Rolling Stone: 10 Greatest Albums of All Time

Duraddict · 08-07-2012, 08:17 AM

Heh. I'm just going to leave this thread alone. You've had enough run-ins with members of this forum. No need to continue this one.

blackdragon123 · 08-07-2012, 08:17 AM

Thanks for contributing

**Janszoon** · 08-07-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackdragon123

And as far as you being a Beatle hater. i couldnt care less whether you love them or hate them. You obviously hate Rolling Stone for being so "pushy" with you. Perhaps it's time to be less sensitive if a faceless magazine is intimidating you? Furthermore it seems that you have an issue with me. You've changed my name to "Ambassador Blackdragon from Rolling Stone"

Who is this comment addressed to? Like I mentioned to you before, it's helpful if you use the quote button.

Salami · 08-07-2012, 09:02 AM

Ok, now that argument is finished and everyone's kindly agreed not to waste anymore time on someone they disagree with on the internet, I felt like asking what kind of albums did they even expect to be on there in the first place? Also, perhaps more importantly, what albums could possibly be considered for these top ten places?

I'm sure everyone's got their own top ten lists of which no two are the same, but if you found yourself lumbered with the task of editing a tiresome old dinosaur rock publication, what could you possibly put up there?

Let's suppose for a moment you feel like putting up something that meant more to you because you grew up with it and you have memories of playing it on the beach with your friends as a teenager, obviously to you it's going to mean more than anything to you, but if it's something like, for instance, Screamadelica, or perhaps Tenacious D s/t, you're unlikely to get it accepted and unlikely to attract a broad audience.

It seems to me that if you are a true music fan and wish to find interesting, inspiring albums you haven't heard before or even heard of before, you don't ever head off to Rolling Stone.com. That's not it's purpose. It's really a repository of what is popularly accepted as being good. Whether or not such a site is of any use is another question.

However, I for one expected to see the same old albums up there, I saw the same old albums, forgot I'd seen them there but could still probably reel them off is asked. Whether these albums are any good is a different question, it's whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think anyone into reggae is going to like this much. I personally love Bob Dylan more than anything on this planet, and am perfectly satisfied to see Highway 61 Revisited up there. I find the Beatles shallow and uninteresting, it doesn't bother me that other people love them to bits.

If you want to see all your favourite albums written and ranked exactly as you want them, why don't you write them down and show us?

**Janszoon** · 08-07-2012, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salami

Ok, now that argument is finished and everyone's kindly agreed not to waste anymore time on someone they disagree with on the internet, I felt like asking what kind of albums did they even expect to be on there in the first place? Also, perhaps more importantly, what albums could possibly be considered for these top ten places?

Well, like I said in the very first reply to this thread, this is "just the kind of safe list I would expect from Rolling Stone". My critique here goes beyond this single list. I'm taking issue with the kind of thinking that leads to such a list in the first place. If Rolling Stone wants to make a "top ten rock albums from the 60s and 70s as chosen by old fuddy-duddies" list, I say go for it, just don't be disingenuous about what it really is.

Salami · 08-07-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Well, like I said in the very first reply to this thread, this is "just the kind of safe list I would expect from Rolling Stone". My critique here goes beyond this single list. I'm taking issue with the kind of thinking that leads to such a list in the first place. If Rolling Stone wants to make a "top ten rock albums from the 60s and 70s as chosen by old fuddy-duddies" list, I say go for it, just don't be disingenuous about what it really is.

Exactly, I suppose the desire to be as general and appeal to as many people as possible has resulted in exactly that list. They do shoot themselves in the foot a bit really because no-one who knows anything about music beyond the results of googling "greatest albums" will find this list fulfilling or worth reading properly.

Now with the "top ten rock albums from the 60s and 70s" idea, this will appeal to considerably less people than the rather elaborate "TOP 500 Albums EVER!!!" title. I imagine if the old fuddy-duddies in thirty year's time did themselves a list, Nirvana, Radiohead and New Order might be more prominent because they were the "good old days" for them.

