Music: Singer's Voices: Do they matter?

[Porn*]

Rage Against the Machine split up around ten years ago (give or take a year).

Their "reunion" project, Prophets of Rage, featured all original members, sans the lead singer. Instead they brought on a singer from a different group.

They were in town a few weeks ago, but I couldn't bring myself to go see them because the original lead singer wasn't a part of it.

It's just not the same.

Missed out on a hell of a show. Saw them in Toronto.

Naturally, B-Real (cyprus Hill) and Chuck D (public Enemy) cant replace Zach, but they put on a killer set with covers of all three bands followed by Dave Grohl coming out for the encore.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Rage Against the Machine split up around ten years ago (give or take a year).

Their "reunion" project, Prophets of Rage, featured all original members, sans the lead singer. Instead they brought on a singer from a different group.

They were in town a few weeks ago, but I couldn't bring myself to go see them because the original lead singer wasn't a part of it.

It's just not the same.

Prophets sound pretty different from RATM. It's not really a reunion project, it's a supergroup focused on political activism amalgamating the instrument players from RATM, the MC's from Cypress Hill and Public Enemy, and Public Enemy's DJ. Yeah they play RATM song's but they're not really trying to sound the same.

 

[Ozz]

Rage Against the Machine split up around ten years ago (give or take a year).

Their "reunion" project, Prophets of Rage, featured all original members, sans the lead singer. Instead they brought on a singer from a different group.

They were in town a few weeks ago, but I couldn't bring myself to go see them because the original lead singer wasn't a part of it.

It's just not the same.

Zach's new solo project sounds God-awful; he + the rest of RATM were a perfect mix. I doubt I'd care for Prophets of Rage either, but I am sure I'd like them doing RATM covers way more than Zach's solo stuff.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Missed out on a hell of a show. Saw them in Toronto.

Naturally, B-Real (cyprus Hill) and Chuck D (public Enemy) cant replace Zach, but they put on a killer set with covers of all three bands followed by Dave Grohl coming out for the encore.

Molson Amphitheater, right? Heard it was a good show as well.

I've never seen Rage live before, but I just couldn't bring myself to pay to see B-Real try his best to fill Zack's shoes, on my favourite RATM tracks. It's just not the same, y'know?

My one regret was missing out on Tom Morello. After Zack's vocals, Tom's mastery of the guitar was what got me hooked on them in the first place. I trust he hasn't lost a step, either.

Don't know enough about Cypress Hill or Public Enemy to judge their covers, but I would've just been there to see the Rage stuff anyways.

And I'm still convinced Cobain's death was one of the best things to happen to Dave Grohl's career. He's come such a long way!

Prophets sound pretty different from RATM. It's not really a reunion project, it's a supergroup focused on political activism amalgamating the instrument players from RATM, the MC's from Cypress Hill and Public Enemy, and Public Enemy's DJ. Yeah they play RATM song's but they're not really trying to sound the same.

Yeah I know it's not so much as a reunion as it is a new project altogether, otherwise they would have kept the original RATM name.

Audioslave had a lot of songs that had that heavy RATM sound, until Chris Cornell started singing. I imagine I'd enjoy Prophets of Rage far more than I did Audioslave, since it's still Rage's discography.....plus Cyprus Hill/Public Enemy.

Zack's new solo project sounds God-awful, he + the rest of RATM were a perfect mix.

I know! Still holding out for a full reunion. Maybe someday.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Singer's Voices: Do they matter? I'm gonna say no.

1. I don't think we can agree on who has a bad or good voice. I like Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, Elvis Presley, Sam Cooke, John Lennon, and Marvin Gaye, but someone will disagree. Pat Benatar was an opera singer, but someone will reply that she has a bad voice. Some people may not like Mariah Carey although she used to have a huge range. I think Whitney Houston had a good voice, but some may not like her. Some feel that Adele's singing style is too dramatic.

2. I think the quality of the material is more important. Some singers have non-traditional voices such as Joe Cocker, Bob Dylan, Geddy Lee, Axl Rose, Tom Waits, and Neil Young, but they're very popular. I like Dylan, Young, and Lee's singing, but I admit they're no opera singers. Rolling Stone has Dylan ranked as the seventh best singer of all time. Someone will reply that they all have good voices.

I know this is an old thread, but I've got some thoughts.

