Talk:Baritone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Baritone discussion page[edit]

Constructive suggestions and discussion welcome! The contents of this page are for ongoing discussions. For past discussions please see the archives.
someone added the hunk-a-man baritone which is obviously a joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.139.96 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing the baritone articles[edit]

The baritone articles have been anomalous - they haven't followed the format of other voice articles.

I propose to move the section called "Baritone roles in opera" from the article List of baritone roles) to here (removing roles already covered in this article) to be called "Other baritone roles in opera". Meanwhile I propose to rename List of baritone roles as "List of baritone roles in musicals", in line with other similar lists.

After moving the list I suggest we then cull those roles which are not useful as examples.

Here is the list (with duplicates removed)

[List now moved to article page]

--Kleinzach (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

212.22.3.17 vandalism?[edit]

This IP keeps inserting the name Sir Desmond Hayes-Lynge (apparently a resident of King's Lynn in England) in the list of Austrian/German lieder singers? Why? -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wakonda's Dream?[edit]

SORRY FOR THE EXTRA BLAB, BUT THE PART THAT MENTIONS "WAKONDA'S DREAM" IS NOT RELEVANT. IT IS NOT A WELL-KNOWN, IMPORTANT WORK IN THE STANDARD REPERTOIRE AND THEREFORE IS NOT A DECENT DESCRIPTION FOR THOSE LOOKING FOR COMPARISON OF ROLES. PLEASE REMOVE IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.132.32 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non Opera Uses section[edit]

should include examples of uses of a baritone voice that is not typical of the music style it is in. Obviously examples of barbershop and bluegrass are too many, but there are some rock uses:

  • Joy Division, and it's modern clone Interpol.. post punk / prog rock
  • Beat Happening

Nnnudibranch (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very weak on English singers or English language singers, and on the English classical repertoire for baritones which is non-operatic, e.g. singers such as Harry Plunket Greene, Frederic Austin, in repertoire such as lieder, Sea Drift (Delius) and the oratorio and cantata in general (those are just examples, but there is a whole genre lacking from the article). It is as if the article were written by someone who is mainly interested in opera. Dr Steven Plunkett (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A different perspective[edit]

Frequently when talking about voice parts, especially baritone, tone is a factor, many basses can hit F4 in their chest voice but it frequently sound strained, likewise tenors can often push for the low bari notes but again with poor tonal results, a baritone can hit notes that are high for basses and low for tenors without straining their voice, it doesn't matter if you have a 5 octave range if 3 of those 5 octaves sound like a dying bird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.86.151 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including a list of musical roles[edit]

I invite everyone to join this discussion on the voice type talk page. Past consensus has been to not include a list of such roles but perhaps this topic should be re-adressed. This topic involves all voice types as there has been a strong attempt to try and make each voice type page similar in content and format. Nrswanson (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This article needs additional citations for verification"[edit]

