TOMORROW'S OUTLOOK - 34613 - Digipack CD - Featuring Michael Kiske (EX Helloween/UNISONIC) and Graham Bonnet (Alcatrazz/MSG/Rainbow). Released soon on Battlegod Productions.
Bruce is the best. NO ONE is better, if you compare some young kid to him, and his prior years you better buy new ears. And pop-star to Metal god? your comparisions are totally out of ass
@OathBird Hardcore Iron Maiden fan I suppose. Why do you feel the need to insult? Did you try to prove something with the video link?
Here is 1 range video for Kiske: watch?v=xBy2IVGjKXY and 1 for Freddie Mercury: watch?v=R5vTjdOTMGE. As you can see both have almost the same range as Bruce! Now try Geoff Tate who can also go lower than Bruce (B1)! According to your logic Freddie & Michael are on the same level and Tate is the best!
Bruce is amazing but surely not the best vocalist!
@antere5 For me Bruce is one of the best vocalist but not the best, have you ever listen Daniel Heiman??? , he has more range that Dickinson, but not for that he is better vocalist!. For me the best vocalist ever is Freddie Mercury.
Here a video of Daniel Heiman watch?v=lu0D1TFWB2U&feature=related , listen to him and then tell me what do u think about his vocal range.
@VictimFate I agree. I know Heiman, he is a very good vocalist with great technique. Unfortunately I don't like Lost Horizon that much. He is a tenor, his range is wide as he can reach higher notes than both Dickinson & Kiske but he looses in the lower range department. I totally agree about Mercury, a very complete and versatile singer and live performer!
Have you even seen Iron Maiden live? Have you seen Samson live? Have you ever seen Dickinson solo band live? There's no arguing, maybe Halford could stand up, but no Kiske. Bruce by the way have more high notes, including Falsettos (Quest For Fire - good one) which you must've missed, otherwise you wouldn't write so. And im not only about vocal, but whole live. If vocalist for you exist only from singing then congratulations. And it's about dickinson - kiske. don't involve anyone else
@OathBird Yes I have seen Maiden twice the last time was in 2007. The second show was pretty bad, Bruce's voice has declined in the past few years and it is evident. It's true that Bruce can reach higher notes in falsetto, but Quest Of Fire is just an E5 a note Kiske hits all the time in full voice. Kiske is nowadays in a much better vocal state. He sounds effortless & hits full voice high notes even live: watch?v=rXSFdxM2NBk. Bruce is one of the best front-men I agree but not singers!
If you not agree with singers then we agree you're deaf :) Bruce is 10 years older. in 2001... Rock In Rio, BEST ALIVE DVD ever made, you're comparing nowadays Kiske to Rock In Rio Bruce? awesome. on RIR he sang perfectly (even Remember Tomorrow in 2005, lol) including horror scream. including 2008 Aces High, latest high graspy well hitted too. You think Kiske would reach NOw and 9 years later March Of Time or Ride The Sky (dusseldorf) ? I think we would not.
@OathBird By this comment do you suggest that Bruce sings as good as he did in the 80's? Firstly Bruce has improved his mid & lower range singing but has become weaker in the higher staff since the 90's. Secondly Rock In Rio was a great concert & Bruce did very good on vocals, BUT he used tons of falsetto for his screams (which were not powerful). Thirdly even in the old days Bruce skipped many high notes live, while Kiske was always the better live singer: watch?v=R5TZsXePDzU
Bruce is singing al ittle bit lower but still very damn good, and can go really high. Aces High on somewhere back in time tour was definitely head voice, it wouldn't have so much power as falsetto, also its not the only song. Kiske didn't performed so much, and we have no comparison actually. You can pick few gigs of Kiske, and hundrers of Bruce. Comparing that way it's obviously won for Kiske, but to put BEST ones who knows?
@OathBird Bruce sings good, but he uses falsetto for all his screams and his head & chest voice sounds strained (forced). Falsetto usually sounds thin and not as powerful compared to full voice, that's how you can spot it. I agree we have to give Kiske 1 or 2 years of live performances to compare objectively. Anyways, Michael was always the more technical vocalist and sang greatly live. On the other hand, Bruce is older and has toured extensively for all these years.
That's why its hard to pick best of best, cause he toured his ass off really strong. But just check f.e 2005 Tribuzy + Dickinson - Tears Of The Dragon. rested, only two songs for him on the show and... its great. He had worse periods, he had better. If he wouldn't strain himself so hard I'm sure he would sound on every concert as good as Kiske or even better
Saw him doing gig with Avantasia (dying for an angel) it's just a shade of someone who were a great vocalist, but now... nothing. And singing...Bruce is much better showman, much better songwriter, and not much-but little better vocalist.
@OathBird Dying for an angel was kind of screwed up by everyone, but what about Kiske's performance on Reach out for the light: watch?v=8GYAz7U9a2w (the part at 3:49)? He also performs Future World & I Want Out greatly live today. As for Bruce's songwriting, even on his best solo albums Accident Of Birth & Chemical Wedding all songs were co-written by RoyZ or Smith. Bruce is one of the best front men ever, a great entertainer, but Kiske & several others are technically better singers!
Future World and I Want Out is song that has been eaten by time and Deris and Kai (Kai version kicks somewhat-ass, have the POWER). watch?v=COvCPJGjaiE around 5:00 and whole song. Damn this is kept up perfectly and its 2008... he turned out 50 that time! and on 3:49 Tobias is screaming. in Avantasia Kiske didn't showed any good, and his solo works... are kinda pop. with Somerville is same-old same-old nothing good technically. and Bruce is still kicking ass, same as Halford - 61 years!!
@OathBird While The Trooper and The Number Of The Beast have not been eaten by time? The Aces High scream is falsetto 100% as it sounds thin and not powerful. The same goes for the screams on Run To The Hills, Number and Rime from the same DVD. Sorry the 3:49 was a mistake, I meant Kiske's screams at 1:06 & 2:01 (watch?v=8GYAz7U9a2w). Kiske's Avantasia staff: watch?v=JRmfjBDKCpE and his solo album Past In Different Ways: watch?v=Qe3u3ofKghM feature technically outstanding vocals!
both are amazing but Michael is younger, obviusly has a better greater voice, Bruce is much older, and he still has his voice, Bruce is better, do not compare a kid (apprentice) with the Master...
wow!fantastic arguments going on here. nice to see people crunching on the same interest.. I am a big fan of both singers, both hectic live performers and they are the king of the power melodic metal vocals in their own league. When Bruce left the band I was so sad but when Kiske came up from the audition, I was very surprised and excited with the idea. I uploaded some of my vocal covers from both singers, find them in my channel. Soon find my Maiden tribute band's live footage.Rock you later;)
Kiske and uses very good ... but Falset, his voice is very sickly ... Bruce has a different voice ... and that only a powerful vocalist who is many years in the Iron Maiden might have ... Bruce is the best vocal in the history of Heavy Metal! no doubt!
I think the fact of Michael to be always change your trajetory, reflect the maturation of his talent! I luv the two, but I always remember of Michael for my influences!
Kiske tone of voice is just annoying. He can reach very high notes because he makes his voice very light and use a lot "falsettone", so the quality of his voice is just inaceptable. Bruce dickinson voice is obviously getting darker and he's losing agility, but he sounds like a man. Just compare the old recordings. Bruce dickinson was the best (and he's still better), and kiske was like nails on a blackboard.
You guys can't compare Kiske and Bruce! Kiske have the most clean voice yeah and Bruce is like the devil! They sing totally awesome both of them.. Can't compare those guys! both are gods of metal!
Shit comparison baby....why to compare two great vocals from two different bands??....two diferent bands have diferent voices.....put kiske in maiden and bruce in helloween and you will win the same shit.....my answer.....bruce and michael are both in nr. 1 in this challange
michael kiske has a clearer voice than bruce dickinson.. dickinson has a perfect voice for heavy metal.. kiske has a perferct voice for power metal.. The End
And if we analyze more carefully Kiske's voice in the middle range, we can find serious tonality deviations. Anyway the hiher notes sounds very clear...
The fact that Kiske reaches higher notes than Dickinson doesn't make him better. Actually, I really don't know if he reaches higher notes, he just uses his falsetto more often than Bruce.
But Kiske's voice is so clean and tidy that gets me bored.
Dickinson has the devil inside his throat for basses, mid and highs.
Also, Bruce's voice can fit in much more styles of music than Michael's voice.
For all of this, Bruce is not only better, but the best of all metal singers.
michael kise sucks,,he cannot even wright songs,,kai hansen is mastermind behin thos famoue songs like kepper of seven keys,,who shoult sing himself,,bruce dikinson is in antoher legue tha hellwoenn sorry gus,,
@MrDrumclown This is a "vocal" comparison, not a "songwriter" comparison...Steve Harris is the mastermind behind songs like Hallowed Be Thy Name, Where Eagles Dare, Rime... and Fear Of The Dark. By the way, Michael Weikath wrote Keeper Of The Seven Keys not Hansen. Kiske's We Got The Right is very good. Besides the tracks Revelations and Powerslave, Dickinson wasn't much of a songwriter either. So according to you both Michael and Bruce sucked as they weren't the best songwriters in their bands.
