Best rock singers in bands, according to Billboard

[Villavic]

I know that these lists are not to be taken as absolute truths, but I enjoy checking how they coincide or differ with my personal opinion anyway.

Though I'm a big fan of her work, I was surprised Stevie Nicks is the N.2 rock singer of all time, just behind Mick Jagger. Better than Freddie Mercury? Or Robert Plant? That was a surprise, specially since the article says "most legendary". I guess Rolling Stone would issue a very different list.

https://www.billboard.com/lists/best...ead-vocalists/

[BrownEyedGirl26]

That's really nice to hear! Of course, I would agree.:: nod:
Some original demos and official recordings are better at showcasing her voice, though, than others. Just my opinion, of course.

[Straightback]

Now, I love me some Stevie, and she definitely deserves to be one the list...but No. 2?
Before Steve Perry? Or Ann Wilson?
Uh, no!

[Macfan4life]

She is not the best singer. But she's got that "thing" that attracts people. I remember Mick describing it in his first book something like he never saw an audience react the way they did when she walked on the stage. I think people are voting for that. Clearly Ann Wilson is a better singer but she does not have that cult worship the others have.

[Villavic]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

She is not the best singer. But she's got that "thing" that attracts people. I remember Mick describing it in his first book something like he never saw an audience react the way they did when she walked on the stage. I think people are voting for that.

Yes! And that's why I think Freddie Mercury would be N.2, if not N.1

I remember Mick wrote that. Then I would like to see the concerts he was referring to, just to compare people's reaction before Stevie, and the tremendous stunning reaction of people at Freddie's Ay-Oh! moments (not only at Live Aid, but at many tours).

Anyway, though I have doubts about the N.2 position, it's nice to find Stevie Nicks at that list.

[jmn3]

Putting aside her antics of the more recent years, Stevie has an allure and stage presence that certainly puts her into the top tier category of frontmen. That said, I never really consider Fleetwood Mac to have a frontman in the same way that The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, etc do.

It’s really hard to imagine that right after Sir Mick, who is absolutely the top front man in rock and roll history, is Stevie Nicks. I feel like several people would be above her including Mercury.

[David]

Originally Posted by jmn3

It’s really hard to imagine that right after Sir Mick, who is absolutely the top front man in rock and roll history, is Stevie Nicks. I feel like several people would be above her including Mercury.

Publicists get their clients on these lists, I have no doubt. Stevie’s publicist (Liz Rosenberg?) is working overtime to get Stevie in the newspapers and magazines. A few months ago, Stevie had another special edition cover. She’s had about five of those the last few years.

Let’s say a bunch of rock critics got polled. You’d get a list that was a lot more sensible and you’d see Jagger, James Brown, Freddie Mercury, Jim Morrison, Roger Daltrey, Eddie Vedder, Ronnie Van Zant, John Lydon — the true greats that everyone expects to see. You would not see Stevie Nicks at no. 2. That’s a publicist’s phone call for a favor in exchange for another favor.

It’s pretty ridiculous to take stuff like this seriously, but people do — remember when Rolling Stone wrote marketing copy on its first cover of Stevie solo? It was a two-deck head: “Out there with Stevie Nicks: The reigning queen of rock and roll and her magic kingdom.” You would think she’d been crowned queen of England given all the fans who called her the queen for the next forty years (and I don’t think they were speaking metaphorically).

[bwboy]

Originally Posted by David

Publicists get their clients on these lists, I have no doubt. Stevie’s publicist (Liz Rosenberg?) is working overtime to get Stevie in the newspapers and magazines. A few months ago, Stevie had another special edition cover. She’s had about five of those the last few years.

You would not see Stevie Nicks at no. 2. That’s a publicist’s phone call for a favor in exchange for another favor.

Maybe Freddie Mercury should get a better publicist?

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by David

Publicists get their clients on these lists, I have no doubt. Stevie’s publicist (Liz Rosenberg?) is working overtime to get Stevie in the newspapers and magazines. A few months ago, Stevie had another special edition cover. She’s had about five of those the last few years.

