What Weiland Brings To Velvet Revolver...

[jarmo]

I actually heard Weiland sing the other day - his vocal range is very limited. He's got some good tone.

I've never got the "limited range" angle, he's never had a high end screech but seems to hit every note he's ever needed to hit.

Agree on the tone, not as rich as a few of his peers although good for the most part.

So you're saying just because he can't hit certain notes, he doesn't have a limited range?

What exactly is a limited range then?





/jarmo

[Falcon]

I actually heard Weiland sing the other day - his vocal range is very limited. He's got some good tone.

I've never got the "limited range" angle, he's never had a high end screech but seems to hit every note he's ever needed to hit.

Agree on the tone, not as rich as a few of his peers although good for the most part.

So you're saying just because he can't hit certain notes, he doesn't have a limited range?

What exactly is a limited range then?


/jarmo

I'm not any kind of expert on vocal notes so my answer isn't exactly educated.

So..

If range was based on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a baritone and 10 being a screech, I think Scott utilizes about 1-9.?

I would characterize "limited" as not being able to go too far out of a vocal comfort zone from low to high.? I think Scott's range covers a vast majority of all points in between so to tag his abilities as limited wouldn't be the fairest judgement.

[mikegiuliana]

Weiland being clean n sober has such a presence now, his voice sounds beautiful on these songs, album wise and at times better live.. I think scott was the excellent choice for vr.. Helped become tight with his band and rebuild his life with duff, plus camp freddy.. The planets were lined up for this joining imo..

[jarmo]

I actually heard Weiland sing the other day - his vocal range is very limited. He's got some good tone.

I've never got the "limited range" angle, he's never had a high end screech but seems to hit every note he's ever needed to hit.

Agree on the tone, not as rich as a few of his peers although good for the most part.

So you're saying just because he can't hit certain notes, he doesn't have a limited range?

What exactly is a limited range then?


/jarmo

I'm not any kind of expert on vocal notes so my answer isn't exactly educated.

So..

If range was based on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a baritone and 10 being a screech, I think Scott utilizes about 1-9. 

I would characterize "limited" as not being able to go too far out of a vocal comfort zone from low to high.  I think Scott's range covers a vast majority of all points in between so to tag his abilities as limited wouldn't be the fairest judgement.

That great huh?

I'd say he's like 2-6/7......

He just doesn't stick out at all.





/jarmo

[Jim Bob]

I'd say he's like 2-6/7......

yea i have to agree there.   notice the only gnr songs they cover.  can you honestly hear him doing a song like WTTJ or Sweet Child of Mine?  Fuck no, you wouldnt' want to either.        I'll admit he does the range he has pretty well, his best days were STP's first couple albums.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

I actually heard Weiland sing the other day - his vocal range is very limited. He's got some good tone.

I've never got the "limited range" angle, he's never had a high end screech but seems to hit every note he's ever needed to hit.

Agree on the tone, not as rich as a few of his peers although good for the most part.

So you're saying just because he can't hit certain notes, he doesn't have a limited range?

What exactly is a limited range then?


/jarmo

I'm not any kind of expert on vocal notes so my answer isn't exactly educated.

So..

If range was based on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a baritone and 10 being a screech, I think Scott utilizes about 1-9. 

hmm, 9 is a bit much, that's going into Rob Halford territory, in his prime I mean.  Scott has a pleasant voice and I found his live vocals to be surprisingly good.

[oldleadbelly]

What Weiland lacks in range, he more than makes up for in diversity of styles.  Few singers in the past 20 years have managed to sound totally different from song to song, and album to album better than Scott.  Dead and Bloated to Atlanta, Big Bang Baby to Sour Girl, Glide to Don't Drop that Dime...the man does so much more with the range he has than singers who are technically more rangy.

[Falcon]

That great huh?

I'd say he's like 2-6/7......

He just doesn't stick out at all.


/jarmo

I think his low end to mid range has moments of greatness, extreme high end I'd have to characterize as adequate/serviceable.?

I've never been a huge fan of the "screech" (unless done really well) so his vocal range and capabilities have never been an issue with me.

[jarmo]

Compare him to Ian Astbury then.

He's not exactly known as the best singer on the planet, it works for The Cult though.






/jarmo

[Falcon]

Compare him to Ian Astbury then.

He's not exactly known as the best singer on the planet, it works for The Cult though.

