Countertenor Tudor

8/11/2019 Countertenor Tudor

1/14

'A Sweet Shrill Voice': The Countertenor and Vocal Scoring in Tudor EnglandAuthor(s): Simon RavensSource: Early Music, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 122-134Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3128554.

Accessed: 22/09/2014 06:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toEarly Music.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3128554?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3128554?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/14

Performing

matters

Simon Ravens

'A

sweet

shrillvoice'

The countertenor nd

vocal

scoring

n

Tudor

England

HEN

Corellidemanded

of his

pupils

that

they

be able to sustain

a

forte

for

ten seconds with

a

single

double-stopped

down-bow

he

was,

as

any

aspiring

Baroque

violinist

knows,

making

a

supreme

challenge

to

their

technique.1

That such a demand

should seem

relatively

unremarkable

o

the same

playeron a modernviolin neatlyunderlinesa truth

which the

early

instrumental

world has

long

taken

for

granted:

namely,

that

to

appreciate fully

the

peculiar

demands made

during

any

one

period

in

the evolution

of musical

style,

we

must also examine

the

parallel

evolution

of

instrumental

echnology

in

the

same

period.

Scholars

of

early

vocal

music,

on

the other

hand,

have

been

far less inclined

to

recognize

such a

par-

allel evolution. While

it

is

true that

elements of

early

vocal

style

and

technique

have

been examined

in

some

depth,

the

possibility

that the

physiology

of

the voice itselfhas evolved has been largely gnored.

Indeed,

one of

the common

touchstones

of

early

vocal and choral

performancepractice

has

been

its

relationship

to modern

performing

ensembles:

any

such historical

theory

is

thought

to be

significantly

strengthened

f

it

can

be

demonstrableas a

modern

practice.

In

fairness o scholarsof

early

vocal

practices,

we

might

point

out that

recognition

of

the violin's his-

torical

capabilities

would not be

quite

so advanced

had

every

early

instrument been

decaying

for hun-

dreds of

yearsunder

six

feet

of soil. Neither

would

we

so

fully

understand

the

violin-early

or

mod-

ern-if its mechanisms were

hidden

in the

labyrinthine

workings

of a much

larger

nstrument.

In

these

respects,

studies of

early

vocal

performance

practice

have

been hindered.

Yet recent break-

throughs

in

our

understanding

of the

relationship

between the

larynx

and the human

body, coupled

with

anthropometric

data about

the

historical

human

frame,

suggest

ways

in

which the

pragmatic

vocal

demands made

in

past

eras

may

not

match

those of our own time. If accepted, he implications

of

this

laryngological

and

anthropometric

research

have

ramifications

or

the

performance

practice

of

all

vocal music

before our own

time. What follows is

an

attempt

o

assess n

the

light

of these

findings

one

particularaspect

of

early

choral

performance

prac-

tice-the vocal

scoring

and

pitch

of Tudor sacred

music.

In

the last 20

years

the debate

surrounding

the

performance

practice

of

Tudor sacred music has

become

polarized by

two

apparently

rreconcilable

theories.

The

first

of

these

is

that the

original per-

forming pitch of this music was significantlyhigher

than

the modern

standard

pitch

of a'

=

440.3

The

second is

that the

countertenor

part

in

this

music

was

sung

not

by

falsettists

but

by

what we would

term tenors.4

These two theories

appear

rreconcil-

able

because the countertenor

part

in

much music

of

the

period

regularly

ascends to a

written

g',

which,

if

transposed

to

accord

with the

high pitch

theory,

rises

marginally

but

significantly

above the

conventional

range

of the

modern tenor.5

Physiological

evidence

It

has

been

the

field

oflaryngology,

and not musicol-

ogy,

which has

recently

supplied

significant

evidence

which

supports

the

theory

that the Tudor coun-

tertenorwas

essentially

a

tenor

and

not

a

falsettist. n

SimonRavens

s

director

fMusica

Contexta,

whose

irst

recording

or

Chandos

s

released

his

month.

EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998 123

This content downloaded from 193.144.2.35 on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 06:00:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/14

S?,'

.

"

'"

"

"'"

' "

?

.-.-..

?

q

"".4

4

?

.:. ?

?. ?

:'

:?i',i

, :.t

.4s#.

w

lb:.

L#

.L

:.?.:

122 EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998



4/14

a

study

of cadavericdissections

and

healthy

human

volunteers,

two

otolaryngolosists

at the

University

Hospital

of

Wales established

two

important

rela-

tionships:

first,

that a

relationship

existed between

laryngeal

ize and vocal

pitch;

second,

that

laryngeal

size

is,

broadlyspeaking,

related

o

height.

In

practi-

cal terms-and it should be stressedthat the

study

included and took into account individual anom-

alies-the

result

of

these

findings

s that the

taller he

individual he

larger

he

larynx,

hence the

longer

the

vocal cords and the

deeper

the

pitch

of

the voice.6

The

application

of

this evidence

to the

perfor-

mance

practice

of

Tudor

music

becomes clearwhen

we take into account the

likely

average

height

of

a

healthy

adult male

in

the 16th

century.

The

height

of

an

individual is determined

by

both

genotype

and

environment

(in

particular,

utrition)

and

by

the

in-

teractionbetweenthem.7Presumably, ince diet var-

ied

widely

between social

classes

n the 16th

century,

height

would have

shown a

parallel

variance.8

This

would account

for the

stature

of

Henry

VIII,

for

in-

stance,

whose

height

was considered

noteworthy

in

his

day,

even

though

he

stood

at

only

a

little

over

6

feet.)

Since the class and

heredity

of

the Tudor

church musician was

unexceptional,

there is

no

reason to believe

his

height

would have

been abnor-

mal

for the

period.

While no reliable statisticaldata exists

from

the

Tudor

period

itself,

highly suggestive

evidence is

provided

by

such

surviving

featuresas door frames

(which

were

considerably

ower

than

their modern

counterparts)

and life-size

effigies

(which

typically

appear

short

to

us,

even

though

their models

are

aristocratic,

and so are

likely

to

have been

taller

than

average).

The

implication

of this kind of indi-

rect evidence is confirmed

by

statistics

from

the

middle

of

the 18th

century,

when the

average

adult

Englishman

has been estimated to have measured

some

64.97

inches

in

height.9

This

figure compares

to

68.9

inches

in

1984,

a

gain

of

some

3.93

inches in

a 230-yearperiod. These two figures representnot

only

the earliest and latest reliable national meas-

urements

we

know,

but also the lowest and

highest

respectively.

Between

hese

two

figures,

he line on

a

graph

of

English averageheight

has

gradually

isen,

with small

temporary

drops

at times of economic

decline

when nutrition has been

low,

and with a

marked acceleration n the latter

part

of this cen-

tury.10

The

upward

course of these

figures

has been

dubbed the 'secular trend'

(an

initially

confusing

term

which

simply

means

that

the

rise

appears

o be

enduring):

for

our

purposes

this

trend is

significant

because it

implies

that

average height

is

likely

to

have increasedbetween the Tudor

period

and

1750,

and

again

after

1984.

