| ZBGM0 01.02.2010 05:39 |
Hi all. I am new here and have one question for those who know a lot about music scene. The question is relatet with Rolling Stone's List of 100 greatest singers of all time. I copied the first 18 places (below) and as you can see, Freddie Mercury is on 18h place, which I thing is one of the greates bull shits I have ever seen. How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place. Everybody who knows something about music, knows well that he should be al least in the top 5 if not the first. So, I am asking you why is this list the way it is? Is there any possibility that Rolling Stones didn't like Queen because there was some sort of tension betwen those two groupsand that they didn't like each other? "Joke list" 1 | Aretha Franklin by Mary J. Blige 2 | Ray Charles by Billy Joel 3 | Elvis Presley by Robert Plant 4 | Sam Cooke by Van Morrison 5 | John Lennon by Jackson Browne 6 | Marvin Gaye by Alicia Keys 7 | Bob Dylan by Bono 8 | Otis Redding by Booker T. Jones 9 | Stevie Wonder by Cee-Lo 10 | James Brown by Iggy Pop 11 | Paul McCartney 12 | Little Richard 13 | Roy Orbison 14 | Al Green 15 | Robert Plant 16 | Mick Jagger by Lenny Kravitz 17 | Tina Turner 18 | Freddie Mercury |
| mike hunt 01.02.2010 08:19 |
who gives a rats ass about the rollin stone....this is the same magazine that rates kurt cobain as one of the best guitarist of all time.....They're a joke. |
| Bo Rhap 01.02.2010 09:42 |
I see that the top ten were all voted in by stars. I dont think that Freddie would have been all that bothered anyway.In fact,he may well have said"Stars!!?Are they for sale?How many cocksuckers?" |
| PauloPanucci 01.02.2010 10:22 |
Rolling stone's magazine is a crap, look this list! [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img] |
| master marathon runner 01.02.2010 11:19 |
Cak bloody cak ! Master Mrathon Runner. |
| Micrówave 01.02.2010 15:03 |
How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place. Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something... Now, if Freddie & Co. could have gotten their act together earlier, like New Kids On The Block or The Musical Youth, perhaps they'd be higher on the list. The Beatles and The Stones were making records ten years before the idea of Queen. |
| The Real Wizard 01.02.2010 16:34 |
Micrówave wrote: Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something... Ouch... truth, sweet truth. I can just feel the ignorance shrinking. Or is it common sense that's shrinking? It's often hard to tell here. |
| ZBGM0 01.02.2010 17:18 |
Micrówave wrote:How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something... Now, if Freddie & Co. could have gotten their act together earlier, like New Kids On The Block or The Musical Youth, perhaps they'd be higher on the list. The Beatles and The Stones were making records ten years before the idea of Queen. OK, so the definition of this list is different as I thought. List of the GREATES singers of all time from this point of view means just MOST IMPORTANT, most FAMOUS, making the MOST RECORDS, and which in the most imortant BEING FIRST, which doesn't also mens THE BEST SINGERS. John Lennon or Beatles, Elvis etc. are the greatest because they represented revolution in the music industry. But you can not also say they are the best. It is a big difference. Elvis didn't wrote even one single song in his life, but is one of the greates, bacause he is imporatant (first). Lennon is also so imporatant because he was from the Beatles that changed the world. But every musician will tell you than a man with operatic strong clear voice with almost 4 octaves is better singer. It is scientific fact that has nothing to do with me or anyone else. For me, the best singer is the one with the best vocal performance and nothing else - no matter how important and respected you are, or if you were part of the music revolution. Those are just other factors that make you the greatest. It is clear: greatest = most important, but not necessarliy the best. Best singer means simple best vocal. |
| ilikefreddyguy 01.02.2010 21:44 |
NOW I AIN'T GONNA GO AND SEE THE ROLLIN' STONES NO MORE NO MORE I DON'T WANNA GO AND SEE QUEEN NO MORE NO MORE |
| mike hunt 01.02.2010 22:38 |
