>from Linda. >>In renaissance music the tenor ("holder") was the voice which was >>singing the cantus firmus, the plainsong melody, often in long notes; it >>didn't designate any particular range. The expression "contra-tenor" >>dates from the same period, > >Thank you Linda, you have just supported my arguement. >No examples of the period of which you speak are in existance >(I assume), so of course it is quite safe to choose the term to >describe anything you like because there is no possible way >of proving or disproving it. This is an old trick!
Um, you're kidding, right? I _really_ hope you are. A vast repertoire of Renaissance choral music still exists today, and there are a lot of people who like to sing it. Even non-specialist choruses (high school, college, and community) sing some of this repertoire, and there are many groups that specialize in early music. (Check out the one I sing with: http://www.musicaspei.org)
The Harvard Dictionary of Music definition of "contratenor" begins "In music of the 14th and 15th centuries, a part written 'against' the tenor part." (Under "countertenor," it says to see "contratenor.") Note that it is a PART, not a voice type, unlike modern usage.
Edna Huelsenbeck (singer of alto, countertenor, and tenor parts as needed, but never going to have the right timbre to be an operatic contralto) --
---|)------------------------------------------------------------- ---|--- Edna Huelsenbeck ----------------------------------------- --/|--- huelsen@b... --------------------- -| |')- http://www.brahms.biology.rochester.edu/edna/ ------------ --\|/------------------------------------------------------------- | '
|
| |