal pieces independently.166 Grayson says that

166 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” Abstract (n.p.)

Russian lyric diction practices are an amalgam of the centralized Old Muscovite dialect filtered through literaturnyĭ (literary) pronunciation and stsenicheskoe (stage) pronunciation conventions, from a time before the advent of amplification devices used for public speaking.167

His perspective is as a non-Russian approaching sung Russian, which poses a distinct and very useful point of view when contrasted with native Russian-speaking lyric diction authorities.

Grayson’s dissertation is organized into nine chapters plus Appendices lettered A through M. He begins with a literature review of pre-2012 Russian linguistics and lyric diction resources. Perhaps most relevant to this thesis are the middle six chapters (2 through 7) which cover the mechanics of Russian pronunciation (the phonemes themselves, palatalization, assimilation and syllabic stress) and Grayson’s adaptation of it to IPA values for singers’ transcriptions. Of particular interest is Grayson’s essay in Appendix K justifying his choice of notating Russian ⟨o⟩ with [o] as opposed to [ɔ] which appears in other Russian lyric diction resources (“The Story of /o/: Is Russian /o/ open or closed?” pp. 359-397), where he leads the reader on a well-reasoned pathway through this complex and complicated subject.

The following subsections of this thesis (§§ 4.9.1 through 4.9.6) explore the material covered in Grayson’s work with a view to focusing on the most relevant information necessary to carry out the transcription work in Appendices B and C.

4.9.1 Notation for Russian lyric diction singers’ transcriptions

Grayson proposes that the prescriptive lyric diction targets of sung Russian can be effectively represented using only the following IPA symbols, as seen previously in Table 2.1:

[ː a ɑ b d e ɛ f ɡ ɣ h i ɪ ɨ j ʲ k l ɫ m n ɲ o p r s ʃ t u v ʌ x z ʒ].

Most of these IPA symbols will be familiar to singers with training in Italian, German, English, and French.

167 Ibid., 4.

The Russian speech-based default-/a/ is commonly described as low central [a], but its lyric diction equivalent is traditionally backed for singing as [ɑ] (see §§ 1.4, 4.6.6, and 4.6.7).168 Belov, Challis, and Grayson agree that both bright-a [a] and dark-a [ɑ] do exist in sung Russian. Dark-a [ɑ] is its single most commonly-occurring phoneme, whereas bright-a [a] is statistically the least commonly occurring vowel (see Fig. 6.3 in the § 6 introduction and Fig. 6.45 in § 6.2). In Russian lyric diction, bright-a [a] should occur interpalatally (when it occurs between two adjacent palatalized consonants): in this context, [ɑ] fronts to [a] (see also § 4.9.3 for palatalization and fronting). For example, in Sunless 3, we might expect the lyric diction transcription for the word ⟨спящую⟩ (sleeping) to be [ˈsʲpʲɑ.ʃʲːu.ju] featuring the dark-a [ɑ] sung Russian /a/-allophone in the first syllable; however, the presence of this vowel between the two palatalized consonants [pʲ] and [ʃʲ] assimilates this vowel into a more fronted expression, [a], making [ˈsʲpʲa.ʃʲːu.ju] the superior lyric diction transcription.

The rare voiced velar fricative [ɣ] is the voiced version of [x] (see § 4.7.7). The voiceless glottal fricative [h] is exceptionally rare, occurring only in the sung interjection ⟨ага!⟩ [ɑ.hɑ].169

One phoneme, the voiced palatal nasal, is notated by Grayson with the familiar IPA symbol [ɲ] learned in Italian lyric diction instead of notating it as [nʲ], which is equally correct and seen in speech-based Russian linguistics literature. This choice is intended to help singers new to sung Russian to conceive of this phoneme as a single palatalized phoneme instead of its common misunderstanding as a nonpalatalized phoneme plus a glide, [nj], which is unsuitable for accurate Russian.

This thesis also adopts Grayson’s practice of notating the Russian close-mid back rounded vowel with the symbol [o], with the understanding that, in singing, Russian /o/ is a much looser, much more open vowel than, for example, its tightly-closed German allophone (see Grayson 2012, Appendix K: “The Story of /o/: Is Russian /o/ open or closed?”).

168 Most of the English-language Russian lyric diction resources reviewed in § A.3.2 use [ɑ] as the default /a/- allophone for their transcriptions of sung Russian, see Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in § 2.1.

169 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 288.

The ‘hard’ Russian Cyrillic letter ⟨ш⟩ is represented in Grayson’s work as [ʃ]. See Table 2.1 for contrasting opinions on this notation choice. The letter ⟨щ⟩ is inherently palatalized (‘soft’), and is sung with a slightly longer duration relative to other Russian consonants. Grayson transcribes this phoneme as [ʃʲʃʲ] or [ʃʲː].

Grayson assigns the symbol for sung Russian schwa as [ʌ] because “the IPA symbol, [ə], is taken to be the rounded version used in French lyric diction too readily by many young singers.”170 This notation choice is meant to circumvent improper lip-rounding by students already familiar with the symbol [ə] from their work in French lyric diction (see § 4.6.8).

4.9.2 Palatalization

Singers new to Russian may respond well to reusing the phonemes that have become familiar to them from their prior diction work in Italian, French, and German. This is the pedagogical philosophy behind teaching palatalization as a secondary articulation applied to already-familiar phonemes. It is not to imply that Russian palatalized phonemes are non-phonemic.

Grayson instructs palatalization in sung Russian with a three-step process: arch, pronounce, and peel.171 The body of the tongue arches toward the palate in preparation, then the consonant is simultaneously pronounced while peeling the dorsum away from the palate. This simplified description serves as a simple and effective pedagogical model. The literature surveyed in Table 2.1 shows that the palatalization of consonants is notated very differently among available print resources. In the transcriptions of Appendices B and C, palatalization is notated using the practices of the International Phonetic Association, with a superscript-J: [ʲ].172 Another notable point of interest is the palatal nasal notated as [ɲ] discussed in § 2.5.1 above, used in place of the technically correct [nʲ] because of its familiarity to singers who will recognize it from their training in French and Italian lyric diction (see also §§ 2.5.2 and 4.2.2). Students are less likely to confuse [ɲ] with [nj]. A simple example is the Russian word ⟨нет⟩ (no) , very often sung

170 Ibid., 411.

171 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 205.

172 International Phonetic Association, Handbook, 17.

68 incorrectly with four phonemes as [njɛt], whereas its transcription as [ɲɛt] reinforces the sequence of these three familiar phonemes.

4.9.3 Assimilation, reduction, fronting, deletion, and reconstitution

This section discusses how and why Russian orthography does not always reflect the phonemes that a non-native Russian singer might expect. Of the ten Russian vowel letters, only four ⟨ы⟩ [ɨ], ⟨у⟩ [u], ⟨ю⟩ [ju], and ⟨ё⟩ [jo] are unaffected by vowel reduction in Russian lyric diction. The remaining six vowels all undergo at least some level of assimilation some of the time.

Assimilation is the process by which one sound becomes more like another sound.173 This physiologically economical process often involves one sound adopting aspects of an adjacent phoneme, either within a word or even across the word boundary. Lindblom’s rule of the economy of speech gestures tells us that “In human speech, extreme values and parameters are avoided”.174 This means that a fronted tongue, for example, tends to want to stay fronted rather than suddenly darting back to a retracted position and then fronting again. Instead, the articulators simplify this work and the phonemes migrate accordingly.

The regressive assimilation of voicing is widely heard in Russian, where unvoiced consonants inherit voicing from the consonant that follows them.175 For example the cluster ⟨тз⟩ is pronounced [dz], when we might initially expect [tz] (e.g. ⟨о́тзыв⟩ (feedback) [ˈo.dzɨv]), because the voiced alveolar fricative [z] regressively voices the voiceless dental plosive [t] to [d]. The regressive assimilation of voicing is only one of several forms of assimilation in Russian lyric diction. There is also the regressive assimilation of palatalization, a widespread phenomenon with specific limits.176

173 Henry Rogers, The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics (New York: Routledge, 2000), 48.

174 Borissoff, “Basis of Articulation”, 32.

175 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 214.

176 Bruce L. Derwing and Tom M. S. Priestly, Reading Rules for Russian: A Systemic Approach to Russian Spelling and Pronunciation (Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1980), 75–87; Jones and Ward, Phonetics, 200–205. Both advocate the liberal application of regressive palatalization.

Vowel reduction in Russian is governed by a vowel’s proximity to stress, causing some unstressed vowels to centralize in the oral space.177 That is, there can be a reduction in the amount of movement of the tongue in pronouncing the target vowel, causing a loss of distinction approaching the sung Russian schwa [ʌ] (see Table 4.4).

Akanye [ˈɑ.kʌ.ɲɪ] is a vowel reduction in which the unstressed phoneme /o/ reduces to [ɑ] or [ʌ].178 In Old Muscovite (OM), the dialect upon which Russian lyric diction is based, akanye dictates that ⟨o⟩ is sung as [ɑ] in the syllable immediately before the stressed syllable. In other unstressed positions, /o/ and /a/ are further reduced to a sung [ʌ]. Consider the word ⟨хорошо⟩ /xʌ.rɑ.ˈʃo/ (good), where each ⟨o⟩ is spelled identically, yet each is pronounced differently as a reflection of its relative proximity to the stressed syllable. From the final syllable backward, stressed ⟨о⟩ is sung as [o], penultimate ⟨о⟩ in this word is sung as [ɑ], and remote ⟨o⟩ (two syllables away from the stress) is sung as [ʌ]. For clarity of communication, Russian lyric diction stipulates that [ɑ] will be sung in special cases where [ʌ] might otherwise be expected (e.g. in the feminine ending ⟨ая⟩ [ɑ.jɑ], or when ⟨о⟩ is in the word-initial position, notwithstanding its remote pre-stress position).

Ikanye [ˈi.kʌ.ɲɪ] is another type of vowel reduction that causes unstressed ⟨е⟩ or ⟨я⟩ to be reduced to [ɪ].179 Aficionados who favour the pronunciation conventions of St. Petersburg may not advocate this kind of vowel reduction despite its legitimacy in Old Muscovite.180

Fronting is a kind of assimilation that can be brought about by the high tongue position established by palatalization (again, following Lindblom’s rule of the economy of speech gestures).181 Fronting imposes vowel change because the tongue body is shifted up and forward to deliver secondary palatalization, advancing it in the vocal tract. When the sung Russian /a/-

177 Ibid., 126.

178 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 5.

179 Ibid., where Grayson cites Vinokur (1971), Vlasto (1986), Vingradov (1969) and Avasenov (1972).

180 Personal conversations with Yelena Kurdina, a native of St. Petersburg (http://www.yelenakurdina.com/) and Russian coach at the Institute for Young Dramatic Voices in Reno, Nevada, July 19-August 7, 2016.

181 Ibid., 125.

70 allophone or /e/-allophone occurs interpalatally, it ‘fronts’ to a brighter, closer neighbouring phoneme. For example, interpalatal [ɛ] may front to [e] (e.g. ⟨житейской⟩ (everyday) [ʒɨ.ˈtʲej.skʌj] instead of [ʒɨ.ˈtʲɛj.skʌj], or ⟨тень⟩ (shadow) [tʲeɲ] instead of [tʲɛɲ]), and interpalatal [ɑ] may front to [a] (e.g. ⟨спящую⟩ (sleeping) [ˈsʲpʲa.ʃʲːu.ju] instead of [ˈsʲpʲɑ.ʃʲːu.ju], or ⟨выставляет⟩ (exposes) [vɨ.stɑ.ˈvlʲa.jɪt] instead of [vɨ.stɑ.ˈvlʲɑ.jɪt]). Fronting is optional and may be cancelled out by optional vowel reconstitution discussed later in this section.

The centre row of Table 4.4 shows six baseline vowel phonemes used in sung Russian.182 Rows above indicate degrees of fronted values. Rows below show reduced values.

↑ more fronted a e

ɑ ɛ i ɨ o u

↓ more reduced ʌ ɪ ɨ ɑ

Table 4.4: Degrees of sung Russian vowel assimilation

Deletion, also known as syncope or elision, is a pronunciation simplification achieved by the omission of one or more expected phonemes.183 In everyday Russian speech, this practice can extend to the deletion of a vowel (e.g.: ⟨де́сять⟩ (ten) is correctly transcribed as [ˈdʲesʲtʲ], not [ˈdʲe.sʲatʲ]); or even a whole syllable (e.g.: ⟨здравствуйте⟩ (hello) is transcribed for singing as [ˈzdrɑ.sʲtʲɪ], not [ˈzdrɑ.vstvuj.tʲɪ]. The deletion of a consonant in the reading of three- and four-

182 Muscovite and Peterburgian linguistic traditions dispute over a five- or six-phoneme model.

183 Leslie De’Ath, “Linguistic Lingo And Lyric Diction VI — Assimilation” Journal of Singing 71, no. 5 (May/June 2015): 606.

71 letter clusters effectively simplifies Russian lyric diction without negatively impacting intelligibility.184

Reconstitution is the choice to return a vowel to its unreduced value.185 In singing practice perhaps this applies most notably to unstressed ⟨е⟩ or ⟨я⟩ which may reduce in many circumstances to [ɪ]. Reduction in some cases can sound too informal to a Russian speaker who may be expecting the delivery of texts with more formal precision. For example, in Kabalevsky Op. 52 no. 2 m. 17, the expression ⟨то же⟩ (also) can conceivably be transcribed with reduction of the final vowel as [to ʒɨ]. That choice would agree with the sprightly tempo (Con moto. Appassionato) and the relatively short note eighth note rhythmic value assigned to an unstressed beat. However, I have chosen to transcribe it reconstituted as [to ʒɛ] to harmonize with the [ɛ] vowel in the following stressed beat, ⟨цели⟩ (goals) [ˈtsɛ.lʲi]. This same transcription reoccurs in Op. 52 no. 10 m. 59, where I again transcribe a reconstitution to [to ʒɛ] in response to the slightly slower tempo (Andantino semplice) and longer quarter note rhythmic value, which seem to me to justify a more formal, deliberate, and literal pronunciation. Reconstitution is a matter of taste best confirmed by a native Russian speaker, however I have noticed that Russians seem to expect less reduction in the delivery of poetic texts, perhaps as a means of setting art apart from quotidian speech.

4.9.4 Voicing assimilation across the word boundary

In their roles as lyric diction targets, Grayson asserts that consonants in sung Russian are either voiced or voiceless, with no allowance for partially devoiced options. What follows is a quick summary based on his interpretation of Derwing and Priestly’s work on the regressive assimilation of voicing for sung Russian:186

1. When spelled with a ⟨в⟩ (as opposed to an ⟨ф⟩), the phonemes /v/ and /f/ exhibit phonemic weakness. They have no assimilative power of their own, yet are influenced by

184 Grayson, “Russian Lyric Diction,” 242-243.

185 Ibid., 128.

186 Ibid., 250.

adjacent phonemes.187 For example in Kabalevsky op. 52 no. 8: ⟨из церквей⟩ (from churches) [is tsɨ.rkvʲej] as opposed to [is tsɨ.rɡvʲej]; or, ⟨свет⟩ (light) [sʲvʲɛt] as opposed to [zʲvʲɛt].

2. Punctuation stops regressive assimilation.188 For example in Sunless 3: ⟨Как будто вновь, вдыхая яд⟩ (As if again inhaling poison) [kɑɡ ˈbu.tːʌ vnofʲ # vdɨ.ˈxɑ.jɑ jɑt] as opposed to [kɑɡ ˈbu-tːʌ vnovʲ # vdɨ.ˈxɑ.jɑ jɑt]. Also, in Sunless 5: ⟨В тумане дремлет ночь. Безмолвная звезда…⟩ (Night slumbers in the mist. A mute star…) [ftu.ˈmɑ.ɲɛ ˈdrʲɛ.mlʲɛt notʃʲ bʲɛ.ˈzmo.ɫvnɑ.jɑ zʲvʲɛ.ˈzdɑ] as opposed to [ftu.ˈmɑ.ɲɛ ˈdrʲɛ.mlʲɛt nodʒʲ bʲɛ.ˈzmo.ɫvnɑ.jɑ zʲvʲɛ.ˈzdɑ].

3. The logical implied phrase stops assimilation whether there is punctuation or not.189 For example, Kabalevsky op. 52 no. 9: ⟨Пусть бурная не разрешится ночь дождливым утром…⟩ (May my stormy night not be resolved with a rainy morning…) [puzʲdʲ ˈbu.rnɑ.jɑ ɲɪ rɑ.zʲrʲɪ.ˈʃɨ.tsʌ notʃʲ # dɑ.ˈʒdʲlʲi.vɨm ˈu.trʌm] as opposed to [puzʲdʲ ˈbu.rnɑ.jɑ ɲɪ rɑ.zʲrʲɪ.ˈʃɨ-tsʌ nodʒʲ # dɑ.ˈʒdʲlʲi.vɨm ˈu.trʌm].

4. Sonorants [l m n r] and vowels do not influence voicing assimilation across the word boundary. But they do preserve the voicing of final voiced consonants in prepositions, particle contractions, prefixes, and word roots.190

5. Voicing for all other consonants assimilates across the word boundary unless there is a logical or musical parsing justification not to. For example, ⟨пусть будет⟩ (may it be that) is realized for unamplified singing as [puzʲdʲ bu.dʲɪt] and not [pusʲtʲ bu.dʲɪt].

187 Ibid., 251.

188 Ibid., 206: “The punctuation boundary is absolute. No assimilation of any sort crosses punctuation.”

189 Ibid., 250.

190 Ibid., 213.

4.9.5 Russian syntax and necessary breaks

It is understood that musical rests written by a composer require a pause in phonation. Such pauses are not transcribed. Other syntactic breaks may require a pause in phonation even if the composer has not set them with a musical rest. “Determining the break point of an implied phrase can be difficult without strong literacy in the Russian language.”191 Necessary breaks are indicated in the transcriptions of Appendices B and C with an octothorpe, #. Likewise, when punctuation between contiguous notes requires a pause in phonation, that break is also transcribed with a #. (N.B.: Some commas are grammatical artifacts with no effect on the utterance. These can effectively be ignored.)

4.9.6 Doubled consonants in sung Russian

Doubled consonants in sung Russian are rare. “Doubled letters that represent consonants are more often read as a single consonant phoneme rather than as a double or elongated consonant.”192 When doubled consonants are necessary, their symbols are consolidated and followed by a length marker (e.g. [nː] not [nn], [ʃʲː] not [ʃʲʃʲ], [tː] not [tt], etc.).

4.10 Summary

Singing in Russian builds on the foundations laid in other sung Western languages. Pedagogically, familiar singing-optimized lyric diction targets can be repurposed from other national lyric dictions and combined with palatalization to produce credibly sung Russian. Any technical and tonal gains achieved through singing in Russian should also be portable to other sung languages.

Chapter 4 explained the nuances observed in the creation of the original singers’ IPA transcriptions in Appendices B and C, and surveyed the ten vowel categories that are recorded in the data collection described in Chapter 5 to gain insight on their acoustic considerations.

191 Ibid., 253.

192 Grayson “Russian Lyric Diction,” 225.

Chapter 5 Methods

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the data collection process of the two sample Russian song cycles using Pacheco’s enhanced Graphic Statistic Method, and to explain how my fR1 locations were determined. Data collection was an exploratory process meant to discover information about how often certain phonemes appear in the text settings of these two Russian song cycles compared against their net phonation time. Watching for emerging trends in the data, any exceptional vocal challenges expressed through pitch extremes or acoustic (fR1/nfo) negotiations were noted.

This work was prepared in three stages: 1) transcription and original IPA underlay of sixteen Russian art songs, 2) data collection involving cataloguing the composed pitches, their durations, and the vowels set to each note, and 3) locating and applying fR1 values to these pitch/vowel combinations.193 Synthesis and analysis of these data follows in Chapters 6 and 7.

Two contrasting text settings for LMV were selected. Musorgsky, composer of Sunless, was a Russian Realist who strove to capture the natural prosody of the Russian language in his melodies. The poems written by his cousin Arseny Golenischev-Kutuzov use a Russian vocabulary contemporary to his day, in poetic organizations that are structurally freer in comparison to the regimented sonnet structure set by Kabalevsky. By contrast, the texts of Kabalevsky’s Op. 52: Ten Sonnets on Translations by Marshak form a more substantive text sample of 140 lines in iambic pentameter. Kabalevsky’s setting of these Marshak translations falls squarely within the Romantic musical idiom with a traditional, almost Italianate melodic interpretation that favours sweeping line and contour over the fidelity to linguistic prosody that drives Musorgsky’s compositional process. Both cycles are set mostly syllabically with few melismatic passages. Vowel/pitch combinations in the vocal melodies were examined for any meaningful fR1/nfo interactions, patterns of writing around or away from challenging areas in the

193 The organization of §§ 5.2 and 5.3 was inspired by Dr. Joshua Glasner’s (New York University) lab report template prepared for his students at the Summer Voice Pedagogy Institute held at Westminster Choir College.

74 75

LMV (e.g., the secondo passaggio), or evidence of purposeful writing to “good and bad vocal regions,” (as Pacheco puts it) of the LMV in these text settings.

Even though Musorgsky and Kabalevsky may not have been able to articulate their intentions in modern acoustic terms, the data support the idea that Musorgsky (who was himself an LMV) and Kabalevsky wrote mindfully for key LMV acoustic turning events. “Operatic composers writing before the age of acoustical research may not have known the scientific principle of fixed vowel formants, but they certainly listened to singers and used the empirical knowledge gained.”194

The text settings were examined with a view to understanding the physical postures of the vocal tract required for a successful performance of these songs. For example, the palatalization of Russian consonants involves a radical postural change in the tongue body (fronting). By contrast, a non-palatalized, more neutral tongue position should promote laryngeal depth. Because palatalization imposes tongue fronting, I was also curious about vowel-adjacent fronting agents (e.g. any palatalized consonant, or the glide [j]) active in the approaches to and transitions away from all vowels to see if we can infer anything from the proportion of backed to fronted oral postures in sung Russian. See Figure 6.1 for a high-resolution sample of a populated data collection worksheet.

5.1 Generating original IPA transcriptions

Sixteen Russian texts (six from Musorgsky’s Sunless and ten from Kabalevsky’s Op. 52) were transcribed into IPA using Grayson’s rules of Russian lyric diction. The completed transcriptions are offered in Appendices B and C. It is understood that the conventions for prescriptive singers’ IPA transcriptions diverge from the more orthodox and meticulously detailed descriptive transcriptions rendered by linguists (see § 1.4). Likewise, it is also understood that classical singing technique will sometimes impose resonance considerations, where these prescriptive lyric diction targets will undergo further modification for unamplified performance (closing, opening, or substituting the sung vowel), or as workable options for navigating certain challenging pitch/vowel combinations.

194 Doscher, Functional Unity, 154.

5.2 Data collection for the Graphic-Statistic Method

5.2.1 Introduction

Data concerning pitch, duration, vowel and palatalized/nonpalatalized approaches and transitions was collected on the text settings of two song cycles, Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52 Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak. The primary purpose was to parse how their net phonation time is distributed among the Russian lyric diction vowel inventory. It is expected that these data will also show that Musorgsky and Kabalevsky treated the LMV secondo passaggio mindfully even though their compositions predate our current acoustic understanding of the singing voice.

5.2.2 Methods

All notes were operationalized using eighth notes as the common rhythmic duration (see § 2.7). Fig. 5.1 details these values.

Figure 5.1: Legend of operationalization values

Durations were then categorized by pitch and vowel, approach to, and transition away from the next note or rest, using the following categories:

∅x began on a vowel, or follows a different vowel

ʲx approached by a palatalizing agent

jx approached by a glide

nx approached by a nonpalatalized consonant

vx approached by same vowel (melisma or repeated vowel)

x∅ ended in a vowel, or leads to a different vowel

xʲ proceeded on to a palatalizing agent

xj proceeded on to a glide

xn proceeded on to a nonpalatalized consonant

xv continues with the same vowel (melisma or repeated vowel)

Table 5.1: Vowel data rubrics

These are the headings that populate the x-axis in the example shown in Figure 6.1 and the tables that preface each song entry in §§ 6.1 and 6.2.

Phonation must sometimes be interrupted at certain logical points in the text (see § 4.9.5). A mandatory break in phonation was interpreted as a nil onset or nil transition for those few break- adjacent syllables that end or begin with a vowel. To justify necessary breaks in phonation in the data collection, L1 Russian speaker Dr. Julia Mikhailova was consulted and the following guidelines were observed:

1. Necessary breaks in phonation are transcribed with an octothorpe, #. This symbol appears between any two contiguous pitches where a break in phonation is mandatory.

2. Some punctuation is also transcribed with a # (e.g. periods, some commas, some em-dashes) wherever it indicates a necessary break in phonation. If no # corresponds to punctuation in the text, that punctuation is understood to be a grammatical artifact that does not affect continuous phonation of the phrase.

3. Written rests require interruptions in phonation. Because they are self-evident in the score, they were not transcribed with a #, but were counted as nil whenever relevant.

4. Breath marks are transcribed with a #.

5. No optional breaks have been transcribed. Values have been tabulated as if no break exists wherever an optional break is interpretively possible but not required.

The data entry spreadsheet was designed with internal checksum comparisons to highlight any inconsistencies, minimizing human error. Because this data collection was performed without automation, the full data collection process of sixteen songs was executed twice as a further error-correction measure. Errors and inconsistencies discovered upon this second pass were investigated and resolved.

5.2.3 Conclusion

Please see Mitton_Daniel_A_202006_DMA_datatables.xlsx for the full data collected.

The data mostly confirms Smirnova and Chistikoff’s distribution of front and back vowels (see Table 4.3 in §4.9), with a few interesting exceptions.195 While Russian’s default dark-a [ɑ] remains the most commonly occurring vowel in both analyses, in some cases the second next most popular vowel in the data collection here was not [i] as Smirnova and Chistikoff report, but rather the back vowels [o] and [u]. A likely explanation seems to be that in these musical interpretations, Musorgsky and Kabalevsky assigned longer rhythmic durations on [u] and [o], resulting in greater net phonation time on pitches that were set on these back vowels.

Learning about the proportion of net phonation time spent in a tongue-fronted oral position versus how much phonation time is spent in a more neutral position where it can participate in a low, suspended larynx is useful in terms of connecting sung Russian with the traditional goals of classical singing. This kind of work should be adaptable to any repertoire for any voice type in any sung language.

195 Smirnova and Chistikov, “Statistics,” 2011.

The painstaking attention and continuous revisions and confirmations required for this process reinforced my skill and confidence with generating original IPA transcriptions for sung Russian. Data collection itself was labour intensive and can be improved, both in terms of reliability and time savings, once an automated script is developed to carry out this kind of research (see § 7.2).

5.3 LMV fR1 locations for Russian lyric diction target vowels 5.3.1 Introduction

This study links the data described in § 5.2 with LMV fR1 values following Godin and Howell’s 196 example. These fR1 values allow us to locate each vowel’s corresponding pitch of turning an octave below (see Figure 5.3).197 Being able to identify where a given voice should appropriately ‘turn over’ is an important pedagogic diagnostic ability that normalizes how an unforced, well- coordinated timbral transition sounds and feels.

Donald Miller has demonstrated a practical method for determining the fR1 frequencies of the vocal tract by using a non-periodic vibration of the vocal folds (vocal fry).198 This study follows his example. To determine working fR1 frequencies for each of the ten sung Russian vowels, I derived long-term average spectrum (LTAS) values from ten fry samples of my own phonation using the following method.

5.3.2 Method

A Blue Yeti Pro USB microphone set to cardioid mode was used to collect the audio signal. The microphone was connected via USB to a 2017 27-inch iMac with Retina 5K display, a 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5 processor with 8 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 of memory and a Radeon Pro 575 4096 MB graphics card, running Mac OS High Sierra 10.13.6. The signal was interpreted through VoceVista Video Pro version 5.1.0.3628.

196 Celeste Godin and Ian Howell, “Setting Vowels in the Female Secondo Passaggio: With Examples in Four Languages from Works by Larsen, Rossini, Brahms and Mussorgsky.” (Poster presented at the New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA. 2015.)

197 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 26.

198 Donald Gray Miller, “Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice,” Dissertation, Voice Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen, 2000, 63ff.

The microphone was placed 30 cm in front of the subject’s mouth. Prior to each new vowel capture, the microphone distance was confirmed in order to maintain a constant distance throughout the data collection process. To establish a reliable vocal tract shape for each of the ten vowels in the Russian lyric diction inventory [i e ɪ ɨ ɛ a ɑ ʌ o u], I executed the following four-step sequence:

1) I intoned a familiar token word featuring the target vowel (see Table 5.2).

2) I intoned a Russian word drawn from Sunless or Kabalevsky’s Op. 52 featuring that same vowel (see Table 5.2).

3) I sang the isolated vowel at medium loudness on G2 (98 Hz) for a minimum of two seconds.

4) While carefully preserving the singing posture of the vocal tract for that vowel, I phonated for a minimum of two seconds using only vocal fry.

Vowel Familiar Russian with singers IPA Source

[i] seat синего (navy blue) [ˈsʲi.ɲɪ.vʌ] Sunless 6, m. 6.

[e] mehr (German) теперь (now) [tʲe.ˈpʲerʲ] Kabalevsky 9, m. 5.

[ɪ] bit непроглядном (impervious) [ɲɪ.prɑ.ˈɡlʲɑ.dnʌm] Sunless 5, m. 58.

[ɨ] milk слышатся (are heard) [ˈsɫɨ.ʃɑ.tsɑ] Sunless 6, m. 26.

[ɛ] met цели (goals) [ˈtsɛ.lʲi] Kabalevsky 2, m. 18.

[a] pizza (Italian) спящую (sleeping) [ˈsʲpʲa.ʃʲːu.ju] Sunless 3, m. 8.

[ɑ] father она (she) [ɑ.ˈnɑ] Kabalevsky 6, m. 17.

[ʌ] another повторяю (repeat) [pʌ.ftɑ.ˈrʲa.ju] Kabalevsky 10, m. 28.

[o] chaud (French) ночь (night) [notʃʲ] Sunless 1, m. 17.

[u] boue (French) жгучих (burning) [ˈʒɡu.tʃʲix] Sunless 4, m. 5.

Table 5.2: Word cues for target vowels

Because onsets and offsets can be inconsistent, the beginnings and endings of the samples were excluded. A consistent, stable portion of the sample (minimum 1.5 seconds) was selected in VoceVista Pro, and averaged to produce an LTAS value for the lowest peak of energy per fry phonation, shown in Table 5.3 of § 5.3.3.

5.3.3 Results

Please refer to Mitton_Daniel_A_202006_DMA_audiofiles.zip for the following ten audio files in the column marked Filename in Table 5.3.

Filename LTAS sample fR1 fR2 [i] vvv2019-01-03_04_i_02.wav 17.5-19.0s 296 Hz 1705 Hz D4 +16ct G#6 +45ct [e] vvv2019-01-03_06_e_01.wav 14.8-16.8s 381 Hz 1532 Hz F#4 +50ct G6 -41ct [ɪ] vvv2019-01-03_07_smallcapsi_01 13.0-14.5s 393 Hz 1600 Hz G4 +5ct G6 +36ct [ɨ] vvv2019-01-03_08_velari_01.wav 14.5-16.0s 404 Hz 1100 Hz G#4 -48ct C#6 -14ct [ɛ] vvv2019-01-03_09_opene_01.wav 14.7-16.5s 577 Hz 1311 Hz D5 -30ct E6 -10ct [a] vvv2019-01-03_13_a_02.wav 15.0-17.0 711 Hz 1113 Hz F5 +31ct C#6 +6ct [ɑ] vvv2019-01-03_22_darka_03.wav 10.6-12.1s 617 Hz 1013 Hz D#5 -15ct B5 +44ct [ʌ] vvv2019-01-03_20_turnedv_02.wav 12.3-13.6s 616 Hz 1167 Hz D#5 -18ct D6 -11ct [o] vvv2019-01-03_17_o_01.wav 15.1-16.6s 489 Hz 826 Hz B4 -17ct G#5 -9ct [u] vvv2019-01-03_18_u_01.wav 14.0-15.5 346 Hz 804 Hz F4 -15ct G5 +43ct

Table 5.3: LMV informant fR1 and fR2 values

Table 5.3 displays the results of the method described in § 5.3.2. Two values were derived, one column for fR1 (shaded for emphasis) and one column for fR2 (which does not figure into the calculations here, but was useful in offering more information about the vowels [ɑ] and [ʌ], which share an fR1 value). These values are presented in Hertz (Hz), and that Hertz value has been converted into a musical pitch designation in Fig. 5.2. For example, the fR1 of [i] in my vocal tract is 296 Hz, which is equivalent to a slightly sharp (16 cents) D4. The fR1 of [ɨ] in my vocal tract is 404 Hz, which is equivalent to a slightly flat (48 cents) G#4, and so on. These pitch

82 values were applied to the colour-coded data entry tables that preface each of the sixteen songs discussed in §§ 6.1 and 6.2.

5.3.4 Discussion

Fig. 5.2 translates the values in Table 5.3 into their pitch equivalents in traditional Western musical notation. fR1 is shown with a stemless black notehead, fR2 is the open stemless notehead.

Again, for the purposes of this thesis, we are chiefly interested in the lower (fRI) values, which drive the location of my pitches of turning one octave below these values (see Fig. 5.3).

Figure 5.2: LMV informant fR1 and fR2 values expressed as pitch

The sung pitch an octave below my fR1 values is the acoustic pitch of turning between open and close timbre. In the colour-coded tables that preface each entry in Chapter 6, the pitch of turning

(a.k.a. the octave below the fR1 frequency of each sung vowel) is indicated as the thick horizontal bar separating the green (open timbre) and yellow (close timbre) shaded areas.

Figure 5.3: My pitches of turning between open and close timbre, one octave below fR1

It seems that some of my pitches of turning as recorded were slightly higher than what Bozeman publishes for the bass voice (see Fig. 5.4). It is possible that my vocal tract resonates a little higher than Bozeman reports. With this understood, the following analysis is carried out under the assumption that the values derived from my experiment reasonably reflect my individual voice characteristics. Other individuals’ values will vary.

Figure 5.4: Bozeman's bass pitches of turning

While my [i], [u] and [ɑ] fR1 locations agree with Bozeman’s published values, most of the other vowel data vary slightly, and some significantly so.199 The greatest deviation is [e], which varies from Bozeman’s work by a third: he publishes A3 as the pitch of turning for [e] while my finding claims a little sharp of F#3. The reader is invited to inspect the sound files used to generate these fR1 values. My [ɛ] and [o] fall reasonably close, within a semitone of Bozeman’s values. Four vowels [ɪ], [ɨ], [a] and [ʌ] make no appearance in Bozeman’s work, so the values derived from my experiment here serve as their working fR1 values in the remainder of this document.

Most fR1 frequencies are higher than LMVs can sing, so no interaction between the sung pitch and these fR1 frequencies is possible. This is significant because it largely exempts LMVs from the whoop coupling strategies familiar to higher voice types whose fundamental pitches compete with their fR1 frequencies, forcing a change in the perceived vowel itself in order to avoid thinning out the tone or causing it to become strident. The one exception to this rule of thumb for

LMVs is the [i] vowel sung at D4 or above.

5.3.5 Conclusions

Determining these fR1 values has made it possible to overlay the data collection spreadsheets with these values. Doing so enabled me to produce the colour-coded visual map of notes potentially sung in whoop timbre, close timbre, and open timbre that begin each song discussed in §§ 6.1 and 6.2, as well as highlighting clear examples of the micro-tunings that populate these two LMV song cycles. This data enhanced the original data collection, making it easier to spot interesting fR1/nfo relationships in these two cycles.

199 Bozeman, Practical Vocal Acoustics, 125.

It could be worthwhile to repeat this experiment to see how phonation quality affects these values (e.g. pressed vs. balanced). It could also be worthwhile to contrast these findings with other sung languages, in particular to compare and contrast language-specific vowel spaces.200

5.3.6 Equipment information

Blue Yeti Pro USB microphone

VoceVista Video Pro version 5.1.0.3628 iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) with a 3.5 GHz Intel Core i5 processor, 8 GB 2400 MHz DDR4 of memory, and a Radeon Pro 575 4096 MB graphics card, running on Mac OS High Sierra 10.13.6

Google Sheets, Microsoft Excel.

5.4 Summary

Chapter 5 discussed how the original singers’ IPA transcriptions in Appendices B and C were produced, and reviewed the data collection procedure carried out to locate LMV resonance frequencies for the analysis portion of this thesis. Chapter 5 ends with a description of that experiment. These elements are now discussed in Chapter 6’s Results.

200 Martin Néron, “Coarticulation: Aspects and Effects on American English, German, and French Diction,” Journal of Singing 67, no. 3 (2011): 313-325.

Chapter 6 Results

This thesis discusses net phonation time as a means to compare time spent in specific oral postures. These proportions are discussed in the song entries that follow.

From an applied vocal acoustics perspective however, it is the presence of fR1 that controls our considerations in vocal music. Once we know the fR1 values per vowel of a given voice, we can make qualitative predictions about how rich or simple, pure or bright a given vowel should be, just by looking at the score. (See § 1.7 for Bozeman’s commentary on what open and close timbre sound like, and Appendices B and C for new vocal scores that feature open and close timbre indications.) This chapter uses LMV fR1 locations per vowel to locate acoustic points of turning throughout the two selected song cycles (see Table 5.3 in § 5.3.3), which in turn demarcate the opening and closing of timbre as nfo crosses fR1.

