My Review of the Rolling Stones’ “200 Greatest Singers of All Time”
Analyzing the Stars
March 8, 2023
The release of the Rolling Stones’ new article categorizing what they believe to be the greatest singers of all time has definitely shocked individuals. Some may agree with every choice, rank, and explanation, while others feel it’s all wrong. Personally, I think the list is adequate for the purpose it is representing, which is the overall influence these artists have had on the world, but I would certainly make many changes in both rank and choice of singer.
The first section of artists numbered 200-181 going down is linked below for your own viewing. There are a few of these artists I am unfamiliar with such as Rosalía and Anohni, but overall I don’t agree with these options. I believe Alecia Keys, Glenn Danzig, and Frank Ocean should remain on the charts, but the rest are replaceable.
The second section of artists numbered 180-161 is linked below. This section also includes a few artists that I am not familiar with, but singers Lana Del Ray and Patty Loveless definitely deserve a spot on this list.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-singers-all-time-1234642307/sza-9-1234645022/
The third section of artists numbered 160-141 is linked below. I feel as though these aren’t the greatest options to be placed on the list, but I understand why these singers were picked. I could honestly say that I don’t really listen to any of these artists, however, and would have chosen differently.
The fourth section of artists numbered 140-121 is linked below. The list seems to get a little better from here, in which I believe most of these artists deserve all their recognition. Axl Rose, Merle Haggard, Jeff Buckley, Loretta Lynn, and a few others are so very talented. I would’ve ranked them higher.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/best-singers-all-time-1234642307/bono-13-1234642932/
The fifth section of artists numbered 120-101 is linked below. These are very good choices and include a few of my favorites like Eddie Vedder and The Weeknd. I think most of these artists deserve to be ranked higher on the list.
The sixth section of artists numbered 100-81 is linked below. A little more diverse in this section of artists, I would’ve ranked some of them such as Michael Jackson, Stevie Nicks, Johnny Cash, and Selena much higher. Most of these artists are absolute treasures though and deserve their place.
The seventh section of artists numbered 80-61 is linked below. I feel that half of these artists should be all the way at the top of the list and some shouldn’t be on here at all. Chris Cornell, Robert Plant, Rihanna, George Michael, and Janis Joplin are all-star singers and should be ranked way higher. The other artists are kind of hit or miss.
The eighth section of artists numbered 60-41 is linked below. Lady Gaga, Mick Jagger, and Linda Ronstadt are all top performers and deserve their rank on this list. The other artists should stay on the list, but I think are ranked too high.
The ninth section of artists numbered 40-21 is linked below. This section covers some wonderful artists and they all deserve their spot on the list as well. That’s all that is needed to be said.
The tenth and final section of artists numbered 20-1 is linked below. I do not agree with how these last 20 artists are ranked, and I think a few of them shouldn’t even be in the top 10. Many won’t agree with this statement, but Beyoncé is overrated. Aretha Franklin is very talented and I would say top 10, but she is not number one. Mariah Carey shouldn’t even be on the list. Freddie Mercury, Elvis Presley, and John Lennon should all be ranked higher. I just disagree with this last section quite a bit, it should’ve been thought out better.
All in all, this is only my opinion of the list, so it doesn’t need to be taken too harshly. People are allowed to think how they want and choose differently. The list has good choices and was interesting to read, I was just hoping for a little bit better ranking. There are so many talented musicians out there, after all.
