I'm not sure what to make of this...

[General Zod]

For anyone else who finds this interesting, they've added another 50 singers, a number of them from the metal genre. Admittedly, I never thought I'd see Katy Perry and Quorthon on the same list.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

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.

Facts don't operate at the convenience of your opinion. So yes, something that is inherently based on fact is TRUE unless disproven. That's how science operates.

Many musicians on the list simply don't play music suited for a wide vocal range.

That's not only an immeasurable and subjective opinion, but complete conjecture. You can't just dismiss what you're given because of "what ifs".

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.

Again, irrelevant. DMX uses less words on his albums than Aesop Rock, so Aesop Rock's vocabulary on records is therefore larger - a conclusion accompanied by the data. We cannot use the data to make claims about DMX in his personal life, or at shows, but we can use it to make claims about his recorded works. But by your logic, the facts we're given don't matter because DMX might be capable of using those same words as Aesop, but that his songs don't call for them. That's again, not only conjectural and subjective, but besides the point because the fact is DMX didn't use those words, and King Diamond doesn't utilize the same range on his records that DLR does according to the data. Again, nobody said this is a measurement of the quality of the singer, or his general ability to perform (because that would be almost impossible to prove and basically boil down to opinion). It IS however, a measurement of the range of the singing on the recordings.

If that's not interesting to you, then so be it. But it is interesting to me and clearly others who enjoy objective data about musicians we appreciate so that not every discussion about music is a mindless back and forth about pointless personal opinions.

And for the record, I wasn't "baiting" - I was 100% serious. Your posts insinuate two things: First, that recorded music is an unfair basis to study a musician's vocal range even though the crux of the entire music industry is still founded upon recorded music. And second, that the piece is pointless because it measures such a small scope against a sea of other variables when concerning music. Both of these notions are again, ignorant at best and anti-science at worst. If you read a study about eggs and heart disease, it's not going to ubiquitously study how eating eggs guarantees heart disease. It's going to examine people who eat them and then whether or not they get heart disease. The study may not include those people's lifestyles, the other things they eat, etc and may only include how many eggs they eat per and a few other factors, and if it passes peer review - that's all you need for a new official study on the matter. So why are you holding this methodology to some unrealistic absurd standard for no other reason than "muh opinions"? And you can say I'm doing a whole lot of defending over something minuscule, and I wholeheartedly agree. I shouldn't have to type this much to defend facts...

 

[AeonicSlumber]

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.

It's a shame skyrefuge isn't on here as much, because I'd love to pick his brain about this piece. And yeah it's really cool that they keep adding new singers.

 

[dcowboys311]

Facts don't operate at the convenience of your opinion. So yes, something that is inherently based on fact is TRUE unless disproven. That's how science operates.

Facts don't operate like that, correct, but you can't draw up just any conclusion you'd like based on whatever facts you find. You do not have a complete set of facts. There is no testing.

That's not only an immeasurable and subjective opinion, but complete conjecture. You can't just dismiss what you're given because of "what ifs".

Not even close. Notice how metal singers trend towards the top of the list while folk singers trend towards the bottom? Is it because metal singers are objectively better and therefore join metal bands? Or because metal as a style tends to have more vocal variety than folk, and therefore the singers have more opportunity to show off their voices?

Music genres tend to have qualities that can be easily grouped together. For example, bands like Interpol and Joy Division all have a very similar style of singing, and it's all in a pretty limited range -- but could Ian Curtis have belted it out like Halford? Can Paul Banks sing like Tate? I don't know, and neither do you. This is fine but as you well know, if you want truly scientific "facts", you would need to measure them both in equal ways. Not by comparing an 80's heavy metal song to a post-punk track.

Again, irrelevant. DMX uses less words on his albums than Aesop Rock, so Aesop Rock's vocabulary on records is therefore larger - a conclusion accompanied by the data. We cannot use the data to make claims about DMX in his personal life, or at shows, but we can use it to make claims about his recorded works. But by your logic, the facts we're given don't matter because DMX might be capable of using those same words as Aesop, but that his songs don't call for them.

Agreed! YOU'RE the one who claimed that the results were true because of the given data set, not me! All this does is measure their recorded works, and not their actual singing range. I never once said that they didn't matter -- just that they are incomplete. The data is objective, but the authors's conclusions, and yours, are not.

 

[dcowboys311]

And for the record, I wasn't "baiting" - I was 100% serious. Your posts insinuate two things: First, that recorded music is an unfair basis to study a musician's vocal range even though the crux of the entire music industry is still founded upon recorded music. And second, that the piece is pointless because it measures such a small scope against a sea of other variables when concerning music. Both of these notions are again, ignorant at best and anti-science at worst. If you read a study about eggs and heart disease, it's not going to ubiquitously study how eating eggs guarantees heart disease. It's going to examine people who eat them and then whether or not they get heart disease. The study may not include those people's lifestyles, the other things they eat, etc and may only include how many eggs they eat per and a few other factors, and if it passes peer review - that's all you need for a new official study on the matter. So why are you holding this methodology to some unrealistic absurd standard for no other reason than "muh opinions"? And you can say I'm doing a whole lot of defending over something minuscule, and I wholeheartedly agree. I shouldn't have to type this much to defend facts...

