Countertenors?

Countertenors are in my opinion the best voice to listen to Nothing disappoints me more when I purchase a recording of a song that was originally written for a male alto and there's a woman singing it. I've heard female voices singing the solo verses in Gibbons' 'This it the Record of John' and found it changes a piece that I have always thought of as profoundly beautiful into something mundane and generic. I don't wish to sound severe on my own sex, but I do prefer male voices generally (with the exception of soprano soloists). This does make me totally hypocritical, as whenever I get turned away from certain church choirs because I am female I complain, but whenever I purchase recordings of choral works I usually tend to go for all male choirs as I find the sound has a much purer quality. Does anyone else have an opinion on women being allowed to sing in traditional church choirs? I do sing in one now in a high church, but even in this case women were only allowed to join five years ago...

Countertenors, female sopranos, and boy sopranos

Ah yes, I was afraid that this thread might devolve. It is not a question of who sings better or their gender. The really great a cappella choral music written around the 16th century was with the *tonal colours* that the male voice choir could make. Let us remember that they did not always sing with a lusty vibrato since that would disturb the fine textual and notationally constructed pieces, not to mention the character and solemnity of the occasion they sang in. A excellent choir is one that can, at will, turn off the vibrato. To make a fine point - Informed Musicianship! Not only the Conductor but each and every singer should be very cognizant and have taken the time to peruse and *digest* something about the composer and their time on this earth and which were the venues that they composed for. Most, if not all composed for a Church venue. That sort of edifice usually had an other-worldly acoustic and the composers knew it and thusly composed with that in mind. I'll stop right here, otherwise I would digress even further.

Oh, I forgot - just because one has female voices performing in the 16th century choral literature does not mean that the choir sings with a lusty vibrato. A blended and balanced choir of male and female voices can be just as satisfying. But, getting back to the original point - it's a question of style and acheiving the *Informed Musicianship* that should be the ken of every choir.

Humbly,

Giovanni

There is no reason to be humble, Giovanni In my opinion there is nothing worse than an ensemble of female sopranos warbling away the top line of Tallis' 'Spem in Alium' with full gusto. This may make me a traitor to my own sex but the performance of a piece has to be appropriate in style to its era and occasion. Many string players in original Baroque orchestras played with catgut strings, so vibrato was not even possible (hence why some chamber orchestras have recently started to imitate this) and the same is essentially true when performing early church music. Soloists could certainly perform with a rich vibrato, but it is just not appropriate when performing in an ensemble that is intended to produce an interesting yet ethereal sound. That does not mean that I think women should not perform this style of early music, it is merely my suggestion that sopranos should try to achieve a more bell-like treble sound when performing early music rather than the gusto used in performing later choral works.
And back to the subject of counter-tenors, the same applies for women singing the alto parts in choral works- the style simply has to depend on the occasion!