Talk:A cappella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Portal
A cappella is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Spelling

We could probably discuss this spelling for ever. Somebody has even created a web page about it. [1]

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the most widely accepted spelling is a cappella. Many web pages [2] [3] [4] and the A-Cappella Music FAQ [5] [6] agree. Collins (UK #2 authority, after OED) give 'A cappella' meaning according to (the style of the) chapel.

Some writers [7] [8] [9] use a cappella in their own writing, reserving a capella for quotations, titles and meta tags, acknowleding it to be incorrect. Others [10] [11], and The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, acknowledge what people are actually writing and hedge their bets, accepting a capella as a valid alternative spelling. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary takes this position, yet also confirms that Capelle means goat and is the name of a star.

Some apparently authoritative sources also concede [12] acappella as a most popular de facto usage.

Some writers [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] use both a cappella and a capella without appearing to notice the variation. Sometimes they are humorous.

One widely quoted purist [20] [21] in support of a cappella alleges

In truth, a capella means in your hair, a cappello means in your hat, and A Capella is an astronomical reference to the first planet circling the star Capella in the constellation Auriga.

The popular vote: Google finds 247,000 hits for a capella, 205,000 for a cappella and 77,600 for acappella.
EdH 15:50, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, one word, one "p," and two "l's" is the most popular. Google searches in early 2007 show about 2,410,000 for acapella, 1,740,000 for a cappella (the "correct" spelling), 1,510,000 for a capella and 1,240,000 for acappella.
--Acafella58 15:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I note, however, that almost all the first page of results for "a capella" in fact spell the word with two P's and just have the misspelling in their META tags. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary I keep here by my computer - Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary - gives a capella as a variant spelling. If I were voting in an election, I would vote to standardize it as acappella, since in English that a there by itself (not connected) can sometimes look confusing. Probably best here is to stick with the proper usage. I do wonder, though, if this sentence shouldn't be modified some way - "Often you find the wrong spelling a capella with one p." - Rlvaughn 03:03, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now someone has added a couple of times - "Correct is only a cappella - with two p and two l." This makes it even worse, especially since the sentence itself isn't even very grammatical.

[edit] Religious groups that sing a capella

Eastern Orthodox christians (especially Russian and other slavic groups) insist on singing unaccompanied by instruments. I didn't want to change the corpus of the article itself since I am still not completely familiar with the Wikipedia protocols.

For groups that already have Wikipedia entries, is it really necessary to have a direct link to the official page for the group from the a cappella article? Ventura 22:27, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

I think probably not. I added Anonymous 4 with a link to their website, because at the time there was not an entry on Anonymous 4. After I started one, I didn't remove the link (and also forgot to add the link to the entry). I'm going to remove the link from the a cappella article. I'll leave others to do their own. - Rlvaughn 14:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shameless Plugs vs. Useful Listing

The list of groups is a bit out of hand. It should probably contain a few prime examples of each a cappella style (lay Church, religious, collegiate, etc.), and not all these minor groups. A simple link to the CASA listing of collegiate groups should be more than enough. It's walking the line of using Wikipedia for self promotion. SparqMan 07:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I came to make a suggestion/question, and found SparqMan already posted this regarding the list, so I'm putting my comments here. I don't know in general whether the groups listed are "shameless plugs" or "useful listings", not being at all familiar with most of them. If there are articles on groups, a list such as this does make it an easy "jumping off point" to find them. BUT the list is getting quite long. My thought is that if some of these are college a cappella ensembles, those could be moved to the collegiate a cappella article. Just a thought. Maybe some of them should be deleted altogether. - Rlvaughn 19:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense. Groups with articles get a link from collegiate a cappella, and the rest can be found from the CASA listing. SparqMan 21:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sparqman, looks like though we discussed this, neither one of us did anything. The list just keeps getting longer. What do you think? So we move on this? Another possibility, I suppose, would be to create a page called List of a cappella ensembles. Or is the original idea better? Any more thoughts?? - Rlvaughn 03:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem has certainly gotten worse. List of collegiate a cappella ensembles probably requires it's own list. That way we can link to both articles and have external links to websites for groups without articles. The CASA listing (http://www.collegiate-acappella.com) isn't exceptionally comprehensive or useful. So maybe name of group, school they're affiliated with, and the city, state. Perhaps a table? And I guess we can make a list for non-collegiate ensemble list too, although that doesn't seem to be where the traffic is coming from. SparqMan 00:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SparqMan, the table idea sounds good. Do you want to take the lead in this? I'm not familiar with making tables, though I suppose I could figure it out. - Rlvaughn 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't consider any of them 'minor groups'. I like this list, and I believe it should stay. Some of these groups are actually pretty major, just unheard of by many people not all that familiar with a capella.

