Written by angel. on 06.10.2013 at 15:46

Written by LeKiwi on 06.10.2013 at 15:41

He has an incredible range, very resonant lows, shrieking highs, and to top it off he applies vocal fry in a subtle manner which is no easy task.

aha ! All of above applies to Sebastian too, I'm just saying

I recently heard a "vocal range" video based on his various performances and was impressed since he has some really nice lows which I didn't get to hear in your suggestions I think. That being said I've already started looking into his performance with bands other than Skid Row. Any other suggestions where he has all of those tones as stated above? You can re-suggest a track that you think I may have overlooked, which I may have

Written by LeKiwi on 06.10.2013 at 15:41

I don't believe I ever stated this was a concise list of the most talented vocalists in metal, read the description again It is a concise list of vocalists who I have had the opportunity to be exposed to and now admire for their talent, i.e. those vocalists who are unknown to me will not see their presence on this list until the circumstances change.

Well that IS what the title says. As per my other point your description does not match the title, nor does your description match some of the comments further on. You say a concise list of singers which you love in the opening sentence (unquestionably related to subjectivism), yet in the comments you have ascribed an objective overtone to what you consider yourself to be doing. As I say, a lack of consistency.

Quote:

Any user who challenges the inclusion of any vocalist on this list will receive the precise reason for that decision. In the future I hope to have each vocalist's talents highlighted in a short description. That should sate the belligerent portion of this community, including yourself

I doubt it will completely satiate people, especially if you continue with the "objective" trope, because there is no precedent for an objective viewpoint with regards to talent. Talent could take many forms and also vary from person to person. Some may hold delivery and emotion or ability to perform live etc as a talent over sheer technical range.

Quote:
Also please state how Johan isn't talented. Barring the time I was introduced to Johan's vocals, I don't even listen to Candlemass. However, in that short session I was able to determine that he is indeed talented. He has an incredible range, very resonant lows, shrieking highs, and to top it off he applies vocal fry in a subtle manner which is no easy task.

I didn't say he wasn't talented, but his range and delivery isn't as solid as Messiah's. Messiah is a technically better singer as he hits and holds notes better than Johan. However, one could say that Johan was more talented with regards to his emotional delivery. Naturally where the point of "what is talent" arises. I'm only going on what you believe to be "talent" in this regard. I wouldn't say one is more talented than the other because I don't think it can be quantified or subjected to an objective criteria.

Quote:

Also, I advise you to discontinue the claims of subjectivity. Objectivity: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Neither of those statements are applicable. When I receive a request, I take it seriously and objectively. As I have stated before, there are vocalists here I dislike the style of (i.e. do not listen to the music because the vocals are off-putting) yet they are still on this list. Please, explain again how subjective this list is. The fact that the list is incomplete does not constitute as an argument for such an assertion

But, as I said, you have included vocalists which I don't regard as talented. I think you're confusing impartial with objective in this instance. You can impartially recognise that some vocalist have talent in some form because they relate to things that you personally appreciate, but you cannot unequivocally state that they objectively have talent. Appreciating and recognising a thing in something you don't like is still a form of subjectivism because it is drawn from your own personal view and is only anecdotal in nature. It is not proof of an objective fact. Ultimately you may consider yourself objective when it comes to your choices on this list, but you cannot say that they are objectively talented. That is the subtle implication you may wish to consider here. For this reason I will continue to ascribe subjective claims about this list.

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 16:25

Well that IS what the title says. As per my other point your description does not match the title, nor does your description match some of the comments further on. You say a concise list of singers which you love in the opening sentence (unquestionably related to subjectivism), yet in the comments you have ascribed an objective overtone to what you consider yourself to be doing. As I say, a lack of consistency.

Experience a "crush" is not love. In this case it refers to envy and admiration - those feeling resulting from their vocal prowess, i.e. talent. If I put a preliminary "Some" at the start of the title, I would not be receiving so many suggestions as avidly as I am now, would I. Renaming the list to "Some Of The Most Talented Vocalists Who I Have Had The Honour Of Discovering" isn't a very attractive title is it? The selection process is objective. There were no personal emotions or beliefs that influenced my decisions for this list. Simple as that

Quote:

I doubt it will completely satiate people, especially if you continue with the "objective" trope, because there is no precedent for an objective viewpoint with regards to talent. Talent could take many forms and also vary from person to person. Some may hold delivery and emotion or ability to perform live etc as a talent over sheer technical range.

Wholesomely, talent is subjective. However, upon considering a realistic goal for this list, certain subjective elements of "talent" had to be overlooked. For purposes of this list, talent refers to the aptitude for delivering a particular vocal style(s) in the studio. I.e. Ability to perform live, compliment the music, or write aurally appealing vocal lines are not part of the criteria for two reasons. Firstly, it would complicate this endeavor beyond the possibility for fulfillment and, secondly, the latter two criteria are purely subjective. I will clarify that in the description soon enough for those who lacking common sense.