Just to clarify, the reason I removed the refimprove tag (now replaced by Nrswanson) was not because I disagreed with the need for more references, but because (1) this article does actually have reputable references so a general tag message may be misunderstood, and (2) it is now a long article with seven main sections. I think it would be much more helpful for everybody to either put ref tags on individual sections and/or 'fact' tags on individual sentences. The article has a lot of good content and we should encourage its development. With a bit of work this could be GA standard. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may. About 90% of the information (most of which I believe is accurate), is unreferenced. That is the majority of the article. The listed references are cited sparingly so I feel the tag is quite appropraite. Especially since this particular tag's purpose is to highlight articles like this one that are good but don't have the information cited. I would be putting fact tags at the end of almost every paragraph otherwise.Nrswanson (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think tagging is a good idea unless it's clear what action is required and where. In this case it's not and the refimprove casts doubt on what is actually a very good article. As we have reached an impasse on this, let's ask some other people their opinion. I think I'll ask User:Voceditenore. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put a 'refimprove' tag at the top of an article unless it had very few or no independent sources listed. (I especially use it for biographies, and especially for bios of living people.) Or if the article contained a lot of assertions that seem obviously wrong or controversial, i.e., too many to tag efficiently with individual {{Citation needed}} tags. This might be a better one to put at the top (or in the relevant sections: {{nofootnotes}}. Take a look at it. The problem with 'refimprove' is that it casts doubt on the article as a whole, which I don't think is justified here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS If some of the info in the article can be found in the 'further reading' section, then those items should be moved to the references section under a subtitle of Further references. Having said that there are some very weird items in the current 'further reading' section, e.g.
  • Boldrey, Richard (1992). Singer's Edition (Light Lyric Soprano): Operatic Arias - Light Lyric Soprano. Caldwell Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-877761-02-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Boldrey, Richard (1992). Singer's Edition (Soubrette): Operatic Arias - Soubrette. Caldwell Publishing Company. ISBN 978-1-877761-03-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Coffin, Berton (1960). Coloratura, Lyric and Dramatic Soprano, Vol. 1. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8108-0188-2.
What's all that stuff about sopranos doing in a baritone article??? Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the soprano books were copied over here by accident, anyway I've removed them. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked more closely at the History section. Frankly, I think that whole section deserves this tag {{Essay-entry}} as well as {{Refimprove}}. There's an awful lot of personal opinion and evaluative language applied to various singers such as "superb", "outstanding", "the quintessential interpreter of Poulenc's songs", "a lieder singer of penetrating intelligence", "celebrated for their beautifully sung lieder recitals as well as for their mellifluous operatic performances" etc. etc., which needs not only referencing in general but probably editing for a more neutral, objective tone unless independent sources can be found who have actually described the relevant singers in these terms. Incidentally, I don't necessarily disagree with the assessments, and it would be fine as an article in Opera News or something similar, but it's not really encyclopedic style, especially in its currently unreferenced form. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up. I just plowed through the history of the article and see that the problems with this section were introduced in November 2007 by 59.101.25.183 who created the same problem in most of the articles he/she edited. See also User talk:59.101.25.183. In this baritone article, I see that all his/her edits to the History section were reverted once for POV [1]. But 59.101.25.183 immediately reverted back and added even more. The section remains that way today. Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done an edit to remove the kind of phrases that you refer to above. I must say that I agree with the writer in almost all his opinions, so IMO the problem is not accuracy but purely the old-fashioned and non-encyclopedic style. Hopefully I have now done something to remedy it.
To Nrswanson: Having discussed all this I think the right thing to do is remove the refimprove tag. Can we please do that now? -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion, if the article does not actually cite sources the fact tag should stay. Maybe I am taking too strict of a stance and I will not make a fuss if the fact tag is removed. But simply put, if the article does not say where the information is coming from than that information becomes questionable regardless of the fact that it appears to be accurate. This is one of the major problems I have with wikipedia and personally try to remedy. When information remains uncited or there are no internal citations but just a list of resources, it is very easy for inaccuracies to creep into articles and remain un-noticed. If you write a paper in college, you have to say where you are getting your information from. I think the same standards are supposed to apply within wikipedia articles.Nrswanson (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the refimprove from the top of the article. Please put 'unreferenced' or whatever tags you think appropriate on specific sections or sentences. -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal of the general 'refimprove' tage from the top of the article. Following that, I combined the further reading with the refs as outlined above and added {{nofootnotes}} at the top of the refs section to alert editors/readers that there's potentially more work to be done. Kleinzach, you've done a great job in editing the style of the history section! Nrswanson, I'm not sure which areas of the article you're still referring to, but note that links to other Wikipedia articles (provided they themselves are reasonably well referenced), can serve as supporting evidence, e.g. that a particular singer was notable and notable in a particular repertoire, likewise which are the prominent baritone roles. As for the need to provide an inline citation for every single assertion/fact in the article, that's not only not necessary in my view, but can also be dstracting. Have a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on this, They are stricter than required by a magazine artcle but not the same standards as would expect in an academic paper. But if you feel that there are any statements in the article that could use an inline citation because they are dubious or controversial, then just add the {{Citation needed}}. Sticking a refimprove tag on the whole article is a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what is unclear. Most of the history section is unreferenced, as is the entire opening paragraph. Also, the ranges and list of roles are uncited. I disagree that inline citations are distracting. I understand that attribution is required only for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." But this is the bare minimum requirement, as in a just passing grade. Inline citations are a requirement for feature articles on wikipedia and part of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Verifiability makes it clear that wikipedia can not internally reference itself. I personally think the information is good so I'm not challenging it. I just think that quality articles include in text citations of all material. I personally think that the two of you don't understand this particular kind of tag. The purpose of tags in general is to highlight weaknesses in articles so that they may be improved. If I were disputing the facts presented in a particular aarticle I would place an entirely different sort of tag than the one used in this instance (the dispute tag) that actually said that the information in the article was inaccurate. The particular tag that I added to the article is not for the purpose of challenging the credibility of the information but merely to encourage the addition of quality referenced material to support the information presented. See Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Tags can even get so specific as to highlight articles that fail to list page numbers with listed references. A tag on an article is therefore not always meant to cast the info on the page in doubt. As for all of the referenced books listed in the baritone article, I added those to all the voice type pages ages ago under the ambition of improving all of the voice type pages. I was stupid enough to include some of the ones I was using for the soprano article when I copy pasted the references onto the baritone page so you can blame me for that. Thank you for fixing that by the way. Up to this point, I have managed to contribute to all the female voice type pages but I am just now getting to the male voice type pages. That being said, none of the information in this article comes from those listed sources unless someone else has looked at them. I will be getting around to it later in the week. So really, this article's information probably doesn't come from any of the listed sources. Which just goes to show the necessity of in text citations. Nrswanson (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed all the further reading items that you had added (since you say you haven't checked them yet to see if information in the article can actually be found in them) and replaced them with sources that I know are relevant to the article's content. I noted in a ref at the outset of the history section that that whole section is based primarily on the Grove 'baritone' article, which I have personally seen. I have also added some more basic refs for the various types of baritones. Possibly better ones can be found, but these are OK for now. And yes, I'm familiar with the various tags for improving refs and Wikipedia:Good article criteria. But note that it is suggested that both the {{Refimprove}} and the {{Nofootnotes}} templates be placed in the references section not at the top of the article. And yes, Wikipedia can't be used as a source per se. But you also have to use common sense in interpreting that in a particular context. I honestly don't think that every single blue-linked baritone, opera or composer mentioned in this article needs to have an additional inline citation to another source about them, unless what is written about them is controversial. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think I was advocating citing sources for every little thing voceditenore. That would be rediculous. And I certainly never advocated citing every blue listed baritone. But mostly everything was uncited in regards to major pertinant information. And I thank you for the references you just added. Nrswanson (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classification[edit]

