Rolling Stone Has Gone Too Far This Time...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2024
- Surprise! Clickbait! But not by us. It's Rolling Stone that's to blame.
The once respectable magazine recently updated their list of the best 500 albums of all time. And boy howdy, did they screw up.
Off the list:
The Rolling Stones
The Beach Boys
Elvis Costello
Bob Marley
Roxy Music
Cream
Bob Marley
Primal Scream
Harry Styles
Replaced by:
Taylor Swift
Beyonce
Harry Styles
Black Uhruru
Gorillaz
SZA
Burna Boy
Bad Bunny
Olivia Rodrigo
Are you not outraged! I am mildly so! Mostly by the fact that Rolling Stone just decided to randomly remove albums instead of like... moving them down and taking off the end of their 2020 top 500 list. Like how does that work. How does an album ranked in the top 150 just vanish from the list completely?
Also Taylor Swift's Folklore is not good.
Has Rolling Stone lost all credibility? What's the point of these lists if they have no rules and are seemingly completely random?
Leave your comments!
Joe sticking up for Sonic Youth was honestly kind of wholesome. Rolling Stone is like a dinosaur trying to be hip to kids.
Maybe they should just make a separate list for the 20th century and call it the classic era or something, while using a 21th century list for their efforts in trying to get with the times.
exactly, they've defiantly disenfranchised the base of their readership. i see this list as their version of musical equity.
“Red” by Black Uhuru is widely regarded as one of the all time best reggae albums.
It can stay
You're so right, it's totally ridiculous that they eliminated several of those innovative rock albums from the rock renaissance era.
so elvis costello and cream were both in the 100s and now gone!! Crazy stuff , and disraeli gears was a very important album of the 60s !!! The AFTERMATH of this list is this list is outrageous!!🐯
The Rolling Stones' great "Aftermath" has a song called "Stupid Girl". So for years I've wanted it gone; thank the Lord.
The Great Garbage 🗑 also had a hit with a song called Stupid Girl ! I ❤️ Shirley Manson
@@oppothumbs1 lol im ok with that song , not a fav or anything
@@davidellis5141 garbage is a great band , and yes gotta love shirley
I agree, bengal, this list is outrageous. I haven't paid attention to Rolling Stone in decades. 🎶💜💜
Maybe the last good Rolling Stone contribution was the Seinfeld leather cover. Great clip Joe always entertaining!
Black Uhuru’s “Red” is a great album for those that are into reggae. Personally, I hate seeing that one cut for any of the albums added to the list, but, I could see why that one would have been more expendable to the makers of the list. Really weird though to have some of those other cuts made.
Don´t get too upset. Best-of-all-time-lists are not a real thing. They´re just a silly game. When I was younger and started exploring all the different eras and styles of music they were a great source for that purpose. I would consider them more like an exhibition that change single exhibits from time to time to acknowledge the current Zeitgeist. So when you look back on that list thirty years later it might give you an idea of what was that Zeitgeist. If i would make a list like that I would just list 500 albums alphabetical. I have no idea how I would or even could decide about which ones are the best.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
Well said. Chronologically is how I‘d do it, and the Rolling Stone did that in the 90s, I remember. One decade per issue of their (print) magazine.
A rational, sane, adult opinion. Perhaps all hope for the future is not lost.
Costello sang "All this and no surprises for this years girl" and the same for Rolling Stone Mag lists; we've seen this coming. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Young lead with most albums so there is your "shred" of credibility. Rap albums increased 3 fold. Marvin Gaye is on top as if to ask "What's Going on?"
I think to put out a list of the 500 BEST ALBUMS OF ALL TIME including every genre of popular music, even Jazz and Electronic Music is not an achievable goal. And every single music lover will likely disagree strongly with some results of any attempt to issue such a list. I'm not sure that many Bad Bunny fans will consult he RS list, but if a few are happy about his inclusion, well cheers to them. I don't know much by Bad Bunny but so what? Black Uhuru deserve to enter any list, let alone for their shiny Rhythm Twins, one of the tightest groove machines in musical history. I'm quite sure that the "Five Symbols" album by Roky Erickson & The Aliens isn't even on the list at all, which is a shame because it's the greatest album of all times. What's wrong with you guys? Give Roky some credit! And that goes to TLM as well. Best album of 1980 by a mile. That had to be said, but I'm over it already, and I'm at peace with your lists, all of your lists. Because you do your best, you just don't know better. And neither do I. But lists are fun, that's why we're talking about it. So thank you for that. 🤗
How would pandering to a younger crowd work? "Oh that magazine I never heard or cared about made list with 500 albums and one of those is by my crush Harry Styles. I must buy that magazine." And if it worked, why not? Might get them to try out one of those other 499 albums and let them discover a whole new world. I suppose most of us started with questionable taste in younger years because we didn´t know better. Until that magic moment we heard "Whole Lotta Love" (in my case)for the first time.