Quote:
I didn't say he wasn't talented, but his range and delivery isn't as solid as Messiah's. Messiah is a technically better singer as he hits and holds notes better than Johan. However, one could say that Johan was more talented with regards to his emotional delivery. Naturally where the point of "what is talent" arises. I'm only going on what you believe to be "talent" in this regard. I wouldn't say one is more talented than the other because I don't think it can be quantified or subjective to an objective criteria.

I haven't heard much of Messiah's work, so I am unfamiliar with his capacity for talent. Additionally, bands with several line-up changes with regards to vocal duty do not entail a competition between members. As you can see, both of Textures vocalists are on this list despite the fact that the former singer was slightly more talented. Moreover, I never stated talent was quantifiable, as you insist above.

Quote:

But, as I said, you have included vocalists which I don't regard as talented. I think you're confusing impartial with objective in this instance. You can impartially recognise that some vocalist have talent in some form because they relate to things that you personally appreciate, but you cannot unequivocally state that they objectively have talent. Appreciating and recognising a thing in something you don't like is still a form of subjectivism because it is drawn from your own personal view and is only anecdotal in nature. It is not proof of an objective fact. For this reason I will continue to ascribe subjective claims about this list.

You have yet to state which vocalists here lack talent, empty claims or perhaps withheld in fear that such claims would easily be refuted. Impartial happens to be a synonymous for objective Unless you are referring to the other definition for objective which is factual, in which case I agree that this list is not, as a result of it being incomplete. I am unbiased to particular vocal styles so your claim that I grade their talent with respect to a particular set of vocal styles is false. In conclusion, talent, in its most objective form, is easily gauged relative to other vocalists. The fact remains, these vocalists can do what other vocalists cannot. That is a very simplistic (and objective) notion, leaving me baffled that you've yet to understand it

Written by LeKiwi on 06.10.2013 at 17:54

Experience a "crush" is not love. In this case it refers to envy and admiration - those feeling resulting from their vocal prowess, i.e. talent. If I put a preliminary "Some" at the start of the title, I would not be receiving so many suggestions as avidly as I am now, would I. Renaming the list to "Some Of The Most Talented Vocalists Who I Have Had The Honour Of Discovering" isn't a very attractive title is it? The selection process is objective. There were no personal emotions or beliefs that influenced my decisions for this list. Simple as that

Love/crush. Semantics. Let's not get bogged down by that. Ultimately you said to begin with that this was a list of bands that you held some personal enjoyment for and what YOU regard as "talent." You then say this was a list of bands which you "envy" and admire... yet the selection process was "objective" and involved no personal emotions? Now that's a muddled message right there. That suggests to me that what you admire is enough to be considered "objective." I'm sure this is not what you mean however, but this is another highlight in your inconsistent message throughout the list and the comments. How one reconciles an apparent emotional investment with a totally impartial investigation I do not know.

Quote:

Wholesomely, talent is subjective. However, upon considering a realistic goal for this list, certain subjective elements of "talent" had to be overlooked. For purposes of this list, talent refers to the aptitude for delivering a particular vocal style(s) in the studio. I.e. Ability to perform live, compliment the music, or write aurally appealing vocal lines are not part of the criteria for two reasons. Firstly, it would complicate this endeavor beyond the possibility for fulfillment and, secondly, the latter two criteria are purely subjective. I will clarify that in the description soon enough for those who lacking common sense.

You sound like you're becoming frustrated and defensive because people aren't understanding your PERSONALLY constructed structural framework within how YOU are judging this notion of objective talent. Forgive us, we are not mind readers. I personally can only go on the evidence presented i.e. a title that does reflect the content; a misleading synopsis and a seemingly increasingly irritable OP with vague ideals of objectiveness complete with edited and ignored elements with regard to the vocalist's abilities that are the so-called proof here. What you are referring to here is not "talent." It is a skewed, cut down look at technically ability. And further still, even this technical ability cannot be accurately gauged amongst such a diverse array of vocalists. "aptitude for delivering a particular vocal style(s) in the studio." Sorry, but what does that even mean? It is by no means an extensive and understandable description of talent in any regard. It is at best extremely vague sentence that means almost nothing at all, because the bits you have culled from it are not so readily removable. You are attempting to filter down a complicated formula into a basic point. The result of this is unquestionably not an objective point as it does not include all the elements involved, nor can it be readily identified, despite your self-assurance.

Quote:

I haven't heard much of Messiah's work, so I am unfamiliar with his capacity for talent. Additionally, bands with several line-up changes with regards to vocal duty do not entail a competition between members. As you can see, both of Textures vocalists are on this list despite the fact that the former singer was slightly more talented. Moreover, I never stated talent was quantifiable, as you insist above.

