KillerKu

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.

And here is a singer who described herself as sounding like Kermit the Frog when she heard her first hit song on the radio.
 
 

It seems like when you lean towards curbing people seem to respond favorably. My habits are to lean towards that too, but I find if I hold onto it too high it tend to want to plug up. 
But for the highest parts of the chorus you might want to lean back into more forward vowels letting twang give more of the body. When I listened to the original though,the placement is quite close and it's more production that sets you apart.
Increasing some of the brighter side of the EQ spectrum and light auto tune would place you closer to the original more so than the placement adjustment.
Overall, I think it's a good direction for your voice, as you have a bright/light voice and working with it seems like a good idea.

It seems like when you lean towards curbing people seem to respond favorably. My habits are to lean towards that too, but I find if I hold onto it too high it tend to want to plug up. 
But for the highest parts of the chorus you might want to lean back into more forward vowels letting twang give more of the body. When I listened to the original though,the placement is quite close and it's more production that sets you apart.
Increasing some of the brighter side of the EQ spectrum and light auto tune would place you closer to the original more so than the placement adjustment.
Overall, I think it's a good direction for your voice, as you have a bright/light voice and working with it seems like a good idea.

I think Felipe has a good point here. I think I know what he is talking about with the 'roundness' of the timbre. He's more skilled than I am at demonstrating this, but if you're having trouble understanding the generalized sound, I displayed extreme vowels and sung centered on them in the chorus and then attempted somewhere in between:
https://app.box.com/s/c0vuvtgent151tgbyhxachmwgfpmlpzd
The first is like an 'a' vowel, kind of like apple, or cat. It's twangy, catty, kind of high larynx and more nasal. It's a bit closer to what you're doing and is much closer to the voice you started with, but you might be opening up your soft palate a bit more.
The second is kind of a round sounding vowel. We don't really have a way to type it in English. It's kind of an ooh, kind of an oh, and kind of an uh. For me I picture an invisible L with my tongue. If you do the extreme in falsetto I've been told it sounds like a woman. If you do it lower pitched and with more volume and support in the lower register it might sound more like a cartoon opera voice. 
So those are two extremes. Neither are something I'd sing with, the cartoon opera thing was kind of forced and the cattier thing was very harsh and nasally. The last attempt was to find somewhere in between the extreme sounds.
What you could do is explore the cartoon opera thing, find the placement, try to get it so it's not straining and pushing and then move back more towards the cattier, quackier, nasally position. See if there is a spot in between that you like best for your voice.

This has got a dirty sound. The pitching isn't centered per se but it kind of works with the thematic which is grimy and a bit harsh (things I often like). I wouldn't quite know what to give for vocal advice, because it seems to have a cohesive sound, if not necessarily commercial.
I think the chorus is a bit too repetitive and doesn't develop enough for my tastes. The bridge at 1:25 is my favorite section, it has momentum and feels like the song is going in a forward direction.
A lot of popular music is very similar to chanting though. I've always had difficulty more difficulty with tolerating repetition even when I was a kid though. When I was growing up this song was a huge hit:
For me that combination of that chorus and that hook repeating were maddening. But it sold lots of albums and I knew people who were enamored from start to finish for repeated listens. Tolerance to repetition is very subjective among listeners it's actually really interesting and makes me wonder why people respond differently to it.

Metal like neutral if I had to pick a tech term. The posture and position is basically the same M1/M2 so it bridges most seamlessly at usable volumes. The high scream and body of the song here not drastically different, just bridging:
 

Something I threw together in the wee hours of the night.  I did a double track vocal to try and get the sound right and I think besides a few occasional out of syncs it works nicely.  Hopefully you guys like it.
http://picosong.com/E2RM/

They don't call me "membership support" for nothing.   