Micrówave wrote:How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something... Now, if Freddie & Co. could have gotten their act together earlier, like New Kids On The Block or The Musical Youth, perhaps they'd be higher on the list. The Beatles and The Stones were making records ten years before the idea of Queen. Yea, but I think mercury/may is the most underated combo in rock history....there right up there with Jagger/richards......also, jagger is no mercury once it comes to singing....songwriting yes, but as a vocalist?...i don't think so. Brian may is every bit as good as richards on the guitar. Not sure about songwriting though. |
| john bodega 02.02.2010 02:52 |
Anyone who rates members of the Rolling Stones amongst the best musicians of the 20th century is a cunt. |
| mike hunt 02.02.2010 04:33 |
Sir GH wrote:Micrówave wrote: Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something...Ouch... truth, sweet truth. I can just feel the ignorance shrinking. Or is it common sense that's shrinking? It's often hard to tell here. Are we on queenzone ignorant? or are the people who say the stones in every way are better than queen?....if your talking "the whole package" singing, performing, songwriting, Influence....then i have no problem with freddie being at 18, but vocals alone he leaves Jagger in the dust...Not even close. |
| fmarsong 02.02.2010 06:09 |
theyre just rolling the truth! |
| Holly2003 02.02.2010 06:11 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Anyone who rates members of the Rolling Stones amongst the best musicians of the 20th century is a cunt. Is Richards a better guitarist than May? Of course not. Does he have some great licks? Absolutely. Whether you like it or not, the RS had a huge impact, and made some great rock tracks. If this list was about impact, the Jagger would be above Fred, especially since RS is mosly an American mag. If it's about talent, well Jagger has it in buckets, but Fred should still be above him in the list. Not that I give a hoot: lists serve little purpose except to start arguments. Here's my top 10 lists of lists that exist only to start arguments: 1. best singer 2. best blah blah and so on... |
| john bodega 02.02.2010 09:01 |
Of course lists only exist to start arguments. The Rolling Stones had their arses handed to them by their contemporaries on a regular basis. The "they were very influential" argument seems to be the old chestnut that seems to come up in any thread where someone of questionable ability is mentioned ... I just don't see why it's relevant. If we're talking about the evolution of music though, then it's more than appropriate! |
| john bodega 02.02.2010 09:07 |
*With that in mind*, when I did start to give Rolling Stones tunes a listen, I found I had the same experience as with Zeppelin. All of that catalogue, and I only came away with about a dozen songs that did anything for me. I wonder if people will go through the same thing once Muse has 20 albums. Haha. |
| mike hunt 02.02.2010 10:18 |
I believe queen sold more records worldwide than the stones.....[img=/images/smiley/msn/regular_smile.gif][/img] |
| Serry... 02.02.2010 11:22 |
Zebonka12 wrote: when I did start to give Rolling Stones tunes a listen, I found I had the same experience as with Zeppelin. All of that catalogue, and I only came away with about a dozen songs that did anything for me. Same here. |
| disco_mart 02.02.2010 18:32 |
C'mon guys and girls stones are so over rated it ain't funny. They needed Paul and John to give them a reject Beatles song just to get off the ground. As to Muse, I think they are getting better end better. They seem to be a new age Queen minus a recognisable front man ala Freddie or the like. And yes they are better then the Stones too. |
| Micrówave 02.02.2010 18:58 |
but vocals alone he leaves Jagger in the dust...Not even close. So you're saying not only am I wrong, but so is Michael Jackson? He also thought Mick was a better singer. So I think I'm going to stick with my guns (and Michael Jackson's opinion) and say YES, MICK IS BETTER THAN FRED. But Mike Hunt hit on a very important note, Mercury/May were very underrated... but so was Hall & Oates. In fact, where is Daryl Hall? He's got almost as nice a voice as Freddie. Almost. I would put Freddie slightly below the Mick/Elvis/Ray/John/Aretha group. No, I'm not banishing him to the Feldman/Hues class. But Freddie never 'moved the Earth'. Maybe for 20 minutes at Live Aid, yes. Certainly not during the encore. Mick has. Elvis did. Ray did. John did. Aretha still does... sometimes without even singing!! |
| mike hunt 02.02.2010 20:18 |
