Talk:Voice classification

Do not change title to voice type
Voice type is only one element within the science of voice classification so this page should not be changed to voice type. If there is to be a merger of the two articles. Voice type should be moved to this page. Furthermore, the voice type page had no sources so I do not think it is good to move this well cited page under the poorly put together voice page.Nrswanson (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and to explain the difference between voice classification and voice type, voice type refers to the actual individual types whereas voice classification is the process through which vocal pedagogists and singers determine which voice type they are. Classification is a broader topic as it involves the vocal pedagogical methods behind determining voice type.Nrswanson (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This page is a better title for the presentation of this information.Ringnpassagio (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Voice Type discussion page
Constructive suggestions and discussion welcome! One question I have is, does this sentence describe Leggiero Tenors? -- "This voice does not carry the chest voice or resonance into its higher register and thus it is easier for it to access the higher tessitura than for any of the other tenors, even if the sound is brighter but less powerful than its other counterparts." It was on the original Vocal Weight page, but I've never heard this before. Operalala 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mixed systems
This article mixes references to German and Italian systems. IMO the fach system should be left to the Fach article and not be semi-duplicated here. Comments? --Kleinzach 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Kleinzach, I had not intended to step on your toes or interfere with your project when I tried to "Anglicize" the Fach page, however it is very non-standard in both vocabulary and content, and many of the descriptions are confusing. Please if you want to pursue your project, I don't intend to make changes to it again, but don't steer comments to oppose a page for knowledgeable singers to add current, standard content. In any case this content was already on Vocal weight, presumably for some time. Operalala 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all you are not stepping on my toes as I didn't start any of these pages and have contributed minimally to them. In any case no-one owns any of them - not me, not you. Now you have responded can you explain the purpose of this page? I understand you changed the title from 'Vocal weight' to 'Vocal type'. OK, now what distinguishes 'Voice type' from Vocal range, not to mention the articles on Soprano, subdivided again into Lyric soprano etc? It seems to me there is a huge amount of duplication going on. How do you propose to resolve this? Regards, --Kleinzach 07:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds like I hadn’t responded to something previously – I apologize, though I don’t recall it. I should point out that I announced this split ahead of time on the Vocal weight page.
 * Voice range is used for choral singing. Voice type categorizes classical and operatic voices and the roles they sing, and it is based on tessitura and timbre.
 * Individual voice type pages are a way to keep lists from accumulating on larger pages. Operalala 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On your first point - no problem. However the Vocal range article doesn't refer to choral singing. As you didn't wikify I assume you are making a general point - again no problem. Also I agree about lists. However can I come back to what I said before, there is a huge amount of duplication on all these pages. How to you propose to differentiate them, given that it is impossible to ignore similar pages on WP? -- Kleinzach 12:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As you have not added anything since my last comment, I have now gone ahead and put a merge tag on thsi article. I think combining the two pages will result in a good and useful article. -- Kleinzach 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know what you mean by 'wikify'. I am a professional, not a wiki-professional. Use my knowledge, and don't be curt with the people who have something useful to share. Knowledgeable contributers can do readers good.
 * Wikify is to link to other pages, see How to edit a page. -- Kleinzach 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. You originally wanted to merge this material with Fach, and now you want to merge it with voice range. Vocal range is not voice type. I've pointed this out in my responses, and it's discussed on the page itself! What do you plan to do with this material? Make the vocal range page twice at long?? Or just delete it? What a shame! Vocal range applies to choral singing, not operatic singing. If this is not mentioned on the vocal range page, that is not my fault. If you want to call voice type the Anglo-American version of Fach, then so be it. The Fach page is an (incomplete) academic exercise at best, and a German one at that.
 * What I have been saying is that the pages should be differentiated and not duplicate material. That's all. If you can think of a better way of doing this than I have suggested, that's fine. Please put forward your own ideas.-- Kleinzach 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. I announced my intention of splitting this material from the vocal weight page ahead of time, and you did not start any discussion or mention merging then, but waited until this page was created, and began this page's discussion section in this negative manner. You have not made any kind of a constructive contribution.
 * Operalala 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't find this page until after it was moved. On WP we have a policy of assuming good faith unless proven otherwise. It's a good policy.-- Kleinzach 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On a different note
Obviously I'm a soprano, and I've fleshed out the soprano section a bit. It would be a good idea if other voice types could look over the other sections and double check roles and singers, make suggestions, flesh things out etc. Operalala 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you would consider introducing yourself on you user page. It's usually considered a good idea to explain your areas of expertise etc. -- Kleinzach 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Zajick- a lyric?!
Since when is Zajick a lyric mezzo?! She hardly ever done any lyric role, except for perhaps Adalgisa, which is performed by many dramatics (especially Cossotto). Simionato is a lyric perhaps (but not surely). Cossotto, unlike Zajick, actually did sing role such as Cherubino, Romeo, Leonore, Tancredi and Rosina, but is still considered a dramatic, becuase she sang Azucena and Amneris most of the time! Is suggest moving Zajick to the dramatic category. AdamChapman 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adam. It doesn't make a lot of sense to list Simionato and Zajick as lyrics but Cossotto as dramatic. -- Kleinzach 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Zajick belongs with the dramatics, and Simionato too. Thank you for pointing it out, Adam. Operalala 19:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenor's low notes
It says that "The low extreme for tenors is roughly A2 or G2 (one octave below middle C)". There are actually very few roles that requires a tenor to sing as low as A2 (Herod in Salome and Mime are the only examples I can think of) and no tenor sings G. Caruso may have sung a G, but only when he sang a baritone part. A tenor can have a really great career without singing once bellow C3, encompassing the most important roles of Mozart, Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Mussorgsky, ect. AdamChapman 09:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I'll put it in the article. -- Operalalatalk 01:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition
This article starts:

