Talk:Freddy Curci

Longest vocal note held in a pop song?

The article says he held the end note of "When I'm With You" for 30 seconds. Was this in a live performance then? Do we have a source for this? In the studio recording I've heard it's not even close to 30 seconds: the whole word "you" at the end, which covers several notes without a break, is slightly under 26 seconds and the last note itself only about 19. Is there any recording available of the 30-second version?Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the record myself, but maybe it's not actually referring to the longest note held, but longest string of notes without taking a breath. Although, if this is the case, there are quite a few vocalists who can do this and/or better. Either way, it surely does need a source. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Curci has a multi-octave vocal range and holds the Guinness World Record for Longest Note Held in a pop song, for 30 seconds, timed and submitted by University of Houston, for the ending note of "When I'm With You."

"Was this in a live performance then?" - a) I don't know. It would be useful if I could get hold of a copy of the referenced book. b) What's the definition / your definition of "a live performance"?

"Do we have a source for this?" - Err, not personally, but I think it's possible that it might be in the book now called Guinness World Records? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose in this context a live performance could be just about any other than a studio recording, e.g. concert, TV or radio appearance, or just singing in front of a bunch of students to set a record. I surmise that it must be verifiable: concert footage, for example, might not be accepted for Guinness World Record purposes if it cannot be proven that the vocal is not a pre-recorded digitally altered track.

The longest note in a pop song record is not mentioned in the current Guinness World Records book: since new records are set every year they omit some of the ones which haven't changed since the previous year in order to limit the book to one sensibly-sized volume, so it might be necessary to consult previous editions to find a particular record. The article doesn't even mention the year the record was set, which makes it somewhat more difficult to track down. I couldn't find it on the Guinness World Records website, and when I Googled it, the only mentions of it I could find all seem to be quoting Wikipedia as a source!

I'll mark it . The author hasn't even specified the exact criteria used: what is the definition of "pop song" in this context? I could record an original song which I consider to be in the pop genre and post it on YouTube but somehow I don't think that would count! Does it need to be released by a major record label and/ or a hit single, or a track on a hit album? Does the record-breaking performance then have to be by the original artist or would a cover version qualify without necessarily meeting the same criteria as the original?

Incidentally, the record for longest vocal note in a hit single belongs to Morten Harket's 20.2 second note in a-ha's hit Summer Moved On, though as far as I'm aware this is not an official Guinness World Record because no independent adjudicator was present at the recording session. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear me. You raise a good collection of questions! (I'm reminded of that Lewis Carroll character that said something like: "It means exactly what I want it to mean"!!)

No, I don't know the answer(s). I'm now not sure that I even know what the question is, let alone what the question means. I am extremely tempted to gracefully withdraw from the conversation, because I now no longer have anything new or useful to add.

Good luck and Best wishes! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Sorry, we still need a specific reference for this: generic Guinness World Records information doesn't really help." - No, we don't need a specific reference; if that were a requirement, then at least half of WP's references would need anotation. Yes, I agree that a specific reference would be ideal, but it is NOT a requirement. Also, the lack of "specific-ness" (is that a word?) is NOT a reason, let alone a justification, for removal of a reference. If it were, and your were going to be consistent in your behaviour, you would be spending the rest of your life removing non-specific references from wikipedia. There are tags for this purpose - if you feel the need, use one of those. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, perhaps I could have worded that a bit better (I did try to but I ran out of room so my "edit summary" was a little more curt than I would have liked). Since the usual tag for unsourced material is , I don't think the word "need" is necessarily unacceptable in this context: I certainly meant no offence and would apologise for any caused.

I have less experience of editing Wikipedia than you do, and I'm not yet familiar with all the tags available: if you think there is one appropriate to this situation, perhaps you could give me your suggestion(s)? I could try adding some sort of custom tag like ^{[specific citation please?]} but it wouldn't link anywhere.

It's probably true that Wikipedia is littered with uselessly vague and/ or unreliable citations, and I have no intention of spending my days seeking them out; however, if I happen to come across something I think can easily be improved in an article which interests me then I'll endeavour to improve it.

I think that in this case giving two separate references for Guinness World Records when neither includes the relevant information might be misleading: one might expect when different sources are referenced that at least one will actually contain the relevant data. You have said above that you personally do not have the source for the reported world record. Nor do I. How, then, can we be certain that this is or was a genuine world record? I have yet to find any verifiable evidence of it, and I would suggest that even if one were certain of the veracity of such a fact (perhaps remembering a TV news report for instance) it would still be a questionable precedent to cite sources which do not contain the specific information to which they supposedly pertain: this might encourage others to give credence to urban myths by citing Guinness World Records without linking to any online source for the specific record in question or specifying the edition in which it was printed.

I cannot see the value in referencing the Wikipedia article on Guinness World Records in addition to the official Guinness World Records site, particularly when the sentence to which the references are attached itself contains a link to that same article. Its inclusion as a reference in my opinion adds nothing but confusion: most of us already know what Guinness World Records are, and if we didn't we could find that information on their website which you also cited. I have noted that www.guinnessworldrecords.com includes a Press Zone which is not accessible to the general public, so it's possible that members might be able to find something there.

