Yet another shit list from Rolling Stone [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 01:23 AM

I'm not surprised in the least that there are so very few songs from 1990-2004.

The American airwaves during this period have more or less been dominated by R&B and Hip Hop music and it seems to be growing more and more every year. Whether you like that music or not, a lot of it just doesn't qualify as "rock", not for me anyway. Not for a lot of people.

The last 10 years, in fact, saw for the most part, the rise and fall of male and female pop idols and boy/girl vocal groups. Were there are a lot of indie rock acts and artists producing great music during that period? Sure. But unfortunately, a lot of that stuff either has a cult, underground following, doesn't get enough airplay/exposure or both. The fact of the matter is, whether the music is worthy or not, Rolling Stone, as far as I see it, is tabulating the songs that are important, that have influenced us, lasted for decades and will continue to live on for years to come. It is way too early to include a large chunk of songs from the last 10 years +.

The truth of the matter is, for lack of a better word, this is a mainstream list from a very mainstream rock mag. I think it's important to realize that other magazines will have different lists, but to expect a pure rock magazine that grew out of the sixties rock movement, when rock 'n' roll was still blooming, electrifying people and causing them to not only change but to think differently, to expect them to include tons of stuff from a very weak period of rock (1990-2004) is asking, and expecting, way too much.

On this list are songs that emit that singular, unique feeling that only rock music can give you. I can understand people being upset that their favorite song isn't included, but the truth is, for the most part (and I don't mean to generalize as there are certainly some songs that should be on that list) you're looking in the wrong place.

Most heavy metal tracks, indie alternative album tracks, singles and the like will never be on this list. That is not what Rolling Stone magazine is about. They are looking at what will possibly live on forever and forever be identified with that rock 'n' roll music boom that started over fifty years ago. Like it or not.

For classic rock lovers such as myself, this list makes perfect sense.

jeo4

11-21-2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by therealjohng
First the put Eddie Van Halen at number 75 on the greatest guitarists list. And now they don't even include Closer by NIN on the 500 greatest songs ever list. Not to mention they are whores for the democratic party.

FUCK YOU ROLLING STONE!!!

Van Halen was #75 on the greatest guitarists list...proof positive of what a bunch of fucking idiots work for Rolling Stone! And on this list?!

NO Van Halen.
NO Kiss.
NO NIN.
NO Stone Temple Pilots.
NO Pearl Jam!
NO Alice in Chains.
NO Soundgarden!
No Def Leppard.

Oh and way to plug yourselves, guys! Like A Roling Stone number one on the list?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!! THAT'S A FUCKING LAUGH! And to we need more proof what posers these assholes are? Look at all the bands who aren't there (above) and then look at what MADE the list!!

Eminem
Madonna
Bruce Springsteen
Tupac Shakur
Nirvana
Depeche Mode
The Cure
R.E.M.
Radiohead
R. Kelly
NWA
The Smiths (?!)
Prince
Guns N' Roses
Weezer

In short, they gave the list to:

1. Their favorites
2. A bunch of safe "oldies"
3. Any act they are chummy with.

What a crock of shit. These people know about as much about music as my dead grandmother. And as John mentioned, they are very partisan. Way to alienate readers, assholes!

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by jeo4
2. A bunch of safe "oldies"

To you those may be 'safe' oldies, but to others they are the roots of rock 'n' roll music. Without those artists and those songs, there would be no rock music.

The Heart Collector

11-21-2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
I'm not surprised in the least that there are so very few songs from 1990-2004.

The American airwaves during this period have more or less been dominated by R&B and Hip Hop music and it seems to be growing more and more every year. Whether you like that music or not, a lot of it just doesn't qualify as "rock", not for me anyway. Not for a lot of people.

The last 10 years, in fact, saw for the most part, the rise and fall of male and female pop idols and boy/girl vocal groups. Were there are a lot of indie rock acts and artists producing great music during that period? Sure. But unfortunately, a lot of that stuff either has a cult, underground following, doesn't get enough airplay/exposure or both. The fact of the matter is, whether the music is worthy or not, Rolling Stone, as far as I see it, is tabulating the songs that are important, that have influenced us, lasted for decades and will continue to live on for years to come. It is way too early to include a large chunk of songs from the last 10 years +.

The truth of the matter is, for lack of a better word, this is a mainstream list from a very mainstream rock mag. I think it's important to realize that other magazines will have different lists, but to expect a pure rock magazine that grew out of the sixties rock movement, when rock 'n' roll was still blooming, electrifying people and causing them to not only change but to think differently, to expect them to include tons of stuff from a very weak period of rock (1990-2004) is asking, and expecting, way too much.

On this list are songs that emit that singular, unique feeling that only rock music can give you. I can understand people being upset that their favorite song isn't included, but the truth is, for the most part (and I don't mean to generalize as there are certainly some songs that should be on that list) you're looking in the wrong place.

Most heavy metal tracks, indie alternative album tracks, singles and the like will never be on this list. That is not what Rolling Stone magazine is about. They are looking at what will possibly live on forever and forever be identified with that rock 'n' roll music boom that started over fifty years ago. Like it or not.

For classic rock lovers such as myself, this list makes perfect sense.

The list is still absurd. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too predictable, and hogged by the bands everyone expects to see there. It's just a popularity contest, but shittily done and with the big acts getting way too many hits.

one_crow_sorrow

11-21-2004, 01:32 AM

Smells Like Teen Spirit - #9
Won't Get Fooled Again - #133
Baba O'Riley - #340

Yeah....this list sucks.

The Heart Collector

11-21-2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by jeo4

Depeche Mode
The Cure
R.E.M.
Radiohead
The Smiths (?!)
Guns N' Roses

You've got to be joking if you think those bands aren't worthy of inclusion. Seriously. Mentioning DEF FUCKING LEPPARD and then complaining about THE SMITHS? Leave.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
The list is still absurd. It's WAY, WAY, WAY too predictable, and hogged by the bands everyone expects to see there. It's just a popularity contest, but shittily done and with the big acts getting way too many hits.

It is about the songs that are not only, as you said POPULAR but that have also lasted the test of time ( as you said "everyone expects to see there").

Should we omit songs just because it's been a long time since they're debut and there is some new blood in town?

Should we bump down Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather because, damnit, they always show up on the top movie lists? (using a film analogy)

Should they inject say about 150 new songs, just to show that they have balls?

Or should they just follow the guidelines they have been following since they started the magazine in the late sixties, when they were one of the very few magazines covering rock 'n' roll music. I would think after 35 years, they have a fairly good idea of what it takes to make it on the list.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 01:59 AM

For those who haven't read the intro to the list, I think it would be important to do so before looking at the list and commenting.

Welcome to the ultimate jukebox: the second edition of the ROLLING STONE 500, a celebration of the greatest rock & roll songs of all time, chosen by a five-star jury of singers, musicians, producers, industry figures, critics and, of course, songwriters. As with last year's inaugural RS 500 honoring the greatest albums ever made, the editors of ROLLING STONE called on rock stars and leading authorities to list their fifty favorite songs, in order of preference. The 172 voters, who included Brian Wilson, Joni Mitchell and Wilco's Jeff Tweedy, were asked to select songs from the rock & roll era. They nominated 2,103 songs in virtually every pop-music genre of the past half-century and beyond, from Hank Williams to OutKast. The results were tabulated according to a weighted point system.

For this RS 500, the word song refers to both a composition and its definitive recorded performance, as a single or an album track. Bob Dylan, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones accounted for a combined total of 117 nominated songs, a measure of their unbroken reign as rock's most influential, beloved artists. Nirvana and the Clash crashed the top twenty, rubbing guitars with Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix.

This RS 500 is also a tribute to the eternal power of popular music, and great songwriting in particular, to reflect and transform the times in which we hear it. The highest-ranked Beatles-related song is from 1971: John Lennon's utopian dream "Imagine," America's alternative national anthem since 9/11. The entire top twenty is practically a contemporary newscast, a breaking story of worry, temper, hope and pride: "Let It Be," "My Generation," "Respect," "A Change Is Gonna Come." The RS 500 salutes the songs that move us -- and the artists who create them. It is also proof that whenever you want to know what's going on, listen to the music.

notchreturns

11-21-2004, 02:18 AM

I just find it sad The Beatles have 23 songs on the list and the 90s and 2000s have just 24. That's absurb.