My post was in fact not targeted at the article, but again, at your statement and your statement alone -- that is, these findings are based on facts, therefore they are true. Seeing how you are constantly so quick to throw out accusations of "STRAWMAN" and "LOGICAL FALLACY", I did not expect it to go over like it did.

A study about eggs and heart disease will have a control variable, be peer reviewed, and have a number of other qualities that make it totally different from this. A study about eggs and heart disease will not compare someone who eats 10 eggs a day (but also drinks 2 cups of coffee an hour and smokes and has a crippling cocaine addiction) to someone who eats 2 eggs a month (who lives a very clean lifestyle) and definitively claim that there is a link between eggs and heart disease. I don't particularly care that Roth has a higher range than those 4, if that's what you're getting after. I've probably heard less than 10 VH songs in my life and I'm sure some of those were Van Hagar. What exactly are my "opinions" in this?

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Notice how metal singers trend towards the top of the list while folk singers trend towards the bottom? Is it because metal singers are objectively better and therefore join metal bands? Or because metal as a style tends to have more vocal variety than folk, and therefore the singers have more opportunity to show off their voices?

I'm glad you didn't read what I wrote, AND that you didn't read the article, because not only did I never once insinuate "better or worse", but I specifically noted a few times in my posts (including the one you're quoting) that we can't make any statements about whether or not the singers are better, but rather the range in terms of their recorded output. If that's an indication to you of better or worse, that's your opinion - but irrelevant to what I'm saying and irrelevant to the article. I'm not sure why you refuse to make that distinction or why you're not reading what's being said, but that's your fault - not mine.

What you can say is that the specific metal singers being ranked have a broader range in terms of their recorded output than those specific folk singers. That is in no way, shape, or form, a comment on the quality of the music though. Again, a distinction you're failing to make.

Music genres tend to have qualities that can be easily grouped together. For example, bands like Interpol and Joy Division all have a very similar style of singing, and it's all in a pretty limited range -- but could Ian Curtis have belted it out like Halford? Can Paul Banks sing like Tate? I don't know, and neither do you. This is fine but as you well know, if you want truly scientific "facts", you would need to measure them both in equal ways. Not by comparing an 80's heavy metal song to a post-punk track.

As I said, you're holding this study to a higher standard than even normal peer reviewed scientific studies, and that's absurd to be honest. But if you want to keep crossing your arms and continue to make excuses for the data and the methodology given to us, then nobody's stopping you from actually doing the research and disputing it yourself. Go ahead, bring Ian Curtis back to life and get him in a studio with Halford. I'll wait.

Agreed! YOU'RE the one who claimed that the results were true because of the given data set, not me! All this does is measure their recorded works, and not their actual singing range. I never once said that they didn't matter -- just that they are incomplete. The data is objective, but the authors's conclusions, and yours, are not.

No, my conclusions were true, but you clearly are making insinuations about those conclusions based off of nothing. And, on top of that, the floor's open to you to disprove the conclusions with your own research.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

My post was in fact not targeted at the article, but again, at your statement and your statement alone -- that is, these findings are based on facts, therefore they are true. Seeing how you are constantly so quick to throw out accusations of "STRAWMAN" and "LOGICAL FALLACY", I did not expect it to go over like it did.

This is my last response to you on this matter so take it or leave it. I originally noted that the data is based off facts, rather than a Guitar World tier list that's just based on opinions (which by the way, is why I find this piece so important - because it's nice to talk about facts and have legitimate context instead of constantly prattling on about how x is so much better than y because ' muh opinions'). If your primary issue here is semantics and that you need me to SPECIFICALLY call out that I was referring to recordings and not literally saying that David Lee Roth ubiquitously is a more broadly ranged singer in every capacity - that's not my problem and I have no obligation to do that. It's pretty obvious that the measure of the study is based off of recordings and omits a ton of variables, but we're only talking about recordings here in the first place. Again, if that's not good enough for you - fine. You're holding it to a ridiculously high standard you don't even see from legit science journals even, but don't let me stop you. But that's where the data comes from and it's relevant since recordings are the sole backbone of the entire music industry. Dispute it from here to high heaven, but it's not going to change what I've said.

edit: I just want to add one thing to this post. You keep bringing up that you're addressing me and not the article but that's a lie. You LITERALLY said a few posts earlier that the author jumped to conclusions just like me, and criticized the author in your initial post to me. And on top of that, to say you're addressing me and not the article is to say I'm saying something different, which I'm not. You've only assumed otherwise in attempt to grasp at straws over semantics (that I was originally referring to range as a broad concept and not specifically recordings - even though I made that distinction very clear on many occasions and you just decided to discount that).

 

[dcowboys311]

I'm glad you didn't read what I wrote, AND that you didn't read the article, because not only did I never once insinuate "better or worse", but I specifically noted a few times in my posts (including the one you're quoting) that we can't make any statements about whether or not the singers are better, but rather the range in terms of their recorded output. If that's an indication to you of better or worse, that's your opinion - but irrelevant to what I'm saying and irrelevant to the article. I'm not sure why you refuse to make that distinction or why you're not reading what's being said, but that's your fault - not mine.

