Talk:Minnie Riperton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Japanese Cover Question

In the trivia section, it says that a Japanese singer covered Lovin'You in 2006 before she died in 2005?? There's got to be a better way to word that. What are the correct dates? tharsaile 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone fixed it, so thank you! tharsaile 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Voice section and general cleanups

Hi there folks. I'm slowly working my way through the articles on vocal tpoics, and I've wandered into this one. I think it's generally ok, but it needs a couple of edits. Since this seems to be a busy talk page, I thought I'd ask for comments.

• The biography needs cleaning up. It's a bit illogical - what's up with those first three paragraphs? - and a bit sentimental for an encyclopedia. "She was just 31 years old" is something said on TV tribute specials, not in encyclopedias.
• Vocal ability: Can we get some citation for the "15% of sopranos" figure? I've never seen it in the literature. Also, why all the discussion of other singers? This is an article about Ripperton, not all the other singers who use the whistle register. I say link to the whistle register singers category and let it be at that.

George 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, what's up with this Mariah Carey thing? I've never heard Mariah sing anywhere near Minnie. You guys sure this is true? I mean, it sounds like complete bull to me. A link to some confirmation site would be nice. —EliasAlucard 11:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Carey comparison is ONLY for her ability to sing in "whistle pitch". Without a doubt, Minnie replaces the part by voice where Mariah only lets out a whiff of air.

An Encyclopedia is supposed to be objective, right? We all know breast cancer & dying at a young age are "sad." Is there really a need to explicity state that in a reference work?

The sentence What sets Riperton apart from other whistle register singers such as Mariah Carey, is her ability to enuciate in the higher octaves is slightly POV and not entirely supported: Mariah Carey can anunciate in the whistle register, although she does it less often than Riperton: she clearly anunciates "there goes my heart again" in There Goes My Heart and "so amazing" in Yours. Other whistler register singers can anunciate in the seventh octave too, like Rachel Farrell, who covered Riperton's Here We Go, in which the lines "here we go" are in the whistle register. —Surelyican 04:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, help me with this?

• In 2001 On an episode of Grilfriends, Joan (Tracee Ellis Ross) sings Lovin' You into a hairbrush (imitating a singer), and sings the F6 so off-key and shrill, Yvonne (Cee Cee Michaela Harshaw) kicked in the door believing Joan to be in distress.

OK, I just watched this episode of Grilfriends (its Willie or Won't He I, William and Yvonne set their wedding date for Valentine's Day). Why was the second half of the sentence cut. The dialog after she rammed her way in discussed this. If you want to cut it, fine, but please edit the remaining pieces so its still a complete sentence. Otherwise, Yvonne what? who? when? where? See what I mean?

Antares33712 20:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that I cut it? Well I didnt. Anyway, yeah, you can include it if you wish. I should let you know however, that the article requires massive {{cleanup}}. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Rebel did. I should have been specific in whom I was addressing. Thanks. Yes, I will dig out my copy of the Legacy CD and compare the article with the liner notes (thats how I bulked up the article in the first place Antares33712 20:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry, I thought it was a mistake so I cut it.Rebel.crusader 02:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebel it's no problem  :-) I only said anything because the line that was left no longer was a complete sentence. Antares33712 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why I feel the statement is important

First off, let me apologize to anybody if I offended them. I am not trying to come off as a psychotic nut, or some overcrazed fan. I do love Minine Riperton, I freely admit it. The reason why I feel the second is so important is it truly defined her. Yes, one could say Mariah is notable for her abilities in the whistle register. But did it define her career? Not really, because insomuch as Mariah is well noted for her abilities up there, she is also well noted for her songwriting, her hits (what is it, 18 singles and one hit for each year of the '90s). So the whistle register abilities (the fact she sings in the seventh octave, how she does it, etc...) are not the big picture with her. Shanice has the ability as well. but I would say she is a notable soul singer peppered with the ability to hit the notes (that doesn't define her). With Minnie, the whistle register defined her. It was her abilities in the register that helped to make her music. And nearly ALL of her noted songs have some whistle register activity in it. Even Mariah isn't like that (I love Mariah too, just making the point). Without those abilities, she probably would never have been so noted. Antares33712 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet you still fail to see the point. Everyone knows that she is possibly the greatest whistle register singer of all time. Yes, the whistle register defined her. Yes, she is the reputed benchmark for whistle register singing. Yes, she can imitate instruments. Fine, those points can be included if you wish (I never said that they couldn't). However, just because she was capable of singing in high pitches, that does not mean that overall, she is "unequalled vocally". As a singer, she certainly is no match for Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Aretha Franklin nor Celine Dion etc. The sentence that says that she was "unequalled vocally" gave this impression, and that was the only problem I had. I hope that I have explained my point. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, while Minnie may not necessarily have had the same commercial success as the singers you mentioned, as far as singing ability is concerned, Minnie is a much better singer than Whitney & Celine put together and possibly better than Aretha had her life not been cut short. The only singers in the 20th century who match the singing ability of Minnie I think have been Yma Sumac & Mariah Carey! Being successful commercially doesn't make one a better singer!

