rollingstone.com— Here's a sampling: #10. The Beatles ("The White Album"), The Beatles; #17. Nevermind, Nirvana; #43. The Dark Side of the Moon, Pink Floyd...
Sep 15, 2006View in Crawl 4
@noaliasMaybe you people who bitch so much about The Beatles etc. should learn some music and social history.And by the way, Strawberry Fields it's on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Why all the venom released on Nirvana? I am also a fan of almost all the top 500 bands (have the cd's & have seen half of them live), but Nirvana has the distinction of helping create and define a genre - most these other bands mentioned in the top 500 didn't. Guys like Springsteen are at their best when they draw out the raw esseense side of their talent (Thunder Road, Devils&dust, Your missing) and at their WORST when they sugar it up to get that pop side of their sound to sell more albums (Cover Me, Two Hearts, Dancing In The Dark). Nirvana never sugared it up to sellmore CD's. They're no Bealtles of Hendrix, but they were great - maybe only to people who had an open mind or were 20 at the time. The list is bogus to me too - looks like it mostly plays to the acchillies heel of RS: old wht rock and roll guys who were in H.S. in the 60's had the final say. If you asked 20, 30,40 year olds they would have a totally different list. 70 year olds would demand Bing Crosby and Sinatra be listed at #1 & 2. It's almost only relevant to the people making the list. The list is a good start, but has it's faults like any other list probably would.
Duuuude - VU were innovators, like them or not. I would have put pet sounds at #499, Beatles desrved 1 album in the top 20, but not 4.Plus, Billy Joel comes before Neil Young? Joel was nothing better than a pop whore (sans a few songs) and Young helped DEFINED grunge and garage, not to mention being the rare rock star who actually gives a good name to rock stars.
Bro - put down the bong and let your testosterone rise back up and slap you into reality: born/USA was too pop to be a serious rock ablum (as it was positioned to be - Nebraska or the Rising maybe). Also, Hole is awesome - don't be a chick rock hater. Read the lyrics to Celebrity Skin (Oh, look at my faceMy name is might have been...Hooker/waitress/model/actress) it's so raw and in your face like half of the guys on the top 500 list wish they were.London Calling - The Clash over-rated? This shows a shot of your "dinosaur rock hat" dead on. And the Pogues shouldn't be on the list - maybe maybe not, but they are great either way.But i have to give U props on your RUSH comment - they do deserve to be included - 2112 is a classic.
blueshrikeSep 16, 2006
No "Yes" on the list, at all. Sure, Whitney Houston's album is better... of course.These people don't know music.
deepdiggdudeSep 16, 2006
Also, where is YES, Close to the Edge? Fragile?
thedragontonySep 16, 2006
It isn't better than Norwegian Wood (This Bird has Flown)...
pakdirectSep 17, 2006
Thank you!A pure utter travesty; jay-z and eminem with no tupac.
billdoorSep 18, 2006
@noaliasMaybe you people who bitch so much about The Beatles etc. should learn some music and social history.And by the way, Strawberry Fields it's on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
addicted2musicSep 23, 2006
Why all the venom released on Nirvana? I am also a fan of almost all the top 500 bands (have the cd's & have seen half of them live), but Nirvana has the distinction of helping create and define a genre - most these other bands mentioned in the top 500 didn't. Guys like Springsteen are at their best when they draw out the raw esseense side of their talent (Thunder Road, Devils&dust, Your missing) and at their WORST when they sugar it up to get that pop side of their sound to sell more albums (Cover Me, Two Hearts, Dancing In The Dark). Nirvana never sugared it up to sellmore CD's. They're no Bealtles of Hendrix, but they were great - maybe only to people who had an open mind or were 20 at the time. The list is bogus to me too - looks like it mostly plays to the acchillies heel of RS: old wht rock and roll guys who were in H.S. in the 60's had the final say. If you asked 20, 30,40 year olds they would have a totally different list. 70 year olds would demand Bing Crosby and Sinatra be listed at #1 & 2. It's almost only relevant to the people making the list. The list is a good start, but has it's faults like any other list probably would.
addicted2musicSep 23, 2006
Duuuude - VU were innovators, like them or not. I would have put pet sounds at #499, Beatles desrved 1 album in the top 20, but not 4.Plus, Billy Joel comes before Neil Young? Joel was nothing better than a pop whore (sans a few songs) and Young helped DEFINED grunge and garage, not to mention being the rare rock star who actually gives a good name to rock stars.
addicted2musicSep 23, 2006
Bro - put down the bong and let your testosterone rise back up and slap you into reality: born/USA was too pop to be a serious rock ablum (as it was positioned to be - Nebraska or the Rising maybe). Also, Hole is awesome - don't be a chick rock hater. Read the lyrics to Celebrity Skin (Oh, look at my faceMy name is might have been...Hooker/waitress/model/actress) it's so raw and in your face like half of the guys on the top 500 list wish they were.London Calling - The Clash over-rated? This shows a shot of your "dinosaur rock hat" dead on. And the Pogues shouldn't be on the list - maybe maybe not, but they are great either way.But i have to give U props on your RUSH comment - they do deserve to be included - 2112 is a classic.
dollydollyJan 12, 2007
The RS list is pure crap!
diggclancyMay 6, 2008
great list! dugg!
jen1979Jul 24, 2008
Yeah, The Beatles are still great!
manwithnothumbzSep 1, 2008
Steve Vai isn't even on the list? What a joke.
aerobrokenNov 8, 2008
I never went through the whole list but also found it interesting that Queen never even made the top 50.