Vote for Paul in best singer of the '60s poll

[year40]

http://www.theranking.com/best-voice-of-the-60s-who-is-your-favorite_r63100?a=fb-ad-us-z2mccartney&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ad&utm_campaign=us-paul

[Erik in NJ]

Interesting poll with Whitney Houston (who was born in 1963) ranked quite high as the "Best Voice of the 60s" and Ringo Starr and Keith Richards ranked higher than Roger Daltry! I see Jesus Christ is also on the poll, but unfortunately he's got no votes yet. [Update] I think I found the answer: Tina A Brown (a contributor) writes "Why is John Lennon on the LIST???Elvis Presley??? Paul McCartney??? These ppl have great records, careers....BUT they are not singers!! smh "

[beatlesfanrandy]

Well...I personally think that John Lennon was the best singer in The Beatles, and The Beatles were the best band in the 60's (or any era). So I can't vote for McCartney for that. He did write my favorite song of all time though, so I'll give him that!

[Nancy R]

beatlesfanrandy:

Well...I personally think that John Lennon was the best singer in The Beatles, and The Beatles were the best band in the 60's (or any era). So I can't vote for McCartney for that. He did write my favorite song of all time though, so I'll give him that!

What's the song?

[Beatles4Ever]

beatlesfanrandy:

Well...I personally think that John Lennon was the best singer in The Beatles, and The Beatles were the best band in the 60's (or any era). So I can't vote for McCartney for that. He did write my favorite song of all time though, so I'll give him that!

Ditto. For the same reasons. John's clear and soaring tenor during his Beatles years was just perfect!! He just nailed the rockers and could sing a great lead on ballads too. He just had the perfect Rock n' roll voice. Paul's a close second, IMO, however.

[year40]

Paul's still No. 1. John is now up to No. 3.

[Erik in NJ]

It's a pretty funny poll--I see someone added Yoko Ono. And Jesus Christ now has 3 votes to her 0! Glad to see Macca so far ahead though!

[Bruce M.]

Just voted. Paul was #2, a little behind Elvis Presley, with no one else close. Now I have nothing against Elvis, but he should be in the running for best voice of the FIFTIES, not the sixties. By the sixties he was already past his prime.

[Nancy R]

Bruce M.:

Just voted. Paul was #2, a little behind Elvis Presley, with no one else close. Now I have nothing against Elvis, but he should be in the running for best voice of the FIFTIES, not the sixties. By the sixties he was already past his prime.

He could still belt out a song in the '70's, but I agree, he should have been delegated to the '50's.