There are too many. Just off the top of my head: Michael Hutchence, Freddie Mercury, Paul McCartney (well not lately, but he could rock with the best of 'em), Suzi Quatro (often overlooked!), Janis Joplin. Boy do I wish more people on my list were still alive. But: when they rocked, they ruled.
But since a subset is a thing that is part of a bigger group, and since rock n roll contains both rock and roll, doesn’t this necessarily mean that rock is a subset of rock n roll, instead of the other way around? 
#42 Yesterday, 05:36 PM
Fiddle Peghead
Guest Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by oreally
Rock n roll is a subset of the broader “rock,” which also includes hard rock/metal, soft rock, southern rock, etc etc. "
But since a subset is a thing that is part of a bigger group, and since rock n roll contains both rock and roll, doesn’t this necessarily mean that rock is a subset of rock n roll, instead of the other way around?
Actually “Rock” and “Rock & Roll” are both terms of art describing different genres of music. While “R & R” oviously preceded Rock and influenced it in many ways I would argue that neither is a subset of the other. IMHO neither Paul Rodgers, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Robert Plant or Stevie Winwood are R & R singers, but they all come within the limits I described originally.
Little Richard.
Thank you for mentioning Janis (not that I’ve ever seen her in person). She needs to be on the list.
I’m gonna throw in Robert Palmer and Warren Zevon because I think at least some of their music can be squeezed into the R&R category.
A (sick) cat in heat can top Dylan. Or Young, for that matter.
Truth be told, I really don’t think “rock” and “rock-n-roll” have been defined adequately enough here for the discussion to amount to much, so far as the distinction is important in the first place. Yeah, I guess Roger Daltrey sang rock and Chuck Berry sang rock-n-roll, but exactly what is used to classify each in the first place? Good thread, though. It’s nice to be reminded of some artists I haven’t listened to in a while.
In any case, this discussion reminds me of a funny story. If you remember, back in 1986 Billy Joel was one of the first American rock artists to tour Soviet Russia. On his “Live! Alone in America” LP, Graham Parker at one point says, “I Love America. I wake up every day and say ‘Thank God for America.’ Imagine being, like a Russian or something, you know, get all that misinformation. They don’t give the people the truth at all. I mean, those Russians think that Billy Joel is a rock-n-roll singer.”
Perhaps. A Rolling Stone magazine critic, it could have been Dave Marsh or Charles M. Young, I really can’t remember, pretty much summed it up for me. He wrote, “Bod Dylan doesn’t have a great voice. He has a great rock-n-roll voice.” Not to get all indignant, but it really baffles the hell out of me that some who profess to love rock, or rock-n-roll, or whatever you want to call it, just cannot see the distinction and why it matters. But that’s just me.
In the school of Robert Plant, Chris Cornell (Soundgarden, Audioslave, Solo) has an amazing voice.
Yup. But I also heard Grace Slick in her prime. And Young Roky Erickson…
I fully agree that, while Dylan was never a great singer in any conventiona lsense, somehow his voice just… worked, for a long time. He was usually the best interpreter of his own material.
But today? Today, he’s not just a bad singer in the conventional sense, he’s an atrociously bad singer of his own material.
Thing is, he’s STILL writing some very good songs. Now more than ever, he needs to find a latter day equivalent of the Byrds or Peter Paul & Mary… someone who can sing the songs he writes. Because he’s AWFUL now.
Not awful compared to Elvis or Sinatra. Awful compared to the Dylan who sang “Isis” and “Sara” back in 1975.
The last Dylan album I bought was “Modern Times” from 2006. For me, it has one standout track, “Workingman’s Blues #2” and his singing on it, while far removed from the way it was in the 60s-80s, was still perfect for that song. And all of “Love and Theft” was terrific, again with a different style of singing than his prime. I do think that for a while there in the 80s, he seemed to give up trying. I have no opinion past 2006, but I will say that a short snippet I heard from “Together Through Life” wasn’t promising.
I know this isn’t exactly an Elvis Presley fan club, but the greatest rock’n’roll singer of all time he was, nonetheless.
For me, Modern Times is probably one of Dylan’s top 5 albums, at least partly for the singing. He’s learned better than many people how to use what voice he has effectively. Together Through Life is nothing special, but there’s some great stuff from the 90s and 2000s on The Bootleg Series Volume 8 - Tell Tale Signs, including some outtakes from Modern Times if you want to listen further to that era.
ETA On topic for the thread, I wouldn’t say Dylan has, or had, a great rock n’ roll voice, but a great folk/blues one.
He was good but I think FM was better. I never really liked him because my musical taste started with the Animals. But I can hear the quality in his voice.
I believe that Dylan CAN sing; or at least he once could. But it’s not his natural voice and he doesn’t want to.
For the Nashville Skyline album, he got, of all people, Tiny Tim to teach him how to croon. If you listen to that album in it’s entirety you hear some decent vocals. It’s especially evident if you listen to John Wesley Harding before it.
After Nashville, thing got a little confusing. He released the apparent joke album Self Portrait. Neither it nor it’s hastily put-together successor New Morning, show may traces of the vocal stylings learned for Nashville Skyline. The Billy The Kid soundtrack and the horribly bad Dylan followed before he got back to releasing usual Dylan album. Those albums lead me to believe that he was experimenting with a new persona and didn’t hit upon one that he liked. There was a brief and spectacular comeback with Blood On The Tracks but the quality of his output went steadily downhill until the Nineties.
This made me laugh so hard that I’m truly ashamed.
I have no desire to get into a nitpicky argument about what is or isn’t rock and break down music into itty bitty categories just to suss out the best singer in every given genre so I will just give some names of some AMAZING singers IMHO. Most of them I haven’t seen live (some gone before I was born) so I’m breaking that rule as well.
Freddie Mercury (I will say he’s #1)
#2s:
Ann Wilson
Linda Ronstadt
Janis Joplin
Chris Cornell
Elvis Presley
Van Morrison
Stevie Wonder (although I know many will say not rock but I can’t NOT add him)
Admittedly, I haven’t listened to Modern Times nearly as much as my favorite Dylan albums. I’ll go back and check it out again.
As I suggested earlier, I don’t really know how to classify one genre from another. I’ll just say that whatever genre Dylan belonged to in the 60s to mid 70s, he had a great voice for it, and leave it at that.
Ah, Blood on the Tracks. Definitely a top Dylan album, with a favorite Dylan vocal on “If You See Her, Say Hello.” I wanted to find a link to this from the album for those who aren’t familiar with it (and even care), but couldn’t. I did find this very interesting version, apparently from Lakeland, FL in 1976, with drastically altered lyrics and somewhat altered vocals. WARNING: Dylan dislikers, equivocators, and downright haters, you probably don’t want to hear this.
I have to further my previous posting of Joey Ramone with saying that I’ve seen a number of musicians in concert, but the few that could be Rock and Roll, were blues instead.
Somehow, I’ve managed to miss Jack White repeatedly, and I could never afford Bruce Springsteen tickets.
I’ve never seen Elvis sing. Buy lotto tickets… maaaaaybe. But not sing.
Hm. But you know, I have seen Carol King. She’s right up there.