This is unbelievable! Demon Days should be much higher than 437!
Agreed, how it only now made the list is baffling
Yeah, it should be higher, like 2000th. - Joe
@@TastesLikeMusic Boo! It’s genuinely a top 50 album for me easily 😂
Doubt it would make my top 20 million. -Jason
@@TastesLikeMusicI don't get your distaste for Gorillaz at all, amazing band that gives all genres of music an equal love and appreciation
How could one call himself a modern music lover and not be able to appreciate the classics that Demon days, Plastic beach, Self titled or Song machine are is beyond me
Well said, Joe. It has to be pointed out that the 2020 revision was based on a 'survey' of artists and music industry figures, who, lacking the objectivity of music journalists, would obviously want to pitch for their own inclusion or the inclusion of their peers, almost a lobbying exercise. This is why Joe is saying Rolling Stone has gone too far in this latest 2023 revision because for it to have any legitimacy, the list must at least be conducted by music journalists (however controversial their picks) and not simply orchestrated by the gloryhunting figures of the current music industry. Without banging on about the exclusions, the disappearance of 'Today' is particularly regrettable as The Beach Boys are one of the most (some would say THE MOST) significant music artists of the last 70 years (or all time in the context of this list). For either that or Surf's Up not to be included in the list AT ALL is, well, simply ignorant.
Who says journalists are objective? That assumption seems naive at best. You think journalists don't have their pet artists and want to be able to claim that they had a hand in breaking those artists, or revel in the thought that they are powerful industry tastemakers? And you do realize that some of the awards that are most respected, like the Oscars, are determined by people who work in the business, not journalists, right?
I'm not defending the list. I'm not condemning it either, though. It's a compiled list of opinions rating something that is ultimately unratable. It's a waste of time for people to get their panties all bunched up over stupid shit like these lists. Who gives a f***.
@@burmajones803 - Well, ok, MORE objective. More objective than some commenters anyway
"The Beach Boys are one of the most (some would say THE MOST) significant music artists of the last 70 years".
That is utterly dumb.
Let me introduce you to "The Beatles" who -- unlike the chauvinistic California-centric regional band "Beach Boys" -- changed the world, and gave Brian Wilson something to reach for beyond Los Angeles, California.
Listen to "Back in the U.S.S.R.," in which they CRUSH "The Beach Boys'" vaunted ("Lettermen") harmonies. AND blow the foolish supremacist "California Girls" out of the water.
@@jnagarya519 - I totally agree. I said 'some would say' not me. But they are one of the most.
@@drdavid1963 Pure privilege and white bread. Wealthy reactionary Reagan Republicans.
They are "one of the most" by those who are ignorant of music history and myopic. "The Beatles" blew them out of the water. Only those who are desperate to find someone the equal of "the Beatles" tout the "achievements" of "The Beach boys" and Brian Wilson.
How many sustained innovative LPs did "The Beach Boys" make" -- "Pet Sounds"? That's it? And you freaks don't even acknowledge that "The Beatles" kicked the door down and made it possible for Wilson to do something beyond car tunes and "surf" nonsense. But how much did he really do -- "Pet Sounds"?
The albums they removed are so random. They should have removed the end of the top 500.
To start, a 'Top 500' list of all pop music, ever, is ridiculous. Maybe a Top 10 list by sub-genre could have a little validity, but it wouldn't change very often nor very much. Just remember that "Selling Magazines" is always #1 for Rolling Stone.
"[P]op" music is short for POPULAR music -- as in "POP Charts". Have you ever LOOKED at the various GENRES of music represented on the POPULAR music charts? Is Frank Sinatra "Rock"? Are "The Rolling Stones" some non-existent "genre" called "Pop"?
If you were to actually RESEARCH the "Pop Charts" -- which music you ignorantly classify as a "genre" -- you'd find on them, as example, "The Kingston Trio" -- FOLK genre -- Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong -- JAZZ -- Jimmy Reed -- BLUES -- "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" -- COUNTRY AND WESTERN 9which is actually made in a CITY in the EAST).
"POPular music embraces ALL "genres" of music that are POPULAR -- and ALL of those appear on the "POPular Music Charts".
