SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Another fantastic aspect of his voice is how versatile it is. He can twist and turn it to fit so many purposes. I can't think of any singer who has that spectrum of voices readily available. I think this is actually more impressive than his range. It is really unfortunate one of the greatest voices in music history has left so few recordings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I mean it's pretty undebatable as far as vocal range Axl has one of the greatest of all time. What's really surprising, and where he beats most rock singers, is how low he can sing. Might be the sole reason Axl's range is larger than Mercury's.That chart almost gave Axl a 6 (!) octaves range which is insane. Axl's range is close to 4 octaves, not 6 (!) by any means. His range is not greater than Freddie's, let alone Mariah's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Riad is such a great song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno P. Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I've already known this forever though. And sorry, but Mercury doesn't hold a candle to Axl IMO.What's next? Hendrix doesnt hold a candle to Slash? Please share more opinions with us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I've already known this forever though. And sorry, but Mercury doesn't hold a candle to Axl IMO.What's next? Hendrix doesnt hold a candle to Slash? Please share more opinions with us.Nah bitch, Hendrix don't hold no fucking candle to mah boi Lil Wayne. I hope people realize I don't mean that. Also, an interesting question in this thread would be "Which Axl?" 1988? 1993? 2002-Helium Axl? 2011+ stepthroat Axl? Or all of them combined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 If we look at CD alone then he displays a ~ 4 octave range, suggesting that in the period before CD's release he had that wide range. It's hard to say whether his range is that wide today, but he has at least 3 octaves readily available for live performances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay410 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 He seems to have just as many octaves today, he just doesn't have the same power behinds them or the control he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUCOULDBEMINE. Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What about that scream in IRS? Always thought that was the highest I ever heard Axl sing in studio.That said, I'd personally rank Mercury and Plant (1970's Plant) slightly over Axl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 How far would that bar stretch by todays standards? Same goes for the other artists too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Apparently it was TWAT which gave him his lowest range. I thought Shacklers was lower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What about that scream in IRS? Always thought that was the highest I ever heard Axl sing in studio.That said, I'd personally rank Mercury and Plant (1970's Plant) slightly over AxlI believe that is a G5. He's been higher than that in the studio: http://therangeplace.forummotions.com/t39-axl-roseYou would rank Mercury and Plant higher in terms of vocal range? Vocal range is a pretty objective thing and not really up to preferences. Axl's is about F1-B♭6 while Freddie Mercury's range is said to be F2-F6 and Robert Plant's is said to be E2-C♯6 (thanks to the vocal nerds at therangeplace.com). This means that Axl has been recorded singing both lower and higher than either of them have.What isn't objective is tonal quality, in other words, if the tones being produced are pleasing to you. A vocalist with a very limited vocal range could still be a better singer, in your opinion, if he is able to sing within his range and make pleasant sounds, than one with a crazy range but where the tones don't do it for you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Aint it fun down as the highest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUCOULDBEMINE. Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What about that scream in IRS? Always thought that was the highest I ever heard Axl sing in studio.That said, I'd personally rank Mercury and Plant (1970's Plant) slightly over AxlI believe that is a G5. He's been higher than that in the studio: http://therangeplace.forummotions.com/t39-axl-roseYou would rank Mercury and Plant higher in terms of vocal range? Vocal range is a pretty objective thing and not really up to preferences. Axl's is about F1-B♭6 while Freddie Mercury's range is said to be F2-F6 and Robert Plant's is said to be E2-C♯6 (thanks to the vocal nerds at therangeplace.com). This means that Axl has been recorded singing both lower and higher than either of them have.What isn't objective is tonal quality, in other words, if the tones being produced are pleasing to you. A vocalist with a very limited vocal range could still be a better singer, in your opinion, if he is able to sing within his range and make pleasant sounds, than one with a crazy range but where the tones don't do it for you.I meant that I think both are slightly better singers than Axl. I wasn't really clear on that, my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 What about that scream in IRS? Always thought that was the highest I ever heard Axl sing in studio.That said, I'd personally rank Mercury and Plant (1970's Plant) slightly over AxlI believe that is a G5. He's been higher than that in the studio: http://therangeplace.forummotions.com/t39-axl-roseYou would rank Mercury and Plant higher in terms of vocal range? Vocal range is a pretty objective thing and not really up to preferences. Axl's is about F1-B♭6 while Freddie Mercury's range is said to be F2-F6 and Robert Plant's is said to be E2-C♯6 (thanks to the vocal nerds at therangeplace.com). This means that Axl has been recorded