In

the 18th and

19th

centuries

average

height

rose

by

a little under an inch

per

century (although

what

tiny

evidence there

is

sug-

gests

that this rise

could have been slower

in

the

17th

century):

since the Second

World

War this

fig-

ure has risen at a much

faster

rate,

of

around

4.5

inches

per

century.

To

extrapolate

average

Tudor

and

current

heights

from

1750

to

1984

data is dan-

gerous,

since the rate

of

historical

height gain

has

not been

consistent.

However,

n

lieu

of

other evid-

ence, we might at least note the result such an

extrapolation

suggests:

that between

155o

and

1998

the

average

height

of

an

English

adult male has

risen

by

between

5

and

7

inches.

Taken

together,

these

laryngological

and anthro-

pometric

findings suggest

that

the

average

Tudor

man would have had a

higher

naturalvoice than

the

average

modern man.1

Although

it would stretch

credibility

o

attempt

to establish

any

precise

alter-

ation

of

natural

vocal

pitch they

might

imply,

these

findings

nonetheless

help

to

reconcile hitherto

con-

tradictory

theories

regarding

both the nature

of

Tudor vocal

scoring

and

pitch.

Instrumental

evidence for

high

pitch

Pivotal to the Tudor

high-pitch theory

have been

organ

specifications,

n

particular

hat of the

long-

since

destroyed

1614

Dallam

organ

of

Worcester

Cathedral.

As recorded

by

Nathaniel

Tomkins

in

two

complementary

notes,

the

pipe

measurements

of

this

instrument-built to the

design

of Thomas

Tomkins-imply

that at

'choir

pitch'

the

organ

sounded

higher

than

a'=

440.

Precisely

how much

higheris less clear. As Dominic Gwynnhas shown,

quantifying

pitch

standards

from

organ specifica-

tions alone

is not as exact a science as

one

might

sup-

pose.13

When

Frederick

Gore

Ousley

first advanced

the

theory,

he described

an F

played

at this Tudor

choir

pitch

as

sounding

'a somewhat

sharp

G'

at

'modern'

pitch.

Alexander

Ellis described

this esti-

124

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998



5/14

mation

as

'slightly

ncorrect',

uggesting

nstead

that

Tomkins's

pitch

(of

a'=

474.1)

was

only

a

semitone

sharper

than our

present

concert

pitch'.14

The first

reference to

this Tudor choir

pitch approaching

a

minor

3rd

above

'modern'

pitch

seems

to

have

been

made

by

Fellowes

in

1921.

However,

Fellowes's

'modern'pitch standardwas a'

=

435.4and not a'

=

440:

perhaps

his

has been overlooked

by

later com-

mentatorsand

editors,

who

have statedwith

less and

less

equivocation

that Tudor

pitch

was 'about a

minor

3rd

higher

than

today's

standard'.15

The most recentand

comprehensive

tudy

of

early

17th-century rgan pitch

has

included

specifications

from Dallam's

Worcester

organ

and three other

now

defunct instruments-in

Westminster

Abbey, Mag-

dalen

College,

Oxford,

and

Salisbury

Cathedral.16

The results of

this

study, by

Dominic

Gwynn, sug-

gestthat thepitchof theWorcesterorganwas'oneto

two semitones

sharp'

of

a'=

440),

and that

the

other

instruments

had

similar,

f not

identical,

pitches.

(In

the

argument

that

follows,

the

'highpitch'

assumed

is of one to two

semitones,

not a minor

3rd,

above

a'

=

44o.)

Precise

universal

pitch

standardsremain a

fancy

in the 20th

century,

let

alone

the

17th.

How-

ever,

the evidence

of

these

organ

specifications,

o-

gether

with the existence of

much music

in

geo-

graphically

separated

sources

at identical

written

pitch

levels,

suggests

a

degree

of

national

uniformity.

Evidence of vocal ranges

Applying

the

high-pitch theory

backwards

n time

is

more

problematic,

since there

is

no direct evidence

from

known

organ pitches

before the Reformation.

However,

a

comparison

between the vocal

ranges

of

music known

to have

been

accompanied by

the

Worcester

organ

and the

ranges

of

pre-Reformation

music

provides

us with

indirect

evidence.

As ex.1

shows,

at the time

of

the Reformation

he most

sig-

nificant

change

to overcome

English

vocal

scoring

was

the

marginalization

of the old treble

range,

which thereafter omposersused only on rare occa-

sions.

As

the old treble and mean

parts merged,

however,

the

new mean

part (effectively

a

compro-

mise

of

its

two

precursors)

rose

by

about

a

tone. The

reasons

for

this downward shift in the

range

of

the

uppermost

part

were

largely

bound

up

in

religious

aesthetics,

reflecting

the new desire to

avoid aural

Ex.1

Written

anges

n Tudorchurchmusic

(occasional

ranges

in

parentheses):

(a) 1455-1520;

(b)

1520-49, 1553-9;

(c)

1560-1656

(a)

(b) (c)

Treble

Mean

*

*"

Counter enor

Tenor______

_

Bass

11

opulence

and

encourage

simplicity

and

comprehen-

sibility.17

Otherwise,

a

comparison

of

columns

(b)

and

(c)

in

ex.1 reveals

very

little variation

in

range

between

the

Latin

music

of

the

pre-Reformation

period

and that of Tomkins and

his

contemporaries.

Columns

(a)

and

(b)

reveal

similarly

ittle variation

in the overall

ranges

of

Latin music from the Eton

Choirbook

hrough

to

the

Reformation.

The

natural

conclusion

to

be drawn

from

this,

in

lieu

of

any spe-

cific

evidence

to

the

contrary,

would be that

pitch

did not fluctuate

radically

from the

period

of the

Eton

Choirbookonwards

hrough

he Tudor

period.

If

anything,

the

marginal

upward

trend of vocal

ranges

(other

than the

treble)

would

suggest

a down-

ward shift

in

pitch.

The most

commonly

stated

contradiction

to

the

high-pitch theory

has concentrated

on

its

apparent

impracticality."8

his assumed

impracticality

elates

not so

much to the countertenor

part,

which,

when

transposedupwards,

can be taken

(albeit

not

easily)

by

falsettists,

but

to

the treble

part.

Following

the

high-pitch theory the treble part in much early

Tudor music would

commonly

reach and remain

around

aV"-a",

hus

necessitating,

by

modern stand-

ards,

an

exceptional

breed of

boy

trebles.19

et con-

trary

to

popular

myth, contemporary

references o

high singing

by

trebles at the time are

actually

no-

table

by

their

absence,

implying

that,

though

this

EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998 125



6/14

Ex.2

Alto

ranges

n

20th-century

nglish

hurchmusic

(average

otes n

centre): a)

Stanford,

Magnificat

n

C;

(b)

Howells,

MagnificatCollegiumegale'

(a) (b)

music

may

sound remarkable o

us

when

performed

at

high

pitch,

whatever

pitch

it

was

first

sung

at,

the

ranges

were

regarded

as

unremarkable.20

The

signif-

icance

of

this observation

becomes clear when we

take

into

account the

laryngological

and

anthropo-

metric

evidence,

cited

above,

which

implies

that

the

average

human voice would have had a

higher

nat-

ural

pitch

in

the

16th

century

han

today.