No way to compare this two monsters... they com from different schools and different styles.... we´d better enjoy them both rather than compare them.... always the everlasting comparisons: Romeo Vs Malmsteen, Dickinson Vs Kiske, Petrucci Vs Vai bla bla bla.. enjoy music and its diversity and stop comparisons...
i think kiske is the better one, dont get me wrong !! i grew up on maiden and to me theyre a religion BUT i also shared time listening to helloween .. and i think kiske the better vocalist .. bruce never keep it at high notes .. kise does
im not knocking bruce down .. HES AN AMAZING vocalist but i think bruce falls short to my second fave band, i think michael kiske is the one with the better range
i can here alot more effects on kiske and bruce hits notes in what only be described as hammering air through his wind pipe. really enjoy metal but i had to stop singing like that when i found out what it was doing to my voice. but i could be a jackass
Kiske wins this one. His live or whatever singining never sounds like he had to force it so hard. Both are great of course. Bruce has a little bit more mean voice though...
TANTO QUE LLORAN...LO QUE SE PONE EN DEBATE AQUI ES LA CALIDAD VOCAL Y YO NOSE SI SON SORDOS QUE.....KISKE CANTA MUCHO MEJOR...EN LA ACTUALIDAD SIGUE MEJORANDO....BRUCE CADA VEZ TIENE MENOS PULMON...!
Bruce Dickinson can only get the really high notes with falsettos, Michael Kiskes actual range is wider than Bruce's. I like them both but Kiske is just better technically - whose voice you prefer is entirely subjective.
credo sia davvero difficile stabilire chi sia il più bravo ma in maniera saggia direi che sono equivalenti per tante ragioni che non spiego ma semplicemente alcune cose che possono mancare a bruce le possiede michael e viceversa! Mi sento di dire solo che col tempo la voce di bruce è sempre più bella da ascoltare
@triwiring Sono due cantanti di cui ci si innamora... sono d'accordo con quasi tutto quello che hai scritto... Fondamentalmente la voce di Bruce ha preso (e non subìto sia chiaro) il tributo degli anni, la rende piu rock... quella di kiske mi pare sia diventata leggerissimamente piu sabbiosa che a mio vedere le da carattere. insomma entrambi invecchiano e restano grandi- non so dire chi mi piaccia di piu davvero, anche se sono piu legato a Bruce. L unica diff Imo; Kiske sforza meno gli acuti.
hacer una comparacion entre estos don cantantes es una estupides... porque ambos son supremamente grandes y con un estilo propio, ambos son dignos de respeto son especiales cada uno a su modo.
Its amazing, how you Show Bruce voice while he is Old, and Michael Kiske while he is young....and compairing the 2....
Show some Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind albuns....
And, for your information Bruce is more than a simple vocal...He was given the nickname "The Air Raid Siren" cause of his 8s, he doesnt sing always liek he has been hitted in the nuts... he can sing lower 8s asweall.. if u dont know what are 8s..then dont even comment about vocals.. or compair
@PTGoncalo It's amazing that you didn't even read the title of the video, this is comparison "2"! The vocals included here are from Bruce's 1993-2007 period, while Kiske's are from 1992-2009! The only young samples from Kiske are 1 from 1992 and 1 from 1996 what are you complayning about?
For Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind samples check comparison "1", the first part of this video which focuses on the early years of both singers. Additionally learn to read...
Nice, and what octaves mean? then go and check Kiske octaves...and bruce Octaves...then grab a gun... say good bye to the world..and shoot your Kiske faction brain that I already saw you have... let me guess Your vote goes to Kiske right? How in the world I guessed that?
@PTGoncalo If you are implying that Bruce has a wider vocal range (more octaves) than Kiske, it is you who has to shoot your brain...Even on this video Michael goes both lower and higher than Bruce and these are not his limits either. Try this song for a nice display of range from Kiske (1:22+2:24): watch?v=bNn82xpCFMw
If you still have doubts about range between these two, try this live comparison (video responce) and start shooting yourself: watch?v=R5TZsXePDzU
@antere5 correct antere but at the same time from 93-2007 bruce is 35-52 years old with xxxxxxxxxx amount of live shows and kiske from 92-99 is 22-30 with xx amount of live shows bruce is ten years older and has done so many live shows even at this stage i think its a bit unfair thats all but i understand all ur points just thought id point out this a bit. the fairest is kiske voice 88-93 bruces 81-85 for arguments sake.
@CoolDudeSki Kiske's samples go up to 2009 (not 99), making him 41 years old. I'm aware of their age difference and as I've already mentioned, I tried to make this comparison as fair as possible. The songs used here, with the exception of some samples that have 1-3 years difference, are: Bruce 1994 - Kiske 2003, B.1997 - K.2005, B.1998 - K.2009, B.1997 - K.2008, B.2000 - K.2009, B.2000 - K.2008, etc. No that bad if you ask me
By the way, you should check the video response (Live comparison)
@antere5 also lastly i got dvds at home live and have checked out many live on u tube also have live cds of his solo and trust me 80-85 beast over hammersmith children of the damned beast hills etc amazing even straight after piece of mind where eagles dare he was roid live, went down after live after death live, solo live awesome whether songs average or great he was awesome live solo cause he could do what suited his voice chemical wedding live the tower jerusalem etc live unbelievable
going by which singer is more pleasurable to listen to, in my opinion its bruce.. again i know nothing about singing techniqe etc. im going by which one i like to listen to more
I love Kiske voice but I think that Bruce have not possible rivals. Dickinson has a great voice and only with a great voice a singer could sing with Iron Maiden.
I thing that Dickinson controls better his voice as well.
Well, I guess Kiske has the 'better' voice, in that he has a wider range and such.
However, I'd listen to Bruce over Kiske anyday, I find Bruce's voice more beautiful to listen to, sounds better to my ears. It's not just all about high notes and technique, to me. Bruce sounds more powerful and the voice sounds better. But Kiske is awesome though. These are two different singers really, you should compare Kiske to Daniel Heiman (Lost Horizon, Heed) or something, they sing in a more similar way.
Yo soy un amante del Power y de Helloween , Kiske para mi es un verdadero mostro en todo sentido pero Dickinson es Dickinson , un tipo que ya esta arriba de los 50 pirulos y sigue con la voz intacta , es realmente increible.
Por favor miren el video de "Tears of the Dragon + Tribuzy" , es emocionante y la mejor performance de Bruce en ese glorioso tema.
Obviamente sos el mismo, solo una persona con mas de una veintena de cuentas obviamente, asi es que da lo mismo, lo objetivo es que Bruce es mejor que kiske y eso no lo va a cambiar nadie, los insultos de vos obviamente no son borrados ya que no van en contra de tu propio pensamiento... Como he dicho cientos de veces, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra tecnica, y ahi es claro que Bruce es mejor que kiske, es obvio y tecnicamente cierto y sin discución
@WarriorRataBlanca jaja ultimo msj, tu pensamiento es muy mediocre, eso de decir que tengo 20 cuentas, solo alguien como vos lo piensa. Lo unico que repetiste 200 veces que bruce es mejor "tecnicamente" que kiske, ahora no se a que le llamas tecnica vos ya que no hablaste de nada especifico a lo que se refiera a canto, asi que instruite un poco y despues opina
@TheDreamTheatero 50 cuentas? para que si te digo todo de esta. Queres hablar tecnicamente? copio y pego de otro video, esta en ingles pero supongo que podes con eso 1: Kiske has a broader "vocal range". 2: Kiske has better "breath support". 3: Kiske has better "sustain". 4: Kiske has much better "head voice projection". 5: Kiske has better "pitch" And 6: Kiske has better "vibrato control"
Kiske is "technically" better, ahora esto no quita que te guste mas bruce
Lo mas irrisorio es leer a este niñito de 12 años, al cual ya le he contabilizado más de 50 cuentas distintas pero es uno solo, solo lean incluso escribe de la misma forma, torpe y carente de conocimientos tecnicos en cada una de sus cuentas. Como lo dirian quienes sabemos, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra lo objetivo y la Técnica.
Sorry si te duele pero ese ya no es mi problema, pero objetivamente.
Bruce es el mejor! por lejos, más versatil y potente. Sorry!
@TheDreamTheatero si, sabes que me hize 50 cuentas, me hago pasar por chileno y yankee todo para conseguir tu aprobacion. por dios flaco, se ve que esta discusion la tenes con mucha gente por lo cabeza dura que sos
Me dan risa personajillos como "andresreiter" que es un solo personajillo que tienen que crear una veintena de cuentas para defender lo indefendible, ¿kiske mejor que Bruce? jo! sin duda lo mas chistoso que se puede leer, sobre todos para los que sabemos de tecnica y musica.
Lo mas irrisorio es leer a este niñito de 12 años, al cual ya le he contabilizado más de 50 cuentas distintas pero es uno solo, solo lean incluso escribe de la misma forma, torpe y carente de conocimientos tecnicos en cada una de sus cuentas. Como lo dirian quienes sabemos, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra lo objetivo y la Técnica.
Sorry si te duele pero ese ya no es mi problema, pero objetivamente.
Bruce es el mejor! por lejos, más versatil y potente. Sorry!
