Reg Boyle <bandb@n...> wrote:
> Baroque to my mind includes the whole European scene
> but Bach appears to have had female voices at his disposal while the
> others were restricted. Assuming he knew of, and had heard castrati:
> did he reject them on the grounds of religious aesthetics or because
> he felt that the female voice provided a more pleasing and acceptable
> combination?
I don't believe Bach had castrati available to him. They were highly
paid and were mostly manufactured in Italy. I'm certain he liked women's
voices (look at his wife!), but he probably only had men and boys
available for his sacred music due to church dogma.
> Referring back to your harpsichord and gut violin
> sonatas of Bach: if we ignore the restrictions of inter-changing
> violin with counter-tenor, and substitute the voice into these sonatas,
> which would more likely match Bach's tonal choice, a counter-tenor
> or a female alto? The female I would think!
What is your justification in this statement?
> So if we could commission Bach to write for counter-
> tenor, what may his instrumental combination have been?
Much of his alto music probably was for countertenor. I've seen violins
a lot, but most likely some other combinations as well. It's not well
known, but countertenors have a much richer and longer history than the
castrati. At some points in history (like now), they were highly trained
singers who were prized for their rare abilities.
> I see nothing to maintain the contention that present
> day counter-tenors would be as tonally suitable to the composer as
> substitutes, where-as reconstructions of these known combinations of
> instruments most likely would.
I don't believe you're substituting in the case of Bach. Countertenors
may have been the original instrument. I hope you're not suggesting we
"reconstruct" the castrato? ;-)
-Tako
|
|
|  |