My proposal, then, is to remove the Wikipedia Guinness World Records page from the references, and retain only the official Guinness World Records site, and also add something like ^[Specifics?] to the footnote, then perhaps someone with an old edition of The Guinness Book Of Records might be able to tell us where to look. Does that sound reasonable? In the meantime, I have e-mailed the University Of Houston (reported to have timed and submitted the record) to ask if anyone there can shed any light on the matter, and I've also posted a query on the Guinness World Records message board but it's pretty dead. If I receive any reply or find any further relevant information from any other source I will then update this page.

Gaagh, research is hard work isn't it?Contains Mild Peril (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm going to put the back but in addition to Pdfpdf's reference tags until we have a chance to discuss this, but I do feel quite strongly that Wikipedia Guinness World Records article has no place as a citation for this article.Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

label-for-convenience-of-editing

I missed noticing your posting. My apologies!

Wow. Lots of stuff there.

("I did try to but I ran out of room" - fyi, there's a parameter in "my preferences" that lets you write longer edit comments.)

"Since the usual tag for unsourced material is "citation needed", I don't think the word "need" is necessarily unacceptable in this context." - I'm probably being pedantic here, but another or different citation is not "needed", because there is a citation there. Yes, a better citation would be better. A better citation would also be more informative and more useful. But what I put there fulfils the basic "need" requirement.

"I'm not yet familiar with all the tags available: if you think there is one appropriate to this situation, perhaps you could give me your suggestion(s)?" - Short answer: Certainly. Longer answer: There are many templates, and I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with them as I'd like to be. However, I do know of one: {{Nonspecific}}, which produces . Sadly, I only specifically know that one. However, I do know that others exist, and one of those may (or may not) be more appropriate ...

"however, ... I think can easily be improved ... which interests me, then I'll endeavour to improve it." - I think you may find many editors behave in that manner; it is that sort of rationale that brought me to a related article which then led me here.

"I think that ... " - Good points. "I cannot see the value ... " - More good points. "My proposal ... " - That sounds like a good plan. "If I receive any reply ... " - Yes please.

"Gaagh, research is hard work isn't it?" - Yes. That's why people who do it only tend to do it in areas that interest them!

"but I do feel quite strongly that Wikipedia Guinness World Records article ... " - fyi, the MoS (Manual of Style) shares your opinion, as do I. There was some other reason why I put it there, but obviously that reason is either ambiguous or obscure. I will review what I put there and attempt to address your concerns.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that the "longest vocal note" record probably actually refers to the original 1982 version, a different recording from the No.1 hit version, and that the record isn't for the longest single note but for the whole phrase sung without a breath. I'll update if I find any further info. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Vocal Range section

In addition to this, the whole Vocal Range section is written extremely poorly, is unsourced, is heavily biased/does not conform to WP:NPOV, seems to be filled with original research. It's basically a bunch of fancruft that, while interesting (if true), is not acceptable in an encyclopedia (see WP:TRIVIA). It reads like a fansite, not an encyclopedic biography. I'm going to remove it within 24 hours, as per the above reasons, unless someone can provide an extremely convincing reason it should stay. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"In addition to this, the whole Vocal Range section is written extremely poorly, is unsourced, is heavily biased/does not conform to WP:NPOV, seems to be filled with original research. It's basically a bunch of fancruft that, while interesting (if true), is not acceptable in an encyclopedia (see WP:TRIVIA). It reads like a fansite, not an encyclopedic biography."

I agree.

"I'm going to remove it within 24 hours, as per the above reasons, unless someone can provide an extremely convincing reason it should stay."

I've never been in favour of solutions that "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I've had a go at it. If it is still not to your liking, perhaps you could address these problems, or failing that, point out your specific problems? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally I don't believe any of those notes should be there, as it really is just pointless trivia. I mean, the section about When I'm With You is obviously noteworthy, as it holds a world record, but all those other high notes really are just part of a "fluff" section. In addition, none of those notes are sourced - each one needs a reliable third party source confirming that those are indeed the notes hit. Please note, that we can't just link to a youtube video and tell the reader to "listen" to the note as (a) the average reader would have no idea what the different notes are, and would have a hard time telling them apart, and (b) it would all be original research.

If every one of those notes and it's corresponding songs could be sourced, there's still the issue of notability. If Curci was the only human able to reach these notes, there would be an argument for them being included, but there are quite a few singers (both male and female) that can reach these notes.

Again, I really do not see any justification for their inclusion. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, again, I agree with you.

However, as I've said, I've never been in favour of solutions that "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Is any of it "saveable"?

Pdfpdf (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for sure, some of it is savable - provided we can find a source. He seems to be really, really good at holding high G's and high F's, so if we can find a source stating this, then we could add that, as it is quite impressive and notable. And then we could remove the section with each specific song. Any thoughts? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Several. First, I'll ask the charming lady who wrote the text. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The charming lady has not been around since 22 Feb. I may not get a reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found the source of the text. Not exactly "authoritative" though. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So I removed the songs/notes section, but I did save this section, as it is sourced properly:-

"Curci is one of the few rock vocalists with multi-octave singing ranges able to hit high notes without resorting to falsetto."

I moved it into the lead section though. I'll keep searching for a reliable source that explains which notes he can hit. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. If/when you or I (or anybody else for that matter) finds a reliable source, that information can be added. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Freddy Curci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509142513/http://www.freddycurci.com:80/ to http://www.freddycurci.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)