I remember when radio was segregated by RACE -- Black music stations, and WHITES-ONLY stations. How does that history screw up your oh-so-serious furrowed-brow efforts to invent "sub-genre" in which to stuff this or that "form" of music. Remember the MARKETING label "Alternative Rock"? And to what was it the "alternative"? To ROCK.
Hey, I agree with you on this list! RS stopped being relevant ages ago. 😊
I've never been an avid Rolling Stone reader so I couldn't care less about their lists, but it's kind of funny to see their desperate attempts to be relevant while they're obviously a bit afraid to lose all their boomer readers since I guess they are the only ones who'd pay money for it. If it's still in print, idk
Thank you Jann Wenner
They didn't totally wipe out greatest hits albums as Chuck Berry's Great 28 is at #51. This is sort of a must include as Chuck Berry is one of the principle creators of rock n roll and almost nobody was an album artist back in the 1950s.
I started a subscription to Rolling Stone in about 74. I was a Freshman in high school. Around the time they started the pointless Guess Jeans ads they were already in a down slide. By the mid 80s I just stopped reading it. No Cream album on the list is just unforgivable.
Give 'em Hell Joe.
Now, 'Red' by Black Uhuru is a great album. But 'Screamadelica' is better. *And* more important, for what that's worth.
Red by King Crimson is the only "Red" album I care about. Im sure its not on that list
Rolling Stones editors think they forgot all black music during decades and they are making another mistake: they are overrating many rap, soul and r'n'b records. It is simply absurd to see some records by Jay-Z, Beyoncé or Kanye West next to classics by The Beatles, Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan.
This absurdity is caused by the attempt to make an all-time list. It’s hard to compare an album from 1973 to one from 2023. besides that, there is nothing wrong in adding albums from those three artists to the top 500. They have created modern classics.
Yeah their credibility has been gone for a really long time but they keep making things worse. I do understand wanting to update the list to be more in line with the current zeitgeist and to represent more artists and genres than they may have in the past, that could be really positive if done right. But I also think they are going about it in the laziest way possible, picking the easy big names in some of the genres they are representing and then elevating them to a level on this list that doesn't necessarily make sense. And yeah, taking out random entries rather than the bottom ones is weird and nonsensical - it kinda makes it seem like the numbers ultimately mean nothing (which... may be true). Most those albums they took out are easily better than the ones they put in in most cases. I do understand taking out the Bob Marley because it's a compilation but only if they took out every other compilation and in that case, he has enough acclaimed albums that they could have replaced it with one of them.
I do feel like I remember seeing the Black Uhuru album on a list of theirs in the past, if not the original top 500 list it was on their top albums of the 80s from the end of the 80s because I had that issue and loved reading it when I was younger. So I can understand bringing that one back in (even if I've never heard it). And I don't really care for Gorillaz but I can understand their inclusion at least. But some of these others are just too new and too obviously buzz-y choices whether you like the music or not.
The removal of For Your Pleasure & Screamadelica are absolute 💯 proof of how irrelevant Rolling Stone has become. What would Lester Bangs think 🤔 ? 😠 😡
that and a majority of smiths albums, luckily stone roses remained
They must be pandering to the kiddies to stay relevant. Replacing Elvis Costello or Roxy Music, in favor of little pipsqueaks, basically children's entertainers, like Harry and Olivia whoever? Ridiculous. That's like firing Meryl Streep and replacing her with someone from "Teen Mom".
And they should pander to old f***s like you? There's no future in that.
As someone older than you, I respect you pushing through and saying "suspect" after realizing you're too old to use "sus".
I have subscribed to Rolling Stone (yes, the hard copy, which became a monthly instead of biweekly) since 1980. (I *may* have had a Jim Morrison obsession at the time and I think the first issue I received was the legendary “He’s Hot, He’s Sexy, and He’s Dead.” 😏. I also ofc got the special issue with the death of John Lennon that year.) But this year, I finally didn’t renew. Renewal price was insane. They were piling up. I didn’t like the new fancy stock bcs they are always bathtub reading for me. I wasn’t as interested in the musicians anymore, but I like really long articles and liked some of their exposés. But those starting falling flat. (Also, I always knew Taibbi was a jerk. Always inserted himself into the story.) I think Aftermath was removed because of misogyny of some of the songs (Stupid Girl, Under My Thumb). Honestly, I can’t believe the stuff I listened to in the 1970s and didn’t even raise an eyebrow (Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart, Aerosmith, even The Ocean, my fave Zep song, all guilty of total pedo stuff). I struggle with it today bcs of I have a daughter in her early twenties and I talk to her about how different it was then. But it’s tough bcs I still love some of those songs. Might even be the same for Roxy Music, since Ferry is pretty slimy and always was. Plus their US tour a few years ago kinda tanked bcs I’m not sure ppl knew them. (Yes, I know. Criminal. And saw the show in Chicago and it was awesome!) But For Your Pleasure will ALWAYS be in my top ten. I love Screamadelica as well. Agree about Wenner’s removal being a good thing, tho. He always had his pet artists. People like Art Garfunkel were getting five stars (yes, a talented singer and no double underrated bcs in Paul Simon’s shadow, but really??)
