Thoughts on the new range system?

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  MrToddington on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:14 pm

Given a lot of people aren't enjoying the new format for threads (that is, the removal of registers in the range listings), I feel it's best to open up a thread that allows people to discuss.

If you aren't liking the change, feel free to state your opinion here. And on the other hand, if you do like the removal of registers, feel free to tell everyone why. I'm hoping that with this, maybe we can reach more of an agreement on the way things should be done.

Let the flame war begin!


Last edited by MrToddington on Tue Dec 30, 2014 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total

MrToddington
Admin

Posts : 963
Join date : 2012-09-02
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  MooseyFate on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:21 pm

Bring back registers. God bless USA

A guy with (C#2-)D2-G5(-C#6) should not have, at a glance, the same range as a guy with (C#2-)F2-A4(-C#6).

MooseyFate

Posts : 203
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 23
Location : California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:23 pm

MooseyFate wrote:Bring back registers. God bless USA

A guy with (C#2-)D2-G5(-C#6) should not have, at a glance, the same range as a guy with (C#2-)F2-A4(-C#6).

This.

Let's mark uncertain / unclear notes in a colour. If some people do not agree whether it's full or not, just mark it in that colour and we're fine.
Remember, a note isn't better it it's full. So you might argue about it if you want to, but it won't make the note a better or worse note in the end.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:55 pm

Do not bring back registers. Awful.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:55 pm

MooseyFate wrote:A guy with (C#2-)D2-G5(-C#6) should not have, at a glance, the same range as a guy with (C#2-)F2-A4(-C#6).

And why not? Somebody like Vitas DEFINITELY sounds better with his falsetto range than David Lee Roth does with his full range. A pointless argument.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:58 pm

Somma1984 wrote:
MooseyFate wrote:Bring back registers. God bless USA

A guy with (C#2-)D2-G5(-C#6) should not have, at a glance, the same range as a guy with (C#2-)F2-A4(-C#6).

This.

Let's mark uncertain / unclear notes in a colour. If some people do not agree whether it's full or not, just mark it in that colour and we're fine.
Remember, a note isn't better it it's full. So you might argue about it if you want to, but it won't make the note a better or worse note in the end.

More colours!?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:00 pm

it's not about who's better. "better" is a personal opinion anyway.
it's about the fact that their voices and ranges are different. and i think we should try and gather as much information as possible. even if that will include some discussions about what's full and what is not.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:01 pm

T. wrote:
Somma1984 wrote:
MooseyFate wrote:Bring back registers. God bless USA

A guy with (C#2-)D2-G5(-C#6) should not have, at a glance, the same range as a guy with (C#2-)F2-A4(-C#6).

This.

Let's mark uncertain / unclear notes in a colour. If some people do not agree whether it's full or not, just mark it in that colour and we're fine.
Remember, a note isn't better it it's full. So you might argue about it if you want to, but it won't make the note a better or worse note in the end.

More colours!?


sure. red for bad/funny notes and green for unclear registers.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Monocus on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:03 pm

It's quite good that the actual listing of notes isn't divided into "significant notes (full)" and "significant notes (non-modal)" any more.
That part should definitely stay.
It wouldn't hurt, however, to include registers again in some way, without overemphasising them.
In my threads I mostly use this format:
Sung range: F2-E6
Total range: C2-E6
Full voice range: E2-F5

While emphasising sung range, it still informs of what we assume to be the singer's full voice range.
In case of doubt Somma's idea could be a a possible way to handle things.
Also the full voice range could be declared as something like "assumed full voice range".

A hypothetical example:

Sung range: F2-B5
Total range: C2-E6
Assumed full voice range: E2-F5

Significant high notes:
E6 ("Survival")
B5 ("The March of the Black Queen")
B♭5 ("Bohemian Rhapsody", "I Got You (I Feel Good)")
A5 ("Father to Son", "In the Lap of the Gods", "My Fairy King", "39'")
F5 ("Let's Get Crazy")
E5 ("I'm in Love with My Car", "Let's Get Crazy", "I Wanna Testify", "The Loser in the End", "Rock 'n' Roll")
D5 ("Let's Get Crazy", "Hammer to Fall" live, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" live, "Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock and Roll" live)

*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes

The second part, marking notes in the listing could be omitted, since it's potentially unclear - too many colours!
But: As long as full voice range does not appear superior - which it of course isn't - incorporating registers doesn't have to be a curse.
And for singers like Kiske marking full voice range could still be omitted completely.