Hey Joe, I came into this thread in mid discussion. I did listen to your clip but I did not read all of the posts that came before the Singer vs Coach issue. Just enough to get the jist of things.
   Most of the time here the reviews are based on where a person is in his training, and that seems to have been the general review standpoint at the beginning of this thread. If there are no major faults in pitch and tone then focus ends up on presentation: if things seem odd or something just doesn't "Click" for some reason.
   There was no mention that you had a program or anything(in the beginning), But, for some reason those who do(have a program or teach), end up getting a more detailed critique. Other members and a few on line coaches have given lessons while they themselves are still in training. I do not see why that should have been brought up to begin with.
   I also find myself having issues with a reinterpretation of a famous song. That kind of bugs me a little because I also will change a song to fit my personality and style. The problem is not usually of reinterpretation but that the new melody/tone/emotion does not fit with the musical background.
   When working on a song I will often search for how others have presented the song. See/hear what works in my opinion and what doesn't. When you find the same song presented by different artists you will discover that almost everything has changed in one degree or another. From instruments to drum beat/tempo to the melody itself. When it is good, everything fits together and seems as one unit. When it is bad there are inconsistencies.
 
    I am not sure where I was going with this......... too many starts and stops while typing............ anyway welcome to the forum and I look forward to hearing more of your interpretations.

What makes someone an expert though? Jamie Vendera is a guy that until recently barely sang at all, and has had material for some time. I don't know if he studied the science (Estill, CVT) or traditional methods like Bel Canto.
He also says he is 'not' an expert. If something someone is suggesting is actively harming someone, I tend to advise caution. The 'hold your tongue out' exercise that has floated around in various places has a good chance of being involved in my my nerve damage, so I'm one to point out caution wit that exercise.
But if you were to call out this guy, you'd have to call out a lot of people that have in one way or another helped others by offering their perspectives.
In all honesty, I'm weary of proclaimed experts. I trust people who are always willing to absorb new information and process things as a potential novice a bit more than the many experts throughout history. 

What makes someone an expert though? Jamie Vendera is a guy that until recently barely sang at all, and has had material for some time. I don't know if he studied the science (Estill, CVT) or traditional methods like Bel Canto.
He also says he is 'not' an expert. If something someone is suggesting is actively harming someone, I tend to advise caution. The 'hold your tongue out' exercise that has floated around in various places has a good chance of being involved in my my nerve damage, so I'm one to point out caution wit that exercise.
But if you were to call out this guy, you'd have to call out a lot of people that have in one way or another helped others by offering their perspectives.
In all honesty, I'm weary of proclaimed experts. I trust people who are always willing to absorb new information and process things as a potential novice a bit more than the many experts throughout history. 

What makes someone an expert though? Jamie Vendera is a guy that until recently barely sang at all, and has had material for some time. I don't know if he studied the science (Estill, CVT) or traditional methods like Bel Canto.
He also says he is 'not' an expert. If something someone is suggesting is actively harming someone, I tend to advise caution. The 'hold your tongue out' exercise that has floated around in various places has a good chance of being involved in my my nerve damage, so I'm one to point out caution wit that exercise.
But if you were to call out this guy, you'd have to call out a lot of people that have in one way or another helped others by offering their perspectives.
In all honesty, I'm weary of proclaimed experts. I trust people who are always willing to absorb new information and process things as a potential novice a bit more than the many experts throughout history. 

