Who do you think is a more technically skilled vocalist? (objectively)

[Vajra]

Note 1: Keep the thread polite and respectful, no bashing one vocalist over the other. This thread is to discuss the technical skill of each singer, and only that.

Note 2: This thread isn't about which singer you like more, or which you prefer, or which has a more appealing or creative voice or anything subjective as those, it's about which singer is more skilled in terms of categories such as range, vibrato, pitch, consistency, level of diversity in styles of singing, etc. Art is a subjective thing yes, but in terms of musical skill of playing an instrument, we all know you can look at it objectively. (For example, we can safely say that Mangini is a more technically skilled drummer than Lars Ulrich. Creatively, it's up to debate, but no doubt objectively Mangini can play things that Ulrich cannot play.)

Anyway, my vote goes to James. Back in the early 90's, James could do everything Bruce could do, plus more. He had the power, the aggression, the range, and just everything that made him a truly talented singer.

Bootleg of a section from "To Live Forever" back in 93:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3DCkAJS334

This is just one of many examples of James at his peak of vocal proficiency. I've heard just about every performance by Bruce, and I can safely say I've never heard him come close to what James does in this video. By far the most powerful performance I've ever heard.

As I said before, which singer you personally feel is better from a subjective perspective is all a matter of opinion, but from all the performances I've heard of each singer... objectively speaking, James > Bruce. (by a tad, considering Bruce is fucking amazing)


On a flip-side, could James pull off this live today?...

Lord of Light (Holland)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3lUw0oFCZE

[wolfking]

Bruce Dickinson.

[Vajra]

Bruce Dickinson.

Care to explain? Not disagreeing, just curious to hear your thoughts. 

[Gorille85]

Mike Patton.

[Vajra]

Also, just another thought...

I think today, James and Bruce are about even. They have their lows and highs definitely.

[Jaffa]

I kinda shouldn't even post in this thread, because I'm no good at discussing specific things that singers do well or poorly.  But just for instance, I would say that the single album of Awake demonstrates a more impressive vocal range than most of Iron Maiden’s entire catalogue.  So in terms of range, I think I have to go with pre-accident JLB.  But in terms of vocal POWER, I think I’d have to go with Dickinson.  And I would also say that I think Dickinson has always been a more consistent LIVE singer than JLB.  So overall, I think I'd have to objectively give the edge to Dickinson.

Also, if we're considering quality as a FRONTMAN, then Dickinson by miles.  I know that's not what this thread is about, but it seemed worth mentioning anyway.

[black_biff_stadler]

I like Dickinson's power more than JLB's range since that seems to be the main thing that each has over the other imo.

[wolfking]

Bruce Dickinson.

Care to explain? Not disagreeing, just curious to hear your thoughts. 

Dickinson has one of the most powerful, unique voices ever.  His power is unmatched, his tone is extremmely unique, his pitch control is perfect most of the time, and just his overall control over his voice is unvelievable.  I love James and yes he did have more range, but Bruce is better.

[Vajra]

Bruce Dickinson.

Care to explain? Not disagreeing, just curious to hear your thoughts. 

Dickinson has one of the most powerful, unique voices ever.  His power is unmatched, his tone is extremmely unique, his pitch control is perfect most of the time, and just his overall control over his voice is unvelievable.  I love James and yes he did have more range, but Bruce is better.

Yeah, I would say Bruce is definitely a more powerful vocalist. He literally sounds like a God. I'd say Bruce, Matt Barlow, and Russel Allen have the most powerful voices I've ever heard. I'd also say Stu Block of Into Eternity (now Iced Earth) When I saw him sing when he opened for Dream Theater back in 07, I literally sat there unable to believe what I was hearing. He can do things with his voice that really does seem impossible. I'm hoping he demonstrates that power and range on the new IE album.

[olliemedsy]

Kevin Moore

[Jaffa]

I guess what I would say overall is that if you were to rate both JLB and Dickinson on several criteria for vocalists, JLB would have a higher average rating that Dickinson, but Dickinson would peak higher – JLB’s peak rating would be an impressive 9 in the range category, while Dickinson’s would be a solid 10 in the power category. 

So JLB had more virtues in his prime than Dickinson, but considering only what each singer did BEST… Dickinson was on a higher plane. 

[CrimsonSunrise]

Technically better?  JLB

More enjoyable voice to listen to?  BD

[Unimatrix]

Eh.. I'll just let Bruce do the talking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr6p_Nns7DA#t=7m52s  

[skydivingninja]

First of all, there's no such thing as objectivity when looking at the quality of music or a musician.  There can never be.  There are objective ways when looking at what's going on, such as "this guitar player uses sweep picking and arpeggios more than this guitar player does," but you can't make a judgement about whether something is better or worse.

Anyways, with that rant out of the way, I consider Bruce to be in his prime right now, especially live.  He's consistent, he's hitting the notes he needs to, and his live tone isn't as bad as it used to be.  James was in his prime in 92-94, and I have to say I enjoy James more.

