Rolling Stone's '200 Greatest Singers of All Time' list

So Rolling Stone recently put out a '200 Singers of All-time' list, which has gotten mixed reviews.  When I reviewed the list, I found it insulting for those who were left off, and some who were included should not have been on it.  When reading this list, two singers immediately came to mind.



Despite Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey being excellent choices, Celine Dion should have made the list as well since she has a similarly powerful voice. It was her voice that made her one of the biggest female singers during the 90s. I am not a diehard Celine Dion fan, BUT I am going to give credit where credit is due here. That woman can sing! Her voice is beautiful, and she deserves a spot on the list.


Not including INXS' Michael Hutchence was perhaps the biggest blow. His voice was one of the best in music and he was in a class by himself. It was an insult to put Bono at #147, and not include Michael Hutchence at all! I always thought Michael Hutchence had the better voice and stage presence between the two. I think INXS was just as deserving of the attention U2 received. I mean, INXS were dubbed the biggest band in the world in 1991, weren't they? In that year, they beat out U2 and The Rolling Stones. World class band!

Since Michael Hutchence died so young, you might think that perhaps the reason so many people overlook him is because his music career ended so early.  However, Jeff Buckley died at the age of 30 and his music remains popular to this day.  That is not to say that INXS are not popular, they just don't get enough credit for being an awesome band.  It's impossible to list every musician on this planet, but I felt some were too mainstream and out of place.  One being SZA.  Are you telling me this "SZA" singer is better than Celine Dion or Michael Hutchence?  Please.  These kinds of lists always include too many "popular" artists, while the ones who should be on them aren't.  Can Rolling Stone magazine name any other artists besides U2, Beyoncé, and Taylor Swift?  My guarantee is that those three will be on any list that is ever made.  To say the least, it's aggravating.  My apologies to any U2 fans out there, but the overwhelming amount of attention this band receives drives me insane.



Here are some more artists on this list. Let's begin with Chet Baker. I love Chet Baker. While I think he is an amazing jazz musician, when he sings without playing a trumpet, is his voice the greatest of all time? When you say "all-time" that is to mean never surpassed or greater. It is the best there is, or one of the best of "all-time." As much as I love Chet Baker, I would not place him in this category.



It's hard to decide which is funnier. The fact that Ozzy Osbourne is on this list, or the fact that he was put on it for sounding so bad! LOL Yes, you heard that right. Ozzy Osbourne was cited by Rolling Stone magazine as not having a "good voice." They wrote, "Ozzy Osbourne doesn't have what most people would call a good voice, but boy does he have a great one." Um, what? When they wrote that, did they not hear themselves? If he doesn't have what most people would consider a "good voice," do NOT--and I repeat--do NOT put him on a "200 Greatest Singers of All Time" list!!! *facepalm*



Rihanna? Her music sounds like that of your average pop artist. Although that's not a bad thing, "average" wouldn't be on the 200 Greatest Singers of All Time list.



It also baffles me why Rolling Stone ranks Michael Jackson 86 out of 200. Number 86! Michael Jackson is a music icon that deserves to be among the top 10. Yet Rihanna is ranked 68th! This places her 18 spots above of Michael Jackson. Are these people on something? And it gets worse...



Ariana Grande at #43. Mic drop.

There were a few decent artists in the last set. Among them were Otis Redding, Ray Charles, John Lennon, Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Al Green, Little Richard, and Patsy Cline. However, Beyoncé took the 8th spot. Figures. Celine Dion should have taken Beyoncé's place, IMO. That wasn't right at all. This YouTuber's words summed up my thoughts on this video when he said, "Yeah, this list actually might be garbage, I can't lie. There are so many people that are missing, and then organization and the ranking of it all is just making me want to throw up."

His video:

It's not the first time Rolling Stone or other magazines have made a bad list.  Some of these artists might be listed on a list of "Most Influential Bands/Artists," but not a list of 200 Greatest Singers of All Time. I don't think they know what all-time means, LOL... In a greatest singers of all-time list, someone is considered one of the very best singers ever.  I just do not agree with their list at all.  This list would have embarassed me if I had put it online.  Whenever the same "popular" artists appear on a list, you know it's going to be bad.  Why bother making them?  Way to go, Rolling Stone!