Talk:Happy Rhodes

Vocal Range

I added short sound files to illustrate Happy Rhodes' vocal range. Xenussister 04:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Separated out the section on her vocal range and added examples of her highest and lowest notes. Also included links to Mp3 files of the songs, with express permission of the artist.K8 fan 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i removed the following:

---

in a live performance of the Queen song "Lily of the Valley"[1]. 

---

although it's not out of the question that she can hit a d6, this sound file doesn't demonstrate it; it's only a d5. a d6 would sound **much** higher (think mariah carey squeak range). Benwing 02:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

btw the low note given in "charlie" is indeed correct (a2, not a3 as originally written). for the two other songs, the range in "when the rain came down" is d3 to f5, and in "winter" it's b-flat2 to g5. Benwing 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem. We're using scientific notation where middle C is C4.K8 fan 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proof. Here is a screenshot of Seventh String Software's "Transcribe" program displaying the note in question:

You can download a 30 day trial of this program and download the file and check it your self. In the absence of any proof to the contrary, I'm going to re-insert the claim.K8 fan 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Vick, the link is broken. And I dunno how to put in the citation to source HR's highest note from your picture. Assuming that's enough evidence to back it up. SummonerMarc 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be actual evidence. The Mariah Carey page just has anecdotal assertions, no actual measurements - "some claim" rather than a listing of songs and notes. The Kate Bush page is better, but still not accurate (I'll be fixing that). Even the Yma Sumac page doesn't cite songs. The Minnie Ripperton page is better, but still doesn't accurately describe her claimed range. Happy is singing the note, but possibly the note has more overtones than the same note sung by a true soprano. K8 fan 07:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

k8fan, your link on this page goes to Transcribe's home page, not to the screenshot. The way you say "Here is a screenshot..." makes it seem like you didn't intend to give the link you gave. The link on the Happy Wikipedia page is correct. Xenussister 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SummonerMarc, the link has been fixed.

Benwing, you seem to know a lot about music, but I think you're wrong. I'm sure it's a D6 she's hitting, not a D5. Are you sure you listened to the right clip? A video of her singing the song can be found on YouTube (I'm not sure if we're supposed to link in Talk so just search for Happy Rhodes Possessed). I've been asking other people and they agree it's a D6. Mariah's whistle range would be up in the D7 or D8 range. In any case, please don't delete the sound clip. That is the proof for whatever the note is. Xenussister 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I added screenshots of the two notes in question to the section. We need clarification about this by trained singers. Middle C is C4, but is the B immediately to the left of C4 on the piano keyboard B4 or B3, given that octaves are counted from "C" to "C"?K8 fan 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing adding to the confusion is that some MIDI programs call Middle C "C3" rather than C4.K8 fan 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i am a trained singer and have perfect pitch. you can also use a piano to know where a note is, but if guys don't have vocal experience, you're not going to be able to tell which octave a note is in. pitch programs you download off the internet (in fact, such programs in general) can easily get confused as to which octave a note is in. d6 is more than two octaves above middle c; this is a piercingly high note of the kind that would break glass. listen to her singing and you'll hear that when she hits the d5, she jumps up from an octave below, and that lower note is in chest voice, clearly in the lower part of her range. if this were a d6, then even the note an octave lower would sound quite high, too. (note: mariah carey's whistle range is around c6 to g7. g#7 is the highest recorded note on her part.) as i mentioned earlier, the other clips of happy rhodes have her singing above the d5 in this clip; listen and you'll clearly hear this. if you claim that this note is a d6, you'll need to claim that the other notes are f6 or g6. (see my comments above.)

note that technically, all judgments of musical range by you, me, or anyone's pitch program are original research. disagreements about judgments of this sort are exactly why original research is considered a Bad Thing in wikipedia.

K8fan, the note directly below middle c is called "b3". "b2" is one octave below that, and the a2 that happy rhodes can hit is an astoundingly low note for a woman. even most low contraltos can't get below c3 (unless maybe they have a cold, which lowers your vocal range by several notes). Benwing 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of sung note to 1174.66 Hz sine wave.