I missed the point? Never did I attempt to say Minnie was a better singer than anybody else. What I was trying to say was that a group of her fanbase have reverred her abilities in the whistle register. I even used the word reputed, and yet you are telling me I'm writing she's better singer than everybody else? What is that? I am not saying she is better overall (how could I have such a wild subjective generalization, everybody Minnie, Mariah, Rachelle, Adam, Tamar, whoever, have differences in the register. Never did I compare her to Whitney or Celine (or even Mariah, and those two are compared from time to time). Comparing Minnie to Whitney is like comparing angel food cake to a T-bone. Huh?? Whitney, Aretha and Celine are power diva belters. That wasn't Minnie ripertion at all. Her gifts were clean diction and the abilities well above the staff. None of those three do much in whistleland. Making this statement "Everyone knows that she is possibly the greatest whistle register singer of all time." you should understand the statement I was trying to make and not be its biggest most outspoken critic. Despite soul music's usual disdain for lightweight voices, her and Aaliyah actually succeeded where many would fail. The light cords worked for Aaliyah and Minnie. Minnie did things in whistle register that I have not heard since not even from Mariah or Adam. As I said references to other artists denote their love by fans. The unequalled vocally was specific to her abilities in the whistle register, because she could imitate instrumentation and yes even birds. It was not to say she was the best singer in the world, but those abilities (yes I'll say it again) in the whistle register is what made her such an important artist. Ashanti can sing in whistle register, but that ability doesn't define he. It did define Minnie. Antares33712 16:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your fist sentence alone is problematic. Why should we include the point of view of the fan base of the singer? Are they notable and authoritative on the matter? What if a group of fans said that Britney Spears can sing, does that mean that this should be included? The point is, a singer will always have a fanbase, and if the views of those fans were reflected in every Wikipedia article, we would have what is known as a "fansite". Moreoever, how can you maintain that "unequalled vocally" meant only whistle register? That statement directly gave impression of her being better than the rest in all aspects of singing (that was how it was interpreted by me, George, and I'm sure anyone else who read the article). Try to phrase sentences so that they are not so ambigious. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, whether Britney or anyone else can sing is subjective. Evidently she can, because Jive Records is behind her and her 8 to 9 figure bank account is saying so.  :-) So, while yes I know this is not a fansite, there is no reason not to include such statements when they relate to establishing the historical popularity of an artist, particularly post-humously. I ceded those two words long ago so as not to be misconstrued, but still the statement was never fancruft as some say on this board. IF I said Justin Guarini's début album was the best ever (even one of the best ever), given its high sales charting and impeccable Billboard charting (I'm being sarcastic), it would be easy to see that it was a personal opinion. But saying Minine was "unequalled vocally" had to denote her whistle register, there are entirely too many facets of singing to make such a blanket statement about singing overall. I said current contemporaries (Whitney is not her contemporary) You're sure everyone that read this article agrees with you? I wasn't the only one arguing with you and George, huh? Antares33712 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact reamins that the opinions of fans do not belong in an encycopledia. Period. I will no longer persist in the circular argument. To be "unequalled vocally" silply means that she is unequalled as a vocalist (there was no distinction about whiltle register to clarify). And no, you weren't the only one arguing, but if you read Rebel's point, you would realise the you are on a branch all by yourself: he agrees that it was POV. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I cede and re-write the phrase to make sure it couldn't be construed as POV? I just stated I didn't intend for it to be POV. I passed by Bill Bellamy's page and found a more POV statement in the Late Night section. And Ashley Parker Angel and Nick Carter were the biggest hearthrobs in their bands? According to who? Antares33712 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good, then you can correct them with the information learnt here. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you not the administrator? I thought it was your job to police the pages? Antares33712 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And incidentally, reading over this, I do not see where R.C. agreed it was POV. Antares33712 19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Im an Administrator. However, that does not mean that I am able to patrol evey page and correct them (I have a life and a job). You have the same duties here as an editor, don't you? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you now can't patrol every page in Wikipedia. Don't hide behind your life responsibilities, now. It doesn't stop you from coming here and beating anyone who opposes you down. It isn't my job to censor inappropriate information. That is the job of an administator. So please do your job fully. Isn't that why you are an administrator? To police the pages and remove content contrary to Wikipedia and/or your beliefs? Antares33712 12:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe asking you to calm down and act like an adult IS policing the pages. Look, I loved Minnie as much as anyone and it hurts my heart something terrible to hear her referred to as a one-hit wonder, especially since so much of her music was wonderful. But what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish here? If you're this emotional and irate about this page, perhaps you shouldn't be one of the ones editing it. I think a lot of us here have certain pages we don't go near for fear of releasing our inner e-thug (it's Janet Jackson for me). It doesn't take a thing away from you to back down, you know. Especially since you can just be banned outright, or this page can be locked, and then you will have done all that hell raising for nothing. Just take it down a notch. That's all we're asking. PennyGWoods 17:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am calm. I think I am being rational. I love Minnie. Yes, I do, I freely admit it. I do not think I was acting "thuggish" in my responses. I ceded the statement long ago; I never intended for it to be construed as POV, weasel or whatever. I didn't like two things with Journalist: a) I didn't like being told my intent and thoughts, b) I didn't like the lack of due process and c) I am concerned his personal viewpoints had clouded his judgments, despite statements to the contrary. I could go on and on but I honestly am not trying to rehash this out. If he decides to ban me, delete me, or whatever, merely for expressing my views, despite not entering an edit war or even maintaining what I originally wrote, that will only prove vindictiveness, not correction or even punitivity. I have been on here for almost a year and a half, yes there are some thing I disagree with, but with most administrators there still is a two-way discussion, interaction. Never a dictatorship or tyranny. And thats the difference. Antares33712 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me on anything you've said; the Wiki admins tend to play innocent, but I've seen some serious Red Scare-type bannings go on, including deliberate rule-breaking and intentionally not telling a poster of certain policies. *deep shoulder rubs* PennyGWoods 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you generalizing an stereotyping like this. All Wiki admins are not this way. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, I wasn't speaking about you - or to you, for that matter. PennyGWoods 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, PennyGWoods, I really don't care whether or not you are speaking to — or about —me; the fact of the matter is that I was speaking to you. Many of you people here are just hating on Admins arent you? You criticize, judge, and stereotype. But it's nothing but jealousy. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(pointing upward) See what I mean, Antares? PennyGWoods 05:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I do (see below :-) ). Notice how he skirts everything else I address and focuses only on the long deleted quote, accuses my love of Minnie to be 'hyperbolic praise' and says his dislike of her music has no effect on anything. Vanity and narcissism, thats all I see. Antares33712 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Because everything else you said was irrelevant to the discussion. Wait, why am I still discussing this with you two? I have better things to do with my time. Feel free to exhaust this talk page with insults and accusations about me and Admins in general. I'm sure that it will affect my life......somehow......sometime in the future......I guess..... Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. Just when I was thinking of apologizing (I really do not want to be construed as eBitch), you go and say some mess like this. But I refuse to step into that trap you have set out. You say you edited the LaBelle, the history doesn't list you as an editor (hmmm). Next, if your going to quote me, quote me fully. On your statement My point is that highly biased (and dubious) statement that she is regarded as an unparalled singer, the statement didnot say that without qualification. The sentence as it were Having possessed a rare five octave vocal range, she is reputed by some to be unequaled vocally, largely due to her abilities to imitate instrumentation and even birds, even by current contemporaries. was qualified by the five octave range. It was to that effect that the statement was valid. IF I wasn't clear in that regard, I apologized before and I'll apologize again. I could never say she was the best singer ever (too wildly subjective). But you decided the statement was dubious because of your distaste for her singing. You tell me to hush on my praise for her, but I'm upfront with mine. You on the other hand pick at us and hide your bias behind your title. Most administrators seem like a judge or a team lead (we are all a team on Wikipedia, no?) You just an autocratic, narcissistic, self-intoxicated windbag that likes to whip people around, boast on your title and make them feel inferior. Antares33712 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only was the statement substantiated by the fact of her five octave range, it was validated by the fact that SOUNDING INSTRUMENTAL, MECHANICAL OR LIKE BIRDS IN THE WHISTLE REGISTER HAS BEEN AN ABILITY DISPLAYED ONLY BY HER. As Antares33712 has said, most singers in this register have some distinct characteristic and this was Ms. Riperton's. Now, the word equal when used as an adjective according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (I hope this is a reputable source.) means: "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another", which means that when the "unequalled vocally" statement is used it means that no other singer (up to now) has done that. It does not mean in any way that she was a better singer than others or the best (I'm saying this even though I am also upfront about being a Minnie Riperton fan). What bothers me is that being a fact that she sounded like that and that other singers do not, why can't we put it in the article?? It is beyond bias, just a simple fact, and it was part of her talent, of what made her stand out among singers.Rebel.crusader 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, my attitude towards Riperton has nothing to do with my wanting to improve the article. Again, I state that I do not believe that it was your intention to make it "weaselly". However, it was. What could have been a better, more precise statement was: Riperton is usually seen as an unequalled whistle register singer due to her abilities to.....Although still a bit weaselly, it would have limited the "unequall-ness" (if there is such a word) to the whistle register, rather than the broad "vocally" that you seem to favour. I never told you to hush your opinion of Riperton, I told you not to let it influence your writing. As for my handling of this case, I feel that it was straightforward and proper. I never once disrespected anyone, nor did I imply "change it or else you will be blocked", and frankly, your opinion of me is as important to me as the issue of global warming. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I have no intention of blocking you. In fact, I cannot block you just for disagreeing with me; that would be an abuse of powers. You say that you are not being "thuggish", but saying it doesnt make it true; in my opinion, you are being that way.

