Bono named 3rd best singer in rock history, according to Rolling Stone survey

[OnlyU2]

Paul Hewson's nickname was originally Bono Vox, which translated from Latin into "good voice." He's long since shortened it to Bono, but the sentiment remains. He does indeed have a very good voice. It's as effective on soft, moody songs like "Did You Wear That Velvet Dress" as it as on intense, hard rockers like "Bullet The Blue Sky." He can sing opera with Pavarotti, gospel with a Harlem choir, blues with B.B. King and even country with Johnny Cash. "He's a physical singer, like the leader of a gospel choir," says Billie Joe Armstrong. "He gets lost in the melodic moment. He goes to a place outside himself, especially in front of an audience, when he hits those high notes. That's where his real power comes from — the pure, unadulterated Bono."
Because of that, I feel he should be Number 1, he comes in behind the lead singer of Led Zeppelin and Freddie Mercury. 
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/rolling-stone-readers-pick-the-best-lead-singers-of-all-time-20110412/3-bono-0711238

[Droo]

IF. IF You Wear That Velvet Dress.

Obscure song to call attention to in the article.

[Joe90usa]

Seems fair to me. Bono never had the chops that Plant and Mercury did though he has been great.

[tigerfan41]

Yeah, #3 seems about right for Bono on that list. In his prime he was a great vocalist. He's still a damn good one now. However, the rest of that list is beyond ridiculous. Vedder ahead of Cornell AND Lennon? Are you kidding me? Vedder doesn't have the range or vocal ability that Cornell does, and Lennon's a legend. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit, but still.

Also, I'm not sure I'd put Plant ahead of Mercury. His voice was not as good as Mercury's, and he also--based on the concerts I've seen--didn't have the stage presence of Freddie. Freddie's a clear #1.

[Sugarcube]

Depends what you mean by best singer. Bono is an effective singer and an emotive one. He doesn't have a particularly good voice technically. A bit like Edge - he's an effective guitar player but certainly not a brilliant one.

Mercury was an amazing frontman but as a singer, why is he in the top 3? Plant is more understandable.

[Velvet Dress]

Vedder ahead of Cornell AND Lennon? Are you kidding me? Vedder doesn't have the range or vocal ability that Cornell does, and Lennon's a legend. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit, but still.

I think Lennon is overrated as a singer.   He's a great songwriter for sure but he's got a very ordinary voice.

[Fist-O]

I agree that 'technically' Bono is not a great singer. But he has this passion, this 'soul', in his voice that hits something deep within you. Watch his performance of 'Kites' on the Elevation tour if you don't believe me.

[zootv]

I think they nailed it although 1&2 could be interchangeable

[satellitedog01]

Plant used to be off key a lot of the time going by live recordings.

[imaginary friend]

^ so was Mercury. so is pretty much anyone in rock apart from Tarja Turunen. it happens when you're singing for 90 minutes on up per show.

Yeah, #3 seems about right for Bono on that list. In his prime he was a great vocalist. He's still a damn good one now. However, the rest of that list is beyond ridiculous. Vedder ahead of Cornell AND Lennon? Are you kidding me? Vedder doesn't have the range or vocal ability that Cornell does, and Lennon's a legend. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit, but still.

Also, I'm not sure I'd put Plant ahead of Mercury. His voice was not as good as Mercury's, and he also--based on the concerts I've seen--didn't have the stage presence of Freddie. Freddie's a clear #1.

listing anyone ahead of Cornell as a pure singer is absolutely ridiculous.

[Sugarcube]

Listing John Lennon is equally ridiculous.

He was a great songwriter, an undisputed cultural icon but to say he had a great voice is ludicrous.

[tigerfan41]

Vedder ahead of Cornell AND Lennon? Are you kidding me? Vedder doesn't have the range or vocal ability that Cornell does, and Lennon's a legend. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit, but still.

I think Lennon is overrated as a singer.   He's a great songwriter for sure but he's got a very ordinary voice.

I'm not a huge fan, but I just find it ridiculous to rank Vedder ahead of him. Vedder's not a great vocalist.

^ so was Mercury. so is pretty much anyone in rock apart from Tarja Turunen. it happens when you're singing for 90 minutes on up per show.

Yeah, #3 seems about right for Bono on that list. In his prime he was a great vocalist. He's still a damn good one now. However, the rest of that list is beyond ridiculous. Vedder ahead of Cornell AND Lennon? Are you kidding me? Vedder doesn't have the range or vocal ability that Cornell does, and Lennon's a legend. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit, but still.

Also, I'm not sure I'd put Plant ahead of Mercury. His voice was not as good as Mercury's, and he also--based on the concerts I've seen--didn't have the stage presence of Freddie. Freddie's a clear #1.

listing anyone ahead of Cornell as a pure singer is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm willing to bet Mercury was probably off-key a lot less than Plant live. All of the live recordings I've heard of Plant, he sounds poor compared to the record.

And agree. Cornell still sounds great, though he did have some voice problems for a while (I believe due to smoking and/or drinking). He's rebounded nicely, though, and certainly belongs ahead of Vedder on this list.

Though, I have to wonder, just what is RS criteria for best singer in rock history? Is it technical prowess? Smoothness? Presence? Range? I just don't understand how anyone sober can put Vedder so high on the list.

[zootv]

Eddie Vedder should not be anywhere on that list. Pearl Jam was great for a time but that doesn't qualify Vedder for any singing accolades.

[xy]

Vedder is certainly the most imitated singer of the last 20 years in rock. Cornell never did much for me.

Best ? Depends...if range is the issue then probably Orbison/Mercury/Buckley are top 3.

And...Jagger ? Lennon? Cobain ? Really ? Top 10 of all time ? Good to see Morisson there, and no disrespect, Bono is too high at no. 3.

[tigerfan41]

Cobain and Vedder belong no where in the top 10.

However, it's worth noting that it's supposed to be the top 10 lead singers of all time. Meaning, only those who were lead singer of a band. So Orbison/Buckley isn't going to be on the list, even though they were quite good.

Regarding Bono, if not him at number 3 for the best lead singers of rock all-time, then who? Morrison? Cornell? Vedder? As much as I love all three (especially Morrison), I can't put any of them ahead of Bono on the best lead singers list.