Talk:Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan

Six-octave range?

Hmmm. Seems to me that "six-octave range" is an exaggeration. He was a tenor who used a set of techniques to reach beyond the two octaves most mortals can reach. As an example, in the video for "Must Nazron Se Allah Bachaye" it is clearly seen that the highest notes are sung by another party member. elpincha (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliably sourced statement. The fact that a different singer sings higher notes in any given video doesn't prove anything. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the reliable source? Are you aware that the claim is very close to be physically impossible? elpincha (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, after some research I am going to remove the claim, and here is the rationale. The source cited is anything but reliable (it is IMDB, come on fellas). The claim is completely bogus. See the article on Tim Storms for the widest range ever recorded, which is five octaves, i.e. half of what the claim here is/was (six octaves is indeed twice as wide as five octaves; kindly do some research before disputing this). Attaining any such range, for a tenor such as Ustad NFAK, is simply physically impossible. Please note that it is actually disrespectful to enter claims that belong in the supernatural (e.g. it would be disrespectful to claim that NFAK levitated).

In my personal understanding, he worked within the usual two-plus octaves, and transcended that by using traditional techniques for some superb command in the lower registers. The fact that on Youtube you can see who sings each part is not to be lightly disregarded. elpincha (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What's with the attitude? --Sarabseth (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if the attitude is an issue. I did try to be as objective as possible, save for the dis on IMDB, which is a dis on IMDB as a source for reliable statements, not on any person... elpincha (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to these two statements: "kindly do some research before disputing this" and "Please note that it is actually disrespectful to enter claims that belong in the supernatural (e.g. it would be disrespectful to claim that NFAK levitated)". --Sarabseth (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Elpincha . Why does the 6 octave vocal range seems an exaggeration? Are there any proofs to prove that he didn't possess such an ability? Any articles published about it? Please share if any . IndieOKB (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

(As far as I have listened to Nusrat) His lowest note is B2 (in one of the Nusrat-Brook collab tracks and in a 1993 recording of Chaap Tilak) and the highest is G5 (in the 1993 recording of Mera Piya Ghar Aaya performed at Washington University). But he does not sustain these notes. His lowest and highest sustained notes are C#3 and F5. Mostly he sung between C#3 and F5. C#3 to F5 is 2 octaves and 4 semitones (which is a great range, considering that he never used falsetto). B2 to G5 is 2 octaves and 8 semitones.

WellSoz (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: In a 1990 recording of Man Kunto Maula, he sustains G5 for a second or two. In a 1993 recording of Raag Gawati, he goes down to Bb2, for a second. In a 1989 recording of Raag Ahir Bhairav he goes down to A2. A2 to G5 is just two semitones short of 3 octaves. WellSoz (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Vocal Range Record Explanation

Vocal Range of six octaves is not something impossible at all and has been attained by people on several occasions. The current record holder is Tim Storms who has attained 10 octave range check it out Five octaves as mentioned by elpincha is his range in inaudible frequency,below middle C... and not his complete vocal range.... Tim Storms is not alone ... there are quite a few record holders above 6 octaves... some of them are Georgia Brown (Brazil), Adam Lopez etc...

I would like to point that elpincha had been very direct and disrespectful without any proper citation.AvnishIT (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he was certainly rude. To be fair, he did provide a citation. Too bad he didn't understand what the citation actually meant, or check the facts properly and see that the vocal range of Tim Storms is 10 octaves. --Sarabseth (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS COMMENT WAS DELETED BY THE AUTHOR SOON AFTER POSTING IT (this is presumably the temporary comment referred to in the next comment). BUT DELETING IT DISTORTS THE HISTORY OF THIS DISCUSSION (AND ALSO VIOLATES TALK PAGE GUIDELINES I BELIEVE) SO I HAVE RESTORED IT ON SEP 9, 2012 TO ITS ORIGINAL PLACE--Sarabseth (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, here I am again, and I am gonna be rude again. Tenors cannot have a six-octave range. This is a physical impossibility. Claiming that anything or anybody has a 10-octave range means that somebody has to learn what an octave is. An incredibly silly claim such as this is disrespectful to Ustad NFAK. elpincha (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. (Deleting temporary comment here.) To be more scientific than rude here. After listening to a significant number of recordings, the lowest voice I hear is a C3, and I am not sure this is the Ustad himself. Range of comfort is the usual for a tenor, ending around D5, and then we hear and delight in the more acute notes; C6 is the highest I've found. Even giving some ample margins for having missed something, including that C3, a very optimistic evaluation would be 3.5 to 4 octaves. elpincha (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And yes, you can be superhuman with less than six octaves. Cesaria Evora had two, Joni Mitchell and Stevie Wonder have three. The three of them have been admired greatly. Any singer who claims more than 3.5 octaves is either a white male hard-rock singer who wants his primal screams (as opposed to his singing) to hit the walls and back, or somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist. And of course, the ten octaves claim cannot be taken seriously. elpincha (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1) With all due respect, you're making edits based on OR, which violates the most basic Wikipedia principle.

