KillerKu

It's partly how the mic reacts to plosives. Get real close to a mic and just say like B or P real hard and it wil pop the mic. There are mic shields, but a real good one can get through.
There are a few other factors. When you sing a vowel there would be less compression than some of these plosives that block off the airflow. So if you have a higher compression and then kind of 'explode' the voice it can be more fatiguing.
Beyond that, it can be stylistic. But sometimes a hard consonant is great for effect. Think of them as percussive elements of the voice. If the rhythm makes sense, sometimes it can form a bit of snare/kick/hi hat drum effect. But if it doesn't make sense, sometimes it sounds like there is a guy pounding on the snare drum completely randomly, because unless the words are written very carefully it might not sync very well to the music. 
As a general rule it usually sounds better to go easy on them if in doubt.

It's partly how the mic reacts to plosives. Get real close to a mic and just say like B or P real hard and it wil pop the mic. There are mic shields, but a real good one can get through.
There are a few other factors. When you sing a vowel there would be less compression than some of these plosives that block off the airflow. So if you have a higher compression and then kind of 'explode' the voice it can be more fatiguing.
Beyond that, it can be stylistic. But sometimes a hard consonant is great for effect. Think of them as percussive elements of the voice. If the rhythm makes sense, sometimes it can form a bit of snare/kick/hi hat drum effect. But if it doesn't make sense, sometimes it sounds like there is a guy pounding on the snare drum completely randomly, because unless the words are written very carefully it might not sync very well to the music. 
As a general rule it usually sounds better to go easy on them if in doubt.

Thank you for your input Killer! I don't think I'll add drums to this since I prefer the acoustic feeling and the idea of carrying the song with guitar and voice alone. I was thinking of adding some light percussion towards the end of the song as it builds though and I don't think it would hurt, like a seed shaker or something. As far as making a modern pop song I would rather not go that route since I don't agree with a lot of the conventions of more recent pop music in the last ten years or so. But I do want this to be somewhat accessible.
The song that you linked really appealed to me from a technical standpoint as well as emotive. That kind of complexity is attractive to me as a listener although I might not want to perform or create music as complex (or even have the ability) myself, I can appreciate it and enjoy it. I see what you mean about most people not remember Bach pieces vs. nursery rhymes.
I will keep working on new song concepts where I know I have the freedom to experiment and refine and figure out what I want things to sound like, because for this one it was really the result of an expressive crisis and ended up being more raw than I intended. Hours before I wrote this song and was considering the idea of composing a song I was listening to songs by 98 Degrees and those 90s Adult Contemporary groups and was like "Hm, I want to write a song like one of these pop ballads" and something completely different came out in the end, so it was a strange, but natural and cathartic experience.

This is a good song and way above average for a first attempt. I'm not sure about percussion. I use Superior Drummer 2 currently with an E drum kit and it still has a 'fake' sound and some latency issues. So if you don't have real drums and the proper micing setup it can create a nightmare setup and if you do it electronic it can get pretty dance pop. 
On the other hand there are plenty of acoustic performers and if you are a songwriter, and wanted to get your song licensed, and covered. Having a busier setup for the song could make things more difficult.
I really do like the vocal performance itself a lot. The contrast between the lighter and heavier sections and emotive performance was good. Composition wise if you want it poppier you might want to increase repetition more frequently and keep rhythms a bit snappier. When thinking catchy, I always think of nursery rhymes and tapping fingers. Some rhythms are infectious and a lot of modern pop music is almost like schoolyard chants. If you think of a full Bach piece, how complex and difficult to remember. That's on the opposite side. Yours is more accessible.
This song already has a 'flow' to it though, and isn't necessarily a pop song. So a lot of where you go would depend on where you want to go. I'm pretty sure if you put this song up for the public certain people would definitely feel it. You've got a better voice than Elliot Smith technically. And he's acoustic only. He's not as popular as Adele with those catchy pop songs. But he still connected with people.
I'm a songwriter too, but very rarely post things publicly here. I'd like to get an album format and copyright all the tracks at once, but I can preview this song here. It has the word story in the chorus so you reminded me of it.
https://app.box.com/s/0mj2zwf14xyytpemmrk4wpa6fwugetp2
That kind of song there. It's likely too musically complex to be a single. I'd prefer real drums rather than the headache I had. But otherwise I'm mostly satisfied with the artistic vision. So some songs are more about expression of emotion and art. Others might lend well to being like a really accessible pop hit. Others might straddle the line.
For you I'd probably just keep writing more songs at this point. Figure out what is important to you as you go. I like catchy melodies, but I also like harmonic complexity, eccentricity, dissonance, and human elements. Not every song needs to be everything to everyone.

