Rolling Stone Magazine's 100 Greatest Artists List

[Tommy Walker]

This is the best link to the list I could find (the Rolling Stone site only lets you see ten artists at a time):

http://www.listology.com/blindsider/list/rolling-stone-100-greatest-artists-all-time-immortals

It's as good of a list as you can hope for, all things considered. Certainly much, much better than VH1's, which included Beyonce and Coldplay in the top 100. Still, we all probably see things a little differently, so I thought I'd stir up some debate. I'll get the ball rolling...

Omissions (and how I'd objectively rank them):
Garth Brooks (25-50) - If you're gonna include country artists...country was not the "mainstream" genre it is today until he came along...
Creedence Clearwater Revival (50-75)
Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young (50-75)
Neil Diamond (75-100) - A pop artist, yes, but a very, very good one, and a top-notch songwriter as well...
Billy Joel (25-50)
Robert Johnson (25-50) - Hard for me to rank these types, but they were very generous with his contemporaries, while leaving him off altogether...
Pink Floyd (25-50) - Big surprise...prog rock gets no respect from critics...
Queen (50-75)
Rush (75-100) - See Pink Floyd...
Talking Heads (75-100) - The most important new wave act...
Van Halen (75-100) - Ushered in the dominant genre of an entire decade on the strength of one of the best guitar players of all-time...

Too high (Rolling Stone ranking):
Bob Marley (11) - Brought reggae to the masses, etc., but how important or influential is reggae? I only have issue because he is so high...
U2 (22) - Although they're still adding to their resume...
John Lennon (38) - For his solo work? No way...
Public Enemy (44)
Radiohead (73)
Gram Parsons (87) - Weird pick, especially if you look at his work with The Byrds separately, which Rolling Stone appears to be doing...

Too low (Rolling Stone ranking):
The Who (29)
Michael Jackson (35) - Not my favorite, but he should probably be higher...
David Bowie (39)
AC/DC (72)
Black Sabbath (85) - Once again, not my favorite, but they essentially invented a genre of music...

 

[ladyislingering]

Rolling Stone is essentially full of shit.

 

[Tommy Walker]

Rolling Stone is essentially full of shit.

How so? I consider it, along with Robert Christgau, to be one of the better music critics out there. Way less pretentious than Pitchfork, etc., way more credible than anything equally mainstream.

 

[Prime]

Rolling Stone don't do it based on talent, they do it based mostly on popularity. Furthermore, they're full of shit. All I see are artists that have been heard of before and before again. There are no underground artists, no new age artists, nothing.

 

[Tommy Walker]

Rolling Stone don't do it based on talent, they do it based mostly on popularity. Furthermore, they're full of shit. All I see are artists that have been heard of before and before again. There are no underground artists, no new age artists, nothing.

No, they base it primarily on influence. If they based it on popularity, ABBA, Barbra Streisand, and Bon Jovi, who have each sold well over 100 million albums, would be on the list. Instead, The Velvet Underground, who does not have a single platinum album or top 40 hit to their credit, is number 19. I will admit that Rolling Stone is biased toward older acts, but, given the weight they put on influence, this is understandable. It is impossible to say how much long-term influence a current or recent act will have.

 

[LG]

I don't put much credence in Rolling Stone and their "lists" anymore. They remind me of movie critics in some ways, being contrary for it's own sake.

About the only good that comes out of these lists is the musical discussion that follows and perhaps introducing someone to a new band they missed, or getting old dinosaurs like myself to listen to them again to see if I missed something the first time around.

 

[Prime]

No, they base it primarily on influence. If they based it on popularity, ABBA, Barbra Streisand, and Bon Jovi, who have each sold well over 100 million albums, would be on the list. Instead, The Velvet Underground, who does not have a single platinum album or top 40 hit to their credit, is number 19. I will admit that Rolling Stone is biased toward older acts, but, given the weight they put on influence, this is understandable. It is impossible to say how much long-term influence a current or recent act will have.

I can agree to that, they do consider influence from artists that they put on these lists. But that's completely biased if they're going to make a 100 greatest artists list. If they continuously make the lists based on influence, that sort of defeats the purpose of new bands trying to make it big. Making music is supposed to be about freedom and being able to make music the way you want.

The only reason I don't like rolling stone, is the fact that they somehow create a standard prerequisite for upcoming bands. I always get the feel they try and use the "if you're not this good, you're not great" concept. I could easily be wrong, but that's what I feel when I see Rolling Stone making these sorts of lists.

 

[Riff Raff]

I dont care what they consider good or bad artists, if I like them, thats what counts

 

[ladyislingering]

Rolling Stone don't do it based on talent, they do it based mostly on popularity. Furthermore, they're full of shit. All I see are artists that have been heard of before and before again. There are no underground artists, no new age artists, nothing.

There you go.
I forgot about this thread.

But that was the point I was going to make.
With RS, it's quantity over quality.

 

[snakes&ladders]

I wouldn't include Radiohead in any rock list....extremely OVERRated