Talk:Vocal register/Archive 1

Women and falsetto

In women, the falsetto voice refers to the whistle register. - no it does not at all, chest voice, falsetto, whistle voice feels (for the singer) and sounds different (but not too different if you are well trained). --62.66.201.215 18:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. There's men who can access the whistle register, and women who cna access falsetto, so it makes no sense to say whistle and falsetto are the same thing. There should be a separate paragraph explaining the whistle register.

Head voice

"...discussing the head voice it is the purpose to avoid as much as possible the mechanical construction of the instrument." Actually, I don't no why people are afraid to discuss the head voice. In the book "Opera" published by Koenemann it says that in males falsetto means head voice. A professional voice-teacher explained that pure head-voice is only falsetto (including the physiological mechanics mentioned in the article). In women, due to the smaller size of the neck, the voice doesn't go to falsetto, but rather to a mix of chest and falsetto, and that's how "middle" and "head" voices are created. I don't know about the whistle-register. If there's a mechanical change than it's obviously has nothing to do with falsetto. AdamChapman 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, different vocal teachers do give differen explanations of what head voice is. There are many operatic ocountertenors who say the correct way to sing in the countertenor range is using the 'countertenor voice', which they say is different from the falsetto voice, and many people say the 'countertenor voice' is 'male head voice'. Also, many teachers (especially in SLS and some Bel Canto) say that you cannot mix falsetto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.243.145 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

title

Does it really matter which title we use? "Vocal register" is more common, and IMO is more accessible, than "vocal registration", which sounds to the uninitiated like signing up for singing lessons. Also, the bulk of the article discusses various vocal registers, not vocal registration in the abstract. kwami (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A vocal register is the discussion of one particular register whereas vocal registration encompasses the entire system of registers and the overall topic.Nrswanson (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

