Rolling Stone's Updated Greatest Artists of All Time list

It seems to me that it got alot bigger since I last saw it. Did it only go to 50 last time? Anyway, this 100 artist list seems alot more comprehensive.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/the-beatles-19691231

People will whine about this list since people they don't like are on there, or their favorite artists are not here, or they actually put pop artists on there! (the list simply wouldn't be complete without a few pop stars), but it's pretty damn comprehensive, and the pictures are gorgeous. They perfectly capture the personalities/auras of the artists.

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Rolling Stone :lol:

Rolling Stone :lol:

CJL13

What's so bad about Rolling Stone?

I don't agree with alot of their reviews (but then again, agreeing with everything they write is never going to happen), but it's a pretty well put together magazine.

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

theone86

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

I agree that Fleetwood Mac hasn't done anything defining, but they do have a few classics and Dreams is a beautiful song.

I'm not sure how one even goes about making a GOAT list without being universal so to speak.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

GreySeal9

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

My only real gripes are Bowie and Neil Young are quite low.... Talking Heads at the very bottom! and no Nick Drake.

Other than that... its a standard list.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

theone86

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

Run DMC is one of the most important rap groups out there, they're like the Rolling Stones of rap. Ditto Sex Pistols for the punk movement. Ramones and Public Enemy I'd have to agree, but they were chart-toppers and that's what these kinds of lists go for. Radiohead has been one of the more innovative bands in recent times.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

GreySeal9

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Just out of curiosity, which groups are you talking about?

Only one for a young audience there is Radiohead... and them being there is totally justified, their significant output in the past 15 years needs no explaining... unless you just flat out don't like them.

You want to talk about singer songwriters like the Eagles... Tom Waits didn't even make the list.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

They have put out some great music IMO, and they definitely have classics, but I've never heard people list them as a defining artists of any genre, but just as a great band whose music stands the test of time.

But then again, I guess alot of other artists on this list are in the same boat.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Off the top of my head, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Sex Pistols, Ramones, and Radiohead. Now a couple I could see on the list, but not nearly as high as they had them. But also stuff like with the Eagles. The article says they had two of the best song wrighters of all time, plus they are one of the best selling artists of all time so they put them at 75? Seriously?

Pirate700

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Every time they "update" it they remove some of the older bands to make room for younger artists. It's a joke and I didn't even feel compelled to look at it.

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Off the top of my head, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Sex Pistols, Ramones, and Radiohead. Now a couple I could see on the list, but not nearly as high as they had them. But also stuff like with the Eagles. The article says they had two of the best song wrighters of all time, plus they are one of the best selling artists of all time so they put them at 75? Seriously?

Pirate700

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

That's a fair argument (the test of time argument, tho I don't know if it applies), but regardless of radio play (I honestly listen to the radio, so I don't know how much they're played), it would seem like a cardinal sin not to put rap pioneers on there.

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

deathtarget04

Bob Dylan would have been perfect if he remained a songwriter. Every time he opens his mouth I want to hit him with the Golden Gate bridge.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Horrible list. Fleetwood Mac aren't even on it? And the Eagles, Neil Young, Elton Joh, Pink Floyd, CCR and Michael Jackson are way, WAY too low...to the point of making the list a joke. There were "groups" on there that clearly were just put into the list to make the magazine and article appeal to a broader and younger audience.

Pirate700

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

I can think of maybe three off the top of my head, and I wouldn't say they were necessarily classic. Regardless, FWM never did anything to really change the direction of the music genre. They were kinda just different enough and hit at the right time, and there aren't a whole lot of current popular artists that are taking inspiration directly from them. Like I said, you can say that about some of the bands on there, but I think FWM is just a little too nichy to be thought of as one of the greatest artists on this list. Not trying to diss them, I really enjoy them personally, but I can see how they could be excluded.

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

deathtarget04

Genesis? Really?

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

joesh89

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Hey, man, come on, I've had a rough night and I hate the ****ing Eagles!