We have a winner!

[BigAl84]

This list is a travesty. Mick Jagger as number #1?! are you kidding me?

Stevie Nicks as #2...hold the phone lol.

Really, all we need to know is that Mick's folks wrote the largest check and Stevie's folks wrote the second largest check.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by BigAl84

This list is a travesty. Mick Jagger as number #1?! are you kidding me?

Stevie Nicks as #2...hold the phone lol.

Really, all we need to know is that Mick's folks wrote the largest check and Stevie's folks wrote the second largest check.

"A lot has been said about Stevie Nicks’ witchy vibes over the past five decades, and there truly is indeed something enchanting about the Fleetwood Mac frontwoman."
FRONTWOMAN???? This list is a f*cking JOKE.

[Macfan4life]

Rock singers should have distinctive voices. They necessarily dont have to be good. For example Bruce is a brilliant writer and performer. But is he a really good singer? Not really. Bob Dylan is not known for his singing either. A good rock singer has some grit. I love Brian Johnson of ACDC. If you are going for power, there was no more powerful and good voice than Dio. Mike Reno and Ann Wilson can still hit the high notes at their age. Picking the best rock singer would be impossible. I hate singers like Mariah Carry or Whitney. They are empty shells of power vocals. Mike Reno's high notes on Turn Me Loose still sends chills up my spine its so good. Stevie had a fantastic voice 1980 to 1983. She had power and distinction.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

Rock singers should have distinctive voices. They necessarily dont have to be good. For example Bruce is a brilliant writer and performer. But is he a really good singer? Not really. Bob Dylan is not known for his singing either. A good rock singer has some grit. I love Brian Johnson of ACDC. If you are going for power, there was no more powerful and good voice than Dio. Mike Reno and Ann Wilson can still hit the high notes at their age. Picking the best rock singer would be impossible. I hate singers like Mariah Carry or Whitney. They are empty shells of power vocals. Mike Reno's high notes on Turn Me Loose still sends chills up my spine its so good. Stevie had a fantastic voice 1980 to 1983. She had power and distinction.

that's a pretty short reign compared to any of the others

she had her first era of fantastic voice on the first two albums.

it was more gone than there by Tusk and really beat after the Tusk tour...which turned it into the second era you describe.

So if you put the two together that's 1975-1983. So barely a decade.

That is the thing that disappoints me the most... she just treated her gift (voice) like crap. She took it for granted and abused the eff out of it. I mean, forget even the drugs or booze, why would a singer EVER smoke cigarettes???

[FuzzyPlum]

Originally Posted by jmn3

Putting aside her antics of the more recent years, Stevie has an allure and stage presence that certainly puts her into the top tier category of frontmen. That said, I never really consider Fleetwood Mac to have a frontman in the same way that The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam, etc do.

It’s really hard to imagine that right after Sir Mick, who is absolutely the top front man in rock and roll history, is Stevie Nicks. I feel like several people would be above her including Mercury.

I think there are quite a few people ahead of her.
…. But mick jagger ahead of Freddie mercury?…..my goodness. Really???

[Macfan4life]

Originally Posted by bombaysaffires

that's a pretty short reign compared to any of the others

she had her first era of fantastic voice on the first two albums.

it was more gone than there by Tusk and really beat after the Tusk tour...which turned it into the second era you describe.

So if you put the two together that's 1975-1983. So barely a decade.

That is the thing that disappoints me the most... she just treated her gift (voice) like crap. She took it for granted and abused the eff out of it. I mean, forget even the drugs or booze, why would a singer EVER smoke cigarettes???

I'm talking rock and roll. Her voice was fine early on. Very mellow and could sing country. Her voice got some grit post Tusk tour and Bella Donna was perfection both on vinyl and in concert. Mirage was great too. Wild Heart too. But the Wild Heart tour started to change the equation with the amount of drugs, alcohol and smoking. So that is why I limited the years. I am not saying she was not a good singer. I just think she really found her voice on her first solo album. (pardon the pun)