NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/06/29/texas.soprano.ap/index.html

They claim that this boy can't sing countertenor (despite it being his best and most comfortable range) because girls might harm their vocal cords by trying to sing too low.

Does this really make sense to anyone else? If there is evidence that girls would harm themselves by singing bass or tenor, and it must be clear evidence, then by all means keep them from doing so. However, they haven't claimed that singing soprano harms a male singer.

Thus, it seems clear to me that they have no case. What do you think?

Well, the organization specifically said that the part was for girls, and so it would be hard to argue that this is discrimination due to the fact that it specifically said it was a girls-only part. I would need to know more in order to fully argue either side, but a first glance seems to support the organization.

Are they state funded or private? This means a lot in regard to any case for or against it.

That's just plain dumb. If the kid can sing soprano, let him. If someone injurs himself or herself by pushing his/her voice beyond it's limits it's not his fault.

That's just plain dumb. If the kid can sing soprano, let him. If someone injurs himself or herself by pushing his/her voice beyond it's limits it's not his fault.

I agree that he should, but the organization has a specific policy on the issue. It isn't right, but there isn't much that can be done.

This is ridiculous. I hope he challenges this and wins. Virginia Rodriquez and Mercedes Sosa are beautiful, operatic-like singers in Latin America, and both sing in ranges more commonly sung by men. Clearly, there are generalisations we can make about genders and their likelihood of singing within a certain range, but when cases fall outside of those generalities...so what? I can't believe this is an issue!

He wants to sing soprano? What a pansy!

Well, the organization specifically said that the part was for girls, and so it would be hard to argue that this is discrimination due to the fact that it specifically said it was a girls-only part.
No...it says The association, however, does not allow boys to sing soprano or alto, or girls to sing tenor or bass.
The choir has both girls and boys. This IS a gender issue. If a girl could sing tenor, they would not allow her to either. Which is crap. It should be based on musical ability, not your reproductive parts.

I dont see what is so clear cut about it. Very often vocal cord injuries are permanent. Wouldn't that make a fine lawsuit. If that policy was previously in place then I'd say he's going to have to wait until he is an adult to take such risks. I have seen people ruin their voices for the rest of their lives by doing such things they are not physically developed enough to handle.

How exactly can you tell whether or not the boy can sing? He could be total shit for all we know.

No...it says
The choir has both girls and boys. This IS a gender issue. If a girl could sing tenor, they would not allow her to either. Which is crap. It should be based on musical ability, not your reproductive parts.

Then this decision is bullshit. They should look at talent first, not gender. After all, I'd rather have the most talented person performing as opposed to one that fits prepackaged gender roles.

I agree that he should, but the organization has a specific policy on the issue. It isn't right, but there isn't much that can be done.
Of course something can be done. It can be challenged, and changed. And how is this for contradictory:

Association spokeswoman Amy Lear said the group enacted the rule two years ago because of concerns that girls auditioning for tenor parts were hurting their voices by singing too low.


Taylor (association president) said he's seen no medical evidence that singing tenor or bass can hurt a countertenor's voice. But Timothy Maguire, a professional countertenor and male soprano from San Francisco, said his doctor gave him strict instructions not to sing that way because it could cause polyps to form on his vocal chords.

So singing out of your range will hurt girls, but not boys?

He wants to sing soprano? What a pansy!

LOL. My thoughts exactly.

It should be based on musical ability, not your reproductive parts.

unless they sing with their sex organs. a sort of a penis chorus.

No...it says
The choir has both girls and boys. This IS a gender issue. If a girl could sing tenor, they would not allow her to either. Which is crap. It should be based on musical ability, not your reproductive parts.

If the organization wants to cut its own throat by holding to ridiculous ideas about gender and musical ability, let it...but make sure potential ticket-buyers and venues know ahead of time. IMHO, a Lawsuit may or may not work, but it'll guarantee only a win for the Law firms driving it.

Liverbreath']I dont see what is so clear cut about it. Very often vocal cord injuries are permanent. Wouldn't that make a fine lawsuit. If that policy was previously in place then I'd say he's going to have to wait until he is an adult to take such risks. I have seen people ruin their voices for the rest of their lives by doing such things they are not physically developed enough to handle.
Forcing him to sing outside his range could cause damage to his vocal chords. Countertenor IS his range.