@TheDreamTheatero y vos si sabes de musica, fanboy a morir de maiden no tenes una opinion objetiva. Fui a un profesor de canto le mostre estos videos y me dijo que tecnicamente los 2 son excelente, solo que kiske tiene un poco mas de rango
Nótese qademás que tu capacidad para decir tonteras se multiplica por 2: TheDreamTheatero, que te hagas varias cuentas para decir estupieces (como si dos personas pudieran convencerte de una estupidez por el hecho de ser más). Se demuestra fácilmente por las respuestas a cada uno de tus posts (en cada una de tus cuentas): diciendo que kiske tiene menos rango que dickinson, que dickinson canta mejor que halford... etc. Comprese una vida y deje de hacerse cuentas para defender estupideces...
Una cisa es el gusto y la otra es la técnica, y tenicamenrte Bruce es mucho mejor que kiske, kiske no es mal cantante pero tienen un rango muy limitado a diferencia de Bruce ademas de poco volumen y potencia en su voz, Bruce es muy superior.
@andresreiter Kiske amplio rango?? te llamamos Andresreiter, chillar como lo hace kiske no es sinonimo de cantar mejor y menos es puro falseto como kiske, poquito dolido parece por la verdad de que Bruce es mucho que kiske jejeje
@WarriorRataBlanca Kiske? chillar?... sí, sí... ud sabe. Su sentido estético aplicado a la música, su definición de chillar.... su enorme capacidad auditiva, su definición de falsette, el poco rango de kiske... sí, sí, que maravilla. Ud sabe tanto. Debería poner una academia para niños sin tímpanos ni cadena de huecesillos... ud les enseña la verdad del canto...
PD: no, no, en serio... una cosa es que te gusta más dickinson que kiske; otra es decir tonteras.
@andresreiter se nota que nunca en tu vida has visto una corchea (sabes que es eso??) obvio que no, ya que siempre respondes pueril e infantilmente todo argumento técnico que te doy, de verdad das verguenza ajena con tus respuestas de pendejo picado, sorry pero si estas dolido es otra cosa, y definitivamente una cosa es q te masturbes con kiske y la otra es realidad objetiva de que Bruce tecnicamente es mejor, y lo es..si te duele es solo cosa de vos, pero no mi problema.
@WarriorRataBlanca si vas a insultar asi no se puede discutir con vos, es ovbio que aca el que se masturba con bruce sos vos, si te cuesta ver que los 2 son excelentes cantantes cantantes y quien es mejor es una cosa totalmente subjetiva. Ahora si vamos a hablar objetivamente los 2 son excelentes tecnicamente solo que kiske tiene mas rango, busca en cualquier lado. Ah y kiske no usa mas falseto que bruce, el que tiene que q aprender aca sos vos
@WarriorRataBlanca "Corchea?" "pueril?" "argumento tecnico?". Cualquiera diría que ibas a argumentar algo inteligente después de decir palabras "complicadas" para ti supongo, pero no. Solo tontera. Y lamentablemente te cuento que, aunque andes por ahí haciendo blowjob a Dickinson por youtube, dudo que te llame para ser su putita desde UK así que mejor desiste. Aunque te cambies de cuenta y nick... tu opinion sigue siendo minoritaria e infundada. Y sigues demostrando que no sabes de lo que hablas
@julian35584411 kiske no usa falseto??? ajajkjaajkaakakaajaj julian, mejor anda tomarte tu mamila de carne, fuera de broma sino tenes la minima nocion de musica o cero de canto al menos hace un curso basico que te puede ayudar, te llamamos Julian
Aca se la pasan analizando cuestiones tecnicas y no evaluan la evolucion de un cantante en la veriedad de generos que puede cantar, Kiske es mejor porque tuvo mucha mas evolucion, canta cualquier genero, el que le pongas en frente, sea hard rock, aor, pop, heavy clasico, tiene temas al mejor estilo coverdale.A mi criterio dickinson es muy monotono en su manera de cantar, sin mensionar que tiene una voz mas sucia
alguien dijo en un comentario ke el registro de dickinson era muy superior al de kiske. bueno esa afirmacion no puede estar mas alejada de la realidad , de hecho dickinson se maneja en un registro bastante normal dentro de los vocalistas tecnicos al contrario de kiske ke escapa a la gran mayoria
@andresreiter Que ahora postees en un tono aparentemente más "conciliatorio" para intentar demostrar que sabes, es bastante infantil, sobre todo consderando que cualquiera se da cuenta que el que esta insultando acá eres tú.
Yo tambien soy musico y cantante y obviamente tu no lo eres ya que no has dado ningún argumento tecnico que lo denote, es más solo tienes arranques emocionales fruto de algo que repito, no es cuestion de gusto.
Tu puedes decir que Hetfield o Chayanne es mejor que Bruce pero eso es solo parte de tus arranques que no tienen ninguna validez, y menos si careces de conocmiento como claramente lo demuestras con tus insultos e ignorancia. Te recomiendo estudiar aunque sea lo basico en material musical para poder opinar, y tus insultos simplemente guardalos para discuciones con niñitos de tu edad que se mojan con tonos agudos, eso no es cantar bien.
@porcupinetree777 Jajajaja... El único argumento técnico que puedo darte para el rango es que EFECTIVAMENTE tiene un rango más amplio Kiske que Dickinson. Obviamente eso no depende de argumentos: sólo de escuchar. La explicación más probable: has oído poco de Kiske. Hagamoslo fácil. Escucha la canción Shadowfights o Key to the Universe, y luego me dices en qué canción Dickinson siquiera se le acerca. Si no respondes, lo entiendo. Si lo haces, eres sordo.
When it comes down to these two its your opinion on who is better. They are both my top 2 in music in general. I'm not a fanboy i won't go with one or the other lol.
@porcupinetree777 Hello. I was forced to use a translator to understand what you are discussing about.
Why do you keep repeating that Bruce is more technical when he is clearly not? Besides the video which proves a lot; Kiske has a wider range, better breath support, better pitch, better sustain, better head voice projection, better vibrato control, etc. Bruce is just more powerful in some registers. So you better learn something about vocal technique and stop insisting and insulting others
@antere5 You're quite right. Bruce is not more technical and has no more range. That guy is just a fanatic dumbass whos saying anything to blow dickinson's dick. (Maybe he REALLY whould...). I love dickinson's voice and style, but saying he's better singer than kiske is just a noob comment. But, on the other hand, Dickinson is the best frontman in heavy metal; that's proven by the fact he technically SUCKS live, but still the shows great and you even like his performances.
@andresreiter Now wait a second, earlier he wasn't so good but how can you say Rock in Rio sucked? Every time I see Bruce he's on the money live. I agree with the rest of your points though but I have to disagree about Bruce sucking live.
@RobBradleyMusic Well... saying he fucks is of couse compared with kiske (check out unisonic new live shows on youtube... amazing). He soesnt REALLY sucks, it's just that he has never been really "top notch" alive exept on very very few records. I think his onstage energy may compensate his (probably) lack of technics when singing alive. Or maybe his age has been gradually afecting his abilities, cause in samson he was more than amazing.
@andresreiter With Bruce he had pitch issues during his first run with Maiden, over the 90s he looked into using earplugs and worked on his live performances. Rock and Rio and onward Bruce has been amazing live. I agree though, in technical ability, yeah Kiske is better, the man has a sick head range, Bruce is phenomenal but Kiske is on the level with guys like Geoff Tate.
@RobBradleyMusic and this wasnt aimed at u dude at andresreiter because all the stuff ive watched dickinson was awesome 81-85 86-till he left not as much and since his return awesome but kiske i love him too hes amazing its just it seems that this poll has begun to tell ppl why kiske smashes dickinson and i think its a bit silly
@andresreiter very few live have u gone through all of maiden have u 81-85 unbelievable live and since his return for his age unbelivable i have watched so much live stuff i dont agree at all.
@andresreiter when it comes to god like singers only are god like for a while halford kiske say ten years but bruce too was god like 80-85 its just his god like era was shorter. from 80-85 he was amazing 86-93 only good, solo live amazing and maiden return amazing obvioulsy hard to sing old ones awesome but he sings new songs and solo when solo awesome live the whole live bad was only 86-93. also kiske is in better shape now agreed but i think dickinson is as well only high notes old songs hard
@andresreiter also with bruce i believe he sounds better than m ost singers of old days now (tate even halford i think has gone down due to lung problem) i really think its blown a bit of of proportion with bruce i think it was only his voice live from 86-93 that let him down but everythiung before after with maiden and solo awesome. my view. bruce gun energy live we know that but for ppl to say (not saying u did) his voice sucks live are dumb, it was only the mid patch not before or after.
@andresreiter check out scream for me brazil 98 i think and alive in studio a 95 i think, also beast over hammersmith 81 i think any samson live on net live at reading i think any piecve of mind live 82-83 all AWESOME. even though live voice different 81 to say 98 but my awesome rating goes to how good live is studio to live in accuracy in other words how close its studio to live (for example no prayer live or fear of the dark live was average) but number of the beast of chemical wedding awesome
its funny how singers can be great good ok over different periods but with bruce its not like many singers live where they go best to worst straight line gradually. with bruce its best, worst, very good his bad patch or baddest patch isnt his current it was his middle my view again of course.anything new thats done as in brave new world on live he does awesome. old stuff now is obviously hard for all. but songs like ghost of navigator paschendale etc live awesome.
