Dinosaur Rock Guitar Hall Of Heavy Metal Fame Bands

124»

Comments

  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,809
    edited February 2017
    Duojett71 said:
    The example of Kiske singing in a lower range off the top of my head would be on the song "A Tale That Wasn't Right". He definitely did not sing in a low register often. He usually was mid range to high.
    Yeah, I'm familiar with that one. He really isn't that low on that one. He's just not up high where he usually lives.  And most of these guys are like that.  Tate goes lower than that, but he doesn't stay there much either.  I actually love when Halford uses the lower part of his range, and IMO, he doesn't do it enough. But it's great when he does.


    Well, it does seem as though we're getting more lower Halford performances due to age. I like it..,but that guy on Sad Wings of Destiny was the MAN imo. I think only Gillan could hang with him at the time (in terms of that pioneering, quasi-operatic thing).

    A couple of the singers I worked with were adamant about using what they'd call their "full on Rock voice", even when they would have sounded great crooning the part, or (in one memorable instance), they couldn't sing the part an octave up without belting it.  There are singers who have a comfort zone and like to stay there because it sounds really good, or it's their trademark (crowd pleaser), etc.

    With the crazy, demanding, overly pretentious drivel that I write, multiple approaches are required (to say the least). I don't like singers using their established tone as a crutch, especially when I've heard them sounding terrific in a calmer tone. "Well, I might be disappointing my fans"...for me this provokes a response like "hey, you're not with so and so and the gang anymore, this is something challengingly different". And I paid those people good money, so I ended up getting what I wanted. The people who were difficult about it...well, I'd have to be paid to work with them again, and in today's climate that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

    Post edited by Haffner on
  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 17,497
    edited February 2017
    I don't know how much Halford has really lost.  His voice is staggeringly good -- as good or better than anything he's ever done -- on 1999's Halford Live Insurrection album.  Maybe he's lost something since then, but he usually sounds great when I hear him.  Like ALL singers, some nights are more magical than others.

    When I talk about him using his lower range, I was thinking about things like Silent Screams.



    The quieter intro/verse parts where he isn't histrionic or in head voice. It's not actually that low, but I really love the quality of it, and of course, when he then DOES go high and loud, the dynamics of that are even more dramatic.   I'd LOVE to hear more of this part of Halford's voice -- because it's awesome -- but we seldom do. He usually lives in that screaming head voice.



    Post edited by Dinosaur David B on
    I ain't falling for no banana in the tailpipe.
  • mr_crowleymr_crowley Posts: 6,582
    I saw Judas Priest last summer (2015) and although it was a very good show and Rob sounded good enough you could tell he had lost most of his upper register - I don't think he even tried to sing the chorus of Painkiller, at least not the way it should be sung :p He also tripped himself up quite bad through some rather pedastrian stuff like the verse of Turbo Lover, overall he is great for pushing 70 but a far cry from where he was at the dawn of the millenium and even then I thought he had lost quite a bit compared to '74-'92..

    Almost all singers are gonna lose/alter their voice at one point or another, it is sort of inevitable - I am by no means a singer and even I can tell (at age 25) that my voice works and react quite different than it did when I was 19-21. There are some stuff I can do much better but there is a lot of upper range and bite in the tone of my voice that is just gone.

    That is what I hear with Kiske these days. He sure got his chops together and he had such a huge range to begin with that losing some probably won't be noticeable (IIRC he never or very rarely even goes into falsetto on the Helloween-stuff and some of those tunes are reeeaally high) but you can hear that some crisp and like clarity is lost in the timbre of his voice.
  • Didn't know Kiske had the lower range.  He's a marvelous singer -- never said otherwise.

    My wife, the vocalist who can sing all of this stuff and hit all these notes better than most -- feels that in his prime, Tate had the "best instrument," from a vocalist's perspective. Even better than Halford's. Though Halford preserved his better, and Tate isn't what he was.   Granted, she doesn't know from Kiske (other than Halloween, which I play every October while carving the pumpkin).

    (your) Favorite is another question, and one of subjective taste.  One could make the case that Bruce's and Dio's vocal character beats anyone's range.
    Halford is a victim of voice changes hehe. He has changed his approach over the years. As far as his middle range he seems to be exactly what he has always been, and the times he chosses to go low are awesome as well. As far as high range goes, he was still better than most when I saw him with his own band on the Resurrection tour. The first tour without KK wasn't good but I learned later that he was going thru back problems and he was on severe pain. After the tour he had surgery and the last time I saw him, in the latest tour he was good enough to make it a good show.

    I agree that Tate probable had a better instrument, or at least, better technique. But I think I can hear how he was losing something on each tour. There was a big change from 1985 to 1990, and that's a very small time frame to experience all that loss.

