![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Unfortunately it does sound like an "article" in the sense of an essay, and not an encyclopedic entry. Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting and it's better cited than many entries I read, but the title is "Voice classification in non-classical music" and most of it seems to argue that there just isn't anything close to a good/standard classification system. I don't think this is the proper place for that sort of entry.
While the Voice classification entry does focus primarily on classical music, it already reads like an entry in an encyclopedia and it's not necessarily limited to classical music. Therefore, I propose that we take the key, encyclopedia-worthy points from this page, merge them into that other entry, and delete the rest. AliaGemma ( talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs further development; it seems to be coming from one person's rather specific point of view. And maybe it would be best as a section in "Voice Types." However, the article does get at a bona fide problem in the world of nonclassical singing. It would be cool if there were a way to keep it/revise it/expand it. BerriesMcBerry ( talk) 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)BerriesMcBerry
Give me ten minutes and the article will get there. I am writing it now. Nrswanson ( talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. -- Trelawnie ( talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading this article, it seems to me that there's only a single point of view, which seems weird. Also, there's only a single pedagog mentioned for non-commercial training. There are many other pedagogs who've made inroads into education curricula at various institutions. Jan Sullivan had her technique adopted and adapted by BYU and Loretto Heights college. Jo Estill has major academic credentials and discusses voice types in her work. I'm sure there are others as well. JazzyGroove ( talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't cite a lot of the opinions. For instance, with regards to coloratura, it simply asserts that classical training is necessary for a coloratura designation, but there's no source. There isn't 100% agreement in classical circles about coloratura sopranos -- some think it's both range and agility. Some add to range and agility a particular carrying power and distinctive penetrating clarity. By those standards, there are pop singers who exemplify most of those qualities, such as Mariah Carey with her extended gospel coloratura runs. JazzyGroove ( talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty unencyclopedic, but it could certainly be a useful essay... 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm being a problem child over in Talk: Vocal range. Briefly, the article is largely a repository for claims that one pop music singer or another is Greatest because he/she/it can both belch AND squeal. This is in deliberate ignorance of the operatic usage of "vocal range" to mean the modal register of tones produced directly by the vocal cords, a much more restricted portion of the "range" in popular usage. (Though not identical, tessitura is a rough equivalent.)
In partial solution of the morass, I would like to move all of that article's "range = greatness" nonsense – particularly the World records and extremes of vocal range section, over to here. My rationalization is that such claims and comparisons are an outgrowth of
pop music fandom, and impede discussion of the original restricted definition of vocal range in
Vocal range. Thoughts welcomed.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
While I find this article informative, it does seem to miss its remit. Despite the title, discussion is very heavily tilted toward elaborating the classically oriented classifications, rather than voice production in
pop music.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
06:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no such note as G10 — this is 25kHz, which is above the human hearing range Additionally, the source claims that this was verified “using a piano, violin and Hammond organ”, neither of which goes that high. � ( talk) 12:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This sentence confuses me. The following section is a list, but I don't see any charts. Is the list what this is meant to refer to? -- Avocado ( talk) 02:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Unfortunately it does sound like an "article" in the sense of an essay, and not an encyclopedic entry. Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting and it's better cited than many entries I read, but the title is "Voice classification in non-classical music" and most of it seems to argue that there just isn't anything close to a good/standard classification system. I don't think this is the proper place for that sort of entry.
While the Voice classification entry does focus primarily on classical music, it already reads like an entry in an encyclopedia and it's not necessarily limited to classical music. Therefore, I propose that we take the key, encyclopedia-worthy points from this page, merge them into that other entry, and delete the rest. AliaGemma ( talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs further development; it seems to be coming from one person's rather specific point of view. And maybe it would be best as a section in "Voice Types." However, the article does get at a bona fide problem in the world of nonclassical singing. It would be cool if there were a way to keep it/revise it/expand it. BerriesMcBerry ( talk) 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)BerriesMcBerry
Give me ten minutes and the article will get there. I am writing it now. Nrswanson ( talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. -- Trelawnie ( talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Reading this article, it seems to me that there's only a single point of view, which seems weird. Also, there's only a single pedagog mentioned for non-commercial training. There are many other pedagogs who've made inroads into education curricula at various institutions. Jan Sullivan had her technique adopted and adapted by BYU and Loretto Heights college. Jo Estill has major academic credentials and discusses voice types in her work. I'm sure there are others as well. JazzyGroove ( talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't cite a lot of the opinions. For instance, with regards to coloratura, it simply asserts that classical training is necessary for a coloratura designation, but there's no source. There isn't 100% agreement in classical circles about coloratura sopranos -- some think it's both range and agility. Some add to range and agility a particular carrying power and distinctive penetrating clarity. By those standards, there are pop singers who exemplify most of those qualities, such as Mariah Carey with her extended gospel coloratura runs. JazzyGroove ( talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty unencyclopedic, but it could certainly be a useful essay... 143.92.1.33 ( talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm being a problem child over in Talk: Vocal range. Briefly, the article is largely a repository for claims that one pop music singer or another is Greatest because he/she/it can both belch AND squeal. This is in deliberate ignorance of the operatic usage of "vocal range" to mean the modal register of tones produced directly by the vocal cords, a much more restricted portion of the "range" in popular usage. (Though not identical, tessitura is a rough equivalent.)
In partial solution of the morass, I would like to move all of that article's "range = greatness" nonsense – particularly the World records and extremes of vocal range section, over to here. My rationalization is that such claims and comparisons are an outgrowth of
pop music fandom, and impede discussion of the original restricted definition of vocal range in
Vocal range. Thoughts welcomed.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
18:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
While I find this article informative, it does seem to miss its remit. Despite the title, discussion is very heavily tilted toward elaborating the classically oriented classifications, rather than voice production in
pop music.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
06:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no such note as G10 — this is 25kHz, which is above the human hearing range Additionally, the source claims that this was verified “using a piano, violin and Hammond organ”, neither of which goes that high. � ( talk) 12:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This sentence confuses me. The following section is a list, but I don't see any charts. Is the list what this is meant to refer to? -- Avocado ( talk) 02:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)