Sneak preview: Prince comes in at #16.

Rolling Stone's 200 Greatest Sngers--
https://www.fox13now.com/...st-singers

[Edited 1/2/23 15:31pm]

And somehow they missed Celine Dion???

Like her or not, she has a voice that is amazing. I'm not a huge fan of hers, and generally skip her music. But I can recognize a great singer when I hear one.

Yet Bob Dylan, who's been singing through his nose for 50 years, gets on the list??

Rolling Stone said these were the best singers, not the best voices. A pale attempt at a save.

TrivialPursuit said:

And somehow they missed Celine Dion???

Like her or not, she has a voice that is amazing. I'm not a huge fan of hers, and generally skip her music. But I can recognize a great singer when I hear one.

Yet Bob Dylan, who's been singing through his nose for 50 years, gets on the list??

Rolling Stone said these were the best singers, not the best voices. A pale attempt at a save.

Celine is technically proficient but ot soulful or groundbreaking.

I know a few are upset because Pink wasn't on the list. Others are asking why not Pavarotti and that blind guy who sings operatic, totally missing the point.

I think their criteria was "body of work" which is what moved Dylan and Prince up.

Thought I'd give Dion another listen with a song I know I like (It's All Coming Back to Me Now by Jim Steinman), and her voice still does absolutely nothing for me.

TrivialPursuit said:

Sooooo

where is the list?

That link at the top is to a report about the list in Utah

.

.

"...Before you start scrolling (and commenting), keep in mind that this is the Greatest Singers list, not the Greatest Voices List. Talent is impressive; genius is transcendent. Sure, many of the people here were born with massive pipes, perfect pitch, and boundless range. Others have rougher, stranger, or more delicate instruments. As our write-up for the man who ended up at Number 112 notes, “Ozzy Osbourne doesn’t have what most people would call a good voice, but boy does he have a great one.” That could apply to more than a few people here..."

[Edited 1/4/23 12:37pm]

nayroo2002 said:

Sooooo

where is the list?

That's a link to a report about the list in Utah

.

.

"...Before you start scrolling (and commenting), keep in mind that this is the Greatest Singers list, not the Greatest Voices List. Talent is impressive; genius is transcendent. Sure, many of the people here were born with massive pipes, perfect pitch, and boundless range. Others have rougher, stranger, or more delicate instruments. As our write-up for the man who ended up at Number 112 notes, “Ozzy Osbourne doesn’t have what most people would call a good voice, but boy does he have a great one.” That could apply to more than a few people here..."

[Edited 1/4/23 10:42am]

And this is the point - many, many people can sing well, can hold a tune, be proficient in singing but that does not make them a good performer. This is not a pale attempt at a save but a reflection of reality - Celine's singing simply does not move people as much as Ozzy's, Dylan's or Prince's.

To paraphrase: "It don't mean a thing if it aint got that zing."

IanRG said:

nayroo2002 said:

Sooooo

where is the list?

That's a link to a report about the list in Utah

.

.

"...Before you start scrolling (and commenting), keep in mind that this is the Greatest Singers list, not the Greatest Voices List. Talent is impressive; genius is transcendent. Sure, many of the people here were born with massive pipes, perfect pitch, and boundless range. Others have rougher, stranger, or more delicate instruments. As our write-up for the man who ended up at Number 112 notes, “Ozzy Osbourne doesn’t have what most people would call a good voice, but boy does he have a great one.” That could apply to more than a few people here..."

[Edited 1/4/23 10:42am]

And this is the point - many, many people can sing well, can hold a tune, be proficient in singing but that does not make them a good performer. This is not a pale attempt at a save but a reflection of reality - Celine's singing simply does not move people as much as Ozzy's, Dylan's or Prince's.

To paraphrase: "It don't mean a thing if it aint got that zing."

But then why is MJ # 86 ?

paisleyparkgirl said:

IanRG said:

And this is the point - many, many people can sing well, can hold a tune, be proficient in singing but that does not make them a good performer. This is not a pale attempt at a save but a reflection of reality - Celine's singing simply does not move people as much as Ozzy's, Dylan's or Prince's.

To paraphrase: "It don't mean a thing if it aint got that zing."

But then why is MJ # 86 ?

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

laytonian said:

Celine is technically proficient but ot soulful or groundbreaking.

