lucifer_sam

I'm guessing that it's an amalgamation of the two, so that Rolling Stone can excuse themselves by not stepping outside of their mediocre boundaries.

__________________
first.am

jackhammer

I absolutely detest Aguillera but there is no denying she has brilliant range and does'nt 'warble' half as much as the premier divas.

I personally think Yorke has a great voice and is one of a very few artists whose falsetto I can tolerate. It's cliched but I think tracks such as 'Street Spirit', 'Fake Plastic Trees' and 'House Of Cards' are greatly enhanced by his vocals. One thing that does let him down is range. Not vocal range but emotionally. Sometimes I would love to hear him let rip in a track and really dominate it vocally. There are enough peaks and troughs in Radiohead's music to allow Yorke to vary it a little.

__________________

spark10036

ok no offense but cmon are u serious?

what are u talking about?

ok let's forget all about the poll for a minute here. he is the weak point? I know we can express our opinions here, that's why I'm here anw, but that was harsh man...

I'm shocked,this was a first timer for me

a good point there but I think it has to do with the fact that they like to use his voice like another instrument for the band, and not let their vocals dominate the mood and feelings they want to achieve with their music

__________________

Seltzer

You have a different definition of singer/vocalist to me. In my mind, vocals is the whole package... growling, screeching, clean singing, crooning, belching, ululating, pig squealing, African throat clicking etc... singing is just a subset of vocals.

Having said that, I think your idea of good singing is that the vocal melodies/lines are well written regardless of what the singer actually sounds like. But vocal melodies are definitely influenced by the music itself and whoever writes them (not necessarily the vocalist) - therefore, I don't think it's a relevant quality in compiling a list of great singers.

__________________

dac

Ok if you guys want to judge the "Best" by who can belt out more ridiculous high notes or who can hold notes longer then Christina probably wins. But then people like Robert Plant and Kurt Cobain don't even approach being on the list.

How to Disappear Completely.

__________________

lucifer_sam

Kurt Cobain shouldn't have been on the list. But it's for the same goddamn reason he was on RS' "100 Greatest Guitarists" or some shit like that.

Robert Plant, however, carries more emotion in his voice than about 90-95% of that list. Say what you will about his vocal range, but when he got on stage, he could carry a song better than anyone else.

__________________
first.am

khfreek

Aw, FaSho, why you gotta be like that

Matt's range alone should make him generally accepted as ok, I don't know why you think he's terrible. And Thom's voice is about as simple a voice you can get, I don't know what's to hate about that either.

__________________
last.fm

spark10036

well Robert Plant would make the list easily with that standards in my opinion

and yes Kurt Cobain is another example to what I'm trying to say,honestly not that good of a singer, but the spokesperson of the 90s grunge scene which was very successful.

__________________

dac

EXACTLY. That was the point I was trying to make.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

Perfectly serious

There are some songs where I just find his vocals too nasal & whiney.

Perfect case in point someone asked me why I didn't like Life in a Glasshouse. And the reason being I just don't think he can pull off a song like that.

I would describe Thom Yorke's vocals as workmanlike but unspectacular. Which is why I don't think he belongs on a list of the 100 greatest singers.

__________________