JLB - "I can't sing like that anymore"

[TheBarstoolWarrior]

The other reason why James' decline is so marked is quite simple. He was gifted a once in a generation voice, not unlike, say, the greatest tenor of 20th century, Luciano Pavarotti. And if you go from a 16 cylinder voice (Bugatti) to just 8 (Bentley), people will notice it more than if you go from 8 to 6. James now might be just at quite ordinary 4 cylinders, but for many singers, this is where they started.

I like the I&W stuff as much as the next guy, but really? Not unlike Pavarotti? Seems a bit of a reach to be honest.

It might but it is not, IMO, as long as we are talking about pure natural talent. Both had extremely distinctive timbres and crazy amount of harmonics in their voices, something that does set a singer apart.
   The difference in how the two talents were realized is something else though. Pavarotti is what happens if you take a great natural voice and couple it with perfect technique, good coaching and repertoire choice, plus careful vocal management. James is what happens if none of the four applies. It feels weird to say that he wasted his talent, considering the career he had, but in a way, he did. And no, IaW is not the best showcase of his true potential, for the reasons I have talked about before. It is just too damn high for almost any singer to be able to sound their best. I never realized how much talent James  had used to have early on until I heard early live recordings of The Killing Hand (which was written for Charlie, so the tessitura is a lot more reasonable, despite all the high screams James uses to embelish the song).

It's hard to compare the talent of two individuals who are performing in two entirely different traditions at two entirely different levels.

It's even harder when in the same breath you are saying that (presumably because of a highly inconsistent body of work as a whole) one of the two being compared didn't have good coaching, perfect technique, vocal management etc. Ultimately you are saying someone's VERY small sample size showed that his gifts were comparable to someone who performed at an exceedingly high level for decades. It's just a *really* tough comparison to make. Usually I think we think of people having incredible talent because of their high performance over a period of time. This is why we think of Pavarotti in the way we do. There are cases in which someone's star burns bright for a very short period of time and we are left wondering 'what if?' But is that really how people viewed JLB back in the period you reference and do they even think that now? You're really in the minority in this one.

I guess the way I think of it is different. I haven't heard the JLB sample set you have in mind, but if I did and were blown away by it I would think of it more as promise or potential rather than generational talent that rivals the all time greats in a foreign genre. In a sense it is like my trying to compare Petrucci's talent to Segovia's (and even that is not the greatest analogy because Petrucci, unlike JLB, has been an undeniable Guitar God for so long). How do you even compare the two given they're not speaking the same language...at all. They're being asked to do entirely different things for entirely different audiences with different expectations.

Saying JLB had immense promise/potential in the early part of his career seems more appropriate. And had X, Y and Z been different, he could have been one of the all-time greats in rock and heavy music. Just hard for me to see the comparison you made for a variety of reasons.

[MoraWintersoul]

Now, I don't know what Plant did to "recover" or resist age, but I know Plant - from 1980 on - could definitely afford to sing whatever he liked, in the key and range he pleased, whenever he felt like, and to have every single component of the recording/performing/touring experience catered to his needs, the needs of a legend. James, not for unfairness but for the nature of the beast, never had such luxury. On the other hand, Bruce had a workhorse career in a phenomenally consistent shape, but then again Bruce is basically technique and energy incarnate. Then there's Kiske, but the jury is still out about wether he's actually a human being. See? Comparing careers is fun, but it hardly helps to analyse problems.

Phenomenal posts with much to discuss, just wanted to further elaborate on this here: All the metal guys in their fifties who regularly get cited as an example of a perfectly preserved voice, like Kiske, Roy Khan, Russell Allen and so forth, have all for various reasons strayed away from the road schedule of the typical working metal vocalist like James, or indeed Bruce. Bruce Dickinson is the only example I can think of who really did the thing, because afaik he was still a road warrior during his longer break from Maiden. One guy out of hundreds who have done the lifestyle and paid the price with their voices, even though a lot haven't paid as much as James has.

