John Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...> wrote:
> Tako, I appreciate your 'issues' with reviewers who are
> perhaps unhappy with the way the countertenor sound is headed
> historically (IMO just such a richer, fuller sound, and not
> co-incidentally, wider acceptance) especially since you clearly want
> to sing that way.
Thanks! Actually, I prefer that people not push people into any
pigeonholes. The British sound is very beautiful, and I don't want that
to be extinguished as illegitimate. People should just sing what they
sing best. Operatic CTs should sound operatic, renaissance CTs should
sound renaissance, barbershop CTs should barbershop.
> It could be argued by an antiquary that a counter tenor is
> whatever sings the line above the cantus firmus, whether it be an
> alto, male or female, or a trained duck.
LOL! Seriously, though, I'm glad you brought this up - countertenor
altus was originally an instrumental term! The word is that far-removed
from its current usage.
-Tako
|
