As the only one to vote for this song in the latest forum all-time songs poll, I suppose I should respond.

First, I'll say that it helps to have a massive, unrequited crush on Mary Weiss. It's all the worse because I know I'm not the type of guy she falls for (you know, "The Leader of the Pack" and all... I'm neither "good-bad" nor "evil,").

It's obviously less melodramatic than other Shadow Morton productions for the group, and as such is not necessarily the most representative of their classic work.

But "Give Him a Great Big Kiss" is superbly sing-songy, poppy, and proto-punky. (That intro "When I say I'm in love, you best believe I'm in love, L-U-V" somehow reminds me of the Ramones. I don't really know why.) There's a great energy to the song. The interplay between Mary and the rest of the Shangri-Las is fun (and likely the inspiration for Grease's "Summer Nights"). The background "da-da-da-da-das" are care-free and a little bratty, and in that sense pitch perfect.

We know from her other songs that Weiss is not always confident, but she does have a hard-earned wisdom for a teenager. But here she throws any worries away. There is absolutely no indication that her guy reciprocates her infatuation. Given her history, it's just as likely he is gonna use her and lose her. She doesn't care. She loudly declares her "luv," and is going to walk up to him and give him a great big kiss in the middle of the street right where he's strutting.

The girl group style of singing frequently grated, and Mary and the Shangri-Las were not afraid to take things to the edge with their voices. It signified to their core audience: "I'm a teenager just like you. I share your enthusiasms and concerns. I'm not worrying about pitch and tone and proper technique. Why should I worry about those things when there is this very cute boy right here." When done well, like in some of the Carole King and Ellie Greenwich composed numbers, a core emotional truth about that period of life predominates and it works effectively even for older listeners. There is no need for a beautiful voice girls, just make it a big one (particularly if you're going to be singing over a Spector or Morton production).

I don't think this will convince someone who is not taken with it after a few listens. If that style of singing annoys, than this song is not the one to convince you otherwise. But this is a bit of why I love the song.

I don't like RS lists, neither the first nore the last one, but mostly because I find them very narrow-minded and forgetting many masterpieces in favour of canonical classics. (6 Chuck Berry ? 5 Buddy Holly, Elton John and Drifters ? )

Any way, just to go back to your arguments, no matter how much I like those songs you have to explain to me how "Your song", "American Pie" or "Losing my religion" have (I quote you) "creativity, imagination (or) any real special caracteristic", since it seems that it is what matters for you.

It's not being critical or 'respectful' to never include any songs that aren't well known and thoroughly canonized. Every segment of the musical world that didn't at some point sell really well in America is completely left out and ignored.

To Rolling Stone, anything that isn't widely accessible and commercial isn't worth listening to.

Here's some statistics based on the 2004 poll (I can't find them for the 2010 one):

65.2% are from 1961-1979
9.6% are from 1991-2004

While I agree there's more great stuff from the former period than the latter, it's nowhere near a 7:1 margin.

To compare, for AM it's 52.2% from 1961-1979 and 20.3% from 1991-2008. Still a bit too unbalanced but far more reasonable.

Also, 159 of the 500 are from 19 acts.

And I strongly doubt there's a single song that wouldn't appear in a karaoke machine.

Well let's see...if "Crazy" is creative and imaginative just for being diferent from other songs out in 2006, then "Losing my Religion" can also be as creative and imaginative. The use of the mandolim, and the religious-poetic touch Stipe gave to the lyrics make the song completely different from every song released in 1991. WOW, we're putting "Losing my Religion" besides "Crazy"...man, talk about idiocy...

Ok I have to agree, "Your Song" and "American Pie" aren't that creative and imaginative, but the reason they're so critticaly acclaimed ("Your Song" mostly, #136 on the 2004 edition of this list) is because they have heart. That's basically one of the most important aspects of any song, if not the most. When you listen to these songs you can feel them deep inside you, and you don't get that from "Crazy", "Crazy in Love" or any of the crap they added to the list!

But there are great songs that don't touch you inside, like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Whole Lotta Love", but these songs automatically get credit for revolutionizing music forever...you know, exactly what "Crazy" didn't do. The song was unique, sure I agree with that, but if we start giving credit to songs just because they're unique there would be alot of crap on this list...

In my opinion, "Seven Nation Army" beats the crap out of "Crazy"! Jack White (a genius, by the way) reinvented the guitar with that whole album, not just with this song...

Man, we're actually comparing "Crazy" with these classics? Dude, talk about being crazy...

