They've Done It Again

 

Do I need to explain this is Frank Sinatra?

So there I was, sleepwalking through the opening day of 2023.

No topics. No inspiration.

But then, leave it to Rolling Stone to make my head explode.

They cobbled together "The 200 Greatest Singers of All Time."

Since I often can't be bothered with an entire list, I decided to "cut to the chase" to see the top 10. However, that meant seeing the top 40.

I wish I could unsee it.

The crimes against music are multiple.

Now, of course, all lists are subjective. Music is subjective as we all know.

For instance, especially given his new dedication to a picture per day as a form of an essay in 2023 (an idea I love), I won't discuss the merits of the music of Maroon 5 in honor of John Nash. Incidentally, that sentence was crimes against writing and I apologize.

But Rolling Stone needs to apologize for this heinous list. Now, per them, what makes a "greatest singer" isn't just a voice but their showmanship as well. I mean, I want to rank singers I care about their voices more than if they wiggle across a stage. 

None of this -- literally, none -- helps explain this utterly clueless collection. Look, I can handle Paul McCartney being 26th if I'm truly blown away by those ahead of him. Or John Lennon at 12. But when you put Smokey Robinson and Adele at 23 and 22 respectively, you're doing something wrong.

My eyes were on fire when I hit number 19.

We're talking about singers. Singers with a presence. Singers with a voice. You know, like Aretha Franklin and Freddie Mercury and John and Paul and so on. We're talking the greats. No, the GREATS.

Number 19: Frank. Sinatra.

And I melted down.

When we're talking singers, Sinatra should be no less than second, with a nod towards Aretha. Nineteen?

At that point, it all became laughable. When you put Prince -- a Rolling Stone favorite -- ahead of Sinatra, you've lost me. 

Or Bob Dylan. Perhaps I could buy that if I heard more "Lay Lady Lay" in his vocals as opposed to the nasal twang of his early work that we've all mocked at one time or another.

When you put Barbra Streisand at 147 and Karen Carpenter at 123 and Joni Mitchell at 50, you've undeniably failed. In terms of pure vocal fireworks, each deserves a much higher place.

They can have their (mega-flawed) list where apparently showmanship is the key factor but, even then, Sinatra's swagger and interpretation topped basically anyone.

I needed this laugh and, don't worry, Rolling Stone is getting the attention they craved. Mission accomplished.

Oh, and Mariah Carey is on the list but Celine Dion isn't. And Ella Fitzgerald is buried lower.

Yes, I quite needed this laugh.

The sheer breadth of singers in the history of popular music is profound. There is room at the table for a variety of voices and styles. The human voice is an instrument in its own right (I'd like to think I know this). There are great rappers whose voices are unmistakable and part of their presentation. Opera, country, metal, pop, and so on. There are virtuosos in each genre.

This list is a slapdash train wreck of a list. I won't even get into where they deposited voices like Levon Helm (and good lord I won't even bother to mention Huey Lewis, though I suppose I just did). It's standard operating procedure for Rolling Stone.

Once again, I'm a sucker for a list. And I'm a sucker for them to effectively tick me off.

Well-played.

No R.E.S.P.E.C.T. from me. Which is why I'm not posting a link to this list!