Rolling Stone Magazine's Top 500 Albums (Kurt Cobain, American, quote)

Brock_West · 12-01-2007, 03:19 PM

Rolling Stone is populated by a bunch of music snobs.

No Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, Three Dog Night, Foreigner, Kiss (if they are on there it's near the bottom), Styx, Steve Miller, Rush (I MEAN COME ON!), etc....

Urban Hat€monger ? · 12-01-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etcetc_00

Those are all great albums. I love how creative Outkast gets with hip-hop. The Marshall Mathers LP is like a horror movie in music form, and Mathers makes alot of good social commentary on Eminem Show. Even if you don't like the White Stripes' music, if you respect music for what it is, you have to appreciate the lengths he goes to in order to create original music, and The Strokes' Is This It was once billed as the album that would save rock and roll. I don't understand how anybody could write off all of those albums unless they haven't heard them.

Skankonia - Only sounds good because most mainstream hip hop is garbage.
Marshall Mathers LP - Crap
Is This It - Go listen to Wolf Songs For Lambs by Jonathan Fire Eater & you'll see someone doing this type of stuff a million times better 5 years earlier and that the strokes didn't save rock n roll at all.

You can have the White Stripes though.

Merkaba · 12-01-2007, 04:41 PM

I agree with whoever said the top albums won't change over the next few decades. For such a universally read mag I don't think any editor will have the guts for years and years to knock those albums off their perch. Can you imagine the day someone from a mainstream mag says such and such album is better than Sgt Peppers? No fucking way, not after 40 years of ridiculous recognition.

The part that annoys me most is the fact that Greatest Hits albums are included. I think I saw at least 3 in there. In the top 500 of all time? Fuckin' Al Green at 52?!

~~under~~ · 12-01-2007, 05:13 PM

greatest hits albums shouldn't even be included. because they're just songs taken from other well done albums and put into one album. so instead of putting greatest hits, wouldn't it make more sense to put the albums they got it from in there instead of the greatest hits albums?

also, after a few decades, i dont think the albums will change especially if they've been up there for a few mags. of course if they're up for a long period of time they could get the name of boring albums and possibly be taken off the greatest albums.

also,
it must be hard to find the top 500 albums with all the disagreements they get from fans of the Rolling Stone's Magazines.

Raw & Funky · 12-02-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

they really don't seem to know a whole lot about music in general. I mean, come on...

u aint kidding there, a poor list

NoiseNotMusic · 12-02-2007, 12:07 PM

pet sounds is in the right spot.

NoiseNotMusic · 12-02-2007, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by etcetc_00

The Marshall Mathers LP is like a horror movie in music form

lol

for the record, fantomas is like a horror movie in music form. Eminem is like gay porn in music form.

TheBig3 · 12-02-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awriterslastresort

greatest hits albums shouldn't even be included. because they're just songs taken from other well done albums and put into one album. so instead of putting greatest hits, wouldn't it make more sense to put the albums they got it from in there instead of the greatest hits albums?

also, after a few decades, i dont think the albums will change especially if they've been up there for a few mags. of course if they're up for a long period of time they could get the name of boring albums and possibly be taken off the greatest albums.

also,
it must be hard to find the top 500 albums with all the disagreements they get from fans of the Rolling Stone's Magazines.

Someone wrote in to the editor following this issue and they said that barring the GH albums would prevent artists from being included that predate the album era when only singles were released.

RS only deals with music prior to 1995.

billyjerome · 12-03-2007, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoiseNotMusic

pet sounds is in the right spot.

Ditto.

Don't be dissing on Sgt. Pepper. The things they did for music production were phenomenal.

British_pharaoh · 12-10-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Anyone would think Rolling Stone stopped printing in the late 80s if that list is anything to go by.

And what were the first albums from the 90s to be included?
Nevermind , Thw Cronic , Slanted & Enchanted , OK Computer & Dookie ....... Yawn.

I have a feeling these 6 albums will still be thetop 6 in another 30 or 40 years time , not because they are the best but because nobody has the balls to say anything is better.

I did look for something post 2000 , but gave up looking around the 300 mark.

And lets face it even me being one of the biggest Stones fanboys on this board would laugh at the thought of there only being 210 albums in the world better than Tattoo You , hell i've probably got four times that amount just in my own collection that are better than Tattoo You ,let alone out of every album ever made

its an american magazine

the list is horse poop

I'm a big beach boys fan but pet sounds number 2???

loco

12-01-2007, 03:19 PM	#31 (permalink)
Brock_West north american scum Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 158	Rolling Stone is populated by a bunch of music snobs. No Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, Three Dog Night, Foreigner, Kiss (if they are on there it's near the bottom), Styx, Steve Miller, Rush (I MEAN COME ON!), etc.... __________________ http://www.icompositions.com/artists/Stockholm

12-01-2007, 04:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
Merkaba Whitewater! Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: New Zealand Posts: 2,885	I agree with whoever said the top albums won't change over the next few decades. For such a universally read mag I don't think any editor will have the guts for years and years to knock those albums off their perch. Can you imagine the day someone from a mainstream mag says such and such album is better than Sgt Peppers? No fucking way, not after 40 years of ridiculous recognition. The part that annoys me most is the fact that Greatest Hits albums are included. I think I saw at least 3 in there. In the top 500 of all time? Fuckin' Al Green at 52?! __________________ She thinks I'm a reclusive genius, she's going to be very disappointed when she finds out i'm a reclusive wanker

12-02-2007, 12:07 PM	#36 (permalink)
NoiseNotMusic Music Addict Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 150	pet sounds is in the right spot. __________________ http://imagegen.last.fm/basicrt10/re...AmNietzche.gif

12-01-2007, 05:13 PM	#34 (permalink)
~~under~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,056	greatest hits albums shouldn't even be included. because they're just songs taken from other well done albums and put into one album. so instead of putting greatest hits, wouldn't it make more sense to put the albums they got it from in there instead of the greatest hits albums? also, after a few decades, i dont think the albums will change especially if they've been up there for a few mags. of course if they're up for a long period of time they could get the name of boring albums and possibly be taken off the greatest albums. also, it must be hard to find the top 500 albums with all the disagreements they get from fans of the Rolling Stone's Magazines.