Who is the best singer in rock / metal, past or present?

[LS21]

van morrison

 

[Ryan711]

No love for Sabastian(sp?) Bach from Skid Row?

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Ryan711
No love for Sabastian(sp?) Bach from Skid Row?

Skid Row's music wasn't enough of an influence on the music world for SB's vocal ability to be recognized in a thread about vocal ability 😉 Agreed, he's up there. And MJK would be my 2nd pick.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: CKent

Nerd rage alert!

Says the tool with more post in 3 years than I have in 7. Yeah, I'm the nerd because you have no fucking taste in music.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

 

[aircooled]

Mike Patton.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

Seriously, are you stupid? WTF does MFSL have ANYTHING to do with someones singing ability?

God, you're an idiot.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Nerd rage alert!

Says the tool with more post in 3 years than I have in 7. Yeah, I'm the nerd because you have no fucking taste in music.

You're the one breaking out in a sweat and calling people names for liking Guns & Roses. Take a few deep breaths, kid, it's not that important.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JohnCU
robert plant

and I also dig the Freddie Mercury, Roy Orbison, Joplin suggestions.

Though let's not forget Elvis. That fat bastard sure was badass.

Mercury could sure sing. Joplin sounded like she had laryngitis, and Plant like he'd been kicked hard in the nuts. GnR may not be my favorite band or even a contender (though I do enjoy them), but for pure ability I still give Axl the nod. The guy can, at the drop of a hat, sound like any of 5 different guys, all tones very distinctive. As the conveyance of a band's personality the singer's voice needs to be distinctive, and it's not something you can teach - your voice either sounds that way or it sounds unremarkable. About the only band I can think of that has attained decent popularity without a distinctive singer is Dream Theater - and most of them went to Julliard and make up for LaBrie's 80s-hair-metal voice through amazing musicianship.

you may think Plant sounds like he was kicked in teh nuts, or Joplin like she has laryngitis, but any other music critic on the planet uses the same bullshit you use to support Rose to describe Plant, Joplin, et al.

your reasoning makes no sense. Are you honestly trying to claim that Plant's/Joplin's voices are not distinct enough for their bands/music? ...and in comparison to Axl Rose?

did you want this thread to fail as soon as started it?

tell me again....you don't think Plant or Joplin have distinctive voices? Does it somehow negate Axl Rose being that he burned out after only a couple of years? That goes a long way in gauging his abilities, methinks.

They sound distinctive but are one-trick ponies. Music critics are listening to overall music, not pure vocal ability. You're completely missing the point.

again, this your arguments, if they are valid, are just as applicable to Axl as they are the vast majority of other singers.

And how does Axl have any more RANGE than a guy like Plant? WTF are you smoking?

Joplin's voice was far more essential and distinctive for her music, and therefore more awesome, than was Rose's. (and I like GNR--don't get me wrong)

Here's an example: Billie Holiday had one of the most limited ranges of Jazz singers, in her day or any other day--yet she's largely regarded as one of, if not the greatest Jazz singers of all time. Why?

here's a hint: range is a small part of what it takes to be a great singer. Mariah Carey has seemingly limitless range, but she sucks balls at using her voice.

Try to understand at least a few things about the topic before you start making such baseless arguments.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Nerd rage alert!

Says the tool with more post in 3 years than I have in 7. Yeah, I'm the nerd because you have no fucking taste in music.

You're the one breaking out in a sweat and calling people names for liking Guns & Roses. Take a few deep breaths, kid, it's not that important.

lol, i'm not sweating. These are just words typed from a keyboard. I'm not a child either. You appear to be the child who thinks that Axl Rose is a great singer. LOL

FYI: If you haven't noticed, you're the only person who thinks AR is the greatest rock singer ever. Good luck with that. Enjoy your epic fail thread.

 

[ivan2]

Amy Lee









*ducks*

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

Seriously, are you stupid? WTF does MFSL have ANYTHING to do with someones singing ability?

God, you're an idiot.

A band's vocalist is undisputably its most recognizable aspect and biggest indicator of its success. Is your answer to every debate to call people idiots? I'm starting to wonder if you've forgotten your meds :laugh:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Ryan711
No love for Sabastian(sp?) Bach from Skid Row?

completely interchangeable with Axl Rose. Same damn voice.

Don't know why the OP isn't schlobbing his knob as well.

 

[JulesMaximus]

There is no single best singer. I think some of the greats are:

Freddie Mercury
John Lennon
Paul McCartney
Chris Cornell
Sting
Bono

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

Plenty of people are called idiots because they have idiotic opinions. It happens every day.

You have put yours out there for deserving ridicule, so you might as well accept it.

Honestly, if you only set up a poll.....

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

Seriously, are you stupid? WTF does MFSL have ANYTHING to do with someones singing ability?

God, you're an idiot.

A band's vocalist is undisputably its most recognizable aspect and biggest indicator of its success. Is your answer to every debate to call people idiots? I'm starting to wonder if you've forgotten your meds :laugh:

It is? So how is Chinese Democracy doing? I guess Slash really wasn't the biggest thing in GNR. LOL, what a joke.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JohnCU
robert plant

and I also dig the Freddie Mercury, Roy Orbison, Joplin suggestions.

Though let's not forget Elvis. That fat bastard sure was badass.

Mercury could sure sing. Joplin sounded like she had laryngitis, and Plant like he'd been kicked hard in the nuts. GnR may not be my favorite band or even a contender (though I do enjoy them), but for pure ability I still give Axl the nod. The guy can, at the drop of a hat, sound like any of 5 different guys, all tones very distinctive. As the conveyance of a band's personality the singer's voice needs to be distinctive, and it's not something you can teach - your voice either sounds that way or it sounds unremarkable. About the only band I can think of that has attained decent popularity without a distinctive singer is Dream Theater - and most of them went to Julliard and make up for LaBrie's 80s-hair-metal voice through amazing musicianship.

you may think Plant sounds like he was kicked in teh nuts, or Joplin like she has laryngitis, but any other music critic on the planet uses the same bullshit you use to support Rose to describe Plant, Joplin, et al.

your reasoning makes no sense. Are you honestly trying to claim that Plant's/Joplin's voices are not distinct enough for their bands/music? ...and in comparison to Axl Rose?

did you want this thread to fail as soon as started it?

tell me again....you don't think Plant or Joplin have distinctive voices? Does it somehow negate Axl Rose being that he burned out after only a couple of years? That goes a long way in gauging his abilities, methinks.

They sound distinctive but are one-trick ponies. Music critics are listening to overall music, not pure vocal ability. You're completely missing the point.

again, this your arguments, if they are valid, are just as applicable to Axl as they are the vast majority of other singers.

And how does Axl have any more RANGE than a guy like Plant? WTF are you smoking?

Joplin's voice was far more essential and distinctive for her music, and therefore more awesome, than was Rose's. (and I like GNR--don't get me wrong)

Here's an example: Billie Holiday had one of the most limited ranges of Jazz singers, in her day or any other day--yet she's largely regarded as one of, if not the greatest Jazz singers of all time. Why?

here's a hint: range is a small part of what it takes to be a great singer. Mariah Carey has seemingly limitless range, but she sucks balls at using her voice.

Try to understand at least a few things about the topic before you start making such baseless arguments.

You're still missing the point. Joplin's music is not a factor in this thread, only her vocal ability. Same with the rest. And Mariah Carey definitely has an amazing voice, but I did say "in rock / metal" in the thread title.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JohnCU
robert plant

and I also dig the Freddie Mercury, Roy Orbison, Joplin suggestions.

Though let's not forget Elvis. That fat bastard sure was badass.