I know a few are upset because Pink wasn't on the list. Others are asking why not Pavarotti and that blind guy who sings operatic, totally missing the point.

I think their criteria was "body of work" which is what moved Dylan and Prince up.

The list is the greatest singers, not a body of work.

And you may look up "the blind guy." He has a name.

paisleyparkgirl said:

IanRG said:

And this is the point - many, many people can sing well, can hold a tune, be proficient in singing but that does not make them a good performer. This is not a pale attempt at a save but a reflection of reality - Celine's singing simply does not move people as much as Ozzy's, Dylan's or Prince's.

To paraphrase: "It don't mean a thing if it aint got that zing."

But then why is MJ # 86 ?

Why not? It is a good achievement just to be in the top half of the list. I would seek to see MJ (if it was possible) at least 115 people before I would seek to see Celine Dion and can appreciate that his singing performance was not as good as the people before him.

[Edited 1/4/23 13:42pm]

TrivialPursuit said:

laytonian said:

Celine is technically proficient but ot soulful or groundbreaking.

I know a few are upset because Pink wasn't on the list. Others are asking why not Pavarotti and that blind guy who sings operatic, totally missing the point.

I think their criteria was "body of work" which is what moved Dylan and Prince up.

The list is the greatest singers, not a body of work.

Rolling Stone disagrees with you here.

It states "In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy." Celine was not skipped over because of her singing quality but by whether she is original, influential, has great depth in her catalogue and breadth in her musical legacy- or in short the impact of her singing body of work.

[Edited 1/4/23 13:42pm]

nayroo2002 said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

But then why is MJ # 86 ?

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

Throwing shade I see.

paisleyparkgirl said:

nayroo2002 said:

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

Throwing shade I see.

Rankings like this are always going to be mostly subjective - They will always be a result of balancing adoration and shade, regardless of whether this is due or undue.

Brandy is far too low on this list.

And I know she was a longshot, but a personal favorite of mine, Cecile McLoren Salvant, outsings a majority of this list.

paisleyparkgirl said:

nayroo2002 said:

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

Throwing shade I see.

It's the truth. Most of the HIStory tour was lip synced. He's almost never performed "Thriller" with a live vocal, as an example. There are tons of HIStory tour videos out there. Aukland, Copenhagen, Munich, Brunei, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Kuala Lumpur, Johannesburg, Bucharest, Seoul, etc - they're all the exact same vocals in 90% of the show. They're an embarassment on his legacy, that in the end he was nothing more than a shadow of his former self vocally.

Up through the Dangerous era, he was doing fine. Even "Jam" was a 50/50 shot if he was singing live or not. "Smooth Criminal" wasn't live. Oddly, "Thriller" was sometimes. But not often. Then, he started phoning it in. It was still the same show that stemmed from the Jackson days, and many mirrored the Victory Tour. The kitschy intros with the space ships or whatever, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" to start every show, or damn near the top of the list, etc etc. He never really changed his show except swapping out a live vocal with a prerecorded one from 15 years prior.

Don't get me wrong: I love MJ. But let's call a thing a thing. The man resorted and relied heavly on lipsyncing in the latter 2/3 of his solo career.

I honestly don't know how he was going to pull off This Is It.

[Edited 1/4/23 14:16pm]

paisleyparkgirl said:

nayroo2002 said:

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

Throwing shade I see.

sorry

i forgot my smiley at the end.

i don't really think there was a particular order here.

MJ had the chops and/or originality, no matter what rank they put him at.

TrivialPursuit said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

Throwing shade I see.

It's the truth. Most of the HIStory tour was lip synced. He's almost never performed "Thriller" with a live vocal, as an example. There are tons of HIStory tour videos out there. Aukland, Copenhagen, Munich, Brunei, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Kuala Lumpur, Johannesburg, Bucharest, Seoul, etc - they're all the exact same vocals in 90% of the show. They're an embarassment on his legacy, that in the end he was nothing more than a shadow of his former self vocally.

Up through the Dangerous era, he was doing fine. Then, he started phoning it in. It was still the same show that stemmed from the Jackson days, and many mirrored the Victory Tour. The kitschy intros with the space ships or whatever, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" to start every show, or damn near the top of the list, etc etc. He never really changed his show except swapping out a live vocal with a prerecorded one from 15 years prior.

I honestly don't know how he was going to pull off This Is It.

He wasn't.