Voice type, often called Fach (pl. Fächer, from German Fach or Stimmfach, "vocal category") is a system for categorizing classical and operatic solo singers, and the roles they sing, by the tessitura, weight and timbre of their unamplified voices in an opera house or concert hall.

I think this is misleading. The Italians, French and German all have systems for distinguishing vocal ranges. The German system is only one of them. I believe this article is about the Anglo-American system which is a kind of synthesis of the others. For that reason I think we should remove the reference to Fach. Comments? -- Kleinzach 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As non-one has objected I will be now deleting this clause about Fach. -- Kleinzach 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Female Tenors
I've just been informed by an acquaintance that she sings tenor. That prompted me to investigate here but there's no mention of female tenors. She did say that it's rare. Google gives 1500+ references to "female tenor" as opposed to over 20,000 for "male soprano". If anyone knows more about this then it would be a useful inclusion (even if it's to say that it's a mistake to assign a female voice to a tenor range). 89.243.136.53 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Something does need to be said about this. I, too, am a woman who finds it easier to sing in the male tenor range. I'm always being told that women can't sing tenor, that those of us who can are actually altos. However, I'm also being told that altos don't really exist anymore. Can someone please unconfussel me? Yes, I said unconfussel. Sailorknightwing 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If a woman sings in the tenor range, why not be called "female tenor" (or "lady tenor" for that matter)? If you enjoy singing tenor then why not? - I would have thought many a choir director would be grateful! Whoever told you that altos don't exist anymore was talking complete rubbish. A real female alto (contralto) who can sing strongly notes down to F below middle C or even lower is a rarity - the statistically usual female voice is mezzo-soprano, just as for men it is baritone. A female tenor produces her voice using the same mechanism as a female alto, it's just lower. It is not the same mechanism as a male tenor, since it's in a female body.--voxclamans 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have several points for you ponder, if you feel you are a "female tenor". Firstly, just because it is "more comfortable to sing in the tenor range" doesn't mean it is a healthy thing to do. Most women who have trained vocally, learned proper breathing technique, and more importantly, developed their head voice, have a much larger range than just the tenor range. The timbre of a female singing in the tenor range is also much different than a males. I wouldn't want to be presumptious, but your age and whether or not you have trained with an accredited professional might have something to do with why you feel you are a "female tenor". I would consult a professional vocal pedagogue or coach locally to see what their input would be. It seems that it would be a lonely career for a "female tenor", at least in the classical world...as there are no roles calling for one. In the pop arena, there are a multitude of females singing in that range. I just think that with some training, it could open up at least another usable octave for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Press12 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am professional singer with a Bachelors in Vocal Music Education and I am currently working on a Masters Vocal Performance/ Vocal Pedagogy. Let me try and clear this issue up. The word tenor can never be applied to a woman and the word soprano should never be used to refer to a man. A woman who can sing into the tenor vocal range is a true contralto and should refer to herself as so. Contraltos, however, do not have the same range as a tenor. They can sing higher than a tenor but not as low as a tenor can. The contralto voice is a voice inbetween the tenor and the mezzo soprano that overlaps the med-upper part of the tenor voice and the lower-middle register of the mezzo-soprano. Most choral music written for the "alto" voice (and contralto and alto are actually the same term) is written with mezzo soprano women in mind, as contralto voices are not common. (Though this is not always the case) If there is a split in the alto line, the alto 2 line should feel very comfortable in the contralto voice. With good vocal training, over time a contralto should eventually be able to sing from F below middle C to the E a tenth above middle C (i.e. F3-E5). Most alto parts in choral pieces do not expand above this range but sometimes the song will lay consistantly high in the tessitura (upper part of the voice) This can make singing the alto line challenging and uncomfortable for a contralto. Good