No Celine Dion? I realize it’s “hip” to hate her ever since her Titanic song became ubiquitous for a while, but that woman’s got an amazing set of pipes. Anyone who can’t appreciate that above most of those on the list has no business talking music.
Whitney Houston is there. Celine Dion is easily in her class, probably better (but ballpark), and charms audiences in two languages, to boot.
Well, Celine Dion used to be all right, but then she started that oversinging crap like Houston, Carey, et al. Ugh. Yeah, she’s got a good set of pipes, but I wouldn’t expect her to be on a Top 100 singers list in a rock magazine. Personally, maybe Celine Dion would be good if her most well-known music wasn’t overproduced and completely sucked dry of soul (a problem that also plagues most of the music you hear on the radio.) She’s got chops, no doubt, but she wouldn’t make my 100 greatest list, either.
Another one for Celine Dion. If ability were the sole defining factor, she’d be up there with Sarah Brightman and Pavarotti.
For showmanship, power and influence, no one can touch Reefah. There’s a reason she’s considered the gold standard in vocals and that people will think twice before covering one of her songs. It’s just impossible to sing it better.
That list is about as far off as these kind of lists can.
Hell I’d put Meat Loaf above most of those people. He’s ugly, creepy, and didn’t write his own lyrics or music, but he can flat out sing a lot better than most of those people.
Anyhow, my thoughts on the list. As far as lists go, this one is pretty okay. I’m a little surprised at Robert Plant being as high as he is (I’m a Zep fan, but I’m not exactly hot for his vocals), and I wouldn’t have Van Morrison on my list. I was going to say Tom Waits is missing, but it looks like he just made it at #82. I’m also not sure of Bono at #32 (I don’t think I’d rank him in my Top 100.) Kurt Cobain, as much as I love Nirvana and do like his signature voice, if he made my Top 100, he’d be in the second half.
As a list as a whole, not taking into account exact numerical rankings, it’s a pretty decent list (at least ranking artists/singers that most people have heard of.)
Lists like this are maddening.
They are indeed. Presley is so far ahead of Ray Charles as to make the list a joke. Franklin has a stunning voice but her range pales compared to Presley’s.
The fact that Harry Nilsson isn’t anywhere on that list means the entire thing is invalid.
Dylan above Whitney Houston? It is to laugh.
Bitterly.
As Southern Yankee pointed out, each voter was asked to list singers by importance. Whether “importance” equals ability depends on the voter, I guess.
Joe Cocker at 97 is an insult.He should be top ten.
I can’t agree with Aretha Franklin at number 1 either. She’s not rock, she’s R&B.
And where the hell is Ronnie James Dio? Or Ozzy?
The problem with Rolling Stone is that none of its writers really know anything about music.
In what universe is Bob Dylan a better singer than Janis Joplin?
This list is a fail.
The list is singers from the rock era, not necessarily rock singers.
That’s one they actually got right. Lennon was a fantastic vocalist, with a much more expressive range than Gaye.
Yeah, that one bugged me too. (I said I was trying to ignore the numbers, I didn’t say I completely succeeded.) I just loathe Dylan’s singing, so I don’t get that either. And I’m a little stunned they omitted Chris Cornell entirely.
No kd lang?
Ah, Chris Cornell. That’s a conspicuous absence. I’m not a huge fan of Dylan, but I could see how he could crack the Top 100, (but not the Top 10. He might make the 90s for me.) Then again, I’d put Tom Waits in my Top 20, if not my Top 10, so I’m sure that may disqualify my opinion from some people.
John Denver should have been on that list somewhere. Oh, and Karen Carpenter should have been ranked much higher.
See I think Morrison and Waits are the two best songwriters of the last 50 years but I would never put Waits’ voice in the same class as Morrison’s. Waits’ growl is wild and exciting and unique - but he’s way more limited in his range and technique than Morrison. Morrison can do blues and rock and pop and gospel and soul and ballads and scat and folk and jazz and falsetto and everything in between.
Waits always sounds like Waits - even when he’s singing radically different albums written years apart (Small Change vs Real Gone, say). Morrison can sound like three different singers all on the same album (Moondance - Crazy Love - Caravan - Into the Mystic). Morrison doesn’t have a pretty voice but he can stretch it in every direction.
That’s how I see it anyway. OTOH, I’ve never been able to care about Joe Cocker. Every time I hear him, I think of John Belushi and start giggling.
Joe Cocker…sang…?