I have never told you your thoughts. I know that it wasn't your intention to make the article "weaselly". However, it was, and I came here, quoted the policies, and told you what was wrong. Yet, you assert that Minne is a great singer.......which is NOT what we are discussing here. What due process have I neglected? None. I have attempted to discuss the issue with you and R.C, despite your (sometimes rude) assertions that I'm biased, I'm a bully, I am not doing my job, and I'm "hiding behind my life responsibilities"(?!?).

Lastly, my opinion of Riperton is immaterial to the debate. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleged POV in first paragraph

There's been a minor edit skirmish over what to put in the first paragraph. I think it's amply clear that we shouldn't put in the "unequalled vocally" bit. Aside from being completely unprovable and not taken from any of the well known authoritative sources - e.g., the Grove Dictionary of Music & Musicians or even the folks at All Media Guide - it's pretty clearly POV.

Mentioning her habit of imitating instruments and birds is not POV, but I question its inclusion on grounds of relevance. If you ask the person on the street what made Minnie Ripperton famous, they would never say "imitating instruments and birds." The introductory paragraph should be a super-brief summary of the most important facts, and the most important facts about Minnie Ripperton (musically) are her hits and her use of the whistle register. The subtle details of those general categories are meant for the body of the article. And what do you think? :) --George 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we must strive a bit higher than what most people know (ever seen Jaywalking on The Tonight Show), by those standards this article would not even be here and that should not shape the nature of an encyclopedic article. The "unequalled vocally" statement was introduced as a POV(not as a FACT), since the matter of Minnie Riperton's voice register and characteristics has been for some time a controversy with regards to editing this article, the wording clearly states that this reasoning was reached largely because of her ability to imitate birds and instrumentation, a characteristic which still distinguishes her to this day. I think we can all agree that sounding like instrumentation or birds is not an common skill in singers and in the case of Ms. Riperton it was true, therefore we can ascertain the relevance of that addition to the article. Given the fact that here we state that we should support all major points of view in controversial matters, this and of course it's opposite should be included, perhaps in a second sentence on the first paragraph. Rebel.crusader 07:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Rebel.Crusader

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you're being more than a little facile with the "Jaywalking" reference. "The person on the street" is a extremely widely-used trope to refer to common knowledge, and my argument is simply that the introductory paragraph of an article should be a very brief refresher in the topic. In essence, if I can't seem to remember who Minnie Ripperton was and pull up the Wikipedia article on her, what would properly jog my memory: She imitated birds, or she recorded "Lovin' You?" I certainly don't deny that the imitations are worthy of mention; I simply think they are nowhere near what she's famous for.

Support for my views: 1) Look at Wikipedia biographical articles - two I chose as they randomly occurred to me are The Beatles and Paul Erdos. Note that the Beatles (a featured article) intro does not mention notable accomplishments that are nonetheless not central, things like the precise number of albums sold or where Harrison ranks on Rolling Stone lists of greatest guitar player. Similarly, Erdos is perhaps most famous for his vagabond lifestyle yet the intro paragraph only mentions that he was "eccentric" (an oversight on the article's part, I think, but the right general principle). 2) For the fact that Ripperton's imitations are not considered a central part of her legacy, see other biographies: AllMusicGuide, Grove Dictionary, BBC Music, (link removed) Sing365.