The Ocean isn't guilty of "pedo" stuff. It's well-known that Robert Plant was singing lovingly about his daughter. Do you really think he wanted to have sex with a three year old and was displaying that for the world to hear? The same mistake has been made about Chuck Berry's Memphis, which also has a three year old as an object of parental love. However, Berry is certainly wide open to "pedo" accusations when it comes to teenage girls, as is Plant's bandmate Jimmy Page. How far Plant himself went in that direction in the groupie heydays is a subject for speculation. Many adults are attracted to teenagers. An extremely small subset are sexually attracted to children under ten, let alone under five. The ultra-heightened awareness of child sexual abuse is an important cultural development and most likely has real benefits. But it does have its excesses.
joe, thanks for citing your own incredulity with this list. the fact jann wenner, it's founder, has been banished (and perhaps deservedly) to elba island, could be substantive reinforcement that rs is well out of touch with it's rock lineage.
The whole point of the list is to get people to talk about. If it was universally agreed upon, no one would care. Really, just over hearing how bad Rolling Stones is, irrelevant, how they suck. Yeah, everybody knows that, it's been said to death for well over a decade. A new list couldn't change that.
Maybe Rolling Stone should “just disappear “ from the list of music ( or any ) publications .
Now that makes sense .
they went too far a few years ago when they made a Top 100 Guitarists of all time list and put Eddie Van Halen at #75. I don’t care if ya like VH or not that’s just dumb. Of course after he died they made an updated version of the list and put him in Top 10.
I haven't picked up an issue of RS in over 10 years and not on a regular basis since the 90's. At 58, I'm far from their target audience these days. None of these additions to their top 500 list surprise me. Hard for me to be outraged since I stopped caring about what they thought some time ago.
Any chance you guys can change that lame 80's smooth jazz music that pays at the end of each episode?
In the aftermath of Rolling Stone dropping a Rolling Stones album off the list...you might as well change the rags name to One Step Beyonce.
🎶 They Called It Madness 🎶
Never got into SOS. Good album but there’s almost no chance I *really* get into a 23 song album, personally. Liked Ctrl a lot more, which was already in their top 500 list. Didn’t need to pass it with SOS imo, but not that surprising given they named it best album of 2023 when it didn’t even come out last year
They took Screamadelica off? Aw man….
Disraeli Gears and Aftermath off the list? Why? What’s their problem?
NIN Predictions 🔮
Jason: Favorite album - Pretty Hate Machine
Joe: Favorite album - With Teeth
You might be surprised
@@TastesLikeMusic 🫣😲🫶
This publication is no longer a music magazine. It’s now a political zine.
Whether it should’ve made the list is up for discussion but African Giant by Burna Boy is 🔥. Also I saw him live in a small venue a couple of years back and it was seriously one of the best things I’ve ever seen. His band are absolute masters. Give it a listen. 👍
I will have to listen
Preach it, Joe. RS has had it's finger to the wind for decades now, hoping to find the right breeze. No Cream at all in the top 500? That's fucking absurd. What's the point of these lists if they are not to preserve greatness?
Well said, Joe. Blood on the Tracks at #9 is egregious, among numerous other transgressions.
This is public service broadcasting......primal and elvis......wtf were they thinking......rolling stone is yesterday's bread dread.....
Removing those albums from the list is just obscene
If they want to make a 21st century list, fine. Keep the 20th century separate. Two different worlds
Rolling Stone is almost universally reviled now. It was always a bit hokey in my opinion but now its a dartboard. Rolling Stone should have a rock list and an autotuned/quantized list. But they won't of course. Cheers Joe.
I can see it two ways yes definite pandering going on but also how is it compiled? Is it based on lists that all the writers complete and then they make a master list out of them. If so that would explain a lot, it is a bad way to do this. Or did a bunch of writers sit in a room and decide what the best 500 are? hmm just don’t see that.
Is the Harry Styles who's been added to the list a different Harry Styles to the one who's been removed ?
