Talk:Countertenor/Archive 1

Comment
I've just a observation about the phrase: "A countertenor is a male singer who uses falsetto to sing much higher than is usual(...)". Somebody who uses falsetto IS NOT NECESSARIALLY CALLED COUNTERTENOR. The voice classification is based on the NATURAL voice of the singer. So, a lot of people that sings LIKE countertenors are at true tenors and, sometimes, baritones. The countertenor sings with his natural voice, that's higher than a tenor's one. When a countertenor speaks naturally we also hear a acute voice, although the timbre is different from a woman voice.

The falsetto is a technique sometimes used explicitally by de singer. For example, the "Carmina Burana", from Carl Orff, has a part where the solist baritone needs to sing in falsetto. And he are not a countertenor because of it! ;-)


 * Yes, the falsetto in CB is not a countertenor. However I do not agree with the rest of what you say: I know lots of countertenors and indeed I sing countenor myself at times and the normal vocal range is low, often baritone-ish. The high range is not our normal singing voice - there is a low (normal) range and a high range into which you consciously have to switch, and that, to the best of my knowledge, is falsetto. If it is not, then I cannot see what it is, nor could I account for the two distinct (sometimes TOO distinct when you're trying to cover up problems at the low end of your countertenor range!) vocal ranges that we have. If I say one is my natural vocal range and the other is, like woah dude, up there where I wanna be, in falsetto, then that seems to me to explain it. Nevilley 09:10, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

some countertenors attain a soprano range?
It says "some countertenors attain a soprano range" - really - who? A real sop range? Up to high C say?? I'm sorry to be so skeptical but this is a really serious claim - we are saying most CTs go up to about D or a wee bit more on a good day and suddenly there are some who can be the Queen of the Night? (No jokes please.) I would like to see more on this claim or have it removed. And if it's sayig that some CTs can squeak out top Z as a sort of curiosity or joke than that is not the same thing as saying they "attain a soprano range" and it should be explicit that it's a party trick not a serious singing range. Evidence and a discussion anyone please? Nevilley 09:14, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not positive about the very top of the soprano range, but I personally can certainly cover mezzo-soprano in my falsetto; and I don't have any formal training.Matt gies 09:19, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then can we maybe agree on a form of wording which acknowledges this possibility but does not seem to make quite such a bold claim? Nevilley 14:44, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * more and more countertenors are mezzo soprano in tessatura. I warm up to a C sharp in alt - which gives me a Bflat in full voice.

sheppda: 23/05/04


 * I recently began training my voice, and I started as a tenor but switched to countertenor. I sing up to soprano high C# in full voice and indeed I mostly sing in soprano/high keys.  1 March 2006

Alto gender
I know what the editor meant who removed "female" from alto but now I think it reads oddly. Since we are saying that countertenors are altos then it's odd to sort-of-differentiate them by saying that they are like altos without specifying what's the difference. I might have a little go at sorting it. More efforts from others would be welcome.


 * I removed the qualifier on alto, because the page for alto has plenty of explanatory information on gender already. The qualifier was superfluous.Matt gies 09:27, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The qualifier seemed superfluous to you but if you are in the business you already know FAR more about all this than we can safely assume the average reader does. For someone going to the page and wanting a quick explanation of what it's all about, those couple of words provide useful background information and, with the greatest of respect, I believe they should stay in. And they are not, now, just gender - they just explain more generally, without clicking through to another article, what is going on. Nevilley 14:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deller is probably best described as a falsettist
"Deller is probably best described as a falsettist, as evidenced by listening to his recordings. "

