Talk:Vocal range

Needs frequencies

Could someone please make a table with frequencies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Frequencies of what exactly? Your request is unanswerable because it is too vague.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The table can be found by following the link to Scientific_pitch_notation#Table_of_note_frequencies, where it belongs. Sparafucil (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, there should be some frequencies in Hz as well as note names. If no-one objects (and I remember) I might put some in alongside.Happypoems (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Singers possessing a wide vocal range

I fail to see the benefit of this list. Many many singers possess a wide vocal range beyond what is typical. A significant amount of trained opera singers possess ranges beyond what is found in the average person, indeed we could pretty much include every coloratura soprano that has ever performed on this list. Listing record breaking ranges is one thing, but this generic list in my opinion is not useful and is likely to attract fan cruft. I suggest removing it all together.4meter4 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this list should be removed. It's just a random sampling of several different vocalists with large, but not shockingly large ranges. Since it leaves out thousands of other vocalists with 3.5+ octave ranges, I feel that it is fairly pointless and doesn't add anything to this article. (128.12.35.104 (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

• Since nobody has addressed my concerns here over the last two months or made a reasonable arguement for its continued inclusion, I have removed the list. Further, this article has become entirely unstable, as I predicted above, with this list's addition. I'm removing it to restore stability to this article.4meter4 (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. At best a useless and unreliable list, and at worst an encouragement to unconstructive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page to fact check an assertion on the Wikipedia page for Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan that his vocal range exceed six octaves. This seemed to me extraordinary (and improbable) but by taking away the list of singers with a wide vocal range, you have made it harder to come to any kind of judgement. While I agree that a list of random singers with 3.5+ vocal ranges is not very helpful, a short list of singers with attested 4.5+ octave vocal ranges would be useful. As the article stands, it does not provide the vocal range of even one singer. (We learn that Mado Robin sings high notes, but not her overall vocal range). This is ridiculous. This ought to be the article you could come to for reliable information on these points. Von Hangman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.164.41 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please make a specific proposal. I'm not wholly opposed to the idea of a list, but in practice it proved difficult to maintain. Reliable sourcing is a huge problem. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this relevant? -- 15:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia article for that person, Tim Storms, and that article doesn't apply any voice type to him. This article is mainly concerned with vocal range as it applies to aspects of opera singing, and it doesn't mention any individuals. I don't think it a good idea to start now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is vocal range really a concept that applies only to opera singers, though? Surely there are concepts of vocal range in choral and pop music. Event the article intro doesn't restrict it to opera / classical voice training.

I agree that that particular individual doesn't necessarily have to be mentioned, but surely a broader perspective would not hurt the article, or a comparison of how the term is applied in different types of music. (BTW, yes, at least a couple individuals are currently mentioned in the records/extremes section.) -- Avocado (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Avocado, I agree with you in theory that a broader perspective would be nice. The problem, as I see it, is that reliable sourcing is likely to be quite a challenge, leading to a rather spotty coverage with assorted random examples instead of a balanced overview. Rivertorch (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Guinness

One or more people keep removing the Guinness record, with an edit comment like "Guisness Word Record is absolutely not a reliable source" [sic]. What is the basis for this assertion? Guinness World Records is an independent, third-party source, which uses a formal fact-checking process before it accepts facts into its index. Therefore it's probably one of the more reliable sources we could refer to. Is the objection because Guinness is not part of the standard music literature, perhaps? I can appreciate how some might not like it for that reason. But it's a well-sourced fact, so shouldn't be removed from this page on grounds of reliability. --mcld (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is unreliable, or at best unuseful since it gives no criteria for what a musically acceptable noise might be. On the other hand, it is notable publication and an official record might be allowed on that basis alone if no other claims are based on it. Sparafucil (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The German Fach System

The German term "fach", literally meaning "compartment", is widely known as the German Fach System. The German Fach System is a method of vocal classification used in opera houses to classify singers and pair them with complementary operatic roles.