This

being

the case, however impractical 'high pitch' Tudor

music

may

be

for

modern

choirs,

it would have

probably

been more

practical

han modern

pitch

for

its first

performers.

One

obviously mportant

eature

of

the

high pitch

theory

has

been

its

implications

or the

vocal

scoring

of the

period.

Although

t

may

have

turned

the treble

part

into a

problem

area,

the

argument

or

a

higher

pitch

seemed

to

solve

the

problem

of

the coun-

tertenor

part, by bringing

this closer to the

range

of

what we now think of

as

the

countertenor-the

falsettist.

In

fact,

a

comparison

between

the

alto

ranges

of two modern

Englishcomposers

known to

have been

writing

for

falsettists

ex.2)

and the coun-

tertenor

ranges

of

three Tudor

composers

(ex.3)

is

suggestive,showing

that,

even

assuming

a

sounding

pitch

atone abovea'=

44o,

only

in the latermusicof

the

period

does the countertenor

rangebegin

to

ap-

proach

that

of

the modern falsettist.

A

comparison

with the situation

on

the Conti-

nent

during

the

16th

century

is

also

revealing.

In

Europe (again contrary

to the

general perception),

falsettists were

common.1

Whereas

nowadays

we

associate falsettists with the 'alto' part in poly-

phonic

music,

in

Renaissance

Europe

they

took the

soprano part

instead of

boys,

or

occasionally

along

with them.

Ex.4

shows the

soprano

ranges

of

two

typical Magnificats sung

in

the Sistine

Chapel,

wherecastratoswere unknown until the

mid-156os.

These works have

an overall

range

of

two octaves

Ex.3

Written

ountertenor

anges

n

Tudor hurchmusic

(average

otes in

centre): a)

Fayrfax,

Magnificat

Col-

legium

regale';

b)

Tallis,

Magnificat

Latin,

parts);

c)

Tomkins,

Magnificat

5th

ervice)

(a) (b) (c)

and a

7th,

which

is the same

range

that Tomkins

and other

post-Reformation composers

employed

in

choirs with

boys.

It is

unlikely

that

precise pitch

standards

existed

in

the Sistine

Chapel

(in

which no

instruments were

allowed),

but

if

we assume that

English

and

Italian

basses had

broadly

similar

ranges,

t

appears

hat the

range

of

the

Sistine

falset-

tists

was

a minor

6th

higher

than that

of

the

English

countertenor: even if Italian basses sang a little

lower than their

English counterparts

(and

what

little evidence there

is

might

suggest

otherwise)

we

are left with a

huge

discrepancy."

If the

English

countertenor

voice

really

was a

falsetto before the

17th

century,

we seem

to be

faced

with

a

remarkably

nd

uniquely

ow

range. Superfi-

cially,

there

appears

o be

a

possible

musical

justifi-

cation

for this.

English

composers

in

the Tudor

period

were,

of

course,

presented

with a situation

not unlike that

of

today,

with

boys singing

the

up-

permost

part,

or

parts.

This

being

the

case,

it seems

musically

reasonable hat in

writing

imitative

poly-

phony

composers

should have set the

ceiling

of

the

countertenor

range exactly

an octave below that of

the

treble

part.

Indeed,

this is the casein muchof the

Latin music

of

Tallis

and

Sheppard.

Yet if this is

really

an

explanation

or a low

falsettist

range,

t falls

to the

ground

in

a

significant

number

of

works,

such

Ex.4

Soprano

falsettist)

anges

n Sistine

Chapel

music:

(a)

Josquin,

Magnificat

th

one;

b)

Festa,

Magnificat

th

tone

Written

itches

Pitcheswhen owestbass

notes transposed o F

(a)

(b)

- -

.

126 EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998



7/14

as

Sheppard's

Missa Cantate and

Gaude,

gaude,

gaude

Maria,

in which the

ceiling

of the coun-

tertenor

parts,

even in imitative

entries,

s

generally

a

9th

below

that

of the treble

part.

Even

sounding

a

tone above

written

pitch,

the

upper

ceiling

to the

countertenor

range

in these cases would

be

only g'.

Similarly,

n a number of works

by

Tallisthe second

countertenor

part

lies

below that of the

first,

with

written

'

as its common

ceiling.

As with

Sheppard's

imitation at the intervalof a

9th,

Tallis's mitation at

the 2nd seems to avoid

the

musically

natural solu-

tion

in

non-sequential

polyphony-namely

imita-

tion at the

unison. What other reason could there be

for these low

ranges,

hen,

other

than

that the coun-

tertenors

in

question

could

comfortably

sing

no

higher?

And

to

take this one

step

further,

if these

singers really

were falsettists

we must ask what kind

of falsettists they were that could not be trusted

above a

g'?

Now

let us

look at

the other end

of the coun-

tertenor

range. Compared

to the falsettist

ranges

of

modern

English

composers

(see

above),

even at

high

pitch

the bottom notes

in

Tudor countertenor

parts

lie

extremely

ow. Modern

falsettists,

aced with this

music at

high pitch,

are

commonly

forced

to

switch

downwards

nto

chest voice for

low-lying passages.

Moreover,

when

sung

a

tone

above

a'=

440

an

inor-

dinate number

of entries

n

this

music

begin

around

a,

precisely

the awkwardarea

in

which this

'gear-

change' is normallyeffected.23And did late Tudor

countertenors

suddenly

fall

mute

when

faced

with

a

Lord's

Prayer

ecited on an a

or

bV,

as is the

practice

in

many

modern choirs?The

difficulty

most modern

falsettistshave with

this

hybrid range

has led to

the

convenient but

unaccountable

theory

that Tudor

countertenor

parts

call

for

a

technique

and

style

which has been

'lost'.4

In

any

event,

as

ex.2

shows,

while

the

high

pitch

theory

brings

the

countertenor

part

of

the

mid-

to late Tudor

period

closerto

that

of

the

modern

falsettist,

t

remainsclosest to that of the

modern tenor.

Documentary

evidence

The

ranges

shown

above

in

ex.2,

with their

appar-

ently

high

parts

for

falsettists,

are

fairly typical

of

music

published

in

other Italian centres

during

the

Renaissance.Small wonder that Thomas

Coryat,

an

English

cleric

visiting

Venice in

1608,

should

be

drawn

to

comment

on

the nature

of

an

adult male

soprano

he

heard

there,

who

had such

a

peerlesse

and

(as

I

may

in

a maner

say)

such a

supernaturall

oice

for such a

privilege

or the

sweetnesse

f

his

voice,

as

sweetnesse,

hat

I

think therewas

nevera better

singer n all theworld, nsomuch hat he did not onelygive

the most

pleasant

ontentment hat couldbe

imagined,

o all

the

hearers,

ut also

did

as

it

were astonishand

amaze hem.

I

alwaies

hought

that

he was an

Eunuch,

which if he had

beene,

it had taken

away

some

part

of

my

admiration,

because

hey

do most

commonly

ing passing

wel;

but he

was

not,

therefore

t

was

much the

moreadmirable.

Againe

t

was

the more

worthy

of

admiration,

becausehe was

a

middle-

aged

man,

as about

forty yeares

old. For

nature

doth

more

commonly

bestowe

such a

singularitie

f voice

upon boyes

and

striplings,

hen

upon

men of such

yeares.

