QueenZone discussion #1150143

timantt1 wrote: So, what do you think about Rolling Stone magazine list? The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time 1 | Aretha Franklin 2 | Ray Charles 3 | Elvis Presley 4 | Sam Cooke 5 | John Lennon 6 | Marvin Gaye 7 | Bob Dylan 8 | Otis Redding 9 | Stevie Wonder 10 | James Brown 11 | Paul McCartney 12 | Little Richard 13 | Roy Orbison 14 | Al Green 15 | Robert Plant 16 | Mick Jagger 17 | Tina Turner 18 | Freddie Mercury 19 | Bob Marley 20 | Smokey Robinson ... 55 | Paul Rodgers I think it is surprisingly high, considering that it is RS, and they had always practically hated Queen. I also think a couple of names ahead of Freddie got their position with more thanks to their other musical achievements than from their actual singing abilities. Anyway, this is good achievement.

timantt1 wrote: So, what do you think about Rolling Stone magazine list? The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time 1 | Aretha Franklin 2 | Ray Charles 3 | Elvis Presley 4 | Sam Cooke 5 | John Lennon 6 | Marvin Gaye 7 | Bob Dylan 8 | Otis Redding 9 | Stevie Wonder 10 | James Brown 11 | Paul McCartney 12 | Little Richard 13 | Roy Orbison 14 | Al Green 15 | Robert Plant 16 | Mick Jagger 17 | Tina Turner 18 | Freddie Mercury 19 | Bob Marley 20 | Smokey Robinson ... 55 | Paul Rodgers I think it is surprisingly high, considering that it is RS, and they had always practically hated Queen. I also think a couple of names ahead of Freddie got their position with more thanks to their other musical achievements than from their actual singing abilities. Anyway, this is good achievement.

StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: Bob Dylan higher than Freddie???? Oh wait, this is RS, they don't know anything... Pfft, Paul Rodgers should've been higher than Bob Dylan. Aretha Franklin has an awesome voice so I can understand why her position is extremely high. Is John Fogerty in that list??? Confession: I don't like Robert Plant's voice that much. In some songs, he's just awful. Sorry, but he's one of the worst singers I've heard...it's funny that I like Led Zeppelin though. It's just that sometimes I can't stand Robert Plant's voice. yeah...

Raffy wrote: For me the the top 20 of the best male rock singers of all time will be this: 1) Ray Gillen (Black Sabbath, Badlands listen to him and understand why for me is the best of all times) 2) Freddie Mercury 3) Robert Plant 4) Paul Rodgers 5) Ian Gillan 6) Steven Tyler 7) Steve Perry 8) Jeff Scott Soto 9) Bruce Dickinson 10) Rob Halford 11) Glenn Hughes 12) David Coverdale 13) Bobby Kimball 14) Tony Martin 15) Eric Martin 16) Ronnie James Dio 17) Axl Rose 18) Elton John 19) Michael Jackson (Yeah I know it's pop but listen to him in Beat it, Black or white, Come Together or Dirty Diana) 20) Joey Tempest

  Cwazy little thing wrote:   Nice list, and I agree with the majority of the names in there, but I would add Bon Scott to the list since you said rock singers, and I personally think Chris Cornell on his day is up there with some of the best - he's got a superb gravelly, edgey voice. And to be even more controversial, I think people drastically underestimate how good Phil Collins' voice is - listen to any of Genesis' live stuff in the early nineties - he could be outstanding.

littlekillerham wrote: Not bad.  He definetly deserves the place.  He should be above Mick Jagger I think, but i am a queenamanic.  ( A word i made up.  It means that you are a manic for queen.)

