Michael Jackson's vocal range (post-puberty)

[Psychoniff]

In the comment section of this video, vocal coach Ken Tamplin replied to a commenter about MJ's taking lessons to to perfect his voice. Here's what was said.

Commenter - "that was groovy man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!yes mj was an icon! do u think mj ever had to take vocal lessons or do you think he was born with that talent??????????????"

Ken - "I actually think that's a great question and here's why. Obviously Michael Jackson was born with insane talent. Look at the early Jackson five and see how incredible his vocals were. After puberty he lost almost all of his range. Had someone known how to take him through puberty with his voice , losing all that range did not need to happen. Another very famous vocal coach takes credit for Michael's success, however if we're honest with ourselves from only a technical singing perspective, not being dazzled by great songs and production, we would find that Michael only sang in 1 & 1/2 octaves on his records. Much of it was very strained. So to answer your question, of course my call was born with talent. But like many with great talent, that talent is forfeited at the altar of lack of understanding of how to keep it. This is where great technique comes into play. I hope that satisfies your question."

This is very interesting because what Ken said is informative but it is contradicted by MJ's long-term vocal coach, Seth Riggs who said that Mj's vocal range spanned 3.5 (video below) octaves. So what you guys think.

These are great!!!

 

[HIStory]

I am not an expert, but I very much doubt that MJ only sang 1- 1 and a half octaves on record. Maybe if the guy had a deeper knowledge in his catalog, not just the biggest hits. (BTW, for someone being so critical of MJ he sure struggles to hit some of his notes.)

Here are two other analysis - which seem closer to truth to me:

Lowest Note: Eb2
Highest Belt: Bb5
Highest Note: F#6
Exclamation: N/A
Vocal Type: Lyric Tenor (4 octaves, 1 note, and a semi-tone)
Vocal Rating: Star


Positives: What made Michael Jackson stand out as a vocalist was his distinct voice. His vocal "hiccups" (somewhat like gulping for air or gasping) and breathless stutters were legendary. His grunts were achieved with good technique, and added to an already impressive vocal delivery. His vocals could be fierce and demanding (Smooth Criminal), or mellow and heartbroken (Earth Song).

He had the ability to sing both staccato (Smooth Criminal) and legato rhythms in perfect timing. His vocal runs were never overkill and were rapidly fluid. He had the ability to hold notes for extended periods without heavy fluctuation in pitch.

His lows were the darkest part of his range, being heavy and ever-so-slightly smokey. His mid-range gained brightness as it ascended, and his belting range had almost a chameleon edge to it, it could adopt different timbres and tones. It could come with a rock edge, a softer, mellow tone, or a light or heavy timbre.. This allowed for vocal versatility and transitions through different genres.

Contrary to popular belief, he did NOT solely rely on his falsetto register. Of course MJ used it frequently, but it was not an indication of his inability to sing in full voice. In fact, if you listen to the "Butterflies" acapella, you can hear that all the high notes are sung in full voice and not falsetto.

Negatives: Voice lacked power and was naturally androgynous. Sounds child-like on many recordings instead of like a full-grown man well into middle age. Often sacrificed diction for feeling.

Note: There is a lot of flack on the Internet about his range and the counting of exclamations above C6. I'm counting the exclamations in his range because 1) they're not strained 2) They're not unintentional 3) They're clean. And for the Eb2, he has sung down to an F#2 in a 1994 vocal warm-up and the Eb2 is years later in 2001. Given that its only a note and a semi-tone down, I don't have a problem putting it in his range, since in 7 years he could have expanded his range. Either way, he still has a 4 octave range. Finally, I scrapped this baby together by combining info from DivaDevotee, BarkBiteBlog and my own notes.

http://www.criticofmusic.com/2013/05/vocal-range-and-profile-michael-jackson.html

And another


Vocal Type: High Tenor
Vocal Range: 4 Octaves (F2-F6)
Vocal Pluses: Michael Jackson's voice was predominately light and agile with a nimble, rhythmic dexterity that allowed for complex vocal runs, as well as allowing it to mimic instruments- such as drums- or employ trademark grunts and exclamations that were controlled and achieved via proper technique. The voice also had the strength and stamina to hold notes for lengths of time, without wavering in pitch, and the ability to emote the meaning of the lyrics exceptionally.

The low range was the heaviest part of the voice, and was surprisingly dark when compared to the higher parts of the modal range, in which he usually sang. As the voice passed into the midrange it began to lighten and brighten significantly. The chest voice had an elasticity and flexibility that allowed for it to stretch, without much impact on the tone, up to the fifth octave. The belting range had a number of timbres, being either bright, light and smooth, or coarser, slightly heavier and with an edge-see They don't care about us . The falsetto was solid, warm and more resonate than many other male singers, though it was also capable of a softer timbre if so required. Comfortable in this part of the range, Michael Jackson could sing effortlessly here holding notes, or hitting complex staccato notes- see Butterfies.