@RobBradleyMusic ur 1000 per cent right he never sucked live he was amazing 80-85 i have dvds at home hes AMAZING then 86-93 he went down hard but still good, since then his solo stuff live and maiden (so say from 97 on) has been awesome.
@antere5 explain this if u insist he is better in so many areas educate us like go through what breath support is and how kiske is better than bruce go through better pitch and how kiske is better explain it all if ur so good at knowing vocals (not being a smart ass actually asking), and also how about this for some thought sometimes the voice just sounds better even if technically according to proper vocals and textbooks its not like kiske may win 10 areas bruce 3 but how about the voice itself
@CoolDudeSki Check your private messages, I've replied to you in detail.
By the way, no one stated that you can't prefer a voice which is not as technical. You might prefer the tone and colour of a certain voice and that's perfectly understandable, tastes differ. But please don't state that this or that singer is more technical than the other when things are pretty clear when you hear them next to eachother.
son dos grandes cantantes y para mi las mejores voces del metal junto a dos o tres mas
personalmente prefiero a bruce, soy muy fan suya y por supuesto de maiden que para mi son lo mas grande del metal pero tambien me encantaba helloween hasta que se fue kiske
estos dos junto a freddie mercury son los unicos cantantes que logran estremecerme cada vez que los escucho!
not taking any maiden into consideration (they're not even my favourite band), i really truly think bruce takes it. kiske has IMPECCABLE technique. it's kinda scary. technically, kiske takes it. but if i take into consideration the things that I find important in a singer, which is power, uniqueness, phrasing, all the subjective crap, bruce wins (although uniqueness isn't as subjective seeing as kiske sounds exactly like tate to me).
and it blows my brains that the '90s is bruce's worst period.
Puros comentarios estúpidos... en general, Kiske tiene una voz más linda y Dickinson una voz con mas poder. Pero todo lo demás que se diga son apreciaciones personales. Y por favor entrenen un poco el oido, he leido nombres como Sammet o Leone... debieran saber que esos son hijos del arreglo en estudio (y aun asi suenan pesimo). Ah... y en vivo Kiske demuestra que tiene más técnica -suena MUCHO mejor- pero Dickinson mestra toda su energía -mejor frontman-
@andresreiter mmm la verad eso es relativo tambien..la verdad es que tienes razon que Bruce es mil veces mejor frontman, pero tecnicamente tambien es mejor Bruce, tiene mas rango y potencia, kiske es otro estilo si mas debil, pero tecnicamente es mejor Bruce
@TheDreamTheatero mmm a ver... si por técnica quieres decir rango, estas equivocado. Si por rango quieres decir amplitud de notas que puede producir con voz de pecho y voice-head (sin contar fried, falsette o whistle), también te equivocas (simplemente toma un órgano y verás que Kiske tiene un rango como poco; Dickinson tiene BASTANTE menor rango -me atrevería a decir una octava menos). Lo de la potencia, de acuerdo, la voz de bruce es mucho más potente.
This has been flagged as spam show
TOMORROW'S OUTLOOK - 34613 - Digipack CD - Featuring Michael Kiske (EX Helloween/UNISONIC) and Graham Bonnet (Alcatrazz/MSG/Rainbow). Released soon on Battlegod Productions.
TomorrowsOutlook 2 weeks ago
watch?v=Rcw-J2QQjDo
Bruce is the best. NO ONE is better, if you compare some young kid to him, and his prior years you better buy new ears. And pop-star to Metal god? your comparisions are totally out of ass
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird Hardcore Iron Maiden fan I suppose. Why do you feel the need to insult? Did you try to prove something with the video link?
Here is 1 range video for Kiske: watch?v=xBy2IVGjKXY and 1 for Freddie Mercury: watch?v=R5vTjdOTMGE. As you can see both have almost the same range as Bruce! Now try Geoff Tate who can also go lower than Bruce (B1)! According to your logic Freddie & Michael are on the same level and Tate is the best!
Bruce is amazing but surely not the best vocalist!
antere5 3 weeks ago
@antere5 For me Bruce is one of the best vocalist but not the best, have you ever listen Daniel Heiman??? , he has more range that Dickinson, but not for that he is better vocalist!. For me the best vocalist ever is Freddie Mercury.
Here a video of Daniel Heiman watch?v=lu0D1TFWB2U&feature=related , listen to him and then tell me what do u think about his vocal range.
VictimFate 3 weeks ago
@VictimFate I agree. I know Heiman, he is a very good vocalist with great technique. Unfortunately I don't like Lost Horizon that much. He is a tenor, his range is wide as he can reach higher notes than both Dickinson & Kiske but he looses in the lower range department. I totally agree about Mercury, a very complete and versatile singer and live performer!
antere5 3 weeks ago
@antere5
Have you even seen Iron Maiden live? Have you seen Samson live? Have you ever seen Dickinson solo band live? There's no arguing, maybe Halford could stand up, but no Kiske. Bruce by the way have more high notes, including Falsettos (Quest For Fire - good one) which you must've missed, otherwise you wouldn't write so. And im not only about vocal, but whole live. If vocalist for you exist only from singing then congratulations. And it's about dickinson - kiske. don't involve anyone else
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird Yes I have seen Maiden twice the last time was in 2007. The second show was pretty bad, Bruce's voice has declined in the past few years and it is evident. It's true that Bruce can reach higher notes in falsetto, but Quest Of Fire is just an E5 a note Kiske hits all the time in full voice. Kiske is nowadays in a much better vocal state. He sounds effortless & hits full voice high notes even live: watch?v=rXSFdxM2NBk. Bruce is one of the best front-men I agree but not singers!
antere5 3 weeks ago
@antere5
If you not agree with singers then we agree you're deaf :) Bruce is 10 years older. in 2001... Rock In Rio, BEST ALIVE DVD ever made, you're comparing nowadays Kiske to Rock In Rio Bruce? awesome. on RIR he sang perfectly (even Remember Tomorrow in 2005, lol) including horror scream. including 2008 Aces High, latest high graspy well hitted too. You think Kiske would reach NOw and 9 years later March Of Time or Ride The Sky (dusseldorf) ? I think we would not.
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird By this comment do you suggest that Bruce sings as good as he did in the 80's? Firstly Bruce has improved his mid & lower range singing but has become weaker in the higher staff since the 90's. Secondly Rock In Rio was a great concert & Bruce did very good on vocals, BUT he used tons of falsetto for his screams (which were not powerful). Thirdly even in the old days Bruce skipped many high notes live, while Kiske was always the better live singer: watch?v=R5TZsXePDzU
mpaoxi 3 weeks ago
@mpaoxi
Bruce is singing al ittle bit lower but still very damn good, and can go really high. Aces High on somewhere back in time tour was definitely head voice, it wouldn't have so much power as falsetto, also its not the only song. Kiske didn't performed so much, and we have no comparison actually. You can pick few gigs of Kiske, and hundrers of Bruce. Comparing that way it's obviously won for Kiske, but to put BEST ones who knows?
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird Bruce sings good, but he uses falsetto for all his screams and his head & chest voice sounds strained (forced). Falsetto usually sounds thin and not as powerful compared to full voice, that's how you can spot it. I agree we have to give Kiske 1 or 2 years of live performances to compare objectively. Anyways, Michael was always the more technical vocalist and sang greatly live. On the other hand, Bruce is older and has toured extensively for all these years.
mpaoxi 3 weeks ago
@mpaoxi
That's why its hard to pick best of best, cause he toured his ass off really strong. But just check f.e 2005 Tribuzy + Dickinson - Tears Of The Dragon. rested, only two songs for him on the show and... its great. He had worse periods, he had better. If he wouldn't strain himself so hard I'm sure he would sound on every concert as good as Kiske or even better
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@antere5
Saw him doing gig with Avantasia (dying for an angel) it's just a shade of someone who were a great vocalist, but now... nothing. And singing...Bruce is much better showman, much better songwriter, and not much-but little better vocalist.
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird Dying for an angel was kind of screwed up by everyone, but what about Kiske's performance on Reach out for the light: watch?v=8GYAz7U9a2w (the part at 3:49)? He also performs Future World & I Want Out greatly live today. As for Bruce's songwriting, even on his best solo albums Accident Of Birth & Chemical Wedding all songs were co-written by RoyZ or Smith. Bruce is one of the best front men ever, a great entertainer, but Kiske & several others are technically better singers!
mpaoxi 3 weeks ago
@mpaoxi
Future World and I Want Out is song that has been eaten by time and Deris and Kai (Kai version kicks somewhat-ass, have the POWER). watch?v=COvCPJGjaiE around 5:00 and whole song. Damn this is kept up perfectly and its 2008... he turned out 50 that time! and on 3:49 Tobias is screaming. in Avantasia Kiske didn't showed any good, and his solo works... are kinda pop. with Somerville is same-old same-old nothing good technically. and Bruce is still kicking ass, same as Halford - 61 years!!
