When you can't sing.

[gno]

Well I think Ken sings with thicker folds than f.ex. Lou Gramm. Lou has just about perfect vocal fold thickness at all times. I think that Ken sometimes has them slightly too thick, at least for me taste. Kind of like BB King does, if I can remember correctly.

I agree - I personally wouldn't sing it that heavy, but I'm not trying to criticize him. I think it's a taste thing, and it's his interpretation and his choice to be heavier. I know he can sing extremely light up there too as I've got his exercise material and I learned how to sing very lightly up there from his stuff. The other thing is that way up there I think Plant uses CVT creaking which sounds screamy up in that range, and is very efficient, and can be done with lighter registration. I think ken is using slightly different distortion technique which is suited for heavier, thicker folds. Being able to belt way up there with a thicker sound and distortion is a feat in itself which I have to give him credit for. That's not easy.

[Felipe Carvalho]

But he is just screamming it out, what is so special about it?

[Mr Bounce]

This is funny because a choir I'm in was doing an arrangement of this song "Bring Him Home" and I was searching youtube for covers to see what it sounds like performed by a baritone (like myself). I listened to your video about 5 times and had my mind blown. You might not have any training but you have a wonderful instrument, so much richness and depth Keep singing.

[Sun]

Dropping songs a step or two is kind of corrollary to what I was saying earlier. You don't have to sing a bunch of high notes to convey an emotion to a song. Someone wrote that a baritone in rock should be able to sing an E5.

Go tell that to James Hetfield. I don't think he's ever reach E5, even after a toke of helium from a balloon. Go ahead and revoke Tom Petty's rock and roller status. Actually, you won't get that close, his bodyguard will see to it that you don't.

Can some baritones sing that note? Sure. I'm not saying that you can't or that you shouldn't even try. Just saying that singing an E5 is not a requirement for singing rock. Rock is rebellion, even against itself, hence, the grunge era. Hence, the punk era. Billy Joe Armstrong never sang an E5. But he has a feeling in his voice.

Sing what you can and let that be your rebellion. I break rules all the time. Singing songs that don't really match my voice. Sometimes transposing the key (usually higher.) Sometimes altering the vocal line, going against the holy writ of "though shall sing it this way only for all time, immemorial, et ad nauseum..."

But that can be difficult to do. Rock has developed a sound ideal that can be as rigid and moribund as any supposed of classical and opera singing.

The quintessential "rock" voice

Thou shalt have rasp in thine voice.

Thine voice must carrieth ever upwards the illusion of "chest."

The head voice can never cut through in rock music, for it is frail and meek and rock is always for the strong, forever and always.

Falsetto is an abomination and the great lie of Lucifer. It is better to burn in Hell than to even contemplate the sound of falsetto, (I likes me some irony.)

I'll have to think of more commandments governing the sound ideal of rock, which was actually kind of a rebellion at first. But later becomes the establishment.

There are different types of singers, we have the highly skilled ones who can do anything vocally. We have the unschooled who just go for it and do a good job, some stumble upon technique etc. We have guys like Bob Dylan who tells stories etc and is not so focused on vocal technique.

I don't like it when people write "you don't need tons of range" because it's possible to achieve, and why settle for anything less than reaching your dream goals? Surely it may not be that important for Tom Petty, Billy Joe Armstrong or James Hetfield. But none of these vocalist are very technically proficient, nor do their genre require it. As discussed in another thread, technical proficiency does not have to hinder artistic expression, rather the opposite. Even Tom petty sings many A4s which is probably a tough note for the majority of baritones if they don't have the technique, and if they do have the technique they are probably going to be able to get way higher than A4. What I meant by "baritone range should top at E5" is that if your range stops anywhere lower it's due to bad technique and NOT genetic inability due to being a "baritone". And even E5 is being a bit low, most baritones can probably go way higher if they want to.

We all have different taste in music and different genres require different set of skills. I began singing because of how much the music I love speaks to me and I felt I had to be part of it. It DOES require a very high level of skill, including a huge range. None of the singers you mentioned are on the same level technically as the ones I listen to and thus none of them could paint the picture I want to see, or convey the emotions I want to feel. High notes are other colors to paint the picture, now they do get all the attention because we can already sing the low ones which are of course JUST as important as the high. I sometimes get the feeling that us who chase technical perfection are looked down upon for not "appreciating the essence" of the music always followed by mentions of less skilled but successful singers.