The data collected in Chapter 5 informs a running commentary here in Chapter 6 of LMV- relevant performance considerations throughout these two song cycles, including: range and tessitura observations, transitions through the LMV zona di passaggio, “good and bad vocal regions” (Pacheco), the proportion of net phonation time per vowel, and palatalized and nonpalatalized approaches to and transitions away from these vowels. These elements suggest connections that can usefully guide live performances in terms of real-time registration and resonance tuning strategies.

6.1 Introduction to Sunless and overall trends

Each of the sixteen songs reviewed features a screen shot of its complete data collection worksheet, which is admittedly illegible in this format. High resolution versions of these worksheets can be viewed via the link given in § 5.2.3. Nevertheless, the colour-coding of these thumbnails can still provide some useful information at a glance, making it easy to notice activity in regions of open timbre in green, close timbre in yellow, and rare fR1 crossings in red, as well as areas of lesser activity, and general trends like the high relative frequency of certain vowels in certain songs. Solid bars mark the transition points between coloured regions, and the dotted lines within them represent potential micro-turnings. The ordinate marks pitches ascending by

85 86

semitone from A2 to E4. The abscissa is grouped into ten vowel regions, then subdivided into smaller categories that describe the approach to and transition away from each sung pitch (see the legend given in § 5.2.2). A sample higher-resolution worksheet has been segmented to fit the page and is offered here as Fig. 6.1:

Figure 6.1: Sample Detail of Data Entry Spreadsheet

The amalgamated range and tessitura for the cycle as a whole is graphed in Fig. 6.2, which shows a nearly ideal bell curve in pitch distribution whose apex centres just under the LMV

primo passaggio. The greatest cumulative phonation time on F#3 shows a very comfortable weighting of this cycle in the LMV mid-lower voice. Some negotiation of the secondo passaggio is necessary, with few excursions into the extreme LMV upper register. Fig. 6.3 illustrates the vowel distribution of this cycle. A clear majority (27% or nearly a third) of the phonation time in this cycle occurs on [ɑ]. If we group the vowels by gross oral posture (see Fig. 6.4), we see that well over half the phonation time is spent in a backed oral posture which facilitates a low, stable larynx, ensuring a longer vocal tract and a more resonant tone. However, a significant proportion (about a third) of phonation time is delivered with a fronted tongue. Tongue fronting contributes to the establishment of a convergent resonator shape of the vocal tract, a hallmark of classical singing technique.

Where remarks on notable technical or acoustic points of interest follow, the relevant musical score excerpt is given. In these excerpts, stemless noteheads indicate pitches of turning. Melody notes with stems pointing downward indicate pitches delivered in open timbre. Melody notes with stems pointing upward indicate close timbre. The few instances where the sung pitch (fo) ascends past fR1 are shaded in red.

Tessitura is graphed following Pacheco’s example, where the pitch of greatest duration (the tallest bar in the graph) is divided at its midway point, that point is extended horizontally, and the extremes of any intersected bars define the interval for the tessitura of the piece.201 The LMV zona di passaggio is superimposed in pink, where its leftmost boundary symbolizes the LMV primo passaggio, and the right boundary is the LMV secondo passaggio.

We now examine the songs in this cycle individually to see how these composite trends are reflected one by one.

201 Pacheco, “Angelica Catalani’s Voice,” 559.

Figure 6.2: Sunless overall range and tessitura

Figure 6.3: Sunless vowel proportions as percentages of net phonation time

Figure 6.4: Sunless overall vowel distribution grouped as front vs. central vs. back

6.1.1 Sunless 1: В четырёх стенах (Within four walls)

Figure 6.5: Sunless 1 data collection worksheet

Sunless 1, В четырёх стенах (Within four walls) is brief, at 18 measures of recitative-like D major in compound duple (6/4) time, set at a leisurely andante tranquillo. Fig. 6.6 graphs a range of C#3-D4 with a relatively low tessitura situated between D3 and Bb3. Fig. 6.7 shows its sole excursion above the LMV secondo passaggio in m. 6 beat 4 on D4 on the word ⟨глубокая⟩ (deep).

Sunless 1 features no fR1 crossings. A quarter (26%) of its melody is set in close timbre, 74% in open timbre (see Fig. 6.8). All instances of [i] and [e] are set in close timbre, all instances of [ɛ], [ɑ], and [ʌ] are set in open timbre. No stepwise ascending passages highlight any obvious acoustic shifts between open and close timbre. Several brief micro-turning opportunities allow the tuning of 3fo to fR1 within open timbre. One notable example is the downbeat of m. 17 on

⟨ночь⟩ (night), where E3 on [o] is set an octave and a fifth below its fR1, enabling 3fo to gain a boost which adds acoustic colour and complexity (see Fig. 6.9).

The vowel [ɑ] dominates the vocal tract configuration 40% of the time in Sunless 1 (see Figs. 6.10 and 6.11). The least frequently phonated vowel is the reduced vowel [ʌ], which occurs only 0.03% of net phonation. Despite the clear majority of backed and central vowels here, Sunless 1 also features significant palatalized onsets and transitions. In over a third (35%) of the instances of [ɑ] in Sunless 1, this backed vowel is prepared with a fronted tongue (see Fig. 6.12). This demands the swift, successive alternation between the palatalized and nonpalatalized versions of the Russian basis of articulation.

Figure 6.6: Sunless 1 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.7: Sunless 1, m. 6

Figure 6.8: Sunless 1 vowels in open and close setting

Figure 6.9: Sunless 1, m. 17

(possible 3fo/fR1 tuning)

Figure 6.10: Sunless 1 vowel frequency

Figure 6.11: Sunless 1 vowel distribution by gross oral posture

Figure 6.12: Sunless 1 approaches to [ɑ]

6.1.2 Sunless 2: Меня ты в толпе не узнала (You did not recognize me in the crowd)

Figure 6.13: Sunless 2 data collection worksheet

Sunless 2, Меня ты в толпе не узнала (You did not recognize me in the crowd) is even shorter than Sunless 1 at 12 measures of D major in 4/4 time, set at a brisk andante con moto. It spans

the range of A2-Eb4 with a tessitura between C#3 and B3 (see Fig. 6.14). Activity through and over the secondo passaggio in m. 9 corresponds with the emotional arc that peaks in the last third of the song (see Fig. 6.15).

Sunless 2 features no fR1 crossings, nor are any notable micro-crossings evident. Fig. 6.16 graphs a fifth of the melody in close timbre (22%), while 78% of the vowel phonation time is delivered in open timbre. All occurrences of [ɪ], [ɛ], [ɑ], and [ʌ] plus most of [o] are set entirely in open timbre (see Fig. 6.15).

Dark-a [ɑ] is the most frequently-occurring vowel in this text, followed by [o], so it seems that back vowels set in open timbre characterize the majority of the phonation time here, although the significant proportion of [e] tells us that palatalization is active since [e] only occurs adjacent to a palatalized consonant, or interpalatally (Fig. 6.17). This suggests a significant amount of required tongue fronting.

Figure 6.14: Sunless 2 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.15: Sunless 2, m.9

Figure 6.16: Sunless 2 vowels by open and close setting

Figure 6.17: Sunless 2 vowel frequency

6.1.3 Sunless 3: Окончен праздный, шумный день (The idle, noisy day is done)

Figure 6.18: Sunless 3 data collection worksheet

Sunless 3, Окончен праздный, шумный день (The idle, noisy day is done) is more substantial than its two recitative-like predecessors, at 41 measures of moderato assai. C is the tonal centre

95 in its major, minor and modal instantiations. The kaleidoscope of serial excursions into other related tonal centres in this short piece seem to reflect the narrator’s ongoing thought process. Its tessitura sits between G3 and middle C (Fig. 6.19). A significant proportion of Sunless 3 is set in the middle voice (zona di passaggio). A single moment early in the song (m.7 beat 2.5) just touches the secondo passaggio on a challenging-for-the-LMV [i] vowel where fo and fR1 nearly couple (see Fig. 6.20). Another technically challenging moment in this cycle is m. 35 beat 2 (Fig.

6.21), where [i] is set on Eb4 for part of a triplet, offering a rare opportunity for the bass voice to achieve whoop coupling.

Vowels with lower fR1 values ([i], [e], [u]) are mostly set here in close timbre (Fig. 6.22). Nearly a third of this song (31%) is set in close timbre, but majority of Sunless 3 (69%) is delivered in open timbre. The most frequent vowels in Sunless 3 are [ɑ], followed by [o], then [i] and [u] (Fig. 6.23). We might expect this back-vowel dominance, but it is perhaps surprising that [i] is not the second most frequent vowel here as Smirnova and Chistikov’s work suggests. Again, this may be because the composer sets his longest rhythmic durations on [o] rather than [i].

Several subtle micro-crossings occur, where 3fo can be tuned to fR1 in words containing [ɛ] [ɑ] [ʌ], and [o], for example m. 40, beat 1 and the last note in m. 40 (Fig. 6.24); and the passage spanning mm. 17-22 (Fig. 6.25).

Figure 6.19: Sunless 3 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.21: Sunless 3, m.7

Figure 6.20: Sunless 3, m.35

Figure 6.22: Sunless 3 vowels in open and close setting

Figure 6.24: Sunless 3 vowel frequency

Figure 6.23: Sunless 3, mm. 39-41

Figure 6.25: Sunless 3, mm. 17-22

6.1.4 Sunless 4: Скучай (Be bored)

Figure 6.26: Sunless 4 data collection worksheet

Sunless 4, Скучай (Be bored), is 29 measures of b minor in 4/4 time, set at a conservative andantino comodo assai e poco lamentoso. It spans the range of B2-D#4, with a tessitura that exposes a flaw in Pacheco’s calculation paradigm (see § 2.7): F#3 occurs so frequently in this song (the equivalent of 50 out of 165 eighth notes) that half of its value does not intersect any other pitch duration. If we calculate using the next most frequent value (G3) instead, the tessitura becomes E3-C4. as shown in Fig. 6.27.

The most frequently occurring vowel here is [ɑ], with [u], [i], and [ɛ] trailing at less than half of its frequency (Fig. 6.28). This distribution means that in terms of gross oral postures, a little over half of Sunless 4’s phonation time is spent with a backed tongue, and a little less than half with a central or fronted tongue (Fig. 6.29).

This song features a single, brief fR1 crossing (m. 5 beat 2.5) on [i], which is also its highest note (Fig. 6.30).

A third of Sunless 4 (34%) is set in close timbre with the remaining 65% set in open timbre (Fig.

6.31). Like Sunless 3, vowels with lower fR1 values such as [i], [e], and [u] are mostly set in close timbre, while the remaining vowels are either entirely or mostly set in open timbre.

Figure 6.27: Sunless 4 range, tessitura and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.28: Sunless 4 vowel frequency

100

Figure 6.30: Sunless 4 gross oral postures

Figure 6.29: Sunless 4, m.5

Figure 6.31: Sunless 4 vowels by open and close setting

101

6.1.5 Sunless 5: Элегия (Elegy)

Figure 6.32: Sunless 5 data collection worksheet

Sunless 5, Элегия (Elegy), is the longest song in this cycle at 61 measures, set as andantino mosso. It starts with C as the tonal centre, but drops down a half step to conclude in b minor. Its

tessitura is F#3-B3, with much activity in the zona di passaggio and several negotiations of the secondo passaggio (see Fig. 6.33).

Three of these secondo passaggio negotiations are the final fR1 crossings in the cycle, where [i] is

set on D4 (see Figs. 6.34, 6.35, and 6.36). These vowel/pitch arrangements are challenging for the developing LMV to master, and each of these three instances can be met with resonance tuning (vowel modification), involving a slight opening of [i] in the direction of [ɪ]. This readjusts the

location of fR1 (raises it well over the sung pitch; see Table 5.3 in § 5.3.3 for a direct comparison

of the fR1 values of [i] and [ɪ]) and helps to maintain aural balance while avoiding the perception of undue effort or vocal stress. From the perspective of how fleetingly these events transpire,

these three fR1 crossings collectively represent 1% of the net phonation time in Sunless 5. Otherwise, thirty percent of the vowels are set in close timbre here, and the remaining 69% are set in open timbre (see Fig. 6.37). This text setting also presents many opportunities for micro-

crossings, notably the subtle and appropriately colourful 4fo/fR1 in m.2 beat 3 on the two [ɛ] vowels of ⟨дремлет⟩ (it slumbers) [drʲɛ.mlʲɛt] (Fig. 6.38).

The most often phonated vowel in this text setting as usual is [ɑ], trailed by [o], [ɨ], [u], and [i] (Fig. 6.39). This suggests that the tongue posture in the majority of this song is either backed or neutral, promoting a low, stable larynx. In addition, the vast majority of vowel-adjacent phonemes are also unfronted (see Fig. 6.40).

102

Figure 6.33: Sunless 5 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.34: Sunless 5, m.31-32

Figure 6.35: Sunless 5, mm.34-36

103

Figure 6.36: Sunless 5, m.41

Figure 6.37: Sunless 5 distribution of >fR1, open, and close timbral occurrences

Figure 6.38: Sunless 5, mm.1-3

104

Figure 6.39: Sunless 5 vowel frequency

Figure 6.40: Sunless 5 adjacent fronting agents

105

6.1.6 Sunless 6: Над рекой (On the river)

Figure 6.41: Sunless 6 data collection worksheet

Sunless 6, Над рекой (On the river), is 55 measures of the rarely-seen C#, six sharps in 4/4 time.

It spans barely over an octave at a conservative C#3-D4, challenging neither the high nor low

pitch boundaries of this cycle. Its tessitura sits between F3-C#4 (Fig. 6.42). A single half note on

D4 midway through the song is its climactic pitch (Fig. 6.43).

Again, back vowels dominate here, with the top positions occupied by [ɑ], [u], and [ɛ], while [i] and [o] tie for fourth place (Fig. 6.44).

With these relatively subdued statistics, it seems clear that Musorgsky’s dramatic investment in the finale of his cycle favours a subtly restrained conclusion.

Figure 6.42: Sunless 6 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

106

Figure 6.43: Sunless 6, mm.27-29

Figure 6.44: Sunless 6 vowel distribution

6.2 Introduction to Kabalevsky Op. 52 and overall trends

The collective range and tessitura data for this entire cycle gives us Fig. 6.45. Its pitch distribution shows another nearly ideal curve similar to Sunless’s Fig. 6.1, with perhaps a slightly higher yet very comfortable weighting of this cycle in the LMV mid-low voice. Some negotiation of the secondo passaggio is necessary here with few excursions into the extreme LMV upper register.

The vowel distribution of Kabalevsky Op. 52 as a cycle shows that a quarter of overall net phonation time (26%) goes to [ɑ] (Fig. 6.46). Grouping the vowels by gross oral posture, we see that like Sunless, the tongue in Kabalevsky Op. 52 assumes a back or neutral posture most of the time, but also features a significant proportion (again, about a third) of tongue fronting (Fig.

107

6.47). In both cycles this proportion of tongue fronting increases if we also consider vowel- adjacent palatalizing agents.

Figure 6.45: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall range and tessitura

Figure 6.46: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall vowel distribution

108

Figure 6.47: Kabalevsky Op. 52 overall gross oral postures

6.2.1 Op. 52 no. 1, Тебе ль меня придётся хоронить (Sonnet 81)

Figure 6.48: Op. 52 no. 1 data collection worksheet

Kabalevsky Op. 52 no. 1, Тебе ль меня придётся хоронить (Shakespeare sonnet 81: Or I shall live your epitaph to make...) is 67 measures of F major in 3/4 time, set as andante molto

sostenuto. It encompasses the full pitch range extremes of both cycles examined here, A2-E4. Its

tessitura sits comfortably for the LMV between D3 and A3 (see Fig. 6.49).

This song features the sole >fR1 event in this entire cycle, a single sustained climactic [i] in mm.

37-38 on E4 set on the word ⟨гробница⟩ [ɡrɑ.ˈbɲi.tsʌ] (tomb) (Fig. 6.50). The close vowel [i] is approached by leap while executing a crescendo. To navigate these technical demands, the LMV

may open [i] slightly to [ɪ], moving the fR1 of [i] up and out of the way of the sung pitch. (This is

the same strategy described for Sunless 5 in § 6.1.5.) This climactic and exposed >fR1 negotiation accounts for 3% of the phonation time in this piece. A little over a quarter (27%) of the net phonation time is set in close timbre, with the remaining 70% set in open timbre (Fig. 6.51). All

instances of [ɛ], [ɑ], and [ʌ] are set in open timbre. Anytime [ɑ] or [ʌ] is set on Eb3, there is an

109

opportunity for a microturning where 4fo tunes to fR1. Op. 52 no. 1 features eight such opportunities. Microturnings this low in the LMV range, however, sound quite subtle as a temporary boost of acoustic complexity (tone colour) in the context of the moving phrase.

As might be expected, the most frequently occurring vowel in Op. 52 no. 1 is [ɑ] with 25% of net phonation time. In second place, this is the first clear challenge from [i] with 19% of net phonation time (Fig. 6.52), better reflecting Smirnova and Chistikov’s work. Op. 52 no. 1 also features significant vowel-adjacent fronting agents (e.g. palatalized onsets and transitions), which require a fronted tongue (Fig. 6.53).

Figure 6.49: Op. 52 no. 1 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.50: Op. 52 no. 1, mm.35-38

110

Figure 6.51: Op. 52 no. 1 vowels by open and close setting

Figure 6.52: Op. 52 no. 1 vowel distribution

111

Figure 6.53: Op. 52 no. 1 vowel-adjacent fronting agents

6.2.2 Op. 52 no. 2, Трудами изнурён, хочу уснуть (Sonnet 27)

Figure 6.54: Op. 52 no. 2 data collection worksheet

Op. 52, no. 2, Трудами изнурён, хочу уснуть (Shakespeare sonnet 27: Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed...) is 70 measures of cut time (2/4) set at a brisk con moto appassionato with a central livening of the tempo (più mosso) in m. 22 that returns to a qualified Tempo (ma poco meno mosso) I in m. 61. It spans the range of Bb2-Eb4 (Fig. 6.55), with a single climactic excursion above the secondo passaggio for a half note tied to a dotted quarter set on [ɛ], in mm.

50-51 (Fig. 6.56). Like the climactic note in Op. 52 no. 1, this Eb4 is also approached by leap and crescendo. The tongue is pre-fronted by the palatalized [lʲ] that precedes this vowel, mitigating the divergent oral posture of this vowel (see § 4.7.5).

The open/close timbre split in this piece is 66-34% (Fig. 6.57). None of the remaining songs in

Op. 52 feature any additional >fR1 crossings.

The most common vowel as usual is [ɑ], followed by [i] and [u] (see Fig. 6.58).

112

Figure 6.55: Op. 52 no. 2 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.56: Op. 52 no. 2, mm.48-52

113

Figure 6.57: Op. 52 no. 2 vowels by open and close timbre

Figure 6.58: Op. 52 no. 2 vowel frequency

6.2.3 Op. 52 no. 3, Люблю, но реже говорю об этом (Sonnet 102)

Figure 6.59: Op. 52 no. 3 data collection worksheet

114

Op. 52, no. 3, Люблю, но реже говорю об этом (Sonnet 102: My love is strengthen’d, though more weak in seeming...) is 52 measures of g minor in cut time (4/8) set andantino. It spans the conservative range of a ninth, C3-D4, and its tessitura sits comfortably for the LMV between G3-

Bb3 (see Fig. 6.60). Musically this song poses few challenges.

The most common vowel in Op. 52 no. 3 is [ɑ] (Fig 6.61). The second and third most frequent are also back vowels: [u] and [o]. A string of palatalized consonants and adjacent close vowels counterbalances them with a fronted tongue (therefore a correspondingly convergent shape of the vocal tract) such as the one shown in Fig. 6.62.

Figure 6.60: Op. 52 no. 3 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

115

Figure 6.61: Op. 52 no. 3 vowel frequency

Figure 6.62: Op. 52 no. 3, mm.18-20 contiguous palatalized consonants

6.2.4 Op. 52 no. 4, Когда на суд безмолвных, тайных дум (Sonnet 30)

Figure 6.63: Op. 52 no. 4 data collection worksheet

Op. 52, no. 4, Когда на суд безмолвных, тайных дум (Shakespeare sonnet 30: When to the sessions of sweet silent thought...) is 39 measures of Largo c minor in common time that undergoes some tempo variations before concluding with a modal shift to C major. Its range is

C3-E4 and its tessitura sits between D3 and middle C (see Fig. 6.64).

116

Several brief timbral openings and closings take place in this piece but are not particularly noteworthy in isolation. There are two excursions above the secondo passaggio set in close timbre on [o]: Eb4 in m. 10 (Fig. 6.65) and E4 in m. 36 (Fig. 6.66). Neither falls near [o]’s B3 acoustic turning point, so no subtle technical negotiation is necessary other than appropriate subglottal pressure and shaping of the vocal tract for that back vowel.

Op. 52 no. 4 shares the back-vowel dominance of Op. 52 no. 3, with [ɑ], [o], and [u] also claiming the majority of this song’s phonation time (Fig. 6.67).

Figure 6.64: Op. 52 no. 4 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.65: Op. 52 no. 4, mm.10-12

117

Figure 6.66: Op. 52 no. 4, mm.35-37

Figure 6.67: Op. 52 no. 4 vowel frequency

6.2.5 Op. 52 no. 5, Бог Купидон дремал в тиши лесной (Sonnet 153)

Figure 6.68: Op. 52 no. 5 data collection worksheet

Op. 52, no. 5, Бог Купидон дремал в тиши лесной (Shakespeare sonnet 153: Cupid laid by his brand and fell asleep...) is 90 measures of e minor in cut time (2/4), that starts as allegretto moderato e capriccioso. Its range is B2-E4. Its tessitura lies between E3 and B3 (see Fig. 6.69).

118

Several sustained instances of [o] are set on E3 where fR1 can boost 3fo (mm.12, 23, 60, see Appendix C for the vocal score). The longer rhythmic values on these stressed beats seem to make the added acoustic complexity (colour/warmth) more apparent. This song is one of the few in this cycle where [o] nearly achieves parity with [ɑ] as the most phonated vowel (Fig. 6.70).

It may be easier for the LMV to modify the climactic [o] vowel in mm. 69-70 toward [ɑ] (Fig. 6.71). This may be because mid-close/mid-open [o] can be challenging to negotiate in the extreme upper register at E3, whereas the timbral closing of [ɑ] at this pitch may work better in this instance (see § 3.2.4 on Cover).

Enough fronting agents (palatalized consonants or [j] glides) are vowel-adjacent to make it noteworthy (Fig. 6.72): “The palatalization setting causes F1 to be shifted downward in frequency and F2 to be shifted upward.”202

Figure 6.69: Op. 52 no. 5 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

202 Brad H. Story and Ingo R. Titze. “A Preliminary Study of Voice Quality Transformation Based on Modifications to the Neutral Vocal Tract Area Function.” Journal of Phonetics 30, 2002: 496-498.

119

Figure 6.71: Op. 52 no. 5 vowel frequency

Figure 6.70: Op. 52 no. 5, mm.66-70

120

Figure 6.72: Op. 52 no. 5 vowel-adjacent fronting and nonfronting agents

6.2.6 Op. 52 no. 6, Не изменяйся, будь самим собой (Sonnet 13)

Figure 6.73: Op. 52 no. 6 data collection worksheet

Op. 52, no. 6, Не изменяйся, будь самим собой (Shakespeare sonnet 13: O! that you were your self...) is. 37 measures of common time in Gb major set at a sprightly andante con moto. It spans the range of Bb2-Eb4, and its exceptionally narrow (only a whole tone!) tessitura sits between

Ab3-Bb3 (see Fig. 6.74).

This song poses no range extremes. From a vocal acoustics perspective, there are some micro- crossings on [ɑ] scattered throughout this text setting where fR1 boosts 3fo and 4fo (see Appendix C for the vocal score), but this fleeting acoustic complexity does not stand out in context.

The vowel distribution is weighted toward back vowels ([ɑ], [o], and [u]), but is otherwise unremarkable (Fig. 7.75).

121

Singers performing this cycle as a whole may find the relative ease and achievability of Op. 52 no. 6 to be a point of rest; an opportunity to rally vocal resources for the last half of the cycle.

Figure 6.74: Op. 52 no. 6 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.75: Op. 52 no. 6 vowel frequency

122

6.2.7 Op. 52 no. 7, Ты – музыка (Sonnet 8)

Figure 6.76: Op. 52 no. 7 data collection worksheet

Op. 52 no. 7, Ты – музыка (Shakespeare sonnet 8: Music to hear...) is 53 bars of compound duple time (6/8) in C major set as Larghetto. It spans the range of B2-D4. Its tessitura sits between E3-A3 with no obvious technical or acoustic hurdles (see Fig. 6.77).

This is the only text setting in this cycle where [u] surpasses [ɑ] as the most frequently phonated vowel (Fig. 6.78). This is due to some longer rhythmic durations set on that vowel, but also because the phoneme [u] actually occurs in many words in this text.

There is a clear prevalence of vowels set in open timbre in Op. 52 no. 7 (73% open, 27% close) (Fig. 6.79). Back vowels here are set mostly in open timbre, and close vowels seem mostly set in close timbre. While there is no clear relationship between close and open vowels and close and open timbre, this serendipity is interesting.

At a technical level, non-native Russian speakers will find the consonant cluster set on a single sixteenth note in Fig. 6.80 challenging to articulate at tempo.

123

Figure 6.77: Op. 52 no. 7 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.78: Op. 52 no. 7 vowel frequency

124

Figure 6.79: Op. 52 no. 7 open and close vowel distribution

Figure 6.80: Op. 52 no. 7, m.10

6.2.8 Op. 52 no. 8, Ты погрусти, когда умрёт поэт (Sonnet 71)

Figure 6.81: Op. 52 no. 8 data collection worksheet

Op. 52 no. 8, Ты погрусти, когда умрёт поэт (Shakespeare sonnet 71: No longer mourn for me when I am dead...) is 32 measures of Ab major in common time set at a moderate andante non troppo. It spans Bb2-Db2, and its tessitura sits between Eb3 and G3 (see Fig. 6.82).

125

This text features a more homogenous distribution of vowels than its predecessors. Back vowels ([ɑ], [o], and [u]) dominate, but the front vowels ([e], [i], and [ɛ]) provide the best counterbalance of any text setting in this cycle (Fig. 6.83).

This song also features a notable presence of palatalizing agents (Fig. 8.84). It is the only text of those studied here where fronting agents (palatalized consonants and [j]-glides) approach vowels more often than unfronted consonants do.

Figure 6.82: Op. 52 no. 8 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

126

Figure 6.83: Op. 52 no. 8 vowel frequency

Figure 6.84: Op. 52 no. 8 vowel-adjacent fronting agents

6.2.9 Op. 52 no. 9, Уж если ты разлюбишь - так теперь (Sonnet 90)

Figure 6.85: Op. 52 no. 9 data collection worksheet

127

Op. 52, no. 9, Уж если ты разлюбишь - так теперь (Shakespeare sonnet 90: Then hate me when thou wilt...) is 38 measures of g# minor in common time set at a lively drammatico. Its range spans B2-D#4. Its tessitura sits between E3 and C#4 (see Fig. 6.86). The tessitura of the outset of this song is set moderately low, but rises as the text setting unfolds and the emotional content intensifies, for example m. 23 onward (see Appendix C for the vocal score). This piece’s higher overall tessitura seems to correlate to a greater proportion of vowels set in close timbre.

Registration balance is the major negotiation in this song. A significant portion of the phonation time of this piece is set on C#4, which corresponds to the secondo passaggio. Maintaining a constant commitment to a centred breath and refreshing the sense of a low stable larynx will help the LMV to maintain stable tube length and avoid the rising larynx (and corresponding tube shortening) that can accompany extended phonation time in the upper range. One working strategy is to lighten the dynamic intensity in response to the lively tempo and moving eighth note phrases. This will encourage finer fold coordination and allow the voice to negotiate this demanding range without sacrificing tube stability or resonance.

The most phonated vowel in Op. 52, no. 9 is [ɑ], trailed by [o], [i], and [e] which each get about half of its phonation time (Fig. 6.87).

Other than the nontrivial ongoing struggle to maintain a low, stable larynx, this piece poses no other obvious technical or acoustic challenges.

128

Figure 6.86: Op. 52 no. 9 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

Figure 6.87: Op. 52. no. 9 vowel frequency

6.2.10 Op. 52 no. 10, Увы, мой стих не блещет новизной (Sonnet 76)

Figure 6.88: Op. 52 no. 10 data collection worksheet

129

Op. 52, no. 10, Увы, мой стих не блещет новизной (Shakespeare sonnet 76: Why is my verse so barren of new pride...) is 83 measures of F major in 3/4 time set as one beat per bar of andantino semplice. It is an expansive conclusion to this cycle and a return to the stability of a major key, effectively resolving any residual tension from earlier, more vociferous pieces. Its range is C3-E4, and its comfortable tessitura sits between E3 and A3 (see Fig. 6.89).

There is a single high note above the secondo passaggio: an E4 on [ɛ] approached by leap. This note is delivered squarely in close timbre with no exceptional acoustic negotiations (Fig. 6.90).

Similarly, a climactic [o] set in close timbre is also approached by leap up to D4, yet still just below the secondo passaggio (Fig. 6.91).

Op. 52 no. 10 stands out as one of the few text settings where [ɑ] is not the dominant vowel: here, the vowel with the greatest cumulative net phonation time is [o] (Fig. 6.92).

The data shows a nearly ideal distribution curve where back vowels (with the exception of [u]) are mostly set in open timbre, and front vowels show a higher incidence of being set in close timbre (Fig. 6.93). It is unclear whether this pattern is a general one applicable to all sung languages, or whether this is specific to sung Russian (see § 7.2). More study is needed.

Figure 6.89: Op. 52 no. 10 range, tessitura, and LMV zona di passaggio

130

Figure 6.90: Op. 52 no. 10, mm.54-56

Figure 6.91: Op. 52 no. 10, mm.72-74

Figure 6.92: Op. 52 no. 10 vowel frequency

131

Figure 6.93: Op. 52 no. 10 vowels set in open and close timbre

6.3 Discussion

The data collected here suggest that:

1. The fR1/fo interaction is largely irrelevant in LMV repertoire. The range of these two cycles (and of most LMV repertoire) imposes hard limits on some acoustic possibilities,

putting the interaction of fR1/fo mostly beyond the reach of the LMV. Based on the values

reported in Table 5.3, the only fR1/fo interaction possible in most LMV repertoire occurs

when an [i] vowel is set at or ascends through D4. From an acoustic voice pedagogy perspective, LMV concerns therefore involve developing an awareness of singing in open

and close timbre on pitches lower than E4, the interaction of 2fo with fR1, and the micro-

crossings that occur when 3fo, 4fo, or 5fo cross fR1.

2. The most commonly-occurring vowel in these two cycles is dark-a [ɑ]. This is true in all but Kabalevsky Op. 52, no. 7 where [u] has the most phonation time, and no. 10, where [o] has more phonation time than any other vowel. These deviations from the norm are explained by longer note values set by the composer, not necessarily higher rates of occurrence in the texts themselves. The least commonly-occurring vowel is the fronted /a/-allophone bright-a [a], where fewer than half of the songs in these two cycles use it at all. It is not present at all in Sunless 1, 2, 5, or Op. 52 nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, or 9.

132

3. The LMV spends the overwhelming majority of his performance phonation in open

timbre. This coincides with the prevalence of [ɑ] in sung Russian and its high fR1 value

(Eb5), putting its point of turning near the apex of the LMV’s singable range in ‘chest’.

4. While there is no direct functional relationship between setting close vowels in close timbre and back vowels in open timbre (because any vowel can conceivably be set at any singable pitch), the vowel settings shown here do often seem to correspond in this way. This may be simply the composers’ intuition at work. More study is needed.

5. There is no clear correspondence between palatalization and acoustic turning events.

Palatalization affects vocal tract resonances by slightly suppressing fR1 and slightly 203 raising fR2, but no critical instances where this was important were noticed here.

6. Front vowels are already tongue-fronted and convergent in their vocal tract shapes. We know that the more convergently the back vowel [ɑ] can be conceived, the more the vocal tract will assist vibrator efficiency.

6.4 Summary

Chapter 6 analyzed the data collected in Chapter 5, featuring many graphs that serve as quick visual references to describe some of the relationships between LMV vocal traits and the fR1/nfo requirements imposed by the musical scores of two Russian song cycles. As expected, these graphs illustrate specific aspects of how these two Russian song cycles suit the LMV. Perhaps more interestingly, the visual presentation of the colour-coded data collection tables highlights the few acoustic challenges that pose teachable moments in terms of LMV voice pedagogy, making these instances easy to spot at a glance.

203 Ibid.

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Next Steps

This thesis positioned singing in Russian as beneficial for classical LMV training because it can expand on the singer’s foundational work in other sung languages, and aspects of sung Russian align with established classical singing goals. Two of Russian’s inherent oral postures are hallmarks of classical singing technique: the backed tongue of sung Russian’s predominant dark- a vowel [ɑ] facilitates a low, stable larynx; and the palatalization process and frequent [i] vowel both require a fronted tongue, known to form part of a convergent resonator strategy. If singing in Russian has a transformative effect on LMV singers, this may be in response to how well these contrasting vocal tract configurations reinforce established classical singing objectives.

7.1 Conclusions

This thesis initially raised the following three questions (see § 1.1), which are answered here:

1) What is the phonemic inventory of Russian lyric diction? What are the vocal tract configurations required to deliver these phonemes?

Grayson’s choices of IPA symbols are reflected in the original transcriptions included in this thesis (see Table 2.2). They are:

[ː ɑ b d e ɛ f ɡ ɣ h i ɪ ɨ j ʲ k l ɫ m n ɲ o p r s ʃ t u v ʌ x z ʒ]

The oral postures for each of these phonemes are described in § 4.6 (vowels), § 4.7 (consonants), and § 4.9.2 (how to palatalize consonants). These lyric diction targets were conceived for optimal unamplified performance, and their sung iterations involve various additional technical concerns for classical singing such as a convergent resonator shape wherever possible, tongue fronting where possible, and a comfortably low larynx.

133 134

2) Does an LMV singing in Russian encounter any meaningful acoustic events such as acoustic turning points, micro-turnings per vowel, or vowel migrations through the LMV zona di passaggio?

The relatively low sung pitch range of most LMV repertoire (see § 3.1) imposes a hard limit on certain acoustic possibilities. Unlike their treble colleagues, LMVs will find interactions

between fR1 and the pitch being sung (fo) are largely irrelevant to them (see § 6.3, point 1).

The only fR1/fo interaction possible in the LMV repertoire examined here occurs when an [i]

vowel is set at or ascends through D4. These infrequent acoustic events are easily noticed in the colour-coded tables in Chapter 6 and in the vocal scores of Appendices B and C where they can be seen in red. Based on the data analyzed here, it would seem that the LMV’s ongoing acoustic concerns deal mainly with developing an awareness of singing in open and

close timbre (when 2fo crosses fR1), and an awareness of the subtle yet predictable micro-

crossings (acoustic closings and openings) as 3fo, 4fo, or 5fo cross fR1.

3) Do emergent connections in response to these questions suggest that singing in Russian supports the performance goals of the developing LMV classical singer?

This thesis has pointed to the latent pedagogical value of sung Russian by connecting the physical postures of Russian lyric diction targets with the goals of classical singing. It has discussed how some sung Russian lyric diction targets compare to familiar counterparts in sung English, French, German and Italian. LMV singers who centralize their articulators for sung Russian are likely to experience less ambient tension and greater ease in tone production. With their articulators freer to constructively relax, the hyoid can follow suit by descending, allowing the larynx to stabilize in a lower position in agreement with the neutral Russian basis of articulation. Conversely, the traditional classical objective of the gola aperta or ‘open throat’ seems to be facilitated by the fronted version of the Russian basis of articulation, which requires the tongue mass to front and vacate the throat, which in turn creates greater resonance space in the pharynx. It seems reasonable that these kinds of technical gains should be portable to efficient singing in other languages.

135

This thesis also accomplished the following additional aims and objectives (see § 1.2):

1) To discuss options through which non-Russian singers can acquire facility with challenging aspects of sung Russian (i.e. strategies for mastering palatalization, and for creating a sustainable, repeatable, singing-optimized velar-i [ɨ]).

A three-step strategy for mastering secondary palatalization (arch, pronounce, peel) was discussed in § 4.9.2. Three strategies for creating velar-i [ɨ] were discussed in § 4.6.4.

2) To assemble and share a curation of LMV-specific voice pedagogy resources.

The resources cited in §§ 3.3, 3.4, and A.2.2 satisfy this goal.

3) To add to the body of singers’ resources with original IPA singers’ transcriptions for Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52: Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak.

The original singers’ IPA transcriptions offered in Appendices B and C satisfy this goal.

Finally, this thesis has profiled LMVs as important voice stakeholders. Despite their statistical rarity, LMVs hold an important place in voice research and the artistic community as performers, as pedagogy authors/contributors, as useful subjects in vocal acoustic research, and as singing students in need of bespoke studio instruction and repertoire selection.204

7.2 Next steps

Although it was possible to record sound samples in a controlled environment either at the University of Toronto’s SLP department or at St. Michael's Hospital, I deliberately chose to emulate Titze, Maxfield and Walker’s 2016 paper where they measured resonances of the vocal tract with consumer grade (at-home) instruments: “A primary objective of this study was to determine if singers with limited access to laboratory instrumentation could personalize an F1–

204 Miller, Securing, 3.

136

F2 vowel chart for the purpose of understanding voice timbre in singing styles.”205 The collection of LMV fR1 and fR2 values was my initial experience using VoceVista Video Pro. Gaining facility with this software will lead to a greater command of it.

