So according to this study, David Lee Roth has a wider vocal range than Halford, Dickinson, Dio and Tate?
I'm not sure what to make of this...
- Thread starter General Zod
- Start date
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
I think what they are talking about is that Dave's range extends lower than these other guys. Realize that vocal range doesn't describe how high you can sing, but the range of notes.
BTW, not a surprise that Mike Patton is on top of the list.
AngraRULES
Member
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
So if you read the article, you see that their basis is off of the range of keys and octaves they sing in, so yes, according to FACTS, he does have a wider range than those people. Whether or not he's a better performer than those people is another thing entirely, and a matter of opinion.
No surprise that Patton wins this either.
dcowboys311
Member
The only FACTS are that Roth has a larger range on his recorded output than the other gentlemen do on their recorded output. I doubt the authors took into account, for example, the long-lost-limited-to-5 basement tapes of 2 octaves 5 1/2 note Johnny Cash which show him stretching his range to 5 octaves.
And while I know you're not a fan of Pain of Salvation .you have to admit that them listing Daniel Gildenlow with a range of only 3 octaves 6 notes seems a little um short?
I haven't actually done an analysis, but I know he's got to be over 4 octaves, right?
Craig
Mardoch
Defender of the Universe
mattbrood
PPUSA Facebook *****
Random Axe
Common Sense Man!
where is Jim Gillette??
I was thinking about him or King Diamond. Have you guys seen Gillette recently? He's huge, like pro wrestler huge and bald like me.
I didn't read the vocal range criteria for this, but if there was a musical talent meter, Roth would be FAR below the baseline.
I look at this in the same way I look at The World's Fastest Guitarist/Drummer/most sober bass player/etc
I get that. I'm just surprised Roth's range is wider. I mean, had you and I been discussing vocalists with wide vocal ranges, I don't think Roth would have been your go to guy.
I'm not surprised he's on the list, but I'm admittedly surprised how high he is.
If "relevance" is going to be the barometer by which we start judging thread value, we might as well shut the forum down. Personally, I find a scientific look at the vocal abilities of some of Metal's most prominent singers far more "relevant" than the 300th thread on Queensryche's latest drama, Geoff Tate's latest wardrobe change, or Manowar's ticket prices.
Understood. However, I still found the results surprising, and quite frankly, interesting. I certainly won't speak for anyone else, but if someone had asked me to correctly order the vocal ranges of Roth, Bon Jovi, King Diamond and Tate, I would have failed miserably.
I highly question their criteria for "range." Did they post what they consider "high" and "low" notes by each singer (I haven't looked)? If so, are they counting shrieks and screams? On Van Halen's early stuff, Roth did a fair number of shrieks, squeals, and quasi-screams are they considering those as "high notes?" I'm guessing "yes", and I wouldn't have. If you can't sing a recognizable song with understandable lyrics at your high end range, it's not really your high end, IMHO.
Or perhaps he just has far better low-end range than I realized, and that's what got him rated that highly.
I dunno as others have said, though, range is just a small (but important) part of a singer's toolbox. Just like with a guitarist playing fast is an important skill, but if you use it like Dragonforce does (ie. apparently the only tool in your toolbox), it's meaningless to me. Use it like John Petrucci or Mats Haugen (Circus Maximus) and it's awesome.
Craig
Agreed. Range is only a small piece. The power, clarity, nuance and style with which you hit those notes is more important to my ear.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
Right but this criteria is also all subjective and it's impossible to measure otherwise.
Fair enough. Wasn't trying to insult you or anything, but I often feel like the internet is always a place where people like to dodge facts and let their opinions run wild, even with quantifiable evidence going against them. Truth be told, I'm surprised too that Roth's range is so high up there.
If you read the piece, it clearly outlines that they measure range by key and octaves sung. Maybe it's not important to you in terms of the singers as performers, and that the human element is going to truly separate the men from the boys, but this is still an interesting read that lays out some objective info about singers we highly regard.
Facts are facts, and trying to grasp at straws to insinuate that looking at quantifiable data about musicians we like and respect is somehow a bad thing is ignorant at best and downright anti-science at worst. Nobody is saying that measuring range based on recorded material makes Dio a shitty singer and Mike Patton the unquestionable champion. The performance itself is always going to weigh heavily on our opinions regardless of what numbers read, but it's still always nice to have this kind of stuff. There was an equally interesting data set a few weeks ago about rappers and word usage, which Aesop Rock won by a large margin, but that wouldn't make him "better" than DMX to DMX fans. It's just interesting. Deal with it.
dcowboys311
Member
You claimed: "yes, according to FACTS, he does have a wider range than those people" -- in other words, because it is based on facts, the outcome is true. This is false.
Many musicians on the list simply don't play music suited for a wide vocal range. This has nothing to do with what they can or can't do, or who is more technically talented. Sting's music just doesn't call for the type of range Queensryche calls for. King Diamond's would not be the same with the monotony of Rage Against the Machine's vocals. All this list shows is that the musicians in question sing in that range for their given music. It doesn't prove anything.
How you came to your other conclusions is beyond me and obviously baiting.
I didn't take it as insulting at all. And I'm a big fan of facts and science, which is why I was so intrigued by this study. The facts demonstrate something completely different than what I would have guessed.
Similar threads
