Out of 10, how would you honestly rate your singing ability ?

TTBZ

1 or a 0. Don't have the confidence to even try it properly, even when I'm by myself i feel like a plum if I try to sing. One time I recorded it which confirmed my suspicions that I should never bother, it was just awful.

Limehouse_Blues

An 8 or a maybe even a 9. Have always enjoyed singing and been good at it. Although I sang in choirs as a kid I can do ‘rock’ vocals as well.

Folk are surprised when they hear me belt out Born on the Bayou properly and that ain’t an easy song to sing (though it’s a doddle compared to Fortune Son - singing that will really rip your vocal chords). I wish I had a slightly better range though. I found the edge of mine with Queen’s lover boy, which I prefer to sing with the capo closer to the neck.

foggerty really is a big inspiration for me because he combines such solid guitar work with a great voice.

Bucket

Grunfeld said:

Keeping it scientific I found an outcome measure... edited and revised as per the latest research from @ICBM ;
10 - magical - a unique voice
9 - superb
8 - really good, obvious lead singer in a pro band
7 - good - like one of the best on the covers circuit
6 - alright - like most of the singers on the covers circuit
5 - not bad - hits most of the notes but forgettable
4 - needs some lessons/ practice
3 - king of the shower
2 - drunk singing / football chants
1 - clueless
0 - no

By this metric, I'd give myself a 4. Maybe a 5 on a good day.

CloudNine

Most people say they prefer me singing tenor.

Ten or fifteen miles down the road.

I would say I am 3 or 4 really. I can sing in tune, just can't get my voice to go to the places I want it to, and I reckon it could be improved with some expert guidance.

Emp_Fab

On Oli's scale, I'd give myself a solid 6.  6.5 on a good day. I wish my voice had a bit more grit to it though.  I'm better with BV and harmonies than lead though.  

keithf

@EMP

What band are you with Emp?

Grunfeld

Emp_Fab said:

Grunfeld said:

Keeping it scientific I found an outcome measure... edited and revised as per the latest research from @ICBM ;;;;
10 - magical - a unique voice
9 - superb
8 - really good, obvious lead singer in a pro band
7 - good - like one of the best on the covers circuit
6 - alright - like most of the singers on the covers circuit
5 - not bad - hits most of the notes but forgettable
4 - needs some lessons/ practice
3 - king of the shower
2 - drunk singing / football chants
1 - clueless
0 - no

So, I reckon I'm a 5 on a bad day, 6 on a good.

I think your scale is too heavily weighted towards the good singer end.  6 should not be “like most of the singers on the covers circuit”.  It should be more like “slightly better than the average random person”.  (and so on..).

I dunno.  Here's how I thought about it*: 
I think @Danny1969 's idea that a singer needs to be able to hit the notes with precision is a really useful anchor point on any scale like this. 
You either CAN or CAN'T hit the notes -- that's a major traditional criterion for being a singer.  And you can measure this objectively.  (Leaving aside timbre and style for a moment.)
I don't actually know the shape of the distribution curve** for people who can and people who can't hit notes.
On this scale, 5.5 is the watershed mark.  Below that you need increasing amounts of autotune.
0 and 10 mark the extremes of the distribution.  Hardly anyone is actually this bad or this good -- but they need to be accounted for.
And I have assumed that people who can hit notes will be over-represented on stage compared to on the street.  Which I accept is a fairly major assumption but hopefully not unreasonable. 
But I get this is where it looks like there are more good singers in real life than is the case.  It's just that 5.5 seemed intuitively the half-way point between can and can't sing.  EDIT -- ah, got it:  what you're looking at is a scale of talent rather than a distribution of talent across a population. 

* Bearing in mind I originally thought about it for all of 2 seconds! 
** I generally have the statistical ability of a punter with empty pockets after a night at Romford Dogs

grungebob

I can sometimes hold a tune and on a good day I can tell when I’m off pitch but that’s about it. 
So id say 3 & 3/4. 
Evidence below. 

https://youtu.be/p9Kh7HiHy5Y

Wolfetone

Lestratcaster

Hmm, about 4 I think. I'm no pro or anything but have sung lower octave harmonies in bands previous. I can pitch ok but its breathing and range I struggle with.

Paul_C

I'd guess around 4/5 - you decide

Jimbro66

I spent a couple of years in a Beach Boys tribute band but, firstly there is safety in numbers, and secondly I got the Mike Love part and he's not exactly the best singer on the planet. I got the gig mainly because I've always had a strong interest in harmony and was able to work out all the vocal parts for the other members, even if I couldn't sing them well.

Having mainly over the years played guitar for singers of 9/10 on the Grunfeld scale there was no incentive to try lead vocals myself. That changed a few years ago when circumstances prevented me committing to a regular band so I took a chance as a solo act. I found that the important thing was always to avoid songs outside of my vocal range and to change keys from the originals where necessary. Then it's just a matter of reliably hitting the notes. Quality of voice improves with lots of practice. I'd still only rate myself 5/6 but I get away with it and get re-booked by venues so it must be ok in their eyes.

Wolfetone

Paul_C said:

I'd guess around 4/5 - you decide

Very sixties...good stuff

LesbianWithAGun

0 or 1

LesbianWithAGun

LesbianWithAGun

2/10

skunkwerx

-1 for me. Even my speaking voice sounds dodgy. 

In the car I’ll sing along to anything though, and some songs such as ‘hospital beds’ by Cold War Kids, or ‘Zzyzx Rd’ by Stone sour I can seem to sound much better singing. To my ears I’m matching the pitch of the singer lol. 

The reality though is I sound like a train wreck! 
Figured I could rap though, how hard could that be? 
Nope. That didnt sound good either!

Axe_meister

The one and only time I have sung in public. Was also sober at the time.
How would you rate me (I'd rate myself a 2 at most)

NeilMcG

0 - can't pitch, poor tone, no range, voice goes croaky almost immediately.

Neill

I think most of us tend to look at those lucky people blessed with a natural singing voice and think I'll just concentrate on the guitar.  But natural singers are very much the minority.  I had to do the singing in the first band i was in simply because the other guys flatly refused to entertain the idea (though the bass player would shout 2-4-6-8 in the Tom Robinson song) and frankly I was awful - but I got a lot better and I'm no longer ashamed of my voice. 

I can think of a few examples, Rory Gallagher, Richard Thompson, Elvis Costello, I saw all these guys in their early days and they were all pretty awful singers too, but that's not how they are perceived today.  It's just like playing, you get better with practice and in my experience progress comes a lot faster with the voice than it does with the guitar.   

Incidentally I just heard something on the radio how church choirs are struggling to find boys these days because "kids don't sing in school anymore" - is this really the case?