Monocus
Range Advisor

Posts : 646
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 24
Location : Germany

View user profile http://last.fm/user/Monocus

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:05 pm

Monocus wrote:It's quite good that the actual listing of notes isn't divided into "significant notes (full)" and "significant notes (non-modal)" any more.
That part should definitely stay.
It wouldn't hurt, however, to include registers again in some way, without overemphasising them.
In my threads I mostly use this format:
Sung range: F2-E6
Total range: C2-E6
Full voice range: E2-F5

While emphasising sung range, it still informs of what we assume to be the singer's full voice range.
In case of doubt Somma's idea could be a a possible way to handle things.
Also the full voice range could be declared as something like "assumed full voice range".

A hypothetical example:

Sung range: F2-B5
Total range: C2-E6
Assumed full voice range: E2-F5

Significant high notes:
E6 ("Survival")
B5 ("The March of the Black Queen")
B♭5 ("Bohemian Rhapsody", "I Got You (I Feel Good)")
A5 ("Father to Son", "In the Lap of the Gods", "My Fairy King", "39'")
F5 ("Let's Get Crazy")
E5 ("I'm in Love with My Car", "Let's Get Crazy", "I Wanna Testify", "The Loser in the End", "Rock 'n' Roll")
D5 ("Let's Get Crazy", "Hammer to Fall" live, "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" live, "Modern Times Rock 'n' Roll", "Rock and Roll" live)

*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes

The second part, marking notes in the listing could be omitted, since it's potentially unclear - too many colours!
But: As long as full voice range does not appear superior - which it of course isn't - incorporating registers doesn't have to be a curse.
And for singers like Kiske marking full voice range could still be omitted completely.

I definitely like this idea more. This way, we get "the best of both worlds", I think.

Also, don't forget the red colour.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  MrToddington on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:07 pm

I'm all for "assumed full voice". Smile

I think we need to avoid 20 pages of "yeah sounds full", "nah man there's no way a HT can go that low" sort of thing, and actually focus on the appreciation of vocals.

MrToddington
Admin

Posts : 963
Join date : 2012-09-02
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  AJD125 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:48 pm

I would agree with something along the lines of what Monocus has suggested. I think its better and simpler with the listing not separated out, but I really don't like the idea of having nothing at all to differentiate full voice from non-modal. For some singers its pretty easy to differentiate full from non-modal so really the tedious arguments are only going to happen on some threads and not all. For example I don't see why Bono's full voice range has been removed because there was never any debate about it being anything other than C#2-C#5.
For singers where it isn't so straight forward (Chester Bennington to name just one) then I would be happy with the 'assumed full voice range' although I don't reckon that will solve the problem with the tedious arguments about what is full and what is not.
I'm not a big fan of all the different colours, but since I can't think of a better way of doing it then I'll just say I'm happy to go with it.

AJD125

Posts : 240
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 21
Location : England

View user profile http://youtube.com/user/37057lfc

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  TESKHA on Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:16 pm

What is adding 'assumed' going to change? It'll just become pages of 'I assume this is full!' 'No, I assume it's falsetto!'; instead of 'This is full' 'No, it's falsetto'. I don't understand why everyone is so insistent on treating what they perceive as full voice as the be all and end all of singing and one's vocal range. It's sad because this forum is a great idea.

TESKHA

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  AJD125 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:48 am

TESKHA wrote:I don't understand why everyone is so insistent on treating what they perceive as full voice as the be all and end all of singing and one's vocal range. It's sad because this forum is a great idea.

no-one has said that full voice is the 'be all and end all of singing'. I just want someone's full voice range to be displayed in their thread. I'm perfectly fine with grouping different registers together in the significant high/low notes listings, and from what I've read on this thread, so is everyone else who has posted here.