vocal training can ease this challenge to some extent. In relation to the tenor, the contralto does not quite encompass the entire Tenor range which goes down to C3. Contraltos are usually unable to sing in the lower part of the Tenor range. However,Tenor choral parts typically do not go down below the contalto G3 that often in a piece, making it possible for them to sing a considerable portion of the Tenor line. Range, however, is not the only determining factor in voice type catrgorization, another factor is the timbre or vocal color of the voice. Contraltos have a dark richer quality to the sound on the notes where tenors are usually bright. They also carry a heavier weight to the sound in the upper part of their voice than mezzos do. Composers of choral music typically write pieces with traditional vocal colors in mind. For this reason, a choral director may not want to add a contralto to the Tenor line, prefering to keep the sound brighter. ALto lines are often imagined by composers as rich and dark which will tend to make conductors want to keep contraltos in the alto section. If you are having trouble singing the alto line, I would do a few things. First, if it hurts. Do not do it! Singing should never hurt or be uncomfortable. Second, find a good voice teacher who works for you if you haven't already. Learn to sing healthy. Good singing is always nice and relaxed, free, and easy. Third, talk to your director. It may be that you can switch down to the tenor line when the alto line gets too high. If not than don't sing the parts of the songs that are uncomfortable. Just mouth the words. Oh I forgot to explain why men are never called altos or sopranos. Men/boys who can sing in the alto or soprano range have several name, none of them alto or soprano. A 'boy soprano' should actually be reffered to as a "trebble". A man usuing falsetto to sing in the female range, whether alto or soprano, is called a "counter" singer. So a tenor using falsetto is a "counter=tenor" and a baritone a "counter-baritone". "Counter-tenors" may also be called a "sopranist". This term is not interchangeable with the word soprano. Nrswanson 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Couple more thing. First, the ranges listed above are what is typical. SOme contaltos can sing somewhat lower or higher. Also, women singing in this range in the pop music realm are singing in the contralto range not lower than that. So they should really not be calling themselves female tenors either. Also, Great Britain for some reason has tons of Contraltos. i guess genetically Britians are more predisposed to this voice type. Nrswanson 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could I add some further points, please? "Counter" does not mean "falsettist", but is derived from the medieval usage "contra", as in "contratenor altus" and "contratenor bassus", the two vocal parts carrying lines against (i.e. in counterpoint with) the "tenor", which "held" the melody (as in "tenere", the Latin word meaning "to hold"). It denoted polyphonic function, rather than voice type. The term "counter-baritone" I have not encountered before (I am a professional counter-tenor, i.e. falsettist baritone). Very high falsettists, and those few adult male singers who sing in the soprano range but not in falsetto (like, for example, Michael Maniaci) often call themselves "male soprano", preferring the term to "sopranist"; they sing in the soprano range, after all. Concerning female tenors, Vivaldi called some of his girl singers at the Ospedale della Pietà in Venice "di tenore" and (even) "di basso", but perhaps this was again denoting polyphonic (choral) function rather than voice type. Also, a professionally-trained solo contralto (indeed a sadly rare voice) would sing much higher than E5: Elgar wrote for Clara Butt to A5 (she had B-flat5, as well as, apparently, B-flat2, which must have been quite something!), while Ewa Podleś has a (fantastic) C5).voxclamans 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I agree with you on the edimology of the word counter-tenor but today's usage now encompasses the term as a voice type. Second, I am not sure exactly where the term "counter-baritone" came from but I have been to several recitals recently with singers designating themselves as such and have seen the term thrown around in music publications. I will try and find out more. From my understanding, these singers are fallsettist baritones that appear to sing more in the alto tessitura than in the soprano register. Third, I am aware that great coloraturas can sing much higher but if you notice my stipulation above, I was presenting what is typical and not what is unusual. The singers you mentioned are exceptional and not the norm. I got the ranges for the coloratura from the listings on wikipedia which come from good resources. Fith, as for Vivaldi, he may have referred to women in as tenors and basses but this particular usage of the