Cantabile-Subito.de mentioned that as of the mid nineteenth century, the four categories have been expanded and subdivided to indicate not only the singer’s approximate range, but also the relative weight of his voice and in many cases, the type of music for which he is particularly suited. Source: http://blogs.voices.com/voxdaily/2007/09/german_fach_system.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidciccarelli (talk • contribs) 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. This topic is already covered at both the Voice type and German Fach articles. Also fach is the German word for "subject" not "compartment".4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the lead

Am I the only one who sees the lead as being repetitive? I'm just surfing through, but the wording needs help. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the lead repetative? It doesn't say anything twice that I can see. It does summarize some of the content in the body of the article, but that is what the lead is supposed to do. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).4meter4 (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mistake in Vocal range and voice classification paragraph

In Vocal range and voice classification paragraph Mezzo-soprano is said to be A3-A5. Shouldn't it be A4-A6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.71.178 (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No. That would make the range higher in pitch than that of soprano. Rivertorch (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You can also follow the link to scientific pitch notation to see that A3 is the A below C4. Sparafucil (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

World Records Section, First Bullet Point

I edited the first two sentences for grammar and usage, but the third one could still use some help on that front. I left it alone because there are some problems with the content, I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. The "Mermaid" hyperlink leads to a youtube video of Georgia Brown singing a jazz version of "My Favorite Things" on a reality show, rather than "her own song called Mermaid," as the sentence implies. Furthermore, the reference at the end of the sentence doesn't support the factuality of the sentence. I propose replacing the third sentence with something like: "Georgia Brown verified the world record highest human vocal pitch with Guinness World Records at Aqui Jazz Atelier Music School in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on 18 August 2004."TheCensorFencer (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence contains a hyperlink for "whistle register" for the second time in the article; I'm going to unlink it.TheCensorFencer (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia editing policy, I've become emboldened, and I'm getting rid of that third sentence. I'm replacing it with the one I proposed, but if anyone has a link to a video of the actual verification of the record, I encourage them to add it to this sentence.TheCensorFencer (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding a new sentence after the first one, explaining that her highest pitch isn't technically a note.TheCensorFencer (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually added the new sentence after the second extant one.TheCensorFencer (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a hyperlink in the first sentence to the selfsame article; I'm unlinking it.TheCensorFencer (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Infrasonic sounds

The link to the Guinness record for widest range, male, indicates that the range is 0.797 to just over 800 Hz. The lowest four octaves and a bit are infrasonic. Useful for elephants, perhaps, but not audible for humans. I wonder if this should be pointed out in the article. 99.246.86.48 (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Her highest pitch, the G10, isn't technically classified as a note, but rather as a frequency"

Says who? Where does that definition of what counts as a note come from? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Says the source. But I think you're right, it's a meaningless distinction. But as the source says so, maybe it would help if the phrase were shown in quotation marks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

problems with definitions & terminology

As a longtime fan of Billy Gibbons and Annie Haslam -- both of whom have been tagged as having "a five-octave vocal range" -- and an acquaintance of a man who learned Tuvan throat singing in Mongolia, I am not convinced by this article. It appears dedicated to equating all potential human "mouth noises" with disciplined musical performance.

A few (potentially overlapping) considerations occur to me, for instance:

• what exactly (or perhaps precisely — see Acccuracy and precision) is meant by "vocal range"? There is significant difference between maintaining a sustained note and making a noise
• ability to hit a particular note is not the same as ability to perform a tonal sequence in a musical fashion
• ability to perform a tonal sequence is not the same as ability to sing in a fashion that conveys comprehensible lyrics
• when popular singers are credited with a range, I've noted that often (as an example) someone who sings in the range C3 to C5 will be described as "having a three-octave range" -- isn't this actually two full octaves?

In my mere opinion, guttural growls and piercing shrieks aren't reliably "musical" except in the same way that banging two rocks together is on par with a Jascha Heifetz solo.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

So I take it you prefer strings to percussion? Seriously, your opinion and mine aren't worth a whole lot in Wikipedia terms; it's all down to what reliable sources say. The article needs more, and better, sourcing. (Now for my worthless opinion: There's not always a bright line between a shriek and a sung note. It's sort of a continuum. And I'll bet there's a reliable source somewhere that says so.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

So I take it you prefer strings to percussion? Don't be daft -- generally, percussion is not melodic, therefore (yes, IMO) not musical, and a pitched percussion instrument is musical because it can carry a melody.