I don't care about "rebelling" against anything, I only care about being able to paint the picture I want, for myself. For me it's not about what "the audience" or anyone else feels or hears or wants, it's not about impressing anybody or making money, for me it is ONLY about what I want to do musically.

Right now I am listening to this song:

I stumbled across this piece of great singing yesterday, the emotions in this song reach through to me (Yes there is falsetto use and it fits the song perfectly!). I want to be able to sing like this, and this song tops out at D5, just listen 2:55-3:28. Then people try to convince you that "high notes are not that important". Are you kidding me? Not having high notes for me is like not having any essential part of a car; they may not be the only part that matters, but take away them or any other important part and the car won't function.

[Felipe Carvalho]

Sun, high notes are not nearly as important as the rest. They are nice on certain situations, but not even close in importance to get a decent performance on the first place. Its the least important thing when undergoing trainning. If you get everything else in place, they become easy, simple as that.

About James Hetfield... His performances AND guitar playing on the Black Album are something that everyone should listen and learn with. Technical? Not by a long shot. But it has energy, quality and details. Which can be learned and done using technique and are thousands of time more important than simply making tricks to hit high notes. Consistency, quality, confort and performance conveys the message, some details like going high, air, whatever adds to it, but surely does not MAKE it.

And by all means, high notes alone does not equal good technique.

[Mr Bounce]

Range is important. Period. It's a part of vocal technique which is important because if you are artistically limited by your technical flaws, then you can't express yourself properly and you can't communicate the music how it deserves to be presented.

That said, different styles demand different technical abilities, and that's okay. It's okay that James Hetfield does his thing, and I freakin' love him. Likewise, it's okay that RnB singers stay in the pocket because if Brian McKnight doesn't touch you than nothing can. And who is going to bring Pavarotti back from the grave and insult him because he never hit a C6?

I think the problem is that some singers who sing styles which don't have these demands get defensive and go as far as to claim that you don't NEED to do certain things to be sincere or honest. Also, just because you don't like a certain style doesn't mean that others don't get meaning from that style.

[Felipe Carvalho]

Range is important. Period. It's a part of vocal technique which is important because if you are artistically limited by your technical flaws, then you can't express yourself properly and you can't communicate the music how it deserves to be presented.

That said, different styles demand different technical abilities, and that's okay. It's okay that James Hetfield does his thing, and I freakin' love him. Likewise, it's okay that RnB singers stay in the pocket because if Brian McKnight doesn't touch you than nothing can. And who is going to bring Pavarotti back from the grave and insult him because he never hit a C6?

I think the problem is that some singers who sing styles which don't have these demands get defensive and go as far as to claim that you don't NEED to do certain things to be sincere or honest. Also, just because you don't like a certain style doesn't mean that others don't get meaning from that style.

Actually what I am saying is that without the rest, range is useless. In fact, its not even range at all.

[rofleren]

This is funny because a choir I'm in was doing an arrangement of this song "Bring Him Home" and I was searching youtube for covers to see what it sounds like performed by a baritone (like myself). I listened to your video about 5 times and had my mind blown. You might not have any training but you have a wonderful instrument, so much richness and depth Keep singing.

Thank you Mr. Bounce! I'm looking forward to see your cover of it :)

[ronws]

I think the problem is that some singers who sing styles which don't have these demands get defensive and go as far as to claim that you don't NEED to do certain things to be sincere or honest. Also, just because you don't like a certain style doesn't mean that others don't get meaning from that style.

I was going to ask to whom this is directed but never mind. I can sing an E5. I cannot sing a G2. I am not and will never be a baritone. Probably the top note I have sung is a C6. My full volume range without mic over instruments is from E3 to Bb5 (averaging I guess, 2.5 octaves.) With some gusto and intrinsic anchoring, I can force down to C3, especially with mic proximity, but then, that is amplification involved. So, I have a limited range.

