22 responses Add your response
Agree the 'choice' of many is oodd, though all belong in the top 2,000...
Anyway, of the top 500 i own about 80% of them, either in LP or CD format. Purely by coincidnce.
One of my striking missing titles is PET Sounds by the Beach Boys.. I just never owned it. maybe i need to go buy a copy just for the Hell of it.
Otherwise i own the other top nine..
Only 80% of the top 500 is not hard when I own 6,000 Lps and another 3,000 CDs.
So out of my 9,000 albums, having 80% is sorta just average, hey?
This is an outrage! :-)
OF course Rolling Stone is biased towards a particular genre and demographic, ie rock music and baby boomers. What else would one expect?
Maybe they should just do the 500 greatest ROCK albums of all time. That's probably the extent of which they are qualified to make any sort of judgement.
Or one can say that at least they attempt to bring other genres into their rock/boomer centric world. That's pretty noble of them I would say. OR more likely, necessary to remain relevant in any shape or form still these days. :-)
I would not read anything more into it than that though. It is what it is.
Rolling Stone and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are also heavily biased towards mainstream music forms that derive from or resemble American roots music forms, like the blues primarily.
Even "art" rock bands like Yes, Genesis, The Moody Blues, Porcupine Tree Roxy Music and others that strive to break traditional music forms regularly largely get left by the wayside.
It is what it is. No hard feelings.
These lists usually end up being more of a list of the most popular 500 albums of great, but overplayed and way too familiar music. My top albums tend to be less well known and I play them sparingly to avoid ruining them for me. I want a top 500 list from a credible source where I dont recognise any of the names.
500 gives Rolling Stone enough room to do A LOT better:
-Their list has multiple titles from Miles Davis and Coltrane, has one Stan Getz and one Ornette Coleman (way before his peak).
LIST DOES NOT HAVE:
Art Ensemble of Chicago
Personal taste aside, RS failed to competently assemble another list.
The list has multiple titles from Roxy Music, Brian Eno and Pink Floyd and has single albums from Kraftwerk, Suicide, Sonic Youth, Captain Beefheart and My Bloody Valentine.
LIST DOES NOT HAVE:
Can (omission of Can is a sub zero I.Q. act of pants shitting)
Van der Graaf Generator
Henry Cow (or any Fred Frith)
Amon Duul II
Mahavishnu Orchestra (maybe even dumber than the Can omission)
List has multiple titles of Metallica, Black Sabbath AC/DC, Kiss, Def Leppard, Mott The Hoople, MC5, The Stooges, Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, Aerosmith, one Van Halen record and a Peter Wolf record.
LIST DOES NOT HAVE:
Blue Oyster Cult
The list does contain two Frank Zappa records, but both came out before 90% of his recorded output and well before the bulk of his best compositions were released.
Can't stomach going into detail about the whole list, but it seems likely that the first 500 discs thrown on the floor by a gang of chimps in a record store might have about the same ratio of slick formulaic flotsam. Thinking RS assembled a good list of the 500 greatest albums is kind of like thinking Geo. W. Bush was a good president.
These lists are really nothing to get excited about. Every person alive would come up with a different list of the 500 best.
If you are expecting a lot of post bop jazz to show up in a Rolling Stone 500 best, I'm not sure what you're thinking. Your time would be better spent reading DownBeat. Can you imagine Bob Dylan or the Stones showing up in a DownBeat best of? By chance, there's a Critic's Poll on DownBeat right now.
Check out the list, if there's something there that you like, read the review. If not, put it back in the rack and go home and listen to that death metal band you like so much and congratulate yourself on your good taste.
There is always Amazon for people who wish to be amateur reviewers. You can review individual albums and you can make up your own best of lists, and they'll be published on the web for the whole world to see. Don't get mad, have a go at it yourself.
It's apparent that when setting themselves up as a prominent oracle covering contemporary music, RS chose to rely on poorly informed opinions when putting together the "greatest 500 albums" list.
They put up multiple titles from Miles Davis and Coltrane and listed albums of Stan Getz and Ornette Coleman... when you have more than 490 slots left to fill, you gotta' be pretty damn ignorant not to list any records released by their peers.
Opinions aside, their list omits many albums that shaped the evolution of jazz and rock. Their assessment is very inaccurate and poorly serves readers and a lot of recording artists.
Last I heard, we still get to speak truth to power to some degree and are generally at liberty to point out incompetence when we see it.
Ranking albums and artists is inherently kinda' dumb, (trying to quantify something that is largely qualitative). The best we can can probably hope for is that the morons at RS can learn from their mistakes.