Talk:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Utter Load of Crap

Boy if this discussion doesn't prove Wiki can at times be an utter load of crap, I don't know what will. People can't spell, they make assertions they cannot in any way cite, they push personal opinions as corroborated fact, and so forth. OMG what a mess.

Back in the 60's, Rolling Stone Magazine was relevant. Since about 1980, they, and especially this list, have lost any relevance. Being controversial just for the sake of starting an argument is childish. There are so many great bands and albums ignored here and so many trivial artists included that it is almost a waste of time to whine about it.

Erased that mini-article criticising the list...

I have one question... I remember "Dookie" by Green Day being on the list (somewhere around 190-ish?), but it's not here? Am I mistaken in my memory, or is it intentionally left off, or just an innocent mistake? Thanks.

It's at #193, both on Rolling Stone's site, and on this list. --Arcadian 15:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Green Day album have been released after 1970? this is not acknowledged in the intro! Monkeyduck 17:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone altered an information on the top 10 and I just fixed it. It read that "Kerplunk!" by Green Day was the best album!

...and with quadrophenia at like 260 something, that should tell you everything. Paradoxically, I'd like to actually add a complaint that the list is too British. For a country of what, 60-70 mil, the Brits are way out of proportion compared to the Germans, Americans, Australians, and pretty much everyone else. Yeah, they were the home of some of the best, but for goodness sakes, how can you say America is overrepresented in comparison when there's 5 times the population!
It's got nothing to do with population, it's to do with how good an album (apparently) is. Just because theres 5 times as many people living in a country dosen't mean there are five times as many good albums recorded there. 74.65.39.59 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia has 20mil :| BurningZeppelin 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird Explanation

Anyone else having trouble understanding this explanation: "This list only contains artists who had at least 3 albums on the list and include the ones only at time of publication"

While I understand the criticism that this list is very British/American biased, I do not understand how Kraftwerk is the only non British/American album on the list? What about the Buena Vista Social Club?63.237.92.180 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess cause the list was getting really crowded with artists with 1/1 or 1/2 albums. That'll teach The Sex Pistols to only release one album...J.T. 01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue

Hi. I came to know this page through the translated page on Japanese Wikipedia which is recently created.

I have a question regarding the copyright status of this list.

I see U.S. courts have several cases dealing with copyrightability of works such as this list. For example, Eckes v. Card Prices Update (736 F.2d 859) was in part about the copyrightability of a list of premium v. non-premium baseball cards. And the Court's opinion says the following:

We have no doubt that appellants exercised selection, creativity and judgment in choosing among the 18,000 or so different baseball cards in order to determine which were the 5,000 premium cards. Accordingly, we believe that the Guide merits protection under the copyright laws.

I am not familiar with how this list was compiled. And if it was simply a result of a poll or sales figures, it might be okay. It would not be a product of creative activity. But if a group of experts got together and created this list, then this list could quite possibly be their copyright (or the Roling Stone's).

I checked their list on the web, but I could not find any information regarding the selection process. What I did find, though, was that their web page displays some ads. That seems to make this page a bit harder than otherwise to defend as a fair use. This page seems to undermine their page's commercial value if people can access a free version hosted here (or elsewhere by wikipedia mirrors).

Hope someone could respond. Thanks. Tomos 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but this is a blatant copyvio as far as I am concerned. A list such as telephone numbers may not be copyrightable in the US, but a list of the 'best' albums compiled by experts surely is. The Rolling Stone site says ©, and they make money off advertising as you say. I've added a copyvio template. --kingboyk 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The introduction doesn't seem to be a blatant copyright violation? I am totally unable to find that text on the webpage You gave. feydey 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, indeed. I've never done a copyvio template before so I assumed I would have to blank out the entire article. If you wish to restore the introduction go right ahead. --kingboyk 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think what should be done is anything salvageable or new content should go to List_of_Rolling_Stone's_500_Greatest_Albums_of_All_Time/Temp, until the matter is resolved. Sorry, as I said I'm new to this. --kingboyk 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and rediculous that Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon", the greatest album of all time to many, failed place anywhere near the top on this list.