Classification suggests that baritones are like birds: either baritone A is a robin or a swallow or an eagle etc. There's a lot of overlap between these genres—naturally so, as every voice is different. I note that one of our examples of a Baryton Martin, Simon Keenlyside, has sung roles that appear in five in our different classes, and will soon sing one from a sixth: Pelleas, Orfeo (Baryton Martin) Figaro, Belcore (Bel Canto Baritone) Gugliemo, Marcello (Lyric Baritone) Don Giovanni (Kavalierbariton) Ford, Rodrigo (Verdi Baritone) and Rigoletto (Dramatic Baritone) Maybe we need to play this ball with looser hands? almost-instinct 23:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No and yes. No in that the classification system is well defined with specific descriptions of voice types and roles associated with those particular voices. Of course their are various systems in use which can make it messy when thrown together as it is here. However (this is the yes part), I think the article should mention three things. First, that a singer's voice is in a constant state of change and that they may sing roles from one particular fach during a part of their career and then move into another area during another part of their career as the voice changes. Two, that some houses choose to make unconventional casting choices by casting a singer with a different vocal quality for a part than what is usually associated with that role. Three, that the classification system isn't meant to be too rigidly applied as every voice is unique and some voices will be able to span a wider array of repetoire than others with some singers being able to sing roles from several different voice categories. These are points mentioned in the voice type article and should be reiterated here.Nrswanson (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatic Baritone[edit]

This section reads: "Roles such as these tend not to rise above an F"—and then lists Rigoletto! "Sits on a top F" would be a more accurate description. A better example would be Jack Rance, except that Scarpia is already listed almost-instinct 09:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baritone voices in non-operatic music[edit]

In the section Baritone voices in non-operatic music there is now a pointless, lengthy, and ever-growing list of alleged baritones. I say "alleged" because a random check shows that many of the linked articles never even mention that the singer is a baritone, and even in the ones that do mention it, virtually none have any references to support that contention. These kinds of lists, once they get started, are simply magnets for "drive-by" edits that contribute nothing to the article or the reader's understanding of the term. Worse, this list has the potential to become even more enormous, given that the baritone voice is the most common male voice, and given the number of pop/rock/jazz/etc. singers who have articles on Wikipedia. If nothing else, these names should be hived off to a separate list linked from this article, and where there is no evidence whatsoever that a particular singer is a baritone, their name should be removed until it's provided. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed the following names from that list:

