Rolling Stone Greatest 500 Albums of all time

[MindGoneHaywire]

Not sure when this is going to be coming out, but I sure hope it's as dumb as the 100 Greatest Guitarists list. Of course, the #1 album of all time is Sgt. Pepper, because Rolling Stone said so.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2003-11-16-rolling-stone-list_x.htm

The following appeared, I guess, in a sidebar to the above-linked article. From it we know that 29 of the albums in the top 500 were recorded prior to 1960. Oh, and Madonna placed as many albums as Elvis Costello:

Artists with the most entries in Rolling Stone's 500 best albums:

Beatles: 11
Bob Dylan: 10
Rolling Stones: 10
Bruce Springsteen: 8
The Who: 7
David Bowie: 6
Elton John: 6

5 each: The Byrds, Led Zeppelin, Neil Young, Otis Redding, U2

4 each: Madonna, Bob Marley, Elvis Costello, Grateful Dead, James Brown, Police, The Smiths, Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, Prince, Roxy Music, Simon & Garfunkel, Sly & the Family Stone, Stevie Wonder, Talking Heads.

Decade by decade breakdown: 50s or before: 29 albums (5.8% of total 500 list) 60s: 126 (25.2%, but 55% of the top 20 70s: 183 (36.6%) 80s: 88 (17.6%) 90s: 61 (12.2%) 00s: 13 (2.6%).

[MindGoneHaywire]

http://www.knotmag.com/?article=972

[MindGoneHaywire]

Here are a couple of places where you can view the list if you want. The Rolling Stone site has it here:

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/coverstory/featuregen.asp?pid=2164

while Rhino, in what seems to be some sort of cross-promotion, has it in a format that's perhaps a trifle more interesting to view (with some artwork & editorials on a few here & there). That version is here:

http://www.rhino.com/rs500/

[Dusty Chalk]

Supposedly, the magazine is going to come with a hybrid SACD with some of the tracks from these 500 albums on it.

[mad rhetorik]

Sgt. Pepper at #1? Pet Sounds at #2? Both of these albums are two of the most overrated records in existence. Sgt. Pepper is basically a singles album (the title track and A Day In The Life are the only two <b>great</b> songs on there) and it hasn't aged well. Pet Sounds is an overproduced and uneven album from an overrated novelty act.

Being a Dylan fan, I'd have to go with Highway 61 Revisited at #1, with maybe Revolver at #2. Have to give props to Rolling Stone for putting London Calling at #7, though.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Pet Sounds is an overproduced and uneven album from an overrated novelty act.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those are fighting words. I've never quite bought into the enormity of the Pet Sounds cult, but it's beyond dispute that it's been more musically influential than anything that Dylan ever did. Ask, oh, the Byrds, the Beatles, Crosby, Stills & Nash, the Ramones, Tom Petty, Linda Ronstadt, Sonic Youth, John Cale, and about a jillion others. And no, I'm not a fan of all of those acts, but they're on the record & I'd be happy to pull out quotes if you really feel the BBs were an 'overrated novelty act.' I've got to confess that when I discovered punk rock I kind of forgot about the BBs for a good decade or so, but all I'd known were the hit singles, anyway. There's so much more to it that I'll never understand how I managed to avoid hearing stuff like Pet Sounds & SMILE for as long as I did. There was a general perception that the Beatles were engaged in some sort of friendly, contrived 'competition' with the Rolling Stones in the mid-60s, but the truth is that the real rivalry existed with Brian Wilson. It probably had something to do with his breakdown in the late 60s/early 70s, but it also had more than something to do with the two acts trying to out-do each other--first Rubber Soul, then Pet Sounds, then Revolver, then SMILE, then Sgt. Pepper. Of course, SMILE was never finished & never released. When I first heard it I couldn't believe what I was hearing & realized that Sgt. Pepper would never have come out in the form we know it in--the Beatles would've had to go back to the drawing board & come up with something WAY better if they had any designs on competition. SMILE was supposed to be released months before Sgt. Pepper & some of it remains ahead of its time to this day. Not something an 'overrated novelty act' could've come up with.

