Talk:Vocal range/Archive 3

ARRRRGH! Graphic?/Intro?/Ultrasonic?
'Voice types' covers the approximate vocal ranges. The comparative chart of approx. instrument ranges (especially approximate in regards to the upper range of string instruments, and, well, the piano range doesn't take into account Bösendorfers...) is really great! However um... most aren't voices. Maybe a stub(?) containing this graphic under the title "Relative ranges of common instruments" or some shorter, catchier title, would be more appropriate than including it here.

Also: Vocal range is the measure of the breadth of pitches that a human voice can phonate. Although the study of vocal range has little practical application in terms of speech, it is a topic of study within linguistics, phonetics, and speech pathology; particularly in relation to the study of tonal languages and certain types of vocal disorders. However, the most common application of the term vocal range is within the context of singing where it is used as one of the major defining characteristics for classifying singing voices into groups known as voice types.[1]

The intro attempts to relate 'vocal range' to a larger body of research. This is good, but the body doesn't mention it at all. Besides, this connection is pretty skimpy. Sure, when talking about tonal languages, this may be a point of discussion, but NEVER with western classical categorizations of register, instead, its discussed in a relative way, after all, both men and women get to speak Chinese with the same words.

The use of 'phonate' here is a problem, as it is meant to indicate a very specific classification of vocal technique, the corresponding physiological manifestations of these techniques, and a particular set of resultant timbral characteristics. This convention of the term is NOT covered in the Phonation article, and in fact, that article points to this one for this sort of singer's definition. The section 'Singing and the definition of vocal range' does this sorta, but, doesn't make any reference to chest/head voice or other what have yous, and 'Phonate'/'Phonation' isn't specifically connected to it at all within the article.

OK, so...

As noted above, claims of exceptionally wide vocal ranges are not uncommon among some singers. ."[4] Charles Kellogg, who claimed to have a vocal range of 12.5 octaves, could accurately imitate birdcalls, which sometimes went up into the ultrasonic range. According to Kellogg his calls could go as high as 14,000 Hz (14 080Hz is A9).

Kellog's birdcalls go as high as 14Khz, but that isn't ultrasonic.

So what then? After going through all of the articles on the singing voice related to this one, everything seems like a big mess. Sorries, not too helpful, I know, but we should all consider some serious reorganization. Also, is everyone just pulling all of this stuff out of the air? I mean, the sources are pretty skimpy, and using "The Diagnosis and Correction of Vocal Faults" as the predominant source, well, finding something that deals primarily with this topic would probably be a plus.

OK done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.201.142 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vocal range for bass voices is incorrect
Composers for at least the past two generations have been routinely writing D2's, and even the occasional C2 for bass voice in choral settings -- and getting them sung. The basso profundos of the Russian Orthodox church regularly descend to C2 (I've even hit that note myself on good days, and I'm only a bass-baritone.) Some regularly go down to A1, as do the Tibetan monks who include vocal multiphonics in their meditative chant rituals.

A few bassos go even lower, but that's probably more appropriate for the "world's records" section. On this recording, Viktor Wichniakov hits a low C1 (about 30 seconds in).

mms://www.dutchdivas.net/sound/HighC/pasuikovAb.wma

Chopping off the bass range at E2 makes me think that someone has consulted a rather old music appreciation text for their information. I would extend that downward to at least C2.

Also, I agree with the poster far above in the thread who said that the vocal ranges should be given in staff notation rather than piano keyboard pictorals. This would make them easier to read, consistant with other Wiki music articles, and less piano-centric (important to those whose main instrument is something /other/ than piano :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carrey as a vocal range example? Seriously?!
Come on, people, everyone knows she's got a powerful low voice without much range OR variety. If we need examples recognizable by the general public, might I suggest some of the power/gothic metal vocalists with professional opera educations/careers behind then? If we need example with an extremely wide range used, but mostly beyond the modal and sometimes questionable - Ozzy, anyone? Seriously, what's the point of listing examples is one is going to be Mariah (hardly a typical female voice), another is going to be Mariah's vocal clone note-for-note, and the third one will have been dead for nearly two centuries and never recorded?! Aadieu (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's Natalie Dessay?
Plus Maria Calls did not have a huge range, How about Diana Damrau? That is a real voice! Ceartainly wider and stronger than Callas, at least she can sing Queen of the Night with such panache, such power, and, let's not fiorget, she has made this virtually impossible aria hers.

As to Natalie Dessay, she can soar above a G6... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmariorossi (talk • contribs) 19:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stronger than Callas? Obviously you know nothing about any of these singers then. Callas could swallow Damrau and Dessay up in a pinch, having a voice several times the size as theirs. You would never see Damrau or Dessay (two pretty coloratura birds with strong but lighter voices of the lyric coloratura variety) attempting Wagner for example, as they could never be heard over an 80+ instrument orchestra. Callas on the otherhand, successfully sang several Wagner roles like Sieglinde and Brünnhilde, in addition to tackling a number of other dramatic soprano roles. She also was dominant in the spinto soprano repertoire, acclaimed as the best Tosca of all time (a role which would be considered too heavy for Dessay and Damrau), and much loved as a singer of Puccini and Verdi heroines. The fact she also had the range and dexterity to do Lakme (which requires an F6) and many Bellini and Donizetti heroines in the coloratura soprano repertoire just goes to show what a versatile artist she was. She also had an incredible lower range, tackling roles traditionally sung by mezzos and contraltos like Carmen, Dalila, and Rosina. I'm sure Dessay and Damrau can sing higher than Callas, but Callas had an F6 which is all you really need to do any coloratura roles since no operas in the standard rep go above that. However, Callas could sing down with the contraltos, and probably had another useable octave on her lower end than Dessay or Damrau.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Maria Callas, great though she was, had a vocal range of 2.5 octaves at her best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEzVNEqRlqw here's Damrau's queen of the Night, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvuKxL4LOqc clearly more powerful, more gothic, much better than Callas's, which turned out to be a virtuoso exercise, that Dessay has a wider range than Callas, is nothing new... Note 2.5 octaves is equal or less than Madonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmariorossi (talk • contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)