The timbre of a singer's voice can be what reels a fan in first, though not always. I would say that Belinda Carlisle partly due to that. Kacey Musgraves almost all due to that. And from opera, Judith Blegen has the best "Susanna" out of the Figaro recording, but the conductor, Daniel Barenboim, made the music souless and lifeless.

Another way of "activating" fandom is through compositional/songwriting talents; this is what made me like Mariah Carey and Jojo(Joanna Levesque). These ladies have the ability to modify the melodic line while complete preserving the character of the song. It is also evident they have the "internal calibration" present in the legends of the past, like Beethoven or Mozart.

But Mariah's voice actually has a characteristic Belinda Carlisle has. This growly, a little crack rock-like "crack" or "growl" that absolutely pleases my ears.


1:07, 1:56, 3:02, 3:06 in Heaven is a place on Earth


1:20, 2:08, 2:32, 3:06, 3:15, 3:23

On the other side, hearing Billie Eilish can only be politely described by me as an allergic reaction. She makes me feel unwell and "bad guy" is only tolerable because of the backing tracking. She can sing, but I cannot handle her voice. It's not the style or whatever of music, it's the sound itself I cannot stand

And sometimes, listening to new music from new singers makes you appreciate something else distant from their acts. To make this point make sense, my personal experience is with Mozart's Clarinet Concerto, Mariah Carey and Jojo. Upon listening to the concerto after hearing Mariah, it started to dawn on my that the Clarinet sure was doing "Mariahisms", but in the language of 18th century music and the tone sure had some distant similarities. Combined with listening to an actually good recording by Sabine Meyer, it made me realize....Mozart had singing chops that he merely translated to instrumental music. And Mariah has that "intuition" he had...
The Clarinet Concerto was not in my circle of super duper Mozart "loves" for most of my life. But now? It is, and hell, I named a fantasy football team "Mozart foreshadowed Mariah", lol....

There's also sex appeal/charisma. For the most part, this doesn't do it for me, but Camila Cabello's conduct reeled me in on an old James Corden clip. The "twigs and berry" influence my thoughts on her for sure. She can sing, but let's say its not a strictly intellectual or emotional fandom like the singers above for me.

 

[beowulf]

Some of the best singers out there are not extremely well know because of the style of music they sing. Two that immediately come to mind are Devon Townsend and Maynard James Keenan.

A popular live version of Sober for vocal coaches to react/review


Devon Townsend


Both have amazing voices, amazing range, etc.

 

[NyQuil]

I think it's more important to have a distinctive and recognizable voice as opposed to a quality voice when it comes to a lead singer.

Any really good bar band can have a generically good voice but it's not going to be enough to stand out from the crowd.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I would take Bob Dylan's voice over Roy Orbison's voice personally.

It matters, just like anything else matters, but how good of a singer someone is has nothing to do with how technically proficient or opera-like their voice is. In fact, that can sometimes make a voice feel more artificial and bland (I don't particularly care for the chops that people keep giving Lady Gaga or Adele kudos for, for example). I've noticed that I have a tendency to prefer the voices of singers who aren't technical more than I like the singers who are, personally.

What matters is the expressiveness/character/personality/aesthetic/ability for the voice to sound 'right' in the context of the music.

I dislike Rush too, though.

This is precisely where I'm at with it besides Dylan/Orbison (I prefer Orbison by far in this context). I even brought up Adele in particular as someone whose voice I don't care for although I recognize she has pipes when talking with my wife a while back.

 

[beowulf]

I think it's more important to have a distinctive and recognizable voice as opposed to a quality voice when it comes to a lead singer.

Any really good bar band can have a generically good voice but it's not going to be enough to stand out from the crowd.

true but that can also fall under stage presence to become even more distinct.

 

[TheAngryHank]

Yes and no , lots for bands made it big without great singers , Nirvana, cake ,Weezer while some made careers because of singing ,Christina, Mary J Blige ,Ronstadt.

 

[Shareefruck]

Off on a tangent, but an unpopular opinion of mine would be that I personally do not care very much at all if a singer's live voice exposes them as inferior to the recorded version (outside of the value of possibly having one or two extra live albums that are just as good as the standout studio albums, maybe). If you have to edit yourself to hell and back, take tons of attempts, or be in just the right conditions in order to sound good, and don't actually have organic chops, so be it, I say. It rarely detracts from my appreciation, personally.

