On 23 Jul 2005 at 3:36, Neal Schermerhorn wrote: [where's the attribution on this?] > > What isn't: Catholicism's ban on females singing within it's walls > > or the "no female tenors" rule?
[] > Someone put it well - is it a question of equality or a question of > traditional music roles? If the modern chorus is defined as female > sopranos and altos and male tenors and basses, then clearly a female > tenor or a male alto is not technically a member of the group. In a > school group they could pull it off, but in an honors group set up for > the purpose of going above and beyond the educational use of the > chorus, I can definitely see why they'd be excluded. That seems to me to be the environment in which you'd want to be *more* accomodating, and reflect professional standards, where countertenors are relatively common. > As to the historical use of males in all parts, well they did far > worse than to pull their pants half off to accomplish that. I'm not so > sure we want to continue that tradition - one which was rather sexist > in itself by today's standards, as many women could have done the job > with no scalpels involved.. This is completely idiotic. It didn't take castrati to sing the parts -- it was fully developed men and boys who were able to sing the parts back then. And some men and boys can sing them today, without castration. Second, no one, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, is calling for the TMEA to have an all-male choir. Implying this as the proposed alternative to SA female and TB male is about as intellectually dishonest as you could be. The point of citing history is to show that there is not physiological justification for excluding countertenors, especially in repertory that was *written* for all men. That is not an argument for using all men, but an argument for allowing flexibility that the TMEA rules do not allow. It is an argument that shows that there is no justification for the Texas rule, at least in regard to countertenors (we can provisionally accept the female tenor ban and still reject the countertenor ban because the vocal mechanisms for male and female singers are different). > I really feel for the countertenors and female tenors in our world. > They do get the short end of the stick. But let's be serious. Both > these groups need to be aware that they won't see as many > opportunities as they'd like, simply because the musical appetite > isn't demanding their sounds. The viola da gambists and rebecists are > in a similar plight. (What options does a really good high school > rebec player have in terms of All-State anyway?) This is a completely bogus argument, because the all-state argument IS NOT PLAYING MEDIEVAL MUSIC, or any music in which viola da gamba is required. First off, all-state orchestra plays orchestral music, and neither of those instruments were ever part of the orchestra (the modern orchestra didn't exist when those instruments were in wide use, though the gamba did last into 18th century after the modern orchestra had developed, but it was not part of that emerging orchestra). Secondly, if the all-state orchestra were doing Brandenburg 6 and prohibited viola da gambists from auditioning to play in it, *that* would be criminal (assuming they aren't doing an orchestral transcription, but retaining the original 1 instrument on a part). Now in certain repertories of music, cello and viola da gamba were considered equally usable (this is going to be mostly in continuo situations), and so either would be appropriate. If an all-state orchestra were performing such repertory, where either was appropriate, and rejected gambas, that would be wrong. Now, I don't know what the repertory is that the Texas all-state choir is singing, but if any of it was written in the era when men sang the higher parts, it is equally criminal to reject countertenors for singing those same parts. > The mistake here is to assume that All-State is for all musicians. It > is decidedly not. If you don't play an instrument (or sing a part) > used in the modern standard band, orchestra, chorus or jazz ensemble, > you are out of luck in that category. Then there's something wrong with the definition of the "standard chorus." And absolutely no justification for that definition. > It's not so bad, though. Plenty of kids make All-State in this > country. It's an honor, but I'd surely put more weight on an admission > audition than a claim that one sang alto with 100 others in All-State > when picking college freshman. > > If someone's a truly talented musician, they will be noticed, > All-State or no. The cream will rise to the top. This is like arguing that the seats in the back of the bus are just as nice as the seats in the front, and, as long as you get a seat, why should you complain about being relegated to the back of the bus? -- 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