Besides t was

farre the more

excellent,

because it was

nothing

forced,

strained,

or

affected,

but

came from him with

the

greatest

facilitie

hat

everI

heard.25

Coryat

stresseshere that the

'supernatural

oice'

he is

describing

s

not

that

of

a

castrato,

or

eunuch,

but of a

falsettist.

It is

possible

that it is

merely

the

tessitura,

and not the vocal

type

itself,

which

Coryat

finds

'supernatural'.

ut

if

this were the

case,

and

the

falsetto

voice

as such was

familiar

o

him,

surely

we

might

expect

him

to relate he

singer

he has heard n

Venice to falsettistshe has

encountered

n

England,

in

the same

way

that

he

relates the

singer

to

'eu-

nuchs',

'boyes'

and

'striplings'

he

has heard. That

Coryat

does not do

this,

and

that he remarks

on

the

phenomenon in such a naivemanner,sits uneasily

with the notion that

the falsettistwas a

traditional

feature

of

English

choral

practice

in

the

early

17th

century.

One

of

the

main

arguments

used

to

verify

the

Tudor

countertenoras a falsettisthas been a

specific

piece

of

documentary

evidence,

to be found in

CharlesButler's

1636

reatise

Principles

fMusik.6

As

with the

evidence

of

the Dallam

organ

at

Worcester,

we

should be

wary

of

applying

evidence

dating

from

the

17th

century

o

the

early

Tudor

era,

of

which

But-

ler had no direct experience.That said, Butler had

sung

in

the choir of

Magdalen

College,

Oxford,

from

1579

o

1585,

and there

are more

references o music

from

the

1575

Cantiones sacrae of

Tallis

and

Byrd

than to that of

any

other

composer.

(Morley

is cited

more

often,

but as a theorist

more than as a com-

poser.)

When he wrote his

Principles

Butler was a

EARLY

MUSIC

FEBRUARY

1998 127



8/14

Hampshire country

parson,

far removed from the

hub of

modern

performance.

So,

while we cannot

apply

his

pronouncements

to

pre-Reformation

Tudor

music,

we should bear

in

mind that the best

choral

standards

he is

likely

to

have known

would

have

been

at Oxford n the

early

158os.

ndeed,

n

the

preface

to his

Principles

Butler refers to the

present

day

as 'these

giddy

and

new-fangled

times',

which

should

perhaps

alert us to the

nostalgia

of

a man

looking

back

at

the

music-making

of his

youth.

But-

ler's

description

of vocal

types

reinforces his

image

of

a

backward-looking

ommentator,

since

it

refers

to the

five-part

vocal

scoring

of the

pre-Reformation

period-a

vocal

scoring

which

had all

but

died out

in music for the new

Anglican

rite. It seems

probable

that we

should

apply

Butler's

definitions to choral

practice

at least as far back

as

the

1570s.

But

interest-

ingly,Butlerrefers o thetrebleas 'thehighestpartof

a

boy

or woman': since there

is

no record

of

women

being

used

in

the

church choirs which

sang

this

music,

we

might reasonably

assume that

his defini-

tions

apply

also to the kind

of

private

devotional

music-making

at which

post-Reformation

Latin

music

(such

as

the

1575Cantiones)

was

sung.27

n the

following

definitions

we should

be

careful o distin-

guish

between

Butler'scomments

on

parts

and

the

voices which

sang

them.

(a)

The Base s

so

calledbecaus t

is

the basis or foundation

of

the

Song,

unto

which all other

partes

bee set: and it

is

to

be

sung

witha

deep,

ful,and

pleasing

oice.

(b)

The

Tenor

is

so

called,

becaus

it was

commonly

in

Motets

the

ditti-part

or

Plain-song:

which continued

n the

same kind

of notes

(usually

briefs)

much after one

plain

fashion:

uppon

which

the other

partes

did

discant

n

sundry

sortes

of

Figures,

and

after

many

different

ways:

or

(if

you

will)

becausneither

ascending

o

any high

or

strained

note,

nor

descending ery

ow,

it

continueth

n

one ordinari enor

of

the

voice and therefore

may

be

sung

by

an indifferent

voice.

(c)

The

Countertenor

r

Contratenor,

s

so

called,

becaus t

answereth he

Tenor,

hough

commonly

n

higherkeyz:

and

therefore

s

fittest

for a man

of

a sweet shrillvoice.

Which

Part

hough

t have ittlemelodi

by

itself;

as

consisting

much

of

monotonies)

yet

in

Harmoni

t

hath

the

greatestgrace:

specially

when it is

sung

with a

right

voice:

which is

too

rare.

(d)

The

Mean

is

so

called,

because

it is a

middling

or mean

high part,

between

the

Countertenor,

(the

highest

part

of

a

man)

and the

Treble,

(the

highest

part

of

a

boy

or

woman:)

and therefore

may

bee

sung by

a mean voice.

(e)

The Treble is

so

called,

because

his

notes ar

placed

(for

the most

part)

in

the third

Septenari,

or the Treble cliefs: and

it is

to

bee

sung

with a

high

cleere sweete voice.

Butler's

descriptions

of the bass

part

as

being

that

of the lowest man's

voice,

and

of

the

upper

two

parts

as

being

those of

higher

and lower

boys

(or

women's)

voices,

are

unequivocal.

His definitionsof

the

tenor

and countertenor

parts,

however,

are evid-

ently

less

specific.

In

particular,

he definition of the

countertenor

part

as

being

best

suited

to

a man of

'sweet

shrill

voice'

has

been used

to

support

the the-

ory

that

this

part

was

taken

by

falsettists.28

efore

ex-

amining

Butler's

countertenor,

et us

study

its con-

text,

by looking closely

at

the

implications

of his

definition of the tenor

which,

'neither

ascending

to

any high

or strained

note,

nor

descending

very

low

... therefore

may

be

sung by

an indifferent

voice'.

These last three words strongly suggest what we

would

call a baritone. The statement also

implies,

since

there

is no

clarifying

disclaimer

elsewhere,

hat

one man's

part

did ascend to

high

and,

if

not

strained,

at least unrestrainednotes.

This could

only

be the countertenor

part,

and

yet,

as we have

seen,

even at

high pitch

this

part

lies

very

low for falset-

tists,

and

its

general

essituracould

hardly

be a

mat-

ter of

anything

but

restraint or

a

seasoned falsettist.

Indeed,

one

essential characteristic

which

distin-

guishes

the falsetto

voice from that of the tenor

is its

apparent

estraint.

We

might

note that

Coryat

com-

mented on the absence of strain of his Venetian

falsettist

soprano,

who

would

have been

singing

ap-

preciablyhigher

than

an

English

countertenor.)

Far from

suggesting

hat

the

highest

man's voice

was that of a

falsetto,

Butler's

use of the word

'shrill'

in

his

description

of

the

countertenor

further

sug-

gests high

tenors

on this

part. Today,

when used

in

connectionwith

singers

the

adjective

shrill' s com-

monly

applied

to

a

certain

kind of female voice:the

falsetto

voice

is,

in

turn,

oftenderidedas

effeminate,

and

perhaps

his

indirect

ink has led

to the

assump-

tion thatButler's shrillvoice' wasthatof a falsettist.