If you're able to be a part of anything that sounds good to my ears in any form, that's pretty much the bottom line only thing I care about, and the dick-measuring of unfiltered raw talent seems kinda silly and unimportant to me. I guess maybe credit-wise, appreciation should be shared/given to the person who makes them sound the way they do (if someone else is doing that), but that's usually as far as it goes for me.

Most of the time, whether an artist sounds just as good live is more just an interesting curiosity to me than anything that matters.

I hear a lot of "music these days" arguments complain about how singers rely on this or that and can't actually sing, but for me, I mostly just dislike those types of singers because they don't sound very good to me in recorded form. If they hypothetically did, I say who cares.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Off on a tangent, but an unpopular opinion of mine would be that I personally do not care very much at all if a singer's live voice exposes them as inferior to the recorded version (outside of the value of possibly having one or two extra live albums that are just as good as the standout studio albums, maybe). If you have to edit yourself to hell and back, take tons of attempts, or be in just the right conditions in order to sound good, and don't actually have organic chops, so be it, I say. It rarely detracts from my appreciation, personally.

If you're able to be a part of anything that sounds good to my ears in any form, that's pretty much the bottom line only thing I care about, and the dick-measuring of unfiltered raw talent seems kinda silly and unimportant to me. I guess maybe credit-wise, appreciation should be shared/given to the person who makes them sound the way they do (if someone else is doing that), but that's usually as far as it goes for me.

Most of the time, whether an artist sounds just as good live is more just an interesting curiosity to me than anything that matters.

I hear a lot of "music these days" arguments complain about how singers rely on this or that and can't actually sing, but for me, I mostly just dislike those types of singers because they don't sound very good to me in recorded form. If they hypothetically did, I say who cares.

Most live performances are so loud and ear banging that if one is actually there live, you aren't going to be hearing perfectly clear vocals anyway. The bass can be so loud your body experiences an earthquake. Some might be boozed up. Others will be wearing concert ear plugs.

But, when it comes to watching a recording of a live performance, one can appreciate the talents of a singer who does not mail it in or does something different from the record when performing live; the latter can be a display of compositional talent. I went to a concert recently with JoJo. I find both the actual live experience and the recording I took to be both valuable in their own way.

Sometimes, the live performance of a song takes you to a place that the record version does not, such as JoJo's "Say Love". The record is expressive, but what I heard live was something that almost put me to tears and had a sense of grandness reminiscent of Beethoven.

I do agree the "Music these days" arguments "They can't sing" allegations are actually made by nonmusicians or musicians with an inflated ego voicing that the style they resonate with is not the "in" thing anymore(or ever was).

 

[Shareefruck]

Most live performances are so loud and ear banging that if one is actually there live, you aren't going to be hearing perfectly clear vocals anyway. The bass can be so loud your body experiences an earthquake. Some might be boozed up. Others will be wearing concert ear plugs.

But, when it comes to watching a recording of a live performance, one can appreciate the talents of a singer who does not mail it in or does something different from the record when performing live; the latter can be a display of compositional talent. I went to a concert recently with JoJo. I find both the actual live experience and the recording I took to be both valuable in their own way.

Sometimes, the live performance of a song takes you to a place that the record version does not, such as JoJo's "Say Love". The record is expressive, but what I heard live was something that almost put me to tears and had a sense of grandness reminiscent of Beethoven.

I do agree the "Music these days" arguments "They can't sing" allegations are actually made by nonmusicians or musicians with an inflated ego voicing that the style they resonate with is not the "in" thing anymore(or ever was).

At the end of the day, though, it's a quality and quantity thing, and the breakdown of whether that quality or quantity comes from live or studio performances or both ultimately does not matter to me. That's basically what I'm saying. A live performance from one artist may bring you to tears, but a recorded track from another can potentially do the same. (by no means am I saying that live performances can't be what make an artist good)

To take it a bit further, personally, as a quality > quantity person, even the fact that being good live COULD (but not necessarily) result in a larger amount of solid material doesn't matter to me. Do the guys who are great live tend to have greater magnum opuses that hit my favorites than the guys who are not? Not really. I haven't observed that pattern, anyways.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Yes. Tom waits is a terrible singer and his products are crap as a result. You ever hear his rendition of downtown train?