If you're going to call it "The Best 500 songs of all-time", then treat it that way. Not as a salute to the past and how it's timeless and paved the way for generations to come.

It's just boring and disrespectful to all the great music that was seen in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, thus far.

The Heart Collector

11-21-2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
It is about the songs that are not only, as you said POPULAR but that have also lasted the test of time ( as you said "everyone expects to see there").

Should we omit songs just because it's been a long time since they're debut and there is some new blood in town?

Should we bump down Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godafther because, damnit, they always show up on the top movie lists? (using a film analogy)

Should they inject say about 150 new songs, just to show that they have balls?

Or should they just follow the guidelines they have been following since they started the magazine in the late sixties, when they were one of the very few magazines covering rock 'n' roll music. I would think after 35 years, they have a fairly good idea of what it takes to make it on the list.

Let's transform your analogies into what this list is:

Stanley Kubrick is a great director. Should we include 10 of his movies on a Top 100 movies list, more than the amount of movies from the 90s combined?!?

See, that's the problem here. If you're seriously trying to tell me that The Beatles (which are ONE band) composed 4.6% of the greatest rock songs ever, I'm going to have to say "WAIT. HOLD ON. YOU MIGHT BE OVERAPPRECIATING HERE".

I'm not saying we should bump Citizen Kane. What I'm saying is we shouldn't include half the movies that Alfred Hitchcock made simply because he's Alfred fucking Hitchcock.

it's just TOO MANY. You can even notice it. There's great acts that get 1 or 2 songs simply because they know they've GOT to represent them, but the traditional loved acts get such an absurd amount it borders on asslicking.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector

See, that's the problem here. If you're seriously trying to tell me that The Beatles (which are ONE band) composed 4.6% of the greatest rock songs ever, I'm going to have to say "WAIT. HOLD ON. YOU MIGHT BE OVERAPPRECIATING HERE".

There's great acts that get 1 or 2 songs simply because they know they've GOT to represent them, but the traditional loved acts get such an absurd amount it borders on asslicking.

172 anonymous singers, musicians, producers, industry figures, critics and songwriters don't need to kiss ass. And I'm not the one telling you that The Beatles composed 4.6% of the greatest rock songs ever, those 172 experts in the field of rock are telling you that.

There is just no denying that simple fact. This isn't 3 or 4 Rolling Stones writers we are talking about. It is the peers of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc. They could have very well voted a lot of music from the 90s and 00s. They chose not to. Or maybe they did but those songs just didn't make the final cut. I'm sorry, but to read things like this list is biased just sounds like sour grapes to me.

That's a hell of a lot of experts, a good 2 or 3 dozen of whom I'm sure many people here on the boards probably adore and admire. You might not like the list, but most fans and apparently musicians in the world of rock 'n' roll do. I'd think they're a pretty credible bunch seeing as they not only grew up with that music, but play it today...

The Heart Collector

11-21-2004, 03:19 AM

Ok, we're talking about PICKING SONGS here. What expertise? Personal preference? Or having an emotional attachment to the songs?

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
What expertise?

These are people who live, breathe and die rock 'n' roll. Their entire adult lives are consumed by it. There is NOBODY better to put upon this task.

Are you telling me they are not qualified to choose what songs have had the most importance and left the biggest marks in the world of rock? If we've gotten to the point where we're going to question the integrity and value of the 172 brought upon to pick these songs, then I'm afraid you've run out of valid arguments.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
What I'm saying is we shouldn't include half the movies that Alfred Hitchcock made simply because he's Alfred fucking Hitchcock.

You include whatever needs to be included. Whatever the expert voters in the field see fit to be a part of the list.

Hitchcock has 4 films of his in the top 100 films of all time as voted by the AFI. Think about that. 4 films out of all the movies ever made in America!!

Out of 500, that would make 20 films.

The Beatles had 23 songs in the top 500. Pretty much the same average.

I think this proves, that in any field, if you're good, you're good. It doesn't matter how big or small your repertoire is and you shouldn't be deprived or penalized or looked down upon just because you get an excess of praise from fans and critics the world over. Those 23 songs are there because they deserve to be there, just like the 4 Hitchcock films deserve their place on their respective list.

therealjohng

11-21-2004, 04:31 AM

Well, I guess the people that live,sleep and eat rock n roll don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

my_name_is_neo

11-21-2004, 09:57 AM

Okay, I'm glad Sev likes the list, but, let's face it - he tends to have the "safest" taste in music anyway (favourite band is The Beatles, if I'm not mistaken).

But, personally, just once, I'd like to see a list like this have a bunch of really underrated songs on it that deserve to be on there. You know, the kind of thing that doesn't look like your basic classic rock radio station playlist.

ComeNightfall

11-21-2004, 11:48 AM

I have very safe taste in music, and I love classic rock & pop, especially from the 50s and 60s. That music will always live on and it shouldn't be discarded simply because it's mainstream. But when it first came out, it wasn't mainstream.

There is nothing wrong with liking oldies and I think it's wrong that those of us that do are criticized for it. You're not uncool if you really have no desire for today's underground and indie music.

bob

11-21-2004, 01:15 PM

A nice, safe little list. What else is new?

I don't dislike it, obviously, as I love most of the songs that are on it, but there's really NO surprises at all, Rolling Stone is going out of its way not to ruffle any feathers.

P.S. Zeppelin should have a song in the top 20, and it should NOT be Stairway.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by ComeNightfall
I have very safe taste in music, and I love classic rock & pop, especially from the 50s and 60s. That music will always live on and it shouldn't be discarded simply because it's mainstream. But when it first came out, it wasn't mainstream.

There is nothing wrong with liking oldies and I think it's wrong that those of us that do are criticized for it. You're not uncool if you really have no desire for today's underground and indie music.

Very well put.

There tends to be overall elitist attitude aroud here over those who like more or less the classic rock acts rather than the underground, indie stuff. They act as though we are not capable of understanding or "getting" the new music. They should maybe consider that maybe we just don't like it.

Then they discard you completely by saying you have "safe" taste in music. I guess I'm not a rebel then. I'm not the bad boy who delves into the record stores and listens to college rock bands and is into all the indie groups nowadays. :rolleyes: For the record, I've gotten into quite a few bands that I normally might never have heard of because of these forums, but it's a real turn off when people act as though they are somehow more "in tune" with it because they listen to that band that either nobody has ever heard of or has the special distinction of not having its songs play on regular rotation on radio stations.

You made a very good point before by saying when this music first came out it wasn't mainstream. It has become mainstream because of the QUALITY of the music. Let's see how many of today's so-called "dangerous" band's music will have that kind of longevity.

RE: to bob. Once again, it is NOT Rolling Stone magazine itself that compiled that list, it is the writers and musicians of rock 'n' roll today. So if you're going to say someone is trying to not ruffle feathers, direct that comment at those people. I'm curious to know why these people, by the way, would be so afraid of ruffling feathers? Are they afraid that Paul McCartney or Bob Dylan will come swooping down and put an end to their careers?

It seems it is very hard for people to admit here that the majority of rock acts and experts nowadays prefer the music that came out in the first 25 years of the rock era rather than the last 25.

my_name_is_neo

11-21-2004, 02:48 PM

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by my_name_is_neo
This says otherwise:

First of all, NICE picture! :D

But AGAIN, all Rolling Stone magazine did was bring together 172 people in the field of popular music to compile the list. The writers of Rolling Stone had nothing to do with it. Please, for the love of God, read the intro.

Also, Rolling Stone, since its inception has always featured artists, for the most part, that are making a mark, whether it be good or bad (in Britney's case, bad) in the world of music.

If you take a look at the cover, that issue features articles on Paul McCartney, Bono, Linkin Park, Dave Matthews, Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger and Sum 41. Yes, that's right, rock 'n' rollers! The new and the old guard.

And yes, Dylan, McCartney and Jagger are among the three acts that have the most entries in the top 500 songs. You just proved to all of us that Rolling Stone is, in fact, still covering the legends of rock as well as exploring, in the case of this issue, the new wave of sh*t.