One problem I see is that some of these might be "pretty major" in a smaller class (such as collegiate a cappella), while being relatively unknown in the larger genre of a cappella music (which is what the article is about). - Rlvaughn 03:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a move toward changing the ensemble listings. None were deleted. I moved all that were college-related, as best as I could tell, to the Collegiate a cappella article. I think they will be more fitting and appropriate there. I did leave the Yale Whiffenpoofs link, since they are the oldest collegiate a cappella group. Someone should check over the remaining list and see if any others ought to go to more specific articles. SparqMan, you still might want to move forward with your table idea at some point. - Rlvaughn 15:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the last line of "Modern A Cappella", which appeared to be a plug for someone's school group: St. John's Preparatory School, in Danvers, MA, has an award winning a cappella group, Swingtown. I forgot to log in, so it's an anon. edit, sorry. Mana Gement 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambigution not redirect is needed

Search for the music group named "Acappella", and you are redirected to this article on a cappella music. From here you can click on the list of professional vocal groups and then click on the link to the page for the group Acappella. Instead, there should be a disambiguation page so that you can find the article on the group Acappella directly from a search for its name. Folding Chair 01:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm new here, and havent yet learned how to do that. Maybe someday...

I've added a disambiguation link at the top of the page. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origins Of A cappella

One can argue the origin of the genre; I have always believed that A cappella music originated from Negro Spirituals, Seeing that Afro Americans could not afford instruments. I have also been taught that it was a way of socialising, correct if I am wrong.

Gregorian Chant far predates slavery in America, and was originally a cappella.204.69.190.75 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have imagined some African slaves working together in cotton fields harmonising songs. I would ague that this music originates in Africa or slavery.

--Buhle78 11:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There is ample evidence of a cappella music far predating American slavery. In fact, it's pretty certain that every primitive society involved a cappella singing at some point, even if we don't know anything about it. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off Topic: New template?

There is already a Music Genres template, apologies!

But I couldn't see it in the A Capella page though...Henceforth the bottom edit:

Shouldn't we create a new template for music genres such as R&B, Pop, Ballad, etc...

As you all know, templates are usually at the end of the page in a shaded box and include associated references or (suggested reads) to the original article.

What do you think?

Dexter 15:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad link...

so the footnote #1 something about period judaism does not seem to work... Jabencarsey 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other noted collegiate a cappella groups

The "other noted collegiate a cappella groups" sentence appears to be rapidly turning into a promotional space. I vote we either delete it, or add some criteria (multiple CARA wins, ICCA wins, BOCA appearances, whatever). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JavaTenor (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. Some of those groups are big names in collegiate a cappella, Off The Beat, Tufts Beezlebubs, etc. Maybe the list should be the 5 groups that have the highest number of BOCA tracks? Who are the Other Guys? I've never heard of them in my life. Tylermatts 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why give BOCA so much influence in determining the list? The BOCA selection process is not necessarily as unbiased a method as should ideally be used, in my opinion (as a former collegiate a cappella member). Ideally it should probably be a combination of ICCA, BOCA, CARA and any other quantifiable recognitions. I guess that gets complicated though. --BSweezy 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As a fan of College A Cappella, I find it odd that none of my favorite groups are listed. One or two I could understand, but NONE of them???

Well, okay, I like the King Singers, The Real Group, and of course the Swingle Singers. But no mention of the Nasoons, or the Kommedian Harmonists?!?

I don't feel qualified to write any text for the actual wiki, but c'mon guys!