[farsight]

Technically better?  JLB

More enjoyable voice to listen to?  BD

This. Bruce is just gifted with a naturally great vocal tone and awesome charisma. JLB isnt far behind though.

[Optimus]

I enjoy both, but it is hard to compare because I like the music labrie is singing much more than the music Dickinson sings.

Sometimes I think Dickinson sounds a little too theatrical, but he was and still is an amazing vocalist with very special tone and vibrato. His intonation is also nearly perfect.

Labrie has a very strong voice and had a fantastic upper register in his primetime. What I like about Labrie is that he also can do a breathy almost whispering tone which works great for the dynamics.

I'd go for Labrie.... I love him....

[ElliottTamer]

I will first have to admit that I have never been a Maiden fan, so I'm probably a little biased as far as this goes.
LaBrie is, in my opinion, the better singer. I have only seen Bruce live through recordings of his shows and must admit his singing is pretty constant (in a good way). Now, I've only been to a couple of DT shows (on the SC and BC&SL tours) and both times his performance was top-notch. I guess I might've been lucky, but I never experienced him as anything but a solid singer (been seeing a lot of comments about how his performances are somewhat hit-or-miss...).
Anyway, I voted for LaBrie because he's the more varied singer/has better range. While power and constancy (which Bruce has in spades) are good attributes for a singer, I believe that variety/range is worth more in the end: A) because it seems easier to me to be powerful and constant when you're more repetitive (bad comparison, but it's easier to do a really great G on your guitar than play a whole lot of different chords one after the other...) and B) I for one listen to a band's album more than I go to their shows, so even if LaBrie is not constant live, he's always pitch-perfect in the albums.

[Deadpool]

LaBrie is a pretty cool guy. eh gets food poisoning and doesnt afraid of anything,

[jonny108]

After seeing JLB at High Voltage he wins hands down.  Back in their "prime" I still think James was better.  To my ears James wins everything, his tone, range, vibrato and his soft whispery tone.  James is what got me into DT to start with. Bruce wasn't what got me into Maiden but Steve.

[senecadawg2]

I think Labrie has more range, but Bruce definitely wins  in the power category. Bruce's voice is also a little more interesting and enjoyable to listen to (just my opinion). I voted for Bruce, even though I love Labrie

[Ravenheart]

Well, I've always found Labrie's voice much better and much more pleasant to listen to.

For me, personally, judging the quality of a singing voice "objectively" just doesn't feel right. I don't see how something like that can really be objective. Range? Okay, but what does range matter in the long run?

[Mosh]

Bruce is the better singer easily. He still is in his prime. Listen to him sing live, he is great, where James has had problems for quite a long time. Not that it is his fault.

[pogoowner]

People always point to Bruce's superior live performances these days, but I find that he often sounds extremely strained, much like James does.

[Mosh]

I don't. I think he sounds fine live. On the 2nd leg of the TFF tour I noticed some problems, but nothing too bad. As far as live goes, I honestly think he beats James by a mile.

[serrano]

I think JLB is technically ahead of BD but it is a tight decision. On the other side BD is a hell of a frontman and has more stage presence than JLB.

[Mosh]

Also Bruce's lyrics are sooooooooooooo much better.

[obscure]

I am a Bruce Dickinson fan as well (solo albums) but.....

Technically better?                        JLB
More enjoyable to listen to?           JLB
More enjoyable to watch?              JLB
More likely to be adored?               JLB
More impressive stage presence?    JLB
.
.
.
.

[BlobVanDam]

In their prime? JLB. I like Bruce Dickinson, but he was a bit pitchy on record, and it bothers me at times. But when JLB was on, he was amazing, and he has more range (not just high notes, I mean generaly style and emotion).

[DetonationSequence]

Eh, besides finding Bruce pretty overrated in general, from what footage I've seen of Maiden live recently he's not going as strong as everyone says he is. For instance the Number Of The Beast scream seems way lower than it used to be, whatever all the Maiden fanboys yelling 'he can still do the scream!' might think; it's originally an A5, a note that James has hit live fairly recently even though he's apparently in worse shape. I call shenanigans - you can tell James has aged, for sure, but for a singer whose vocal chords have been through so much hell I'd say he's one of the better-aged ones out there.

As for 'technical' superiority, let's actually examine the only real measuring stick we have, shall we? You can't exactly measure vocal power, but range is definitely discrete data:

James: C#2-A5 (he hits his lowest in In Too Deep from Elements Of Persuasion and his highest, funnily enough, covering Number Of The Beast, though he's also hit it during performances of LITS before)
Bruce: B1-F5 (this is going by research someone else has done, but it's good research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIOqU-Y3TEQ)

Keep in mind this is full voice notes only - Bruce extends his range by nearly half an octave through the use of falsetto. James doesn't have much vocal fry or falsetto stuff, so pretty much all his recorded notes are full voice. I have my own conclusions (he does a fry part while singing to a fan on one of Jordan's vokle chats, and I think he hit somewhere around A1, and I think - I THINK - he hits a falsetto B5 in 'Coming Home', but my ears might be an octave out), but for the purposes of this discussion fry and falsetto are unimportant as they're basically artificial extensions of range rather than part of a singer's actual voice.