register definition

while this article does cite several sources, most of the voice community would disagree with what is said here. limiting the discussion to just this one point of view will discourage accurate reporting of the current state of the art. DrG (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a pretty common assertion, so I disagree that most of the voice community would disagree. (FYI I have a BME in Vocal Music and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy) William Vennard, Margaret Greene, and Ralph Appelman, the trinity so to speak of modern vocal pedagogy, all define it in this way. It is also the way in which speech pathologists and voice scientists define vocal registers. I have about a dozen other sources that define it this way, so I wouldn't call it controvercial or fringe by any means. It's also the only approach used across academic disciplines. I realize that there are a multiplicity (literally hundreds of different perspectives) of other definitions used within vocal music, depending on the author and the period of time (as perspectives have changed throughout the years). This definition, however, is used by many leading vocal pedagogists and is congruent with other fields, which other perspectives are not. Remember, vocal registration is a topic of study in other academic fields as well as music including linguistics, phonetics, speech pathology, etc. This definition is the one used most often by the sciences as well as numerous vocal pedagogists. In fact, this perspective originated with people like Vennard and Greene who adopted a more scientific approach to the study of vocal registers during the mid 20th century. They took the terminology and tools used by voice scientists and speech pathologists and applied them to the study of singing. Furthermore, the McKinney text is the standard text for most intro to vocal pedagogy classes at the collegiate level in the United States. I used it both in my undergrad and graduate studies at two different conservatories. So really its a standard perspective from a standard reading. It's also congruent with many of the articles published in the NATS Bulletin.Nrswanson (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the sources you cite do support this assertion (though it is not 'pretty common'). I have no problem with that. The problem is that this is not the only definition of vocal register; it is a definition. I can give you many more definitons from equally reliable sources. As you state, there is no consensus even in NATS. (FYI I have a doctorate in Vocal Music and my dissertation was on vocal registers, accoustics, and formants.) Why must Wikipedia limit itself to just your holy trinity definition? Certainly there are many readers out there who are interested in other (often more common and less anatomical) models. If you are a trained singer, you can surely sing 2 and half octaves using your modal voice (with the same laryngeal function), but do you use only one register? Maybe you will assert that you do, but most singers and most voice teachers will insist that you have passed through several vocal registers. This is certainly worth mentioning in this article. DrG (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you that this position is not as widely used. It is a common approach and more wide spread than you are suggesting. I personally have never studied under a teacher with a different approach (not through design. it just happened that way) from my middle school choral director all the way up to my graduate level voice teacher. I have worked with a few vocal coaches while doing operas that had different approaches. I would venture to say that about half of all voice teachers embrace this model. (from my experience anyway) From what I have seen and read, most of the literature being produced today on vocal registers reflects the model given in this article. Certainly its the position favored within the majority of NATS articles of the last fifty years. (of course Vennard being the director of NATS for a long time definitely had an influence over the journal) Even the current director, Scott McCoy, has done research at Westminster using this model. That being said, I am not opposed to presenting other views. However, I think it should be made clear that such models are not embraced by other fields of study, due to an incongruence with the anatomical evidence of laryngoscope studies. Please feel free to add material, properly cited of course.Nrswanson (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize. Obviously, I can't deny your personal experience, but I might comment it may be responsible for your bias. What do you mean by a 'widely used' position? We are just trying to define vocal registers, not take positions. And again, I am not denying that the model described here exists, or that it is common in certain vocal pedogogy circles, though I doubt it is used that often. I think you are misinterpreting the anatomical evidence of laryngoscope studies and using it as a club to stifle other models and definitions, including ones that are more common. It sounds like you have a lot of experience as a singer. You must therefore be aware that laryngial function is not the only determiner of register. In fact, for singers it is not the most significant factor for the vocal fry and the whistle regsiters are of limited use in singing. DrG (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion. Within speech pathology, linguistics, and phonetics, vocal registers are studied from a purely anatomical perspective which looks at how the larynx functions. Its only among certain vocal pedagogical circles that other opinions are considered. From a scientific perspective, laryngeal function is the only measure for defining and explaining vocal registers. The definition given is the one used by speech pathologists, linguists, and within phonetics. It's also been adopted by a number of vocal pedagogists, but understand the root of that definition didn't start among vocal pedagogists but among scientists in other fields. It was only later adopted by vocal pedagogists like Vennard. That's why it is really the best definition to start with, because its the definition used the most when you are looking at the broader picture of who studies the topic of vocal registers. Its not just vocal pedagogists at play here. As for me "misinterpreting the anatomical evidence of laryngoscope studies and using it as a club to stifle other models and definitions, including ones that are more common." I don't think I am. Everything in the article is supported by numerous sources. None of this is an original idea or thought of mine. All of the ideas, opinions, and research in there are valid opinions and criticisms from top people in the field of vocal pedagogy. So really your beef should be with them and not me because they are not my ideas or my opinions. You might not personally like what's in the article, but what's in the article is a verifiable fact. And don't tell me these are fringe opinions when Grove and other authoratative sources has articles on several of the authors who wrote the opinions verifying them as experts in this field. I have no problem with other views being expressed here. I do, however, think that the criticisms of such views can and should be presented. (properly cited and sourced criticisms from reputable sources of course) Like I said, go ahead and add material to the article. I have no problem with that. However, the views expressed already still should have a voice. A general comment to you would be to avoid arguing over which views are "most prominenet". Such a thing is hard to prove. What can be proven is that all fields of study, except for some vocal pedagogists, define vocal registers in terms of laryngeal function. I'm willing to work with you on improving the article. There should be room to present all sides in a fair and neutral way. I would also appriciate you avoiding personal attacks. Please see WP:Civil. Nrswanson (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to attack you. I was enjoying this discussion. I apologize for any perceived slight. I agree we do have a difference of opinion; that is why I started this discussion in the first place. I don't have a beef with you or with the top vocal people. I will state again that sources cited here do contain this information. I never disagreed with that. Perhaps a second article for vocal register for use in the field of singing would help. Here the more common definition (not based on larygineal function) could be presented. DrG (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)