Jump to content

Talk:List of contraltos in non-classical music: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Dispute: new section
Line 209: Line 209:


What are we to do about this? Is this a reliable source?
What are we to do about this? Is this a reliable source?

== Dispute ==

* Katy Perry is actually soprano, clear, bright and girly tone
* Sia is actually soprano, clear, bright and girly tone, lots of belted C#6 notes
* Miley Cyrus is mezzo, good low range but sings Jolene with Dolly Parton that is soprano
* Adele is mezzo, "Rolling in the Deep" contains C#6-C6 in chorus, removal of vocal cord nodules improved Adele's range and made high notes easier for her.

These blatant misclassifications ought to be corrected. Sopranos such as Sheena Easton, Ann Wilson and Cyndi Lauper have good low notes, no issue for many world-class soprano singers that have wide ranges. --[[Special:Contributions/93.106.208.61|93.106.208.61]] ([[User talk:93.106.208.61|talk]]) 09:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:03, 28 February 2017

WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Additions to the list

Additions to the list must already have a an article on Wikipedia and require an inline citation in this list to a reliable source which verifies that the singer's voice has been described as contralto. Any unreferenced additions contstitute original research and will be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An argument could be made that this requirement is unnecessary and, in fact, almost pedantic. One needs neither to be a music journalist or to examine a waveform analysis to recognize a vocal type, particularly in extreme or prototypical cases. (66.217.115.185 (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
On the contrary it isn't pedantic at all. It adheres to one of the key policies of Wikipedia verifiability, as must all Wikipedia articles. If a reliable published source, verfiying that the singer's voice has been described as contralto is provided, then it goes in. If not, it stays off. This list is not the place to post individual editors' or fans opinions, or even their own research with wave form analysis. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names removed

The following need an inline citation to a reliable source which verifies the singer has a contralto voice. All additions which lack such a reference will be removed to this talk pager until such a reference is provided.

--Voceditenore (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) [Last updated by Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)][reply]

--Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC) updated by Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nina Simone (added twice) - no reference - added with reference to reliable source
  • LaTavia Roberson - reference is to a posting on a fan forum [2] Please read WP:RELY. I can find no references in reliable sources that she is a contralto apart from this and Wikipedia mirror sites. has twice been removed

--Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Updated Voceditenore (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brandy Norwood - reference is to a posting on a fan forum [3] Please read WP:RELY. I can find no references in reliable sources that she is a contralto apart from this and Wikipedia mirror sites.
  • Tionne "T-Boz" Watkins - unreferenced, has twice been removed

– Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Updated Voceditenore (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]

– Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Voceditenore (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

– Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC) updated 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yet more names removed from the list due to lack of citations. These names are exactly as; Tina Turner, Melanie Amaro, Brandy, Manu, Imogen Heap and Etta James. As these names are above this is clearly an ongoing issue! Please could I stress to anyone who wishes to add names to the list that gaining sources is vital to maintaining a reliable data bank. Please bear in mind that any names removed from the list above I shall try to get sources for and re-add but until that point please do not add names unless you have the ref's to back the data up. Many thanks! BrotherDarksoul(talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Lazzarus

Namely Goodbye Horses from Silence Of The Lambs. That singing is so deep that I mistook "her" by a dude! -andy 217.50.55.74 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Simone

Is this enough "evidence"? Just the first few results from a quick google search...

http://www.swingmusic.net/Nina_Simone.html http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/782-reading-nina-simone’s-tragic-life http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8441631 http://www.rhapsody.com/#/artist/nina-simone/album/after-hours/track/nobody http://books.google.com/books?id=oV4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=nina+simone+contralto&source=bl&ots=5EkZ8JxJES&sig=qjPNGMme1CvNW-QxDN_2RQkm2aM&hl=en&ei=ZZs8Tvj6K-TEsQKN1MDmDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=nina%20simone%20contralto&f=false http://www.oldies.com/product-view/00362.html http://www.amazon.com/Four-Women-Simone-Philips-Recordings/dp/B00006ZU6B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.38.195 (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Simone now added using one of the references above. Yes, some of them are reliable sources, and only one is needed. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice Bonifassi should be on this list I think

The references on her page seem to say so... Her rendition of I Put a Spell on You ([4]) is one of her trademarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.189.245.231 (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tina turner 21021985 01 350.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Layout

I rearranged the photo layout. This should allow for a good mix of generations and musical styles while resolving some of the page-stretch issues.