  1. 45 is very good actually. Think of how many millions (?) of albums have been released. The Person Who Is Strange 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Person Who Is Strange (talk • contribs)

[edit] What about the book?!

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Rolling Stone Magazine published a book with a slightly different order last year?

I've noticed the listings on the website are different than the ones in the book (which I have) and I've been editing numbers based on the book, not knowing this until now. Maybe any reference to this list should reference both the book and the website, or at least which specify which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What copyright Infringement?

Are you guys serious?! You cannot copyright a list of album titles! The list was NOT compiled by experts anyhow, in the sense that it was a poll conducted and including votes from not just experts, but artists, producers etc. alike! What's the problem here?

Guys, hold up here. Are you seriously saying that this list a copyright infringement? C'mon, what kind of precedent are you setting? So what about these lists then:
and then of course what about the other lists in the Rolling Stone series:
There are many more examples of these kinds of lists and none of these are a copyright infringement. Could somebody please show me where this is breaching copyright, if not kindly remove the tag and restore the list.
This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.
-- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As I see the problem is that RS paid people to make desicions what albums are the best, so they have the copyright on the list. The list is not arbitrary, or compiled alphabetically or by sales figures. Also the other possible copyvios do not mean this list is in public domain. P.S. Top 100 Selling Albums of the 1970s is a list with no creative input, so it's not under copyright. feydey 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That was my point entirely. Indeed I'd imagine that it doesn't even matter if they paid people. They compiled the list with expert input, it's a subjective list not a factual one, therefore to my non-lawyer eyes it's copyright. It was my duty to tag it as such since the Wikimedia foundation is short of money as is without getting sued as well! Now at least we can have a proper discussion about it and hopefully a lawyer will speak up too. --kingboyk 05:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am under the opinion that US copyright laws are extremely idiotic and need to be rethought by the government. In Australia, there is no such thing as 'applying for copyright' or someone asking "is that copyrighted?" Once you have made something, it is yours and there is no need to register for copyright, you are the legal owner and have full copyright.

I'm not sure about US law, but if you are concerned about this article, link to the god dam original location. It's not hard.

--BigglesTheGreat 06:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RS's list would be copyrighted, but it would be fair use to use an excerpt of the list--in USA Today's write-up, they give the list's top 10, which seems about right. Nareek 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And then once you have ten, people are going to want to expand to twenty. Don't, please. This article is not a list, it's an article about a list, and the list itself is easily available via an external link. The article needs to encourage people to add substantive content. Mentioning where albums ranked should be limited to places where it's a natural part of the discussion, as is already beginning to be done. --Michael Snow 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit like saying that an article about Hamlet should include no quotes from Hamlet, because it's an article about a play, not a play--and because if you quote anything from it, people are going to want to quote the whole thing. Surely we can keep that slope from getting too slippery. There is no legal reason why we shouldn't provide readers with an excerpt, and there's nothing unencyclopedic about it either--just as there was nothing un-newspaperlike in USA Today doing the same thing. Nareek 04:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You should note that I did not say we "should include no quotes" from the list. In fact, I recommended quoting the list in places where it's appropriate for the discussion. But there needs to be an editorial reason to quote it, otherwise people should just go to the external link where they can get it from the horse's mouth. "Just because I can" and "Well, I feel like copying part of the list" are not appropriate justifications. Wikipedia policy strongly favors free content, so if you want to claim fair use in order to add non-free content, you better have a good argument for it.
Naturally, the precise order of some of the top albums might be a place where critics would focus a lot of their attention. So incorporate some of that discussion into the article and this will take care of itself. --Michael Snow 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The justification is that I think you would give readers a much better idea of what the subject of the article is like by providing a brief excerpt than by not providing an excerpt. But let's see what other folks have to say. Nareek 07:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the top 10 only with a link to the other 490 is appropriate. It gives some context about why there's controversy about US/UK and generational bias without quoting the whole thing and causing copyright concerns.GBrady (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten?

The part at the bottom about the top 10 seems wrong. There is no Sly and the Family stone on the top ten?