/jarmo

Although very different stylistically, I think thats a fair comparison.?

Both seem to do what works for their respective bands.

Would you agree?

[Ali]

Compare him to Ian Astbury then.

He's not exactly known as the best singer on the planet, it works for The Cult though.

/jarmo

Although very different stylistically, I think thats a fair comparison.?

Both seem to do what works for their respective bands.

Would you agree?

I would agree with that.  Weiland utilizes his range effectively, and as someone who has studied singing for a while, I've always been taught it's more about the quality of your tone than your range per se.  I think Axl's upper register works so well because it has a Janis Joplin-esque bluesy quality to it.

Ali

[jarmo]

Compare him to Ian Astbury then.

He's not exactly known as the best singer on the planet, it works for The Cult though.

/jarmo

Although very different stylistically, I think thats a fair comparison. 

Both seem to do what works for their respective bands.

Would you agree?

Yes, and it limits the kind of songs the band can make.

Trying to cover Van Halen songs that aren't in his style was a mistake.



/jarmo

[Falcon]

I've always been taught it's more about the quality of your tone than your range per se.?

I've always been drawn to to tone and "richness" if that makes sense, something Astbury and Weiland have an abundance of.

The high end metal stuff like Halford and Bach have just never done it for me.

[Falcon]

Yes, and it limits the kind of songs the band can make.

I see your point although I think diversity can also be found while playing to one's strengths.  As resident Cult fan, only Sonic Temple and Ceremony sound remotely the same to me.  Other's who are die hard STP'ers would probably say there's a vast difference from Core up their last release as a band.

Trying to cover Van Halen songs that aren't in his style was a mistake.

I think Scott could've done a much better job of that on that particular night, no question.

[Ali]

I've always been taught it's more about the quality of your tone than your range per se.?

I've always been drawn to to tone and "richness" if that makes sense, something Astbury and Weiland have an abundance of.

The high end metal stuff like Halford and Bach have just never done it for me.

I think it's next to impossible to sing very high, in the upper reaches of your falsetto, and have a really great or appealing tone. ?The thing about singing in that upper part of your range is that it does help create a feeling of anger and intensity that works very well for heavy metal. ?I think Axl is rare in that he has this bluesy quality to his voice that made it work so well with Izzy and Slash's riffs.

Ali

[madagas]

I'll take Ian over Weiland any day of the week. Weiland in a live setting leaves me flat as a pancake...put him in the 2-6 range like Jarmo.

[Falcon]

I'll take Ian over Weiland any day of the week. Weiland in a live setting leaves me flat as a pancake...put him in the 2-6 range like Jarmo.

I think Ian's low end is"stronger" so to speak, he's about as leather lunged as you're gonna get.? That said, it doesn't (for me) make him any better or worse than Scott.? I mean c'mon, from all accounts it came down to Ian or Scott to take over for The Doors back in 2000, that's some pretty heady shit to even be considered for.

They've both managed to stay relevent over an extended period of time which is tough to do, credit where credit is due.

[madagas]

It is an honor to be considered for Jim's replacement....but people can be easily fooled by one of the best posers ever. Slash and Duff were. You know I don't like Weiland. Outside of a handful of STP songs, I just don't like the guy or the way he sings or the way he acts on stage and off-not my cup of tea. Give me Cornell,  Vedder, Yorke, Tweedy, Staley, Cobain, Maynard James Keenan from the 90's......

[Falcon]

It is an honor to be considered for Jim's replacement....but people can be easily fooled by one of the best posers ever. Slash and Duff were. You know I don't like Weiland.

I get where you're coming from, I'm by no means a blind Weiland supporter.? He's a bit of a goofy bastard quite a bit of the time, annoying to a point.? Front man disease to the n'th degree with a chip on his shoulder the size of a cinder block.

However, letting that cloud my judgement on his talent, overcoming personal demons, success and longevity in a business that doesn't lend itself to any kind of staying power would just be ill informed and short sighted.

[chinese democrazy]

What Weiland lacks in range, he more than makes up for in diversity of styles.? Few singers in the past 20 years have managed to sound totally different from song to song, and album to album better than Scott.? Dead and Bloated to Atlanta, Big Bang Baby to Sour Girl, Glide to Don't Drop that Dime...the man does so much more with the range he has than singers who are technically more rangy.

exactly that hits the nail on the head right there