Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

These lists are only as serious as we decide to make them. 🤷

There’s zero objectivity here, no actual criteria—just a vacuum where you'll inevitably find 90% of people claiming, for instance, that Nicki Minaj is just talentless garbage.

All animals are essentially equal, though some are just more equal than others. Heaven forbid anyone actually dares to touch upon the concept of true greatness.

I don't really get why everyone gets so worked up 🙂 when rolling stone puts out a list like this on their site. Personally, I actually find it pretty useful—it gives me a reason to pay attention to things I might otherwise just overlook. And honestly, whether I agree with their picks or not isn't even the point. 🤷

silvercanyon65 said:Honestly, Rolling Stone is only good for wiping your ass with. Even Pitchfork puts them to shame.

Look, even if they are total garbage, they’re still one of the biggest authorities on music criticism globally, whether you like it or not.
And any list put together by any critic or magazine is going to end up looking retarded without exception, based on all those reasons I’ve laid out in my previous posts.
But when it comes to pushing the Beatles, nobody does it quite like Rolling Stone.

restlesscobra11 said:Look, even if he's a total hack, he’s still one of those massive global music authorities you can't just ignore.
And honestly, any list put together by any critic or magazine is going to look brain-dead, no exceptions, for the exact reasons I've already laid out in my previous posts.
But when it comes to forcing the Beatles down everyone's throats, Rolling Stone really is in a league of its own.

But who actually considers these "authorities" or their lists seriously anyway? 🤷

At the end of the day, people just listen to whatever they want. But they'll definitely be trashing the Beatles and Rolling Stone.

silvercanyon65 said:But honestly, who actually respects this kind of authority? Who takes these lists and reviews seriously anyway? 🤷

At the end of the day, people just listen to whatever they feel like. But if you try to trash the Beatles or Rolling Stone, you're definitely going to hear about it.

I was actually talking about their specific album reviews, not these mindless lists and nonsense.

I’ve really gotten the impression that they favor the Rolling Stone just as much as the Beatles—honestly, it feels like they have to be number one on every single list they put out, and there's always at least three Beatles albums or songs tucked away in their top ten, no matter what the list is supposedly about.

Pretty solid list here for us to dig into and chat about. Original link is kind of a pain to scroll through, so I figured I'd just drop a quick rundown right here. Also, here's the Last.fm list with links and release years included, just to keep things easy.

This should definitely work for a new road trip playlist. 🙂 For those long hauls on the highway.

I put this list together based on those massive commercial hits—the kind of songs that get played so constantly you can't escape them. Just because they're everywhere doesn't mean they're actually the greatest songs ever written, nor does it suddenly transform Rolling Stone into some high-brow authority on musical genius.

It’s honestly kind of weird that their "all-time greats" lists are always filled with songs everyone already knows by heart. 🙄

I mean, Rolling Stone is a pretty decent, steady magazine. They definitely have some phenomenal eras. But man, the music they pick... I guess it's just how they roll.

Dylan is number one 🙂

That’s a pretty solid list with a ton of great picks. Of course, you can always find someone to nitpick a list like this since music is so incredibly subjective.

I feel like certain genres, countries, and eras got overlooked here. Also, I don't think Dylan deserves that top spot.

But hey, still a good list overall. 😁

"Proud Mary" isn't just missing from the top 10, man... it’s not even cracking the top 150 👎

If my math is correct, there are 59 artists represented in the top 100. Then again, lists are subjective. I suppose nobody is ever going to agree on this. If someone here only focused on their personal top 10 songs, we certainly wouldn't find any common ground.

By the time I scrolled all the way back up to number one, a few of them had definitely jumped around on the rankings 😁
...

Morgan Flores2 said:It’s honestly bizarre that their "all-time greatest" list is basically just a collection of songs everyone already knows by heart. 🙄

Rolling Stone is a pretty solid, steady magazine. They've had some truly phenomenal eras. It's interesting to see what kind of music a publication like that prioritizes.

Exactly—it's WEIRD. Because if we’re measuring how "great" a song is based on how long it sat at the top of the charts, then we aren't talking about quality; we're just talking about commercial success, right?
I mean, take "Smells Like Teen Spirit"—from a purely musical standpoint, it's pretty mediocre, yet somehow it lands at number 9 of all time?
And putting the minimalist, repetitive "Like a Rolling Stone" at the very top?
Or that little rock 'n' roll jumpstart "Johnny B. Goode" sitting at number 7?

There is a massive difference between discussing the biggest commercial hits or those influential tracks that hipsters love to shout about, and actually judging the quality of the songwriting.
Just because a song might have birthed an entirely new genre doesn't mean it isn't garbage. This list doesn't really have much to do with "best songs."

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of fantastic tracks on here, but the title itself is misleading. If they had called it "The 500 Most Influential Songs," I think it would actually make sense.

