Talk:Vocal range

message: Could someone please make a table with frequencies?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Frequencies of what exactly? Your request is unanswerable because it is too vague.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The table can be found by following the link to Scientific_pitch_notation#Table_of_note_frequencies, where it belongs.   Sparafucil (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs frequencies 

message: I fail to see the benefit of this list. Many many singers possess a wide vocal range beyond what is typical. A significant amount of trained opera singers possess ranges beyond what is found in the average person, indeed we could pretty much include every coloratura soprano that has ever performed on this list. Listing record breaking ranges is one thing, but this generic list in my opinion is not useful and is likely to attract fan cruft. I suggest removing it all together.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since nobody has addressed my concerns here over the last two months or made a reasonable arguement for its continued inclusion, I have removed the list. Further, this article has become entirely unstable, as I predicted above, with this list's addition. I'm removing it to restore stability to this article.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. At best a useless and unreliable list, and at worst an encouragement to unconstructive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Then please make a specific proposal. I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of a list, but in practice it proved difficult to maintain. Reliable sourcing is a huge problem. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

text: There's a Wikipedia article for that person, Tim Storms, and that article doesn't apply any voice type to him. This article is mainly concerned with vocal range as it applies to aspects of opera singing, and it doesn't mention any individuals. I don't think it a good idea to start now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is vocal range really a concept that applies only to opera singers, though?  Surely there are concepts of vocal range in choral and pop music.  Event the article intro doesn't restrict it to opera / classical voice training.  
I agree that that particular individual doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned, but surely a broader perspective would not hurt the article, or a comparison of how the term is applied in different types of music.  (BTW, yes, at least a couple individuals are currently mentioned in the records/extremes section.) -- Avocado (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Avocado, I agree with you in theory that a broader perspective would be nice. The problem, as I see it, is that reliable sourcing is likely to be quite a challenge, leading to a rather spotty coverage with assorted random examples instead of a balanced overview. Rivertorch (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singers possessing a wide vocal range 

message: One or more people keep removing the Guinness record, with an edit comment like "Guisness Word Record is absolutely not a reliable source" [sic]. What is the basis for this assertion? Guinness World Records is an independent, third-party source, which uses a formal fact-checking process before it accepts facts into its index. Therefore it's probably one of the more reliable sources we could refer to. Is the objection because Guinness is not part of the standard music literature, perhaps? I can appreciate how some might not like it for that reason. But it's a well-sourced fact, so shouldn't be removed from this page on grounds of reliability. --mcld (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is unreliable, or at best unuseful since it gives no criteria for what a musically acceptable noise might be.   On the other hand, it is notable publication and an official record might be allowed on that basis alone if no other claims are based on it. Sparafucil (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of Guinness 

message: The German term "fach", literally meaning "compartment", is widely known as the German Fach System. The German Fach System is a method of vocal classification used in opera houses to classify singers and pair them with complementary operatic roles.
Cantabile-Subito.de  mentioned that as of the mid nineteenth century, the four categories have been expanded and subdivided to indicate not only the singer’s approximate range, but also the relative weight of his voice and in many cases, the type of music for which he is particularly suited.
Source: http://blogs.voices.com/voxdaily/2007/09/german_fach_system.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidciccarelli (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes. This topic is already covered at both the Voice type and German Fach articles. Also fach is the German word for "subject" not "compartment".4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The German Fach System 

message: Am I the only one who sees the lead as being repetitive? I'm just surfing through, but the wording needs help. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is the lead repetative? It doesn't say anything twice that I can see. It does summarize some of the content in the body of the article, but that is what the lead is supposed to do. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the lead 

message: In Vocal range and voice classification paragraph Mezzo-soprano is said to be A3-A5. Shouldn't it be A4-A6?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.71.178 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That would make the range higher in pitch than that of soprano. Rivertorch (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also follow the link to scientific pitch notation to see that A3 is the A below C4. Sparafucil (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Vocal range and voice classification paragraph 

message: I edited the first two sentences for grammar and usage, but the third one could still use some help on that front.  I left it alone because there are some problems with the content, I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes.  The "Mermaid" hyperlink leads to a youtube video of Georgia Brown singing a jazz version of "My Favorite Things" on a reality show, rather than "her own song called Mermaid," as the sentence implies.  Furthermore, the reference at the end of the sentence doesn't support the factuality of the sentence.  I propose replacing the third sentence with something like: "Georgia Brown verified the world record highest human vocal pitch with Guinness World Records at Aqui Jazz Atelier Music School in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 18 August 2004."TheCensorFencer (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually added the new sentence after the second extant one.TheCensorFencer (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Records Section, First Bullet Point 

message: The link to the Guinness record for widest range, male, indicates that the range is 0.797 to just over 800 Hz.  The lowest four octaves and a bit are infrasonic.  Useful for elephants, perhaps, but not audible for humans.  I wonder if this should be pointed out in the article.  99.246.86.48 (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrasonic sounds 

message: Says who? Where does that definition of what counts as a note come from? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Says the source. But I think you're right, it's a meaningless distinction. But as the source says so, maybe it would help if the phrase were shown in quotation marks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Her highest pitch, the G10, isn't technically classified as a note, but rather as a frequency"