I don't understand this statement. The article has just said that countertenor is falsetto, and so he would be, wouldn't he? Or does "falsettist" have some specific meaning, so that you can be a falsettist but not a CT? I'm confused and would appreciate some clarification please - at the moment the article does not help much here. Thanks. Nevilley 09:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Anglican women, men, numbers, countries, an ting
"Church and cathedral choirs employ them as well - although women's alto voices are heard as much as men's in the Anglican church in the 21st century." Do we know that this is true, quantified somehow, or is it just a guess or one person's perception? To be honest I'd guess that if you took all Anglican churches in England, it would be many more women, but if you stuck to cathedrals it would be more men. But when you say "Angican church" that means worldwide and then, surely, it gets even more difficult to nail down (ouch). Are there figures or a basis for this? Nevilley 16:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"A Countertenor is an adult male singer who uses his falsetto more than usual to sing much higher than the typical adult male vocal range. A Countertenor trains himself to use the whole of the vocal cords to produce a rich sound, as distinct from the falsettist who makes a much slighter sound by only using the edges of the cords." These two sentences completely contradict eachother. Someone more educated in the matter than I am should fix this. Similar contradictions exist between this page and the entry for sopranista, as well as on the sopranista page itself. I'm confused. -- EldKatt

(see below - falsetto is a part of all voices - Falsettist would be the person employing just that part of the voice. A Countertenor is then someone who uses MORE falsetto than a baritone but not as much as a Falsettist. Maybe more distinct use of capitals would help??)


 * I agree, it's a mess. I think it's being worked on by people with strong views and perhaps axes to grind, as the definition seems rarely to have been stable. Let's hope it gets sorted out. Nevilley 23:15, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Have just discovered this talk page - which will be usefull in clarifying. Yes I DO have strong views - but hopefully not axes to grind! (I am - as you may have guessed a countertenor!) Am starting from the premise that all natural healthy voices have all elements in them. Any voice should be able to find a falsetto (even women can find a falsetto at the top of their range). So what may seem contradictory in the 1st para. is based on this premise. I'm using the term Falsettist to imply a difference between CT (the voice type) and falsetto (the part of every natural voice/part of the vocal cords). Also to underline the emergence of the voice type 'Countertenor'. A Countertenor trains himself to use all the muscles of the vocal cords, and the whole vocal mechanism (ie breathing and vocal suspensory mechanism - the muscles that lengthen the cords-) to give himself a rich sound and variety of timbre ( a falsettist has less choices of colour or timbre). This training gives him a voice which can then be thought of as on a par with a well trained soprano, alto, baritone or bass voice. (As opposed to being one element of a voice which is just used for an effect).

Am fairly certain that sopranistas use unsupported falsetto - but am looking into it - as I'm not 100% sure.

Yes - the bit about Anglican churches/cathedral's is a bit speculative. It is based on personal experience having sung in various professional choirs in churches and cathedrals in London UK. I have no figures though! Am looking purely at the professional choirs. (This may be unfairly exclusive of course) sheppda 23/05/04

Capitals (again)
A bit ago I made some edits that changed things like "Tenor" and "Soprano" to "tenor" and "soprano" (ie, removing captials). Now somebody has put them all back in again. Before I remove them again, can I ask: is there any reason at all for these words to be capitalised? I don't see any myself. --Camembert

Happily bow to the 'capitalisation' conventions here - will take them out myself. The reason I put them in was in trying to find a way to differentiate between falsetto - the part of the voice - and Falsettist - the person who sings using that part of the voice. Needlessly complicated maybe? sheppda 24/05/04


 * I think so. The two are differentiated enough, I think, by virtue of them being different words ;-) --Camembert


 * Yep, I'd like it Better Without the Capitals please. I always feel that Too Many of Them looks like a Victorian Concert Programme! :) Thanks, Nevilley 10:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

(and also thanks for the comments on the voice, Anglican churches and the associated rewording. )

Rock bit
This bit was removed without the courtesy of an explanation. It's too big to do that with.