I had never spent time developing the skill of writing songs. I just didn't know where to start. After forcing myself to sit with my guitar and a keyboard as a guide, somehow I was able to finish this song in one sitting in a strange burst of inspiration that evolved as the process happened. I can provide the lyrics if anyone needs or it's not clear enough. I recorded the guitar tracks separately from the vocals. Please let me know if it's dragging/keeps interest and how the arrangement and phrasing sounds in general.
https://app.box.com/s/wa3y2ko2t12r1o45nancvht8bvao89yq
Second Mix: https://app.box.com/s/fugwx3wytme34ft03na23b85msmacs01

There are a few technical issues. It's kind of droney and drifts flat. The droney thing has a lot to do with phrasing. You can try to treat each syllable as something special. Like you're tossing out syllables to the listener at different speeds and intensities.
For the flat thing, if you have an instrument like a keyboard, play the melody on there and sing along. Try sweeping abovee and below the notes and right on the dot. It's more of a feeling and an inner ear thing that gets developed over time. 
At the end the high note sounded a bit strained, it sounds like the speaking voice is getting squeezed. Bridging into a lighter phonation or supporting the note with a clearer vowel would both work, but it's not an easy fix there. Toy with vowels and with sliding a falsetto around at different volumes. Don't be afraid to try different things than the speaking voice. 
The more recent clip is going to be more difficult for people to hear pitch without a reference (backing). But I think the pitch is overall less flat at least compared to itself, and the phrasing has more emphasis and variety. The high notes are still going into a strained territory and sound flat due to tension. 
If you keep training, and especially training smart you'll be able to address all of these things. It will take a lot of time and diligence. Targeted lessons could address these things faster, but at the same time, a willingness to experiment can go a long way. Things to toy with would be try making sobbing sounds, yawning sounds, operatic sounds (think an open throat), quacking sounds (twang, middle back of tongue arched upward), hootie sounds (falsetto like an owl), piercing sounds (lean into bright resonance), quiet sounds (murmuring), and loud sounds with open vowels. But try to make any given sound with the least strain.
A big part of it is coordination and flexibility. Right now it sounds like speaking voice is getting slammed upward and hitting limits. Your coordination will likely need to be a little different up there. Most of us are the same. Whether we were taught with lessons, trial an error, or books or whatever. When dealing with pitch range we've all had to be flexible to some degree.

That can cause a bit of pressing on the vocals folds, depending on the nature of it. But if you aren't going hoarse. Just do your thing. Keep training. 
Chase the meaningful sound in your head, try to get there. Dial things where you want them over time.

You'd know your own strain better than I would. So I'd trust yourself. And to be honest, straining a little here and there isn't something to be that worried about. Everyone I know here has strained and lived to tell the tale.  
There is a shift in timbre up there so unless it's artistic choice it may not be optimized for you yet. It's practice man. I wouldn't be surprised to see you more technically skilled than a lot of folks here one day. If you've got the passion, you've got the drive, and are moving forward. There are certain coordination that will be more flexible and easier to use to navigate certain pitches. 
So there's like talk singers. I can love that. I'm the big Lou Reed fan here. But most everyone else had to have an open mind at some point and likely either consciously or subconsciously had to make adjustments.

There are a few technical issues. It's kind of droney and drifts flat. The droney thing has a lot to do with phrasing. You can try to treat each syllable as something special. Like you're tossing out syllables to the listener at different speeds and intensities.
For the flat thing, if you have an instrument like a keyboard, play the melody on there and sing along. Try sweeping abovee and below the notes and right on the dot. It's more of a feeling and an inner ear thing that gets developed over time. 
At the end the high note sounded a bit strained, it sounds like the speaking voice is getting squeezed. Bridging into a lighter phonation or supporting the note with a clearer vowel would both work, but it's not an easy fix there. Toy with vowels and with sliding a falsetto around at different volumes. Don't be afraid to try different things than the speaking voice. 
The more recent clip is going to be more difficult for people to hear pitch without a reference (backing). But I think the pitch is overall less flat at least compared to itself, and the phrasing has more emphasis and variety. The high notes are still going into a strained territory and sound flat due to tension. 
If you keep training, and especially training smart you'll be able to address all of these things. It will take a lot of time and diligence. Targeted lessons could address these things faster, but at the same time, a willingness to experiment can go a long way. Things to toy with would be try making sobbing sounds, yawning sounds, operatic sounds (think an open throat), quacking sounds (twang, middle back of tongue arched upward), hootie sounds (falsetto like an owl), piercing sounds (lean into bright resonance), quiet sounds (murmuring), and loud sounds with open vowels. But try to make any given sound with the least strain.
A big part of it is coordination and flexibility. Right now it sounds like speaking voice is getting slammed upward and hitting limits. Your coordination will likely need to be a little different up there. Most of us are the same. Whether we were taught with lessons, trial an error, or books or whatever. When dealing with pitch range we've all had to be flexible to some degree.

