Karen #123 in Rolling Stone's 200 Greatest Singers of All Time

Tom_P

Well-Known Member
The 200 Greatest Singers of All Time

Saw this today but was very offended by the description of Karen's voice as vacant! And what exactly is a Seventies voice? 🤬

"Birds may or may not literally suddenly appear every time she is near. But if they don’t, that’s on them, because Karen Carpenter is the ultimate easy-listening thrush-queen. She had one of the most Seventies voices of the Seventies — lilting, supple, vacant, and calming, with just the right air of emotional malaise to bring out the two-car, sunken-den, suburban-dream underbelly in classics like “We’ve Only Just Begun” and “(They Long to Be) Close to You.” Just as her brother Richard’s sheer orchestral-pop arrangements became an influence on Nineties indie-pop bands like St. Etienne and Stereolab, so did the glowing, imperious distance in everything Karen sang. —J.D."
 
In my opinion she deserved to be way higher than that (dare I say #1?), but in this day and age, with all the different singers around, I suppose we should be glad she was on the list at all. :shrug:

P.S. Happy New Year everyone 🎊

(Edit: How in the world is Michael Jackson at #86??)
 
Last edited:
Good that Karen is on the list, especially seeing as this includes male & female singers, from a range of genres. Of course, I believe that Number 123 is overly low!

Most of the adjectives and comparisons here are very positive, as you'd expect, for someone named close to the Top 100 - and this is a list of 'All Time' singers. I agree that 'vacant' is a strange adjective to throw in there. I'm guessing that this is a writer for whom the 70s aren't a favourite decade. Seems they're saying that successful singers from that decade didn't used to be very expressive. However, I'll take all the 'positives'.

I've read her voice described as 'lilting' in a couple of recent write-ups, as well as comparison to a bird - a thrush or a songbird. Makes you think that some of the writers haven't heard her voice. I LOVE birdsong and I love Karen Carpenter's voice, but I personally wouldn't equate the voice of a contralto who isn't known for jumping up and down the scale and is known for singing slower songs with that of a bird. (One review even named her as a songbird SONGWRITER).

I only read names of the ten or so artists listed either side of Karen. If you don't live in the US, you notice that the list is culturally biased, in that there are few or no singers from your own country named.

Anyway, good that Karen, Karen and Richard or Carpenters are making some of these lists of 'The Top.....' whatever these days, whereas they might not have back in their heyday. Thanks for posting, Tom P.
 
Forgot to say, with the suggestion of 'vacant' and 'not expressive', maybe the writer sees a '70s Voice' as comparing with the over-sung 'Diva' style of the last two decades or so, which is generally thought of as being expressive and showing great skill. Some of we listeners would probably disagree.
 
I just read, Celine Dion didn't make the list. Not that she's one of my favorites, but just goes to show how ridiculous it is.
 
Good that Karen is on the list, especially seeing as this includes male & female singers, from a range of genres. Of course, I believe that Number 123 is overly low!

Most of the adjectives and comparisons here are very positive, as you'd expect, for someone named close to the Top 100 - and this is a list of 'All Time' singers. I agree that 'vacant' is a strange adjective to throw in there. I'm guessing that this is a writer for whom the 70s aren't a favourite decade. Seems they're saying that successful singers from that decade didn't used to be very expressive. However, I'll take all the 'positives'.

I've read her voice described as 'lilting' in a couple of recent write-ups, as well as comparison to a bird - a thrush or a songbird. Makes you think that some of the writers haven't heard her voice. I LOVE birdsong and I love Karen Carpenter's voice, but I personally wouldn't equate the voice of a contralto who isn't known for jumping up and down the scale and is known for singing slower songs with that of a bird. (One review even named her as a songbird SONGWRITER).

I only read names of the ten or so artists listed either side of Karen. If you don't live in the US, you notice that the list is culturally biased, in that there are few or no singers from your own country named.

Anyway, good that Karen, Karen and Richard or Carpenters are making some of these lists of 'The Top.....' whatever these days, whereas they might not have back in their heyday. Thanks for posting, Tom P.
Agreed. I’m just happy to see them on the list!
 
In 2008, Karen was #94 of their top 100 singers


Karen Carpenter's white-bread image and sad fate — she died of anorexia in 1983 — have overshadowed her chocolate-and-cream alto voice. But other performers know the score: Elton John called her "one of the greatest voices of our lifetime," and Madonna has said she is "completely influenced by her harmonic sensibility." Impossibly lush and almost shockingly intimate, Carpenter's performances were a new kind of torch singing, built on understatement and tiny details of inflection that made even the sappiest songs sound like she was staring directly into your eyes. Still, she's a guilty pleasure for many. "Karen Carpenter had a great sound," John Fogerty once told Rolling Stone, "but if you've got three guys out on the ballfield and one of them started humming [a Carpenters song], the other two guys would pants him."
 
And, once again, Rolling Stone Magazine proves its cluelessness with one of its "lists." I came here today purposely in search of this thread, and you certainly didn't disappoint. I guess in a world where Dolly Parton (who I like) is considered a "rock" artist enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, subjectivity in music has reached its all-inclusive abyss.

