Go to the NEW FORUM
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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
"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.
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.