The top ten are Beatles, Beach Boys, Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Clash, Stones

[edit] Deletion

  • If there is no list (and I accept there can be no list, even though i think that is ridiculous) should this article be deleted? It is not particularly interesting to have an article saying "Music magazine X made a top 500 songs list...", since it is not a particularly revolutionary thing for a music magazine to do. There is only so much "substantive information" that can ever be added, none of it interesting or encyclopaedic. We don't need an article about every article ever printed in Rolling Stone, which is essentially what this is. Nothing unique or special about it, compared to either other Rolling Stone articles or other music magazine top X lists. Why do we need it? Jdcooper 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The list is helpful as an NPOV way of establishing that various rock albums are taken seriously. Having an article about the list rather than linking to it from the albums directly allows us to contextualize it a bit. Nareek 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it NPOV to have an article about Rolling Stone's list, and ignore the other similar lists that have been made by other music magazines. That asserts a POV emphasis on Rolling Stone's list as more valuable. Maybe we could rewrite this to remove the Rolling Stone bias and talk about greatest album lists in general, and their importance to the music industry and individual artists? Jdcooper 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should remain, although it would benefit from some rewriting. Rolling Stone is one of the most famous and credible sources on rock music, and this list represents a huge moment in the magazine's life, where its essence is captured, summarized, and presented to the world. I think a case could be made that this event is worth noting on wikipedia, and the argument that it justifies a wikipedia entry for every rolling stone article (or every magazine "best of" list) is a bit far-fetched.

My biggest problem with this article is the extent to which it tries to present the list as opinionated, limited in genre, and non-definitive. These aspects are implicit in the nature of the list; it is a rock and roll journal, and hence the list should emphasize rock acts; it deals with "best" albums, meaning it is inherently opinionated; and, as a collection of opinions, it is obviously not "definitive". Why the author thought it was necessary to make these points explicit is beyond me, but it weakens the article. Gyllstromk 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism"

It is not enough to point out things wrong with the list. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and they are all full of shit. We must include RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES to back up these criticisms or they cannot stay. This would presumably be articles criticising the list from other reputable music magazines, online or otherwise, and not just miscellaneous blogs or someone's livejournal. Please help sort this problem out, its a major problem with the article at the moment. Jdcooper 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Most if not all of the criticisms can be reframed as factual observations--if you remove the word "too" from them, you're halfway there. Nareek 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but then if they aren't criticisms at all and just factual observations then how do we decide which factual observations are interesting, and which omitted bands are worthy of mentions? Jdcooper 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As Gamaliel said in his edit summary, "the section is called "criticism", not "facts about the list". what is needed is not verification or citation of these facts, but that there was criticism of the list on the basis of these facts)". This is the reason, for example, that the statistics at the bottom of the article do not need citations, because their validity can be seen just by looking at the list. How is it an obvious fact that "the list is too America-centric"? That is the individual opinion of whoever first put that sentence in the article. Someone else might think it is not America-centric enough? The fact that it is in the "criticism" section, and not "arbitrary-selected facts about the list" is crucial here. What's more, i have had a look around, I can't find any sources to back up any of these criticisms (which is annoying, because i know i have read some), if these can't be found in a couple of days the section shouldn't really stay, the tags have been up for quite a while now. Jdcooper 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I think that much of the section could be reframed as facts about the list rather than criticisms. I haven't had much WP time lately, otherwise I would have done it. Nareek 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Facts about the list" would be inherently POV, technically there are infinite "facts about the list", so the exact nature of the facts included could not help but show the bias of the person adding them, and to identify some facts as more important would also probably count as original research. A criticism section is completely fine, there was a lot of criticism (as there naturally would be for a high-profile subjective feature such as this), and very useful, but it just needs to be sourced. Jdcooper 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is much improved since the last time I looked at it. I just want to note for the record that WP is all about selecting which facts out of the infinite number of facts out there are significant. If that's OR, than all of WP is OR. Nareek 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It is better now because we took the original research out. Selecting which facts are significant is the job of community consensus, but for something to be a fact it must be sourced, with the "criticism" section wasn't. WP is sourced, and is therefore not OR. OR is POV presented as significant fact. Jdcooper 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Nareek, have you ever thought that maybe 60's and 70's music was better rather than it being a bias? The Person Who Is Strange 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Biases inherent in the list are certainly noteworthy, regardless of whether or not anyone else has criticized the list on this basis. It is true that too much exploration of this would represent be original research, but a statement or two that list was biased to Western culture and 60's and 70's musical styles is a very interesting fact that should be included in this article. andrewlargemanjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.218.43 (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Applying academic standards of art criticism to a Rolling Stone list is somewhat difficult as few music scholars would consider popular music to be worthy of critical attention. That having been said, however, in any art history class that you might take, whether it be the Humanities of Western Civilization or the Humanities of Asia, etc., you will see that history judges the high points of civilization and identifies them as golden ages of a culture's artistic and intellectual acheivement. Many music critics have stated that the 60's were a golden age of musical achievement in the genre of rock music, and that it has been in decline ever since. History is going to judge the music based on its artisitic merit. What many call great music might be great in some other context. It might be great party music. It might be great dance music; but it is not great art. The post WWII economic boom gave us a generation that was largely able to obtain a college education. Art was important to the sixties generation, whether painting, poetry, or music. While much of the music was loud and rebellious, the subsequent movements emphasized loudness, then dance, then rebelliousness, among other themes that were crosscurrents. It should also be noted that the list is in the context of the music industry covered by the magazine - the US rock album market. Thus it does not slight Beethoven or other world artists functioning in different genres by not including them in the list. jkolak 3/11/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.175.100 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Velvet Underground