So, my comment about not necessarily needing high notes to be effective was not against seeking greater range. Nor is it sour grapes that others have larger ranges than I do. For example, Steven Fraser is a bass and I have read that he can sing as high as I can. Mike (Snax) can sing way lower than I can and has probably sung a few notes higher than I can.

My hope was that my comments would help people to stop beating themselves up about range. Nor was I saying that just because one might be pretty much a solid baritone that they can't sing higher. Nothing of the sort. Nor that you should stick to the fach you might readily fall into.

But my comments are probably moot or academic. Since it is academic, as my comments don't mean much if we are only to consider baritones that can sing E5 to "properly" convey whatever song, there is some genetics at play, possibly.

My brother, two years younger than I am (we're both old farts,) has a different sound than I have. Same mother, same father. We look different, as well. In appearance, I would say he favors more our father, I more closely favor our mother.

But, to echo Sun's point, we have followed different musical paths, as well. He has spent more time following the modern heavy metal and prog and I have probably stuck more to the 70's era stuff. That may have an influence, as well. Everyone has their own sense of aesthetics. Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe.

So, peace, gentlemen. My comments weren't meant to be abrasive but humurous and supportive. Evidently, fail ... awkward ....

[Sun]

Sun, high notes are not nearly as important as the rest. They are nice on certain situations, but not even close in importance to get a decent performance on the first place. Its the least important thing when undergoing trainning. If you get everything else in place, they become easy, simple as that.

About James Hetfield... His performances AND guitar playing on the Black Album are something that everyone should listen and learn with. Technical? Not by a long shot. But it has energy, quality and details. Which can be learned and done using technique and are thousands of time more important than simply making tricks to hit high notes. Consistency, quality, confort and performance conveys the message, some details like going high, air, whatever adds to it, but surely does not MAKE it.

And by all means, high notes alone does not equal good technique.

By high notes I don't simply mean E5s etc. I mean the entire tenor range, notes like A4s B4s, G4s etc. If you are stuck at E4 your singing is going to suffer. James Hetfield sings plenty of notes above the usual sticky point F4, he sings higher notes all the time. If you don't have great range it's probably because of too much vocal weight and the likes which probably will lead to straining. If you top out at B4 chances are you can improve your technique and make your B4 much easier and as a side effect you now also have a larger range.

" Which can be learned and done using technique and are thousands of time more important than simply making tricks to hit high notes."

Who mentioned tricks? I'm talking about hard work to reach a high technical level enabling high notes. High notes are not proof of good technique, but with some of my favourite songs, if the technique is not there you would have developed full out nodules before the end of the song if your technique was lacking...

Hetfield is a kind of brute power singer, which is great but his vocal finess is not even close to that of some other singers. He is a good singer and I like his music but he doesn't do it for me. Compared to my favourite singers he lacks not only in range, but in tone, phrasing, dynamics etc. It's not on the same level.

Also the point "range is useless without the rest" - well DUH. I already made that point. We have "the rest" that's why we are going for range. Just listen to op's video, he's already got "the rest", great tone, emotion, phrasing and what have you. You can bust out some high notes without technique but what's the point? Range comes with technique and that is why we practise our technique.

[Mr Bounce]

I was going to ask to whom this is directed but never mind. I can sing an E5. I cannot sing a G2. I am not and will never be a baritone. Probably the top note I have sung is a C6. My full volume range without mic over instruments is from E3 to Bb5 (averaging I guess, 2.5 octaves.) With some gusto and intrinsic anchoring, I can force down to C3, especially with mic proximity, but then, that is amplification involved. So, I have a limited range... (snip)

I was not referring to you at all, in fact I would say you are in my camp. There are many factors in music, and pitch is one of them, but it is only one part. This forum seems to be dominated by classic metal singers who want to hit the C5+ range, and that's okay. But everyone has their own goals. For me, I have no interest in that area and just want to make my D4-Ab4 area more comfortable, beautiful, and consistent. I enjoy singing and writing pop, pop-rock and RnB-flavoured ballads. That is for me.