"It should be noted that although many male rock and pop artists frequently go into falsetto and use much the same range as classical countertenors, the term is never used for them: it is essentially a name used only in classical music. (Rock and pop are generally more relaxed about categorizing types of singer anyway, and the high range of the countertenor seems likely to cause some mild confusion and embarrassment if examined too closely in the context of rock machismo.) "

I regard it as useful content, and have replaced it. If you think it should not be in there, please have the courtesy to explain why not. Thank you. 82.35.17.203 00:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that the term is rarely (note rarely, not never) used in afro music deserves to be here, I think. But the bracketed sentence at the end of it is rather speculative, so I removed it. It's an interesting thought that "the high range of the countertenor seems likely to cause some mild confusion and embarrassment if examined too closely in the context of rock machismo", but all of my experience with such musicians points to the opposite: that a high range is quite highly valued, even if full voice seems preferrable to falsetto. EldKatt (Talk) 11:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

To my mind this last paragraph repeats what has already been said - is it redundant?'Regrettably, the part of the countertenor has been one long accused of being a somehow "false" or "unwholesome" voice because it utilizes falsetto technique. Because Castrati are extinct and the percentage of natural countertenors is very, very low, nearly the only way for a male to sing countertenor is to utilize their developed falsetto.' sheppda - 18/04/05


 * I'm unsure if it's particularly redundant, but I certainly question its factual accuracy. It's the falsetto register--not countertenors as such--which has been accused of being "false" and such things. Countertenors per se have often been quite highly regarded, and, of course, they're the ones who sung the alto parts before women became more accepted as singers (I can't give a nice estimated date for this). Furthermore, although most modern countertenors sing more or less constantly in falsetto, there is considerable evidence that a lot of countertenors--back in the day when they were common--were actually high tenors who used falsetto only at the top of their register if needed. And using falsetto at the top of one's register was probably more common in all voice types than it is today.


 * Based on my reasoning as above, I might remove the whole paragraph soonish. Objections? EldKatt (Talk) 11:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What about Freddy Mercury? or the beach boys?
What about Freddy Mercury? or the beach boys? were they Countertenors?


 * This raises an issue of some importance to the list in this article. In popular music (in the widest sense, I guess) the vocal range nomenclature is somewhat more fuzzy. I don't know why, but while I don't see any problem in for example classifying a rock singer as a tenor or a bass, calling someone in the same genre a countertenor feels a bit strange. For me, it's a classification which belongs more or less exclusively to "classical music".


 * Another problem is that countertenor doesn't really have anything to do with one's "natural" range. Many, if not most, countertenors are baritones. Others are tenors. Some, perhaps, are basses. Yet we call them countertenors if they sing in that range. In the case of popular music, where the desire to use a single unbroken register consistently is less strong, many singers sing both in their full voice in their "natural" male range, and in what you might call "countertenor range" in falsetto. Personally I'd call Freddy Mercury a high tenor. I've never thought of Michael Jackson (listed on this page) as a countertenor, but it might not be entirely wrong.


 * erm, i was under the impression that most countertenors were natural basses, at least all those in my choir, including myself are. OrangeDog 20:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that we should be very careful with non-classical singers in this list. If someone is widely spoken of as a countertenor (such as Pharrell Williams, if one is to go by the Wikipedia article on him) he belongs here, perhaps, but I am doubtful as to whether the term is ever used systematically outside of classical music. I'm not sure if it's my own prejudice speaking (I hope not), but I think we should be strict here. Comments are quite welcome. EldKatt (Talk) 14:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Two references to Justin Timberlake?
Since there's a good bit of discussion on this article, I'll ask rather than making the change directly. Since countertenor is not a word often used in popular music, and since it is used often in classical music, it seems surprising if not completely misleading to have so many references to pop in the leading paragraphs. How about examples of classical countertenors? Chick Bowen 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A huge mess
There are lots of things on this page that need to be fixed. Here's a partial list:


