User talk:Antifamilymang

SAVE STRAT

There's a small campaign afoot to delete the strat page. It seems to be the work of a few driven individuals...how do you think we should respond? --Desmond 12:45, 8 March 2006 (PST)

hi! I am andrea

I posted the question about absolutism in the humanities section, I am a 20 year old peruvian psichology student..and.. well whatever... haha I liked your answer. thank you.

You're very kind to leave me a message. Do feel free to ask at the Reference Desk anytime you have questions, or ask me here if you need help around Wikipedia. --George 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Literary Darwinism

"Literary Darwinism?" My English instructor in college was into this. I see that there are about 40 hits for Literary Darwinism on Google Scholar. --JWSchmidt 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Soubrette

Do you know how the label soubrette came to be in the pop world? I know we can thank Minnie for coloratura, but on the soubrette, I am not finding much. I would like to discuss the singers on hip-hop hooks (who usually fit the genre better than say the Duff sisters). Penny for your thoughts Antares33712 16:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I really haven't the foggiest, though it would be entertaining to find out. Personally, I doubt most people who are fans of such female pop singers even know the words "coloratura" or "soubrette," so I hardly think either can be said to be common in the pop world. On the other hand, I have no doubt that such terms were first applied long before Ripperton's time - the soul genre grew in part out of the elaborate vocal antics of black gospel singers, remember, and I'm sure informed reviewers used the term "coloratura" back in the day. (Indeed, I vaguely recall Alan Lomax talking about some of the female singers he recorded using the term.) Same thing with soubrette.

The thing to keep in mind with soubrette, though, is that it has far more to do with a sort of way of behaving - youthful, flirty, and so on - than with a type of voice. The hip hop hook singers tend to have light, youthful voices, but then so do most other young people - that's why the small number of youth with big, grown up voices end up on American Idol or an opera stage. Besides, I'm generally hesitant to apply classical music designations to pop singers - they're just completely different styles. For that reason, I'd stick to the really clear cases: Britney Spears has not just the girlish voice but the saucy character to go with it. (Or she did. She's rebranded herself as grown up sex monster nowadays.) Given the spare use of clothing and very adult lyrical topics most hip hop hook singers flaunt, they'd be quite unrecognizable as "soubrettes" to anyone from 50 years ago. --George 21:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to figure how Ashanti doesn't fit. Hopefully she'll leave "The Inc." and restart singing. But hey, I digress, you do have a point on the behavior I tend to forget. When I hear a soubrette, I think of the light, sweet, middle voice (but not singing on the same pitches as the speaking voice. Still finding nothing on the history.User:Antares33712 04:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On Minnie Riperton

Several websites list her as having a five octave vocal range (all I had to do was a quick Yahoo! search), the biggest being MSN Music (http://music.msn.com/artist/?artist=16074698). Now six is a stretch obviously (but maybe), but come on George, do the math. I admit, she is my FAVORITE artist (mildly biased :-D ), but if we count starting at C3 (the bottom of the alto range), five octaves takes us to the top of the piano (over ALL of the seventh octave). . This makes a five octave claim very plausible. At this point, there is no reason to make her any bigger than she is; she was an R&B artist and primarily a niche artist (not full blown pop act like say Mariah Carey), so while yes, the promotional material is THAT, it doesn't inherently make it infactual since not much is to be gained from any embellishments (at this point, you either love her music or you don't).

Some sites to consider:

http://music.msn.com/artist/?artist=16074698 http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/riperton_minnie/artist.jhtml http://www.soul-patrol.com/funk/minnie.htm

Also this one, http://jayepurplewolf.com/RIPERTON/minnieriperton1.html

The first three are well known sites, not geocities and the like. Incidentally, I think the major music sites all share the same bio, but if MTV, VH1, CMT!!!, and MSN can say it, why can't we?