As for I'll bet there's a reliable source, unless/until someone provides such, that's empty conjecture.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Daft? Yup, that's me. In any event, you and I are both engaging in conjecture here, and empty is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the ear of the listener, as the case may be. (I know, I know...daft.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, okay, point taken. I sometimes get sarcastic when a point I'm trying to make is minimised for no good reason. I'll begin again.

For me, this is a frustrating article because it seems to approach a topic objectively, yet by the end it's taken a side, and done so without justification. Actually, it seems structured so to deny there's any such slant occurring.

Back to the beginning: the title, Vocal range. This indicates the measure of the breadth of pitches that a human voice can phonate. Phonation is the process by which the vocal folds produce certain sounds through quasi-periodic vibration, as opposed to the more general voicing, any oscillatory state of any part of the larynx that modifies the airstream.

So at the article's beginning, the case is established that "vocal range" applies to tones produced by the larynx, specifically in reference to singing, and even more narrowly to the total span of "musically useful" pitches that a singer can produce.

Before I'm midway through the article, though, I find that the term "vocal range" is in fact muddy, referring alternately to

• that entire tonal range
• the "musically useful" portion of that tonal range
• the part of that "musically useful" portion that is produced by the larynx

The article leaps freely between these definitions, avoiding clarification at every turn. Classical music, from which the term "vocal range" arises, refers generally to #2, occasionally to #3, where modern pop music (not to be confused with popular music!!) sticks with #1 and – being as we are a culture of rather airheaded size queens – instantly equates BIGGER with BETTER, pronouncing Greatest Vocalist status upon anyone who can both screech AND belch. This WP article fails its primary task by supporting that entire sequence of irrationalities.

Incidentally, look up a list of such Great vocalists, and we can readily determine that the vast majority are

• Caucasian
• native English speakers
• born after World War II

For instance: World's Greatest Singers. Per my previous comments on "self-serving intentional confusion" and "size queens," note that the page referenced is actually titled /worlds-greatest-vocal-ranges?.

Back to the "musically useful" part. Among trained singers, an alternate term for "range" usage #1 – the Top 40 breathless fangirl usage – is vocal compass or singable compass. The vocal folds (vocal cords) contained in the larynx are only capable of themselves producing a rather narrow range of tones, or the tessitura, the most musically acceptable and comfortable vocal range for a given singer. As the article indicates (poorly), usage #1 is actually made up of

• Strohbass/vocal fry register — where rather than producing a tone with vibration the vocal folds permit air to bubble through slowly with a popping or rattling sound, and this unlovely process is also known as creak, croak, popcorning, glottal fry, glottal rattle, glottal scrape or – my favorites – belching or puking.
• modal register — the "natural" or "musically useful" range of tones produced by the vocal folds.
• falsetto — produced by the vibration of the ligamentous edges of the vocal cords, usually a characteristic breathy and flute-like sound relatively free of overtones … more limited than its modal counterpart in both dynamic variation and tone quality.
• whistle register a.k.a. "flute register"/"flageolet" — when producing pitches in this register, vibration occurs only in some anterior portion of the vocal folds.

In sum, for the purposes of this WP article, "vocal range" should either be employed as originally defined (i.e. equated to modal voice), or fully embrace the pop music bastardization. Clearly, I am for the former, and further recommend that ALL size queening – particularly World records and extremes of vocal range – be more properly moved to voice classification in non-classical music.

Thoughts?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the entire World records section over to Voice classification in non-classical music as appropriate home. Yes, there's references to classical music, but the "gosh wow" factor takes the topic into the realm of pop.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Begun merging the "classical ranges" list from the other article, which was somewhat more user-friendly and not so block-of-data. However, each version has its own ideas on some of the tonal limits. I've also failed to bring over all of the References. Anyone's free to resolve them before I return.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The article is currently riddled with citation errors. I'm going to restore the last clean version, without the world records. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

...or you could fix the citation errors by checking the article I brought the section over from. That would be the Anyone's free to resolve them before I return bit you overlooked. The "restore" removed the rework I'd begun in Vocal range and voice classification using the similar section in Voice classification in non-classical music, which "was somewhat more user-friendly and not so block-of-data" but taken from another source so the cited tonal ranges aren't identical and I was reluctant to choose between the two. Ah, well, lesson learned: edit boldly. I'll try again, with citations properly in place.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)