 * That countertenors are "controversial" is not significant enough to be the main focus of the first paragraph. How about an explanation of what a countertenor is?
 * Including a list of pop singers who make frequent use of falsetto is reasonable, but calling them countertenors is simply inaccurate. Same goes for the Barbershop tenor.  Perhaps there should be a subsection for high-voiced male singers outside of the classical tradition.
 * The classification into five types is misleading. The term "falsettist" is never defined, and it makes little sense to separate "baritonic" (which is not even a word) countertenors from falsettists.  Similarly, the distinction between altino and haute-contre is completely unclear.  If we're going by range, divide countertenors into alto, soprano, and haute-contre.  If by technique, falsettist (unless there's a better word) and haute-contre.
 * The word "falsettist" is repeatedly used to describe something ostensibly different from countertenor technique. Unless this can be reasonably defined and justified, it should be changed.  Normal countertenors are not using some magical secret voice that exists between head and chest; they are developing head voice.
 * The given range (D3-E5) is inaccurate. Most countertenors switch into chest voice around A3-B3, and virtually none use head voice below, say, F3.
 * The bit about sopranists using "unsupported falsetto" is speculative nonsense and should be removed.
 * This page does not belong under "vocal ranges". Countertenor is a voice type, not a range.  Note that sopranist and alto are both already listed under male vocal ranges. Clopen 21:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of your points. This article has been in the back of my mind for a major fix for a while, but I've yet to find time for it. EldKatt (Talk) 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more that this article has become a huge mess. About 18 months ago it was not too bad but since then it has become the playground of a few obsessionalists and has veered way off being an article of any decent usability at all. I would never, ever recommend that someone should read this to learn about the countertenor voice. The pop singer thing, for example, used to just say this: "It should be noted that although many male rock and pop artists frequently go into falsetto and use much the same range as classical countertenors, the term is never used for them: it is essentially a name used only in classical music. (Rock and pop are generally more relaxed about categorizing types of singer anyway, and the high range of the countertenor seems likely to cause some mild confusion and embarrassment if examined too closely in the context of rock machismo.)" What was wrong with that? Everything, it seems, as it has now been replaced over the months with a gigantic vegetable soup of Timberlake and other delicious ingredients! :) Wiki entropy at its worst. It would be great if a couple of people with some authoritative knowledge and no axe to grind could take this article in hand and try to sort it out a bit. I am not volunteering, for a number of very good reasons. :) Gonegonegone 08:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi - there is a lot of confused onfo - have just asked Antares33712 to come to this page and discuss his/her additions - which appear to be the most substantial in recent months. If they are not forthcoming - then i suggest some editing back to this older version. sheppda 23/10/05

OK, OK, OK. I will grant that being most vocal classes are best served for the classical genre. However, that said, shall we lose any classification in non-classical music. Perhaps Barry White and Issac Hayes shall be equal to Pharrell Williams or Sylvester. According to my sources (my vocal coaches, and yes even the 'Net), a countertenor is a singer who can sing in the upper fourth and fifth octaves) like an alto, ever by vocal cord adduction or developed falsetto. I would not classify say Usher as a countertenor, but damn, I don't apologize for Timberlake using many of the hautcontre techniques vocally that more classically oriented singers use.  It's interesting to note that nobody jumps on Pharrell?  Is it that theres no comment from the peanut gallery or that non-classical singers are just substandard period (ignore the fact that some "singers" have no business in the recording industry).  I added those more popular names because not everybody knows who Russell Oberlin, or Alfred Deller or Terrence Barber are.  Many people haven't had the pleasure of hearing Ben Millett or knowing who he is.  Also keep in mind that many popular music singers train on classical techniques and choose to sing popular music. Constructive criticism and updates are GREAT!!!, everybody is human, especially me, but saying the whole article is misfactual because Justin's name appears in it is wrong. All the terms are freely available at the countertenor page or elsewhere on the 'Net, as well as in the appropriate books. There is no standard on classifying a voice, some will classify by the highest or lowest note, others by the middle. So I can understand some of the controversy on popular singers. But Trey Lorenz hit a soprano-esque note in Mariah's remake of "I'll Be There". If you want to shift back over to more classical examples, fine by me, but also showcasing more popular examples may paint a broader and more inclusive picture of the beauty of the countertenor voice. Antares33712 12:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: I agree with the Freddie Mercury point. The Bee Gees are a great popular music example of falsettists. Let's not get bogged into the ridiculous politics that happened in the Britney Spears article, C-sharp or D-flat type non-sense. Antares33712 12:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