Yet

n

the

early

17th

century

shrill'

was not

a

gender-

exclusive erm.

Nor was it a

pejorative

one.

Rather,

t

was

simply

used

to describe oud

high

sounds:when

'shrill'

was used to

describe

musical

instruments

these were

typically

military pipes

and

trumpets,

neither of

which are

immediately

analogous

with

128 EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998



9/14

the

tone

of

the

falsettist.29

With

the

qualifyingadjec-

tive

'sweet'

Butlercounters

the

potentially

coarseas-

sociations

of 'shrill'.

Yet

we

should be careful

not to attribute

o Butler

an

unequivocal

description

of

the

countertenoras

a

tenor.

Butler'suse of

the words 'fittest'

and

'right'

n

describing

he countertenor

suggest

that,

writing

in

1636,

he was

here

describing

both

an ideal and a real-

ity.

The

first of these

words is 'fittest'.

If

the

part

is

merely

'fittest',

and not

'fit' for

'a man of sweet

shrill

voice',

it

could

evidently

be

sung

by

other kinds of

singers.

Second,

we

might

consider the word

'right'.

'Right'

is not

merely

a bland

qualitative

statement

that

'good'

voices were

rare,

but

a comment about

actual

voice

types. Etymologically

he word

'right'-

then as now-was

chiefly

used to denote

something

as

being

correct,

rue

or

just:

it

only

became a

quali-

tative udgmentwhen combinedwith anotheradjec-

tive,

e.g.

'right

well'.

If

the countertenor

part

had 'the

greatest

grace'

when

'sung

with

a

right

voice: which

is too

rare',

we

might

then assume that Butler had

also

experienced

he

part sung

by

what he

thought

of

as an

improper

voice,

and

one more

commonly

available.

If

Butler's

'right'

countertenor

voice was that of

the modern

tenor,

what were the natures of these

other

improper

voices?

Two

possibilities

present

themselves. One voice could

have

been

that of a

modern

baritone,

yet

sustaining

a

high-lying

line in

full voice would createproblems:perhaps t was this

that Butler had

in

mind

when,

elsewhere

in

his

Principles

e

railed

against

all

harsh

straining

of the

Voices

beyond

their

natural

pitch'.30

The

second

voice which Butler could have

experienced

on

the

countertenor ine

is,

of

course,

that of the falsettist.

Indeed,

any

singers 'straining

...

beyond

their

nat-

ural

pitch'

will,

faced

with

inevitable

and imminent

vocal

demise,

switch into falsetto for

high-lying

pas-

sages.

So,

Butler

appears

o be

describing

an ideal of

the countertenor

part

being

sung by

what

we

would

call

tenors,

and a

reality

in

which other men also

sang

this

line,

using

falsetto

as

and when

necessary.

In

view of

the

nostalgic

and

backward-looking

nature

of Butler's

Principles,

t would

not be

diffi-

cult to ascribe

his

ideal to

the

practice

he

knew

in

his

youth,

and

his

reality

to

the

practice

of 'these

giddy

and

new-fangled

times'.

Indeed,

if

the

prac-

tice

of

feigning high-lying passages

was

deliberately

cultivated

by

individual

countertenors',

we

may

be

able

to

identify

Butler'scomment as one of the first

sightings

of an

embryonic English

falsettist tradi-

tion.

Butler's

final words on the

'right'

countertenor

voice are that it is 'too rare'.Fromlaterin the 17th

century

there is evidence

that

high

tenors were

a

rel-

ative

rarity

in Purcell's

London.3'Similar evidence

exists from

the

20th

century,

indicating

that

in

northern

Europe

basses

outnumber tenors

4:1.32

These

pieces

of evidence would

support

Butler'sas-

sertion that

in

England

the countertenor voice

(modern tenor)

was a

rarity,

andthat the tenor voice

(modern baritone),

was

suitable for 'an indifferent

voice'.

(The

suggestion

has been advanced that at

high pitch

the

Tudor

tenor,

which at this

pitch

commonly ascends to

f#'

n the laterrepertory,can

be

sung

by

modern

baritones:33

hat

this

can

be done

without recourse to the

'shaking

and

qavering

of

the Notes' and

'all

harsh

straining

...

beyond

their

natural

pitch'

which

Butler rails

against,

is

highly

doubtful.)

Momentarily

witching

nto

falsetto,

to

cope

with

a

literally

untenable

range,

is a

reality

familiar to

most

mortal basses and baritones at some

stage

in

their

singing

careers.

There

is

no reason to

believe

that the

capacity

and

occasional

necessity

for

using

the falsetto

register

has

not

always

existed. What

seems much less certain is whetherin Englandbe-

fore the time

of

Purcellthis

capacity

was

ever culti-

vated

and utilized as

any

kind of

norm.

Although

it seems

improbable

that

the

falsetto

voice

(as

we

know

it)

was used on the

countertenor

line

during

the

Tudor

period,

is

it

possible

that this

vocal

type

was used

on

any

other

part during

the

Tudor

period?

As Butler's

unequivocal

description

suggests,

there

is

no

debate

that

after the Reforma-

tion

the

mean in

Anglican

choirs

was a

boys'

voice.

Yet

Roger

Bowershas

posited

that

in

the

pre-Refor-

mation

period the mean part was sung in some

choirs

by

male altos and in

others

by boys

(descend-

ing

to

g according

o his

assumed

pitch

of

approxi-

mately

a'

=

44o).

This is

based

on

three

specific

pieces

of evidence.The first of

these

is

a

description,

from

ChichesterCathedraland dated

1526,

regulat-

ing

the

disposition

of

the male

lay-clerks'

oices:

EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998 129



10/14

quatuor

clerici

laici concinuas voces habentes et musice

docti,

quorum

unus

ad minus

semper

sit

basse naturalis et audibilis

vocis: aliorum vero trium voces sint

suaves

et

canore,

ita

quod

a

communi

vocum succentu

possint

naturaliter et

libere ascendere

ad

quindecim

vel

sexdecim notas.

four

lay

clerks

having mutually blending

voices and learned

in music, of whom one at least is always [to be possessed] of

a

natural and

audible bass

voice;

while

let the

voices of the

other three be sweet and

melodious,

so

that

by

the

joint

application

f theirvoices

hey

may

naturally

nd

freely

encompass

15

or

16

notes.34

Bowers

akesthis

last

phrase

o mean that

'15

or 16

notes' refers to

the

range

of the three

voices

above

the bass-an extended

range

which

might imply

the

necessity

for falsettists:

however,

he

admits

that

the

Latinof this

regulation

s 'not

totally

unambiguous'.

It

could,

of

course,

be taken to mean

that the

two-

octave

range

t refers o

applied

to that of all the

lay-

clerks, ncludingthe bass voice (i.e. from the lowest

written note of the bass

part

(F)

to the

highest

note

(f')

of the countertenor

part).35

uch a

range

would

be

easilymanageableby

tenors

and

basses alone.

The

second

and

third

pieces

of

evidence

which

Bowers cites are both directions

in

specific

works

with a mean

(C2 clef)

top part.

