Talk:Voice classification in non-classical music
Delete? Clean up? Merge?
Unfortunately it does sound like an "article" in the sense of an essay, and not an encyclopedic entry. Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting and it's better cited than many entries I read, but the title is "Voice classification in non-classical music" and most of it seems to argue that there just isn't anything close to a good/standard classification system. I don't think this is the proper place for that sort of entry.
While the Voice classification entry does focus primarily on classical music, it already reads like an entry in an encyclopedia and it's not necessarily limited to classical music. Therefore, I propose that we take the key, encyclopedia-worthy points from this page, merge them into that other entry, and delete the rest.AliaGemma (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this article needs further development; it seems to be coming from one person's rather specific point of view. And maybe it would be best as a section in "Voice Types." However, the article does get at a bona fide problem in the world of nonclassical singing. It would be cool if there were a way to keep it/revise it/expand it. BerriesMcBerry (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)BerriesMcBerry
- I pretty much wrote this article so my opinion is obviously to keep it. I also wrote most of the current voice type page. The reason I chose to make this a sepperate article is that the information included on the voice type page is specific to classical music and would therefore be misleading to those singing in other genres. Also, within vocal pedagogical circles these two topics are seen as being seperate. There is a tendency to segregate classical music from other genres of singing. The voice type qualifications like range, timbre, and other identifying characteristics used on the voice type page don't readily cross over to contemporary singers. To suggest such would frankly be incorrect. There were so many people coming to the voice type page and trying to apply the ranges etc. to contemporary singers and getting frustrated to the point that it was necessary to create this article to prevent edit wars on the voice type page. Please do not delete this page as it has helped stop the edit wars on the voice type page and has been a major help in clarifying this issue. I know it reads more like an essay but it is a well cited essay. Perhaps there is a way to make it more encyclopedic in nature. Regardless, the need to address this particular issue is essential as it is currently a topic of wide discussion within the field of vocal pedagogy. I think wikipedia should be able to present topics that don't necessarily have definitive answers if there is good information to be presented that iss well cited. Nrswanson (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not delete
- One omission is the use of micro-phones in live popular concerts. Tibradden (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- What about Jimmy Sommerville - he`s a real pop - countertenor. Or also Klaus Nomi.
Note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --Trelawnie (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Trelawnie, the threshold you described is too constricting. The problem is that even the most reliable of sources can be erroneous due to human error. There should be exceptions made to this threshold so that the truth can be known. What's the point of verifiability if the source is not truthful?220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View vs. Commercials
Reading this article, it seems to me that there's only a single point of view, which seems weird. Also, there's only a single pedagog mentioned for non-commercial training. There are many other pedagogs who've made inroads into education curricula at various institutions. Jan Sullivan had her technique adopted and adapted by BYU and Loretto Heights college. Jo Estill has major academic credentials and discusses voice types in her work. I'm sure there are others as well. JazzyGroove (talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think you meant non-classical training. Am I right? If that is the case I certainly agree that other notable pedagogues should be added. Feel free to add any appropriate content. Like all articles, this one is a work in progress.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't cite a lot of the opinions. For instance, with regards to coloratura, it simply asserts that classical training is necessary for a coloratura designation, but there's no source. There isn't 100% agreement in classical circles about coloratura sopranos -- some think it's both range and agility. Some add to range and agility a particular carrying power and distinctive penetrating clarity. By those standards, there are pop singers who exemplify most of those qualities, such as Mariah Carey with her extended gospel coloratura runs. JazzyGroove (talk 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a source at the end of the paragraph which clearly is meant to source that entire thought around coloratura sopranos.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)