2) Any singer who claims more than 3.5 octaves is either a white male hard-rock singer who wants his primal screams (as opposed to his singing) to hit the walls and back, or somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist. And of course, the ten octaves claim cannot be taken seriously. As pointed out in the previous section, Tim Storms has a vocal range of 10 octaves, and this is certified by Guinness. Perhaps it is you (and your personal opinion, unsupported by anything else) who should not be taken seriously?

3) I am reverting your edit to the article. Please do not restore it unless you can support your claims. --Sarabseth (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Storms claims 5 octaves and not 10, see any & all articles on him. Also, "six octaves" is the actual claim, so the burden of proof is on those who want it on the article, not on the sceptics. Claiming that a tenor cannot produce six octaves is pretty self-evident for anybody who knows their stuff. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't have to look at any or all. Just his Wikipedia article seems to suffice (bold emphasis mine):

Storms's Guinness World Record for the lowest note produced by a human was certified in January 2002.[3] Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] As of 2008, the new record for lowest note was .7973Hz (point 7973Hz), and the new record for Widest Vocal Range For Any Human was ten octaves.

Updated: 30 March 2012, Tim Storms reclaimed the record for the Lowest Note Produced by a Human. The new record is G-7, or .189Hz (point 189 Hertz). That is 8 octaves below the lowest G on the piano. Although the record of ten octaves for Widest Vocal Range has not been formally broken, based on Tim Storms' previous record of ten octaves, his new record for Lowest Note would put his range, unofficially, at twelve octaves. Guinness World Records dot com has not yet updated their website to reflect the newly certified record.

Perhaps it's time to drop the argument that "anybody who knows their stuff" knows this is impossible" ? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To a person who has studied a little music, it is rather embarrassing to read this exchange and see the 6-octave claim continues to stay in Wikipedia. I know that the user elpincha did some "original research" and so is not supposed to change Wikipedia because of that, but perhaps that original research would convince some of you who doubt elpincha's findings to check with your own ears. If you would simply would write down the lower and higher notes he sings while you listen to his music you would see why 6 octaves is not true. (Simply because a thousand newspapers repeat something ridiculous does not make it true.) Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is a great musician! He does not need anybody to claim that he could sing 6 octaves. That is not even an important thing about a true musician. But certainly he does not need false claims and it is not respectful to him for us to perpetuate them. Comparing this deep artist -- whose music is beloved by millions -- to a handful of physical oddballs -- whose "music" is known only to the machines recording their "music" for the Guinness record book (as elpincha wrote: "somebody who is more of a physical phenomenon than an artist") -- is not relevant and is disrespectful to NFAK. Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan SANG -- he did not make rumbling low notes like an elephant nor did he squeak nor sing high high notes above the range of an operatic coloratura soprano; he sang beautiful music. I will not edit the page but will leave it to those of you who are dedicated to NFAK and to this page -- but I beg you to use your own ears and check if you hear him singing anything below C3 or above C6 (and that is only a four octave range). David Couch (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are surely right, but we are in danger of falling foul of the WP:OR rules. The 6-octave claim is evidently wrong, but that is just our opinion based on our experience of the world. The best would be to find a reliable source contradicting (or just reliably doubting) the claim. Meanwhile, we could perhaps tone it down ("a wide octave range") or indicate doubt ("a claimed 6-octave range"). I'd suggest the former. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both David Couch and Chiswick Chap. I am convinced by this discussion. Perhaps if elpincha had been less rude, expressed himself more clearly and not made statements that were clearly untrue (e.g. that a vocal range of six octaves is impossible), I might have understood much earlier.