words was not wide spread or common. My suspicion is he was denoting choral function. I was not trying to present anything more than what is commonly understood as the correct usage of these terms today. Have you ever encountered a professional female singer calling herself a "female tenor"? I didn't think so. Most voice professionals would agree that tenor is a term that is exclusively used to refer to a male voice. Voice categorization is more about the characteristic quality of the sound as opposed to range, although range does play a factor. A woman singing in the range of a tenor voice has a different vocal timbre and therefore should not refer to themselves as a tenor. These women do have the vocal timbre of a contralto and they should therefore call themselves contraltos. Finally, men like Michael Maniaci have voices similar to the castratti of old, albight physically intact. I would consider him a modern castrato which if you read the wikipedia article on the Castrato voice he is listed as one. I am basing this destinction of his voice on vocal timbre which is the whole point to voice classification. Furthermore, to refer to him as a countertenor would also be acceptable. The definition of countertenor from the music dictionary: "A countertenor is an adult male who sings in an alto, mezzo or soprano range, often through use of falsetto, or sometimes natural head voice." Seems to encompass Michael Maniaci as well. Peter Giles, who is considered "the authority" on countertenors refers to men like Maniaci and Russel Oberlin as countertenors. A "falsettist" seems to refer more to technique and would therefore be a sub-category of counter-tenor. Likewise, a "sopranist" is defined as a "countertenor who is able to sing in the soprano vocal range whether through falsetto or natural head-voice." Very rarely, a man becomes a sopranist in adulthood due to endocrynological reasons, like Radu Marian and Jorge Cano. Another point to consider, the term "Male Soprano" seems to only be in use within the English speaking community, particularly America, where as the terms "sopranist" and "countertenor" are universal. Classical vocal music is a very international community and this should be taken into consideration before adopting new terminology. Nrswanson 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please give me the sources you have for the use of the term "counter-baritone". There are a few on the web, none of which are in reference to what would generally be regarded as "counter-tenor" in the usual "classical music" sense (oh dear, it is hard to be clear about these things!), and I have never heard the term in Britain. Michael Maniaci's voice does have some similarities to the castrati, though he does not have the low chest register for which many of them were famous (as you know, Quantz refers to this concerning Senesino, while Farinelli sang all the way down to C3). Michael refers to himself as a "male soprano" - perhaps we need to remember that the word "castrato" is not only about vocal function and range, but about those two things as a result of the singer's physical state - I would be very surprised were Michael happy to be called a castrato, and I shall edit the part of the Wikipedia article on Castrato in which I might have implied differently. You are quite right about the term "male soprano" being very much a term used in the English-speaking community, and care should indeed be exercised when adopting terms universally - the problem with "sopranist" is that it has come to English usage (in so far as it has) from Italian and (perhaps) German, and sounds very "foreign" to me. That is of course far from unusual in musical terminology, but I'm not sure it is a "universal" term. Even the term "countertenor" may be universal, but what it means hardly is, and is a source of much controversy: is it fairly extraordinary, is it not, that it is possible to refer to singers as different as Maniaci (a non-falsetto soprano range adult male) and Russell Oberlin (who seems to have sung almost exclusively in a very high tenor range, such that some would call him a "tenor altino") as "countertenors"; most of us who refer to ourselves as countertenors are singing mainly in falsetto, and some authorities would therefore deny us the use of the term "countertenor" completely, saying that we are "only" altos. I know the whole point of our discussion is to try to determine what different voice-types really are, but does anyone have the right to tell anyone else what they "should" call themselves - as singers, or, for that matter, anything else?voxclamans (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rasps and shrieks
I added rasps and shrieks as voice types in the musician infobox for Kristoffer Rygg. These black metal voice techniques should be treated somewhere in a voice context, not just in a musical genre context. __meco 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Countertenor/sopranist