While I wish Squeeze had never been made as much as the next person, it was, and I reckon it counts as a Velvet Underground album, as per the Velvet Underground article, so the 4/5 figure is correct. Jdcooper 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was asked to state my opinion. You can't just pick which albums you want to count. 'Squeeze' was released in 1973 and is an official studio album and is not on the list, so 4/5 is correct. J.T. 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, The Who are listed with Keith Moon and without, could it be changed to 4/4 (with Lou Reed) in a similar way? Kingcobweb 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, Good Idea

[edit] The Modern Lovers

Do The Modern Lovers count as having a one hundred percent ratio? I know Jonathan Richman kept using the band name on subsequent albums, but with no original members besides him. It was credited as "Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers." On allmusic.com and on wikipedia, they count their debut studio album as their only one. 14:24, 29, June 2006

You may recall that Wikipedia only considered those artists with at least three albums; therefore, The Modern Lovers, with only one album as you say, would not be considered.63.237.92.180 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that if an artist continues with the band name, then the album is that bands album regardless of the members of the band contributing (it was not counted that way for any of the other artists.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeppelin

In the percentage list, they have 5/8; however, I'm pretty sure they have 9 albums (which makes 5/9, .5555(REPEATBARPLZ), or 55.555(REPEATBARPLZ)%. Is Coda not being counted or something? Sykil 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem

For Eminem, does the 8 Mile Soundtrack count as an album? Otherwise, his percentage would be 3/3. J.T. 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it would. There's only 2 songs on it that are his, or something like that. Cine 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a single artist composes the entire soundtrack, I don't see it as being that artist's album. It would merit inclusion under a "other releases" section of a discography but we don't typically consider SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER to be a Bee Gees album, for example, even though there are several Bee Gees songs on it.GBrady (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stones

The Stones have released 25 albums of original music in the U.S. and 23 in the UK so which should count for this article?

