The guy from AC/DC is definitely worse. He also doesn’t sing, has a really annoying voice, and has almost no range whatsoever. This is in part covered up by the entire band not having any musical talent, so it doesn’t stand out quite as much as he could.
I read that AC/DC was like the 6th best selling artist of all time on some list and several of my blood vessels spontaneously exploded.
Bon Scott or Brian Johnson, SenorBeef?
ETA: I agree about Britney Spears and Janet Jackson, they are pretty weak singers IMO, and seem to often focus more on dancing than singing.
We’re back to the singer vs. rock star debate there.
I figured Mick has probably never had his voice auto-tuned. That pretty much puts him ahead of every singer who has.
Geddy Lee. I figure I’d be a huge Rush fan, if not for the fact that I just can’t listen to him.
I really like Mick Jagger’s voice, too. I like his singing better on the harder rocking songs, but I even like his singing on “Ruby Tuesday,” which is less forgiving of the limitations of his voice.
I would vote for Bob Dylan as a truly bad singer who is a good artist, primarily because of his abilities as a songwriter and lyricist.
Al Hibbler.
Never could stand his voice.
I agree. And the inventor of Autotune deserves a good fish-slapping. I hate Autotune…sorry for the (slight) hijack.
I’d say that objectively speaking, Tom Petty probably has the worse voice in rock n’roll - but I’d still rather have him sing his songs than anyone else.
Ozzy once said, “I’m not a singer, I’m an entertainer.”
Petty’s really just doing an impression of Dylan, and he doesn’t sound any worse than Dylan does. Especially these days.
From wikipedia:
“Pet Sounds is the eleventh studio album by the American rock band The Beach Boys, released May 16, 1966, on Capitol Records. It has been widely ranked as one of the most influential records ever released in western pop music and has been ranked at number #1 in several music magazines’ lists of greatest albums of all time, including New Musical Express, The Times and Mojo Magazine.[1][2][3] In 2003, it was ranked #2 in Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list.[4]”
Thanks for posting this–I read it the first time around and forgot to respond. I think the Beach Boys get a lot of flack for being a cutesy, fun, surf band. But to look at them this way is to just see the Beatles as a band who made some movies/cute songs and to forget the stuff like Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road.
ETA: About all the people saying that rock n roll isn’t about good singing and that they wouldn’t want to hear anyone but Mick singing these songs…is that because we’re just so used to it or because rock and roll genuinely isn’t about talent? I mean, in the rock genre, I think you can get away with a lot of bad singing. But I do think there are a lot of singers who really could sing well, and had attitude/stage presence on top of that. This isn’t strictly rock, but if you look at any Motown singers, pretty much any of them can outsing Mick (or Paul or John) and have voices infused with sexuality, emotion, energy, and on top of that, have an (IMHO) even stronger stage presence than Mick Jagger.
I’ve never liked the Beach Boys at all, partly because of the voices, but they could sing. And for that matter Brian Wilson definitely knew how to write an interesting melody. I don’t know how they came up in this thread.
I am confused by the definition of singing that is at play in this thread. Once again, let me make clear that I entirely lack whatever bone it is in so many bodies that makes Mick and the Stones seem so incredibly fab. The Stones have never really rung my bells. So I think I’m speaking somewhat objectively when I say that Mick carries off the task of lead vocals/frontman for this major rock band with great, er, aplomb.
Does he sing as well as Pavarotti, Barbara Streisand, or Paul Robeson? I think not. He lacks their vocal range, their technique, their flexibility, their uniqueness.
But to say that Mick is not a remarkable singer in a technical sense is not say that being a great rock singer doesn’t require any talent.
In my mind, being a great rock singer has to do with a combination of a) sounding like no one else and b) pulling off a certain attitude, vocally as well as performatively, that works with the music and makes people want to really move/feel/sing or dance along/shout–respond.
Now Mick probably doesn’t have as distinctive a voice as many others (and that may be part of why he doesn’t really move me the way that other rockers do).
One of my favorite rock vocalists is Neil Young: I love his falsetto, I love his deadpan, I love his anger. I probably can’t distinguish the part of me that loves his voice from the fact that he’s a great guitar player, and that I often like what he’s singing about.
I’m convinced that in a technical sense he’s so-so or maybe even worse. But he’s like no one else. He pulls it off. When I hear him sing I want to stop what I’m thinking about and focus on the music. I want to move with it and be moved by it.
Isn’t this the bar for rock music singing rather than the more technical features appropriate to musical genres, like opera or show tunes, which focus more fully on vocals?
I don’t think there is one single definition.
A lot of it’s subjective: do you happen to like the sound of the singer’s voice and the way he uses it? Neither Mick nor Neil is at all to my taste, but I can still respect them and have some idea of what their fans see in them. And I do like the voices of some other singers whom other people don’t like.
And even when it comes to things that are more objective, there are different ingredients that different people value differently. Who’s “better”: someone who can do justice to many different kinds of songs, or someone who’s only good at one or two sorts but can knock them out of the park? Someone with a strong but relatively generic voice, or someone with a quirky voice? Someone who hits all the notes accurately and enunciates clearly, or someone who sings sloppily but with feeling? Do things like appearance, dancing ability, showmanship, and personality count, or is it all about the singing? Different people are going to answer these questions different ways, and I don’t think there’s a “right” or “wrong” answer to them.
I think the attitude is a big part of it. There are a lot of great singers who don’t make it because they don’t have that…je ne sais quoi. But I guess for me personally it’s a combination of singing and attitude and presence. And though I like the Stones, and used to love them, now I don’t really feel anything when I see them. It’s a bit meh for me.
I guess personally I now try to seek out people who are very talented in the technical sense and who have that other quality, the presence. Tina Turner is someone who is irreplaceable and really oozes sex and is incredibly talented.
Mick is the greatest of rock singers (from someone who once spent a year - 1983 - listening to nothing but the Stones).
My Exhibit A is Beggar’s Banquet, 10 songs each sung in a very different style perfectly suited to 10 remarkable songs.
I challenge you to prove that you didn’t listen to “Every Breath You Take” at least once that year… 
I really like that arrangement (horns and stuff), but prefer Jagger’s vocals. Clayton’s vocal tricks (unexpected pauses and inflections) seemed out of place in such a desperation driven song.
The earlier cover in this thread didn’t have any of the Stones’ spookiness, and the singer seemed to care about nothing except sounding like a classic black soul singer.