My point was that SOME people believe that technique in general (including range/high notes) is a bad thing. If that was the case, I would still be hurting myself to sing a middle C or even lower... I started from nowhere, with no singing ability, no musical family, and it all came from my own hard work, investment, and this forum had no small part in this matter. So to hear some individuals talk about "range" as if their F4 is the same as my F4 is a little hurtful :D

[Felipe Carvalho]

By high notes I don't simply mean E5s etc. I mean the entire tenor range, notes like A4s B4s, G4s etc. If you are stuck at E4 your singing is going to suffer. James Hetfield sings plenty of notes above the usual sticky point F4, he sings higher notes all the time. If you don't have great range it's probably because of too much vocal weight and the likes which probably will lead to straining. If you top out at B4 chances are you can improve your technique and make your B4 much easier and as a side effect you now also have a larger range.

" Which can be learned and done using technique and are thousands of time more important than simply making tricks to hit high notes."

Who mentioned tricks? I'm talking about hard work to reach a high technical level enabling high notes. High notes are not proof of good technique, but with some of my favourite songs, if the technique is not there you would have developed full out nodules before the end of the song if your technique was lacking...

Hetfield is a kind of brute power singer, which is great but his vocal finess is not even close to that of some other singers. He is a good singer and I like his music but he doesn't do it for me. Compared to my favourite singers he lacks not only in range, but in tone, phrasing, dynamics etc. It's not on the same level.

Also the point "range is useless without the rest" - well DUH. I already made that point. We have "the rest" that's why we are going for range. Just listen to op's video, he's already got "the rest", great tone, emotion, phrasing and what have you. You can bust out some high notes without technique but what's the point? Range comes with technique and that is why we practise our technique.

My point is exactly that he does not! Its good but can be improved, a lot.

[Sun]

I see what you mean, I have not listened to op's clip since my first post in this thread so it's not fresh in my mind.

But practising singing high can of course be done at the same time as you are trying to improve our tone. We should always strive to improve every aspect of our singing but we should also practise every aspect we can. Learning to bridge and sing high will not only expand range but give so much vocal freedom which will improve the tone vastly.

Personally I've come really far with the quality of my singing, what I'm really lacking is range which is why it's getting all of my attention.

[VideoHere]

ron, you're gonna get a friendly rebuttal from me my brother....lol!!!

improving your range (low and high) i feel should be a ongoing vocal goal even if you have no current desire to sing low or high or to touch on either extreme.

it's analygous to a body builder that works his biceps without doing his triceps...developing your range to me is not just to be able to sing low or high...it's to build versatility, tonality, and dexterity in your voice.

when the range is well developed the voice is freed and becomes more capable of nuances of expression and dynamics. your whole vocal color palatte gets opened.

range extension, i believe, should not be left out of one's development.

[gno]

Sun - I'm in agreement with what you are saying. One can sing up to Ab4 without ever bridging into head. I did for many years. Learning how to access head gives you a hell of a lot more range of course, but what it also does is train you on letting your folds thin out and letting the CT muscle become more involved. This gives you more control from F4 and up.

I think if one wants to expand range, why discourage that? You've got to use that motivation to excel - don't squash the motivation. Sure, a lot of people on this forum are interested in expanding range. It is not easy, and people want answers. There are a lot of answers on this forum.

Plus all males and females have basically the same upper range potential. Doesn't matter if you are a bass or a baritone - if you want to learn the whistle register above C6 it is possible. Males have a lower range for sure, but upper range is the same.

[rofleren]

What are you thinking of? if you're referring to my video of course.

[Felipe Carvalho]

The first thing that comes to my mind is the overall lower than optimal position you are using. Sounds good as it is now, and that alone is not an easy thing, but using a more relaxed posture would bring much more of your tone out. Better use of resonance, legatto, etc. Small details that when combined makes a huge difference.

I was not being polite before man, your tone is rare, look for the best coach you can and invest time and money on your voice to reach the goals you described. You will kick some serious ass.

[ronws]

ron, you're gonna get a friendly rebuttal from me my brother....lol!!!

improving your range (low and high) i feel should be a ongoing vocal goal even if you have no current desire to using low or high or to touch on either extreme.

It's possible you misunderstood what I meant. I know my original statement was along the lines of why worry about the high notes but I was not saying that you can't work on the extremes.

