Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

Here’s the link:http://www.rollingstone.com/music/li...-time-20110407

So, what’s the verdict on this list? Which tracks do you think are total misses, and more importantly—which ones were robbed of a spot?

Where on earth am I supposed to find "everyone is singing, but I can't hear them" at number one!?????
🤷

Pure nonsense. There is no such thing as the greatest song ever written. That concept simply doesn't exist.

Honestly, the second I see names like Jay-Z or Kelly Clarkson pop up in a top ten list, I just lose all motivation to keep scrolling. It’s exhausting.

I’ve got nothing but contempt for the critics, the magazines, those "expert" lists, the supposed "authorities," and all that nonsense about being objective when describing art or ranking it... :blah: :bacam-hejt:

I haven't actually clicked through to the link, but I have two thoughts on this:

1) What hollowsailor48 is claiming is far too subjective to serve as any kind of legitimate metric.

2) We should strictly limit this discussion to the most successful tracks—those with the highest commercial sales. If that is indeed the standard being applied by Rolling Stone, then I fail to see the issue.

It’s never an easy task putting together lists like these because there’s always someone out there with a grievance, someone ready to start a fight over every single detail. But then again, while our little list might only reach a few hundred people, I suppose Rolling Stone reaches somewhere in the neighborhood of two million, doesn't it?

I honestly feel the same way—making lists like this is just a massive waste of time. I could get behind it if they just threw together a random bucket of 500 songs they think are great, but no, they actually had the nerve to rank them by "quality."

Honestly, I don't get how a magazine can exist without realizing how much people crave lists like this.
Look, publications need to have something genuinely engaging to offer,
otherwise, they're just going to struggle to move copies...

It is truly, utterly pathetic, though not because of the actual tracklist—I honestly can't bring myself to even click that link. It’s more that what this journalist has to say is completely and utterly inconsequential.

I noticed there's no mention of Mozart's pieces on this list. ☕
Honestly, lists like these always get under my skin—it just feels a bit silly, doesn't it? 🙄 If we were actually going to crown the greatest songs of all time, we’d need some sort of objective criteria to judge them by, and we'd certainly need to have listened to every single song ever recorded. Since this list fails on both counts, I find these types of rankings to be completely meaningless.

It is all just fodder for people to argue about "paradise"; it has nothing to do with the music itself.
Steve Morse explained this perfectly during his workshop at a club in Chicago back in 2010... I recall his exact sentiment, something along the lines of: "There is music and there are musicians, and then there is the music industry. I find the music industry repulsive, but without it, music doesn't function."
I assume those with enough intelligence will grasp exactly what he meant...

Rolling Stone is only good for wiping your ass. Honestly, even Pitchfork is better than them.

We’re talking about a magazine that hasn't bothered to refresh its rankings much in the last 40 years or so—their top 10 usually features the exact same roster of names, mostly icons whose careers kicked off back in the 60s. It's a publication that is far too obsessed with American-centric schemes and shows remarkably little interest in international artists—or even certain genres, for that matter. Because of this narrow focus, they've faced plenty of criticism over the years.

We’re also talking about a magazine that famously canned a writer in the mid-90s just because he wanted to pen a bad review—which, frankly, was deserved—for those then-emerging American pop-rock heroes Hootie & the Blowfish.

And what is the actual purpose of these lists? Well, as I mentioned, it's basically to give people something to bicker about so the magazine can keep the cash flowing. You always see a million comments scrolling by like "why isn't this person included?" 🙂 or "this one should have been at #2 instead of #5," 🙂 and so on. Then you have the types who treat these rankings like gospel, using them to decide which albums or artists are worth their time—I suppose 🤷though who actually keeps track of all these endless lists from various magazines and websites nowadays?

The absolute best one ever, if you ask me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGaTa2TwJ8k 😁 🙂

p.s. personally, I think USA is garbage.

Sophia Wells72 said:We’re talking about a magazine that hasn't bothered to refresh these kinds of lists in like 40 years, where the top 10 is always just the same old names from back in the 60s. It’s a mag that’s way too obsessed with US-centric schemes and gives zero love to international artists or different genres. That's why they get trashed so often.

We're talking about a publication that actually fired a guy in the mid-90s just because he wanted to write a bad review—which they totally deserved to write—for those then-newcomer US pop-rock heroes Hootie & the Blowfish.

And what's the point of these lists anyway? Like I said, it's just to stir the pot and make some cash. You always get a million comments like why isn't this guy here man 🙂, or this one should have been #2 instead of #5 🙂 and so on. Then you've got the people who treat their word like gospel and basically let them dictate which albums or artists they listen to, I guess 🤷. But honestly, who even keeps up with all this anymore? All these endless lists, magazines, websites...

Plus, they're "doubly" moronic. First, they pretend to be "objective"—everyone claims that, but please, it's a joke—and then they completely lose their minds and trash or worship certain artists based on whatever weird agenda they have going on.

It makes me think of Zeppelin, whom they basically spit on relentlessly. They claim they covered everyone ever, that they can't play, that Plant has an annoying voice, etc. Look, fine, Rolling Stone doesn't like them, and I'm not exactly a superfan myself, but at least have some damn dignity and admit the guys actually did something. They were one of the biggest, if not *the* biggest band in the world in their era, sold millions of records, sold out countless tours, and whatnot.

The whole concept of analyzing music through these mags and sites is just absurd to me. And when they start comparing songs and artists through these lists? Just wtf. 😕 How do they even come up with that, and why would anyone bother... 🤷

Because any actual analysis, comparison, or theoretical explanation has to be grounded in something concrete, in facts. But music is unique specifically because it boils down to pure emotion and vibes, with zero facts, evidence, or data involved. Trying to explain and judge music with logic is a textbook paradox. It's like trying to use a ruler to measure a feeling. That's it.

On top of all that, Rolling Stone is easily one of the worst. I probably only know a handful, but they really represent the worst of the bunch.

The best ever, right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGaTa2TwJ8k 😁 🙂

Look, I totally disagree. 🙂

Hey, man, do me a solid and break down these two things for me. Tell me exactly why you think one beats the other. ☕ And don't hold back—make it convincing. ☕

Look, let's be honest, USA is basically an institution designed to push specific artists for their own benefit.

Donna Castillo38 said:So why on earth aren't Mozart's pieces on this list? ☕

Mozart didn't write songs. ☕

Bradley Doyle5 said:It’s all just fodder for people looking for something to bicker about in paradise; it has absolutely nothing to do with actual music.
Steve Morse explained it perfectly during his workshop at a club in Chicago back in 2010... I recall his exact sentiment, something along these lines: "There is music, there are musicians, and then there is the music industry. Personally, I find the industry revolting, but without it, music simply doesn't function."
I suppose those with any actual intellect will grasp what the man was getting at...

I fail to see what constitutes intelligence in that statement. It is simply a fact.

Interestingly enough, the first two both feature "Rolling Stone" in the song title or the artist's name. What a coincidence, right?😁

silverseal17 said:Mozart didn't write songs. ☕

Exactly. Here is one perfect example.

By the way, it’s probably better that he isn't on the list; having him there would have been a genuine insult.

Haha, look, I have absolutely zero desire to head down to the ER, but you are completely conflating two entirely different issues here.

silverseal17 said:Haha, I’m not really looking to head over to the Off-Topic forum right now, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here.

Not quite. Lieder are songs, and if we’re being technical, you could even argue that arias fall under that umbrella too. But let's not get carried away with the side conversations; feel free to send me a DM or just start a new thread.