[crystalstars17]

On the other hand, Bruce had a workhorse career in a phenomenally consistent shape, but then again Bruce is basically technique and energy incarnate.

That he absolutely is! 💯

Then there's Kiske, but the jury is still out about wether he's actually a human being.

Oh, I can say with absolutely certainty that he definitely is NOT! 

I have always been enamored of these more "operatic" style rock lead singers with strong tenor voices - the aforementioned, as well as Geoff Tate (what do you think of him?). I always counted James as one of them. They are all non-human, in fact I see them as angelic beings of a sort (how's that for love-driven hyperbole? ).

That said, it is tempting to compare singers between genres because as we know, the voice only works one way. I've been guilty of this too (having in the past described how a classical singer changes repertoire as they age, for example a coloratura soprano in her youth who gradually switches to more lyric soprano repertoire ::raises hand::). Coming from a classical background, but loving rock and metal, I couldn't help but fall in love with these singers. It's as if they cross the boundaries of space and time to create something so uniquely gorgeous in its unlikely combination (and some of them do have classical training, like Geoff Tate).

But you're correct in saying that the goals of the two genres can't be more different. It's literally a marathon vs a sprint. Or perhaps a marathon vs triathlon and winning the gymnastics all-around, all at once. What these guys do, and the challenges they're facing now, are entirely in a class by themselves.

[MirrorMask]

One thing to remember for Kiske is that when he left Helloween in 1993 he basically disappeared. He left the metal scene, he did the occasional collaboration here and there, but never did a world tour again until Avantasia (one singer out of many, he had just several songs to sing over a set) and eventually the Helloween reunion. He had years, no, literally DECADES to rest his voice and not subject it to strain and fatigue.

Granted, his ability is basically inhuman as Indiscipline pointed out, but it's an important detail to remember.

[Mladen]

I'm not sure Kiske is the best example. If the recent Helloween tours have showed us anything, it's that the singer with more touring experience keeps his voice in better shape throughout the tour and has less of a chance of becoming sick, and that's Andi Deris. And Andi has toured as much since early 90s as James LaBrie has.

[Animal]

It's hard to compare the talent of two individuals who are performing in two entirely different traditions at two entirely different levels.

Saying JLB had immense promise/potential in the early part of his career seems more appropriate. And had X, Y and Z been different, he could have been one of the all-time greats in rock and heavy music. Just hard for me to see the comparison you made for a variety of reasons.

Thanks for expressing your views so clearly. I'll try to do the same. I was trying to cover a lot of ground with my first post so I was painting with broad strokes and maybe, as Indiscipline says, there was some love driven hyperbole.

Your points are entirely reasonable. I was a bit sloppy with my words - I really should not have used "talent" since a vocalist's talent is a rather multidimensional thing - natural quality and beauty of their voice, musicality, technical agility, vocal endurance and resilience, expressiveness, being good at recognizing and incorporating good advice...and we could go on. From that point of view, my comparison was certainly a stretch.

What I really had in mind when talking about talent was actually only the first dimension, something that is unique to vocalists only - the natural quality of their instruments. Glad you mentioned Petrucci and Segovia (as a classical guitarist who dabbled in playing electric, I guess I get the analogy here. I actually think it is a pretty good one, as long as we are aware of limit any analogy necessarily has). Petrucci's instrument is EBMM with Messa amps, Segovia's was, among others, Hauser. Now, there is no doubt that in the hands of someone less skilled than these two guitar greats, the said instrument would sound nowhere near so good. But we would still recognize they are great instruments.  The same can be said about Steinway pianos or Guarneri violins played be less than stellar players.

It's kind of same with voices. When I am listening to early recordings of The Killing Hand, my take is James did use to possess an exceptional instrument, a vocal equivalent of being gifted a Stradivarius violin. It was just a function of his anatomy. But the way he used this instrument is something entirely different - as much as I love these recordings, I can hear his technical shortcomings even in those. And I never liked some of his stylistic or technical choices. But the sound he was capable of (when using his range optimally) was certainly glorious (to my ears) and the amount of upper harmonics, a ring in the voice, was through the roof. As I said, I hadn't heard it with IaW or Awake, I only recognized this quality after listening to early recordings The Killing Hand and A Change of Seasons.