Antares33712 23:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the short answer to your last question is because we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, an authoritative and objective source of information. Where there is controversey or where the facts haven't been established by an outside objective source, we're supposed to state that fact and not take sides - NPOV and all that. It seems to me that this particular topic has no definitive answer. First, there seem to be two numbers: You've mentioned that one set of liner notes claims a 5.5 octave range, while the sites above (all save one of which are taken from the same bio at allmusic.com) claim 5. More fundamentally, as you point out later on this page, a singer may well not have recorded every ptich s/he can sing; as I've pointed out elsewhere, what counts as usable pitches varies from genre to genre. The whole notion of listing a singer's pitch range therefore strikes me as a bad idea on Wikipedia. But some people are (inexplicably to me) very concerned with it, so I accept it.

All that said, I have to confess that I think this particular topic is of quite marginal importance. Precisely how many pitches any given singer can produce is not way up on my list of concerns. So if you want to put five octaves on there, I won't revert it. At least there are some non-liner-note citations. I do, however, ask that you remove the "angelic" statement. Calling a voice angelic is, to put it mildly, not objective. --George 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine :-) I'll remove the angelic adjective (although, if you look at the bio(s), they used the word. It crept in as I was adding it. Antares33712 01:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if the Jaywalking analogy bothered you, I can assure you it was not meant that way. That said, the rarity of a singer being able to imitate birds and instrumentation to a great degree I (and others) think is relevant even if perhaps it should not be on the first sentence or paragraph.Rebel.crusader 18:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Rebel.Crusader

On second thought

I have had time to let your comments marinate, and I realize I have an even bigger bone to pick with you. Quoting Inflation in this area is utterly rampant in pop music circles, particularly among female soul/R&B singers. Why do I get the feeling from reading a few of your comments that somehow soul music is "inferior" than classical music. You emphasize the artifical enhancements/tricks or pitch "trickery" in soul music, but most soul music doesn't really allow these tricks (at least not in totality). Ignoring urban music/dirty pop/hip-pop/rap singing and other pop entities, most soul artists have to sing some ballads and especially a good torch song. In most torch songs, your voice really comes through because the songs consist of only a lush slow groove and the artists vocals. That is a chance for the singer to show what they really have. I will grant an Antares to control pitch issues, but the other tricks usually aren't allowed. I think of Mariah, when she first came out as an R&B artist: In songs like Vanishing, (an extent Don't Wanna Cry, although that doesn't strike as a true torch song), the opening riffs of So Cold, The Wind, and lastly Underneath the Stars (she really needs to go back there ;-) ), you hear her voice clear as a bell. I don't hear the trickery that abounds in other forms (like Britney Spears Toxic, where it is obvious, Ms. Spears is wailing for her life (but is made musical by computer). I guess what I am trying to say in a nutshell (and at 2AM I may have missed) is, most soul artists that I know of don't state range that doesn't exist. Also, we don't know what they do in the shower or how they warm up, so if a singer had three octaves and only sings in two or less professionally (as record labels want their singers to do know in pop nowadays), does it negate the unused ranginess? Once again, off my soapbox I go. Antares33712 7:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly can't tell you why you get the feeling that I find soul music inferior to classical music. I don't think I've said anything particularly controversial about it. It's widely known that pitch correction technology is used in all types of popular music. It's also widely known that, in popular music genres that emphasize florid and demanding singing, exaggeration of abilities in promotional literature is common. I've read an interview in Rolling Stone which claimed a seven octave range for Mariah Carey; I've heard every one of her albums and it just ain't so. The Grammy website once claimed that Aretha Franklin has a four octave range; I'm a fan of her work, particularly her gospel recordings, and she's never demonstrated anything like that. Even the seemingly endless debates here on Wikipedia about those accursed "Vocal Profile" sections, now thankfully gone, show the wildly varying numbers that promotional departments give out. Again, these are not controversial facts. Some fans may find them offensive - though I don't know why - but that doesn't change them.