Raffy wrote: For me the the top 20 of the best male rock singers of all time will be this: 1) Ray Gillen (Black Sabbath, Badlands listen to him and understand why for me is the best of all times) 2) Freddie Mercury 3) Robert Plant 4) Paul Rodgers 5) Ian Gillan 6) Steven Tyler 7) Steve Perry 8) Jeff Scott Soto 9) Bruce Dickinson 10) Rob Halford 11) Glenn Hughes 12) David Coverdale 13) Bobby Kimball 14) Tony Martin 15) Eric Martin 16) Ronnie James Dio 17) Axl Rose 18) Elton John 19) Michael Jackson (Yeah I know it's pop but listen to him in Beat it, Black or white, Come Together or Dirty Diana) 20) Joey Tempest

timantt1 wrote: So, what do you think about Rolling Stone magazine list? The 100 Greatest Singers of All Time 1 | Aretha Franklin 2 | Ray Charles 3 | Elvis Presley 4 | Sam Cooke 5 | John Lennon 6 | Marvin Gaye 7 | Bob Dylan 8 | Otis Redding 9 | Stevie Wonder 10 | James Brown 11 | Paul McCartney 12 | Little Richard 13 | Roy Orbison 14 | Al Green 15 | Robert Plant 16 | Mick Jagger 17 | Tina Turner 18 | Freddie Mercury 19 | Bob Marley 20 | Smokey Robinson ... 55 | Paul Rodgers I think it is surprisingly high, considering that it is RS, and they had always practically hated Queen. I also think a couple of names ahead of Freddie got their position with more thanks to their other musical achievements than from their actual singing abilities. Anyway, this is good achievement.

Sir GH wrote: That said, some Queen fans need to get their heads out of their arses and realize the contributions of musicians other than their particular favourite band.  Freddie would probably be disgusted to know that some of his fans are discrediting other musicians/performers in his name.

mike hunt wrote: I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.

Sir GH wrote:

                              mike hunt wrote:               I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.              

1) Aretha isn't rock and roll 2) This is a "best singers" list, not a "best rock and roll singers" list or a "best voices" list.  Tastes aside, all of the singers in the top 20 rightfully belong there, bearing in mind that it is a list that perfectly reflects a US-centred view of who has contributed greatly to the evolution of popular music over the last half-century.

mike hunt wrote: I agree Mr. Jingles,  Who's putting down anyone?....I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

      mike hunt wrote:   I agree Mr. Jingles,  Who's putting down anyone?....I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.  

I don't think Elvis was in anyway better than Freddie. Yes he had a trademark sort of voice, and that defined him as an icon. He deserves a good place on that list still. I might dare to say that Robert Plant in the earlier part of his career might have had a better voice than Freddie. It's a shame that he couldn't keep it up, and I don't blame the guy for not touring with Jones and Page, he just can't hit those high notes anymore. Lou Reed and Van Morrison definitely don't deserve to be on that list. As singers they are incredibly boring.

on my way up wrote: Still, Bob Dylan should not be in a 'best singers' list. He's not one of the best singers(such a list should say what elements were taken into account: range, dynamics, ....(for singers)). He's a great songwriter, a totally unique performer and a legend with a huge legacy but not one of the best singers.

Mr.Jingles wrote: I might dare to say that Robert Plant in the earlier part of his career might have had a better voice than Freddie. It's a shame that he couldn't keep it up, and I don't blame the guy for not touring with Jones and Page, he just can't hit those high notes anymore.

Sir GH wrote:

      on my way up wrote:   Still, Bob Dylan should not be in a 'best singers' list. He's not one of the best singers(such a list should say what elements were taken into account: range, dynamics, ....(for singers)). He's a great songwriter, a totally unique performer and a legend with a huge legacy but not one of the best singers.  

If it's about quality of voice, then of course you're right  But the criteria really wasn't laid out.  Or was it, in the magazine somewhere?

Sir GH wrote:

on my way up wrote: Still, Bob Dylan should not be in a 'best singers' list. He's not one of the best singers(such a list should say what elements were taken into account: range, dynamics, ....(for singers)). He's a great songwriter, a totally unique performer and a legend with a huge legacy but not one of the best singers.

If it's about quality of voice, then of course you're right  But the criteria really wasn't laid out.  Or was it, in the magazine somewhere?

ThomasQuinn wrote: There are no objective criteria for 'quality of voice'. At best, one could analyse the harmonic series as produced by each singer, which says very, very little about technique, only about the 'equipment' they are born with. Range, which is also a rather random criterion, could also be named, but what real meaning does that have? Music is largely a matter of taste; anything that is objective about it is useless as a source of comparison.