Rolling Stone Magazine Top 500 Albums List
 

Yeh, so I picked up Rolling Stone Magazine today, and they have a huge feature, in which they list what they think the top 500 albums of all time are. Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Clubs Band by the Beatles got #1.

All in all, I would say it is a pretty decent list, but they neglected to add a lot of good punk music from the last few years. Definatly think they could have added some Blink, NOFX, ect. to it.

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

<font color=969696>The list sucks.

17. Nevermind, Nirvana = Ranking misplacement.</font>

Well, if they wanted to clinch it as a shitlist...

Well they do have the Clash, Ramones, and Sex Pistols in the top 50 so I doubt they're neglecting punk

Anyways I never really pay attention when people put lists out because too many people try to pass off opinion as fact nowadays

167. Master of Puppets, Metallica

I dunno, I probably would have placed this album higher personally. Apart from that its a reasonable list.

I've got 9 out of that 500. Guess my taste sucks. :p

Makes it a little hard to comment on the list. Odd that someone like Rage Against the Machine had two albums on it, though...

:o

That's not what he's talking about. He doesn't want Punk, he wants Blink and company.

meh. lists like that always piss people off

Especially since so much of the list seem like safe choices.

I have 27 out of the first page alone. Some of these records are essentials, others are pretty good albums, blah blah blah.

I object on principle to any list that uses Greatest Hits albums. Period.

It wouldn't make sense to have Blink and NOFX on there. While they may be popular for a while, they are in no way influential to any other band.

I think that's what they were trying to convey with the list...

<font color="#ccffcc">

yeah i mean if you look at , a lot of it is stuff that was released ages ago so it's kind of stood the test of time as well as different generations of music listeners. i'd be pretty disapointed if there was a lot or rescent stuff ranked up high just cause it must be hard to be original considering the amount that went before as well as no proof of staying power. i would probably take a list by rolling stone magazine more serious then most other lists that float around and a lot of names they mention early on is stuff a lot of casual people would mention if you asked them to rank what they thought were the best albums ever, at least in random discussions i've had.
</font>

<font color=969696>Was Death's "Leprosy" on there?</font>

Why should he let it go? Blink 182 do NOT belong ANYWHERE near a Top 500 ALL-Time Albums list.

<font color=teal>I've got 19 of them.</font>

I have 16. INCLUDING Elvis' s/t on a 1st run vinyl :cool:

I dared to say that Blink wasn't punk. Obviously, it's a high crime.

Blink is punk..by the new definition..but new doesn't always mean good..does it?

By some people's new definition.

True..this is all individually subjective.

Stop ruining every thread with your bitching about Blink 182 and "punk" bands.

Actually stop ruining threads period.

There was virtually no metal on there at all. All I remember seeing was Master of Puppets and the Black Album by Metallica and a few Sabbath albums. And a mainstream music magazine is hardly going to stick anything much less popular on there, are they? :p

God, you're such a crybaby.

And a fickle one at that.

<center><font color="#0080FF" face="Arial" Size="2">what the hell

blink and nofx have influenced a load of bands

nofx influenced blink, for a start...</font>

Um, ok?

Funny coming from the guy who does next to nothing on this board but whine about bands he hates.

I see what you just did.

It's called lying. Keep it up. Keep telling me I do nothing but bitch about bands I don't like. I kinda have thousands of posts not involving bands I don't like, but if you want to be such a crbaby you have to lie to have something to cry about, then go for it. Bawl your fickle little eyes out. I hope you can live your lie thoroughly enough to find comfort in it, you waste of space.

Funny how fast you go from sucking someone's cock to complaining about how "all they do is whine about bands they hate."

Cry some more.

Go on. Lie, and cry, and then go to your little pussy buddies to kiss it better. If that's all that you can be, you'll be a waste of time.

That was a great post.

Oops, look at that. I lied again. :nono:

Anyway, could you rewrite that? All of the tears in my eyes (from me crying LOL!) are compromising my vision!!

Maybe it's because I don't pay a whole lot of attention to that genre.

It's probably not my place to say they haven't influenced any bands - you would know better than me, anyway :o

****ing beatles

Just looking at the top 5 and I can already tell that list is shit.

42. The Doors, The Doors

should be higher IMO

61. Appetite for Destruction, Guns n' Roses

fsafjklhsjkl **** that, no way that should be higher than master of puppets

CCR should be higher.

Sabbath should be higher.

Sweet that Beastie Boys made the list, a lot of people dont realize the influence they've had.

T-Rex made the list :cool:

first Queen entrance I noticed was at 230 - thats bullshit.

i dont want to read the rest of that list.

I still can't believe Nirvana got in the top 20, and Iron Maiden wasn't even on the list.

Agreed. Thats really annoying. Of course if you take all of a bands best songs and put them on a one album, its gonna be better than an most origional albums.

<font color="#ccffcc">

agreed. also original albums have a certain "feel" about where a band is at a particular point of time and the songs are kind of there together for a reason, i think. greatest hits are too disjointed and it's kind of like cheating to use those to make lists such as these.
</font>

Shitty list.