PS: When I made that comment about those people who breathe and die rock 'n' roll I was directly referring to those who chose the songs. That much was very obvious. I have no idea why you responded with a Rolling Stone issue with Britney Spears on the cover. All the magazine did was publish the results from these experts.

my_name_is_neo

11-21-2004, 04:01 PM

...

Um...

If you'll excuse me, I'm just gonna back out before I do something that makes me look even dumber than I no doubt already look...

BadCoverVersion

11-21-2004, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
The Smiths (?!)

For a start, the inclusion of The Smiths is just about the only thing saving this piss-poor list from being completely and utterly DEVOID of any merit whatsoever.

Right, pass me my ranting cap purleeease! Here we go...

I'm aghast to see that Scott Walker doesn't even register amongst the 'experts'. I wasn't even holding out for a lush baroque ballad courtesy of solo Scotty. If you don't know any better (and these peeps clearly don't) go for a accessible torch tune; The Sun Aint Gonna Shine Anymore, Make It Easy On Yourself...ANYTHING will do!?

Where's Gram and The Flying Burrito Brothers for the love of Jebus? Was a 172-man panel just too busy spunking over The Beatles to cotton on to the fact that they were overlooking one of the most gifted singer-songwriters to grace the planet. Hot Burrito 1 and Juanita are two of the most lovingly crafted, moving ditty's to ever carress mine ears. What went wrong there?

No sign of Ne Me Quitte Pas (If You Go Away) by Jacques Brel either!? A timeless ballad if ever there was one that has been covered by all manner of artistes including Frank Sinatra, Dusty Springfield, Neil Diamond, Glen Gampbell, Tom Jones, Scott Walker, Brenda Lee and Freda Payne. Now that startling omission is just sloppy!

Here comes the biggie...

The SUBLIME Love Will Tear Us Apart trundles in at 179, below Bill Haley and his friggin' Comets. A killer band who wrote a handful of perfect killer tunes shafted by a pack of brylcreamed-up-to-the-eyeballs teddy boy chancers. What the FUCK is the world coming to?

To tell you the God's honest, this list isn't even worth the half hour I've spent on this somewhat muddled little rant. In all fairness Brian Wilson is nothing more than an irrelevent coffin dodging old twat nowadays. The man clearly doesn't know his art from his arse.

Some saving graces from the list...

46. Heroes - David Bowie
51. The Message - Grandmaster Flash
55. Louie, Louis - The Kingsmen
91. Suspcious Minds - Elvis Presley
104. Living For The City - Stevie Wonder
143. Purple Rain - Prince
159. I'm Waiting For The Man - The Velvet Underground
164. Folsom Prison Blues - Johnny Cash
179. Love Will Tear Us Apart - Joy Division
201. Bizarre Love Triangle - New Order
267. Personality Crisis - New York Dolls
268. Sunday Bloody Sunday - U2
372. Marquee Moon - Television
380. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John
411. I Feel Love - Donna Summer
425. William, It Was Really Nothing - The Smiths
436. Alone Again Or - Love
438. I Wanna Be Your Dog - The Stooges
448. Heroin - The Velvet Underground
486. How Soon Is Now? - The Smiths
493. Then He Kissed Me - The Crystals

And a list I like to call "...and where the fuck is..."

*Tainted Love - Soft Cell
*Anarchy In The UK - The Sex Pistols
*Whisky In The Jar - Thin Lizzy
*Fools Gold - The Stone Roses
*Get It On - T.Rex
*Blue Monday - New Order
*Ne Me Quitte Pas - Jacques Brel
*Ghost Town - The Specials
*Autobahn - Kraftwerk
*There She Goes - The La's
*ANYTHING by Tom Waits
*ANYTHING by Scott Walker
*ANYTHING by Leonard Cohen
*ANYTHING by Gram Parsons

Overall the verdict is:

Bagoshite.

my_name_is_neo

11-21-2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
And a list I like to call "...and where the fuck is..."

*Anarchy In The UK - The Sex Pistols

That was #53, actually.

BadCoverVersion

11-21-2004, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by my_name_is_neo
That was #53, actually.

Ah bollocks...I should've left it as Pretty Vacant as I originally intended.

Yeah, so...um, never mind that...where's Pretty Vacant then?

A travesty I tells ya.

*Runs away*

;)

Buck Turgidson

11-21-2004, 08:43 PM

It's a lexicon, folks. Greatest songs in Rock history. What the fuck did you expect? Lots of Timberlake?

I'm half way through and the few real howlers I've seen so far are contemporay songs. Love Shack really should be above Gimme Some Lovin' and Higher and Higher :rolleyes:

Madonna, Eminem, Guns n' Roses? Bums, to be washed away like so many Gene Pitneys and Bobby Vintons by the cruel but fair muse of History.

The only real gripe with this list is that it's weighted maybe a little too heavily toward hits & singles, and as such, is somewhat misnamed. Several previously given examples, like Hendrix and Led Zeppelin, have songs far better than their most famous ones, but that's the nature of the beast with this kind of list.

All in all, I quite like it.

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
*Tainted Love - Soft Cell
*Anarchy In The UK - The Sex Pistols
*Whisky In The Jar - Thin Lizzy
*Fools Gold - The Stone Roses
*Get It On - T.Rex
*Blue Monday - New Order
*Ne Me Quitte Pas - Jacques Brel
*Ghost Town - The Specials
*Autobahn - Kraftwerk
*There She Goes - The La's
*ANYTHING by Tom Waits
*ANYTHING by Scott Walker
*ANYTHING by Leonard Cohen
*ANYTHING by Gram Parsons

Overall the verdict is:

Bagoshite.

Again, I find it hard to understand the expectations for songs to be included by groups that (as good as they may be) have barely made a whisper not only on this side of the ocean, but around the world as a whole. The Specials and The Stone Roses may have had great success in the U.K. but their songs do not have that universal appeal in the world of "mainstream" rock that almost the entire catalogue of the "500" has. The key word here is universal.

It's important to remember that these songs were also chosen on the criteria that they have that ability to be resonant through decades, songs that are or will be important benchmarks in rock history.

Thin Lizzy and New Order are represented and you can't very well expect 2 songs + by these bands to have made the cut. The odds are just against it. Get it On and Tainted Love, well, those are songs that I would have liked to see there as well. But of the millions and millions of songs released through fifty years, it's only natural that a gem or two be left out.

However nutty Brian Wilson may seem nowadays, it is undeniable that the vast majority of rock aficionados consider him a musical genius. If only for the work he did with The Beach Boys. To write him off as an "irrelevant coffin dodger" just because the list displeases you, is a weak argument, in my opinion. He's just a little "off", he's far from being mentally retarded. If anyone deserves to be on the panel to pick some of those songs, it is him. Irrelevant is the last word I'd use when considering Wilson's role in the history of rock 'n' roll. Also, he is just 1 out of 172 people polled.

Granted, if this list were chosen by a majority of British experts, then it would include, rightfully so, many more local influences, but it doesn't. It is one that is more universal in feel and content. Let's face it, the only two nations that have had any real importance in rock history, are the U.S. and the U.K. I think, on the whole, they're both very well-represented.

Everybody has a right to hate or love this list, I'm not trying to change any minds here, believe me, I knew that wasn't going to happen. But I constanty see Rolling Stone magazine threads here that continually bash the mag and their "sinister, ulterior motives" when making up these lists. Seldom do people come out and defend them and I thought it was about time somebody did. Even if it's to speak against the fiery BCV. ;) It is to note, the lady in question has got me to discover many a great band, singer and songstress that I otherwise wouldn't have. I'm not debating her taste in music, it's more of the "bagoshite" comment regarding the list that got me going. :D

Since I found the list to be full of intelligent choices and overwhelmingly satisfying (about 400 of them are absolute gems) I couldn't stand by and let it get bashed to hell because of a few (and it really is a few songs) of people's favorite picks were left out.

So, bring it on! ;)

I think the key phrase in the intro was the following:

"This RS 500 is also a tribute to the eternal power of popular music, and great songwriting in particular, to reflect and transform the times in which we hear it."

PS: I agree with most of the things that Buck brought up, especially when it comes to there being more singles on there rather than album tracks, but again, I understand that because it's the singles that will have that lasting effect and influence on popular culture, not the album tracks, no matter how excellent many of them are.There are a good two dozen songs that I was also shocked to see making the cut, but that's to be expected whenever you have a list of the top 500 whatever.

