Talk:Soprano/Archive 1

Soprano Range?

The article says the soprano range is up to two octave above middle C, but why is the alphanumeric format still describes it as C6? Isn't 2 octaves above middle C C7? Anyway I'll change it to C7. On the other hand, what is the point of highlighting a specific range as "soprano only" or "soproanos must learn this range". What I mean is that does it really matter if some sopranos can't sing the highest or lowest notes of A3-C6 or some can sing well below or above that range? --Anonymous

Hey why is it that the sopranos of pop culture were deleted i really would like to know who sings soprano in pop music someone who knows please help me. Please domeone post it.

Middle C is C4, so two octaves above middle C must be C6. See explanation here. However, I am aware that there are other systems. The range indicated is just a typical soprano range, it does not mean that every soprano must be able to sing all the notes. - Karl Stas 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I get confused too. I am used to classifying Middle C as c1, High C as c3 etc. But the American notation of Middle C as C4 and High C is C6. However, the american system seems to be more sensible, and so I for one will have to learn new tricks. Note that the notes start at C, so A4 is a much higher pitched note than C4! Wallie 09:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Shouldn't we have a specific description of each type of soprano, rather than just a list of representative roles for that type? Matt gies 09:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How would you propose describing a given voice? If you think you can in terms which can be understood by a lay person, be my guest. -- Viajero 11:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that familiar with the types of voice, but I do know that in some cases the difference is primarily in range, not something more subjective like timbre or power. For instance, isn't a lyric soprano supposed to reach the highest range of all?Matt gies 19:15, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think I understand where Matt gies is coming from, but unfortunately it's a little more complicated than that. There's a somewhat arbitrary quality in these classifications. For instance, you mention 'lyric soprano'. Well, that does describe a range, but it also describes a role type. Now, what of a lady whose talent and training allows her to perform roles in more than one category? How does one describe her voice? Coloratura is a role and a style and the style is performed by singers of all voice types and both genders.

Further, range is not conclusive in and of itself. There are mezzo-sopranos who have the exact same vocal range as sopranos; the difference is in where the strongest part of their voice lies, and where they feel most comfortable singing. Some ladies have voices with a great deal of power, for some singing with that much force will wreck their vocal chords, etc.

For what it's worth, I do like both the list of roles and the list of sopranos as it is without an attempt at pigeon-holing. I would, however, like to change the subheading for roles to Operatic Soprano Types or Soprano Roles in Opera or some such--maybe someone has a better suggestion? I think that 'Types of Soprano' sounds comprehensive but this list only speaks to Operatic Roles. Quill 00:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed, as User:Quill has already pointed out, rather complicated to classify an opera singer in a certain range. And sometimes, with certain singers, some singers (weither soprano, mezzo-soprano, alto, etc), if they are capable and comfortable with them, perform other roles, which may not be necessarily in their "Fach". Now I understand that Wikipedia's policies require that every article be written from a neutral point of view - but at the same time, for those who may be training (like myself) or already performing in the operatic world or either interested simply in music in general, that there should be some accuracy concerning roles, ranges, tessituras, etc. Basically, alot of what User:Quill has pointed out is totally correct - but I do believe that, for those who are currently studying opera or in music, it is important to provide the correct information rather than misinformation. I hope what I've pointed out makes sense? Sincerely, EmilyGreene1984, 6:18, 5 June, 2007 (UTC)

---

I've removed this from the top of the page:

Alternate use: The Sopranos (soap opera)

I think the chances of somebody linking to soprano when they really mean The Sopranos is basically nill, so this just gets in the way. --Camembert

Popular Music Vocal Range

There is no way to realistically "artificially enhance" vocal range. I suppose it could be done...but even with modern day granular based pitchshifting it cannot with ANY degree of transparency. Additionally it is perfectualy reputable to deduce the range of any singer (pop, classical, or anything) by considering their lowest and highest recorded notes. Voice quality is a bit more subjective, BUT not more subjective than in the classical world! I don't consider Fischer-Dieskau a baritone because he and his agents told me so, I consider him a baritone because of what I've heard come out of his mouth in song. I'm deleting the entire comment from the page. - Jmejia 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Contemporary but not historic classical sopranos

