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.