Anyways, Fleetwood Mac isn't that great, never done anything really defining. Then again never have a lot of those bands on the list, but appealing to broad audiences is what RS does.

theone86

I can think of maybe three off the top of my head, and I wouldn't say they were necessarily classic. Regardless, FWM never did anything to really change the direction of the music genre. They were kinda just different enough and hit at the right time, and there aren't a whole lot of current popular artists that are taking inspiration directly from them. Like I said, you can say that about some of the bands on there, but I think FWM is just a little too nichy to be thought of as one of the greatest artists on this list. Not trying to diss them, I really enjoy them personally, but I can see how they could be excluded.

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

theone86

Genesis? Really?

What's wrong with Genesis? I love their prog/prog pop hybrid period. And even the "poppy" albums had some really good songs on them. They just didn't make for very interesting albums taken as a whole.

That being said, I understand why they weren't on the list. They got good reviews, but were never seen as heavyweights in their genre.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

GreySeal9

Genesis? Really?

What's wrong with Genesis? I love their prog/prog pop hybrid period. And even the "poppy" albums had some really good songs on them. They just didn't make for very interesting albums taken as a whole.

That being said, I understand why they weren't on the list. They got good reviews, but were never seen as heavyweights in their genre.

Agreed. Genesis produced two of my favorite artists. Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins.

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]And how often are either played on the regular radio today? Almost never. If you don't stand the test of time, you shouldn't be on the list.

Pirate700

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

Popularity doesn't give you a right to the top 100. Artistic merit does, and Run DMC/Public enemy have stood the test of time, they're still highly influential and pioneers of their respective genre. What you did is what counts, not how many plays you still get on mainstream radio.

And I don't get the too mainstream for their genre comment... they brought rap to the mainstream, that's the point.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

GreySeal9

Genesis? Really?

What's wrong with Genesis? I love their prog/prog pop hybrid period. And even the "poppy" albums had some really good songs on them. They just didn't make for very interesting albums taken as a whole.

That being said, I understand why they weren't on the list. They got good reviews, but were never seen as heavyweights in their genre.

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

theone86

Genesis? Really?

Well their days with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett.

When Phil Collins took over that's when the band went to hell..

"Supper's Ready" alone should put Genesis on this list.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

joesh89

Popularity doesn't give you a right to the top 100. Artistic merit does, and Run DMC/Public enemy have stood the test of time, they're still highly influential and pioneers of their respective genre. What you did is what counts, not how many plays you still get on mainstream radio.

And I don't get the too mainstream for their genre comment... they brought rap to the mainstream, that's the point.

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]And how often are either played on the regular radio today? Almost never. If you don't stand the test of time, you shouldn't be on the list.

Pirate700

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

Do you listen to rap radio? I don't, but I do know that DMCare seen as like the godfathers of modern rap, to say they didn't stand the test of time is just wrong. Anyone who has appreciation for rap recognizes how important DMC are, the ones who don't are like the kids today that say that don't think the original bluesmasters are important anymore.

Public Enemy, though, I think the only thing they did was hit the scene at the right time. They're not really innovators, they're just popular imitators.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

deathtarget04

Genesis? Really?

Well their days with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett.

When Phil Collins took over that's when the band went to hell..

"Supper's Ready" alone should put Genesis on this list.

Steve Hackett. Now I want to listen to some GTR!

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

The thing about the articles is that they are only the opinion of the artists that wrote them, so yeah, there's going to be alot of bold subjective statements that people don't agree with.

The reason they put artists like Run DMC and Public Enemy and what not on there is because they have to represent all genres and Run DMC and Public Enemy are pretty much pioneers of rap.

joesh89

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

He has a point. While there is stuff that has stood the test of the time mainstream radio doesn't play, as far as oldies are concerned, they only play what people still want to hear. All the songs that were hits for a little while but everybody forgot about from the 60s/70s/80s/90s are not played anymore.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Genesis? Really?