That's just the thing, I've been kind of AWOL for awhile in the review and critique section and it was the uniqueness of this cover that caught my ear and brought me out of the woodwork.
It honestly sounds a bit innovative and I'm kind of picky about innovation. It's not 'pretty or traditional' or whatever, but it's refreshing to hear something different. In a way I hope as Joe refines his performs style, he will keep some of the same characteristics. 
Ronws got it right, it sounds artistic. It's not like a manufactured candy bar that rushes sugar to your brain and fills you with sugar pleasure but it gave me a different emotional response than other singers, and it wasn't bad, it was more like edgy and whoa.
For me one of the worst experience I have in music is when something is 'mildly pleasant at best, forgettable at worst.' And I honestly feel bad when I feel that way. Joe gets a response from everyone here one way or another. It's provocative.
So my advice is basically figure out what you want to do. You want to sell sugar, or you want to make something a bit crazy and push a few boundaries and press people's buttons and at what point do you want to draw the line between something generically pleasant and something uncompromisingly expressive, stimulating or challenging or whatever. It already sounded provocative to me, not unpleasant for me, but I have a higher tolerance for obscure/weird human expressions than some.
If it were me, I'd add a bit more sugar in there, but you know, not everyone can be provocative and get a strong response from people. I would be hesitant to completely abandon that quality unless you have a specific mainstream traditional genre you want to fit into. 
Sometime I wonder myself if I'm not doing it right if a certain section of the population isn't a little outrage, or butthurt hearing it. That's stimulation, it's response. I always dreamed of beig a performer where some people would be like, 'I can relate to that, wow that is expressive.' and others would be adamantly opposed, 'that is not the way to sing. You are terrible singer. Blah blah blah.' I'd prefer to be hated on than have most agree something is mildly pleasant. At least it's some kind of genuine feeling that was communicated.

That's just the thing, I've been kind of AWOL for awhile in the review and critique section and it was the uniqueness of this cover that caught my ear and brought me out of the woodwork.
It honestly sounds a bit innovative and I'm kind of picky about innovation. It's not 'pretty or traditional' or whatever, but it's refreshing to hear something different. In a way I hope as Joe refines his performs style, he will keep some of the same characteristics. 
Ronws got it right, it sounds artistic. It's not like a manufactured candy bar that rushes sugar to your brain and fills you with sugar pleasure but it gave me a different emotional response than other singers, and it wasn't bad, it was more like edgy and whoa.
For me one of the worst experience I have in music is when something is 'mildly pleasant at best, forgettable at worst.' And I honestly feel bad when I feel that way. Joe gets a response from everyone here one way or another. It's provocative.
So my advice is basically figure out what you want to do. You want to sell sugar, or you want to make something a bit crazy and push a few boundaries and press people's buttons and at what point do you want to draw the line between something generically pleasant and something uncompromisingly expressive, stimulating or challenging or whatever. It already sounded provocative to me, not unpleasant for me, but I have a higher tolerance for obscure/weird human expressions than some.
If it were me, I'd add a bit more sugar in there, but you know, not everyone can be provocative and get a strong response from people. I would be hesitant to completely abandon that quality unless you have a specific mainstream traditional genre you want to fit into. 
Sometime I wonder myself if I'm not doing it right if a certain section of the population isn't a little outrage, or butthurt hearing it. That's stimulation, it's response. I always dreamed of beig a performer where some people would be like, 'I can relate to that, wow that is expressive.' and others would be adamantly opposed, 'that is not the way to sing. You are terrible singer. Blah blah blah.' I'd prefer to be hated on than have most agree something is mildly pleasant. At least it's some kind of genuine feeling that was communicated.

Evidently, thou has committed sacrilege against Saint Tate. Into the lake of fire with you! Heresy, heresy!

Again, I liked it as an artistic endeavor. Is it a world class rendition on this song? Maybe not. You have a good voice and could conceivably shine well on other songs. I don't think my voice is good on every song, even ones I enjoy singing. I was working on a cover of "Jaded" by Aerosmith. I really like that song but I just don't sound like Steven and so I may never share that one.
But I could imagine you singing in public, yes, to applause, even.
 

Ellise, the great thing about where your at is the incredible voice you have developed at such an early age. I had to sing on stage for quite awhile before I feel I developed my onstage persona. I am naturally kinda sci-fi geek guy lol and can be very silly but to take command of the stage took me a bit. Although I can already see the improvement in that department in your case and you still have time to grow into that kind of thing Still super proud of the great work you doing and putting yourself out there in these competitions is a great way to develop your "non-vocal" sklllllllz