I find it interesting to note that Frisell's work is not about extremes. In fact, he says, as a tenor in training, you might lose some of the lowest notes. Fish or cut bait. A good chunk of his work is ironing out the passaggio, as was also talked about here. Not worrying about E5 or or C5 or even above E5. Developing the coordination to get through the D4 to A4 section might require the most work and is certainly valuable, as a large number of songs, of most any genre, have a significant chunk of melody in that part of the range.

Then, again, perhaps you and have different goals. Probably the top note I have sung is C6. Do I need to go higher, and why? As a stunt or bragging rights? Might as well brag about physical height. I win, i am taller than even my brother.

Again, nothing wrong with stretching and developing. But having a Bb5 or C6 in my reach is not what makes my singing good, or not. How do I handle the rest of the song, which is below that pitch?

That being said, I also work on low notes in my practice. Notes I won't necessarily use but at least to stretch, play with resonance, etcetera. However, my low notes are not the lowest here and I don't think my inability to get down to F#2 or F2, like so many others here can, means that I am not doing enough or stretching enough to fully express myself. And the value of working at extremes makes the middle more accessible, I think. But, most of the time, I am going to work on the sweet spot, as it were. And, believe it or not, I am working on a song that will require more effort at the low end than the high end.

But some songs will be out of my reach, such as "Shackler's Revenge." The bass lead vocal in the song is simply beyond my ability.

Most singing systems are about extending range upwards from where one's beginning is. Most do not deal with going lower and there is not as much expansion downward because, I think, of the limitations of what vocal folds do. And that is based on genetics and physical structure and that will, no doubt, bring some more controversy. But that is why I will not ever have a 4 or 5 octave range. Because I am not a bass singing at the top of tenor.

The mechanics of singing higher, even for low fach singers is about breath support, thinning the folds, and resonating, in a nutshell. Webandnet's thread aside, there is no way to train or make the folds thicker or vibrate slower to go lower. It's a matter of physics and anatomy, which cannot be wished away no matter what singing system is used. There are times when I have a cold or some sinus drainage and it can sound like I have lowered in pitch. But it's really a matter of phlegm causing gaps in the adduction. As soon as I clear my throat, the "low" is gone. And, in recording, I don't sound lower, just more phlegmatic or scratchy. But yes, I will phonate in those circumstances because I think it's a neat sound. Probably one of the few times I can croak a G2 and it would seem to have some volume.

And, again, perhaps you and I have different perspectives. Dr. Fillebrown points out that worrying about the extremes can be counter-productive. Worry more about the main body of the voice and the extremes will be there when you need them. I have found him to be correct in that statement.

[KillerKu]

All this talk about range, and I still feel she's a better singer than anyone I've heard here to my ears:

Being completely honest, I feel only Raphaels comes close for me. I honestly believe if he can get exposure, he's destined for greatness.

There are a lot of good singers here, but I think we (myself included) have a long way to go before we catch Billie Holiday. I'll continue to measure vocalists by their expressiveness, and not their pitch ranges! Maybe that will hurt some egos, but there is no way I'd ever be convinced range is what makes a good singer.

I guess you guys can have this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGIk6QqSHd4

I'll keep Billie Holiday. Range is borderline irrelevant, artistry is the only thing that matters to me and it's been proven time and time again to me it's not about how high or fast you make notes, it's how expressive your art is!

I'd take David Gilmour over Michael Angelo Batio any day of the week as well. Music to me isn't about who has the most efficient technique. I don't think it's about that for anyone but voice and guitar geeks. If you go into the actual general public, it's formed primarily of people who couldn't care less how it's done, they respond more with 'feelings.' I consider myself one of them now, and I'm really glad I don't have to worry about the mechanics going on behind the curtains at the magic show that is music, and can just 'enjoy' the experience for what it is now. Maybe fellow musicians are looking to cop tricks and steal wizardry by peeking behind the curtains, but the general public is enraptured by the experience for what it is. They don't care about 70 percent cricothyoid activations, or E5 full voice/head voice/falsetto, or whatever. They are more like: I want to buy millions of copies of this because it has a great melody, a passionate singer, and enjoyable song structure:

