Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner How do you pronounce alla breve?

I always thought it was Al-Lah Breeve.

Then read somewhere that it's Ah-Lah Bray-Vay.

What do you say?

It certainly isn't "Breeve. It's Italian. I'm pretty certain it's either "Alla brev" with a soft e, or "alla bre-vay", again with a soft e. By a soft e, I mean "eh."

"Cut Time"

The "S" is silent.

Oh, while on the topic of pronunciation, how do you pronounce 'grave'? I think 'grah-vay', but I don't want to sound like I'm trying too hard if it's simply pronounced 'grave'.

Does the pronunciation of "alla breve" depend on whether British or American terminology is dominant in one's locale?

In the U.S., I believe the term is usually regarded just as any other Italian musical term, i.e., pronounced loosely based on the Italian way: breh-vay.

But "breve" is a legitimate English word, too, pronounced brehv (rhymes with Bev) or breev (rhymes with Steve). So if you live in a part of the world where double whole notes are breves and whole notes are semibreves, would you be more likely to pronounce "alla breve" as alla brehv or alla breev?

Steven

p.s. agent3x, I would go with grah-vay, for the reason I gave above. (In the context of tempos, it's an Italian word.)

I was going to write "tempi"—but I consider that trying too hard!

I wonder..?

Here in Australia we use the British terminology (breve, semibreve, pronounced breeve) but in the musical circles I move in the term alla breve is generally pronounced alla brave=rhyming with save, wave and crave! (Unless someone particularly wants to demonstrate their familiarity with Italian.)

More to the point, what does "Alla breve" really mean? Most people will tell you, "Two in a bar", but there's a movement in Bach's St. John Passion marked "Alla breve" which is in 3 time. This leads to the supposition that older composers, at least, understood something different by the term to what is generally understood today.

Well, that's interesting. On its face, alla breve ("according to the breve") means only that the breve is the unit of time; since that doesn't specify how many per measure, it's not a complete time signature (except in the way we understand the term today).

I know next to nothing about medieval mensural notation, but a breve derives from brevis—and one of the definitions of brevis is "a note in medieval mensural notation equal to one-half or one-third of a longa" (from dictionary.com).

Steven

Erich Leinsdorf raised this point in one of his books and stated that "alla breve" had nothing whatsoever to do with 2 in a bar. I wish that he'd expanded his argument and given some examples.
My own feeling is that it has more to do with thinking across bars rather than being confined to them ( for example the Chopin Scherzi divide, for the most part, in 4 bar groups and perhaps should be written in 12/4; the problem comes when the music doesn't fall naturally in a 4 bar group and the 12/4 time-signature won't do, quite apart from the fact that it might prove more difficult to read).
I have examined a fair bit of music from the classical period with alla breve time signature and have come to the conclusion that, often, a two bar group should be thought of as a single bar, therefore the main (strong) accent falls every two bars while the subsidiary strong accent (which would fall on beat 3 in an ordinary bar) comes at the beginning of every second bar. The finale of Mozart K333 gains in grace taking this approach rather than stressing the first beat in every written bar.
Of course if "alla breve" was understood differently in the past there is little doubt that more modern composers have understood it in its generally accepted meaning of 2 in a bar.

I know just a tiny bit about the historical part. In the Medieaval period notation that was multiples of 3 was considered sacred because of some mystical connections that go back to Greek philosophy, and multiples of 2 were considered profane. Mensural notation was the first attempt at writing note value, but it was still steeped in this mindset or philosophy. Notation in multiples of two used the symbol for silver, while multiples of three used the symbol for gold, since it was of a higher more pure value. The longa would be what was divided into three or two. Afaik, there was no concept of measures / bar lines yet; maybe the longa had that function (?). We must have transitioned from one to the other, with some bits of it still clinging to later music.

"Breve" means short, which seems incongruous to us when considering a note that equals eight (?)quarter note beats. Contemporaries at the time when music was changing were complaining about notes becoming "chopped up" - even what might be our half note. There is some kind of feeling to the music, or meaning, some kind of a long flow, that was being endangered or compromised in their eyes. Could it be that whatever that was still resides in some of the older music, and that the spirit or sense of it would have been known to those composers?

