Talk:Alto

Abigail Adams

Is Abigail Adams certainly an alto role? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.27.42 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"boy altos"

"In English church usage, the term alto is sometimes exclusively used to mean a boy with this range, while contralto is used for a female singer. "

I can confidently assert that in the English choral tradition this is simply not true. Traditionally, altos are male - men, not boys. In boys' choirs, trebles with a lower range might sing the lower part in music written, say, for soprano 1 soprano 2 and alto, but in church music this is certainly not the norm. I will change it unless there are any objections. Stefan 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• The term 'alto' is used in the way you describe in England. However, these men are not altos but are men singing the alto vocal line. In solo singing they would be referred to as countertenors and never altos. Alto is a choral specific term to a particular vocal line and isn't meant to describe individual voice types. See the article now with citation. Nrswanson (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jane Froman

Jane Froman was an contralto classical singer from the 1950's and mid 1960's. She did some jazz songs as well. I don't know why her name is being deleted from the form.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

The biography at Jane Froman doesn't mention any classical music work and she isn't listed in Grove or Oxford. The other names here are major singers. Lots of lesser but perfectly genuine classical contraltos are not given. Do you have a personal interest in Froman? -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a fan of her work. I used to watch clips of her signing at my vocal classes a few years back. She did sing some classical songs on variety shows such as the voices of firestone in the 1950's and the bell telephone hour in the late 50's, very early 60's.

There are some clips of her work on youtube if you want to take a look at them to see what I am referring. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Should we split this page?

This article is part of a section dedicated to opera voice classification. The term "alto" is not really part of this classification system. Alto is a term used specifically in choral singing and is referring more to polyphonic structure and range as opposed to the voice's vocal timbre and coloratura facility, which is the basis of opera categorizarion. I think blending the two terms is confusing and is causing a great deal of conflict on this page. The fact is that most people don't realize that "alto" is not really a voice type at all in classical music. It is incorrect to say, "I am an alto". It would be correct to say "I am a singer who sings the alto line in choral music". Most women who sing the alto line in choir are actually mezzzo-sopranos, for real contraltos are not that common. I think it is possible to say in modern music that alto is a "voice type". The system used in opera really doesn't apply well to singers outside of the bel canto vocal tradition. Singers in other genres could easily be defined as simply: soprano, alto, tenor, and bass with a very simple range destinction.Nrswanson (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree. This article is entitled 'alto' and yet almost all the references are to 'contralto'. It would be better for this page to be renamed 'Contralto' and to have a separate article covering 'alto' as a musical term. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

'Male alto'

I notice you have also removed references to "male alto" from the Voice type article. Do you propose to include references to this term elsewhere? It is still commonly used in Britain and also more widely in some musicological contexts, so perhaps should not be ignored, whatever it might be "correct to say".voxclamans (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a reference in the 4th paragraph - but why not go ahead and amend it if you don't think it's adequate? Best, -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Eula Beal

Why has Eula Beal been deleted from the classical list as well?

It looks like you guys are busy with the forms, lol.

Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

See Eula Beal. There's nothing to indicate she is notable in this context. She's not listed by Oxford either. If you think she's notable, then by all means develop her article. Also please read the biographies of Schumann-Heink, Ferrier etc. You will see they are really major figures. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? I created that page couple months ago, and had little infomation about her. I'll look something else up and put it on the form. Thanks.Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

I added more to her biography but honestly she had a very short career and only made one recording and one movie of any note. She's noteworthy enough to have her own page, but I don't think well known enough to be listed under famous contraltos. I had never heard of her and had to dig around for a while to find anything on her beyond the fact that she was in that movie and married to a famous photographer.Nrswanson (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, Nrswanson. I couldn't find anything else about her life and career. I don't even know if she's still alive or not. I only heard her sing 2 songs, and she has a really deep contralto voice.