I agree. That's what singing means to me too and I remember the first time I ever heard that song, even as a child, completely ignorant of singing, or guitar, or music theory, I thought that was a pretty damned good song. Maybe it could be a bit more original in the chord structure and cop the Beatles a bit less, but that is a pretty killer melody, I don't think it needed an E5 to get people buying records and enjoying music, nor do most songs. In fact, if he tried to shove a power metal E5 or Michael Angelo Batio solo in there, it would probably be a worse song. That actually goes for the vast majority of songs that I like. I'm kind of glad he couldn't do either and was forced to write the song he did, authentically with his current skill set. That goes for probably 90 percent of my favorite singers/songwriters. Including the writer of one of the best songs with the best guitar solo I've ever heard!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpzxf_flm8M

People get there by 'using what they currently have with feeling.' They don't get there by trying to squeeze their balls or manipulate their voice into some unnatural position with a science book, or practicing until they can play 300 beats per minute before they actually write or sing a good song that people actually want to listen to!

[jonpall]

I don't think you're getting what I mean by power. I'm not talking about the overall impact or message of the music, I'm talking about the raw power from the vocalist.

2:14 - 2:44 everything is pretty much sung in D4-C5

As pitch increases, intensity increases. A C4 sounds more intense than a C3 or a C2, and a C5 sounds even more intense. You just can't get the ultra raw, powerful, evil, intense OR heartbreakingly soft sound without the higher notes.

4:38-> end

Very beautiful singing but would sound incredibly dull one octave lower.

Simply TERRIFIC singing from Joe Lynn Turner in that second clip. First clip with Russel Allen cool, but I dig the music more than the vocals. Russel is a bit like Ken Tamplin - using a bit TOO much vocal weight. I don't like it generally when the vocal weight is very little, but you can also overdo it in the other direction. Note that this is just a personal preference.

[jonpall]

You're right. I've heard Ken sing very lightly so I guess he just likes that extreme thick sound the most, for rock songs at least.

[Sun]

I'll keep Billie Holiday. Range is borderline irrelevant, artistry is the only thing that matters to me and it's been proven time and time again to me it's not about how high or fast you make notes, it's how expressive your art is!

KillerKu,

Please stop trying to make this ridiculous point that you EITHER have good RANGE or ARTISTRY. The "freight-train" song you linked featured some of the lamest "rock" vocals I've ever heard. Of course artistry is the number one prio - but what happens when artistry is spectacular AND technique is equally great? I realize by your taste in music that range is not that important, but for us interested in rock singing most of the songs will reach at least B4 or C5 simply in the MELODY in the verses or chorus, so it's not about "popping" high notes but even about being able to survive through a song. You linked David Bowie life on mars earlier which is a great song and it has tons of A4s. Any song or melody of his could easily go maybe one or two notes higher and if we were to end up with sustained B4s etc most guys would need training in range to sustain this.

Listen to the clip Jonpall just commented on, listen to the great singing there. The notes are high simply because the key of the song makes the melody "sit" high, and honestly, can you say that Joe Lynn Turner doesn't have great expression AND range?

I don't think it needed an E5 to get people buying records and enjoying music

It's like you're not reading anything I've written.

I said a baritone probably would top out around E5 if he pursuits range, not around the F4 area. My comment had NOTHING to do with what range I think is the "optimal" or "necessary" for a rock baritone - only what is possible. Even in the music I listen to E5 is very rarely sung, above E5 and it soon starts to sound gimmicky.

I think most of us will not settle for the "good enough to please and make money" level. We want to be as good as we possibly can. As a SINGER I want to SING as good as I can - even if in the end I would make the same amount of money.

but there is no way I'd ever be convinced range is what makes a good singer

Again NOBODY SAID THIS. It's one variable that is important though that is for sure.

They don't care about 70 percent cricothyoid activations, or E5 full voice/head voice/falsetto, or whatever

What is your point? This is not for them to care about; they care about the end result, technique will directly change the end result. We are not discussing things like this for fun, we are trying to make the end result different. Try singing a journey song in complete falsetto or by cracking on every note due to CT/Ta instability and let's see if the audience cares.

