Best Male Singers of the 20th Century

Gino Vanelli? Elton John? Bobby Darin? Michael Stipe? By what standards are any of these guys worthy of the honor of "Greatest Singers of the 20th Century?" Let's try to be a little more objective! Unless you want the category to be "Popular Singers of the 20th Century" or "Not Very Good Singers of the 20th Century Whom I Like Anyway."

I think if we're going to throw around superlatives such as "Best Male Singer of the 20th Century," we need to have some basic standards by which to say someone qualifies. So here's a starting point: 1) Technique -- the singer displays greater overall ability from a technical standpoint than most singers of the 20th Century. 2) influence -- the singer 's style was more influential on other singers and music overall than his peers. 3) musicality -- the singer's overall musicality exceeded the thousands of other people who recorded music during the 20th Century. 4) style -- the singer's phrasing and style stand apart from those who came before him. 5) popularity -- the singer's work was acclaimed by many people. Now, to be among the "Best Male Singers of the 20th Century," a singer need not have every single one of these categories, but he should have at least a couple of them. By this standard, I'd say a few obvious nominees are the great and famous operatic singers, simply because there is little debating their technique and record of accomplishment. Jazz singers as well are easier to judge by this criteria -- Mel Torme and Frank Sinatra definitely fit. It is somewhat more subjective in the rock arena, but I'd say Paul McCartney is an obvious choice (a little more so than John Lennon in that McCartney was technically better.) Mick Jagger is not a great technical singer, but he certainly fills most of the other requirements. Elton John? I don't think anybody is trying to sing like him, nor do I think he's really contributed much to the state of the art. He is popular, of course, and has made a great deal of money, but I think critically speaking, his musical contribution is much less significant than his commercial success, unless you really want to equate "Crocodile Rock" with "Yesterday." I'd definitely agree with John Fogarty as meeting the criteria, again recognizing that in terms of pure technique, it's hard to put "Green River" up against a Mozart opera. I'd also throw Roger Daltry into the mix -- tremendously influential, innovative, musical and technically adept. Mick Jagger? I think so. There's also some blues singers who should be included in terms of influence and musicality, such as Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters. As for Gino Vanelli, I have to admit that "Gotta Move" was a song of his that I liked, and I recognize he's got a good set of pipes and decent technique. But unless I'm missing something, I'm not reading a lot of interviews in which people are saying, "Yeah, Gino Vanelli was a big influence and helped me figure out a style I wanted to emulate." You may personally really enjoy his work, but I don't think that qualifies him as one of the "Best Male Singers of the 20th Century." As for country, I confess I don't know much about individual singers compared to their peers, but I'd sure have to agree that Johnny Cash is one of the greats.

Good post, Bmpnyc. You get the point. I'd been thinking of Little Richard and Robert Plant, too. And I think we'd have to add Roy Orbison to the list as well as Rod Stewart. You might not love all their material, but they stand out from the field in terms of contributions to the genre.

Can't argue with Sam Cooke and Otis Redding, but they have an advantage over Stewart -- they didn't live long enough to cut anything really atrocious, which seems to happen to even the best of 'em. Look at McCartney. And though I like Eric Burden quite a bit, I'd say his contribution to the 20th Century is not up there with the others we've mentioned. The people who win my nod for honors beyond the Merely Good not only do great work, but do a lot of it. Burden's been around as long as Jagger, but he hasn't recorded much of anything since, what, 1971?

Harry Connick Jr. is an example of somebody who I think REALLY shouldn't be discussed on this post. Talk about somebody who is completely derivative. A pale -- and obnoxious, in my view -- imitation of Sinatra. I also would take issue with saying that the members of Credence Clearwater Revival were all "mediocre" individually. That's probably true for the three other than John Fogerty, but Fogerty was everything in CCR and is clearly among the best of the bunch of singers/guitarists/songwriters of his generation.

Glad for the reinforcement on bashing Connick. I had the misfortune of watching this guy on TV last New Year's Eve while trying to find any news about the Y2K potential meltdown. He did "Cry Me A River" and I'm here to tell you, I was shocked at how bad he was. Totally banal and flat-footed. No feeling. All pretense. It's like he had no idea what he was singing about. To give you an idea how bad he was, my next stop in channel flipping brought me to Barry Manilow and I actually thought WELL of Barry. He had energy, power, control and projection. The material might have been dreadful, but Barry believed in it and put it across. As others have noted, a great singer has to convey the feeling of the song.

Here's a name to illustrate a point about what it takes to be a great singer: Joe Cocker. No one is ever going to label him technically superior, and many might say they don't like the sound his vocal chords make. But talk about somebody who can get into a song and remake it in his own style! Think of all the remakes he's done that have improved upon the original: "With a Little Help From My Friends," "Feelin' Alright," "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window," "Delta Lady," "The Letter." He's taken his limited range (and even more limited stage posturing) and overcome it with sheer feeling and musicality, filtered through an interpretation that can't be mistaken for anybody else.