AJD125

Posts : 240
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 21
Location : England

View user profile http://youtube.com/user/37057lfc

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Celice on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:30 am

Since we're never going to have a system everybody's 100% happy with, some sort of compromise like this seems reasonable. Would we have a sticky thread explaining the colour code or put that information on each thread? I also think the if we're using the green/ orange colours as suggested above, we should probably revert to Laughing instead of red, that way we can use a colour and a smiley together to denote a rubbish note of questionable register.

Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2287
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Monocus on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:51 am

Celice wrote:Would we have a sticky thread explaining the colour code or put that information on each thread?
Since especially guests may easily miss a sticky, putting it in the threads is the safest way to implement a colour system.
To avoid distraction you could user a smaller font size and separate the legend with a dotted line:
.......................................................
*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes


An alternative would be using a spoiler:
Spoiler:
*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes

Celice wrote:I also think the if we're using the green/ orange colours as suggested above, we should probably revert to Laughing instead of red, that way we can use a colour and a smiley together to denote a rubbish note of questionable register.
Those were just random choices.
If we'd actually use a colour system similar to what I suggested, some changes were required:
For better readability it could be necessary to change at least the orange to a darker colour, given that we find a colour that can be easily discerned from the other ones.
A dark red would be perfect to warn for bad notes without distracting from the good ones.
Green for non-modal is good already and with another colour ensuring good reading contrast for questionable notes (bold would be another mean of accentuation) we'd be set.
Since the forum software allows it, using different fonts could additionally be considered as an alternative, replacing one or multiple colours.

Monocus
Range Advisor

Posts : 646
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 24
Location : Germany

View user profile http://last.fm/user/Monocus

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Celice on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:29 am

Monocus wrote:
Celice wrote:Would we have a sticky thread explaining the colour code or put that information on each thread?
Since especially guests may easily miss a sticky, putting it in the threads is the safest way to implement a colour system.
To avoid distraction you could user a smaller font size and separate the legend with a dotted line:
.......................................................
*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes


An alternative would be using a spoiler:
Spoiler:
*Orange marks notes with questionable fullness
*Green marks non-modal notes
*Italics mark non-sung notes
I definitely prefer the small font under a dotted line idea: nice and clear but not distracting.
Using a different colour as the method for differentiating laughable notes still leaves the problem of what to do if one also wants to mark it as modal, non-modal or uncertain, so I would go with Comic Sans font for currently red / Laughing notes. It's easily distinguishable, easily legible, not excessively attention-grabbing, and somewhat appropriate.

Celice
Moderator

Posts : 2287
Join date : 2012-08-27
Location : Probably in bed

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Monocus on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:47 am

Comic Sans is the epitome of what bad notes are about.
I even use a Firefox extension to block this abomination of a font (it doesn't work on forums, though).
With some additional emphasis:
"Laughable note"
One would have to experiment, whether the font alone - without additional emphasis - would be enough already to do the job.


Monocus
Range Advisor

Posts : 646
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 24
Location : Germany

View user profile http://last.fm/user/Monocus

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Guest on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:54 am


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  TESKHA on Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:50 am

AJD125 wrote:
TESKHA wrote:I don't understand why everyone is so insistent on treating what they perceive as full voice as the be all and end all of singing and one's vocal range. It's sad because this forum is a great idea.

no-one has said that full voice is the 'be all and end all of singing'. I just want someone's full voice range to be displayed in their thread. I'm perfectly fine with grouping different registers together in the significant high/low notes listings, and from what I've read on this thread, so is everyone else who has posted here.

Why do you insist on having full voice listed; when most of the time a consensus can't be reached because no two people's ears hear 'full voice' as the same thing? Of course it's obvious in less extreme pitches, but when you start reaching those extreme pitches no one (including myself here obviously, I don't claim to be a professional) has the slightest idea what they're talking about. Why do you want to fill threads that could otherwise be used for interesting discussion; with people trying to argue opinions as facts? Just to cater to a select few people living outside the real world in a place where singing takes a hit in quality because it's not labeled 'full voice' by an internet forum?