Yep, that's still me man haha.  Making some progress though for sure but anyway, well said advice.  

I know the lead never went there. The backing harmonies did in a few places so if you want to do them it could be useful. I was just showing the coordination is flexible, the more open posture can go from the lowest notes to falsetto and to whistle.
You've had the higher larynx thing for quite some time. I noticed with my mother as well. She grew up in the south. She was doing the high larynx kind of like a closed EE sound and she couldn't bridge into the falsetto.
I got her to open up by starting with an open vowel. Kind of sob at it. If you lift primarily the tongue the larynx can stay more stable and the pharynx can be a bit more open. Once that feeling of stability is there, you can creep back up to a point that is more 'you.' But yeah, let the larynx stay neutral or down, the throat stay somewhat open, and use the tongue for as much as you can. Once the larynx starts jamming and the pharynx starts collapsing, bridging smoothly first starts getting difficult for me and then impossible where it's like a full on jam.
Come to think of it I think this would have also been useful for Jeremy. He was getting a cut off point on his bridge for awhile there with his larynx shooting up. A way to think of it is twang with the tongue but not the larynx.

This is just a draft. It is late I am tired and it is what it is. I just wanted to give proof that I am working on something.
 Be kind give tips................ Thanks.
 

I like Jeremy's version cause it has just a hint of escalating intensity as the pitch ascends while being emotive and palatable  You've made progress, man.  It's not an not an ugly sound nor overly pretty either so it has some edge with a song that might sound a bit sappy.  
Me, I  wanted to do a spontaneous one take thing singing and playing guitar cause those are the skills I've been wanting to work on lately.   
https://app.box.com/s/n6u41ddi8na8ovbtwvq8lntst132kxz6
It was only afterward I realized I hadn't checked the mic sensitivity properly so I clipped in a few loud parts. Sad. But hopefully I learned my lesson. If you're determined to do one take, it's even more important to check mic levels.

I like Jeremy's version cause it has just a hint of escalating intensity as the pitch ascends while being emotive and palatable  You've made progress, man.  It's not an not an ugly sound nor overly pretty either so it has some edge with a song that might sound a bit sappy.  
Me, I  wanted to do a spontaneous one take thing singing and playing guitar cause those are the skills I've been wanting to work on lately.   
https://app.box.com/s/n6u41ddi8na8ovbtwvq8lntst132kxz6
It was only afterward I realized I hadn't checked the mic sensitivity properly so I clipped in a few loud parts. Sad. But hopefully I learned my lesson. If you're determined to do one take, it's even more important to check mic levels.

I like Jeremy's version cause it has just a hint of escalating intensity as the pitch ascends while being emotive and palatable  You've made progress, man.  It's not an not an ugly sound nor overly pretty either so it has some edge with a song that might sound a bit sappy.  
Me, I  wanted to do a spontaneous one take thing singing and playing guitar cause those are the skills I've been wanting to work on lately.   
https://app.box.com/s/n6u41ddi8na8ovbtwvq8lntst132kxz6
It was only afterward I realized I hadn't checked the mic sensitivity properly so I clipped in a few loud parts. Sad. But hopefully I learned my lesson. If you're determined to do one take, it's even more important to check mic levels.

I tried multiple times for a cover and I was bad every cover haha... although I do have this one which is kinda alright but it's a pretty unknown tune: http://picosong.com/NAQD/  Kinda cheesy early 60s Bee Gees tune rather than the crazy disco stuff everyone knows.

I really, really liked At Last. It sounded gleeful, eager, anticipating, earnest and yearning. The Coldplay song was pretty good, but your voice sounds a bit bigger than that song to me and fits more in a jazzier place to my ears. I've said before a big Sinatra fan, and a big Beatles fan, but Frank often sounded a bit 'confined' when covering Beatles songs. . 
I admire your desire to have a unique vocal style. I'm exactly the same way and the singers that engage me most have strong identity and unique characteristics. I've had a preference for strong character singers over vanilla traditional singing from a very early age. But none of them rolled out of bed at 3 years old into these characters, it is developed over a life time. 
I do have a question though, what kind of microphone are you using and what sort of recording setup are you using? There is a mid range boost that sounds a bit karaoke to me. Your diction is not particularly pronounced but certain compressors can eat consonants  and certain mics can lack articulation. I'd suggest a condenser mic of some kind for recording. A lot of singers I like have mushy diction (Thom Yorke, Joe Strummer). It can be a stylistic choice, but getting any technological barriers out of the way could help you hear best what you sound like when developing your style. You're more than good enough at singing at this point to justify getting an accurate representation of what you sound like. It's not just for our ears, but for yours.