Having said this, let's be judicious about who we include. We should be striving for a representative sampling of artists. This is not intended to be a photo gallery of everyone's favorite singer.LizFL (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to re-add the Lisa Gerrard and KT Tunstall pictures? Tribal44 (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]
They should be already on there. I haven't touched them. They were the reason I changed the layout (KT in particular was lost in the page-stretch hinterlands). LizFL (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're gone :\ Should I just re-add them? Thanks. Tribal44 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]
Sure, go ahead.
They must be stored in my cache. I'm still seeing them on my PC. LizFL (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oooops!! Didn't mean to revert your edits. Sorry! Lol. Tribal44 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Is everything OK on your end? Can you see KT and Lisa? LizFL (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're up there :} Tribal44 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]
  • Actually, this photo layout is really not helpful and makes the page look like a poorly designed website rather than an encyclopedia article. The reader has to scroll past a whole screenload of images before they can even get to the list. Plus, images of this size seriously increase the loading time for readers on slow internet connections and cause problems for the visually impaired using screen readers. (Note: I am not visually impaired, have a very large screen and a fast internet connection.) And why are they presented in this unwieldy and non-standard table format with empty caption spaces appearing beneath them, further confusing and cluttering the layout? What is wrong with following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and placing them down the right-hand side at intervals, in smaller sizes, with standard captions below the image as also recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility? Or alternatively if you all insist on grouping them horizontally like this, using the standard gallery format? Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am for anything that will put an end to the squabbling over stretched pages.

The problem with the format with the table format that was in use before was that I -- and no doubt other people -- were having was that photos were going unnoticed (and unseen) because they stretched the page.

I've tried the gallery format. How does it look? I tried putting all six photos on one row, only to have KT Runstall get bumped down into a second row. The gallery can't handle more than five names on any one row. LizFL (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly better, but in my view, the old format was infnitely better, although the images should be somewhat smaller than they were there. Any kind of "gallery" format, even the standard one is the least desirable option and is only justified "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." The key point is that images should always be secondary to text content, should not be used simply as decoration, and should used sparingly to illustrate and supplement the text. They should never dominate either the content or the layout. All these "List of Xs in non-classical music" have basically been turned into photo galleries with a messy list of names attached and turn Wikipedia's image use policy completely on its head. The lists themselves has been made much less user-friendly as well. They're harder to navigate in multiple columns with no alphabetic headings and just look like wall of text. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This begs the question, "Who do we remove?" LizFL (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to remove any of them. Put the list back into a single column with two alphabetical sub-sections, as it was before, and then put the pictures down the right hand hand side in small enough versions that they all fit. These people all have their own articles, there's no need for such large images. 150 px is plenty. Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried putting KT Tunstall on the left-hand side earlier. I was left with a big blank space just to her right and the columns pushed down below her. The page was truly unreadable. LizFL (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why put it on the left? The normal format for such lists is all down the right hand side, precisely to avoid that problem. Voceditenore (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have mattered which side you put it on. I would've then been left with a big blank space to her LEFT-hand side.
The whole point of the columns was to improve readability. As it was, the list was growing to unwieldy proportions. It was being clogged with names that either had unreliable sources or absolutely NO sources whatsoever. It was never meant to be an exhaustive list. LizFL (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys

I guess this whole issue is really down to me so I can only apologise for the inconvenience it has caused everyone. Hopefully its something we can all come to a compromise on. The main reason I changed the whole layout of the pages was due to the excessive scrolling down to read names making it a tiring and monotonous, I hoped that with a few horizontal pics and the names in columns it would tidy the page and make it slightly more presentable. However its clear that many issues in regards to the number of images and which images are present have come up, due to the reasons Voceditenore listed above ie, longer loading times, monitor sizes ect. I hope that we can all come to an amicable settlement in regards to this issue. My main aim as I said was to tidy up the page and make it easier to navigate, having extra pics or whatever was just as an illustration to show the diverse range of artists within the page. If anyone would like to throw anymore ideas in so we can get a handle on things it would be awesome! Many thanks to all you guys for all your hard work on all the 'list' pages, I think we have done a marvelous job in not only expanding the pages but protecting them from vandals and misleading inputs! So we all deserve a good pat on the back :) BrotherDarksoul (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are are completely out of control

Something has to be done here. There are now 11 of them, and chosen for no rhyme or reason. We now have not only drive-by unreferenced additions of names but also images. This page goes completely against Wikipedia's Image use policy. I'll quote two key points from it here:

  • The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

In what way, do these images add anything to the reader's understanding of the subject? They are merely being used as decoration and are an open invitation for people to add every singer and every photograph they think "would look nice" and/or get incensed when their favourite singer has been "left out". If you want to give the reader an idea of the diverse range of contraltos in non-classical music, then expand the text in lede section to discuss this, referenced to high quality sources or alternatively have separate sections for jazz, rock, musical theatre, and country, each with its own introductory text, again referenced to high quality sources.

One or two images of high quality that add encyclopedic value by virtue of the contents of their captions can be OK. See for example this version. Going beyond that number you start getting into the situation of explaining why these particular 11 and not those 15 too. Using a gallery with no value-added content is an open invitation for this. Apart from being unencyclopedic, it makes the page even harder to maintain than it currently is.

