In a message dated 1/25/2002 3:05:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, richard@r... writes:
> The difference, however, is that the note you're talking about is not a note > you'd pay $80 or more to hear a countertenor sing, and it is a note you'd > pay $80 to hear a tenor sing. If a countertenor couldn't sing that note > (and countertenors, by the way, are generally singing in a well-supported > falsetto, which is not the same production a tenor uses) then somebody's > messed up his voice. You're comparing apples and oranges here. > >
richard,
you missed the point. the point was to compare apples and oranges and, by doing so, demonstrate how absurd it is to say one is better than the other.
also, i doubt you are trying to say that whoever makes the most money singing, is the best.
i doubt anyone would pay $80 to hear a tenor sing just a tenor high C. i believe what you meant was that you'd be more willing to pay money to hear a good tenor than you would a good counter-tenor. to me, that's simply a matter of preference.
mike
|