On 22 Jul 2005 at 20:43, Don Hart wrote: > 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.
Again, WHY is not relevant to the FACT that men sang the music without damaging their voices. Why men were singing that music is not relevant. Of course, if men couldn't have sung it, it wouldn't have been written for them, so, we can see that the issue of discrimination doesn't have anything to do with the determination of the validity of the "singing in the wrong range damages the voice" justification for the Texas rule in regard to countertenors specifically. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
