Talk:Singing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Innate Talent"

I have reasons to believe this is a discriminatory term and the reason why many people are discouraged to keep practicing and achieving something in life. Please read the following article so you can get an idea of what I am talking about: Innate Talent. This doesn't mean that Talent does not exist; it just means it can be attained with practice and perseverance and is not something reserved for an "elite few". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.188.140 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Unconventional techniques

Can we dedicate a section to the usage of unconventional vocal techniques e.g. screaming, growling, shrieking etc.? Any comments? Cacodyl (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as the information comes from reliable sources I see no reason why not.Nrswanson (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger of articles singing and singer

I had already began a substantial rewrite of the article singer when I stumbled across the singing article. It struck me how much information was duplicated between the two. I believe that it is almost impossible to write a good article without discussing both of them thoroughly together. Seperating these topics into two articles just doesn't make sense. I have gone ahead and merged the two articles as well as adding a lot of other information. User Kleinzack has suggested to me that the more logical place to have the article is at singing is the actual activity and not the person. Let me all know what you think.Nrswanson (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Chest to falsetto break

Controversy is not a reason to delete sourced material. Describe and cite the contrary position instead. Thx,LeadSongDog (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In order to properly address the controversy it would require the duplication of most of the vocal registration article which seems a bit off topic for the singing article. The whole point of these sub sections is to provide a "brief" overview of the subject matter and direct readers to the main articles. Another major problem is that vocal pedagogists argue over what chest voice is and there are several completely different definitions in use. Also many vocal pedagogues believe chest voice is a product of vocal resonation and not a register at all. I think this issue to lengthy to handle on this page and better left to the vocal registration article where it is already discussed.Nrswanson (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a question of pedagogy, it's photography. Please read the cite. Still, if you want to pose the contrary position, simply say "Other sources (cites) differ." Then add a link to Vocal registration. It doesn't need to dominate this article.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a question of pedagogy as there are several different definitions and perspectives of chest voice within the field. Svec is a vocal pedagogist with just one perspective.Nrswanson (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A further controversy is vocal breaks which some vocal pedagogist don't believe exist rather atributing so called register breaks to static laryngeal function. So we really have two different controversial assertions in that statement.Nrswanson (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Compare Pedagogue to Physicist. While its possible to be both, which would you say really describes the work in the paper cited? As I said, feel free to cite the contrary position. But we don't delete relevant, reliably sourced information just because there's controversy.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning your source leadsongdog. And the form of scientific testing in the article is a part of vocal pedagogy and similar studies began in the first half of the twentieth century with renowned vocal pedagogist Vennard. I am questioning the way in which you are presenting this topic for several reasons: 1. You failed to define the term chest voice. 2. You are presenting only one view of a subject with multiple viewpoints which is a violation of wp:neutrality.Nrswanson (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have difficulty with my wording, just fix it or tag it, don't delete it. Editors expect their work to be revised in good faith, not voided. Chest voice is already wikilinked in the article, it shouldn't need more, but feel free to add if you like. If you prefer another related term such as Chest register, I'm ok with that too. If you don't wish to take the time to chase down contrary positions that you know exist, just tag it as NPOV and move on. It's somewhat frowned on, but WAY better than deletion.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LeadsongDog the problem with the quote is it reads out of context because the author's particular position on chest voice is not explained. Also, since chest voice is not considered by everyone to be a register, its place under the heading of "vocal registration" is in itself misleading. Chest voice and head voice should really be discussed in a seperate section (if at all) as, depending on the author, one could categorize chest voice as either a vocal register or a result of vocal resonation. It really gets down to how you define the term register.Nrswanson (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Chest register and chest voice are the same thing (meaning that when pedagogists use these terms they are describing the same sounds produced in the same physical process). Chest register is adopted by those who view chest voice as a register and chest voice by those who view chest voice as a resonance phenomenem.Nrswanson (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So what way of saying it would satisfy you?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you really want to talk about chest voice, a seperate section should be created outside of vocal registration and vocal resonation as putting it under either area would be a bias to one side over the other. Also a head voice section should probably be added as well as those who believe in chest register also tend to believe in head register and inter-relate the two. I can try and put something together, and I will try to work in your quote. Give me a day or two though to fiddle around with it. I really was hoping this whole topic would be avoided on this page because its really complicated and difficult to present all the different views in a coherent and un-biased way. FYI I am a professional singer/ vocal pedagogist and have read dozens of perspectives on this topic and still find it difficult as their are so many opinions. Even though I basically highlighted the major two schools of thought, there are dozens of different perspectives within those two perspectives.Nrswanson (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Black people