Same Harry
What's the problem then ?
Rolling Stone was terrible 30 years ago. The real tragedy is what happened to the Village Voice's Pazz & Jop end of year lists. Say what you want about Robert Christgau, when he ran Pazz & Jop, it was must read in the first week of February
Christgau is the worst person to have ever talked about music. -Jason
The demise of 'The Village Voice' was a real loss for alternative journalism, especially in the arts (some of the most important film criticism in the English language was first published there).
@@barrymoore4470 Christgau wrote for the Village Voice, therefore I must reject outright. -Jason
Yeah. Let's just ignore the classics as a benchmark. Let's just go pop.
The 2003 one served as somewhat of a gateway, even if basic. And despite the occasional necessary correction, each passing list gets further and further from the best albums music has had to offer.
Rolling Stone and the R&RHOF have the same problem... well, not *that* problem, but the fact that they cast their net too wide to be taken seriously. Bad Bunny might well be one of the reggaeton greats, but there's nothing wrong with a magazine saying, 'that's not in our wheelhouse'; I'm sure Bad Bunny isn't on Kerrang!'s list, for example.
And as for Harry Styles, that's RS in dreamland. Harry Styles fans don't read RS, and RS readers don't listen to Harry Styles. Nothing is going to change that. RS's downfall will be not understanding what it is and who it's for.
the way i see it is... the more outrageous these lists are....
the more that sales are in the tanker. see....if the list was spot on...no one would talk about it.
Haven’t read rolling stone since 2005
What in the world is the problem with Black Uhuru's Red making the list? I'm flabbergasted. It's a masterpiece.
Well, he DID say that he hasn't HEARD the LP -- but the group is BLACK, so they shouldn't have displaced a WHITE who plays Black music.
Honestly if the first 5 albums on the list aren't Bob Dylan albums Im not that interested!
😬
I'll defend Black Uhuru's "Red," but otherwise spot on Joe. Revisionism is the name of the game, but it's disrespectful to the classics that dropped off the list.
I gave up taking anything seriously from Rolling Stone when-and I swear this is true-about 20 years ago, they ranked Joan Jett above Eddie Van Halen on a list of Greatest guitarists of all time. There is nothing credible at all about that rag, and they should just give up.
Yeah theyre absurd.Black Uhuru are decent. Some of these "artist$#" never heard of. Not that only classic should be here. They might as well turn it over to artists, like BillyJoe, etc and as ask their top 100, then add all the lists. Critics like R$ are too crafty.
I grew up with "The Beach Boys". The subsequent generations ae nuts to put them anywhere near the title "Greatest Band of All Time" -- especially without acknowledging the ton of studio musicians.
Plenty of artists used session musicians.
@@TastesLikeMusic The issue is "The Beach Boys," and it wasn't known they used session musicians IN PLACE OF THEIR OWN MEMBERS, until many years later.
Brian Wilson was a one-man band with a ton of session musicians
AGAIN: I grew up with "the Beach Boys": listen to the first three years of their recordings -- Chuck Berry was the best "rock" writer of the 1950s and into the 1960s -- listen to his car tunes. So "The Beach Boys" wore striped shirts inspired by "the Kingston Trio" and released song after song after song about cars and surfing (only the drummer actually surfed) -- it was a rut. It was "The Beatles" that made them aware that there was a world beyond California.
And then when Wilson tried to compete he was crushed into a fetal ball.
But "the Beach Boys" had their heyday, showing their true colors, by playing at Ronald Reagan's inauguration.
You are clearly ridiculously misinformed. Who cares if the surfing thing was just an image when they quickly moved on from that image once today, pet sounds, and smile happened
Also, it’s hilarious to act like he was somehow crushed by the beatles when he had to go toe to toe with them
God Only Knows, Wouldn’t It Be Nice, Darlin’, Good Vibrations, Heroes and Villains, California Girls, and I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times = being crushed. Yeah, totally
@@aidanphr1446 "[Q]uickly moved on"!? Their first releases were in 1962. It was at least THREE YEARS -- 1967 -- before they "moved on".
AGAIN: I grew up with "The Beach Boys". They were the "bee's knees" until "The Beatles" changed the world. "The Beach Boys" continued in the same rut -- surfing and car tunes -- until someone slapped Brian Wilson upside the head and said: "WAKE UP, ASSHOLE, Los Angeles, California, with the fake surfing songs, and the bullshit supremacism of "CALIFORNIA Girls," is NOT the whole world!"