Was this ironic? Waits is probably my second favorite male singer...

As for the discussion. Of course you're a better singer if you can perform live. Does it matter? I guess it depends if you enjoy going out to live shows or not. I know Mike Patton was a lot more fun to listen to in the late 90s than he was in early 2020 when I last saw him live (even though he still manages to do some pretty impressive vocal stuff).

I'm pretty sure Bon Jovi fans miss the early vocals now that the singer's voice is showing signs of aging, and they'd say it ultimately matters (rock anthems just don't sound right without his early range).



Edit - thanks to this thread, I just went back and listen to Waits live:

 

[Lshap]

Every voice has a distinct timbre and range, making it the most unique instrument in any song. I love the throaty imperfections of Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday, just like I love the soaring perfection of Stevie Wonder and Karen Carpenter (probably the first time those two singers have ended up in the same sentence). Very different vocal instruments that work beautifully if arranged well with the other instruments. Neither singing style is better or worse, but swapping one set of vocal cords for another changes the song considerably, like playing a melody on a sax versus a violin.

Ultimately, a singer's voice is as personal a preference as your favourite colour. Which is one of the reasons autotune is so awful – it removes individual colour and leaves a bland neutral tint. The advantage to autotune is it's become much easier to record an acceptable vocal track; the disadvantage is it removes the unique pitch & timbre qualities that make an exceptional vocal track. Listen to your favourite tunes from decades ago – the vocals are probably turned up in the mix and are the focal point of the song. Everything else is arranged to complement the distinct voice. The breathing, the straining to reach notes, the uneven timbre – the up-close sound of the human voice expressing words is the most memorable part of the song.

Autotune forces the voice into an equal partnership with the other instruments. Which removes its role as the primary focus and removes much of the feeling in the song. I have no problem with autotune to fix a note or two, but clothing a vocal track in autotune guarantees its emptiness.

As to the singers themselves, there may not be one right way of singing, there are wrong ways. Obviously, a singer has to respect pitch. They also have to respect an arrangement. Showing off your vocal strength with mindless warbling is like a gratuitous guitar solo. Yeah... congrats... you can play your instrument... but you've ruined the song. Like a hockey player who tries to dangle his way through the D instead of passing the puck. It hurts the team.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Every voice has a distinct timbre and range, making it the most unique instrument in any song. I love the throaty imperfections of Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday, just like I love the soaring perfection of Stevie Wonder and Karen Carpenter (probably the first time those two singers have ended up in the same sentence). Very different vocal instruments that work beautifully if arranged well with the other instruments. Neither singing style is better or worse, but swapping one set of vocal cords for another changes the song considerably, like playing a melody on a sax versus a violin.

Ultimately, a singer's voice is as personal a preference as your favourite colour. Which is one of the reasons autotune is so awful – it removes individual colour and leaves a bland neutral tint. The advantage to autotune is it's become much easier to record an acceptable vocal track; the disadvantage is it removes the unique pitch & timbre qualities that make an exceptional vocal track. Listen to your favourite tunes from decades ago – the vocals are probably turned up in the mix and are the focal point of the song. Everything else is arranged to complement the distinct voice. The breathing, the straining to reach notes, the uneven timbre – the up-close sound of the human voice expressing words is the most memorable part of the song.

Autotune forces the voice into an equal partnership with the other instruments. Which removes its role as the primary focus and removes much of the feeling in the song. I have no problem with autotune to fix a note or two, but clothing a vocal track in autotune guarantees its emptiness.

As to the singers themselves, there may not be one right way of singing, there are wrong ways. Obviously, a singer has to respect pitch. They also have to respect an arrangement. Showing off your vocal strength with mindless warbling is like a gratuitous guitar solo. Yeah... congrats... you can play your instrument... but you've ruined the song. Like a hockey player who tries to dangle his way through the D instead of passing the puck. It hurts the team.

Exactly! You nailed what those of us that don't like autotune hate about it.

Music is about different instruments coming together to play, not about perfection. It's the tiny mistakes that you only pick up on subconsciously that make it better. It's the emotions the notes create and the emotions of the singer that move you. Not every note has to be perfect pitch, its ok to be a little flat or sharp.

Autotune and modern music in general does all it can to wash that out. They take the human performance element out of it with autotune making all singer pitch perfect, drum machines make every beat perfect and every hit sound the same, pro tools lets engineers grab a note from 50 different takes to craft a perfect solo.

