|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 3, 2023 15:10:30 GMT
I mean, my ranking would look a lot different to the Rolling Stone ranking (which is already a silly concept... like who EXACTLY came up with the list?) but I disagree with some of the comments here about McCartney and Elvis. Like, just listen to The Beatles catalogue.... McCartney was a great singer. Clear as a bell, pitch perfect, great range, could sing delicate ballads or aggressive rockers equally well. Elvis is in my opinion one of the greatest male vocalists in popular music history. The changes his voice went through from 1954 to 1977, it's almost like 2 or 3 different people. Compare That's All Right to Hurt or Unchained Melody. The breadth of different styles and genres he was able to effortlessly sing is almost completely unmatched.
Dylan would make my list for his uniqueness and being really the first person with a voice that wasn't conventionally beautiful to have mainstream success, which paved the way for a lot of other great artists.
I've never attempted to make a list of 200 singers, but I'm also not sure I'd put Celine Dion on there because although she is technically a very good vocalist, I think her music sucks and I don't enjoy the sound of her voice. Having said that, maybe a list from a mainstream publication that is trying to cater to everybody should have included her, but also... maybe not π€·ββοΈ
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 3, 2023 16:40:40 GMT
I mean, my ranking would look a lot different to the Rolling Stone ranking (which is already a silly concept... like who EXACTLY came up with the list?) but I disagree with some of the comments here about McCartney and Elvis. Like, just listen to The Beatles catalogue.... McCartney was a great singer. Clear as a bell, pitch perfect, great range, could sing delicate ballads or aggressive rockers equally well. Elvis is in my opinion one of the greatest male vocalists in popular music history. The changes his voice went through from 1954 to 1977, it's almost like 2 or 3 different people. Compare That's All Right to Hurt or Unchained Melody. The breadth of different styles and genres he was able to effortlessly sing is almost completely unmatched. Dylan would make my list for his uniqueness and being really the first person with a voice that wasn't conventionally beautiful to have mainstream success, which paved the way for a lot of other great artists. I've never attempted to make a list of 200 singers, but I'm also not sure I'd put Celine Dion on there because although she is technically a very good vocalist, I think her music sucks and I don't enjoy the sound of her voice. Having said that, maybe a list from a mainstream publication that is trying to cater to everybody should have included her, but also... maybe not π€·ββοΈ The problem is that RS is very messy about their criteria. It seems they just make up excuses when they are called out. When people called them out on people like Dylan or Lennon being so high on the list, they said "we factored impact, influence, catalog". OK, but then their Top 10 makes even less sense, because while most of those artists are good singers, but they aren't so huge on catalog or impact or influence. If we exclude Celine Dion from the Top 200 because her catalog is not that great, then most of the people they put in the Top 10 have no business in being in the Top 10 either.
So what is really the criteria here? Vocal talent or catalog/impact/influence? It seems it changes from artist to artist and it makes the whole list a ridiculous, inconsistent mess.
I agree that someone like Elvis has a right to being high on this list based on both criteria, but so does MJ. Yet, one of them is at #17, the other is down on #86. In MJ's case RS didn't factor impact, influence and catalog (although even just based on vocals he should be way higher than this), only their traditional disdain for him.
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Jan 3, 2023 16:46:00 GMT
They're legit just trolling, it's so that the article gets posted everywhere. They do stuff like this all the time. I don't get why people are paying so much attention lol.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jan 3, 2023 17:44:53 GMT
I mean, my ranking would look a lot different to the Rolling Stone ranking (which is already a silly concept... like who EXACTLY came up with the list?) but I disagree with some of the comments here about McCartney and Elvis. Like, just listen to The Beatles catalogue.... McCartney was a great singer. Clear as a bell, pitch perfect, great range, could sing delicate ballads or aggressive rockers equally well Pitch perfect? Well, that's the bare minimum I expect from a professional singer on a studio recording. Sings ballads and uptempos? Woah, never heard a professional musician do that before. Clear as a bell? What does that even mean? I'm sorry but Macca is a shit singer who is carried by his songwriting. Pete Waterman once said that McCartney was the only professional singer he's ever worked with where he had to tell him he was singing out of tune.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 3, 2023 22:52:07 GMT
I mean, my ranking would look a lot different to the Rolling Stone ranking (which is already a silly concept... like who EXACTLY came up with the list?) but I disagree with some of the comments here about McCartney and Elvis. Like, just listen to The Beatles catalogue.... McCartney was a great singer. Clear as a bell, pitch perfect, great range, could sing delicate ballads or aggressive rockers equally well. Elvis is in my opinion one of the greatest male vocalists in popular music history. The changes his voice went through from 1954 to 1977, it's almost like 2 or 3 different people. Compare That's All Right to Hurt or Unchained Melody. The breadth of different styles and genres he was able to effortlessly sing is almost completely unmatched. Dylan would make my list for his uniqueness and being really the first person with a voice that wasn't conventionally beautiful to have mainstream success, which paved the way for a lot of other great artists. I've never attempted to make a list of 200 singers, but I'm also not sure I'd put Celine Dion on there because although she is technically a very good vocalist, I think her music sucks and I don't enjoy the sound of her voice. Having said that, maybe a list from a mainstream publication that is trying to cater to everybody should have included her, but also... maybe not π€·ββοΈ The problem is that RS is very messy about their criteria. It seems they just make up excuses when they are called out. When people called them out on people like Dylan or Lennon being so high on the list, they said "we factored impact, influence, catalog". OK, but then their Top 10 makes even less sense, because while most of those artists are good singers, but they aren't so huge on catalog or impact or influence. If we exclude Celine Dion from the Top 200 because her catalog is not that great, then most of the people they put in the Top 10 have no business in being in the Top 10 either.