OathBird 3 weeks ago
@OathBird While The Trooper and The Number Of The Beast have not been eaten by time? The Aces High scream is falsetto 100% as it sounds thin and not powerful. The same goes for the screams on Run To The Hills, Number and Rime from the same DVD. Sorry the 3:49 was a mistake, I meant Kiske's screams at 1:06 & 2:01 (watch?v=8GYAz7U9a2w). Kiske's Avantasia staff: watch?v=JRmfjBDKCpE and his solo album Past In Different Ways: watch?v=Qe3u3ofKghM feature technically outstanding vocals!
mpaoxi 3 weeks ago
both are amazing but Michael is younger, obviusly has a better greater voice, Bruce is much older, and he still has his voice, Bruce is better, do not compare a kid (apprentice) with the Master...
korlikhetfield 1 month ago
The two are fantastics!!!!
Daylight47 2 months ago
bruce is one of the best of course,but kiske is the best singer,he can sing whatever he wants even pop music
jjairojj 3 months ago
Bruce Rules of course!!!!!
avimaiden 3 months ago
bruce best vocalist ever no doubt! and no comparison
JasonYes2222 3 months ago
wow!fantastic arguments going on here. nice to see people crunching on the same interest.. I am a big fan of both singers, both hectic live performers and they are the king of the power melodic metal vocals in their own league. When Bruce left the band I was so sad but when Kiske came up from the audition, I was very surprised and excited with the idea. I uploaded some of my vocal covers from both singers, find them in my channel. Soon find my Maiden tribute band's live footage.Rock you later;)
KingOzXVII 4 months ago
Aquí tienen 2 videos extraídos de youtube en donde Dickinson NO PUEDE cantar como en estudio, o sea, da un pobre espectáculo en Vivo:
- Iron Maiden - Caught Somewhere In Time (Live '86)
- Iron Maiden-1.Intro-Caught Somewhere In Time(Sheffield 1986)
Dickinson tiene ayudas de puras computadoras, KISKE canta a capella...
Sáquense el fanatismo por Iron Maiden para analizar a ambos cantantes.
KISKE es el rey del Heavy Metal.
aacugna8 4 months ago
Both have very good voices but I like Bruce's songs better.
144church 4 months ago
Kiske and uses very good ... but Falset, his voice is very sickly ... Bruce has a different voice ... and that only a powerful vocalist who is many years in the Iron Maiden might have ... Bruce is the best vocal in the history of Heavy Metal! no doubt!
cesar2753 4 months ago
I think the fact of Michael to be always change your trajetory, reflect the maturation of his talent! I luv the two, but I always remember of Michael for my influences!
ClebianaMorais 4 months ago
They are both great singers, I like them both equally.
ECWExtremeist 4 months ago
I prefer Kiske's voice and vibrato..but this is just my tastes...I'm a fan of Bruce too !
However I prefer André Matos and Michele Luppi to both of them ^^
JulienR01 5 months ago
Bruce is a good singer but Kiske is excellent one, not only because of much bigger range of voice.
Danulinda1 5 months ago
do i remember a life
ikkaku01 5 months ago
the sign of the timeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!!!!!!!!
epic!
TheJourneyman87 5 months ago
Kiske tone of voice is just annoying. He can reach very high notes because he makes his voice very light and use a lot "falsettone", so the quality of his voice is just inaceptable. Bruce dickinson voice is obviously getting darker and he's losing agility, but he sounds like a man. Just compare the old recordings. Bruce dickinson was the best (and he's still better), and kiske was like nails on a blackboard.
JazzyGiord 5 months ago
@JazzyGiord Nah, Kiske isn't a pain to listen to, but Kai Hansen is still better.
TheThrashScorpion 5 months ago
Bruce rules...... That's obvious and no need to say more!!!
avimaiden 5 months ago
epic! :D
Basskingdom 5 months ago
Kiske wons.
schieese 6 months ago
You guys can't compare Kiske and Bruce! Kiske have the most clean voice yeah and Bruce is like the devil! They sing totally awesome both of them.. Can't compare those guys! both are gods of metal!
drummerkingdom 6 months ago
@drummerkingdom i totally agree with you.They are 2 of the legendary gods of Metal
aklp08 5 months ago
Shit comparison baby....why to compare two great vocals from two different bands??....two diferent bands have diferent voices.....put kiske in maiden and bruce in helloween and you will win the same shit.....my answer.....bruce and michael are both in nr. 1 in this challange
iojibox 7 months ago
Bruce Dickinson > ALL
andrepimentashadow 7 months ago
There is not comparison, Michael Kiske is better than Bruce, He is the best.
S1LVERHELL 8 months ago
michael kiske has a clearer voice than bruce dickinson.. dickinson has a perfect voice for heavy metal.. kiske has a perferct voice for power metal.. The End
TheOhyeahomg 8 months ago
kiske is better then dickenson anyday any age and kiske era helloween is way better then iron maiden bamm that just happened
momtymes2 8 months ago
Bruce is great. Michael is great too. I don't give a shit who' better...
jarodrigues 8 months ago
Kiske is better, crystal voice and much range and I prefer the sound of is voice.
RuiCarinhoso 8 months ago
KISKE IS GOD
ikkaku01 8 months ago
I prefer Michael, as a crystal voice and good nuances.
RuiCarinhoso 9 months ago
Higher notes don't define better voice!
And if we analyze more carefully Kiske's voice in the middle range, we can find serious tonality deviations. Anyway the hiher notes sounds very clear...
I guess Bruce is better per total.
But there are many other better vocalists...
grizzlyfeather 9 months ago
CLEAN VOCALS RULEZ!!!!!!!!
ma8740 9 months ago
KISKE!! i think kiske is better...
ZombStarcraft 9 months ago
An excelent heavy metal singer is much more than "high notes". And that is something that many metal fans doesn't understand.
I mean, with the criteria of "the one who reaches higher notes is the best", I'm sure the best singer could be my 3 years old niece.
Kiske sings nice, but he has the voice of a girl.
Bruce Dickinson is the best by far (Along with Rob Halford).
That's my opinion::.
mgf621 10 months ago
@mgf621 LOL , stop drugs
ikkaku01 8 months ago
Bruce is better.
The fact that Kiske reaches higher notes than Dickinson doesn't make him better. Actually, I really don't know if he reaches higher notes, he just uses his falsetto more often than Bruce.
But Kiske's voice is so clean and tidy that gets me bored.
Dickinson has the devil inside his throat for basses, mid and highs.
Also, Bruce's voice can fit in much more styles of music than Michael's voice.
For all of this, Bruce is not only better, but the best of all metal singers.
mgf621 10 months ago
they dont sound that much the same, but i guess i can see some of the similarities.
chillthorn 10 months ago
Bruce voice is all the time better, then michael kiske voice
peerukott123456789 11 months ago
michael kise sucks,,he cannot even wright songs,,kai hansen is mastermind behin thos famoue songs like kepper of seven keys,,who shoult sing himself,,bruce dikinson is in antoher legue tha hellwoenn sorry gus,,
MrDrumclown 11 months ago
@MrDrumclown This is a "vocal" comparison, not a "songwriter" comparison...Steve Harris is the mastermind behind songs like Hallowed Be Thy Name, Where Eagles Dare, Rime... and Fear Of The Dark. By the way, Michael Weikath wrote Keeper Of The Seven Keys not Hansen. Kiske's We Got The Right is very good. Besides the tracks Revelations and Powerslave, Dickinson wasn't much of a songwriter either. So according to you both Michael and Bruce sucked as they weren't the best songwriters in their bands.
mpaoxi 11 months ago
kiske
Gothicmaster100 11 months ago
kiske god!
zdraloviocnjaci 11 months ago
No way to compare this two monsters... they com from different schools and different styles.... we´d better enjoy them both rather than compare them.... always the everlasting comparisons: Romeo Vs Malmsteen, Dickinson Vs Kiske, Petrucci Vs Vai bla bla bla.. enjoy music and its diversity and stop comparisons...
elvenpathable 11 months ago
Yep, this is the moment when Bruce will have to step aside & give the flag to the better vocalist as him - Michael Kiske!
DomentorTheOnlyTrue 1 year ago
Bruce is more fucking old man!! i think he wins ! he has alot of power on stage h
how can you dare to campare the great bruce god dude??
no bullshit here with 52 years he can still sing very high and better than kiske
i repeat
KISKE IS YOUNGER AND BRUECE SING BETTER
TheReaper2631 1 year ago
what i tired to say was .. bruce can take it from the top of his lunge but kiske will reach a tone way higher
021Sweden 1 year ago
i think kiske is the better one, dont get me wrong !! i grew up on maiden and to me theyre a religion BUT i also shared time listening to helloween .. and i think kiske the better vocalist .. bruce never keep it at high notes .. kise does
021Sweden 1 year ago
im not knocking bruce down .. HES AN AMAZING vocalist but i think bruce falls short to my second fave band, i think michael kiske is the one with the better range
021Sweden 1 year ago
Bruce sounds a lot like Kiske on Man Of Sorrows when he sings "you left without a trace".