The

performance

di-

rectives state that

these

pieces

were

to

be

sung by

men

and

a

childe':

since

any

such directions were

very

rare,

Bowerstakes

this

to

imply

that their

pur-

pose

was

to

specify

something extraordinary-

namely

that the

mean

be

sung

by

a

boy

and

not a

man.

Fromthis

he

infers hat the

mean

part

was

nor-

mallysungby

men. In

fact,

the

extraordinary

eature

of the

performance

of

these

works,

which

necessi-

tated

specific

directions,

was

probably

ust

the scor-

ing,

which

in

both cases involves unusual combina-

tions of clefs

(C2, C4, C4, F4

and

C2,

C4, C4, C4, F4).

All

other relevant

evidence-including

the

balance

of the Eton

College

choir

cited

below-confirms

that the mean

was,

throughout

the Tudor

period,

a

boy's

voice.36

The

evidence

of

historical context

Whether

as

a

mean or

a

countertenor,

it

has

been

common

to

assign

a

part

to the falsettist

n

the Tudor

vocal

layout.

In

so

doing,

commentators

have

attempted

to discern a link with

English

choral

practice

before

and

after he Tudor

period.

A

number of

commentators

have

perceived

inks

with earlier

practices,

citing

evidence for falsetto

singing

from as farback as the 12th

century.

From

this

period

there exist a

small number of

prohibi-

tions

forbidding

singing

with 'falsis

vocibus'

or in an

effeminateor

womanly

manner. Much remains un-

clearabout these

prohibitions:

did

they

applyonly

to

men

singing

chant,

or

to

early

improvised

poly-

phony;

and did

they

refer to men

exclusively

using

falsetto,

or

simply

to low basses

coping

with a

high-

pitched

chant?

As

Christopher

Page

has

shown,

they

may

not

refer

o

what

we

know as falsetto

singing

at

all.37

Yet even if

they

do,

the

fact

remainsthat these

references

exist

as

prohibitions,

and never as en-

dorsements: to

posit

the tradition of a vocal tech-

nique

on

the

strength

of them is

dangerous,

particu-

larly

when no

piece

of

extant

chant or

polyphony

from pre-1450calls for a rangewhich could not be

easily

accommodated

by

tenors and

basses.38

Moving

into the

early

Tudor

period

itself,

our

principal

source of its church

music,

the

Eton

Choir-

book,

offers

ittle

support

for the

existence of

falset-

tists at

the

time. Evidence

against

their use on the

countertenor

part

is

given by

its

range,

which is

commonly

the

same

as

that

of the tenor

part

below:

it

would

seem

perverse

to

imagine

that different

methods

of

vocal

delivery

could

have

been used

for

what

were

basically

he same

ranges.

Another read-

ing

of

this evidence has been to

suggest

that both

tenorand countertenor

parts

made occasionaluse of

the falsetto

register.

Yet even at

high

pitch

neither

part

would ascend

beyond

g'-an

upper

range

which

would make no

great

demandson a modern

tenor.39

It has also been

suggested

that the

mean

part

in

Eton Choirbook music was taken

by

falsettists,

partly

on the basis of a

perceivedcontinuity

between

the

scoring

of the central hree

parts

n the new five-

part

Eton

music,

and the three

parts

n

the 'chanson-

style

vocal

layout'

of Dunstable

and his

contempo-

raries.

However,

to see

continuity

between

the

traditionof Dunstableand that of the Eton Choir-

book

is

far

from

straightforward.

unstable'smusic

adopted

a Continental

scoring,

and to

judge

from

its

surviving

ources ts

intended

performing

ensembles

of

four

adult

soloists

may

just

as

easily

havebeen for-

eign

as

English:

he Eton

Choirbook,

on the other

hand,

is

uniquely

English

music,

composed

for

a

130

EARLY MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998



11/14

chorus of

boys

and

men.

The four soloists

of the old

chanson-style performance

practice,

whatever

their

disposition,

would

in

any

event have been swallowed

up

in the

larger

whole of the new

choral ensembles.

To use an

analogy

rom

a

later

period,

the viol

music

of

Dowland

and

string

sinfoniasof

Purcell

may

share

similar clefsin some of theirinterior

parts,

but in it-

self this does not

suggest

any continuity

between

their

originalperforming

ensembles.40

Specific

evidence

against

the use of falsettistson

the mean

line

in

Eton

music

is

provided

by

our

knowledge

of

the

college

choir

and

the music of the

choirbook.

The choir

at Eton

during

the

period

of

the choirbook

constituted

some ten

boys

and seven

lay

clerks.41

Assuming

full

attendance,

if

lay

clerks

took mean

(commonly

C2

clef)

parts,

n

a work

such

as

Browne's

O

Maria salvatorismater

the

balance

wouldpresumablyhave been10-1-1-1-1-1-1-1;even

in

the more common

five-part

works the

(im)bal-

ance would have been

something

like

10-2-1-2-2,

as

opposed

to

5-5-3-2-2

if

boys sang

both

upper parts.

Such

figures

are

irreconcilable

with the

directives

for solo and tutti contrasts

implied

by

the

Eton

Choirbook,

as

well as the

practical

dictates of choral

balance.42

As well as

seeing

a continuum

between

the

Middle

Ages

and

the music of

the Eton Choirbook

period,

commentatorshave also stressed

a

link between the

end of the

Tudor

period

and

current

English

choral

practice-an apparently simple task since the

falsetto countertenor

is

a

self-evident

reality

in

modern

professional

church choirs. Yet

no

sooner

do

we startto trace such

a

supposed

ineage

between

the Tudor

and modern countertenor han we see it

disappear.

There

is no

doubt that falsetto

singing

was known

in

late

17th-centuryEngland.

The influence of visit-

ing

Italian

castratos,

n

an

age

when all

things

Italian

were

shamelessly

aped

by

the

English, may

well ac-

count

for

enthusiastic

descriptions

of falsetto

singing

by Evelyn

and others.43

These,we mightnote, rep-

resent the first

unequivocal

endorsementsof falsetto

singing

in

England.)

Yet a falsettist such as

John

Abell

was describedas a

'trebble',

a

designation

rein-

forced

by

Locke'scomment

that

in

the

ChapelRoyal

'Mens

feigned

Voices' were

used

on

'superiour

Parts'

normally sung by boys.44

The actor

Colley

Cibber

admitted

that the

song

in

Sir

Courtly

Nice which

William

Mountfort had

sung

in a 'clear

Counter-

tenour',

he

himself could

only

manage

'under the

Imperfection

of a

feign'd,

and

screaming

Trebble',

implying

a distinction between

falsetto and

coun-

tertenor

techniques.45

Purcell's countertenor

parts

seem to divideinto low and

high

parts.46

n the face

of

documentary

evidence such as that

presented

above,

it

has

gradually

een

accepted

hat at least the

lower of thesewas the

preserve

of tenors:

range

alone

has

suggested

that

the

higher

of these

parts

must

have been taken

by

falsettists,

yet

in

the

light

of the

laryngological

and

anthropometric

evidence

pre-

sented

above,

we

may

now need to readdress

his.