There has been a mass deletion of all the contemporary sopranos - over 50 names! - by User:I'll bring the food. Why? What possible reason can there be for getting rid of all of them? I don't understand. I think an explanation is called for. - Kleinzach 13:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Because singers ranged from Julie Andrews to various other contemporary singers, and due to the fact that the majority of them are uncited, unattributed and could be true/false/made up names etc I deleted them in a chunk. Secondarily, they really should be covered in the soprano category rather than in this article which has very little in the way of citations. I could see the list was a mix of contemporary and old-school classical singers, but the duty to source them all remains with the person who makes the additions, not me. If it remained with me, I'd be here all day and night, and I really don't have the time for it, sadly. Again, a lack of citations in this article and everyone from Mariah Carey to Beyonce Knowles and her sister (literally) has been added to this article at some point. I'm struggling to keep the lists under control with what are mainstream classical acts, let alone contemporary actors, singers and other fad singers.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I thought I'd just deleted a list of singers in the vain of Jojo, Mariah, Xtina etc. I assumed because of the "Tatiana" name under Andrews it was just another set of fad singers. My bad.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the list. If you look at the history, you'll see that I have gradually been weeding out the unknowns. You will also see that some people have repeatedly reverted Julie Andrews and Brightman who are not classical. Some of the singers are notable and backed by substantial WP articles. I am inclined to think that most of the redd links shouldn't be there. What do you think? Maybe we need to take a lot of the names out? - Kleinzach 23:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now gone ahead and deleted the red-linked contemporary singers. - Kleinzach 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic coloratura soprano merge

Support merge, as it has been some time and no one has taken the initiative to write a proper article at the other location, which indicates to me that the topic is not deserving of its own article. Robert K S 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support a merge. --Kleinzach 01:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I added content to this page (basically the same as on the soprano page + roles and singers), and created or updated pages for the other soprano voice types.

The problem is that the Fach page is really, really cluttered with lists of roles and singers, and it might be a good idea to remove the lists from that page, and just give a few examples in the text. The individual voice type pages (referred to from the Fach page) can be used for these lists. That way you don't have a monster Fach page.

Also, would it be a good idea to merge vocal weight and Fach?

Operalala 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! First of all we do try to avoid duplicating info. With interlinked pages it really shouldn't be necessary. Re Fach it is a long complex page, but then it is a complex system. (I am in favour of keeping the lists which are not nearly as long as those in Soprano etc.) The reason for having separate pages on Fach and Vocal range is that the content is different. Fach is the German system, whereas Vocal range is basically about the Anglo-American system. - Kleinzach 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

These pages are to keep long lists off the Voice type page. Operalala 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Many editor nominated these pages for merging into either Vocal weight or Fach. But I want merge this into Vocal weight as Operalala said on above. Therefore, I agree. Daniel 5127 00:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Repertory roles

In between projects over of the past week, I've cut the lists of opera roles to standard works, expanded descriptions of the voice types, cleaned up the formatting and added composer names. I hope you like my work and find it informative and helpful!

Note: Pruning roles to one-per-composer will merely underrepresent the most important composers such as Verdi and Mozart, and how do you choose which one to keep? Perhaps I shouldn't have added the composer names!

Operalala 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The original lists included a number of fairly minor and obscure roles, but if you think my cull was too radical - my main intention was to get rid of the critical examplefarm tag - then please add any roles that you think are vital. (Incidentally a few of the examples were controversial and I think it would be better to avoid giving these.) Regards and thanks for your work. --Kleinzach 01:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists

Kleinzach did a good job of cleaning up the insanely long lists and example farms that previously existed within the article, however the "Famous sopranos in classical music" section remains too long and will only get longer. I suggest that section be shortened to only the most notable singers of the bunch, and the rest be included in a seperate article such as List of notable sopranos or something like that. --Leon Sword 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the page and did a quick cull. (I'll do a more thorough cull tomorrow when I have time.) Operalala 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is already a List of famous sopranos. -- Kleinzach 08:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach, if you knew there was just such a page that Leon Sword requested, then why did you not say so, or put a link on the Soprano page?? Please merge them; it was obviously pointless for me to take the initiative and create the notable sopranos page if one already existed. Oyoyoy Operalala 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting that redundant section. A spacial anomaly brought me here. 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would very much like to appluad the writers of this article on the Soprano voice, it is insightfull and thorough.