Your bias is clearly towards what would be described as "classic rock" or guitar-centered music. All of the songs that you mentioned as classics are representative of that style. The three in particular that you panned ("Crazy," Crazy in Love," and "Paper Planes") aren't. I think all this means is that you have a certain bias towards a certain branch of music. It's no secret that I love jangle pop and today's indie music scene - however, I can still see the merit of a song like "Smells Like Teen Spirit," even if I don't love the song myself. My advice to you: branch out a little more and don't be an elitist towards a certain type of music. It's fine if you like that stuff better than others, but to criticize everyone else for no sharing your tastes is ridiculous.

Summary: There's simple more to music than guitar-driven rock and that type of music can and should be just as acclaimed. Innovation and creativity in those fields means just as much as brilliance in "classic rock" and "classic rock revival" type music.

I get what you're saying, and after I was done reading your comment I was like "I respect that...", but it's not about being guitar-driven. Since when is "Your Song" guitar driven? It has piano and violins, nothing more.

"Imagine" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.
"Bridge Over Troubled Water" is another one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.
"Lose Yourself" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.
"Billie Jean" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.
"Without Me" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.
"Hey Jude" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven (ok, this one is arguable...)
"Stan" is one of my all time favorite songs, and it's not guitar-driven.

And I could go on, and on, and on! Actually, my favorite type of music is "piano/orchestra-driven" ballads. True, I prefer guitar-driven songs than crappy 2000's pop, but I don't just only like guitar-driven music. Sorry if I prefer actual instruments over computers and mixing machines...

People, i'm not trying to offend anyone, i'm stating what I think. You can flame me if you want, but I just don't get why young kids today prefer David Guetta over Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Bob Dylan or any other actual good artist from years ago (seriously, I showed a friend of mine these artists and he said to me they're shit compared to David Guetta). The only good thing about this is that he can make me laugh everytime I see him xD Owh god, David Guetta is awful...

Oh, and sorry for the repetitiveness of that part xD

WOW!!! Thanks Schwah for the wonderful explanation. I now plan to give the song at least two more listens and hope that others will as well.

Except your 3 Eminem examples, all the other are classic pop/rock, guitar-driven or not.

Anyway, that David Guetta speech is plain stupid, it's like saying that Prince and Bruce Springsteen suck since the 80s kids prefered listening to Lionel Richie, Bon Jovi, Phil Collins or Milli Vanilli. Try to find Guetta on the AM list, you won't ; try to find Crazy, it is ahead of "Your Song", which tend to think that an important number of critics think it is a great song (critics can be wrong, sure, but then don't base your argumentation on them when it is in your benefit).

I don't give a damn about Guetta, but there still are at least 50 artists of the past 20 years I'd like to listen to more than to Bob Dylan. Would I say then that Dylan is shitty, I surely won't. You are not "stating what you think", you are trolling ; there is a huge difference... I don't see why I even bother answering anyway.

Jack White reinvented the guitar into pop anachronism. After 2004, where are the guitar hits?

"Lose Yourself" falling off the list can be entirely blamed upon Eminem releasing a really terrible album last year, and it being very easy for the past 4 years to bash him. I'm sure if they conducted the poll right now, after the financial success of Recovery, Lose Yourself would be back on there.

Lose Yourself was one of the 3 00's songs that made RS's original list, and they follishly removed it (and rehab made it?) But like I said, that's what happens when you let Nick jonASS vote.

Eh, dude, I said kids nowadays prefer David Guetta over good stuff. That has nothing to do with what you just said. Kids in the 80's loved to listen to Prince and Bruce Springsteen, because they were great in both the 70's and 80's...but ok...

If you didn't know why you bothered writting the comment, maybe you shouldn't. I don't like to argue with people, but that last line was unnessessary.

Critics also say that "Poker Face" is one of the greatest rock songs of 2009...if I were you, I wouldn't trust them for now...

Kids didn't actually listen to the Beatles in the 60s. They made up names for them like 'The smart one', then they went to the shows and screamed so loud nobody could actually hear them.

95% of teenagers don't listen to music for the music. They listen to it cause they want to fit in with their friends and because they like the performers' stage personae and/or physical appearance. And they probably haven't heard anything written more than five years ago. Stuff you listen to as a teenager has little bearing on stuff you like after your musical taste matures and you branch out more. So why bother complaining about it?

I'm not a fan of modern dance-pop, but dismissing the entire style at face value, then attacking critics who don't isn't being very objective.

(I'm in the normal 5%) I hate teen pop completely. I don't see why it's given the acclaim it is. BUt, as Nassim said, critics have been wrong before. River Deep- Mountain High and You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' in the top 30?