An interesting post, keystring.
Just after my previous posting I looked to see what Quantz had to say on the matter in his flute-playing treatise. He says that the cut common time symbol (alla breve) means that the music must be played twice as fast. Of course, this effect could be achieved by halving the note values as written and compressing them into a single bar; this would not then produce the effect of 2 in a bar.
In my edition of The St. John Passion (by Ivor Atkins) in the number in question (no.58) the editor, at the alla breve indication where the music changes from 4/4 to 3/4, adds in brackets the instruction crotchet = quaver, which would accord with Quantz's notion of the music doubling time although, of course, in the Bach example it has nothing to do with cut common time.

I note also, though, that your conclusions in the Mozart K333 come from the practical application of a musician. You played, listened, and heard which sounded more authentic. My bit of reading cannot compare to that.

Interesting point Steven... however I'm inclined to think that only the Italian pronunciation is correct. Why? Because of the presence of the word "alla", which of course makes "alla breve" an Italian phrase.

Regardless of how you pronounce alla breve, what is Schubert getting at when he used the symbol for cut time twice in the G flat major impromptu--double cut time? And what does that mean? It must mean that the measure are very long, sustained, and nearly beatless.

Anyone know of other examples of double cut time?

Tomasino

My edition of this work doesn't show the marking (which, no doubt, is authentic). It is certainly an interesting one as the music "breathes" in 4 and 8-bar phrases. Perhaps this is what Schubert was indicating by the unusual time signature.
I think this whole "Alla breve" business is worthy of thorough investigation!

W-d, what's the time signature in your edition of the Schubert impromptu?

Steven

Mine is a Dover publication, "Franz Schubert, Shorter Works for Pianoforte Solo."

The time signature shown is two Cs--CC--each with a vertical slash.

Wood demon writes "the music 'breathes' in 4 and 8 bar phrases." I think that's right on. How to count the music is obvious without a time signature. Schubert is attempting to tell us how the music "breathes."

Tomasino

Tomasino, in another recent thread you said that this impromptu was one of the few instances you'd seen of double cut time. It's the only example I've ever encountered, so I'd be interested to know of others.

Also, FWIW, this oddness is rendered even more peculiar by the fact that some editions indicate the time signature with a slashed C repeated twice but others with a slashed C followed by a backward slashed C.

Should the time signature be considered the same in either case (whether 4/2 or 2/1), or is a distinction implied in the different ways the symbols are printed?

Steven

Steven, I have a couple of editions of the work. The one I had to hand when making my post was an ancient Litollf edition (transposed into G major as was customary then) in which is the time-signature is given as ordinary common time. I haven't looked at my more modern edition (in the correct key of Gflat) but I've never noticed the odd key signature of double alla breve when using it. Schubert obviously meant something very specific by notating the music in that way. I took conducting lessons from Bernard Keeffe who, speaking about the matter of alla breve, said that he had never come across a satisfactory explanation of the meaning of the term...and he was very erudite in such matters. One would expect there to be instructions in old treatises in music; the section in Quantz that I mentioned deals with it in a perfunctory manner which raises just as many questions as it answers, to my mind. Maybe there are others using this forum who might be able to submit explanations which they might find in their libraries.

W-d, I think you would have noticed one of these!

Good old-fashioned double cut time:



"Reverse" double cut time? Buonamici's whim? Schirmer's mistake?



Unfortunately, the most commentworthy thing about this impromptu has seemed to be the well-known issue of key signature you mentioned, viz. G-flat vs. G, rather than this enigmatic time signature.

So is double cut time, however represented, considered 4/2 or 2/1? Or maybe neither, but 1 beat per double whole note instead? Perhaps this is the most plasible explanation; as a double whole note can't be represented numerically, another device would be needed.

Steven

Just hit the play button at the top for pronunciation:

http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/texta/AllaBreve.html

That's great—if you want to hear how it's said in Italian!

