Woodsie, I'm not saying Dylan isn't a good, even great, singer. Just that I can think of, oh, at least dozens of others I think are better SINGERS.   And his being remembered 100 years from now would probably be more from his songwriting and overall influence on folk and rock music than for his "singing" ability.


Little Hawk, now that you mention it, some of Dylan's early songs did have a huge range (at least the way Baez sang them). Love Is Just A Four-Letter Word and Boots Of Spanish Leather are two examples.   I guess it's just I'm more accustomed to hearing him sing songs that have about an octave range. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. Some of the best loved songs of all time have about that much range.)

And, yes, I have heard and seen film of Dylan's '60s Newport performances. In fact, one song I definitely prefer his version of to Baez's (despite her gorgeous voice) is "Love Minus Zero." Loved that performance!


ETA, when I started this thread I didn't mean for the focus to be so much on Dylan as on the arbitrariness, short-sightedness, and lack of breadth and historical perspective of Rolling Stone's so-called "100 Greatest Singers of All Time" list.   
It's just hard to make that clear in such a short thread title.

: )