> One of the inconsistencies that is confusing about the music now
> being sung by countertenors is the fact that much of this music was
> never intended for this voice type. The evangelist roles in the Bach
> Passions are clearly tenor roles as are the arias.
I definitely agree the evangelist is meant for a high tenor (I would never
dream of singing it as a countertenor!) You are also right about the
"revisionism" happening with the countertenor movement. Clearly, there
have been many types of treble male voices through history, and the modern
countertenor is a small subset. Not all the repertory is meant for us.
> Quoting Miller, the only consistent use of countertenors that is
> documented is in the English cathedral choirs and that was as a
> support for the boy's alto parts.
With this I don't agree. There was a well known tradition of Spanish
sopranists who were most definitely intact men. It is also difficult for
me to believe that some of Bach's lower alto solos were meant for boys.
They are simply too low - maybe for teenagers?
> In this sense, the Kings Singers and Chanticlear and even the
> Anonymous Four are anomalies and not a representation of authentic
> performance practices entertaining as they may be.
Again, I disagree. The Kings Singers sing a lot of English music
originally for male ATB. Chanticleer has a whole album of "Spanish"
Baroque, where there were most definitely falsettists. Sure, they do
Josquin too, but that's not any weirder than a mixed SATB choir doing
Anglican music.
> Presently, the countertenor is singing everything from Castrati opera
> roles to American pops. The countertenor, however, is not an
> imitation of the Castrati because the countertenor vocal mechanism is
> a post puberty mechanism.
You are right... mostly. Peter Giles' book on countertenors suggests that
most countertenors never had their voices "break" and that they simply
*continued* to use their boyhood soprano register through puberty. If this
is truly the case, it's not all that different from a castrato who never
lost his upper extension due to hormonal tampering. The difference, of
course, is the root voice and the reconciliation of the registers, but for
a tenorino countertenor, maybe there's no true functional difference? When
I hear Yoshikazu Mera, I essentially hear an unchanged adult male voice.
The way I see it, a true countertenor (as opposed to a falsettist) is not
a post-puberty mechanism at all.
Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure, since we no recordings of opera
caliber castrati.
> I see no problem with countertenors
> singing anything that will work for their voices and if they have
> success doing so, the more power to them. But I think it is
> important to keep an understanding of what the music of a period was
> written for even if we decide to do it with other instruments or
> voices.
I fully agree. Poor rep choices have hurt countertenors' credibility. We
are lucky now to have men who can handle the variety of historical male
treble music. I also think there is an even deeper problem in using CTs
for Handel primo uomo roles over better qualified female singers. Handel
himself cared more for quality than the sex of his actors. There is
absolutely no excuse for directors now to reinvent Baroque misogyny today.
Tako
|
|  |
