Talk:Voice classification in non-classical music

message: 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)
replies: text: I pretty much wrote this article so my opinion is obviously to keep it. I also wrote most of the current voice type page. The reason I chose to make this a sepperate article is that the information included on the voice type page is specific to classical music and would therefore be misleading to those singing in other genres. Also, within vocal pedagogical circles these two topics are seen as being seperate. There is a tendency to segregate classical music from other genres of singing. The voice type qualifications like range, timbre, and other identifying characteristics used on the voice type page don't readily cross over to contemporary singers. To suggest such would frankly be incorrect. There were so many people coming to the voice type page and trying to apply the ranges etc. to contemporary singers and getting frustrated to the point that it was necessary to create this article to prevent edit wars on the voice type page. Please do not delete this page as it has helped stop the edit wars on the voice type page and has been a major help in clarifying this issue. I know it reads more like an essay but it is a well cited essay. Perhaps there is a way to make it more encyclopedic in nature. Regardless, the need to address this particular issue is essential as it is currently a topic of wide discussion within the field of vocal pedagogy. I think wikipedia should be able to present topics that don't necessarily have definitive answers if there is good information to be presented that iss well cited.   Nrswanson (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete? Clean up? Merge?

message: Give me ten minutes and the article will get there. I am writing it now.Nrswanson (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One omission is the use of micro-phones in live popular concerts. Tibradden (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For me Tori amos sounds absolutely like a light lyrics soprano, not like Mezzo. The Mezzo voice often has got a thik sound and not a light one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.233.81 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, is that most women are sopranos and not mezzo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.225.246 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that statement is false. Most women are mezzos as shown by every study done on the subject.Nrswanson (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: What about Jimmy Sommerville - he`s a real pop - countertenor. Or also Klaus Nomi.
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)
replies: text: Trelawnie, the threshold you described is too constricting.  The problem is that even the most reliable of sources can be erroneous due to human error.  There should be exceptions made to this threshold so that the truth can be known.  What's the point of verifiability if the source is not truthful?68.44.138.213 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not delete

message: 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)
replies: text: I think you meant non-classical training. Am I right? If that is the case I certainly agree that other notable pedagogues should be added. Feel free to add any appropriate content. Like all articles, this one is a work in progress.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed non-neutral content. Shenandoah University website lists neither Jeannette LoVetri as staff/faculty nor Contemporary Commercial Music as a degree program. --Trelawnie (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View vs. Commercials

message: 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)
replies: text: There is a source at the end of the paragraph which clearly is meant to source that entire thought around coloratura sopranos.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This is pretty unencyclopedic, but it could certainly be a useful essay... 143.92.1.33 (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Wiki namespace? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  help! should the "vocal range" snafu be moved here?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, the article spends too much space discussing what the subject is not. It's like a negative photograph! Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The information in this article is a lot of copy from the vocal range article interspersed with admonitions that it shouldn't be used. A small section at the end of that article noting the limitations of applying these principles to non-classical vocalists would be better than this, which currently is a waste of my time reading it, trying to find something useful in it. If there is no system of classification for non-classical voices, why do we have a page on the topic? I'm never quick to suggest a deletion, in in my time I've put long hours into rescuing several articles from AFD, but if there's no non-classical classification scheme, there's no scheme, and it's misleading and counterproductive (anti-encyclopedic) to have an article suggesting there is. It's like having an article on subterranean clouds that says, "Don't describe underground moisture as a cloud, because a cloud is something different." Dcs002 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  good start, but 

message: 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. ï¿½ (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree it may confuse readers and changed it. 4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.  Thank you! -- Avocado (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A non-classical singer could use the chart that follows."