Why do female rock vocalists get more respect than urban pop/adult contemporary ones?

[Zoots]

I'm looking at the last.fm page for Female Vocalists and it lists Tori Amos, Björk, Alanis Morissette, Fiona Apple and Garbage as the Top 5. I admit they're all great (although Alanis I would say is a mixed bag and Fiona I haven't quite got into much but know she is well respected) but they can all pretty much be classified under Rock. Where are the pop, adult contemporary or adult alternative singers? Norah Jones is at 6 but I never got into her music. Madonna who I respect for her multi faceted career is at 9. Sarah Maclachlan is at 8 but I guess she can be classified as rock too. But what about Aimee Mann??? Not even listed. Kate Bush is. And I don't know if it's early 90s guilty pleasure talking here but I enjoy some of the earlier pop/ballady work by Mariah Carey too, like Hero and Without You. But I guess she ruined her career too much by first going into R&B/hip hop and then having a nervous breakdown, then going back to adult contemporary and now back to hip hop with Mimi. So I'm not surprised that she gets dissed. But in general, it feels like rock vocalists such as Tori or Fiona and experimental vocalists such as Björk or Kate Bush get more respect than pop ones like say, Kelly Clarkson. Wonder why. I know this is subjective as hell but as long as they write their own music, should it matter?

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Because we haven't seen half as many of their vaginas?

 

[XHendrix24]

There's a big difference between artists who WRITE their own music and artists who HELP WRITE their own music. Most female pop/adult contemporary singers sing other people's songs, and might write their own lyrics for the songs (ala Ashlee Simpson and the like). On the other hand, more female rock/alternative singers (ala Fiona Apple and the like) tend to write their own stuff themselves, music and all. As far as I know, that is. So that could play a big part in it (it does for me at least).