I would like to comment thought that Maria Callas, if asked by many skilled voice teachers would tell you she has no actual Fach. She was a soprano who needs her own Fach. One day she would sing Rosina in Barber of Siville, the next week Sussana in Marriage of Figaro and two weeks later Carmen. Maybe its not that she has no Fach, maybe she did it just because she could. Too bad she wasn't smart about her voice and blew it at such a young age.

Grazie!

Sopranos Vs. Mezzos in tradition

"...Lady Macbeth...An early Verdi role with a low tessitura. Can be performed by mezzo-sopranos who have an upper extension to D6..." Lady Macbeth was indeed performed succesfully by some mezzos, but it is not because it has a low tessitura. Actually, it is not lower than both Leonoras (Trovatore and Forza), and is even higher than Elisabeth (Carlo) and Aemelia (Ballo). Mezzos, even "purists" like Cossotto, Ludwig and Zajick (I mean, those who had no attempt to present themselves as sopranos, like Verrett or Bumbry) sang it, because it is traditionally can be casted as a mezzo. The same goes for Santuzza, which is not lower than Nedda in Pagliacci, yet you have never heard of a mezzo Nedda, have you? AdamChapman 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi AdamChapman! I guess the reason mezzos are cast for Lady Macbeth, is that it sounds good with a low tessitura, and the top notes don't need to be pretty for LadyM. Trovatore probably has the same range, but you'd want a solid, pretty upper range for that role. Elisabetta and Amelia also need to have solid high climatic notes, even though they also need a solid low range. (Especially Amelia. Yikes Verdi). Santuzza definitely should be sung with a solid low range - it spends a lot of time there and it's a tragic character. Nedda spends a lot of time in the mid-to-high range and has some coloratura bits there - a mezzo wouldn't be cast to do that. Do they the same overall range?

I guess I could change LadyM to reflect that it doesn't have to be sung with a low tessitura, but can be.

(BTW I like Verrett's upper range, and always thought she made a more than believable soprano ;) ) Operalala 17:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It makes some sense. As for your question: Nedda's overall range is from middle c to b two-octaves above, while Santuzza's range is from b bellow middle c to soprano's high c. AdamChapman 16:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's changes - Wait!

Today a series of changes were made by User:EmilyGreene1984 without discussion until another Editor reverted them (Thank you, User:Broadwaygal!) IMO, almost all of the changes made by EmilyGreene1984 were ill advised. Many of the singers moved were previously discussed on this page. Please discuss major changes before just moving all the singers around from category to category. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is User:EmilyGreene1984. First of all, I had no intention to commit any sort of vandalism on this webpage or any other section on Wikipedia. I must admit, I'm very unaccustomed to the editing methods on Wikipedia (and have since looked over at the Help section of Wikipedia for advice) and I do apologize if I have, apparently, made any (as User:Ssilvers and User:Operalala have pointed out) mistakes in editing. I was merely trying to correct some mistakes in the article, regarding several singers listed under different fachs and ranges. I must confess I did NOT know that it was customary to use the Discussion page before trying to make edits on an article. And for all these things, I do humbly apologize. Secondly, I would like to know why my changes were reverted? I'm currently training in opera and I merely noted that alot of the "facts" on ranges, roles, and singers were, IMHO, incorrect. Sincerely, -- EmilyGreene1984 6:02, 5, June 2007

Thanks for your message. Normally, Wikipedia encourages people to be WP:BOLD in editing, but if someone wants to make major changes in an article it is polite to discuss it first. Once you encounter a disagreement about an edit, then the talk page is a good place to resolve the disagreement. I believe that most of your edits to this article today would be disputed by other editors who debated the original categorizations for these singers. Since there is some level of controversy here, why don't you make a suggestion about who you think ought to be moved, *and why*, and people can discuss it. Also, I do not believe (and I guess other editors agreed with me) that some of the other minor changes that you made were correct. So, let's take this step by step. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much User: Ssilvers. Yes, indeed - opera has always been a debateable topic among historians, musicians, composers, and even fellow singers and collegues themselves. And has been, I think, since opera was first created. Hence all the confusion about the Fach system and roles, I should think. Anyway, to get back to the original topic - not to offend you or anyone else, but why do you think the changes I made to (said ranges, roles, etc) were incorrect? I admit, as a still-in-training opera singer, I do not know all that there is still about opera and classical music and will gladly accept any critique, advise, and constructive criticism about the subject - but according to several music books I've studied and researched, the said roles (before I had them "changed") were placed incorrectly. Sincerely, -- EmilyGreene1984 6:53, 5 June 2007