The experiment in § 5.3 raises questions of other nfo/fRn interactions. Our understanding of the current model suggests that depending on the phonation quality of an LMV singing in close timbre, neither fo nor 2fo are close enough to the bandwidth of fR1 to benefit in this acoustic arrangement. Perhaps the Singers Formant Cluster (the clustering and mutual reinforcement of fR3, fR4 and fR5) mitigates this shortfall. But perhaps there is another important interaction between the fR2 of the sung vowel and a higher harmonic (i.e. 3fo, 4fo, 5fo) that explains the acoustic presence achieved by LMVs singing in close timbre. This interaction is discussed in Miller’s Resonance in Singing (2008), and merits further study.

Russian vocal writing arises from a culture that seems to instinctively understand and celebrate the distinctive colour and qualities of the LMV. It could be informative to carry out an expanded analysis between the Russian song cycles analyzed here and representative counterparts in other languages (English, French, and German) with the goal of comparing how each national repertoire intersects with LMV qualities like tessitura, range limits, registration possibilities, turning points in the voice, and other vowel/pitch considerations. The techniques used in this thesis are readily adaptable to any voice type and any sung repertoire. This potentially opens up the entire body of vocal literature to the kind of analysis modeled here. Future scholars may expand on the innovations demonstrated here to gain further insight on other national repertoires and repertoire for other voice types.

Another next step could be the development of a reliable script or plug-in that works inside the music publishing software used to generated score examples like those offered in Appendices B and C. This could automate and expedite future similar data collection efforts while ensuring fewer errors from human input, with less requisite repetition and verification.

205 Titze, Maxfield and Walker. “A Formant Range Profile for Singers.”

137

Admittedly, sung Russian requires specific training for teachers and coaches who are not familiar with its intricacies. A next step toward making sung Russian accessible to developing LMVs is to actively participate in providing reliable Russian lyric diction training to the singing community to enable more widespread independence with this rich body of vocal literature.

Bibliography

Abt, Franz. Practical Singing Tutor for All Voices: Baritone or Bass, Op. 474. New York: G. Schirmer, 1893. Appelman, Dudley Ralph. The Science of Vocal Pedagogy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1967. Arneson, Christopher with Lauren Athey-Janka. Literature for Teaching: A Guide for Choosing Solo Vocal Repertoire from a Developmental Perspective. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2014. Austin, Stephen F. Provenance. Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017. Bataille, Charles Amable. Nouvelles recherches sur la phonation. Paris : Victor Masson et Fils., 1861. Baytukalov, Timur. EasyPronunciation.com Belov, Anton. Libretti of Russian Operas, Volume I: Operas Based on the Poetry and Prose of Alexander Pushkin, with International Phonetic Alphabet Transcriptions and Word-for- word Translations Including a Guide to the IPA and Russian Lyric Diction. Geneseo: Leyerle Publications, 2004. ---, ed. Russian Romantic Art Song (Low Voice). Fayetteville: Classical Vocal Reprints, 2015. Bethin, Christina Y. “Stress and Tone in East Slavic Dialects.” Phonology 23:2, 2006: 125-156. Boldrey, Richard. Guide to Operatic Roles & Arias. Redmond: Pst… Inc., 1994. Bolla, Kálmán. A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1981. Borissoff, Constantine Leo. “Basis of Articulation and Articulatory Setting in Pronunciation Teaching: Focusing on English and Russian.” Masters diss., Birbeck College, University of London, 2011. Bozeman, Kenneth W. “Registration Strategies for Training the Male ‘Passaggio’.” The Choral Journal 48.12, 2008: 59-72. ---. “The Role of the First Formant in Training the Male Singing Voice.” Journal of Singing 66.3, 2010: 291-297. ---. Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Applications for Teachers and Singers. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2013. ---. “Remapping the Open Throat (Gola Aperta)” Journal of Singing 72. 2, 2015: 183-197. ---. Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy: Motivating Acoustic Efficiency. Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017. Buchaillard, Stéphanie, Pascal Perrier, and Yohan Payan. “A Biomechanical Model of Cardinal Vowel Production: Muscle Activations and the Impact of Gravity on Tongue Positioning.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 4, 2009: 2033-2051. Challis, Natalia. The Singer’s Rachmaninoff. New York: Pelion. 1989.

138 139

Coffin, Berton. Singer’s Repertoire Part IV: Baritone and Bass, second edition. New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960. ---. The Sounds of Singing. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960. ---. Overtones of Bel Canto: Phonetic Basis of Artistic Singing with 100 Chromatic Vowel-Chart Exercises. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1980. ---. Historical Vocal Pedagogy Classics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 1989. Comrie, Bernard and Gerald Stone. The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. New York: Clarendon Press. 1996. Concone, Giuseppe. 40 lezioni, op. 17 (per basso o baritono). Milan: Ricordi, 1987. Cooke, James Francis. Great Singers on the Art of Singing. Philadelphia: Theo. Presser Co., 1921. Corey, Christopher, John H. Esling and Scott R. Moisik, developers. IPA Phonetics (Version 1.0). University of Victoria. 2013. Retrieved from itunes.apple.com Cox, Gary. Gary’s Guide to Russian Diction for Singers. Lexington: n.p. 2014. Dailey, Sarah S. “Songs of the Mighty Five: A Guide for Teachers and Performers.” Doctoral dissertation. Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, 2013. Davids, Julia and Stephen LaTour. Vocal Technique. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc. 2012. Davis, Patricia Anne. “Intonation Patterns of Soviet Russian.” The Slavic and East European Journal 14:4, 1970: 484-488. De’Ath, Leslie. “Phonemics and Lyric Diction.” Journal of Singing 62.5, 2006: 549-561 ---. “Phonetic Transcription—What it Doesn’t Tell Us.” Journal of Singing 70.1, 2015: 59-74. Derwing, Bruce L., and Tom M. S. Priestly. Reading Rules for Russian: A Systemic Approach to Russian Spelling and Pronunciation. Columbus: Slavica Publishers. 1980. Dimitrova, Snezhina. “Bulgarian Speech Rhythm: Stress-Timed or Syllable-Timed?” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 27, 1998: 27-33. Doscher, Barbara M. The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice, 2nd ed. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1994. Evans, Sarah, Nick Neave and Delia Wakelin. 2005. “Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: An evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice.” Biological Psychology 72, 2006: 160-163. Ezust, Emily. The LiederNet Archive (formerly the Lied, Art Song, and Choral Texts Archive) www.lieder.net Foer, Joshua. “Utopian for Beginners: An amateur linguist loses control of the language he invented.” The New Yorker. 2012. García, Manuel. École de García: Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, 11e édition. Paris: Heugel et Cie., 1904. Garey, Amy. “The Russian Male Macho Register and Performances of Masculinity.” MA thesis. UCLA, 2012.

140

Gick, Bryan, Ian Wilson, Karsten Koch, and Clare Cook. “Language-Specific Articulatory Settings: Evidence for Inter-Utterance Rest Position.” Phonetica 61, 2004: 220-233. Godin, Celeste and Ian Howell. “Setting Vowels in the Female Secondo Passaggio: With Examples in Four Languages from Works by Larsen, Rossini, Brahms and Mussorgsky.” Poster presented at the New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA. 2015. Grayson, Craig M. “Russian Lyric Diction: A Practical Guide with Introduction and Annotations and a Bibliography with Annotations on Selected Sources.” DMA dissertation. University of Washington, 2012. Griffiths, Kenneth. Russian Diction for Singers and Coaches, 1st ed. Leipzig: Amazon Distribution. 2015. Grubb, Thomas. “Why Sing in French?” Journal of Singing 37.3, 1981: 21-22. Henrich, Nathalie. “Mirroring the voice from Garcia to the present day: some insights into singing voice registers.” Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology 31:1, 2006: 3-14. Hines, Jerome. Great Singers on Great Singing. New York: Limelight Editions, 1982. Hoch, Matthew. “The legacy of William Vennard and D. Ralph Appelman and their influence on singing voice pedagogy: reflections after 50 years (1967-2017).” Voice and Speech Review 11, no. 3, 2017: 308-313. Holland, Rachel J. “National Schools of Singing and Their Impact on Teaching Vocal Pedagogy and Literature.” 17th Annual Convention of the Global Awareness Society International. San Francisco, CA. May 2008. Honikman, Beatrice. “Articulatory Settings.” In D. Abercrombie. DB Fry, PAD MacCarthy, NC Scott, and JLM Trim eds. In Honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longman, 1964: 73-84. Howell, Ian. “Advanced Vocal Registration for Countertenors: A Lecture & Recital” Unpublished transcript presented at the New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA. 2015. International Phonetic Association. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association : A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Järvinen, Kati and Anne-Maria Laukkanen. “Vocal Loading in Speaking a Foreign Language” Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 67, 2015: 1-7. Johnson, Aaron M. and Gail B. Kempster. “Classification of the Classical Male Singing Voice Using Long-Term Average Spectrum.” Journal of Voice 25.5, 2011: 538-543. Jones, Daniel and Dennis Ward. The Phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969. Jones, Lawrence G. “The Vowels of English and Russian: An Acoustic Comparison.” WORD 9.4, 1953: 354-361. Kabalevsky, Dmitry. Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak, 2nd ed. Moscow: Muzgiz. 1961. Karna, Duane Richard, ed. The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2010.

141

Kedrova, Galina E., and Constantine Leo Borissoff. “The Concept of ‘Basis of Articulation’ in Russian in the First Half of the 20th Century.” Historiographia Linguistica 40.1/2, 2013: 151-197. Kloiber, Rudolf, Wulf Kunold and Robert Maschka. Handbuch der Oper, 12th ed. Munich: Bärenreiter, 2007. Kučera, Henry and George K. Monroe. A Comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech, and German. New York: American Elsevier, 1968. Lablache, Luigi. Lablache’s Complete Method of Singing. Boston: Oliver Ditson, 1850. Lablache, Luigi. A complete method of singing for the bass voice. Boston: Oliver Ditson, 1851. LaBouff, Kathryn. Singing and Communicating in English: A Singer’s Guide to English Diction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008. Ladefoged, Peter, and Sandra Ferrari Disner. Vowels and Consonants, Third edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Larsson, Hans and Stellan Hertegård. “Vocal Fold Dimensions in Professional Opera Singers as Measured by Means of Laser Triangulation.” Journal of Voice 22.6, 2007: 734-739. Leed, Richard L. “A Contrastive Analysis of Russian and English Intonation Contours.” The Slavic and East European Journal 9.1, 1965: 62-75. Leigh, Steven. “Testing an Approach to Teaching Italian Lyric Diction to Opera Singers: An Action Research Study.” Master’s thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 2016. Lehmann, Lilli. How To Sing. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1902. Manukyan, Kathleen. “The Russian Word in Song: Cultural and Linguistic Issues of Classical Singing in the Russian Language.” Doctoral dissertation. Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, 2011. Marzo, Eduardo, ed. The Art of Vocalization: Bass. Boston, MA: Oliver Ditson Company, 1906. McCoy, Scott. Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2012. McKinney, James C. The Diagnosis & Correction of Vocal Faults. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc., 1994. Mennen, Ineke, James M. Scobbie, Esther de Leeuw, Sonja Schaeffler, and Felix Schaeffler. “Measuring Language-Specific Phonetic Settings.” Second Language Research 26.1, 2008: 13-41. Mompeán-González, J. A. "Pedagogical tools for teaching articulatory setting." In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: Barcelona, pp. 1603-1606, 2003. Miller, Donald Gray. “Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice.” Voice Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen, 2000. ---. Resonance in Singing: Voice Building through Acoustic Feedback. Princeton, NJ: Inside View Press, 2008. Miller, Richard. The Structure of Singing: System and Art in Vocal Technique. New York: Schirmer Books, 1986.

142

---. National Schools of Singing: English, French, German and Italian Techniques of Singing Revisited. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997. ---. Solutions for Singers: Tools for Performers and Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. ---. Securing Baritone, Bass-Baritone and Bass Voices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mitchells, K. “Operatic Characters and Voice Type.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 97, 1970-71: 47-58. Moussorgsky [sic], Modest Petrovich. Selected Songs for Voice and Piano. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1994. Nava, Gaetano, edited by Henry Blower. Practical Method of Vocalization for Bass or Baritone. New York: G. Schirmer. 1899. Nedecky, Jason. French Diction for Singers. Toronto: BookPOD, University of Toronto Bookstore, 2011. Néron, Martin. “Coarticulation: Aspects and Effects on American English, German, and French Diction.” Journal of Singing 67.3, 2011: 313-325. Olin, Emily. Singing in Russian: A Guide to Language and Performance. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2012. Ophaug, Wencke. “How Singable is Finnish?” Journal of Singing 70.2, 2013: 193-208. Ord, Alan J. Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1994. Ord, Alan J. Songs for Beginning Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2002. Pacheco, Alberto José Vieira. “Angelica Catalani’s Voice According to a Method of Statistical Analysis.” Journal of Singing 69.5, 2013: 557-567. Panofka, Heinrich. The Art of Singing, 24 Vocalises, op. 81 (for alto, baritone or bass). Melville, NY: Belwin Mills, 1900. ---. The Art of Singing, 24 Progressive Vocalises, op. 85 (for all voices except bass). New York: Schirmer, 1900. Perry, Simon, “A Voice Unknown: Undercurrents in Mussorgsky’s Sunless.” 19th-Century Music 28.1, 2004: 15-49. Piatak, Jean and Regina Avrashov. Russian Songs and Arias: Phonetic Readings, Word-by-Word Translation, and a Concise Guide to Russian Diction. Dallas: Pst...Inc. 1991. Pike, K.L. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1945. Port, Robert F. and Adam P. Leary. “Against Formal Phonology.” Language 81.4, 2005: 927- 964. Pullum, Geoffrey K., and William A. Ladusaw. Phonetic Symbol Guide, second ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996. Reid, Cornelius. Bel Canto: Principles and Practices. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1950.

143

---. The Free Voice: A Guide to Natural Singing. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1965. ---. Voice: Psyche and Soma. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1975. ---. “Vocal Mechanics and the Cultivation of Listening Skills.” 2007. Roubeau, Bernard, Nathalie Henrich, and Michèle Castellengo. “Laryngeal Vibrator Mechanisms: The Notion of Vocal Register Revisited.” Journal of Voice 23.4, 2007: 425- 438. Richter, Laurence R. Tchaikovsky’s Complete Song Texts. Geneseo: Leyerle Publications. 1999. ---. Rachmaninov’s Complete Song Texts. 2000. ---. Mussorgsky’s Complete Song Texts. 2002. ---. Selected Nineteenth Century Russian Song Texts. 2005. ---. Shostakovich’s Complete Song Texts. 2007. ---. Prokofiev’s Complete Song Texts. 2008. Roers, Friederike, Dirk Mürbe, and Johan Sundberg. “Predicted Singers’ Vocal Fold Lengths and Voice Classification—A Study of X-Ray Morphological Measures.” Journal of Voice 23.4, 2007: 408-413. Rogers, Henry. The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Russ, Michael. “‘Be bored’: Reading a Mussorgsky Song.” 19th-Century Music 20.1, 1996: 27- 45. Sendich, Munir. “An Undergraduate Course in Transcriptional Phonetics of Russian: Phonetic Signs.” Russian Language Journal (Русский язык) 41.140, 1987: 1-45. Sheil, Richard F. A Singer's Manual of Foreign Language Dictions, Sixth ed. New York: YBK Publishers, 2012. Shupljakov, V., G. Fant, and A. Serpa-Leitao. “Acoustical Features of Hard and Soft Russian Consonants in Connected Speech: A Spectrographic Study.” The Department for Speech, Music and Hearing – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 9.4, 1968: 1-6. SingersBabel LLC. 2015. BabelSounds. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com Smirnova N., Chistikov P. “Statistics of Russian Monophones and Diphones.” SPECOM-2011 Proceedings. 14th International Conference on Speech and Computer. Kazan, Russia, 2011: 218-223. Smith, John, and Joe Wolfe. “Vowel-pitch Matching in Wagner’s Operas: Implications for Intelligibility and Ease of Singing.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125.5, 2009: EL196-EL201. Smith, W. Steven. The Naked Voice: A Wholistic Approach to Singing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Stark, James. Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

144

Stevens, Kenneth N. and Samuel Jay Keyser. “Primary Features and Their Enhancements in Consonants.” Language 65.1, 1989: 81-106. Story, Brad H. “Vowel and Consonant Contributions to Vocal Tract Shape.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126.2, 2009: 825-836. Story, Brad H. and Ingo R. Titze. “A Preliminary Study of Voice Quality Transformation Based on Modifications to the Neutral Vocal Tract Area Function.” Journal of Phonetics 30, 2002: 485-509. Sundberg, J. “Vocal Fold vibration Patterns and Phonatory Modes.” The Department for Speech, Music and Hearing – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 35.2-3, 1994: 69-80. Sundberg, J., I. Titze, and R. Scherer. “Phonatory Control in Male Singing: A Study of the Effects of Subglottal Pressure, Fundamental Frequency, and Mode of Phonation on the Voice Source.” Journal of Voice 7.1, 1993: 15-29. Sylvester, Richard. Tchaikovsky’s Complete Songs: A Companion with Texts and Translations. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2004. ---. Rachmaninoff’s Complete Songs: A Companion with Texts and Translations. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2014. Taruskin, Richard. On Russian Music. Berkely: University of California Press, 2009. Termini, Olga. “From a God to a Servant: The Bass Voice in Seventeenth-Century Venetian Opera.” Current Musicology 0.44, 1990: 38-60. Timberlake, Alan. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Titze, Ingo R. “Acoustic Interpretation of Resonant Voice.” Journal of Voice 15.4, 2001: 519- 528. ---. “Nonlinear source-filter coupling in phonation: Theory.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123.5, 2008: 2733-2749. Titze, Ingo, Lynn M. Maxfield and Megan C. Walker. “A Formant Range Profile for Singers.” Journal of Voice 31:3, 2016: 382.e9-382.e13. Vaccai, Nicola. Metodo pratico di canto italiano. (Edition Steingraber.) London: Bowerman & Co., 1832. Vennard, William. Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic, Revised Edition, Greatly Enlarged, 5th ed. N.C.: Carl Fischer, 1967. Walker James. “Mussorgsky’s ‘Sunless’ Cycle in Russian Criticism: Focus on Controversy.” The Musical Quarterly 67.3, 1981: 382-391. Walker, Nancy and Carla LeFevre. “Women Teaching Men: Taking the Mystery Out of Male Pedagogy.” Presentation .pdf prepared for the NATS National Conference, Boston MA, 2014. Whitefield, Bernard, ed. The Estelle Liebling Vocal Course for Baritone, Bass Baritone and Bass (Basso). London: Chappel & Co., Inc., 1956. Wolfe, Joe, Maëva Garnier, and John Smith. “Vocal Tract Resonances in Speech, Singing, and Playing Musical Instruments.” Human Frontier Science Program Journal 3.1, 2009: 6-23.

145

Witherspoon, Herbert. Singing: A Treatise for Teachers and Students. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1925. ---. Thirty-Six Lessons in Singing for Teacher and Student. Chicago: Miessner, 1930. Young, Robert W. "Terminology for Logarithmic Frequency Units." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 11.1, 1939: 134.

Appendix A: Fully Annotated Bibliography

This inquiry draws on three intersecting bodies of work: vocal literature resources, voice pedagogy resources, and linguistics resources. Annotations summarize each work listed here and explain which aspects of each entry are relevant to this paper. When an entry does not sit squarely within a single category it is double listed, with a reference to its full annotation in the category most relevant to this thesis.

A.1 Vocal literature resources

Ezust, Emily. The LiederNet Archive (formerly the Lied, Art Song, and Choral Texts Archive) www.lieder.net (accessed July 22, 2019)

This privately-funded web site is the de facto backbone of many online singers' translation resources. Since its inception in May 1995, Ezust’s ever-expanding site has catalogued 152,443 vocal pieces and 33,447 accompanying translations, covering 15,964 composers and 13,686 text authors, including many Russian texts. The LiederNet Archive site does not provide singers' IPA transcriptions yet. (I am partnering with Ezust and an IT colleague to develop an in-site application for this purpose). It is searchable using Latin characters and variant spellings, offering Russian texts in the original Cyrillic, often with corresponding English translations, and in several styles of transliteration. Users are invited to submit their translations/transliterations to broaden the site’s corpus. Submissions are subject to review and verification before being posted. This site is an indispensable resource for the singer who is engaged in creating original Russian IPA transcriptions and translations, but must still be used with caution because errors (particularly unmarked ⟨ё⟩s) can appear in the site’s Russian texts.

Keeton, Seth and Adriana Zabala. SongHelix. www.songhelix.com (accessed July 11, 2019)

SongHelix is free online art song database searchable by poet, date of composition, thematic links, keywords, utility, demographic, language, date of work, instrumental resources, and range.

146 147

A.1.1 General lyric diction resources

De’Ath, Leslie. “Phonemics and Lyric Diction.” Journal of Singing 62.5, 2006: 549-561

12-page article. The author states the purpose of this article as a discussion of some ideas around phonemics that may be unfamiliar to voice teachers, but later clarifies that it is to “make the musician aware of the nature of the discussions to be encountered in the literature on lyric diction, and their relationship to modern linguistics.” (p. 550.) In this regard it succeeds. De’Ath furnishes us with an explanation and rationale for the evolution of language science away from traditional phonology (which continues to serve lyric diction instruction well), to contemporary generative phonology. He demystifies jargon such as phone, complementary distribution, free variation, accommodation, biuniqueness, neutralization, features, and the nonlinear approach to phonological analysis. De’Ath advises that voice teachers acquire at least a passing knowledge of the phonological behavior of a broad spectrum of languages in an effort to help multinational students from a vantage point to which they can better relate. This text can serve to enlarge a teacher’s perspective in teaching Russian lyric diction.

---. “Phonetic Transcription—What it Doesn’t Tell Us.” Journal of Singing 70.1, 2015: 59-74.

15-page article. De’Ath discusses some of the limitations of the International Phonetic Alphabet. He points out that modern language science has evolved past the IPA’s limitations. He reviews coarticulations and other distinctive features that inform a generative approach to language science. De’Ath explores phonemic expressions in various languages, using /r/ as a case study, commenting that its notation is “driven by musical tradition, not one echoing the spoken language.” De’Ath finishes with a proposition in favour of using IPA prescriptively for lyric diction targets rather than descriptively for speech: “It might be argued that IPA transcription actually works better and less artificially as a prescription for, and mirror for, actual musical performances, than as a means of capturing the manifold intricacies of speech.” This article runs counter to claims that the IPA can fully address multilingual concerns, and offers a healthy balance to readers who might bear a limited perspective on lyric diction notation practices. (See also Port and Leary, 2005.)

148

Grubb, Thomas. “Why Sing in French?” Journal of Singing 37.3, 1981: 21-22.

2-page article. This panegyric to sung French as an optimally lyric language rests on the blanket assertions of its venerated author, e.g. “there is no such thing as a language unhealthy for the voice.” This short think piece is useful as a piece to contrast with sung Russian. Later similar papers rest on more convincing acoustic data. (See Ophaug, 2013.)

Karna, Duane Richard, ed. The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2010.

See entry for Dr. David M. Thomas’s Chapter 23 on sung Russian in § A.1.2.

LaBouff, Kathryn. Singing and Communicating in English: A Singer’s Guide to English Diction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2008.

326 pages, paperback. This well-known guide to the principles of English lyric diction is useful as a comparison to the pedagogy of other national lyric dictions, including Russian lyric diction manuals.

Leigh, Steven. “Testing an Approach to Teaching Italian Lyric Diction to Opera Singers: An Action Research Study.” Master’s thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 2016.

158 pages, .pdf format available online. This thoughtfully designed thesis carries out its self-descriptive title by chronicling an approach to Italian lyric diction instruction. Leigh’s approach seems adaptable to sung Russian instruction. Its relevance to this research lies in its best practices as a possible template for a future, next-step study.

Nedecky, Jason. French Diction for Singers. Toronto: BookPOD, University of Toronto Bookstore, 2011.

141 pages, paperback published on demand. Of special note is Nedecky’s list of 7000+ phonemically transcribed French proper names, a valuable reference resource unavailable elsewhere, notably Grubb’s 1979 classic resource Singing in French. Nedecky’s guide to French lyric diction is useful as a comparison resource between other national lyric dictions and Russian lyric diction manuals.

149

Néron, Martin. “Coarticulation: Aspects and Effects on American English, German, and French Diction.” Journal of Singing 67.3, 2011: 313-325.

13-page article. Néron focuses on the effects of adjacent consonants and vowels upon one another, and how these effects can vary from language to language. While Russian is not explicitly considered here, this dense article adds dimension to lyric diction study that can suffer from a compartmentalized approach based on the outdated paradigm of static lyric diction tokens. (See Port and Leary, 2005.)

Ophaug, Wencke. “How Singable is Finnish?” Journal of Singing 70.2, 2013: 193-208.

16-page article. Ophaug approaches her justification of Finnish as a lyric language by comparing it to Italian. She points to the number of Finnish vowels and consonants, and their distribution in the vowel space as one possible justification for Finnish as an optimally lyric language. She introduces acoustic data and observations for speech and singing, which is also germane to this thesis. Ophaug identifies elements for consideration: loss of intelligibility, resonance techniques, temporal differences between speech and singing, stressed and unstressed syllables in speech versus the rhythmic characteristics of musical text settings. These seem applicable to the assessment of any sung language, and allow variations on Ophaug’s argument to underpin parts of the rationale offered here for Russian as a lyric language. (See Grubb, 1981; Miller, 1997; Smirnova and Chistikov, 2011; Bozeman, 2013.)

Sheil, Richard F. A Singer's Manual of Foreign Language Dictions, Sixth ed. New York: YBK Publishers, 2012.

See entry for Christine McMasters’ Chapter 7 on sung Russian in § A.1.2.

SingersBabel LLC. 2015. BabelSounds. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com

Mobile application software. The BabelSounds app is a language-learning resource whose Russian transcriptions follow Anton Belov’s conventions (see Belov, 2004). Belov's choice of nine vowel symbols to notate the Russian lyric diction vowel inventory impacts the robustness of his transcriptions compared to other resources (see Grayson 2012). Belov’s choices for his consonant symbols may cause confusion. For example, [ç] is not interchangeable for [xʲ]. This app for phone or iPad can serve as a quick resource

150

with the understanding that Belov's notation requires attentive reinterpretation. (See Belov, 2004.)

A.1.2 Sung Russian resources

Baytukalov, Timur. easypronunciation.com

See entry in 2.3.

Belov, Anton. Libretti of Russian Operas, Volume I: Operas Based on the Poetry and Prose of Alexander Pushkin, with International Phonetic Alphabet Transcriptions and Word-for- word Translations Including a Guide to the IPA and Russian Lyric Diction. Geneseo: Leyerle Publications, 2004.

493 pages, hardcover. This imposing volume begins with an essay on Pushkin followed by a 25-page primer on Russian pronunciation. Belov fully transcribes and translates the libretti of six Russian operas, providing a much-needed presence in the body of Russian lyric diction print literature. Belov’s transcriptions use unorthodox symbology: tiny subscript crescents [ ̹ ] (used in conventional IPA to mean ‘more rounded’) as palatalization markers; [ʟ] for alveolar-l (a.k.a. ‘hard’-l [ɫ]), which may be confusing for students who have prior experience with Polish IPA transcriptions since [ʟ] and [ɫ] are not homophones; and a vertically-compacted [ɑ]-variant character to notate the Russian schwa (the IPA notates this vowel, the open-mid back unrounded vowel, as [ʌ]). Belov has chosen the open-o symbol [ɔ] for the Russian /o/-phoneme, a decision that disagrees with Grayson’s meticulous essay on the subject (“The Story of /o/: Is Russian /o/ open or closed?” Grayson, pp. 359-397). Belov’s work is not syllabized. His sparse implementation of akanye and ikanye vowel reduction practices reflects a conservative bias. Very little idiomatic reduction is shown beyond the notation of unstressed ⟨о⟩. Belov’s departures from the canonic IPA symbols necessitates attentive use and corroboration with other sources. LMV singers will find this volume indispensable for its transcriptions and translations of Boris Godunov and Eugene Onegin.

---, ed. Russian Romantic Art Song (Low Voice). Fayetteville: Classical Vocal Reprints, 2015.

240 pages, coil-bound paperback. This collection begins with a truncated version of the lyric diction guide from the previous entry followed by a short text on the rhythmic

151

structure of metrical poetry. The remainder is a curation of eighteen musical scores suitable for LMV. All song texts are translated and transcribed, with compact entries that include short composer biographies and historical contexts for each song. Belov persists in his unorthodox use of IPA, so attention is necessary in using his notation. This well- conceived collection broadens the array of accessible Russian vocal literature for non- Russian LMVs and their teachers and coaches. (See Belov 2004.)

Challis, Natalia. The Singer’s Rachmaninoff. New York: Pelion. 1989.

258 pages, hardcover. Currently out of print. This trailblazing volume was the first published set of modern English singers’ IPA transcriptions (not transliterations). Challis focuses squarely on Rachmaninoff, starting off with an overview of Russian pronunciation for singing that is foundational yet incomplete. Challis situates Rachmaninoff’s place in music history, and then moves on to the great value of this volume: Chapter 4, comprising 200 pages of IPA-style transcriptions encompassing Rachmaninoff’s entire song output. Challis’ transcriptions suffer from unorthodox notation. 1989 was the year that the International Phonetic Association banned the palatal hook symbols ([ƫ] [ᶁ], etc.) in favour of the superscript yod: ([tʲ] [dʲ], etc.). Challis incorrectly uses a cedilla [¸] as a diacritic to indicate palatalized consonants. Her transcription choices show that her sense of vowel reduction for singing is conservative. Challis also seems to overdo her interpretation of indicator letters. For example, on the front dust jacket the word ⟨гляжу⟩ is incorrectly transcribed as [ɡl̢jaˈʒu]. Despite the obvious problems with the choice of palatalization indicator and an arguably imprecise sung /a/-phoneme, she has redoubled the effect of the ⟨я⟩ to both soften the preceding consonant and insert a glide. This redoubling is commonplace in Challis’ work. A more accurate singing transcription for this word would be [ɡlʲɑ.ˈʒu]. Challis’ transcriptions should be confirmed by a reliable third-party resource or native coach, as later efforts by other scholars feature improvements on and departures from the renderings in this sought-after book. (See Sylvester, 2014).

Cox, Gary. Gary’s Guide to Russian Diction for Singers. Lexington: n.p. 2014.

25 unnumbered pages, paperback. This humble self-published primer organizes itself with an exposure to the Cyrillic alphabet first via the consonants and their linguistic manner of articulation, followed by a summary of the two sets of vowels. Pages 18-20

152

(three pages total) form Cox’s contribution to explaining the mechanics of Russian lyric diction. This document presents an oversimplification falling short of the demands placed on the student for even the simplest Russian art song.

Dailey, Sarah S. “Songs of the Mighty Five: A Guide for Teachers and Performers.” Doctoral dissertation. Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, 2013.

See entry in § A.1.3.

Grayson, Craig M. “Russian Lyric Diction: A Practical Guide with Introduction and Annotations and a Bibliography with Annotations on Selected Sources.” DMA dissertation. University of Washington, 2012.

See in-depth review of this text in § 4.9 and its subsections.

Griffiths, Kenneth. Russian Diction for Singers and Coaches, 1st ed. Leipzig: Amazon Distribution. 2015.

27 unnumbered pages, paperback. Ken Griffiths was my coach at Tanglewood in the summers of 1999 and 2001, and fostered my early exposure to sung Russian. In our personal correspondence about this text, Griffiths writes: "As you will see, it makes no attempt to compete with the more commercially-focused work of people like Anton Belov and Laurence Richter. I tried to be as concise as possible in attempting to cover all the essentials in understanding and applying the principles of Lyric Diction." Of note is Griffiths’ inclusion of the Russian Alphabet Song, a useful mnemonic construct for non- Russians (see Appendix E). Griffiths’ approach is structured with rules and rubrics to follow. He also includes instruction on “How to create your own IPA transcription” (p. 21), where 7 steps guide the student through that process. Other Russian lyric diction resources surpass Griffiths’ tract, in length, nuance, and depth of information. (See also Grayson, 2012; Cox 2014.)

Karna, Duane Richard, ed. The Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the Choral Rehearsal. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2010.

342 pages, hardcover. Marketed as a resource for choral conductors, this book covers the choral lyric diction practices of twenty-six languages including Hebrew, Japanese, Swahili, and Basque, each written by an authority on the language under discussion. Chapter 23 (pp. 231-244) on Russian diction was written by Dr. David M. Thomas, who

153

earned his DMA at the Rimsky-Korsakov Conservatoire in Saint Petersburg. Thomas’ use of the IPA symbol [ɕ], the voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative, will require an adjustment for singers who may be accustomed to seeing [ʃ] used for this purpose. Page 233 features an imprecise claim: “Russia’s phonetic rules have few exceptions. For the most part what you see is what you get.” This seems truer for Old Church Slavonic texts, where the practice of vowel reduction is ignored. But for secular Russian texts, many elements do complicate its spoken and sung realizations: for example, the regressive assimilation of voicing and palatalization, stress placement and any corresponding vowel reduction, deletion in complex consonant clusters, and other specific phonemic changes. The front/back chart on p. 234 may confuse some readers because it classifies velar-i [ɨ] as a “back” vowel, grouping it with [u]. Velar-i [ɨ] is actually a medial vowel, halfway between [i] and [u] on Jones’ vowel quadrilateral. Thomas’ oversimplified discussion of Russian vowel reduction is incongruous with Grayson’s practices. Thomas’ effort to teach palatalization is worth a close look, and it seems to align well with bel canto technique. His list of symbols that may be encountered in pre-1917 printed scores is incomplete without fita ⟨Ѳ ѳ⟩. This is a well-conceived text flawed by its incompleteness.

Manukyan, Kathleen. “The Russian Word in Song: Cultural and Linguistic Issues of Classical Singing in the Russian Language.” Doctoral dissertation. Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University, 2011.

226 pages, .pdf available via ProQuest. This dissertation is organized into two parts. It begins with an overview of cultural and artistic matters concerning Russian vocal art music and its evolving context, covering Diaghilev’s Saisons Russes through the adaptation of Russian literature to opera, continuing on to the emergence of a Russian national timbral aesthetic, and culminating in today’s culture of voice training and stage production in Russia. The second part is a fine Russian lyric diction guide spanning chapters 4-6 that slightly predates Grayson’s work. This is highly relevant to this research, and a welcome contextual piece that successfully communicates the competing impulses in the development of Russian art music. (See also Taruskin, 2009; Grayson, 2012.)

154

Olin, Emily. Singing in Russian: A Guide to Language and Performance. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2012.

235 pages, hardcover. Olin is a very experienced expert in the field of Russian lyric diction. She is a native speaker with over 30 years of Russian coaching experience. Perhaps her status as a native speaker presupposes that the reader shares her familiarity with the Cyrillic alphabet? This book begins with a primer on the history of the Cyrillic alphabet, and continues on to the mechanics of Russian pronunciation. Olin explains that Russian is spoken differently from the way that it is effectively sung, covering Russian vowels, consonants, and some grammar before delving into an approach to lyric diction that integrates musical features and interpretive issues. The book includes essays on pronunciation, style and interpretation by three other native speakers. It concludes with an overview of Russian opera arias and art song selections. Some directives will confuse the neophyte. Students new to Russian will experience a lack of familiarity with Olin’s repeated Cyrillic equivalences. She states, “The l sound in the English word love and the hard Russian л are the same” (p. 27), but this equivalence will depend highly on the idiolect of the speaker; and “The sound of the Russian т is so soft that it requires a special trick for the right pronunciation. The way to do this is to follow the soft Russian т with a tiny с (s) so that the sound is close to ts.” (p. 31) What Olin seems to be trying to communicate here is how to palatalize a ‘soft’ [t]. But adding an imperceptible [s] is not an effective strategy for authentic sung Russian [tʲ]. The chart on p. 6 is also riddled with errors. True to its subtitle, half of this book is about the history and mechanics of Russian lyric diction (Chapters 1-3) and some grammar (Chapter 4). The other half offers excursions into interpretive strategies (Chapter 5), essays by guest authors (Chapters 6-7) and an entire 60-page coda (Part II) that provides colour commentary, voice type repertoire recommendations and essays on literary inspirations. This book provides a broad-strokes approach to Russian vocal literature and its influences. As a lyric diction guide, this text should not be the unguided neophyte’s lone introduction to the subject.

Piatak, Jean and Regina Avrashov. Russian Songs and Arias: Phonetic Readings, Word-by-Word Translation, and a Concise Guide to Russian Diction. Dallas: Pst...Inc. 1991.

203 pages, paperback. Piatak and Avrashov’s requisite primer on Russian pronunciation is twenty pages long, followed by transcriptions of over 150 song texts set by thirteen

155

composers. Oddly, the prolific Cui is the only member of the Mighty Five not represented here. Transcriptions are presented in three lines only (Cyrillic/IPA/word-for-word), lacking the traditional Castell-style fourth line where poetic translations could clarify some of the resulting jumbled syntax. Although published after the IPA Kiel reforms of 1989, Piatak and Avrashov persist in the use of the banned palatal IPA hook symbols. Modern (post-1989) transcriptions replace these with superscript yods [ʲ] (see Challis, 1991). Piatak and Avrashov do not capture akanye practices (the two levels of unstressed o-reduction ([ɑ], then [ʌ]) that are part of a nuanced singer’s toolkit (see § 4.9.3). This may be a matter of taste, or a simplification meant for students. They syllabify their transcriptions with the use of a space between syllables, which is useful visually, but not ubiquitous in Russian lyric diction print resources. Other imprecisions common to many Russian IPA resources for singers remain. For example, not every ⟨ё⟩ is caught and transcribed correctly (e.g. p. 96 ⟨пронёсса⟩). With some cross-referencing these little glitches can be sorted. This is an important resource that should be part of the informed Russian coach’s library.

