Ridiculous list. I don't care who came up with it. Too many great, talented musicians left off, and too many everyday, fair/good musicians included. Rolling Stone should have called it Rolling Stone Top 50 in the opinion of the guy we happened to give the assignment to....today. I'm going to come up with my own top 50 and I'm sure they'll be a lot less disagreement from Jet Punkers.
Don't know about this one, but some Rolling Stone lists are determined by reader polls. Their "top 100 guitarists of all time list" basically looks like "famous guitarists from the 60's, and then guitarists from readers' favorite bands."
There are inevitably going to be many 1960s acts on any all-time great pop music list, just as many 19th century novels are going to make any all-time great novels list and just as many 2000s and 2010s television shows are going to make any all-time great television series list. Those periods are generally regarded as being Golden Ages in their respective fields.
No argument here, but that doesn't change the fact that Rolling Stone has a definite bias toward that decade. Probably because that's when they were at the height of their own relevance as well.
It is the problem with any of these sort of lists "greatest... worst ... of all times" The other day I was looking for worst babynames ever given ( I was looking for a specefic one,,, you had adolf hitler, paycheck, and another one that was very bad) All I kept getting were lists with reasonably normal names. Like (cant remember them so making them up, but along the same lines) jennifar, marolynn, averly.
If you are looking for best/ worst lists, they are never gonna be satisfactory.
11/50. Where's the hell's Queen, Journey, Eric Clapton, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Sinatra, Aerosmith, Van Halen, Survivor, Rod Stewart, Whitney Houston, among others? Did Justin Bieber made this?
Its a decent list. Just like with all these kind of lists though it is completely subjective. We;d probably all agree on at least half the list and then make our own case for the next 25. Depends on your taste in music, your age, whether you place true innovators over stellar performers, and so on.
But its fun to talk about. So to throw in my 2 cents, how does Neil Young keep showing up on these lists (especially without Crosby Stills and Nash)? Queen took harmonies to a whole new level turning them inside out, upside down, and backwards. "Dark Side of the Moon" alone gets PF on the list. Janis Joplin must be a typo. And do we really need Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, Jerry lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard (all from the same genre) taking up one tenth of the whole list. Just sayin. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Madonna?
You could make a strong argument that Little Richard is one of the creators of rock music, alongside people like Chuck Berry, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and a few others. Without Little Richard there would be no Elvis, which means there would be no... most of this list. While there is a LOT wrong with this list, Little Richard being in the top 10 is one of the few things they got right.
All of these lists are subjective, true, but this one is just too dumb to merit a quiz. Rolling Stone is probably embarrassed they ever published the list. 10 years later, Nirvana and their 3-chord lack of talent REALLY look stupid on this list. Even Bieber makes more sense than them-- and I can't stand the guy. Yes to every other comment above about who is missing.
Sure, Nirvana is a bit overrated, but to deny their influence over the last 3 decades, particularly in the 1990's, is to be wilfully blind. Bieber meanwhile is already fading from relevance, and had nothing even remotely original about him in the first place.
I'd like to know which factors did the magazine take into account. I know for example that Blondie was much more successful than The Ramones or Patti Smith. Blondie won the NME Godlike Genius Award this year. They're so good that they are still here after 40 years.
This list just goes to show how little Rolling Stone knows about music. Because their list is so terrible, this is less a list of the top 50 musical acts ever, and more just a test of how well you know waht Rolling Stone thinks of music.
I'm an American grandma, and I can agree with your statement since I tend to pretty much agree with this list, although there were three or four on here I'd never heard of. Rolling Stone has changed through the years. I remember in the 1970s it totally dismissed Led Zeppelin, but I see it's on their list of greats today. You probably had to live through the 60s to understand what it meant to many of us back then. Most of us didn't have access to the underground papers from the day, (and many of us weren't even allowed to buy Rolling Stone at the time,) but it was available and most of us knew a friend of a friend who could pick up issues and pass them around to us at school and make us feel at least part of the hippie culture. Those were different times.
I was just joking, paraphrasing the front page catch phrase, which says "according to your father", which may not be true for anyone outside the US and under 25 (I'm actually 33). Sorry if it may have seem disrespectful. Anyway, I consider myself as a rock music fan but find much more satisfaction in the 70s and 80s european music, and the american bands I love (Blue Öyster Cult, Talking Heads, Pixies, Pearl Jam for example) are obviously not on RS's list, because they are a bit narrow-minded. The only ones I really like on this list are Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and... Madonna ;).
The Rolling Stone editors famously despise progressive or art rock, and revere the traditional oldies. Not surprising that Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke and Fats Domino are in their top 25. They took their bias to the point of absurdity by omitting Pink Floyd. Wasn't DSOTM the top selling album of all time?
According to Wikipedia, Dark Side of the Moon is the 4th highest-selling of all time, behind Michael Jackson's Thriller, The Eagles' Greatest Hits, and AC/DC's Back in Black. On the other hand, Mentalfloss has a VERY different list, and they seem to think that DSOTM isn't even Pink Floyd's best-selling album, listing The Wall ahead of it.
Though a solid progressive rock band and rather ingenious Pink Floyd are not one of the best musical acts of all time.
There studio albums were brilliant in there own way, but they were not the most influential of there time or even now.
Moreover they were not a great live band and were somewhat narrowly focused in terms of genre, while they pushed the boundries of progressive rock, they never looked beyond that.