Jerk Shapiro

11-21-2004, 09:25 PM

The only redeemable quality about the whole list is No Woman, No Cry at #37...other than that...it's all the same ol'.

The Heart Collector

11-21-2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
You include whatever needs to be included. Whatever the expert voters in the field see fit to be a part of the list.

Hitchcock has 4 films of his in the top 100 films of all time as voted by the AFI. Think about that. 4 films out of all the movies ever made in America!!

Out of 500, that would make 20 films.

The Beatles had 23 songs in the top 500. Pretty much the same average.

Do you think that if we extend the Top 100 films list to 200, Hitchcock will have 8?

If we extent it to 500, will he have 20?

NO.

Look, I don't hate The Beatles. But it annoys to see lists like this one and the "Top 100 albums list" in which The Beatles end up having half of the top TEN. It's just... NO.

As someone already mentioned, there are only 3 songs from the 00s.

EMINEM made two of those.

Seriously, folks. I love Eminem, but that's just... no.

bowieee

11-21-2004, 09:38 PM

A magazine that is supposed to be the be the poster child for rocknroll should at least dig a little deeper than just "the classics". I don't blame them though I blame the people they poll. I have a feeling that most of the peopled who were polled came from the generation that the list reflects so heavily. So I guess I can't blame them either. Looks like I'm not really blaming anybody then....I'm just really sick of Rolling Stone having it's head so far up it's ass that it pretty much just a joke. *sigh*

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
Do you think that if we extend the Top 100 films list to 200, Hitchcock will have 8?

If we extent it to 500, will he have 20?

NO.

Look, I don't hate The Beatles. But it annoys to see lists like this one and the "Top 100 albums list" in which The Beatles end up having half of the top TEN. It's just... NO.

The average is about the same. 4 from 100 and 23 from 500 is just about the same. My point was made pretty clearly.

I don't want to get into a debate on Hitchcock, but if you want my opinion, and I'm sure other's opinions will reflect mine, if we did extend the film list to 500, among Hitchcock's 80+ films, he would easily get 20 of his in there. Easily. He isn't considered by many the greatest director of all time for nothing.

I won't further comment on Hitch because I don't want this thread to go off topic. My point with that comparison was that "greats" in any field will naturally be regarded more often than others. This is why they're considered great in the first place..

Indiana Sev

11-21-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by bowieee
A magazine that is supposed to be the be the poster child for rocknroll should at least dig a little deeper than just "the classics". I don't blame them though I blame the people they poll. I have a feeling that most of the peopled who were polled came from the generation that the list reflects so heavily.

But that's just a feeling you have, isn't it? Without knowing more on who they are, you can't really say their choices were biased. It's really just an excuse to once again dismiss the list. Also, even if it is mostly people who grew up with the music, it is also unfair to assume they are so close-minded as to not consider ALL the rock music from the last 5 decades. Maybe 5, maybe 10 of them are biased, maybe even 20. But all 172? Again, I don't buy that argument at all...

Suppose the list were unveiled and you found half of the people on there are artists that you admire greatly. I wonder what you, as well as many others in this thread, would say then?

Sigur509

11-21-2004, 10:55 PM

256 - Radiohead - Paranoid Android :) Glad to see The Smiths on there.

This just ups my hate for fucking Eminem.

Also, ups my hate for Rolling Stone.

jeo4

11-21-2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
You've got to be joking if you think those bands aren't worthy of inclusion. Seriously. Mentioning DEF FUCKING LEPPARD and then complaining about THE SMITHS? Leave.

NO. I don't run around personally slamming your taste in anything, let alone what I might consider awful. I hate the Smiths. Fucking HATE them. They are horribly untalented to me. And you may not have liked Pyromania, but I did. It was good 80's shit in an otherwise dismal time for music. So spare me the bullshit hostility because my personal preference doesn't suit your pallete.

And I hate most of the newer acts on this list, too. Hell, the one thing that saves this list from being total shit actually IS some of those safe choices I'm getting tired of, including the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Who, etc. But even then, how many fucking songs from then do I have to endure to leave out better songs from the last twenty years?

jeo4

11-21-2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
To you those may be 'safe' oldies, but to others they are the roots of rock 'n' roll music. Without those artists and those songs, there would be no rock music.

Bob addressed this earlier. Quite well, I might add. I like oldies too, but not at the detriment of everything else.

jeo4

11-21-2004, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
For a start, the inclusion of The Smiths is just about the only thing saving this piss-poor list from being completely and utterly DEVOID of any merit whatsoever.

Right, pass me my ranting cap purleeease! Here we go...

I'm aghast to see that Scott Walker doesn't even register amongst the 'experts'. I wasn't even holding out for a lush baroque ballad courtesy of solo Scotty. If you don't know any better (and these peeps clearly don't) go for a accessible torch tune; The Sun Aint Gonna Shine Anymore, Make It Easy On Yourself...ANYTHING will do!?

Where's Gram and The Flying Burrito Brothers for the love of Jebus? Was a 172-man panel just too busy spunking over The Beatles to cotton on to the fact that they were overlooking one of the most gifted singer-songwriters to grace the planet. Hot Burrito 1 and Juanita are two of the most lovingly crafted, moving ditty's to ever carress mine ears. What went wrong there?

No sign of Ne Me Quitte Pas (If You Go Away) by Jacques Brel either!? A timeless ballad if ever there was one that has been covered by all manner of artistes including Frank Sinatra, Dusty Springfield, Neil Diamond, Glen Gampbell, Tom Jones, Scott Walker, Brenda Lee and Freda Payne. Now that startling omission is just sloppy!

Here comes the biggie...

The SUBLIME Love Will Tear Us Apart trundles in at 179, below Bill Haley and his friggin' Comets. A killer band who wrote a handful of perfect killer tunes shafted by a pack of brylcreamed-up-to-the-eyeballs teddy boy chancers. What the FUCK is the world coming to?

To tell you the God's honest, this list isn't even worth the half hour I've spent on this somewhat muddled little rant. In all fairness Brian Wilson is nothing more than an irrelevent coffin dodging old twat nowadays. The man clearly doesn't know his art from his arse.

Some saving graces from the list...

46. Heroes - David Bowie
51. The Message - Grandmaster Flash
55. Louie, Louis - The Kingsmen
91. Suspcious Minds - Elvis Presley
104. Living For The City - Stevie Wonder
143. Purple Rain - Prince
159. I'm Waiting For The Man - The Velvet Underground
164. Folsom Prison Blues - Johnny Cash
179. Love Will Tear Us Apart - Joy Division
201. Bizarre Love Triangle - New Order
267. Personality Crisis - New York Dolls
268. Sunday Bloody Sunday - U2
372. Marquee Moon - Television
380. Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John
411. I Feel Love - Donna Summer
425. William, It Was Really Nothing - The Smiths
436. Alone Again Or - Love
438. I Wanna Be Your Dog - The Stooges
448. Heroin - The Velvet Underground
486. How Soon Is Now? - The Smiths
493. Then He Kissed Me - The Crystals

And a list I like to call "...and where the fuck is..."

*Tainted Love - Soft Cell
*Anarchy In The UK - The Sex Pistols
*Whisky In The Jar - Thin Lizzy
*Fools Gold - The Stone Roses
*Get It On - T.Rex
*Blue Monday - New Order
*Ne Me Quitte Pas - Jacques Brel
*Ghost Town - The Specials
*Autobahn - Kraftwerk
*There She Goes - The La's
*ANYTHING by Tom Waits
*ANYTHING by Scott Walker
*ANYTHING by Leonard Cohen
*ANYTHING by Gram Parsons

Overall the verdict is:

Bagoshite.

I'm not crossing swords with you again, basically because of all the people to disagree with, you seem to be the one who is my polar opposite. I'm not in disagreement with some of your choices, but we are definitely oil and water. No insult intended.