As that was an English language site offering a transliteration already mentioned here (Ah-lah BRAY-vay) along with the term's definition, I was expecting to hear a "correct" English pronunciation.

Steven

"Reverse" double cut time? Buonamici's whim? Schirmer's mistake?

Buonamici doesn't help matters, does he?!
In the past, it was, by no means,general practice for editors to go back to the manuscripts or earliest editions of pieces so that mistakes and misreadings were apt to be perpetuated. I guess, somewhere along the way, an editor looked at the double alla breve sign in the impromptu and, unable to make head or tail of it, changed it to the common-time symbol, hence its appearance as such in my old Litollf edition edited by Louis Kohler. This suggests that the true meaning of "alla breve" somehow got lost in the nineteenth century. It seems to me that after the Beethoven/Schubert period composers were less-inclined to use this symbol (although other contributors to the forum might prove me wrong); I have just looked through all of Mendelssohn's "Songs Without Words" and didn't notice a single use of it. I can't recall noticing it in the music of Chopin, Schumann or Liszt very frequently, either.

I understand it was the original publisher of the G flat impromptu who insisted on the transposition into G. Ostensibly, this was to make it "easier", but, in fact, the music feels much more comfortable in the original key. Nevertheless, until recently, most pianists used old editions and there are recordings by such artists as Rubinstein and Brailowsky of the piece in the wrong key.

Ouch, that sounds "almost" correct.
In Italian the double letters are extreeeemely important.
In this case, for example the guy pronounce "Ala breve" not "Alla breve"; do you know what that means? Short wing.

"Alla" in this context means "in a ... way"; then associated with "breve" (meaning brief, short) we can get "in a short/brief way".
Now "ala" is instead definitely "wing".

For what's concerning "grave" I'm sure that you don't want to pronounce it like in English .
The correct pronunciation is not difficult, you just need to say the first "a" like the first one in "alla" and make the last "e" sound (nothing in Italian is mute or silent) like the last "e" in "breve".


Pronunciation is an important factor in all languages if we need to convey the right message.

One problem, though, is that some languages have sounds that don't exist in others. For that reason, the pronunciation of terms borrowed from other languages will necessarily be approximate; in this case, how close does an Italian term need to be to its native Italian when spoken in English?

In that recording, the guy may have flubbed the double consonant but his vowels were pure and he nailed the "r" with an authentic alveolar tap (a sound that doesn't exist in English as an allophone of /r/ and in any event never following another consonant as in breve). That's why the phrase sounded much closer to Italian than English, and why I didn't regard it as plausible model for English speakers who are certain to pronounce the "r" as our own familiar and deeply ingrained approximant.

And that sounds horrible when we're actually trying to speak a foreign language and substitute our own sounds instead, but for a borrowed word within the context of speaking English it's not out of place IMHO. In fact, pronouncing such words "authentically" would generally be perceived as pompous and affected to other native English speakers—and that's probably not the right message!

Steven

Well, it depends by the mistake itself.
Surely, for an Italian is much tolerable a litlle "problem" with the "r" rather than missing the doubles. The "r" mispronounced doesn't change the meaning of the word, the double does. And, also, we are much more used to that mistake by foreigners.
I agre with you that the pronounciation cannot (and should't) be extemely strict, conveying the meaning it should be the goal but there are exceptions.
For example a bad mistake I tend to make almost regularly in English is to pronounce "focus" with a weird "o" that makes it sound like ... oh well, you probably know.

The Italian language has no difficult sounds.

Actually simple vowels are pronounced as they should and not as diphtongs, like many English wowels

I support the idea that musical terms should be pronounced as they are in the original language -this helps communication between musicians of differents nationalities.

If you cannot ´twist´ your tounge (which is really not necessary in Italian), then you had better use the translated words rather than mistreate the original langauge.

'Alla breve' pronounced in Engling or American or Australian makes to me no sence, althoug I myself somtetimes, as a joke, pronounce 'milk' in the Kenyan way...

Jan-Erik,

I think that there's a tongue-in-cheek element to at least some of what you say. If you are serious, on the other hand, there are (as I've already expressed in this thread) some important things to keep in mind.