Specifically to the Rolling Stone list, in what world is Bob Dylan (#15) a "great singer?!" Ditto for Kurt Cobain (#36), Rod Stewart (#49), The Weeknd (#110), and Ozzy Osbourne (#112), among others. I maintain that each of the aforementioned artists has talent, but singing ability isn't, shall we say, the forte.

No Celine Dion, James Taylor, Carly Simon, or Art Garfunkel to be found. At least they threw a bone to Linda Ronstadt (#47), Gladys Knight (#101), and Barbra Streisand (#147). The grudging mention of Karen Carpenter is almost an insult, given the snarky writeup as well as her low placement (#123) on the list relative to others.

Yet there are many singers on this list I have never even heard of... How clueless am I?!?! :)
 
And, once again, Rolling Stone Magazine proves its cluelessness with one of its "lists." I came here today purposely in search of this thread, and you certainly didn't disappoint. I guess in a world where Dolly Parton (who I like) is considered a "rock" artist enshrined in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, subjectivity in music has reached its all-inclusive abyss.

Specifically to the Rolling Stone list, in what world is Bob Dylan (#15) a "great singer?!" Ditto for Kurt Cobain (#36), Rod Stewart (#49), The Weeknd (#110), and Ozzy Osbourne (#112), among others. I maintain that each of the aforementioned artists has talent, but singing ability isn't, shall we say, the forte.

No Celine Dion, James Taylor, Carly Simon, or Art Garfunkel to be found. At least they threw a bone to Linda Ronstadt (#47), Gladys Knight (#101), and Barbra Streisand (#147). The grudging mention of Karen Carpenter is almost an insult, given the snarky writeup as well as her low placement (#123) on the list relative to others.

Yet there are many singers on this list I have never even heard of... How clueless am I?!?! :)
According to the "experts" at RS, Olivia Newton-John is nowhere to be found either. This is the kind of mentality that has locked Karen and Richard out of the RRHOF.
 
According to the "experts" at RS, Olivia Newton-John is nowhere to be found either. This is the kind of mentality that has locked Karen and Richard out of the RRHOF.
Thanks for the backup, John! I realized later that I should have included Olivia Newton-John on my list of RS omissions. What a great voice she had, too, filled with high notes, emotion, and a range of genres in which she was able to reinvent herself. Further, two of her later releases, Grace and Gratitude as well as Liv On, are absolutely beautiful and address the emotional issues of healing and loss; I have found comfort in them since Olivia's passing...

Further, I should add, to be clear, that my original comments in this thread are, of course, my own subjective opinion, including about those whose singing skills I find lackluster as well as those I believe merit inclusion on the RS list. Cheers!
 
The 200 Greatest Singers of All Time

...

... because Karen Carpenter is the ultimate easy-listening thrush-queen. She had one of the most Seventies voices of the Seventies — lilting, supple, vacant, and calming ... so did the glowing, imperious distance in everything Karen sang. —J.D."
Well, "easy-listening" is a highly desirable quality in music, as a general description of creatively enjoyable music rather than as a vague genre name...who wants "difficult-listening" music? "Thrush" as in the songbird (and not the children's disease) is complimentary, and I've seen and heard her referred to as a songbird whose "voice soars above the melody line"... "most Seventies voice of the Seventies" is saying a hell of a lot since there were a ton of great voices in the Seventies (one major reasons for it's constant revival and popularity with current generations)..."vacant" was thrown in there because he probably felt that with "lilting, supple & calming" he was getting too carried away with compliments and needed to balance his description out with a cheap shot to please his fellow RS staffers..."imperious distance" could be the highest accolade of all, depending on how one defines "imperious" - it can be domineering, or commanding or intensely compelling or simply characteristic of one of eminent attainments...in effect, placing her far above any other singer...although it's not clear that the writer had this in mind exactly, especially since she's at #123...

So, what standards or criteria were used for this list's compilation and who did the evaluation - not sure which would be worse: one person or a committee...
 
So, what standards or criteria were used for this list's compilation and who did the evaluation - not sure which would be worse: one person or a committee...

The following is from the beginning of the article for the current "200 Best Singers" list:

"When Rolling Stone first published its list of the 100 Greatest Singers of All time in 2008, we used an elaborate voting process that included input from well-known musicians. The results skewed toward classic rock and singers from the Sixties and Seventies. This new list was compiled our staff and key contributors," --- In other words when the method (in 2008 a panel of 179 experts) didn't give you the results you want, let's change it so we get who we want. LOL!! Must be something about those recording artists from the 60's and 70's..... Maybe they were pretty good? wink! wink! (Didn't Richard say something along the lines that artists today can't hold a candle to those of the 60's/70's or something along those lines?)

Another precious quote from the current 200 list: "Before you start scrolling (and commenting), keep in mind that this is the Greatest Singers list, not the Greatest Voices List." From the title header of the 2008 list: "100 Greatest Singers of All Time, Our 2008 list of the best vocalists ever, as voted on by a panel of 179 experts." ..... singers, vocalists...... whatever.... LOL!!

