Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums

[Copenhagen Fan]

Tokyo V....precisely!!!

[spooky girlfriend]

I know they were going for image a lot, but Guns n Roses were a breath of fresh air when they arrived on the music scene. And Slash does rock on guitar.

[gadfly]

Among all those considered "Industry Insiders" was none other than Elvis' ex girlfriend- under the "B's"-

I guess that makes sense. After all, she's had most of the Industry Inside 'er.

[10]

That is the best thing I have read here!

Congratulations!

[Misha]

Noise,

After reading....

Misha,

You don't like Michael's lyrics? Haow can you deny the power?:

You wanna be startin' something
You gotta be startin' something
You wanna be startin' something
You gotta be startin' something

It's too high to get over (yeah, yeah)
Too low to get under (yeah yeah)
You're stuck in the middle (yeah, yeah)
And the pain is thunder
(transcriber's note: see how he rhymes 'under' with 'thunder'? That's top drawer!)

mamasay mamasa moomakoosa
mamasay mamasa moomakoosa
mamasay mamasa moomakoosa
mamasay mamasa moomakoosa

(transcriber's note: Show me an Elvis song with made up gibberish African-esque lyrics. You can't, can you? And now the best part:)



You're a vegetable
You're a vegetable
You're a vegetable
You're a vegetable
You're a buffet
You're a vegetable
They'll eat off of you
You're a vegetable

(Transcriber's note: Where has Elvis compared his lyrical nemesis to an all-you-can-eat vegetarian smorgasbord? Nowhere, that's where.)

I think the question of lyrical superiority has been answered. The defense rests.

All I can say is....

Your Honor the Defense rests.....oh, yeah, and that was f'n funny the first time I read it!! Noise,,,,,you are the man!!!

[mood swung]

gadfly (hello!) wrote:

I guess that makes sense. After all, she's had most of the Industry Inside 'er.

best post ever! on that topic anyway. other illustrious voters include Jann Wenner and Bruce Thomas. I think that explains EC's rankings.

[gadfly]

Hello. Thanks.

[uselessbeauty?]

i knew this list wasn't quite right when blonde on blonde and the freewheelin' bob dylan were ranked below highway 61 revisited. that's very near insanity.
i hate these lists because they're so objective and nearly always dissolve into arguments over "my musical taste is better than yours." but the fact that costello got as many albums in there as he did is a great statement on how well respected he is.
personally, i think the top ten is very nearly correct. lots of beatles and dylan. they are the two most influential artists in pop history. the course of popular music has those two as it's book stands. i like the fact that they made a feeble attempt at underground recognition by putting miles davis and the velvet underground in the top 15. but there are better albums by both of them. that is of course in my own opinion.

to remark on what i would have done with specific albums-- i would have put more costello with armed forces a hell of a lot higher than it was. i think king of america and all this uselss beauty should be in the top five hundred as well. that's my opinion anyway. also, pavement's masterwork slanted and enchanted is a much better album than 134. even if for the fact that it made indie rock what it is today. a viable subgenre. besides that it is one of if not the best intentionally lo-fi albums ever made.
i'm glad desire made it because it is the most underrated dylan album. did green day's dookie really deserve the mention in the top 200? i personally would have ranked wilco's yankee hotel foxtrot somewhere in the top 200. it was only made a couple of years ago but it is my personal favorite of all time and there are a good many critics who gave it perfect scores. how many albums in the top 200 did that? i also didn't see elephant , uncle tupelo or much else "underground" music.
in my opinion if an album has been named the best of the year by nearly every magazine in america it should make the top 200 of all time. by the way, who made the byrds one of the greatest groups ever? they have nearly all of their albums on the list. the only one i think should have made it is sweetheart of the rodeo with a couple more nearer the bottom. THE SLIM SHADY LP??????????????????????? WHAT THE FUCK?????????????? the slim shady lp is not better than white light/white heat. the list may be objective but, that's completely insane. the slim shady lp is definitely not better than [/i]fear of a black planet either. odelay by beck should have been higher as well.

nirvana's unplugged in new york making it is very good touch. it's a better album than nevermind it just doesn't have the commercial appeal. i don't agree at all with the best tom waits album being the heart of saturday night. swordfishtrombones and small change are much better. cash's american recordings deserves the top fifty, not the bottom half of the list if only for raw power. i don't think is this it? is the only album of this century that deserves a spot in the top 400.

anyway, that was me going through the list and making my personal judgements. it's all my opinions and i hope you agree but, if not tell me aobut it

[kimmy]

I really think that those bullshit lists are made up to "please everyone", adding a few really notable entries to make it seem like Rolling Stone hasn't totally sold out, but mostly catering to the Britney/Christina/Justin/Eminem crowd that continues to fork out the money as each new issue comes out to basically look at a book of Gap and Skechers ads.
I guess we should be "thankful" for what we get, the fact that there are ANY good records on the list, and not a bunch of corporate radio-programmed crap.

[And No Coffee Table]

Rolling Stone's new list of the 500 greatest albums of all time has This Year's Model at #121 and My Aim Is True at #430.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... e-1062063/

[cwr]

Armed Forces and IbMePdErRoIoAmL both knocked out of the Top 500!

I wonder if the upcoming box set had come out a year or two ago, if it could've saved Armed Forces from being demoted to (presumably) the RS Top 1000...

[Hawksmoor]

I really think that those bullshit lists are made up to 'please everyone'.

I don't think they care who they 'please'. They're just bullshit lists made up to get people to click on a website (or buy a magazine).