As for arranging the names in multiple columns, they are actually more difficult and inefficient for the reader to scan. The eye has to shift back and forth from vertical to horizontal. It also makes it difficult to click back between the citation and the name it's referencing as the reader is presented with 4 rows of cited names. Plus, that kind of formatting requires changing every time a new name is added and unbalances the column lengths. I hope those of you who regularly maintain this page will give some serious thought to these suggestions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for unreliable sources

Unreliable sources are Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, self-published websites, YouTube, forums etc. WP:RELY explains what a reliable source is.

Lady Gaga

Let's put an end to the edit war over Lady Gaga (WP:WAR). Let's talk about this.

I know, its getting draining now. Her name has been on the list previously with what seemed like a generally reliable citation. The I believe one particular person removed the name and has been doing so since. To me (citations aside) Gaga is blatantly a contralto, her timbre is extremely dark and heavy, added to that her general range points to that of a contralto and her natural tessitura all point directly to that category. To claim she is either a Mezzo or even Soprano would be highly misleading information as far as I am concerned. It's so clearly obvious. However I doubt our words will impact on those who choose to wish otherwise :/ BrotherDarksoul(talk) 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found a reliable source for Lady Gaga. LizFL (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry

Why are we removing Katy Perry?

The Patriot Ledger is a legit, reliable source. I don't understand. LizFL (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I've been noticing as well. Its either random IP trolls or Katy Perry haters. I think he should have this page protected for a while so stuff like this won't happen again.

Tribal44 (talk)Tribal44

Hey dude, I know. I do not understand why she is consistently being removed, it is totally unacceptable considering it is a reliable source and could easily be called vandalism in my opinion. I shall be re-adding her again, do you mind keeping an eye out for me in the mean-time incase I miss it being removed again? Thanks for dropping the line about this issue.BrotherDarksoul Blether 09:34, 01 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alto

Please note I have removed several names due to the sources given stating that said artists were "Alto's". Alto and contralto are not the same thing. Alto is a vocal line sang within that of a choir and is more closely related to the mezzo-soprano range than that of the contralto. Please when adding names to this list would you make sure that the source clearly states that the artist is a contralto only and not alto otherwise there could be false or misleading information on the page. Many thanks. BrotherDarksoul Blether 04:01, 03 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A small enquiry in regards to a reference

Does anyone think that the ref I used ages ago for that of Gabriella Cilmi could be used to confirm that Anastacia is a contralto too?? This is what the key data in the article says. 'Anastacia (to whom Cilmi bears astonishing similarities, most notably in her contralto voice and noisy growl)'. Let me know what you guys think in regards to that confirmation! Many thanks. BrotherDarksoul Blether 23:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga is not a contralto

She's not a contralto. Her range is C3-B5 (approx) which is in the range of a Mezzo-Soprano not a Contralto. And she can go higher than that as well, but she lacks technique.Penpaperpencil (Talk) 06:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is About.com to be considered a reliable source?

Almost anyone can get on there and write for them. I'm not sure how to handle them.

I would appreciate some guidance on the matter. LizFL (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I would have said no, its not reliable enough. Probably because it takes on more of the form of a forum for different people to contribute being slightly difficult to verify said data by name. The site however does present itself in a professional and appropriate way. Maybe it could be used as a back up with other sources that might not be quite as strong? I am not sure I would use it's data as stand alone however. Hope this helps. BrotherDarksoul Blether 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How often do you see a retraction or a correction in there? Authors on About.com can pass on inaccurate data for years before doing anything about it (assuming they do anything at all).
Given the fact that hardly anyone on About.com corrects their articles (and that there's no clear guidelines regarding accuracy as you would find in a mainstream newspaper or magazine such as The New York Times or Rolling Stone), I move we disallow it as a reliable source on Wikipedia. LizFL (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than happy to follow this line of procedure. Personally most of my sources in regards to vocal ranges and types come from respected news journals or authors and I always try to gain more than one source (like my vocal data additions to the Ellie Goulding and Lana Del Rey pages consisting of four seperate and reliable sources), classifying non classical singers is a controversial issue for some. I am not a fan of these other sites such as About.com. There is a good site called DivaDevotee but as it is a blog it cannot be used but I have used it as a basis to hunt for possible reliable references from (solid, named, dated and officially published) sources.BrotherDarksoul Blether 11:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So wrong.