It's going to depend tremendously on the audience. An artier crowd looking to connect emotionally with an original performer, there is a chance in my opinion, if your songs are composed to suit your performance style. American Idol signing contests, definitely no.
In a bar cover band, it might be iffy. It might depend on how much you were willing to sacrifice to sound 'more like the original.' In some ways, by singing covers we are amplifying the 'power of the formula' vs the power of 'individual expression,' as the musical formula has already previously worked in the past and many listeners find deviations from that formula frustrating, where as with an unfamiliar song listeners are forced to explore something as more of its own entity.
As a singer songwriter, it would be a gamble (and honestly it is for anyone, but. Broadway and opera no way unless you cleaned up a whole lot and matched their stylistic requirements in addition to technical requirements.
A great example is this, Queensryche, is known for being technically proficient and appreciated predominately for a certain sound. Even when Geoff Tate deviated from the sound he got a lot of flak from his own fans, so if this cover was to go out to Queensryche devout fans Rob is probably right.
I guess the question is how well can you replicate a pitch and keep locked into a mechanical tempo if done intentionally? That's typically the safest route, but for people like me we can find it a bit sterile and are attracted to more 'wild and untamed' human expression. 
Maybe try an open mic first. Try playing at a local park. If you have an art scene in your community check that out and see what they are up to. Maybe make some connections. Bar bands without formulaic sounds can scare of customers, so bars don't like that. Coffee shops are sometimes known for songwriter types, but if it's too edgy and loud they might spit out their coffee.
Lou Reed hung out with Andy Warhol. In general I've found strange/outsider people like unusual music more on average than the average person. The more you deviate from the norm, the more you have to rely on abnormal listeners.

It's going to depend tremendously on the audience. An artier crowd looking to connect emotionally with an original performer, there is a chance in my opinion, if your songs are composed to suit your performance style. American Idol signing contests, definitely no.
In a bar cover band, it might be iffy. It might depend on how much you were willing to sacrifice to sound 'more like the original.' In some ways, by singing covers we are amplifying the 'power of the formula' vs the power of 'individual expression,' as the musical formula has already previously worked in the past and many listeners find deviations from that formula frustrating, where as with an unfamiliar song listeners are forced to explore something as more of its own entity.
As a singer songwriter, it would be a gamble (and honestly it is for anyone, but. Broadway and opera no way unless you cleaned up a whole lot and matched their stylistic requirements in addition to technical requirements.
A great example is this, Queensryche, is known for being technically proficient and appreciated predominately for a certain sound. Even when Geoff Tate deviated from the sound he got a lot of flak from his own fans, so if this cover was to go out to Queensryche devout fans Rob is probably right.
I guess the question is how well can you replicate a pitch and keep locked into a mechanical tempo if done intentionally? That's typically the safest route, but for people like me we can find it a bit sterile and are attracted to more 'wild and untamed' human expression. 
Maybe try an open mic first. Try playing at a local park. If you have an art scene in your community check that out and see what they are up to. Maybe make some connections. Bar bands without formulaic sounds can scare of customers, so bars don't like that. Coffee shops are sometimes known for songwriter types, but if it's too edgy and loud they might spit out their coffee.
Lou Reed hung out with Andy Warhol. In general I've found strange/outsider people like unusual music more on average than the average person. The more you deviate from the norm, the more you have to rely on abnormal listeners.