Of course something can be done. It can be challenged, and changed. And how is this for contradictory:

So singing out of your range will hurt girls, but not boys?

It's a double standard obviously. They only use that excuse for one reason: people in Texas would object to hearing a man sing soprano.

How exactly can you tell whether or not the boy can sing? He could be total shit for all we know.

You may not like the style, but clearly he can sing.
He has even won first place as a soprano in the University Interscholastic League's competition two years in a row.

Liverbreath']I dont see what is so clear cut about it. Very often vocal cord injuries are permanent. Wouldn't that make a fine lawsuit. If that policy was previously in place then I'd say he's going to have to wait until he is an adult to take such risks. I have seen people ruin their voices for the rest of their lives by doing such things they are not physically developed enough to handle.
Yeah, so he should join the choir as a lower voice range, damage his voice or something and THEN sue their asses off. I'm sure that would go off EASILY since they prevented him from singing in his natural range. Like the other guy said, the division in the choir is about the GENDER of the singer, not the singer's actual ability and voice range

unless they sing with their sex organs. a sort of a penis chorus.
Now THAT I'd like to hear! I bet vaginas sound like tubas....and penises like picolos... :eek:

If the organization wants to cut its own throat by holding to ridiculous ideas about gender and musical ability, let it...but make sure potential ticket-buyers and venues know ahead of time. IMHO, a Lawsuit may or may not work, but it'll guarantee only a win for the Law firms driving it.

It's worth the fight.
"It's really for music and for other people that I'm doing this, it's not really just for myself," he said. "I think it's important that these doors can be opened for other boys in my position."

I have the solution!

Pour a couple of bottles of vodka down the kid's throat. Teach him to smoke cigars. Then shave his head, buy him some boots and send him off to a ska concert instead. Everyone wins :p

Now THAT I'd like to hear! I bet vaginas sound like tubas....and penises like picolos... :eek:

haha, woodwinds

Ihatevacations']Like the other guy said,
Hehehehe...am I the 'other guy' you refer to? :D

Forcing him to sing outside his range could cause damage to his vocal chords. Countertenor IS his range.

The only medical opinion I saw said singing countertenor could cause damage. Based on that alone they put themselves at risk of legal liability if they allow it. That is not discriminating. That is covering your ass.
No matter which way they decide they lose and that isn't right.

It's worth the fight.

I'm not disagreeing with the moral validity of the fight, only with the long-term usefulness of the tactic. It's much more effective to slam them in the marketplace, than in the courtroom, since entertainment media rely on a good reputation to seat audiences, and most audiences don't want to contribute to sexist/racist/etc. bigoted outfits, the publicity angle is probably more effective than the Lawsuit angle (esp. as young sir will, eventually, grow older and his voice will change.)

It's a double standard obviously. They only use that excuse for one reason: people in Texas would object to hearing a man sing soprano.

I always love it when people act like they are fighting for equality while in the same paragraph they make a disparaging remark about another group of people.

What was the word i was looking for....i think it starts with an H....and ends in ypocrite

Liverbreath']The only medical opinion I saw said singing countertenor could cause damage. Based on that alone they put themselves at risk of legal liability if they allow it. That is not discriminating. That is covering your ass.
No matter which way they decide they lose and that isn't right.
What medical decision? Did you even read the article? It mentions the doctor of a PROFESSIONAL counter tenor saying singing below that could harm the guys vocal cords.

But wait, how do they put themselves at risk to legal liability if they allow it? He won awards twice for singing as counter tenor, that is obviously his natural voice range. If there were females that naturally sang lower would they be forced to sing soprano because of gender issues and one of those magical black and white rules that one could only find in Texas. It is like a redneck twilight zone

Liverbreath']The only medical opinion I saw said singing countertenor could cause damage. Based on that alone they put themselves at risk of legal liability if they allow it. That is not discriminating. That is covering your ass.
No matter which way they decide they lose and that isn't right.
I think you're a bit confused here. You can hurt yourself singing outside of your range, period.

