Talk:Oktavist

Video

This might be a good video to include in this article: http://www.archive.org/details/we_praise_thee or also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiBTbi7We90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.151.226 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 June 2007‎

Is this a real term?

I have searched several music references including Grove and the Harvard Dictionary of Music and have found no mention of this term. I have never heard the term before either and I am a professional musician. I am certainly willing to admit that I don't know everything and this could be a real term, but I find it odd that it is not mentioned in major music encyclopedias and dictionaries if the term is actually genuine.Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to be a real term, although used almost exclusively in relation to Russian Orthodox choral music. I've added some references and further reading to the article. Here's another snippet, although not suitable as a reference, [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue. I am going to add this to my list of terms to request Grove to cover.Nrswanson (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question highlights a serious problem with the article: this indeed is a term used to refer to singers in a choral context, and it has a Russian origin. For more on the origins of the term, see here. The Russian choral conductor Pavel Chesnokov defines the term in his book, and this article contains scans from his book. http://www.oktavism.com/#!What-is-an-Oktavist/cu6k/4DB4D3F8-DA21-409F-AD4D-18F51DCBD7E9 The problem with the wiki page is that it talks about "oktavists in other genres." This doesn't really make sense, as oktavist is a specific term used within the genre of choral music. The term 'oktavist' isn't used to describe opera singers, or singers in pop a Capella music such as Pentatonix, etc. As a result, the section 'oktavists in other genres' is a bit nonsensical--it's like looking for heldentenors outside of the opera world, in pop, R&B, and alternative. Since 'heldentenor' is an extremely specific term used to describe a singer in a specific genre, using it outside that genre introduces a distinct imprecision to the term. Similarly, the integrity of this article is compromised by an imprecise use of the term oktavist. Avoiceinthemist (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote

Vladimir Miller once said: "One million people, one Basso Profundo" . ... there are roughly 6000 men in the world with basso Profundo range. Someone forgot women (more than 1/2 of world people). Leaved the citation and purged the wrong count! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.98.52 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Merge with "Basso profondo"

Nrswanson's point is right on the money -- primary sources are considerably lacking in mention of the term "octavist". Add to this that the Russian Wikipedia page for oktavist redirects to the Russian page for Basso profondo, and it seems what we're dealing with here is merely a traditional Russian term for Basso profondo. When we also consider that these two categories almost completely overlap -- the example in the current text, "the oktavist soloist sings a G1," is also what the wiki page for Basso profondo provides as the lower end of the profondo range -- and the reasons for having a separate oktavist page start becoming rather few.

Since the Basso profondo page is also pretty short, I'm suggesting we merge these. Others' thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruxda (talk • contribs) 00:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and added template 'merge-to'. Please see discussion on basso profondo talk page.Bcharles (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced: The ru: page is not well-developed, having a paragraph about choral octivists, followed by a list of operatic roles. These are two distinct specializations, with different traditions and histories. What exactly would be gained by discussing them together? Sparafucil (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings everyone! I agree that the terms could be merged however suggest that there should be a clear subsection and explanation of those terms. Thus satisfying all points of view. I would like to add that the the terms are used fairly interchangeably in Russian but one must differentiate between operatic profondos and Russian Octavist profondos. Cormag100 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this voting thing is already closed but I do agree that they should be merged. I think while by strict definition, a basso profondo has a range going down to C2 and can sing E♭2 fortissimo, I think most people also use it to describe people who go lower (like to A1 or even F1). Oktavists seem more like a sub-category of very deep basso profondos to me, and I think it also says that in the basso profondo article. ~​~​~​~​​ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.17.83 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this has been unresolved for nearly two years. I'd love to see the banners eliminated either by merging or agreeing to leave it alone. I don't have a horse in this race (this is the first time I've visited this page) but personally I think this article has enough differentiation to make it viable. Frankly, I was pleased to find the references.