No Tot (Africa)

No Men at Work (down under)

No "Enjoy the Silence" from DM

Nah... no way.

rapidcyclist32 said:There's no Tot (Africa)

No Men at Work here either.

And you won't find Depeche Mode's "Enjoy the Silence" on this thing.

Man... nope.

Of course they aren't there; it all boils down to an obsession with the 60s and 70s. I'd bet my life savings that at least 80%—if not more—of these tracks come from those two decades.

The fact that the Beatles have 23 songs on this list is a massive red flag regarding how poorly thought out this whole thing is. Just look at the math: Elton John and Billy Joel both have dozens of tracks that are objectively better than 90% of what the Beatles contributed here. Yet, despite that, Elton only gets maybe four or five picks from his early 70s era, and Billy Joel only gets one single song. It just doesn't add up.

Raymond Walker5 said:Sure, it is WEIRD. I mean, if we are measuring popularity based on how long songs stayed on the charts, then we are talking about the most successful tracks, not necessarily the best ones, right?
Is "Smells Like Teen Spirit" really considered the 9th greatest song ever when, from a musical standpoint, it is pretty much garbage?
And putting the minimalist, repetitive "Like a Rolling Stone" at number one?
Or that rockabilly jump "Johnny B. Goode" at number seven?

It is one thing to talk about the biggest commercial hits or influential tracks—which hipsters love to shout about as being the "best"—but it is a completely different matter to discuss actual song quality.
Just because a song might have birthed an entirely new genre doesn't mean it isn't trash. This list doesn't really have anything to do with "the best songs."

That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of great tracks on here, but the title is just wrong. If they had called it "The 500 Most Influential," it might actually make sense.

But what about those of us who think "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Johnny B. Goode" are actually great songs? Personally, I don't even like Nirvana, nor am I a grunge fan.

On the other hand, I might actually put "Johnny B. Goode" in my own top 10. Not because of its influence, but because it is a perfect example of simplicity done right, and the lyrics are solid.

I don't get the need for such generalizations. You bring up Elton John and Billy Joel just to put other musicians down. To me, that seems purely ideological. I happen to love Billy Joel quite a bit. He probably would have a spot in my top 10 (Leningrad), but even he has some throwaway tracks that aren't as good as "Johnny B. Goode," even if they are still very good. I have nothing against songs like that.

Regarding rock and roll, the reason I find myself returning to that genre and the 50s is simply because they feel honest and relatable. It is hard to compare "Maybellene" to a poetic track by Dylan. Are we choosing songs based on technical composition or just pure feeling? I am going with the latter.

And as for Elton John 👍

Sam Fisher57 said:But what about those of us who think "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Johnny B. Goode" are absolute bangers? It’s not even that I’m a Nirvana devotee or particularly into the whole grunge scene.

On the other hand, I’d honestly put "Johnny B. Goode" in my own personal top 10. I’m not just saying that because of its influence; it’s truly a masterclass in perfect simplicity, and the lyrics actually hold up.

I don't really get why we're generalizing here. You bring up Elton John and Billy Joel just to knock other artists down a peg. To me, that feels purely ideological. For instance, I’m a huge fan of Billy Joel myself. I could probably slot one of his tracks into my top 10—maybe something like Leningrad—but even he has certain songs that feel a bit weaker to me compared to "Johnny B. Goode," even if they are still great. I have nothing against those kinds of tracks.

The thing about rock 'n' roll is that when I find myself gravitating back to that genre or the 50s, it's simply because it feels honest. There's a connection there. It’s tough to compare "Maybellene" to a poetic track by Dylan. Are we choosing songs based on how they were technically composed, or just based on the vibe they give off? Personally, I’m all about the feeling.

And regarding Elton John 👍

I’m just pointing out how flawed this list is and how much it misinterprets the music. I love The Beatles, sure, but including them is just proof of bias—it's following trends from fifty years ago rather than looking at the music objectively.

I suppose I agree. It’s just like when that same magazine put together their list of the greatest albums ever made, only to cram five or six records from The Beatles into the top ten. 🤣

Fale:

John Denver - Country Roads

The Fifth Dimension - Age of Aquarius

Scott McKenzie - San Francisco

Dexys Midnight Runners - Come On Eileen

Honestly, I was kind of hoping we'd see at least two or three tracks from Lionel Richie here.😕
It’s pretty surprising how thin the representation is for artists like Lionel Richie or Leonard Cohen—just feels a bit off.

Way too much Beach Boys for my taste.

Shout out to:

Joni Mitchell

Fleetwood Mac and Rhiannon

Even Glen Campbell snagged two spots, which is interesting.

Carole King

The Carpenters

Norman Greenbaum - Spirit in the Sky

James Taylor

I'm with Old Soul on this one—there’s definitely a heavy bias toward the 60s and 70s, especially when it comes to the soul and R&B acts from that era.
And then, of course, there's the usual mediocre stuff from The Rolling Stones.😉