Talk:Singing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Range of Celine Dion?

From "Vocal range of famous singers" section

Celine Dion : from C below middle C to high F (F♯₃ - F₆). Her highest note in belting voice is the A₅.

The notation for Celine Dion's range and its laymen description don't match. F♯₃ is not the "C below middle C". If one of them is correct, I'd take a guess at the C, since the notation may be copied from the Maria Callas entry in the same section. Can anybody confirm the her actual range? I looked into the Celine Dion article but the only mention of her range was that it was 5 octaves.

Oh, and is Mariah Carey's range "low E to high G-sharp"? It's missing the laymen description now, only the notation is there. — owl order (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever somebody who doesn't understand music wants to say something impressive about a singer, they say they have a five octave voice - it always seems to be five. It is nonsense. I've never heard any singer - Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Yma Sumac - sing over a a five octave range in performance.

Bitbut (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone create a section for common effects used on the voice?

Or is that just stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.57.10 (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factors that affect the voice

It seems reasonable to add a section of other things that can affect the voice performance. These could be medical conditions, preexisting or acquired, or simply substances that can have an effect if consumed before singing. This would also include artistic uses of these effects by vocalists. Does this seem reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.140.120 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

See also

It's quite pointless to split the "See also" section into "art music" and "popular music"; not only is at least one of the links wrongly categorised (Singer-songwriter), but several links fit neither section (as they pertain, for example, to traditional music, which is neither art music nor popular music), and several links fit both. I propose to merge the two "See also" sections back into one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Better pic

Really? Really? This needs a better picture. 71.234.123.137 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

YES!91.85.61.182 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the picture of Harry Belafonte, I agree. There's no question he could sing, but THIS looks like a movie still, a picture of him pretending to sing. The picture should be of an anonymous singer in a church or something, NOBODY FAMOUS, NOBODY TO ARGUE ABOUT, just somebody who is clearly and indisputably in the act of singing when the picture was taken. --Ben Culture (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Name change

I think this article should be called Vocals because it sums up all styles of singing. M4pnt (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "vocals" is used solely within popular music in western culture. Singing is a much broader more universally applied term.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per previous comment. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, singing isn't even constrained to humans, but applies to birds, whales, and even sand dunes! LeadSongDog come howl! 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, 'Maria Callas on vocals' ? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 19:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• as to what I know what singing is really it's projection of sound with notes and harmony while there are a ton of songs out there that don't do that.M4pnt (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.61.182 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is settled, right? --Ben Culture (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Derisive laughter —Wahoofive (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems with the Intro

The intro made the common error of associating all singing with song. Increasingly, this can be forgiven in casual context, but only because iTunes and other commercial distributors refer to all compositions, movements, and/or tracks as "songs"; so the lay sense of the word "song" is not at all useful here. Songs are generally understood as combinations of poetry and melody. They are to a poem what an aria is to a monologue; in other words, if a singer portrays a character in a dramatic scene, the music being sung cannot be called a song (except in the rare case when the character is actually singing a song); it has to be called an aria. Since "aria" is too narrow and Eurocentric to place alongside "song" (which is a cross-cultural category), I contrast the term "song" with "dramatic recitation," believing that term encompasses arias, duets, trios, etc. as well as recitative... as well as their counterparts in pre-operatic and non-European forms of music drama. I hope the term conveys any singing done in order to portray a character in a scene.

Similarly, a song is to a poem what a hymn (loosely) is to a prayer, and what a chant is to a meditation. (Just as a spoken "Hail Mary" is not a poem, a sung hail mary or "Ave Maria" are not songs... (they're actually arias, usually, but it's incorrect to refer to either sacred arias or hymns as songs).

I've also remove the term "a capella" from the introduction, because it misleads readers into thinking that singing without a musician is a fundamentally different kind of activity than singing with. The term "a capella" is overused in current lay parlance, and is lately based on a subjective experience of not having an instrument to tune to. But the vast majority of the world's singing traditions involve no fundamental musical change when melodies are performed by a singer alone, as opposed to a singer with a fiddle or a shawm. A capella was originally an Italian term referring only to those cases in which accompanied music might be sung with its accompaniment specifically missing on the occasion. It does not refer to a whole genre of unaccompanied music.

I've also replaced the term "tonality" with "pitch." Only a tiny fraction of the world's singing repertoire involves clear tonal harmony. "Tonality" can mean many things, but it's a much more confusing term here than the term "pitch." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blcarson (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are making some false distinctions here. First of all, arias, recitative, hymns, chant, etc. are all by definition types of songs. The term 'song' is typically defined as any sung musical work. Numerous sources doing a quick google search will confirm this (multiple music dictionaries and encyclopedias actually use the term 'song' when defining hymn, aria, etc.) The Oxford English Dictionary for example defines 'song' as "that which is sung". Granted, there is "song form" which has a specific structure; but song form and song are actually two different things. Additionally, you don't really seem to understand what an aria is. An aria is typically defined as "a long, accompanied song for a solo voice." An aria doesn't necessarily have to come from a dramatic work or have a dramatic context as there are many concert arias as well. Indeed, the term aria actually pre-dates the first opera. Additionally, the term 'song' can also refer to the very act of singing (i.e. 'the children lifted their voices in song').

I personally see nothing wrong with including the term "a capella", although I don't much care if its removed from the lead either. It is a term which is commonly used in relation to singing, and should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article if not in the lead. It would be odd not to mention the term at all.

I personally do not like replacing the term "tonality" with "pitch". Tonality suggests a tonal relationship between pitches, where as the term pitch draws no such association. I think that relationship is an essential aspect within singing (particularly when comparing singing traditions across cultures) which should be made clear in its definition. Best,4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an introduction, not a treatise on its own. I've simplified somewhat, though it probably is still too complex.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wide focus?

This page should reflect the 'universality' of human vocal expression - content should also reflect the (often anciently-established) traditions of the rest of the world, rather than being focussed exclusively on European culture. There's information on singing in non-human species but nothing from the peoples of Asia, Africa, etc!

Perhaps those with knowledge in these will expand this page and improve the perspectives it takes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.182.131 (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Bashevis Singer

Oh my Gosh. Why do I have to be redirected to "singer" if I'm looking for "Singer"? Which is also a well-known sewing machine brand... Pan Brerus (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you do this to your poor readers????

Why is that picture of Justin Bieber on this article? It is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever nor is it representative of the article's contents as he simply can't sing. Please replace it with one of someone with talent i.e. Freddie Mercury or Matt Bellamy or something along those lines - just not Justin Bieber!91.85.61.182 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already done it, thanks...

Justin Bieber can't sing. This guy apparently can.

Singing in Different Natural Environments

I'd like to propose that we delete this section. It adds undue weight to a theory that is basically postulated by just one guy -- the same guy who introduced this paragraph into the article in the first place. He actively updates his own page and promotes his theories on Wikipedia by adding his name and theories to as many pages as possible. This does not automatically invalidate his contributions but it does suggest the possibility of a conflict of interest. I am asking this community to evaluate that section with particular attention being paid to verifiability, reliable sources, notability, and weight. Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 15:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, beginning to see the problem now. At the very least, I think the WP:WEIGHT issue could (and should) be resolved by reducing the depth of coverage, perhaps just mentioning the theory briefly with a link to Jordana's page, as the theory is already covered in more depth there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)