I don't claim to be a trained singer or to have perfect pitch. But I do have 30 years experience as an audio engineer. I started in the days before automated feedback suppression and had to quickly and accurately identify the frequency of a squeal and adjust the parametric equalizer to notch out a specific frequency. Anyway, I generated a tone in Adobe Audition at 1174.66 Hz, which is D6 according to the Piano key frequencies page. 1174.66 Hz pasted into the left, upper channel, the note in question in the right, lower channel. It is pretty clear that these two waveforms are the same frequency, and therefore D6. K8 fan 09:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User Bobo192 deleted Rhodes' 4 octave range from the intro claiming "(Uncited, doesn't fit within intro)". When a singer has a range that extensive, it is a very notable factor and should be in the introduction. Also, it has been established more extensively than any other article about a singer that I've been able to find on Wikipedia. K8 fan 05:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Added biographical information

I've translated the biographical information into a hopefully POV-free form. Added information about her name, and the Wikiproject:Musicians infobox. K8 fan 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We've added a considerable amount of additional detail.K8 fan 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

VICKIE MY ONE DARLING TRUE LOVE. What an excellent job. But the monster from Rhodes 1. Aice? Spelling mistake or is it meant to be Aice? Alice? :S - Summoner Marc 23:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Marc! Shhhh, my husband will find out! Sorry about that typo. Thanks for fixing it but Wikipedia marked the picture of Alice for deletion anyway, so I just took out the code. It's not copywrited but I wasn't sure I should upload it as fair use, so it had the wrong tag on it. I'll have to see if I can get Happy to upload it herself. Xenussister 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What he doesn't know can't hurt him... Anyway, I'm /very/ pro-Alice picture, so get Happy to do that. I think it adds a good perspective to the article, without over doing it too much. Just right. You never talk to me anymore Vickie, where's the love? - Summoner Marc 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Discography section?

I think the template {{cleanup-section}} needs to be added to the Discography section. It is currently just a long list with a lot of technical details about Rhodes's albums. Shouldn't each album have a separate article, or at least be better formatted? I'm not an English wikipedia expert, just an occasional contributor, but it just looks ugly at the moment. --Eitheladar 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to expand and clean the section up. I suspect Xenussister feels that she doesn't have the necessary distance from the music of Happy Rhodes to write an objective summary of each album. K8 fan 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, but if you feel you can improve it, feel free :) --Marc 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked with Xenussister, and she's in the process of putting up various interviews in order to provide sources for references. But separate articles would be a worthwhile improvement. K8 fan 20:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making individual articles for each album, in order. When I have them completed, I'll modify the page to remove the bulk of the listings. K8 fan 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've built individual pages for each album. Please link to and expand. K8 fan 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the track listings and technical information for all the albums except the unreleased "Find Me" have been moved to individual pages. NPOV descriptions of each album are obviously needed. Xenussister does not feel she can write them as she doesn't feel she has sufficient distance from the music, and I'm not a fan. So, this is everyone else's big chance to step up! K8 fan 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I modified the discography section into a chronological overview of Happy's career. Now that I've done the grunt-work, is anyone willing to step up and expand this? K8 fan 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vocal range discussion

I appreciate that there's been a lot of effort in documenting this, but it seems to me that the entire section comprises original research; there's no links to external, verifiable sources, which is a core Wikipedia requirement. I didn't want to go ahead and delete something which has obviously been worked hard on, but the section really needs reworking to comply with the WP:NOR policy. Gusworld (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any external sources that document the actual vocal ranges of various singers? The term "4 octave range" is tossed around quite freely, but a search for the term confined to Wikipedia did not yield any documentation of any of the claims. NOR states:

:: Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information 'directly related' to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The software used to measure the frequency value of Rhodes' highest and lowest notes would seem to be a "reliable source" - hard, scientific evidence rather than anecdotal evidence. Is a link to an article that just repeats the claim more useful than measurements documenting the claim? K8 fan (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the measurements is that they're original research -- citing measurements made in a software package is not the same as citing a reliable third party. If a reliable external published source had made these measurements and published them in an article, that could be cited, but the measurements can't be quoted as evidence in their current form without violating policy (though it seems to me it's possible that the images involved could be used for illustration, since the criteria are slightly different for pictures).