Hello, Emily. I don't think it's going to be productive for me to explain to you all my objections. As I said, why don't you list who you think ought to be moved where, and why you think so. Iif you use asterisks on the left margin, it is easy to make a list. Then, people can comment on each of your suggestions. Perhaps they will agree with some and disagree with others based on your arguments. If you can cite reliable references from books or articles about opera or singers (see WP:RS), you will bolster your arguments. I am going to drop out of the conversation, actually, because I think operalala will be able to discuss this subject with you more readily than I can. Also, note that many of the people who discuss opera on Wikipedia (and there are quite a few of them) have been watching, studying and reading about opera for decades. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ssilvers for the information you've told and sent me. And again, I'm sorry to everyone for any confusion, inadvertantly, caused on my part. And I did not mean to assume that everyone on the Soprano and related articles didn't know what they were talking about. Mostly alot of these articles are very well written and most of the facts on, at least the Soprano page, is correct. In future, I will include (and in fact, on Monday - as I do not have the time tonight and the next few days to do so) the published written and online references I've used as a basis for my reasons about the ranges and roles. Maybe then, once I've done that, I can submit them here? And then we can, perhaps, try and discuss this for the main article. Thank you, again. Sincerely -- EmilyGreene1984 8:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC).

Soubrettes

Emma Kirkby is listed as a soubrette, but has she ever sung any soubrette roles? (BTW I'd suggest Elisabeth Schumann as the classic soubrette). -- Kleinzach 08:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. Um.. I'm not sure, exactly, if Elisabeth Schumann would be considered a soubrette. I haven't heard her voice yet, but judging from her reportoire -- alot of her roles would definitely suggest that she was a soubrette. But then again, some of the roles (like Marguerite, Pamina, Nedda, Antonia, and Micaela) would qualify her as either a light-lyric or full lyric voice, with an extensive range. And for her to sing Mignon (which is a mezzo-soprano role) is very unusual. I really couldn't say for certain if she was either a soubrette or light-lyric. -- EmilyGreene1984 1:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, listen to her voice! She was well recorded. Like almost all other soubrettes she sang light lyric roles. Of course from an Italian point of view, soubrette and light lyric (leggiero) are the same thing. (BTW She also sang Eva.) -- Kleinzach 00:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One does not need to sing roles in order to be classified into any voice. Kirkby does not sing opera but rather focuses on early music. Her voice certainly falls under the description of soubrette, but there has been no formal classication of the sort with which I'm familiar. John Holly 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Move Pop Section

The list of Soprano pop singers does not belong in an article which clearly deals with classical music. The very definition of the singing voice cannot apply to most of these singers and therefore they do not belong here, and borderline cases such as Sarah Brightman (who unhealthily combine speech voice and singing voice) do not merit having this section. I suggest it be permanently removed to a different page. John Holly 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Pop singers do not usually sing 'in range' - why should they? - so it's misleading to call them sopranos, mezzos etc. -- Kleinzach 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With the nature of classical singing being unamplified, but pop often utilising all manner of digital effects, it makes it even more irrelevent to try to compare them, it's apples and oranges. I agree too. Lethe 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. I have been trying to shorten the lists on the various fach articles to try to keep the pop singers down to the most clear representations of each. I think that there are some popular singers out there who do fall into a particular fach. But mostly the list appears to be a lot singers who were added by fans. Broadwaygal 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As everybody is agreed I have deleted the section. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 10:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

