Go to the NEW FORUM
It's all the way down at 146 on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 best albums, but is in the top 20 everywhere else. What is with that?? That shocked me, unless Rolling Stone is anti Radiohead, and anti Pink Floyd for that matter by putting Dark Side of the Moon at 43 when that should by default make the top 20 on any other list.
Rolling Stone's list of 500 best albums is one of the worst lists I've ever wasted time reading. Nothing more then trying to underline their misguided opinion that music stopped being good after London Calling was released.
Even worse, RS lost his interest in music shortly after “Blue".
Rolling Stone is an absoloute joke! It's the American equivilant of NME. It's all the same old cliched dribble at RS. I mean sure The Beatles were good, but they treat them as though they were the best thing by a mile, completely perfect and never put a foot wrong in their entire careers. News to you, sure they were the most influential, but they shouldn't just put them there, simply because it's The Beales. i mean they did a listy of the best covers and The White Albums was #3 and there were about 5 Beatles albums in the top 10.
RS should realise it's 2006 and not 1979
I am not bothered by the beatles being featured at the top of the list. Every single respectable band since then has looked up to the Beatles in some way shape or form. They started it all, and they deserve the recognition for the achievements they made in eight short years. The reason they are ranked so highly on all the lists is because they are the most influential rock band of all time and will never be replaced by something more powerful in the music business, and their music is simply great. And the fact that the people are recognizing them like this 40 years later says something within itself. And just out of curiosity, what would you personally feel deserves to be ranked above the beatles?
Comparing Rolling Stone to NME would be a meaningless thing.
NME keep searching for the "next big thing", only to write their previous favourites off as rubbish half a year later, whereas Rolling Stone gave up the idea of there ever being a "next big thing" in rock again around 1970.
it's a good list and I kinda stand by Rolling Stone's decision to neglect most albums that haven't reached the 10 year mark (though why they included No Doubt's Rock Steady is beyond me) because it'd be ridiculously difficult to try to estimate which albums will stand the test of time. I mean, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots is great and all but who's to say that it'll be seen as an influential masterpiece in twenty years? It's a good list for people looking for landmark albums (though I do agree that Ok Computer should at least have been higher than the Bends!).