Pretty funny stuff. Why would anyone take Rolling Stone's list seriously when its made up of vocalists who are known (name-wise atleast), to almost everyone who subscribes to that magazine in the first place? Its all self-gratifying BS akin to the act of masterbation.
Anywayz, some comments-
1. Thom might get on some top 100 list of singers somewhere depending on the criteria involved, but I don't think it really works here considering the audience that RS usually caters to. He's not abysmal vocally, but neither is he everyone's cup of tea. I suppose he was included for sake of acknowledging the current British music scene.
2. The best way to fight a fanboy is to give them an actual example of an artist who is superior to their established idol. If they continue to bitch afterwarRAB, then just ignore them. :laughing:
3. Mike Patton's acclaimed "versatility" as a vocalist is a bit too hyped for its own good. What about Devin Townsend, Varg Vikernes, Daniel Gildenlow, Mikael Akerfeldt, Darroh Sudderth, and countless other damned-good singers who have done impressive work of their own?