Unique and immediately recognisable voice that harmonised with itself brilliantly to create luscious and iconic layered vocals.

Vocal Negatives: Michael Jackson's tone could be considered thin and lacking in resonance, particularly in the mid-to high part of the modal register, when compared to other male singers. It should be noted that many fans consider this to be a unique, and positive, feature of the voice.

http://vocalranges.blogspot.it/2013/01/michael-jackson-vocal-range.html

 

[HIStory]

Also this guy takes digs at Seth Riggs on his website elsewhere, so maybe there is some sort of professional rivalry between them which is why he is talking down on MJ: http://kentamplinvocalacademy.com/speech-level-singing-sls-does-not-work/


ETA: Apparently my impression is right:

Ken Tamplin is a self absorbed business man because he bashes other coaches and their systems publicly. he is a fantastic singer but the way he conducts his business sometimes kind of sucks.

http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/forum/VocalsLiveSound/acapella-119/53252-34681453

So I think this has a lot to do with what he says about MJ - since he was a famous client of Seth Riggs.


I'd rather listen to much more independent opinions. And like I showed above by independent experts the claim that MJ had about 3,5-4 octaves seems to be correct.

 

[HIStory]

Here is an interesting discussion about Tamplin pro and contra: http://completevocalinstitute.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8568

Eg.

(Note: SLS=Speech Level Singing, the style Seth Riggs teaches)

There is quite some "bash SLS" attitude in the singing teacher world actually. You have comments like that from many teachers like Lunte, Richards or Tamplin. The reason is usually that the original SLS uses a small weight/small vocal tract/small support setup. The criticism is basically the same as for Ken Tamplin in that the program limits you to some extent. While Tamplin pigeon-holes you into high support/"chesty" phonations, SLS pigeon-holes you into low support/"heady" phonations. This doesn't mean that SLS is bad as a program. But it is just a lot more geared towards the Pop/RnB singing style, just as Tamplins program is heavily geared towards heavy rock (Ronnie James Dio style).

So SLS seems to be more geared towards the type of music MJ generally did, while Tamplin's style is more rock oriented.

Ive also watched a lot of Ken Tamplins videos on youtube, and i definitely think that the guy knows a thing or two about singing technique. That being sad, he comes across as a guy who claims to have the only solution regarding singing and singing technique, and i dont like that.

If you ask me Ken Tamplin is using what I would call a "variable" niche. He uses a profession that he knows something about to sell a product. He succeeds in selling it by exploiting and capitalizing on vulnerabilities of that profession. For example. In the vocal teaching business, there are a large number of self proclaimed experts who can't even sing. Tamplin cashes in on that and repeats it over and over. "The proof is in the singing". Even though some of the best vocal coaches in the world can't sing. And example of that would be Judy Davis, who taught Steve Perry.

Awhile ago I purchased Tamplin's vocal course to see how effective it is. This way, I couldn't criticize the guy without having been there. His lessons technically "work". But there is a major problem with them. Basically they train you to sing like you are "heaving" out your chest voice. You have heard this yourself from Ken's own voice. For the record, he actually doesn't sing like he used to. His early recordings fall under different technique which all but ruined his voice. Now he's can't sing near as well. Since then he has learned a way to basically belt everything. And he NEVER performs for hours like he says he does. It's the reason why he now teaches. He uses some truth mixed with "bullshit" to promote a product. This makes him just as bad as the thousands of vocal experts he criticizes and condemns. He certainly has a "self righteous" attitude for someone who claims to follow Christian principles (which I don't believe he is). And for the record, his cousin Sammy Hagar even criticized him for masquerading as a Christian. Even though we know Sammy isn't exactly a religious guy, he's genuine to say the least. And a great judge of character, as he has always been.

If someone were to ask me who I would go to for vocal coaching, first it would depend on what I want to sing. Because there is NO single method that will give it all, contrary to what Tamplin says. This i know because I have a degree in vocal pedagogy.

"What that said" as Ken so often states, how a person is able to sing depends upon what type of coordination is developed throughout the range of motion using all the functions described. What Ken is teaching basically increases the strength of the head voice muscles, while dramatically increasing the strength of the chest muscles and coordinating singing towards "belting" throughout the range, which heavily emphasizes a dominating chest. A strong head voice is present because it must support the weight. This Ken knows and admits in his own words. But as a side note, he throws in the idea that if you want to sing lighter, you still can if you want to do R&B or whatever. This is where he falls VERY short. Ever listen to how Ken sounds when he sings light? He still has his chest pulled WAY up into his head and sounds "weird" to say the least. The reason why he is incapable of being versatile enough to sound similar to the artist he pretends to imitate. So "with that said" learning his techniques will literally KILL any versatility in your voice. You will sound the same all of the time. And it will sound chesty as Hell all of the time....

