David Grogan wrote:
>
> << I don't see any reason why a man should sound like a woman. What parts
> call for this ? >>
>
> What about any one of the "pants" roles?
>
Well, that's a very good point. I mean, they are males who obviously
"sound" like women because they are designed to be played by women. And
they are not usually meant to be limp-wristed effeminate types either.
So how much more acceptable it must have seemed in the same period for
male characters played by men to sing that high. Matching the pitch of
the singing voice to that of the expected speaking voice is quite likely
a modern phenomenon.
I think it would be advisable to take a little more historical
perspective. If the treble-pitched singing voice - as opposed to a
speaking voice in the same octave - didn't automatically sound like a
woman to listeners in past centuries, I think we should try to hear it
through their ears.
I feel Axwell's problem with treble-pitched male voices is a little
analogous - except that the relative ages are reversed and the
time-scale is more compressed in this case - to that of me
mother-in-law regarding certain fashions. In the early 70s in Britain
the big fashion craze for girls was the smock. We all wore them.
Mother-in-law could not understand why on earth girls would want to look
pregnant when they weren't. It fell on deaf ears when I said that to us,
it didn't spell pregnant at all; to her, smock=pregnant=end of argument
(anyone else there ever had a mother-in law? :) )
For smock read treble tessitura; for pregnant read Sounds like a woman;
for my mother-in-law read Axwell (nothing personal, Ax! - what are you,
a lumberjack? That's OK)
off to take some more water with it,
Linda
|