Mercury could sure sing. Joplin sounded like she had laryngitis, and Plant like he'd been kicked hard in the nuts. GnR may not be my favorite band or even a contender (though I do enjoy them), but for pure ability I still give Axl the nod. The guy can, at the drop of a hat, sound like any of 5 different guys, all tones very distinctive. As the conveyance of a band's personality the singer's voice needs to be distinctive, and it's not something you can teach - your voice either sounds that way or it sounds unremarkable. About the only band I can think of that has attained decent popularity without a distinctive singer is Dream Theater - and most of them went to Julliard and make up for LaBrie's 80s-hair-metal voice through amazing musicianship.

you may think Plant sounds like he was kicked in teh nuts, or Joplin like she has laryngitis, but any other music critic on the planet uses the same bullshit you use to support Rose to describe Plant, Joplin, et al.

your reasoning makes no sense. Are you honestly trying to claim that Plant's/Joplin's voices are not distinct enough for their bands/music? ...and in comparison to Axl Rose?

did you want this thread to fail as soon as started it?

tell me again....you don't think Plant or Joplin have distinctive voices? Does it somehow negate Axl Rose being that he burned out after only a couple of years? That goes a long way in gauging his abilities, methinks.

They sound distinctive but are one-trick ponies. Music critics are listening to overall music, not pure vocal ability. You're completely missing the point.

again, this your arguments, if they are valid, are just as applicable to Axl as they are the vast majority of other singers.

And how does Axl have any more RANGE than a guy like Plant? WTF are you smoking?

Joplin's voice was far more essential and distinctive for her music, and therefore more awesome, than was Rose's. (and I like GNR--don't get me wrong)

Here's an example: Billie Holiday had one of the most limited ranges of Jazz singers, in her day or any other day--yet she's largely regarded as one of, if not the greatest Jazz singers of all time. Why?

here's a hint: range is a small part of what it takes to be a great singer. Mariah Carey has seemingly limitless range, but she sucks balls at using her voice.

Try to understand at least a few things about the topic before you start making such baseless arguments.

You're still missing the point. Joplin's music is not a factor in this thread, only her vocal ability. Same with the rest. And Mariah Carey definitely has an amazing voice, but I did say "in rock / metal" in the thread title.

you've already argued that Axl was perfect for his BAND'S STYLE.

Again, When the Fuck did you fail so poorly with logic?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: CKent
Most remasters sound worse than the original and are aimed at making money. Not MFSL though, it's an audiophile label.

The master what has the biggest posibility to sell based on past sells.

Guess what? Remastering albums DOES NOT MEAN SOMEONE IS THE BEST SINGER.

You're an idiot. Simple as that.

Funny they haven't remastered most pop music then? Read up on MFSL a bit, idiot, and stop calling me an idiot for my opinion.

Seriously, are you stupid? WTF does MFSL have ANYTHING to do with someones singing ability?

God, you're an idiot.

A band's vocalist is undisputably its most recognizable aspect and biggest indicator of its success. Is your answer to every debate to call people idiots? I'm starting to wonder if you've forgotten your meds :laugh:

It is? So how is Chinese Democracy doing? I guess Slash really wasn't the biggest thing in GNR. LOL, what a joke.

There are a few tracks / parts in CD where Axl definitely sounds like he's trying too hard, but his voice has held up much better than, say, James Hetfield's. As an aside both groups' comeback albums are better than 99% of the shit current bands are coming out with. 2008 sounded great 🙂

 

[SlitheryDee]

I think Freddie Mercury is the best suggestion so far. Sting would be the closest second IMO. I like Mike Patton's recorded stuff but his live stuff didn't sound nearly as good.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JohnCU
robert plant

and I also dig the Freddie Mercury, Roy Orbison, Joplin suggestions.

Though let's not forget Elvis. That fat bastard sure was badass.