That's not music, music is organic and imperfect

 

[beowulf]

What can also be interesting about a singer is when a band looses one but the replacement sounds so similar it feels they never changed.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Every voice has a distinct timbre and range, making it the most unique instrument in any song. I love the throaty imperfections of Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday, just like I love the soaring perfection of Stevie Wonder and Karen Carpenter (probably the first time those two singers have ended up in the same sentence). Very different vocal instruments that work beautifully if arranged well with the other instruments. Neither singing style is better or worse, but swapping one set of vocal cords for another changes the song considerably, like playing a melody on a sax versus a violin.

Ultimately, a singer's voice is as personal a preference as your favourite colour. Which is one of the reasons autotune is so awful – it removes individual colour and leaves a bland neutral tint. The advantage to autotune is it's become much easier to record an acceptable vocal track; the disadvantage is it removes the unique pitch & timbre qualities that make an exceptional vocal track. Listen to your favourite tunes from decades ago – the vocals are probably turned up in the mix and are the focal point of the song. Everything else is arranged to complement the distinct voice. The breathing, the straining to reach notes, the uneven timbre – the up-close sound of the human voice expressing words is the most memorable part of the song.

Autotune forces the voice into an equal partnership with the other instruments. Which removes its role as the primary focus and removes much of the feeling in the song. I have no problem with autotune to fix a note or two, but clothing a vocal track in autotune guarantees its emptiness.

As to the singers themselves, there may not be one right way of singing, there are wrong ways. Obviously, a singer has to respect pitch. They also have to respect an arrangement. Showing off your vocal strength with mindless warbling is like a gratuitous guitar solo. Yeah... congrats... you can play your instrument... but you've ruined the song. Like a hockey player who tries to dangle his way through the D instead of passing the puck. It hurts the team.

I thought autotune simply made the voice robotic sounding. Hell, one of my favorite songs back in my youth is something that is clearly autotuned, with artifacts that I hear now. The vibe still triggers nostalgia although I don't like the song as much now. The song is "Blast of Wind" for the show Kaze no Stigma

The other things are due to other production techniques and practices.

It's actually a fine litmus test to see if a singer has musicality or not by the way they modify the tune with flourishes here and there. The ones without musicality will not sound good and disrupt the song but the ones who know how to put the notes in the right places enhance the feeling of the songs; that's what Mariah Carey could do. Mozart also; he makes those long passages of 16th notes as scales or apreggios have melodic value, such as the first scalar run in the final movement of his K. 333 sonata.

 

[SirClintonPortis]

Exactly! You nailed what those of us that don't like autotune hate about it.

Music is about different instruments coming together to play, not about perfection. It's the tiny mistakes that you only pick up on subconsciously that make it better. It's the emotions the notes create and the emotions of the singer that move you. Not every note has to be perfect pitch, its ok to be a little flat or sharp.

Autotune and modern music in general does all it can to wash that out. They take the human performance element out of it with autotune making all singer pitch perfect, drum machines make every beat perfect and every hit sound the same, pro tools lets engineers grab a note from 50 different takes to craft a perfect solo.

That's not music, music is organic and imperfect

The imperfection argument not a valid argument. For it to hold, any and all forms of "perfectly mechanical/artificial" means of playing music such as computers or mechanical machines failed to hit a note with any audience. Chrono Trigger's music was being played back by a synthesizer on a SNES console, played through TV speakers, but it hit souls and literally helped made the game big. And the original computerized music is arguably the best version and not the numerous arrangements for the likes of real orchestra afterwards. "To Far Away Times" is one of the most touching works and it is all on synthesizer.

Music machines have existed for a while. Haydn was commissioned to compose for musical clock by Niemecz.

Hear Pieces That Haydn Wrote for Musical Clock!

Eventually he reused an ostinato from one of his clock pieces in his 101st symphony.

interlude.hk

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Of course but technical skill is not the most important. I consider Bob Dylan to have been a great singer. Another modern example, some people are not that high on Taylor Swift's voice, but personally I think her vocals are one of the most important parts of her success.

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Yes. Tom waits is a terrible singer and his products are crap as a result. You ever hear his rendition of downtown train?

His Downtown Train is the best due to the dirty downbeaten feel. I can't say I have a lot of other songs I like by him though.