Much like groups such as rundmc, black Sabbath, the offspring, duran duran. Floyd were a great band but just not one of the best of all time.
Of course some people will disagree, I really cant put Floyd along side the Beatles, Elton John, The Rev James Brown or the King
Apparently Rolling Stone is stuck somewhere in time with the Beatniks and Hippies. And I grew up in that era. "Top Acts Of All Time"?? What happened to the last 30 years?
Depends on which source you believe. I most commonly see Michael Jackson's Thriller listed as the best-selling album of all time (and I believe it to be true) with Eagles at #2. But some lists do claim that they're #1.
The fact that Queen and Pink Floyd aren't on this list is a disgrace. Freddie Mercury is hands down the greatest singer of all time and they have probably the two most widely played songs around the world; We Will Rock You and We Are the Champions. And the Floyd is there too along with the Stones, Beatles, Zeppelin and Bowie. Good grief!
it's astonishing that this list was compiled by Rolling Stone... no Kinks? Pink Floyd? Clapton? Jeff Beck? Beastie Boys? Wu-Tang? Biggie? 2pac? Radiohead? Massive Attack? Black Sabbath? Metallica? The Stooges? unreal.
Ridiculous list - it may be a "prestigious" music magazine, but it is their OPINIONS nonetheless. There is no basis in fact for this list: it's all to do with musical taste.
I'd nominate the Runaways as well. They didn't stick around long, but they were pretty influential and launched the solo careers of both Joan Jett and Lita Ford.
No Pink Floyd, Queen, Clapton, Deep Purple, AC/DC, ZZ Top, ELO. ELP, Diana Ross, Donna Summer ??????????? How come Bo Diddley made the list but B B King and Buddy Guy didn't. and as much as I love "Because the Night" what else did Patti Smith do that put her before the aforementioned.
The Band, Run DMC Public Enemy, Sly and the Family Stone was this list complied by Trump
If there's any comment to be made on how broken this list is, it's that several artists were only around for a few years. Hendrix was a great musician, but he had literally three albums. Lou Reed as a solo artist had a profound career, but The Velvet Underground had five albums, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could name one song off of them. The list heavily leans toward artists that died young or bands considered cool or innovative in a very dad-rock perspective, which means that some of the actual innovative artists are excluded from the list.
I'm especially tired of seeing Nirvana on these lists. They had three albums, and completely stole their shtick from Pixies.
Man I sucked on this one... only got 16 !! Seeing the answers there were only 6 that didnt mean anything to me..(all of which were amongst lowest guessed ones)
I did get the low scorers public enemy and everly brothers.
I'm not a big Eagles fan, but I'd put them on the list before a lot of the others. And apparently Rolling Stone didn't know music existed before rock and roll. I didn't see Sinatra or Crosby on the list. But they do put their token country singer (Johnny Cash) on the list, just to show how cool and well-informed they are. Rolling Stone is a joke.
@Crimsoniakc you must like that modern rock crap if it wasnt for the "outdated rockandrollers" was step the how the new ones made their sound so stop complaining
this is a rolling stone magazine list.... hence many oversights yet the DOUBLE INCLUSION of john lennon with and without the beatles. if anyone is unaware Jan Wenner (publisher of rolling stone) generally hates the entire genres of metal, punk, prog rock, etc. he also dosen;t care about most music before 1950. and only will give token endorsements of most music post-1975.... unless it sounds like classic era rock. on the other hand he personally worships lennon and the beatles to the point that he probably wakes up with the taste of lennon in his mouth. this whole list should be taken as indicative of nothing but the personal tastes of Jan Wenner
Lol this is such a bad list, not even that it's out of date but you can think of at least 25 or 30 that aren't on here that should be, eg. Billy Joel, Pink Floyd, Queen, Blondie, Clapton, AC/DC, Miles Davis, etc.
I know top fifty is very limited, but if you can't fit in Queen, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Eric Clapton and the Kinks then you don't have a very good list.
As far as supergroups go, The Band over Cream is laughable.
For real! Also so English-speaking centric - I consider some classical composers pretty astounding as well, especially for the impact in their times. Fun quiz but definitely subjective.
If you are looking for best/ worst lists, they are never gonna be satisfactory.
But its fun to talk about. So to throw in my 2 cents, how does Neil Young keep showing up on these lists (especially without Crosby Stills and Nash)? Queen took harmonies to a whole new level turning them inside out, upside down, and backwards. "Dark Side of the Moon" alone gets PF on the list. Janis Joplin must be a typo. And do we really need Fats Domino, Bo Diddley, Jerry lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard (all from the same genre) taking up one tenth of the whole list. Just sayin. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Madonna?
There studio albums were brilliant in there own way, but they were not the most influential of there time or even now.
Moreover they were not a great live band and were somewhat narrowly focused in terms of genre, while they pushed the boundries of progressive rock, they never looked beyond that.
Much like groups such as rundmc, black Sabbath, the offspring, duran duran. Floyd were a great band but just not one of the best of all time.
Of course some people will disagree, I really cant put Floyd along side the Beatles, Elton John, The Rev James Brown or the King
http://www.metrolyrics.com/hail-hail-rock-n-roll-lyrics-garland-jeffreys.html
The Band, Run DMC Public Enemy, Sly and the Family Stone was this list complied by Trump
I'm especially tired of seeing Nirvana on these lists. They had three albums, and completely stole their shtick from Pixies.
I did get the low scorers public enemy and everly brothers.
As far as supergroups go, The Band over Cream is laughable.