Let me get this out of the way first: Bob Dylan is not the seventh greatest singer of all time, as the list proclaims.  This shouldn’t even be an argument.  I get that he’s impacted popular music in a way that I’ll never be able to fully appreciate; discovering Dylan in the Aughts is not the same, I imagine, as discovering him in the ’60s.  This certainly isn’t a list about songwriting (Aretha Franklin – whose most famous tune is the Otis Redding penned “Respect” – tops the list).  To some extent, the list does value influnce; certainly this is the leg on which the “Dylan as the seventh greatest singer of all time” argument rests.  I don’t mean to say that an artist’s influence shouldn’t count in putting together a list like this but, when the list is about singing, shouldn’t singing talent be at least as important?

When I listen to Mariah Carey (79) or Christina Aguilera (58) I can at least acknowledge that, although I may not care for the music they make, they can flat-out sing.  Who ever thinks that about Dylan?  Who ever hears a Dylan song and thinks to themself, “What a shame to waste such a beautiful voice on such a dreadful song?”  Isn’t it usually the other way around with Dylan?

This brings me to the related, eternal debate that is John vs. Paul.  I know that Lennon meant much more to people, at least to some people, but as a vocalist and not as an icon, shouldn’t McCartney rate higher?  I don’t really know how else to say it.  Paul’s a better singer than John; he’s got the better voice.

Another way to approach the list is like this: If you’re choosing your own supergroup, when you come to the lead vocalist spot, who do you choose?  If you’re picking someone who contributes only as a vocalist – not as a guitarist, not as a songwriter, certainly not as a tambourine man – who do you choose?  Under what circumstances would you ever choose Dylan?  How would you ever choose Dylan over Otis Redding, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, Paul McCartney, or Little Richard (the next five guys on the list)?  Like I said, this shouldn’t even be an argument.  And while we’re here, if you’re looking for a grunge singer, in what universe would you ever take Kurt Cobain (45) ahead of Eddie Vedder or Chris Cornell (both unranked)?  Again, I understand that Cobain certainly means more to a lot of people, but aren’t we far enough removed from his suicide by now to at least admit that he wasn’t nearly as good a vocalist as those two contemporaries of his?  At least John vs. Paul is a legitimate argument, one in which I take Paul.

I don’t really want to offer my own list because then I’d probably go to bed, think of someone I left off, get up, edit the list, go back to sleep, and then repeat the process for the next three hours.  Off the top of my head I’d say that my list would have Marvin Gaye at the top with Sir Paul somewhere close behind.  A bit further down the list maybe some Otis and in some order the always Righteous (but never Brothers) Bill Medley and Bobby Hatfield.  Maybe I’d have room for some true siblings, a la Taylor and Ike Hanson.  Maybe I’d even find room for Zac.  Ryan Adams would certainly be included somewhere.  And Chan Marshall, too.  Maybe Bono, I’m not sure.  There are scores of other good singers I’d want to include, too, and find exactly the right place for.  Who, exactly, I’m not sure. I concede it’s a tough list to make.

Rating Dylan so high as a vocalist, doesn’t it actually do the man a disservice?  Isn’t part of Dylan’s legacy that he acheived success and influence in spite of, not because of, his voice?  Isn’t that a great part of his influence?  Dylan changed popular music forever by opening the door for singers who can’t really sing.  He did it because, well, he’s one of them.

See the complete RS list here.

Glad that’s out of the way.