Mercury could sure sing. Joplin sounded like she had laryngitis, and Plant like he'd been kicked hard in the nuts. GnR may not be my favorite band or even a contender (though I do enjoy them), but for pure ability I still give Axl the nod. The guy can, at the drop of a hat, sound like any of 5 different guys, all tones very distinctive. As the conveyance of a band's personality the singer's voice needs to be distinctive, and it's not something you can teach - your voice either sounds that way or it sounds unremarkable. About the only band I can think of that has attained decent popularity without a distinctive singer is Dream Theater - and most of them went to Julliard and make up for LaBrie's 80s-hair-metal voice through amazing musicianship.

you may think Plant sounds like he was kicked in teh nuts, or Joplin like she has laryngitis, but any other music critic on the planet uses the same bullshit you use to support Rose to describe Plant, Joplin, et al.

your reasoning makes no sense. Are you honestly trying to claim that Plant's/Joplin's voices are not distinct enough for their bands/music? ...and in comparison to Axl Rose?

did you want this thread to fail as soon as started it?

tell me again....you don't think Plant or Joplin have distinctive voices? Does it somehow negate Axl Rose being that he burned out after only a couple of years? That goes a long way in gauging his abilities, methinks.

They sound distinctive but are one-trick ponies. Music critics are listening to overall music, not pure vocal ability. You're completely missing the point.

again, this your arguments, if they are valid, are just as applicable to Axl as they are the vast majority of other singers.

And how does Axl have any more RANGE than a guy like Plant? WTF are you smoking?

Joplin's voice was far more essential and distinctive for her music, and therefore more awesome, than was Rose's. (and I like GNR--don't get me wrong)

Here's an example: Billie Holiday had one of the most limited ranges of Jazz singers, in her day or any other day--yet she's largely regarded as one of, if not the greatest Jazz singers of all time. Why?

here's a hint: range is a small part of what it takes to be a great singer. Mariah Carey has seemingly limitless range, but she sucks balls at using her voice.

Try to understand at least a few things about the topic before you start making such baseless arguments.

You're still missing the point. Joplin's music is not a factor in this thread, only her vocal ability. Same with the rest. And Mariah Carey definitely has an amazing voice, but I did say "in rock / metal" in the thread title.

you've already argued that Axl was perfect for his BAND'S STYLE.

Again, When the Fuck did you fail so poorly with logic?

😕 You might be mistaking me for another poster, I never said that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

DP

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: CKent

Mercury could sure sing. Joplin sounded like she had laryngitis, and Plant like he'd been kicked hard in the nuts. GnR may not be my favorite band or even a contender (though I do enjoy them), but for pure ability I still give Axl the nod. The guy can, at the drop of a hat, sound like any of 5 different guys, all tones very distinctive. As the conveyance of a band's personality the singer's voice needs to be distinctive, and it's not something you can teach - your voice either sounds that way or it sounds unremarkable. About the only band I can think of that has attained decent popularity without a distinctive singer is Dream Theater - and most of them went to Julliard and make up for LaBrie's 80s-hair-metal voice through amazing musicianship.

.......
You're still missing the point. Joplin's music is not a factor in this thread, only her vocal ability. Same with the rest. And Mariah Carey definitely has an amazing voice, but I did say "in rock / metal" in the thread title.

you've already argued that Axl was perfect for his BAND'S STYLE.

Again, When the Fuck did you fail so poorly with logic?

😕 You might be mistaking me for another poster, I never said that.

It's in your first response in this freaking nested conversation. I went back there and bolded it for you. Don't try and argue you're saying something completely different--because you're not. Any other fool can see that.

 

[LikeLinus]

Not to mention I don't think the OP understands the difference between Metal and Rock.

Metal singers are a completely different animal than Rock singers.


As far as the whole "distinctive" thing. Ozzy had far greater success and a longer career than Axl ever had. He's had 2 wildly successful and influential bands. That said, I don't think Ozzy is a "great singer", but he's better than Axl Rose!