I searched for an appropriate thread to ask this question but could not find one, so I hope it is ok to start this here.
My attitude towards harsh vocals used to be “just because you are doing something different, does not mean it’s interesting”, same as “just because something is difficult, does not automatically mean it’s good”.
This has changed, and now I hear them as another range of singing styles, with some voices more appealing than others.

Can’t help wondering though: Are there any “objective” criteria that define “good” harsh vocals? – With clean singing, it is easy to judge or categorize in terms of pitch/intonation, i.e. does the singer hit the right notes, and what range does their voice have.

For reference, the turning point for me was Acathexis. That voice, these sounds, expressed feelings I’ve known but did not have a name for, and still can’t describe except perhaps as a blend of emotions, but here they were made audible and relatable. I believe this is due to the voice of Dany Tee, because I also like what he does with Los Males del Mundo. So here the appeal is the emotional connection.
Another interesting voice I discovered is Travis Ryan’s, where the appeal is the versatility. And the energy. A human voice that can sound like a swarm of locusts and then like a giant hog burping and many other things, and still somehow all of this fits into the song and is not just a novelty showing-off thing.
Then there are other singers that are okay or go with the rest of the music, but don’t have that wow-effect. This is just the same as with clean vocals.

So, going back to the question: How do you define “good” harsh vocals? And what does it take for great harsh vocals?

For sure you can do it. As I used to sing in a choir myself and learnt classical singing, I hear a lot of things. And despite appearances, even in extreme vocal techniques you are able to catch whether the voice is well trained. If only by its depth, the space it creates. The use of resonators in the body, good diaphragm work, breath control - this really takes a lot of work. Growl also exploits the vocal cords quite a lot.
What's a good indicator for me is that the voice sounds better with time or as good as it did at the beginning of singing career. And of course, live performances can show a lot, because singing with a growl is physically very tiring.
I also that think a good vocalist who uses growl should also be able to handle singing with a clear voice.
Btw, it's amazing how one person's vocals can sound like 2 different people. This is where Krfistoffer Rygg from Ulver comes to my mind as a good example. I've also listened to Travis Ryan you mentioned, and I admit that he actually has quite an interesting vocal - thanks for this recomendation.

For me, one of the best examples of good harsh vocals is Carl McCoy of Fields of the Nephilim. I really admire his vocal technique. His voice sounds great in every way he uses it - both clean and harsh style (you can especially hear this on Zoon album). Technically he's very good, and, imo, he's sounds better and better as time goes on.

And in contrary, an example of a growl that I think is technically average is Dani Filth - he sometimes sings too forceful with his high pitch. This is an intended effect, of course, and it is a matter of taste. Like with Ozzy Osbourne - objectively, he doesn't sing technically correct (unlike Ronnie James Dio, who also sang in Black Sabbath and had an amazing voice), but please - he is one of the most distinctive vocalists ever.
For sure, emotional references can weaken over time. That's why, for example, returning to Cradle of Filth music after years was a bit dissapointing for me. I often find myself stopping listening to music because of weak or mismatched vocals.

Acathexis you also mentioned is very pleasant atmospheric black metal to listen to. It's hard for me to comment on the vocals here, as they are firmly in the background and form an integral part of the music, which is actually often the case in this genre. Where the sound itself is harsh and raw.

But all the time, it's looking from the perspective of a person who sings classically. In my opinion, it's a bit like with paintings - there are good artists who paint in their own style and that's all they can do, and there are those who have a wide workshop, but their best worka revolves around one style which mskes them recognazible.

Written by poring dark on 04.04.2024 at 20:37

... So here the appeal is the emotional connection.
...versatility.
...still somehow all of this fits into the song

So, going back to the question: How do you define “good” harsh vocals? And what does it take for great harsh vocals?

Tough questions. I'll say that you mentioned already most of the criteria I look for, too: emotion, impressive skill, and whether it fits to the music.

I'll expand on those by saying that I want the vocals to sound genuine. Not just going through the motions, but sounding like they're really suffering (as psychopathic as that may sound ). Ideally, on top of that, similar emotions are stirred inside of me.

Next, the ability. This is something I've been looking more closely at recently since I've also tried my shot at growls. It is really impressive hearing the refined growl of Opeth or the high-pitched shrieks of early Vektor. But, ability isn't everything.

The final key piece is: does it fit? This, arguably like all the other criteria, is hard to define and probably bound to stay subjective forever. But, essentially, I don't want to be taken out of the mood the music is trying to set. So, if the music is elegantly melodic, but the vocals insist on staying harsh, or vice versa, that could take me out. Of course, the vocals should "stand out" in the sense of the first two criteria, i.e. they are visceral and technically impressive, but they shouldn't entirely distract from the instruments. It should all be one flow, to the point where one shouldn't question the presence of vocals at a certain part of a song.

This didn't really answer your questions whether there's an objective standard. I guess it's the same thing with the production quality of a song. Take Burzum's debut album. From the perspective of a power metal fan, Burzum's production and vocals must sound like utter useless shit. Fans of Burzum, of course, can find the charm in the agonized wails and the intentionally low-quality audio.

On my journey to accept harsh vocals, I remember that I was immensely disappointed when I heard Summoning for the first time. "Why these terrible rasps? This doesn't sound like Hobbits and Elves!" But, once I got into the mindset of Summoning perhaps describing Middle Earth from the perspective of the Orcs and Nazgul, the harsh vocals suddenly made a lot more sense. So, there's an example of me needing the vocals to not only fit to the music, but also to the theme of the album.

Another enlightening moment for me was Vektor. Both the vocals and instruments were a serious wall of noise for me on my first couple of listens. But, once I started to try to follow along with the lyrics and piece together the sci-fi story, I soon realized that the harsh vocals perfectly reflected both the vengeful hatred at the start of the album, the anguish as the plan starts to fail, and the determination as he "must return to Alshain to release our clutch—Terminal Redux!"

These were just some of my thoughts about harsh vocals. It is a very subjective thing, I think. But, it would be interesting to see if the community here has some common personal criteria we use.

Written by vampira on 05.04.2024 at 23:51

But all the time, it's looking from the perspective of a person who sings classically. In my opinion, it's a bit like with paintings - there are good artists who paint in their own style and that's all they can do, and there are those who have a wide workshop, but their best worka revolves around one style which mskes them recognazible.

Great comparison! And your other statements resonate with me as well. I've been reading your answer and thought "yes, yes, exactly".
..... Do you happen to have some favorite speaking voices by chance (audiobooks or actors)? Some of mine are Roger Allam and Anna Massey.

Thank you very much for the examples you gave. I will listen to them.

Written by F3ynman on 06.04.2024 at 00:16


I'll expand on those by saying that I want the vocals to sound genuine. Not just going through the motions, but sounding like they're really suffering (as psychopathic as that may sound ). Ideally, on top of that, similar emotions are stirred inside of me.

That is an interesting point. And yes, I've also been wondering why I enjoy and find beauty in sounds that seem to indicate that the person making them is being tortured. Knowing that this is not really the case does make an important difference, I think.

But I also get and agree that they should sound genuine. In a way it is related to acting. I know the person on stage is pretending and what they say are not even their own words, and still they can trigger my genuine sympathy.

Re your reaction to Summoning (I haven't listened to them but I will) - it does make a difference with what mindset one approaches, well, anything. Thanks for sharing.