(I still fucking hate the Smiths, though!) ;)

bluesbrother965

11-22-2004, 02:46 AM

You guys are all complaining about how the list only has a bunch of classics, but the fact is, classics are classics for a reason. The majority of people these days will, I believe, tell you they like the Beatles, so the list just reflects what the majority thinks. They can't make a list that pleases everybody, can't even come close, and I don't think it's possible to create a list that completely, 100% satisfies anyone. I disagreed with a sizable chunk of this list, but I realize it was a vote and this is what the voters thought. I saw plenty of glaring omissions (absolutely no Grateful Dead or Frank Zappa would be the largest, but there were plenty of other bands that didn't even get close to enough of their songs on). Besides, if you don't like the list, why don't you just ignore it? This is just what a sample of the rock music industry likes the most, they aren't shoving it down your throats. It's just a list.

The Heart Collector

11-22-2004, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by jeo4
NO. I don't run around personally slamming your taste in anything, let alone what I might consider awful. I hate the Smiths. Fucking HATE them. They are horribly untalented to me. And you may not have liked Pyromania, but I did. It was good 80's shit in an otherwise dismal time for music. So spare me the bullshit hostility because my personal preference doesn't suit your pallete.

And I hate most of the newer acts on this list, too. Hell, the one thing that saves this list from being total shit actually IS some of those safe choices I'm getting tired of, including the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, the Who, etc. But even then, how many fucking songs from then do I have to endure to leave out better songs from the last twenty years?

For the love of chirst, calm down. What I'm going at here is that you're going to dismiss The Smiths, a widely influential, important, and loved band simply because you don't like them. Which is akin to me saying that The Beatles shouldn't even be on the list because I don't like them. I mean, I don't like the monopolization of certain artists in the list, but while you might hate The Smiths, don't expect people to take your comments on them too seriously, much in the same way that people would certainly not consider me serious if I said The Beatles should only have 1 song there, and at #400.

And to replace them with a third rate glam rock band? naw son.

Buck Turgidson

11-22-2004, 03:07 AM

The absence of Blue Monday, especially considering that there are two other New Order songs present, is rather puzzling. I agree with that.

Like I wrote, and like I communicated to Sev, if I was making this list, there would be one hell of a lot of "What?"s coming from most everyone here, because even with well known bands like the Stones or Bowie, my choices would be off the beaten path stuff like Can't You Hear Me Knocking? and Stay (respectively), plus I'd have a lot of non-hits from bands like Concrete Blonde and Mazzy Star, so...

These lists are, by nature, rather utilitarian and won't reflect our individual tastes that well.

jeo4

11-22-2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
For the love of chirst, calm down. What I'm going at here is that you're going to dismiss The Smiths, a widely influential, important, and loved band simply because you don't like them. Which is akin to me saying that The Beatles shouldn't even be on the list because I don't like them. I mean, I don't like the monopolization of certain artists in the list, but while you might hate The Smiths, don't expect people to take your comments on them too seriously, much in the same way that people would certainly not consider me serious if I said The Beatles should only have 1 song there, and at #400.

And to replace them with a third rate glam rock band? naw son.

Third rate? Did I miss a meeting here? And Def Leppard has sold somewhere in the ballpark of 100 million albums. If widely loved is a priority, then they qualify. And when did the Smiths have any influence in music? Could you site some examples? In your opinion, Def Leppard isn't worthy, which is of course your opinion to have, but to put the Smiths in the same sentence as the Beatles is stretching it way too far to me. Sorry, I just don't see their significance.

notchreturns

11-22-2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by jeo4
And when did the Smiths have any influence in music? Could you site some examples? In your opinion, Def Leppard isn't worthy, which is of course your opinion to have, but to put the Smiths in the same sentence as the Beatles is stretching it way too far to me. Sorry, I just don't see their significance.

Sorry, but that's just laughable.

Everyone and their mother cites The Smiths as a major influence in their music carrers.

jeo4

11-22-2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by notchreturns
Sorry, but that's just laughable.

Everyone and their mother cites The Smiths as a major influence in their music carrers.

How is it laughable?? Who is everybody? I haven't heard ONE reference yet. And my opinion hasn't changed. The Smiths will never be anywhere near the same talent level the Beatles were.

The Heart Collector

11-22-2004, 02:01 PM

I never said they were the same as The Beatles. I said that to say The Smiths don't deserve to be on the list is akin to saying that The Beatles should be somewhere around #400 for their best song.

As for groups influenced by The Smiths? There's about a million. Let's go for an easy one here: Jeff Buckley, who himself has influenced lots of bands. *pulls out Buckley dvd* "The 60's were bullshit. 70's? More Bullshit. 80s? Bullshit. Except for The Smiths, maybe."

I mean, if that's not INFLUENCE, I dunno what it is.

jeo4

11-22-2004, 02:24 PM

I'm not a Jeff Buckley fan, either. Not that there's anything wrong with him. Just not my cup of tea. I don't think we'll really find any middle-ground here.

Music is too subjective to fight over, really. So I'll shut the fuck up, realize I'm aging and move on. I just think several important names got left off that list. If I mentioned Def Leppard and got a chilly reception, then I suppose my love for Bad Company will get me tarred and feathered. Oh well.

BadCoverVersion

11-22-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Again, I find it hard to understand the expectations for songs to be included by groups that (as good as they may be) have barely made a whisper not only on this side of the ocean, but around the world as a whole. The Specials and The Stone Roses may have had great success in the U.K. but their songs do not have that universal appeal in the world of "mainstream" rock that almost the entire catalogue of the "500" has. The key word here is universal.

I understand your point but I'm afraid I disagree.

This is, as I understand it, a list of the 500 greatest songs of all time ...a list compiled by musicians, lyricists, journalists, self confessed aficionado's and so-called experts.

This is NOT a turgid rundown of the most popular classic pop songs to chart in America during the 60's and 70's...but after a good butchers that would probably be the more apt description.

If a publication akin to Rolling Stone were to compile a list such as this in the UK, then I'd expect - nay WANT - to see at least a COUPLE of contemporary American 'niche' artistes present...step forward Nine Inch Nails, Concrete Blonde, Neutral Milk Hotel, Mazzy Star and your ilk. And why not? These are the peeps inspiring today's generation...and there is such a term as a 'modern classic'.

A great tune cannot be measured merely by sales figures, airplay and popular appeal...although elements such as these DO come into account in many instances.

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
It's important to remember that these songs were also chosen on the criteria that they have that ability to be resonant through decades, songs that are or will be important benchmarks in rock history.

Exactly.

If it wasn't for Scott Walker it's unlikely we'd have the same David Bowie we know and love today. A list that fails to acknowledge the talent of a man such as Walker - the only artist to have a U.K fan club bigger than The Beatles during the 1960's might I add - really isn't worth any salt.

The same can be said for Cohen, Waits, Parsons and other music men of REAL genius and influence.

From www.allmusic.com
One of the most enigmatic figures in rock history, Scott Walker was known as Scotty Engel when he cut obscure flop records in the late '50s and early '60s in the teen idol vein.
His first four albums hit the Top Ten in the U.K. -- his second, in fact, reached number one in 1968, in the midst of the hippie era.
This notoriously reclusive figure, who has rarely been interviewed or even seen in public since his days of stardom, emerged from hibernation in 1995 with a new album, Tilt. He was a substantial, if largely overlooked, influence upon the vocal style of David Bowie and Bryan Ferry.

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Thin Lizzy and New Order are represented and you can't very well expect 2 songs + by these bands to have made the cut. The odds are just against it. Get it On and Tainted Love, well, those are songs that I would have liked to see there as well. But of the millions and millions of songs released through fifty years, it's only natural that a gem or two be left out.

We're not talking a "gem or two". We're talking about a diverse multitude of artists shafted in favour of a absurd amount of Beatles/Beach Boys/Rolling Stones staples. Now a few key works would be all very well and good, I appreciate The Beatles have had more than a hand in shaping rock music as we hear it today (alongside others mind). But on the flipside, Sparks, New Order et al have done the very same for new wave and dance. Then there were T.Rex, Slade, Roxy Music and others leading the glam movement during the 70's. Gram Parsons fusing rock with country and making a tired genre utterly chic once again. Kate Bush being...well, um Katy Bush. Oh, and where the feck are chirpy old folkster's such as Cat Stevens and Donovan?

