Talk:List of sopranos in non-classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


May I ask who created this page? As much as I appreciate that it is a good idea there are some seriously questionable references being used ie blogging sites etc? For example Christina Aguilera (Although I believe she is indeed a soprano). I wonder if the person that made up the page would be able to find citations that are more reliable? I will try to hunt some refs down too.BrotherDarksoul (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 20 September 2011.

I didn't create this page, but yes, you are absolutely right. The list is worthless without references to reliable sources. Fansites, blogs, Yahoo answers, forum postings etc. are not reliable sources. Names with citations to sources like that should be removed to the talk page until a reliable source is found. Likewise, unreferenced additions constitute original research and will be removed. This list is not the place to post individual editors' personal opinions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

May I ask if the highest note sung in head voice or belted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed Names[edit]

Anette Olzon

Another blogging site reference. Not a reliable source. Name can be re-applied to list when reliable source can be found. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 05:37, 04 October 2011 (UTC)


Unfortunately yet another citation gained from a blogging site. Will happily have the information replaced when a reliable source can be found. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 05:51, 04 October 2011 (UTC)

Again removed due to the same source being used. Please please please do not add her to the list without some kind decent citations ie from a review from an established paper/mag stating her range as the people that state such data are employed and certified much better to do so than some random on a blog. Many thanks for the effort but better sources are needed before the data can stay on the page. Thanks BrotherDarksoul (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Leona Lewis

Her name was added with a citation to a source that clearly stated she had a Mezzo range - please unless another more reliable source claiming that she is a soprano can she be kept on the Mezzo list BrotherDarksoul (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lea Michele

The article states "my voice grew a lot. I started off as a quiet soprano, but over the years, my voice opened up to a legit belter", Michele is now more comfortably labelled as a Mezzo-Soprano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Did she say that she was a mezzo? It looks like she's didn't. So it stays until someone else says otherwise.

Tribal44 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Tribal44

Little Boots

Again another artist added to the list without having any sources. Please if you wish to add names to the list have the necessary and reliable citations. Thank you. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 23:46, 01 December 2012 (UTC)

Lana del Rey

Citation unreliable, also after reading the Born to Die page she pretty much admits she sings lower than most females, there is even a byte in regards to her being a contralto??? If she is going to be added here please find better sourcing. Thanks. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 10:12, February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that new and far superior citations have been acquired and Del Rey is now on the List of contraltos in non-classical music page, thanks. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Source given stated nothing about her soprano range. Please ensure sources state clearly that the singer possesses or sings predominantly in the range appropriate for the page. Thanks. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 09:26, 07 March 2012 (UTC)

Patti LaBelle

Removed due to no citation added, as much as I believe she is a soprano there is no source to state that she actually is. Will try and hunt one down in the meantime, thanks. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Now added back onto list with citations! :) BrotherDarksoul (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for the list[edit]

Demi Lovato

"SUGGESTION" Can you Please put Demi Lovato in this list??Check her vocal range... It's Quite high— Preceding unsigned comment added by JMalto023 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Lovato can certainly go on the list when a source stating that she sings in a soprano voice can be found, until then we try not to keep names without citations on the list otherwise it can leave the page with misleading or incorrect data. I will try and hunt down some citations though in the meantime. Thanks for the heads up though. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NON ON NO NONON NONO NO!!! SHE IS NOT SOPRANO— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tift Merritt Can you please put Tift Merritt on the list? Some sources for soprano: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez a soprano voice? Kidding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.m.85 (talkcontribs) 07:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Heidi Parviainen has a true soprano voice. Why the hell did LizFL removed her from the list while keeping other non-soprano singers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera I always thought of her as being one of the most well known sopranos I'm surprised she isn't on the list? (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

janis joplin true soprano but she was a bluesy singer so most people would not understand . She WAS a true soprano. --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

To add anyone to the list, we need an independent reliable source that specifically says they are a soprano.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhDv2.0 (talkcontribs) 12:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo layout[edit]

Early observation and third opinion[edit]