When did michael jackson say Mick was a better singer than freddie?.....We all know the story behind why michael chose Jagger to sing that horrible solo song. Can't even remember the name of it. |
| john bodega 02.02.2010 23:46 |
If Freddie wanted to be as good as Mick Jagger, he only had to chug 10 pints of beer. |
| The Real Wizard 03.02.2010 00:42 |
mike hunt wrote:Sir GH wrote: Ouch... truth, sweet truth. I can just feel the ignorance shrinking. Or is it common sense that's shrinking? It's often hard to tell here.Are we on queenzone ignorant? or are the people who say the stones in every way are better than queen?....if your talking "the whole package" singing, performing, songwriting, Influence....then i have no problem with freddie being at 18, but vocals alone he leaves Jagger in the dust...Not even close. Well, I was half kidding of course. This seems to be a place of satire at times. Where did this "best singer" poll say they were rating only quality of vocals? Was the criteria even established at some point? Probably not. 99 out of 100 polls are a popularity contest. And that remaining 1 is unfortunately never widely seen, as they're the one person out of the bunch who truly knows what they're talking about... like the guy at digitaldreamdoor.com. Rarely have I seen someone with musical knowledge of such scholarly proportion. The fact of the matter is, we're talking about Rolling Stone, a magazine that rates musicians in accordance to how they've influenced American popular culture. The fact that Freddie made the top 20 is pretty surprising. The fact that Kurt Cobain ranked higher (#12) than Brian May (#39) in their "best guitarists" poll is not surprising. |
| Dane 03.02.2010 06:57 |
Most of these singers almost NEVER hit a wrong note live... Freddie did. In his defence he did have a lot more challenging songs to sing, but still. Freddie has the kind of voice you either love or hate.. not much in between. Where is Ronnie Dio on the list!?!?! |
| john bodega 03.02.2010 12:12 |
Dane wrote: Most of these singers almost NEVER hit a wrong note live... Freddie did.That's because it's basically impossible to screw up their songs, hahaha. Seconded as far as Dio goes, what the fuck? Where the hell is he?? |
| Gregsynth 03.02.2010 13:24 |
Mick Jagger's voice SUCKS compared to Freddies! Freddie should be TOP TEN at least. Robert Plant's higher on the list than Freddie? LMFAO! What a joke! Freddie can hit practically any note (low and high), while all Plant does is screech high notes. Also, when Freddie hits high notes, they sound "full" and quite pleasant to the ears. Plant's high note are always "screechy" sounding. BTW Rolling stone has ALWAYS bull-shitted Queen and Journey (they ranked Steve Perry in the 70s! WTF?!) |
| mike hunt 03.02.2010 15:21 |
I think plant is so overated, no offense to him. I know he was a big influence but that high screechy voice puts me off. |
| Gregsynth 03.02.2010 17:46 |
Agree on that Mike. |
| Photographic 03.02.2010 20:58 |
Here's a proper list link |
| Amazon 03.02.2010 23:43 |
Micrówave wrote:How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.Well, for one, Mick is much better. If you think Mercury/May is better than Jagger/Richards, maybe you should go grab a hammer and whack yourself in the head a couple of times. Sorry to inform you, but John Lennon was also a better one. You may not think so, but millions of others do. But to even be on that list, you have to be pretty darn good. Let it go... just let it go. Subscribe to Spin Magazine or something... Now, if Freddie & Co. could have gotten their act together earlier, like New Kids On The Block or The Musical Youth, perhaps they'd be higher on the list. The Beatles and The Stones were making records ten years before the idea of Queen. Sorry, but I don't agree. I think that Freddie was vastly superior to Jagger, not just as a vocalist but also as a song-writer and performer. I also regard Freddie to be be better than Lennon; what millions of people think does not concern me. Nor does it concern me what Michael Jackson thought. You accused someone of telling you that you were wrong; this isn't a matter of being right or wrong, although if you insist that you are right, then you should be prepared to have people tell you that you are wrong. This is purely a matter of opinion and I do regard Freddie to be alot better than Mick, and Mercury/May to be better than Jagger/Richards, and I don't need to grab a hammer as this discussion is purely subjective. You talked about putting Mick/Elvis/Ray/John/Aretha above Freddie because they 'moved the earth'. Well, I disagree. I would never put Jagger in the same category as Elvis, Ray, Lennon or Freddie, with the possible exception of influence. In terms of vocals, performance and song-writing, I think that Freddie was one of the two or three greatest of all time. IMO nobody 'moved the earth' like him, he was one of the very greatest song-writers of all time and as a vocalist he was unsurpassed. |