    I agree on basically everything you just wrote. There's a reason Dickinson and Dio are so well regarded. They sound amazing singing, well, anything.


    Duojett71 said:
    The example of Kiske singing in a lower range off the top of my head would be on the song "A Tale That Wasn't Right". He definitely did not sing in a low register often. He usually was mid range to high.

    Also in response to Kiske and Tate hitting the same notes and equating that to power. Hitting the same notes does not always equal power. I think it is with the volume and tone that you hit that note. To my ears Kiske had the edge in that department. Especially in comparing the live footage I have seen of both bands....where it really counts. 

    Not taking anything away from Tate at all. He was a more dynamic singer for sure.....and in that respect he had few rivals.
    Another good example of Kiske lower register while on Helloween is on We Got the Right, during the intro. Maybe not as low, but very different to his high range that he employs more often, as Dave says.

    Live is where you can make the better judgment, and IMHO, Kiske shines in this department. Still does, as far as I can tell. Tate not so much...
  • Haffner said:


    Well, it does seem as though we're getting more lower Halford performances due to age. I like it..,but that guy on Sad Wings of Destiny was the MAN imo. I think only Gillan could hang with him at the time (in terms of that pioneering, quasi-operatic thing).


    Years ago I was friend with some guy at some forum that was an amazing singer. He had soundclips on his page where he was singing Maiden stuff with Halfordesque screams. It sounded very similar to the Sad wings stuff. He studied opera but liked metal, and could do all the standard stuff we catalog as good metal singing. Anyway, he explained quite abundantly to me that Halford was tops, and that the stuff on Sad Wings of Destiny was his benchmark.

    Personally, I still enjoy that album like few others, and the way he does sing on Dreamer Deceiver still makes my jaw drop to the floor. I am not talking about the high notes, but the way he starts really low, moves to the middle and then strato high. I wonder why he refrained from using that amazing low range that much back in the day. He sounded awesome at it.
  • Dinosaur David BDinosaur David B Posts: 17,497
    edited February 2017
    I'm not sure I have any compelling evidence that Halford has permanently lost anything, or if it's just night-by-night.  It's possible -- I don't know. Most people do, but those who know how to take care of their voices -- like opera singers, can still perform well into their 70s (Pavarotti comes to mind).  Glenn Hughes is another guy who hasn't lost anything. He does vocal gymnastics that would make his 23 year-old self shit himself. Dio knew how to take care of his, as do Dickinson, and Meniketti. But guys who were just natural freaks of nature like Plant, Gillan, and Coverdale -- not so much. The cigarettes and booze catch up. 

    I'm NOT sure why a guy as SCHOOLED as Tate has lost his range. Some people get unlucky. 

    The voice isn't like any other instrument. If you don't take care of a Strat, it ends up looking like Walter Trout's or Rory Gallagher's Strat -- but it can still SOUND great.  If you don't take care of your voice, a guy who was once a Plant, Gillan, or Coverdale, their vocal chords can look like Walter Trout's Strat, and they'll be 10% of what they once were. 

    Post edited by Dinosaur David B on
    I ain't falling for no banana in the tailpipe.
  • Seven MoonsSeven Moons Posts: 8,701
    IMO Halford still sounded fantastic in 2001-2002 on his solo stuff, as well as on the Priest songs he covered with his band. I think there was a noticeable drop after the Priest reunion, starting from the "Rising in the East" live DVD. But somehow he still manages to make things work.   

    Dickinson is no longer performing at the same level either. I thought he sounded rough on the Book of Souls, though the crappy production didn't help, but it was even more obvious during Maiden's Wacken concert last year.  I think Bruce would be at his best on songs written with a slower delivery and a lower register in mind, like his solo albums. But with Maiden's songwriting it won't happen anytime soon. 

    Anyway, both of them still sound very good, unlike other guys like Coverdale whose voice is completely shot. 

    And I agree about Glenn Hughes: when I saw him in 2015, he was able to do everything he's always done with his doice, and with more power than a burglary alarm. He's a freak. 

    I can't really tell about Kiske and Tate, as I never liked their bands and never listened much to them. 
  • HaffnerHaffner Posts: 7,809

    I can't really tell about Kiske and Tate, as I never liked their bands and never listened much to them. 

    This is me. Kiske's tone never did much for me (he did have a marvelous range, that's easy to agree with).

    I do like classic Tate despite his band, but both of those singers would be way down on my list of to hires.

    To be perfectly honest, from now on if I'm going for old school I'm hiring more, actual opera singers...they tend to me extremely professional (at times, admittedly, to a fault). Out of the dozen or so singers I've hired, the majority had LSD in varying degrees, and I'm not impressed with that...when I'm paying.

Sign In or Register to comment.