Then perhaps you should have said you hadn't heard him instead of trying to argue a point that didn't need really to be argued (or in this case, misconstruing my point). Nope, I didn't insist it can't be quantified, but really it can't, just like it can't be subjected to an objective framework either beyond one only useful for personal meaning. That's fine and cool, I'm down with that, but I take issue with anyone that claims such a list to be suitable for a broad use, which is the impression I'm getting from you. I was under this idea that this list is one of pure objectivity. Lists are pretty quantified entities, no? Hmm.

Quote:

You have yet to state which vocalists here lack talent, empty claims or perhaps withheld in fear that such claims would easily be refuted. Impartial happens to be a synonymous for objective Unless you are referring to the other definition for objective which is factual, in which case I agree that this list is not, as a result of it being incomplete. I am unbiased to particular vocal styles so your claim that I grade their talent with respect to a particular set of vocal styles is false. In conclusion, talent, in it's most objective form, is easily gauged relative to other vocalists. The fact remains, these vocalists can do what other vocalists cannot. That is a very simplistic (and objective) notion, leaving me baffled that you've yet to understand it

I've given you two examples in fact, each highlighting flaws here. The Uneven Structure vocalist, who to my mind is nothing special within the genre, and Candlemass' vocalist who is not as talented as another of the same band. I also find the inclusion of the vocalists of Psycroptic, Machine Head, Paradise Lost, Lamb of God and probably a few others to be generally not overly talented in their respective fields. They may have some talent in various forms, but not the most talented, and certainly not noteworthy. So, clearly, gauging vocalists with others in their field is not as easy a task as you attempt to allude, and by and away far from anything objective related. That is why you are baffled, because you fail to understand that others have different thought processes.

I cannot prove that these bands are any less talented than anyone else from their respective genres and, more to the point, neither can you so there's no fear in having my opinions refuted as I'm presenting them as opinions and nothing more. So for this reason I'm under no obligation to prove either way. No matter how objectively I believe I approach these opinions, do not an objective point make in such a situation such as a list like this. I cannot analyse them in an unconscious manner, I can only be impartial to the best of my ability, even though I know not everyone will agree. This applies to you as well.

Objective and impartial do have very similar meanings, but use of one in lieu of the other is very useful in differentiating between approaching something in a way that you personally believe is as objective as you can make it, (impartial) and presenting a list of bands that are infallibly objective in their make up, which this list is not as I do not agree with many of them, and am well within my right to say so because nothing here is tied down to any strict set of rules, only your own mostly conscious ones. You are still bound by certain personal tastes that influence this list (despite your attempt to deny it by saying you are unbiased to certain styles and sounds. You are. Believe it).

Also, the fact you think this list is not "objectively factual" because it is "incomplete" is what I mean by showy arrogance. I can tell you now this list will never be complete until the moment people agree with it on a mass scale with reasoned proof beyond anything you have presented here. Which, of course, can never happen.

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 18:40

Love/crush. Semantics. Let's not get bogged down by that. Ultimately you said to begin with that this was a list of bands that you held some personal enjoyment for and what YOU regard as "talent." You then say this was a list of bands which you "envy" and admire... yet the selection process was "objective" and involved no personal emotions? Now that's a muddled message right there. That suggests to me that what you admire is enough to be considered "objective." I'm sure this is not what you mean however, but this is another highlight in your inconsistent message throughout the list and the comments. How one reconciles an apparent emotional investment with a totally impartial investigation I do not know.

While you are correct that I have an emotional attachment towards the vocalists on this list, I never stated that those emotions preceded or were involved with the judgement. They are a derivative of the fact that the vocalists are talent. Misguided assumptions once again

Quote:

You sound like you're becoming frustrated and defensive because people aren't understanding your PERSONALLY constructed structural framework within how YOU are judging this notion of objective talent. Forgive us, we are not mind readers. I personally can only go on the evidence presented i.e. a title that does reflect the content; a misleading synopsis and a seemingly increasingly irritable OP with vague ideals of objectiveness complete with edited and ignored elements with regard to the vocalist's abilities that are the so-called proof here. What you are referring to here is not "talent." It is a skewed, cut down look at technically ability. And further still, even this technical ability cannot be accurately gauged amongst such a diverse array of vocalists. You are attempting to filter down a complicated formula into a basic point. The result of this is unquestionably not an objective point as it does not include all the elements involved, nor can it be readily identified, despite your self-assurance.

Frustrated and defensive - how oddly familiar. I'm sure you would agree I am a logical person, and as a result, so is this list. I made the assumption that any possessing an inkling of common sense would see that the infeasibility of list had the term talent referred to or included its subjective constituents. In that respect, I was wrong and have now clarified this fact for the masses. Talent has multiple definitions, or aspects if you like. That is precisely why I used the term. It is a broad reference to skill, whether innate or acquired. Technical ability is dependent on talent, and can be easily gauged. Resonance, grit, range, power, variety - these are all words which can be used to gauge talent. Talent can be estimated in its objective form and doesn't require a complicated formula, as you might suggest. Determining whether a vocalist is talented- as defined above - is simplistic as yes and no. Does this vocalist excel in this particular vocal style? Yes or no. Not maybe. If I had to consider talent with all the "avoided criteria" written above, this thread would be all the more cacophonic. "Their live performances are weak. They sing without passion. They don't fit the music. They stick to one key. Remove that vocalist!" In the framework I have provided, claims to talent cannot be argued easily, if at all. Also please clarify what you mean by OP, you lost me there.

Quote:

Then perhaps you should have said you hadn't heard him instead of trying to argue a point that didn't need really to be argued (or in this case, misconstruing my point). Nope, I didn't insist it can't be quantified, just like it can't be subjected to an objective framework either beyond one only useful for personal meaning. That's fine and cool, I'm down with that, but I take issue with anyone that claims such a list to be suitable for a broad use, which is the impression I'm getting from you. I was under this idea that list is one of pure objectivity. Lists are pretty quantified entities, no? Hmm.

Read your quote above. I did not misconstrue your point as you were suggesting that there arises a difficulty in assigning more talent to either Candlemass vocalist when in fact there are two issues with that. Foremost a certain level of talent qualifies the vocalist for inclusion; there are vocalists here who are more talented than others. Moreover, talent can be possessed in different vocal areas. You did insist it can't be quantified, read above. I have described what talent is - as relevant to this list - and how it can be gauged against a benchmark, actually read my posts instead of glancing over them in scorn. Simply because this list has numbers doesn't make the entries quantifiable by any practical measurement. The list is open ended, as you must well understand. That and the fact that talent has no specific value.

Quote:

I've given you two examples in fact, each highlighting flaws here. The Uneven Structure vocalist, who to my mind is nothing special within the genre, and Candlemass' vocalist who is not as talented as another of the same band. I also find the inclusion of the vocalists of Psycroptic, Machine Head, Paradise Lost, Lamb of God and probably a few others to be generally not overly talented in their respective fields. They may have some talent in various forms, but not the most talented, and certainly not noteworthy. So, clearly, gauging vocalists with others in their field is not as easy a task as you attempt to allude, and by and away far from anything objective related. That is why you are baffled, because you fail to understand that others have different thought processes.

I cannot prove that these bands are any less talented than anyone else from their respective genres and, more to the point, neither can you so there's no fear in having my opinions refuted as I'm presenting them as opinions and nothing more. So for this reason I'm under no obligation to prove either way. No matter how objectively I believe I approach these opinions, do not an objective point make in such a situation such as a list like this. I cannot analyse them in an unconscious manner, I can only be impartial to the best of my ability, even though I know not everyone will agree. This applies to you as well.

Were it easy to compete with these vocalists' excellence, everyone would be doing it. That is the premise, behind talent, everyone wants it. Without a vocalist who surpasses the ones you have discredited, your claims are empty. Show me a better vocalist and he/she will oust the ones you have mentioned. Additionally, unless you are a vocalist, it is unlikely that you possess the insight required to make a list like this. I can gauge which styles are hard to perform because I, among other vocalists I have spoken to, have attempted them.

It's as simple as this. You examine a particular vocal style. The contestants are compared and there is always a clear winner. Runner-ups may also qualify, don't misunderstand me. It's really not that difficult. For instance: clean singers. Things to consider: resonance, range, control. There are always criteria. I can easily provide vocalists who are less talented. Name the style or vocalist and it's done. Your sentence on objective points is incomprehensible; please restate it.

Quote:

Objective and impartial do have very similar meanings, but use of one in lieu of the other is very useful in differentiating between approaching something in a way that you personally believe is as objective as you can make it, (impartial) and presenting a list of bands that are infallibly objective in their make up, which this list is not as I do not agree with many of them, and am well within my right to say so because nothing here is tied down to any strict set of rules, only your own mostly conscious ones. You are still bound by certain personal tastes that influence this list (despite your attempt to deny it by saying you are unbiased to certain styles and sounds. You are. Believe it).

You have lost coherence in this last paragraph, but I believe you are essentially suggesting that simply because you refute the objectivity of this list, it is subjective. Your ignorance doesn't change facts Bizarre! You seem to understand me more than I do myself! My emotions have had no effect on this list what so ever barring the scope of the list upon its conception. Over time, the trend will no longer veer towards progressive metal vocalists, but vocalists in general. Please, save yourself the embarrassment and do not claim to understand my thought process.