PPS: If you all would read this page, you will see the variations in viewpoint on this subject just here. Antares33712 22:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, and I promise to get off the soapbox. Please, please, please, do not associate me with the "unsupported falsetto" crap defintion of a sopranist. While I agree they exist, it doesn't explain phemonenon like Trey Lorenz, Terrence Barber or the nearly unclassifiable Adam Lopez (BTW, I would say he's a baritone, I was corrected by him: he's a tenor). A sopranist is a countertenor who sings regularly in the standard soprano range. Most sopranos (save possibly Rachelle Ferrell) are well in head voice at that attitude anyway).  Antares33712 22:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. Not every man who sings in a high range should be called a countertenor. The word carries very specific connotations. Neither a Hawaiian falsetto singer, a Xiao Sheng in Chinese opera, a barbershop tenor, nor a stratospheric pop singer is a countertenor in common parlance; they don't call themselves countertenors, and they don't sound like countertenors. I don't have any books with me, but if you look at the best available web resources on countertenors (here and here, for example) they don't even mention non-classical singing. That's because the word "countertenor" refers to a specific vocal technique within the classical tradition. Of course, countertenors can sing non-classical music; Chanticleer has recorded plenty of spirituals, and the King's Singers will do anything from Beatles to Humpty Dumpty. But the singers you name are not countertenors by the usual definition. Clopen 06:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, a quick google search turns up that nobody refers to Pharrell Williams as a countertenor except for wikipedia's articles on "Countertenor" and "Pharrell Williams". Makes wikipedia look pretty silly.


 * No, he isn't called one, we all agree the name is usally applied to the classical genre. However, he sings with the developed head voice that is CLASSIC countertenor, which is his trademark.  I am beyond apathy, write what you will; I support anything that maintains the beauty of this rare voice.  Antares33712 11:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As an encyclopedia, we have to reflect the world as it is, to the extent possible. I can accept that Pharrell Williams (although I've never heard him) sings like a countertenor, and could theoretically be called a countertenor. The truth, however, is that nobody else actually calls him a countertenor. I'm of the opinion that we, as an encyclopedia, should reflect the terminology as it is actually used by people. Not doing so is misleading. EldKatt (Talk) 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of debating things here, I'm just going to rewrite the article, since it has tons of other stuff wrong with it. You can see for yourself if I'm being unfair to pop artists. Clopen 17:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Huge revision
It was far easier for me to rewrite the article from scratch than to try to integrate the many versions of the page. Apologies to all those whose work I deleted. Apologies as well to fans of high-voiced males in other genres of music; in the end, it just didn't make sense to include them here. I think starting another article for them might be the best solution. I've done my best to maintain NPOV on issues such as the "true countertenor", technique, etc. I hope people like it. Clopen 23:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I actually would like to see a "non-classical" countertenor page for two reasons. Firstly (save the ridiculous debates of who's who in the list), well picked popular artists (whether R&B, Rock, or Pop) can help include the voice type to someone who is unfamiliar with the range.  Secondly, it at least allows us to discuss voices (even if classical purists deem not countertenor, at least countertenor-like).  Maybe the title could be countertenor technique in non-classical repetorie.  I hope nobody thinks I'm nuts.   Antares33712 03:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This could work, if we manage to find examples that could without any doubt actually be called countertenors. That might be difficult, since countertenor is not simply a vocal range--not every male alto is a countertenor. Clopen has explained this well enough previously on this page. If meeting this prerequisite, "non-classical" examples could work, but I think it might be difficult. EldKatt (Talk) 11:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Let's NOT go there again with the controversy.  I looked in the soubrette category and there are a few artists who I feel don't meet the category AT ALL (but what do I know).  So I wouldn't label them as a countertenor (too much debate, not worth the grief), but discuss how some of the techniques of the countetenor has made it into non-classical music.  The Bee Gees and Pharrell are still my top examples.  Antares33712 18:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Go where? My point is mainly that we must separate countertenor technique from mere countertenor range. We seem to agree about this, bold italic shouting aside. (Incidentally, I can't really make any informed comments on the Bee Gees, Pharrell, or any other popular music names, I'm afraid--not really my area of expertise.) EldKatt (Talk) 11:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "vocal range" template deliberately, because countertenor is not a vocal range. It is a voice type. Sopranist and alto are both already listed under male vocal ranges. Clopen 01:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! Nothing but an improvement to the previous version. I haven't checked if anything important was lost, but I doubt it, and either way this well-structured article makes room for improvement in a way not possible with the previous version, so it doesn't matter much. I am also quite positive to the removal of the vocal ranges template. (That template could use some editing, also, but that's another matter.)


