James Hetfield (55,021 views)

[bossmansoldier]

youtu.be/UpphbUenFN8?t=71
youtu.be/Xc0Ih3xK_ko?t=71

Great B4s

[bossmansoldier]

Also something interesting I've observed with James' singing live; He didn't go for the "blinded by me" high note in Master of Puppets often between 1998 and 2006. He only started going for them again after starting from 2006, which is weird. Even in shows he was in good shape, he'd dodge them.
youtu.be/pahfLwcWfIs?t=147
youtu.be/oR_r2Whxpvw?t=110
youtu.be/X4VuX7LJPLM?t=121
youtu.be/5Kf9vPxqR9I?t=129

[Kreuger]

youtu.be/VJuAquSX4FE nice little growl at about 4:00.

[kewis]

2:46 is it me or does he actually slide up higher than Eb5 in this one?

[EddieCheivz]

You are. I can hear it only topping at Eb as always

[bossmansoldier]

youtu.be/h8GR4LLL93I?t=1053
just like studio

[clem]

Another live Eb5 from "Ride the Lightning". The show is Boston Calling 2022.

[Henny Macc]

Nice! That's actually some of the highest singing we've heard him do in a melody line thus far :surprised:

[CT]

I feel so bad for James when he hit that B♭5 in 1998, if only he knew that a range forum would determine that he has a 3 octave and 11 semitone range I think he would have pushed himself and got the half step up to a B5 so he would be considered cooler on TRP

[Henny Macc]

I feel more bad for the fact that he didn't speak down to A1 strongly enough in "Loverman" for this forum to deem it countable :cry:

[CT]

Jul 20, 2022 17:37:38 GMT Henny Macc said:

I feel more bad for the fact that he didn't speak down to A1 strongly enough in "Loverman" for this forum to deem it countable :cry:

He will forever be a less than 4 octave beta loser like Chris Cornell, Bruce Dickinson and Freddie Mercury, forever chasing the glory of superior singers with 4 octave ranges such as William Shatner

[kewis]

One can only hope he stumbles upon this thread and repents for his sins by recording a more solid A1 than the ones in Loverman.

And to think he was once a 5.5 octave wonder back in the days of TRP1 and 2. How the mighty have fallen 

[senatorsenpai]

"How the mighty have fallen"? He sounds fantastic for his age.

[Osmosis]

That's not what Kewis' sarcasm is in relation to. They're on about the change in notwatching standards over the years

[Kreuger]

youtu.be/2Eis38seVfs some interesting choices vocally but he sounds good.

[Henny Macc]

I reckon this C♯2 should still be countable

[Setzer]

Not sure about the note here, but it sounds cool and might be worth adding?

[Henny Macc]

Huh, sounds like a short C♯5. Nothing too crazy as a note itself, but it always continues to surprise me how many opportunities he keeps finding to work in fifth octave notes to live versions of older songs these days. Definitely not a turning point you see many singers reach in their 50s!

[EddieCheivz]

May 30, 2020 2:29:41 GMT Henny Macc said:

He has some pretty epic F♯4s actually, aside from the ones in "The Outlaw Torn", there are also really good ones in "Loverman" and "Damage Inc.", to name a few. In general, I would say that's the point in his range where he really starts putting power into notes and making them sound more intense.

As for there being lots of songs that go above that note, that's been true about many other singers notewatched on here (especially ones whose highs start as low as E4 or under) and hasn't really been seen as a reason not to do so in those cases. Also, the fact that it would be smaller than the G4 section really doesn't matter - some singers just happen to go for certain higher notes more than "lower" high notes (for instance, the G♯4 section of this thread is smaller than the A4 section, but nobody's complaining about that). A few of my threads have ended up that way too, but I don't think it matters as long as the point where the notes start at actually sounds like a high note for the singer.

Though this debate was long time ago and seems to be finished, I'd really say still worth keeping it, think I'm inclined to being agree with Henny in this one, I do think F♯ is a good point where Hetfield basically starts with his higher ones with that pretty much characteristic wild intonation, where his belted 4th octave notes commence to acquire his typical savage style since their beggining til the date.

Also keeping in mind his vocal range on the last years, where he usually cannot sounds that good as before in his higher range (I mean, yeah, there are many instances even after his 50' where he does random 5th octave notes on an vocal line that originally does not have that high pitch but many of them are just brief exclamations easier to reach for the impulse of the singing in question, but honestly I'd say practically there's no money notes above F♯4, with that force and standout performance on the last years. Probably in the first albums I'd agree with G4 as a good starting point with his higher ones, but keeping in mind his material on last almost 20 years I'd say, no.

Many reasons provided for justify the beginning of his highs at G4 is because "many songs goes higher than that pitch" but that's not the point. Cause in a notewatching job, the intention is not just put the highest and lowest note on a song or yes? intention is to show most important and standout notes from an entire song, not just highest pitch, also maybe lower pitches but with good reached notes as well (maybe more than highest) so the fact he usually goes higher than F♯4 is null, cause that' not the purpose on a thread.

His lows starting on G4 looks a bit forced if you see it (at least comparing it with other thresholds from other threads, where it's very appreciable how people almost start two octaves lower than highest overall note to make notorious that changes on vocal registers, techniques and money notes (that was other reason to justify it, that "there are few money notes by him on F♯4") thing that is false; there are some good examples on that pitch with him hitting F♯4 with a very good sound and even more than G4s ones are bolded here that were pointed out by Henny as well.

I could continue with this, but don't know it that's worth since maybe all points I offered are not to the liking of fellows.

[Henny Macc]

I still would agree with F♯4 being a good starting point for his high notes, but I don't agree with the argument that he's had practically had no money notes above F♯4 in the last few years. I mean granted, Metallica hasn't put out anything new in the last 6 years now anyway, but he's definitely still got plenty of money notes in him up to A4 at least.

[queenfan11]

I think G4 is a better starting point than F#4 because the F#4 section I think would be a lot smaller than the G4 section, and so it would seem extraneous, it would be largely redundant, and he doesn't treat them as money notes as much as G4 or higher.

[Batfleck]

Hey look, a C♯5! Not great tonally speaking, but he hits it.



Vocal warmup from the S&M documentary (5 min mark). There's more vocal warmups at 22:35.

[Henny Macc]

That is indeed a C♯5! Not too bad of one either honestly.

The vocal warm-ups get down to A♯2 in the first clip, and then G♯2 in the second.

[Batfleck]

New Metallica song! G4 in the verses and there's some nice (potentially bold-worthy?) A4s in the chorus. Kinda sounds like an old-school NWOBHM tune, I dig it!

[Henny Macc]

I heard a lot of people talking about the new song before listening to it myself, and I noticed many of them saying that James "sounded young again" and had "managed to reverse-age his way back to the late 80s/early 90s vocally". When I first started listening to the song I didn't quite hear it, but the type of grit he does on those A4s is definitely reminiscent of those older albums! Cool to hear him tap into it again!

The song is decent, not quite mindblowing, but it stands out to me more than a lot of Hardwired...to Self Destruct did, so that's a good start at least. I like the overall tones and production that they seem to be utilizing here, so if there will be more where that came from on the rest of the album it could be somewhat promising.