Thanks again. Ineversigninsodonotmessageme (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Ineversigninsodonotmessageme

Alto article as at 8th December 2007

I started having a look at this, and have done a "spell-check", but would like to discuss a few further points, largely relating to a possible conflict between contemporary usage and historical/musicological accuracy:

[The term alto] Alto is a musical term that has several possible meanings. Within a family of instruments, "alto" refers to the member of the family that has a range lower than that of the treble or soprano. For example, the highest saxophone is a "soprano saxophone", the next highest "alto saxophone", then "tenor saxophone", and then the lowest, "baritone saxophone."[1]

Similarily, the term alto is also used in the context of choral music to refer to the second highest voice part in a 4-part chorus. Many people make the mistake of thinking the term alto is a vocal type synonymous with the contralto voice. This is not strictly correct. The term alto is not a voice classification but a part classification.
[this was true as to its historical origin/derivation, but since the term is in common usage, who are we to say that it should not be used?]
The choral system was developed to delineate polyphonic structure
[this is not historically true - what does the term "choral system" mean?]
and was not really intended to designate a vocal type to individual singers. In other words, choral music was designed to be written in four parts
[again, this isn't correct: four parts in choral music only became the "standard" during the eighteenth century]
and it is the parts themselves that are labelled soprano, alto, tenor, and bass and not the individual singers.[2]

Most women that sing the alto line in choirs would be considered mezzo-sopranos in classical music due to their vocal timbre and their particular vocal range, resting somewhere in the middle between soprano and contralto. A smaller number of them, however, would be true contraltos. Therefore, one could say, "I am a mezzo-soprano singing the alto line", and the other "I am a contralto singing the alto line."
[but they use "mezzo" or "alto" as abbreviations because they're more convenient - shouldn't we takre account of common usage?]
They have two different ranges and sounds but they are singing the same part.[3]
[is this the place to say how the ranges and timbres differ, at least in general terms?]

At times, men have been referred to as altos in the context of English Church choral music.
[this term is still often used within the Anglican Church system, thus: "alto lay clerk"]
However, within solo-singing in England this term is never used.
[not true, and often for the reason cited after the next sentence]
In reality these men who can sing in the tessitura of women are called countertenors or sopranists and not altos.
[no, they are often still called "male altos" or just "altos" - many musicologists would limit the use of the word "countertenor" to non-falsettist high tenors]
Therefore, these men are countertenors/sopranists who are singing the alto vocal line.
The exception to this would be in Italy where the word for countertenor is contratenor altus [this is a Latin term, not Italian]
and is frequently abbreviated to simply "altus".
[they often use the word "contraltista" - what do we do about that?].
Italians do not add the word male in front of alto or any other gender identifying term when they do this.
[well, in Italian adjectives usually occur after the noun they qualify, but the term "contralto maschile" is quite common]
It is simply an abbreviation and has no relation to the English understanding of the word alto.[4]