I think this is an oversimplification of the tastes of teenagers. I think you are right that most (though not 95%) of teenagers listen to music because they want to fit in/like that the performers are cool. But most teenagers do have a sense of history; a majority of teenagers know Michael Jackson's hits and could tell you all about Biggie. Yes, most of my peers listen to, or at least know modern pop music, but only because those are the songs everyone knows; the rest of the time they listen to whatever suits them. Sometimes that's David Guetta, sometimes that's Band of Horses. I would say most teenagers understand that only a small number of pop hits have an indefinite shelf life; those are the songs that are going into "the canon". (For example, "Paper Planes", and "One More Time", etc.)

On the other side of the coin, some adults have terrible tastes, and they usually get worse with age. My mother turns up Foreigner's "Hot Blooded" every time it comes on the radio, and I cringe every time.

Being 14, I fell the need to responde to this, as I know about it.

I don't think they know Biggie, but MJ, yes.

I would say a majority of those who "listen to be cool" are boys, and that they usually listen to rappers, and "badasses" like Nirvana, Metalicca and GNR.

Most girls listen to pop, such as Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber (yuck). But, I will say that two of my friends (who are girls) love U2. Now I them everytime I hear "Mysterious Ways"after I saw one of them dance at our school dance.

As for "Hot Blooded", I am a fan.

I am definately the most musically inclined in my house.
My mom is a giant fan of Cheap Trick, but she hates Bob Dylan, Marley, the Who, and almost everything I listen to.
My brother is the worst, the only good stuff he likes is MJ and "Juicy".
I don't know much about my dad's musical taste, to be honest, all I know is he owns every Van Halen CD they ever released.
[/rant]

I was reading the introduction in the new edition of the Top 500, and it said that they calculated their top 500 based on the 2004 survey, as well as the Best of the 2000s survey.

With this criteria, I have a real problem understanding how "Lose Yourself" did not make the list, even though it made #166 in 2004, and #12 on the end of decade list?
And how U2's "Moment of Surrender" appears on the new list at #160, despite scoring lower than "Lose Yourself" in the end-of-decade list (at #36, no less)

I honestly think there were some errors in tabulating the results, and I cannot take this new list seriously.

OMG you're right, just checked it out myself. I can't belive this, the list is even shittier than I thought!

And I checked the list again, and I saw something that's...well...out of this world, to say the least. I was looking at the 400-500 and, after reaching #484 I turned to my brother and asked him: Is that "Cry Me A River"?

...

CCCCCCRRRRRRHHHAAAAAAIIIIIIIEEEE MIIIIIIEEEEHHHHHH A RRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!

We're the critics out of their minds?

482. "Since U Been Gone" – Kelly Clarkson
483. "White Rabbit" – Jefferson Airplane
484. "Cry Me a River" – Justin Timberlake
485. "Lady Marmalade" – Labelle
486. "Young Americans" – David Bowie

You kick "Lose Yourself" out of...the list, to...put fucking Cry Me A River?

No, no, no, no, god no! It can't be true! What are you saying? You're telling me Cry Me A River is better than that rap masterpice? ARE YOU MAD?!?!?

Sorry, rage moment xD

Moment of Surrender isn't close to some of U2's true masterpieces (Where the Streets Have no Name)
Cry Me a River and Since U Been Gone need to go.

And after blogging on RS for more than a year (I left in April when they redid everything), I can tell you they're f***ed up. They deleted every comment that wasn't about music, and they had like 10 posters who were bewyond obsessed with MJ (they thought Thriller, Billie Jean and MJ should be number 1 on each of their lists) Adn I'm pretty sure the the moderators of the blog posted giant praise for the lists.

It's absolutely better than all of those in my mind, by a long shot. All of those except for "Sweet Child o' Mine" are utterly dreadful in my book.



Yes, "Crazy in Love" is pretty terrible.



Not sure which "New Year's Day" is included. If it's U2, I'm all for it! The only other song I like from this whole list is "Paper Planes", another new track. Stuff like "American Pie" is just intolerable.

My $.02:

I never understood the fascination with 'Crazy' by Gnarls Barkley...I'd much rather see 'Crazy' by Seal. 'Crazy in Love' is utterly undeserving of any ranking, much less a high one, in my opinion, and the same for "Umbrella". I think the perspective of a few years will take the shine off two of today's reigning pop princesses (Beyonce and Rihanna, ftr). "Since U Been Gone" is a total misfire, and I predict it _will_ be gone in the next edition.