From www.allmusic.com
Parsons pioneered the concept of a rock band playing country music, and as a solo artist he moved even further into country music, blending the two genres to the point that they became indistinguishable from each other. While he was alive, Parsons was a cult figure that never sold many records, but influenced countless fellow musicians, from the Rollings Stones to The Byrds. In the years since his death, his stature has only grown, as numerous rock and country artists build on his small, but enormously influential, body of work.

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
However nutty Brian Wilson may seem nowadays, it is undeniable that the vast majority of rock aficionados consider him a musical genius. If only for the work he did with The Beach Boys. To write him off as an "irrelevant coffin dodger" just because the list displeases you, is a weak argument, in my opinion. He's just a little "off", he's far from being mentally retarded. If anyone deserves to be on the panel to pick some of those songs, it is him. Irrelevant is the last word I'd use when considering Wilson's role in the history of rock 'n' roll. Also, he is just 1 out of 172 people polled.

Fair point. He's still a sour old twat though...much as I admire the man he was about 4 decades ago.

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Granted, if this list were chosen by a majority of British experts, then it would include, rightfully so, many more local influences, but it doesn't. It is one that is more universal in feel and content. Let's face it, the only two nations that have had any real importance in rock history, are the U.S. and the U.K. I think, on the whole, they're both very well-represented.

I have no gripe with the fact that the U.K are well represented. I'm far more vexed about the lack of diversity re: genre's and decades. It's almost as if everybody just stopped listening the moment somebody played a synth. It's boring for want of a better word.

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Everybody has a right to hate or love this list, I'm not trying to change any minds here, believe me, I knew that wasn't going to happen. But I constanty see Rolling Stone magazine threads here that continually bash the mag and their "sinister, ulterior motives" when making up these lists. Seldom do people come out and defend them and I thought it was about time somebody did. Even if it's to speak against the fiery BCV. ;) It is to note, the lady in question has got me to discover many a great band, singer and songstress that I otherwise wouldn't have. I'm not debating her taste in music, it's more of the "bagoshite" comment regarding the list that got me going. :D

I stand by my "bagoshite" comment...so ner!

I'm hungry...

Ta-ra for a bit.

:D

Indiana Sev

11-22-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I stand by my "bagoshite" comment...so ner!

I'm hungry...

Ta-ra for a bit.

:D

Bah!

Go eat your meatpies, then! :p;)

I see where you're coming from, but in the end, as much as Waits, Parsons and Walker have had a strong influence on future musicians, the fact of the matter is, this list is about the greatest songs, and these three artists in particular, have not had individual songs that really stand out made a strong impression on the rock 'n' roll map (and let's face it, the greatest songs of all-time are going to be 90% hits, like it or not, it will always be that way). Again, I'm talking universally here. They just weren't mainstream enough, and the people voting are looking at the big picture here. It doesn't make them any better or worse than other artists, they were just successful in another way, in my opinion. The voters are looking for the greatest songs, not the greatest artists and influences. Otherwise, Walker would be on much higher plane than say, The B'52s, for example.

Their repertoire as a whole, I'm sure is and was undeniably influential, but whether it be due to lack of airplay or singles released or just an overall unacceptance by the general public of their songs, they will never make a list of the greatest songs, not if this criteria is used anyway.

The songs have to not only be important in the history of rock 'n' roll, but they also have to have that ability to be remembered and remembered fondly for decades to come by a large amount of the general rock-loving public. I'm sorry, but those three artists don't have such songs. Not any that fit all three of those points, anyway.

As far as Cat Stevens, Leonard Cohen and Donovan go, it kills me as well that they didn't make the cut. I love all three of those cats. But I can live with what we got. :)

BadCoverVersion

11-22-2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Bah!

Go eat your meatpies, then! :p;)

I see where you're coming from, but in the end, as much as Waits, Parsons and Walker have had a strong influence on future musicians, the fact of the matter is, this list is about the greatest songs, and these three artists in particular, have not had individual songs that really stand out made a strong impression on the rock 'n' roll map (and let's face it, the greatest songs of all-time are going to be 90% hits, like it or not, it will always be that way). Again, I'm talking universally here. They just weren't mainstream enough, and the people voting are looking at the big picture here. They are looking at the greatest songs, not the greatest artists and influences. Otherwise, Walker would be on much higher plane than say, The B'52s, for example.

Their repertoire as a whole, I'm sure is and was undeniably influential, but whether it be due to lack of airplay or singles released or just an overall unacceptance by the general public of their songs, they will never make a list of the greatest songs, not if this criteria is used anyway. It doesn't make them any better or worse than other artists, they were just successful in another way, in my opinion.

As far as Cat Stevens, Leonard Cohen and Donovan go, it kills me as well that they didn't make the cut. I love all three of those cats. But I can live with what we got. :)

Quit your jibber jabber.

;)

Okay, I'll see your "I see where you're coming from" and raise you a "let's just agree to disagree".

I still say Walker should be in there mind, if not for Always Coming Back To You then for The Walker Bros' The Sun Aint Gonna Shine Anymore...which is an absolute CLASSIC even by Rolling Stone's standards.

Such is life.

Indiana Sev

11-22-2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
I still say Walker should be in there mind,

... for The Walker Bros' The Sun Aint Gonna Shine Anymore...which is an absolute CLASSIC even by Rolling Stone's standards.

That, I can agree with. :) I love that song and it does deserve to be in there.

The Heart Collector

11-22-2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
I'm not a Jeff Buckley fan, either.
http://goofyusa.com/sitebuilder/images/Jesus-Crying-914x675.jpg

bowieee

11-22-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev

Suppose the list were unveiled and you found half of the people on there are artists that you admire greatly. I wonder what you, as well as many others in this thread, would say then?

I would say "Eegads you guys need to diversify." Indiana I see your point and I totally respect it but I think the more I think about it the title of this article shouldn't be: "500 greatest songs of all time". The problem with judging the greatness of a song is that it comes down to personal preference. These are more like the 500 most well known and generally liked songs of all time.

Indiana Sev

11-22-2004, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by bowieee
These are more like the 500 most well known and generally liked songs of all time.

Add "important" to that and we might finally be close to agreeing. ;)

As far as the greatness of any given song being subjective, naturally, I agree...

Backstabba

11-28-2004, 05:15 PM

2 doors, 2 black sabbath, aND NO ALICE IN CHAINS! ROTT IN HELL ROLLING STONE!

..Breathe in :o breathe out :o

MinimalistCouch

11-28-2004, 08:30 PM

#406 I Believe I Can Fly by R. Kelly

Shut the fuck up

Spacey_Norton21

11-28-2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by The Heart Collector
As someone already mentioned, there are only 3 songs from the 00's

That is because the 00's SUCK! The music of now is complete and udder shit. All of it.

"Hey Ya'" should not be in the 500 songs of ROCK AND ROLL

Nor Eminem or R. Kelly or Christina Aguleria or whatever!! It is fucking blasphemy that you guys are saying that there should be MORE of the music of today! Are you guys smoking crack? What the fuck makes you people think that the music of today holds any merit at all in the span of music? You think people are going to remember Nas or Nelly or Coheed and whatsitsfuck? No. Fuck No. And if they do it'll be for the wrong reasons . Teen Spirt deserved its top ten spot (altough I would have wanted a better Nirvana song, but it'll do), Nirvana changed music. period. The Beatles changed music. Period. They wrote more good songs then all of the fucking Puff Daddys (or should I say P. Diddy?) or Emo bands ever could. Plain and simple.

And they aren't "safe oldies" they are the roots of rock and roll, as bob put it so well. Goddamn it! When will you people grow up and listen to some real music??? Radiohead deserves they're spot, although they should be up higher, I was belated when I saw The Smiths even on there. That was a real treat.

Wnat to know a REAL fucking tragedy?

NO ELLIOTT SMITH or ZAPPA!!!

That is my big problem with this list

and there shouldve been more Zeppelin .;)

So you people keep pining over your shitty music.

Hate me if you must,

I'm off to listen to some Floyd.

my_name_is_neo

11-28-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Spacey_Norton21
That is because the 00's SUCK! The music of now is complete and udder shit. All of it.

