I Just looked at the list, how can sinatra not be on the list?....
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I dare all the Bob Dylan-haters to try and sing "To Ramona". I don't even care for the timbre of your voice, I bet you you can't even get the rhythm and melody right.
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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 there's a list of great singers other things like the ones I named(legacy...) should not be taken into account.
There are elements in which Dylan is superior to Freddie but the same goes the other way round too. Freddie has some things in which he is better(and for me his vocal talent is one of those) than Dylan and he deserves credit for that.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
I think aretha and elvis are the only singers in rock n roll clearly above freddie.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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 there's a list of great singers other things like the ones I named(legacy...) should not be taken into account.
There are elements in which Dylan is superior to Freddie but the same goes the other way round too. Freddie has some things in which he is better(and for me his vocal talent is one of those) than Dylan and he deserves credit for that.
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not a big elvis guy, but the guy is truly an icon of all icons. He does have a full voice and maybe a little stronger overall than fred. Robert plant is more interesting to me, but for my money freddie was the better overall vocalist. I'm not big on plant, but he could do things that freddie couldn't do, and vice versa. In the end we could go back and forth between freddie and plant and get nowhere. I guess their on the same level, but freddie still wins IMO.
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]mike hunt wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not a big elvis guy, but the guy is truly an icon of all icons. He does have a full voice and maybe a little stronger overall than fred. Robert plant is more interesting to me, but for my money freddie was the better overall vocalist. I'm not big on plant, but he could do things that freddie couldn't do, and vice versa. In the end we could go back and forth between freddie and plant and get nowhere. I guess their on the same level, but freddie still wins IMO.
I don't love the list myself. Freddie, IMO, was the greatest vocalist of all time; certainly the greatest male voclalist of all time. I would have him at number 2 behind Aretha. (The fact that he isn't even ranked highest of the geunuine rock singers is particularly questionable.)
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE]
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
He couldn't hit them anymore by late 72, never mind today. His voice was up and down after that, getting progressively worse throughout the 70s (save a throat operation in 75/76 that had him sounding strong again in 77). That said, his voice at the reunion concert last year was superb in comparison to how he sounded at most 1975 shows. He sang For Your Life better than on the record.
So, the voice really isn't the reason why he's not touring with Page and Jones. Plant simply wants to move forward musically, not backward. Artistically, I respect that choice. However, while one might be quick to say he has no obligation to play for his fans, those are the very fans who gave him the platform to have the career he has today. So...
[b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
He couldn't hit them anymore by late 72, never mind today. His voice was up and down after that, getting progressively worse throughout the 70s (save a throat operation in 75/76 that had him sounding strong again in 77). That said, his voice at the reunion concert last year was superb in comparison to how he sounded at most 1975 shows. He sang For Your Life better than on the record.
So, the voice really isn't the reason why he's not touring with Page and Jones. Plant simply wants to move forward musically, not backward. Artistically, I respect that choice. However, while one might be quick to say he has no obligation to play for his fans, those are the very fans who gave him the platform to have the career he has today. So...
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE] There were indeed probably no criteria:-) I hate that about those lists! Of course I get what you're saying too. I usually do;-)
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE] There were indeed probably no criteria:-) I hate that about those lists! Of course I get what you're saying too. I usually do;-)
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
[QUOTE]
[b]on my way up wrote: [/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
It's all laughable to have Tina Turner & Mick Jagger above Freddie is a joke & no mention of Frank Sinatra? (not my thing but he was a great singer)
my opinion aretha is soul singer neither rock singer. Rolling stones magizine is sheet !
[QUOTE]
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
In conclusion... I have better taste in music than you!
How do you like them apples? Huh, huh !??
[b]ThomasQuinn wrote:[/b]
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.
[/QUOTE]
In conclusion... I have better taste in music than you!
How do you like them apples? Huh, huh !??
I don't know, Thomas Quinn,.. music and the 'colour'/timbre of one's voice may be a matter of taste, but I think there surely are criterias - f.ex. technique, emotional quality, 'overall sound'/impression etc - to ascertain if one's voice is trained/sounding good...
from a technical point of view and overall sounding quality I would not put John Lennon and Paul McCartney that high, but they are because they are too popular not appearing in such a high rating... so maybe this list should be called not the "best" singers of all time, but the most "popular"/acclaimed/unique or something like that...
from a technical point of view and overall sounding quality I would not put John Lennon and Paul McCartney that high, but they are because they are too popular not appearing in such a high rating... so maybe this list should be called not the "best" singers of all time, but the most "popular"/acclaimed/unique or something like that...