Does anyone have views as to when it is more appropriate to have a countertenor than a female alto (e.g. what type of music would either voice be a no-no for?)

I recently sang the alto part in Purcell's "rejoice in the lord alway" and I was definitely on to a loser there in the audibility stakes. But is that the only consideration? (leaving aside the fact that I'm not that good, I really do mean in general not just me!)

Depends on whether you mean appropriate as in historically correct (whatever that means and does it matter?) or do you think there are some pieces where the female alto voice just doesn't do it justice?

I'm not going to pretend I have a detailed knowledge of when a countertenor is more historically correct (asie from the broad brush of it being more common in early music) but I have to say I really am not keen on countertenors, and I think the female alto voice is wonderful. THis might be influenced by the fact that I am an alto - and spent many years singing as a soprano, have now had a wonderful couple of years discovering whole new parts of my voice. Somehow the 'purity' of a countertenor leaves me cold - like boy trebles - too cerebral - I like my singing to have head, heart and loins!

But I do know what you mean about volume - somebody singing at the top of their pitch range sounds very different to somebody singing at the bottom. Certainly now when I sing in amateur duets/trios etc if I am the top part I find it hard to feel as though I am really cutting through. But other people have assured me that the voice does in fact carry, I'm just not experienced enough to feel it, and I do think when you're voie is lower it's harder to hear yourself - so has anybody else confirmed whether they could hear you in the Purcell?

Bit of a rambly reply, don't think I've helped, but essentially I heart altos!

If written for countertenor, then counter, every time, in my book: the contralto voice is a mature female voice at the lower end of female capacity, counter a mature male voice in falsetto register. One is rich and full, the other sounds high and clean, and I do think each has its place - but where counter was intended, then I prefer it.

I suppose that's the thing - I don't really like the sound of the countertenor voice and I'm not really much of a one for music pre-1750...

What about where alto was intended? What do you think about countertenors singing, oh, say, Brahms or Schubert?

I attended a concert where a male alto sang Brahms love songs. IMO it just did not work! Even though he was a good professional singer.

I'm from the opposite end of the spectrum, would far rather listen to baroque works or earlier, and as such, would wish to hear counters where they've been written for. I love the metallic and clear quality of their voices, and have never got on with wobbliato, which seems to be "needed" for later work anyway....

We sang that anthem on Sunday morning - father in law took the bass line and I of course was the tenor. Due to circumstances beyond certain people's control, the alto was sung by a young chorister in transition, rather than our usual lady alto. The blend was pretty good. As regards when you sang it, you should not be a "loser" in the audibility stakes, the other singers should adjust.

Back to the original question. I suspect that Purcell wrote the trio with a countertenor in mind, and this piece sounds more authentic as such. Therefore I will hide behind the answer "it depends"!

Here we have a countertenor, at his best, providing the right voice for the circumstances: now, I fully believe a female to be totally capable of the notes, but the context does make a male voice work especially well. In the first track, the final high note is all the more wonderful for emerging from a man's vocal folds, and in the second, he does a wonderful dip down into his non-falsetto voice, which also shows us just what he's doing when singing countertenor. A contralto doing that just wouldn't be able to produce that sense of contrast - not even a female tenor would have enough difference between her version of a falsetto and her chest voice, I think. Sorry if I've used the wrong terminology, but hopefully the singers amongst you can put that right .

Wow! He has a wonderful voice!

But he does also sing late nineteenth/early twentieth French chansons - with variable results, although all very nice to listen to.

I do agree that the contrast can't be provided by a female voice, and I suppose if the composer was expecting a proper male voice at the bottom end of the register and a falsetto at the top end that's what you should have... but I don't really like it very much!

What a brilliant clip. Didn't understand a word, but didn't really need to. Great cornett playing too.

I was brought up listening to counter tenors as my father was one. Now he is in mid 80s his top notes have gone and he mainly sings bass, I still can't get used to it.

In any counter tenor vs contralto discussion, the first one of these clips has to be a must. Have no idea whether it will work as a link as I've never tried to do one before, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_6UPvP1Rz0
but if it doesn't, go to youtube and search for P.Jaroussky, not so serious!

Huge thanks to Anacrucis for having introduced me to Phillipe. I love him!

delighted at your response, soccermum: I only discovered him relatively recently myself, and also find his performance riveting. Now to keep a sharp eye out for any time he might make it as far as Scotland (or England at a time when I can arrange to be there....)

Interestingly one of the times I saw him was at the Proms last year, when he appeared with Ensemble Matheus under Jean-Christophe Spinosi together with the Canadian contralto Marie-Nicole Lemieux. The programme included the first song in the P. Jaroussky, Not so serious! You Tube clip soccermom suggested.

I really like the contralto/counter tenor combination.

Just to make anacrusis jealous, I've seen all the comedy songs live as well as the more serious stuff.