Deryk Barker wrote:

>Well, the English (it's really not British) Cathedral sound is part of an
>unbroken vocal tradition that goes back something like 5 centuries and is
>AFAIK unique.  Worth preserving, perhaps.

Indeed it is Deryk, but I think it should be preserved by boys and not
women.  I used to think otherwise until I started singing in a wonderful
men and boys choir here in Dallas associated with a fine private all male
school.  The sound of boys voices suits the English Cathedral repertoire
so well because the composers wrote it with these forces in mind.  The
textures are such that the boys are not covered by the men, and the alto
parts seldom rise above a d above middle c, making them easily singable by
any able falsettist.Further is ratio of boys to men in these choirs is as
much as 3 to 1.

I would never suggest that women should be excluded from singing this
music, but when I perform it with my professional mixed choir, I ask the
women to sing like women, and we adopt a more "American" sound.  I have
heard British mixed choirs, like the Cambridge Singers and The Tallis
Scholars and The Sixteen sing this music with a very controlled vibrato,
and it is indeed quite stunning.  I find, however, that this type of
singing is simply not taught in the colonies, and that it is more often
than not contrary to American voice pedagogy.  American women sound totally
unnatural to my ears when they try to imitate the choirs above.  Not to
mention that it is exceptionally tiring for them as they simply have not
properly learned to sing in the British style.

I am thus willing to sacrifice some "authenticity" for what I believe is an
overall better sound.

Kevin Sutton