It took a long time for me to really get into Pet Sounds, because SMILE hit me so hard, and also because Sloop John B has no place on the record, but while the hype can be quite annoying, there's definitely a reason for it. Regardless, whether you like the album or not, Brian Wilson is, simply put, one of the absolute foremost music-makers & producers of the 20th Century. Anyone who says otherwise really doesn't have a grasp of what it was that he achieved.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Why do they feel the need to include a few token jazz albums? If Kind of Blue deserves to be in the list then there are probably 50 other jazz albums that deserve their place too. Stick to pop music Rolling Stone.

Not enough punk era albums in there.
Somebody let RS know that there are other reggae artists other than Bob Marley, at least Funky Kingston made it.

A few pleasant surprises:
Meat is Murder seems to be the first Smiths album on the list, surprising to me, even if I happen to agree.
The Bends is ahead of OK Computer, another surprise and I concur.
Pink Flag made the grade, but I wish it were higher than the 400s
Nice to see an Echo and the Bunnymen album, but Heaven Up Here is a truly weird pick.

[Stone]

Not enough punk era albums in there.

Pink Flag made the grade, but I wish it were higher than the 400s


Agreed in a big way.



Somebody let RS know that there are other reggae artists other than Bob Marley, at least Funky Kingston made it.

I agree with this too.


Meat is Murder seems to be the first Smiths album on the list, surprising to me, even if I happen to agree.

The Queen Is Dead is on there before Meat Is Murder, but both are too low in my opinion.



Nice to see an Echo and the Bunnymen album, but Heaven Up Here is a truly weird pick.

How is that possibly ahead of Crocodiles and Ocean Rain?? Weird indeed.

I was also very happy to see Entertainment ! on the list. And how do two Def Leppard albums get on the list, especially when something like the Kink's Arthur didn't make it??

Stone

[Worf101]

than any other way? Put out some sort of bogus "Best of" or "Greatest" list. Sheesh... Rolling Stone wasn't even around till the late 60's and who on that rag has the perspective to put such a list togther? As far as Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's are concerned I have to say they're definately two of the LEAST INFLUENTIAL albums I've ever heard. Listen to either one, if you didn't know how great they're SUPPOSED to be would you even give them a second listen. Do you see either albums musical legacy carried on in music today? Neither one has aged well and thematically I feel they're just a collection of singles... and not all of them very good either. What a waste of time these exercises are...

Da Worfster

[Ex Lion Tamer]

As far as Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's are concerned I have to say they're definately two of the LEAST INFLUENTIAL albums I've ever heard. Listen to either one, if you didn't know how great they're SUPPOSED to be would you even give them a second listen. Do you see either albums musical legacy carried on in music today? Neither one has aged well and thematically I feel they're just a collection of singles... and not all of them very good either.

Hehehe...OK, sick 'em J. ;)

[Stone]

than any other way? Put out some sort of bogus "Best of" or "Greatest" list. Sheesh... Rolling Stone wasn't even around till the late 60's and who on that rag has the perspective to put such a list togther? As far as Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's are concerned I have to say they're definately two of the LEAST INFLUENTIAL albums I've ever heard. Listen to either one, if you didn't know how great they're SUPPOSED to be would you even give them a second listen. Do you see either albums musical legacy carried on in music today? Neither one has aged well and thematically I feel they're just a collection of singles... and not all of them very good either. What a waste of time these exercises are...

Da Worfster

He he he. Good one. I got my laugh for the afternoon.

[nobody]

Worst thing to me about the list is that it's just kinda boring and safe. They just repeat the party line. Personally, I've never been a fan of Sgt. Peppers. Heard it a couple times and it didn't do much for me. Never heard Smile, but ya know, I gotta admit that I don't really feel like need to.

No way they're gonna win on a list like this. Rolling Stone's biggest problem seems to be they can't decide if they wanna change with the times or keep preaching to the choir and remembering how they used to be a decent music mag, ya know, back when all their choices were put out. These lists have more to do with the magazine's perspective on things than anything else.