Sorry, but her abilities in the whistle register were central for her. Without them she would have been the '70s Aaliyah. Antares33712 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm not clear what you're arguing for on the "unequalled vocally" problem, so I'll pass it over with only a request for clarification. --George 16:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit confused too. However, I highly doubt that imitating birds means that you are unparalled vocally. Singing is not about imitating animals or insects, is it? Oran e (t) (c) (e) 16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Singing isn't directly about imitating birds and insects (I never read she imitated insects, but hey... :-) ). Singing is a form of artistic expression, and if imitating a flute, canary, violin or even piccolo helps you to express the point of the song, so be it. Mariah was squeaking around like a tea kettle with the phrase "On and On" in Bliss: it illustrated her passionate feelings as such. When singers train, they imitate many things in that approach, whether it be another singer, a piano (to match pitch). I had a friend who train her upper register along with a flute (her mother was a flutist). If imitation is your forté and makes you stand above the pack, who are we to say that is or isn't singing? Antares33712 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that imitation of the sounds of nature is one of the reasons singing began. First I am not against trading the information on the first sentence and I in fact agree with it, but about the aforementioned statement is relevant because of the rarity of it, not many singers imitate birds and instrumentation, blend with the music, etc. For me personally it served a somewhat educational incentive since it got me into listening to this genre and other whistle register singers, something that probably would not have happened if I did not know what set apart from someone else, in other words all the details.Rebel.crusader 18:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Rebel.Crusader

I'm with you, Rebel. Minnie Riperton was one of the first artists I ever heard and helped to establish my love of the whistle register. Antares33712 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well heck, I think we may agree more than we disagree. (Doesn't that always seem to happen?) As I said before, the "imitating other stuff" thing is certainly useful information and should absolutely be in the article. I just think it's not worthy of being in the first paragraph. If I read you right, we seem to roughly agree on that. Hoorah! The "unequalled vocally" thing, however, really has no place on Wikipedia. It's a wildly subjective statement. I'm sure it's true that some people have called her that, but I'm also sure that my mom and dad think I'm the greatest operatic bass to ever live and a helluva banjoist to boot. It's just not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks again to you folks who've made your thoughts known. It's always wonderful to get help from folks who know far more about this topic than I do. --George 06:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I promised myself I would stay out of this fray, but I just can't any longer. This is ridiculous. Let us disect the phrase a moment. Having possessed a rare five octave vocal range, she is reputed by some to be unequaled vocally, largely due to her abilities to imitate instrumentation and even birds, even by current contemporaries.

Explain to me the unencyclopedic-ness of this phrase. Having possessed a rare five octave vocal range (this isn't on MTV, VH1, BET (all mirrors of All Media Guide))? OK, the next part, she is reputed by some to be unequaled vocally. OK, George, you cannot reduce her fanbase to two people (or any small group). Minnie has a fanbase, it shows up when her music is covered and sampled. It shows when her albums are still bought, even special order from overseas. I'm sure you are a great bass; if you had albums out, I might say you have one of best voices out there (lord knows I didn't feel Barry White's voice really, so I really would). But you aren't (YET) a notable artist. She is. You can read the consumer review sections on her various albums, there are people honestly feel that. Some, like Journalist don't feel she had any talent and I am sure there are even a few people who would even fight to see the page removed. But back to that in a second. Next section, largely due to her abilities to imitate instrumentation and even birds. Ok, she never imitated instrumentation or birds? Even if she did, that's not a notable characteristic of her voice, right? Mariah has been named greatest voice by Blender Magazine. Does a publication had to state something in order for it to be notable? Chris Brown stated in another magazine article that everyone looks up to Usher as the "king" (forgive me, that was a paraphrase and not the exact quote). Usher? I'm not knocking him, he's supertalented, but when I think of the greats, I think of Michael Jackson (before he went nuts), James Brown, Stevie Wonder. Does that negate the people that look up to Usher? No, it just means that some do and some don't. Now Journalist, my question for you is: If the sentence read, Having possessed a five octave range, she was most noted for her girlish voice and lack of vocal dynamic, would that be a fair statement? In some eyes it would.... So, as I type this I can see where reverrence can be construed as subjective (even though the phrase was as objective as possible, since it only stated that some people loved that ability. Granted others don't. Every one of the soul music coloraturas as a special gimmick with that ability. Mariah's is that fluttery vibrato thing that sounds like a musical scream, Chanté's is the breathy flutey thing. Britney (yes, she ain't no coloratura, but her gimmick is that gutteral passionate moan) Minnie's was she could hold that register and make notes that sounded mechanical. In the opening riffs to Can You Feel What I'm Saying, she sings note that sound like funky instrumentation. The liner notes to her legacy even point out this, not that you need that to believe that I'm saying, just listen to the song. Curiously, at the end of the same song, she does the fluttery scream thing :-) Anyway, as I could list song after song denoting her ability to imitate, I make this compromise (as much as that is possible in Wikipedia). Any sentence that references her ability to imitate instrumentation and (yes even birds, but not in the recorded version of Lovin' You, the bird was real) and her five octave range I will wholeheartedly support. The opening paragraph in my eyes must reference those two facets to her ability (as they are easily citable and anyone can listen to it). The rest we can denote in her voice section. I object to the opening paragraph not clearly referencing those two things, since they were her essence. I changed the sentence to remove the "unequally vocally" part, but I hate the way it now reads. Antares33712 11:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to this, and I can live with this: Having possessed a rare five octave vocal range, she displayed abilities to imitate instrumentation and even birds. Antares33712 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer with the same thing that I told R.C: There are over 100 things wrong with the intro, the most important of which I will attempt to discuss below:

