On 22 Jul 2005 at 13:28, Tyler Turner wrote: > --- "David W. Fenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > So, we can actually agree on the premise behind the > > justification > > given for the rule and still see the rule as being > > WRONG, precisely > > because the rule PREVENTS certain singers from > > singing in their > > "normal voice range." > > > > Yes. I don't want to go too far into defending the > effectiveness of the rule. I just think it's a > plausible alternative explanation for why they made > the rule instead of the explanation that some of these > news articles are giving (that Texans are close-minded > about gender roles).
Well, I think it's sexist thinking and old-fashioned historically uninformed musical thinking that allows them to cling to the bogus justification for the rules. > If I had to defend the rule's validity, my initial > GUESS would be that it helps a greater number of > people than it hurts. . . . But it's by definition inequitable to countertenors. It's historically pretty much unnatural for women to sing tenor, but there's nothing historically or physiologically unnatural about men singing alto. For those who can do it, there is also absolutely no damage to the voice (I think that singing falsetto does no damage to anyone, to be honest, but I recognize that countertenor is a lot more than mere falsetto; the point is that someone who doesn't have a natural countertenor range can quite often since falsetto in the same range). > . . . It seems likely to me that there > were a greater number of girls being assigned to tenor > parts for the sake of covering the part rather than > the number who were assigned because their voices > warranted it. But I don't know this for a fact, and I > certainly won't claim the rule hurts no one. If everyone is being auditioned, I don't see the issue. > Perhaps if Texas is really serious about the issue, > they should hire some professional "vocal inspectors" > that go around to the various schools. ??? Seems to me the rule applies to all-state choir, which has nothing direct to do with what's going on in the schools. All they need is audition judges who can make musical decisions about appropriateness. To me, the choice of whether countertenors and female tenors should be accepted into all-state choir should be left up to the choir's conductor, on a year-by-year basis, based on appropriateness to the repertory. And maybe they could have a different kind of audition for those who sing outside the conventional voice ranges. That would mean handling the exceptions individually while not damaging the hampering the general rule. I really do think that the female tenor rule is justifiable on musical grounds and the countertenor exclusion rule is not. People may complain about apparent gender inequity, but you can't change history nor can you change physiology. But in any event, the real equitable rule is that everyone should be allowed the opportunity to try out for parts in their natural voice range, even when that range is not the conventional one. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