Of course, as any such appraisal, even this one is necessarily subjective.  But I hope this additional clarification makes more sense than the original post. As my reasoning makes clear, there might be many people, who, anatomically, might have instruments potentially as great as Pavarotti, but we would never consider the talented singers as they might be either entirely unmusical, or not enough in tune with their bodies to nail even basic technique or downright tone deaf. In the same manner, there are many great singers who were gifted much more ordinary instruments.

[Animal]

There's a lot of love in that post, Animal, and it's really commendable. There is also some love-driven hyperbole (I'm ok with everything love-driven and definitely a sucker for hyperbole per se) and a handful of misconceptions about belcanto/Tebaldi/Pavarotti I won't address here lest boring everyone to tears (but I would love to discuss in another thread or at the pub). I'd like to point out a couple of things though:

1) Comparing opera singers' careers and modus operandi (no pun intended) to not opera singers' ones never helps. Every aspect and focus are different (again, a tale for another thread, but - without going into the physical mechanics - just think about decibels, frequency and venue of performance, pay grade, etc.) the same way, say,  a marathon runner and a 100m dasher are different.

I'd say even comparing rock singers' careers would not be much productive. For example, on a post above, Stadler (without making unfair comparisons, mind you) was talking about Plant, his singing intelligence, and the way he's still able (at 75 I believe) to excellently pick his spots. Well, Mr Plant (please Stads stop me whenever I'm incorrect) had a first part of career in which he basically conquered the world by unsustainable singing i.e. the vocal deal with the devil. When Zep disbanded he was roughly the same age James was when recording Awake and basically range-shot and coarse. Now, I don't know what Plant did to "recover" or resist age, but I know Plant - from 1980 on - could definitely afford to sing whatever he liked, in the key and range he pleased, whenever he felt like, and to have every single component of the recording/performing/touring experience catered to his needs, the needs of a legend. James, not for unfairness but for the nature of the beast, never had such luxury. On the other hand, Bruce had a workhorse career in a phenomenally consistent shape, but then again Bruce is basically technique and energy incarnate. Then there's Kiske, but the jury is still out about wether he's actually a human being. See? Comparing careers is fun, but it hardly helps to analyse problems.

2) No matter what sort of vocal coach they employ, the vocalists we are talking about are world class singers spending decades in symbiosis with an instrument they know inside out, and I promise no coach can force them to take dangerous paths without their fully aware consent. It's always a deal made weighing losses and gains. The problem nowadays is we are dealing for the fist time in history, hence with no previous operative experience, with The 60/70 Years Old Touring Rock-Metal Vocalist, which could be said is as much a singularity as a 60/70 years old pornstar.   

Thank you for your insights, Indiscipline. As I already said in the response to TheBarstoolWarrior, I was trying to cover too much ground in my original post. So there indeed was a lot of hyperbole and simplification. And some  points might have come off differently than intended. So I'll try to clarify (at the risk of killing even those few that might have survived so far with another shot of concentrated nerd-style boredom).