However, "Cry Me a River" does have a bit of creativity to it, so I don't have a problem including that one. I think Timberlake has proven himself to be a talented musician and can be forgiven for an inauspicious start with N'Sync.

M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" is certainly deserving...it's not a song I enjoy listening to, per say, but without a doubt it showcases ingenuity and musicianship, not to mention gripping lyrics. It is an important song, and deserves the acclaim it receives.

"Lose Yourself" is deserving, though I personally prefer "Without Me", which is truer to the style that name Marshall famous. I can accept "In Da Club", as 50 Cent is an important and influential rap artist.

Did no one else notice the inclusion of "Time to Pretend" at 493? Also, I think the omission of Arcade Fire was an oversight...I'd expect that to be corrected in their next edition.

For those "angry" about the results (you know who you are), take a deep breath and remember, RS is not the last word in music criticism, and they'll do another one in 5 years anyway. Make your own list, and submit it to the next all-time songs poll. I've been working on mine throughout this year...

nooooooooo, YOU suck!

Been waiting for things to die down before pointing this out:

Rolling Stone’s list is a massive marble monument. Construction on it began in 1967, it had definitively assumed its general shape by 1980, and was essentially complete by 1991. Additions to the monument after that time are basically interactive video screens and wifi hot spots, discreetly scattered here and there to draw in the kiddies.

(No, I don’t care if the list was actually put together in 2004; it’s of a piece with RS’s usual suspects.)

Similarly, with Spin (as their recent “Best Albums of the Last 25 Years” list amply shows): construction started in 1985 and, it hasn’t altered its general outlines since about 1995. And you know what? In 5 years, Pitchfork’s lists are going to start looking kind of quaint.

Anyone’s list has to be understood in the context that produced it. It’s not worth getting bent out of shape over which gargoyles have fallen off the façade.

Rolling Stone is spamming me even.

It's ridiculous. Every time I buy a concert from LiveNation I start getting Rolling Stone magazine. I've never paid for it. I try to cancel it and they won't. I email to ask them how to cancel it (And not get a new subscription next time I buy a concert), they start sending me email promotions too.

Rolling Stones aren't just rock music's archaeologists, they're spammers!

Top 10 Songs of the 2000’s:

1. “Lose Yourself”, Eminem (2002)
2. “Seven Nation Army”, The White Stripes (2003)
3. “Stan”, Eminem (2000)
4. “99 Problems”, Jay-Z (2001)
5. “Hey Ya”, Outkast (2003)
6. "Hurt", Johnny Cash (2002)
7. "Welcome To The Black Parade", My Chemical Romance (2006)
8. "Feel Good Inc.", Gorillaz (2005)
9. "American Idiot", Green Day (2001)
10. "Without Me", Eminem (2002)

There! This is what I think the 2000's were all about. I know there are 3 Eminem songs, but let me remind you that this same magazine put 4 beatles albums in top 10 of their 500 greatest albums...sooo...yeah xD

I would like to see Without Me there. The song is so much fun to listen to, and the lyrics only help to enhancen the mood. I love everything about the song, it just makes me wanna sing along to it.

American Idiot is not one of my favorites, but I enjoy the song. I understand why they put the song here, I mean, it's just another damn good song. And hey, at least Green Day use INSTRUMENTS!!!

Feel Good Inc...man, i love this song. I have never heard anything like it when I first heard it, it captivated me mainly because of the dramatic-silent-funny singing put into it. It feels fresh, I can't explain it xD

Now this is where people stare at me like "Dude, you like MCR? God, your such an emo tard!" And after that is when I stare to those people and say "Fuck you all!" because Welcome To The Black Parade is pure AWESOMENESS!!! I love everything about it, the instrumentals, the singing, the lyrics, the dark-opera atmosphere, everything. I know you can see alot of Queen in here, but thats what make them different from other bands of their time. God, I love this song =D

One of the greatest covers of all time, Hurt is the last masterpiece that the god of country gave to this world. My personal favorite of Johnny Cash, one of the greatest artists to walk this planet...

I have mixed feelings about Hey Ya. I don't like it, but I respect the fact that's just trying to be an entertaining song and overall enjoying rock song. It was in the 2004 edition of RS 500, and it definitely still deserves to be there.

Although I think Jay-Z is one of the most overrated rappers on the planet, 99 Problems is really damn good. Jay-Z's top moment, without a doubt.

A song that shatters every other rap song of the decade without breaking a sweat (besides Lose Yourself), Stan is truly a landmark in hip hop. A rap telling a story about a fucked up fanboy who ruins his life because of his role model. A song that can touch you, and even freak you out, this song changed my view of hip hop to a more serious, believable and beautiful view. One of the greatest songs ever written. Period.