Nowhere in their articles does it state that they are baritones. Please do not re-add until their articles say so and the assertion is referenced.Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the section deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.222.93 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you by listening to them that more then half of these guys are baritones. When is blatantly obvious why do we need 50 sources to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All non-classical baritones have been moved to List of baritones in non-classical music. So the point is moot here. But no, we don't need 50 references, only 1 per person. Wikipedia is based on published information from reliable sources, not what individual editors hear or think they hear. Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please read: Non-operatic baritone list clean-up[edit]

I have now referenced those singers where a reliable source can be found to support the assertion that they are baritones. The remainder have been tagged {{Citation Needed}}. If inline citations are not provided for those singers within 48 hours, they will be removed to the talk page. The citation must be to a Wikipedia:Reliable source and please note that per Wikipedia:Verifiability, a Wikipedia article is not a verifiable, reliable source. Any additions or re-additions to this list without an inline citation will be immediately removed.

I have already removed several names: Andy Williams, who has a tenor voice [2]; and Richard Gere, Dennis Haysbert, and Seth MacFarlane who do not perform as singers. This article is about the baritone singing voice, not the speaking voice. I have left for the moment: John Barrowman, Tim Curry, Jesse L. Martin and Jeremy Irons, all of whom have performed as singers. However, they are now marked with {{Citation Needed}} and will likewise be removed if an inline citation is not provided which verfies that they have a baritone singing voice. There is no place in this article for original research, unverifiable claims, and drive-by edits. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why does Scott Walker's name not appear? ( AKA Noel Scott Engel of The Walker Brothers' fame in the 1960s and equally successful as a soloist. Now, his entry in Wikipaedia, unless I am much mistaken, definitely mentions his baritone vocal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singstress (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in this article because he is not a classical baritone. If their is a reliable source for him being a baritone then he belongs at List of baritones in non-classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Baritone Roles[edit]

In the list of baritone roles in opera, it lists Don Alfonso in Cosi fan Tutte and Leporello in Don Giovanni. These are not baritone roles. They are bass roles. Mozart just like to give his basses alot of high notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Bel-Canto Baritone is not a Voice Type, among other issues[edit]

I suggest reading Richard Miller's book "Securing Baritone, Bass-Baritone, and Bass voices. It is quite useful. The Bel Canto baritone is not actually a voice type. Any well-trained lyric Baritone should be expected to have adequate coloratura skill. And, furthermore, those who wrote roles for lyric baritone, i.e. Rossini, included coloratura. Bottom line, the so called "Bel Canto Baritone" is a Lyric Baritone, and does not need it's own section. To further my point, the two examples listed were a Bass-Baritone and a Basso Profondo, respectively. This bring me my next point. Somebody needs to review the examples for each voice type. Also, the descriptions are generally sorely inaccurate, especially those of the Verdi and Dramatic Baritone; however, I have fixed those two and done some work on the rest. Also, somebody should include information regarding the respective passaggios of the voice types. I know this information; however, I do not have time to write it down right now. Also, somebody should make a section about overlap between the voice types and roles, etc. Because, in all reality, a Baritone is either lyric or dramatic, depending if their passaggios are on B/E or Bb/Eb, respectively. The rest is based on timbre, which is somewhat subjective, and is usually ignored to an extent. However, both lyric and dramatic Baritones will sing roles from both sets of repertoire. For example, Fischer-Dieskau, who is as lyric as it gets, sang Rigoletto. Also, Bastianini sang Figaro. Case in point. I've tried to convey some of this information when editing the descriptions; however, I think that we need to rethink the entire structure of this article. There is a lot of information that needs to be added or expanded upon; however, I am not sure how to do this without bogging down the article. Also, there needs to be some explanation of basic, classical vocal pedagogy, otherwise the layperson will never understand this entry. Bottom line, I think that the reason that we're having so much difficult here is because we have to turn an art into an exact science. Because, even if Miller tends to disagree, vocal classification is very much subjective, regardless of tessitura and passaggios. Anybody have any ideas as to how to include of the aforementioned information, or how to restructure the article? Also, for some reason, a lot of what's stated in the actual article conflicts with the information given in the subsequent descriptions of the specific categories of Baritone. Somebody should remedy this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.129.176 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 July 2009

