The value of Vocal Range

So, I guess this goes back to that old argument of technique versus heart/emotion. Or maybe skill versus song-writing.

This website recently published a list of the greatest ranges in pop music, with Axl Rose topping their list. It was limited to people on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers list.

This significantly more in-depth list purports that Mike Patton has even more, topping out at 6 octaves (again, this is still limited to popular recording artist).

Like all things, it's useful in online arguments. Digging more into the matter like tropers often do, I have to ask what vocal range does for you as a listener? Do you enjoy songs that show off massive highs or lows? When has this improved an artist or song for you? Is applying something that can be scientifically measured pointless against something as subjective as the way a voice sounds? Are Chris Cornell or Ronnie James Dio not among the best singers in rock history despite being in the 3 octave range?

I want to know what you think here.

Just sing the damn song properly and make it sound good.

If you can't hit the high notes or the low notes, don't try.

One of my favorite musicians can only sing about four notes.

Knowing that a singer has a vocal range of <whatever> is at best interesting trivia to me. The only real effect it has is that a larger vocal range means that there are more songs they can sing and reach all the notes.

Range can be quite important and give a singer a higher degree of versatility, but the particular tone and flow of lyrics can be just as much of a dealbreaker for me.

Martina McBride has a crazy range (she's a soprano, but can go at least as low as F#3), but her songs are sappy bleeding-heart narm about cripppled kids and moms with cancer, and she ALWAYS has belt mode turned on. Sometimes she's a pain to listen to.

Well said.

Count me in for "range is great but it doesn't matter if the songs suck."

All other things being equal^note and setting aside quibbles about color-mixing, a painter with two dozen different colors on his palette is in a far better position than a painter with four. This, however, does not mean that owning lots of different tubes of paint makes one a decent artist ... or that a given painter who uses a lot of hues is necessarily better than (or as good as) another given painter who doesn't.

Agreed. To provide a counterexample: Brad Paisley has a fairly limited vocal range, but more often than not, he chooses/writes material that he is capable of handling. (Although I have noticed some growth in both directions: his voice has gotten a bit deeper since his first album, and newer songs like "The Mona Lisa" and "River Bank" have him reaching for higher notes than usual.)

So, the consensus I'm drawing here seems to be that range's real value is in how it's used. Tropes Are Tools, basically.

Here's a new question: when has a singer having range worsened a song for you? Say, imagine them trying really hard to show it off in the same song. Or maybe spread that out to a discography where certain songs only seem to serve as a demonstration of talent, like a challenge for the singer more than an actual song.

Would you call that obnoxious, or do you find a show of skill mesmerizing? Again, it goes back to skill versus song-writing, since there's clearly an audience for people listening long jam sessions and blistering guitar solos, whereas some other people find that structure (or lack, thereof) annoying. I know these two things aren't exactly comparable, but their motivations are similar.

edited 20th Jun '14 2:32:53 PM by Alucard

I think that belting for belting's sake is usually just showy. It's like the vocal equivalent of a two minute guitar solo that's nothing but rapid-fire noodling.

But some songs call for belting because it makes sense in context. For instance, "A Broken Wing" (to go back to Martina McBride again), the money note on the last line "And with a broken wing / She carries her dreams / Man, you oughta see her flyyyyyyyyyyyy…", it makes sense to me to belt out that last "fly" because it's like she's sonically conveying the image of flight. But when she decided that she would belt on EVERY DAMN SONG, everything sounded really samey and her vocal capabilities lost their impact.

I would say that textural and rhythmic versatility is as important as actual tonal range. Consider hip-hop and extreme metal, fields which rarely call for wide-ranging melody but certainly benefit from other sorts of virtuosity.

See roughly a quarter of all the national-anthem renditions ever attempted at a sporting event. Also see (personal opinion incoming) the entire, ghastly, unlistenable discography of Patti La Belle. Also see that You Tube Grammies chestnut (forget the title) from Dreamgirls.

edited 23rd Jun '14 7:50:57 AM by Jhimmibhob