"Hey Ya'" should not be in the 500 songs of ROCK AND ROLL

Nor Eminem or R. Kelly or Christina Aguleria or whatever!! It is fucking blasphemy that you guys are saying that there should be MORE of the music of today! Are you guys smoking crack? What the fuck makes you people think that the music of today holds any merit at all in the span of music? You think people are going to remember Nas or Nelly or Coheed and whatsitsfuck? No. Fuck No. And if they do it'll be for the wrong reasons . Teen Spirt deserved its top ten spot (altough I would have wanted a better Nirvana song, but it'll do), Nirvana changed music. period. The Beatles changed music. Period. They wrote more good songs then all of the fucking Puff Daddys (or should I say P. Diddy?) or Emo bands ever could. Plain and simple.

And they aren't "safe oldies" they are the roots of rock and roll, as bob put it so well. Goddamn it! When will you people grow up and listen to some real music??? Radiohead deserves they're spot, although they should be up higher, I was belated when I saw The Smiths even on there. That was a real treat.

Okay, thanks for assuming everyone who likes anything from the '00s is a moron.

See, this is the kind of person I was talking about when I originally made my "safe taste in music" comment. The people who say that ALL of today's music sucks, then lists a few mainstream shit and uses it as an example of ALL today's music.

What they never seem to realise is that, back then, there was just as much shit as there is now. The reason you don't hear anyone talk about it is because, well, it was shit.

Nobody's arguing about a lot of stuff on Top 40 radio being utter shit. But if you ask me, I'd say people who staunchly refuse to believe ANY good music is being made today are just being elitists, and can't be bothered to look hard enough for anything that appeals to them.

And, I do like classic rock. Love it, in fact. The Who, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Stones, Floyd, etc. I'd appreciate if you didn't assume I just listen to "shit" (which, by your definition, seems to be anything recorded after 1995).

Also, I don't recall seeing ANYONE arguing in favour of having Eminem, R. Kelly, Christina Aguilera, Nas, Nelly, Coheed, etc. on the list. They're arguing in favour of the GOOD music of the '00s.

Spacey_Norton21

11-28-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by my_name_is_neo
Okay, thanks for assuming everyone who likes anything from the '00s is a moron.

See, this is the kind of person I was talking about when I originally made my "safe taste in music" comment. The people who say that ALL of today's music sucks, then lists a few mainstream shit and uses it as an example of ALL today's music.

Nobody's arguing that a lot of stuff on Top 40 radio is utter shit. But if you ask me, I'd say people who staunchly refuse to believe ANY good music is being made today just aren't looking hard enough for anything that appeals to them.

And, I do like classic rock. Love it, in fact. The Who, Zeppelin, Hendrix, The Stones, Floyd, etc. I'd appreciate if you didn't assume I just listen to "shit" (which, by your definition, seems to be anything recorded after 1995).

Also, I don't recall seeing ANYONE arguing in favour of having Eminem, R. Kelly, Christina Aguilera, Nas, Nelly, Coheed, etc. on the list. They're arguing in favour of the GOOD music of the '00s.

I didn't say that you were a moron. I was being a bit hasty in my comments, I was flustered, I do like some of today's music (ie - Guster, Elliott Smith, who was still concidered music of "today" before he passed on, Radiohead, whose new album is due out soon, Some of Outkast, they actually play their instruments, Interpol, etc.)

And don't catagorize me in one of those "I hate all of 00's music". As I said I was flustered and angry, I should have said I hate most of our music of todday becuase of its completelack of individualiy and utter blandness.

So I would appreciate if you not catgorize me into a group, I hate that.

PS- I don't hate music after 1995, tha's poposterous, Oasis and others kept me plenty company aftyer the demise of the late Cobain. :D

my_name_is_neo

11-28-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Spacey_Norton21
I didn't say that you were a moron. I was being a bit hasty in my comments, I was flustered, I do like some of today's music (ie - Guster, Elliott Smith, who was still concidered music of "today" before he passed on, Radiohead, whose new album is due out soon, Some of Outkast, they actually play their instruments, Interpol, etc.)

And don't catagorize me in one of those "I hate all of 00's music". As I said I was flustered and angry, I should have said I hate most of our music of todday becuase of its completelack of individualiy and utter blandness.

So I would appreciate if you not catgorize me into a group, I hate that.

PS- I don't hate music after 1995, tha's poposterous, Oasis and others kept me plenty company aftyer the demise of the late Cobain. :D

Okay, so, if you don't want to be categorized in that kind of group, then don't make comments like this:

Originally posted by Spacey_Nortan21
That is because the 00's SUCK! The music of now is complete and udder shit. All of it.

Spacey_Norton21

11-28-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by my_name_is_neo
Okay, so, if you don't want to be categorized in that kind of group, then don't make comments like this:

Listen Buckethead I said that I was in angry and flustered and that I revoked that statement, if you read it properly that is.

I should have said I hate MOST of our music of today becuase of its complete lack of individualiy and utter blandness.

Or did that skip your mind, since your so keen on insulting me?

my_name_is_neo

11-28-2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Spacey_Norton21
Listen Buckethead I said that I was in angry and flustered and that I revoked that statement, if you read it properly that is.

Or did that skip your mind, since your so keen on insulting me?

I wasn't intending to insult you, I was simply pointing out why I said that earlier comment. If it came off as an insult, sorry; I don't want this to turn in to some immature flame war.

jeo4

11-29-2004, 10:49 AM

The direct insults are getting out of hand. Especially from you. And I'm quoting directly here:

"Listen Buckethead I said that I was in angry and flustered and that I revoked that statement, if you read it properly that is."

"So you people keep pining over your shitty music."

"Are you guys smoking crack? What the fuck makes you people think that the music of today holds any merit at all in the span of music?"

"When will you people grow up and listen to some real music???"

So you're looking to get banned then.

Let me get this straight...NIRVANA changed music?? How?! Their music never stood out from anyone else at the time. Cobain was rude and socially inept, he used drugs and blew his fucking head off with a shotgun when he hit the lowest point of his career. Boy, that sure showed us! So naturally, he deserves a fucking TOP TEN SPOT! (UGH!) I'm a Nirvana fan, but I don't even get that one. Just because a musician dies young doesn't mean he becomes a musical genius overnight.

Frank Zappa was awful, even in his heyday. That's my opinion. I'm not stupid for it and I don't need to "grow up" for it.

Elliott Smith is okay I guess, but he's just not deserving of the attention he's getting. If he hadn't killed himself, nobody would have noticed him. Again, dead doesn't automatically qualify him to be a musical genius.

The oldies referred to on the list are undoubtedly safe choices. What about 70's and 80's music that got all but ignored?! Fuck, the 60's choices in some cases were completely dismal. Like it or not, the choices made are going to be viewed as safe.

The message I got from your rant was that if people didn't agree with your taste, they needed to grow up and not be stupid. I think that is superficial thinking and a rather insulting mindset to say the least.

I hate this list because not only does it assume that Rolling Stone and their handful of "insiders" can make a list that speaks for all of America (even worse for five generations of rock and roll fans), but it leaves out entire eras of music. And the choices being made are questionable on multiple levels. If my opinion pisses people off, then so be it.

Psychocandy

11-29-2004, 01:55 PM

This thread has now been reported to the powers that be. If the discussion doesn't wander in a more civilized direction post haste then i'll have no choice but to close the thread.

Spacey_Norton21...

I can't not comment on your attitude to the musical tastes of others. We don't require anyone to write this sort of offensive mandate on what is good taste and what is bad taste where music is concerned. It's alright to state outright that you don't think there's any good music that's been created in the last however many years. That's just fine and dandy. It's when you start disrespecting other peoples opinions. No-one is absolutely right and no-one is absolutely wrong. It's all down to personal taste. I, for example, can say on one hand that I fucking hate The Beatles (and mean it). But I would not for even a second suggest that they weren't one of the most important bands in the history of modern music. You have to learn to accomodate and respect the opinion of the individual. You can disagree. But please...if you survive this without suffering a total ban...in future I would suggest you disagree respectfully.

notchreturns

11-29-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by jeo4

Elliott Smith is okay I guess, but he's just not deserving of the attention he's getting. If he hadn't killed himself, nobody would have noticed him. Again, dead doesn't automatically qualify him to be a musical genius.

[/B]

I agree on all accounts, except for the Elliott Smith comment.