 * I have edited this section (I am a countertenor). Comments, please.--voxclamans 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Soprano's low notes
As with tenors, it would be nice if the article included the lowest extreme in standard repertoire for sopranos. Well, that is g-flat bellow the stuff written twice in Salome's (in Strauss' opera) part. Still, most of the important roles of Wagner, Mozart and Verdi don't require such notes bellow the low a-natural, although this note is frequently required (Isolde, Susana, Amelia, ect). AdamChapman 20:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mezzo-soprano's range
It's true that mezzo soprano's range is close to sopranos, but it's not identical. Mezzo roles never have notes above the high c while many soprano roles do, and the high c is also very rarely written precisely for a mezzo to sing (the only example coming to my mind is Azucena, and even that note is usually omitted. Yet, it's common to interpolate a high note in La Favorita). Yes, mezzos who sing Lady Macbeth (Verrett, Bumbry, Cossotto, Zajick, ect) posses even a high d-flat, but this is a soprano part.

Now, for the case of lyric mezzos: Lyric mezzos are in no way higher than dramatic - if anything then Rossini's mezzos (the main works for lyrics) are lower than Verdi's (works for dramatics). Read what Horne said about it here http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/_archive/122896/contraltos.122896.html. Actually, in Angelina's part there is a low f-natural. Lyrics usually sing also some soprano parts, so generally they are not really lower than dramatics. In conclusion, they have the same range which is f to high c (the extremes) although most roles require "only" g to high b. AdamChapman 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Contralto as a voice
It's true that in today's standard repertoire there is a small amount of alto roles. The main reason is that important composers whose works are still popular today such, as Mozart and Puccini, wrote nothing for altos.

Wagner's only important alto role is Erda. Yet, it depends on what you consider an alto: Rossini's heroines where described as altos, although today they are considered as mezzos, and it's justified by the fact that mezzos haven't been distinguished from altos at that time, and these roles lie rather high.

On the other hand, Verdi didn't write anything for altos, and described Ulrica and Ms. Quickely as mezzos, but for the same reason as in Rossini's works today they are given to altos.

The other famous roles for altos are La Cieca, Orfeo and Marfa.

These roles, which are far from many, don't take advantage of the low extreme of the altos, although most of them reach considerably low and stay there for great amounts of time. The high extreme for these roles is high a-flat. Actually, Marfa, Erda and Ulrica share the same range which is g to high a-flat. Many altos push their voices higher in order to sing also mezzo-soprano roles, and because these roles don't reach so low many mezzos sing them also, and thus the distinction between these voice-types fades. AdamChapman 20:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Basso's highest note Vs. Baritone
By the way, I'm sorry for making all these comments. I hope it will be useful.

The highest note in Osmin's part is actually f (in the duet with Blonde). There is a higher note written for a bass which is a-natural in Beckmesser's part, although it's a buffo role and the note is not supposed to sound too well.

Rossini's figaro, on the other hand, is asked for a high a-natural, but this is a baritone role.

Actually, the confusion between bassos and baritones is as difficult as with mezzos and altos, or mezzos and sopranos.

Mozart haven't distinguished between them at all, and in Wagner they are all seem to be somewhere in between (that's how bass-baritone was invented). The same can be said about Mussorgsky's bass\baritone roles. Puccini's baritones don't reach too high, so many basses have attempted them (most important - Scarpia).

The only Important composer who really made the difference was Verdi, whose baritone roles are considerably higher than the bassos. AdamChapman 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplication
This page has a lot of the same information found on the voice specific pages. Perhaps we should trim this page down. For example, why not just list the tpyes of soprano voices without explaining them. The soprano page explains them all and each voice type has its own page as well. There is currently tripple duplication in content. I am removing roles and singers for sopranos since they are listed on other pages.Nrswanson (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article and do not merge
This page is redundant with better sourced material on the voice classification page. This page also lacks sources and is therefore a bad wikipedia article. If the pages do merge, voice type is only one element within the science of voice classification and therefore this article's relevent information should be moved to that page. I personally do not think this pages material warrants being moved as it is uncited.Nrswanson (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and to explain the difference between voice classification and voice type, voice type refers to the actual individual types whereas voice classification is the process through which vocal pedagogists and singers determine which voice type they are. Classification is a broader topic as it involves the vocal pedagogical methods behind determining voice type.Nrswanson (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. This page really belongs under the broader topic of voice classification.Voicequeen (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Voice classification is a better term and perhaps some more discussion of Italian and French systems can be added to that page or at least mentioned. The information on this page seems to be mostly accurate but sadly it's not cited so I agree with nrswanson that a deletion would probably be better over a merger.Ringnpassagio (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it appears that no one is contesting merging these two articles here I am going to merge them. Out of respect for previous writers I am going to move uncited material from the other page but I will put citation needed tags on those parts of info.Ringnpassagio (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)