Bamananatic 1 year ago
KISKE IS THE BETTER
MkEngel18 1 year ago
i can here alot more effects on kiske and bruce hits notes in what only be described as hammering air through his wind pipe. really enjoy metal but i had to stop singing like that when i found out what it was doing to my voice. but i could be a jackass
ABC262524 1 year ago
i think bruce has more interesting voice than kiske, but kiske is great too
HeALthMaIdEn 1 year ago
Dickinson is awesome..a true legend!!..but Kiske is the best metal vocalist ever...!!!
aceking79FuckMclaren 1 year ago
Kiske wins this one. His live or whatever singining never sounds like he had to force it so hard. Both are great of course. Bruce has a little bit more mean voice though...
SpectralUltra 1 year ago
Both are the bests metal vocalists of all time!!
nicrouss 1 year ago
Vocal Range
MIchael Kiske: C#2 to A5 (3.5 octaves)
Bruce Dickinson C#2 to B5 (4 octaves)
FinalFrontier321 1 year ago
@FinalFrontier321 Dickinson's normal (full voice) range is C#2-F#5. The B5 you mention is in falsetto (fake voice).
antereiiii 1 year ago
TANTO QUE LLORAN...LO QUE SE PONE EN DEBATE AQUI ES LA CALIDAD VOCAL Y YO NOSE SI SON SORDOS QUE.....KISKE CANTA MUCHO MEJOR...EN LA ACTUALIDAD SIGUE MEJORANDO....BRUCE CADA VEZ TIENE MENOS PULMON...!
canibalstrike 1 year ago
Comment removed
ikkaku01 1 year ago
Bruce Dickinson can only get the really high notes with falsettos, Michael Kiskes actual range is wider than Bruce's. I like them both but Kiske is just better technically - whose voice you prefer is entirely subjective.
cobhc987654321 1 year ago
I like very much kiske, but Bruce Dickinson is a legend, a man who can do anything on stage...
When he sings with Iron Maiden live in front of thousands people, he is not a man, he is God of Heavy Metal ! he moves like a god ...
one of the best entertainer ever! after Freddie Mercury in RockMusic!
Up the irons!
if Kiske was be together with Helloween , now the comparison would be different! maybe.
AngelDrumStar 1 year ago
credo sia davvero difficile stabilire chi sia il più bravo ma in maniera saggia direi che sono equivalenti per tante ragioni che non spiego ma semplicemente alcune cose che possono mancare a bruce le possiede michael e viceversa! Mi sento di dire solo che col tempo la voce di bruce è sempre più bella da ascoltare
triwiring 1 year ago
@triwiring Sono due cantanti di cui ci si innamora... sono d'accordo con quasi tutto quello che hai scritto... Fondamentalmente la voce di Bruce ha preso (e non subìto sia chiaro) il tributo degli anni, la rende piu rock... quella di kiske mi pare sia diventata leggerissimamente piu sabbiosa che a mio vedere le da carattere. insomma entrambi invecchiano e restano grandi- non so dire chi mi piaccia di piu davvero, anche se sono piu legato a Bruce. L unica diff Imo; Kiske sforza meno gli acuti.
MaguSdelFiasco 1 year ago
hacer una comparacion entre estos don cantantes es una estupides... porque ambos son supremamente grandes y con un estilo propio, ambos son dignos de respeto son especiales cada uno a su modo.
ignizsteel 1 year ago
Its amazing, how you Show Bruce voice while he is Old, and Michael Kiske while he is young....and compairing the 2....
Show some Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind albuns....
And, for your information Bruce is more than a simple vocal...He was given the nickname "The Air Raid Siren" cause of his 8s, he doesnt sing always liek he has been hitted in the nuts... he can sing lower 8s asweall.. if u dont know what are 8s..then dont even comment about vocals.. or compair
PTGoncalo 1 year ago
@PTGoncalo It's amazing that you didn't even read the title of the video, this is comparison "2"! The vocals included here are from Bruce's 1993-2007 period, while Kiske's are from 1992-2009! The only young samples from Kiske are 1 from 1992 and 1 from 1996 what are you complayning about?
For Number of the Beast and Piece of Mind samples check comparison "1", the first part of this video which focuses on the early years of both singers. Additionally learn to read...
By 8s you mean octaves, wow
antere5 1 year ago
@antere5
"By 8s you mean octaves, wow."
Nice, and what octaves mean? then go and check Kiske octaves...and bruce Octaves...then grab a gun... say good bye to the world..and shoot your Kiske faction brain that I already saw you have... let me guess Your vote goes to Kiske right? How in the world I guessed that?
PTGoncalo 1 year ago
@PTGoncalo If you are implying that Bruce has a wider vocal range (more octaves) than Kiske, it is you who has to shoot your brain...Even on this video Michael goes both lower and higher than Bruce and these are not his limits either. Try this song for a nice display of range from Kiske (1:22+2:24): watch?v=bNn82xpCFMw
If you still have doubts about range between these two, try this live comparison (video responce) and start shooting yourself: watch?v=R5TZsXePDzU
Both are amazing by the way
apati80 1 year ago
@antere5 correct antere but at the same time from 93-2007 bruce is 35-52 years old with xxxxxxxxxx amount of live shows and kiske from 92-99 is 22-30 with xx amount of live shows bruce is ten years older and has done so many live shows even at this stage i think its a bit unfair thats all but i understand all ur points just thought id point out this a bit. the fairest is kiske voice 88-93 bruces 81-85 for arguments sake.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@CoolDudeSki Kiske's samples go up to 2009 (not 99), making him 41 years old. I'm aware of their age difference and as I've already mentioned, I tried to make this comparison as fair as possible. The songs used here, with the exception of some samples that have 1-3 years difference, are: Bruce 1994 - Kiske 2003, B.1997 - K.2005, B.1998 - K.2009, B.1997 - K.2008, B.2000 - K.2009, B.2000 - K.2008, etc. No that bad if you ask me
By the way, you should check the video response (Live comparison)
antere5 1 year ago
@antere5 also lastly i got dvds at home live and have checked out many live on u tube also have live cds of his solo and trust me 80-85 beast over hammersmith children of the damned beast hills etc amazing even straight after piece of mind where eagles dare he was roid live, went down after live after death live, solo live awesome whether songs average or great he was awesome live solo cause he could do what suited his voice chemical wedding live the tower jerusalem etc live unbelievable
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@PTGoncalo yes master
brokenfronthead 1 year ago
@PTGoncalo stop crying Maiden fan....admit the defeat.
you are being pathetic...
DomentorTheOnlyTrue 1 year ago
kiske vince facile facile!!!
kiskealessandro 1 year ago
KISKE is just the best
qjtemikureca 1 year ago
Kiske is #1!
Ventilatingyes 1 year ago
Bruce Bruce Bruce Bruce!
Sk8tboard123 1 year ago
You cant compare singers! they all have their differences
imacperc 1 year ago
KISKE!! hes not as famous as bruce thats way many people choose bruce but kiske is a BEAST!!!
Wiru77 1 year ago
the voice from kiske is great for power metal...
but bruce has the best voice aorund the world in heavy metal
andgirom 1 year ago
going by which singer is more pleasurable to listen to, in my opinion its bruce.. again i know nothing about singing techniqe etc. im going by which one i like to listen to more
Rhoads5995 1 year ago
BRUCE because his unique...... no one like him....
kiske has amazing voice but he never will sing like bruce songs like hallowed be thy name....
maidenfans 1 year ago
i think you are a band of fulls and i dont give a shit to what you say
this two were, are and will be forever in the top of the best singuers in world.
like it or not comparing kotipelto,khan and cooper with this two is like comparing shit with gold.... this guys make the 80s heavy metal history
SuperAresius 1 year ago
kiske all the way
Jesse19912 1 year ago
Kiske....
xbatak 1 year ago
Kiske wins.
schieese 1 year ago
Bruce of course, no competition and technically way better tha kiske
Deep33Purple 1 year ago
@Deep33Purple kkkkkkk
schieese 1 year ago
I love Kiske voice but I think that Bruce have not possible rivals. Dickinson has a great voice and only with a great voice a singer could sing with Iron Maiden.
I thing that Dickinson controls better his voice as well.
Up the Irons!!
FireBelow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absolutly not
Bruce and Geoff are amazing and so much better than kiske.
1) Bruce
2) Tate
3) Eric Adams
Deep33Purple 1 year ago
Kiske = GOD :D
SuperLunnis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bruce kicks kiske's ass
definetely Bruce Destroy kiske`s voice.
RealRockerMan 1 year ago
KISKE!!!!!
backovicm 1 year ago
Kiske Win!
Grinderblack 1 year ago
Well, I guess Kiske has the 'better' voice, in that he has a wider range and such.
However, I'd listen to Bruce over Kiske anyday, I find Bruce's voice more beautiful to listen to, sounds better to my ears. It's not just all about high notes and technique, to me. Bruce sounds more powerful and the voice sounds better. But Kiske is awesome though. These are two different singers really, you should compare Kiske to Daniel Heiman (Lost Horizon, Heed) or something, they sing in a more similar way.
Vindrutetorkaren 1 year ago
kiske rulez!!!!!!!!
82818281 1 year ago
Kiske kicks Dickinson's ass
LSDisease 1 year ago
Yo soy un amante del Power y de Helloween , Kiske para mi es un verdadero mostro en todo sentido pero Dickinson es Dickinson , un tipo que ya esta arriba de los 50 pirulos y sigue con la voz intacta , es realmente increible.
