Karen Mercedes <dalila@R...> wrote:
Karen Mercedes <dalila@R...> wrote:
> > there are CTs working today (Bejun Mehta, James Bowman, and a few
> > members of la gran scena) who have vocal size comparable if not
> > larger than some of the smaller-voiced castrati of years past.
>
> And you are sure based on what empirical evidence?
Oh, I'm not using Moreschi's recordings of evidence for anything
(besides, they're even worse than you suggest - probably ceramic or
wire recordings, with no defined rpm - so we're not even certain of
the keys of those songs! :-) What I trust more are my few
experiences hearing modern, endocrynological castrati, who for
whatever reason cannot produce testosterone at the levels most often
found in adult men. They sound different, but the primary difference
between them and women is about timbre, not size. If anything, they
sound more like chesty-CTs than women, IMO.
I would think the "hearsay" argument works in both directions - how do
we know the castrati were *so* much louder than any other type of
singer? The hearsay tends to focus on the castrati's incredible
technique (the famous trumpet duel, descriptions of their florid
cadenzi). One sees some speculation about their larger, uncalcified
rib cages to explain breath capacity, but not too often about
super-human power.
So all else being equal, why would we assume castrati had unusually
large voices? There was probably a normal distribution - mostly lyric,
some spinto, a few dramatic. Considering the orchestral forces of the
time, there was probably not the same emphasis on the largest voices
as in Verdi's time. Surely there were some light-lyric castrati,
smaller than a heftier CT like Bejun Mehta. If Mehta can hold his own
against modern female sopranos, why not use him?
The usual anti-CT logic is this: Handel preferred castrati, though he
was happy to use women as well. Countertenors were a distant (but
serviceable, as scholarship shows) third. The fact that women or
castrati were interchangeable demonstrates:
1) they sounded alike, in which case, why wouldn't a feminine sounding
CT (like Asawa) be OK? or
2) they sounded different, which would mean Handel cared more about
requisite power and technique more than about timbre, in which case,
any CT with the chops would be just as good a choice as any woman.
Then people might say, *why* weren't CTs more often used by Handel?
I'm not sure, but I have theories:
1) Many castrati had conservatory training from boyhood on, and the
gelded were generally preselected for promise to start with.
Countertenors were generally cathedral trained. Could just be a
question of chops - nurture over nature...
2) People have always liked a gimmick, and people flocked to concerts
for them.
3) Castrati are naturally superior singers - probably true broadly
(since they had higher chest voices to support their upper range), but
there is always room for individual variety. The best CTs today are
better than a bad castrato, I'm certain of it.
Besides, Handel *did* have a high opinion of a few countertenors.
"Excellent" was the word he used. He did use them on occasion in
operas. I'm not saying CTs are a superior choice as a rule. I'm just
saying let them audition, give them a chance, let them prove
themselves.
So, IMO, it is more speculative to say castrati were superhuman than
to say they were probably a lot like modern singers, just really well
trained.
Tako
|