I'm a huge fan of human timing, human pitching, and vocal originality. I dislike arbitrary rules taking precedents over human expression. That said, Smells like Teen Spirit is a bit over the top for me. I think locking into the rhythm and pitch a bit closer would connect with me more personally. However, I hear a kernel of an identity in there that is distinct and could be polished.
Sweet Child O Mine is closer. I think the yodeling is a great vocal quality for you to develop. The pitch is much better, but the phrasing is consistently rushed. Think of rhythm as a give or take. It helps if you rush to lag a bit later. I think of it kind of like borrowing time.
I have to say I'm very excited to see where you go. I already know these are more stylistic than technical hurdles. You're fearless and willing to try radically different forms of expression in order to find yourself and you emote very clearly in music. Like rhythm, style is often a question of how far away you can get from convention without alienating.
Singing for me in itself can be very bland and vanilla. Voice goes to note on rhythm. Woo. But you've got the spark and the passion for something more. The searching and yearning so that really excites me.

This could become a thing. Onto the review.
I can start with some of what interests me about it. I like the rough, harsh quality of the vocal, it has a defiantly independent quality to it and for me that quality sits very well with the subject matter. Everyone has flaws, rough qualities, or harsh qualities, and often times we are rejected for those reasons. Perfection is easier to love. Most people aren't rejected because they are too perfected. 
However, while I think that quality is important, I do think the backing track has this polished quality that is a bit at odds with it so it creates a bit of dissonance. I think keeping some of the tonal roughness, while ironing out a bit of the pitch and timing might mesh better. Maybe even a slightly more polished production on the vocal with a bit more reverb and perhaps delay. In my head I hear a middle ground, a slightly rougher, dirtier (imperfect) backing track, and a slightly more polished (still imperfect) voice might find a middle ground where the two could meet and agree on the expression.
That said, I can feel the heartfelt qualities in the performance and there are times when it works completely for me musically, but other times feels a bit in congruent. If you keep training you'll likely get the expression congruent cause I can already hear it in there, it's just not quiet held together all the time for me yet.

I liked this. I hadn't gotten to hear your voice much yet. It's a great timbre, good song, and good rendition.
The only thing, and I'm not sure if it's production, but I'd have preferred just a bit more dynamics. Like a bit more contrast between say a wispier timbre and a full throated bass/baritone thing.
It might depend on how far away you are from the mic. It's just preference, but when I hear Cash, he has a relatively limited pitch range, but the volumes are quite varied per pitch, so there's kind of a rhythmic syncopation to the volumes. I think it helps a lot on songs with limited pitch range. Close micing can help bring out those differences.
 

This is a good direction. I can give you a few different ideas for compression. Something I like to do is use a lighter compression (lower ratio, maybe 2/1) with a slower attack time as a primary compressor. The reason why the attack time is slow is so consonants don't get eaten and some dynamic range is preserved.
Then I will set a second compressor at a higher volume more serving as a milder 'limiter.' This will have a faster attack time to catch huge spikes in the really loud parts. I've found when using a single compressor it will often 'squash' the dynamic range and/or have a tendency to eat consonants.
Some producers ride volume for every word, but I like to keep the original 'vocal dynamics' intact for the most part.  
The other thing you might benefit from is a richer reverb. It still sounds pretty dry. And possibly some kind of double tracking. Delay can work in a pinch. What you'd do is have one main track of vocals without delay, and have one track of vocals with delay but quietly playing (imperceptible to most people) and panned.
Microphones are generally mono recording devices. Imagine if you are in the same room with someone, you'll hear the voice in both ears from a different wavelength, different angles, and there will be lots of reverberation/reflection throughout the room. When the voice goes straight into the mic, it's like if it were possible to have both of your ears right at someone's mouth. A lot of the production tricks are to simulate those other qualities where each ear would be hearing a different reflection pattern than a single mono mouth in each ear.
In particular softer/headier voices generally use more production to give them a bit more 'space.' It's been done for a very long time. I listen to a lot of Thom Yorke, and if I had a raw vocal of his it would sound tiny. But even his smallest voices can sound 'wide and encompassing' due to techniques like that.
For the technique thing, keep singing. You've made huge progress since arriving here. It will keep happening.