Italian has no difficult sounds—for Italians! For speakers of languages very different from Italian, it has many. For English speakers, double consonants are difficult because we don't have them. Pronouncing /r/ as the uvular fricative of French or the alveolar tap/trill of Italian and other Romance languages is difficult for the same reason.

When you're using a term borrowed from another language in your own language, there's no disrespect shown to the original language if you don't (or can't) pronounce its sounds accurately. A commonly agreed-upon approximation works just fine, and, in fact, anything more precise is very likely to be regarded as a fussy and snobbish affection.

Years ago, when the croissant was still something of a novelty in the U.S., a co-worker routinely pronounced the word à la française—complete with uvular /r/ and authentic nasal vowel. He was laughed at and considered a pedant.

Steven

I have to ask (I may regret it) - how do you Americans pronounce croissant? (Shuts eyes tightly, ready to cringe.)

I believe that [krɘ 'sɑnt] or [krʊ 'sɑnt] (kruh SAHNT) is the most customary way.

I say ['kru sɑnt] (KROO sahnt), but it's admittedly idiolectal (and self-consciously gauche).

Steven

Of course there will be slight differences especially in some consonants and in the over-all intonation, but that does not mean you should not aim at pronouncing correctly.

If you can learn French, German, Spanish etc. which many englishmen and americans really can do - then to pronounce a couple of professional terms in Italian, German or French approximately as they should be pronounced, should not be considered an impossible task.

When borrowed words become common property in a language, they get a modified, language-adapted pronounciation and finally a new orthographic form. But IMO that does not concern musical terms.

If you want not to be snobbish and always correctly understood by your compatriots, you can use words of you own langage. Many composers e.g. in Germany have quit with the tradition of using Italian terms. But the idea of using one languange - Italian - was that the intentions of the composer should be universally understood.

It's not impossible, just pointless for the reasons I've already stated. If I use a German loanword in English, I'm still speaking English. If I were speaking German, on the other hand, pronouncing it correctly would be a completely different consideration—and an important priority.

FWIW, I don't think the musical terms of Italian are an exception. The idea that an English speaker should pronounce Allegro with a double consonant "l" and alveolar "r" (or Lento with an unaspirated "t") is frankly ridiculous. Would you insist that we should say tempi, concerti and scherzi, too?

Steven

Actually, we do: bookkeeper. Say it out loud. If you don't think you're pronouncing a double consonant, say "beekeeper" out loud, too. You should hear the contrast.

Other than those two cents, I have no opinion on how to pronounce alla breve!

sleepy

Prior to these and similar posts I had never given it much thought. It seemed logical to me that everyone begins with the pronunciation in the original language, and ends up with an approximation governed by the nature of their own language - sort of French or German or Italian with a strong accent. In this way, internationally people will all understand each other. You may have a French, German, Austrian, Italian, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew etc. way of pronouncing "alla breve" - but since they all used the Italian as their model, there is enough similarity to make it recognizeable. If, in the extreme case, someone were to pronounce "breve" to rhyme with "leave", nobody from another country would understand. That's why we use international terms in music in the first place, as I understand it.

Is this a convention of American culture, or is it worldwide? I have been struck, for example, when I used to listen to CBC on Sunday mornings, to a broadcast originating in the US, by the way that commentator pronounced foreign words. His pronuncation of Bach, in particular, made me want to throw things. But it is an observation in itself that it did strike me --- because this could not have been happening with the Canadian announcers or it would have caught my attention. Hence the question whether it might be cultural. Lately I was exploring various sites and came upon a teacher introducing some concepts in music. I thought that I had come upon a new term, listened carefully a few times until I realized that it was a very common musical term, but so thoroughly Americanized as to be unrecognizeable: like pronouncing "breve" to rhyme with "leave". I really wondered about it that day.

I'm not in musical circles as such. I've been in several choirs which also included guest choirmasters - I think they always pronounced things according to the original language, but I can't be sure. My teacher and I both speak five languages and he originates from another country, so I can't tell anything from that.