Richter, Laurence R. Tchaikovsky’s Complete Song Texts. Geneseo: Leyerle Publications. 1999. [146 pages, paperback]

---. Rachmaninov’s Complete Song Texts. 2000. [91 pages, paperback]

---. Mussorgsky’s Complete Song Texts. 2002. [133 pages, paperback]

---. Selected Nineteenth Century Russian Song Texts. 2005. [147 pages, paperback]

---. Shostakovich’s Complete Song Texts. 2007. [135 pages, paperback]

---. Prokofiev’s Complete Song Texts. 2008. [105 pages, paperback]

These six volumes cover 520 songs by 23 Russian composers. By sheer volume and scope, Richter’s contribution through this series is equal-to-none in the Russian lyric diction transcription corpus. Richter’s notation practices echo Belov’s by using tiny subscript crescents to indicate palatalization. It seems likely that Richter has inherited some symbology from Slavicist notation (e.g.: he uses ⟨ž⟩ for [ʒ] and ⟨š⟩ for [ʃ].) These can all be restored to their orthodox IPA values by the informed singer. One significant problem is Richter’s persistent use of the common symbol [y] to mean velar-i (the close central unrounded vowel), which is properly rendered in IPA as [ɨ]. The problem being,

156

[y] is already used in IPA to denote the close front rounded vowel, often graphed in German as the German mixed vowel ⟨ü⟩ or in French as ⟨u⟩, neither of which exists in sung Russian. An unguided IPA-trained singer could easily produce some curiously inauthentic Russian by interpreting Richter’s notation at face value. Richter identifies syllabic stress with an acute diacritic on the stressed vowel itself, which seems to me to be a more immediate and intuitive visual cue for sung Russian as opposed to the IPA standard of placing a stress mark at the onset of the stressed syllable. Richter’s work opts to leave out some nuance and some of the finer points of vowel reduction and assimilation that direct comparisons with other Russian lyric diction resources will illuminate. In all, these are excellent points of departure, but should not be relied on alone. (See Grayson, 2012.)

Sheil, Richard F. A Singer's Manual of Foreign Language Dictions, Sixth ed. New York: YBK Publishers, 2012.

181 pages, paperback. Christine McMasters wrote Sheil’s Chapter 7 (pp. 111-145) on Russian lyric diction. It has undergone many revisions since its first publication. Like other resources, the notation used here does not reflect the contemporary IPA use of superscript yods [ʲ] to indicate palatalization. In my personal correspondence with the author, McMasters says this was a limitation of the printer. This book will inform any thorough overview of available Russian lyric diction resources, especially a copy in its sixth edition or later. An added benefit is its inclusion in Sheil’s book covering the lyric dictions of French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Spanish, and Roman Church Latin. (See also Karna, 2010; Grayson, 2012.)

A.1.3 Interpretive analysis and genre guides

Boldrey, Richard. Guide to Operatic Roles & Arias. Redmond: Pst… Inc., 1994.

554 pages, paperback. Boldrey introduces a system of Americanized voice classification à la Kloiber, designed in part to orient the (non-German?) singer in an appropriate repertoire for their voice type. Boldrey offers four LMV categories: Bass-baritone, Comic Bass, Lyric Bass, and Dramatic Bass. Information is cross-referenced by Roles, Voice Categories to Roles, Arias, Voice Categories to Arias, and Operas to Roles. Ancillary sections include the classification of historical singers. This is a very useful resource for

157

emerging LMVs to locate themselves in the repertoire and find appropriate selections. Perhaps with modern innovation, an electronic database adaptation or app might gain an even wider usership? (See Kloiber et al., 2007.)

Dailey, Sarah S. “Songs of the Mighty Five: A Guide for Teachers and Performers.” Doctoral dissertation. Jacobs School of Music, Indiana University, 2013.

110 pages, .pdf available via ProQuest. This is a curation of eighty songs drawn from the collective work of the Mighty Five, divided into two groups: forty-five “Songs for Teaching” and thirty-five “Songs for Advanced Performers”. Dailey uses Latta’s system of musical topographies to label pedagogical objectives for each Song for Teaching. Dailey’s selections are indexed in her appendices, but one wonders a) if this print format has not been superseded by a database treatment instead? and b) if Arneson and Athey- Janka’s more holistically conceived rating system published a year later might not have yielded a more consistent approach to a quickly assimilable overview to this varied repertoire? The work is useful as colour commentary on a narrow slice of the Russian vocal repertoire; however, only fourteen of Dailey’s eighty selections seem potentially appropriate for LMVs in terms of text, tessitura and range. (See Arneson and Athey- Janka, 2014.)

Kloiber, Rudolf, Wulf Kunold and Robert Maschka. Handbuch der Oper, 12th ed. Munich: Bärenreiter, 2007.

929 pages, paperback. This German-language resource is the de facto authority on German fach designations as they apply to classical opera singers. A corpus of selected operas is organized alphabetically by composer; predefined voice classifications follow individual character names. Appendices at the back consolidate these correspondences into a list of characters by fach, and a list of works by composer. Lesser-known and lesser-performed works do not appear. The four possible LMV categories given here are Charakterbariton, Spielbaß (Baßbuffo), Schwerer Spielbaß (Schwerer Baßbuffo), and Seriöser Baß. The German text will pose a language barrier for those without at least a rudimentary knowledge of German. (See Boldrey, 1994 for a contrasting classification system.)

158

See entry in § A.1.2.

Mitchells, K. “Operatic Characters and Voice Type.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 97, 1970-71: 47-58.

12-page essay. This dated presentation paper contains some interesting LMV-centric observations about how opera employs contrasting archetypes expressed through voice type. (See Termini, 1990.)

Perry, Simon, “A Voice Unknown: Undercurrents in Mussorgsky’s Sunless.” 19th-Century Music, 28.1, 2004: 15-49.

35-page article. Perry offers a highly structured musicological exploration of Musorgsky’s song cycle with harmonic, poetic, and sociological analyses, focusing on songs 1, 2, 3, and 6 of 6 in detail. (See Walker, 1981; Russ, 1996.)

Russ, Michael. “‘Be bored’: Reading a Mussorgsky Song.” 19th-Century Music 20.1, 1996: 27- 45.

19-page article. This is a detailed look at song 4 from Musorgsky’s Sunless. Russ offers in-depth textual and harmonic analyses, along with intersecting biographical data from the composer. (See Walker, 1981; Perry, 2004.)

Sylvester, Richard. Tchaikovsky’s Complete Songs: A Companion with Texts and Translations. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2004. [349 pages, paperback.]

---. Rachmaninoff’s Complete Songs: A Companion with Texts and Translations. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 2014. [302 pages, hardcover.]

Sylvester’s two authoritative books offer transliterations according to the simplified Library of Congress system instead of IPA transcriptions. That means they can serve as pronunciation gestures only, not as reliable guides for convincing lyric diction performance. Perhaps the greatest value of these books is in their scholarly distillation and colour commentary of the circumstances, trends, inspirations, and traditions around the song texts and their settings by the composer, animated by the author’s obvious great

159

affection for Russian vocal literature. Sylvester writes not only from a place of deep research and restraint in regards to value judgments about the material, but also with great generosity in terms of detail and context, with a completeness that is rivalled in the literature on Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky perhaps only by Taruskin. Despite the absence of workable IPA transcriptions, both of these books are important secondary resources for singers and scholars approaching this rewarding vocal repertoire, and assets to any serious scholar of Russian vocal literature. (See also Taruskin, 2009.)

Taruskin, Richard. On Russian Music. Berkely: University of California Press, 2009.

407 pages, paperback. Taruskin assembles thirty-six articles and essays on Russian music that have been previously published elsewhere in periodicals, program books, CD booklets, and as festschrifts. In his Introduction, Taruskin justifies certain Latin-character orthographies for Russian composer names that differ from the traditional spellings used elsewhere, e.g. “…Mussorgsky (spelled Musorgsky in accordance with the Russian orthography; the English—or is it just American? —word ‘busing,’ once a battle cry in Boston, refutes the alleged spelling rule that mandated the double ‘s’).” (p. 1) This thesis adopts Taruskin’s defensible spelling conventions. His writing on the subject of Russian music is erudite and authoritative, providing a thoughtful, opinionated, and highly- detailed introduction to anyone wishing to orient themselves in the history, culture, and politics that intersect Russian art music.

Walker, James. “Mussorgsky’s ‘Sunless’ Cycle in Russian Criticism: Focus on Controversy.” The Musical Quarterly 67.3, 1981: 382-391.

10-page article. A dated survey of Musorgsky’s song cycle that contains some interesting biographical and social commentary. (See Russ, 1996; Perry, 2004.)

A.1.4 Scores

Belov, Anton, ed. Russian Romantic Art Song (Low Voice). Fayetteville: Classical Vocal Reprints, 2015.

See entry in § A.1.2.

160

Kabalevsky, Dmitry. Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak, 2nd ed. Moscow: Muzgiz. 1961.

38 numbered pages with front and back matter, paperback. This is an authorized reproduction generated in 2015 by Classical Vocal Reprints. This edition provides the source material for the Pacheco-inspired statistical analysis with IPA underlay of Kabalevsky’s song cycle Десять Сонетов Шекспира в Переводах С. Маршака (Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak, 1961) performed later in this thesis (see Chapter 6).

Moussorgsky [sic], Modest Petrovich. Selected Songs for Voice and Piano. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1994.

124 pages, paperback piano-vocal music score. Dover has reprinted this musical material from a 1960 edition published by the State Music Publishing House in Leningrad (A.N. Dmitriev, ed.). This updated printing adds original English text translations and Latin- character transliterations by editor Stanley Appelbaum reminiscent of Sylvester’s efforts. Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s texts contain some colloquial and dialectal forms which can be challenging for non-Russian speakers to interpret. A legend is supplied to further explain Appelbaum’s transliteration notation conventions. This edition provides the source material for the Pacheco-inspired statistical analysis and new IPA underlay of Musorgsky’s song cycle Без солнца (Sunless, 1874) performed later in this thesis. (See Sylvester 2004, 2014; Taruskin, 2009.)

Ord, Alan J. Songs for Beginning Bass Voice: With Annotated Guide to Works for Beginning Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 2002.

157 pages, hardcover. This volume houses fifteen annotated musical scores spanning English, French, German, Italian, and Russian. It features a simple annotated guide to fifteen more Russian songs, and a brief section with guidelines for choosing LMV repertoire, making it a useful and varied resource for beginner LMVs and their teachers.

161

A.2 Voice pedagogy resources

A.2.1 General singing instruction

Appelman, Dudley Ralph. The Science of Vocal Pedagogy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1967.

434 pages, hardcover. This is a singing technique manual intended for the college-level student or teacher or equivalent private studio. Appelman himself was an accomplished LMV (bass) who maintained an active career as a recitalist and oratorio soloist with major symphony orchestras. Appelman’s approach in this text is presented in two halves: Part I Theory (Chapters 1-5) and Part II Application (Chapters 6-11), including physiology and anatomy, theory of voice production, an exploration of the International Phonetic Alphabet, and the establishment of “an acoustic model of phonemic utterance.” In scope and feel, this work seems analogous to Miller’s The Structure of Singing (1986), but predates it, being published the same year as the expanded version of Vennard’s Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic (1967). Appelman’s is among the first voice pedagogy texts to advocate integrating IPA transcriptions into the weekly lesson. Relevant as an LMV-origin pedagogy resource, of particular interest are Chapter 4 on Laws That Govern the Vocal Sound, Chapter 6 on Phonetics, and Chapter 9 on Vowel Migration. Of special note is Chapter 10, “Kinesiologic Analysis of Speech Sounds in Singing” which aligns with this thesis’s discussion in Chapter 4 concerning how sung Russian influences the vocal tract. (See Vennard, 1967; Coffin, 1980; Miller, 1986; Hoch, 2017.)

Austin, Stephen F. Provenance. Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017.

354 pages, paperback. This book is a compendium of fifty-nine columns published 2004 to 2016 in the Journal of Singing. Entries span the historical provenance of Western thinking on matters of voice pedagogy. Proceeding topically, Austin discusses legato, articulations, register unification, acoustics, onsets, breath economy, and several extended pedagogue profiles (e.g. Bassini, Garcia, Klein, Lamperti, Root, Stockhausen, etc.), including their biographies and teaching philosophies. Each entry is meticulously endnoted with citations for further information. This book informs this thesis both as an access point to well-known and lesser-known writings, and to Austin’s observations on

162

the historical voice pedagogy literature that can apply to both LMVs and sung Russian. (See Coffin, 1989.)

Bataille, Charles Amable. Nouvelles recherches sur la phonation. Paris : Victor Masson et Fils., 1861.

104 pages plus six unnumbered pages of figures, hardcover. This French-language text is a voice treatise written by a successful LMV (bass) opera singer, presented to L’Académie des Sciences on 15 April 1861. Notably, it contains the first written scientific account of phonation. The text is presented in three parts: 1– Anatomy, 2 – Laryngoscope, and 3 – Physiology. While its contents apply to singers of any voice type, this book is particularly relevant to this thesis as an LMV-origin pedagogy resource. (See Lablache, 1851; Appelman, 1967; Vennard, 1967; Hines, 1982.)

Bozeman, Kenneth W. “Remapping the Open Throat (Gola Aperta)” Journal of Singing 72. 2, 2015: 183-197.

See entry in § A.2.3.

---. Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy: Motivating Acoustic Efficiency. Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017.

87 pages, paperback. This follow-up volume to 2013’s Practical Vocal Acoustics explores the studio application of the ideas introduced there. Bozeman revisits acoustic registration, asserting that “Teachers need to know how to stimulate vocal tract behaviors and tuning now known to be favorable.” (p. 1). His discussion of somatic remapping repeats the interesting diagram from p. 63 of Practical Vocal Acoustics (2013) where he compares two vowels, [ɑ] and [i]. Bozeman asserts that our vocal tracts are least obstructed as we sing on [i], aligning [i] with the Italian ideal of the gola aperta. This can seem counterintuitive to many singers who may feel that their [i] is less roomy in the throat, or who may incorrectly assume that there is greater expansion in the vocal tract while singing [ɑ]. Several other useful ideas are explored: the use of affect (not ‘effect’) to facilitate technical goals, the idea of vowel migration (or, passive modification) and an interesting comparison in Chapter 6 where Bozeman compares treble and non-treble voice training featuring an updated reprint of the Bass Passaggio Events chart (Fig. 9, p.

163

60). This book is a welcome extension of Bozeman’s earlier writings with portions particularly relevant to the LMV and the studio application of his pedagogical ideas.

Coffin, Berton. The Sounds of Singing. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960.

308 pages, paperback plus the “Chromatic Vowel Chart for Voice Building and Tone Placing.” This volume provides the pedagogical underpinning for both the Chromatic Vowel Chart that ships with it, and the subsequent Overtones of Bel Canto (1980). Chapter I summarizes the pedagogical approach of celebrated Russian national Paola Novikova, and Chapter XIII introduces sixteen vocalises for male voices described in

prose with instructions on how to position the Chromatic Vowel Resonance Chart to C♯1

or D♮1 for bass. But perhaps the most relevant to this thesis is Chapter XVII: Resonating Vowel-Pitch Studies, Male Voices (pp. 164-176). This forms a precursor to many of the concepts behind modern applied acoustic voice pedagogy by offering sets of related, highly structured vowel-pitch combinations as practical exercises. (See also Bozeman, 2013).

---. Historical Vocal Pedagogy Classics. Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 1989.

303 pages, paperback. The bulk of this useful posthumously published text comprises Coffin’s summary and review of eighteen voice pedagogy texts from a pantheon of historically acclaimed voice pedagogues (e.g.: Tosi, Garcia père et fils, Marchesi, Lamperti, de Reszke, Lehmann, etc.), some of which are currently out of print. Eleven appendices cover additional singing-related topics, including a very interesting essay on “Delle Sedie’s Modifications of the French A in the Modulated Voice of Singing,” which forms an excellent segue into Coffin’s larger corpus of vowel-related writings. Many passages from this broad-ranging book relate directly to the issues that intersect Russian lyric diction and/or LMV concerns. (See Cooke, 1921; Austin, 2017.)

Cooke, James Francis. Great Singers on the Art of Singing. Philadelphia: Theo. Presser Co., 1921.

473 pages, electronic format downloadable at www.gutenberg.org. Cooke presents 27 first-person essays about singing technique enhanced with career anecdotes by famous opera singers. Chapters are arranged alphabetically by singer, with entries by such luminaries as Enrico Caruso, Geraldine Farrar, Mary Garden, and Dame Nellie Melba.

164

This 1921 book predates modern vocology, and some of the technical advice proffered by the contributors is contrary to what we now know about how the voice works. Nevertheless, their empirical observations have value even if they may not stand up to modern science because each of these writers was an established singer: it makes sense to examine their explanations of how they achieved their marketable sounds. Many of these singers can trace their vocal lineage back to great teachers of bel canto technique, offering the scales and vocalises that were passed down to them as students. This means valuable insight into how voices were being trained at the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century. The sole LMV (bass) contributor is Henri Scott. Pedagogy applied to the development of successful low male voices as shown in this book is especially pertinent to this thesis. (See also Hines, 1982.)

Davids, Julia and Stephen LaTour. Vocal Technique. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc. 2012.

295 pages, paperback. This voice pedagogy text straddles the worlds of choral and solo singing. Of special note is Chapter 4 on Resonance, which contains a straightforward introduction to our current model of harmonics and vocal tract resonances. Davids and LaTour helpfully include practical vocalises designed to implement new technical concepts as they are explained. Chapter 9 covers the ranges of various voice types along with a discussion on the classification and misclassification of singers. It finishes with practical strategies for range expansion. This is a well-rounded text applicable to any singing student, including LMVs.

Doscher, Barbara M. The Functional Unity of the Singing Voice, 2nd ed. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1994.

331 pages, hardcover. This text first published in 1988 is one of the touchstones of modern voice pedagogy. Doscher’s systematic overview of the voice deals segmentally with respiration, laryngeal anatomy, phonation, posture, acoustics, and registration. In the final chapter Doscher links these elements by profiling their functional unity. Two important appendices concerning voice use and hygiene may well have appeared as chapters in their own right. LMV morphology receives two lines on p. 104: “In contrast, basses and low baritones often have large and rather long necks. When they sound their lowest notes, their lips generally are pursed and projected (long, narrow aperture),” and Doscher later (p. 175) advocates thoughtful registration practices: “For both males and

165

females, singing with too much heavy mechanism in too high a range can cause vocal fatigue and measurably shorten the life of a voice.” A brief section (pp. 195-198) discusses voice classification and its anatomical correlation that features some LMV- relevant text.

García, Manuel. École de García: Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, 11e édition. Paris: Heugel et Cie., 1904.

106 pages, .pdf format sourced from imslp.org. This vocal treatise was originally published in 1840, the same year as Garcia submitted his Mémoire sur la voix humaine présenté à l'Académie des Sciences. Following its preamble (wherein Garcia self- identifies as the inventor of the laryngoscope, a disputable claim based on our current research), École is divided into two parts. Première Partie de la Vocalisation is a primer subdivided into nine chapters which address the vocal apparatus, vocal registers, the formation of sounds, classical voice classification, qualities of vocal emissions, an explanation of the purpose of vocalises and agility exercises, and some advice on how to practice. The last portion of Part I, Chapter IX, is its largest: roughly 30 pages of progressively more challenging scales, vocalizes, ornaments, and articulations. Deuxième Partie de la Parole Unie à la Musique introduces text to the study of the voice. Garcia covers vowels and consonants, the correspondence between music and prosody, and the rhythmic placement of text underlays. Musical phrasing, ornaments, expression and style are covered. It is a worthy historical must-read for the voice professional, perhaps chiefly as a primary source for Garcia’s explanation of ‘coup de la glotte’ (see p. 11). The single LMV-specific passage in École de Garcia occurs on page 8, where Garcia admits that even in his day, basses had been supplanted by baritones as the lowest voices onstage.

Hines, Jerome. Great Singers on Great Singing. New York: Limelight Editions, 1982.

356 pages, paperback. Conceived similarly to Cooke’s book as a series of personal observations on singing technique made by famous opera singers, the renowned American bass Hines positions himself as interviewer, yet still makes his own presence in the book known, revealing some of his own personality and opinions on vocal technique. Hines augments with interviews of a member of the Metropolitan Opera Chorus turned music critic and two medical professionals: an Ear, Nose, and Throat specialist and a Speech Language Pathologist. Of particular interest is the interview with Leo P.

166

Reckford, M.D., which gives an informative snapshot of the state of nascent vocology in the early 1980s. While the interviewees may contradict one another at times, some common thoughts emerge on breathing, placement and the recurring classical ideal of the open throat. The generation of singers interviewed here is closer to present-day opera stars, including chapters dedicated to Placido Domingo, Sherrill Milnes, Luciano Pavarotti, Beverly Sills, Joan Sutherland, Paul Plishka and a handful of celebrated baritones. This book is useful for the anecdotes of successful singers on how they thought they created their sounds. (See also Cooke, 1921.)

Lehmann, Lilli. How To Sing. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1902.

259 pages, electronic copy available via http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19116 Translated from the original German, this book forms part of the legacy of one of the greatest Wagnerian singers of her day. Lehmann was an accomplished singer and pedagogue whose pupils included Geraldine Farrar (who appears as an interviewee in Cooke’s 1921 book). Lehmann’s purpose here is to set down a systematic account of sensory-based singing, an ambitious undertaking that predates modern vocology. She advocates her famous Great Scale — a measured, sustained stepwise execution of the ascending and descending two-octave major scale — and addresses worthy topics like breathing, articulation, agility, posture, expressivity and interpretation. She concludes with a very practical home remedy for catarrh (rhinitis) and hoarseness. Despite its unreliability by today’s evidence-based standards, this fascinating historical read is accompanied by visually compelling and fastidiously drawn plates that illustrate the author’s experience of pallesthesia. Other illustrations provide a laudable attempt to associate anatomy with vocal production. An interesting LMV intersection is that Lehmann’s mother was a soprano whose teacher, the bass Föppel, imparted a technique that remained serviceable into her late seventies. (See Cooke, 1921.)

McCoy, Scott. Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2012.

181 pages, paperback. McCoy’s text is currently the most widely adopted college and university voice pedagogy textbook in North America. Twelve chapters with two appendices deal with qualitative listening, acoustics, breathing, phonation, vocal health and wellness, and registration. It was arguably the state-of-the-art general reference for 2012.

167

McKinney, James C. The Diagnosis & Correction of Vocal Faults. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc., 1994.

213 pages, paperback with accompanying CD. McKinney’s manual for teachers of singing and choir directors is part of the voice pedagogy canon. McKinney transmits his understanding of the mechanics of the singing voice through eleven chapters that explore critical listening, the diagnostic process, and how to identify and classify vocal challenges. A useful index facilitates finding topically-related passages. Some passages (e.g. Chapter 7) are especially applicable to LMV concerns, in addition to much advice that remains relevant today. However, information in McKinney’s text may reflect its age, and should be cross-referenced with current resources. (See also Vennard, 1967; Doscher, 1988; Miller, 1986.)

Miller, Richard. The Structure of Singing: System and Art in Vocal Technique. New York: Schirmer Books, 1986.

372 pages, hardcover. This landmark 20th-century voice pedagogy resource was part of a wave of modern publications that aimed to bring voice pedagogy in line with research in voice science. Miller walks through a systematic approach to applying vocal technique that embraces the evidence-based acoustic and physiological aspects of the singing voice; it is an amazingly comprehensive volume for its time. Chapter 9: Unifying the Registers of Male Voices is highly relevant to the LMV, as are many other more widely-applicable passages in this seminal volume. Miller revisits LMV concerns a quarter century later in his book dedicated to this subject. (See also Miller, 2008.)

---. National Schools of Singing: English, French, German and Italian Techniques of Singing Revisited. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1997.

236 pages, paperback. This book is an expansion of a 1977 paper that examined national aesthetic, tonal goals, and technical approaches to classical singing in England, France, Germany, and Italy. Asian and Slavic schools of Western-style classical singing are briefly acknowledged, yet remain out-of-scope in this volume dedicated to European vocalism: “Although I did not separately pursue Eastern European vocalism at length, I became convinced that there were identifiable characteristics in traditional and regional vocal techniques indigenous to Eastern Europe. However, I did not feel it was appropriate

168

to include them without more extensive exposure to them.” (p. xiv) Miller’s informed comparisons ignite the imagination in terms of how the languages themselves may be affecting vocal aesthetics, and in turn, the technical variations sought to support them. Chapter Sixteen: Baritone and Bass Voices directly contrasts LMV aesthetics and technical approaches emergent from the four disparate titular countries, and is supremely relevant to this thesis.

---. Solutions for Singers: Tools for Performers and Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

286 pages, hardcover. The content of this book distills and consolidates over 1500 questions harvested from audience members of Miller’s public master classes and courses, presented in an easily assimilable question-and-answer format reminiscent of an advice column. Two chapters are especially relevant to this thesis: Chapter 4 on Resonance Balancing, which captures informative approaches to applied vocal acoustics and vowel modification; and Chapter 7 on Registration (see § 3.2.1), an ongoing concern for LMVs that is directly addressed by Miller in several sections in this chapter.

Reid, Cornelius. Bel Canto: Principles and Practices. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1950.

211 pages, paperback. This is the first of Reid’s six published books on vocal technique, and is the first member of a trilogy of books spanning twenty-five years. These eleven chapters expose the reader to Reid’s theory of registration that hinges on three elements: pitch, vowel, and intensity. Reid’s inclusion of LMVs is remarkable, with the assertion that “the basic principles of Bel Canto… are equally applicable and no less beneficial to all voices. Boschi and Montanagna, two great Handelian bassos, possessed a vocal facility comparable in every way to that of the lighter voices and matched their technical accomplishments in every detail.” (p. 11) In discussing registers and range, Reid publishes illustrations (Figures B, C, D, E, F, and G, pp. 86-91) that show the registral transition points of the various voice types. Reid stresses the importance of strengthening every register: “The difficulty in singing about E flat so universally experienced by basses and baritones, however, is directly attributable to the unfortunate neglect of the falsetto register.” (p. 95)

169

---. The Free Voice: A Guide to Natural Singing. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1965.

225 pages, paperback. Written fifteen years after its predecessor, this second in Reid’s trilogy of books spanning twenty-five years shows some refinement but much repetition of the ideas expressed in Bel Canto. This book concerns itself with the mechanics of singing as Reid sees them, with a new preoccupation with tonal goals (see p. 107 for an interesting flow chart on Tonal Textures and Their Sources). Appendix A, The Composition of Vocal Tone revisits and clarifies Reid’s thoughts on the triumvirate of pitch, intensity and vowel.

---. Voice: Psyche and Soma. New York: The Joseph Patelson Music House. 1975.

150 pages, paperback. Psyche and Soma is Reid’s final installment in his twenty-five- year trilogy. Perhaps the central tenet of this interesting book is the integration of interpretive gesture with the body’s action? Its thirteen chapters and four appendices cover anatomy, physiology, registration, vowel theory, functional exercises, breath control, vibrato, and functional studies. When Reid invokes the science of his day, he does it by citing Husson’s neurochronaxic theory, which has been disproven. (p. 105) Despite this misstep, on the following page Reid offers a useful sequence for technical restructuring: 1) registration, 2) laryngeal suspension, and 3) breathing, which will involve a technique for closing the glottis, another for assisting release, and integrating the breath with emotional affect. (p. 106)

---. “Vocal Mechanics and the Cultivation of Listening Skills.” 2007.

26-page essay, .pdf available at www.corneliusreid.com. Reid advocates a readjustment of the voice teacher’s listening focus away from conventional (aesthetic) listening, toward functional listening, in the interest of “associating the physical and acoustic events operative at the sound source with their tonal equivalents.” (p. 7) Reid claims that “mechanical imperfections are revealed through distortion of the vowel,” (p. 9) and that “to consider cavity adjustments to be the sole, or even primary, factor in determining the efficiency with which adjustments within the resonating system (oropharynx, laryngeal pharynx and trachea) define and resonate a variety of vowel qualities, attributes to them an importance they do not possess.” (p. 11) He warns against manipulative methods of

170

vocal production, invoking Garcia who concluded that most manipulative methods are inhibitory. As workable solutions, Reid points to the holistic nature of the vocal mechanism, and advocates prephonatory tuning, and cultivating a familiarity with the mechanics of registration. While Reid’s essay does not centre on the LMV, it is entirely germane to a deep understanding of how to teach LMV singers.

Smith, W. Steven. The Naked Voice: A Wholistic Approach to Singing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

208 pages, hardcover. This celebrated pedagogy book is organized into an introduction followed by three major headings. Part I: Basic Instincts offers Smith’s philosophy of a wholistic approach to singing (as opposed to a holistic one), pinpoints speaking as the original creative act, and addresses breathing and breath economy. Part II: The Inventions gives a structured regimen of six vocal exercises designed to optimize the singer’s resources (e.g. including achieving a chiaroscuro balance, vowel definition, flexibility and range extension). Part III: Where the Rubber Meets the Road applies Smith’s principles to repertoire. He discusses the act of continuing to sing well while building a career. Smith’s systematic approach provides a wealth of useful information for the developing and professional singer alike. His exercises are useful and practical. The book includes testimonials from singers of all voice types, with notable commentary by LMV students. Embedded references to online audio clips enhance the reading experience by providing demonstrations of the desired effects. This book has a novel organization and approach by comparison to historical voice pedagogy resources.

Stark, James. Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

325 pages, paperback. Stark curates a history of voice pedagogy from the early sixteenth century to the present. He situates the life and work of Manuel Garcia II as the touchstone for this book, and Garcia features prominently as a yardstick and object of constant comparison as new pedagogues are introduced and discussed. Stark covers historical practices and attitudes on onsets (coup de la glotte), chiaroscuro, registration, breath economy, vibrato, and affect in singing. Thirty pages form an appendix titled The Groningen Protocols, which chronicle laboratory measurements undergone by the author as the single informant in an effort to quantify some of the phenomena discussed in this

171

book. Several passing mentions in Stark’s text touch on Russian singing and LMV- specific concerns, for example p. xix: “Erna Brand-Seltei (1972) carried the designation of bel canto to Manuel Garcia II and his pupils, thus extending the term to the threshold of the twentieth century, and she even included Russian national opera under this label.” This book is a well-known, scrupulously-researched, and reliably-cited late 20th-century voice pedagogy resource.

Vaccai, Nicola. Metodo pratico di canto italiano. Edition Steingraber. London: Bowerman & Co., 1832.

35 pages, .pdf sourced from imslp.org. Published in several transpositions to accommodate different voice types, including bass. This particular edition offers Vaccai’s instruction in the original Italian, with side-by-side German and English translations. Lessons progress from basic Italian pronunciation to scales, interval exercises, syncopation, ornaments (roulades, appoggiaturas, grace notes, mordents and trills), portamento, and recitative, always in the context of text settings. This is a good source of information about the preparation and performance of early 19th-century opera.

Vennard, William. Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic, Revised Edition, Greatly Enlarged, 5th ed. N.C.: Carl Fischer, 1967.

275 pages, paperback. This well-cited mid-20th-century voice pedagogy resource is revised from a prior 1949 version. Broad in scope and dense with detail, it is one of the first voice pedagogy texts to include modern anatomical drawings and plates, conceptual illustrations, and screen captures of spectrographs. Chapter 7 on Articulation contains a quaint value judgment on Unworthy Texts (p. 181), and an interesting passage about The Relative Merits of the Languages, which can inform the consideration of sung Russian. (p. 183) (See Hoch, 2017.)

Witherspoon, Herbert. Singing: A Treatise for Teachers and Students. New York: G. Schirmer, Inc., 1925. [126 pages, hardcover]

---. Thirty-Six Lessons in Singing for Teacher and Student. Chicago: Miessner, 1930. [51 pages, paperback]

Witherspoon was an LMV (bass) who sang at the Metropolitan Opera (1908-1914) until his retirement from singing and subsequent teaching career. Neither of these two works is

172

LMV-specific. Both address singers of any voice type. Singing (1925) is an interesting visit to a bygone era which contains some dated assertions. At times the author’s opinions are presented as fact. Perhaps Witherspoon’s repeated assertion that the voice has a single register is a nod to his own singing experience as a bass functioning solely in modal/M1 register? Witherspoon’s much-simplified pedagogy as expressed in Singing seems to be what he identifies as correct breathing followed by what he identifies as correct pronunciation (pp. 81-82). His enthusiasm for phonetics is admirable yet not well- expressed or researched well enough for his time as a ready tool for voice pedagogy. These two books are relevant to this thesis for their perspectives as LMV-origin pedagogy resources.

A.2.2 LMV-relevant texts

Abt, Franz. Practical Singing Tutor for All Voices: Baritone or Bass, Op. 474. New York: G. Schirmer, 1893.

105 pages, paperback. This book of exercises and vocalises is specifically targeted for and marketed to the LMV singer. Section I covers the chromatic intervals. Section II progresses on to scales, leaps, fioritura, arpeggios, articulations and ornaments. Section III introduces solfège syllables and vocalises with musical mood and metronome markings. It offers a highly structured, incremental approach to skill-building for LMV.

Coffin, Berton. Singer’s Repertoire Part IV: Baritone and Bass, second edition. New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1960.

223 pages, hardcover. Its second edition saw The Singer’s Repertoire expanded and subdivided into four parts, with Part I: Coloratura, Lyric and Dramatic Soprano, Part II: Mezzo Soprano and Contralto, and Part III: Lyric and Dramatic Tenor completing this tetralogy. Individual selections in these four books are indexed by composer, title, vocal range, and publisher. Repertoire for bass voice begins here on p. 136ff, organized topically with a good selection of Russian repertoire (44 songs by 15 composers) indexed by popular anglicized titles on pp. 148-149. It is a dated but nonetheless valuable asset in the body of repertoire research literature for LMV, especially in terms of finding suitable Russian repertoire for the developing LMV singer. (See Ord, 1994; Arneson and Athey- Janka, 2014.)

173

Concone, Giuseppe. 40 lezioni, op. 17 (per basso o baritono). Milan: Ricordi, 1987.

105 pages, paperback. The forty vocalizes presented here are fully-formed musical miniatures complete with harmonic changes, rhythmic complexity, music epithets, tempo markings, articulations, ornaments and deliberate phrase markings. Each piece is progressively more difficult. It offers a well-structured, incremental approach to musically interpretive skill-building for LMV.

Evans, Sarah, Nick Neave and Delia Wakelin. 2005. “Relationships between vocal characteristics and body size and shape in human males: An evolutionary explanation for a deep male voice.” Biological Psychology 72, 2006: 160-163.

4-page article. Using a sample of fifty heterosexual males aged 18 to 68, this speech- based study found that a deep voice accurately suggests aspects of body size and shape in the human male. The anthropological genesis of this paper contextualizes its assertions about attracting female mates or competing with male rivals. While this article is an interesting and curious footnote on LMV morphology, it seems tangential to the focused study of the singing voice.

Lablache, Luigi. A complete method of singing for the bass voice. Boston: Oliver Ditson, 1851.

88 pages, hardcover. From the front matter subtitle, Lablache has developed an LMV- specific “analysis of the principles by which study should be regulated in forming and developing the voice in acquiring flexibility and in cultivating the taste, with illustrative examples, exercises and progressive studies in vocalization.” Despite the specificity of its title, this tutor also contains instruction for baritone, a voice type which is also called the “concordant” in this text. The text is subdivided into seven chapters: I. Of the Study of Singing; II. The Voice and Its Formation in General, with a brief discussion of voice types and laryngeal registers; III. Manner of Exercising the Voice, which touches on respiration, projection, and register unification; IV. Musical Sentiment, which advocates the messa di voce, and how to phrase; V. The Embellishments of Singing, the largest chapter with thirty-six pages on appoggiaturas, trills, runs, and scales; VI. On Taste, a fascinatingly practical exposition on the art of adorning a melody, where Lablache corresponds several variations on a basic melody with the emotional affects they are meant to portray; and VII. Of Accent, another correspondence between musical epithets

174

and their technical implications. Recitative, pronunciation for singing, and the adaptation of articulation to suit different performance venues are also addressed in this final chapter. It is full of musical examples and practical exercises for the bass voice. Extracts from this historical work could easily form part of good LMV’s instruction today. (See Nava, 1899; Miller 2008.)

Marzo, Eduardo, ed. The Art of Vocalization: Bass. Boston, MA: Oliver Ditson Company, 1906.

255 pages, .pdf sourced from imslp.org. This is a tripartite collection of one hundred graded and systematic vocalises for bass voice, harvested from the works of Alary, Aprile, Bordese, Bordogni, Brambilla, Concone, Crescentini, Lablache, Lamperti, Marchesi, Nava, Paer, Panofka, Panseron, Savinelli, Sieber, and others. Book I is forty vocalises (80 pages), Book II is thirty-six vocalises (95 pages), and Book III is twenty- four vocalises (80 pages). This collection is very relevant as a comparison piece to other LMV vocalise resources.

Miller, Richard. Securing Baritone, Bass-Baritone and Bass Voices. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

209 pages, hardcover. Miller explores the technique and repertoire meant to specifically strengthen and equip LMVs for healthy, expressive, and artistic singing. He applies his evidence-based understanding of the voice to address specific events linked to LMV physiology (chiaroscuro, cover, agility, resonance, laryngeal position, etc.). He integrates key LMV aesthetic concerns in Chapter 13: Developing an Individual Tonal Concept. Miller extracts his technical exercises specifically from targeted LMV repertoire selections and re-engineers a tailored technical approach to promote stability, flexibility and range in LMVs. The information Miller gives in this book is state-of-the-art for early 21st-century vocology. It forms the cornerstone of this research. (See Lablache, 1861; Nava, 1899.)

