Thanks to everyone who gave their thoughts on this topic. I really appreciate it actually, it has given me much to think about and certainly has taught me that I don't know nearly as much as I hoped I had about History of Opera even though I consistently achieved near perfect scores in my undergrad exams on it.
Michael, sorry about the lack of paragraphs in such a lengthy post. I sent it as a digest reply from yahoo mail which had double spaced gaps when I sent it but obviously didn't keep it's formatting. Yahoo really does have some major issues it should sort out. Hopefully posting this from a different source will supply paragraphs.
A point I'd like to clarify. I muddied the waters a bit by talking about sexuality and countertenors in the same post which led to some misunderstanding. I know perfectly well that voice type has nothing at all to do with sexual designation and indeed many countertenors are heterosexual, so I apologise if anyone thought I was inferring the opposite and were quite possibly offended. It was unintentional.
Michael asked >>>>in other areas of music (rock, gospel, barbershop, etc.) voices that are not "classical" but could be called countertenor are common - does your bias against higher male voices include these styles also?<<<<
Yup, for the most part it sure does. The Bee Gee's are a prime example of something that has mystified me ever since I first heard them. I never could get my head around what the heck they thought they were doing. I liked some of the songs, HATED the delivery. But then again they'd be a somewhat contrary example wouldn't they I guess? Wouldn't everyone say they are just singing in falsetto? Don't get to hear Gospel live in Aus. And I didn't know/even realise countertenors sang Barbershop. (I probably just presumed they were lovely high tenors.) In the very little I have heard I guess I wouldn't have noticed it anyway as they voices all blend so beautifully.
Susan, I hope your friend Dan has a wonderful time playing that parrot, sounds marvellous. >>>>Because voice is my instrument. It's how I express my soul. Sorry it's that selfish, but there it is.<<<< I don't think it's selfish, I think I just overlooked that aspect when considering why we do it.
As a teacher I constantly am trying to get my students to see singing from all sides, and using our voice purely as an instrument without engaging/expressing our intellect is something I have gotten into a habit of telling them they must never do. It takes words to do that. We are the instrument and we are the player and what sets us apart (and to some extent above) is that we have words. It makes the voice an amazingly complex and difficult instrument to master. It is telling that vocalises for all their beauty are not part of mainstream entertainment. (So horror of horrors, perhaps I am getting set in my mindset. (If so then it's time to remedy that.)
Whenever I ask questions, here or anywhere else, I have a tendency quite often, to play devil's advocate for the sake of finding out how others think and feel and discover perspectives that I may not have thought of. It rarely gets a hostile reaction but I sure as heck learn a lot which is why I do it in the first place I guess. Most times I just can't help it, it's just me.
Ed, thanks for that marvellous post. Entertaining AND educational, LOL. I am beginning to get the idea though, that what you in the Northern hemishpere call countertenors may be what I have always known as simply a very high or lighter-in-timbre tenor.
When I started at a Conservatorium no-one ever talked about countertenors, not even in our pedagogy classes, as if they had never existed. It wasn't till the nineties that we even heard of them billed for performances and the ones I heard, in paid performances, had a very high hooty GODAWFUL quality about them. Whereas some of the very high tenors I was familiar with had voices like angels and sang all the standard repertoire plus some and were not singled out as some new discovery like a rare exotic bird that was once thought extinct. Nor were they fussed over like some priceless museum exhibit that can only breath rareified air and has to be kept in a manner which befits their status. And they certainly never sang the soprano arias in The Messiah. In Aus, or more correctly in Brisbane, the countertenor during the nineties more often than not simply replaced the soprano. A bad way to be introduced to them.
Mark, thankyou for an excellent contribution, it's given me much to think about and cleared up some misconceptions. I don't know that Brisbane has caught up with the Countertenor revolution in the rest of the world or if it has it's keeping it locked in the hallowed halls of academia or simply not naming it the same way.
>>>>I feel that you need to reexamine the repertoire.<<<< That much is obvious I feel and I'm happy to do so. I've either forgotton or been miseducated.
>>>>>Liturgical music can be sung by either now days regardless of whom it was written for. It is more important that one communicates and shares the gift given.<<<< Absolutely, I couldn't agree more.
>>>> It is a common mistake to think that nothing should be transposed.<<<< And a very frustrating attitude to fight. I've been waiting for this trend to turn around since I started singing, so it's just as well I wasn't holding my breath.
>>>> Actually most of the repertoire that I sing in opera houses and concert venues around the world were written for a man and the characters are men. <<<< This is what I was curious about as this has not been my experience of countertenors here at home.
>>>>But you must also remember when Rossini was asked what was needed to become a successful opera singer, he replied "Voce, Voce, Voce." <<<< As if any of us here would ever forget! :-D
Richard Miller in The Structure of Singing pgs 123-125 was most elucidating for anyone else who needs some further clarification.
All the best
Michelle
|