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) 08:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the gallery because it was becoming the source of an edit war and, besides, it adds nothing to the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting you should decide that my maintenance of the page and my attempts at keeping it static would become that of an edit war, also if your concern for this issue was genuine you would do the same with the other pages within this context. The pictures that I previously had up (before the random IP person arrived on the scene) were as a representation of the many different genres and nationalities of those within the list, thus giving a sense of diversity. Myself and the other editors of this page have worked extremely hard to quality control and not indulge in edit wars, in fact the only wars I have been a part of here is the removal of inappropriately sourced data being consistently added. Thank you. BrotherDarksoul Blether 22:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It benefits nobody to cast aspersions on the motives of individual editors. Simply put, the gallery here is of no benefit to the article. See Wikipedia:Galleries#Image_galleries. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I requested a WP:Third Opinion here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on List of sopranos in non-classical music and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.
Opinion: I agree with GeorgeLouis that this gallery has no place here and should be removed. Policy says:

[T]he 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. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...

This is a list article and the included individuals are fully and adequately described by text, i.e. their names, especially since they're linked to individual articles; the images add nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject and are not "suitably captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject". Indeed, there is no need for images of any kind at all in this article, much less a gallery, since the images simply illustrate the people without giving any additional visual information about their soprano-ness.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

The above third opinion did not resolve the issue because the gallery was added back here with no Edit Summary. In connection with taking this matter to a WP:Request for comment, I'm asking those already interested in this matter to weigh in. Should there be a gallery or not? GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm Inclined to agree with GeorgeLouis and TransporterMan; the gallery does add anything of substantive value (that is, something that cannot be expressed in text and is of significant relevance to the subject of the article). Users wishing to familiarize themselves with the appearances of individual artists can proceed to their articles, but meanwhile this gallery does enhance the informative properties of the present article and is not really consistent with encyclopedic tone. It should at the very least be moved to after the list but ideally should be removed in its entirety. Snow (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. I don't see any need for a gallery, either. Policy seems pretty clear on this issue; it's neither encyclopedic nor helpful in understanding the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove. Also, please provide a clear explanation of the circumstances in the RfC, so that outside editors can understand the situation more quickly. Some guy (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As it is, the gallery does seem to go against our image gallery policy, so if it was a choice between either having it or not, then I would say not. However, that doesn't mean that we can't have any images in the list at all. The featured list criteria are relevant here: the criterion about images says, "It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly." I went through some of the featured lists of people, and they all seemed to use images quite effectively (1, 2, 3, 4). Why don't you go through them (there are more at WP:FL), pick an image style that you like, get agreement for it here on the talk page, and then just stick to that? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Explanation for the request. The request to remove the gallery was occasioned by a looming WP:Edit war over which images to use. It seems that every editor has his or her favorite pop soprano. There is no good reason to have any image since the validity of the list does not depend on the presence or absence of an image. It's not like providing images of graves at Forest_Lawn_Memorial_Park,_Glendale#B, for example, where those images reveal the range of memorials to the people listed. With sopranos, it's two eyes, a nose, a mouth, a big smile, and that's it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Celine Dion?[edit]

She's not a Soprano, she's a Mezzo-soprano. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 06:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

no donot add her . this page is for SOPRANO not mezzo soprano— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Laura Branigan was not a soprano.[edit]

The two cited articles are completely erroneous; Laura Branigan was by no means a soprano. She was actually a contralto and was widely known as such. Her voice was deep and dark, stronger in the lower registers. Contrary to the description of a soprano on this page, her voice was not bright or ringing, nor was it strong in the head register. Her voice sounded comfortable and natural in the lower registers.

It is way too easy to simply cite articles without doing extensive research of your own. Just listen to the characteristics of Laura Branigan's voice versus true sopranos and you will see that she was not a soprano.