Nava, Gaetano, edited by Henry Blower. Practical Method of Vocalization for Bass or Baritone. New York: G. Schirmer. 1899.

90 pages, .pdf available online. Nava’s is one of the very few singing instruction texts dedicated to LMVs, a welcome addition to this literature review. His scant technical advice will appear quaint by modern standards. Brief instructional prose is followed by

175

121 musically notated exercises and vocalises of progressive difficulty. Nava further offers a coda of fifty cadenzas, one of the few sets of fully notated bass cadenzas seen in the literature (Lablache includes a small selection of cadenzas for bass as well). (See Lablache, 1861; Miller, 2008.)

Ord, Alan J. Songs for Bass Voice: An Annotated Guide to Works for Bass Voice. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1994.

218 pages, hardcover. Ord’s unique LMV-centric book answers his frustration as a young LMV at not being able to locate suitable repertoire. Here he catalogues over 2000 pieces for LMV with identifying information (composer, opus, title, cycle or edition) for each piece, and a subjective difficulty rating based on its musical and technical demands. Ord’s curation of the LMV repertoire in this book instantly broadens access to programming and teaching repertoire possibilities. It is therefore, a useful tool for LMVs and their teachers.

Panofka, Heinrich. The Art of Singing, 24 Vocalises, op. 81 (for alto, baritone or bass). Melville, NY: Belwin Mills, 1900.

85 pages, paperback. The twenty-four progressive vocalises in this collection are also published in editions for soprano, mezzo-soprano, or tenor. Therefore, it is unclear which version is a transposition, and which is the original. It seems possible that this collection may not have been specifically conceived for LMV instruction, and is a transposition of material whose genesis lies in pedagogical thought directed toward another voice type.

---. The Art of Singing, 24 Progressive Vocalises, op. 85 (for all voices except bass). New York: Schirmer, 1900.

24 pages, paperback. The curious marketing of this collection of vocalises “for all voices except bass” makes it an interesting footnote to this survey of LMV vocalise resources. The nature of the contents does not suggest any especially challenging material in terms of range (from its front matter subtitle “Within the Compass of One Octave and a Half”) or agility that would put it beyond the scope of the bass voice in a suitable transposition.

176

Roers, Friederike, Dirk Mürbe, and Johan Sundberg. “Predicted Singers’ Vocal Fold Lengths and Voice Classification—A Study of X-Ray Morphological Measures.” Journal of Voice 23.4, 2007: 408-413.

6-page article. X-rays of 132 voice professionals were used to investigate and predict the relation of different morphological measures to vocal fold length. Mean vocal fold lengths for basses in this study were 20.9mm. This study suggests a correlation between anatomical laryngeal differences and singers of differing voice classifications. (See Larsson and Hertegård, 2007.)

Termini, Olga. “From a God to a Servant: The Bass Voice in Seventeenth-Century Venetian Opera.” Current Musicology 0.44, 1990: 38-60.

23-page article. Termini traces the changing function of the bass voice from secondary characters and divinities in very early opera, to the central human potentates (kings, counselors, and military figures) of later works. She describes some of the factors that inform the arc of growing complexity in LMV parts over time, and acknowledges a shift away from the basso profundo aesthetic to a more baritonal range and approach. Her article serves as a historico-sociocultural context piece on the use and perception of the LMV on the lyric stage.

Walker, Nancy and Carla LeFevre. “Women Teaching Men: Taking the Mystery Out of Male Pedagogy.” Presentation .pdf prepared for the NATS National Conference, Boston MA, 2014.

6 unnumbered pages, pdf. Drs. Walker and LeFevre identify many relevant observations concerning male voice training including laryngeal registration, physical development, acoustics, and perceptual perspectives. They offer point-form practical strategies to promote many of the technical goals consistent with male-specific classical voice training. These include negotiating male registration, tongue/jaw release, promoting a low larynx, achieving a convergent resonator shape in the vocal tract, managing breath economy, and promoting postural alignment.

177

Whitefield, Bernard, ed. The Estelle Liebling Vocal Course for Baritone, Bass Baritone and Bass (Basso). London: Chappel & Co., Inc. 1956.

60 pages, paperback. This book marketed to LMVs is adapted from a volume conceived for mezzo-soprano and contralto, sharing virtually the same content, organizational structure, and pagination. Part I (The Vocal Mechanism) discusses breathing, phonation, resonance, and articulation. Part II (Vocal Studies) contains some voice-specific information. Part III (Diction) addresses five sung languages, but not Russian. This volume for LMV diverges in Part II to speak specifically about The Covered Tone, Sustained Tone Studies, and Chromatic Studies. It offers an interesting glimpse into alterations made to mainstream text for voice-type specific training.

A.2.3 Applied vocal acoustics texts

Bozeman, Kenneth W. “Registration Strategies for Training the Male ‘Passaggio’.” The Choral Journal 48.12, 2008: 59-72.

14-page article. This article is about teaching young or unschooled males to sing more successfully into their upper ranges. Bozeman discusses laryngeal registration and acoustic registration, uniting them under the heading of vocal acoustics. While Bozeman writes specifically about tenor registration events (p. 64), his schema can be adapted to the LMV. He offers several pedagogical vocalises to explore different registration negotiations. The chart of bass passaggio events on p. 66 is a precursor to its updated version in Bozeman’s first book. (See Bozeman, 2013.)

---. “The Role of the First Formant in Training the Male Singing Voice.” Journal of Singing 66.3, 2010: 291-297.

6-page article. This 2010 article predates the author’s two books, covering the roles of the first and second vocal tract resonances, options for stabilizing the length of the vocal tract and passive vowel modification. Despite the generic word ‘male’ in its title, this article seems tenor-centric (Bozeman himself is a tenor), featuring a diagram of lyric tenor passaggio events. LMVs will find more direct mentions in Bozeman’s later books, but the closing section Complementary Strategies for Improving Laryngeal Registration is equally valid for LMVs.

178

---. Practical Vocal Acoustics: Pedagogic Applications for Teachers and Singers. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2013.

139 pages, paperback. This slim book is rich with explanations of harmonics, vocal tract resonances, and their interactions as they apply to the singing voice. Bozeman discusses passaggio training and the pedagogic implications of tube acoustics, with an introduction to the non-linear source-filter model. He observes that audible acoustic registration events are primarily due to the changing relationship of the sung pitch and its predetermined set

of harmonics with the fR1 frequency of the vowel being sung. Since fR1 locations relate to specific vowels, so too are their corresponding turning pitches. Of special note is the

chart of acoustic turning pitches based on approximate fR1 locations per vowel per voice type on p. 125. An earlier portion of this chart on p. 47 profiles specific bass acoustic turning events per vowel. Bozeman finishes with an overview of instructional technology including the Madde voice synthesizer, VoceVista software, and spectrographs. This book may be the single most accessible print resource currently available (in 2019) on the topic of vocal acoustics for the singing voice.

Bozeman introduces the reader to a useful generalization regarding the shapes of the vocal tract as either convergent or divergent possibilities (see the second point below).

Four of Bozeman’s have special impact:

1) He explained the basics of vocal acoustics. Harmonics were defined, vocal tract resonances were defined, and it was explained that they interact when we sing. We can employ strategies to control their interactions in the interest of making good vocal art.

2) The vocal tract can be configured into a convergent resonator shape (p. 44) resembling an inverse megaphone, which is the desirable guiding principle for unamplified classical singing. We can also shape our vocal tracts into a divergent resonator shape (p. 22) resembling a megaphone. This configuration seems to be the guiding principle for popular singing styles like rock or music theatre.

3) Certain sung vowels require shapes of the vocal tract that embody the classical ideal of the open throat (e.g. [i]), while others may feel ‘open-throated’ yet actually narrow the vocal tract (e.g. [ɑ]). “The more convergently the [ɑ] can be conceived, the more the vocal tract will assist vibrator efficiency.” (p. 34).

179

4) One useful way to represent frequencies of the resonances of the vocal tract is to equate them with familiar musical notation instead of Hertz designations. Bozeman’s organization of the acoustic points of turning on the musical staff (pp. 47, 125, 126) connects fR1 and fR2 with more familiar musical pitch designations in a way that offers intuitive context to musicians trained in Western musical notation. This way of representing frequencies of the resonances of the vocal tract in traditional Western music notation forms the basis of the vocal scores produced in Appendices B and C.

The book is organized into sixteen chapters plus five appendices. The first five chapters discuss the basics of vocal acoustics: musical tone, what harmonics are and how they manifest in a harmonic series, modes of phonation, a brief history of the development of Western thought about resonance, how the vocal tract affects resonance and the consequences of vocal tract shape changes (also known as vowel modification) on tone, resonances of the vocal tract and the role they play in how we perceive the sound of the voice, interactions between harmonics and resonances of the vocal tract, the difference between close ([kloʊs], not [kloʊz]) and open timbre, resonance tuning strategies that apply to specific voices in certain pitch regions such as whoop and yell coupling, and adjusting F1 (fR1) up or down through active vowel modification.

Chapter 6 addresses female/treble voices. Chapter 7 discusses male passaggio training (as does an earlier paper on this topic, see Bozeman 2008 in § A.2.3) and includes a section on the acoustic events surrounding the male zona di passaggio (pp. 47-48). Chapter 8 discusses the acoustic phenomenon of ‘turning over’ and directly addresses LMVs: “The lower, heavier, or deeper the voice type, the more noticeable the turn will likely sound…” (p. 51) “The turn is also more obvious on open vowels, especially open back vowels such as /ɔ/ and /ɑ/.” This is relevant to Russian lyric diction because the fR1 value of the Russian schwa [ʌ] is functionally equivalent to that of [ɑ] (see Fig. 5.2 in § 5.3.4), the dominant phoneme in sung Russian.

180

Chapters 9 and 10 offer general principles on the pedagogical implications of intentionally lengthening or shortening the vocal tract, along with several specific acoustic strategies across the sung range. On p. 63 Bozeman offers a very interesting diagram showing the difference in open-throatedness between the vowels [ɑ] and [i]. This directly applies to Russian lyric diction since these are its two most frequently occurring phonemes and represent radical differences in vocal tract impedance.

Chapter 11 deals with belting, a popular-music practice that falls outside the classical ethos and outside the scope of this thesis. However, this discussion presents the opportunity to distinguish between the stylistic demand for a convergent (reverse- megaphone-shaped) vocal tract shape in classical singing versus a divergent (megaphone- shaped) one in popular styles like rock and music theatre.

Chapter 12 discusses the current array of contrasting terminology used to describe the previously explored material. Chapter 13 leads the reader through a series of practical vocalises to explore the strategies covered earlier. Bozeman follows this chapter with another on corollary strategies. The final two chapters revisit registration and offer an overview of the selected instructional technology that was available in 2013.

Bozeman’s work moves the discourse away from purely qualitative commentary on the voice in favour of its quantitative, objective, and physical (acoustic) properties.

---. “Remapping the Open Throat (Gola Aperta)” Journal of Singing 72. 2, 2015: 183-197.

5-page article. Bozeman’s discussion touches on anatomy, physiology, acoustics, and psychology in the pursuit of the ‘open throat’. He cites six ways to physically open it, with the rejoinder that anything outside of these efforts must be understood to be false kinaesthesia. Bozeman identifies noiseless inhalation as proof of a non-constricted airway. He notes that acoustically, “an open throat has a lower first formant.” (p. 184) This information is useful as we consider resonance tuning strategies. Bozeman returns to the idea of false kinaesthesia to offer body mapping as a solution, and advises the use of affect to open the throat: “If upon inhalation the student uses appropriate affects to stimulate a better physical posture, the throat can be opened in a more spontaneous manner.” In maintaining an open throat across the range, Bozeman asserts that “males should stay in fairly close vowel posture until the vowel being sung turns over—that is,

181

until the second harmonic surpasses the first formant, achieving close timbre—and a bit beyond.” (p. 186) This observation applies to LMV resonance tuning strategies.

---. Kinesthetic Voice Pedagogy: Motivating Acoustic Efficiency. Gahanna, OH: Inside View Press, 2017.

See entry in § 2.3.

---. “Vowel Migration and Modification” VoicePrints 16. 2, 2018: 32-38.

7-page article. Bozeman’s latest article builds on his previously published work on passive vowel modification with new support from modern acoustic research. He invokes Ian Howell’s work in psychoacoustics (specifically the phenomenon of absolute spectral

tone colour) to connect fR1 with the percept of an ‘under-vowel,’ and fR2 with the percept of an ‘over-vowel’. Bozeman’s phenomenological work is balanced with practical pedagogy advice as he includes some applicable student-facing teachable suggestions for

training in an awareness of fR1 and fR2 proportions in the studio. The reader is left wondering if this is the traditional chiaroscuro aesthetic clothed in 21st-century vocal acoustics terminology? Bozeman includes an interesting point on ‘micro-turnings’ on p.

33 that applies directly to LMV singing, as their source harmonics (fo, 2fo, 3fo, etc.) cross through the sung vowels’ first resonance peaks, resulting in the percept of an apparent acoustic register transition. These described ‘micro-turnings’ are highlighted in the analysis portion of this thesis in Chapter 7. (See Howell, 2016.)

Coffin, Berton. Overtones of Bel Canto: Phonetic Basis of Artistic Singing with 100 Chromatic Vowel-Chart Exercises. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1980.

236 pages, hardcover plus the Chromatic Vowel Chart for Voice Building and Tone Placing. Coffin espouses an intricate system of deliberate vowel modification based on his acoustic observations (see the Vowel Chart), designed to achieve maximum balance and resonance. While other resources may seem more streamlined by today’s standards, much of the care and structure evident in Overtones is worthy of closer examination by informed singers, especially Chapter 3 on The Male Voice. Of particular interest are LMV-specific passages such as the section on p. 114 regarding Low Notes for Basses.

182

Davids, Julia and Stephen LaTour. Vocal Technique. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc. 2012.

See entry in § A.2.1.

Godin, Celeste and Ian Howell. “Setting Vowels in the Female Secondo Passaggio: With Examples in Four Languages from Works by Larsen, Rossini, Brahms and Mussorgsky.” Poster presented at the New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA. 2015.

Unpublished folio, single large-format poster. This poster presentation examines how text settings from four composers from different national traditions (Italian, American, German, and Russian) exploit the melodic setting of vowels that intersect with the female zona di passaggio. Its subject matter (the female secondo passaggio) may seem irrelevant to a thesis on LMVs, but it is Godin and Howell’s extension to Pacheco’s method of statistical analysis that stands out for the purposes of this thesis. They combine pitch data

with fR1 data to arrive at quantitative evidence that these text settings are either optimal or suboptimal for Godin’s voice. Exposure to this document led directly to the adaptation of Pacheco’s method of statistical analysis in this thesis, where the suitability of Russian text settings to the vocal distribution of the LMV is examined. (See also Smith and Wolfe, 2009; Bozeman, 2013; Pacheco, 2013.)

Howell, Ian. “Advanced Vocal Registration for Countertenors: A Lecture & Recital” Unpublished transcript presented at the New England Conservatory of Music, Boston, MA. 2015.

In this transcript meant to discuss the nature of the countertenor voice and some countertenor-specific historical and functional training concepts, Howell shares important insights into vocal registration and an innovatively practical framework through which to discuss sung timbre. Of particular interest is Howell’s distinction between spoken and

sung vowels, which he designates as pure and sung, respectively. He employs the fR1 mapping juxtaposed against notated melodies seen in Appendices B and C.

---. “Parsing the Spectral Envelope: Toward a General Theory of Vocal Tone Color.” DMA Thesis, New England Conservatory of Music, 2016.

Howell proposes a conceptual framework and new visual models for understanding the elements of timbre present in the singing voice. He introduces several principles of singing voice perception (multiple missing fundamentals, local spectral coherence, weak

183

tone color bridging, and the obvious true fundamental) and coins a phenomenon called ‘absolute spectral tonal color’ (ASTC) to discuss the vowel-like percepts attached to individual source harmonics within certain frequency ranges. These percepts bear a meaningful similarity to several vowels. For example, human hearing interprets any simple sound (e.g. a sine wave, single harmonic of a complex tone, or even a narrowly notch filtered band of noise) vibrating at E5 (659.25 Hz) as expressing an [o]-like quality, written as |~o|. Lower frequencies sound closer to |~a|, higher frequencies sound closer to |~i|, regardless of the source. Howell’s work seems focused most clearly on the upper extension of the treble voice above the staff, but ASTC is perceptible in any sung vowel by any voice type. This perception is greatly facilitated with analysis software like VoceVista Video Pro, which Howell uses in several ancillary videos to illuminate his points. On a personal note, I am acknowledged in print for performing “a close, final read” of Howell’s thesis before its submission. (See Howell 2015; Bozeman 2018.)

McCoy, Scott. Your Voice: An Inside View, 2nd ed. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2012.

See entry in 2.2.1.

Miller, Donald Gray. “Registers in Singing: Empirical and Systematic Studies in the Theory of the Singing Voice.” Voice Wageningen: Ponsen & Looijen BV, Wageningen, 2000.

240 pages, .pdf downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database. This document predates Miller’s better-known Resonance in Singing (2008). It was designed to apply scientific principles from physiology, aerodynamics, and acoustics to classical singing technique. Its ten chapters deal systematically with terminology,

registration, the application of spectral analysis to the singing voice, fR1/nfo interactions, and several experiments exploring how intensity, pitch, and noise (non-periodic phonation) affect registration. Of special interest to the LMV researcher are sections on the Registers of the Male Singing Voice (pp. 56-60), the practical method for determining the frequencies of the resonances of the vocal tract in singing given in Chapter 3, and Chapter 7’s discussion of the male passaggio, cover, and extension to head voice. Although highly useful, it has been superseded by other, more recently published works in this area of study, including Miller’s own book published in 2008. (See D. Miller, 2008; Bozeman, 2013; Titze et al, 2016.)

184

---. Resonance in Singing: Voice Building through Acoustic Feedback. Princeton, NJ: Inside View Press, 2008.

130 pages, paperback with accompanying CD-ROM containing multimedia examples, VoceVista Pro voice analysis software, and a comprehensive primer for VoceVista. This book used to accompany the purchase of a VoceVista licence before Sygyt Software bought VoceVista in 2017. The text discusses resonance tuning strategies as they relate to the male and female voices. Integrated exercises are designed to be carried out using VoceVista. The Glossary is useful if dated: acoustic voice pedagogy was rapidly evolving at the time of its publication only a decade ago. Some naming conventions in this text have also been abandoned or modified since its publication. This text features refinements on aspects of Miller’s 2000 dissertation, with special attention to resonances of the vocal tract and the vowel space, and their relationship to acoustic voice pedagogy. This important text supports the shift from articulator-based voice pedagogy to acoustic voice pedagogy. (See Titze et al, 2015; Bozeman, 2013; Miller, 2000; Vennard, 1967.)

Smith, John, and Joe Wolfe. “Vowel-pitch Matching in Wagner’s Operas: Implications for Intelligibility and Ease of Singing.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125.5, 2009: EL196-EL201.

6-page article. The analysis of several Wagnerian soprano roles shows that Wagner composed his text settings to align well with soprano vocal acoustics. The quantitative analysis portion of this thesis was inspired in part by Smith and Wolfe’s line of inquiry, applied here to the corpus of Russian vocal music written for LMV. (See Bozeman, 2013; Pacheco, 2013; Godin and Howell. 2015.)

Titze, Ingo R. “Acoustic Interpretation of Resonant Voice.” Journal of Voice 15.4, 2001: 519- 528.

10-page article. This study suggests that resonance is likely to be a reinforcement between vocal fold vibration and supraglottal acoustic pressure: a nonlinear feedback phenomenon. An acoustic investigation of ‘resonant voice’ is performed by calculating vocal tract inertance when phonation threshold pressure is lowered by increasing air column inertance in the laryngeal vestibule. The consequences of oral opening are discussed: the voice functions best if the vocal tract is kept highly inertive, meaning that

185

the sung pitch should be slightly lower than the fR1 of the vowel being sung on that pitch when the mouth is open (for low vowels); the sung pitch should be closer to the second when vocalizing bocca chiusa (including humming, bilabial fricatives, and lip trills). The acoustic benefit of nasal consonants is discussed, as well as its disambiguation from the phenomenon of ‘twang’. Titze’s resonance tuning logic underpins this thesis’s statistical analysis of two Russian song cycles and the intersection of melodies with their text settings. (See Bozeman, 2013.)

---. “Nonlinear source-filter coupling in phonation: Theory.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123.5, 2008: 2733-2749.

17-page article. This paper discusses the integration of source and filter. Titze debunks claims that the filter cannot influence the source to produce new frequencies or change the overall level of the source. On the contrary, it does. “The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of source-filter interaction, both with simple analytical models and with a highly sophisticated computational model.” (p. 2733) He asserts that “Individual harmonics can be enhanced or suppressed by frequency- dependent reactances.” (p. 2747) Also, “The entire voice register terminology is based on observed phenomena related to this interaction.” (p. 2734) These issues relate directly to the acoustic aspects of this thesis’s research. An LMV-relevant aside is that male speech seems to obey the older linear theory model as long as the dominant source frequencies

lie well below fR1. (See Bozeman, 2013.)

---. “Some Consensus has been Reached on the Labeling of Harmonics, Formants, and Resonances.” Journal of Voice 30.2, 2016: 129.

1-page article. This is a one-page summary of Titze et al 2015. (See Titze et al 2015.)

Titze, Ingo R., Ronald J. Baken, Kenneth W. Bozeman, Svante Grandqvist, Nathalie Henrich, Christian T. Herbst, David M. Howard, Eric J. Hunter, Dean Kaelin, Raymond D. Kent, Jody Kreiman, Malte Kob, Anders Löfqvist, Scott McCoy, Donald G. Miller, Hubert Noé, Ronald C. Scherer, John R. Smith, Brad H. Story, Jan G. Švec, Sten Ternström, Joe Wolfe. “Toward a Consensus on Symbolic Notation of Harmonics, Resonances, and Formants in Vocalization.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137.5, 2015: 3005-3007.

186

3-page article. An interdisciplinary group of professional voice researchers raises the importance of using consistent symbolic representation of key variables in scholarly writing. This paper argues against the continued use of the symbol H for ‘harmonic’ in the literature, where H1, H2, H3, etc. would be better represented as multiples of the

frequency of oscillation, namely: fo, 2fo, 3fo, etc. It goes on to discuss nuances in the representation of formants, debating the merits and detractors of the symbols R and F and their implications, and finally settling on italicized f ‘formant frequency,’ followed by a

subscript R for ‘resonance’ plus an ordinal number, such as fR1, fR2, fR3, etc. This useful paper clarifies other symbolic conventions, but those that apply to harmonics and frequencies of the resonances of the vocal tract are the most relevant to this thesis and have, therefore, been adopted here. (See Titze 2016.)

Titze, Ingo, Lynn M. Maxfield and Megan C. Walker. “A Formant Range Profile for Singers.” Journal of Voice 31:3, 2016: 382.e9-382.e13.

5-page article. In addition to describing how to carry out a formant range profile, this article discusses measuring resonances of the vocal tract with consumer grade (at-home) instruments: “A primary objective of this study was to determine if singers with limited

access to laboratory instrumentation could personalize an F1–F2 vowel chart for the purpose of understanding voice timbre in singing styles.” (p. 382.e13) This establishes a precedent for the in-home acoustic experimentation carried out in this thesis (see § 6.3).

Vennard, William. Singing: The Mechanism and the Technic, Revised Edition, Greatly Enlarged, 5th ed. N.C.: Carl Fischer, 1967.

See entry in § 2.2.1.

Wolfe, Joe, Maëva Garnier, and John Smith. “Vocal Tract Resonances in Speech, Singing, and Playing Musical Instruments.” Human Frontier Science Program Journal 3.1, 2009: 6- 23.

17-page article. This is an overview that examines the structural similarities and functional differences between the vocal tract and wind instruments, more precisely how the acoustical resonances of the vocal tract are involved in singing and in the playing of musical wind instruments. It contains pertinent sections on the singers’ formant cluster, source-tract interactions, and resonance tuning in singing and speech that add dimension

187

to this thesis. Interestingly, this study seems to suggest that real-time feedback (presumably a spectrograph or some other similar visual technology) is significantly helpful in achieving more resonant singing and playing.

Winckel, Fritz. Music, Sound and Sensation: A Modern Exposition. Translated by Thomas Binkley. New York: Dover, 1967.

189 pages, paperback. This seminal text in the subdiscipline of psychoacoustics is centrally concerned with finding “the relationships in the laws of nature which are responsible for musical perception.” (p. vii) Winckel defines singing and disambiguates it from speech (p. 159). He discusses how the human brain receives and interprets musical structures including single and compound tones, intersecting his assertions with considerations for variables in both time and space. This book finishes with Chapter X entitled The Effect of Music on the Listener. It is valuable in its worthy attempt to ground philosophical ruminations in concrete physics.

A.2.4 Other singing voice research resources

Arneson, Christopher with Lauren Athey-Janka. Literature for Teaching: A Guide for Choosing Solo Vocal Repertoire from a Developmental Perspective. Delaware, OH: Inside View Press, 2014.

238 pages, paperback. This useful volume offers examples of teaching repertoire evaluated by a rating system with rubrics. These rubrics can be applied or adapted to any vocal literature not already listed in its broad catalogue. Suggested arias for beginning bass appear on pp. 198-199 (not p. 200 as shown in the TOC). Two paragraphs on p. 49 name LMV-specific pedagogical challenges and concerns.

Henrich, Nathalie. “Mirroring the voice from Garcia to the present day: some insights into singing voice registers.” Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology 31:1, 2006: 3-14.

Henrich offers a historical overview of the main physiological, acoustic, and perceptual views of singing voice registers from 1840 to 2006. Her bibliography alone is a valuable resource, listing a wide spectrum of fifty-plus English and French scholarly texts. Henrich says that controversy about vocal registers reflects their multiplicity of labels. She acknowledges that voice researchers have defined registers using two criteria, either

188

based on the laryngeal mechanism observed to produce a register, or based on the perception of the quality of sound produced by that register. She identifies laryngeal transition phenomena as a means of clarifying boundaries for registers. This article was published the year before her collaboration with Roubeau and Castellengo which introduced the four laryngeal mechanisms labeled M0-M3. (See Roubeau, Henrich, Castellengo 2007.)

Herbst, Christian T. and Jan G. Švec. “Adjustment of Glottal Configurations in Singing.” Journal of Singing 70, no. 3, 2014: 301-308.

7-page article. Herbst and Švec relate the laryngeal adjustments that inform vocal timbre and the perception of the singing registers. They conceptually subdivide the glottis into two parts, and describe the effects of two types of glottal adduction involving these sites. The membranous glottis (comprising the folds as they span from the anterior commissure to the vocal processes) controls the perception of the laryngeal ‘chest’ and ‘head’ (or, ‘falsetto’) registers. The cartilaginous glottis (the posterior portion of the glottis consisting of the arytenoid cartilages and their vocal processes) controls voice quality on a continuum from ‘breathy’ to ‘pressed’. Gradual adjustments along these two major axes increase the singer’s timbral variability for enhanced artistic expression. The progression in glottal adduction from the extremes of abducted falsetto through adducted chest means increasing duration of the closed phase, a decreasing spectral slope, and correspondingly stronger higher harmonics. This is relevant to classical LMV phonation as Herbst and Švec name trained classical male singers as operating primarily in what they designate as adducted chest phonation, the option with the greatest glottal closure in their proposed four-part model. “The main difference between the phonations in the two different registers (falsetto and chest) is seen in larger vertical phase differences of vocal fold vibration, a prevalence of mucosal waves, and the duration of the closed phase.” (See Bozeman 2013.)

Hoch, Matthew, “The legacy of William Vennard and D. Ralph Appelman and their influence on singing voice pedagogy: reflections after 50 years (1967-2017).” Voice and Speech Review 11, no. 3, 2017: 308-313.

5-page article. Hoch argues that two books published in 1967, Appelman’s The Science of Vocal Pedagogy: Theory and Application, and Vennard’s Singing: The Mechanism

189

and the Technic, ushered in a new, modern, fact-based era of voice pedagogy. The article reflects on Appelman’s and Vennard’s legacies, along with other later works by Coffin, McKinney, Miller, Doscher, Titze, and McCoy. (See Appelman, 1967; Vennard, 1967; Coffin, 1980; McKinney, 1982; Miller, 1986; Doscher, 1988; Titze, 1994, and McCoy 2004.)

Holland, Rachel J. “National Schools of Singing and Their Impact on Teaching Vocal Pedagogy and Literature.” 17th Annual Convention of the Global Awareness Society International. San Francisco, CA. May 2008.

13 unnumbered pages, public presentation notes. Holland discusses the national vocal aesthetics in Italy, Germany and France, and how their aesthetic predilections seem to have informed their respective schools of voice pedagogy. Of particular interest is the connection Holland draws between German poetry, the German desire for maximally contrasting tone colour, and their adoption of the techniques of tiefstellung, Deckung, and kopfstimme to achieve this goal. Holland invokes Miller’s National Schools of Singing (1997) and asserts that there is no aesthetic tonal preference in the United States because “North Americans have been able to select only the most functionally efficient elements from each national technique.” (p. 8) Perhaps a broader selection of corroborating resources could strengthen Holland’s rather spurious assertion. (See Miller, 1997.)

Johnson, Aaron M. and Gail B. Kempster. “Classification of the Classical Male Singing Voice Using Long-Term Average Spectrum.” Journal of Voice 25.5, 2011: 538-543.

6-page article. This article proposes Long-Term Average Spectrum (LTAS) as an objective method for classifying voice types. While this process did show some clear separation between basses and tenors, for example, no distinction in terms of subclassification into more specific fächer was carried out. The influence of sample length and phonetic and pitch content of the samples for analysis led to inconclusive results, limiting the wider application of this study.

Larsson, Hans and Stellan Hertegård. “Vocal Fold Dimensions in Professional Opera Singers as Measured by Means of Laser Triangulation.” Journal of Voice 22.6, 2007: 734-739.

6-page article. Researchers used lasers to measure vocal fold length in 27 professional opera singers, confirming that LMVs have significantly longer vocal folds than sopranos,

190

and that LMV vocal fold width is significantly larger compared with all other groups. The study points to vocal fold mass and vocal tract dimensions as better indicators of voice type than simple fold length itself. This recent study confirms what is known about LMV vocal fold morphology. (See Roers et al., 2007.)

Pacheco, Alberto José Vieira. “Angelica Catalani’s Voice According to a Method of Statistical Analysis.” Journal of Singing 69.5, 2013: 557-567.

11-page article. Pacheco’s work forensically describes and evaluates the art of singers who performed before the invention of phonographic recording. In the absence of sound samples of their work, Pacheco has turned to the scores of solo music written expressly for these singers, and to scores of music known to have been signature performance pieces for these artists. Pacheco suggests that these pieces would have catered to the singers’ optimal tessitura (or, the pitch region where a piece seems to ‘sit’ vocally), range, and “good and bad vocal regions.” (p. 557) His Graphic-Statistic Method makes it possible to “mathematically define concepts like extension, tessitura, and optimal regions of a voice.” (p. 557)

The Graphic-Statistic Method begins with simple arithmetic. Rhythmic values are operationalized (expressed as numeric values) based on the eighth note, which is assigned a value of 1. Correspondingly, a sixteenth note (half the duration of an eighth) has a value of 0.5. A quarter note (twice as long as an eighth note) has a value of 2, and so on (see Fig. 5.1 in § 5.2.2). These values are categorized by pitch, summed, and then the sums are graphed. Pacheco has devised several rules to govern his calculations. The rules that apply to the songs examined in this thesis are detailed in § 5.2.2.

The resulting graphs (imprecisely called ‘histograms’ by the author) represent the net phonation time of the singer throughout a composition.206. “Thus, what the graph really represents is the number of quavers [eighth notes] equivalent to the total duration of a particular note through a composition.” The graphs generated from this data collection make it easy to visualize the vocal range of a piece. Range spans from the lowest non-

206 Histograms are diagrams consisting of rectangles whose areas are proportional to the frequency of a variable and whose width equal the class interval. Pacheco’s visual representations and their adaptations given in this thesis are simple bar graphs without this extra embedded significance.

191

zero pitch shown on the graph to the highest. Identifying tessitura is more involved. The maximum value is located (the tallest bar on the graph) and its point of bisection is extended into a horizontal line which will intersect with other pitch bars. The interval defined by the extremes of those intersections is the tessitura. Pacheco warns that this definition of tessitura is not equivalent to the performer’s real tessitura. (p. 560) He also points out that the most common pitch of a tonal piece (therefore the tallest bar in these graphs) is often the dominant of the key. Pacheco infers that composers will select keys for singers based on this awareness of how the voice intersects with these musical materials. Selected graphs in this thesis superimpose the LMV zona di passaggio as a pink rectangle.

The Graphic Statistic Method allows Pacheco to extrapolate some qualitative aspects about the singer’s voice. He discusses how Angelica Catalani’s voice seemed “unable to sustain the highest notes, which are always produced within figures of short note lengths or staccato” (p. 561); showed “a voice that seems to avoid the lowest register” (p. 562); and “tended towards a greater balance between bottom and top registers” (p. 564) until she eventually “achieved a greater balance between registers.” (p. 564) Following suit, these kinds of vocally qualitative observations can also be made in regards to LMV- specific Russian vocal repertoire using the Graphic Statistic Method.

I have responded to Pacheco’s invitation (p. 567) by extending his method to consider the LMV acoustic turning and micro-turning events in two Russian song cycles, grounding this thesis in Pacheco’s method of quantitative analysis. (See also Godin and Howell 2015 in § 2.4.)

Roubeau, Bernard, Nathalie Henrich, and Michèle Castellengo. “Laryngeal Vibrator Mechanisms: The Notion of Vocal Register Revisited.” Journal of Voice 23.4, 2007: 425- 438.

13-page article. This study revisits the notion of vocal registers by focusing on EGG data taken at the laryngeal level. It introduces the concept of the laryngeal vibratory mechanism, and organizes the four modes of human phonation with the following labels: M0 is vocal fry, M1 has been classically referred to as ‘chest voice,’ M2 has been classically referred to as ‘head voice,’ and M3 has been called ‘whistle voice’ or flageolet. The transition points between M1 and M2 are described in detail. The paper

192

concludes by offering a definition of their new term (laryngeal vibratory mechanisms), where they draw an important distinction between the terms “mechanisms” and “registers”.

Sundberg, J. “Vocal Fold vibration Patterns and Phonatory Modes.” The Department for Speech, Music and Hearing – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 35.2-3, 1994: 69-80.

12-page article. This (n=1) study examines the physiological cause of different sung modes of phonation (pressed/normal/flow/breathy/whisper), drawing a link between their aural effect and the glottal adduction, subglottal pressure, loudness of phonation (amplitude of the vocal fold vibration), and pitch that are used to achieve them. The study concludes that while all of these factors are relevant, glottal efficiency seems to be the chief differentiator of the various types of phonation.

Sundberg, J., I. Titze, and R. Scherer. “Phonatory Control in Male Singing: A Study of the Effects of Subglottal Pressure, Fundamental Frequency, and Mode of Phonation on the Voice Source.” Journal of Voice 7.1, 1993: 15-29.

14-page article. This article investigates the mechanisms underlying variations in vocal loudness in singers. The article reports that pressed phonation reduces flow amplitude and increases the closed phase of phonation, reducing the ratio of peak flow to mean subglottal pressure. From a Reidian perspective, an inquiry into loudness is an inquiry into an aspect of registration. (See Reid, 1950, 1965, 1975.)

Titze, Ingo R. “A Framework for the Study of Vocal Registers.” Journal of Voice 2.3, 1988: 183- 194.

12-page article. Titze suggests that changes in quality between the registers result from a significant change in signal at the voice source. He postulates that the pulse/vocal fry to “chest” transition is a periodicity transition, while the primo and secondo passaggi are timbre transitions. Timbre registers are linked to subglottal resonance phenomena in the trachea with evidence in the form of aerodynamic formulae and pressure waveform illustrations. Involuntary timbre transitions can be located at specific fundamental frequencies. For example, both males and females experience a major involuntary timbre transition in the region of 300-350 Hz (D4- F4). This pitch region is directly related to the length of the trachea. Since tracheas can vary in length from sopranos to LMVs by ten to

193

twenty percent, this variance can mean two to three semitones adjustment, explaining the correspondingly lower involuntary timbre transition for LMVs. Titze proposes strategies for tuning out undesirable subglottal effects and register equalization based on supraglottal resonance tuning (vowel modification) and adjustments in glottal adduction.

Young, Robert W. "Terminology for Logarithmic Frequency Units." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 11.1, 1939: 134.

This article discusses the usefulness of a logarithmic frequency scale that uses the traditional tone names A through G paired with a subscript number for the octave of which they are a part. It begins at 16.35 Hz, which is reasonably equivalent to the lowest pitch audible to the average human ear. This tone is labelled C0. Octaves are numbered sequentially in ascending order, with the eight C's of the piano, for example, represented

as C1 to C8. Young also discusses useful subdivisions of the octave including the semitone and the cent.

A.3 Linguistics resources

Baytukalov, Timur. easypronunciation.com. Accessed 22 July, 2019.