What we can see from this is that Bruce has 2 semitones over James in the low end, but James has 4 semitones over him in the high end, resulting in what is objectively a wider vocal range, if only slightly.

Anyways, as for my personal preference, I think James in his prime is unbeatable by anyone ever. He has the versatility, the strength, the whopping range, and a very distinctive, identifiable vocal timbre. Bruce I will respect as a pioneer, as one of heavy metal's first wailing, operatic frontman, but James has my favourite voice in the world and back then it was flawless.

[tristl]

prime or not prime, i did see maiden two times in the last four years, once in den bosch  indoors and then in stockholm open air in their best of tour i think it was three years ago and as much as i like bruce, i personally think it was very bad.  in holland the mix was so bad you could
only hear him anyway and he didn't have any dynamics, not talking about the range.
in stockholm he did admitt he had a cold a few days ago , so mostly it was the fans who did the singing.
DT i did see seven times the last four years JLB was always great and the best was at the 4th of july in rome,
and from what i could see in youtube it did get even better on the summer tour.
so without question JLB(not counting the time from his food poisoning until the budokan DVD).

[Cruithne]

I am a Bruce Dickinson fan as well (solo albums) but.....

Technically better?                        JLB

Bruce Dickinson is understandable when he sings high.

Both of them are technically very good and are both flawless through the passaggio and up into head voice (and can I point out that the only time either of them has used falsetto is where LaBrie has been asked to do so for effect such as in Never Enough... if you can do head voice properly then you aren't doing falsetto despite the fact that it's in the same register: https://www.become-a-singing-master.com/head-voice-and-falsetto.html). If they weren't technically sound then neither of them would still be singing the way they do today (although Bruce can get quite shouty).

Bruce's voice was a bit of a mess by the end of the 80's, presumably from the rigours of touring with Maiden. Frankly he was sounding rough by the time they recorded Live After Death and that was only '85, so I'm not entirely sure his technique was as sound as it could've been back then: I get the impression that Dickinson was a natural and perhaps didn't build a robust technique until the mid-90s when he stopped masking his loss of upper range with that horrible scratchy vocal he adopted for No Prayer For The Dying. On that score I think LaBrie wins as he's always been well trained.

In terms of range, Bruce's voice has changed a lot more than LaBrie's. The top E(5) in Run To The Hills is now a struggle for him, but I very much doubt he could've come close to touching the low E(2) in Sign Of The Cross in '81 (although he is almost in vocal fry to hit on Rock In Rio and wouldn't be singing such a note without amplification). At the very top of their game (i.e. when Bruce was capable of singing Where Eagles Dare properly) their ranges are roughly the same. LaBrie's range seems to be a little better than Dickinson's these days, but it should be remembered (and it rarely is) that someone singing high does not intrinsically have a good range and LaBrie simply has a higher voice than Dickinson now has.

LaBrie is perhaps more versatile than Dickinson since there's more variety in his voice. LaBrie does the clean soaring-highs on I&W, gritty highs on Awake, soft, breathy vocals elsewhere and so on.

I think LaBrie does shade it in terms of technique.

More enjoyable to listen to?           JLB

I have no preference, personally. JLB for DT material, Bruce for IM material.

More enjoyable to watch?              JLB
More likely to be adored?               JLB
More impressive stage presence?    JLB

o_O

Bruce, the live performer, is unparalleled imo.

[IdoSC]

I'm far more impressed with James' technical abilities and performances, both in their prime and now. To be honest, nowadays it's getting painful to listen to Bruce (to me), I really think his technical ability falls short lately. Still, even when you discuss tehnique, when it comes to vocalists it's mostly about opinions I guess.

[Jirpo]

First of all, there's no such thing as objectivity when looking at the quality of music or a musician.  There can never be.  There are objective ways when looking at what's going on, such as "this guitar player uses sweep picking and arpeggios more than this guitar player does," but you can't make a judgement about whether something is better or worse.

Anyways, with that rant out of the way, I consider Bruce to be in his prime right now, especially live.  He's consistent, he's hitting the notes he needs to, and his live tone isn't as bad as it used to be.  James was in his prime in 92-94, and I have to say I enjoy James more.

I agree! Although I prefer Bruce Dickinson, very slightly.

[reneranucci]

The objectivity requested by the OP is clearly shown in the fact that JLB is winning on a Dream Theater forum.

[Nekov]

I think James is better in a technical aspect. But Bruce has such a powerful voice and he puts so much of himself when he sings. Plus, his stage act is amazing. I can't believe that the guy can sing so well for an entire concert while his running around and jumping all the time. I love Bruce