Rolling Stone was already lamenting the fact that he wouldn't survive that residency even during rehearsals.

TrivialPursuit said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

Throwing shade I see.

It's the truth. Most of the HIStory tour was lip synced. He's almost never performed "Thriller" with a live vocal, as an example. There are tons of HIStory tour videos out there. Aukland, Copenhagen, Munich, Brunei, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Kuala Lumpur, Johannesburg, Bucharest, Seoul, etc - they're all the exact same vocals in 90% of the show. They're an embarassment on his legacy, that in the end he was nothing more than a shadow of his former self vocally.

Up through the Dangerous era, he was doing fine. Even "Jam" was a 50/50 shot if he was singing live or not. "Smooth Criminal" wasn't live. Oddly, "Thriller" was sometimes. But not often. Then, he started phoning it in. It was still the same show that stemmed from the Jackson days, and many mirrored the Victory Tour. The kitschy intros with the space ships or whatever, "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" to start every show, or damn near the top of the list, etc etc. He never really changed his show except swapping out a live vocal with a prerecorded one from 15 years prior.

Don't get me wrong: I love MJ. But let's call a thing a thing. The man resorted and relied heavly on lipsyncing in the latter 2/3 of his solo career.

I honestly don't know how he was going to pull off This Is It.

[Edited 1/4/23 14:16pm]

I had no idea. I used to be a big MJ fan as a kid but as an adult he does nothing for me. I had no idea he lipsynced though. You learn something new everyday.

Also from the article, in case it helps to clarify:

"You might notice that, say, there isn’t any opera on our list — that’s because our purview is pop music writ large, meaning that almost all the artists on this list had significant careers as crossover stars making popular music for the masses."

Though it's possible to debate what makes for significant status making that mass-appeal pop.

nayroo2002 said:

paisleyparkgirl said:

But then why is MJ # 86 ?

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

.

- Come on! I am not a MJ fan, but the guy used to sing live since he was a kid. And yes, he lip synched a lot later in his career, but he could sing. And had an unique voice.

I have seen more people walking out of A LIVE show of Bob Dylan (Literally Hundreds) then at the last Tour of Whitney Houston. He is an an amazing writer but a better singer than Prince i don't think so!

Dylan above Prince LOL. You can have your reasonable debates about some of the picks in the top 20, but come on.

These kinds of lists are always an odd amalgamation of subjectivity and objectivity.

GustavoRibas said:

nayroo2002 said:

Still pretty good for a professional lip sync-er.

.

- Come on! I am not a MJ fan, but the guy used to sing live since he was a kid. And yes, he lip synched a lot later in his career, but he could sing. And had an unique voice.

That's not a good argument because Britney Spears was an amazing live singer as a child and we all know how her singing turned out as an adult.

paisleyparkgirl said:

GustavoRibas said:

.

- Come on! I am not a MJ fan, but the guy used to sing live since he was a kid. And yes, he lip synched a lot later in his career, but he could sing. And had an unique voice.

That's not a good argument because Britney Spears was an amazing live singer as a child and we all know how her singing turned out as an adult.

.

But Michael used to sing live as an adult and was very good. If I am not mistaken, he started lip sync in the end of the 80s/90s. Somebody please clarify this

PurpleColossus said:

These kinds of lists are always an odd amalgamation of subjectivity and objectivity...

... and almost exclusively the former over the latter, especially as this about concepts like orginality, influence, depth and bredth of the pop artist's singing body of work.

This is why someone like Dylan can get on the list at the expense of people with much better technical singing abilities.

TrivialPursuit said:

And somehow they missed Celine Dion???Like her or not, she has a voice that is amazing. I'm not a huge fan of hers, and generally skip her music. But I can recognize a great singer when I hear one.Yet Bob Dylan, who's been singing through his nose for 50 years, gets on the list??Rolling Stone said these were the best singers, not the best voices. A pale attempt at a save.

It's not a perfect singing technique that makes one a great singer or having a great voice.

Listen to most of the contemporary RnB singers and you know what i mean.

I prefer Bob's nose singing over all those youngsters with long fake nails and plastic faces tbh.

Alghough, Billy Eilish is a super big talent for me when it comes to 'voices', although her range is limited. Same goes for Beyoncé's siter or Meshell NdegeOcello, Mavis Staples, Nina Simone... Just Sayin'