Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums

[. - .... .- -. ....]

Rolling Stone magazine has just made a list of their top 500 albums.

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

Interesting to read through it though - some albums are much further down the list than I would have placed them - then again, what do I know

[Cylob]

My initial thoughts - 'Utter Bollox'!!!!

There are far too many 60's albums in the mix. Pants.

[NJK]

great link ethan!!

thanks a lot -i'm printing it now

indeed a strange list no abba no elvis in the first part?

first Neil Young album after the goldrush(one of his worst albums)

[Cylob]

It's a 'slippers and cardigan' list. Written by a balding man who knows nothing.

[. - .... .- -. ....]

London Calling, by The Clash, at 8th position?

[sidd]

wel.. its a freekin awsome record.. but not that great..

i did notice alot of overated ones making it into the list, like sex pistols.

[OutlawJim]

EVIL! NO BON JOVI thats a bit of a crap list. stupid rolling stone. don't know anything i think the forum should make a music magazine and then be better than the rolling stone... yeh... fun

another thing is, should best of collections be allowed on that kinda thing? i don't think they should, its sooooo cheating.

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Cylob
My initial thoughts - 'Utter Bollox'!!!!

There are far too many 60's albums in the mix. Pants.

Ditto. The Beatles n°1 of course and like 10 albums by them in the first 50 albums...
Yuck

[Cylob]

The list virtually ignores the 80s & 90s. Bah!!!!!!! Bollox x 1,000,000.

[NJK]

thank god that i like the 70's also

there's plenty for me in the list

[Twilightseer]

Originally posted by Cylob
The list virtually ignores the 80s & 90s. Bah!!!!!!! Bollox x 1,000,000.

Actually, I don't even know why I click that kind of links anymore. All these so-called 'best/worst' lists are so subjective it's not even worth it.
However, the spite to the 80's and 90s is so obvious it's disgusting. These damn rock critics are stuck on the Beatles and Rolling Stones. Sad really

[laz]

no tool (to me) == reviewer with no good tast in rock music.
Then again, I do not like the 80's at all, and was not even contious about music then (I was like 4). And seeing I was not alive in the 60's-70's, I do not know the more obsucre bands. Then again, I am listening to lesser known bands at the moment, and ignoring the filth that is the majority of the mainstream media.
Oh well.

[Cylob]

Originally posted by Twilightseer
However, the spite to the 80's and 90s is so obvious it's disgusting. These damn rock critics are stuck on the Beatles and Rolling Stones. Sad really

It's an unwritten law.

'Nobody will ever surpass The Beatles'
'No decade will ever suprass the 60's'

Well, BOLLOX and BOLLOX.

If I said Curve, My Bloody Valentine or The Cure were better than the Beatles, 99.9% of people would laugh. The unwritten law at work.....