90% of the listed people are not even Contraltos here. Contralto singers' main characteristic is a "androgynous" timbre. These singers are only listed here because all of them don't sing high, but people are forgetting that ranges aren't used to typing a voice outside of Classical music as these people are not as trained, so only color and weight are taken into account. Contralto singers are supposed to sound manly, with a heavy weight and a dark voice. So a tenor who doesn't sing high much is a Baritone? Or a Bass? Most of these people listed are all mezzos. Annie Lennox and Cher are undoubtedly Contraltos but others are not. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 05:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I normally write articles on opera-related subjects. This is why I split this list from the page Contralto, as it was grossly misleading and continuously attracting drive-by additions with no references, or extremely poor ones. There is a caveat in the lede:
When the terms soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, tenor, baritone, and bass are used as descriptors of non-classical voices, they are applied more loosely than they would be to those of classical singers and generally refer only to the singer's perceived vocal range. The following is a list of singers in country, popular music, jazz, and musical theatre who have been described as contraltos.
However, even with the caveat that these singers have only been described as contraltos, the situation is not ideal. Many of the sources used here are still quite poor, and even when published in newspapers are generally written by people who are pop music critics and know virtually nothing about the technicalities of the voice. An "androgynous" quality, may be perceived by some people in the contralto voice, especially with pop singers, but it's certainly not universally true with operatic voices. Contraltos do often play male roles, especially ones originally written for castrati, but there are many opera roles for contraltos where they sing the female romantic lead, e.g. La Cenerentola, or an older woman, or the female antagonist. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Contralto characteristics that people like Katy Perry or Alicia Keys etc lacks. Their vocal weight and color doesn't match that of a true Contralto singers. If we compare them with Contraltos like Annie Lennox or Cher, we'll see a very big difference. I do see what you mean about them typed based on their ranges, but people like Katy Perry are not trained in classical forms, that's why color and weight matters in typing the voice. And Katy Perry lacks the vocal weight of a Contralto. I'd like it if you could remove some of them because it's glaringly obvious they do not belong in this list, even if it's cited. And as you said there are Music critics who knows nothing about technicalities of vocals, so I wouldn't count on the sources as well. Thank you. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 05:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re colour/timbre and weight, which of course especially applies to opera singers. There are very few true operatic contraltos as well—whole articles have been written about how rare they are. Nowadays, mezzos, especially ones with a lower extension can and usually do sing most of the roles originally written for contraltos. A related problem is that people who know very little about the technicalities and performance practice of singing, get completely hung up on singers with alleged three-octave and four-octave ranges as if this were some indication of a singer's virtuosity or talent. It isn't. There's a vast difference between being able to hit notes in a particular range on occasion, and the ability to sing them comfortably and consistently well in music written specifically for that range. Digressions aside, I've had very little to do with this article after I created it to get this problematic stuff off the contralto page. So perhaps the people who edit this much more frequently could chime in here. The main problem is that editors can't use their individual subjective judgement as to whether a singer is a true contralto (expert though it may be). We have to go by what outside published sources have said. Having said that, I suspect there are a lot of very dubious sources being used to reference the names on this list. They should be gone through and marked as such, e.g. one of these:
[better source needed]
[self-published source?]
[unreliable source?]
[non-primary source needed]
Or, completely removed if the source is manifestly unsuitable, e.g. a forum post, blog comment, or YouTube video. Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hit notes does not equal good vocal techniques. I'm pretty sure most of the sources can be contradicted by simple usage of Fach. I've seen some people calling singers like Lea Michele an Alto singer, which is so wrong as Alto is not even a voice type. I'm sure these pages are edited mostly by those people. Adele doesn't sing higher than C5 often, but that does not equal her being a Contralto, she resonates in the mid-region the most rather than the lower register. Alicia Keys is not even a Contralto, do you agree not? Yet she's called one by so many music critics. Anastacia is technically a Mezzo-Soprano (Dramatic might I say, as she has tremendous power in upper register) as well, yet she's called a Contralto as well by so many. Using range for untrained singers, will not equal an accurate typing. I wish there was a fixed rule on vocal classification of mainstream singing. As of right now, the usage of range in classifying them is highly arguable. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 06:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is a high school newspaper considered to be a reliable source (Re: Lorde entry)

I clicked on the source for the Lorde entry. It looks like it's a high school newspaper blog of some sort.

What are we to do about this? Is this a reliable source?

Dispute

  • Katy Perry is actually soprano, clear, bright and girly tone
  • Sia is actually soprano, clear, bright and girly tone, lots of belted C#6 notes
  • Miley Cyrus is mezzo, good low range but sings Jolene with Dolly Parton that is soprano
  • Adele is mezzo, "Rolling in the Deep" contains C#6-C6 in chorus, removal of vocal cord nodules improved Adele's range and made high notes easier for her.

These blatant misclassifications ought to be corrected. Sopranos such as Sheena Easton, Ann Wilson and Cyndi Lauper have good low notes, no issue for many world-class soprano singers that have wide ranges. --93.106.208.61 (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_contraltos_in_non-classical_music&oldid=767849936"