So what is really the criteria here? Vocal talent or catalog/impact/influence? It seems it changes from artist to artist and it makes the whole list a ridiculous, inconsistent mess.
I agree that someone like Elvis has a right to being high on this list based on both criteria, but so does MJ. Yet, one of them is at #17, the other is down on #86. In MJ's case RS didn't factor impact, influence and catalog (although even just based on vocals he should be way higher than this), only their traditional disdain for him. Yeah, the list is shit, but these list are ALWAYS shit.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 3, 2023 23:09:04 GMT
I mean, my ranking would look a lot different to the Rolling Stone ranking (which is already a silly concept... like who EXACTLY came up with the list?) but I disagree with some of the comments here about McCartney and Elvis. Like, just listen to The Beatles catalogue.... McCartney was a great singer. Clear as a bell, pitch perfect, great range, could sing delicate ballads or aggressive rockers equally well Pitch perfect? Well, that's the bare minimum I expect from a professional singer on a studio recording. Well it's not as common as you would think. Especially coming from a time where there was not auto tune or ability to splice 100 takes together. I'm also talking about live, not just in studio. No, I said sings delicate ballads and aggressive rockers equally as well. Which is a quality of somebody who CAN sing well. See 'Fool on the Hill' and 'Helter Skelter' for instance. His tone. Couldn't find the quote. But I have heard Paul talking about auto-tune in recent years, however he's an old man with a clearly diminished voice now. Even in this thread you have people talking about how he compares to Michael on Say Say Say and The Girl Is Mine. First of all, Michael in 1982 is going to out-sing most people. That's him at his peak, while McCartney was 40 years old. I wouldn't even want to put 40 year old Michael up against himself from 1982.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jan 4, 2023 7:47:01 GMT
Pitch perfect? Well, that's the bare minimum I expect from a professional singer on a studio recording. Well it's not as common as you would think. Especially coming from a time where there was not auto tune or ability to splice 100 takes together. I'm also talking about live, not just in studio. No, I said sings delicate ballads and aggressive rockers equally as well. Which is a quality of somebody who CAN sing well. See 'Fool on the Hill' and 'Helter Skelter' for instance. His tone. Couldn't find the quote. But I have heard Paul talking about auto-tune in recent years, however he's an old man with a clearly diminished voice now. Even in this thread you have people talking about how he compares to Michael on Say Say Say and The Girl Is Mine. First of all, Michael in 1982 is going to out-sing most people. That's him at his peak, while McCartney was 40 years old. I wouldn't even want to put 40 year old Michael up against himself from 1982. Answer me this, HONESTLY, do you think Paul McCartney in his prime (whenever that was) would make it today as a professional singer?
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 4, 2023 8:52:34 GMT
Well it's not as common as you would think. Especially coming from a time where there was not auto tune or ability to splice 100 takes together. I'm also talking about live, not just in studio. No, I said sings delicate ballads and aggressive rockers equally as well. Which is a quality of somebody who CAN sing well. See 'Fool on the Hill' and 'Helter Skelter' for instance. His tone. Couldn't find the quote. But I have heard Paul talking about auto-tune in recent years, however he's an old man with a clearly diminished voice now. Even in this thread you have people talking about how he compares to Michael on Say Say Say and The Girl Is Mine. First of all, Michael in 1982 is going to out-sing most people. That's him at his peak, while McCartney was 40 years old. I wouldn't even want to put 40 year old Michael up against himself from 1982. Answer me this, HONESTLY, do you think Paul McCartney in his prime (whenever that was) would make it today as a professional singer? The Beatles years. They're a band from the 60's. You may have heard of them. And obviously yes. Like the singers of today are just so much better than those of the 60's?
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 4, 2023 11:26:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by invinciblegal on Jan 4, 2023 12:43:21 GMT
Rolling Stone is just a propaganda machine for Beyonce and Taylor Swift. Those are the prized pigs of RS.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 4, 2023 15:11:01 GMT
Rolling Stone is just a propaganda machine for Beyonce and Taylor Swift. Those are the prized pigs of RS. Surprisingly Swift is only at #102 on this list. Although even that's probably too high for her when people like Barbra Streisand are behind her. But yeah, Beyonce is absolutely a media darling. Her Top 10 placing is ridiculous.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,445
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 4, 2023 22:28:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 5, 2023 6:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Jan 5, 2023 8:05:35 GMT
I think MJ is the easy scapegoat in polls like this. They can use his supposed "tarnished" legacy in an attempt to diminish his impact, deliberately putting someone who they know is a top 5 contender in a ridiculous placement, doing so to generate outrage amongst fans, who end up getting Rolling Stone trending etc. It's all very calculated and really the only explanation. I'm sure not even Rhianna or Aaliyah's biggest fans believe they are better singers than Michael Jackson.
It'd be nice if they used some other artist instead of MJ as the scapegoat for a change, but it's just so easy for them to get away with it with Mike, even more so after LN.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jan 5, 2023 8:59:15 GMT
I think it's as simple as "this guy is obviously one of the greatest, but there's a possibility he might be a pedophile so we better not put him too high." If this list came out in 2009 when that stuff was kind of brushed to the side he probably would have been put top 5.
|
|