Did you? I thought you had made an assertion,
Where is the substance there?
Thesis (boombox): these are the world's greatest female vocalists
Antithesis (moi): no they're not
My response is actually pretty consistant with your initial post. How about this: rather than just put forward some undefined measures, not linked to any of the singers you favour you could explain why Norah Jones scores better on pitch, tone, range, whatever. You could explain why singers not included in the list score less well, how they score -- I mean, there's a thousand things you haven't said. All you said was 'I have judged and these are the best', but really there's nothing to support your argument except the assertion itself and a false appeal to some kind of rigorous methodology.
Anyone can do it. I have listened to thousands of singers and judged them on tone, range, pitch, control, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the greatest singers in the world are, say, Bjork, Patty Waters, Nina Simone, Lydia Lunch and some bird off the X Factor. It's a bit mundane, no?
Or to take another tack: your sample is heavily biased. Perhaps that's why at least half produce unlistenable goo. A tall building might be impressive, but is it beautiful because it's tall? Is it one of the best buildings in the world because it's tall? Maybe you should move out of New York.
In any case, I have no interest in 'marginalising opposing views' or whatever fairly pompous straw man you put forward. You have an opinion, I disagree. That is all.