1. The statement is not cited. According to our official policies, you should Cite your sources, so others can check your work. Can you find an authoritative source to support such a point that she is "unequalled vocally"?

Define authoritative. The defintion seems to change Antares33712

1. The point is considered a violation of our official NPOV policy, which states that an article should be free of bias (this statement is related to the above point). If you cannot find a reputable source that she is unequalled vocally, then it might be construed as your opinion, which does not belong in the article because (as I've already said) it goes against the NPOV policy.

How explicitly was it POV. I never said she "was the greatest singer ever..." Antares33712

1. By writing that Minnie is "reputed by some", you also violate Wikipedia's policy of avoiding weasel terms. You cannot say that she is "reputed by some". It raises the following questions: Who thinks that she is so great? When did they think that? Are they expert and authoritative enough that Wikipedia would want to quote their opinion? What grounds do they have to think this? And so on. Again, it ties in with my first point.

I'm not disputing whether or not she can imitate instruments or whatever. My point is that highly biased (and dubious) statement that she is regarded as an unparalled singer does not belong in the article unless it can be sourced (more than one source would be necessary here). Oran e (t) (c) (e) 13:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious to whom? Read on Antares33712

OK, fine, I see the whole thing on weasel terms (I'll study later). Not sure yet if I can complete swallow that it was "weaselly" yet (like I said, I promise to reread the old statement and study, weasel is new to me), but as I don't have the external source (beyond consumer reviews on AMazon, E-Bay, and so...) I cede on that point. I however, will NOT cede on her having a five octave range or her abilities in instrumentation emulation, since I can easily point to multiple sources for both and on the second, one can easily listen to her music. Antares33712 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I reiterate, I do not dispute her 5 octaves or her imitating abilities, just the fact this these two things give her singing abilities that put her above the rest. (imitating birds do not make u a great singer. Would you say Michael Winslow is a great singer? He can imitate anyone and anything) Also, saying one can easily listen to her music doesnt belong in this issue: please read No original research. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I need to stop reading this page, but I just can't stop: the more own, the less I want to cede anything. The attack on her abilities has been tremendous. I have read a few pages of my own. Ms. LaBelle (whom I love dearly), is said to be "she is widely regarded as one of the greatest vocalists of all-time" (end quote from the page). NOW!! I COMPLETELY AGREE with that statement and am not trying to pick on that page. But I refuse to have you diminish Minnie's fanbase to me and Rebel. As I stated earlier, I was on Amazon looking for her Coming To My Garden album and saw the quotes regarding the love of her music. Not everyone loves her, I know you donot, but there are more fans than just us and it is unfair that you label the statement as 'weasel' simply because you are not a fan of her music. I didn't have to agree with the statement (but I do) in order to write it, in the same way the statement on Patti's page or Blender naming Mariah as greatest voice. They are subjective and not everyone agrees, even though a lot do. Now George had no problem telling me again that All Media Guide and her liner notes were not objective sources (if they aren't who is?) I can easily get sites that show a love for Minnie to back up this last statement, as surely as I can find some like warr.org that cast a not so positive it on her. We are supposed to be impartial here; to that end I don't think the statement was POV now based on a few things I have been reading here. I say this...don't throw the policies around here to suit your convenience. Antares33712 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I had never heard of Michael Winslow, and have never heard him singing. Whether I like him or think he's a good singer is subjective. As I stated earlier, I felt Barry White was overrated, but he had a strong fanbase. Some think Jamie Foxx is overrated; in these days and times, I wouldn't hate on the man. There is so much less talented on the market. Put him in the 70s next to Al Green, Stevie Wonder, Larry Ingram and the like and well.....In any event, following the links I see he is highly noted for his special sound effects, NOT as a singer. Aries Spears is a comedian. He does impressions of any actors (and even some actresses). That is a core component of his shtick. Cedric the entertainer imitates gospel singers in his performances. I would have labeled him actor/comedian and sometime singer (he isn't making a career of singing, no?) David Coulier imitates the trumpet: On Surreal VH-1, Charo was annoyed because Jordan and the others in the studio were recording his effects and not Ryan's main vocals. On second thought, maybe I didn't really see that, no website to explicitly tell me that. Maybe she was happy and I was confused. What was Dave doing? Was it imitatign a trumpet or a tuba? I don't know, I can't find a website to tell me. Don't slap my face with original research!! People on this board only use that to their convenience. Now George had zero problems telling me All Media Guide and the especially the liner notes to her legacy were not objective sources to be cited. Hmm....if we can't trust them, who can we trust? Of course, we know there's some vocal scientist or pedagogist packing them in for scientific evaluations on their voice. Until someone tells me the sky is blue, it could be pink? Maybe my eyes are funny? Grass isn't always green. And Minnie's fanbase can be reduced to Richard and Maya, right? Until a page states a note is high, it could really be low? I wouldn't want to research anything originally to find out if those are true or false. Antares33712 11:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One other point I just realized I need to bring up. I noticed in your revisions you deleted the note and sited it as original research. How do you know it was original? Are you sure it didn't come from a site that is simply no longer in existence? Antares33712 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Look. First and foremost, you really need to calm down. I see no need to for the heated, elongated response. Let me clear something up: No one is attacking Minnie Riperton, her fans or her abilities, O.k? And yes, the article on Patti Labelle might have had weasel terms (which I've now attempted to clean up), but to tell the truth, I didn't even know that they existed in that article. Just because I haven't discovered and removed them, that does not mean that it should be included in this article. You said that: Not everyone loves her, I know you donot, but there are more fans than just us and it is unfair that you label the statement as 'weasel' simply because you are not a fan of her music. What are you talking about? I did not label the statement as "weasel" because of any personal feeling. I pointed out that the statement was weaselly simply because it was, and that is against the policies and conventions of Wikipedia. Do not argue with me for doing my duties as an editor; this is not a Minnie Riperton fansite.