 * One thing, though, after all that praise. In section two haute-contre is redefined as a particular type of countertenor. I see haute-contre as more or less a synonym for countertenor, and the first section in the article supports this. It's confusing, and I doubt the usage of these terms is entirely homogeneous. There's also the problem that we most certainly don't use the terms like people used them a few centuries ago. EldKatt (Talk) 13:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is where we could use somebody with more of an early music background than I possess. I've consistently seen the term haute-contre used largely to refer to a particular kind of countertenor; a tenor with a very light, floaty range and no breaks on the way up.  All the references I've found support this, but they also say that haute-contre was what contratenor became in France a few centuries ago.  I think the issue is that alto range moved higher at some point, but the haute-contre stayed just above tenor.  See this link.  (Just a quick google; I'm sure there are better sources out there.)


 * I'll see if I can find a way to clarify things without getting too bogged down in music history and terminology. Clopen 06:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the conclusion we can make is probably that we need more expertise. Some (slightly disorganized) further thoughts, though:
 * The distinction between haute-contre and countertenor (with these particular terms) seems to me to be a modern English-language invention; modern because it, to my knowledge, does not exist in early sources (with these particular terms, that is, although admittedly that's possibly somewhat irrelevant) and referring to modern countertenor technique; English-language (or at least not universal) because the French use it simply to mean countertenor (as far as I know).
 * The little I've read on the subject suggests that the typical countertenor, in their own time, was in fact an "haute-contre", a high tenor, and that falsetting low(ish) males singing in the alto register (i.e. the vast majority of modern countertenors) were far less highly regarded, and rarely used as soloists.
 * That's all for now. EldKatt (Talk) 12:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's only in English. From what I can tell, the French use the terms "contretenor" and "haute-contre", sometimes drawing the same distinction, sometimes confusing them.  Here's an example; "haute-contre" gets translated as "high-against". Clopen 03:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This new revision is fantastic. Well done - it is now a MUCH better article. It is, however, going to need watching. :) 138.37.199.199 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

David Da'or
Is this chap really a notable countertenor??? - Karl Stas 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Googling for "david da'or" gives 157 results at the time of writing. Many of these are about some defamatory mention in the Hebrew translation of Shrek 2; compensating for this ("david da'or" -shrek) gives 96 results, mostly suggesting that he's not particularly well known outside of Israel. Whether he's notable enough for an article here is another issue, perhaps worth raising on Talk:David Da'or, but the finishing blow for his inclusion here is apparent (to the extent possible with the Google test) if you search for "david da'or" countertenor. The total of 4 hits suggests that he doesn't belong here. EldKatt (Talk) 12:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

male altos
There ARE male singers who possess a natural alto voice, e.g. Gérard Lesne. Karl Stas 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-reverting "scholarly argument"
I'm again removing an addition from 86.29.29.22, which was previously deleted by User:Clopen and then replaced by 86.29.29.22, as well as another new addition from the same IP. In hopes of avoiding a revert war, I'm stating my reasons for this here instead of dumbing them down to an edit summary. The passage


 * Again, it is appropriate to remember that the word "countertenor" is a corruption of "contra-tenor", which, as described above, denotes a voice set against a tenor in counterpoint. The term, essentially, refers to the function of the voice, not the mechanism by which it is produced.

simply retells the etymology of the word, already addressed previously in the article. I see no need to point it out again. As for the next bit:


 * Indeed, untrained countertenors bear no comparison with those who produce the classic, edgy sound; but to use a separate term for them is as questionable as using a term such as "guitar player" to differentiate an amateur guitarist from a professional "guitarist".