The chest would become slightly lighter. But because it is so dominant to begin with, it would still dominate in comparison to head. So an imbalance would occur. You would end up with a super weird sounding voice like Ken. He rarely sings anything light. He claims it's because he just "likes" to sing heavy. Complete bullshit. He can't sing light because his voice won't allow it. All he can do is "wail". Then it becomes another gimmick. Because after awhile you would get tired of sounding the same all of the time. And your choice of cover tunes would be limited to stuff he sings. If that is what you are into. Cool for you. But don't expect to sing many pop songs unless you like that "chesty" sound.

Well, there is more on that forum if you are interested in the debate. As a layperson what I take away from this is that whichever technique best suits you depends on the musical style you sing and of course on your own preferences and vocal goals. I do not claim to be an expert of all this, but I listened to this guy sing MJ songs in the above video and he did not impress me one bit and I think he actually struggled to hit notes with these songs which are not even some of Michael's vocally most difficult songs. So whatever. Maybe he does rock songs better, I don't know.

I also do not know why he keeps saying this:

One of the things I would have loved to have seen with Michael is if he had maintained that killer range in his early youth. Like ABC The Jackson 5 - ABC and I'll be there I'll Be There - The Jackson 5 (High Quality)

No one maintains his child voice. It's natural that when you grow up your voice changes and loses some of its hight.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Here is an interesting discussion about Tamplin pro and contra: http://completevocalinstitute.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8568

Eg.

(Note: SLS=Speech Level Singing, the style Seth Riggs teaches)


So SLS seems to be more geared towards the type of music MJ generally did, while Tamplin's style is more rock oriented.











Well, there is more on that forum if you are interested in the debate. As a layperson what I take away from this is that whichever technique best suits you depends on the musical style you sing and of course on your own preferences and vocal goals. I do not claim to be an expert of all this, but I listened to this guy sing MJ songs in the above video and he did not impress me one bit and I think he actually struggled to hit notes with these songs which are not even some of Michael's vocally most difficult songs. So whatever. Maybe he does rock songs better, I don't know.

I also do not know why he keeps saying this:



No one maintains his child voice. It's natural that when you grow up your voice changes and loses some of its hight.

Respect77 I swear you are like the MJJcommunity's own Batman lol. Crazy good research and I agree. his claims about MJ's range are ridiculous. The part about his voice sounding strained was more an embellishment than out of necessity.

I do have a question though, how high could MJ go with his falsetto? Compared to his contemporaries, Prince and El Debarge, I have never heard him go full out with his falsetto the way the other guys did. I'm not saying that diminishes him as an artists or anything like that but just out of curiosity. How high could he really go with his falsetto?

 

[Psychoniff]

I saw this information on an article about MJ and several other R'n'B artists a while back. Ken and white male rock snobs like him get it twisted that MJ lacked range because he was a high tenor. To him, the only 'real' male singers are the heavy raspy types.

 

[barbee0715]

Although, I didn't think it sounded quite like falsetto, I am amazed that the high notes in "Butterflies" are full voice. I didn't think ANYONE could sing that high. Breathtaking.

 

[WildStyle]

INegatives: Voice lacked power and was naturally androgynous. Sounds child-like on many recordings instead of like a full-grown man well into middle age. Often sacrificed diction for feeling.

Not to be an a-hole, but that fact that they would list that as a negative just goes to show why they are who they are and Michael was who he was.

Also, listen to the end of Earth Song and tell me his voice lacked power. That's just one example of countless I could have used.

 

[MJJA]

It always comes down to this. Does the singer make you feel it. MJ made you feel it.

 

[MAQ]

Not to be an a-hole, but that fact that they would list that as a negative just goes to show why they are who they are and Michael was who he was.

Also, listen to the end of Earth Song and tell me his voice lacked power. That's just one example of countless I could have used.

I think a lot of people have issues with that. That and his androgynous vocals. Most rockstars lack that ability so it's not surprising that they'd think it was a weakness. However, we fans love it and it's actually one of the positive points in his vocals. I wish he had used less "hoo"'s and "heehee"'s in some of the edgier songs like Bad. Although that didn't remain a problem as I became a maturer fan.

 

[KOPV]

his 'androgynous' vocal is what helped Michael have such a variety in his vocal capabilities.. he cold lean one way or the other to a decent extent! NOT every vocal will be favored by everyone... Everyone has a different ear and with taste comes opinion... someone grows up hearing men sing like "MEN"