The term alto is also used to designate a specific kind of musical clef. See alto clef. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxclamans (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if Nrswanson will respond. I am not an expert in this field, but it seems that none of these difficulties are all that problematic. Obviously it's important that the article is as broad and neutral as possible representing all points of view and should be edited on that basis. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My information is only as good as my resources. You are welcome to present other points of view as long as you do not delete what I have found in other materials. But I request that anything you do add/change is based upon good material that is cited accordingly. I am not going to argue individual points since I found these in reputable books on voice classification, most of which admitedly were interested more in opera which is my field of expertise. However, I have been a member of three professional choirs and have had four semesters of choral conducting within the American tradition and I have a degree in Vocal Music Education. The major point I was trying to make, and most choral people will agree, is that the alto part doesn't really describe a specific female voice, just a female range. If a person pursues a solo singing career in classical music she is never called an alto. Contraltos often sing tenor 1 or alto 2 in choirs so it is not synonymous with that voice (they also have an entirely different range). Mezzo-sopranos can often sing alto 1 or soprano 2 in choirs, so it doesn't match with that voice (some mezzos can sing a high C or D which puts them easily into soprano 1 territory). And of course sopranos sing soprano in choir typically, but some sopranos can sing in the alto range. Alto is therefore, a choral specific term that does not really fit into a "voice type" category. "Voice types" consider range but are more interested in vocal timbre and vocal qualities like the agility of the voice. Alto adresses only range, and the range given does not describe individual female voices well (especially in light of vocal tessitura). It's too limmiting. This is a common problem in choral music for many women have a difficult time fitting in one particular vocal part, either finding the alto line too high (as in the case of many contraltos) or too low (as in some mezzo's on the alto line). Some singers flip flop inbetween sections. Furthermore, this page is not dedicated to countertenors but the term "alto" and wikipedia is an inter-lnked encyclopedia so words like "contraltista", "mezzista", etc. can be addressed on those pages. I have no problem with the "ista" or "ist" words. They are used and appropriate. I do have a problem with calling solo singers "male alto" or "male soprano" when words like "countertenor", "sopranist", "mezzista", "contraltista" exist and are more appropriate becuase they describe not only gender but vocal quality. Male alto and male soprano are certainly never used to describe an opera singer. Countertenor and sopranist, however, are quite common.Nrswanson (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Maniaci is frequently referred to as a "male soprano", not least by himself.--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also you are incorrect about the countertenor. Most vocal pedagogy resources and vocal teachers and current singing countertenors consider falsettists as countertenors and every book i have ever read choral or opera describes them this way. Also I have two friends who are professional countertenors and they are falsettists. Your understanding is also in direct contrast to Grove and to Peter Giles who is considered the leading authority on the subject. Those with natural upper extention are technically castrato. Check out his book, The Countertenor, Muller publ. (1982).Nrswanson (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a countertenor, personally using the term in its broader sense, as do most of my colleagues: in other words, I mainly use falsetto, with modal for some lower notes. I was only stating what I have read in several musicological articles, namely that many authorities would limit the use of the word "countertenor" to high tenors. I have read Peter Giles' books, but not everyone agrees with him. Have a look at: Neal Zaslaw: 'The enigma of the Haute-Contre' (Musical Times, Vol. 115, No. 1581 (Nov., 1974), pp. 939-941); Mary Cyr: 'On performing 18th-century haute-contre roles,' (Musical Times, vol 118, Apr 1977); Simon Ravens: 'A sweet shrill voice': The countertenor and vocal scoring in Tudor England (Early Music.1998; XXVI: 123-136). Andrew Parrott, who also disputes the general modern use of the term "countertenor", will lead a seminar at Oxford University next term that I hope to attend: he has been working on the topic for many years, and I understand has some very good evidence to support his ideas. --voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by "natural upper extension": castrato only refers to eunuch singers, although, as you know, some people use the term "endocrinological castrato" for singers who may have a syndrome such as Kallmann's or some other hormonal anomaly.--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, contratenor altus is not an italian word but is only used in Italy. The french use haute-contre, the Germans Countertenöre and in English Countertenor. As described, altus is simply an abbriviation used in Italy but really doesn't correspond to the term in other languages.Nrswanson (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007

(UTC)

I wrote that "contratenor altus" was not Italian, but what are your sources for saying it is used in Italy? I believe the German spelling is "Kontratenöre"--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also not that it matters too much in this article, but four part hymnody became standard in the 16th century and not two hundred years later during the eighteenth century. Four part choral singing was developed in close association with the protestant reformation and had a huge impact on the development of modern music notation as well as choral music. After all, Bach pretty much developed our modern notation system and how is all of his music structured.... four part polyphony. How about every oratorio and cantata from baroque and classiic periods of music.... four parts! I don't think you are a reliable source of information.Nrswanson (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about the development of four-part hymnody, but in the article this was not stated. I would just like to dispute your statement that "choral music was designed to be written in four parts", which maybe needs qualification (five-part writing was common in France, for example, during the baroque period). Do you realise the rudeness of your last sentence?--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "choral system" is refering to the choral designation of voices into soprano, alto, tenor, and bass as developed in hymnody. As opposed to the vocal type categorization system used in solo non-amplified singing or the German fach system. The choral classification system as this article maintains is really not applicable outside of choral music as it is too limmiting (see above). As a voice teacher, I would not want to use it with my private students in classical or non-classical music. Also see Voice classification in non-classical music.Nrswanson (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. The four part designations are indeed too limiting with regard to solo voices: I would never dispute that.

