Can heavy metal singers actually sing?

[Onhell]

If you had to judge something, and you were not told how old it was, would you erase the possibilty that it could be (much) older than recent? She did and I find that a bit dumb, whatever her job his.

What LC said... no point repeating it.

... Any recommendations?

a lot of power metal singers have said qualities... Kimo Kotipelto, Toni Kaako on ocassion, Tobias Sammet only has power, no vibrato or much of control, though he has gotten better through the years. Kai Hansen's work in Gamma Ray is better than his early days in Helloween. Jorn Lande is GREAT, so is Russel Allen, Roy Khan... and of course Michael Kiske sorry, had to put my boy in there.

I recommend you youtube:

Galaxies-- Stratovarius (Kotipelto)

Accolade II-- Symphony X (Allen)

Eagle Fly Free-- Helloween (Kiske)

Falling Higher-- Helloween (Deris)

Rebellion in Dreamland-- Gamma Ray (Hansen)

Full Moon-- Sonata Arctica (Kaako)

Black in the Burn-- Masterplan (Lande)

Center of the Universe-- Kamelot (Khan)

As for Sammet... anything off the new Avantasia Cds... like Dying for an Angel with Klaus Meine  of Scorpions

OH! almost forgot Andre Matos and Edu Falachi of Angra! For Matos his brief work in Shaman was brilliant, search for Distant Thunder.

As for Edu, Running Alone with Angra is really good.

There that should keep you busy for a LONG time I'd post the links myself but I'm at work...

 

[Forostar]

What LC said... no point repeating it.

That still didn't seem to get my point. But I am not going to tell a fourth version of it.

I wish she'd hear Helloween with the song Halloween. A song with so many cool vocal parts.
Or Here Come the Tears by Judas Priest, brilliant.

 

[LooseCannon]

I got your point.

Is this serious?

Yes.

She analyzes Halford when playing a Priest song recorded in 1975(!) and says:

.... He is the only one of the five who I truly wish would visit my studio some time.

Look, right now we live in 2010. We're talking about one of the best and most experienced singers in the metal genre. Sure, everyone can still learn, but she talks about him like he is still as unexperienced as in 1975.

She doesn't know the metal genre at all, nor did she know the track. Of course she talks about him like it's from 1975 - that is the track someone else selected for her to listen to. Having literally NO other knowledge about the metal genre, how could she tell the difference.

I bet Halford could even teach this girl a trick or two.

Highly doubtful, especially when you consider Halford's age and how his voice sounds all the time nowadays.

If she wants to make a link with her own business she better should have selected a more recent track. This is a weird perspective.

She didn't pick the track. Someone else did. They gave her a track and said "Evaluate this." That's what she did. It's not meant to attack biases or anything - simply an honest opinion from someone who is an expert in the field of teaching people to sing.

 

[Perun]

Also, when she talks about wanting to teach Halford, and wanting him to come to the studio, imagine she is talking about the Halford entity from 1975, not the one from today. Take it as a piece of rhetoric, if you will.

Perun, do you agree with her negative comments about King Diamond and Ozzy? I do.

Yes, and no. I don't think King Diamond and Ozzy are so much about the skill and technique, as they are about their vocal charisma. Both are unmistakable. They give their music a certain touch that makes it special. As you may know from my constant Michael-Kiske-hate-mantra, to me, skill and technique isn't everything, in fact, it is not even all that important. As I said earlier in this thread, I enjoy hearing that my favourite singers are actually considered good singers by people who should and do know, but I could also have lived without this knowledge, because in the end the only thing that matters to me is how it sounds to me. Classic Ozzy and classic King Diamond sound like demons to me (two very distinct sorts of demons), and that's what I like about them.

 

[Yax]

Highly doubtful, especially when you consider Halford's age and how his voice sounds all the time nowadays.

Although, occassionally Halford shows his brilliance live, despite his age and tired high notes. I was surprised hearing him sing Devil's Child as good or "better" as/than in 1982 during the New York show 2008 (or was it 2009?).

 

[Perun]

Musta been either late 2008 or early 2009. I saw Priest in February '09, and they played it there too, and it was, of course, brilliant.

 

[Forostar]

Thanks Per and LC.

One thing about what I failed to explain: I reason like this: because she did not know anything about it she should have kept all options open (and then it'd be imo better to not let the readers think it could have been recorded recently). It's no big deal, it's a difference of interpretation and drawing conclusions in a different way.

I'll stop after this because I don't want to be too annoying for one evening.

 

[Yax]

Musta been either late 2008 or early 2009. I saw Priest in February '09, and they played it there too, and it was, of course, brilliant.

I saw it on youtube. It's gone now  . I saw Priest in mid 2008 and early 2009. Big difference in the singning. The first show was second show of the tour and it was partly awful, although Between the Hammer and the Anvil sounded pretty solid, although not anywhere near as good as in Canada a couple of weeks later.

I wish Halford would see a vocal teacher. Not to teach him how to sing but how to take care of his voice, because frankly, he hasn't done that, he basically said so himself "I smoke a cig and have a cup of tea and then I start singing". Somebody even told me he warms up by eating potato chips.

Halford was fantastic live right up until 2001. After that it slowly started to go downhill. Just listen to Resurrection Rock in Rio 2001, then Live in Anaheim, late 2002 (same song) and how it sounds now on tour. Resurrection still sounds good, after he got a few shos under his belt, but he does not "sing" the high notes in the same was as in Rock in Rio, he screams them and there's no vibrato. Anaheim shows the transition between the two.