Here are several articles which indeed refer to her as a contralto (though they use the erroneous short term, "alto," they clearly mean "contralto"):

I will be removing Laura Branigan from the List of Sopranos in non-classical music. As soon as I figure out how, I will add her to the List of Contraltos in non-classical music.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the websites that you have cited can be considered reliable sources (WP:RS).
You've presented us with a list of self-published fan blogs and fan sites, neither of which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. (Seriously? We're supposed to trust the word of an anonymous fan named "Keith" over the New York Times?)
The NY Times is a known, reliable source subject to strict editorial standards. For that reason, Laura will remain listed as a soprano on Wikipedia.
The mere fact that you think Laura is a contralto is not enough to justify putting her in that section. You're going to have to do better than the likes of popdose and 80smusiclyrics to justify her being placed in the contralto section (this is not a democracy; we are not subject to majority rule). LizFL (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I would classify her as a dramatic soprano - definitely high, but also with a "thik" sound, that is a result by massive vocal chords. If you listen to classical sopranos like Jessy norman, you know what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Laura can belt (just listen to "Gloria" or "Solitaire"). LizFL (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
User, just how do you expect to classify Laura Branigan as a "dramatic soprano" when her voice exhibits absolutely none of the established characteristics of a soprano? Her singing style is indeed dramatic (and is widely known as such), but her vocal range is not that of a soprano.
Neither you nor Liz seem to understand voice classification--and neither does critic Stephen Holden, whose September 11th, 1983 article from the New York Times (your "known, reliable source") was cited for this list. Holden is a critic who is paid to publish his personal opinion and criticism. The article cited is more negatively critical of Laura's voice than seriously analytical. The very fact that he described her voice as "thin and tense" shows just how much (or how little) he knows or cares about the truth., you yourself described her voice as having a "thick" quality.
Liz, use your common sense; are you going to take Holden's word over the word of people who have actually done research into the subject just because he writes for a "known, reliable source"? He's only human; he not only makes mistakes, but he doesn't know everything. I've done my research and have verified that Holden is wrong.
Wikipedia does not permit original research (WP:OR).
What do you take us Wiki readers for? Children? Wiki needs to permit original research. Where's your common sense? How do you get the facts? You do research. You were right that Wiki is not a democracy; it's more like a dictatorship.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not my decision. The Wiki Community strives to maintain standards of accuracy, objectivity, and verifiability.
What kind of "original research" would you permit? For all we know, your researcher could be a teenager posting from the computer in his parents' basement. We need to know the source. LizFL (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Whatever you post has to be backed up by a citation from a reliable source (WP:RS). Fan sites and fan blogs simply won't cut it. LizFL (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
And neither will a factually inaccurate source, no matter how reliable their reputation is, which I've challenged with the actual facts about vocal range and type. That should be enough. Yet common sense seems to elude you. What kind of message are you sending readers? What's the point of verifiability then? This page might just as well be called "Inaccurapidia." The fact that a source is known to be "reliable" does not make it absolutely so. It actually amuses me that you seem to divinely worship these so-called "reliable" sources and take offense to my challenging them.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Literal, perceived range (the number of usable notes one is capable of singing without falsetto) is never used alone to classify a solo vocalist. Only choral singers are classified into voice parts based solely on note/key range. Solo singers (which Laura was) are classified into voice types based in large part on tessitura – the range where the voice feels most comfortable for the majority of the time. And Laura is widely known to have sung in the contralto range for the vast majority of the time, the range typically spanning between the F below "middle C" (F3) to two Fs above middle C (F5). In extreme cases, some contraltos can reach from E below middle C (E3) to two B♭s above middle C (B♭5). Laura has hit that E3 many times, especially during the verses of her 1983 hit "Solitaire."
