Consider these statements:
1. Crooner is an epithet given to a male singer of a certain style of popular songs, dubbed pop standards. A crooner is a singer of popular ballads and thus a "balladeer".
2. Crooning is a style that has its roots in the Bel Canto of Italian opera, but with the emphasis on subtle vocal nuances and phrasing found in jazz as opposed to elaborate ornamentation or sheer acoustic volume found in opera houses.
3. Before the advent of the microphone, popular singers, like Al Jolson, had to project to the rear seats of a theater, which made for a very loud vocal style. The microphone made possible the more personal style.
4. Crooning is not so much a style of music as it is a technique in which to sing.
Together they show a certain confusion about the proper characterization of crooning and its origins.
1. Verbose and repetitious. "Songs" is not idiomatic after "style." If the type of popular song is a ballad, then it is pointless to save the specification. Hence: "Crooner is an epithet given to male singers of popular ballads called ' pop standards.'" But this opening statement is surely too broad: all crooners may be balladeers, but not all balladeers are necessarily crooners.
2. Confused and underdeveloped. "Crooning is a style"--of what? It makes no sense to say that crooning is rooted in bel canto, which can only mean that crooning exhibits features of bel canto, but that it emphasizes features not found in bel canto; what's the point of mentioning bel canto, then? Why oppose styles of vocalization characteristic of jazz to those characteristic, not of bel canto, but of the opera house? "Subtle vocal nuances" is redundant--nuances can't be crude or gross or broad.
3. In the first sentence we suddenly come to suspect that neither bel canto nor jazz has anything whatever to do with the emergence of crooning, since here we are told that microphonic amplification required singers to adjust their style. "Made possible"? One might better say, "required," as it is obvious that no one could tolerate electric amplification of Jolsonesque projection. But why "personal style"? Is there anything "impersonal" about Al Jolson's style?
4. "A technique in which to sing" is verbose; better: "a style of singing" or "a technique of singing."
I suggest that successive contributors actually think through the logical and thematic integrity of the account.
Could Elvis Presley be considered a crooner? While that was not the style he was originally known for, he did record a large number of songs in that style, and many of the men on the list were heavily influenced by Elvis?
- In fact the list is bloated, and full of non-crooners. I've pruned a couple of obvious one; I'll go back and cut some more when I have a moment. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 06:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- What about Julius LaRosa? Just asking. Herostratus 05:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
you have gotta be kidding right?
An obvious joke. If anybody is the anti-crooner it's McGowan. He should be removed.
I've just moved the following (edited) comment from the article:
Rod - a crooner? I don't think so. Leave that to the ones who can sing.
- many crooners including sinatra were regarded 'cant sing'. the close mic technique covers up vocal imperfections. rod stewart has recast himself as a crooner for the better part of a decade
Why were the references to amplification removed? It was critical to the development of the style. 184.108.40.206 13:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Morrissey should probably be added. Does Shane MacGowan really belong here? Mike3k 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Were the Carpenters crooners? Karen had a great voice, and Richard made ballads and complicated orchestrations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Obento Musubi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Female Crooners? :))
I think there could be some indeed. Dame Shirley Bassey and also Chaka Khan come to mind, the latter of which mostly because of her 2004 jazz album "Classikhan". -andy 220.127.116.11 12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What about Judy Garland or Ella Fitzerald? If you look at their discographies, most of their music seems to be derived from "The Great American Songbook" if that is what qualifies one as a crooner. 18.104.22.168 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Another thought: would the term "torch singer" be the female equivalent of the crooner? I went to the torch song entry and there seems to be an overlap on their list of singers.22.214.171.124 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- To me, and this seems to be supported by the torch song article, this terms refers in part to a particular type of song, identified by both style and content, and hence a "torch singer" is one who sings this type of song. But crooners can and do sing a wide variety of song content, some of which would be more upbeat in content than a torch song. Wschart (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
please mention johnny hartman
1990s-2000s section out of control
To croon - its meaning.
v., crooned, croon·ing, croons.
1. To hum or sing softly. 2. To sing popular songs in a soft, sentimental manner. 3. Scots. To roar or bellow.
To sing softly or in a humming way: crooning a lullaby. n.
A soft singing or humming.
List of Crooners
- Unsourced listcruft. There is no (luckily) list like that on Singer-songwriter for instance. Garion96 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see your reason for the deletion, will look into substantiating that if it is the only problem, else move it in to categorisation. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)