1) I believe comparisons can make sense as long as we are entirely clear about the generalities that are the same and specifics that are different - and how all these affect the result. All singers have some things in common. They use their voice, which, being dependent on anatomy, is a finite source. The longetivity is positively affected by using sustainable technique and hitting the sweet-spot between overusing and under-training one's voice, healhy lifestyle choices etc. The reasons I mentioned opera singers is that they can rely on at least some tried and tested principles, as this style has been around for quite a long time (although it has been subject to changes, as anything). Even then, they still can ruin their voices, even if they try their best to get everything right - after all, vocals is the most arcane instrument to learn or coach and human body is fickle.
    From that point of view, rock/metal singing is still a very young art, there is much more trial and error. As you mentioned, there are no historical precedents to touring metal vocalist in their 60's. They are also subject to the same corporeal fickleness, no matter how hard they try to get everything right. They often make unsustainable choices for stylistic reasons (like James spending so much time in stratoshere or using a lot of rasp, unlike many vocalists he is often compared to). And finally, we get much more variance in how they can realistically manage under-training/overusing sweet-spot. The touring schedules and amount of breaks they can afford to take can vary wildly, depending on an individual singer's or band's circumstances. DT always seemed like a pretty extreme band in this regard - grueling schedule with 5-6 shows a week, long sets, demanding repertoire.
   Anyway, back to the main point. I used opera singers to show that things are not as clear cut as "if you listen to your coach, get your technique right, don't live like a party animal, your voice will be ok". Sometimes, using more general comparisons can help to illustrate the main point better than going with the ones that are more kind to kind (even though, for its clumsy execution, my original post is not a good demonstration of that).

2) I fully agree with that. Coaches are extremely unlikely to make singers take paths the singers would consider dangerous. But what at least some of them might be likely to do is failing to say "I don't think you should do this" when dealing with a client who is dead set about something they want (and, even worse, a client they really like or are too afraid to lose). They are human after all.

And little bit beside these points: I'd be interested to hear your take as to what Bruce Dickinson is doing right, technically, that allows him to endure aging better than most.  I tended to assume that his longetivity was just a function of a being blessed with more robust voice and, maybe, playing fewer shows per week when on a tour. He also has this gritty husky timbre, which seems less likely to be affected by time. But no doubt you'll be able to discern much more than I am here.

[crystalstars17]

I'm not sure Kiske is the best example. If the recent Helloween tours have showed us anything, it's that the singer with more touring experience keeps his voice in better shape throughout the tour and has less of a chance of becoming sick, and that's Andi Deris. And Andi has toured as much since early 90s as James LaBrie has.

That's a good point about Andi, but here's where I'll agree with Indiscipline (to paraphrase) about these types of comparisons being "unhelpful", and Animal's assertion that (to paraphrase again) voices inherently come with different "natural qualities". Andi has a much heavier voice, and possibly a more naturally resilient one. I would throw it out on the table that, though he sings in the tenor range, he may actually be a high baritone who has figured out how to blend falsetto into his top range, extending it (big speculation here). At the very least he's a heavier tenor (pertaining to the vocal cords, it means literally thicker, larger cords) who possesses a strong natural resilience. Heavier voices also have their "breaks" (between registers) in a different place from their lighter or higher-placed counterparts. Michael Kiske sustains such a relentlessly high tessitura because of this. For example, Andi's "break" (into head voice/lighter mechanism) may happen around C or D, while Michael's may happen around G above the staff. This is how he is able to comfortably live all day up there.

As for MK cancelling due to illness, that is neither here nor there. Anyone can get sick, and depending on how sick, a smart singer will cancel. Any singer with a reliable technique can sing through a cold, and this is often inevitable, but something far worse like flu or covid that affects the lungs is a different story. As for what his situation was, we just don't know.

[Indiscipline]

I have always been enamored of these more "operatic" style rock lead singers with strong tenor voices - the aforementioned, as well as Geoff Tate (what do you think of him?). I always counted James as one of them. They are all non-human, in fact I see them as angelic beings of a sort (how's that for love-driven hyperbole? ).

I only own a couple QR albums and I never watched the man live, so mine is gonna be a pretty uninformed and ignorant opinion I'd rather spare you and other fans. *smiles*

And little bit beside these points: I'd be interested to hear your take as to what Bruce Dickinson is doing right, technically, that allows him to endure aging better than most.  I tended to assume that his longetivity was just a function of a being blessed with more robust voice and, maybe, playing fewer shows per week when on a tour. He also has this gritty husky timbre, which seems less likely to be affected by time. But no doubt you'll be able to discern much more than I am here.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, my opinion is worth crap in general and more crap  in particular without having the artists in question under drill by the piano. Now that I feel more comfortable ...