I'm a huge fan of human timing, human pitching, and vocal originality. I dislike arbitrary rules taking precedents over human expression. That said, Smells like Teen Spirit is a bit over the top for me. I think locking into the rhythm and pitch a bit closer would connect with me more personally. However, I hear a kernel of an identity in there that is distinct and could be polished.
Sweet Child O Mine is closer. I think the yodeling is a great vocal quality for you to develop. The pitch is much better, but the phrasing is consistently rushed. Think of rhythm as a give or take. It helps if you rush to lag a bit later. I think of it kind of like borrowing time.
I have to say I'm very excited to see where you go. I already know these are more stylistic than technical hurdles. You're fearless and willing to try radically different forms of expression in order to find yourself and you emote very clearly in music. Like rhythm, style is often a question of how far away you can get from convention without alienating.
Singing for me in itself can be very bland and vanilla. Voice goes to note on rhythm. Woo. But you've got the spark and the passion for something more. The searching and yearning so that really excites me.

I really, really liked At Last. It sounded gleeful, eager, anticipating, earnest and yearning. The Coldplay song was pretty good, but your voice sounds a bit bigger than that song to me and fits more in a jazzier place to my ears. I've said before a big Sinatra fan, and a big Beatles fan, but Frank often sounded a bit 'confined' when covering Beatles songs. . 
I admire your desire to have a unique vocal style. I'm exactly the same way and the singers that engage me most have strong identity and unique characteristics. I've had a preference for strong character singers over vanilla traditional singing from a very early age. But none of them rolled out of bed at 3 years old into these characters, it is developed over a life time. 
I do have a question though, what kind of microphone are you using and what sort of recording setup are you using? There is a mid range boost that sounds a bit karaoke to me. Your diction is not particularly pronounced but certain compressors can eat consonants  and certain mics can lack articulation. I'd suggest a condenser mic of some kind for recording. A lot of singers I like have mushy diction (Thom Yorke, Joe Strummer). It can be a stylistic choice, but getting any technological barriers out of the way could help you hear best what you sound like when developing your style. You're more than good enough at singing at this point to justify getting an accurate representation of what you sound like. It's not just for our ears, but for yours.

I remember Jewel's breakout single. In my opinion I've never heard her top the Kermit factor:
Disappointing to say the least. I love Kermit singers, it's got lots of character. 
Jackie is the King.
I've toyed with the Kermit tone, and while it's true it tends to arise with a mechanism where the larynx and tongue are doing somewhat opposite actions, you can get some of the kermit tone with less tension by sending the tongue backwards. I'm not a master like the prior mentioned singers. The key seems to be primarily tongue placement, but finding the exact shading where it doesn't produce unnecessary tensions is pretty tough and some singers seem to slip into it. 
 
 

This is a good direction. I can give you a few different ideas for compression. Something I like to do is use a lighter compression (lower ratio, maybe 2/1) with a slower attack time as a primary compressor. The reason why the attack time is slow is so consonants don't get eaten and some dynamic range is preserved.
Then I will set a second compressor at a higher volume more serving as a milder 'limiter.' This will have a faster attack time to catch huge spikes in the really loud parts. I've found when using a single compressor it will often 'squash' the dynamic range and/or have a tendency to eat consonants.
Some producers ride volume for every word, but I like to keep the original 'vocal dynamics' intact for the most part.  
The other thing you might benefit from is a richer reverb. It still sounds pretty dry. And possibly some kind of double tracking. Delay can work in a pinch. What you'd do is have one main track of vocals without delay, and have one track of vocals with delay but quietly playing (imperceptible to most people) and panned.
Microphones are generally mono recording devices. Imagine if you are in the same room with someone, you'll hear the voice in both ears from a different wavelength, different angles, and there will be lots of reverberation/reflection throughout the room. When the voice goes straight into the mic, it's like if it were possible to have both of your ears right at someone's mouth. A lot of the production tricks are to simulate those other qualities where each ear would be hearing a different reflection pattern than a single mono mouth in each ear.
In particular softer/headier voices generally use more production to give them a bit more 'space.' It's been done for a very long time. I listen to a lot of Thom Yorke, and if I had a raw vocal of his it would sound tiny. But even his smallest voices can sound 'wide and encompassing' due to techniques like that.
For the technique thing, keep singing. You've made huge progress since arriving here. It will keep happening.