It would be interesing if someone explained what exactly makes the diffrence between black and white voices. What makes us able to identify singer's race when a song is played on the radio? Is this about a pitch or timbre or what? How does it affect singing e.g. in the opera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it is not always possible to tell. Opera singers like Reri Grist, Harolyn Blackwell, and Kathleen Battle don't sound "black" to me. Likewise, when Renee Fleming, a white woman, sings jazz music she sounds like a black woman (a commment many vocal critics have made). However, that being said I would suspect that the genetics of black persons may play a role in a developing a distinct "black" sound. Genetic traits will result in certain physicl traits like the bone structure of the jaw, the shape of the neck and head, etc. Those physical traits all play a role in sound production as they effect vocal resonation. Culture may also play a large factor in developing a "black sound". However, I don't think anyone has ever done a serious study on the subject so this is just speculation that should not be included in the article.Nrswanson (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How awesome is singing!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.8.163 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that the article "singer" should be merged into this page and redirected to singing. First, the content at the singer article is entirely a duplicate or an overlap of the material covered at the singing article. Second, dividing up the two doesn't seem to serve any practical benefit of purpose. Any thoughts?Plumadesabiduría (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Seems sensible to me. There's no real merit in having "Singer" as a separate article if all the information is here anyway: I think we all know that a singer is one who sings. This article is detailed and mostly well-written. A redirect to a better article on the subject is preferable to a short and in places poorly written article. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to the merge proposal I have gone ahead and done the merger.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rapping is not singing?

I'm making this argument as a rebuttal to this claim, "Hip-hop uses rapping, the rhythmic delivery of rhymes in a rhythmic speech over a beat or without accompaniment, so this can not really be referred to as singing, as it is more a form of public speaking, such as the toasting from which rapping derives historically."

For one, I don't see how this vague and contradicting statement is supported? Public speaking is not a controlled and executed sound by your voice using techniques that apply rhythmic cadence characteristics, syncopation, percussion effusive styles and others in an effort to create musical sounds. Rapping fits into the very definition of singing, it applies to it perfectly and I see no reason why it should be rejected as a form of singing.

Also please tell me a public speaker who raps, that would be funny to see?Meditating Sounds (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rap has a different physical process than singing does. It doesn't require the same amount of sustained air and it doesn't have the same vibratory effect within the larynx and nasal cavities. That doesn't mean that rap isn't a form of vocal music, it just means that rap is not the same as singing. It has a different physical process.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was under the impression that, that physical process was just A technique to singing, not THE technique to sing. If what you say is true then, I don't see why rapping is on the singing page to begin with? Would it not be irrelevant information? Putting something that is not singing on the singing page? It would be misleading in any case, also I don't see how rap is a form of public speaking. The information concluding that is insufficient and unverifiable, . Also if what you say is true then the simple definition for singing here, "musical sounds with the voice" should also be changed. Because rapping does create musical sounds with the voice, isn't it that simple, so if rapping should be rejected so should the definition. We can agree that what is meant by "musical sounds" is a philosophical question to say the least right? But as far as I can tell, what matters is the intent/purpose, elements, and organization, etc to create musical sounds. Rapping has organized rhythm, and voice has melody by default, the intent is clear and so is the organization of the flow of rapping.