I am calm :-) Antares33712 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bleander Magazine/MTV labelled Mariah Carey as the greatest singer. But here is where the disparity kicks in: MTV and Blender Magazines are reputable and outside sources. The sources you quote for Riperton arent (ie: Amazon is not an authoritative source, and albums, like a fanpage, are not objective and arthoritative enough) Yes, All Music Guide is authoritative, but not once did that article claim that she was "reputed by some to be unequalled vocally". I reiterate: I have do problem with you including the fact that she imitates birds and instruments. However, I have a problem when you subjectively interpret this ability as a characteristic that makes her a greater singer than the rest. Can this be proven? Who said that imitating birds make you the best singer?...

The statement as said wasn't meant to be subjective, only to state that to certain people do revere her for her abilities in the register. She has done things in the register that other singers (even today) do not use as extensively. However, I understand this isn't a fansite, but rather an encyclopedia, so I really do try to be objective. I never mind proper censorship if I've gone tangent to this, but I want to be sure the censorship is to maintain objectiveness/impartiality, and never simply to squash an opposing viewpoint. Antares33712 23:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You say this: ...don't throw the policies around here to suit your convenience. And I say this: The policies are there to improve the encyclopedia. As such, anytime that I find that these rules and conventions are being violated, I will step in, correct the page and quote them, whether or not fan(s) of the singer like these actions. You can go on all you want. However, I did not make these policies —my only job as an editor and administrator, is to enforce them. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

After all this one can still argue that the "unequalled vocally" description states only that there are no singers currently which do that in the whistle register (or do it like her), not necessarily that Minnie Riperton is better singer or the best singer, perhaps you misintepreted.

Given that Wikipedia is a collaboration, one could argue the we have the right, even the obligation to question the way you go around your duties as an editor. Just because you are an editor doesn't mean that you are exempt from rules and conventions. In this article (and it's discussion) you as an editor have not shown good judgement, for example you edit and criticize as your personal criteria suits you. You criticize Antares33712 for bringing up Ms. Riperton's fanbase, reviews and other sources for information as input for the article as not worthy of Wikipedia yet you failed to criticize George for bringing up the "people on the street" method, given how quickly you post (and edit)in response to OUR remarks and edits I fail to see how you could have missed it. Also I mentioned to you that some aspect of the article were not cited, that if someone wanted to research the page, verify other people's work one could not do it, that part too has not been blessed with the remarkable diligence which you selectively show. Adding to that you discriminately delete discussion responses which you do not agree for no valid reason whatsoever, abusing your priviledge as an editor is not a good way to go around your duties. Editing priorities should not be determined by personal choice. People should be made aware of their mistakes regardless of whether you agree with the person or with the topic in question. After all you are the editor and as such you should provide a good example for people who contribute to this project, in this specific matter you failed your duties. PS: I am saving this in case you decide to delete it, like you did a few days ago and I could not retrieve my comments.Rebel.crusader 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of deleting people's comments? That is untrue, and you know it. Check my contributions (contributions), and check the history of this page (history). Do not falsly accuse me of anyhting. If you feel that I have misused my powers, then fine. I could point you where to go to have me reprimanded:1) Wikipedia:Requests for comment 2)Wikipedia:Resolving disputes or go to Wikipedia:List of administrators. However, I should let you know that I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