Quote:

Also, the fact you think this list is not "objectively factual" because it is "incomplete" is what I mean by showy arrogance. I can tell you now this list will never be complete until the moment people agree with it on a mass scale with reasoned proof beyond anything you have presented here. Which, of course, can never happen.

Reasoned proof will arrive shortly, fear not Well done, you have resorted to insults to win arguments, how mature. This list will never be complete, you are right. However when did I ever state it would be Also, while it does not affect the objectivity of this list, it seems more people agree with me that disagree. Simply because you insist on having an entire page of arguments does not constitute as MS's entire population, as I have stated before

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 18:40

In case you see my reply before my PM, I suggest that we take this conversation privately. No one but you and me seem to be having an on-going argument. For the sake of respect, please discontinue flooding the page. If we privately come to the conclusion that you were correct all along, then can brandish your victory for all I care.

I wasn't trying a score a +1 in my favour, and I was quite happy to carry this on because I genuinely wanted you see some kind of reason, but we appear to have hit the crux of your unwillingness to see another side of things: I'm (and therefore the majority of Metal Storm in actuality) are apparently "ignorant" and unable to understand your list and its workings. Primarily, it seems, because I'm not a vocalist. I suppose 99% of reviewers shouldn't be reviewing as they usually have no musical background. I can now understand why you are so assertive about how to approach the concept of "talent" and I see there was really no chance of you ever seeing another side to it.

I don't wish to be tarnished as someone who supposedly insults the other person as you have ascribed for "victory" (I don't think I did, but your responses have more than confirmed my allegations of arrogance, ten-fold) so I will of course stop my "disrespectful" "flooding" of your list, not least because you seem to have become slightly aggressive in how you are attempting to paint me as someone who is more concerned with attacking you personally, rather than someone trying to give a reasoned discussion about your omnipotent, and apparently fact-based opinions.

I am however quite glad to see you have revealed yourself in earnest, that you've essentially admitted in few uncertain terms that this is based in "fact" or that at least your opinions carry more weight than the plebs around you. It's an interesting insight

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 22:59

I wasn't trying a score a +1 in my favour, and I was quite happy to carry this on because I genuinely wanted you see some kind of reason, but we appear to have hit the crux of your unwillingness to see another side of things: I'm (and therefore the majority of Metal Storm an actuality) are apparently "ignorant" and unable to understand your list and its workings. Primarily, it seems, because I'm not a vocalist. I suppose 99% of reviewers shouldn't be reviewing as they usually have no musical background. I can now understand why you are so assertive about how to approach the concept of "talent" and I see there was really no chance of you ever seeing another side to it.

I don't wish to be tarnished as someone who supposedly insults the other person as you have ascribed (I don't think I did, but your responses have more than confirmed my allegations of arrogance, ten-fold) so I will of course stop my "disrespectful" "flooding" of your list, not least because you seem to have become slightly aggressive in the how you are attempting to paint me as someone who is more concerned with attacking you personally, rather than someone trying to give a reasoned discussion about your omnipotent, and apparently fact-based opinions.

I am however quite glad to see you have revealed yourself in earnest, that you've admitted in few uncertain terms that this is based in "fact" or that at least your opinions carry more weight than the plebs around you. It's an interesting insight

You have once again resorted to veiled insults, this time because it appears you have accepted the notion of defeat. Me arrogant? How about you claiming to represent the views of the majority of MS. You are one person. I've only had such arguments with five people including yourself. Reviews are purely subjective and, thus, unrelated. What would be the point in reviewing an album on the grounds of musicality when more simplistic terms would serve the majority of the readers? The same, however, cannot be said of this list since the premise was to introduce talented vocalists to anyone interested, and that requires a methodical, technical basis.

I don't think you have the right to ascribe aggression to my persona, considering your condescending retorts and your style of capitalised words as if the sentence wasn't clear enough as it was without the frustrated intonations. Don't bother feigning otherwise. You have displayed a considerable amount of arrogance and mockery in your responses but at least I had the maturity to leave negative emotions out of the discussion.

At this point, everything pertaining to talent on this list has been carefully detailed in my comments to avoid confusion. Were what I said been flawed it would have been unequivocally refuted at this point, which it has not. Continue the discussion if you like, however I'd prefer to keep it private such that your mannerism of superiority be left out of the discussion.

I thought we agreed to end this? In any light I'm unfit to comment further according your estimation. It's probably for the best anyway considering how this has degenerated.

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 23:28

I thought we agreed to end this? In any light I'm unfit to comment further according your estimation. It's probably for the best anyway considering how this has degenerated.

I meant it when I offered to continue this discussion privately. It's completely up to you, I have nothing to withhold

Nice list!
Here's a suggestion - Tommy Karevik (Seventh Wonder / Kamelot).

