Just saw the article online......yeah, it sucked (but what could i expect from the readers of RS). Of course they voted "Revolver" as the number one album of all time, but a large amount of sucky albums made the list.

For example:

"Music" by madonna (this album beat both "the velvet underground and nico" as well as "doolittle" by the pixies....FOR SHAME!!!!)

There are other countless sucky albums on this list, and of course the readers overlooked some of the truly great albums of the past and present:

"the kinks are the village green preservation society" by the kinks
"marquee moon" by television
"loveless" by my bloody valentine
"country life" by roxy music
"closer" by joy division
"crooked rain, crooked rain" by pavement
"the who sell out" by the who
"forever changes" by love......among countless other albums.

However, they did put "is this it" by the strokes, "the queen is dead" by the smiths, and "pinkerton" by weezer on the list which i suppose means that some of the readers have at least a 10th of a brain between them......

Man, Ray, just for a second I was going to have to say something. I read "There are other countless sucky albums on this list..." and then I completely skipped the rest of the sentence and saw "loveless" there and just for a second I thought you were dissing this masterpiece. Oh well, I need to take the time to read every word... good points though.

All I know is that both Definitely Maybe and Morning Glory are fairly high up, so I'm down with the list.

I'm not trying to challenge/annoy anyone, but...have you actually listened to these "sucky" albums? it just kind of bothers me. i'm not saying that the rolling stone list is right. if you have heard these albums, i respect your opinion. but i can't if you're just assuming. nothing personal, i just really believe in the principle.

I don't think the list is bad. There is very little that angers me. However, the cover with a picture of a topless Keith Richards is unacceptable.

Ray, I agree with you. This countdown reeks of bullshit. I do agree with about 2/3 of the albums that made it, but not the order. Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61, and Purple Rain were especially too low. Consequently, many were also way too high. Most notably: Nevermind. I love it, but #2 of ALL TIME? Give me a break! Same goes for Appetite for Destruction.

And then we had about 1/3 of this list that shouldn't be there at all, most notably:
Alanis - Jagged Little Pill
the Strokes - Is This It
Def Lep - Hysteria
Weezer - Maladroit
System of a Down - Toxicity
Mariah Carey - Daydream
Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory
RHCP - Californication
all Eminem albums
Radiohead - Kid A
U2 - All That You Can't Leave Behind
any greatest hits compilation (THEY'RE NOT ALBUMS!)

Basically, I don't think any album from the last 2 or 3 years should even be considered in something like this. An album has to stand up over a certain amount of time to be considered a classic. I mean, that new Eminem album isn't even 6 months old yet!


I was pleasantly surprised to see the following albums make it:

U2 - Zooropa: Generally considered a "failure" by "music critics" because it "didn't sound enough like U2." It has always been one of my favorite U2 albums. I didn't know others felt the same.

Miles Davis - Kind of Blue: The jazz album everyone loves to love.

Pearl Jam - Vitalogy: Again, this one seems to always be viewed as a failure, but I always loved it.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 6:59 am on Oct. 3, 2002)

Maybe it's a bit dated now, but I have no problems with Hysteria on the list. Practically every song on that album was a single and if it wasn't, it could have been. It was the first album I ever fell in love with. I'm surprised that you can appreciate Boston, but not Def Leppard. Cheesy, but undeniable.

I can live with Hysteria being on there much more easily than some of those others.

I guess my issue is that I never liked DL that much back in the old days, much less now. I don't know why. Boston has a certain geekiness that I'm drawn to, but DL always just seemed so tough and macho...

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 7:07 am on Oct. 3, 2002)

I was made furious by surprisingly little, but irked by plenty. Most noticably by Tragic Kingdom's being directly ahead of stuff I found important, but can't recall now. Its a long list! Did anyone find a list all on one page?

Will

i don't think rolling stone has the right to rate albums like that. there is a huge margin or error in there as well. do they honestly think we will walk around with this list as word passed down from god? i honestly don't care what rolling stone says what the best albums of all time are. i've never thought you could rate something like that. everyone has their favorites. when the wolrd stops making music then we can sit down and comtemplate this.

The list was the result of a poll of Rolling Stone's readers. The magazine didn't make up the list (though I have seen them [and Spin] make such lists before, and they are almost as bad).

There were too many shitty records rated way too high to name here. The ones that immediately come to mind are anything by Madonna, Linkin Park, Mariah Carey, etc.

The records rated too low are What's Going On, Highway 61, Bringing it all Back Home, Pet Sounds, Nevermind the Bollocks and VU&NPBAW.

Marquee Moon should have definitely been on there, maybe Loveless and definitely Arthur.

I can't remember: was Stankonia, The Chronic, or Rocket to Russia on there? If not, they should have been.

I agree that many albums need to stand the test of time before they're considered for such lists. Def Leppard deserve to be on there. Whether you want to admit it, Hysteria is a very important album.

Was Maladroit really on there? Are you kidding me? I mean, I dig it and all, but thats pathetic. Blue Album? Definitely! Pinkerton. Yeah, maybe. But Maladroit!?!

By the way, I have to admit that I do own Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory. Yeah, I know I'm losing cool points here, but I have to admit that I enjoy popping it in from time to time when I need something a little more aggressive to listen to. On the other hand, there's no way in hell it would make my *personal* top 100, much less top 100 of all time. I mean, for the most part, they're just amateurs who write lousy lyrics, but know how to play hard and do some admittedly cool stuff with their vocals. That's just my opinion, though.

The Rollingstone list always sucks like that so I'm not shocked when I see the list, I've got a cd with alot of The Pixies songs on it, but I don't know the names of the songs? I had downloaded alot of their music, and I had a cd burner put in my computer and the guy who put it in, just burnt all of the songs I had on my computer, even the ones my step-dad had downloaded, so you can hear Tori Amos- Cruicify then a Funkadelic song on some of my cd's now what can I do with that?