I know that I am not exempted from any rules or conventions, and I have never said nor implied that. In fact, you are the ones who are trying to elude them by bringing bias into the article. I have read George's comments, and there is absolute nothing wrong with them; he seems to be quite knowledgeable about our Manual of style and editing guidelines and conventions. You and Antares33712, however, seem quite ignorant of them, and you fail to understand the point that George and I are trying to make: You cannto say that she is reputed to be "unequalled vocally". Statements like these do no belong in Wikipedia, unless they are direct quotes from a music expert. Plain and simple. And I an very bewildered that you would think that by informing you of the policies, I am criticising Riperton's fanbase. This is exactly why I maintain that this is not a fanpage for Minnie Riperton.

Again, I encourage you to take the time to read some of our guidelines (they're in the welcome message on your talkpage). Also, I should also point out that you too are an editor here too, not just me. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 20:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Minnie Higher?

Hey George, can I send you some Minnie mp3's? I do think that she goes higher than the mentioned F7 on ``Take My Breath Away´´ in some of her other songs (other not as famous songs).

I can't thank you enough for your interest in this subject. Unfortunately, originial research is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is, even if I could compare Ms. Ripperton's notes to, say, what Finale 2004 (which is widely-used music writing software) produced, I still could not list it on Wikipedia - it's original research.

Ms. Ripperton is unquestionably as master of the whistle register. For better or worse, though, a reasonable encyclopedia must list her simply as such. Details of "this is how high" must be relegated to other websites, for reasons that are fairly clear at the article vocal range. It has not historically been the purpose of great musical references to specify the ranges of famous singers; nor is it the purpose of this website. Your other knowledge of Ms. Ripperton will be immensely appreciated, though. Yours, George 01:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Then George, where do we get the F7 listed on the article??? I do agree with you that good musical references should not specify the exact ranges of singers (if such a thing can be done) and I do not think that it is useful either. By implication then the F7 statement should be erased.

Vocal Range

I have some question. Do F#7 is her highest note?, If yes,why she can't do other notes in the 7th octave like C7,D7,E7.From the article, she could only hit F6,F#6,Bb6 and then jump to F#7.That doesn't make sense.

The F#7 is her highest RECORDED note. Of course she could hit all the notes between C7 and F#7 and even A7 (which she is reported to do live, but fails to get acknowledgment on Wikipedia). There just hasn't been a song (that we have heard yet) where her top was ONLY a D7 or an E7 (though the song may exist). For example, in Lovin' You, her top note is an F6 (the same top note in Mozart's Queen of the Night from The Magic Flute). However, in Seeing You This Way, she hits a B6, three whole steps higher. Does that mean she cannot hit G6 or A6. No, she hits G6 in "Young, Willing and Able". So you see, the list of notes is only an example of the high notes she has been recorded singing as the top note of the song. The voice is fluid in the sense that like a trombone, the adductor msucles can make any pitch for which the muscles are stretched and strong enough to do. It is impossible to only hit one pitch and not another, just as in a trombone, if you can make one pitch with the slide pulled up close and another lower one with the slide fully extended, you can make any range of notes in between. Antares33712 17:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Vocal Profile dispute

(Moved from section labeled "Vocal Profile")

• Voice Type: Piccolo Coloratura Soprano
• Highest note: F#7 (You Take My Breath Away), A7
• Lowest note: D3 (Stick Together)
• Vocal Range: 5 octaves (D3-A7)
• Longest Note: 25 seconds

• B6 - Minnie hits a B6 in the song 'Seeing You This Way'.Minnie showcases her effortless coloratura, octave hopping without any vocal dynamic change.
• F6 - Minnie hits an F6 in her popular song 'Lovin' You'.
• F#6 - Another high note from Minnie in her song 'Reasons'.

This section has been removed because it is being repeatedly challenged by various editors and no one has yet to WP:CITE an official external source for such information. In fact, nearly half of the most recent edits to this article are contesting the specifics of this vocalist's range, as is illustrated by the following diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. There is no doubt that this musician was talented and had an impressive vocal range. The same cannot be said for her specific abilities and by failing to provide a credible source, we are running counter to existing official policy, Wikipedia:No original research. Just my two cents. Hall Monitor 18:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)