Written by LeKiwi on 06.10.2013 at 23:30

I meant it when I offered to continue this discussion privately. It's completely up to you, I have nothing to withhold

As I have said, it's now clearly a waste of time and effort. You've already established that my thoughts and opinions on the matter are not suitable due to you being a vocalist and such insights would merely be shouldered off as "ignorant", so it would effectively be a one-sided discussion I'm good, thanks.

Written by DrM on 06.10.2013 at 23:32

Nice list!
Here's a suggestion - Tommy Karevik (Seventh Wonder / Kamelot).

Thanks for the suggestion What do you think of Kamelot's vocalist who preceded Tommy?

Written by Guest on 06.10.2013 at 23:35

As I have said, it's now clearly a waste of time and effort. You've already established that my thoughts and opinions on the matter are not suitable due to you being a vocalist and such insights would merely be shouldered off as "ignorant", so it would effectively be a one-sided discussion I'm good, thanks.

Insights simply offer an increased awareness to detail. I never suggested that being a vocalist entitled anyone to a superior opinion. I merely stated that the related insight makes this list far from arduous. Also, I said it is unlikely that you possess such insight, not impossible

Written by LeKiwi on 06.10.2013 at 23:36

Written by DrM on 06.10.2013 at 23:32

Nice list!
Here's a suggestion - Tommy Karevik (Seventh Wonder / Kamelot).

Thanks for the suggestion What do you think of Kamelot's vocalist who preceded Tommy?

Khan's voice is very unique, he's what drew me to listen to Kamelot to begin with.

Erm...



Matthew Barlow

Great list. Definitely good talent you listed here. Devin Townsend, Maynard, Tom Englund. Three of my favorites of all time. I'll always think Rob Halford > Dickinson.

I don't feel Blythe or Anselmo are that "talented". I believe their fans more or less relate to the attitude of their vocal style rather than stand in awe at their vocal abilities. Plus there are so many local bands here who are LoG 2.0 that can imitate his vocals. Any vocalist sporting that whole jerk "tough guy" facade pretty much forfeits right away in my book.

Here are my favorite singers with some suggestions thrown in:

Anubis Gate - Jacob Hansen
Ronny James Dio
Darkwater - Henrik Båth
Kamelot - Roy Khan (Tommy is very good too)
My Dying Bride - Aaron Stainthorpe - I'll probably always list him--so what? He has a lot of variety and dynamics with amazing execution through out their albums.
Pyramaze - Lance King
Virgin Black - Rowan London - Leaning toward this guy being the favorite in my list. Range, delivery, variety, emotive output, clarity, diction, control are all A+.

Good list, agree with pretty much everyone. Definitely Einar Solberg, Mikael Akerfeldt, Daniel Gildenlow, Dan Swano, Kristoffer Rygg, Mariusz Duda, Russel Allen, and Maynard James Keenan. Though, i do find Warrel Dane's voice to be a bit thin.

Both of Fates Warning's singers are particularly good. John Arch has a curious way of crafting vocal lines which tends to completely disregard the notion of a hook and conventional melodies, present both in Fates and in the Arch/Matheos project he did later.
Ray Alder, on the other hand, has a dark melodic style - not dissimilar to Chris Salinas of Zero Hour (particularly on Specs of Pictures Burnt Beyond). He's worked with Fates, Redemption, and Engine and is always great. I'm particularly partial to his work with Kevin Moore on A Pleasant Shade of Grey and Disconnected.

Anneke van Giersbergen, of course, is amazing. Her work in The Gathering and with Devin Townsend (Addicted) is fantastic.

And Paul Kuhr of November's Doom. Fairly similar to Aaron Stainthorpe from My Dying Bride, but more refined. (The Pale Haunt Departure, The Knowing)

Where is John Tardy, King Diamond, Hansi Kürsch, Chris Boltendahl, Tom Angelripper, Nils Rue, Rob Halford, Lasse Pyykkö, Flemming Rönsdorf, Geoff Tate, Dio, Mikko Aspa and Martin van Drunen?

Written by Kuroboshi on 06.10.2013 at 10:28

Dani Filth: "Her Ghost in the Fog" (A lot of hate for this guy I guess, but his vocal span is amazing. Trying to do his high pitches at the karaoke is vocal chord suicide.)
Andy Schmidt: "Back to Times of Splendor" (Disillusion)

I used to listen to CoF but can't stand them anymore due to Dani Filth's ridiculous and totally annoying screams. But even though I can't enjoy his vocals, I must admit he is indeed very talented as he can do lots of things with his voice, even do clean vocals (well, kind of).

Vocals of Disillusion's debut are indeed great as well. So I would agree with adding him to this list seeing as he had good clean vocals as well as harsh vocals.