Now I can't say who does or doesn't use this technology or make exaggerated claims about that ability. Realistically, if it's done evern halfway decently it's not noticable. I think there's a widely held presumption that some singers - say, Britney Spears - use it a lot more than others - say, Ralph Stanley. Whatever the case may be, I'm not experienced enough in a recording studio to tell the difference with a listen. And, as I said above, I'm in no way interested enough in any given singer's pitch range to listen to all their studio and live recordings with an electric tuner at hand. I just don't consider it particularly important to the quality of the music. --George 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On this one, I probably should apologize. I was suffering with emotional baggage because of the contentions with Minnie's range (I confess, I love her). I also confess, I'm not addicted to a particular note, I just used to know some of them when I wanted to try and sing a particular song (the tuner helped me save on buying sheet music when it was expensive or if I wasn't THAT interested in it) Antares33712 01:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why I stay with high blood pressure on this board at times

Nick Lachey? Nick Lachey. We can't keep Reese Witherspoon on the whistle register singers category, despite her rave singing reviews for Walk The Line and nearly ALWAYS squeaking in some movie. In Just Like Heaven, she sustains an open vowel as she "falls" out the window, but Nick Lachey continues to stay. I have watched in amazement as his name has continued to clutter the category. Up until about 120, the category was a BALANCED mix of mostly operatic sopranos (peppered with mezzos), followed by non-classical female singers, most of whom are notable in this regard, none contentious, followed by a few obvious countertenor/sopranista types and finally the extreme male oddities like Adam Lopez and Tireh. I don't think the category now needs changing, just better policing. Al Green with a D7? Yeah, per the categories discussion page. If Al Green were singing D7 (remember, so does Mariah in Underneath the Stars), don' you think he would be a tad bit more notable in this regard. Brain McKnight? But damn, Nick Lachey. Nick Lachey. Nick Lachey. Nick Lachey?! It nevers fails to amaze me. Antares33712 14:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about here. Sorry, but a bit of clarification? --George 20:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, written on a rant. Go to Category:Whistle register singers, and then return here :-D Antares33712 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, nevermind; I removed the ones that were irking my nerves. I will try to verify the other dozen or so that have a "little contention". I do hope I haven't gotten on yours either Antares33712 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

George, George...

Hey :-)

I need a favor from you (if you don't mind). I created a page on extensions (in music). Can you look at it, edit it and tell me what you think.

Thanks,

Tarie

I but a brief comment on the relevant talk page, the point of which is that I think its pretty good. Do take a peek over at Talk:Vocal weight, though, as that might impact some content for this article in question. --George 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Splint comes from Estelle Liebling's book on voice (my copy is in storage, but thats where I got it :-) ). Piccolo isn't a "classification" but an adjective denoting a particular type of coloratura. Full voice I learned on here. Antares33712 13:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: You wish you knew how to quit me? Am I that bad. I enjoy talking with you, so I hope I don't work your nerves :-) Antares33712 16:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Searching, searching, and searching!

George, if you can help, I am always searching for something, in this case... you! I am pretty damn sure I have found the right person, but unfortunatly you are no longer @ wm so I cannot find you there. To be honest I am in a pickle. I dont want to email you, and I cant just ask for your phone number to be posted online even though if I wanted to give out my credit card number enough times I am sure I could find it, so hmmmmm how do I get ahold of you?

Any suggestions?

Ill look here for a response

From: Anon1.

Hey, where ya been?

Haven't heard from you in a minute. You ok? Antares33712 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccolo (coloratura). Just zis Guy you know? 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff

Hello, thanks for the message on my talk page. I am not use to seeing references to case citations or to Wikisource as references to articles. Technically, WP:RS frowns on using primary sources as the only references for an article. The primary case record does not by itself support all the assertions of the article - for instance, the final sentence, "The case has been cited several times, and has never been overturned or contradicted." This can not be validated by the original case alone. I have gone ahead and removed the "unreferenced" tag, but if you know of any secondary citations that could be added, that would be marvelous. Best, Johntex\^talk 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I randomly came across your user page and your Biography section made me laugh out loud! Well, not literally, but it may have evoked a chuckle. For that kind of cleverness, I award you this Barnstar and a hearty thumbs up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)