 

[wsoul1]

For Ozzy, his solo albums generally contain better singing than the Sabbath stuff.

I feel exactly the opposite. I think his Sabbath stuff blows away his solo stuff. I guess i have to include his first two solo albums after thinking about it. The last 20+ years has been studio/sound tech wizardry.

 

[Moonchild33]

I wonder about Matt Barlow too. He's a great singer based on his power and emotion rather than his technicality, which makes me think that she'd slag him off.

Actually Barlow has more skill than even Dickinson.

 

[Suicidehummer]

I would love to hear her opinion on Ian Gillan or Justin Hawkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKC8hpzB0bU

It would also be really cool to see what she would think of a recent live version of NOTB.

 

[Yax]

Actually Barlow has more skill than even Dickinson.

How did you come to that conclusion?

I, personally, find his high notes awkward.

 

[Onhell]

As you may know from my constant Michael-Kiske-hate-mantra, to me, skill and technique isn't everything, in fact, it is not even all that important.

I'm surprised you have an anti-kiske mantra, since to me he fulfills all qualities of a "good" singer INCLUDING, ESPECIALLY, technique/talent. Sure it's his fault he sang sub-par material after the keeper albums, but still... when this guy is on, he's on. and unlike most of the singers his age... he can still belt it out.

 

[chaosapiant]

As I cannot read the article from work; can someone sum up what she said about Dickinson and Dio?  Much obliged!

 

[Yax]

As I cannot read the article from work; can someone sum up what she said about Dickinson and Dio?  Much obliged!

Copied:

Initial reaction (on NoT: “The first two guys are so impeccable that they’re each in their own way presenting a manifesto on how to sing well, irrespective of musical genre”.

I have nothing but admiration for this singer. Listen how he starts off with a soft growl, then moves seamlessly into a well-supported, sustained high full-voice sound that then evolves into an effortless long scream! His diction is easily intelligible, regardless of the range he’s singing in or the effect he’s going for. He achieves an intensely rhythmic delivery of the lyrics without losing legato and musical momentum, something a lot of classical singers struggle with, especially when interpreting the many staccato and accent markings that crowd scores by Bellini, Donizetti, etc.

A couple of observations for my classical readers:

There is a visceral dramatic intensity driving this singing. Many rock and metal singers are tenors who sustain much higher, much longer than operatic tenors are ever required to. It’s not just the microphone that makes this possible. These guys are singing their guts out with incredible commitment. Intention is a very powerful thing.

Notice the rasp that occasionally colors his sound. This is an effect that is totally distinct from strain – his entire larynx and throat needs to be completely loose and free to respond this way. In some of the following examples, you’ll hear singers deliberately making their voice more shallow, shrill, nasal or “harsh”. If they know what they’re doing, they can set up all of these effects without creating resistance and strain. You can tell the difference in much the same way you would listen to a classical singer – free singing is like a massage, while entangled singing makes you sympathetically tighten up your own throat.


Second singer: Dio.

This is another very fine singer. His voice is so naturally resonant – he reminds me of Freddie Mercury. Like the first singer, he performs with perfect legato, clear diction, and a consistent, organic vibrancy. He arranges his resonance space to create a shallow snarl without setting up any resistance for his breath. You can tell how healthy his delivery is from the way he moves in and out of brief moments of harmony with the other tracks with impeccable intonation.

 

[Perun]

I'm surprised you have an anti-kiske mantra, since to me he fulfills all qualities of a "good" singer INCLUDING, ESPECIALLY, technique/talent. Sure it's his fault he sang sub-par material after the keeper albums, but still... when this guy is on, he's on. and unlike most of the singers his age... he can still belt it out.

You haven't read my Michael-Kiske-Hate-Mantra, then. I keep repeating that I know Kiske can hit every note in the universe and he has all the technique you can wish for, but I think his voice sounds crap nevertheless, and that's what spoils the music he does for me.

 

[Onhell]

You haven't read my Michael-Kiske-Hate-Mantra, then. I keep repeating that I know Kiske can hit every note in the universe and he has all the technique you can wish for, but I think his voice sounds crap nevertheless, and that's what spoils the music he does for me.

ooooh ok, yeah, that's different. I can see that... Hate on!

 

[Moonchild33]

How did you come to that conclusion?

I, personally, find his high notes awkward.

I don't like him at all, but it was broken down by criteria on some site and Barlow edges out Bruce (but they were neck-in-neck I think).

I'll go find the breakdown.

---

Found it.

Breath Support - Bruce
Register switching - Barlow
Register Blending - Barlow
Pitch - Bruce
Runs - Bruce
Consistency through registers - Tie
Volume control - Barlow
Vibrato control - Bruce
Sustain - Bruce
Diction - Tie

Projection - Barlow
Resonance - Barlow
Range - Barlow
Versatility - Barlow

Though I think Bruce would take resonance, but Barlow still wins.

[Edit] His highs are awkward because he has a much lower tessitura

 

[Invader]

A comparison like that assumes that each criterion is equal in value.  That's not necessarily the case.

 

[chaosapiant]

I think the above list comes off as a bit of Barlow fan service.  There is no way in HELL that Barlow is more versatile that Bruce.  Bruce can literally sing anything.  I'd take Bruce anyday over Barlow.  That said, Barlow is still an incredible voice, but has more in commong with Tate, imo, than Dickinson.