AfterPurcell he term 'countertenor'

dropped

out

of

common

usageduring

the 18th

and

19th

centuries,

and

was

only

resurrected

by

Alfred Deller

and Sir

MichaelTippettin the

1940s.47

We may indeed ask

whether the

synonymity

of the terms 'countertenor'

and

'falsettist',

assumed

by many

to

date back

to the

12th

century,

may

have been a

reality

only

since the

Second

World War.

Implications

for

modern

performers

If we

accept

that Tudor sacred

music

was

first heard

as much as a tone

above

a'

=

440

but with

tenors

singing

the countertenor

ine,

as modern

performers

this

appears

o

lead

us

to

an

impasse.

However com-

ical it

may

at first

appear,

he natural conclusion to

this argument appearsto be that to re-createthis

music as it was first

heard,

we

are

likely

to

require

an

abnormally

short

breed

of

tenors.48The

problem

is

exacerbatedwhen we consider that the same holds

true for the treble

line,

although

most

modern

per-

formancesat

high pitch

have to some extent

avoided

this

particular

ssue

by using

female trebles.

Yet,

even

if

it

were

possible

to

find sufficient

tenors and

trebles

o reach

their

respective op

notes

in

such a

high

tessitura,

and

to remain

there com-

fortably,

would this

lead

us

any

closer

to the sound

world of the Tudor church?The answer to this co-

nundrum must lie not

with the

performers

but with

the

listeners.To

late-2oth-century

isteners

he

tessi-

tura

of

performances

a tone above written

pitch,

even with

falsettists on the countertenor

line,

has

rarely

proved

other than

aurally

remarkable;

with

tenors on the countertenor

ine

the

vocal

scoring

of

EARLY

MUSIC FEBRUARY

1998

131



12/14

such

performances

would

be

truly extraordinary.

However,

even

though

there

might

be

disagreement

aboutthe

pitch

(or

pitches)

at

which

the musicwas

first

heard,

there is no evidence that to

16th-century

ears the 'ordinari

compas'

of the music was in

the

least

surprising.

The reason

for

this would now seem

to be obvious: he shorter

physiological

tatureof the

16th-century

male

and his

correspondinglyhigher

voice would have

made

'high pitch' performances

unremarkable or

singers,

and thus unremarkable

for listenersalso. In orderto

reproduce

he effect-

as

opposed

to the

actuality-of

the

first

perfor-

mances of Tudor sacred

music,

there are therefore

two

principles

we must

observe:

first,

we must at-

tempt

to

re-create he falsetto-lessvocal

disposition

of the first

performing

ensembles;

and

second,

we

must

perform

at a

pitch

which

sounds

as

ordinary

o

modern ears as did the

original

o Tudor ears.

For his detailed comments

on the above

article

my particular

thanks

are

due to

Andrew

Parrott.

I am

also

grateful

to

Clifford

Bartlett,

Professor

Roderick

Floud,

Deborah

Gordon,

Dominic

Gwynn,

David

Lawson,

Francesca

McManus,

Professor

Colin

Platt,

Dr

Richard

Rastall,

R.

Gareth

Williams,

GlasgowUniversityLibrary,

he

Museum

of

London,

the

Wellcome

Institute

for

the

History

ofMedicine

and

by

no means

least to the

singers

of

Musica

Contexta.

1

R.

Bremner,

Compleat

utor

or

the

Violin

(Edinburgh,

c.1750).

2 As

with

previous

discussions

f

this

topic,

the

following

rgument

raws

togetherdisparate

vidence o

reach

ts

conclusions:he fact

hatmuchof the

same

evidence

has n the

past

been

presentedo reach ntirelydifferent

conclusions

houldat leastalert

us to

its

ambiguities.

3

This

heory

was

advanced

y

Sir

FrederickGore

Ousley

n

his

1873

Collection

f

sacred

ompositions

f

Orlando

Gibbons,

ndthen

by

Alexan-

der

Ellis

n

his seminal188o

paper

The

history

of musical

pitch',

published

n

Studies

n the

history f

musical

itch,

ed.

A.

Mendel

Basel, 968).

The

argu-

mentwas

subsequentlynlarged

y

Edmund

Fellowes n

English

madrigal

composers

Oxford,

921),

pp.70-73,

Peter e Huray nMusicand theRefor-

mation

n

England,

549-1660

(London,

1967),

pp.112-14,

nd

most

recently

nd

fully

by

David

Wulstan

n

Tudormusic

(London,

1985),

pp.192-249.

For

he

sakeof

clarity

shallrefer

o this

throughout

s

'highpitch'

heory.

4

This

theory

s

much more

recentand

less well-advanced.

It

has been

briefly

stated in

recording

sleeve-notes

by

Andrew

Parrott

(Taverner:

Missa

Gloria

tibi

trinitas,

Taverner

Choir,

EMI

CDC

7

49103 2)

and Simon Ravens

(Midnight

Mass

for

Queen

Mary

Tudor,

Musica

Contexta,

Herald HAVPCD

95).

Roger

Bowers,

whose

knowledge

of

this

whole area is

unrivalled,argues

that the

countertenor

was not a falsettist before

the

Reformation

in

R. Bowers:

'The

vocal

scoring,

choral

balance and

performing pitch

of Latin church

poly-

phony

in

England,

c.150oo-58',

roceed-

ings of

the

Royal

Musical

Association,

cxii

(1987),

pp.38-76,

and 'To chorus

from

quartet',

English

choral

practice,

14oo-1650,

ed.

J.

Morehen

(Cambridge,

1995),

pp.1-47.

5

By

the term

'countertenor'

term

I

refer

to the

middle

part

in the standard

five-part

texture of

pre-Reformation

English sacredmusic, or the second

line

down

in

the

standard

post-Refor-

mation

four-part scoring.

This

part

is

most

often termed

'contratenor'.

In

the music of the

Eton

Choirbook

the

countertenor

part

is

normally

notated

in the

C4

clef:

in later music this

becomes the

C3

clef.

6 R. G. Williams and R.

Eccles,

'A

new

clinical measure

of external

laryngeal

size which

predicts

the fundamental

frequency

of

the

larynx',

Acta octo-

laryngol

(Stockholm),

cx

(1990),

pp.141-8.

7

R. C.

Floud,

Height,

health

and

history:

nutritional

status in the United

Kingdom,

175o-198o

London,

1990),

P-7.

8

Health,

medicine

and

mortality

n

the sixteenth

century,

ed.

C.

Webster,

(London,

1979).

9

The data

n this

paragraph

s taken

from

Floud,

Height,

healthand

history.

lo

Although

he data or these

figures

(largely rovided y

measurements f

military

ecruits)

does

not

necessarily

satisfy

he

statisticalmethods

of

modern

anthropometry,

he results

are

surprisingly

onsistentwith other

contemporarystimates f height.The

overall

upward

rend

n

heightamong

Britishmales s also

entirely

onsistent

with similar rendsacross

Europe.

11

S.

J.

Kunitz,

Making

long

story

short:

a

note

on

men's

height

and

mortality

n

England

rom he

first

through

he nineteenth

enturies',

Medical

istory,

xxi

(1987),

pp.269-80.