Por favor miren el video de "Tears of the Dragon + Tribuzy" , es emocionante y la mejor performance de Bruce en ese glorioso tema.
Bru878 1 year ago
Obviamente sos el mismo, solo una persona con mas de una veintena de cuentas obviamente, asi es que da lo mismo, lo objetivo es que Bruce es mejor que kiske y eso no lo va a cambiar nadie, los insultos de vos obviamente no son borrados ya que no van en contra de tu propio pensamiento... Como he dicho cientos de veces, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra tecnica, y ahi es claro que Bruce es mejor que kiske, es obvio y tecnicamente cierto y sin discución
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca jaja ultimo msj, tu pensamiento es muy mediocre, eso de decir que tengo 20 cuentas, solo alguien como vos lo piensa. Lo unico que repetiste 200 veces que bruce es mejor "tecnicamente" que kiske, ahora no se a que le llamas tecnica vos ya que no hablaste de nada especifico a lo que se refiera a canto, asi que instruite un poco y despues opina
julian35584411 1 year ago
@TheDreamTheatero te eliminan los cometarios por no saber escribir me parece, o lo borre yo porque tambien soy yo el que sube los videos?
julian35584411 1 year ago
@TheDreamTheatero 50 cuentas? para que si te digo todo de esta. Queres hablar tecnicamente? copio y pego de otro video, esta en ingles pero supongo que podes con eso 1: Kiske has a broader "vocal range". 2: Kiske has better "breath support". 3: Kiske has better "sustain". 4: Kiske has much better "head voice projection". 5: Kiske has better "pitch" And 6: Kiske has better "vibrato control"
Kiske is "technically" better, ahora esto no quita que te guste mas bruce
julian35584411 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lo mas irrisorio es leer a este niñito de 12 años, al cual ya le he contabilizado más de 50 cuentas distintas pero es uno solo, solo lean incluso escribe de la misma forma, torpe y carente de conocimientos tecnicos en cada una de sus cuentas. Como lo dirian quienes sabemos, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra lo objetivo y la Técnica.
Sorry si te duele pero ese ya no es mi problema, pero objetivamente.
Bruce es el mejor! por lejos, más versatil y potente. Sorry!
TheDreamTheatero 1 year ago
@TheDreamTheatero si, sabes que me hize 50 cuentas, me hago pasar por chileno y yankee todo para conseguir tu aprobacion. por dios flaco, se ve que esta discusion la tenes con mucha gente por lo cabeza dura que sos
julian35584411 1 year ago
Me dan risa personajillos como "andresreiter" que es un solo personajillo que tienen que crear una veintena de cuentas para defender lo indefendible, ¿kiske mejor que Bruce? jo! sin duda lo mas chistoso que se puede leer, sobre todos para los que sabemos de tecnica y musica.
TheDreamTheatero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lo mas irrisorio es leer a este niñito de 12 años, al cual ya le he contabilizado más de 50 cuentas distintas pero es uno solo, solo lean incluso escribe de la misma forma, torpe y carente de conocimientos tecnicos en cada una de sus cuentas. Como lo dirian quienes sabemos, una cosa es el gusto personal y la otra lo objetivo y la Técnica.
Sorry si te duele pero ese ya no es mi problema, pero objetivamente.
Bruce es el mejor! por lejos, más versatil y potente. Sorry!
TheDreamTheatero 1 year ago
@TheDreamTheatero y vos si sabes de musica, fanboy a morir de maiden no tenes una opinion objetiva. Fui a un profesor de canto le mostre estos videos y me dijo que tecnicamente los 2 son excelente, solo que kiske tiene un poco mas de rango
julian35584411 1 year ago
Nótese qademás que tu capacidad para decir tonteras se multiplica por 2: TheDreamTheatero, que te hagas varias cuentas para decir estupieces (como si dos personas pudieran convencerte de una estupidez por el hecho de ser más). Se demuestra fácilmente por las respuestas a cada uno de tus posts (en cada una de tus cuentas): diciendo que kiske tiene menos rango que dickinson, que dickinson canta mejor que halford... etc. Comprese una vida y deje de hacerse cuentas para defender estupideces...
andresreiter 1 year ago
it's not a matter of tastes
Technically Bruce is way better than kiske.Bruce have more range and power.
andresreiter: sorry if it hurts but its tru and no matter of tastes, sorry, bye.
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
Una cisa es el gusto y la otra es la técnica, y tenicamenrte Bruce es mucho mejor que kiske, kiske no es mal cantante pero tienen un rango muy limitado a diferencia de Bruce ademas de poco volumen y potencia en su voz, Bruce es muy superior.
Technically Bruce is far better.
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca Kiske? rango limitado? Si... tu sabes jajaja... te haremos caso ;-)
andresreiter 1 year ago
@andresreiter Kiske amplio rango?? te llamamos Andresreiter, chillar como lo hace kiske no es sinonimo de cantar mejor y menos es puro falseto como kiske, poquito dolido parece por la verdad de que Bruce es mucho que kiske jejeje
Technicaly Bruce is way better.
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca Kiske? chillar?... sí, sí... ud sabe. Su sentido estético aplicado a la música, su definición de chillar.... su enorme capacidad auditiva, su definición de falsette, el poco rango de kiske... sí, sí, que maravilla. Ud sabe tanto. Debería poner una academia para niños sin tímpanos ni cadena de huecesillos... ud les enseña la verdad del canto...
PD: no, no, en serio... una cosa es que te gusta más dickinson que kiske; otra es decir tonteras.
andresreiter 1 year ago
@andresreiter se nota que nunca en tu vida has visto una corchea (sabes que es eso??) obvio que no, ya que siempre respondes pueril e infantilmente todo argumento técnico que te doy, de verdad das verguenza ajena con tus respuestas de pendejo picado, sorry pero si estas dolido es otra cosa, y definitivamente una cosa es q te masturbes con kiske y la otra es realidad objetiva de que Bruce tecnicamente es mejor, y lo es..si te duele es solo cosa de vos, pero no mi problema.
Bruce the Best!
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca si vas a insultar asi no se puede discutir con vos, es ovbio que aca el que se masturba con bruce sos vos, si te cuesta ver que los 2 son excelentes cantantes cantantes y quien es mejor es una cosa totalmente subjetiva. Ahora si vamos a hablar objetivamente los 2 son excelentes tecnicamente solo que kiske tiene mas rango, busca en cualquier lado. Ah y kiske no usa mas falseto que bruce, el que tiene que q aprender aca sos vos
julian35584411 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca "Corchea?" "pueril?" "argumento tecnico?". Cualquiera diría que ibas a argumentar algo inteligente después de decir palabras "complicadas" para ti supongo, pero no. Solo tontera. Y lamentablemente te cuento que, aunque andes por ahí haciendo blowjob a Dickinson por youtube, dudo que te llame para ser su putita desde UK así que mejor desiste. Aunque te cambies de cuenta y nick... tu opinion sigue siendo minoritaria e infundada. Y sigues demostrando que no sabes de lo que hablas
andresreiter 1 year ago
@WarriorRataBlanca falseto kiske? jajajaja, ya esta flaco, no opines si no sabes de canto
julian35584411 1 year ago
@julian35584411 kiske no usa falseto??? ajajkjaajkaakakaajaj julian, mejor anda tomarte tu mamila de carne, fuera de broma sino tenes la minima nocion de musica o cero de canto al menos hace un curso basico que te puede ayudar, te llamamos Julian
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
Comment removed
heyho64 1 year ago
DIO is the God and these guys are his right and left hand.
R.I.P Ronnie James
aceking79FuckMclaren 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bruce of course is better, Bruce is more technical and he has more range, sing like a histeric and falseto is not sing good.
Bruce way better :)
WarriorRataBlanca 1 year ago
Bruce 10/10
Michael 11/10
ikkaku01 1 year ago
kiske :)
SmashButcher 1 year ago
Aca se la pasan analizando cuestiones tecnicas y no evaluan la evolucion de un cantante en la veriedad de generos que puede cantar, Kiske es mejor porque tuvo mucha mas evolucion, canta cualquier genero, el que le pongas en frente, sea hard rock, aor, pop, heavy clasico, tiene temas al mejor estilo coverdale.A mi criterio dickinson es muy monotono en su manera de cantar, sin mensionar que tiene una voz mas sucia
horacioi75 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
kiske es superior tecnicamente a dickinson el ke diga lo contrario no sabe . ke te guste uno mas ke otro es arina de otro saco
ELEMPALADORASO 1 year ago
kiske es tecnicamente superior a dikinson y el ke diga lo contrario no sabe . ke te guste uno mas ke otro es arina de otro costal.
ELEMPALADORASO 1 year ago
alguien dijo en un comentario ke el registro de dickinson era muy superior al de kiske. bueno esa afirmacion no puede estar mas alejada de la realidad , de hecho dickinson se maneja en un registro bastante normal dentro de los vocalistas tecnicos al contrario de kiske ke escapa a la gran mayoria
ELEMPALADORASO 1 year ago
@andresreiter Que ahora postees en un tono aparentemente más "conciliatorio" para intentar demostrar que sabes, es bastante infantil, sobre todo consderando que cualquiera se da cuenta que el que esta insultando acá eres tú.