TESKHA

Posts : 35
Join date : 2012-09-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Monocus on Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:21 am

If obvious, the full voice range of a singer may be listed in a thread as an additional information.
If not, that additional info may still be provided with indication of existing doubts.
In extreme cases (alá Michael Kiske) omitting those statements is always an option.
The threads on this forum should be aimed to to provide as much interesting information as possible.
With the means discussed to differentiate notes in terms of registers, sung or not sung and marking bad sounding notes, we:
  • emphasise sung notes
  • warn for bad notes
  • merely indicate registers as additional info

I don't think that we, by any means, support the full>non-modal view, nor provoke those indeed pointless discussions about the fullness of notes.
We are always able to adjust the info given according to how precise and reliable it is.
I understand your concerns, but I don't think that listing full voice range has to be as critical as you describe it.
Especially with the discussed means in our disposal.

Monocus
Range Advisor

Posts : 646
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 24
Location : Germany

View user profile http://last.fm/user/Monocus

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  AJD125 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:37 am

TESKHA wrote:Why do you insist on having full voice listed; when most of the time a consensus can't be reached because no two people's ears hear 'full voice' as the same thing? Of course it's obvious in less extreme pitches, but when you start reaching those extreme pitches no one (including myself here obviously, I don't claim to be a professional) has the slightest idea what they're talking about. Why do you want to fill threads that could otherwise be used for interesting discussion; with people trying to argue opinions as facts? Just to cater to a select few people living outside the real world in a place where singing takes a hit in quality because it's not labeled 'full voice' by an internet forum?

I thought the aim of the threads was to collect as much information about the singer as possible. To me including a full voice range is a valid piece of information to include. OK I will admit that in some cases it may not be appropriate, but for most singers here I think it is a reasonable and useful piece of information to include. I don't think its going to cause as huge a problem as you make out. Its not as if tedious arguments were happening on every thread, plus I think we're all in agreement that in the significant notes section there will be no distinction between full and non-modal.
I don't see what you're getting at with your last point. No-one has said that non-modal is of inferior quality to full voice.
I agree entirely with Monocus has said in their last post and thats the system I think we should use.

AJD125

Posts : 240
Join date : 2012-09-04
Age : 21
Location : England

View user profile http://youtube.com/user/37057lfc

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Cesar on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:54 am

Monocus wrote:
Sung range: F2-E6
Total range: C2-E6
Full voice range: E2-F5




I like this.

Cesar

Posts : 484
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 22
Location : Mexico

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Mobbex on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:33 pm

I like it the way it is now, the registers debates are lame. This isn't TheRegistersPlace 2.0, the notes are what should matter here. It's what I come here for. Registers only start to matter when you're trying to increase your range and we all know where that goes. Plus I think that whole attitude of modal>non modal is really disruptive. I mean a note's a note and if it sounds good in a song it shouldn't matter if it's fry/falsetto/whistle/teakettle. If some people like to argue about that, I dunno, make a registers sub forum? I'll know I'll be staying away from that one. Nobody here is qualified to decide what's full and what isn't. The notes are the only thing we know we can get right 100% and we should stick to that.

Mobbex

Posts : 45
Join date : 2012-09-03
Age : 27
Location : Montreal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Gregsynthbootlegs on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:39 pm

If there's so many different people's opinions on what register is what, (which often lead to endless arguing) then I agree that trying to figure out the vocal registers on this forum isn't worth it (and just listing the notes is good enough).

I do like the "new" system (now that I've gotten used to it), but if we were to discuss vocal registers for singers, I was thinking of an extremely basic way:

Vocal Fry
Modal/Full Voice
Falsetto
Whistle/Any other non-modal note

If we adopt this way, then we can avoid terms like "mixed voice," "head voice," "Distortion," etc. If a note is agreed to be full, then we can just call it "full" (we don't have to spend pages trying to figure out if it's "mixed" or something).

Gregsynthbootlegs
Range Destroyer

Posts : 1029
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 26
Location : Waterford, Michigan

View user profile https://www.facebook.com/Gregsynth?ref=tn_tnmn

Back to top Go down

Re: Thoughts on the new range system?

Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:48 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 7 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum