Let's laugh at Rolling Stone's "Top 500" lists

[Mesden]

All this talk about greatest bands and artists piqued my curiosity, so I decided to go check out the Big Ol' list the Rolling Stones made a few years back about the greatest Albums and Songs of all times, and I got a good shock out of some of the exclusions:

Top 500 Albums (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5938174/the_rs_500_greatest_albums_of_all_time)

Top 500 songs (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/500songs)

Just, one band I'd like to mention before other music buffs tear into these lists is Queen. Queen doesn't even make an appearance in either the top 100 Songs of all Time (Their highest is Bohemian Rhapsody at 163) or Top 100 Albums. Queen, only rivaled by The Beatles, Wings, and The Rolling Stones in the "Greatest Bands of all Time" pantheon, doesn't even make an appearance on either front page. That's laughable to the point of disgraceful!

Go ahead and laugh about other silly things like Hendrix's Voodoo Chile not making top 100, etc.

Edit: also there's a top singers list but that one is so hilariously bad that I couldn't even include it here. Go find it if you want, but as a forewarning, they put Bono over Elton John and Mick Jagger over Freddie Mercury and David Bowie.

[POS Industries]

Yeah, that top singers list.... Apparently, Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain, and Bjork are all better singers than Roger Daltrey, according to Rolling Stone.

Oh em gee.

[Lumenskir]

Meh, as a person who has a 50-year Rolling Stone subscription, there are worse music-related things in the magazine (most notably the fact that they can't seem to give anything, and I'm talking Diplo or Nickelback or Milli Vanilli level stuff here, less than a 2 and 1/2 star review).

Their lists tend to suck because I believe they're made by giving out a poll to shit ton of industry (artists, producers, critics, etc.) and then condensing that mass into a 'definite' list, which is just a retarded way of determining what is best (that way is by album sales/Metacritic scores/whatever the fuck you happen to like, take your pick). Mostly the lists are good when they have those same artists or industry insiders actually write up an essay on why they like those specific albums/songs, but then again I just like reading the perspectives of music people since it's a subject I just can't fully wrap my mind around.

So, all that aside, how are the 'best' musical anythings supposed to be decided at all? Music is almost entirely subjective so you can't score it against some sort of omnipresent sonic matrix of gradation. Is it 'legacy' or 'influence', because that's always seemed like an underhanded way to give extra weight to earlier bands for something that shouldn't really matter on a band-by-band basis.

[Krylo]

Yeah, that top singers list.... Apparently, Bob Dylan, Kurt Cobain, and Bjork are all better singers than Roger Daltrey, according to Rolling Stone.

Oh em gee.
Wait? Bob Dylan?

He's an, objectively, terrible singer, who only succeeded as a musician because he's an amazing songwriter, which allowed him to not only write great lyrics, but also write the musical tones of his songs to play to his voice--terrible though it was--and create something, at least, good, as opposed to the terrible it should have been with his inability to sing.

I mean, I'm pretty sure that's actually how every music critic ever sees him. Have these people never heard him do a cover?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I find it amusing that the top song is "Like a rolling stone". Totally picked for its title.
They also have a 100 greatest guitarists list which lacks any real structure. Pretty much be a guitarist in a big band and you'll get on it.
Though at least they got number 1 (Hendrix) correct.

[Mike McC]

On the greatest singers list, I can see the direction some of thier panel was going for, but even then they messed it up. I mean, if you have Bob Dylan high up, you should have Woodie Guthrie ranking too.

At least thier lists are still far more accurate than lists Blender makes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Also Roger Daltree is an effing amazing singer. His lyrics are absolutely clear while still being sung beautifully and in rock stylings. The only way the rock opera albums actually worked was because of Daltree who allowed you to understand what was going on.

[POS Industries]

Also Roger Daltree is an effing amazing singer. His lyrics are absolutely clear while still being sung beautifully and in rock stylings. The only way the rock opera albums actually worked was because of Daltree who allowed you to understand what was going on.
And yet, Daltrey was #61. Right behind Björk.

[Mesden]

So, all that aside, how are the 'best' musical anythings supposed to be decided at all? Music is almost entirely subjective so you can't score it against some sort of omnipresent sonic matrix of gradation. Is it 'legacy' or 'influence', because that's always seemed like an underhanded way to give extra weight to earlier bands for something that shouldn't really matter on a band-by-band basis.