Obviously the "general public" or "audience" knows who the best singer is so we should try to copy Justin Bieber from now on. According to the general public and youtube Justin is at least 40 times better than Steve Perry and at least 220 times better than Joe Lynn Turner.

[KillerKu]

My point is gaining more notes doesn't really make someone a better singer at the end of the day, objectively. If that's your goal, cool, but if the Billie Holidays of the world want to sing with their natural voices without a science book to manipulate their CT and TA, I admire that, as well do I admire inefficient, artistic voices in general. I think it's actually just flat out important for the arts to have people do this.

Looking down a list of most of my favorite singers, they definitely did not use scientifically optimized voices for pitch range, and did not spend all of their time 'working out' to try to get the ultimate range this way. I see it as potentially shooting yourself in the foot as an artist to do so.

Part of why we remember Johnny Cash was cause he couldn't hit an E5 to save his life and sang music people loved instead. I really like this way of thinking, and would prefer to have had that been myself. This idea of every voice engineered for every note and never 'good enough' I find to be disturbing artistically, it's like some kind of "Brave New World" of singing.

You mentioned in heavy metal you believe there is no room for people without huge ranges, and I'm thinking, maybe this is why I don't like heavy metal bands that much? You do realize there are at least 2 octaves of expressive/natural sounding range? Why create an arbitrary rule like that? I might have more fun listening to people like Billie Holiday/Johnny Cash front a metal band, at least it would be more interesting as artform than the status quo?

What's wrong with someone like Johnny Cash fronting a metal band? Honestly? I think someone like that would stand out a lot. Got swagger, great songwriter, emotionally honest voice that resonates with many people. Would likely be one of the very few metal singers who would dare sing low, that would take some balls. He might have made a better metal band than most of the ones already out, IMO. So when you create an arbitrary rule and are like: 'unless E5' then 'no heavy metal.' I see that as either pointless or damaging to art. That kind of attitude, is part of why I gravitate to other genres in listening habits and i'm probably not alone!

My point on what the masses like, is there is an element of authenticity when people are ignorant of the mechanics of art, and simply respond with absolute innocence and honesty. They tend to experience things more emotionally without intellectualizing it or intentionally being critical of it based on society's preconceived notions or based on an intellectual understanding of mechanics. While I agree what people are being force fed by the industry is steered towards plastic pop for pre teens (Bieber, etc), I still believe there are people like my younger self, who just heard a sound and genuinely liked it with no musical knowledge, without any hype or marketing. I didn't like very much mainstream music growing up, but a bit here and there slipped through. When I heard mainstream music of yesteryear, it was like a light bulb went off in my head.

I'd like to make music for people like that. But even myself, trying to reach back into this state of an innocent mind, no matter how much knowledge I gain, is difficult and I have to make an effort to maintain it, less I fall into some kind of intellectual trap. My main intellectual problem with music is 'creative value vs aesthetic appeal.' A great example is that Oasis song, not highly creative (harmonically, though the melody is quite fine)? But very appealing. I see the value in both pursuing the creative, and the aesthetic appeal, but I realize sometimes one aspect fails to some degree. I believe the highest artistic achievement is something that achieves both (Beatles as an example).

Anyway, this philosophy of valuing what people's cultured and natural voices offer at face value, emotionally, is part of why I have tried to de-emphasize this locker room mentality of working out the voice with a science book for maximum range. If you really, really want to sing an E5, cool, I support you in achieving your goals every step of the way. But at the same time, it's not going to make you any better of a singer than Johnny Cash. What's worse, if you somehow convinced people like him that it was the only way to succeed in your delusion, or that it was the 'better way to sing,' that his natural voice would never be good enough, you'd be doing more damage than Justin Bieber to art. That's why I call it out. It's not to put anyone down or discredit what your voice offers or to imply E5s are bad, it's quite simply that singing (and art) doesn't work that way.