Where is Insideout A Cappella at very least? The song Innocence II conatins some of the most amazing a cappella synth imitations I've ever heard. Not to mention some amazing techno drums!

So far no mention of the Knudsen Brothers, T Minus Five, The Standards, Moose Butter, Eclipse, 259, Reprise, Voice Male, T Minus 5, Octappella, 6th Gear, The Saltaires, Gentlemen of the Court, the Beehive Statesmen, Yamagata, Milk Money, The Kords, The Peerless Quartet, the Dale Brothers, etc. etc. etc.

None of BYU's choirs are mentioned, despite numerous distinctions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYU_Choirs

Not even any mention of the Osmond brothers, who got their first big break as children when they met a Barbershop Quartet while visiting Disneyland, and matched them note for note.

I see a pattern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.48.75 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slow-motion edit war

Can we get some resolution to the recent reverts in the St. Olaf College Choir section? Maybe split the choir off on its own page, as I don't know that it's really necessary to have a full paragraph on any one particular group in this general-purpose article. JavaTenor 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Could use some guidance here. Stusutcliffe 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
N.B. it already has its own article St._Olaf_Choir. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Still happening. We could use an official ruling... Stusutcliffe 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The St. Olaf Choir is relevant to the page. The a cappella tradition established at St. Olaf speaks for itself. You really can't talk about a cappella singing without mentioning St. Olaf, and if you don't know that, you really don't know what you're talking about. Adding references to other midwestern college choirs which have copied St. Olaf's style is akin to what is going on in the small-group acappella paragraph. Everyone wants to pimp their own group, but they are not relevant to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.130.25 (talk • contribs).

You're absolutely right. In fact, no choir ever sang a cappella before St. Olaf — they were all accompanied by piano until F. Melius Christiansen had the brilliant idea to have them sing alone, establishing a worldwide tradition which has infected every country and even extended into previous centuries! And if you don't know that, you really don't know what you're talking about </sarcasm> —Wahoofive (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The only thing this 64.122.130.25 user has ever contributed to wikipedia has been to plug St. Olaf and the invention of choral music (nice job, Wahoofive). Perhaps his/her neutrality could be questioned. Stusutcliffe 16:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My vote: The article needs some reorganization. There should be a section on a cappella choral music, and in that section, we can mention the St. Olaf choir as a prominent example and link to the relevant article. I'm not trying to disparage the worth of the choir in question, but I think it's worth reiterating that we don't need a paragraph on any one performing group in a general-purpose article about the genre. If people are interested in further information about this choir, they can read their article. JavaTenor 18:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, JavaTenor. Despite my snark, I agree that St. Olaf is a prominent choir and important in the history of music in the United States. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category A cappella albums?

When pondering into which categories I should put Category:Rajaton albums, I wondered if it would make sense to create Category:A cappella albums as a subcategory of Category:Albums by genre. Cheers, BNutzer 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification request

It may be obvious to those who know but isn't to the ignorant ("Hi, that's me. ;-)") - is a cappella for groups and choirs or is it possible to for someone to be a solo a cappella singer? And, given this potential sticking point, could ith be exp[licitly mentioned in the article, please? :-) 89.243.189.55 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The term can be used for solo singers as well. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam link

"acappella hosting" keeps adding a link. He/she is now bugging me on my personal page. Admins, can we do something about this? See below. Stusutcliffe (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

AcappellaHosting

Please stop removing our links the A cappella wiki, we are a fully licensed company just like the others listed. We are mentioned in several articles and newsletters from CASA and RARB. Please stop discriminating against our company. Thank you.

[edit] Religious traditions (Jewish)

"To provide a more balanced view, this section needs additional Tora/Old Testament references where the Lord specifically details musical instruments as a component of worship. Additional references like 2 Chronicals 5:13 where God was pleased with the people and the concept of "one voice" referring to both vocal and instrumental music would create a more balanced view. It appears that the more ancient texts do not differentiate between human voice and instrumentation in the context of praise to God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmgatl2008 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 25 May 2008

The above comment was appended to a reference within the Jewish subsection of the main article's 'Religious traditions' section; considering it more appropriate within the discussion page, I moved it here. —Adavidb 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)