How does Bruce "compare" to similar vocalists?

@Perun, yes that's completely true. Bruce sings from his guts, others sound weak, thin and puny.
I'd like to mention Russell Allen, he's got a great voice IMHO. His higher notes are screams but very controlled ones.
 
Stallion Duck said:
Where do you get the numbers after the note name (E.G. B5.) I know the chords but I haven't heard of it as a note on its own. Do you mean its place in the major scale? (F#) Or am I missing something?

Forget about chords, just think of the keys on a piano. The first C is C1, and then you just count upwards - D1, D#1, E1 and so on, then the number changes when you reach the next C. So the number just indicates in which octave the note is.
 
Perun said:
Bruce sings in a completely different way from most other singers mentioned here. I'm not very good with technical terms, but Bruce sings from the stomach, while most others sing from the lungs or the throat. What I mean is that that is where they put the pressure... I wish I could explain it. Anyway, I prefer Bruce's way indefinitely. To me, the falsetto is a technique that sounds like horrible shrieking 99% of the time, and I am glad Bruce does it so very, very rarely. From the top of my head, I can only think of one instance in Run to the Hills. That is also why Bruce sounds more powerful than many other singers... there is more substance to his voice, it comes from deeper within.

Maybe I'm annoying some of his many fans here, but I have never understood to the slightest what people find appealing with Kiske. To me, when he sings clearly, he sounds like he has an infected throat, and all he ever does otherwise is shriek. He never goes lower than the top or middle of his lungs. I am not a good singer, but I have practiced several techniques as far as I could, and I found that what Bruce does is much more physically straining than what Kiske does. I can't hit either's high notes, but I felt that more skill is involved when doing it Bruce's way. With Kiske's way you just need to be loud, with Bruce's way you need physical stamina. The result is that Bruce sounds full and warm, while Kiske - in my opinion - has zero power in his voice. So I think Kiske is in no way comparable to Bruce.

I have discussed Kiske with Perun many times, but I don't mind continuing this a bit. And Kiske could use a little support in this topic.  :D

Kiske is not just being loud. What Kiske does well is keeping a very straight voice, while most others tremble when they try these heights. I hate it when voices get too sheepy as soon as they go to their higher octaves.

So, the strength of Kiske is he can reach very high and he is very flexible as well, so he can sing fast, changing tone very easily. This enabled Helloween to broaden their scope of their songwriting. You might say that Kiske's voice alone is not the warmest, but his technique and sound enabled Helloween to turn into a warm metal band without boundaries. The music, the total picture became full, warm and complex.

To put is short: Kiske doesn't sound strained. He sounds effortless, and that is a mighty skill. He doesn't use falsetto, he doesn't scream as much (or at all) as others do in these regions: it his normal voice. The singer of Blind Guardian, now that is something I had to get used to. Because that vibro technique sounds more like an angry ram bloating for food. Speaking of strained. :eek:

Kiske is comparable with Bruce because I believe he is one of the few who is able to sing what Bruce can sing without making mistakes. By the way, when Bruce was going solo in 1990, there was a rumour about Kiske replacing him. Around that time, there was no one elsein his league. And when it comes to his style, I still think no one else can match him. All these singers you guys have discussed are strong, in what they do good. But they are less unique than Kiske (except for Halford and Bruce who possessed more varied skills than Kiske and have their own unique sound as well).

Perun, if I make a suggestion:
I thought this over, and I think there's a deeper problem that you have with Kiske's work in Helloween:
He is a male singer who sings very high, and very often, while all the other singers who were mentioned in this thread sing only very high, once in a while. So, you may wonder if you like male singers who sing very high, (almost) constantly. No wonder that a constant high voice doesn't sound as warm as a lower voice.
But I stress again, we have to keep in mind that these singers shouldn't be judged a capella only. This is metal music. Full, loud and mostly warm music. Helloween's music and Kiske, the combination sounded warm, and rich.

I have no trouble with Kiske in Helloween (or Avantasia), because I see his voice as one of the higher layers blending perfectly with the melodic music he sings to. I love the music he performed with, and that might matter as well. In the Keepers era, Helloween was probably the most melodic fast metal band around, and their melodies were better than most others who tried to copy this. Since he fits so well to that type of music, I have no other choice but liking him very much.
 
Stallion Duck said:
Someone who hasn't been mentioned much is Geoff Tate. He is very similar to Bruce,especially in the high register.

He was very awesome during his pre-Mindcrime era. His throat smoked afterwards.
 
Wickerman 32 said:
I know King Diamond can hit the high notes. My favorite 3 singers are Bruce, Rob Halford and Dio!

King Diamond, now he is the ultimate shrieker. Terrible sound, can't stand it. They should add his name as a synonym for shrieking in the dictionaries.
 
Forostar said:
King Diamond, now he is the ultimate shrieker. Terrible sound, can't stand it. They should add his name as a synonym for shrieking in the dictionaries.