I dig it. It kind of has a grunge quality to me a bit. I heard the high note there go flat and then creep up in tune. It was probably a mistake but I prefer rock n roll like that, hanging on by the skin of your teeth.
If you want to get rid of the brick wall you would want to go back to training/strengthening head voice or doing more vowel mods. Your folds will hit the brick wall if either the vowel or the closure level doesn't support it.
The thing is it sounds good, sounds dirty, but not too dirty. Sounds a bit raw, not too rough. Depending on what you're going for genre wise it works aesthetically. Slapback was a bit interesting, but it's going to depend on you and your audience.
Do you want to be a dirty rock n roll singer? It still sells to this day with post grunge acts and all that to the right audience. Or do you want to be a more quasi operatic kind of singer? Cause people who are into that might find it a bit too rough with a more stable bridge and less strain. Would you like to do both? Or would you like to do your own thing, work on your own "Elvis" genre (not that Elvis), right? 
In the long run if folks like Dan are correct then getting rid of the brick wall will be better for your health. But in the meantime it's kind of what sounds cool, what compels you. Where do you want to go? Cause my honest opinion has been that you are likely ready for some dirty rock n roll if you could write songs or form a band. You'd have a whole life time to become Pavarotti or Dio or whoever insert 'super polished guy', but your youth ticks away steadily.
Meanwhile, please don't misunderstand me, I'd rather listen to your voice or your art any day, (not a fan of their their songwriting), but Chad Kroeger sells a ton of albums and the people buying it couldn't care much less that he isn't Dio or Pavorotti or whatever super vocalist you want to compare to. So figure out what you want to do. Stepping out the door today, I would wager you have 'a shot' as much as the rock guy, but a lot of it would boil down to charisma, songwriting, life circumstances (you don't exactly live in the center of the music industry).
So just think about what you want out of this. If you want to be a broadway, opera star, you aren't there yet. If you want to be an a metal band, it might depend on the kind (Metallica maybe so, Symphony X maybe not). A gutter punk band? Might already be too good. Heh. You'll reach a point where you have competence for certain things.
I'm not saying stop training but if you got your youth and health. The best advice I've got is to try to get out there and make things happen if your life circumstances allow it. Do stuff (perform, get in a band, write songs, network). Don't just train. I can sing a comfortable A4, and bridge fine in that area. But I can testify it doesn't go anywhere by itself and I doubt I'd sound much better singing the song.

This is cool. Your voice sounds good throughout. When you said take it an octave up I was a bit hesitant given the flavor of the song, but I dug it cause it kept some of the light feel and has an almost surreal quality that made it much more interesting.
That's really interesting about vibrato. I've heard violin players recommending to go up to pitch, but not above it. When playing guitar, bend vibrato when you can come from below tends to sound less harsh to my ears than going above the pitch and back down.
I was recently looking at my voice on a program where I could see the vibrato objectively. I couldn't make heads or tails of what I preferred. You sounded good, so it works!
 

Thanks Killer!  In his studio Gino Vannelli was using Digital Performer to record us.  And he would go in and show us our vibratos and could demonstrate both ways by just editing the wave.  And we had to agree with him when the crest of vibrato goes above it sounds sweeter.  But that's really subjective.  He said Frank Sinatra did this all the time except for like one album.
I don't know if my vibrato is consistently doing this on this track, as I think a lot of times it's not.  I didn't check, but I tried.  I try to do this when I practice and it is not easy.  My default is to go up to the pitch and not over it.  I think this is what most singers do by default.  
The problem with going up to the pitch and not above is if you are accidentally singing just a little flat, it really starts to sound bad. Whereas if you are shooting for a little above, and you go flat you're still good.

Don't worry about sounding to soft or wimpy right now. Just worry about bridging and connecting  through the break without choking. By the way you don't sound quiet or wimpy in this recording.  One thing you can try is singing the top note in falsetto over and over again while slowly adding some twang by crying like a baby or quacking like a duck. High notes should almost feel like falsetto but sound like chest if you do them right.

Very cool Felipe, nice interpreation and you nicely get the atmosphere of that song. And yes, you are exactly right about the darkening. I still hear you struggling slightly on the lowest notes. A tip I can give you on those is that you try to brighten them, so not only "not darken" them, but intentionally sing them brighter than you would normally speak.
In CVT they teach that you should go for what they call Edge mode on your lowest notes (below tessitura) and I think that this is exactly right. It basically means that you lift the back of the tongue stronger (twang more) and raise the cheeks (smile) a little, very similar to what a lot of people do in the higher range.
I think the lowest notes are on the word "here" mostly, you can try to sing it like H-A-RE with the A as in "cat" for a start and then modify from there to the original word. Also add just slightly more support to the notes that go below your normal speaking range, at least that is what works for me down there.
BTW: Are you playing the guitar there? This song is also really hard on timing imo in the verses, but you hit that very well.