Sections from this article are being duplicated on other articles such as Soubrette. This shouldn't happen - after all WP is interlinked. -- Kleinzach 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there is too much duplication. I suggest that we either merge the articles in some way or we move the majority of the information from the soprano page onto the other articles. If we move the information, we should try to create a specific page for each voice sub-type. Unfortunately, i have noticed that the information is not always consistant from one page to another. Bad info corrected on one page is sometimes not changed on another. It's a real mess and I'm not sure what to do.Nrswanson (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be easier if you do it stage by stage. I suggest removing all the lists from the shorter articles and leave them in Soprano. That's the first stage. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I think I figured out a way to make this whole thing work. I trimmed down the the voice type page considerablly since most of the info on that page was a duplication of the other pages. Then for the soprano page I left only a brief description of each voice sub-category and moved all of the list of of roles/singers off that page onto specific pages for each subcategory. Those are Coloratura Soprano, Subrette Soprano, Spinto Soprano, and Dramatic Soprano. For the moment there is still some duplication between the pages but is a lot less than what it was and I think this system makes more sense. The other voice types didn't have as much duplication so I could pretty much leave them alone after deleting the repeted info. from the vocal range page. Let me know what you think.Nrswanson (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. You have decided to develop the subpages which is fine. In that case it will be necessary to merge the descriptive sections with the sub-articles and further reduce the size of this article.

Unfortunately the article titles you list: Coloratura Soprano, Subrette Soprano, Spinto Soprano, and Dramatic Soprano are all wrongly capitalized and we will need to ask an admin to correct them. I was only able to do Soubrette - note the correct spelling. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable references

I don't think there is any point in referencing to sources less reliable than WP itself, for example to amateur, personal websites etc. These really have to be deleted -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources in particular do you have a problem with? Most of the web sites link to professional opera companies that are part of Opera America or to music dictionaries. I have added some way better sources too.Nrswanson (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The main one I noticed before has been deleted, however [1] is just a WP mirror, also Geocities sites are amateur and shouldn't be used here, and Nashville Opera is hardly authoritative. I'd strongly recommend getting a subscription to Grove if you want to edit opera articles. The Grove article by Owen Jander, Stanley Sadie, J B Steane and Elizabeth Forbes is essential reading on Soprano. Oxford and Viking will also be helpful. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No Need To Have Any Sopranos Listed On This Page

For those of you wanting to list contemporary soprano singers there is a wikipedia article entitled: List of Contemporary and Crossover Sopranos where you can find them. There is a link to that page at the bottom of this page. Also, for classical musicians, each vocal sub-category has its own page now with opera singer lists on them. Go to those pages to add or find people if you wish.Nrswanson (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but please watch the capitalization - it has to be sentence style. I've just had to move the page. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No Need For Soprano Roles On This Page

Each voice sub-category has a page now with a list of opera roles on them. There is also a link at the bottom to a page for soprano musical theatre roles: List of Soprano Roles in Musicals.Nrswanson (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging... yes or no?

I personally like having all the sub-categories together on this page with brief descriptions so it is easy to compare them and see the group as a whole. The individual pages are good becuase they can give a more detailed description. Perhaps not a merge but a trimming down?Nrswanson (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about trimming down first to further remove duplication and then see how it looks? -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Nrswanson (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is good now. I trimmed it down considerably. What do you think?Nrswanson (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

copyvio?

Do all of those youtube links that have recently been added meet WP's copyright standards? - Special-T (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe so. Because the videos are not actually on this site but on another site I don't think it is a problem. Wikipedia is not responsible for youtube and its content, and these videos are not exactly part of the article but merely links to another site. Almost every site has links to personal web-pages with copywrited material. For example fan pages on individual actors/actresses or opera singers with illegally used photos are often placed as links on wikipedia. Nobody ever complains about these links and to start making this a requirement for links will be too massive of a headache and really not uthat useful. Furthermore, there have been consistant requests for links to audio examples of the voice parts to be applyed to the article. I think these videos help people really understand the information presented. In other words, these links make the article better. Nrswanson (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Will the videos stay on YouTube? This seems doubtful. Perhaps it would be better to have them in external links rather than in the body of the article? That way the links can easily be deleted if the videos disappear. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

These are all videos that I have watched for over two years now, so I think they are fairly stable videos. If they dissapear, we can simply find another example and replace it. I don't mind watching the links and updating them as needed. This is after all a community that is constantly watching and updating articles. I don't think this will be a problem or too much of a headache. These videos are typically not "here today and gone tommorow". They usually are around for a considerable amount of time. I think it makes more sense to keep them where they are so people can listen to them within the context of a particular voice sub-type.Nrswanson (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)