Are there any objections to removing all references to his octave range from the article? --Sarabseth (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very important that we remain civil in discussions. It seems however that we broadly agree that the octave claim is doubtful; also, we already know that people around the world have strong feelings about it. If we simply remove it, it will therefore very probably come back sooner or later. I suggest therefore that we now have sufficient mandate to tone the claim down without removing it altogether. Chiswick Chap(talk) 07:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun a little bit. AvnishIT was the editor who had the strongest feelings about this issue. I think we should have let him opine too. I suggest that we not treat this as a consensus till we have heard from him too.

Personally I'm not in favor of retaining a reference to a "wide vocal range" just to mollify people who might be offended by removal of a doubtful claim. If someone wants to resurrect the 6-octave claim again later, we can discuss it again at that time.

OK, I'm happy to go along with the consensus when it's established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that http://www.nusrat.pl/nusrat/ represents a reliable source. These guys may be making a movie, but where did they get this "fact" from?

Also, I think Chiswick Chap and David Couch made a very relevant point. A person can technically have such a wide vocal range, but you achieve that by making "rumbling low notes like an elephant" and "high high notes above the range of an operatic coloratura soprano", and Nusrat certainly didn't do that. I'm not sure that the article is improved by adding this dubious, apparently incorrect claim just because some support can be found for it somewhere on the internet. --Sarabseth (talk) 11:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I agree ,very convincing discussion...AvnishIT (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone else wants to chime in, it looks like we have a consensus. Thanks to all! --Sarabseth (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was searching for definite sources on vocal range of NFAK when I came across this. I found this YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkU-_xCRFOA that records various notes that NFAK hit. Maybe it would help all the experts above with evaluation. 39.45.151.215 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Nauman

That video shows a vocal range of about 3 to 4 octaves, with a lowest note of C3 and highest sustained note of E♭5, although one of the comments says it goes down to C2. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Redid Introduction statements (Considered One of the greatest singer ever recorded....)

The statement might have been taken from IMDB but is indisputably credible..

1. Considered One of the greatest singers ever recorded....... NFAK is featured & ranked in most of the greatest singers list and some of them are even mentioned in this wiki page.

2. Could perform at high Intensity for several hours... this fact is know to anyone who knows NFAK.. but is mentioned in the Asian Heroes Article by TIME.

3. Six-Octave Vocal length..... there must not be any speculation over the six octave vocal range. There are thousands of news reports & magazines reporting NFAK's 6-ocatve range. Any of them can be a trusted source as per Wikipedia Rules. Moreover ,Chhote Ustaad- Do Deshon Ki Ek Awaaz,a 2010 music program which featured Rahat & Sonu Nigam as judges shows Sonu Nigam explaining how his vocal range is incomparable to that of NFAK. A very strong source can be Ustad Ghulam Haider Khan, who explains in one of his articles for Friday Times where he talks about NFAK's voice technically telling that " He lacked the bass notes but still trained his vocal range to more that that of keys of Harmonium" , note that Harmonium can maximum be played to 6-octaves.This source has been added..

The Source:The source Pune Mirror is a part of "TIMES Group" and hence is a trust-able source irrespective of where the content is taken from. I have retained the the source for now because it directly references what has been said, all 3 points... however, any better source is always welcomed.AvnishIT (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Source:The source Pune Mirror is a part of "TIMES Group" and hence is a trust-able source irrespective of where the content is taken from

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. If it's not a reliable statement when it was made in the IMDb biography, how can it become a reliable statement just because some newspaper copies and pastes it from IMDb? Since the IMDb biography predates the Pure Mirror article, it's indisputable that the statement originally appeared on IMDb, and was simply copied from there by the Pure Mirror article (without attribution). An article with demonstrated plagiarism cannot be taken seriously, regardless of where it is published. (Especially when it plagiarizes from unreliable sources!)

There are thousands of news reports & magazines reporting NFAK's 6-ocatve range.