I like Stan more, but I really love Seven Nation Army too. The song demands to be higher on the list (somewhere between 100-200) because of the underlined AWESOME guitar work put in this music. A guitar that sounds like a bass created the greatest riff of the decade, and put Jack White on the map as one of the greatest guitarists ever.

And here's the true masterpiece of the 2000's, Lose Yourself. It was RS's top of the decad song in it's 2004 edition of 500 greatest songs, but now in this new one, apparently, doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. I will never understand the thought process behind this decision.

Fuck "Crazy", fuck "Crazy In Love", fuck "Rehab", fuck "Paper Planes"...seriously...

Honestly, Rolling Stone has been irrelevant to me for years now... some of you need to calm down, i'd like to see some of the stuff i like inside the list too (believe me, even Ani DiFranco make the cut), but i know that won't happen, because it is RS, are we really surprised? I recognize that they have been huge supporters of some great rock music in the 90's (Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Liz phair, PJ Harvey to name a few), while being able to pick some underrated albums to make their lists (even Fiona Apple's made it, and that's a good thing), but then they left MPP out of the top 10 albums of 2009 and of the 100 of the 2000s (while adding 2 Kings of Leon albums and MGMT inside the top 20), they gave Joanna Newsom's Ys and Bjork's Debut 2 stars back in 2006 and 1993, they trashed Kate Bush during her 70s and even 80s day (aka before they realize she became the one of the best females of her generation), they gave Michelle Shocked's Short Sharp Shocked 1 star on their album guide, they constantly give 3.5 stars to uncountable albums every year, while giving 3 to every pop album that is around, unless you're Taylor Swift, Lady GaGa or Rihanna, they are the authors of some of the most misfired reviews of the 70s (and other decades too), they write two line reviews that run shorter than many of the tracks in Illinoise, they support everything Madonna ever did and basically the german version of every list of the magazine has been superior, so i don't waste my time with rolling stone anymore... i prefer AM, Pitchfork, Allmusic, a bunch of others, there's like 100 of them head and shoulders ahead of Rolling Stone.

And here's a turtle chasing a tomato!



hint: the most amazingly efficient antidote for your demise might be some "up yours, RS, I'm contributing my own 500 of sheer awesomeness to the next AMF song poll"... as far as i know, "we" still provide individual list sections for vanity issues..

God anyone who thinks "In Da Club" is better than "Lose Yourself" should probably kill themselves, I must say...

So these critics should kill themselves, right away xD

You seem violent.

Just a little...bit...xD

C'mon people, keep on posting your opinion about this matter, because what RS did to what was a great list (IMO) is just sad...

Just curious, but I've got to wonder how old you are. I pretty much had these exact feelings 4 or 5 years back where pretty much all I would listen to was "classic rock" and dismissed most everything else. I'm not really sure what finally hit me (probably this site to be honest), but once I started branching out a bit more on my music selection, I found a lot more to love.

"Fuck "Crazy", fuck "Crazy In Love", fuck "Rehab", fuck "Paper Planes"...seriously..."

Bar Rehab, I really really like those songs and they deserve to be mixing in with the Beatles and Dylan and Elvis and whoever. I question RS's motives for doing it though, it's as if someone went and said to them, "Hey your list looks like it was made in 1967!" and they reply by putting in a few token hits from the decade.

Losing Lose Yourself is a tragedy. I haven't ever had the time to listen to his albums but Eminem, Kanye and Linkin Park were the three artists that converted me from a "Top of the pops" guy to someone who took his music seriously.

THIS LIST IS FUCKING RETARDED!!! xD

I know that's not a true in-depth analysis, but what else can you say about a list that claims "Cry Me a River", "Rehab" and "Crazy in Love" are better than "Lose Yourself"...

Rolling Stone's list was always pretty bad, in the fact that was highly skewed toward dinosaur classic rock.

Oh, and synths are real instruments.

Excellent comments schleuse (as usual by the way). You gently managed to put some depth, context and perspective in a thread with maybe too much testosterone on it.

Are you a smurphy douchebag and hate people? Or you just enjoy life a little too much?

Well, there's a place for you on Rolling Stone magazine, where we make good lists and 7 years later we completely fuck them up xD

Hey - what's wrong with Rolling Stone?

If I want to buy a magazine to look at pretty naked women, I'll just admit it and buy pornography.

I just listened to Lose Yourself on Rhapsody. It's okay I guess. Not bad for a narcissistic hack who milks fake controversy to raise his sales.