I agree with some of the people you think were left off the list but how are you gonna complain about people who can actually sing not being on the list and then put down Christina Aguilera's place on the list. I may not be fan of most of her music but that girl has one of the best voices ever. Certainly better than your choices of George Michael or Debbie Harry. In any case, this list was mainly compiled by over 150 musical artists and legends like Keith Richards, Etta James, and Bruce Springsteen as well as industry people and rock journalists, so I wouldn't totally blame this stuff on Rolling Stone alone. I think the term singer has a lot more to do with being a vocalist, so a lot of the people that made this list I don't have a huge problem with them being on it. I think for once they have a pretty decent list although some should definitely be higher than others.

Bob Dylan has the greatest rock singing voice of all time. Listen closely and one day it will hit you.

Bob Dylan's voice ain't never going to 'hit' me. It flew completely over my head. Some nice songs though.

...actually...i say that bob dylan should be at number two (john lennon at number one). i mean, what is the criteria for inclusion in nthe list? lets see...technical sterility like the three tenors, bono, celine dion (ugh), diana ross (ugh), all the rap artists (uuuuuuugggghhh!!!!!!), etc. lets give credit where credit is due, i.e., to an artist expressing themself in the matrix of a song he/she has written or being able to do the same by being nthe first one to fully understand anothers song and sing it as it should be sung. this is what dylan does almost all the time with all the songs he sings...especially the live and / or bootleg songs he releases. come on, come on, come on folks...give credit where credit is due. in his genre, dylan stand equal to or greater than, ANY singer out there of any period. singing is more than just going through the scales...it is actually about expression...and dylan expresses himself / song, or song / himself, in that voice of his better than most, equal to a few, buy second to none (except maybe...just maybe...john lennon).

Everyone has their own opinion and I think Elvis Presley has the greatest voice I totally disagree with you on Bob Dylan I LOVE BOB DYLAN there never was or ever will be another he is unique , prophetic, incredible song writer, writes about all of us who have loved and lost..searching this world for meaning, he is as real as real can be. I only listen to Dylan every day, every night. The #8 basement tapes are intriguing Mississippi is great! I love Renaldo and Clara,. "Those not busy being born are busy dying" Think about that. I love all the different voices of Bob Dylan. Thanx like I said we are all entitled to our own opinion and mine is he is the greatest!

I like Chrissie Hynde as much as anyone, but if you think that a) she was "totally robbed" and that b) the sum total of Dylan's singing is equal to a "mumble and shout" then you don't have much of an idea of what it takes to be a "good" singer. Hynde has always had a tough time staying on key, especially on ballads. And yet, I still like her voice. It suits her songs. But she in no way shape or form belongs on such a list wherein Dylan does not. If you have a problem with Dylan's voice it's entirely based in aesthetic response. Regardless of whether his style, tone or sound appeals to you (and if it doesn't you are not alone and that is a perfectly understandable reaction) if you think Dylan is a terrible singer in terms of craft, then again, you simply don't know what it takes to be a singer. Dylan is a master, and what's more, he achieved an astounding proficiency in vocal ability at a very young age.

Dylan is to singers, as Picasso is to painters

Dylan? The man can;t even speak much less sing. Look, there are a lot of singers, guitar players, etc. whose style and performance I like, but I realize that these people aren not necessarily "good" singers. players, etc. I LIKE the way Keith Richards sings, it fits the songs he does sing on. Is he a good singer? No. But using some of the logic I've seen here I could make at least as good of an arguemnt for it as the Dylan apologists. By the way, Bob Dylan is the most over-rated performer of the rock era.

"Overrated" is a term of negligible utility in cultural commentary and is most often employed by those who are irked that numbers of more voluble people find value in something that they don't. It is neither a descriptive nor informative term, and is useful only as an indicator of the temperament of those who like to fling it about.

When you rank Bob Dylan, Neil Young and Patti Smith among the greatest singers of all time, the list ceases be a list about vocal prowess and is simply another rehashing of Rolling Stones all time favorite artists. Singing has nothing to do with it any more.

Or "overrated" can be a term referring to the general population's sheep like tendency to jump on a band wagon and embrace something that has no value simply because others proclaim it to be "good". Hee hee, "vocal ability" and one hell of a harmonica player, too.

No, "overrated" is rather a term used only by the terminally intellectually lazy and those so threatened by that which they can't understand that the only response they can muster is to attack and to posit themselves as the sole bold transgressors who dare cry out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. A noble effort; sadly, those who are inclined to engage in such tactics typically are poor of taste and impoverished of perceptive scope.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Renfrew, but you're doing exactly what you're critiquing the previous poster of doing: attacking and acting as though you're the only person who knows what's best. You might try to disguise the swipes with $10 words, but that doesn't make them any less aggressive. So how about we offer opinions on the list or the post, and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

I honestly don't see how "acting as though (I'm) the only person who knows best" can be read any more into my posts than it could be into your original blog entry, Eric. You and rockon dismiss Dylan by stating flatly that "he can't sing," but don't follow up with any compelling statements explaining why it is that Dylan can't sing; your reasons indicate solely that his singing isn't to your taste. Which is fine. I know, like and respect a lot of people who don't like Dylan's music, and dislike it for variying reasons. I just question the critical utility of making such flat-out statements free of definition of terms or at least a grounded backing aesthetic argument. The statement "Dylan can't sing" says nothing other than that you don't like his voice. True, I may be reflexively responding in the more powerfully negative to rockon, because rockon suggests that everyone who appreciates Dylan is drinking the Kool-Aid, jumping on a bandwagon and is therefore unable to make personal decisions as to what does or doesn't sound good or meaningful without first checking which way the wind blows, (and implicitly should be a daring and original thinker along the lines of, say, rockon). That's an approach I've encountered before, and one I reject. In writing. The same way the original opinion was expressed. With that, I'll lighten up on the subject and let further like commentary ride in the interest of overall harmony of the City site, to which I'd like to express gratitude for allowing me to express these opinions.

Renfrew: Thanks for that response. Believe it or not, I agree with a great many of your points, and I thank you for posting them to this site. I'm thrilled that you disagree, and that you can communicate your thoughts so effectively. All I was asking is that we limit the dismissive responses to the other posters. Disagree all you like -- we welcome it! -- but I'm just trying to ensure a posting environment where people can feel free to share their thoughts without things descending into personal attacks. To clarify: I don't think you did that, but I was growing uncomfortable with what I saw as increasingly personal messages. Please feel free to continue posting, and let's all make sure that we remain respectful.

Hey, you can't take anything seriously if it's in Rolling Stone. The criteria for such a list would have to be so wide as to render the results completely meaningless. There are great rock singers, great country singers, and great blues singers . Obviously, the vocal requirements are going to differ from genre to genre. If the list is meant to encompass all styles of music, then Streisand obviously has to be in there, just as Diana Ross belongs on there with the other r&b greats noted. Moreover, if that list is intended to be a definitive guide to the best vocalists of the 20th Century (and beyond!) where's Sinatra?! Where's Tony Bennett? Heck, where's Pavarotti and k.d. Lang? Tom Jones? Cher? Percy Sledge? How can Elton John be on there and not Billy Joel? Where's Harry Chapin? Elvis Costello? Loretta Lynn? Patsy Cline? The Gibb Brothers? Chit, I better stop before I've compiled a "100 Greatest" list myself!!! Oh well, at least Bryan Adams and Britney didn't make the list...