Talk:Choir

message: Just passing through, but I note that this article fails to make any reference to the classical Athenian choral performances. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's a scandal.  I think it was removed at some time... Sparafucil (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring hole in the article 

message: Can "quire" also mean the group, or only the place? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I cant think of any ensemble using it in their name currently, but probably yes.  I'm acquainted with a usage (see discussion here too) that prefers quire to distinguish the place from the group, but OED and Webster dont back this up and treat them as interchangable ("quire" also disambiguates a quantity of paper of course).  They both suggest the place is named for the singers, but Grove asserts it's the other way around...hmm.   OED & Webster do make it seem that the 18c spelling "choir" was inspired by the Greek choros, though.   Sparafucil (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quire

message: Even when considering the historical context of an entry about "Choirs," there is much that can be omitted. There are many choral composers of significance who have made a definitive impact on choral music from a historical and theoretical perspective. When it comes to listing current and ongoing choirs in this article, a discussion has been simmering for some time about the validity and reasonable cause of including such entries. I posit that no less, in fact more, consideration should be given before listing composers and conductors as well, especially those within the previous 50-75 years. 
My reasoning is that the inclusion of such names 1) is likely to have precious little if any scholarly research justifying the inclusion, 2) any inclusion of names can be met with a long list of additional people who have made significant contributions in the same area without the benefit of historical aggregation and research, and 3) the practice invites vanity posts in the same way that including choirs does. (As a separate but related topic that I will not address, having a Wikipedia entry does not qualify a person or group for historical significance. Because this discussion is off topic and presumably lengthy, I won't go into it here.) Suffice to say that the inclusion of names of composers and directors in the 20-21st Century section, particularly post 1950, is worthy of discussion. 
I personally propose eliminating the practice altogether for a certain period of years with the exception being persons or groups whose prominence in this field is a) universal, b) researched and cited, and c) approved only after an open discussion of the merits of including the mention among Wikipedia editors based on how the inclusion supports the original topic and sub-topic (e.g. Choirs/20th - 21st Centuries). Outside these parameters, listing individuals should be limited by the same restrictions as those for including choirs and removal of such names and links should be common practice. Thanks for including your thoughts on this subject. Keopeli (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing names and links of modern, living or recent individuals as composers or directors.

message: This -otherwise excellent article- fails to mention Radio choirs (e.g. Swedish Radio Choir) as well as Opera choirs. I think that the term Professional Choirs is rather inadequate, as it fails to distinguish the repertoire assigned to each type. There are also Orchestra Choirs (e.g. Scottish Chamber Orchestra Choir), intended to perform only (or mostly) with an orchestra. Also, about Mixed choirs, some believe that the term refers to mixing children with adults, and not women with men. Could someone look into this ? (my resources are very poor, otherwise I'd have done it already). As concerns very small choirs, where a one-on-a-part "rule" applies, I think the term vocal ensemble would actually suffice very well. --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of choir

message: Opponents argue that this method loses the spatial separation of individual voice lines, an otherwise valuable feature for the audience, and that it eliminates sectional resonance, which lessens the effective volume of the chorus.
The phrasing here seems to take as a given that the spacial separation of individual voice lines is an otherwise valuable feature for the audience. I don't think this is generally accepted. I would not disagree with "which some consider a valuable feature for the audience". Maybe that was what the original writer of this sentence intended to convey, but that's not what the wording implies. If others agree, let's change it. Omc (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrangements on stage 

message: Just bumped into this article by coincidence and have no intention of editing or reading much. But the first picture that jumps to the reader is a mega choir in a stadium. Although I think this is an amazing picture, I wonder whether it is fairly representative of a choir. Since say 99.9999% of choirs are more of size like the picture that used to be on top, which is now second. Is there support for removing the current top picture so that the other moves up to the top again? Or replacing by another one? Or Swapping the two? LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree absolutely! --Kleinzach 01:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the readjustment. LazyStarryNights (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing but not representative choir 

message: Does anyone have an opinion on 'Choir' Vs. 'Chorus'? Please see Talk:Men's chorus. Outcomes in that discussion may also apply to this page. Thanks. LazyStarryNights (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we all have opinions but I'm not sure why that matters. This topic has come up before. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out that the topic has come up indeed. I had a look at the 2004 discussion and saw the discussion was very brief though. Maybe it is worthwhile having a look at the current discussion? LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choir or chorus? 

message: This article doesn't comment at all on any tradition not European or recently descended from Europe, nor even comment on whether choirs exist elsewhere, except maybe indirectly with comments like "singing in big groups is extremely widely spread in traditional cultures". The "History" section, for example, has the typical problem of treating history like a straight line without considering different parts of the world. Perhaps choirs are a very "western" phenomenon, but it should at least say that if it's true, and I know there's some kind of choral or choral-like tradition in Japan, and there's also the Pygmy thing where different people sing different notes.72.172.63.22 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro/"west"-centric 

message: There's no separate discussion of canto elsewhere on the project but it's also missing here. It's fine if choral music needs to be separately spun off but, until it is, terms specific to it should be handled here somewhere. — LlywelynII 05:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing section on terminology for choral music