on 7/22/05 7:52 PM, David W. Fenton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 22 Jul 2005 at 19:04, Don Hart wrote: > >> on 7/22/05 5:38 PM, David W. Fenton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> On 22 Jul 2005 at 16:27, Don Hart wrote: >>> >>>> on 7/22/05 2:17 PM, David W. Fenton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>>> And I definitely believe that the "no female tenors" rule is more >>>>> justifiable than the "no countertenors singing alto" rule. The >>>>> former is, at least, historically appropriate. >>>> >>>> So we can sexually discriminate based on a history determined by >>>> sexual discrimination? >> >>> Er, it isn't sex discrimination. >> >> What isn't: Catholicism's ban on females singing within it's walls or >> the "no female tenors" rule? > > Irrelevant. The music was conceived for male voices, which meant male > voices were capable of singing it WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THEIR VOICES.
Conceived this way because of the woman's place in society, which was *not* singing in church. Don Hart _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
