board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers

Post Reply   Page 2 of 2  [ 31 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2
Author Message
Ara-anna
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 7:25 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
:scratch: I guess classical vocals are not ranked? :shrug:

_________________

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Five seconds away from the Tetons and Yellowstone


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 7:47 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
yovargas wrote:
There's probably no point in continuing this mini-debate but I don't really see how one could disagree with either of these statements:
A great singer is one who sings beautifully*.
Beauty is subjective.

Put those two together and you get why a Cobain or a Dylan rightfully belong on a list like this.


* I'm using "beautifully" in the very broad sense of aesthetically pleasing in some way
That's just redefining the argument. But have at it. I think my point is as clear as I can make it.

By this argument any piece of shit can be considered "beautiful" if anyone, anywhere thinks it is. Hence some of the trash that passes for modern art. I hold music to a higher standard than that. If someone thinks Kurt Cobain was a great singer, they can. But I'll shout from the rooftops that they're wrong. He was a great artist. A great songwriter. An extremely fucked up individual. But he wasn't a great singer.

Just cause someone somewhere thinks he was a great singer don't make it so. Which is the opposite of what your statements says.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 8:12 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
What if millions upon millions think it for a few decades? :)
Sorry, beauty is subjective. There's no way around that.


Top
Profile Quote
Dawnnamira
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 8:26 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sat 06 May , 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact: Website
 
I'm going to step in here and say, hey, it's Rolling Stone for crying out loud, they are about the entertainment.


That being said, personally I'm on Yov's side. I agree that the technical aspects of music are important, but I think many of my favorite singers are not technically perfect. They have many aspects of the 'technical skill' but not all of them, and they are still beautiful singers.

_________________

How strange it is to be anything at all


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 8:43 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Bowing out now.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
TheMary
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 9:39 pm
I took the stars from my eyes, and then I made a map, And knew that somehow I could find my way back; Then I heard your heart beating, you were in the darkness too - So I stayed in the darkness with you
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 7067
Joined: Mon 27 Jun , 2005 3:44 pm
Location: On my tush!
 
Alatar wrote:
Freddie Mercury should be Top 10 at least, if not top 5.

Kurt Cobain shouldn't even be on the list. He was a great artist, but he wasn't a singer. Neither is Bruce for that matter...
I agree 100% with this entire post. Cobain was part of a band that was "great" (to some, not to me) on his own he was nothing stellar imo. Freddie Mercury was also in a band that was AMAZING and on his own, yup, still amazing and top 10 worthy.

I would have been bitterly disappointed had David Bowie not been on the list. And yes MJ should be above Bruce, he's freaky deeky but dude has talent.

_________________

Lay down
Your sweet and weary head
Night is falling
You’ve come to journey's end
Sleep now
And dream of the ones who came before
They are calling
From across the distant shore

Why do you weep?
What are these tears upon your face?
Soon you will see
All of your fears will pass away
Safe in my arms
You're only sleeping


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 10:57 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
Well when I saw this edition I instantly thought of a few things. First I flashed back to the Rolling Stone top 500 songs and the tongue wagging that went on over that. It is a bit hard to take a list seriously when the name of the magazine is Rolling Stone and the numbers 1 and 2 songs are Like a Rolling Stone by Bob Dylan and Satisfaction by the Rolling Stones. Sure you can make an argument for those songs, but it is pretty easy to see why they were 1 and 2.

Any such list is all about subjectivity, but you can also expect some risky picks because they want people to talk about it.

As for singing, there is singing and singing and singing. Greatest singers is another story.
Coming from a rock magazine, I hardly expected any classical singers. I am impressed enough that they tossed in some crossover artists from blues and country.
Pretty much you are left with rock and pop singers.

I'm not sure that those styles of music are conducive to great singers, so I take greatest with a grain of salt right off the bat. There are exceptions of course, but great singing and rock don't always go hand in hand, so....

I listen to music now a lot differently than I did when I was younger. Back in the day, I never thought people like Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin and Neil Young could really sing. But they can. They all sing in tune and hit notes I couldn't even dream of. The sound of their voices may not be appealing to some, but they can sing.
I don't know if I would call any of them great singers though. Janis may have the best shot of the three. She had a powerful voice and seems to have some pretty decent range. But really I can't call any of them great singers.

Probably about half of that list is made up of great acts, great writers, great performers, great personalities, media darlings and whatever else. I would be hard pressed to call half of them great singers. Most of them are missing elements from their repetoire.

I think they all have some great aspect to them though or more precisely to their singing. Be uniqueness or style or range or whatever all of them have something in their corner. It is just that most of them don't have the whole package. And I think that is true of many rock singers.

Where by the way is Pat Benatar? We are talking about someone who could really rock and sing ballards. Someone who has a huge octave range and a really powerful voice. What caused them to leave her off the list?

That is one of the reasons why I don't put a lot of stock in this list or any other. Bob Dylan is on there because he is Bob Dylan. Same for Janis and Neil Young.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 11:07 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
What Holby said.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 11:44 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Holbytla wrote:
It is just that most of them don't have the whole package. And I think that is true of many rock singers.
But who does have "the whole package"? Nobody, I'd say. Cuz Pavarotti sure as hell had crazy skill, but he couldn't sing Teen Spirit as wll as Cobain and he couldn't sing No Satisfaction as well as Jagger. So, to my mind Pavarotti has plenty missing. But that's cuz he was a great opera singer while Jagger was a great rock singer. But they were both great singers.


Top
Profile Quote
Holbytla
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Sun 23 Nov , 2008 11:49 pm
Grumpy cuz I can be
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6642
Joined: Thu 09 Dec , 2004 3:07 am
 
No. Jagger is a great performer and he is the only one that can sing Satisfaction the way it was meant to be sung. He was great at singing Satisfaction.
Pavarotti was a great singer, but was missing the elements that would have enabled him to belt out
"When i'm ridin' round the world
And i'm doin' this and i'm signing that
And i'm tryin' to make some girl
Who tells me baby better come back later next week
'cause you see i'm on losing streak".

There is a difference.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Eruname
Post subject: Re: Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers
Posted: Mon 24 Nov , 2008 2:48 pm
Islanded in a Stream of Stars
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8748
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:24 pm
Location: UK
Contact: Website
 
FWIW, I agree with you Alatar. I really, really like Nirvana and Cobain but Cobain definitely was not a good singer.

_________________

Abandon this fleeting world
abandon yourself.
Then the moon and flowers
will guide you along the way.

-Ryokan

http://wanderingthroughmiddleearth.blogspot.com/


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 2  [ 31 posts ]
Return to “Made in Dale: Hobbies and Entertainment” | Jump to page « 1 2
Jump to: