Freddie 18th?

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

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.

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?"

Rolling stone's magazine is a crap, look this list! [img=/images/smiley/msn/confused_smile.gif][/img]

Cak bloody cak !

Master Mrathon Runner.

[QUOTE]How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE]













[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]







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...





[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.[/QUOTE]

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. [/QUOTE]
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.

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

[QUOTE]

[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]How in the worl can be Mick Jagger on 16th and Freddie on 18th place.[/QUOTE]

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. [/QUOTE]


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.

Anyone who rates members of the Rolling Stones amongst the best musicians of the 20th century is a cunt.

[QUOTE]

[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]

[QUOTE]

 



 



 



 



 



 



 



[b]Micrówave wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



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...



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]



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.

theyre just rolling the truth!

[QUOTE]

[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]

Anyone who rates members of the Rolling Stones amongst the best musicians of the 20th century is a cunt.[/QUOTE]




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...

Of course lists only exist to start arguments.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]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![/QUOTE]