If so, one or more of those should be used as the source. However, one needs to be careful about eliminating Wikipedia mirrors. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of the sources for the 6-octave claim turn out to have copied material verbatim from some past incarnation of the Wikipedia article.)

Please also see the previous discussion on the Talk page ("Six-octave range?"), where the editor claims that a 6-octave range is physically impossible. This is the supporting quote: "Storms also holds the Guinness World Record for the widest vocal range for a male. His records have been published in the Guinness World Records 2006. He broke both of these records in August 2008.[1] He is able to reach a full 5 octaves below Middle C and reach a sound of just 8 hertz which is inaudible to the human ear. The previous record was 16.5 hertz, just over a full octave higher.[4]"

Please do not misrepresent my earlier claim. I said that six octaves is physically impossible for a tenor. I stand by this claim. elpincha (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

--Sarabseth (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It definitely makes sense to remove the Pune Mirror Source and most of the news sources have definitely copied the 6-octave story from Wikipedia/IMDB...... but the phrases "one of the greatest" and "high intensity" are indisputable and can be kept without any source.... NFAK's vocal range was definitely one the best in world, even National geographic described it as "Superhuman vocal abilities" .. any one who heard NFAK knows this ....i guess for now we should keep this fact based on Ustad Ghulam Haider Khan's description of NFAK's voice ..... Please see upper section on vocal length.AvnishIT (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the range of teh harmonium is three and a quarter octaves. Ref: The Harmonium Handbook by Kraig Brockschmidt, available on Google Books. 205.189.94.11 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

AvnishIT, can you support your statement that "Harmonium can maximum be played to 6-octaves", or do you accept that the range is three and a quarter octaves? --Sarabseth (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarabseth I have added a new Source [1] Please Check it out.. It is the the Official website for polish film "Nusrat – ostatni prorok muzyki” " .... The directors were in Pakistan and India to Research Nusrat's Music... Please check it out.. As far as range of Harmonium is concerned .. it depends upon the number of keys.. can even be 2 or 6(older ones)AvnishIT (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits On 19/4/12 and 20/04/12

The article was moved to page named "Pervez Fateh Ali Khan" , I have moved it back to the original title. Pervez was Nusrat's name only for a few years after his birth, and then he was named "Nusrat" by his father which remained forever. However I have retained the change of "Nusrat" By "Khan" because its more formal. AvnishIT (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:AvnishIT, I hope you are well. Thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia. With the best of intentions I made this page title change because, as you say, Khan was born with the first name Pervez. Wikipedia bio pages ordinarily carry the real names as the page titles, but not always (Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Sheen, etc). Fair enough. I accept that. Perhaps you might add to the article a reliably cited clarifying statement about the name change you mention above. Just a thought. Regards and best wishes.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 08:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello! The 'birth' name is already placed in the infobox, which is where it belongs and perfectly adequate. Thanks. Snoop God (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. Use of an infobox at all is optional Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Using_infoboxes_in_articles, but the full birth name is expected to be in the lead sentence. WP:BIRTHNAME.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduced Sufi Music to the West

While it seems clear that NFAK was a key figure in bringing Sufi music to us lot, it is perhaps not certain that he was the one and only person who did so. For example Brian Jones helped to bring Moroccan music to the west back in 1971. Perhaps we should make it clear that we are speaking about Qawwali music specifically? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Done. --Sarabseth (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)--Sarabseth (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war regarding opening paragraph

This is a pretty pointless quibble. Citation 1 says: “There are great singers, and then there are those few voices that transcend time.” As per citation 25, he was nominated as one of the 20 most iconic musicians from the past 50 years. As per citation 34, Paul Williams included him in his list of the 20th century’s top 40 greatest hits (across all forms of artistic expression) as one of only 11 musical acts.

All of this surely supports “Considered one of the greatest singers ever recorded”? --Sarabseth (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And above all that it a know fact to anyone who knows music in India/Pakistan. AvnishIT (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Using "world renowned" in any Wikipedia biography is simply unencyclopedic language; after all, Wikipedia's requirement for notability of a subject applies to all biographies. "Considered one of the greatest singers ever recored" is unsupportable hyperbole and fancruft; it devalues the real achievements of the subject.