Yes. And the high notes he hits (if he even hits them properly) are pure falsetto.
 
Yes. A huge difference with Kiske. Actually, I agree with Perun's entire post if I read Diamond instead of Kiske.
 
Jaaaaiks. I am suddenly not hungry anymore. This is seriously irritating indeed.

Both the bandname and the song title are ridiculous as well.
 
Bruce sings from his gut and isn't afraid of not being totally perfect as long as it fits the songs.  Which is why I love his vocals and style so much.

Kiske too has a great voice but unlike pretty much every other big name in this thread (Halford, Dio, Cornell, Sheepers) hasn't been touring constantly for 20+ years.  I'd have to imagine that singing like that ever night for 20+ damages the vocal chords of even the best singers.  Kiske really only heavily toured from 87-93.
 
We shouldn't forget Messiah Marcolin who was in Candlemass from 1987-1991 and from 2002-2006.

Yes, he has a little bit of a tremble in his voice. But there's lots of emotion, and immense power.
You don't feel like he struggling either. It sounds very easy. Perfect voice for dark, doomy lyrics.

A fine example would be

At The Gallows End, from the Nightfall album, (1987).

images
 
Donner said:
Bruce sings from his gut and isn't afraid of not being totally perfect as long as it fits the songs.  Which is why I love his vocals and style so much.

Kiske too has a great voice but unlike pretty much every other big name in this thread (Halford, Dio, Cornell, Sheepers) hasn't been touring constantly for 20+ years.  I'd have to imagine that singing like that ever night for 20+ damages the vocal chords of even the best singers.  Kiske really only heavily toured from 87-93.
If you do it right, it shouldn't damage your voice - The problem is, it's easy to slip - i.e, if you can't hear yourself well enough in the monitors you might strain (or sing off key). If you sing even though you're not feelig overly well you can damage it - And surely there are nights during a 200 shows tour where you sing when you shouldn't, because cancelling a show isn't something you want to do. Smoking, drugs and drinking damages your voice. Halford was a heavy drinker/smoker. Geoff Tate smokes a lot and loves wine.

And more importantly. Halford doesn't do exercises pre/post show to warm up and what not. He never has. His recipe is tea (a smoke too, but stopped in 2007-ish) and a bag of chips (!). Fortunately, no bottles of vodka pre show anymore.  :lol:

Oh, and gum during the show. Not ordinary gum, but a special gum for vocalists. People argue though whether it's productive or counter-productive.
 
Eddies Wingman said:
Forget about chords, just think of the keys on a piano. The first C is C1, and then you just count upwards - D1, D#1, E1 and so on, then the number changes when you reach the next C. So the number just indicates in which octave the note is.
Oh that makes sense. Thanks.
 
Forostar said:
We shouldn't forget Messiah Marcolin who was in Candlemass from 1987-1991 and from 2002-2006.

Yes, he has a little bit of a tremble in his voice. But there's lots of emotion, and immense power.
You don't feel like he struggling either. It sounds very easy. Perfect voice for dark, doomy lyrics.

A fine example would be

At The Gallows End, from the Nightfall album, (1987).

images
I agree, he was an amazing singer. Candlemass rules!
 
While i can agree about Kiske being a great singer (the end of the Keeper's song really is great) live, he cannot reach Bruce, imho. It´s not only about his vocal range. I just listened again his perfomance on LAD, and you can fell his emotion in songs like Hallowed be thy name (in the end he´s like crying or something) or Rotam, for instance, when he says "No, no ! " first after the narration. He can transmit to the audience the emotion or the power of the song, and that is not very easy to accomplish.

And the LAD it's just an example, of course.

And i agree with bearfan, he has a great variety (though his perfomance on Bohemian is not a good example, i think, his voice doen't sound excelent on that one), but check examples like his live perfomance of "Delilah" or the studio version of "Man of Sorrows".
 
honestly i wouldnt compare bruce to kiske. i love both of their talents but its different style of singing. kiske keepers era was mainly higher pitched like most of power metal, eg timo koltipelto who deserves a mention. and bruce is more of a story teller type vocal he can go low but then he can go high. it may not seem a big difference but brucey wouldnt suit the kiske role and kiske wouldnt suit bruces role. thats just my opinion though
 
There are a lot of metal vocalists who have good range, albeit many only with falsetto.  Bruce Dickinson, however, can sing in a low, eerie, dare I say almost gothic, voice then soar over three octaves into that glorious wail, all the time keeping his voice clean and pure.  If I had to choose a word to describe Bruce's voice, it would be "operatic".  You can hear the emotion in his voice much more than with most singers.  When Bruce sings, you FEEL it deep down inside.  It's absolutely breathtaking, especially live.  Thirty years on, and he can still bring it.  It's truly remarkable.
 
Back
Top