Written by Guest on 07.10.2013 at 22:40

Where is John Tardy, King Diamond, Hansi Kürsch, Chris Boltendahl, Tom Angelripper, Nils Rue, Rob Halford, Lasse Pyykkö, Flemming Rönsdorf, Geoff Tate, Dio, Mikko Aspa and Martin van Drunen?

I'm not sure where they are at the present, but I can certainly say that their names aren't on this list if that's what you meant Please PM me song suggestions as well if you have the time. Otherwise it will take some time before their possible addition. I'll add them to the considerations list at the bottom of the description.

Ugh, still haven't had the time to go through the whole discussion. Will do that tomorrow then.

I would suggest changing the criteria for the additions of the stars. The ones with the stars are your FAVOURITES, but you cannot possibly state that those are objectively better/more versatile (in whatever way) than the vocalists without a star. For example, many people feel it's ridiculous to state that Wintersun's vocalist (too lazy to spell the name ) is objectively better or more versatile than Mikael Akerfeldt, and I'm one of those people. Then it would be a FACT in saying that it can't be completely objective. But versatilily is mainly objective, so the subjective part (which is YOU) is wrong here. Also, Moonspell's vocalist not having a star is also wrong then, because he is in fact extremely versatile. It's bleedingly obvious that the ones with the stars are exactly your favourite vocalists of your favourite bands, so the criteria of the stars is simply wrong. Okay, and now I'll stop and hope you're being sensible enough to change it.

Written by Lethrokai on 04.10.2013 at 15:28

Was just wondering... what do you think about Leprous' latest album, "Coal"?
For me, it's Einar Solberg's best performance, and one of my favourite vocal performances of all time.
EDIT: As for a song from it, if that's what you want, I'd recommend "The Valley."

Sorry for the delayed reply At first, I was disappointed since preferred (and still prefer) the upbeat style that they used to carve their way into the prog world. After a while it grew on me and I give it a 10, but it's still not as impressive as the debut and sophomore. Einar is easily one of the best metal vocalists of all time though

Written by Erik M. on 08.10.2013 at 02:08

Ugh, still haven't had the time to go through the whole discussion. Will do that tomorrow then.

I would suggest changing the criteria for the additions of the stars. The ones with the stars are your FAVOURITES, but you cannot possibly state that those are objectively better/more versatile (in whatever way) than the vocalists without a star. For example, many people feel it's ridiculous to state that Wintersun's vocalist (too lazy to spell the name ) is objectively better or more versatile than Mikael Akerfeldt, and I'm one of those people. Then it would be a FACT in saying that it can't be completely objective. But versatilily is mainly objective, so the subjective part (which is YOU) is wrong here. Also, Moonspell's vocalist not having a star is also wrong then, because he is in fact extremely versatile. It's bleedingly obvious that the ones with the stars are exactly your favourite vocalists of your favourite bands, so the criteria of the stars is simply wrong. Okay, and now I'll stop and hope you're being sensible enough to change it.

More vocal styles at their disposal = greater versatility. Those two directly correlate - mathematics That being said, the assignment of stars isn't complete and more may be added at any given time.

Written by BigNaughtyV on 07.10.2013 at 21:09

Good list, agree with pretty much everyone. Definitely Einar Solberg, Mikael Akerfeldt, Daniel Gildenlow, Dan Swano, Kristoffer Rygg, Mariusz Duda, Russel Allen, and Maynard James Keenan. Though, i do find Warrel Dane's voice to be a bit thin.

Both of Fates Warning's singers are particularly good. John Arch has a curious way of crafting vocal lines which tends to completely disregard the notion of a hook and conventional melodies, present both in Fates and in the Arch/Matheos project he did later.
Ray Alder, on the other hand, has a dark melodic style - not dissimilar to Chris Salinas of Zero Hour (particularly on Specs of Pictures Burnt Beyond). He's worked with Fates, Redemption, and Engine and is always great. I'm particularly partial to his work with Kevin Moore on A Pleasant Shade of Grey and Disconnected.

Anneke van Giersbergen, of course, is amazing. Her work in The Gathering and with Devin Townsend (Addicted) is fantastic.

And Paul Kuhr of November's Doom. Fairly similar to Aaron Stainthorpe from My Dying Bride, but more refined. (The Pale Haunt Departure, The Knowing)

I thought so too at first and it kept me from listening to them properly for quite a while. Truth be told, however, Warrel can do impressive things with his voice.

Anyways, could you make song suggestions for the vocalists you named?

Written by LeKiwi on 08.10.2013 at 02:10

Written by Lethrokai on 04.10.2013 at 15:28

Was just wondering... what do you think about Leprous' latest album, "Coal"?
For me, it's Einar Solberg's best performance, and one of my favourite vocal performances of all time.
EDIT: As for a song from it, if that's what you want, I'd recommend "The Valley."