Discussions of vocal range are a perennial challenge at Wikipedia, precisely because there aren't many reliable external sources documenting them, especially within popular music (and many get caught up in PR hyperbole rather than demonstrable fact). However, the lack of such sources doesn't mean that OR material can be introduced as an alternative, which seems to me to be (roughly) what you're suggesting. Gusworld (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a reliable third party? The WP entries for other singers with notable ranges - Yma Sumac, Marah Carey, Annie Lennox - all have specific claims for an " x octave range", but a Google search did not yield any articles measuring their actual ranges, citing specific highest and lowest notes. I'm not sure I understand how showing that a particular vocalist can reproduce a particular note is any different than stating their eye or hair color. It's a fact, and this is verification of that fact - which would seem to be more encyclopedically useful than a link to a claim made by a music critic, who are usually repeating a claim they read elsewhere. K8 fan (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference is partly that traits like eye and hair colour are self-evident -- accurately observing musical range requires expert skill, and is the subject of frequent debate in other articles. Any material open to question requires sources. The precise level of detail is also part of the problem. To continue with the analogy, stating that someone has blue eyes might be uncontroversial in terms of citation; specifying the exact shade of blue in terms of wavelengths would undoubtedly require a source.

It's probably not necessary to note eye colour or hair colour in most articles anyway, which raises another issue. The fact that sources don't exist might also be said to speak to the relevance of the content; if no reliable third party sources have covered vocal range in this way, that could be an argument that it doesn't belong in the article (because it's not seen as notable by reliable external sources). Ultimately, too, the issue remains one of verifiability; there's no way for a reader to check on the sources for this information, because with the approach taken, Wikipedia itself is effectively the source, which is a clear no-no. Gusworld (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As seen above, even experts disagree when relying on their ears along. The spectral envelope clearly shows that Rhodes can produce these specific waveforms, and that those waveforms correspond to these specific notes on a piano keyboard. It would seem to take subjectivity out of the equation. Vocal range is the most frequently cited distinguishing characteristic of this particular artist. It would seem an awful shame to lose objective proof. In the case of Carey, most magazine articles, especially early in her career, mentioned her range - without providing any proof. Measurements like these are not of interest to the popular press. But a wide vocal range is definitely a notable characteristic a singer.

This leaves me in a bit of a quandary. Using this technique, we've managed to settle an age-old debate in a scientific, objective way. If the information were removed, it would be reduced to another unverified claim - and you can see from the history, it would be subject to challenge constantly or reduced to whatever number struck various editors as correct - which would lessen the utility of the article.K8 fan (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We're still not really dealing with the central issue here -- that the information being cited comprises original research, and "this information helps settle a common point of argument amongst fans", while true, doesn't trump the WP:NOR policy. (The particularly relevant clause here is the one relating to "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", I think.)