Johnny_Rock

What's wrong with Genesis? I love their prog/prog pop hybrid period. And even the "poppy" albums had some really good songs on them. They just didn't make for very interesting albums taken as a whole.

That being said, I understand why they weren't on the list. They got good reviews, but were never seen as heavyweights in their genre.

Agreed. Genesis produced two of my favorite artists. Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins.

Glad to see a Genesis fan that doesn't slag off Phil.

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]In a top 100 list, IMO at least, you do have to factor popularity into it along with the other factors. Run DMC and Public Enemy were huge back in the 80s. They were mainstream for their genre. They aren't played on anything now. They didn't stand the test of time thus they shouldn't be on the list to me.

Pirate700

Popularity doesn't give you a right to the top 100. Artistic merit does, and Run DMC/Public enemy have stood the test of time, they're still highly influential and pioneers of their respective genre. What you did is what counts, not how many plays you still get on mainstream radio.

And I don't get the too mainstream for their genre comment... they brought rap to the mainstream, that's the point.

Yeah. You're simply not going to make a list like this if you're a nobody.

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

What's wrong with Genesis? I love their prog/prog pop hybrid period. And even the "poppy" albums had some really good songs on them. They just didn't make for very interesting albums taken as a whole.

That being said, I understand why they weren't on the list. They got good reviews, but were never seen as heavyweights in their genre.

GreySeal9

Agreed. Genesis produced two of my favorite artists. Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins.

Glad to see a Genesis fan that doesn't slag off Phil.

Lol, this thread induced me to play "Against all odds".

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]And how often are either played on the regular radio today? Almost never. If you don't stand the test of time, you shouldn't be on the list.

GreySeal9

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

He has a point. While there is stuff that has stood the test of the time mainstream radio doesn't play, as far as oldies are concerned, they only play what people still want to hear. All the songs that were hits for a little while but everybody forgot about from the 60s/70s/80s/90s are not played anymore.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]To say Fleetwood Mac didn't do anything defining is just flat out wrong. They had classic hit after hit. And to this day they are still super popular. That's exactly what a top artist is.

Pirate700

I can think of maybe three off the top of my head, and I wouldn't say they were necessarily classic. Regardless, FWM never did anything to really change the direction of the music genre. They were kinda just different enough and hit at the right time, and there aren't a whole lot of current popular artists that are taking inspiration directly from them. Like I said, you can say that about some of the bands on there, but I think FWM is just a little too nichy to be thought of as one of the greatest artists on this list. Not trying to diss them, I really enjoy them personally, but I can see how they could be excluded.

By nichy I mean they really had their own style that doesn't always mesh well with other styles. They never really got associated with any rock movement. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying it won't get you on this list.

Also where was Bob Seger on that list?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="deathtarget04"]

Hell yeah Bob Dylan #2.

Zepp at 14? Floyd at 51!?!?

Nirvana is 30 wow.

And I don't see Supertramp or Genesis.

Do they hate prog or something??

deathtarget04

Genesis? Really?

Well their days with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett.

When Phil Collins took over that's when the band went to hell..

"Supper's Ready" alone should put Genesis on this list.

I don't agree with that. My favorite Genesis songs are a split between Gabrielle songs and Collins songs.

A Trick of the Tail, Wind and Wuthering, Duke and Abacab (except for Who Dunnit, which is awful) were all great albums IMO. And Then There Were Three was a little weak musically tho. It doesn't sound quite finished.

And even after Abacab, they still put out some great songs, to the albums after that that weren't very good.

[QUOTE="joesh89"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]And how often are either played on the regular radio today? Almost never. If you don't stand the test of time, you shouldn't be on the list.

Pirate700

Implying mainstream radio = the test of time.

Also where was Bob Seger on that list?

Pirate700

Well, now that one's obvious, he's just not that good.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Also where was Bob Seger on that list?

theone86

Well, now that one's obvious, he's just not that good.