Other improvements which you reverted are: one author called "USA", another called "By Ustad". According to MOS:YEAR, the period 1992 to 1993 ought to be written as "1992–93". I suggest you restore the article to its version from 28 August. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sarabseth, please read WP:PEACOCK. --SMS ^Talk 11:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

fancruft, again please research the subject AvnishIT (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Several editors have supplied arguments why the language in your version of the article is unsuitable. AvnishIT has not provided a single argument to support their version. Please restore the version from 28 August. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please go through all the references given in the article, mainly Awards & Title & Influence & Tributes section .Also, there was a detailed discussion on this topic last year on talk page.. Please suggest a different version of introductory lines that justifies the subject if possible. AvnishIT (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have, and I can't find any sources which call him "one of the greatest singers ever recorded". Using "world renowned" in any biography is against WP:PEACOCK and is unencyclopedic language. I don't understand what you are trying to say with your last sentence: "justifies the subject"? Again, several other edits I made which were technical corrections (see above) need to be re-instated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Added new source. I am still stunned over so much fuss on this topic, ask anyone who knows music(ind/pak or even foreigners who knew him)....."Justifies the subject".. "Introduces NFAK adequately enough..."AvnishIT (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Bednarek. It's irrelevant to say "ask anyone who knows music in ind/pak" - that's like saying ask any American who's the greatest singer/actor of all. Even if there are sources that call him "great" or "renowned" - its very unencyclopedic to say such things in the article. It's clear to me that the supporters (Sarabseth and AvnishIT) are big fans of Nusrat, and as such are biased. I think the "Puffery" guideline is very clear. 95.131.110.124 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

we are not talking about any source, talking abt Time Magazine, CNN, NPR, National Geographic...And no one says "greatest".. just "one of the greatest".. which is pretty obvious.. AvnishIT (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

None of those sources are presented in the article as supporting the claim of "one of the greatest voices ever recorded"; the only one that does is hispanicbusiness.com (WTF?), dated 6 September 2013, which reprints a widely circulated press release. This is definitely not a reliable source. Lacing a biography with peacock language and unencyclopedic hyperbole does not increase the subject's following or reputation. I'm taking this article off my watch list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hope this puts an end to the discussion:

• "undoubtedly, spiritually and technically of the greatest voices" - Billboard, 6 Sep 1997.

• "there's no denying he was one of the great voices of the 20th century" - Chris Nickson of AllMusic

• "Khan was not just one of the world's greatest singers, he was emblematic of a startling rise of interest in non-Western music". The Cambridge Companion to Singing by Cambridge University Press

• "His voice is universally recognised as one of the great voices in musical history". Real World Records

• "and that Night Song is easily digestible pop with one of the world's greatest singers". CMJ New Music Monthly , Mar 1996.

Fideliosr (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110150402/http://wass-up.com/ukama2005.php to http://www.wass-up.com/ukama2005.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005080152/http://www.brooklynqawwaliparty.com/html/about.php to http://www.brooklynqawwaliparty.com/html/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

.

Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (born Pervez Fateh Ali Khan; 13 October 1948 – 16 August 1997) was a Pakistani vocalist, musician, composer and music director primarily a singer of qawwali, a form of Sufi devotional music.[1] He is considered by some to be the greatest Sufi singer in the Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu language, and one of the greatest qawwali singers in history;[2][better source needed] he is often referred to as "Shahenshah-e-Qawwali" (the King of Kings of Qawwali).[3][4][5] He was described as the 4th greatest singer of all time by LA Weekly in 2016.[6] He was known for his vocal abilities and could perform at a high level of intensity for several hours.[7][8][9][10] He belonged to the Qawwal Bacchon Gharana (Delhi gharana) extending the 600-year old qawwali tradition of his family, Khan is widely credited with introducing qawwali music to international audiences.[11] 182.185.207.207 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Intro only cites NYT and LA Weekly by name

American media as only mentioned sources in an article about a Pakistani singer seems… odd. Are there no authoritative sources of reasonable prestige in English anywhere in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh? It makes them seem like definitive sources of judgement, and while I respect these publications, as an American observer, I’d be more impressed by what sources closer to the primary / original audience think. tvleavitt (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)