 

[SniperHF]

All things being equal would you prefer your vocalist to have more range, cleaner cleans, grittier grit, and more versatility or not?

Then the answer is obviously yes it matters. How much it matters depends though.

What can also be interesting about a singer is when a band looses one but the replacement sounds so similar it feels they never changed.

I dunno I think Scott is the substantially better vocalist.

Both are similar in that they are sort of scream belters as their primary sound. Johnson has more grit but aside from that Scott is better at everything. He can actually sing cleans (Johnson can't except at lower registers), he can sing falsetto with good timbre, and he's more dynamic in his tone up and down the scale.

There's not a single Scott song I think would be improved with Johnson on the original recording. Where as I think Scott could easily pull of most of Johnson's catalog and even improve a good bit of it.

 

[Shareefruck]

The imperfection argument not a valid argument. For it to hold, any and all forms of "perfectly mechanical/artificial" means of playing music such as computers or mechanical machines failed to hit a note with any audience. Chrono Trigger's music was being played back by a synthesizer on a SNES console, played through TV speakers, but it hit souls and literally helped made the game big. And the original computerized music is arguably the best version and not the numerous arrangements for the likes of real orchestra afterwards. "To Far Away Times" is one of the most touching works and it is all on synthesizer.

Music machines have existed for a while. Haydn was commissioned to compose for musical clock by Niemecz.

Hear Pieces That Haydn Wrote for Musical Clock!

Eventually he reused an ostinato from one of his clock pieces in his 101st symphony.

interlude.hk

Yeah, I agree with this. Saying that inorganic music is not music seems very reductive and doesn't ring true to me at all. There are tons of electronic acts that are very good.

Hell, I prefer the 100% programmed experience of late era Autechre (something that leans into being "machine-like") over most acts that are known for organic, humanistic live performances. There is not only one way to look at music.

I don't know of any autotune that I like as much as that, but in theory, it seems like it should work the same way. Even if a voice becomes nothing more than an instrument at that point, purely instrumental music shouldn't really be considered a lesser thing anyways.

I feel like it's probably more likely that the problem with autotune is that its effect is sometimes meant to be adjacent to real voice, and the technology just isn't there yet (and/or nobody's managed to use it well yet), not unlike imperfect CGI trying to look realistic. It's just incentivized to be used lazily, that doesn't make it inherently worse by definition.

All things being equal would you prefer your vocalist to have more range, cleaner cleans, grittier grit, and more versatility or not?

Then the answer is obviously yes it matters. How much it matters depends though.

I'm not so sure you would. "Less is more" is a thing, and the right amount of something often matters more than pronounced extremes.

 

[The Macho King]

There is probably some objective "vocal talent" thing here where you could rate singers based on raw, technical criteria, same as how you could for musical instruments. But I don't think many people listen to music solely for technique. You can appreciate it, but it's one piece of a musical experience here.

Guys like Dylan and Young are probably pretty low on an objective scale, but music isn't objective. Especially in their folk eras, they're telling a story and conveying meaning and emotion in every line in a way that blends with the other instruments to make a satisfying whole.

That all being said - Bruce Dickenson is the goat.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

There is probably some objective "vocal talent" thing here where you could rate singers based on raw, technical criteria, same as how you could for musical instruments.

1) Mike Patton (Eb1 to E7) – 6 octaves, 1/2 note

2) Diamanda Galás (F2 to C#8) – 5 octaves, 4-1/2 notes

3) David Lee Roth (E1 to A6) – 5 octaves, 3 notes

4) Axl Rose (F1 to Bb6) – 5 octaves, 2-1/2 notes

5) Nina Hagen (G#1 to Bb6) – 5 octaves, 1 note

6) Ville Valo (C1 to C#6) – 5 octaves, 1/2 notes

7) Roger Waters (B1 to Bb6), Mariah Carey (G#2 to G7) – 4 octaves, 6-1/2 notes

8) Devin Townsend (C2 to Bb6) – 4 octaves, 5-1/2 notes

9) Paul McCartney (A1 to F6), Phil Anselmo (C#1 to Bb5) – 4 octaves, 5 notes

10) Prince (E2 to B6) – 4 octaves, 4 notes





(of course, there's different lists of these, but this one has my favorite singers on top, so I'll stick to it)