Rolling Stones Magazine's Top 500 Songs list

[kirant]

http://www.metrolyrics.com/rs

Actually a pretty fair and well rounded list IMO.

[Beyond Birthday]

172. Dream On

336. Walk This Way

408. Sweet Emotion

[Tsukasa's_Lover]

Not one Miku Hatsune song. this list fails.

[Sa-mu]

7 years old and a look at the top 100 meant i'd have no surprise if it was 15 years old. I feel either no classic songs are getting made in the 21st Century or Rolling Stone just doesn't keep up with them.

These lists are pointless really, even if done well they'll just start arguments and people have to decide for themselves what is good.

[Z008MJ]

I disagree entierly, but to each their own.

[kirant]

Not one Miku Hatsune song. this list fails.
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/9/129153180892872807.jpg
In other words: I disagree with it, therefore it must fail.

7 years old and a look at the top 100 meant i'd have no surprise if it was 15 years old. I feel either no classic songs are getting made in the 21st Century or Rolling Stone just doesn't keep up with them.
It's the former for the most part. The Rolling Stone actually does a decent job keeping up with modern music.

[Lucky Flame]

84. Every Breath You Take - The Police

189. Stayin' Alive - Bee Gees

287. Pictures of You - The Cure

329. That's The Way Of The World - Earth, Wind & Fire

388. Roxanne - The Police

No Duran Duran on that list? Phht lol

After RS gave The Cure's Bloodflowers album a low score and their 2004 self-titled album a high score, I just sorta gave up on RS.

[Droote]

More like the 500 most popular songs, than the best songs.

[kirant]

More like the 500 most popular songs, than the best songs.

Debatable. Bruce Springsteen being so high is an argument for, while Ray Charles would argue against it.

[Sa-mu]

It's the former for the most part. The Rolling Stone actually does a decent job keeping up with modern music. Ok I have to admit i've never read the Rolling Stone but i'm tired of seeing 40 years old acts mentioned everywhere. Who are the modern day Beatles?

[kirant]

Ok I have to admit i've never read the Rolling Stone but i'm tired of seeing 40 years old acts mentioned everywhere. Who are the modern day Beatles?
http://www.notsuperhuman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/normal_headdesk.jpg

Let me have Wikipedia explain why the above statement makes little sense:

The Rolling Stone Magazine is "a US-based magazine devoted to music, politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner (who is still editor and publisher) and music critic Ralph J. Gleason."

The Rolling Stones are "an English rock band, formed in London in April 1962 by Brian Jones (guitars, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (vocals, harmonica) and Keith Richards (guitars)"

[VK-Skelton]

Bob Dylan & Marvin Gaye in top 10
The Clash, Bob Marley, Waterloo Sunset by the Kinks, Jimi Hendrix' cover of All Along the Watchtower, Heroes by David Bowie in top 50
Creedence Clearwater Revival in top 100
http://sadpanda.us/images/366181-TT18C44.png

[Sa-mu]

http://www.notsuperhuman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/normal_headdesk.jpg

Let me have Wikipedia explain why the above statement makes little sense:

The Rolling Stone Magazine is "a US-based magazine devoted to music, politics, and popular culture that is published every two weeks. Rolling Stone was founded in San Francisco in 1967 by Jann Wenner (who is still editor and publisher) and music critic Ralph J. Gleason."

The Rolling Stones are "an English rock band, formed in London in April 1962 by Brian Jones (guitars, harmonica), Ian Stewart (piano), Mick Jagger (vocals, harmonica) and Keith Richards (guitars)"I know that already and I don't see what in my statement suggested I didn't.

[VK-Skelton]

7 years old and a look at the top 100 meant i'd have no surprise if it was 15 years old. I feel either no classic songs are getting made in the 21st Century or Rolling Stone just doesn't keep up with them.

I think the problem is judging what's classic. It's easy to say that something from the 60s is a classic because, despite the advances in music and changing tastes, it's still accessible today. It's very hard to tell what songs that have come out recently will have the same staying power. For example, the Bay City Rollers were the biggest band in Britain after the Beatles split, at one point reaching world wide sucess. Despite this, they never feature in these sorts of lists, and are only ever mentioned nowadays in reference to the sorry state the British music industry was in between the fall of glam rock and the rise of punk rock. This could be why the latest songs on the list seem to be from the early 90s (about 10 years before the list was made).

[kirant]

I know that already and I don't see what in my statement suggested I didn't.

The fact that you mention 40 year old acts. There is no modern equivalent to the Beatles of days past. No band in the '90s has music that aged as well as their music. It's an extremely common opinion and likely why the "new music sucks" mentality exists period.