Before his death, he was quite popular. Not top 10 hit, with tons of airplay on the radio kinda popular, but meaning anyone who went out of their way to find something beyond what's on the radio, would mostly likely know of him and his music. His songs were used in two very popular films amognst schmoes (Good Will Hunting, Royal Tenenbaums) and in some of their most memorable scenes, so he's gained some popularity over the years.

But yeah, that list blows ;)

Spacey_Norton21

11-29-2004, 07:46 PM

I'm really sorry everybody..

I"m a rude and stupid jerk and I apologize holeheartedly for it all.
I wish I could go back in time and stop it from ever happening, but by golly, I can't.

I want to offer my apologies to my_name_is_neo, I shouldnt have instigated anything, I'm sorry and I hope there is no "bad blood" between the two of us because I really wish there not to be.

And I apologize to everyone once again. It shalt not happen again.

Winston Wolfe

11-29-2004, 10:27 PM

It seems things got a bit overemotional here and apologies were made so we'll let it slide this time. Let's keep our posts & arguments constructive and not destructive. Thanks.

Back to topic...

bowieee

11-30-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Indiana Sev
Add "important" to that and we might finally be close to agreeing. ;)

As far as the greatness of any given song being subjective, naturally, I agree...

I could totally agree with important.

I believe my debate with you is done :)

bluesbrother965

11-30-2004, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
[

Let me get this straight...NIRVANA changed music?? How?! Their music never stood out from anyone else at the time. Cobain was rude and socially inept, he used drugs and blew his fucking head off with a shotgun when he hit the lowest point of his career. Boy, that sure showed us! So naturally, he deserves a fucking TOP TEN SPOT! (UGH!) I'm a Nirvana fan, but I don't even get that one. Just because a musician dies young doesn't mean he becomes a musical genius overnight.

Frank Zappa was awful, even in his heyday. That's my opinion. I'm not stupid for it and I don't need to "grow up" for it.
[/B]

Nirvana has been very influential on most rock music since their time, and very influential on music in general if only for putting a stop to how popular hair metal was. I must say that a lot of the bands who have been influenced by Nirvana are no good at all IMO, but a lot of them are popular, so it's not too difficult to see that Nirvana is probably the most influential rock band of the past fifteen years. Also, Cobain was not at the lowest point of the year when he committed suicide. He certainly wasn't at the highest, but he was also far from the lowest.

As for your comments on Frank Zappa, it's not hard to see that he's not for everyone. He's one of my favorite artists ever, but I can see where you're coming from if you don't like him.

TheDeadWalk

12-01-2004, 07:18 AM

Smells like teen spirit at number 9?!

Someone correct me if they know the facts, but I never remember teen spirit being a big blockbuster of a song. It was good at the time, but after a few weeks I had forgotten it.

I always got the feeling that Kobain got more praise for his band after his death than when he was alive.

MinimalistCouch

12-02-2004, 01:56 AM

Jane's Addiction were the first to stop hair metal

Not fucking Nirvana

Jimmy"The Gent"

12-02-2004, 04:51 PM

As a music lover of all genres, I can respect most of the choises R.S. have on their list, but in typical R.S. fashion they definitely have a knack for favoring certain bands who have been "critic friendly" over the years (U2, Radiohead, Prince, Nirvana). I think they mainly got the most important songs right, but as with any list, there were a few very disturbing ommissions and even a few inclusions that had me shaking my head.

So R.S., here's an idea to try and keep people's bitching down to a minimum on your next list (because there will always be some bitching): let the fans vote instead of dumbass rock stars and stuck-up rock critics and editors. I'm sure you'd have a good turnout at the polls and everyone's vote (fans, rock stars, even the holiest of holy on the R.S. staff) would bear an equal weight and importance. Sounds like a good idea to me, unless you guys don't think we're smart enough to decide what's to be considered "good music" on our own. God, we already have the government to hold our hands in the national election, we don't need you to help us decide if "Yesterday" is better than "Rump Shaker".
TRUST US!!!!

Songs that should've probably been included (in my opinion):

The Doors- Roadhouse Blues, Break On Through
Pink Floyd- Money
Black Sabbath- Black Sabbath
Don Mclean- American Pie
Pearl Jam- Alive, Jeremy
Beastie Boys- Fight for your Right
Queen- Another One Bites the Dust
Bob Seger- Turn the Page
Phil Collins- In the air tonight
Steve Miller- the Joker
Marshall Tucker Band- Can't You See
ZZ Top- Legs
Van Halen- Jump, Running with the Devil
Greatful Dead- Truckin'
Dire Straits- Sultans of Swing

And probably many more that I can't think of right now....

my_name_is_neo

12-02-2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Jimmy"The Gent"
Songs that should've probably been included (in my opinion):

The Doors- Roadhouse Blues, Break On Through
Pink Floyd- Money
Black Sabbath- Black Sabbath
Don Mclean- American Pie
Pearl Jam- Alive, Jeremy
Beastie Boys- Fight for your Right
Queen- Another One Bites the Dust
Bob Seger- Turn the Page
Phil Collins- In the air tonight
Steve Miller- the Joker
Marshall Tucker Band- Can't You See
ZZ Top- Legs
Van Halen- Jump, Running with the Devil
Greatful Dead- Truckin'
Dire Straits- Sultans of Swing

And probably many more that I can't think of right now....

I agree on all of those, except "Break On Through" (overrated song, IMO - The Doors are still a good band, though), and "In the Air Tonight" (can't personally say I've ever particularly liked Phil Collins).

Jerk Shapiro

12-02-2004, 06:03 PM

Ya' know when I think of Rock N' Roll I think of the number 417 and 419 songs: "Fuck tha Police" by N.W.A and "Nuthin' But A 'G' Thang" by Dr. Dre.

Look up Rock in the dictionary, you'll see these two songs - nowhere near it.

bluesbrother965

12-02-2004, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by MinimalistCouch
Jane's Addiction were the first to stop hair metal

Not fucking Nirvana

Jane's Addiction and Soundgarden were rock alternatives to hair metal before Nirvana was, and influenced Nirvana more than most bands, but Nirvana pushed hair metal out of the mainstream and alternative/grunge into the mainstream.

And to say that Nirvana wasn't popular until Kurt Cobain died is completely incorrect, Nevermind went triple platinum in about six months.
They were the most popular band of their day. Anyway, I agree with anyone who says Smells Like Teen Spirit is really overrated, and I think Nevermind itself is really overrated. I can easily see Nirvana deserving a spot in the top ten, but I'd choose a song other than Smells Like Teen Spirit, something off of In Utero (a far superior album to Nevermind).

jeo4

12-02-2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Jerk Shapiro
Ya' know when I think of Rock N' Roll I think of the number 417 and 419 songs: "Fuck tha Police" by N.W.A and "Nuthin' But A 'G' Thang" by Dr. Dre.

Look up Rock in the dictionary, you'll see these two songs - nowhere near it.

Thou art the man, Shapiro. I agree completely.

bluesbrother965

12-02-2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Thou art the man, Shapiro. I agree completely.

Agreed 100%.

zeppelin

12-03-2004, 04:11 PM

I like the list overall, despite the fact that I think Bob Dylan has made at least a dozen songs better than "Like a Rolling Stone," the Stones have made at least a dozen songs better than "Satisfaction," the Beach Boys have made at least a dozen songs better than "Good Vibrations" (and besides, the new version of it on "Smile" is better), the Beatles have made at least a dozen...better make that at least two dozen better songs than "Hey Jude," Elvis has made at least three dozen songs better than "Hound Dog," etc. etc.

So to me, it's kind of a "right artists, wrong songs" list. My favorite song of most of the frequent artists on the list aren't even in the top 500:

Bob Dylan- "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues"
The Beach Boys- "Here Today"
The Beatles- "Because" or "And Your Bird Can Sing"
The Byrds- "Artificial Energy"
The Rolling Stones- "Midnight Rambler"
CCR- "Wrote a Song for Everyone"

And I think "Moondance" should have been a lot higher than it was, but oh well.

But at least I can be thankful that, after looking at the cover and thinking "Oh dammit, 'Stairway to Heaven' is going to be #1," I was proved wrong, and it's not even in the top 30. (I regret naming myself "zeppelin," due to the fact that probably everyone here thinks I am a big Led Zeppelin fan, even though I hate them...please take note of the fact that there is no "led" in front of my name).