About this countertenor thing
Bill McJohn
| Being a countertenor I have always wondered what term "catches"
| peoples attention the most. Say, for example, you have a
| recording of Bach's _Johannes Passion_ and the alto soloist is
| listed as a male alto. Is that more or less appealing than a
| listing of countertenor, possibly implying the quality of the
| voice is different, etc.
|
I generally ignore the terminology and look at the name of the
performer. There are voices I like, and voices I don't like, and
I don't care how they do what they do. (How _do_ you produce
that remarkable sound?)
For starters, as has been previously noted in this group, there's
no standardization of terminology. Most people I know use
countertenor, contratenor, and male alto pretty much interchangeably.
Furthermore, I don't see any point in trying to redefine these
common-use terms based on method of production, since
there doesn't seem to be a clear connection between method
of production and vocal color.
Voice teachers and other people for whom method of production
is an important issue should develop a terminology that does not
conflict with existing usage, if they can agree on it. But attaching
specialized (and idiosyncratic) meanings to commonly-used terms
will just create more confusion.
While I don't care whether a singer bills himself as an alto
or countertenor, I do have to say that I dilike the term 'male
alto'. Just say 'alto' and let the audience figure it out. If I can't
tell whether the alto in question is male or female, I probably
don't care.
Bill McJohn
billmc@microsoft
Timothy Kendall
> Being a countertenor I have always wondered what term "catches"
> peoples attention the most. Say, for example, you have a
> recording of Bach's _Johannes Passion_ and the alto soloist is
> listed as a male alto. Is that more or less appealing than a
> listing of countertenor, possibly implying the quality of the
> voice is different, etc.
Personally, I find the term "countertenor" vague enough to be nearly useless.
In "period" times, it appears to have meant, simply, another voice singing
"against the tenor". It implied nothing, as nearly as I can tell, about
pitch ranges or voice quality.
For an example of what I'm talking about, see the three "Eton Choirbook"
volumes in the _Musica Britannica_ series. In some works, the "contratenor"
is what we "moderns" would call a high, light-voiced tenor. In others
(John Browne's famous "Stabat mater" comes to mind) it is much lower (what
we would call baritone).
When preparing a printed program for a concert, I usually use whatever
term is in the manuscript (or modern edition thereof): Treble, Mean,
Tenor, Contratenor, Bassus, etc. When terminology for the same voice
differs from piece to piece on a program, I just pick one.
In conversation, I nearly always use the term "male alto" (or, among
cognoscenti, simply "alto").
Just my $.02.
Timothy Kendall
tken...@cnri.reston.va.us
Michael Johnston -- Michael's Music Service
Timothy Kendall <tken...@cnri.reston.va.us> wrote:
>ALTUS <JGW...@UCS.INDIANA.EDU> writes:
>
>Personally, I find the term "countertenor" vague enough to be nearly useless.
>In "period" times, it appears to have meant, simply, another voice singing
>"against the tenor". It implied nothing, as nearly as I can tell, about
>pitch ranges or voice quality.
Don't confuse the part called "contratenor" (or any of its variations)
with what the English call a countertenor or male alto. The alto part may
be sung by a mezzo or even a boy soprano, if you get my meaning.
>For an example of what I'm talking about, see the three "Eton Choirbook"
>volumes in the _Musica Britannica_ series. In some works, the "contratenor"
>is what we "moderns" would call a high, light-voiced tenor. In others
>(John Browne's famous "Stabat mater" comes to mind) it is much lower (what
>we would call baritone).
Yes, because the part called countertenor was "against" the melody or "tenor"
and could be either higher or lower than the melody, depending on what
period you're studying.
>In conversation, I nearly always use the term "male alto" (or, among
>cognoscenti, simply "alto").
Certainly, the common term in England is "alto". But that's for the same
reason we say "bass" today when referring to people in the bass section.
Most of them aren't basses at all! Most women in the alto section aren't
altos at all, but they sing that part and we call them that. In a choir of
men and boys, anybody who sings the alto part can be an "alto"!
Cheers!
Michael
--
MICHAEL'S MUSIC SERVICE | CIS: 70731,3403 |----------| Organ Music Our Specialty
4146 Sheridan Drive | amb...@rock.concert.net |----------------| John Apple
Charlotte, NC 28205-5654| (704) 567-1066 |--------------------| Michael Johnston
Brother Ambrose, Friars Minor |-------------| Guillaume de Pomme, Maitre d'Orgue
The Bare Facts BBS
In my personal experience, the description"countertenor" evokes the
rich,clear and full quality that I associatewith the cromhorne stop on a
good17th-century French organ."male alto" on the other hand seemsslightly
less alluring.A subjective question deservesa subjective answer, n'est-ce
pas?-J.L. Roth
---
Origin: The Bare Facts BBS * U of AL School of Music * @tbf.musicnet.ua.edu
Stephen Wilcox
>Being a countertenor I have always wondered what term "catches"
>peoples attention the most. Say, for example, you have a
>recording of Bach's _Johannes Passion_ and the alto soloist is
>listed as a male alto. Is that more or less appealing than a
>listing of countertenor, possibly implying the quality of the
>voice is different, etc.
I would probably think that for the sake of having, let's say,
Olaf Baer as Christus, Anthony Rolfe Johnson as the Evangelist
and Emma Kirkby, John Mark Ainsley and David Thomas as the other
three soloists I would put up with having a male alto singing the
contralto solos ;-)
Seriously, though, I think too much is made these days of what we
should call singers. As far as I'm concerned, *except* when I'm
talking about individual parts in a choral piece, counter-tenor,
alto, male alto are all near enough synonyms. They tell me that a
man is singing falsetto. If he's not falsetting I would call him
a high tenor, and if he's a she I'd call her a contralto or an
alto, except that the counter-tenor range is often more like a
bad mezzo's: no top, and not much bottom.
I'm not getting at anyone personally, I just don't, in general,
like counter-tenor voices.
------
Stephen Wilcox ** Research is 5% inspiration
wil...@maths.ox.ac.uk ** and 95% desperation.
Elizabeth Randell
> I'm not getting at anyone personally, I just don't, in general,
> like counter-tenor voices.
countertenor voices, and I like countertenors too. In fact, I've never
met a countertenor I didn't like. They're so sexy.
So there!
Elizabeth R.
Steven Knight
And how can I let *this* go by? As a countertenor, can I please put
this on my resume? (And we've never even met!) I can see it now:
"...performed more or less capably..."
--Mpls. Star Tribune
"...so sexy."
--Elizabeth Randell
--
Steven Knight
kni...@netstar.com