Mine is the “New Oxford American Dictionary” so presumably there are differences.
But that was my point; the discussion is indeed more correctly about deletion. There are four archaeological layers here: there’s the original comment/question that has an example that looks very much like Italian opera, there’s Kent Steinbrenner’s resurrection of the thread 6 months later with a mind much more towards English hymns, there’s his second resurrection 2 years later to again talk about the same (in which a number of examples in the ensuing discussion didn’t survive the forum move), and there’s us now.
It really can’t be argued that the middle two layers discussion are about liaison; they’re about intraword syllable deletions to accommodate the singing of multiple syllables on single notes (and I don’t mean that orthographically; sometimes this is represented orthographically with an apostrophe, but we’re specifically talking about when that is not the case and a little tie is used instead). This is textbook elision.
The very first layer though is also about deletions. Orthographically, yes, we are binding, but linguistically (EDIT: or I suppose I should say phonetically? phonologically? something along those lines), we are deleting. In opera in these sorts of lyric situations, syllables are dropped, and their vowels become glides or are dropped altogether. I know that Marc says the symbol is not used in opera (though I think that may depend on what continent and era we’re talking about; I’ve certainly seen it), even without the symbol, the concept still exists, that is, it is common practice to assign too many syllables to too few notes. These are often at word boundaries, yes, but the more salient aspect is that there is a reduction in syllables. That is how they are sung. So likewise, textbook elision. And as I said, I cannot think of any examples where that’s not the case (using the sign to indicate dropping syllables), except for instances of forbidding breathing. I do definitely see that too (usually in choral settings though), but I don’t find it to be that common, since a dashed slur from note to note means the same thing.
That all being the case, I think it more correct to call it an elision slur/sign/tie/whatever, because it’s usually that (or at least to call it that when it is that, which it usually is). It’s also quite common to be only an elision and not a liaison, while the reverse is not true, at least in my experience. That seems to me quite uncommon.
2 Likes
But also, I think it right to call it an elision sign because that’s what it’s called (i.e. that’s what people, specifically musicians, call it).
I don’t think Dorico does itself any favors by dogmatically and unilaterally renaming or reclassifying established concepts. It makes it harder for people looking to switch to the software and it isn’t a great look, credibility-wise, if the change is debatable. It also makes it hard to search for things in the manual or via Google.
It’s not strictly relevant in this case, but I always thanked my lucky stars in the early days of Dorico that I never had to explain to a client, “sorry, my notation software doesn’t let me do 8vb; you have to use 8ba, because apparently that’s the more correct way to write that… Yes, I know, I know, I’ve seen 8vb in hundreds of scores throughout my life and never once seen 8ba, but why let common usage get in the way of being ‘correct’?”
1 Like
While speaking of ‘textbook elision’ you seem to be trying to define elision any way you please. Perhaps you could post some examples.
Are you really suggesting that there is an elision in the excerpt in the original post (Il mio posto è accanto a te)? I don’t know what it is but it seems a slightly odd setting anyway.
The language might not have been high priority for old school sopranos and tenors but in my experience, particularly in comedy, the diction and the characterization are considered no less important than in any other repertoire.
I wouldn’t call it that and I’m a musician.
You use the word ‘woke’ as if that’s a bad thing. Language should change as civilization reckons with systemic offensive terms. Historical context is everything. You say liaison, I say elision, you say woke I say enlightened, let’s call the whole thing off…
1 Like
Yeah, yeah, yeah…
You think it’s right to change the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary to protect some delicate, unidentified, possibly non-existent individuals?
Purge the Oxford English Dictionary and it will no longer be possible to understand ‘historical context’.
That’s degenerate. It’s a descent from enlightenment.
Anyway, it’s a long way off topic.
Yes. I don’t know any singer that would sing the ‘è’ as a full syllable, nor the ‘to’ of ‘accanto’. I imagine we’d most likely hear them both reduced to glides at least, [j] and [w], respectively. Reducing a vowel to a glide such that there are fewer syllables spoken (or sung) is an elision.
Depending on the situation, I also do indeed hear singers drop syllables altogether or convert them to diphthongs. Here’s Pavarotti singing “sopra una” as “soprana” (he doesn’t even try to split the difference with “soprauna”—start the video at 0:30 if it doesn’t automatically):
That’s three syllables where there are four notated. That’s a deletion. Elision.
1 Like
* whistles while the thread burns *
eleison…
2 Likes
I get sooo tripped up when I have to sing [kirjɛ] instead of [kiriɛ] or, worse, [kiriɛlɛisɔn] instead of [kiriɛ ɛlɛisɔn].
Me, happily sightreading along, encoutering an eleison elision:
1 Like
This made me chuckle out loud.
1 Like
Those of us in the employ of the Episcopal Church have high taste 
1 Like
The worst (which I’ve actually encountered) is when half within the same Kyrie are eluded and the other half aren’t. It’s exceedingly bizarre and a recipe for disaster.
1 Like
On the other hand, I have been coached that choral diction in a mass setting is not even that important because everyone knows the text.
When I refer to syllables being dropped, I should more correctly probably say the number of syllables is reduced. I’m not referring to jettisoning all of the sounds or letters in a syllable; I’m referring to vowels being dropped or elided or becoming glides. The consonants remain.
Subsequently, it’s not poor diction that I’m talking about (or the language not being “high priority”). I’m talking about standard and proper lyric diction practices that you’d learn in any conservatory or music school. Vowels right next to each other at word boundaries are often elided, even if they’re not the same vowel.
1 Like
As I’ve suggested, you seem to think elision means whatever you want it to mean.
There is no elision here. Nothing is omitted when one sings this. It doesn’t sound like you’re either a singer or an Italian speaker.
He sings it as written (as he does on studio recordings). There is no elision here. Sopr’una would theoretically be possible but very few elisions are actually used in Italian.
What does any of this have to do with the notation of more than one syllable per note?
Anyway, this is a waste of your time and mine. You’d be better off swotting up on linguistics or maybe just enjoying listening to del Monaco or Corelli singing Dick Johnson’s better aria Una parola sola… Or son sei mesi (and imagining singing it yourself). I’ve certainly got better things to do.
As Ace Ventura would say, alrighty then! 
2 Likes
I have to say I find most of this meaningless and you sound like an undergraduate who doesn’t realize how little he knows.
Anyway, I’m off. Happy New Year to all.
Please, you flatter me 
2 Likes