https://twitter.com/crockpics/status...026944/photo/1
Printable View
Where's Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Bing Crosby, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr, Nat King Cole, Kay Starr, Brenda Lee, Connie Francis, Brook Benton, Johnny Mathis?
Yes, I know, maybe their list should be "Rock and Roll Age", I do appreciate the seemingly genuine attempt at diversifying the names of the 1955 + age, but really, to make it "Top Singers of All Time", make it "All Time", including pre-1955 and vocal pop and jazz singers. Christina Aguilara and Bjork, really?
I see a handful of "rock" names, that I believe more quality names could replace their place, but I understand, "Rolling Stone" is mostly a rock-oriented periodical, don't want to cross their base too much.
But also, where's Neil Sedaka and Carole King? Not just great songwriters, they should know. And Olivia-Newton John?
What an absurd group. In addition to the oversights you mentioned, how could any survey have Ronnie Spector and Darlene Love and NOT have Dionne Warwick?
They put Whitney Houston at #34? These lists are very subjective.
they certainly don't know anything about real singers.
And where are TEDDY and Lou Rawls and Levi Stubbs and Eddie LeVert, and Walter Williams and Carla Thomas and Isaac hayes and JERRY BUTLER...???!!!
They can have called this list "The Top 100 singers from rock music with some soul singers who are massively apreciated by the rock audience" [[of course, as they understand the "rock" concept, not his real mean, rock as a Rythm & Blues derivative style...)
list is ten years old.
Greg Allman ? Does anyone even know what his voice sounds like?
Bob Dylan ???LOL!
Don't even know what Top 100 means ... in what way??
It's Rolling Stone so figures : no Diana Ross , Donna Summer....
Mavis made it , Gladys, that's good.
Added;
hey I wonder if Judy Garland should have been on there ..............naaaaah
I shall save looking at this list for another time.
Not sure what I think of journalism in ''list format''.
It's easy to do a list of ''the best singers'' but not so easy to explain why someone is a good singer, but more important to do that. And right now it seems to me that it would for example be important to write about the natural voice disappearing from music to a large degree, and perhaps mourne the loss of it a little. Humans probably sang before they spoke. Song is deeply rooted in so much that we are and know ourselves as. What has humans expressing in song meant in society through the history of recorded music? Eeeetc.
I don't mind it if media outlets make a list TOO. They know that people will look at it and do exactly what we do here: - Why isn't so and so on it?! - Why IS this and that artist?! ...It's an old trick maybe... and it works....
I know, Whitney Houston made many, many hits the eighties and nineties, but I could probably think up easily thirty-four singers better than her.Quote:
Originally Posted by marv2
Such as, Lena Horne and Nancy Wilson.
But, Michael Jackson at #25???? He's a KING, up on the legendary ranks with Elvis Presley and the Beatles.
Did you notice if Mahaila Jackson made the list?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ngroove