We used to get the giggles when a German relative came to Canada and used the in-words of the time. My favourite was "kitty" - you know, those giant towns such as London, New York - though we prefer to pronounce it "sitty". It just sounds funny.

I myself think it is more ridiculous to massacre 'foreign' terms by pronouncing them in full-force american. This is particularly the case in the context of terms that are commonly and explicitly borrowed from other languages for a partivcular purpose, such as musical terms (as opposed to baked products).
This being said, Steven's description of the American "attitude" towards foreign pronunciation is dead-on. This hostility is even prevalent in cosmopolitan New York City. I often wondered about the root causes of this disdain but I never understood it. People are so self-conscious about pronouncing foreign words incorrectly that they don't even try.. I think missing a rolled r or opening an 'o" here and there is still better than americanizing the entire word, thus disrepecting its etymology and origin. It is like the difference between listening to a synthesizer and a suboptimal acoustic piano. I always favor the latter, if I have to choose.

KS,

Re "breve": the phrase alla breve is Italian, obviously.

But breve is a legitimate English word in its own right for a double whole note and a type of diacritical mark, and both [briv] and [brɛv] (i.e., "breeve" and "brehv") are acceptable pronunciations for it.

Steven

[Edited for typo in phonetic transcription.]

It is important, when joining any society, to be aware of the conventions of that society, and to follow those conventions. So I understand presently that if I am in the US among musicians, I should pronounce foreign musical terms in an American-English manner.

In the same light, I am interested in the social convention in other English speaking countries. Then I am also interested in the convention of other countries and other languages.

Breve is not an English word. It is a specialized technical term that is used in English speaking countries, in the same way that Latin words are used in law, but remain Latin, but may have acquired a local commonly accepted pronunciation.

By contrast, "hot dog" is a thoroughly anglicised and very English word. It began as an "haute cuisine" entry from the region of Auge in France, consisting of some kind of sausage and bread, featured as the "Haut d'Auge". That was popularized in a mispronounced "hot dog" which was then translated, ironically, back into "chien chaud". (Although in Canada you can hear a French Canadian ordering an "'ot 'dog", stressing the "dog" rather than the "hot".)

It's an English word, and has been for many hundreds of years:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breve

Steven

Just for your information: No single language has been so maltreated and is spoken so differently (badly) as English. But despite this, people in this world can make themselves understood in this language - because they at least try to pronounce it as good as they can.

I suggest also the Americans should try to pronounce the Italian musical terms the way they should. But that seems to to be - for some odd reasons - impossible. It is not the question of not being able, it is the attitude.

You are mistaken in surmising that it has anything to do with attitude. It is a matter of simple pragmatism: to the extent that a borrowed word's sounds exist in English, it will be pronounced as it is in its original language. In any language, the same can be expected to be true for words borrowed from any other.

Sounds that do not exist in the language into which he loan word was imported will be approximated—by necessity—to one degree or another. It is impossible for the sounds of the original language to be duplicated precisely unless one already speaks or has studied that language. And that's true for any language, too; it's certainly not unique to English.

Why quibble about the degree of approximation? I suspect that the imputation of mistreatment, disrespect or disdain actually serves an agenda of portraying English speakers (and especially Americans) as arrogant.

The fact is we are no different from anybody else in the world in our treatment of foreign words because we all share the same linguistic constraints and exigencies—except, as I said, for those speakers who have "inside" knowledge of the source language and wish to duplicate its pronunciation precisely (without regard to the social consequence of doing so).

Steven

I can also find the word "breve" in a German-only, French-only etc. dictionary. It is part of specialized technical terminology belonging to the fields of music and law. Such terms often retain foreign pronunciation more or less, depending on convention Your source is the American Heritage Dictionary - I am not familiar with the scope or accuracy of this dictionary. The entry is very brief. In the least, going by the title, it would concern itself only with American usage.

What matters here is usage. Such things are seldom totally cast in stone. In my work I must often ask "what is the policy in your department" when we get to American or British spelling, even though Canada has its own guidelines. When I interpret I must be sensitive to the unwritten conventions of language, which are social, cultural, sometimes hierarchical.