This interactive web site provides on-demand IPA transcriptions for spoken Chinese, English, French, German (stress marks), Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Russian (stress marks), and Spanish. In my personal correspondence with the site’s creator, Timur Baytukalov writes: "…for stress position in Russian words I created my own database from the dictionary by Zaliznyak… but it took me a lot of time to adopt it to my needs - to find all homographs, recover the lost letter "ё", etc. I… create an algorithm that converts the text (with stressed vowels) into IPA. Believe me, it's a lot of rules."207 Because many unstressed Russian vowels (namely ⟨o⟩, ⟨a⟩, ⟨я⟩ and ⟨е⟩) are subject to reduction, their reduction can be determined only once the stressed vowel is known. Baytukalov's stress mark indicator reliably locates the stressed syllable in a Russian word, facilitating the transcription process. The IPA transcriber offers too much speech- level nuance for reliable sung Russian. For example, the transcription for a very simple

207 Personal correspondence via electronic mail dated June 12, 2016.

194

Russian word like ⟨хорошо⟩ (good) is produced by easypronunciation with correct speech values as /xərɐʂˈo/, whereas the functional Russian lyric diction rendering in this thesis would be /xʌ.rɑ.ˈʃo/. While the singer is best advised to invest in their own transcription skill-building, this site is an appreciated support in that process.

A.3.1 General linguistics texts

Corey, Christopher, John H. Esling and Scott R. Moisik, developers. IPA Phonetics (Version 1.0). University of Victoria. 2013. Retrieved from itunes.apple.com

Mobile application software. This interactive, intuitively designed shareware app features Jones’ vowel quadrilateral, a comprehensive consonant chart, and a sagittal diagram of the vocal tract notated with voice qualities and their corresponding places of articulation. Tapping on an IPA symbol produces a brief video clip of that phoneme modeled, whose speed can be altered for closer inspection. This app is a useful portable reference resource.

International Phonetic Association. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1999) 2014.

204 pages, hardcover. This handbook replaces 1949’s obsolete Principles of the International Phonetic Association. It gives a rationale for the one-symbol-to-one- phoneme IPA paradigm and applies this symbology to 29 languages in Part 2 titled “Illustrations of the IPA.” Russian is not one of these 20 example languages offered. However, Russian speech tokens are used elsewhere in the text to illustrate the application of palatalization and velarization markers. In Part I’s 35 pages, there is a discussion of broad and narrow transcription practices, and of phonological theory (especially newer generative principles that acknowledge the limitations of the IPA). This text is useful as a departure point for comparative analysis of contrasting languages, and as an authoritative resource for the orthodox application of IPA symbols. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a voting member of the International Phonetic Association.

195

Ladefoged, Peter, and Sandra Ferrari Disner. Vowels and Consonants, Third edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

211 pages, paperback. This book is positioned as a popular introduction to phonetics. It is supported by an accompanying web site that features audio examples relevant to the text under discussion. While the book’s focus is on speech production and centres mostly on the English phonemic inventory, it serves as an accessible and reliable reference to readers with modest training in linguistics.

Pullum, Geoffrey K., and William A. Ladusaw. Phonetic Symbol Guide, second ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996.

266 pages, paperback. This handy resource is a visual dictionary that collates the symbols used in many phonetic transcription systems. Users can look up familiar or unfamiliar phonetic symbols and diacritics, and learn about their meaning, provenance and use. This book includes many alternatives to the IPA symbol inventory including Americanist and Slavicist variants.

Rogers, Henry. The Sounds of Language: An Introduction to Phonetics. London and New York: Routledge, 2000.

350 pages, paperback. This book offers a structured approach to speech segments, suprasegmentals, acoustics, and spectral analysis, all applicable to this current research.

A.3.2 Texts concerning the basis of articulation

Borissoff, Constantine Leo. “Basis of Articulation and Articulatory Setting in Pronunciation Teaching: Focusing on English and Russian.” Masters diss., Birbeck College, University of London, 2011.

81 pages, .pdf available online at https://borissoff.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/basis-of- articulation-and-articulatory-setting_diss_final_print1.pdf. Borissoff discusses the contested concept known as the basis of articulation, informed by its relationship to the more widely used linguistics term articulatory settings. He identifies important distinctions between these two terms, justifying them with historical precedent and a robust survey of linguistics resources that span many countries and languages. While Borissoff writes from the perspective of a linguist interested in accent reduction for

196

pronunciation teaching, his work lends itself to this thesis in articulating a more informed understanding of how skilled singers can render convincing performances in an array of contrasting sung languages. Researchers of lyric diction for singing will find that this document adds invaluable dimension to their study. (See also Kedrova and Borissoff 2013 in § A.3.2.)

Foer, Joshua. “Utopian for Beginners: An amateur linguist loses control of the language he invented.” The New Yorker. 2012.

E-article, available online. This is an article about conlangs (a portmanteau for ‘constructed languages’) in which Foer uses the term phonoaesthetics to mean “...that hard-to-pin-down quality which gives a language its personality and makes even the most argumentative Italian sound operatic, the most romantic German sound angry, and Yankee English sound like a honking horn.” This term captures the idea of a language’s ‘feel’ as an identifiable feature or set of features. The term ‘basis of articulation’ is better understood in classical linguistics for discussions on some of the mechanistic elements that cooperate to achieve this ‘feel’. (See Honikman, 1964; Borissoff, 2011.)

Gick, Bryan, Ian Wilson, Karsten Koch, and Clare Cook. “Language-Specific Articulatory Settings: Evidence for Inter-Utterance Rest Position.” Phonetica 61, 2004: 220-233.

14-page article. This study reports on two experiments that used X-ray data from five English-speaking informants and five French-speaking informants (n=10). The first experiment showed that “speech rest position” (an expression that may be understood as the basis of articulation) is measurably different across languages at five observed locations in the vocal tract. The second experiment contrasts measurements taken from an inter-speech pause position with measurements taken while executing the phoneme /i/, which has been shown to display very little variability from language to language. The study also suggests that a language’s basis of articulation may manifest in some way in its grammar or its phonological inventory. These elements are relevant to this thesis on how sung Russian aligns with singing-optimized, resonant postures of the vocal tract to create the modulated singing voice.

197

Honikman, Beatrice. “Articulatory Settings.” In D. Abercrombie. DB Fry, PAD MacCarthy, NC Scott, and JLM Trim eds. In Honour of Daniel Jones. London: Longman, 1964: 73-84.

9-page chapter. Honikman’s influential essay fits oddly into this festschrift dedicated to Daniel Jones because Jones’s own work was completely divorced from its subject matter. Also noteworthy is Honikman’s lack of corroborating citations in this article: all endnotes are explanatory, not referential, perhaps conveying the impression that she is extemporizing on her considerable empirical experiences with French, English, Russian, German, Turkish, “Iranian” (one assumes Farsi?), and “Indian languages” (possibly Hindi?). By contrast, it seems that any scholar writing an English-language resource on articulatory settings since 1964 cites this seminal article. Honikman’s elucidation of tongue settings for various languages and the ‘set’ of their articulatory features is key to this thesis. She relates her own classroom anecdote of teaching “gears”: “Once the description of the setting had been given and the formula devised, it was found that a blanket term was required to cover all the details included in a formula; for want of a better, the term gear has been used quite successfully, students, at this stage, finding the expressions ‘English gear’, ‘French gear’, etc., readily intelligible. At the beginning of a practical class I would say, ‘Are you in English gear?’ — and as soon as I hear them dropping back to a foreign accent, I might remark, ‘You’re out of gear’, and it is rewarding to see how well they react and get back ‘into gear’ again.” This this article is worthy reading for anyone whose research involves the basis of articulation or performance in an acquired language. (See also Borissoff, 2011.)

47-page article. Published two years after Borissoff’s master’s thesis, this coauthored article traces the development of the concept of the basis of articulation in Russia over the first half of the 20th century. A ten-page exposition and history of the term basis of articulation in Germany precedes a discussion on its later Russian development. Aleksandr Tomson is credited as the Russian scholar who proposed that dialectal variations in vowel quality stem from individual differences in their articulatory bases. Tomson viewed articulations mainly as means of changing resonant properties of the

198

vocal tract. His speech-based observations lend themselves well to the classical singing objectives of this thesis. The paper closes with a cursory overview of Western efforts to confirm the existence of and well-defined parameters for the basis of articulation, with mentions of Honikman’s, Skalozub’s, and Gick et al.’s work, among others. The authors finish with the interesting assertion that while Western linguists’ interest in the basis of articulation has waned, for Russian linguists it has always been present and has remained a viable and attractive concept especially in their teaching of phonetics, dialectology, and language typology. (See Honikman, 1964; Gick et al., 2004; Mennen et al., 2008; Borissoff, 2011.)

Mennen, Ineke, James M. Scobbie, Esther de Leeuw, Sonja Schaeffler, and Felix Schaeffler. “Measuring Language-Specific Phonetic Settings.” Second Language Research 26.1, 2008: 13-41.

29-page article. This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of techniques that can be used to investigate articulatory settings such as flesh-point tracking, ultrasound tongue imaging and electropalatography (EPG), acoustic measures of pitch range, resonances of the vocal tract, and long-term average spectra (LTAS). The authors effectively describe the interconnectedness and partial interdependence of the vocal tract, where shifts in the vowel space often cause other changes to occur. (p. 29) There is some unexpected reference to the pharyngeal constriction observed by Story and Titze and its effects on the vocal tract. Perhaps contrary to lyric diction’s presumed homogeneous approach where familiar phonemes can be repurposed as new sung languages are acquired; the authors assert that “the segmental inventory and lexicon of different languages are (by definition) not the same,” (p. 33) but Mennen et al. disappointingly fall short of identifying the basis of articulation as the causative origin of these differences. (See Story and Titze, 2002; Borissoff, 2011; Johnson and Kempster, 2011.)

Mompeán-González, J. A. "Pedagogical tools for teaching articulatory setting." In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: Barcelona, pp. 1603-1606, 2003.

4-page article. Mompeán-Gonzalez reports on the effectiveness of different techniques of teaching articulatory settings to a group of seven native Spanish-speaking informants who were learning English. The study suggests that articulatory setting instruction may contribute to a positive change in L2 native speaker’s perception of the L2 learners, and

199

that articulatory setting training should become a part of pronunciation teaching. The seventeen techniques cited are adaptable to teaching Russian articulatory settings to non- native Russian singers. (See Honikman, 1964.)

Story, Brad H. and Ingo R. Titze. “A Preliminary Study of Voice Quality Transformation Based on Modifications to the Neutral Vocal Tract Area Function.” Journal of Phonetics 30, 2002: 485-509.

25-page article. This study explores the possibility that voice quality can be partially represented by the underlying shape of a speaker’s neutral vocal tract. This purpose seems to be adjacent to thought around the basis of articulation. Serendipitously, this paper also contains many useful statements about palatalization (pp. 496, 498, 500, 501, 503). For example, Story and Titze state that “Relative to the original neutral area function, the palatalization setting causes F1 to be shifted downward in frequency and F2 to be shifted upward; the formants above F2 are largely unaffected.” (pp. 496-498) This aspect of their paper adds context to § 5.1 of this thesis, which discusses how sung Russian influences the vocal tract.

A.3.3 Russian–specific resources

Bolla, Kálmán. A Conspectus of Russian Speech Sounds. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1981.

160 pages of text plus 79 pages of illustrations, .pdf available online at http://danefae.org/djvu/conspectus.pdf. Bolla delivers a unique conspectus of seventy- eight Russian phonemes and allophones based on his research spanning 1966-1972. While the sample size of a single informant ensures a certain consistency, it does raise questions of individual bias that a larger informant pool could mitigate. Despite its intentional focus on speech values (as opposed to versions of these vocal tract shapes used in resonant classical singing), this assembly of clear descriptions and annotated plates make this text an indispensable and unique visual aid in research involving specific Russian phonemes and their instantiations as lyric diction targets. This document

200

provides the source material from which I created the new illustrations in Fig. 4.3a-j in this thesis.

Bethin, Christina Y. “Stress and Tone in East Slavic Dialects.” Phonology 23:2, 2006: 125-156.

31-page article. Bethin surveys lexical stress and tone in Belarussian, Russian and Ukrainian, comparing them to West and South Slavic languages which do not feature similar lexical stress. Bethin observes that pretonic vowels are lengthened in some East Slavic dialects. She connects this affect with its possible consequences for intonation contours; namely the suggestion that pitch contours and vowel quality in Russian are affiliated through phrasal prosody inherited from the Old Muscovite dialect. This is highly nuanced speech-based research that may not immediately apply to sung Russian, but can serve as an attractive rationale to justify vowel lengthening for more resonant singing. Observations made here may also be relevant to dialectal text settings.

Comrie, Bernard and Gerald Stone. The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century, 2nd ed. New York: Clarendon Press. 1996.

385 pages, hardcover. This book may seem a bit of a curiosity here for the simple reason that most of the classical Russian vocal literature sets texts from the 19th Century or earlier. Comrie and Stone write about contemporary standard Russian (CSR), not the Old Muscovite (OM) dialect that forms the core of Russian lyric diction practice. Of course, their work will still be germane to the 20th-century texts set by Stravinsky, but the sung Russian texts used in this thesis come from a time when the pronunciation rules were less flexible, and the language operated slightly differently from the way it does today. Something especially interesting as a sidebar might be Comrie’s Chapter 6 on Sex, Gender and the Status of Women. Comrie and Stone’s book likely will not have an impact on functional pronunciation for lyric diction, but it is a nod to the evolution of a living language over time.

Davis, Patricia Anne. “Intonation Patterns of Soviet Russian.” The Slavic and East European Journal 14:4, 1970: 484-488.

4-page article. This article adds to the body of literature on intonation contours with revisions to Bryzgunova’s original system published in 1963. To paraphrase Davis, without knowledge of the proper intonation patterns, one remains ignorant of necessary

201

Russian prosodic delivery. The relevance to this thesis is that these intonation contours can inform the musical phrasing of Russian text settings. (See also Leed, 1965; Jones and Ward 1969.)

Derwing, Bruce L., and Tom M. S. Priestly. Reading Rules for Russian: A Systemic Approach to Russian Spelling and Pronunciation. Columbus: Slavica Publishers. 1980.

247 pages, paperback. This book can be considered a Canadian resource, as Derwing and Priestly were both on faculty at the University of Alberta when this book was published. This austerely-typeset manual is essentially a detailed handbook on Russian speech pronunciation, and has not been conceived or optimized to align with considerations for the lyric diction practice of sung Russian. That was not its purpose. Derwing and Priestly’s writing style is perfunctory but authoritative, factual, well-cited and direct. Even though the authors sought to organize its ambitious content with the student in mind, perhaps the reliable information given here is more accessible through the filter of Grayson’s 2012 dissertation, with this book functioning as a primary resource for verification, rather than as immersive reading.

Garey, Amy. The Russian Male Macho Register and Performances of Masculinity. MA thesis. UCLA, 2012.

56 pages, .pdf available via ProQuest. While its speech-centric focus means it is not immediately applicable to the highly prescribed practices of Russian lyric diction, Garey’s dissertation adds sociological context and nuance to an understanding of Russian intonation contours and Russian prosody as they apply to the archetypal LMV.

Jones, Daniel and Dennis Ward. The Phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1969.

308 pages, paperback. Posthumously completed by Ward, his and Daniel’s book was intended as a pronunciation support for spoken Russian, and as a resource for students of phonetics who wish to learn something about the phonetic system of spoken Russian. The book is organized in two parts, Phonetic Theory and Transcription (Chapters 1-9) and The Phonetics of Russian (Chapters 10-26). An important aspect of this book is its illustrated phoneme-by-phoneme approach, which contrasts selected Russian phonemes with their English counterparts when possible. Another is Chapter 25 on Russian

202

intonation. Co-author Daniel Jones was a life-long Slavophile, and this book is the second incarnation of this work. The first version of this material, The Pronunciation of Russian (1923) was published in partnership with another scholar, Trofimov, but it is no longer in print. Regardless, The Phonetics of Russian surpasses its predecessor in scope and content.

Jones, Lawrence G. “The Vowels of English and Russian: An Acoustic Comparison.” WORD 9.4, 1953: 354-361.

8-page article. Jones presents a midcentury acoustic comparison of the English and

Russian spoken vowel inventories looking at fR1, fR2, and fR3. The inclusion of fR3 was surprising since it is now customary and considered sufficient to identify most vowels by

fR1 and fR2 only. In discussing the spectrograms in his study, Jones notices that “the higher the first formant, the lower is the third formant,” (p. 355) and identifies the feature of compactness as “R3, which is the relation of the third to the first formant.” (pp. 356- 357) One wonders how the presence of the Singer’s Formant Cluster would complicate Jones’ observations? Jones concludes that “the greatest difference between the Russian and English vowel systems lies in the fact that English contains three vowels which must be classified as compact while Russian has only one that can be thus characterized,” and that unlike English, Russian employs no semivowels. (p. 361) This dated article may provide some groundwork into inquiries on the acoustic nature of sung Russian.

Kučera, Henry and George K. Monroe. A Comparative Quantitative Phonology of Russian, Czech, and German. New York: American Elsevier, 1968.

113 pages, hardcover. The excerpted Tables 4 (pp. 32-33) and 5 (p. 34) from this book give relative frequencies for all segmental phonemes in Russian expressed as a percentage, comparing their corresponding values with Czech and German. The information on the frequency of Russian phonemes given here has since been superseded by a 2011 paper using computers to analyze an exponentially larger corpus. (See Smirnova and Chistikov, 2011.)

203

Leed, Richard L. “A Contrastive Analysis of Russian and English Intonation Contours.” The Slavic and East European Journal 9.1, 1965: 62-75.

14-page article. Leed’s speech-based article was motivated by a desire to mitigate the misunderstandings between English speakers and Russian speakers that may arise from miscuing the contrasting intonational systems of these two languages. His exploration represents an opportunity for a deeper understanding of the prosodic cues specific to Russian, explained from the perspective of a native English speaker.

Sendich, Munir. “An Undergraduate Course in Transcriptional Phonetics of Russian: Phonetic Signs.” Russian Language Journal (Русский язык) 41.140, 1987: 1-45.

45-page primer, .pdf available online. Sendich’s course in transcriptional phonetics is a free resource meant to help undergrads effectively transcribe Cyrillic into IPA, but its origins are speech-based and not optimized for singing with accepted Russian lyric diction conventions.

Shupljakov, V., G. Fant, and A. Serpa-Leitao. “Acoustical Features of Hard and Soft Russian Consonants in Connected Speech: A Spectrographic Study.” The Department for Speech, Music and Hearing – Quarterly Progress and Status Report 9.4, 1968: 1-6.

6-page article interspersed with 9 pages of figures. The purpose of this (n=5) study was to evaluate Russian consonant/vowel interactions (with special attention to the spectral

differences between palatalized and nonpalatalized consonants), and to study fR2 and fR3 as they relate to these phonemes. The study found that with other conditions remaining

the same, the fR2 of a soft (palatalized) consonant is always higher than the fR2 of a hard (nonpalatalized) consonant in the same context, and that a listener’s primary cue for hard/soft identification can be based on a frequency threshold that is related to the speaker’s average resonance of the vocal tract.

Smirnova N., Chistikov P. “Statistics of Russian Monophones and Diphones.” SPECOM-2011 Proceedings. 14th International Conference on Speech and Computer. Kazan, Russia, 2011: 218-223.

5-page article. This paper offers statistics on the computer-aided processing of more than 2.5-million phonemes drawn from a large body of Russian literary classics, playwrights, manuscripts of interviews and public lectures from various web resources. The

204

transcription system used allows for a more detailed account of vowel reduction and cross-word assimilation than prior resources with smaller, differently-measured efforts. (See Kučera and Monroe, 1968.)

A.3.4 Other relevant linguistics research

Buchaillard, Stéphanie, Pascal Perrier, and Yohan Payan. “A Biomechanical Model of Cardinal Vowel Production: Muscle Activations and the Impact of Gravity on Tongue Positioning.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126: 4, 2009: 2033-2051.

18-page article. This study reports on a three-dimensional biomechanical wireframe simulation of the tongue, coupled with an acoustic analog of the vocal tract as it executes the French cardinal vowels. While the French vowel space admittedly differs from its Russian counterpart, this paper includes many detailed diagrams that illustrate in great detail the operation of the tongue as it executes French vowels. Accompanying text clarifies points to watch, in particular the muscle activation patterns for the French cardinal vowels. A similar study on the sung Russian vowels would be highly desirable. (See Bolla, 1981; Gick et al 2004; Néron, 2011.)

Järvinen, Kati and Anne-Maria Laukkanen. “Vocal Loading in Speaking a Foreign Language” Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 67, 2015: 1-7.

14-page article. The authors investigate whether the voice gets tired more quickly when speaking an acquired language (English or Finnish). Informants read aloud from prepared texts and then extemporized in both languages. They concluded that language shift caused voice quality changes in some informants. Those who reported more fatigue in their L2 were also evaluated as having poorer, more pressed and strenuous voice quality. While interesting due to its L2 conception, it may be unwise to apply Järvinen and Laukkanen’s conclusions to singers who perform familiar, memorized L2 texts.

Stevens, Kenneth N. and Samuel Jay Keyser. “Primary Features and Their Enhancements in Consonants.” Language 65.1, 1989: 81-106.

26-page article. The purpose of this paper is to explain the strong preference for a core inventory of consonants in the world’s languages. (Its dated statistical claims about 317 world languages have since been superseded by The World Phonotactics Database which

205

currently catalogues 3700 languages.) This paper takes a generative approach to phonology in discussing three primary features: [sonorant], [continuant], and [coronal]. Of interest to this thesis is section 8 on Tongue-body Features and Rounding, where the

authors point out that the “decreased value of F2 is achieved with the feature [+back] … This coincidence is best realized without rounding the lips and by placing the tongue

body in a backed position. An increased F3 (to create proximity with F4) can be achieved by narrowing the airway in the upper pharyngeal region.” (p. 101) One wonders why the authors do not name the AES for what it is, as this directive seems to suggest the conditions for establishing the Singer’s Formant Cluster. The paper concludes with three paragraphs on Markedness. The authors suggest that a tendency toward particular feature groupings characterizes world languages because of the maximally distinctive properties of saliency and enhancement which those groupings exhibit.

Story, Brad H. “Vowel and Consonant Contributions to Vocal Tract Shape.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126.2, 2009: 825-836.

12-page article. One female speaker informant (n=1) participated in this study whose purpose was to find a way to separate vowel-consonant-vowel sequences into vowel- vowel transitions plus a discrete consonant superposition function that governs the constriction or expansion of specific portions of the vocal tract. This study succeeded in establishing a method for future modeling of other speech material. Through a singing lens, the conception of this study perhaps seems to echo traditional sung all-vowel vocalises based on melodies, meant to minimize consonant interruption and maximize legato phrasing.

Appendix B: Sunless fR1/fo Interactions

What follows are the isolated vocal melody lines of two song cycles, Musorgsky’s Sunless and Kabalevsky’s Op. 52 Ten Shakespeare Sonnets on Translations by Marshak. These scores have been annotated to show open and close timbre: stemless noteheads in grey represent the pitch of turning between open and close timbre that occurs an octave below my fR1 values for the corresponding sung vowel (see the values given in § 5.3.3). Melody notes sung in open timbre are shown with stems down; notes sung in close timbre are stems up. The five brief fR1/fo crossings in Sunless plus the single climactic fR1/fo crossing in Kabalevsky Op. 52, no. 1 are boxed in red.

206 207

1. В четырёх стенах (Sunless, no. 1: Within four walls) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andante tranquillo #œ œ nœ #œ œ #œ œ œ œ pœœ œ œ b œ U Nœ œ œ œ. œ œ U ? ## 46 ∑ n œ œ ‰ œ J ‰ œ. J J ‰ Ком - нат - ка тес - на - Jя, ти - ха - я, ми - ла - я; ˈko - mnɑ - tkɑ ˈtʲɛ - snɑ - jɑ ˈtʲi - xɑ - jɑ ˈmʲi - ɫɑ - jɑ

4 #œ .œ œ œ #œ nœ. #œ œ bœ œ œ œ U ? ## œ œ œ . œ œ œœ œ œ n œ. œ œ ‰ тень не про - гляд - наJ - я, тень без от - вет - наJ - Jя; tʲeɲ ɲɪ - prɑ - ˈɡlʲɑ - dnɑ - jɑ # tʲeɲ bʲɪ - zɑ - ˈtʲvʲɛ - tnɑ - jɑ

6 #œ #œ œ #œ nœ œ œ œ nœ. . b œ œ #bœ . U ? ## nœ a œ ‰ nœ J J ‰ œœ œ nœœ . œ œ ‰ ду - маJ глу - бо - ка - я, пес - ня у - ны - лаJ - Jя; ˈdu - mɑ ɡɫu - ˈbo - kɑ - jɑ ˈpʲe - sʲɲɑ u - ˈnɨ - ɫɑ - jɑ

8 #œ nœ #œ œ œ #œ œ nœ. #œ œ ? # n œ œ # œ œ. œ œ # œ œ œ œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ œ J J ‰ в бью - щем - ся серд - цеJ наJ - деж - да за - вет - на - я, ˈvbʲu - ʃʲːɪ - msʌ ˈsʲɛ - rtsɨ nɑ - ˈdʲɛ - ʒdɑ zɑ - ˈvʲɛ - tnɑ - jɑ

10 #œ œ œ # œ j œ #bœ œ nœ œ bœ nœ bœ œ bœ. œ œ U ? ## œ n œ n œ œ œ. œ J ‰ быст - рый по - лёт за мгно - ве - ньем мгно - ве - ни - я; ˈbɨ - strɨj pɑ - ˈlʲot zɑ mɡnɑ - ˈvʲe - ɲʲɪm mɡnɑ - ˈvʲe - ɲi - jɑ

12 #œ œ #œ nœ #œ œ nœ œ œ œ bœ n œ#œ nœ b œ.nœ. œ œ ? ## œ œ J ‰ œ œ œ J J ‰ взор не - под - виж - ный на сча - стье да - лё - ко - е; vzor ɲɪ - pɑ - ˈdʲvʲi - ʒnɨj nɑ ˈʃʲːɑ - sʲtʲjɛ dɑ - ˈlʲo - kɑ - jɛ poco accelerando e cresc. 14 j j b œnœ #œ œ bœ. œ œ b œnœ #œ nœ œ. œ #œ ? ## œ œ. œ œ œ. œ J ‰ мно - го сом - не - ни - я, мно - го тер - пе - ни - я. ˈmno - ɡʌ sɑ - ˈmɲe - ɲi - jɑ # ˈmno - ɡʌ tʲɛ - ˈrpʲe - ɲi - jɑ Meno mosso e tranquillo 16 2 œœ. #œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ. #œ nœ U ? ## . n œ œ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ ˙ Œ ˙ ˙œ aœ. œ œ Ó Œ Вот Jо - наJ , ночь мо - Jя, ночь о - ди - но - каJ - я. vot ɑ - ˈnɑ notʃʲ mɑ - ˈjɑ notʃʲ ɑ - dʲi - ˈno - kɑ-jɑ

2. Меня ты в толпе не узнала (Sunless, no. 2: You did not recognize me in the crowd) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andante con moto p j #œ œ nœ bœ œ # œ. nœ nœ ? ## 4 Œ ‰ J ‰ œ . œ œ œ œ Ме - ня тыJ в толR - пе неJ Jу - mʲe - ˈɲɑ tɨ ftɑ - ˈɫpʲɛ ɲɪ u -

3 3 3 #œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ œ #œ. ? # œ nœ œ œ œœ nœ # œ ≈ œ J œ J œ œœ J œ ‰ œ œ œ. œœ зна - лаJ , твойR взгляд неJ ска - залJ ни - че - гоJ . Но чуд - ноJ Rи ˈznɑ - ɫɑ tvoj vzɡlʲɑt ɲɪ skɑ - ˈzɑɫ ɲi - tʃʲɪ - ˈvo no ˈtʃʲu - dnʌ i

3 3 5 j #œ œ. nœ #œ œ œ #œ œ bœ œ nœ U œ ? # œ œ nœ # œ œ#œ n œ œ # nœ. œ œ œ ≈ œ œ J œ œ J ‰ J страш - ноJ мнеR ста - Jло, когR - даJ у - лоJ - вил Jя е - го: то ˈstrɑ - ʃnʌ mɲɛ ˈstɑ - ɫʌ kɑ - ˈɡdɑ u - ɫɑ - ˈvɨɫ jɑ je - ˈvo to

3 3 7 3 #œ œ œ j nœ œ #œ n œ#œ nœ j œ œ œœ bœ nœ œ #œ b œnœ ? ## J œ œ J œœ J œ ‰. R nœ ≈ œ J œ œ бы - лоJ одJ - но лишь мгно - ве - ньеJ ; но верь мнеJ , Rя в нём пеJ - реJ - нёс ˈbɨ - ɫʌ ɑ - ˈdno lʲiʃ mɡnɑ - ˈvʲe - ɲjɛ no vʲerʲ mɲɛ jɑ vɲom pʲɪ - rʲe - ˈɲos

3 9 f bœ œ œ#œ nœ nœ N#œ œ bœ œ ˙ ? # œ n œ œ œ œ bœ nœ # 3 J ‰ всей прош - лой люб - ви на - слаж - де - нье, всю fsʲej ˈpro - ʃɫʌj lʲu - ˈbʲvʲi nɑ - sɫɑ - ˈʒdʲe - ɲjɛ fsʲu

11 Nœœ #œ œ b œnœ U ? ## n œ#œ ≈ œ #œ œ œœ Œ Ó го - речьJ забR - ве - ньяJ Jи слёз! ˈɡo - rʲetʃʲ zɑ - ˈbʲvʲe - ɲjɑ i sʲlʲos

208

3. Окончен праздный, шумный день (Sunless, no. 3: The idle, noisy day is done) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Moderato assai f # œ . #œ j p j #œ œ œ œœ. œ #œ bœ . œ #œ nœ#œ Nœœ œ œ #œ. œ ? 4 Œ œ œ œ ‰ . Œ ‰ J J œ. œ О - кон - ченJ празд - ныйJ , шум - ный день; люд - ска - я жизнь, Jу - ɑ - ˈko - ntʃʲɪn ˈprɑ - znɨj ˈʃu - mnɨj dʲeɲ lʲu - ˈtskɑ - jɑ ʒɨzʲɲ u -

5 j j j j œ œ œ œ œ #œ #œ. œ œ bœ #œ . j #œ ? œ ˙ œ œ U œ bœ bœ #bœ. . œ œ nœ nœ. Nœœ œœ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ J ‰ J. R J œ R œ молк - нувJ , дрем - летJ . Всё ти - хо. Май - ской но - чи тень сто -ли - цу спя - щу- ю объ - ˈmo - ɫknuf ˈdrʲɛ - mlʲɛt fsʲo ˈtʲi - xʌ ˈmɑj - skʌj ˈno - tʃʲi tʲeɲ stɑ - ˈlʲi - tsu ˈsʲpʲa - ʃʲːu-ju ɑ -

9 j œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ j j j j #œ. œ. j ? œ bœ. . œ œ œœ #œ nœœ # œ œœ œ. œ œ Œ ‰ œ œ J œ J œ ‰ Œ ‰ œœ œœ . J ем - лет. Но сон отJ глазJ мо - их бе - житJ . И при-лу - чах и - ной ден - ˈbjɛ - mlʲɛt no son ɑd ɡɫɑz mɑ - ˈiɣ bʲɪ - ˈʒɨt i prʲi ɫu - ˈtʃʲɑx i - ˈnoj dʲe -

13 j #œ œ œ œ j œ œ j #œ n œ #œ. œ ? œ # œ# œ n œ bœ œ bœ œ bœ œ b œ. . bœ n œ. Nœœ #œ œ ‰ ‰ bœ œœ J J œ ‰ J R œ œ ни - цыJ воJ - Jо - браJ - жеJ - ни - е вер - тит го - дов у - тра - чен-ныхJ страJ - ˈɲːi - tsɨ vʌ - ɑ - brɑ - ˈʒɛ - ɲi - jɛ vʲɛ - ˈrtʲit ɡʌ - ˈdof u - ˈtrɑ - tʃʲɪ- nːɨx strɑ -

3 3 3 16 j 3 #œ œ œ b ˙nœ bœ #œ nœ œ b˙ œ #œ nœ ? œœ #œ n œ œ œ # œ b ˙ b˙ œ #œœ # œ œ b ˙ # œ œ ‰ ‰ J J Œ Œ3 3 ни - цыJ . Как буд - то вновь, вды - ха - я яд ве - сен - них, страст - ных ˈɲi - tsɨ kɑɡ ˈbu - tːʌ vnofʲ # vdɨ-ˈxɑ - jɑ jɑt vʲe - ˈsʲe - ɲːix ˈstrɑ - snɨx

3 3 20 3 3 3 #œ j œ #œ œ #œ œ œ ? b ˙ œ n œ#œ œ œn œ b˙ œ ˙ œœ b ˙ œ ˙ œ 3 ‰ сно - ви - ден - ний, в ду - ше я вос - кре - ша - ю ряд на - snʌ - vʲi - ˈdʲe - ɲij vdu - ˈʃɛ jɑ vɑ - skrʲɪ - ˈʃɑ - ju rʲɑt nɑ -

209

3. Окончен праздный, шумный день 2

3 3 3 23 3 œ #œ œ poco ritard. #œ nœ j œ œ b œ #œ b ˙ U ? J ‰ nœ Œ Œ œ œœ œ ≈ œ дежд, по - ры - вов, за - блуж - де - ний… УR - ˈdʲɛʒd pɑ - ˈrɨ - vʌf zɑ - bɫu - ˈʒdʲe - ɲij u -

25 a tempo œ j #œ œ œ œ. #œ œ #œ œ œ r ? #œ bœ bœ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ bœ œœ œ œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ J ≈ выJ , тоJ при - зраJ - киJ одJ - ни! МнеJ скуч - ноJ с Jмёрт - войJ ихJ толJ - по - ю, и ˈvɨ to ˈprʲi-zrɑ - kʲi ɑ - ˈdʲɲi mɲɛ ˈsku - ʃnʌ ˈsmʲo - rtvʌj ix tɑ - ˈɫpo - ju i

3 3 28 3 3 #œ œ #œ œ #œ nœ #œ œ j œ˙ #œ b ˙ nœ ˙ œ b˙ œœ #œ œ œ œœ œ ? œ œ. . œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Œ œ шум их ста - рой бол - тов - ни у - же неJ власJ - тенJ наJ - доJ мно - ю. Лишь ʃum ɨx ˈstɑ - rʌj bɑ - ɫtɑ-ˈvɲi u - ˈʒɛ ɲɪ ˈvɫɑ-sʲtʲɛn ˈnɑ - dʌ ˈmno - ju lʲiʃ

Andante cantabile 3 3 3 3 32 œ j j bœ œ n œ#œ œ#œ nœ#œ j nœ œ j œ œ bœ œ nœ #œ œ nœ œœ #œ œ j b œnœ bœ ? # œ œ J œ bœ œœ nœ œ œ J n#œ œ bœ nœœ œ œ 3 3 J 3 J J 3 тень, од - на из всех те - ней, я - ви - лась мне, ды - ша лю - бо - вью и tʲeɲ # ɑ - ˈdnɑ is fsʲɛx tʲe - ˈɲej ja - ˈvʲi - ɫɑsʲ mɲɛ # dɨ - ˈʃɑ lʲu - ˈbo-vʲju # i

poco ritard. 3 3 3 34 j j bœœ œ bœ œ œ #œ bœ nœ n œ#œ bœ nœ #œ œ œ b œnœ j ? bœ b œ#œ œ bœ œ œ œ b œ#œ #œ b œ œ œ J œ œ œ #œ bœœ nœ œœ œ 3 J 3 J 3 J 3 3 J 3 J J 2 вер - ный друг ми - нув J- ших дней, скло - ни - лась ти - хо к из - го - ло - вьюJ . И ˈvʲɛ - rnɨj druk mʲi - ˈnu - fʃɨx dʲɲej # skɫɑ - ˈɲi - ɫɑsʲ ˈtʲi - xʌ kɨ - zɡɑ - ˈɫo-vʲju # i

a tempo 3 3 3 3 3 36 3 f j j œœNœ œ#œ œ œœ œ bœ œ nœ œ Nœ nœ œ n#œ œœ j bœ j nœ #œ π nœ ? 3 J œ œ # œ bœ b œ nœ œ œ œ #nœœ 4 œ bœ œ œ #œ 2 J 3 J J ‰ 3 4 J ‰ J J ‰ ‰ œ œ œ сме - ло от - дал ей од - ной всю ду - шу я в сле - зе без-молв - ной, ниJ - кемJ неJ - ˈsʲmʲɛ - ɫʌ ˈo - dːɑɫ jej ɑ - ˈdnoj fsʲu ˈdu - ʃu jɑ fsʲlʲe - ˈzʲɛ bʲɪ-ˈzmo - ɫvnʌj ɲi - ˈkʲɛm ɲe -

38 ritard. #œ fœœ. œ œ œ p œ. œ#œ œ œ j œ œ ? . Nœ œ œ #œ œ. bœ .. œ œ œ U bœœ œ ‰ J J ‰ Œ ‰ œ J J R œ J œ œ ‰ Ó зри - мойJ , сча - стья пол - ной, в слеJ - зе, дав - но хра-ни - мой мнойJ! ˈzʲrʲi - mʌj ˈʃʲːɑ - sʲtʲjɑ ˈpo - ɫnʌj fsʲlʲe - ˈzʲɛ # dɑ - ˈvno xrɑ-ˈɲi - mʌj mnoj

210

4. Скучай (Sunless, no. 4: Be bored) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andantino comodo assai e poco lamentoso j p j œ #œ œ œ. œ j œ #œ j œ œ j nœ #œ nœ. œ nœ #œ.nœ œ œ œ œ ? ## 4 ∑ Œ ‰ # œ œ œ ‰ ‰ œ œ œ J #œ #œ ‰ Œ œ . œ J J œ Ску - чай. J ТыJ созJ - даJ - на для ску - ки. Без жгу - чих чувств от - ра - ды sku - ˈtʃʲaj tɨ sʌz-dɑ-ˈnɑ dʲlʲɑ ˈsku - kʲi bʲɛz ˈʒɡu - tʃʲix tʃʲustf ɑ - ˈtrɑ - dɨ