Yo tambien soy musico y cantante y obviamente tu no lo eres ya que no has dado ningún argumento tecnico que lo denote, es más solo tienes arranques emocionales fruto de algo que repito, no es cuestion de gusto.
porcupinetree777 1 year ago
Tu puedes decir que Hetfield o Chayanne es mejor que Bruce pero eso es solo parte de tus arranques que no tienen ninguna validez, y menos si careces de conocmiento como claramente lo demuestras con tus insultos e ignorancia. Te recomiendo estudiar aunque sea lo basico en material musical para poder opinar, y tus insultos simplemente guardalos para discuciones con niñitos de tu edad que se mojan con tonos agudos, eso no es cantar bien.
Bruce esta a otro nivel muy superior al de kiske.
porcupinetree777 1 year ago
@porcupinetree777 Jajajaja... El único argumento técnico que puedo darte para el rango es que EFECTIVAMENTE tiene un rango más amplio Kiske que Dickinson. Obviamente eso no depende de argumentos: sólo de escuchar. La explicación más probable: has oído poco de Kiske. Hagamoslo fácil. Escucha la canción Shadowfights o Key to the Universe, y luego me dices en qué canción Dickinson siquiera se le acerca. Si no respondes, lo entiendo. Si lo haces, eres sordo.
andresreiter 1 year ago
When it comes down to these two its your opinion on who is better. They are both my top 2 in music in general. I'm not a fanboy i won't go with one or the other lol.
DioandMaiden 1 year ago
@porcupinetree777 Hello. I was forced to use a translator to understand what you are discussing about.
Why do you keep repeating that Bruce is more technical when he is clearly not? Besides the video which proves a lot; Kiske has a wider range, better breath support, better pitch, better sustain, better head voice projection, better vibrato control, etc. Bruce is just more powerful in some registers. So you better learn something about vocal technique and stop insisting and insulting others
antere5 1 year ago
I Agree with u! I studied vocal technic! Kiske is more technical!
rodrigocrispim 1 year ago
@antere5 You're quite right. Bruce is not more technical and has no more range. That guy is just a fanatic dumbass whos saying anything to blow dickinson's dick. (Maybe he REALLY whould...). I love dickinson's voice and style, but saying he's better singer than kiske is just a noob comment. But, on the other hand, Dickinson is the best frontman in heavy metal; that's proven by the fact he technically SUCKS live, but still the shows great and you even like his performances.
andresreiter 1 year ago
@andresreiter Now wait a second, earlier he wasn't so good but how can you say Rock in Rio sucked? Every time I see Bruce he's on the money live. I agree with the rest of your points though but I have to disagree about Bruce sucking live.
RobBradleyMusic 1 year ago
@RobBradleyMusic Well... saying he fucks is of couse compared with kiske (check out unisonic new live shows on youtube... amazing). He soesnt REALLY sucks, it's just that he has never been really "top notch" alive exept on very very few records. I think his onstage energy may compensate his (probably) lack of technics when singing alive. Or maybe his age has been gradually afecting his abilities, cause in samson he was more than amazing.
andresreiter 1 year ago
@andresreiter With Bruce he had pitch issues during his first run with Maiden, over the 90s he looked into using earplugs and worked on his live performances. Rock and Rio and onward Bruce has been amazing live. I agree though, in technical ability, yeah Kiske is better, the man has a sick head range, Bruce is phenomenal but Kiske is on the level with guys like Geoff Tate.
RobBradleyMusic 1 year ago
@RobBradleyMusic Could not agree more (even thou Tate is really crappy now, but in the 80's.. godlike).
andresreiter 1 year ago
@RobBradleyMusic and this wasnt aimed at u dude at andresreiter because all the stuff ive watched dickinson was awesome 81-85 86-till he left not as much and since his return awesome but kiske i love him too hes amazing its just it seems that this poll has begun to tell ppl why kiske smashes dickinson and i think its a bit silly
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@andresreiter very few live have u gone through all of maiden have u 81-85 unbelievable live and since his return for his age unbelivable i have watched so much live stuff i dont agree at all.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@andresreiter when it comes to god like singers only are god like for a while halford kiske say ten years but bruce too was god like 80-85 its just his god like era was shorter. from 80-85 he was amazing 86-93 only good, solo live amazing and maiden return amazing obvioulsy hard to sing old ones awesome but he sings new songs and solo when solo awesome live the whole live bad was only 86-93. also kiske is in better shape now agreed but i think dickinson is as well only high notes old songs hard
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@andresreiter also with bruce i believe he sounds better than m ost singers of old days now (tate even halford i think has gone down due to lung problem) i really think its blown a bit of of proportion with bruce i think it was only his voice live from 86-93 that let him down but everythiung before after with maiden and solo awesome. my view. bruce gun energy live we know that but for ppl to say (not saying u did) his voice sucks live are dumb, it was only the mid patch not before or after.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@andresreiter check out scream for me brazil 98 i think and alive in studio a 95 i think, also beast over hammersmith 81 i think any samson live on net live at reading i think any piecve of mind live 82-83 all AWESOME. even though live voice different 81 to say 98 but my awesome rating goes to how good live is studio to live in accuracy in other words how close its studio to live (for example no prayer live or fear of the dark live was average) but number of the beast of chemical wedding awesome
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
its funny how singers can be great good ok over different periods but with bruce its not like many singers live where they go best to worst straight line gradually. with bruce its best, worst, very good his bad patch or baddest patch isnt his current it was his middle my view again of course.anything new thats done as in brave new world on live he does awesome. old stuff now is obviously hard for all. but songs like ghost of navigator paschendale etc live awesome.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@andresreiter anything solo and when he returned to maiden live has been awesome my view.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@RobBradleyMusic ur 1000 per cent right he never sucked live he was amazing 80-85 i have dvds at home hes AMAZING then 86-93 he went down hard but still good, since then his solo stuff live and maiden (so say from 97 on) has been awesome.
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@antere5 explain this if u insist he is better in so many areas educate us like go through what breath support is and how kiske is better than bruce go through better pitch and how kiske is better explain it all if ur so good at knowing vocals (not being a smart ass actually asking), and also how about this for some thought sometimes the voice just sounds better even if technically according to proper vocals and textbooks its not like kiske may win 10 areas bruce 3 but how about the voice itself
CoolDudeSki 1 year ago
@CoolDudeSki Check your private messages, I've replied to you in detail.
By the way, no one stated that you can't prefer a voice which is not as technical. You might prefer the tone and colour of a certain voice and that's perfectly understandable, tastes differ. But please don't state that this or that singer is more technical than the other when things are pretty clear when you hear them next to eachother.
antere5 1 year ago
@antere5 damn right but i am a bigger iron maiden fan
hefra344 1 year ago
son dos grandes cantantes y para mi las mejores voces del metal junto a dos o tres mas
personalmente prefiero a bruce, soy muy fan suya y por supuesto de maiden que para mi son lo mas grande del metal pero tambien me encantaba helloween hasta que se fue kiske
estos dos junto a freddie mercury son los unicos cantantes que logran estremecerme cada vez que los escucho!
13ratona 1 year ago
Sorry, but I'm a MAIDEN FAN. Bruce all the way!!!
POWERSLAVE OWNZ ALL!
dngl21 1 year ago
not taking any maiden into consideration (they're not even my favourite band), i really truly think bruce takes it. kiske has IMPECCABLE technique. it's kinda scary. technically, kiske takes it. but if i take into consideration the things that I find important in a singer, which is power, uniqueness, phrasing, all the subjective crap, bruce wins (although uniqueness isn't as subjective seeing as kiske sounds exactly like tate to me).
and it blows my brains that the '90s is bruce's worst period.
averagenikki 1 year ago
Bruce!!! More exciting!
Thorstein212 1 year ago
Puros comentarios estúpidos... en general, Kiske tiene una voz más linda y Dickinson una voz con mas poder. Pero todo lo demás que se diga son apreciaciones personales. Y por favor entrenen un poco el oido, he leido nombres como Sammet o Leone... debieran saber que esos son hijos del arreglo en estudio (y aun asi suenan pesimo). Ah... y en vivo Kiske demuestra que tiene más técnica -suena MUCHO mejor- pero Dickinson mestra toda su energía -mejor frontman-
andresreiter 1 year ago
@andresreiter mmm la verad eso es relativo tambien..la verdad es que tienes razon que Bruce es mil veces mejor frontman, pero tecnicamente tambien es mejor Bruce, tiene mas rango y potencia, kiske es otro estilo si mas debil, pero tecnicamente es mejor Bruce
TheDreamTheatero 1 year ago
@TheDreamTheatero mmm a ver... si por técnica quieres decir rango, estas equivocado. Si por rango quieres decir amplitud de notas que puede producir con voz de pecho y voice-head (sin contar fried, falsette o whistle), también te equivocas (simplemente toma un órgano y verás que Kiske tiene un rango como poco; Dickinson tiene BASTANTE menor rango -me atrevería a decir una octava menos). Lo de la potencia, de acuerdo, la voz de bruce es mucho más potente.
andresreiter 1 year ago