--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion, however, does, as you say, go beyond (a long way beyond!) the scope of the article alto, so perhaps it shoud transfer to countertenor, where it could well run and run!--voxclamans (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are obviously very knowledgeable in this field, so I hope you will be able to work together to improve a series of articles which until recently were a bit of a black spot in our music/opera coverage. Good luck and all the best! -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have ventured to post a recasted version of this page; comments, please.voxclamans (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell two different articles?

I don't agree with the claim that "alto" and "contralto" aren't synonymous. In the history of vocal definition the voice above the tenor was "countertenor altus" which meant a voice, higher than the tenor, which held the counterpart. This term was shortened through the years to contralto, and contralto was shortened again to alto. In the 20th century the term "countertenor" was invented for the same reason. Female singers who describe themselves as contraltos wouldn't be offended if someone had cold them alto or vice versa. From the beginning of vocal training women are sorted into soprano, mezzo and alto categories, without any concern whether they will end up singing in a choir or as soloists.

Moreover, the fact that mezzos may sing alto in the choir is not a proof that alto and contralto aren't the same thing. Baritones may sing the basso part in the choir, so aren't "basso" and "basso" the same thing?!

There can be an article which deals with the disambiguation of the term concerning the fact that it may refer to viola (as in French) etc. AdamChapman (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Perhaps one might say that all contraltos are altos, but not all altos are contraltos, because some of them are mezzos, and some countertenors. Maybe something to this effect could be added to the article as it stands. One or two points I would venture: I'm not sure about the "pedigree" of countertenor altus ->contralto ->alto (my ancient OED has the first appearance of "contralto" in 1730, defined as "a counter treble in musick" - how confusing is that?!), though my 1970 edition of the Harvard Dictionary of Music agrees with you and also equates alto and contralto as to voice; the term "countertenor" is surely not a twentieth-century invention (both of these points are discussed in the article on countertenor). I believe it was user:Nrswanson who introduced the idea of differentiating alto and contralto into the Wiki articles, so perhaps he would like to comment further.--voxclamans (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article is quite correct about making a destinction between the two terms. If you read the book Bel Canto: A History of Vocal Pedagogy you will realise that the term contralto does not have the same meaning or conotation as alto, although the terms have similar edimologies. Unlike alto, the term "contralto" refers to a particular voice type used in solo classical music with destinctive vocal qualities that are not contained in the term alto. Furthermore, the alto voice and the contralto voice have two destinctive ranges that are overlapping but not the same. The typical alto voice can sing higher but not as low as the contralto voice. As the article mentions, some contraltos have bigger ranges but what is not clearly stated is that many do not (even classically trained ones), with the voice stopping at E5. A choral alto should be able to sing up to an F5 or G5. Furthermore, all contraltos have very low notes that allow them to sing first tenor, and many of them do. Furthmore, the term alto is never used within the opera world, as it is viewed as a choral music term deliniating a particular vocal line and not describing the attributes of an individuals voice. Issues like timbre, vocal dexterity, etc. are not addressed within the term alto, all necessary destinctions within voice type categories in classical music. Furthermore, musical terms became more clearly defined within the Baroque period and Classical period with the development of modern notation and music theory. The term alto came to be associated within hymnody where there is only two destinctions in the upper register (I can't say female voices because both men and women sing the two inner voices). The term contralto, on the other hand, was used within the German fach system used for opera and this term came to be associated entirely with women in solo classical singing and is never used to describe a male voice. The opera cattegorization also makes seven broad categorical voice types and not four like choral music. These are: for women- soprano, mezzo soprano, and contralto. For men- countertenor, tenor, baritone, and bass. As you can see, there are many different destinctions here that choral music doesn't make, including gender destinctions. There can be both male and female altos. The same is not true for contraltos as such roles on the operatic stage are played only by women in the history of opera. Different roles were written with castrato and countertenors in mind. The term "alto" in terms of range would cover the mezzo soprano and countertenor most closely. Contralto lies somewhere between the alto and tenor range in choral music.Nrswanson (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who uploaded this article, but yet it's a very good one http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/misc/voices.html (It supports my comment). It's quite silly to start differentiating between alto, contralto, etc. Perhaps there are books that do so, but this is not scientifically very accurate. First, there are some that consider contralto as a higher voice than alto (like Podles. She claims that an alto will stop on a high f, yet a contralto, like her, will be able to go up to the high b or even c). In John Stanley's book "Classical Music" it says that "alto" is an abbreviation of "contralto". Moreover, the distant between female voices is so small that it's really unnecessary to create such a complicated terminology. For example: The lowest role in Wagner’s "Ring" is Erda, who reaches down to g and up to a-flat. The highest, Brunhilda, goes down to a (only a tone above g) and up to c (only a couple of tones above c). As it says in many other related articles, in today’s operatic practice there is no distinction between mezzos and contraltos so why should there be between contraltos and altos? AdamChapman (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I already explained my opinion and you haven't convinced me to change my opinion. I still think what I said before and my resources back me up.Nrswanson (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable usage of the term "alto"