6 œ #œ œ #œ #œ j œ #œ nœ #œ œ Nœ # œ nœ #œ œ Nœ. . nœ œ œ œ œ Nœ œ œ œ. . œ # œ ? ## J ‰ J J œ J n œ #œ ‰ œ J œ œ œ J Œ ∑ нет, как нет воз - вра - таJ без раз - лу - ки, какJ без боJ - ре - нья нет по - бед. ɲɛt kɑk ɲɛt vɑ - ˈzvrɑ-tɑ bʲɪz rɑ - ˈzɫu - kʲi kɑɡ bʲɪz bɑ-ˈrʲe - ɲjɑ ɲɛt pɑ - ˈbʲɛt

Meno mosso 11 j œ j œ. #œ œ j j #œ œ j #œ œ ? # # œnœ U# œnœ œ œ #œ # œnœ œnœ œ #œ œ nœ œ#œ œnœ #œœ œ œ # Œ ‰ œ ‰ . J œ œ œ œ œ œ Ску - чай. Ску - чай, сло - вам люб - ви вни - ма - Jя, в ти - ши сер - деч - ной sku - ˈtʃʲaj sku - ˈtʃʲaj sɫɑ-ˈvɑm lʲu - ˈbʲvʲi vɲi-ˈmɑ - jɑ ftʲi - ˈʃɨ sʲɪ - ˈrdʲe - tʃʲnʌj

15 œ j j œ #œ œ #œ œ œ œ .nœ #œ #œ nœ œ œ #œ œ n œ#œ n œ œ œ œ ? ## # œ . #œ ‰ ‰ n#œ œ œ J œ œ J пу - стоJ - ты, при - ве - том лжи -J вым от - ве - ча - Jя на pu - stɑ - ˈtɨ prʲi - ˈvʲɛ - tʌm ˈɫʒɨ - vɨm ɑ - tʲvʲe - ˈtʃʲa - jɑ nɑ

a tempo poco rall. senza espressione 18 j #œ. j œ #œ œ j œ #œ j œ œ œ ? # œ nœ ##œ œ œ œ œ #œ#œ œnœ œ œ œœ œ œ 2 # . # œ ‰ Œ Ó Œ ‰ œ J 4 прав - дуJ дев - ствен - ной меч - ты. Ску - чай. С рожJ - де - ньяJ доJ мо - ˈprɑ - vdu ˈdʲɛ - fsʲtʲvʲɪ - nːʌj mʲe - ˈtʃʲtɨ sku - ˈtʃʲaj srɑ - ˈʒdʲe - ɲjɑ dɑ mɑ -

22 j #œ n œ #œ. nœ #œ nœ #œ œ #œ œ. nœ j #œ j ? # 2 œ œ#œ œ 4 . œ nœ # œ œ œ œ œ. # œ n œ# œ #œ œ nœ #œ # 4 œ J 4 J J J J ‰ œ J J œ œœ œ œ ‰ ги - лыJ за - ра - не путь наJ - чер - тан твой: по кап - ле ты ис - траJ -тишь си - Jлы, ˈɡʲi - ɫɨ # zɑ - ˈrɑ - ɲɛ putʲ nɑ - tʃʲɛ -rtɑn tvoj pɑ ˈkɑ - plʲɛ tɨ i - strɑ - tʲiʃ sʲi - ɫɨ

26 j j poco rall. #œ œ nœœ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ ? # Nœ nœ œ œ. . U œ œ. U # ‰ œ J Œ Œ œ #œ œ ‰ Ó Œ œ J. œ œ ‰ Ó поJ - том ум-рёшь, и бог с Rто-бойJ ... и бог с Rто-бойJ ! pɑ - ˈtom u - mrʲoʃ i box stɑ - ˈboj i box stɑ - ˈboj

211

5. Элегия (Sunless, no. 5: Elegy) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andantino mosso 3 π #œ nœ œ. œ œ #œ œ nœ #œ. ? 4 œ œ œ. # œ œ 4 Ó Œ ‰#œ ‹œ œ ‰ Nœ. œ œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ œ œ. R #œ œ #œ. œ В ту - ма - неJ дрем - летJ ночь.J БезJ -молвJ - на - Jя звезJ - да сквозьJ ftu - ˈmɑ - ɲɛ ˈdrʲɛ - mlʲɛt notʃʲ bʲɛ - ˈzmo - ɫvnɑ-jɑ zʲvʲɛ-ˈzdɑ # skvozʲ

5 j #œ nœ #œ. j œ #œ ? ##œœ # œnœ œ #œ. œ # œ. #œœ œ œ ˙œ # œ #œ J #œ #œ . J œ ‰ # œ дым - ку обJ - лаJ - ков мер - ца - ет о - ди - но - ко. ЗвеJ - ˈdɨ - mku ɑ - bɫɑ - ˈkof mɛ - ˈrtsɑ - jɛt ɑ - dʲi - ˈno - kʌ zʲvʲe -

8 j 3 #œ. j nœ. #œ j j #œ j œ #œœ œ œ ? #œœ n œ. œ Nœ #œ. . œ œ œ œ œ #œ. J R nœœ R œ J J ‰ J нят бу - бен - ца - ми у - ны - ло и да - лё - ко ко - ɲɑt bu - ˈbʲɛ - ntsɑ - mʲi u - ˈnɨ - ɫʌ i dɑ - ˈlʲo - kʌ kɑ -

rall. 10 #œ j r œ œ #œ fœ ##œœ œ nœ . œ # œ œ U #œ ? . œ œ #œ J ‰ Œ ‰ J ней па - су - щих - сяJ стаJ - да. Как ˈɲej pɑ - ˈsu - ʃʲːi - xsʌ stɑ - ˈdɑ kɑk

Allegro agitato 12 j j œ j #œ œ œ #œ œ œ ? #œ œ œ #œ œ #œœ nœœ œ #œ J ‰ œ œ #œœ œ œ J J но - чи обJ - ла - ка, из - менJ - чиJ - выJ - Jе ду - мы не - ˈno - tʃʲi ɑ - bɫɑ - ˈkɑ i - ˈzʲmʲɛ - ntʃʲi - vɨ - jɛ ˈdu - mɨ # ɲɪ -

14 j j j j j #œ œ œ œ.œ. #œ œ j j œ #œ j œ. j bœ ##œœ ? œœ # œ #œ œ œ # œ nœ nœ œ œ ##œœ #œ œ. œœ œ сут - сяJ наJ - доJ мной, тре - вож - ны и у - грю - мы; в них от - блес - ки на - ˈsu - tsʌ ˈnɑ - dʌ mnoj trʲɪ - ˈvo - ʒnɨ i u - ˈɡrʲu - mɨ # vɲix ˈo - dblʲe-sʲkʲi nɑ -

212

5. Элегия 2 17 œ #œ #œ. œ œ œ #œ nœ nœ #œ œ #œœ ? œ œ œ. #œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ #œ #œ Œ Œ J œ Œ Œ J œ œ.. #œ œ J дежд, ког - да - то до - ро - гих, дав - но поJ - теJ - рянR ныхJ , дав - ˈdʲɛʃt kɑ - ˈɡdɑ - tʌ dʌ - rɑ - ˈɡʲix dɑ - ˈvno pɑ - ˈtʲe - rʲɑ-nːɨx dɑ -

21 j j j j #œ œ j œ j j œ œ nœœ œ#œ #œ œ r œ œ œœ#bœ pœ ? œ nœ Œ œ # œ œ #œ.#œ. nœ œ ‰ Œ œ Ó Œ ‰ œ но уж не жи - вых. В них соJ - жаJ - ле - ни-яJ… и слё - зы. НеJ - ˈvno uʒ ɲɪ ʒɨ - ˈvɨx vɲix sɑ - ʒɑ - ˈlʲe - ɲi-jɑ i ˈsʲlʲo - zɨ ɲɪ -

Andantino mosso Poco meno mosso e cantabile 25 #œ j nœ œ j j œ #œ œ #œ œ nœ j ? œ. . œ œœ. . #œ nœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œœ œ nœ J œ œ J J œ œ J J ‰ #œ J ‹œ #œ J сут - ся ду - мыR теJ без це - ли и кон - ца; то, преJ - вра - тясьJ в черJ - ты лю - ˈsu - tsʌ ˈdu - mɨ tʲɛ bʲɪs ˈtsɛ - lʲi i ko - ˈntsɑ to prʲɪ - vrɑ - ˈtʲɑs ftʃʲɛ - ˈrtɨ lʲu -

28 j j j j #œ œ œ œ j #œ œ œ œ j # œ nœ #œ œ nœ fœœ ? #œ #œ œ œ. . œ #œ œ œ œœ # œ #œ ‹œ # œ # œ #œ œ Nœ #œ # œnœ ‰ J R J J J ‰ J J би - моJ - гоJ лиJ - ца, зо - вут, рож-да - я вновь в ду - ше бы - лы - е грё - зы, то, ˈbʲi- mʌ - vʌ lʲi - tsɑ zɑ - ˈvut rɑˈʒdɑ - jɑ vnovʲ vdu- ˈʃɛ bɨ - ˈɫɨ - jɛ ˈɡrʲo - zɨ # to

Allegro non troppo 31 j j œ œ #œ #œœ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ #œ ? # œ#œ œœ œ #œ nœ œ œ # œ#œ œ œœ #œœ œ œ. . n œ œ J #œ J ‰ J œ # œ Nœ œ J J J J #œ J слив-шисьв чёрJ -ный мрак, пол - ныJ неJ - мойJ Jу - гро - зы, гря - ду - ще - гоJ борь-бой пу - ˈsʲlʲi - fʃɨsʲ ˈftʃʲo-rnɨj mrɑk pɑ - ˈɫnɨ ɲɪ - ˈmoj u - ˈɡro - zɨ ɡrʲɑ - ˈdu - ʃʲːɪ - vʌ bɑ-ˈrʲboj pu -

34 j j j n œ#œ j j œ #œ. œ œ œ #œœ nœ œ #œ œ #œ œœ b œ. Nœ œ œœ Nœœ ? J J œ ‰ œ J œ Œ ‰ J га - ют роб - кий ум, и слы - шит - ся вда - ли не -строй-ной ˈɡɑ - jut ˈro - pkʲij um i - ˈsɫɨ - ʃɨ - tsʌ vdɑ - ˈlʲi ɲɪ - ˈstroj-noj

213

5. Элегия 3 37 . j #œ œ . œœ #œ #œ œ œ j œ. œ œ n œ#œ nœ œ œœ ˙ #œ nœ #œ #œœ œ œœ ? œ ‰# œ . J Œ œ #œ J # œ J J ‰ жиз - ни шум, толJ - пы без - душ - ной смех, враж - дыJ коJ - вар - ныйJ ро - пот, жи - ˈʒɨ - zɲi ʃum tɑ - ˈɫpɨ bʲɛ - ˈzdu - ʃnoj sʲmʲɛx vrɑ - ˈʒdɨ kɑ - ˈvɑ - rnɨj ˈro - pʌt ʒɨ -

rall. 41 j j j # œ œ nœ nœ#œ nœ # œ #œ j j #œ œ œœ œ nœ #œ n œ#œ #œœ œ œ #˙#œ nœœ œ ‰ ? J œ ‰ ‰ J J œ J ‰ Œ ‰ тей - ской ме - ло - чи не - за - глу-ши - мый шо - пот, у - ны - лый ˈtʲej - skʌj ˈmʲɛ - ɫɑ - tʃʲi ɲɪ - zɑ-ɡɫu - ˈʃɨ - mɨj ˈʃo - pɑt u - ˈnɨ - lɨj

ritard. poco a poco 45 œ œ ? #˙. œ #˙ Ó ∑ Ó Œ #œœ смер - ти звон!... Пред - ˈsʲmʲɛ - rtʲi zvon prʲɪ -

Andantino mosso 49 #œ #œ œ œ #œ œ j œ j j nœ # œ œ œ œ Nœ#œ œ œ ? # œ.nœ. #œ # œ œ J ‰ œ œ œ œ #œ ‰ вест - ни - ца звез - да, как буд - то полJ - наJ - Jя сты - да, скры - ˈdʲvʲe - sʲɲi - tsʌ zʲvʲɪ - ˈzdɑ kɑɡ ˈbu - tːʌ ˈpo - ɫnɑ - jɑ stɨ - ˈdɑ skrɨ -

52 #œ nœ œ #œ j nœ #œ #œ œ œ #œ œ #œ j . nœ ˙ j # œ #œ ? # œ œ œ # œ nœ. . # œ nœ # œ. # œ # œ œ #œ ‰ œ # œ.nœ. # œnœ ваJ - етJ светJ -лыйJ лик в ту - ма - не без - от - рад - номJ , как бу - дущ - ность мо - ˈvɑ - jɛt ˈsʲvʲɛ-tɫɨj lʲik ftu - ˈmɑ - ɲɪ bʲɛ - zɑ - ˈtrɑ - dnʌm kɑɡ ˈbu - du - ʃʲːnʌsʲtʲ mɑ -

56 n œ#œ œ œ #˙œ #œ œ U ? J ‰ Œ œ #˙. œ #˙œ # ˙ œ Œ ∑ ∑ я, не - мом и не - про - гляд - ном. ˈjɑ ɲɪ - ˈmom i ɲɪ - prɑ - ˈɡlʲɑ - dnʌm

214

6. Над рекой (Sunless, no. 6: On the river) Arseny Golenishchev-Kutuzov (1848–1913) Modeste Musorgsky (1839-1881) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings] Andante molto cantabile, con meditazione π œ œ œ # œ nœ œ n˙œ nœœ œ ? ## # ## 4 ∑ ˙ œ œ # ˙ # œnœ #œ # Ме - сяц за - дум - чи - вый, звёз - ды да - ˈmʲe - sʲɑts zɑ - ˈdu - mtʃʲi - vɨj # ˈzʲvʲo - zdɨ dɑ -

5 j nœ œ nœ #œ œ # œœ. . n˙ nœ n ˙ ? ## # ## nœ œ Œ n œ n œ œ nœ ‰ œ # лё - ки - е с си - не - го не - баJ во - ˈlʲo - kʲi - jɛ ˈsːi - ɲɪ - vʌ ˈɲɛ - bɑ vɑ -

poco rall. 8 œ œ # ˙ nœ œ .nœ œ ? ## # ## # œ nœ a œ . œ œ Œ # да - ми лю - бу - ютJ - ся. u ˈdɑ - mʲi lʲu - ˈbu - ju - tsʌ

10 a tempo nœ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ nœ ? # # n ˙ œ œnœ aœ œ n ˙ œ œœ nœ œ # # ## nœ œ œ aœ nœ œ œ # Мол - ча смот - рю Jя на во - ды глу - ˈmo - ɫtʃʲɑ smɑ - ˈtʲrʲu jɑ nɑ ˈvo - dɨ ɡɫu -

13 nœ œ œ nœ œ # nœ aœœ j œ œ ? ## # ## J aœnœ œ Œ ˙ nœ nœ ˙ nœ nœ # бо - ки - е; тай - ны вол - шеб - ны - е ˈbo - kʲi - jɛ ˈtɑj - nɨ vɑ - ˈɫʃɛ - bnɨ - jɛ

16 πnœ œ œ œ # œ nœ nœ œ ? ## # ## œ naœœ œ. . œ œ Œ # серд - цем в них чу - ютJ - ся. sʲɛ - - rtːsɛm vɲix ˈtʃʲu - ju - tsʌ

18 ˙nœ j #œ œ œ œ œ ˙œ œ œ œ ? # # nœ ˙ œ œ œ œ # #### ‰ œ œ ‰ œ œ Пле - шут, та - ят - сяJ , лас - ка - тель - но ˈplʲɛ - ʃut tɑ - ˈjɑ - tsɑ ɫɑ - ˈskɑ - tʲe - lʲnʌ

21 nœ #œ œ œ nœ # œ œœ œ œ ‹œ œ#œ n˙œ ‹œ # œ ? ## # ## ‹œ œ Œ a˙ Œ # неж - ны - е; мно - го в их ро - по - те ˈɲɛ - ʒnɨ - jɛ ˈmno - ɡʌ vɨx ˈro - pɑ - tʲɛ

215

6. Над рекой 2 con dolore 24 œ œ œ # nœ œ nœœ œ.nœ œ #œ nœ˙ nœ ? ## # ## n œ œ aœ . œ œ Œ œ # си - лы ча - ру - юJ - щей, Слы - шат - ся ˈsʲi - ɫɨ tʃʲɑ - ˈru - ju - ʃʲːej ˈsɫɨ - ʃɑ - tsɑ

27 n ˙ #œ nœ nœ. j œ # nnœ˙ œœ œ aœ n œ œ. nœœ œ ? ## # ## J ‰ nœ Œ n œ Œ # ду - мы и стра - сти без - бреж - ны - е… u ˈdu - mɨ i ˈstrɑ - sʲtʲi bʲɛz - ˈbrʲɛ - ʒnɨ - jɛ

30 sordo - misterioso nœ œ œ j nœ. #œ ˙ œ ? # # œ nœ nœ #œn œ n œ. œ nœ nœ œ .nœ. œ # #### œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œn œ Œ Го - лос неJ - ве - доJ -мый, ду - шу вол - ну - юJ - щий. ˈɡo - ɫɑs ɲɪ - ˈvʲɛ - dɑ - mɨ ˈdu - ʃu vɑ - ˈɫnu - ju - ʃʲːij

poco a poco cresc. ed accelerando 34 œ j œ œ œ œ nœ # œ nœ n˙ n˙œ œ œ œ . j ? ## # ## ˙ œ ‰ #œ œ ‰ ‰ œ nœ . #œnœ #œ Œ # Не - жит, пу - га - Jет, наJ - во - дит сом - не - ни - е. u ˈɲɛ - ʒɨt pu - ˈɡɑ - jɛt nɑ - ˈvo - dʲit sɑ - ˈmɲe - ɲi - jɛ

38 œ j j nœ #œ œ # nnœ œ #œ nœ. œ Nœ ˙ n œ œ œ. nœ ? ## # ## Ó œ n œ. œ Œ œ nœ. œ œ Œ # Слу - шатьJ ве - лит - ли он? с ме - ста б не сдви - нулJ - ся; u ˈsɫu - ʃɑtʲ vʲe - ˈlʲi - tlʲi on ˈsʲmʲɛ - stɑp ɲɪ ˈzʲdʲvʲi - nu - ɫsʌ

42 j nœ nœ j j œ œ ˙œ ? # # n œ œ nœ n#œ . nœ ‹œ # œ œ j # # ## Ó œnœ œ Œ . œ œ. . # œnœ œnœ Œ # го - нит - ли прочь? — у - бе - жал бы в смя - те - ни - и. u ˈɡo - ɲi - tʲlʲi protʃʲ u - bʲɪ - ˈʒɑ - ɫbɨ fsʲmʲa - ˈtʲe - ɲi - ji

poco rall. a tempo 46 sord. œ œ # nœ nœ nnœ j œ nœœ œ n#œ œ ? ## # ## œ # œ œ nœ J J ‰ # В глубь ли зо - вёт? — без о - ˈvɡɫu - - - bʲlʲi zɑ - ˈvʲot bʲɪz ɑ -

48 œ œ œ 6 ? # # # n˙ œ nœ n œ nœ # ## # nœ œ . . œ œ Œ гляд - ки б я ки - нулJ - ся!.. ˈɡlʲa - tkʲib jɑ ˈkʲi - nu - ɫsʌ

216

Appendix C: Kabalevsky Op. 52 fR1/fo Interactions

˙ ? Тебе ль меня придётся хоронить ˙ (Op. 52, no. 1: Shakespeare Sonnet LXXXI) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (81й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andante molto sostenuto ( ) q = 63 3 #œ #œ œ œ F#œ #œ œ nœ œ ˙ ? b 43 Œ Œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œœ œ. œ J œ œ œœ Те - бе ль ме - ня при - дёт - сяJ хо - роJ - нить иль tʲe - ˈbʲelʲ mʲe - ˈɲɑ prʲi - ˈdʲo - tsʌ xʌ - rɑ - ˈɲitʲ # ilʲ

9 #œ #œ j j #œ˙ #œ , œ œ. œ œ nœ ˙ œ#œ nœ œ˙ œ ? b n œ ˙ œ J œ Œ Œ œ мне те - бя, — не зна - ю, друг мой ми - лый. Но пусть судь - mɲɛ tʲe - ˈbʲɑ # ɲɪ ˈznɑ - ju druk moj ˈmʲi - ɫɨj no pusʲtʲ su -

15 #œ #œ œ. œ j j j#œ œ n œ #œ #œ nœ nœ nœ nœ œ bœ œ #œ . œœ œ ˙ n œ#œ ? b J œ œ ˙ œ ˙œ œ J œ J nœ œ ∑ бы твоJ - ей преœ - рвёт - ся нить, твой об - раз не ис - чез - нет за моJ - ги - лой. ˈdʲbɨ tvɑ - ˈjej prʲɪ - ˈrvʲo - tsʌ ɲitʲ # tvoj ˈo - brɑs ɲɪ i - ˈʃʲːe - zʲɲɪt zɑ mɑ - ˈɡʲi - ɫɨj

Pochissimo più agitato 22 F #œ œ j #œ œ œ œ #œ #œ bœ#œ n œ.# œ n œ œ œ #œ ? b b œ œ œ œ˙ œ J J bœ. œ œ œ b ˙ b œ n œ Ты со - хра - нишь и жизнь, и кра - со - ту, Jа отJ меJ - ня ни - tɨ sʌ - xrɑ - ˈɲiʃ ɨ ʒɨzʲɲ i krʌ - sɑ - ˈtu # ɑ ɑt mʲe - ˈɲɑ ɲi -

(sost. ) poco a poco cresc. 27 #œ œ #œ #œ #œ j j œ #œ œ ? b œ.nœ bœœ b œ. œ œœ œ œ. œ b J bœ œ b˙œ œ Œ Œ bœ œ J bœ œ œ что не соJ - храJ - нит - ся. На клад - би - ще по - кой Jя обJ - реJ - ˈʃto ɲɪ sʌ - xrɑ - ˈɲi - tsʌ nɑ ˈkɫɑ - dʲbʲi-ʃʲːɪ pɑ - ˈkoj jɑ ɑ - brʲɪ -

(enh.) (sost. ) 32 f . #œ #œ #œ œ œ ˙. bœ˙ ˙ n œ n˙œ #œ #˙œ n œ #nœ . N œ œ œ ? b œ J J J œ ту, а твой при - ют — от - кры - та - я гроб - ни - ˈtu # ɑ tvoj prʲi - ˈjut # ɑ - ˈtkrɨ - tɑ - jɑ ɡrɑ - ˈbɲi -

217

Tempo I 38 poco rit. œ. #œœ Fnœ #œ , œ nœ œ ? J œ œ #œ œœ b Œ ∑ Œ Œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ. J œ - ца. Твой па - мятJ -никJ — восJ - тор - женJ -ный мойJ - tsɑ tvoj ˈpɑ - mʲi-tʲɲik # vɑ - ˈsto - rʒɨ - nːɨj moj

43 #œ ? ˙. œ. nœ œ ˙œ n œ#œ nœ #œ œ nœ b œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ стих. КтоJ неJ рожJ - дён е - щё, Jе - гоJ Jу - sʲtʲix # kto ɲɪ rɑ - ˈʒdʲon je - ˈʃʲːo # je - ˈvo u -

47 . , #œ j #œ #œ˙ œ œ#œ ˙ œ nœ œ #œ # œ ? b œœ œ J œ œ n ˙ œ слы - шит. И мир по - вто - рит по - вестьœ дней тво - ˈsɫɨ - ʃɨt # i mʲir pɑ - ˈfto - rʲit ˈpo - vʲesʲtʲ dʲɲej tvɑ -

(sost. )

52 p poco rit. œ œ ˙ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ. œnœ nœ# œ nœ ˙#œ œ b œ.œ œ œ œ J J œ œ ∑ их, ‰ КогJ - даJ умJ - рут все те, кто ны - неJ ды - шит. ˈix # kɑ - ˈɡdɑ u - ˈmrut fsʲɛ tʲɛ kto ˈnɨ - ɲɪ ˈdɨ - ʃɨt

Poco meno mosso ten. 57 P #œ #œ n ˙.#œ #œ œ nœ #œ nœ œ œ ˙. ? b œ œ œ ˙ œ œ. œ œœ œ Ты бу - дешь жить, зем - ной поJ - киJ - нувJ прах, там, tɨ ˈbu - dʲɪʒ ʒɨtʲ # zʲɪ - ˈmnoj pɑ - ˈkʲi - nuf prɑx # tɑm #

poco a poco ritenuto al fine 62 œ œ #œ nœ œ #œ œ œ# œ b ˙ n œ #œ ˙ œ œ ˙. ˙. ? b œ Œ œ œ где жи - вёт ды - ха - нье, — на ус - тах! ɡdʲɛ ʒɨ - ˈvʲod dɨ - ˈxɑ - ɲjɛ nɑ u - ˈstɑx

218

b˙ Трудами изнурён, хочу уснуть ? ˙ (Op. 52, no. 2: Shakespeare Sonnet XXVII) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (27й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Con moto. Appassionato ( ) q = 72 f j œ j j œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œœ œ œ ? bb b 42 ∑ Œ ‰ J nœ œ œ n œ. œ œ ˙ b Тру - да - ми из - нуJ - рён, хоJ - чу у - снуть, tru - ˈdɑ - mʲi i - znu - ˈrʲon xɑ - ˈtʃʲu u - ˈsnutʲ

7 œ nœ œ j œ ? œ œ œœ nœ œ œ œ. bœ bbbb ‰ J J J J J nœ nœ nœ bœ œ. œnœ бла - жен - ный от - дых обJ - ре - сти в Jпо - сте - лиJ . bɫɑ - ˈʒɛ - nːɨj ˈo - dːɨx ɑ - brʲi - ˈsʲtʲi fpɑ - ˈsʲtʲe - lʲi

11 meno f œ œ œ ? nœ œ œ nœ œ œ ˙œ bbbb ‰ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ НоJ тольJ - коJ ля - гуJ, вновьJ пусJ - каJ - юсьJ в путь — no ˈto - lʲkʌ ˈlʲɑ - ɡu # vnofʲ pu - ˈskɑ - jusʲ fputʲ #

15 œ j j œ œ j nœ f nœ j œ. œ œ nœ œ œœ b œ œ. œ 3 ? bb b œ œ nœ œ J J n œ J J nœ b J в своJ - их меч - тах — к од - ной и той же це - ли. fsvɑ - ˈix mʲi - ˈtʃʲtɑx # kɑ - ˈdnoj i toj ʒɛ ˈtsɛ - lʲi

a tempo poco più mosso 22 j j j j œ . œ j œ F œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ bœœ ˙ ? bb b ‰ J nœ œ nœ J J b Мо - и меч - ты и чув - ства в со - тый раз mɑ - i mʲi - ˈtʃʲtɨ i ˈtʃʲu - stvɑ ˈfso - tɨj rɑs #

26 j j j nœ œ œ j j œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ. œ œ n œ bœ œ. œ ? bb b J nœ J J œ nœ œ n œ J b и - дут к те - бе до - ро - гойJ пи - ли - гри - ма, i - ˈdut ktʲe - ˈbʲɛ dɑ - ˈro - ɡʌj pʲi - lʲi - ˈɡrʲi - mɑ

30 j j œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œ bœ œ œ b œ. nœ œ ˙ ? bb b ‰ nœ J J J œ J œ b и, не смы - ка - я Jу - том - лён - ныхJ глаз, i ɲɪ smɨ - ˈkɑ - jɑ u - tɑ - mlʲo - nːɨɣ ɡɫɑs #

219

34 f p œ œ j j nœ nœ œ ? b nbœ œœ b˙œ œ œ nœ nœ œ œœ nœ œ b bb J J b œ œ . J я ви - жуJ тьму, чтоJ Jи слеJ - по - му зри - ма. jɑ vʲi - ˈʒu tʲmu # ʃto i sʲlʲɪ - ˈpo - mu ˈzʲrʲi - mɑ

39 P j nœ j œ nœ œ j j œ ? œ œ œœ b œ.nœ bœ œ. bœ œ œ ˙ bb b ∑ ‰ J J J R nœ b У - серд - ным взо - ром серд - ца и у - ма u - ˈsʲɛ - rdnɨm ˈvzo - rʌm ˈsʲɛ - rtsɑ i u - ˈmɑ #

meno 44 f œ œ j œ.œ r j j j œ , j œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ b œn œ bœœ n œbœ nœ œ ? bb b J J J J nœ œ J J nœ b во тьме те - бя и - щу, ли - шён - ный зре - нья. И vɑ tʲmʲɛ tʲe - ˈbʲɑ i - ˈʃʲːu # lʲi - ˈʃo - nːɨj ˈzʲrʲe - ɲjɑ # i

48 œ œ j œ ƒ ˙nœ œ. œ œ œ. œ j œ œ b˙ ? bb b œ œ œ nœ œ J J b ка - жетJ - сяJ ве - ли - ко - леп - - - ной тьма, ˈkɑ - ʒɨ - tsʌ vʲi - lʲi - kɑ - ˈlʲɛ - - - pnʌj tʲmɑ #

53 j , œ œ j nœ œ 4 œ œ œ bœ œ.n œ œ œnœ œ œ bœ nœ œ ? bb b J J J nœ J J nœ J J b ког - да в не - ё ты вхо - дишь свет - лой те - нью. kɑ - ˈɡdɑ vɲi - ˈjo tɨ ˈfxo - dʲiʃ ˈsʲvʲɛ - tɫʌj ˈtʲe - ɲju

Tempo I (ma poco meno mosso) 61 pœ œ j œ nœ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ. œ œ œœ bbbb J œ J n œ J J œ ˙nœ œ ‰ Œ Мне от люб - ви по - коJ - я не найJ - ти. J mʲɲɛ ɑt lʲu - ˈbʲvʲi pɑ - ˈko - jɑ ɲɪ nɑj - ˈtʲi

3 66 j (sost.) j j œ œ œ œ œ b œ nœ œ nœ. œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ ? bb b ‰ nœ J œ œ nœ œ nœ Œ b И днём, и но - чьюJ — Jя всегJ - да в пу - ти. i dʲɲom i ˈno - tʃʲju # jɑ fʲsʲɪ - ˈɡdɑ fpu - ˈtʲi

220

˙ ? ˙ Люблю, но реже говорю об этом (Op.52, no. 3: Shakespeare Sonnet CII) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (102й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andantino ( ) e = 104 p œ œ œ œ œ nœ bœ œ ? bb 48 ∑ Œ ‰ œ œ. œ œ n œ #œ J ЛюбJ - лю — ноJ реJ - жеJ гоJ - во - lʲu - ˈblʲu # no ˈrʲɛ - ʒɨ ɡʌ - vɑ -

5 j œ œ œ œ r œ . œ œ œ œ œ bœ nœ œ œ b œ.nœ œ ? bb R J œ ‰ œ œ œ œ. n œ #œ J J œ рю об э - томJ , любJ - люJ нежJ - ней — ноJ неJ для мно - гих ˈrʲu ɑb ˈɛ - tʌm lʲu - ˈblʲu ɲɪ - ˈʒɲej no ɲɪ dʲlʲɑ ˈmno - ɡʲiɣ

9 œ œ j j œ j j ? ˙ œ œ œœ œœ œœ nœ œ bœœ nbœ bb J ‰ ‰ J J œ œ J глаз. Тор - гу - ет чув - ствомJ тотJ , кто пе - ред ɡɫɑs tɑ - ˈrɡu - jɪt ˈtʃʲu - stvʌm tot kto ˈpʲe - rʲɪt

13 j œ œ j j œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ n œ bœ œ œ œ œ ? bb J œ œ J J J J све - том всюJ дуJ - шу вы - став - ля - ет на - по - ˈsvʲɛ - tʌm # fʲsʲu ˈdu - ʃu vɨ - stɑv - ˈlʲa - jɪt nɑ - pɑ -

16 r œ F r œ œ œ œ j j œ œ ˙ œ b œ œ œ nœ bœ œ œ bœ ? bb J ‰ Œ ≈ œ R œ J J œ œ œ œ каз. Те - бя встре - чал я пе - сней, как при - ˈkɑs tʲe - ˈbʲɑ fstrʲe - ˈtʃʲɑɫ jɑ ˈpʲe - sʲɲij kɑk prʲi -

20 r j œ œ œ œ œ nœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ . œ bœ bœ bœ œ œ œ bb J ≈ R R J J ве - томJ , когR - да лю - бовь но - ва быJ - ла для нас. ˈvʲɛ - tʌm kɑ - ˈɡdɑ lʲu - ˈbofʲ nɑ - ˈvɑ bɨ - ˈɫɑ dʲlʲɑ nɑs #

(sost.) 23 j œ œ œ j r j œ r œ r œ. ? œ œ œ œœ. œ œ . œ nœœ bœœ #œ nœœ nœ bnœœ bb nœ R œ œ R R R R ТакR соR - ло - вей гре - мит в пол - ноч - ный час вес - ной, но tɑk sʌ - ɫɑ - ˈvʲej ɡrʲi - ˈmʲit fpɑ - ˈɫno - tʃʲnɨj tʃʲɑs vʲɪ - ˈsnoj # no

221

26 r r œ r œ r œ œ 2 bœ œ œ n œ bœ nœ. œ œ ? bb R J J nœ Œ флей - ту за - бы - ва - ет ле - томJ . ˈ"ʲej - tu zɑ - bɨ - ˈvɑ - jɪt ˈlʲɛ - tʌm

30 F r r j œ r r r œ ? œ n œ œœ bœ n œ. b œ œ œ b œ œ nœ œ bœ bb J œ R nœœ œ R Ночь не ли - шит - ся пре - ле - сти сво - ей, notʃʲ ɲɪ lʲi - ˈʃɨ - tsɑ ˈprʲe - lʲi - sʲtʲi svɑ - ˈjej #

32 r r r œ œ r r œ r ? œ œ œ bœ œ.nœ bœ œ nœ œ #œ œ. œ nœ bb R R J R œ nœœ œ J œ Œ ‰ ≈ R ког - да е - го у - молк - нутR из - ли - я - нья. Но kɑ - ˈɡdɑ je - ˈvo u - ˈmo - ɫknut i - zʲlʲi - ˈja - ɲjɪ no

35 r r œ r œ œ œ r œ œ œ bœ œ nœœ œ œ œ œ bœ bœ ? bb R R R R œ œ œ œ œ œ му - зы - ка, зву - ча со всех вет - вей, R Rо - бычR - нойR ˈmu - zɨ - kɑ zvu - ˈtʃʲɑ sɑ fʲsʲɛx vʲi - ˈtʲvʲej # ɑ - ˈbɨ - tʃʲnɑj

37 œ r œ œ œ œ 5 p j ? #œ œœ œ œ œ. œœ œ bb œ. nœœ R R R J R Œ Œ ‰ œ ставJ , те - ряR - ет о - ба - я - нье. И stɑf # tʲi - rʲa - jɪt ɑ - bɑ - ˈja - ɲjɪ i

sostenuto 45 , œ j œ œ œ œ r œ œ ? œ. œœ nœ. nœ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œ bb œ œ œ J J R œ R я у - молк, поJ - добJ - ноJ со - ло - вью: сво - Rё про - jɑ u - ˈmoɫk # pɑ - ˈdo - bnʌ sʌ - ɫɑ - ˈvʲju # svɑ - ˈjo prɑ -

a tempo 49 j j œ œ , j œ j œ œ œ nœ bœ bœ nœ ˙œ œ ? bb œ œ J J ‰ Œ пелJ и боль - ше не по - ю. ˈpʲɛɫ # i ˈbo - lʲʃɨ ɲɪ pɑ - ˈju

222

n˙ ? ˙ Когда на суд безмолвных, тайных дум (Op. 52, no. 4: Shakespeare Sonnet XXX) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (30й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Largo ( ) (sost. ) q = 50 3 π œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ bbb c Ó ‰ œ œ J œ. œ œ œ J œ КогJ - даJ на суд безJ - молвJ - ныхJ , тай - ныхJ kɑ - ˈɡdɑ nɑ sud bʲɪ - ˈzmo - ɫvnɨx ˈtɑj - nɨɣ

6 j œ œ j œ œ œ œ j œ ˙œ œ œœ œœ œ œœ œ nœ. œ œœ œ ? bb œ J J J œ œ œ. œ J ‰ œ œ b дум Jя вы - зы - ва - ю гоJ - лоJ - са быJ - ло - го, — у - траJ - тыJ dum # jɑ vɨ - zɨ - ˈvɑ - ju ɡʌ - ɫɑ - ˈsɑ bɨ - ˈɫo - vʌ u - ˈtrɑ - tɨ

9 œ œ œ œ j j œ œœ ˙ nœ nœ œ œ œ ? bb œ. œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ J J b все приJ - хоJ - дятJ мнеJ наJ ум, и ста - рой бо - fsʲɛ prʲi - ˈxo - dʲɑt mɲɛ nɑ um # i ˈstɑ - rʌj ˈbo -

11 j j œ œ œ œ œ. j nœ œ p œ ? œ nœ bœ œ œ œœ 3 bbb J J œ. J Ó Ó ‰ œœ œ J 4 - лью я бо - ле - ю сно - ва. ИзJ глазJ , не - lʲju jɑ bɑ - ˈlʲe - ju ˈsno - vɑ iz ɡɫɑs ɲɪ