Yes: he tried to compete with "The Beatles" and was crushed into a fetal ball. Then he spent years being a toddler for a scam "psychologist" who milked him for his money.
And look at their respective origins: Wilson's father was in the music business. "The Beach Boys" got a recording contract without the least effort because they were upper-middle class and connected. It's no wonder they were reactionary Reagan Republicans.
"The Beatles" busted their asses for years, actually playing live and to exhaustion, and lucked into a contract. "The Beatles" changed the world; "The Beach Boys" tried to keep up but couldn't.
I've for years heard all the praise for the song "God Only Knows"; thanks for the illusion: it can't be proven there IS a "God".
I've been watching dumb-assed right-wing Americans struggling to find something, ANYTHING, AMURICAN, to equal "The Beatles'" achievement; they haven't. Or someone WHITE who plays blues music that they could tout as a "master" over the BLACKS who originated it. All of that effort based on ignorance of US music history, and the pseudo-intellectual invention of fake "genre" -- LABELS -- in effort to come to terms with their confused lack of knowledge.
And, yeah: you did indicate that one of those removed from the "Rolling Stone" list was because he was a WHITE MALE, who was replaced by a BLACK. So I guess the ubiquitous "white male," who still runs the world, is yet again being discriminated against. And I guess one of the "job skills" Blacks got as a "benefit" of being slaves was playing banjo or guitar and as result they invented Blues music, which when played by WHITE MALES is called "rock and roll" and then "rock". And the pinnacle of that successful appropriation was the white bread "Beach Boys".
So WHITE MALES "own" "rock" music -- which makes Blacks UNWELCOME TRESPASSERS when on a list dominated by WHITE MALES.
@@aidanphr1446 Yeah -- tell us all about WHITE bread wealthy and connected "Beach Boys'" Mike Love with all his bandmates wives. Nice backstabbing guy. Musta voted more than once for Reagan in every election.
The first LP I bought -- as new release -- was "Surfin' USA". Still have that and others by them. As said: I grew up with them; I didn't come along three generations later and buy into the hype from those desperate to find SOMEBODY they can try to tie to "The Beatles" success.
I feel conflicted. I want to upvote the video in the spirit of trashing Rolling Stone, as they’ve sucked basically forever, and because they removed Goo (not the best Sonic Youth album anyway, but do they even have Daydream Nation or Evol on there? Maybe the former; almost certainly not the latter). Also, having Harry Styles in the top 500 anything, except for maybe most annoying try hards outside of Bradley Cooper, I just cannot sanction. At the same time though… Joe did slur the Youth again.. 😢 and that I also cannot sanction.
Jk, I don’t care. *upvotes*
agree.
Rolling Stone magazine makes my teeth itch. They have for decades.
😬
Ask anyone what the greatest 1000, 100, or 10 albums of all time are & it's going to be different everytime.
I would imagine "Rolling Stone" targeting their core readership, of which I am not one.
Also taking into account the massive number of streams those new artists get, it starts making more sense.
Far more than poor selling but critically acclaimed classic prog records from 1973. One man's meat is another man's poison etc....
Joe, this list doesn't seem a little ridiculous. It is a lot ridiculous. As a Boomer/X tweener, RS has never had any critical or artistic relevance to me. Thoroughly corporate horseshit for the last 50 years. It is good sport to make fun of their lists, though. I saw that they put a Swift record ahead of The Band. Impossible to take seriously. And thanks for the measured takedown. They deserve it.
There are too many genres being combined for these type of lists. Add in massive recency bias and the need to be inclusive for those genres.
Have you seen Scotts latest video?
Who is Scott?
@@TastesLikeMusic The Prog Corner
Entertaining (if scary) update. Can't believe RS has done another 'greatest' update already. Looks like this'll soon be an annual event to bolster sales and controversy. Not that RS has been in the zeitgeist for a very long time.
Here's a topic for Tastes Like Music: "When did Rolling Stone magazine cease to represent popular culture?" Might make for an interesting discussion.
I'm currently reading an old copy of the ROLLING STONE RECORD REVIEW, published in 1971. The cruel pans of the first two Led Zeppelin albums make for hilarious reading while the laudatory review of Ringo Starr's country album, BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES is baffling. However, there is much to enjoy and even admire, especially in the depth of classic rock'n'roll and one-hit-wonders (who remembers Diane Kolby or Barbara Keith?).
Of course, it's Dylan that gets the most ink as the 1969-71 period is one of Bob's most contentious. The classic long-form review of SELF PORTRAIT by Greil Marcus (beginning with the question, "What is this shit?") is essential reading.
