As I said earlier, this is, as of now, an outlier. I don’t imagine we’re going to see controlled studies of scale on the vocal effects of endocrine disruptors. There’s no money in that. But think about this de-virilizing trend (as I did, the instant I first heard about it) in relation to the dearth of dramatic voices and the absence of deep voices (weakened “chestiness” being the technical component in both phenomena), to the apparent cultural preference for lighter voices and  for male voices that behave and sound more like female or androgynous ones. Think about the synchronicity between these cultural developments and the synthetic chemo-industrial developments, now pervasive, described above (it’s quite close, isn’t it?). Think about it, for that matter, in relation to our macho-but-fragile athletes.

Organisms, including us, have a deep inner sense of their strengths and vulnerabilities, of their potentials, and will incline to follow that sense, even against external pressures or arguments. At least, that’s what I believe. So while I’m sure this topic will wind up quite far down my hierarchical list of influences on the devalorization of operatic voices, in the category of Highly Speculative Possibilities, I do think it earns that place.

∼∼∼

Two weeks hence: What would make Norma “relevant”? With reference, of course, to the Met’s new production.