Laura is considered (erroneously) to be a soprano only according to the subjective high notes she was capable of singing. That is inaccurate--and is nothing more than an elementary understanding of vocality. A contralto could have a well developed high range (or "head voice"); that does not make her a soprano--and neither does her ability to "belt," as you put it. Tone color and weight (tessitura) are essential criteria in the classification of solo vocalists.
To borrow some facts from, which was cited on the Wiki page "List of Sopranos in non-classical music," the greatest strength of a soprano is a strong head voice, which has a bright and ringing tone. Sopranos also have a harder time projecting in the middle register.
Laura sang primarily in the lowest registers, where her voice sounded weighty, thick, and dark. Her highest notes did not have a bright or ringing quality; rather, they sounded pushed, which required the extraordinary strength and power she had. By contrast, true soprano voices have a *light* quality, which makes their low registers sound hollow and weak. Laura's voice was by no means light.
On the other hand, Celine Dion--debated to be either a mezzo-soprano or soprano (both respectively higher than contralto)--who covered Laura's "The Power of Love", has a noticeably lighter voice and a higher tessitura; she is able to belt out the highest notes of "The Power of Love" with relatively little strain. Laura, on the other hand, sounds like she is pushing and straining trying to hit those exact notes during the close of her recording of "Power of Love", after the song changes key to sound like Celine Dion's version.
It is way too easy for someone not knowledgeable about a subject to simply cite the first article they see and take it as gospel. What happens when the "verifiable" source is factually incorrect (which it is in this case)? It happens to be widely known amongst truly knowledgeable people that Laura was a contralto (erroneously abbreviated as "alto," however, but still not soprano). The problem is that none of your "known, verifiable sources" reflect that--unless you count the BBC:
The BBC article you cited re-published Laura's article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia (or articles which use Wikipedia as a source) cannot be listed as a reliable source (to do so amounts to self-referencing and circular sourcing [ WP:SELF, WP:COPYWITHIN ]).
And the Wikipedia article itself cites Laura as a contralto without any verifiable citations. Do I smell a double standard here?FreeSpirit80 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
A news organization like the NY Times maintains standards of accuracy (they print retractions and corrections all the time). If we allow you to post YOUR "research" (which may or may not be correct), we would have to allow everyone else on Wikipedia to do likewise (and to do so would invite chaos).
Then that would be a good thing, since it encourages people to actually use their critical thinking skills to find out the correct information. Facts are facts. They never change, no matter who researches them. What you're doing is complacently allowing people to believe the first thing they read.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Citations must be verifiable (WP:VERIFY). We have to be able to consider the source of your assertions. LizFL (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The source of my assertions is the factual information of vocal range/type, applied to Laura's voice. As I said, Stephen Holden is a critic who gets paid to write his own opinion. He is not a music historian or an analyst. That does not make him an expert on everything. He is by no means an expert on vocality. He only exhibits a rudimentary understanding of vocal range, as I used to...until I actually used my noodle to do research. And as I said, even a "known, reliable source" doesn't know *everything*. Why would they make a big deal by printing a retraction to a critical review of Laura's concert performance? This is about a trivial piece of information (described rather brusquely and dismissively as a "thin, tense soprano"), not a major life-altering event. I'm sure that the newspaper doesn't care about accuracy when it comes to information like this. It's not like Laura was going to sue them. As I said, Laura is widely known amongst musically and vocally knowledgeable people to have been a contralto. It may not be reflected by your "reliable" sources, but that doesn't make it not so. Wiki needs a major overhaul of its guidelines in this regard.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you'd accuse me of "merely thinking" that Laura was a contralto; I am a vocalist myself who has done extensive research on the subject of singing. My research as I presented it to you above--and my own ears--tell me, as well as many other vocally knowledgeable people--that Laura was a contralto. You're going to have to do better than belittling me like a child who disrespected you out of spite.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, folks, the article specifically states (my emphases):