Cause singing is about expression. It's both about expressing yourself, and expressing to others. It involves a lot of things, including identity, culture, voice habits, emotions, character. If really loud high notes help you express both for yourself and to others, then that's good. If they don't, then that's good too. It's not a contest or a competition and if it was, Johnny Cash likely already beat us all a long, long time ago, as did Billy Joe Armstrong, James Hetfield and so forth. I don't think it's a coincidence that these people mentioned already in the thread I was a fan of and still am to a degree. I think Green Day was the first album I bought when I was 12-13 years old, and I suppose my ignorant little fingers were right on the pulse of what would be the most successful pop punk band ever. It certainly wasn't cause he was singing E5s that got me to buy my first album, it was melody and passionate singing. My tastes may have changed over the years, but I still think Basket Case is a damned good song... I totally comprehend why it would be this song that got me to buy my first album.

And I think he's just as good of a singer as anyone here if not better for getting me to pull the trigger. I don't think he needs a science book or needs to train religiously to sing Journey or Foreigner songs that are out of his range. Neither does anyone else unless those are their explicit goals. If he wanted to do that, I'd support him in doing that, but people need what they need, it's very individual. The best I can advise is to speak for yourself as to what you need. When people speak for others, I tend to call that out. People mistake when I do this for attacking technical educated training when that is not the case. It's more defending the value of raw, emotional, and unscientifically plotted art. Both can have value and I feel both are needed.

People only need as much technique education/training as will help them safely reach their goals. With me, it might have been as simple as 'use a bit less air, don't use SLS material, and don't pull your tongue, use a comfortable range, etc.' Unfortunately, I was told the wrong things (if you sound louder on high notes, you sing unhealthily, that's why you don't have a 4 octave range, do gugs and pull your tongue, etc), which lead to me ruining my voice and not achieving my goals. It could have happened to Johnny Cash too, thankfully he didn't have internet access telling him if he couldn't sing an E5 his voice was unhealthy and he wrote better songs!

But I do have access, and I'm going to tell you singers right now what you need. It's what you think you need, a healthy comfortable voice that achieves your goals as best as possible. No more. It's not a number, or a pissing contest, when you achieve your artistic goals, you'll know it. I was getting much closer and it wasn't really numbers, as much as I was finally starting to be able to express myself in songs (I was writing more and more) pretty well and just needed to polish the message a bit to others.

[jonpall]

Killer, regardless of all that, would you sing some high pitched melodies if you COULD? My guess is that everyone would, who could, at least part of the time. The guys who can, often put the higher notes in the chorus, naturally. Now, if you ONLY sing high notes, like Brian Johnson from AC/DC, it can get on many people's nerves if they listen to it for too long. That I can agree upon.

Bottom line, there's room for ALL sorts of singers. I happen to like a variety of them. Song sing low, some high, some are technically not that good, some are world class. Cheers.

[KillerKu]

Killer, regardless of all that, would you sing some high pitched melodies if you COULD? My guess is that everyone would, who could, at least part of the time. The guys who can, often put the higher notes in the chorus, naturally. Now, if you ONLY sing high notes, like Brian Johnson from AC/DC, it can get on many people's nerves if they listen to it for too long. That I can agree upon.

Bottom line, there's room for ALL sorts of singers. I happen to like a variety of them. Song sing low, some high, some are technically not that good, some are world class. Cheers.

Depends on the tone and how naturally it came, I think. Looking at many of my favorite singers, most push chest (though some higher than others) and then switch into falsetto, they don't have a strong bridge. There are a few exceptions, like Stevie Wonder, but his tone was never one I actually wanted. I actually had to adjust to his tone, as when I first heard it I thought it sounded pinched and weird but I grew to like it eventually and respect it because I could hear so much of his 'identity' in it. It was like crying happy tears, the emotions he expressed and he uses the added range well.

If singing higher came naturally and sounded ... Unaffected and less calculated, more like my natural singing voice, maybe. But if it was not a meaningful part of my character, and was just something I read in a book that made me sound unlike myself, I'd prefer to write melodies that were in my intuitive voice. Just polish the natural voice up with some tweaks. That was my original goal as a singer, was to find a way to naturally to use my voice that was healthy enough and uniquely my own that wasn't too far away from my identity, cause I think this is what all of my heroes did and they ended up with what they got. I don't think really high pitched notes were what came intuitively to me. I don't even listen to singers like that very much.