Bruce has been gifted with great genetics regarding muscular fiber, stamina and endurance; he is in fact - just like another Bruce across the pond - the most animated human being I have ever witnessed on a stage. Beyond that, he's an athlete (I think he practices fencing, please correct me, informed people) and an athlete's regime and discipline are the main voice preserving factors as far as I'm concerned. Regarding technique: his larynx is always inclined and he always sets the perfect amount of space required right on the inhaling phase, and those are unequivocable signs of operatic (i.e. correct if you care for longevity) training. But first of all - because everything starts and ends with the abdomen - please observe the man's constant and both fluid and strong abdominal work . It's been a 40 years ongoing masterclass.

[crystalstars17]

Regarding technique: his larynx is always inclined and he always sets the perfect amount of space required right on the inhaling phase, and those are unequivocable signs of operatic (i.e. correct if you care for longevity) training.

This (in bold) is exactly what James doesn't do! And to his detriment.

[Animal]

Regarding technique: his larynx is always inclined and he always sets the perfect amount of space required right on the inhaling phase, and those are unequivocable signs of operatic (i.e. correct if you care for longevity) training.

This (in bold) is exactly what James doesn't do! And to his detriment.

Would you say he did that better around Score period or was this always an issue? I remember you said that technically, he seemed at his best in that time, and I agree. He seemed most relaxed, hitting notes more comfortably than even in the early 90's

[Stadler]

I mean, if you're not going to incline your larynx, then why even bother?   





(I kid; I'm actually fascinated by this conversation.  I love the science of things like this that so many of us take for granted.)

[porcacultor]

Me too, Stadler. When I see crystalstars17, Indiscipline and Animal discussing singing particulars, I feel richer for witnessing it.

[Schurftkut]

https://youtu.be/HU6dCZto-UE?list=OLAK5uy_ncYQNzm1hJwOtdxa6ee7jLIZC78f2Z-kA&t=83

Found this album i never heard JLB did vocals for just now 

[ZirconBlue]

https://youtu.be/HU6dCZto-UE?list=OLAK5uy_ncYQNzm1hJwOtdxa6ee7jLIZC78f2Z-kA&t=83

Found this album i never heard JLB did vocals for just now 

Some of the lyrics are awkward, but, otherwise, I really like that album.

[Skeever]

There's a book that goes with that one, I think?

[Ben_Jamin]

https://youtu.be/HU6dCZto-UE?list=OLAK5uy_ncYQNzm1hJwOtdxa6ee7jLIZC78f2Z-kA&t=83

Found this album i never heard JLB did vocals for just now 

I like the album, I Am The Point has some excellent JLB vocals. I also have the book, but unfortunately haven't read it.

There's also a second book of the same name with its own album as well.

[Samsara]

I have always been enamored of these more "operatic" style rock lead singers with strong tenor voices - the aforementioned, as well as Geoff Tate (what do you think of him?). I always counted James as one of them. They are all non-human, in fact I see them as angelic beings of a sort (how's that for love-driven hyperbole? ).

That said, it is tempting to compare singers between genres because as we know, the voice only works one way. I've been guilty of this too (having in the past described how a classical singer changes repertoire as they age, for example a coloratura soprano in her youth who gradually switches to more lyric soprano repertoire ::raises hand::). Coming from a classical background, but loving rock and metal, I couldn't help but fall in love with these singers. It's as if they cross the boundaries of space and time to create something so uniquely gorgeous in its unlikely combination (and some of them do have classical training, like Geoff Tate).

Okay, I am a singer. I am NOT professionally trained, and to all of you who are, my opinion wouldn't mean a thing in the discussion of how a person sings. But, I am a historian of Queensryche, and helped write their only biography, so I have a pretty good understanding of Tate's history as a singer, and what he does. My wife IS a professionally trained singer however. So she has dumped some commentary in my ears over the years, not only to help me get better, but to understand the complexities of voice.