singing both lower and higher than either of them have.What isn't objective is tonal quality, in other words, if the tones being produced are pleasing to you. A vocalist with a very limited vocal range could still be a better singer, in your opinion, if he is able to sing within his range and make pleasant sounds, than one with a crazy range but where the tones don't do it for you.I meant that I think both are slightly better singers than Axl. I wasn't really clear on that, my apologies.Ah, now I understand. Personally I prefer both Chris Cornell and Mark Lanegan to Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SALonghorn Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) Just saw this article on MSNAXL ROSE HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THE 'WORLD GREATEST' SINGER, CONTRARY TO POPULAR STUPIDITY(What is with the new linking system on here - I can't past the link)It actually says Axl has the biggest range of any singer, which is quite a feat. His name appears first alphabetically. Who knew my favorite rock singer had the biggest range?!?!HIs lowest tone is "Ain't It Fun" from the TSI cover album, and his highest note is from "There Was A Time". I agree with post above that tone preference is subjective. I know Christina Aguilera and Mariah Carey can hit really high notes, but I don't find them very pleasing to the ear. Other people might. It is all personal preference. I also love Robert Plant's and Freddie Mercury's voices. But part of the reason I am such a big GNR fan (old and new) is because of Axl's voice. I know some people can't stand his voice, and that's fine. Personal preference.Maybe this will cut Axl some slack with people around here when he does or doesn't hit that high note on TWAT. Probably not... Edited May 21, 2014 by SALonghorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It's interesting to get people's perspectives who aren't die-hard Axl fans.Even on the DJ Ashba facebook page people are ripping Axl apart. Ashba posted the story. 4 out of 5 comments are bashing Axl. I figured on a band member's page Axl would get more love than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axl_morris Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 No axl does have the biggest range. Nothing to do with the list alphabetically.He also has the lowest beating barry white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 http://www.theonion.com/articles/axl-rose-ranked-greatest-vocalist-of-all-time,36091/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1:Default&recirc=music 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 As some have alluded to already, the reaction has largely been one of confusion. People seem to be making the false-equivalancy between vocal range and tonal quality. Simply having the largest range doesn't translate into having the most pleasing sounding voice. For some, like most of us, Axl's vocals sound great. But for others, Axl's tone will have them reaching for the mute button. What largely wins this for Axl is his lower register, which is often under-appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlisOld Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I mean it's pretty undebatable as far as vocal range Axl has one of the greatest of all time. What's really surprising, and where he beats most rock singers, is how low he can sing. Might be the sole reason Axl's range is larger than Mercury's.That chart almost gave Axl a 6 (!) octaves range which is insane. Axl's range is close to 4 octaves, not 6 (!) by any means. His range is not greater than Freddie's, let alone Mariah's.His range is greater than Mariah's. She may have an amazing control of her whistle register, but Axl can breach the 6th octave and go all the way DOWN to the first. If Mariah Carey could hit the same low notes as Axl (few can) than she would have a greater range. Much as it pains me to say this, going higher does not necessarily mean you have the highest range. I can hit notes in the 6th octave but only go down to about the second, overall I can run through about a 4 1/2-5 octaves without a whistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realpoti Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html?m=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html?m=1 Patton is amazing. He blew me away when I saw him live. Wider range and even more versatile voice than Axl's. Sad that he is more of a niche artist who mostly shy way from commercial music. And interesting how limited Myles and Bach's voices are in terms of range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realpoti Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html?m=1Patton is amazing. He blew me away when I saw him live. Wider range and even more versatile voice than Axl's. Sad that he is more of a niche artist who mostly shy way from commercial music.And interesting how limited Myles and Bach's voices are in terms of range.Same here. Saw FNM in 2011 and it's my favorite gig to date. Nothing comes close (probably a Mr Bungle reunion would do it for me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 After viewing these lists, it really does make you appreciate Axl more. Honestly this is proof that he indeed had a wider range than Mercury, Plant, Tyler, and many more of his contemporaries. That doesn't mean that he is "better" per say, but as far as studio recordings go, he DID have a wider range. I know that from now on I will not tolerate anymore Mercury nut swingers telling me that their guy was the GOAT. I'm not saying Axl was or is either, but clearly Mercury's range isn't as wide as many believe it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantomas Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 I was shocked when Patton wasn't named on the original list. The number one spot is truly deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts