Compare the vocal ranges of today’s top artists with the greatest of all time.

http://www.concerthotels.com/worlds-greatest-vocal-ranges

Didn't know Axel Rose has a so powerful voice

 

Very cool! Thanks!

 

Steven Tyler gets my vote and I'm pretty sure he has broader vocal range than shown in this map, or Axl Rose for that matter...
:dancing:
Nice page tho, thanks!

 

Humm Robert Plant depends of cosmical configuration to achieve the range
I wanna see Stings, I amazes me the shor range but it beatifull tone... or maybe he is a kinda of lazy/smart

 

Well take a look at Eminem's "range", kinda funny...
Guys like Neil Young, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke etc have supposedly less range...
O tempora o mores

 

Nice and useful reference table.
Thanks for sharing D.

 

And Robert Plant & Mick Jagger have same range?
Yeah right...

 

Yea, I see some weird 'discrepancies' on that chart too. They're saying that Mick Jagger's highest note was in "Start Me Up"...? That song doesn't really have any particularly high notes that I can recall. Wonder what they are counting as a 'note'.

Also, an artist might never even use the very extremes of their range in any ACTUAL SONGS. In fact, most people write songs to stay in the strongest parts of their vocal range...

 

Ahhh it is in the the fine print:

So the tested material for many artists was limited to probably to just successful commercial releases. In fact... after looking through the list... I can pull out items from my music collection and easily find higher and lower than shown on this list...

Perhaps it was limited to billboard CHARTED hits from the listed artists....


Then again... Prince E2... hmmmm "Erotic City" anyone ??? ok.. maybe the report skipped a few recordings - or left out tracks they feel were studio manipulations....

 

the chart is wrong for some artists, freddie mercury after axl rose and james brown?seriously?not to mention prince's voice range thats jusged when he sings in falsetto,completely wrong
and where s bruce dickinson?

 

It also misses the point that in the studio you can manipulate anything to sound as high or low in range as you want.

Even in the 1960's they were speeding up or slowing down tape to get some wild effect, or a "better" vocal sound for just a line the singer couldn't naturally reach.

I can recall seeing the Human League live in 1987. In the song "Human" (which had just reached number 1 in the U.S.), Phil Oakey sings a line that goes "nothing else will ever take your place", switching up to falsetto on "ever take your place". Except he couldn't sing it that high at the gig, it just sounded horribly strained.

Later I found out that Jam & Lewis had slowed the track down and lowered the pitch on the recording, just so he could reach those high notes.

So if these studies had been taken from live performances we may have seen a few different results.

 

I've not looked at it yet, but Freddie Mercury surely has to be up near the top somewhere?

Bloody hell, axel rose goes lower than barry white and johnny cash? who'd of thought that?

 

YEAAAHH!! I was wondering the same thing!!

 

Bruce Dickinson is not a pop singer, the chart is only pop singer related...*yes*

 

not really since in the chart there r steven tyler and axl rose and robert plant

 

Indeed there are some discrepancies in that chart, it's a pop singers chart and then there are Rose, Tyler and Plant which are rock singers!

 

True, but doesn't pop just mean popular? so technically, anything that's popular can be classed as pop?

If so, then Slayer & Napalm Death in Brazil would be classed as pop?

 

Yes...in the common sense pop means everything that's popular and so knew by the mass, but the above chart refers to pop as a specific genre with his own features. Rose, Tyler & co. belongs to rock which has differents features from pop.