However, I want to step back and actually look at a bigger picture issue which might help illuminate that problem. You comment "Vocal range is the most frequently cited distinguishing characteristic of this particular artist.", but there's actually no citations that back up that claim in the text. (OK, there's not many citations at all, but that's another story.) Can we find some citable evidence on that point, which would help establish the relevance of having such a detailed discussion of range in the article? Gusworld (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Still happy to keep discussing this and hope we can find a solution, but I've flagged the section with an original research template in the meantime. Gusworld (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Returning after a month away (always good to have a break from these issues!), I see that nothing's changed. I still think that this section suffers from two major faults: it's entirely based on original research, and (per my last point) it's not at all clear that we need any discussion of vocal range that's this detailed -- there are no external sources suggesting this is Rhodes' most notable characteristic. The whole article could use many more references, but what worries me about this section particularly is that it will potentially end up being used as a justification for taking a similar approach on other artist entries. I still think it needs condensing/sourcing or removing, but once again am seeking thoughts from others. Gusworld (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Searching "Happy Rhodes vocal range" on Google produces 19,200 results.K8 fan (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Google searching in itself isn't usually considered a citable source on Wikipedia. In any case a more focused search -- "happy rhodes" "vocal range" -- produces a somewhat lower number (453 from where I sit). The first of these is this Wikipedia entry, the next is Rhodes' Myspace page, the third is Ecto. Nothing on the first three pages of results looks like it would be a suitable source per Wikipedia criteria to cite for this claim -- I haven't had time to look further down the list, but Google generally ranks 'name' publications quite high in search results. Gusworld (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the results on the first page is to a short review in Billboard magazine. Few album reviews fail to mention Rhodes' vocal range. Hopefully others will add cites, but trade magazines like Billboard, College Music Journal or the now defunct Tower Records Pulse lack online review archives. I can provide review excerpts, but those are on CDBaby.com.K8 fan (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good find -- I hadn't realised that was a Billboard excerpt as the URL suggests a fan site (which indeed the page is). Billboard's own artist bio excerpted from AMG doesn't mention her range at all though. Certainly both links should be useful somewhere in the article, as should the information that 'Roy' charted on Hot Dance Music/Club Play in 1999 (quite a surprising omission in such a detailed article!). All good data for enhancement, but I'm not sure one review quite gets us over the line yet in terms of establishing the need for such a detailed (and still fairly clearly OR) discussion of Rhodes' range. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

References needed

I've been engaged in a somewhat circular discussion above about how the section in this article on vocal range is a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. That still seems like a problem to me, but on reading through the whole article again, I think the complete lack of references is a bigger one.

This is a very detailed article on an artist with (clearly) a devoted fan base and (equally clearly) a fairly minor career in purely commercial terms. It's well written, but it has absolutely no supporting references whatsoever, which isn't appropriate for an article with this level of detail. I also think it's up for debate whether that level of detail is appropriate for a performer of Rhodes' stature (e.g. why do we need a list of minor artists who have supported her during live performances?).

Anyway, wanted to get some comments from people rather than just ripping through the article and added citation, peacock, and OR tags and templates everywhere. It's quite probable that much of this information won't be citable from sources which meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. But to my mind, that's an argument to remove the information, not to leave it. As it stands, the entire piece could be fiction for all the casual reader knows. Gusworld (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Monsters section

Haven't checked this article for a while; it's still got major problems in terms of lack of citations, weasel words and neutrality. But what really stuck out this time was the huge section quoting Rhodes on why there are monsters on her album covers. It was unsourced ("kind permission of Happy Rhodes" is not a verifiable source), and way too lengthy, especially given that the only justification for including it was an equally unsourced claim that some listeners might find the covers confusing. I can't see any reason why the information is needed in Rhodes' Wikipedia article at all, and as ever would point out that reputable and verifiable external sources would be needed to reintroduce it. Gusworld (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dark lyrics section & vocal range

Returning to this page some four years after last editing it, I immediately had to remove the 'Dark Lyrics' section -- entirely unsourced fan commentary. If this is a notable characteristic of Rhodes' work, sources should be available.

At this juncture, I'm also inclined to remove most of the vocal range discussion (something I've raised repeatedly here), as it's self-evidently OR and no-one has come up with an argument to the contrary. The only source even discussing Rhodes' vocal range is an obscure review; seems to me quite a bit of trimming would be appropriate at this stage. Gusworld (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Vocal range

Having raised this numerous times over the years (see above), I've removed the vocal range section. It is unquestionably original research, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. Of the two actual references cited, one was a dead link and the other (a Billboard review) did not actually contain the statement attributed to it. I've preserved the citation here as it could be used as a reference for the oft-made comparisons between Rhodes and Kate Bush, and the article on the whole lacks proper citations. Will try and work this in shortly. Gusworld (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Superfluous opening acts

Hi, a list of acts which have opened for this artist is superfluous and I have removed it. Leaving it here for posterity, and for anyone who ever comes up with a reference to an article or interview that establishes how these acts that opened for her have had any obvious or important musical influence on her music.

• Musicians opening for Rhodes include Bon Lozaga, Caryn Lin, Joy Askew, Jen Hess, Ritual Motion, The Nudes, and Richard Johnson.

Denstat (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)