Here is my logic for keeping it, but I am happy to bow to those of you who know this subject. Yes, Oktavist is a subset of Basso profondo but both are subsets of Bass which is itself nothing more than a sub-page for Voice Type. Going to the other end of the vocal range for inspiration, this article much clearer in its differentiation from the "parent" than the plethora of ____-Soprano or Soprano-____ articles. They offer little a non-specialist (like me) can even understand while this seems clear and useful. As an amusing sidelight, this article has considerably more edits in the past year than the Basso Profondo target! Maybe it is actually something of real interest to folks?159.53.78.143 (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (Kevin)

I think I'll go ahead and do this in the next few days. I've been doing some other clean up on the voice pages too. Aaron Bruce (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry Tim storms is no octavist

in fact he can only fry the low notes witch eating the microphones and those notes have absolutely no power!!!!! he needs amplifiers that must have power to let tim storms voice heard. to be hionest nothing compares to the extreme power and extreme loudness of the russian or operatic octavists and baso profondos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 August 2013‎

Tim Storms, Avi Kaplan and Tim Foust

I don't think those three singers can be considered actual Bassi Profundi. As notes that require amplification in order to be audible in a larger context (e. g. over a choir/orchestra) in order to determine the voice type of a singer, Tim Storms' vocal ambitus ends approximately in the middle of the third octave, making him a baritone. I haven't heard Foust singing without amplifiation, but there is a significant change in his power between D2 (poss. C#2?) and C2 (best audible in his song 'I Dare You'), making him what would be called 'Black Bass' ("Schwarzer Bass") in German (no idea about an equivalent english term).

Avi Kaplan also ends up at D2, while his C2 requires a microphone - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzCUGUJkKbE at 2:04, as well as the music videos for 'Evolution of Music' (slightly struggeled, but quite sonorous D2 notes) and 'Evolution of Beyonce' (several powerful notes between D2 and F#2, and a couple of very weak C2s). However, his voice has significantly grown in the previous three years, so he could probably become a true oktavist in the next 5-15 years.

--87.174.239.160 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Noch ein Anderer

Partially cleaned up but still a mess

This article is a complete mess and gets worse with each passing year. I have copyedited it to remove the most glaring examples of personal opinions and commentary, references to YouTube performances, repetitious material, etc. This term is used virtually exclusively with respect to Russian Orthodox choral music, and thus to classically trained singers who sing without amplification. It is not applied to anyone who can push put an extremely low note in front of a microphone and get themselves into the Guinness Book of Records. I completely agree with Avoiceinthemist's comments above: "the section 'oktavists in other genres' is a bit nonsensical--it's like looking for heldentenors outside of the opera world, in pop, R&B, and alternative" and "Similarly, the integrity of this article is compromised by an imprecise use of the term oktavist." Consequently I have completely removed the "Octavists in other genres" section and left only a list of oktavist singers, removing all red-linked names. I strongly suggest that what little information about this term and voice type which can be actually referenced to reliable published sources be merged into Basso profondo and Oktavist be left as a redirect. The merge discussion is at Talk:Basso profondo#Merge with oktavist. Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On the idea of a merge

To redirect oktavist to basso profundo would seem (to me) to imply a certain degree of synonymity between these terms, which isn't really accurate. But, if by merge, you mean moving much of the material here into the article on "basso profundo" that would be fine, as long as the terms weren't taken too synonymously. I am not very experienced at editing Wiki pages, but I have plenty of print material at home on the oktavist that I could add if people feel that there are not enough print sources. This perceived lack is more due to the lack of print sources in English. While the web is largely an English arena, and Wikipedia is English, I don't think this means we have to be ignorant of such info. Chesnokov's book on the Russian choir is an especially good resource, and has recently been translated into English. Other print sources are referenced here. If I get time, I could work on editing some of this more historical info supported by print sources into the wiki article, but it will have to wait until after the dissertation defense. http://www.oktavism.com/#!The-History-of-Oktavism-Part-1/cu6k/9B9473D9-C156-46CE-B673-B35943009D4E Thank you, Voceditenore, for your work on this page. 75.65.50.45 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am moving ahead with merging this into basso profundo. The goal is to create a subsection on oktavist in that article, so that most of the material here is preserved, without the redundancy.Bcharles (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)