Taylor said he's seen no medical evidence that singing tenor or bass can hurt a countertenor's voice. But Timothy Maguire, a professional countertenor and male soprano from San Francisco, said his doctor gave him strict instructions not to sing that way because it could cause polyps to form on his vocal chords.
So, a man forcing himself to sing tenor or bass when that is not his range, could have problems. As would a girl singing tenor or bass when their range is soprano.

Yes, they need to protect themselves, but this doesn't necessarily do that. Imagine forcing a tenor female to sing soprano. It could be as damaging as forcing this boy to sing bass. This rule of theirs isn't really protecting themselves. They need to have a better way to judge what a student's comfortable range really is, so people aren't straining themselves just to 'fit' into parts they can't do safely.

I'm not disagreeing with the moral validity of the fight, only with the long-term usefulness of the tactic. It's much more effective to slam them in the marketplace, than in the courtroom, since entertainment media rely on a good reputation to seat audiences, and most audiences don't want to contribute to sexist/racist/etc. bigoted outfits, the publicity angle is probably more effective than the Lawsuit angle Maybe...but what exactly could this boy do to work that angle? Start a hunger strike? Put up posters? I think it's better to deal with the rule directly, but it's really a matter of choice in terms of tactics.

(esp. as young sir will, eventually, grow older and his voice will change.)
He's 17. His voice might not change at all. There are full grown male countertenors.

I always love it when people act like they are fighting for equality while in the same paragraph they make a disparaging remark about another group of people.

What was the word i was looking for....i think it starts with an H....and ends in ypocrite
Ever heard of sarcasm?

Ihatevacations'] one of those magical black and white rules that one could only find in Texas. It is like a redneck twilight zone
Oh come on. Clearly this isn't an issue they've come across before, and the rule made sense before this. It isn't about being deliberately exclusive (in my mind), but rather about a rule that fit generalities, but does not fit individualities. I hope they change it on that basis alone, instead of out of fear of a lawsuit.

I think you're a bit confused here. You can hurt yourself singing outside of your range, period.


So, a man forcing himself to sing tenor or bass when that is not his range, could have problems. As would a girl singing tenor or bass when their range is soprano.

Yes, they need to protect themselves, but this doesn't necessarily do that. Imagine forcing a tenor female to sing soprano. It could be as damaging as forcing this boy to sing bass. This rule of theirs isn't really protecting themselves. They need to have a better way to judge what a student's comfortable range really is, so people aren't straining themselves just to 'fit' into parts they can't do safely.

Unfortunately, I tend to agree and the only solution is probably to exclude him entirely. In any event I really do not see a case for discrimination here. What I see is a kid trying to ensure he is able to sing where he wants by limiting alternative options. It's a lose - lose situation. To bad.

How exactly can you tell whether or not the boy can sing? He could be total shit for all we know.

We can't. But if he is really bad, he wouldn't get the part. They won't even let him audition.

Meanwhile, the fact that he has won awards and been in other choirs at that range argues that he is probably good at it.

Hm.... when I used to sing, I was part of a somewhat more amateurish choir, we all just sang what was our level, and it worked well enough. Mine was really high pitched, pretty much equal to what the girls would sing. If I tried to sing lower (and I did, to save from the odd looks), it hurt my throat. So they're not doing anyone any good. And it's pointless to restrict him.

Liverbreath']Unfortunately, I tend to agree and the only solution is probably to exclude him entirely. In any event I really do not see a case for discrimination here. What I see is a kid trying to ensure he is able to sing where he wants by limiting alternative options. It's a lose - lose situation. To bad.

If the rule was, "You will not be allowed to sing outside your range" and this boy wanted to do that, it would be a legit rule. Saying, "you can't sing your range because only girls are allowed to sing that range" IS a gender issue, and is discrimination.

After reading this thread,

LET THE BOY SING COUNTERTENOR!!!!!!

Liverbreath']Unfortunately, I tend to agree and the only solution is probably to exclude him entirely. In any event I really do not see a case for discrimination here. What I see is a kid trying to ensure he is able to sing where he wants by limiting alternative options. It's a lose - lose situation. To bad.
Erm, who exactly is losing out if they let him sing countertenor?

Erm, who exactly is losing out if they let him sing countertenor?