Consistent contributions from Jon Landau, Ed Ward, Lenny Kaye and Lester Bangs made this compilation a worthwhile read. It's a reminder that RS had, at one time, a talented pool of writers in the formative years.
Interestingly, the worst written, off-the-mark reviews are contributed by one Jann Wenner. (e.g. "If you take any one of these ["White Album'] songs and really get down with it, to where every piece of excellence and craftsmanship is explained and understood fully (and it's always just as good, and often even better, when you do), whatever you say about that one song is as true for the rest." p. 22).
His editor should have known better. Oh, wait a minute...
Glenn Miller's Moonlight Serenade off the list !!!!! WTF !!!!
welcome to the old farts club friend
🧙♂️
Rolling Stone??? People actually still read this ???
Definitely pandering to a younger crowd, which is something they have been doing for some time now. I haven't read an issue in years. Of course, given what's been popular in the mainstream in the past couple decades, a move in this direction is inevitable. I have not considered that magazine relevant for years. I've also not considered mainstream music to be relevant in my life for a pretty long time. Only recently did I knowingly hear Taylor Swift. My reaction -- is THIS what all the fuss is about?
I agree that Swift is overrated--some of her fans tout her as the greatest songwriter ever.
It'd be okay if they pandered to an older crowd though, eh?
@@barrymoore4470 oh, the horror! Did you know that some Bob Dylan fans tout him as the greatest songwriter ever?! Obviously, they're biased.
@@burmajones803Dylan (and Leonard Cohen, and Joni Mitchell, and Bruce Springsteen) are much more credible candidates for this distinction than is Swift. The advocacy of Swift's fans suggests not just bias, but also ignorance.
@@barrymoore4470 and your responses suggest arrogance, and ignorance too, to be honest.
In 1987, not long after I turned 17, Rolling Stone published the top 100 albums made in the magazine's lifetime - which was 20 years at that point. As a burgeoning fan of classic rock, I bought that particular issue and used their canon to navigate my way through the plethora of albums by well-known artists that I was still reasonably unfamiliar with.
It helped me to discover and deepen my appreciation for Van Morrison, the Beach Boys, the Stones, Joni Mitchell, the Velvets, Talking Heads and numerous others. Conversely, it also helped me realise what I didn't actually care for, no matter how it acclaimed it might be (the most notable example being the Beatles) so it was a very useful list at the time indeed.
I'm not against the idea of a canon at all but it's increasingly evident that this exhausted game of catch up by a hoary old institution like Rolling Stone is increasingly pointless nowadays, so I don't see any reason to get upset about it really. In all honesty, it's not even worth discussing. If the internet had been a thing when I was growing up, I probably would have turned to a website like Rate Your Music instead.
Dei is ruining everything. The magazine should have been retired or stop doing lists to virtue signal.
Rolling Stone Magazine has turned too woke, no interessting left there anymore.
Of course most of it is sh*t, but Black Uhuru rules.
My Aim Is a True is a great debut, but I always thought there were more worthy Elvis Costello albums that could have made the cut. The main travesty isn't the loss of that specific album but reducing his representation to one album altogether. For people who weren't there, it's hard to imagine the excitement that existed in the music world in the mid to late '70s when upstart artists like Costello and the Clash and Talking Heads were first popping onto the scene, but Rolling Stone was around back then and has no excuse for disregarding the impact. Plus Elvis is one of the greatest songwriters ever, with the lyrical chops of Bob Dylan matched with a Lennon and McCartney gift for melody. This is really sad.
The backing band on My Aim 🎯 Is True are Clover 🍀..Who became The News & gained fame backing Huey Lewis !
@@davidellis5141 I heard that. Too bad the Attractions don't play on that album, it would have been even better.
@@chrisboerger465 Imagine Steve Nieve playing 🎹 on some of the tracks !
Well, My Aim is True is the weakest album of EC's early run, for the simple fact that the Attractions aren't on it.
Rolling Stone strains itself to be hip and contemporary. Most of the newly included albums Joe mentioned are mediocre at best and are hardly classics of any genre. Rolling Stone has lost all artistic credibility as a music magazine and is now just about celebrity and pop culture!
Pathetic. As reggae goes, Black Uhuru's Red is very good, and maybe worth considering. I don't feel strongly about it, though. But, AARGH, taking Elvis Costello's incredible debut classic shows a lack of respect for one of best debut albums during the early and best years of New Wave. Maybe RS should just divide their Greatest Album Lists into 20th century albums and 21st century albums.