Rather than getting hung up on rules, and being rigid about it, let's get to know the hidden cultural values so that we can become sensitive to each other without stepping on each other's toes. A European might be impatient about Americanization of pronunciation, while an American might see linguistic adherence to the original language as pretentious and affected. The truth of the matter is that some different values systems are at work. Trying to impose a different system never works: being aware that there are different systems at work, and a certain sensitivity and respect for each other's values, works wonders.

Check out the etymology of "breve."

You are wrong, KS, and you're wrong about the origin of "hot dog," too. Sorry to be blunt, but you're forcing the issue and there's no alternative.

Check out my new sig line, too, if you haven't already done so.

Steven

I don't think there is an agenda for portraying us americans as arrogant. It is rather our rigid attitude towards other languages that projects arrogance(though stereotypes are plentiful here). Other people do attempt to pronounce foreign words as well as possible and often fail to reproduce the correct phonology for the reasons you stated. For example a french person would pronounce "alla breve" with great emphasis on the last vowels but there are no "social consequences" for trying.. What intrigues me is exactly that: the psychosocial component. It is obviously self-imposed and not the result of foreigners' agenda..
P.S. I assume you do have a passport, as opposed to some of our politicians.. (this is a joke. I hope you do not find it in bad taste; if so , I withdraw it. You do sound wordly, regardless .. ).

Steven, your sig line states exactly what I have been trying to say. There is no one single rule for pronunciation. You are giving us the convention of American culture at this period of time.

Please tell me what you know about "hot dog". I no longer have my notes or reference material, since it came from linguistics class some 30 years ago.

Etymology
Answer: Italian.

I don't think that what I have been saying has been understood. There are conventions to the pronunciation and usage and spelling of words that go beyond hard and fast rules. The American convention that you quote is only one of them. I do this for a living and confront these things on a daily basis. Please believe me. I am at a loss to find where the conflict is supposed to be.

Hehe, well, I have no problem indulging certain stereotypes of a large segment of the American populace being dim, rigid and unworldly. It's not limited to "red states," either.

And the study of foreign languages has been on the steady decline for decades here, too. But I really don't see that at work in the pronunciation issue; I do think a reasonable attempt is made to emulate the native sounds, but that there's implicit recognition that it's not practical to do more than that (or even possible for those sounds that we just don't have in English).

FWIW, and this is just silly speculation, but I would guess a French speaker would pronounce "alla breve" as à la brève (i.e., with the final "e" mute) unless coached to say brévé in a pseudo-Italian manner.

Steven

Steven, what in particular, am I wrong about? I have stated that language usage is also determined by convention, and this is more fluid than one might suppose. I suspect that this involves misunderstanding at some level, more than disagreement.

I am basing myself on my formal studies, but even more on the experiences of my professional work. I must personally adjust, and be aware of, conventions in places I would least expect to find them - more often in the rhealms of spelling, grammar, the order in which dates are written - but also in pronunciation.

In addition to this, I am in constant discussion with my colleagues in regards to real problems we have to solve in regards to things we encounter in our work. These discussions span the globe and all walks of life and professions. I have gathered impressions over the years through these experiences.

Rules become fuzzy at a certain point: I would rather say "guideline" and generality. Look at the "shack" vs. "shock" experience.

I suspect that what is real at stake here are sets of values. It is another element of linguistic choices that I highlighted - are you in disagreement with this idea?

KS, even your own reference gives ME—Middle English—as a source, not Italian! The era of Middle English obviously predates the existence of American usage and of Italian as a standardized language. My own reference (which is not specifically American) gives Middle English and thence Medieval Latin via Old French:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breve

Did you read it? (Did you read currawong's post on the previous page describing Australian usage and pronunciation of breve?) My link offers independent sources and ample etymology. BTW, I would never be so presumptuous or stupid as to cite an American usage or source authority as representative of English generally or without the appropriate qualification.