12 We

might

note

that

all

of

these

findings

oncern

adultmales.

Although

logic

suggests

hatTudor

boys

must

alsohavebeen

shorter ndhad

higher

voices han heirmoderncounterparts,

this

cannot

be

readily

onfirmed.

13

D.

Gwynn,

The

English rgan

in

Purcell's

ifetime',

Performing

he

music

of Henry

Purcell,

d.

M.

Burden

(London,

1996),

p.31.

14

Although

n

Ellis's

reat

work

I

can

find no reference

o what

he

regards

s

'present

oncert

pitch'

an

alarming

omission),

by implication

t must

have

been

a'

=

440.

15

Wulstan,

Tudor

music,

p.202.

16

Gwynn,TheEnglish rgan n

Purcell's

ifetime',

pp.31-2.

17

The reasons

or this

change

are

explored

n

Wulstan,

Tudor

music,

pp.241-2.

Charles

Butler's

ssertion,

in

1636,

that some treble

voices

could

ascend

above

written

"

(see

n.20

below)

confirms

hat

he

boys

were

132

EARLY

MUSIC

FEBRUARY

1998



13/14

still

capable

f

singing

n the

higher

tessitura.

18

Though

often

stated

by

practising

musicians

s

an understandableeac-

tion to the

apparentlymprobable

demands

made

by

the

high

pitch

theory,

his view

has

received

pre-

dictablyittleattention nprint.The

most

comprehensive

ritten ounter

to the

highpitchtheory

s

found n

the two

articles

y Roger

Bowers ited

above.

t

is

important

o

point

out that

Bowersdoes not

dispute

he

applicabil-

ity

of the

high pitch

heory

o

post-

Reformationmusic.He

disputes

ts

applicability

o

pre-Reformation

usic

on

the

grounds

of

lack

of

contempo-

rary

vidence,

nd

because

of what

he

perceives

s a

break n

continuity

t the

time of

the Reformation.On the other

hand,

no

specific

videncehas

been

produced

o

suggest

hat

pre-Refor-

mationmusicwassungatgenerally

lower

pitches

han

that

of the

post-

Reformation

eriod,

whilethe evid-

ence

of ex.1 eems o

imply

some kind

of

continuity.

19

It is

perhaps

worth

noting

here hat

most modern

performances

f

Tudor

musicat

high

pitch

have

commonly

used adult emalesas

trebles.

Such

per-

formances,

owever

uccessful,

rovide

no real

evidence

as to

the

feasibility

f

this

performing itch

for

boys:

modern

performances

t

high

pitchby

all-male

choirshave

rarely

een

wholly

success-

ful.Whetherusingmale or female

trebles,

nd whether

uccessful

r

unsuccessful,

moderncritical omment

of

performances

tone or more above

written

pitch

has

been

magnetically

drawn

o

the

stratospheric

ange

of

the

treble

part:

we

mightcompare

his

to

the

situation n Tudor

England

see

n.17

above).

20

Comments n the vocal

quality

of

particular

oys

trebles-which do

exist-should

not be confused

with

comments

on

their

exceptional

ocal

range-which

do not.

Specific

vidence

to thecontrary-thattherangeof the

Tudor

reble

voice

was

regarded

s

'ordinary'-is

provided

n Charles

Butler,

The

Principlesof

Musik

(London,

1636),

p.9.

In

describing

the

full

range

of

the standard

Tudor five-

part

vocal

scoring F-g"

(i.e.

A

-bV" t

high

pitch),

Butler offers the

proviso

'althowgh

hereare ound

soom Bases

that reach

below,

and soom

Trebles

that

ariseaboov his

ordinari

ompas.'

21

It

shouldbe stressedhat ormost

of the16th

century

dult

European

sopranos

were

alsettists

nd

not

castratos.Castratos

were

reported

n

Spain romthe middleof thecentury,

and in the Sistine

Choir rom

about

1565:

astratoswere

gradually

ntro-

duced

alongside

alsettists,

mplying

that

their

ranges ccupied

common

ground.

Similarly,

he fact hat

n some

choirs

(the

Capella

Giulia,

or

instance)

boys

and

falsettists

ang

soprano

parts

together,

uggests

hat he

16th-century

European

alsettistmust

ndeedhave

been

a

high

voice.

Underlining

his

is

the

evidenceof the

written

anges,

whichshows

ittle

change

o

accom-

modate he new

breed

of

castratos:n

Sistinemusicafter

1565,

lthough

he

sopranoupperrangeoccasionally

becomes

higher

from

"

to

g"),

the

overall

ompass

of

the voices

doesnot

increase.

22

Sagudino,

ecretary

o

the Venetian

ambassador,

ommented n

hearing

the

Chapel

Royal

n

1515

hat

he

Eng-

lish

'counterbasses

robably

ave

not

their

equal

n

the world'.While

his

may

have

been

a

commenton their

quality,

t

could

alsohavereferredo

their

ow

range.

This

would

agree

with

the observation

hat,

historically,

ng-

lish men havebeen

taller

hanItalian

men,andhave hus

presumably

ad

lower

voices.)

23

For

nstance,

t

highpitch

a6

or a is

the

most

frequent

tarting

ote

for the

countertenor

art

n the

1575

Cantiones

sacrae.

24

P.

Phillips,

Performance

ractice

in

16th-century nglish

horal

music',

Early

music,

v

(1978),

p.194.

25

Thomas

Coryat, Coryat's

Crudities

(London,

1611),

.252.

26

Butler,

The

Principles

ofMusik,

pp.41-2.

27

See

J.

Morehen,

Sacred

ongs

n

the

chamber',

English

choral

practice,

ed.

Morehen,

pp.161-79.

28

Wulstan,

Tudor

music,

pp.233-4.

29

We

might

note

that some

5o

years

aterPurcell

requently

matched

the voice of the

countertenor

ohn

Freemanwitha

trumpet,

ypically

n

martial

music.

ButFreeman's

counter-

tenor'was a

tenorvoice:see

O.

Bald-

win

and

T.

Wilson,

Purcell's

tage

singers',

Performing

he music

of

Henry

Purcell,

d.

Burden;

Purcell's ounter-

tenors', Musical opinion, lxxxix (1966),

'Alfred

Deller,

John

Freeman

nd Mr.

Pate',

Music and

letters,

1

(1969).

30

See

Butler,

The

Principles

ofMusik,

p.116.

31

SeeT.

Morris,

Voicesand

pitch

n

the concerted

works',

Performing

he

music

of

Henry

Purcell,

ed.

Burden,

p.141,

andA.

Parrott,

Performing

ur-

cell',

The Purcell

companion,

ed.

M.

Burden

(London,

1995),

p.420o.

32

F. Bernstein nd P.

Schlaper,

'Oberdie

Tonlage

dermenschlichen

Singstimme', Sitzungsberichte er

Preussischen

Akademie der

Wissen-

schaften (Physik.-Math.

ICI)

(1922)

[cited

in

Wulstan,

Tudor

Music,

p.221].

33

Wulstan,

Tudor

music,

p.244.

34

Oxford,

New

College,

Archives

of the Warden

nd

Fellows,

432,

ff.21-22r

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	paularivero
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Countertenor Tudor

Documents