TOTALLY AGREE

I like how the Rolling Stone web page says "Features" all over it.. Yeah they know who should really be on that top 100 list.

Wait Keith Richards is on the cover? Does he have an oxygen tank on the cover with him?

genius, you REALLY need to invest in some pixies. i wpould say doolittle is in my top favorite records of all time, along with choirgirl hotel, so we probbaly have similar tastes. and duh, you like the features. anyway, get doolittle and/ or sufer rosa(for starters), i swear you won't regret it.

on a side note, fuck rollingstone.

I bought "Surfer Rosa" under the advice of a trusted friend, but it never found its way into my regular rotation of stuff. It just didn't get me. That ended my Pixies stint.

Well, I went home this weekend and and I got all of those CD'S that are mixed together, now all I have to deal with the task of listening to all of them I'm gonna find a Pixies Lyric page and see what I can do.

start with doolittle

if you want a nice career overview, "death to the pixies" should do the trick...but whatever.....

I actually just got that last night, coincidentally. I don't know much about the band (yet), but I think I made the right choice. The first disc is somewhat of a "greatest hits" with an emphasis on Doolittle. The second is a live show with a few overlapping tracks, but an expansion of the greatest hits as well. Good stuff!

my only complaint about the first disc is that it isnt long enough. it's only 44 minutes long. they could have added some songs like "alec eiffel" or "head on" (a jesus and mary chain cover) or some more stuff from "surfer rosa". But it is an amazing greatest hits compilation nonetheless, one of my absolute favorites of all time to be exact.

i bought that issue for the ryan adams interview...

the album list sucked goat...( imean...i'm not tryin to hate on nirvana and the beatles but COME ON..can we be more cliche?)

and we're not gonna even get on the topic of richards on the cover...cause that's just butt funk GROSS.

I've never heard it said more articulately...

ok, i agree with you somewhat. i think nirvana is cliched. i'm not saying that i don't like Nirvana. I'm just saying that Nevermind is overrated. The fact that it got number two instead of some other albums such as The Velvet Underground and Nico, The White Album, and London Calling makes me very upset. Besides, Nirvana's best album wasn't even on the list (Unplugged in NY).

The Beatles, on the other hand, are not cliched. They are the most influential band ever. Revolver deserves to be number one. It is perfect.

Just my opinion, don't mean to offend.

Agreed. Don't worry Rhinestone Cowboy...we ain't tryin to hate on ya playa...

I got that issue too, and I don't think that I ever commented on the cover. I will just say this...ewww. That cover definitely didn't rule me.

The Beatles are not cliched. They deserve the number one slot on every album list. They are the most influential and amazing band to ever exist. In my opinion, they should have the first ten or eleven slots because almost any one of their albums (even the lesser-brilliant ones) is better than most other bands' best album.

I agree about the Nirvana thing though. I always get upset when Nevermind gets number 2 on every poll about best albums. Yeah, it's good, I like it, but it's no alter to kneal at. In my opinion, even With the Beatles is better than Nevermind.

I would agree with that.
Nirvana would be nothing without the death of Kurt.
I have trouble with thinking about the Beatles best album when I try and label one as better than another. As soon as I decide on the White Album, Revolver and Rubber Soul and Sgt Pepper and Let It Be all come to hit me in the face.

Hmmm...I don't know about that, Juan Horsetown. I'll agree that his death definitely moved them to "legendary" status much more quickly than they otherwise would've been. But they were, uh, pretty freakin popular and esteemed *before* he died. And I thought that they were starting to go in a really interesting direction when he died. I think that they could've had a long, prolific career, not limited by the parameters of grunge's popularity, had Cobain not taken his life.

Having said all of that, I still do think that 'Nevermind' is over-rated.

Oh, and the Beatles rule. Is it a cliche that the earth is round, or that 2 + 2 = 4? Some things are just truth, and the Beatles' status as the best rock band ever is one of those things.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 1:27 am on Nov. 6, 2002)

Kurt's death is why Nirvana makes all those "greatest whatever" lists.

Without the death, then Nirvana probably would've stayed on the same plane as Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins, who are now both doomed to be eternally associated with one decade, kind of like Boston.

I disagree, YDDD. But I guess we'll never know, will we?

i agree with you, yadadada, in a roundabout way. yes, kurt's death elevated nirvana's status in the realm of rock, but they were also relatively important before his suicide happened...this reminds me of a conversation i had the other day....

the other day I was talking to a friend, and we were talking about two albums that were released weeks apart back in '91, one was "nevermind", the other was "slanted and enchanted" by pavement. at the time of their release one was considered the new direction of rock(nevermind), while the other was considered a nice experiment (slanted and enchanted). It's funny...... if you go back and listen to both of those albums, one sounds really dated (nevermind), while the other still sounds fresh and exciting upon every listen (slanted and enchanted). just an observation...

(Edited by ray davies at 7:55 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)

no...no...i was just saying that i think it's inevitable that those two bands will show up on lists like that...

the beatles are one of the best bands ever.
and nirvana is good too...

i don't know...i was just saying like it's expectable...and maybe i'm just more into unpredictability right now...

fuck i dunno what i mean...

like i said...i'm not hatin...
and i don't take offense to peoples opinion.
it's all good

oh, dont worry, i'm not "hatin' on ya", rhinestone cowboy. i'm just expressing my opinion, just as you did previously...so it's "all good"...

(Edited by ray davies at 8:29 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)

If Kurt hadn't died, that band would have broken up. Kurt was trying when it happened. Nirvana would have been gone and no one would have remembered them. There would be the hardcore fans, but that's about it.