Reading the rest of the paragraph, I discover that the topic of discussion is that some musicologists differentiate between singers using mainly falsetto and singers with a naturally high chest voice. The above quoted addition talks instead about differentiating between untrained countertenors and trained countertenors, which is somewhat off-topic.

And finally the next edit:


 * Also, there are many historical references to singers of the contra-tenor part using falsetto voice--see Peter Giles's book on the subject, The Counter Tenor (London: Thames, 1981) and its revisions. Finally, there is the circumstantial evidence provided by many of the world's finest acknowledged countertenors: James Bowman, Andreas Scholl and Michael Chance all speak in low, bass-range voices; they do not possess exceptionally high "natural" voices, only natural-sounding falsetto voices.

It's already been established in the article that the majority of countertenors use falsetto, and I see no reason to stress it even more. This reads mainly like an attempt to discredit the idea of countertenors using chest voice, which is patently non-neutral.

I hope that 86.29.29.22 will respond to these comments if he or she wishes to reinstate it once more. Waving your doctorate around isn't really enough. EldKatt (Talk) 23:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[Tamsin]: The issue brought up by the contested paragraph was the idea that a "counter tenor" is special kind of high voice distinct from the "alto" produced by a man singing in falsetto. I have encountered this distinction before, and I consider it to be erroneous. Now, the Wulstan study mentioned rebuts this idea, but there are the following arguments to add as well: first, the etymology of the term counter tenor shows that the term refers to the function not the mechanism of the voice; second, various historical references to counter tenors refer to these singers using falsetto; third, the vast majority of top counter tenors undeniably do use falsetto voice.

Agreed, waving my doctorate around was silly and logically fallacious. However, I do get extremely irritated hearing lay people insist on a non-falsetto "counter tenor" versus falsetto "alto" distinction when there is so demonstrably not such a distinction.

I believe that the erroneous "true countertenor" label can be traced to people's reactions to hearing a skilful, trained countertenor after hearing an ordinary, untrained one: the expert sounds so much better and natural that the listener becomes convinced that the singer must be using a different kind of voice, which could only be a special, "full" voice produced with the whole vocal folds, as opposed to the falsetto of the latter. As Wulstan shows and the points I made show, there is no foundation for this belief; the truth is simply that a good falsetto technique produces a natural, beautiful sound, while a poor one does not. You now understand why it was relevant to distinguish between "untrained" and "trained" singers.

There is nothing non-neutral about thoroughly refuting a mistaken argument. Therefore, I am reinstating what I have written.

I would edit under my own name, but unfortunately I can't remember my password and have had no luck obtaining a new one. A little help please?


 * For the record, my removal of the argument was not because I personally believe in a distinction between the countertenor and male alto. It was because, as EldKatt mentioned, the argument was redundant and slightly off-topic.  I think as currently stated, the language is insufficiently neutral; the phrase "at best a dubious distinction" makes it extremly clear which view the author favors.  If it's such a minority view that nobody really believes it, then we should remove the paragraph altogether.  (If memory serves, the only articles I've seen about it are basically cranky rants about how countertenors aren't all that great.)  Otherwise, we should present both views and their supporting arguments without telling the reader, "Well, some people think this, but they're wrong." Clopen 08:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Clopen's comment above reminded me of this discussion, after I forgot about it for a while. I'm still inclined to removing the paragraph under discussion, though. Most of it is still reiterating (for argumentative purposes) things that have already been explained well enough (and in their proper place). And as far as I know, there is far from unanimous agreement among musicologists over historical countertenor technique. The idea that they used chest voice is not just nonsense spread by surprised laymen hearing a countertenor for the first time. I'll wait some time before taking action this time, but if there are no further objections I'd like to delete the paragraph again. EldKatt (Talk) 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

incorrect link
BTW the link for Daniel Taylor goes to the Wiki entry for a cricketer of the same name...