You regularly mention your experiences with languages to defend your assertions. IMHO, a linguist should know better than to make things appear confusing, contradictory and culturally biased when in reality they are not. Even if there are grey areas in all fields, a social scientist such as a linguist should value clarity and precision wherever possible. Instead, you routinely depict things as vague, subject to interpretation and not "cast in stone"—with a volubility that serves your own dogma of obfuscation.

FWIW, I studied linguistics at UCLA with Peter Ladefoged and Robert Stockwell . They are renowned in their fields, and I graduated magna cum laude. (Now that's a Latin term with specialized technical meaning!) I don't need to toss around my credentials or how many languages I know, as so much about linguistics is based on common-sense observations as well as science. I never before encountered anyone who tried so hard to make linguistics seem so complicated!

Steven

Steven, we're missing each other totally. All I have been trying to say is that there cannot be one single rule for how a word such as "alla breve" is pronounced by all English speakers everywhere.

Nor have I tried to toss out credentials - you probably have more than I do. I am saying that my experience shows me that things are pronounced differently in different places by different people, since that seemed to be questioned.

Q.E.D.

Steven

" All I have been trying to say is that there cannot be one single rule for how a word such as "alla breve" is pronounced by all English speakers everywhere ."

.... which, apparently, you asked back on page 1: I didn't go back far enough in my post after the sound byte. Apologies.

Imagine a conductor who is not perfect in English trying to emphasize his intentions by using the commonly accepted Italian musical terms.

The members of the orchestra may not at first understand what the conductor is shouting, because he is pronouncing approximately right, while they are used to a quite different pronounciation of those word.

'Own rules' for pronounciation of Italian words do not make communication easier.

P.S. Phonetic letters are a good help in explaining how to pronounce.

Wow - I hadn't been following this thread, but as my post has been mentioned I just might clarify one or two things.

[1] I described how alla breve is commonly pronounced in the musical circles in which I move here in Australia. I make no judgment on how it should be pronounced, though my personal preference is for as close to the original language as possible without baffling people, or continually correcting them

[2] "breve" as in semibreve and breve (whole note & double whole note) for some reason has no relationship to "breve" in "alla breve", as normally pronounced by Australian musicians. Breve as a note value is always pronounced to rhyme with "leave" and I imagine that's true in UK as well. I would be very surprised if this has not been the standard pronunciation for maybe 200 years. These words are used all the time here where we don't use the half-note, quarter-note thing, and I can confidently say that no-one would say "semi-breh-veh"

[3] I think the case of "alla breve" differs because this is not actually said so often as the note value name. Hence daffodil's original question (remember the original post? ) , because as an Australian, she had heard the note value name pronounced to rhyme with "leave" since her cradle, and naturally assumed the other was the same.

I'm all for pronouncing all foreign terms correctly according to their original language - up to a point. And that point is probably where you fight a doomed battle to get the entire population of Australia and the UK to call a semibreve a "semi-breh-veh". It ain't gonna happen .

I noticed you typed "judgment" instead of "judgement", so at first I assumed you were using AE (Amiercan English).

Which system do you prefer for naming note values? I can never remember what quavers and crotchets and all those other "things" are!

Not only do the terms whole, half, quarter etc. seem much clearer and intuitive to me, they match the terms used int German. I've always wondered where the unusual English/UK names came from!

Nope, it's just one of those words I have trouble spelling. Actually I think both spellings are accepted here, luckily for me. I alternate them .

As for the time value names, well it's what you're used to, isn't it, I suppose. I think the US system makes explaining time signatures easier, but has the potential to confuse those who would think of time sigs as a sort of fraction. I had someone who thought a bar in "three-quarter time" wasn't a full bar ...
And then there's that issue of "if it's a quarter note why does it get one beat?" So as I don't relish mathematical discussions, I prefer the quaint hemidemisemiquaver stuff .

This is quite a fun thread, not because of the somewhat boring topic, but because of what it has blossomed into. Actually I hadn't even looked at this for days, figuring it wasn't really that interesting to me, until I saw that it had 3 pages!

