Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

These lists are always stupid. You can't rank music. I'm not a big fan of anything in the top 10 on this list and I should add I literally can't listen to Bob Dylan. I think his music is absolutely aweful. We're talking bottom of the barrel (although he might be one of the greatest lyric writers ever). Does this make me wrong? Does it mean I have awful taste in music? No. Like everyone else, I have my own taste in music which is the beauty of it. It's unique to each individual. Some songs are incredibly meaningful to some people, and meaningless to others. There is no right or wrong; greatest or worst. There is just music.

No "Number of the Beast"... but Def Leppard's "Pyromania?!?"

The'Zepplin albums are way out of order (it should have gone "Physical Grafitti," "Houses of the Holy," IV, and THEN the ST).

The Police albums are out of order ("Synchronicity" is better than the two older albums).

"Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall"should have ranked much higher on the list.

LINDA RONSTADT?!? Really?!?

Do these idiots actually listen to music, or just pick top selling albums randomly out of a ******* hat?

No "Number of the Beast"... but Def Leppard's "Pyromania?!?"

The'Zepplin albums are way out of order (it should have gone "Physical Grafitti," "Houses of the Holy," IV, and THEN the ST).

The Police albums are out of order ("Synchronicity" is better than the two older albums).

"Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall"should have ranked much higher on the list.

LINDA RONSTADT?!? Really?!?

Do these idiots actually listen to music, or just pick top selling albums randomly out of a ******* hat?

OrkHammer007

Have you actually listened to the specific Linda Ronstadt album that they list?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

And that is one of the reasons that I have become increasingly skeptical of numbered "greatest" lists. Surely if different albums shine for different reasons, why try to compare them to one another in such a way? In what regard does Dark Side of the Moon (a remarkably well constructed and polished album - it is essentially all one song) compare to, say, The Beatles (meaning The White Album, which, while full of great songs, does not hold together as anything more than a mish mesh of different genres and styles)? Surely some albums can stand out from the rest in terms of both quality and influence (as well as all the other factors you might think of), but why would they be directly comparable, especially those that were made during different psychological and creative paradgims of what it means to be an album? For instance, music might be one day unrecognizable from its current form, and the current music we praise now laughable (although we will always appreciate its influence). Sgt. Pepper's might get credit for transforming this very definition, as well as popularizing the idea of the concept album (which transcends the actual music), but being the defining moment does not make one being the greatest. Album oriented rock is still relatively young, and as technology and ideas evolve, it might evolve into something never imagined by anyone. What sense does it make comparing albums of remarkedly different time periods when what we think of an album may no longer be true in, say, 2055? I still say influence (and maybe nostalgia) is a key factor on the creating of such lists, perhaps more so than the other factors.

jetpower3

Would you like the list better if it wasn't ordered?

The more I think about it, the more I believe that recognizing albums/songs/artists for their respective contribution to each definable era and type of music (whatever the definitive measure is) in terms of quality, influence, and all other relevant factors would make a lot more sense than having an end all "greatest...of all time". "All time" in itself is a pretty silly statement, as time is constantly flowing and the entire list (and maybe even the concept) might look silly many, many years from now.

Yeah, "all time" is kind of bold claim, but they use that kind of phrase to hook people in.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

No "Number of the Beast"... but Def Leppard's "Pyromania?!?"

The'Zepplin albums are way out of order (it should have gone "Physical Grafitti," "Houses of the Holy," IV, and THEN the ST).

The Police albums are out of order ("Synchronicity" is better than the two older albums).

"Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall"should have ranked much higher on the list.

LINDA RONSTADT?!? Really?!?

Do these idiots actually listen to music, or just pick top selling albums randomly out of a ******* hat?

GreySeal9

Have you actually listened to the specific Linda Ronstadt album that they list?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

No "Number of the Beast"... but Def Leppard's "Pyromania?!?"

The'Zepplin albums are way out of order (it should have gone "Physical Grafitti," "Houses of the Holy," IV, and THEN the ST).

The Police albums are out of order ("Synchronicity" is better than the two older albums).

"Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wall"should have ranked much higher on the list.

LINDA RONSTADT?!? Really?!?

Do these idiots actually listen to music, or just pick top selling albums randomly out of a ******* hat?

OrkHammer007

Have you actually listened to the specific Linda Ronstadt album that they list?

But if you haven't listened to the album, I don't know how you can say it doesn't belong on the list.

I'm not even trying to defend her as I couldn't give two **** about Linda Ronstadt, I just think somebody has to actually listen to a record before they say that its placement on a list is outrageous.

Lots of subpar 3rd-tier bands and albums on that list.

Not surprised though. Rolling Stones' 100 Top Guitarists/Drummers is the exact same way.