| mike hunt 04.02.2010 03:14 |
Of course it's opinions, and not fact. Queens legacy is stronger than ever and keeps getting stronger over time. I think lennon is an icon of all icons, along with elvis. Jagger?....not on that level.....Freddie?...is on that level. elvis was a great singer/performer....maybe the best in rock n roll history, but he didn't write his own music. No one ever brings that up........ And I repeat, I'll put mercury/may up against any singer/guitarist in history. |
| mike hunt 04.02.2010 03:16 |
Photographic wrote: Here's a proper list link I mostly agree with that list. |
| Dan C. 05.02.2010 03:30 |
These kinds of lists are all pretty inconsequential. There are SO many great singers/guitarists/songwriters/etcetera out there that never make any of them. Most of the musicians I love are largely overlooked but insanely good, and about 80% of them I have never seen on a "Best..." list of any kind. It doesn't change my love for their work in any way. I guess my point is that it's only a list. If you think Freddie is the best, that's all that should matter. |
| PauloPanucci 05.02.2010 09:54 |
mike hunt wrote:Photographic wrote: Here's a proper list linkI mostly agree with that list. i liked that list! i agree with that list too! |
| Holly2003 05.02.2010 12:59 |
Mike Patton? Bruce Dickinson? Sebastian Bach? Best vocalist? His ears must be painted on.. And i say that as a fan of both FNM and Maiden. |
| mike hunt 05.02.2010 15:23 |
Holly2003 wrote: Mike Patton? Bruce Dickinson? Sebastian Bach? Best vocalist? His ears must be painted on.. And i say that as a fan of both FNM and Maiden. I hear patton brought up a lot these days....he was talented, i'll give him that....I'm also a maiden fan, but bruce doesn't belong on any list....Even on the studio records he sings out of key. People need to give good old bruce a rest. He's just not that good. Bach?....that one made me laugh! |
| john bodega 05.02.2010 23:31 |
Sebastian fucking Bach?? I think this list is based on payoffs, not performances..... |
| Photographic 06.02.2010 08:56 |
Proper list in so far as first place is concerned then, the criteria they go by: “These vocalists are rated in their prime for Control, Power, Range, Articulation, Versatility, Phrasing, use of Dynamics, Uniqueness, and Impact and Influence.” It's interesting to note that Jagger isn't even on the top 100, the frontmen of rock category incorporates a different set of criteria though. |
| Saif 07.02.2010 07:45 |
What's wrong with Mike Patton being up high? He totally deserves it. His vocal range is the widest of all the people on that list and he's a pretty good and versatile singer. I don't think Sam Cooke should be that high, Jackie Wilson on the other hand was phenomenal and probably influenced Freddie. Listen to his song "Reet Petite(She's So Fine)" to hear why I think so. Sebastian Bach used to be great. He was the best glam singer without a shadow of a doubt. I can't think of anyone else singing "Youth Gone Wild" but him. I like glam with a metallic edge, I guess. Rob Halford should be higher than Bruce Dickinson but they both are top 15 worthy IMO. |
| LittleSilhouetto 07.02.2010 09:08 |
Perhaps they had the list upside down. I haven't found anyone that doesn't think Freddie had the mosy incredible voice, even if they don't like "pop" music and only like classical music. |
| LittleSilhouetto 07.02.2010 09:10 |
Perhaps they had the list upside down. I haven't found anyone that doesn't think Freddie had the mosy incredible voice, even if they don't like "pop" music and only like classical music. |
| Saif 07.02.2010 10:21 |
Au contraire, I've met many. And then some. Many on this forum don't consider him the best either. Big deal. He was a great singer, end of. FUCK LISTS! |
| dragon-fly 07.02.2010 16:07 |
Exactly- one more lousy list. Not the first one, not the last one. *yawn* |