When I say "objectively better" I am specifically referring to the range. Obviously that is poor wording. Let me rephrase: "Notice how metal singers trend towards the top of the list while folk singers trend towards the bottom? Is it because metal singers already have high ranges and therefore join metal bands? Or because metal as a style tends to have more vocal variety than folk, and therefore the singers have more opportunity to show off their voices?"
To use the rap study as an example, I'm sure if you were to throw Roth and Tate and Halford into the mix, they'd all be near the bottom. Why? Because their styles of music do not revolve around worldplay and storytelling. They are riff based. Aesop and Atmosphere, on the other hand, are all about the lyrics. Apples and oranges.
Actually, I have not made any claims at all regarding preferences, etc...just about every other point you have been making has been against things I never said or implied. If you wish to continue, you'd do well to re-read what I actually wrote.

As I said, you're holding this study to a higher standard than even normal peer reviewed scientific studies, and that's absurd to be honest. But if you want to keep crossing your arms and continue to make excuses for the data and the methodology given to us, then nobody's stopping you from actually doing the research and disputing it yourself. Go ahead, bring Ian Curtis back to life and get him in a studio with Halford. I'll wait.

For the third (I think?) time, I am specifically taking issue with your claim that facts --> true. Not the article itself.

 

[dcowboys311]

This is my last response to you on this matter so take it or leave it. I originally noted that the data is based off facts, rather than a Guitar World tier list that's just based on opinions (which by the way, is why I find this piece so important - because it's nice to talk about facts and have legitimate context instead of constantly prattling on about how x is so much better than y because ' muh opinions'). If your primary issue here is semantics and that you need me to SPECIFICALLY call out that I was referring to recordings and not literally saying that David Lee Roth ubiquitously is a more broadly ranged singer in every capacity - that's not my problem and I have no obligation to do that. It's pretty obvious that the measure of the study is based off of recordings and omits a ton of variables, but we're only talking about recordings here in the first place. Again, if that's not good enough for you - fine. You're holding it to a ridiculously high standard you don't even see from legit science journals even, but don't let me stop you. But that's where the data comes from and it's relevant since recordings are the sole backbone of the entire music industry. Dispute it from here to high heaven, but it's not going to change what I've said.

Ah, so you do agree with me. Carry on then.

 

[Urban breed]

I love this kind of thread... Let's make it, umm, less, interesting. Measuring the lowest note and the highest note doesn't exactly establish actual range. I bet you can figure out why...

 

[The Fiddler]

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.

I totally agree. Sebastian Bach was a monster back in his prime, albeit a short span of years. Power, clarity, nuance and style.

 

[The Fiddler]

I love this kind of thread... Let's make it, umm, less, interesting. Measuring the lowest note and the highest note doesn't exactly establish actual range. I bet you can figure out why...

I think range discussions are really only of value if octaves are measured by the singer being capable of singing an entire verse in a certain octave versus just hitting a shriek or growl for a single note in a single octave.

 

[General Zod]

Sebastian Bach was a monster back in his prime, albeit a short span of years. Power, clarity, nuance and style.

Although Sebastian may not be in that legendary first tier of Metal greats, he's not far off. "Quicksand Jesus" is another example of his ability to make the hairs on your arm stand on end. And really, more than octaves and range, if you can give me goosebumps the rest is mostly meaningless.

 

[The Fiddler]

Although Sebastian may not be in that legendary first tier of Metal greats, he's not far off. "Quicksand Jesus" is another example of his ability to make the hairs on your arm stand on end. And really, more than octaves and range, if you can give me goosebumps the rest is mostly meaningless.

No doubt. Quicksand Jesus is my favorite Skid Row track.

 

[espz]

In a Darkened Room is the track I listened to when I needed to remind myself how great he was after watching him on Sing Your Face Off. (yes, yes, I know...we watch crappy reality tv).

 

[templeofmax]

Someone should let them know that Tommy is not PelleK.

?????

 

[Mardoch]

?????

Tommy Karevik (PelleK) (D2 to C6)

Not the same person. Tommy Karevik is...Tommy of SW and Kamelot fame and PelleK is Per Fredrik "PelleK" Åsly of Damnation Angels and PelleK.

Unless there's some weird shit going down and they're the same guy somehow.

 

[OrionSon]

For what's it worth, that list is only counting ranges that can be sung. Screams and shrieks are ignored.

 

[Urban breed]

For what's it worth, that list is only counting ranges that can be sung. Screams and shrieks are ignored.

Actually, that isn't strictly true. They try to keep those out of the list and therefore (most) screams and shrieks that sound like screams and shrieks are ignored. However, many a scream and some shrieks are masters of disguise and can fool many an ear.

 

[The Colorado Kid]

So according to this study, David Lee Roth has a wider vocal range than Halford, Dickinson, Dio and Tate?

I think Dream Theater were greatly influenced by Shaniah Twain's swagger, while Pain of Salvation stage clothes were clearly Twain and Liberace knockoffs.


it's as legitimate as the article.. .