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, classical-crossover, and musical theatre who have been described as sopranos.

The article may indeed say such, but today's contemporary solo vocalists are often widely classified more specifically like classical artists anyway. That quote you emphasized from the article isn't even properly sourced. Remind me: what was Wikipedia's policy on reliable, verifiable sources? Yes, Laura was theoretically "described" as a soprano, but the description is inaccurate because her voice exhibited none of the technicalities of a true soprano, as solo contemporary vocalists are widely categorized. She never hit the true high notes of Sopranos the likes of Julie Andrews, Patti LaBelle, Mariah Carey, or Celine Dion, just to name a few (those are accurately included in this article). Furthermore, her voice favored the lowest end of the female vocal spectrum, which gave it a weightier, deeper tone than these lighter-toned Sopranos; it resonated more down there. She instead hit the low notes that Sopranos often cannot hit with fullness or comfort.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with GeorgeLouis, my main objective when adding names to the list is to find that of a reliable and named source, usually from a highly qualified music critic, who tend to be experts within their field, my concerns are with those additions coming from blogs, forums and questions and answers sites ect. People will undoubtedly have opinions on the classification of certain singers, as I do personally with some on this list too but as they are sourced they should stay until more conclusive evidence can be found. In the meantime I will also partake in hunting out some data in regards to Laura also, hope this helps. BrotherDarksoul Blether 19:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it's best to question the accuracy of the "reliable and named" sources before blindly submitting them to Wikipedia. They can be inaccurate at times, no matter how reliable or verifiable their reputation, as Stephen Holden was in two articles published in the New York Times in 1982 and 1983 (the latter of which was cited here). He may be considered "highly qualified" simply because he wrote for the New York Times, but it doesn't mean he's infallible. He was of the opinion that Laura was a "thin, tense soprano" in 1983, and a "lusty, theatrical soprano" in 1982. He reviewed two early concert performances of Laura's, hardly enough to evaluate her entire vocal range and full capabilities, which she exhibited more of on subsequent recordings, but even then, she never hit the true highs of a soprano, merely used her large vocal extension. Her ability to hit relatively higher notes did not make her a Soprano, merely showcased her extension and exceptional vocal abilities and techniques.
My argument is not a simple "opinion"; it is an accurate observation based on the true technicalities about human singing, which Holden only loosely seems to be aware of, as I was until recently. But since Wikipedia doesn't allow such "original research," I have fortunately, finally found a reliable source that accurately describes Laura's true vocal range.
This article comes from South Africa's "The Star" newspaper, described by a fellow Wikipedia editor as a reliable, verifiable source. To quote specifically from it, Laura's voice was "officially described as 'a dramatic alto, with a four-octave range.'" (The technical term for a solo vocalist is "Contralto"; "Alto" is for choral vocalists, but it is more or less the same: the polar opposite of a Soprano.) The term "officially" means that it had to have come from an official publicity release of some kind, but no one has been able to find such on the internet. However, it is indeed quoted in this article from a reliable newspaper. Obviously, author Sally Scott has quoted it from a reliable source in of itself, which has been heretofore elusive. Unfortunately, the article requires a subscription to access, but the aforementioned Wikipedia editor was kind enough to provide me with a complete text copy of the article. It follows:
Laura Branigan.(Entertainment)
The Star (South Africa)
July 21, 2010
A true diva with a voice to match
I remember being in Durban's Village Green tent for a Laura Branigan concert and whirling like a particularly demented dervish, to Branigan's glorious Gloria. Those were the days...
I loved that song and boy did she have some voice - officially described as "a dramatic alto, with a four-octave range".
Somewhere I have a "best of". This is another "best of", but it includes a DVD of her in action.
An American singer/ songwriter, Branigan died in 2004 of a brain aneurysm in her late 40s. If you are already a fan, you may have caught a Branigan seminal moment, a truly beautiful, piano-driven, pared down version of Carole King's pop classic Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow.
Sadly the track does not feature here. What does feature is 10 DVD and 18 CD tracks (Gloria has three shots on the album, on first release the song stayed on the US Billboard charts for 36 weeks!)
Solitaire, Spanish Eddie, Ti Amo, How Am I Supposed to Live Without You? (which she co-wrote with Michael Bolton), The Lucky One, The Power of Love - all the hits are there.
She wrote songs for Ghostbusters, Flashdance and had songs featured in that computer game, Grand Theft Auto. And here's something you probably didn't know: she duetted with The Hoff on Believe for the Baywatch soundtrack. Can't say if that was a high or low point in her life... - Sally Scott
Shine On: The Ultimate Collection
COPYRIGHT 2009 Independent News & Media PLC. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights or concerns about this content should be directed to Customer Service. For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Center.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
May I now delete Laura's name from this list and add it to the Contralto list, now that I have found a verifiable source that accurately describes her true vocal range? The New York Times and Billboard Magazine, both of which were cited here, described her voice subjectively, rather than objectively, as the Star article did, quoting from "official" sources. If so, the only link to the article is through the website Highbeam Research:, which requires a subscription. I would appreciate if a fellow Wikipedia editor with a subscription to this page could provide me with a link to the full article, as I have been told they often do. Thank you.FreeSpirit80 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on List of sopranos in non-classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)