The article definitely needs improvement, and you make some very valid points. However, your edits were not helpful. By deleting the entire Bel Canto (coloratura) baritone section, you also deleted the "master reference" ('Baritone Arias' IPA Source Library. Retrieved 4 March 2008), causing all subsequent uses of the reference to produce this:[3]. You also changed all the range notation so that the various assertions are no longer supported by that reference. I've now removed all instances of the reference as it no longer supports the content. In addition, you added various further unsourced comments, which without a reliable source now come across as personal opinion [4]. This is not the way to improve the article. If you plan to continue editing this article, will you please:
  1. reference all your statements
  2. use edit summaries for each edit. In a series of 16 edits earlier today, you significantly changed the article, including deleting an entire section, with no edit summaries whatsoever.
  3. thoroughly familiarise yourself with the content of Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style
  4. sign your comments on the talk page and not remove signatures as you did here: [5]. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for further guidance.
– Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm not great with HTML; however, I will read the articles you suggested. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. N.B. I did not make up any of the information. I was trying to cite Richard Miller's books regarding the Baritone voice and singing in general, but apparently this didn't work. I'll fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.211.204 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B-flat about middle C[edit]

Yeah. It says that in operatic repertoire, the baritone range extends to B-flat above middle C. While there are indeed baritones who go up very high, and I believe there may be some Verdi stuff in that range, I would hesitate to consider that a common designation for opera. Parts that go up that high aren't particularly common. As it was previously, with "G2-G4, but can be extended at either end" is a much more fitting description, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.189.93 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musicals???[edit]

I'm wondering why in bass-baritone there is a list of known musical theatre roles for that voice type but there is not such a list for this page. It's useful information for people who have been cast as certain parts and want to know where they fall under, baritone or bass-baritone. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed previously as a no go on voice type articles as many musical composers don't specify voice types in scores and casting practices vary widely. It's essentially WP:Original Research to create such lists. It's easier with operas because we do have the benefit of numerous publications discussing roles from the perspective of voice typing. Best.4meter4 (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century[edit]

This article needs to be expanded to include prominent baritones of the 21st century. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SpiritedMichelle. The article is about the voice type. Not a list of "prominent" baritones, which is potentially endless and a subjective judgement. We took the decision a while back to eliminate the name lists of "prominent singers" from all the voice type articles. See this discussion in the WikiProject Opera archives. List of operatic baritones might be a useful addition to create, provided it contained more information than Category:Operatic baritones, e.g. listing by century with brief descriptions for each entry, and you don't mind it growing huge. Everyone thinks "their" baritone (or in some cases the baritone himself thinks) they're prominent. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baritone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bass-baritone section[edit]

I have just edited this section. Much of it was unsourced and some of it was self-contradictory. Prior to my edits, the text awkwardly indicated that the lyric bass-baritone voice is higher than the dramatic bass-baritone voice; however, the voice ranges set forth for lyric bass-baritones and dramatic bass-baritones were identical, which made the text self-contradictory. To make matters worse, neither of the two voice ranges was sourced. I found a source that set forth a bass-baritone vocal range, added that information, and removed the unsourced and self-contradictory information about lyric and dramatic bass-baritone ranges. SunCrow (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for defining range[edit]

Currently, the article states:

  • Choral: "Composers typically write music for this voice in the range from the second F below middle C to the F above middle C (i.e. F2–F4) in choral music"
  • Opera: "from the second G below middle C to the G above middle C (G2 to G4) in operatic music"

Some sources:

Opera:
General:

And then there's Fach#Baritone_Fächer. Would any subject matter experts care to weight in? The ranges in the article should be sourced, but it appears the range isn't universally agreed upon. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with all ranges, even for most instruments, there are no definitive end points. This article, and related voice type articles, should be rewritten to reflect that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Kavalierbariton[edit]

The source for the whole section originates from a blogpost from 2011: - Link However, I consider this to be a high quality blog post, since it states the information in an objective manner, therefore I suggest to use this as a citation nonetheless. - Ahossai (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential edit warring on the voice types articles[edit]

See Talk:Bass_(voice_type)#Potential edit warring on the voice types articles. Kuulopuhe (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baritone&oldid=1212747779"