Sound is inherently musical, rapping takes the job of organizing it and constructing it with the purpose of being music. So again, according the definition of singing here, rapping is singing.Meditating Sounds (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've identified something that's missing in the definition given in the first line of the article lede. Any definition of singing, to distinguish it from speech, should include mention of phonation or at least pitch. Somehow we managed to overlook that. Thank you for spotting the omission.LeadSongDog come howl 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point leadsongdog. That should be added to the lead. Meditating Sounds the article clearly states "In its physical aspect, singing has a well-defined technique". Rapping uses the same physical process as speach and not the physical process which defines singing. Hence why rapping is not singing. Rapping should be addressed briefly in this article to differentiate the rap art form from singing (I am sure others like yourself will make the mistake that rapping is a form of singing and this article should therefore clearly state and explain that rapping is not singing) Further, I disagree with some of your assertions. First, rapping is musical in that it has rhythm but it is not melodic. Rapping has no melody in the sense that is has no definite change in pitch beyond natural speech inflection (melody is defined as a linear succession of musical tones; rapping doesn't really do that). Of course melody can be achieved through instrument accompaniment in rap songs, but not through the voice. Second, sound is not inherently musical. This should be obvious. What makes sound musical is how it is organized and executed, otherwise it is just noise.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I misconstrued what was meant by this statement said after the explanation of the "well defined singing technique. "Though these four mechanisms function independently, they are nevertheless coordinated in the establishment of a vocal technique (implying that their are more techniques to singing then this one.) and are made to interact upon one another."

Ok, so rapping is not singing in the physical aspect. But according to the first line of the article it is singing, and you just verified it. "Rapping is musical in the rhythmical sense" "what makes sound musical is how it's organized and executed." Since rapping applies to all of this,(it's musical sound and organized vocal performance) and all of this is the definition of singing on here. Then it would only take common sense to realize that rapping is singing,(according to what is said here) and that for this article to say it's not is contradicting its own definition of singing. Maybe editing the article lede will save time for a lot of "confused" people like me, like leadsongdog suggested.

Also I wasn't saying all sound is music, I was saying all sound can be music, for it's inherently musical. If a sound wasn't musical then that would mean that this particular sound could never be considered music even if it were organized. Because whatever musical is, is,(musical) and whatever musical is not, it's not. (since music can only be from what is musical, then what is not musical cannot be music.) Meditating Sounds (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 DoneLeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LeadSongDog. And in reply to Meditating Sounds, just because I said rapping is musical doesn't infer that its singing; just that rapping is a form of vocal music (not all vocal music is singing; whistling would be another example of a different kind of vocal music). The point here is not just how rap is organized but how it is executed. Singing is defined by how it is physically executed and rapping does not align with that definition. Regaurdless, leadsongdog has sufficiently expanded the lede to clarify this.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I was mostly inferring that you verified that rapping was singing by the old article lede. I thought I made that clear, but maybe how I said it wasn't specific enough.Meditating Sounds (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I was saying the old lead was not specific enough to begin with so I don't think you can say that I ever verified rapping was singing. I didn't write the lead after all.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Careers" and "Vocal range of famous singers" sections

Do we really need these? The "Careers in singing" section reads as though it has simply been copied from a badly-written high school careers guidance leaflet. The footnote reference gives a date of 2001, so a lot of the information about potential earnings could be obsolete by now, and probably only ever applied to the US in the first place. Some $ amounts are given "per performance" and some "per week" with no indication of how many performances in a week might be typical for the types of singing careers described. We also have slightly laughable statements such as "Aspiring singers and vocalists must have musical talent and skill, an excellent voice, the ability to work with people, and a sense of showmanship and drama." I won't mention any names, but I'm sure we can all think of commercially successful singers who do not fit this description. I'm not convinced this section even belongs in an encyclopaedic article at all, but if it does then it needs some serious cleanup.

Does the "Vocal range of famous singers" section actually have a point, and if so, can someone explain to me what it is? All we have here is a list of the vocal ranges of 3 female singers. Since there are a great many famous singers in the world, why these three? Is there any reason why another editor shouldn't arbitrarily add or substitute his or her own favourites? There is no explanation whatsoever: no hint as to how typical or extraordinary these ranges may be, why these examples were chosen, whether the omission of male singers is purely coincidental, whether any significance is attached to choosing singers from different eras... in short, what is the point? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)