My initial reaction to Karen at #123. It's great that she's on the list, but compared to 2008, I found the 2023 description offensive. It should have a reverential feel to it, and it doesn't this time around. And Richard, if I'm not mistaken, can't stand Karen being referred to as "That 70's singer" or anything similar.

 
The following is from the beginning of the article for the current "200 Best Singers" list:

"When Rolling Stone first published its list of the 100 Greatest Singers of All time in 2008, we used an elaborate voting process that included input from well-known musicians. The results skewed toward classic rock and singers from the Sixties and Seventies. This new list was compiled our staff and key contributors," --- In other words when the method (in 2008 a panel of 179 experts) didn't give you the results you want, let's change it so we get who we want. LOL!! Must be something about those recording artists from the 60's and 70's..... Maybe they were pretty good? wink! wink! (Didn't Richard say something along the lines that artists today can't hold a candle to those of the 60's/70's or something along those lines?)

Another precious quote from the current 200 list: "Before you start scrolling (and commenting), keep in mind that this is the Greatest Singers list, not the Greatest Voices List." From the title header of the 2008 list: "100 Greatest Singers of All Time, Our 2008 list of the best vocalists ever, as voted on by a panel of 179 experts." ..... singers, vocalists...... whatever.... LOL!!

My initial reaction to Karen at #123. It's great that she's on the list, but compared to 2008, I found the 2023 description offensive. It should have a reverential feel to it, and it doesn't this time around. And Richard, if I'm not mistaken, can't stand Karen being referred to as "That 70's singer" or anything similar.

I find it very interesting that the comments about Karen's voice are similar to the one they did on 'Christmas Portrait' just a couple of years ago. Something about it being the perfect backdrop while getting a new Volvo for Christmas in '70's suburbia. It's as if the writer just took a few quotes from the 'Rolling Stone' archives and, voila! There's his assignment on Karen before the deadline to complete it.

I also noticed this week while doing a Carpenters search on Google that the image RS used is the FIRST one that shows up under Karen's name. Seems to me that little thought (or effort) was put into it. And the dolt that wrote it is probably 25 and really doesn't have a clue when it comes to Karen's impact and influence to the music world. The writer, one fears, may be the 'vacant' one.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious just how much overlap there is in the objective criteria for determining the best singer (or vocalist) and the objective criteria for determining the best voice...(leaving aside all factors related to "cult of personality" or physical attractiveness) - I would think it could be quite extensive. For example, some characteristics of singing style or technique reflect on one's perception of voice quality to one extent or another, and conversely, voice or tonal quality have much to do perhaps with one's evaluation of an artist as a singer...we need a detailed, scientific study!
 
To be honest, these lists seem to just be based on the personal opinions of the one (maybe a couple) person writing it, rather than what the public as a whole might agree on. Aretha Franklin is indeed a great singer, but I was surprised to find her at the top of the list, with Elvis only at #17, Michael Jackson way down at #86, and Carly Simon, Lionel Richie, Brad Delp, and Art Garfunkel (all of whom I like) are nowhere to be found. Some major snubs are happening here.
 
Can we just all agree that RS isn't even relevant anymore? On a list of any "relevency" today, RS wouldn't even make #123. With advent of social media and other technical advances, who the heck needs RS? Just watch YouTube is you want to see how Carpenters are viewed today. In short, RS just doesn't matter.
 
I'm curious just how much overlap there is in the objective criteria for determining the best singer (or vocalist) and the objective criteria for determining the best voice...(leaving aside all factors related to "cult of personality" or physical attractiveness) - I would think it could be quite extensive. For example, some characteristics of singing style or technique reflect on one's perception of voice quality to one extent or another, and conversely, voice or tonal quality have much to do perhaps with one's evaluation of an artist as a singer...we need a detailed, scientific study!
That's a great point! And I'm afraid of what we'd find in the results. : (
 
Can we just all agree that RS isn't even relevant anymore? On a list of any "relevency" today, RS wouldn't even make #123. With advent of social media and other technical advances, who the heck needs RS? Just watch YouTube is you want to see how Carpenters are viewed today. In short, RS just doesn't matter.
I don't know exactly how relevant RS is anymore - to most of us here it doesn't seem to carry much weight, but that's mainly because of how it's treated the Carpenters over the years - it's influence on or with other liberally-oriented media still seems to be holding, even now years after the reasons for that influence have long disappeared - and like these other media (e.g., The New York Times) it's reputation seems to be riding on the rapidly exhausting fumes of long ago achievements...I do know as mentioned above that YouTube commenters have been very kind - no overwhelmingly enthusiastic - about their music in general and Karen in particular - it's not only very difficult to find a negative comment, it almost impossible to find one that isn't raving - and the almost universal and unanimous consensus seems to be that they and she are the G.O.A.T. As for so many other reasons it's just too damn bad she didn't live to see this fan(atical) adulation...
 
Back
Top Bottom