In as much as you *can* make a list of the greatest bands, singers, albums, and songs of all time, how in the world, on the criteria that you give ANY of the other top picks, could you exclude Queen from every top 100 list, save top 100 singers where Freddie Mercury, arguably the greatest male voice to grace the music scene, only got an 18, under Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, etc?

It's almost disgraceful to discredit one of the very select bands that can stand toe to toe with The Beatles in terms of popularity and innovation from the rankings like this, regardless of their silly polls.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Freddie had an absolutely amazing range and was competent in a vast range of musical styles whereas people like Dylan and Jagger were more limited in the type of songs they could handle. It is a bit silly.

[Mesden]

4 fucking octaves and a personal, deep emotive quality that defined every Queen song as amazing in and of itself motha fuckaz.

[Major Blood]

Wait, so let me get this straight. A top 500 list of the best songs of all time, and no mention of Freebird?

I'm calling shenanigans.

[Mesden]

Why would it be, with great hits such as "Fuck Tha Police" ?

[Mike McC]

Let's get 179 people together and make our own lists!

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Let's get 179 people together and make our own lists!

With blackjack...and hookers. On second thought, forget the list.

On a serious note, you cannot really consider Rolling Stone a credible source on anything. They have only a couple of decent articles. Granted it is my opinion.

[Mesden]

They are a magazine named after a song/a band. Their most famous issue is a story on John Lennon. The only thing you can expect is they gave an appropriate appreciation to amazing musical talent when they go out of their way to make the definitive "top X" list of anything related to music.

[Mirai Gen]

They did have this one totally hot cover around the time of Grindhouse, to be fair.

[NMR]

Wait, so let me get this straight. A top 500 list of the best songs of all time, and no mention of Freebird?

I'm calling shenanigans.

Agreed. I call foul. A top 500 list and not a mention of Freebrid! They didn't do their homework.

[Amake]

What I like about Rolling Stone is that it's conspiracy proof. If you find yourself chased by a conspiracy that controls all four estates, they'll have overlooked Rolling Stone and you can get your revealing story published there. Well, it worked in Firestarter the Stephen King novel. . .

On topic, I find these sorts of lists almost completely useless. When do you need to have the priority of your favorite songs figured out unless you're given a time limit after which you'll have to decide on a limited amount of music you're allowed to take with you to a desert island with a kickass sound system where you'll spend the rest of your days? Reading someone else's list, no matter how authoritative they may or may not be, is slightly less useful.

I could make a top 500 list where the first place is shared by 100 songs and the second by 400. In fact I think I'll go and do that right now.

[Mirai Gen]

99% of the traffic or sales of "Top ### of the Best/Worst ____ Of (All time/the year/decade)" lists is people looking at the title and wondering how wrong they are.

[TheSparrow]

They also have a 100 greatest guitarists list which lacks any real structure. Pretty much be aROCK guitarist in a big band and you'll get on it.
Though at least they got number 1 (Hendrix) correct.

FIXED....Some great non rock guitarists on there

Also, here is how lame Rolling Stone is....Nirvana's Nevermind is #17 ALL TIME on their list. When Nevermind originally came out, Rolling Stone gave it 3 out of 5 stars and fairly panned it.

[Lumenskir]

Also, here is how lame Rolling Stone is....Nirvana's Nevermind is #17 ALL TIME on their list. When Nevermind originally came out, Rolling Stone gave it 3 out of 5 stars and fairly panned it.
Fuuuuck, RS will pan (i.e. give 3 or below stars) to pretty much anything they (READ AS: the 'person' reviewing) doesn't agree with, then they 'cover it up' by releasing a 'retrospective' about >10 years later stating that they were totally in the wrong on their initial assessment. It's kind of like the "Let's base music history off of what sold well" method proposed by the A.V. Club except RS isn't afraid to wait about 10 or 20 (glam rock anyone?) years for it to admit its mistakes.

God, _phil or mike_ or whoever makes all those "IM SO DRANUNNK" posts must be retarded because I'm on like 9 screwdrivers right now and Google Chrome is picking up no errors. (Well, except for the forum names and DRAUNNK and apparently glam? Is glam not a real word? Cmon Bowie, get some clout.)