Top 10 Common Mistakes Many People Make When Commenting on Music

No, a vocal range is NOT just one note. It's an interval covering many notes. A range is the distance between the highest AND the lowest note a singer can hit. This distance is measured in octaves, where one octave contains 8 notes.

For example, if a singer's range is 3 octaves, this means the distance between their highest and lowest notes spans 3 octaves (3 octaves contain 24 notes, 3x8).

I've seen this mistake many times on this site. For example, on lists about the worst singers, some people start debating singers with bad personalities instead of focusing on singers with poor singing skills.

Musical skills are different from personality, and they MUST be separated. There are good musicians with bad personalities and vice versa. There are many examples.

I agree. If you want to discuss personality, then make the discussion about personality. But don't label a musician as bad just because they are a terrible person.

There are countless amazing musicians who are awful human beings.

This mistake is a result of the #1 mistake - thinking that a vocal range is the highest note a singer can hit. However, range is not defined by just one note. A singer may hit higher notes, but another singer may have a bigger range.

For example:

- Whitney Houston's range: 2 octaves, 4 notes
- James Hetfield's range: 3 octaves, 3 notes

Whitney Houston hits higher notes than Metallica's James Hetfield, but her range is much smaller than Hetfield's. She just has a higher voice, but this doesn't always mean she has a bigger range. As you can see, James Hetfield can sing a whole octave lower than Whitney, which makes his range bigger.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It's usually a desperate attempt to defend a bad singer.

No, this doesn't prove the singer is good because people who write songs for that singer take into account the vocal abilities of the singer.

For example:

- Dave Mustaine wouldn't write a song for himself that he couldn't sing. Dave wouldn't write a song that only Luciano Pavarotti could sing.
- Tony Iommi wouldn't write a song for Ozzy that only Rob Halford could sing.

Songs are written for a specific voice.

It's mostly uninformed people who think this way. There are also many who apply the same logic to movies, believing that if a movie does well in theaters, it must be good. There are plenty of people whose taste in entertainment is questionable.

The fame of Justin Bieber, Lil Wayne, Nicki Minaj, and Kim Kardashian makes that very clear. I know Kim Kardashian is not a music artist, but her being famous at all proves that many people have poor taste in things.

Thank you! I can't count how many times I've heard people defend certain artists just because they sold a ridiculous number of records.

Many top-selling records are designed to follow a specific formula to sell as many copies as possible, not necessarily because they are of high quality.

Thank you, christangrant! I've always felt these are two different things - music is a different genre of art than literature/lyrics. I'd second christangrant: "I'd rather hear a song with 'bad' lyrics and great music than the reverse."

This explains why I like "Something in Your Mouth" by Nickelback. This song has great heavy riffs, an intense melody, a catchy chorus, and a fitting bridge. The music in this song is absolutely perfect to me, including Chad's vocals (both aggressive and softer).

Good lyrics do not equal a good song.

I'd rather hear a song with "bad" lyrics and great music than the other way around.

What if your favorite singer sings off-key and you don't realize it? But you claim they are the best singer, or better than singers who at least don't sing off-key. Sometimes, there's a big difference between what we like and what is objectively the best. I respect people who are aware of this difference - those who say, "I prefer X, but I know Y is better."

My opinion is in two parts:

1. I don't mind if someone prefers Lil Wayne over Freddie Mercury and says, "I like Lil Wayne more than Freddie." It's a subjective opinion, a preference. We should respect personal music preferences.

2. But I'd strongly disagree with a further conclusion: that Lil Wayne is a better singer than Freddie just because someone prefers Lil Wayne. Unlike in (1), this conclusion is a subjective opinion that is presented as a fact (i.e., something objective), which isn't true. This is music ignorance, and we shouldn't accept, tolerate, or respect ignorance. I respect all music preferences, but I can't respect ignorance.

Songwriters write BOTH lyrics and music, although some only write music or lyrics.

I have read comments like, "Nobody can hit those falsetto notes like her/him," even though the notes weren't in falsetto. They were just high notes.

A lot of singers sing about sex. The storyline doesn't determine vocal performance.

I prefer when artists cleverly incorporate sexual themes into their songs, but it's not necessarily bad - it just depends on how it's executed.

No, it depends on how well the high-pitched singing is performed. While Rob Halford of Judas Priest has an excellent high-pitched voice with excellent vocal technique, some other singers just try too hard to hit high notes that unfortunately sound weak or shouted. This happens when the singer wasn't born for high-pitched singing or when they lack good vocal technique.

As Hansi Kürsch said, "There is only a small difference between a controlled, raging, high-pitched, distorted performance and an almost hysterical, desperate attempt at a poor scream."

No, it has 8 notes. And a vocal range of 3 and a half octaves means 3 octaves and 4 notes.

You'd think the oct- prefix would be a dead giveaway that it's 8 notes.

I'm not among those people for sure. For me, music is always first, lyrics second. I'm mostly a music fan, although I love good lyrics as well.

I feel like this is my problem with Between the Buried and Me's latest efforts. Great story and concept, but not as good music to accompany it.

It might be, but there are lots of other vocal effects that are used in the studio. Plus, singers in the studio usually do several takes, as opposed to a live performance.

A lot of singers, especially in the '70s, did horrible things. Even though they are terrible people, if they make good music, they are still good musicians.

Unless they directly address those horrible things in their songs, it shouldn't affect their music.

Although lyrics can be important, some songs are just for entertainment, not for studying.

There are multiple views on how people judge music. Some focus on lyrics, while others emphasize different aspects of the song.

I don't think it's wrong that, for some people, lyrics might be hugely important, while for others they might not matter at all. The same applies to pretty much anything else about music.

This is so common, especially on this site.

Music is now treated like sports, where playing the most notes or singing the highest notes is considered better. But that's not true.

The main purpose of music is to entertain people. I don't care how talented you are. I want music that is emotional or entertaining.

There's a difference between being impressed by an artist and actually liking the artist.