Sorry for the delayed reply At first, I was disappointed since preferred (and still prefer) the upbeat style that they used to carve their way into the prog world. After a while it grew on me and I give it a 10, but it's still not as impressive as the debut and sophomore. Einar is easily one of the best metal vocalists of all time though

I'm definitely a HUGE fan of their upbeat style, but I dunno... there was just some real (I guess the word I'm looking for here is "soul", or something of the likes) in Coal. I seriously can't put my finger on it, but there's something to it that has made it my Album Of The Year so far, and definitely my favourite album of the band.
At least we can agree on the fact that Einar is one hell of a man on the mic though!

Written by LeKiwi on 08.10.2013 at 14:10

I thought so too at first and it kept me from listening to them properly for quite a while. Truth be told, however, Warrel can do impressive things with his voice.

Anyways, could you make song suggestions for the vocalists you named?

Though, Jeff Loomis is such a fucking beast it makes up for it

For John Arch, I'm quite partial to Neurotically Wired from Arch/Matheos, though the first three tracks are all stellar
With Ray Alder, Walls from Snowfall on Judgement Day, or Something From Nothing off Disconnected
Strange Machines from Mandylion for Anneke (Supercrush! if you're up for a Devy duet)
And Swallowed by the Moon off of The Pale Haunt Departure for Paul Kuhr.

Looking through the ones without songs, have you considered Ad Absurdum for Garm?
Mother of the Soul is probably a good one for Dan Swano, shows most of his range.
I can attest to Hansi (And Then There Was Silence is basically 14 minutes of "the good parts" of a bunch of different songs)
Might i suggest The Bleeding Eyes of a Breeding Whore for Lord K and Severe Emotional Distress for Stu Block

Now that i think about it, have you considered Alan Averill of Primordial? The Coffin Ships says it all

Written by LeKiwi on 08.10.2013 at 02:19

More vocal styles at their disposal = greater versatility. Those two directly correlate - mathematics That being said, the assignment of stars isn't complete and more may be added at any given time.

Okay, so it seems I was again wrong in thinking you could be sensible. Look... what you said right there is absolutely correct, but adding stars is a bad idea with your criteria. Why? Because you only judge a certain vocalist by one or a few tracks. Not always of course, but it does happen in a lot of cases. That means you can't really judge the versatility of the vocalist properly, which results in handing out stars to your favourite vocalists since apparently your mathemetics is like this: "your favourite vocalist = more vocal styles at their disposal = greater versatility". Why not just add stars to your favourite vocalists? That way it is more personal and people like me can't complain you're doing it wrong. Because yes, you ARE wrong and that's a fact right there since while versatility is objective, you have only given stars to the vocalists that are your personal favourites and totally ignored vocalists that truly deserve a star, like Moonspell's vocalist. So if the star concept (with your criteria) was actually executed correctly then I wouldn't have a problem with it AT ALL, but as of now it's simply wrong. I'm sorry for the rant, but when I see something that is so utterly wrong or illogical I just can't ignore it and be totally baffled as I am now.

Also, Dani Filth from Cradle of Filth and Tom Sedotschenko from Evereve are among the most versatile vocalists out there and yet they aren't on your list.

Written by Erik M. on 09.10.2013 at 01:39

Written by LeKiwi on 08.10.2013 at 02:19

More vocal styles at their disposal = greater versatility. Those two directly correlate - mathematics That being said, the assignment of stars isn't complete and more may be added at any given time.

Okay, so it seems I was again wrong in thinking you could be sensible. Look... what you said right there is absolutely correct, but adding stars is a bad idea with your criteria. Why? Because you only judge a certain vocalist by one or a few tracks. Not always of course, but it does happen in a lot of cases. That means you can't really judge the versatility of the vocalist properly, which results in handing out stars to your favourite vocalists since apparently your mathemetics is like this: "your favourite vocalist = more vocal styles at their disposal = greater versatility". Why not just add stars to your favourite vocalists? That way it is more personal and people like me can't complain you're doing it wrong. Because yes, you ARE wrong and that's a fact right there since while versatility is objective, you have only given stars to the vocalists that are your personal favourites and totally ignored vocalists that truly deserve a star, like Moonspell's vocalist. So if the star concept (with your criteria) was actually executed correctly then I wouldn't have a problem with it AT ALL, but as of now it's simply wrong. I'm sorry for the rant, but when I see something that is so utterly wrong or illogical I just can't ignore it and be totally baffled as I am now.

Also, Dani Filth from Cradle of Filth and Tom Sedotschenko from Evereve are among the most versatile vocalists out there and yet they aren't on your list.

I'm too tired of arguing at this point. How about you give me an example of a versatile vocalist (say Moonspell's) accompanied with a track or several for that matter. If you can't think of one or can't be bothered, then define versatility for me.