Oh...and I absolutely agree with keeping jazz out of this. It's silly. No way to compare. I may also suggest leaving R&B and reggae alone too, since they basically get token nods. Besides, how can you really compare across genres or even eras, really. It's like asking if Starry Night is better or worse than the Mona Lisa. They both used paint...that's about it.

I guess I just wish they'd start calling these lists what they really are...Rolling Stone's 500 Favorite Records.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Hey, Worf, I agree that the list is bullsh*t too, but first of all, you act like you'd expect something different, second of all...does it really matter all that much? Now...you ready for this, maf? I've got a bone to pick with a couple of things here.

>Rolling Stone wasn't even around till the late 60's and who on that rag has the perspective to put such a list togther?

Come on now, you should know better than that. Now, I don't know or care who writes for 'em now, and I don't think it really matters all that much. They took a poll of writers & musicians & you'd better believe that Wenner had his hands all over the top 10, or 25, or 50, or whatever. Since they asked people like Britney Spears...whose choices probably mean a lot to a lot of people, since she does manage to sell an awful lot of records, and whose list isn't quite as bad as one might expect (heavy on Prince & Michael Jackson, and with only one record that I'd say is completely unlistenable)...and others whose sense of history is probably, er, not fully developed, I can see the results being an awful lot worse than they actually are. The '100 Greatest Guitarists' list was FAR, far worse...as I complained long & loudly on that, Les Paul was #46, and Django Reinhardt didn't even make it. But that's not to say that RS never had decent writers. Remember that Ralph Gleason was there with 'em in the late '60s, and they've had their share of good writers--Greil Marcus, Lester Bangs, even Kurt Loder...people who knew something about music. Those days may be long gone, but that doesn't mean that they no longer have anyone decent. What it means is that what we're left with is basically Wenner's own idol worship. And he's always worshiped the people who befriended his star-struck ass.

>As far as Pet Sounds and Sgt. Pepper's are concerned I have to say they're definately two of the LEAST INFLUENTIAL albums I've ever heard.

I simply cannot understand the basis for this statement. Any pop or rock record that is a song cycle that concentrates on emotions that run any deeper than teenage crushes & attempts in any way to be a cohesive whole is influenced by Pet Sounds, and that's a lot of records. Any pop or rock record that is a song cycle that tries to tell a story, or tries to be what became commonly known as a 'concept' album, is influenced by Sgt. Pepper. These are undeniable, historical facts. So far as I'm concerned, they're both overhyped, overblown, & even overrated, but there's a reason why: for years afterward, artists who WERE influenced by these records weren't shy about letting the world know exactly where their inspiration lay. Rolling Stone, of course, always took this sort of thing to absurd extremes, but that doesn't mean that giving credit where it's due is not valid in these cases. But they're also influential for other reasons: both involved having outside players come in (in the case of Pet Sounds, for the entire album), and both veered into a symphonic realm, with heavy use of strings. The arrangements & the production were also ground-breaking. These were the first albums where people realized that they could be spending their time putting work into an album as an artistic statement as a whole. Simply put, they made the pop/rock album what it is--the standard by which an artist is judged, as opposed to singles. Sgt. Pepper has not aged well, but I would disagree on that count when it comes to Pet Sounds. The themes expressed are timeless, had never been explored, and for that reason have not sunk to the level of cliches--unless you heard work influenced by Pet Sounds FIRST that made Pet Sounds sound like just another introspective album dealing with personal feelings. But in the pop and rock realm, it was the first. You want to say these records are overrated, fine. You want to say they weren't influential, no way. If you'd like me to go to the trouble to name names & works, I'd be happy to.

[Worf101]

[
As for saying that neither album is "influential"... That would be a bit harsh I suppose and I apologize. I'm a musician... Although its not my main gig... I'm respected by my peers and know a bit about the subject from Louis Jordan and his Tympani Five to some of today's "artists", I don't disparrage lightly. I judge an albums importance or greatness by what I feel it accomplishes in music. Did the album change the face of music? Does it transcend it's genre? Is it's influence still felt in music today? Does it carry historical significance? These are my measuring sticks but they're only mine.

As interesting as Pet Sounds is to listen to do you hear anything like it today? Besides possibly influcencing Sgt. Pepper did it notably move anyone? I love "Wouldn't it be Nice" as much as anyone one but what speaks more to today's world, that song or "What's Going On?" Marvin Gaye's questions and spirit haunt us and that album rings true. Are either P.S. or Sgt. P. still musically or socially relevant? Did it change the face of popular music? Sure they did for a time, but that sound faded rather quickly as other fads in rock over took them.

You can make a case for Sgt. Pepper's but it's relevance today is questionable. I don't know... Perhaps I'm just more of an urban protest song lover but Marvin's words combined with the mastery of Motown's Funk Brothers has always made that album my personal greatest and I'm pleased to see it rated highly.... but when I go to see other bands I can trace what I see and hear back to Jordan, Berry, Brown and other's... but I don't hear much I can trace back to Pet Sounds or Sgt. Peppers. Lest you think I'm "hatin" on either group... I own much of both Brian Wilson and Lenon and McCartney's works... I just don't think they invented the wheel that's all.

Da Worfster

[Dusty Chalk]

Okay, after some additional review, I gotta say that I hate this list:

No Yes
No Rush
No Genesis
One Jethro Tull
(noticing a distinct anti-prog slant to this)
No Kate Bush
No Talk Talk
No Animals by Pink Floyd
One Kraftwerk album
very little electronica at all

And whoever heard of that Peter Wolf album? I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be on the list, I'm just saying no-one's heard it.

And White Stripes' Elephant is definitely premature, as are a couple of other recent releases on that list.

I'm just saying it stinks of inbreeding (I.E. a small group of friends listening to more or less the same music), and isn't representative of the world's opinion that it pretends to be.

[bobsticks]

I'm kind of hoping that Rolling Stone will come out with a new list pretty soon...

[Swish]

I'm kind of hoping that Rolling Stone will come out with a new list pretty soon...

...calls it a day and goes away for good. That was fun though, wasn't it?

[bobsticks]

...calls it a day and goes away for good. That was fun though, wasn't it?

It was fun.

I'm trying to remember when RS was actually relevant. From both a musical/cultural and political point of view I think it's been dead and unburied for quite a while.

It's been interesting to watch Rolling Stone try to reinvent itself since the time of this thread. The pendulum has swung from flogging ancient and irrelevant acts to a kind of hack promotion of the worst of popular music and non-evidence based political diatribe.

Swerving from CC&N and E.J. Dionne to Lil' Wayne and Matt Tiabbi...I'm not sure what the bigger disservice is.

[3LB]

Rolling Stone will come out with a new list... probably... but its done this difinitive list thing back in the '80s, and then again in the '90s - back in the '80s some Talking Heads fanboy had 4 or 5 of their albums on the list. If they did come up with a new list, it would again include several Dylan, U2 and Beatles albums, all the Clash albums, the obligatory nod to Pet Sounds, a couple of 'out there' jazz albums in a veiled attempt to appear über hip, plus their favorite recent purchases.

[Rael Imperial Aerosol Kid]

I'm kind of hoping that Rolling Stone will come out with a new list pretty soon...
Check your newstand, there's an updated "500 greatest albums of all time" on sale now. I have a copy here and havent compared it to the 2003 list to see what they took out. Additions seem to be, a few from Kanye, Vampire Weekend, sleater-kinney, my morning jacket, and a few others.

[Davey]

Check your newstand, there's an updated "500 greatest albums of all time" on sale now. I have a copy here and havent compared it to the 2003 list to see what they took out. Additions seem to be, a few from Kanye, Vampire Weekend, sleater-kinney, my morning jacket, and a few others.

Big discussion over at this other place ... Rolling Stone: 500 Greatest Albums of All Time - Updated in 2012 - SH Forums (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=282705) ... though I'd have trouble feigning enough interest to get me through more than a handful of posts about it.