Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The current trend in modern rock is for bands whose singers have deeper voices.  I think Metallica and Pearl Jam were the most responsible for this trend, because these days it seems like there are a ton of singers who sound like James Hetfield or Eddie Vedder.

Personally, though, I've always preferred singers with really high voices.  Steve Perry, Vince Neil, Bruce Dickinson, Kip Winger, and of course Axl.  There's just something more impressive and outrageous about a guy who can sing really high.  It's just more impressive, and it seems more colourful somehow.

So, out of the two extremes for rock vocalists, which do you guys generally prefer - high voices or deep ones?

i prefer high voices cause any1 can sing in a low voice. but not everyone can sing in a high voice. james hetfeld was better when he had a higher voice in thew 80s.

I prefer a high voice like Bach or Axl on lead vocals and someone with a deepish voice and another with a highish voice doing the backing vocals together.

But sometimes a deep voice and high voice is needed like on It's So Easy. Basicallly a good range is better than just a high or just a low voice.
 
:smoking: Izzy? :smoking:

I saw Billy Idol earlier this month , and I'll say Billy Idol his voice aint shot at all go BILLY!

I think the best rock vocalist has to be Sebastian Bach. Hes just so powerfull.

As for metallica i think there singers voice has gone alot higher since the black album days.

well, my fav singers are Shannon Hoon and Axl, you do the math : ok:
seriously though, I like that type of singers a lot more. Im a big fan of Robert Plant and Cedric from Mars Volta too. :yes:

I prefer a vocalist who has a lot of range, otherwise it would be pretty boring to be hearing a Justin Hawkins-type singer all the time and the same can be said about some who sounds like a Lemmy type singer.

As for the extremes, I'd definetly go with the higher pitch, espcially the type of music I like (Sabbath, Priest, Pantera, Maiden, Dio etc....) It is  lot more interesting to have a guy hit a c sharp than an e

I prefer extremes. I like guys like Chuck Schuldiner (whos high voice isn't bad, either), Chris Barnes, and Ruben Rosas who have awesome, deep, death-metal voices. I also like guys like Halford, Dio, and Dickinson, with high voices. I just don't like average singers with average voices.

Bruce Dickinson

when you can sing really high you can do everything - I mean he's a real singer, isn't he?

Well I'll bring up someone who can do both extremely well Geoff Tate of Queensryche. Give this man a note and he will hit it.

My alltime favorite singer is Roger Daltrey he could do both extremes as well.

D doesnt appear to think so :no:

Def high voices there is something special about Axl has incredible range!

I'm not saying that Eddie Vedder's voice hasn't got something special to it --- it was something else, and he can definitively sing

but now there's such a lot of these NuMetal singers who seem to think, "well I'm going to make it easier for myself, I'll copy Eddie", and they pretend that they're opera singers when they're in fact only grunting

so that way of singing kind of lost its appeal to me. I'm oldfashioned and loyal and I'm going to stick with "Air" Bruce

I prefer vocalists who can do both. Hit both high and low notes, therefore they can have a wider range of music, playing different types of songs, which also allows their bands to expand their sound too.

Vocalists who can use either high or low vocals are imo the more talented ones. I was talking to a mate of mine the other day who said that James Hetfield was the best singer in the world...i argued cos James Hetfield doesnt have any vocal range at all. I prefer high vocalists anyway. Even raspy voices too are good.

High as Axl goes on 'Back Off Bitch'! That's one song Hetfield definitely can't sing... :P