Proud husband moment -- she had a short-lived metal project called Trans World Tribe. You can check her out doing some originals and covers here - https://transworldtribe.bandcamp.com/album/defiance-e-p

(my favorite original is "Roller Coaster" and I LOVE her cover of "Hallowed Be Thy Name" - eat your heart out Bruce!)

Regarding Tate, he was trained by the late Maestro David Kyle. Like many of the Maestro's students, he had a way of teaching his students how to "push" their voice in a way that is very much debated whether it is healthy or not. But, Tate's work with David Kyle didn't last long. He took lessons, got the basics, and then did his own thing. Tate's status as a tenor or baritone has also been a bit of a debate. I always thought he was a tenor, and then after people showed a lot to me, changed my mind. But there is no debate (for me) that during his prime (1983-1992), while his range declined, his voice was absolutely powerful, rich, and he had excellent control. Probably the finest combination of all those following Freddie Mercury and Steve Perry, imo. Tate, in a way, created a style of singing. Not completely, because everyone is influenced by each other. But when I was doing my new book on Queensryche (see the QR thread for more on that) that is coming out in March/April this year, I spoke briefly with Michael Kiske of Helloween, who certainly was blown away by seeing QR in 1984 and what Tate was doing as a singer. Dickinson was blown away by what Tate could do live...stuff Bruce couldn't do without a lot of effort, Tate was just doing.

While Tate may have declined a lot over the years, with smoking being a factor, age, alcohol consumption, etc., I still think his prime as a vocalist is probably THE voice in hard rock/metal for that period. No one other than Mercury or Perry, from 1983-1992, could touch Tate. And since QR was generally considered heavy metal from 83-88, I'd argue that Tate was the "best" or at least most gifted METAL singer of that period.

Over the years, as my wife has observed, Tate's technique got sloppy, then better, then sloppy, etc. It's clear he's worked at his craft again over the last several years. But his range in his head voice is very limited these days. He uses falsetto to hit the high notes, which he only experimented with in the past (he tried it in the 2003-2005 timeframe, abandoned it, and now is doing it again much more convincingly). Sorta how Halford used to use his head voice to hit high stuff, and now he's mostly falsetto.

Anyway, just some rambles from a baritone cover band singer who got some applause doing 90s stuff, who absolutely loves tenor singers.

[TAC]

Tate was the gold standard during those years. I mean, that whole genre of singing is named after him.

[crystalstars17]

Anyway, just some rambles from a baritone cover band singer who got some applause doing 90s stuff, who absolutely loves tenor singers.

Thank you for your knowledge!

I'm not familiar with David Kyle or his methods, but some of the old classical teachers in the twentieth century were known for pushing voices into "bigger" dramatic repertoire either before they were ready or beyond their instrument's natural capabilities (not referring to talent here but the relative "size" of the voice and the niche it was best suited for). I remember for example having two lessons (in the early 2000's) with a coach who wanted to "push" my lighter soprano voice, best suited to Mozart and Handel, into the Puccini and Verdi heroines of La Boheme and La Traviata. I walked away quickly and never went back. So I know these guys are out there still, but it was rather more common in the 20th century.

I've seen a lot of debate as to whether Geoff Tate is a baritone or a tenor and to my ears (trained singer, but not a coach so take with a grain of salt) he is what the musical theater world would call a "baritenor" - that voice that falls right on the cusp and can go either way - perfectly suited to the title role in The Phantom of the Opera (which I would pay an obscene amount to hear him sing). In the classical realm he would likely be a larger tenor voice, not a dramatic tenor, but a "spinto" tenor (the term, ironically, means "pushed") and refers not only to the voice but also to the style of singing. So maybe Kyle was onto something, maybe not, and perhaps we'll never know (and as Tate is not a classical singer, it's largely irrelevant).

[Progmaniac1988]

Really great posts here, and I love all the love shown for Labrie here. I've also been alarmed by his past few tours and I just really hope he get the vocal coaching he needs to get back in shape. Hopefully this next phase in DT history will help with that. It's a new chapter for DT, and I'd really love it if James comes out with one of his best performances (in recent times) both on the new album and the tour that follows.