Who cares? It has no bearing on which Elvis Costello records you might want to listen to (and enjoy) tonight, and it has no bearing on which records Elvis Costello might release next.

It has no bearing on the real world. How many people are going to think 'shit! Armed Forces dropped out of the Rolling Stone Top 500! I better burn my copy'?

Next week they'll have a list/poll on 'who do you think will be the next James Bond?' or 'what's your favourite flavour of cupcake?'

[ice nine]

Is Kanye West really THAT talented?

[Hawksmoor]

I would say that popularity has something to do with greatness... unless you're saying that you have great taste and that everyone else in the world are tone-deaf idiots. You may very well be saying that.. I am in no way arguing that whatever is top of the charts is the best...

This is the whole argument, I guess, and also the reason that '100 Best' lists (of anything) provoke such endless debate. Judging the quality of an LP (or a book, or a film, or a TV show, or a painting, or a poem) is never an exact, quantifiable science. It's always subjective (I do know I'm stating the obvious here ).

But here's the dilemma. In a perfect world, we'd all completely ignore the music-industry critics who are being paid to write for Rolling Stone, the Platinum discs, the billion-pound ticket sales for Andrew Lloyd-Webber musicals and the mountain of books telling us how great Shakespeare is, and we'd make up our own minds about everything.

But in the real world, none of us have the time to read every book, watch every film, listen to every LP or visit every art gallery. For practical purposes, we do need some kind of pointers to...the stuff that might be quite good, or that we might like.

And in the end, the only useful indicators I can think of are: (a) stuff that has been popular, and has continued to be popular over a period of time; (b) the opinions of people whose judgment we think is pretty sound (or whom we know usually like the same kinds of things as us); and (c) our personal enjoyment of the work of a particular author, songwriter, film-maker or whatever (in the sense of: I liked her last book, maybe I'll like her new one).

George Gissing once referred to libraries as 'the trackless desert of print', meaning (I think) that, even by 1880, he didn't know where to start any more. I suspect the equivalent is true for those of us who are interested in popular music, want to find stuff we like, but gaze forlornly at the thousands (probably millions) of hours of recorded music that now exist.

Obviously, 'popular' doesn't necessarily equate to 'good'. Obviously it's all subjective. At the same time, do I think Beyonce's 'Lemonade' is a better LP than 'Rubber Soul'? Of course I don't, don't be ridiculous! But in terms of finding some pointers to what you might want to listen to next, or artists that you might want to check out, any new '500 Best' list is, at least, a starting point for a conversation.

[jardine]

If it is "all subjective," there is no need for a conversation...why bother, since my subjective reaction to your subjective reaction will be my subjective reaction anyway? and so on. Same with the silly 'vote a song off the island' shambles.

In other words, it isn't all subjective. Rubber Soul exists outside of my own subjectivity. It doesn't all just dissolve into pudding. However, the rolling stone list...well, that is a marketing gimmick. Guess what? It even made a thread in an elviscostello fan forum! Pointers are good if they are thoughtful, insightful, well done. This list isn't.

But of course, this is just my subjective opinion...

sorry, i'm trying not to be 'ridiculous' either. good doesn't equal popular. but that doesn't mean everything is subjective. rubber soul IS better, but then the tough work begins of trying to make that case in light, not just of popularity but of music, its history, its changes, its precedents, its breakthroughs, the --oh oh, watch out!! -- quality of the songs, their creativity and structure and so on...this is not a matter to be left to rolling stone magazine's market tools (so to speak)

[Hawksmoor]

If it is "all subjective," there is no need for a conversation...why bother, since my subjective reaction to your subjective reaction will be my subjective reaction anyway? and so on. Same with the silly 'vote a song off the island' shambles.

In other words, it isn't all subjective. Rubber Soul exists outside of my own subjectivity. It doesn't all just dissolve into pudding. However, the rolling stone list...well, that is a marketing gimmick. Guess what? It even made a thread in an elviscostello fan forum! Pointers are good if they are thoughtful, insightful, well done. This list isn't.

But of course, this is just my subjective opinion...

sorry, i'm trying not to be 'ridiculous' either. good doesn't equal popular. but that doesn't mean everything is subjective. rubber soul IS better, but then the tough work begins of trying to make that case in light, not just of popularity but of music, its history, its changes, its precedents, its breakthroughs, the --oh oh, watch out!! -- quality of the songs, their creativity and structure and so on...this is not a matter to be left to rolling stone magazine's market tools (so to speak)

Not trying to be ridiculous either, but it's still a fun discussion!

'Popular' doesn't necessarily mean 'good', but some very popular things are good! And really, how we can have 'objective' criteria for whether a piece of music is 'good' or not? Technical music-writing skill? If yes, we'd all pack in listening to popular music and just listen to Mozart all the time, wouldn't we?

'Influence' is another minefield. 'Coronation Street' had a massive influence on how soap opera developed over the next fifty years. It's still shit - if you don't like soap opera. But brilliantly innovative if you do!

[jardine]

This is really good stuff, i think. This is what happens when listeners are articulate and well informed and not, like rolling stone, too often just trendy or worse, 'edgy.' Objective isn't the alternative, I think. Subjective/objective both don't work. well informed, dedicated, open to new ideas, lots of listening, making connections, hearing other songs in a new song...these don't provide objectivity, but they can mean that the discussion gets better, the ideas get richer and more detailed...i find this with some good reviews/reviewers, that they can make listening richer and deeper because they have the experience to notice things i might miss, and the ability as writers to write about it in a way that will draw me "out to play" beyond my own opinions/reactions.