Rolling Stone Top 200 Greatest Singers (2023)

More missing: Tom Waits, Townes Van Zandt, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dinah Washington, Miley Cyrus, Tonio K

I don't even know what "greatest singer" means in this context. If we're really just listing the "greatest" singers shouldn't it just be a bunch of opera and classically trained singers? They have the widest ranges and the most control over their voices. That's obviously not what they mean but with how eclectic the list is it's hard to tell what criterion is actually being used.

These kinds of lists really need to be split up by genre. Which you'd think the postmodern "everything is subjective" brigade would go along with. You can't really compare what a pop, r&b, or rock singer are doing in comparison to each other, they're all going for something completely different. Rolling Stone at least used to be a rock magazine so let them do rock singers, Billboard or Pitchfork (these days) can do pop singers, The Source can do rappers, exc. I'd have more respect for that than all these multi genre lists that just feel so calculated and contrived.

For a few thoughts though-

Ariana Grande at 43 is a joke and just pandering to her stans. Even just comparing her to other pop singers there's people who are way better behind her or not on the list.

With the big emphasis they seem to be putting on pre Beatles black rock and roll how is Howlin' Wolf not top ten? You don't even have to qualify it by era, he's one of the great rock singers period.

Also a lot of these people like Brian Wilson, Bowie, Van Morrison, Bryan Ferry, PJ Harvey, Joni Mitchell, and yes, McCartney, are good as songwriters and artists but not really all time greats explicitly as singers.

Morrisey barely slipping on the list is also a complete joke. I'd say he's both like a top 20 rock singer and probably higher than that as a pop singer. Even if you think The Smiths were melodramatic drama queens and don't care for their music there's no denying he has a tremendous instrument.

For a positive I liked Karen Carpenter making it as a deep cut. Their actual music is corny but she's another one who clearly has an exceptional voice.

Freddie Mercury and Robert Plant should've been much higher on the list.Adele's voice is so meh to me.

This. Rolling Stone seems to be conflating songwriting chops for vocal capabilities with many here. And I mean, I get it. It's Rolling Stone. The bias curve is present. But it's frustrating seeing Thom Yorke land a spot on these lists while vocalists with similar (if not better) falsetto range like Hayden Thorpe, Jonathan Higgs and more are consistently popping off yet left underappreciated...but again, Rolling Stone...

Said this before, but the appeal of that album forever eludes me... it bores me to tears, Morrison's voice grates on me... and I just don't find listening to him performing the same vocal inflections over and over again to be particularly interesting.

Alas, yet another addition to the pile of music topics we'll never agree on... 

I agree Yorke is a bit high but as I noted in general earlier the appeal with him isn't so much in his voice but how he uses it. He was one of the first in remotely mainstream music and certainly rock music to use the "voice as instrument concept" on OKC and Kid A. Even on their later stuff, his overdubbed wordless backing vocals on Nude off In Rainbows are gorgeous and make the song. Then he's just so influential, seems like the singer in every 2000's indie band that came up was trying to sound just like him. 


I'm not surprised by Davies missing just because everything Kinks related remains perpetually underrated (which I kind of like at this point because it makes me feel cool) and then on a technical level he isn't really a good singer at all. But he brought that musical theater "acting while singing" thing to rock music before Bowie and all the glam rock guys did in the 70's and probably did it better than them. So he's very important. 

bro what do you have against morrissey have you seen this

Am I bro? That seems a little familial, no?   

Nothing against him - zero - I like every album - reviewed a lot of 'em too .........even a bootleg or two (?) - never a bad review, right?...........The Smiths get praise every tme from me  (though 3 are overrated imo - 1,2,4) - one of them is a genuine all timer  (the 3rd)..........I own 2 of 'em - and I don't own that much - (the 3rd, and the maybe even better Singles collection).........but nobody read my post and said "What do you have against Michael Stipe?" - did they, who was in that same sentence in my OP and who is not too different (sensitive poetic fuckwad, who fronted a great(er) band and made 2 all-timer albums (not just 1!)..........and  (at least) 3 more good albums (or better than good) and a classic EP too)........but no, REM fans know what to let slide:

This is because (early) REM fans are reasonable and grounded - and have a Joie de vivre............about these things

Smiths fans however are verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry protective of Steven........... about these things........but the truth about Morrissey & The Smiths is he was (at times) great, and he was (simultaneously) fncking ridiculous........this is not a contradiction........it's like saying The Replacements were very great and often - in performance - could be really awful.......or The Heartbreakers were one of the best American bands ever .........especially for a bunch of junkies

It's a criticism of deep love, not of hate..........it is a criticism of referring to yourself in the 3rd person too:

pacinoyes does not hate Steven Morrissey.........pacinoyes does not hate The Smiths........pacinoyes does not hate flowers