I've noticed that in some of the articles linking to this one, the word "alto" is used to describe the voice in question rather than a person. For example, "Tina possesses a dark, warm alto" or "Ms. Jones is notable for her bluesy, raspy alto" - is it just me, or does this sound awkward? Wouldn't "alto voice" be a more suitable alternative? I am unfamiliar with such usage in that context. Ministry of Silly Walks (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more correct to say "alto voice" than just simply alto.Ringnpassagio (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Trombones

In the article, it says the alto trombone is the highest. According to Trombone there exists a piccolo trombone. Should this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.216.248 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There also exist bass flutes which, while not as common as alto flutes, are hardly rare. I have corrected the line.

I've heard contrabass flute once too, but "common instruments of their families" seems clear in this article's context. Types_of_trombones lists two instruments higher than alto but says "has never been widely used" and "extreemly rare". Sparafucil (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No "voice range on keyboard" picture?

Is there a reason why there isn't a "voice range on keyboard" picture in this article? Almost all the other voice type articles have a picture, but not this one. I feel there should be an image so that people can have a better picture of where the typical alto voice starts and where it finishes. And also so people can have a better picture of how alto voices differ from contralto and mezzo-soprano voices. I understand that the term "alto" generally refers to choral music. But I've come across at least one site that says that the typical alto voice lies between G3 and G5. Though I could be wrong. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Article topic is the alto range in choral music

The only content section of this article is about the alto range "In choral music". The lead should be a summary of the topic, but instead it is a paragraph about usage of the word. Can we focus the article on the topic? Volunteer1234 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That might be fine for Alto (choir), but you seem to rather focus the topic on the article, verging on WP:Original research. Here's the start of the Harvard Dictionary of Music article: "Alto [It., high]. (1) A female voice of low range, also called contralto (2) Originally the alto was a high male voice (hence the name) which by use of the falsetto nearly reached the height of the female voice (contralto). This type of voice, also known as the counter-tenor, was especially cultivated in England, where the church music of the 16th & 17th centuries definitely implies its use…"

Even among those who conscientiously use "contralto" and would restrict "alto" to choral voices, I don't know any consistent enough to avoid calling Brahms' Opus 53 the Alto Rhapsody. Complicated place, the world ;-) Sparafucil (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)