I noticed the previous posting about tenor voice preference and I am a regular visitor to the Critique my Voice forum and a thought that relates to both occurred that I wanted to share.
Firstly; why do so many posts on the critique forum concern themselves with what I call "agony" singing? There is so little musicality - and so little virtuosity - in Sweet Child of Mine, Highway to Hell, anything in fact from that AC/DC, Judas Priest, Metallica and so on genre, that using their songs as test pieces is largely pointless. There is simply not enough in them to let any one judge the voice.
Anyone with a trained, capable voice can make any sound they want. But why would anyone with a trained, capable voice want to make that sort of sound? Surely the only reason Axl sings the way he does is because he doesn't know any better?
And this brings me back to the tenor - baritone issue. Being a baritone myself I understand the frustration that the emphasis on the tenor voice can bring. But when listening to Juan Diego Florez, say, you simply have to admit that there is something in his tenor singing that makes it stand out and admit to understanding why people want to hear it and more importantly, pay for it. It's also true that the tenor canon contains some of the "best" (ie most popular, easy listening) songs ever written.
What I would say is that the top of the baritone range and the top of the tenor are not millions of miles apart and a baritone singing "up there" with the right qualities to his voice can sound every bit as bright and interesting as a tenor. Singers fronting bands doing 2 and 3 hour gigs are there, on stage, for the long haul and their voice has to stand up to the demands of long sets. Singing with a "bit in hand" whatever the "range" of their voice has got to be a sound strategy?
It seems to me that while singers might need to grow their listenable range, bands and instrumentalists might need to learn a bit more about transposition?