Rock and Roll's Greatest Singers

I've had much pleasure recently reading neo-neocon's blog, which I discovered a few weeks back. She's good. I disagree with her take, however, on Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Singers of All Time.  Of course I have my quibbles but I think they pretty much got it right. It's hard to argue with Aretha at #1. Her voice has always seemed a bit of a miracle to me, a combination of power, range, passion, and control that no one else can even come close to.  If one were to argue it would have to be on the grounds that, since her late-60s pinnacle, she really hasn't been making great music overall. The sparks of brilliance over the years have been overshadowed by bad decisions, career missteps, lousy song choices, etc. The voice remains though, and I will accept her at #1.

Likewise, I won't argue with Ray Charles at #2, though I wouldn't have put him there myself. Undeniably great, top-ten certainly, but I would have picked John Lennon at #2, just ahead of Dylan and Elvis. As it is, Rolling Stone has him at #5, so it's not as if he's slighted. And that's my point: the list has all the right people just about where they should be. They have Elvis at #3 and Dylan at #7 so again, they are in the ballpark. I would have dropped Sam Cooke a few notches - Rolling Stone has him at #4 - not because I don't love his voice but because his songs in the rock and roll genre, while quite good, aren't overwhelming. He wasn't around long enough to build up the body of work a #4 should have and besides, his greatest singing was done during his days singing pure gospel with The Soul Stirrers.

Al Green gets his due at #14 though I would have switched Green's place on Rolling Stone's list with Otis Redding, who comes in at #8. Al Green was sui generis, there's never been anyone like him. Otis, as great as he was, had a tendency to worry his songs to death. Had he lived longer, I expect he would have discovered the value of restraint in his singing and challenged for the #1 spot. That's how great his voice was. (Oh my, I'm just rereading this before posting and that last line I wrote is nearly the title of what I consider his greatest song, "That's How Strong My Love Is." I wasn't even trying for an allusion there but I got it. Heh.)

Some people on the list don't deserve to be anywhere near it. Some day a generation will look back on #47 Jim Morrison, see through the hype, and recognize him for what he really was - an egotistical, no-talent hack, with an overblown and pretentious vocal style beyond all reason or taste. Until then we must all endure. The Doors had a few top-forty hits during their time but they weren't the be-all-and-end-all people make them out to be now. Their real popularity came later, after Jim Morrison was dead and his myth was created. But that's all it is, a myth. The music is there to listen to, if anyone really cares to. Had he lived, I'm certain The Doors would have faded from sight within a few years and would just be a footnote in rock and roll history.

There are two glaring problems with the list. To begin with, how can Rolling Stone rank Robert Plant, at #15, ahead of Mick Jagger, at #16? Besides The Beatles, The Stones are the only band that could possibly make a claim to the greatest in history. And Mick Jagger's voice was the most distinguishable part of the band. He's great, a voice made for rock and roll, perfect for the type of music he sang. It's one of the touchstones of rock and roll, that voice. Robert Plant was a screamer, an effective on to be sure, but no way can he be compared to Mick Jagger. This was a bad miss by Rolling Stone and by ranking the one immediately ahead the other, they made sure everyone noticed.

The final bad call is similarly glaring, and the biggest outrage in my book: Van Morrison at #24, with David Bowie ahead of Van at #23. Excuse me? Van Morrison is one of the all-timers. The man has a voice for the ages and he's been proving it for almost fifty years now - he is still making terrific music and exploring new territory with his vocals. Like Mick Jagger (and like Dylan) the most distinguishable thing about Van's music is his voice. To me, he's a top-five pick (so there's my top five: Aretha, Lennon, Dylan, Elvis, Van.) I understand he's not for everyone so I'll accept him ranked somewhat lower, but please, #24 with David Bowie (!!) ahead of him? What are David Bowie's great vocal performances. Does he have anything that can even touch "Madame George" or "Cyprus Avenue" or "Listen to the Lion"? Even on a minor song like "Cul De Sac" (which admittedly after forty years I still have no idea what it's about but hey, with Van, that's part of the charm), he's spectacular. Listen to it whole but pay particular attention to the scream at about the 4:56 mark - it's one of the greatest screams in rock and roll history and it blows Rolling Stones rankings right out the door. Thank you.

[audio:CulDeSac.mp3]