Unknown Soldier · 08-07-2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Because the Rolling Stones don't have an extremely pushy bunch of people constantly screaming that they're greatest band ever in the history of music.

They do here in the UK, the amount of people I've had over the years telling me that the Stones are the greatest rock band ever, often defies belief. When I tell them that I really dislike the Stones, that is often greeted with a friendly "you have no taste in music type response"

**Janszoon** · 08-07-2012, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

They do here in the UK, the amount of people I've had over the years telling me that the Stones are the greatest rock band ever, often defies belief. When I tell them that I really dislike the Stones, that is often greeted with a friendly "you have no taste in music type response"

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I've never met one in real life, encountered one online or come across any music media with that viewpoint. The Beatles on the other hand...

Unknown Soldier · 08-07-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I've never met one in real life, encountered one online or come across any music media with that viewpoint. The Beatles on the other hand...

For every 10 people here that whine on how the Beatles are the best band in the history of rock, you'll probably find 7 people whining on that the Stones were the best ever. The point I'm making, is that the fans of both bands are mostly a fixed-minded bunch here. It just so happens that MB has far more Beatles fanboys whining on than Stones ones.

**Janszoon** · 08-07-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

For every 10 people here that whine on how the Beatles are the best band in the history of rock, you'll probably find 7 people whining on that the Stones were the best ever. The point I'm making, is that the fans of both bands are mostly a fixed-minded bunch here. It just so happens that MB has far more Beatles fanboys whining on than Stones ones.

Honestly, I don't think I have never witnessed this here.

View Poll Results: top 10 albums of all time?
Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band	12	17.65%
Pet Sounds	5	7.35%
Revolver	5	7.35%
Highway 61 Revisited	7	10.29%
Rubber Soul	2	2.94%
What's Going On?	4	5.88%
Exile on Main St.	4	5.88%
London Calling	10	14.71%
Blonde on Blonde	4	5.88%
The Beatles (The White Album)	7	10.29%
I hate all of them!	8	11.76%
Voters: 68. You may not vote on this poll

08-07-2012, 08:17 AM	#152 (permalink)
blackdragon123 don't be no bojangles Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Wales Posts: 496	Thanks for contributing __________________ 'Well, I'm a common working man, With a half of bitter, bread and jam, And if it pleases me, I'll put one on ya man, When the copper fades away!' - Jethro Tull Last edited by blackdragon123; 08-07-2012 at 08:26 AM.

08-07-2012, 09:02 AM	#154 (permalink)
Salami Get in ma belly Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 1,385	Ok, now that argument is finished and everyone's kindly agreed not to waste anymore time on someone they disagree with on the internet, I felt like asking what kind of albums did they even expect to be on there in the first place? Also, perhaps more importantly, what albums could possibly be considered for these top ten places? I'm sure everyone's got their own top ten lists of which no two are the same, but if you found yourself lumbered with the task of editing a tiresome old dinosaur rock publication, what could you possibly put up there? Let's suppose for a moment you feel like putting up something that meant more to you because you grew up with it and you have memories of playing it on the beach with your friends as a teenager, obviously to you it's going to mean more than anything to you, but if it's something like, for instance, Screamadelica, or perhaps Tenacious D s/t, you're unlikely to get it accepted and unlikely to attract a broad audience. It seems to me that if you are a true music fan and wish to find interesting, inspiring albums you haven't heard before or even heard of before, you don't ever head off to Rolling Stone.com. That's not it's purpose. It's really a repository of what is popularly accepted as being good. Whether or not such a site is of any use is another question. However, I for one expected to see the same old albums up there, I saw the same old albums, forgot I'd seen them there but could still probably reel them off is asked. Whether these albums are any good is a different question, it's whatever tickles your fancy. I don't think anyone into reggae is going to like this much. I personally love Bob Dylan more than anything on this planet, and am perfectly satisfied to see Highway 61 Revisited up there. I find the Beatles shallow and uninteresting, it doesn't bother me that other people love them to bits. If you want to see all your favourite albums written and ranked exactly as you want them, why don't you write them down and show us?