Dear RS: Please accept this big bag o'dix for scuttling Disraeli Gears and Aftermath. Your publication is dead to me.
I gave up on Rolling Stone a long time ago. What a rag.
A BAD JOKE
My Aim is True should be top 50.
Oh the tragedy, the pearl clutching, the accusations of (gasp!) WOKENESS! And all because a survey of a range of people about what they consider the best pop music doesn't match our own opinions. God, the end of this species can't come quickly enough for the universe.
Don’t be dramatic
@@TastesLikeMusic pot kettle black. And it's sarcasm. I know you know what that is, because you're very good at it, much to your credit.
They have been washed for some time Joe.
Its a rag to use to wipe your but with!!!
awful list, but coming from a punchine publication. But I kind of agree, those moves seem even beneath Rolling Stone.
With "Under my thumb" "Aftermath" has a piece of massively toxic chauvinism on it. Something you'll never find in the work of any rap or reaggaton artist, as the list makers know.
🤔🤔🤔😂🤔😂
🥴
God awful choices. RS has zero credibility now. 😂
Dude it’s been over since 90..5 star review to Def Leppard…any integrity just evaporated
Which album?
It’s simply pandering. They so desperately want to remain relevant because reviewing and giving 4+ stars to every new Springsteen album isn’t giving them enough attention anymore. They are now eliminating and hating on rock and pop of old just like they do with prog
They aren't pandering to old white guys anymore, so anything RS says is invalid and without integrity. Waaaah, waaaah, waaah.
Rolling Stone is a joke.😂
Greetings from Leipzig/ germany
who gives a fuck what Rolling Stone publishes. They're a business who are only swayed by the fashionable breezes that are blowing through their corridors at any given time. My advice; 'don't take so much weight by what is published amongst its pages'.
Woah, removing Sonic Youth to make a spot for trash like Bad Bunny? Oh that's right. We live in Clownworld. Makes perfect sense. Carry on.
Clapton got damaged by the safe jab and he spoke out about it. Wow! You are awake.
I actually didn't know that they did another update. Because they did that in 2020. What? I'll check up on the list later to see for myself. I forgot it already happened. But I will check it up. But I would say that Rolling Stone has lost a ton of credibility. It's not trustworthy anymore. It's not what it once was. The younger generation doesn't care about what music once was anymore. They don't care about the older stuff anymore and this is sad.
Trustworthy in terms of what? Taste? I only trust my own taste. And about the "younger generation": When I was a teen in the 90´s most of my peers didn´t care about what music once was either. Except for those few who were really into music and always keen to discover new music, no matter if it was old or new . So that really haven´t change. I wouldn´t generalize and I bet there are some young people in the comment section here too- judging by how serious they take that list BS.
Rolling Stone lost me when they said they were no longer going to cover "legacy" acts. It is like an American History teacher who thinks history began with the 9/11 attacks.
Yeah its effing ridiculous.
Not sure why it had to be pointed out that Elvis Costello is a “white guy”.
Just in case
@@TastesLikeMusic?!
Imagine thinking harry styles is in the top 500 albums of all time 💀
Never heard of Burna Boy, Never heard of Sizza, Never heard of Olivia Rodrego, Bed BunnY, Bad Bunny? Who's that?
Is it Rolling Stone's fault that you aren't hip and your musical taste sucks?
Rolling Stone is a joke
Serious Music listeners do not buy Rolling Stone magazine, or watch your channel. Both focus on commerical pop music in the main. 500 albums of all time would have about: 175 classical, 75 Jazz, 100 Global non English speaking musicians, 50 soul/funk, 60 Rock/Pop, 20 Electronic, 20 Exotica/Easy.
Feel free to make that serious list that no one will ever see or care about
Good luck with finding 175 classical albums. Albums just are been recorded for less than 100 years. So Mozart and Brahms are out for that.
Mozart was a pop artist in his day. Just because something is "commercial" doesn't unequivocally mean less than.
@@marciap-vc Mozart sure was and his music in the main is banal syrup. I doubt he'd get one from his opus in the 500, maybe the Requiem. Many efforts from this more realistic top 500 would have sold in large numbers. Pop music does not just mean commercial in this era, it needs to have a simpler chorus-verse formula, plus less need for musical abilities. Although some musicians called pop musicians are very talented, but prefer making music of this type or might be more motivated by financial rewards.
@@TastesLikeMusic The speculative list I referred to has been made up, often, but it might not be one you'd be all that motivated to peruse. Plenty of others would be whose listening is not focused on one or two genres from more specific areas of the planet from the last 60-70 years.