14 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ œ nœ œ nœ œ .nœ nœ œ œ b œ nœ bœ œ œ œ œ ? bb 43 œ œ œ. J J #œ # œ J c J J J J J J œ J b знавJ -шихJ слёз, я слё - зыJ лью о тех, ко - го во тьме та - ит мо - ˈznɑ-fʃɨxsʲlʲos # jɑ ˈsʲlʲo- zɨ lʲju ɑ tʲɛx # kɑ - ˈvo vɑ tʲmʲɛ tɑ - ˈit mɑ -

223

poco a poco più agitato 17 j œ œ j œ j œ j . œ j j nœ œ bbœœ j œ ? b œ œ œ œ œœ œ. œ œ œœ œœ œ œœ #œ œ nœ œ b b J ‰ J J J J J J J #œ œ ги - ла, и - щу лю - бовь по - гиб-шу - ю сво - ю и всё, что в жиз - ни мнеJ каJ - ˈɡʲi - ɫɑ i - ˈʃʲːu lʲu - ˈbofʲ pɑ - ˈɡʲi-pʃu - ju svɑ - ˈju # i fsʲo ʃto ˈvʒɨ - zʲɲi mɲɛ kɑ -

20 œ œ j œ p œ œ œ œ ? œ #œ œ nœ bœ nœ Nœœ nœ bb œ. J œ œ Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ ˙ b за - лось ми - Jло. ВеJ - дуJ Jя счёт поJ - теJ - рянJ - Jно - муJ мной ˈzɑ - ɫʌsʲ ˈmʲi - ɫʌ vʲɛ - ˈdu jɑ ʃʲːot pɑ - ˈtʲe - rʲɪ - nːʌ - mu mnoj

23 cresc. œ œ œ œ œ , j œ j œ œ œ ? œ œ #nœ bœ nœ bœ œ œ nœ . nœ bœ œ œ œ bb ‰ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J œ J J J J b Jи Jу - жаJ - са - юсь вновьJ поJ - теJ - реJ каж - дой, и вновь пла - чу я до - ро - i u - ʒɑ-ˈsɑ - jusʲ vnofʲ pɑ - ˈtʲe - rʲɪ ˈkɑ - ʒdʌj # i vnofʲ pɫɑ-ˈtʃʲu jɑ dʌ - rɑ -

poco allarg. 26 . j œ œ œ j j œ œ f˙. œ nœœ n œ b œ bœ . œ nœ œ nœ œ nœ bœ œ nœœ ? bb J # œ œ œ J œ J J b гой це - ной за тоJ , заJ чтоJ пла - тил у - же од - наж - ды! ˈɡoj tsɨ - ˈnoj zɑ to # zɑ ʃto ˈpɫɑ - tʲiɫ u - ˈʒɛ ɑ - ˈdnɑ - ʒdɨ

Poco meno mosso 29 a tempo poco allarg. j j j 4 nœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ j ? œ . œ œ œ œ bœ 2 nœ. œ bb Ó Œ ‰ J R J J J J 4 œ c b Но про - шло-е я на - хо - жу в те - бе и no ˈpro - ʃɫʌ-jɪ jɑ nɑ - xɑ - ˈʒu ftʲe - ˈbʲɛ # i

(sost. ) (a tempo) (sost. ) (a tempo) 36 j n˙ œ bœ œ œ œ ƒ œ œ nœœ nœ œ. nœ nbœ œ œw ˙ œ ? bb c J J J œ J Œ b всё го - тов про - стить сво - ей судь - бе. fsʲo ɡɑ - ˈtof prɑ - ˈsʲtʲitʲ svɑ-ˈjej su - ˈdʲbʲɛ

224

˙ ? ˙ Бог Купидон дремал в тиши лесной (Op. 52, no. 5: Shakespeare Sonnet CLIII) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (153й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Allegretto moderato e capriccioso ( ) q = 96 j 8 F œœ j œ #œ ? # 2 nœ œ œ œ nœ n œ# œ œnœ 4 . #œ œ J J Бог Ку - пи - дон дреJ - малJ в Jти - ши лес - box ku - pʲi - ˈdon drʲɪ - ˈmɑɫ ftʲi - ˈʃɨ lʲɪ -

12 #œ j œ j #œ œ j j j œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ œnœ œ ? # ˙ œ œ œ J J J # œ œ ной, J Jа ним - фа ю - на - я у Ку - пи - ˈsnoj # ɑ ˈɲi - mfɑ ˈju - nɑ - jɑ u ku - pʲi -

16 #œ , j #œ œ œ j #œ nœ #œ ? # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ ˙œ J J J J œ J œ J до - на взя - ла го - ря - щий фа - келJ смоJ - ля - ной ˈdo - nɑ # vzʲɪ - ˈɫɑ ɡɑ - ˈrʲa - ʃʲːij ˈfɑ - kʲɛɫ smʌ - lʲɪ - ˈnoj #

poco rit. poco a poco acceler. 20 j j #œ j j #œ j j œ œ nœ œ œ nœ # œ œ œ œ nœ œ #œ ? # œ J œ œ œ #œ œ # œ œ. œ и о - пу - сти - лаJ в ру - чеJ - ёк сту - дё - ныйJ . i ɑ - pu - ˈsʲtʲi - ɫɑ vru - tʃʲe - ˈjok stu - ˈdʲo - nɨj

Poco più mosso 24 4 F #œ #œ #œ #œ j j œ #œ œ ˙ œ nœ nœ #œ. œ ? # Œ ‰ œ œ. œ J œ # œ œ J ОJ - гонь поJ - гас, Jа в ру - чей - ке во - ɑ - ˈɡoɲ pɑ - ˈɡɑs # ɑ vru - tʃʲij - ˈkʲɛ # vɑ -

cresc. poco a poco 33 j j #œ. œ œœ #œ Œ œ œ œ. #œ #œ œ #˙œ ? # œ J nœ œ J Œ J œ да наJ - гре - лась, за - бур - ли - ла, за - ки - пе - ˈdɑ nɑ - ˈɡrʲɛ - ɫɑsʲ zɑ - bu - ˈrlʲi - ɫɑ zɑ - kʲi - ˈpʲɛ -

39 #œ , j #œ œ j #œ j #œ œ œ œ˙ œ œ #œ . œ œœ nœ œ nœ ? # . œ J J # œ J # ˙ ла. И вот боль - ны - е схо - дят - ся ту - да ɫɑ # i vod bɑ - ˈlʲnɨ - jɛ ˈsxo - dʲɪ - tsʌ tu - ˈdɑ #

225

45 j j #œ . j œ #œ œ n( œ j) f œ œ j #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ#œ ˙ ? # J œœ œ J J J J ле - чить во - до - ю не - мощ - но - е те - lʲi - ˈtʃʲitʲ vɑ - ˈdo - ju ˈɲɛ - mʌ - ʃʲːnʌ - jɪ ˈtʲɛ -

Tempo I 49 #œ 7 F #œ nœ j œ j #œ œ ? # œ œ nœ œ œnœ n œ œ œ # œ # œ ˙ Œ ‰ J J . # œ œ J J ло. А меж - ду тем, любJ - ви луJ - ка - вый бог ɫʌ ɑ ˈmʲɛ - ʒdu tʲɛm # lʲu - ˈbʲvʲi ɫu - ˈkɑ - vɨj box #

61 #œ œ j #œ œ j œ j , j ? # œ #œ nœ œ.œ œ œ œ œœ œ nœ œ œ œ œ J œ J J œ œ J доJ - былJ о - гонь из глаз моJ - ей по - дру - ги и dɑ - ˈbɨɫ ɑ - ˈɡoɲ iz ɡɫɑs mɑ - ˈjej pɑ - ˈdru - ɡʲi # i

ten.

65 œ #œ n œ #œ #œ œ ƒ˙ œ , #œ n œ ? # œ œ œ œ œœ #œ œ nœ ˙ œ ˙ œ œ œ J J J J J œ J J J серд - це мне для о - пыJ - таJ под - жёг. О, как с тех ˈsʲɛ - rtsʌ mɲɛ dʲlʲɑ ˈo - pɨ - tɑ pɑ - ˈdʒok # oː # kɑk sʲtʲɛx

poco rit. 71 j #œ œ #œ j 7 œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ . œ ? # œ œ J J œ порJ меJ - ня то - мят не - ду - ги! por mʲe - ˈɲɑ tɑ - ˈmʲɑt ɲɪ - ˈdu - ɡʲi

Non più mosso! 81 F j j #œ œ j #œ . j œ #œ nœ nœ #œ˙ œ # œ ? # ‰ œ œœ œ œ œœ J œ НоJ ис - цеJ - лить их мо - жетJ не ру - чей, а no i - stsɨ - ˈlʲitʲ ix ˈmo - ʒɨt ˈɲɪ ru - tʃʲej # ɑ

sostenuto a tempo 86 f œ #œ #œ F œ #œ ? # œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J ‰ ‰ J J œ J J œ œ ‰ тот же яд— о - гонь Jе - ё о - чей. J ˈtod ʒɛ jɑt ɑ - ˈɡoɲ je - ˈjo ɑ - ˈtʃʲej

226

b˙ ? b˙ Не изменяйся, будь самим собой (Op. 52, no. 6: Shakespeare Sonnet XIII) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (13й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andante con moto q = 80 j 3 F j j œ œ j œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ ? bb b b c Ó ‰ œ nœ œ J J nœ J b b НеJ из - ме - няй - ся, будь са - мим со - ɲe i - zʲmʲi - ˈɲaj - sʌ # butʲ sɑ - ˈmʲim sɑ -

6 j œ œ œ b ˙ nœ œ bœœ œ nœ œœ œœ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ ? bb b b J J J J J J J J œ b b бой. Ты мо - жешь быть со - бой, по - ка жиJ - ˈboj # tɨ ˈmo - ʒɨʒ bɨtʲ sɑ - ˈboj # pɑ - ˈkɑ ʒɨ -

8 j j j nœ œ œ œ nœ œ n œ j nœ ? ˙ œ œ.œ œ œœ œœ œ œ b ˙ œ nœ bœ nœ bbbb b ‰ œ œ J J J J J J b вёшь. КогJ -даJ же смерть раз - ру - шит об - раз твой, пусть бу - дет ˈvʲoʃ kɑ-ˈɡdɑ ʒɨ sʲmʲertʲ rɑ - ˈzru - ʃɨt ˈo - brɑs tvoj # puzʲdʲ ˈbu - dʲɪt

meno 11 j f œ œ œ œ œ j nœ j nœ bœ œœ nœ œ œ œ ? bb b b J œ J œ. œ w œ ‰ Œ ‰ J nœ b b кто - то наJ те - бя поJ - хож. J Те - бе при - ˈkto - tʌ nɑ tʲe - ˈbʲɑ pɑ - ˈxoʃ tʲe - ˈbʲɛ prʲi -

ten.

14 j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ j b œ n œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ nœ œ œ bœ ˙ n œ ? bb b b J J J J J J J J nœ J œ b b ро - дой кра - со - та да - на на о - чень крат - кий срок, ˈro - dʌj krɑ - sɑ - ˈtɑ dɑ - ˈnɑ nɑ ˈo - tʃʲiɲ ˈkrɑ - tʲkʲij srok #

16 j œ œ j j œ œ œœ j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œœ nœ ? bb b b J nœ J J J J J J J J œ œ b b и по - то - му пус - кай по пра - ву пе - рей - дёт Jо - на i pʌ - tɑ - ˈmu pu - ˈskɑj pɑ ˈprɑ - vu pʲe - rʲej - ˈdʲot ɑ - ˈnɑ #

227

18 j œ œ œ j j œ œ j œ nœ nœ œ œ nœ bœ˙ œ œ ? bb b b œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ J 42 ‰ ‰ J c b b к на - след - ни - куJ пряJ - моJ - муJ тво - е - му. В за - knɑ - ˈsʲlʲedʲ - ɲi - ku prʲɪ - ˈmo - mu tvɑ - jɪ - ˈmu vzɑ -

21 j j j œ j œ j j j j œ j œ j b œnœ bœ œœ œ œ nœ œ œœ b œ. n œ nbœ œ n œ œn œ œb œ œn œ œ œ bœ ? bb b b c J n œ J J J 42 c J J nœ J œ b b бот - ли - вых ру - ках пре-крас-ный дом не дрог - нет пе - ред на - тис - ком зи - ˈbo - tʲlʲi - vɨx ru-ˈkɑx #prʲɪ-ˈkrɑs - nɨj dom ɲɪ ˈdro-ɡɲɪt # ˈpʲe - rʲɪt ˈnɑ - tʲis - kʌm zʲi -

24 œ œ œ œ j œ j œ j ? ˙œ j œ œ. b œ n œ œ bœ œ œ ˙œ œ nbœ bœ nnœ bbbb b ‰ nœ œœ J J J J nœ J J J b мы, Jи ни - ког - да не во - ца - рит - ся в нём ды - ха - нье ˈmɨ i ɲi - kɑɡ - ˈdɑ ɲɪ vʌ - tsɑ - ˈrʲi - tsʌ vɲom # dɨ - ˈxɑ - ɲjɪ

ten. rit. Tempo I (ma poco meno mosso) 27 f œ. j œ œ j p ˙ œ œ nœ œ œ nœ œ ? bb b b nœ œ œ œ œ w œ ‰ Œ Ó Œ œ b b смер - ти, хоJ - лоJ - даJ и тьмы. J О, пусть, ˈsʲmʲe - rtʲi ˈxo - ɫʌ - dɑ i tʲmɨ o # pusʲtʲ #

31 j j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ œ nœ bœ ˙ œ œ œ œ w ? bb b b J J J œ œ J J J J J b b ког - да на - стаJ - нетJ твой ко - нец, зву - чат сло - ва: kɑ - ˈɡdɑ nɑ - ˈstɑ - ɲɪt tvoj kɑ - ˈɲɛts # zvu-ˈtʃʲɑt sɫɑ - ˈvɑ #

poco rit. 34 dim. fœ j j œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ. œ w w œ ? bb b b J J ‰ Œ Ó b b —Был у ме - ня о - тец! bɨɫ u mʲe - ˈɲɑ ɑ - ˈtʲɛts

228

˙ ? ˙ Ты — музыка (Op. 52, no. 7: Shakespeare Sonnet VIII) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (8й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Larghetto qd = 56 F j #œ #œ n œ # œ œœ #œ nœ œ œ œ #œ ? 86 ∑ Œ. ‰ ‰ œ œ J J œ Ты — му - зыJ - ка, но зву - кам му - зыJ - tɨ ˈmu - zɨ - kɑ # no ˈzvu - kɑm mu - zɨ -

(sost.) (a tempo) 5 #œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ #œ #œ œ œ œ œ. œœ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ J œ œœ œ . J ‰ J каль - J ным тыJ внемJ - лешьR с Rне - поR - нят - ноR - юR тосR - кой. За - ˈkɑ - lʲnɨm # tɨ ˈvɲɛ - mlʲɪʃ sʲɲɪ - pɑ - ˈɲɑt - nʌ - ju tɑ - ˈskoj zɑ -

(sost.) 8 j œ j #œ nœ œ œ #œ r œ œ #œ œ nœœ œ œ #œ œ # œ œ œ œ. œ ? œ œ J J J œ œ œ чем же лю - бишьJ то, что так пе - чаль - но, встре-чаR - ешьR ˈtʃʲɛm ʒɨ ˈlʲu - bʲɪʃ to # ʃto tɑk pʲe - ˈtʃʲa - lʲnʌ # fstrʲi-ˈtʃʲa - jɪʃ

11 (a tempo) #œ œ œ œ f œ ? œœ œœ œ. œ œœ œ œ. œ ‰ ‰ Œ. œ. му - куJ раJ - досR - тьюR таR - кой? J Где ˈmu - ku ˈrɑ - dɑ - sʲtʲju tɑ - ˈkoj ɡdʲɛ

14 #œ œ œ j #œ nœ #œ #œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? J œ œœ J J œ. œœ ≈ œ œ œ тай - на - я при - чи - на э - той му - киJ ? НеR поR - тоR - ˈtɑj - nɑ - jɑ prʲi - ˈtʃʲi - nɑ ˈɛ - tʌj ˈmu - kʲi ɲɪ pʌ - tɑ -

17 j #œ #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ ? œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ. œ œ . œ œ œ œ. œ #œœ nœ #œ œœ œ. œ R J R R R J R œ му лиJ груJ - стьюR тыR объ - ят, что строй - но со - гла - со - ван - ныR - Rе ˈmu lʲi ˈɡru - sʲtʲju tɨ ɑ - ˈbjɑt # ʃto ˈstroj - nɑ sʌ - ɡɫɑ - ˈso - vɑ - nːɨ - jɪ

229

20 poco rit. #œ œ œ j œ r œœ œ œ œ ? œœ œ ‰ ‰ œœ œ. œ œ œœ J. œ œ œ œ. œ ‰ ‰ зву - ки упJ - рёJ - комR Rо - ди - но - честR - вуR звуR - чат? J ˈzvu - kʲi u - ˈprʲo - kʌm ɑ - dʲi - ˈno - tʃʲɪ - vu zvu - ˈtʃʲɑt

a tempo (non subito) poco rit. a tempo 23 6 F j #œ œ œ œ j #œ ? œ œœ œ œ #œ nœœ Œ. ‰ ‰ œ œ œ J œ При - слу - шайJ - ся, как дру - же - ствен - ноJ prʲi - ˈsɫu - ʃɑj - sʌ # kɑɡ ˈdru - ʒɨ - sʲtʲvʲɪ - nːʌ

(sost.) 32 (sost.) œ #œ œ œ #œ #œ œ j œ.œ œ. œ œ ? œœ œœ œ. œœ œ œœ œ œœ J œ œ œ œ J стру - J ныJ встуR -паR - ютR в строй и го - лосR поR - даR - ют, — как ˈstru - nɨ # fstu-ˈpɑ - jut fstroj # i ˈɡo - ɫʌs pʌ - dɑ - ˈjut # kɑɡ

35 j j œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ j œ n œ#œ œ œ œ ? œ J œ œ œ œ # œ n œ œ œ œ#œ J буд - то мать, Jо - тец и от - рок ю - ный в счаст - ˈbu - tːɑ mɑtʲ # ɑ - ˈtʲɛts ɨ ˈo - trɑk ˈju - nɨj # fʃʲːa -

poco rit. a tempo. Con moto a tempo 38 j j œ r j r r #œ œ œ 4 f œ#œ œ œ ? œ . #œ œ . œ œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ R Œ ‰ Œ. J J J ли - вомR Rе - ди - не - ни - и по - ют. Нам го - во - ˈsʲlʲi - vʌm je - dʲi - ˈɲe - ɲi - ji pɑ - ˈjut # nɑm ɡʌ - vɑ -

45 j #œ œ bœ #œ nœ œ #œ j j œ bœ œ œ b œ œ œ bœœ œ œ b œ n œ œ ? œ J J J 89 Œ. J J œ œ 86 рит со - гла - сье струн в кон - цер - те, что о - ди - но - кий ˈrʲit sɑ - ˈɡɫɑ - sʲjɪ strun fkɑ - ˈntsɛrʲ - tʲɛ ʃto ɑ - dʲi - ˈno - kʲij

rit. a tempo 48 j #œ œ œ 3 œ.œ œ œ œ ? 86 ‰ œ œ. œ œ œ. œ œœ путь поJ - до - бенJ смер - тиJ . putʲ pɑ - ˈdo - bʲɪn ˈsʲmʲɛ - rtʲi

230

b˙ ? b˙ Ты погрусти, когда умрёт поэт (Op. 52, no. 8: Shakespeare Sonnet LXXI) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (71й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andante non troppo ( ) q = 66 F œ j œ œ n œ œ ? œ œœ œ œ. œ bbbb c Ó ‰ œ nœ J nœœ œ œ œ J ТыJ поJ - гру - сти, коJ - гдаJ Jу - мрёт по - tɨ pʌ - ɡru - ˈsʲtʲi kɑ - ˈɡdɑ u - mrʲot pɑ -

3 nœ œ j œ j œ j j œ j œœ œ bœ.nœ bœ œ œ œ œ n ˙ b œ œ nœ nœ bœ ? bb b ˙ œ œ J nœ J J œ œ œ J b эт, J поJ - ку - да звон бли - жай - шей из церкJ - вей неJ воз - вес - ˈɛt # pɑ- ˈku -dɑ zvon blʲi - ˈʒɑj - ʃɨj is tsɨ - ˈrkvʲej # ɲɪ vʌ-zʲvʲe -

6 j nœ œ nœ œ œ j œ œ j j ? œ nœ œ. ˙ œ œ œ. œ j œ œ œ bbbb nœ J œ bœ œ œœ J œ œ nœ J œnœ J œ тит, что Jэ - тотJ низ - кийJ свет Jя проJ -ме - нял на низ -ший мир чер - ˈsʲtʲit ʃto ˈɛ - tʌt ˈɲi - sʲkʲij sʲvʲɛt # jɑ prʌ-mʲi - ˈɲɑɫ nɑ ˈɲi - ʃːɨj mʲir tʃʲɪ -

dolce 9 p j j j j j j j j œ œœ nœ œ ˙ b œ œ œ œb œ œ œœ nœ œ œœ ˙ œ œ œ ? bb b ‰ ‰ nœ nœ œ J J œ œ œ b вей. И, ес - ли пеJ - ре - чтёшь ты мой со - нет, тыJ Jо руJ - ˈrvʲej i ˈje - sʲlʲi pʲe - rʲe - ˈtʃʲtʲoʃ tɨ moj sɑ - ˈɲɛt # tɨ ɑ ru -

12 j nœ œ j œ , œ j œ j œ j nœ b œ. œœ œbœb œn œ bœ nœ nœ œ œ . bœœ n œ bœ ? bb b œ J J œ ˙ œ œ J œ nœ J b ке осJ - тыв - шей не жаJ - лей. J ЯJ не хо - чу ту - маJ - нить неж - ный ˈkʲɛ ɑ - ˈstɨ - fʃɨj ɲɪ ʒɑ - ˈlʲej # jɑ ɲɪ xɑ - ˈtʃʲu tu - ˈmɑ - ɲitʲ ˈɲɛ - ʒnɨj

231

15 j j j nœ œ bœ . œ j œœ ˙ œ œ bœ œ œ œœ œ œ œ bœw ? bb b J J nœ J J œ J b цвет о - чей лю - би - мых па - мять - ю сво - ей. tsvʲɛt # ɑ - ˈtʃʲej lʲu - ˈbʲi - mɨx ˈpɑ - mʲi - tʲju svɑ - ˈjej

18 j œ f œ œ nœ nœ œ j j nœ j ? œ œ œ œ œ n œ bœ bœ ˙ œ œ bbbb ‰ Œ ‰ œ nœ J œ. œ J J œ . nœ ЯJ неJ хо - чу, чтобJ э - хо э - тих строк ме - jɑ ɲɪ xɑ - ˈtʃʲu ʃtob ˈɛ - xʌ ˈe - tʲix strok # mʲe -

poco a poco dim. 21 œ œ œ j œ œ nœ j nœ œ œ œ j nœ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ bœ œ . œ œ œ œ bbbb J J J nœ J J J œ J œ J J J œnœ bœ J œ ня на - по - ми - на - ло вновь и вновь. ПуJ -скай за - мрут в о - дин Jи тот жеJ ˈɲɑ nɑ - pʌ - mʲi - ˈnɑ - ɫʌ vnofʲ i vnofʲ # pu-ˈskɑj zɑ - ˈmrut vɑ-ˈdʲin ɨ tod ʒɨ

24 j nœ œ œ œ j œ œ nœ pœ œ ? ˙ œ œ œ œœ œ œ. œ , œ bbbb J œ œ J J J œ nœ J ˙ œ œ œ œ срок моJ - Jё ды - ха - нье и тво - я лю - бовь ! J ЯJ неJ хоJ - srok # mɑ - ˈjo dɨ - ˈxɑ - ɲjɪ i tvɑ - ˈjɑ lʲu - ˈbofʲ # jɑ ɲɪ xɑ -

27 j nœ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œœ ? œ œ œ bœœ œn œ œ bœ J bb b ˙ œ œ œ œ œ. nœ ˙ œ J b чу, J чтоJ - быJ своJ - ей тоJ -ской ты преJ - даJ - лаJ се - бя мол - ˈtʃʲu ʃto - ˈbɨ svɑ - ˈjej tɑˈskoj # tɨ prʲɪ - dɑ - ˈɫɑ sʲe - ˈbʲɑ mɑ -

sost. a tempo 30 œœ j œ ? . nœœ ˙ œ bb b J ‰ Œ Ó ∑ b ве люд - ской. ˈɫvʲɛ lʲu - ˈtskoj

232

#˙ ? ˙ Уж если ты разлюбишь (Op. 52, no. 9: Shakespeare Sonnet XC) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (90й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Drammatico q = 84 f j j j j œ j j œ j 2 œ œ œ œœ œ œ nœ #œ ? #### c ‰ Ó Œ ‰ nœ œ nœ J nœ nœ J œ # Уж ес - ли ты раз - лю-бишь — так те - uʒ ˈje - sʲlʲi tɨ rɑ - ˈzʲlʲu - bʲiʃ tɑk tʲe -

5 j . j œ œ j j œ œ # œ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ ? ## # ‰ J J nœ œ œ J œ. œ Ó # перь, те - перь, ко - гда весь мир соJ мнойJ в раз - до - реJ . ˈpʲerʲ tʲe - ˈpʲerʲ kɑ - ˈɡdɑ vʲesʲ mʲir sɑ mnoj vrɑ - ˈzdo - rʲɪ

8 œ œ œ j œ . œ # nœ œ œ œœ œ nœ #œ œ œ œ œ ? ## # J J J J n œ J nœ J ‰ J # Будь са - мой горь - кой из мо - их по - терь, но butʲ ˈsɑ - mʌj ˈɡo - rʲkʌj is mɑ - ˈix pɑ - ˈtʲerʲ no

10 œ œ œ j œ œ ? # # œ œ nœ œ n‹œ œ #œ nœ # ## J œ ‹œ œ J # œ œ. œ Ó толь - коJ неJ поJ - следJ - ней кап - лейJ го - ряJ ! to - lʲkʌ ɲɪ pɑ - ˈsʲlʲe - dʲɲij ˈkɑ - plʲej ˈɡo - rʲɪ

12 meno f œ nœ #œ œ œ ? # # œ œ. œ œ œ nœ œ nœ # ## Ó ‰ nœ œ œ J J J œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ ИJ есJ - лиJ скорбь да - но мне преJ - возJ - мочь, J неJ наJ - ноJ - i ˈje - sʲlʲi skorbʲ dɑ - ˈno mɲɛ prʲɪ - vɑ - ˈzmotʃʲ # ɲɪ nɑ - nɑ -

poco a poco cresc. 15 j œ. nœ œ# œ œ j œ œ œ œ œ ? # # n œ œ nœ œ nœ. œœ nœ n œ œ œ # ## nœ J J œ J J Œ ‰ œ œ. œ œ œ ‹œ œ œ си у - да - ра из за - са - ды. ПустьJ бурJ - наR - я J неJ разJ - реJ - ˈsʲi u - ˈdɑ - rɑ iz zɑ - ˈsɑ - dɨ puzʲdʲ ˈbu - rnɑ-jɑ ɲɪ rɑ - zʲrʲɪ -

233

18 j œ œ . j œ œ j œ œ # nœœ. œ. œ œ nœœ œnœ nœ nœ # œ n œ œ #œ. œœ ? ## # œ J œ œ J J J # шит - сяJ ночь дожд - ли - вым ут - ром — ут - ром без от - ра - ды. ˈʃɨ - tsʌ notʃʲ # dɑ - ˈʒdʲlʲi - vɨm ˈu - trʌm # ˈu - trʌm bʲɪz ɑ - ˈtrɑ - dɨ

21 2 f œ œ j œ j œ . j œ # œ œ. œ œ œ nœnœ #œ œ œ œ œ ? ## # Ó Œ ‰ J J J J nœ œ ‰ J # О - ставь ме - ня, но не в по - след - ний миг, ко - ɑ - ˈstɑfʲ mʲe - ˈɲɑ no ɲɪ fpɑ - ˈsʲlʲe - dʲɲij mʲik kɑ -

meno 26 œ œ nœ j œ #œ œ œ œ f # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ ? ## # J J J nœ J œ œ J œ. œ Œ ‰ œ # гда от мел - ких бед Jя Jо - сла - бе - юJ . ОсJ - ˈɡdɑ ɑt ˈmʲɛ - ɫkʲiɣ bʲɛt jɑ ɑ - sɫɑ - ˈbʲe - ju ɑ -

crescendo 28 œ œ , œ œ œ œ j œ nœ #œ ? # # œ œ œ. 3 œ nœ œ œ nœ˙ œ œ ‹ œ œ # ## . œ œ 2 œ J J J J c тавь сейJ - час, чтобJ сраJ - зуJ Jя по - стиг, что э - то ˈstɑfʲ sʲij-ˈtʃʲɑs # ʃtop ˈsrɑ - zu jɑ pɑ - ˈsʲtʲik # ʃto ɛ - tɑ

meno 30 j j f œœ. nœ œ #œ nœ œ f ? # # nœ œ œ œ # œ ‹ œ.# œ # # c J J J œ Œ ‰ œ # го - ре всех не - взгод боль - не - Jе. ЧтоJ ˈɡo - rʲɪ fsʲɛx ɲɪ - ˈvzɡod bɑ - ˈlʲɲe - jɛ ʃto

32 nœ j #œ œ œ j œ œ ? # # # œ n œ ‹œ œ œ nœ œ. # ## œ. . œ œ œ J œ нет не - взгод, Jа естьJ одJ - на бе - да — твоJ - ɲɛt ɲɪ - ˈvzɡot # ɑ jesʲtʲ ɑ - ˈdnɑ bʲɪ - ˈdɑ # tvɑ -

ten. (sost.) 34 j j ƒ œ. nœ . j œ œ j œ 3 # œ n œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ n œ #˙ ? ## # nœ #œ J J # ей люб - ви ли - шить - ся на всег - да. ˈjej lʲu - ˈbʲvʲi lʲi - ˈʃɨ - tsɑ nɑ fsʲɪ - ˈɡdɑ

234

˙ ? ˙ Увы, мой стих не блещет новизной (Op. 52, no. 10: Shakespeare Sonnet LXXVI) Samuil Marshak (1887-1964) (76й сонет) Dmitry Kabalevsky (1904-1987) IPA underlay Dann Mitton 2018 [Formant/Harmonic Crossings]

Andantino semplice hd = 56 2 ? 3 œ ˙# œ nnœ ˙. ˙ œ #œ˙ œœ b 4 Ó œ œ У - вы, мой стих не бле - щет u - ˈvɨ moj sʲtʲix ɲɪ ˈblʲe - ʃʲːɪt

(sost.) 8 bœ bœ œ œ œ j j j œ œ ? ˙ nœ œ. œœ nœ# œ n œ #œ œ bœ b œœ ˙. œ ‰ œ œ œ ˙ œ ˙ œ но - виз - ной, разJ - ноJ - обJ - ра - зьем пе - ре - мен не - ждан - ных. nɑ - vʲi - ˈznoj rɑ - znʌ-ɑb - ˈrɑ - zʲjɪm pʲe - rʲe - ˈmʲɛn ɲɪ - ˈʒdɑ - nːɨx

14 poco dim. bœ bœ œ bœ bœ ? œ j ˙ œ n ˙ bœ nœ nœ n˙œ œ b Œ. œ œ œœ œ #˙ œ œ # ˙ œ nœ НеJ поJ - ис - кать ли мне тро - пы и - ной, при - ё - мов ɲɪ pʌ - i - ˈskɑtʲ lʲi mɲɛ trɑ - ˈpɨ i - ˈnoj # prʲi - ˈjo - mʌf

20 bœ œ bœ bœ 5 F bœ œ œ œ œ nœ bœ n ˙ œ bœ œ nœ #˙. ˙ œ ? b œ. œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ но - выхJ ,соJ - чеJ - та - ний стран - ных? Я по - вто - ря - ю ˈno - vɨx #sʌ - tʃʲɪ - ˈtɑ - ɲij ˈstrɑ - nːɨx jɑ pʌ - ftɑ - ˈrʲa - ju

31 œ œ bœ œ bœ œ œ œ.b œ nœ œ j #˙ #nœ ˙ # œ # œ nœ œœ ? b #˙. œ. #œ œ œ J J преж - не - е о - пять, вJ о - дежJ - деJ ста - рой по - яв - ˈprʲɛ - ʒɲe - jɛ ɑ - ˈpʲatʲ # vɑ - ˈdʲɛ - ʒdʲɛ ˈstɑ - rʌj pʌ - jɪ -

36 œ j nœ bœ #bœ œ œ œ j j bœ ? #˙ #œ nœ # ˙ œ #œ . bœ ‹œ. œ œ œ b Ó œ J J œ œ œ ля - юсь сно - ва. И ка - жет - ся, по и - ме - ни наJ - ˈlʲa - jusʲ ˈsno - vɑ i ˈkɑ - ʒɨ - tsʌ pɑ ˈi - mʲi - ɲi nɑ -

235

dim. 41 bœ j bœ j bœ bœ p # ˙. œ. #œ#œ œ œ n ˙ œœ bnœ. bœ nœ bœ œb œ œ Ó nœ ? b J œ J J J ˙ œ œ звать ме - ня в сти - хах лю - бо - е мо-жет сло - во. Всё ˈzvɑtʲ # mʲe - ˈɲɑ fsʲtʲi - ˈxɑx lʲu - ˈbo - jɪ ˈmo-ʒɨt ˈsɫo - vʌ fsʲo

47 j œ bœ œ œ jbœ j bœ œ . bœ bœœ nœ. œ œ b ˙nœ œ n˙œ bœ b œ.n œ œœ œ œ n ˙ œ œ œ ? b J œ J œ œ J œ J J э - то отJ -то - го, что вновь и вновь ре-ша-ю я од - ну сво-ю за - ˈɛ - tɑ ɑ - tːɑ - ˈvo # ʃto vnofʲ i vnofʲ rʲɪ-ˈʃɑ-ju jɑ ɑ - ˈdnu svɑ-ˈju zɑ -

53 j bœ f bœ œ ˙œ b œ b œ bœ bœ , ˙ œ œ œ #œ œ˙ œ b ˙ œœ b˙ nœ bœ ? b Œ. J J œ да - чу: я о те - бе по - ю, мо - я лю - бовь, и ˈdɑ - tʃʲu jɑ ɑ tʲe - ˈbʲɛ pɑ - ˈju # mɑ - ˈjɑ lʲu - ˈbofʲ # i

59 œ œ œ œ j bœ 2 n˙œ ˙ bœ œ. œ bœ œœ ˙ œ F nœ ? b œ J œ J Ó œ то же серд - це, те же си - лы тра - чу. Всё to ʒɛ ˈsʲɛrt - tsɨ tʲɛ ʒɛ ˈsʲi - ɫɨ ˈtrɑ - tʃʲu fsʲo

sostenuto

66 œ bœ œ bœ ? n˙œ œ ˙.nœ ˙ bœœ ˙ nœ œ ˙ nœ nœ b œ œ ˙. œ. œ œ œ то же солн - це хо - дит на - до мной, ноJ Jи Jо - to ʒɛ ˈson - tsɨ ˈxo - dʲit ˈnɑ - dʌ mnoj # no i ɑ -

a tempo 73 ˙ ˙ œ bœ nœ . œœ ˙bœ nœ ˙ nœ 4 ? b œœ ˙. ˙. œ ‰ Œ Œ но не бле - щет но - виз - ной. J ˈno ɲɪ ˈblʲe - ʃʲːɛt nɑ - vʲi - ˈznoj

236

Appendix D: The Russian Alphabet Song

Russian Alphabet Song arr. Dann Mitton 2017

Moderato = 72 h й œ œ œ œ ˙ ? C œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ b А б в г д е ё, ж з и, (и - крат - ко - е). [ ɑ bɛ vɛ ɡɛ dɛ jɛ jo ʒɛ zɛ i i - ˈkrɑ - tkʌ - jɛ

b C œ & œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ- œ- ˙- œ œ œ w F ? ˙ ˙ œ- œ- œ ˙ b C ˙ ˙- œ œ œ œ œ 5 œ œ œ œ ˙ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ b К л м н о п р, с т у ф х ц ч! kɑ ɛl ɛm ɛn o pɛ ɛr ɛs tɛ u ɛf xɑ tsɛ tʃʲɛ 5 b œ & œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ- œ- ˙- œ œ ˙œ ˙ ˙ ? ˙ ˙ ˙- œ. b ˙ ˙- ˙ ˙ œ. œ œ ъ ь 9 ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ ? œ œ œ ˙ b Ш, щ, (твёр - ды знак), ы, (мяг - ки знак), э ю я. ʃɑ ʃtʃʲɑ ˈtʲvʲo - rdɨ ˌznɑk ɨ ˈmʲa - xʲkʲi ˌznɑk ɛ ju ja 9 b ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ & ˙ ˙ œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ - - œ - - - - œ ˙ ------? ˙- ˙ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ b ˙- œ œ 13 œ œ œ œ ˙ ? œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ b Чтоб по - русс - ки го - во - рит на - до ал - фа - вит у - чить! * ʃtop pɑ - ˈru - sʲkʲi ɡʌ - vɑ - ˈrʲit ˈnɑ - dʌ ˈɑ - ɫfɑ - vʲit u - ˈtʃʲitʲ ] 13 b œ & œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ- œ- ˙- œ œ ˙œ ˙ ˙ ? ˙ ˙ œ- œ- œ b ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ - * "To speak Russian you need to learn the˙ alphabet!"

237