I guess the girls who can't sing as well as him. *shrug*

Erm, who exactly is losing out if they let him sing countertenor?

Unfortunately they have some doctor that says it can harm him. He is 17 not an adult which opens them up for a lawsuit should it actually do so. If they don't let him do as he pleases then they have to worry discrimination lawsuits or just lots of bad publicity. It is a no win situation for the organization no matter which way they go, so the only alternative is to not let him sing at all.

Liverbreath']Unfortunately they have some doctor that says it can harm him. He is 17 not an adult which opens them up for a lawsuit should it actually do so. If they don't let him do as he pleases then they have to worry discrimination lawsuits or just lots of bad publicity. It is a no win situation for the organization no matter which way they go, so the only alternative is to not let him sing at all.
No they do not have such a doctor saying it would harm him. Where are you getting this from?

Liverbreath']Unfortunately they have some doctor that says it can harm him. He is 17 not an adult which opens them up for a lawsuit should it actually do so. If they don't let him do as he pleases then they have to worry discrimination lawsuits or just lots of bad publicity. It is a no win situation for the organization no matter which way they go, so the only alternative is to not let him sing at all.

I'm sorry. The article I linked did not say this.

Where are you getting this information? Source it.

If the rule was, "You will not be allowed to sing outside your range" and this boy wanted to do that, it would be a legit rule. Saying, "you can't sing your range because only girls are allowed to sing that range" IS a gender issue, and is discrimination.

It appears to me that the child is not allowed to determine their range. As I recall, neither was I at that age. You were right before, it is a matter of generalizations of groups instead of individuals, however, I think it would take quite a bit of effort to improve on this. By that time he will be 32.

Liverbreath]Unfortunately they have some doctor that says it can harm him. He is 17 not an adult which opens them up for a lawsuit should it actually do so. If they don't let him do as he pleases then they have to worry discrimination lawsuits or just lots of bad publicity. It is a no win situation for the organization no matter which way they go, so the only alternative is to not let him sing at all.

No, it will only harm him if he sings outside his natural range. In this case his range is tenor, no harm.

Liverbreath']It appears to me that the child is not allowed to determine their range. As I recall, neither was I at that age.

Generally, I believe the voice teacher helps you to determine your optimal range, and that is what you mostly stick with.

Considering the amount of stuff this kid has apparently done, I'm fairly certain he has a voice teacher.

No, it will only harm him if he sings outside his natural range. In this case his range is tenor, no harm.

Actually, its countertenor is his range. If he sings below that, he's in trouble.

I'm sorry. The article I linked did not say this.

Where are you getting this information? Source it.

What are you talking about. It certainly does say it. He's 17 and the doctors opinion is toward the end of the article.

Liverbreath']What are you talking about. It certainly does say it. He's 17 and the doctors opinion is toward the end of the article.
This is just annoying. Clearly, you're the only one who has read this 'doctor's opinion' in the article...we think you are misreading it, so please, rather than say "read the article" (I've gone over it repeatedly), just quote the section you are using for your argument.

Liverbreath']What are you talking about. It certainly does say it. He's 17 and the doctors opinion is toward the end of the article.

Actually, what the doctor at the end says is that not singing countertenor would harm him. They are saying that singing tenor or bass would harm him, not singing in his natural range, which is countertenor.

Liverbreath']It appears to me that the child is not allowed to determine their range. As I recall, neither was I at that age. You were right before, it is a matter of generalizations of groups instead of individuals, however, I think it would take quite a bit of effort to improve on this. By that time he will be 32.
Your whole argument is based on a misinterpretation of this article. Please reread it.

Actually, its countertenor is his range. If he sings below that, he's in trouble.

I know, I mistyped.

Sorry.

Anyway, my point is that he should be able to sing what is natural for him(if he's good enough)

Actually, what the doctor at the end says is that not singing countertenor would harm him. They are saying that singing tenor or bass would harm him, not singing in his natural range, which is countertenor.
I know...I've quoted that part twice now. Am I the only one who is shaking my head at this "well it says..." argument?

I know, I mistyped.

Sorry.

Anyway, my point is that he should be able to sing what is natural for him(if he's good enough)

I agree 100%