I have perhaps a different perspective. I grew up in nowheresville in northern Michigan and eventually moved to the UK. Pronunciation of anything other that english was not something that had crossed my mind until I moved here (UK). I merely pronounced italian terms as my teacher did, and this resulted in allegro with a single l, endless dipthongs in words like adagio, and complete avoidance of even saying the word Lent. I just had no idea of the correct pronunciation (or even that it really mattered) and I'd wager my story isn't unique. I really do not think it is some sort of arrogance.

Also, as anglicized as my accent has become, I really think that most of the north american accents are just EASIER to pronounce, i.e. require less physical effort. I can speak a little Swedish and the contortions I have to force my tongue and face into actually are a workout when I try to pronounce as a native. For this reason, I really think that it is no easy task for a north american to pronounce european languages.

One of the things I find funny is that pronunciation in my experience has such a wide range even in just the country of origin! For instance, Poulenc is commonly pronounced Pooh-lahnc, but is properly pronounced Pooh-lehnc (I think), against common sense.

If there is no variation across Italy then I can stop here obviously, but I'd imagine there is. So who would be correct in that case? Just some of the english variations contained within the small island of the UK are staggering.

I don't know if, in this context, "commonly pronounced, "properly pronounced" and "common sense" refer to French or English, but if you think this thread is fun, check out these four pages of bloviation on that very topic:

So, how do YOU pronounce Poulenc?

Actually, it was illuminating to me (and I contributed to the bloviation, big surprise ): the native French pronunciation of Poulenc, it turns out, is not quite what one would expect based on the spelling—and the closest English approximation to that (given that we don't have nasal vowels) isn't one that you mentioned!

Steven

Well I had assumed it was pronounced with a lahnk at the end until I was told otherwise -- and I have told others otherwise since (hence common sense -- perhaps makes more sense as common usage in blighty?).

I had in fact thought that I was doing a better job at pronouncing french than many of my peers when I finished high school here, and I thought that because: cafe often pronounced caff (even by an upper-middle class vicar's son counter-tenor named Giles I once knew!!!!), and that weird uk english thing where singular collective nouns are given plural status, such as "Manchester United ARE the best football team"

Anyway, I was wrong apparently, but I don't know what to do with the thirdhand story about how the great man pronounced his own name pooh-lahnk.

I have always (well, since the age of five) referred to notes as semibreves, minims, crotchets, quavers, etc. I never thought it strange, or difficult. It wasn't until I started reading posts on PW that I realised that there was an entirely different nomenclature of whole notes, half notes, quarter notes etc! This struck me as really strange and confusing when I first encountered it.

It really is just a case of what you are used to.

Incidentally, "judgment" is standard spelling in UK English. Though "judgement" is also acceptable.

FWIW, "judgment" and "judgement" are both admissible in the U.S., too, although in the legal sense of a court decision only "judgment" is used.

Steven

I meant to add that here in the UK, the note lengths "breve" and "semibreve" are always pronounced to rhyme with "Steve".

In case you think I was making a "judg(e)ment" about your writing skills, I only know about such things because I am an absolutely "awtroshus" speller.
It is because what we call these things has no importance once we know what they mean.
That's GREAT! (laughing)

Good luck trying to explain that a whole rest means three beats when it's the only thing in a measure in 3-4 time. Funny, I wanted to put a slash there because I can't put the 3 over the 4.

I don't teach rhythm mathematically to most students. For one thing, I start most kids years before they hit fractions, and my grandmother, my first teacher, delayed teaching me until I was in 4th grade, thinking that kids should understand fractions first. And then wanted to shoot herself for waiting so long…

Because I put so much emphasis on what things do, not what they are called, it's not unusual for me to have a kid who is correctly counting a bar of common time, without my writing in the counts, who is still bumbling the note names. Other kids will nail the names but not pick up the idea behind it as fast.
Good lord, I still don't know that those are. Three beams (32 notes)???

(Going to look it up…)

Oh no—64th notes!

Connected to this is a possible discussion I've always wanted to get into. It's my belief that people in the Classical period (and earlier) thought about music differently than we do today, because composers like Mozart so often used 16ths, 32nds and 64ths in slow movements. Often the music is really rather simple, but it frightens students to death…