[edit] Guns N' Roses

In the "Artists with the most albums in the list" list, it says that GN'R has "5 with 2 in the top ten", which either is a huge mistake, or I have misunderstood something. They have no albums in the top 10. --Pueben 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Smiths

Their self-titled debut, Meat Is Murder, The Queen Is Dead, Strangeways Here We Come are the studio albums -- Hatful of Hollow, The World Won't Listen, Louder Than Bombs are non-greatest hits compilations. This would make their representation at the most 4/6 (if you don't want to count TWWL, since it's been mostly substituted in most markets by LTB), & not 4/5. If you wanted to count Rank, it would be 4/8. This needs to be fixed, though I'm not sure who should verify this, so I'll wait. Anthonylombardi 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, apart from MIM, TQID and the self titled, what other albums made the list? Strangeways doesn't have it on its page, neither do the others. And if it is Strangeways, I think the list should be 4/4.
MIM, TQID, LTB, & the self-titeld debut are each on there -- SHWC isn't, neither is TWWL or HOH, so it should be 4/7; if you count Rank, then it's 4/8. Since there are plenty of other live albums included (i.e. Nirvana's Unplugged in New York), I am going to take the liberty of changing it to 4/8 & 50% right now. If anyone would like to change it, please reply here & let me know what's going on. Anthonylombardi 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Listing

I know this is the wrong place to post it, but this is the most appropriate place I can think of. #344 is listed as being the album "Berlin" by Lou Reed. But if you check the website, #344 is "Piece of My Heart" by Big Brother and the Holding Company. In fact, no Lou Reed solo album is anywhere on that list (mistakenly, IM-not-so-HO). So, uh... how do you change that?


"Piece of My Heart" by Big Brother & the Holding Company is #344 on the song list, not the album list. Lou Reed has two albums on the list--#194, Transformer and, yes, #344, Berlin.63.237.92.162 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

The list itself isn't copyrighted at all. What is copyrighted though is the book. It's a massive book and each album has a little article written about it and also why it was picked for that position. It is these essays on the albums that are copyrighted. But even them we would be able to "quote" on this page, just like any other book. The list cannot be copyrighted for use here any more than a list of songs on the back of an album can be copyrighted for use here. And almost every album page on wikipedia has a list of songs taken from the back of the album. JayKeaton 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contributors

The List is not the work of God, it's a composite of 273 people's lists. I think the most important piece of information of all is missing here: WHO WERE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE LIST? 273 people were deemed important enough to have their top 500 made part of the project, and I think we should include an at-least partial list of who they were, particularly the most well-known of them and the ones who are affiliated with the magazine.

[edit] statistics

someone should add: "First Albums".

[edit] The Beatles' American Albums

Since The Beatles have an American release included on the list, I think all of their pre-Sgt. Pepper's American releases should be factored into their album percentage — since they were the same albums with differing tracklistings. If Meet the Beatles is included, then obviously the differing American releases (again, before Sgt. Pepper's) should most definitely be factored in as they were eligible for consideration. If there are no objections within a week, I will take the liberty upon myself to fix this. ——Anthonylombardi 10:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm going to do is only calculate the official, currently pressed British albums into their percentage, & note that the American counterpart for With the Beatles is not included in the final outcome -- similar to what is done for Simon and Garfunkel, where their Greatest Hits album is not calculated nor used in their final percentage. Therefore, excluding Meet the Beatles!, The Beatles inclusion on the list is 10/12, for a rough percentage of 83%; this just looks much neater, & it's a much more accurate portrait of their inclusion on the list. ——Anthonylombardi 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the Beatles, does anyone know why Magical Mystery Tour isn't on the list? 12.205.148.29 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breakdown by Gender

What is the point of this section? Few groups in music history have been dominantly female, let alone the bands who made albums Rolling Stone considers to be "the best." The only reason I can think for its inclusion would be to say Rolling Stone is sexist (???) which is obviously NPOV. A more relevant breakdown would be male-fronted groups and female-fronted groups. I'm deleting it, feel free to revert.

[edit] List Biases

Noted in the article is the fact that there is only one non-english album in the list, # 253's Trans-Europe Express by Kraftwerk. There is also a Spanish-language Album at #260: Buena Vista Social Club produced by Ry Cooder featuring elderly native Cuban musicians.

There are also comments that the list omits many newer recordings as well as older recordings by Black artists. There is something to be said for a recording that lasts many years and still retains its critical respect. An album enjoying current popularity may not be as well respected twenty years from now, but only time will tell. If this list had been compiled back in the early 90's, Girl You Know It's True by Milli Vanilli, which was very popular at the time, may have appeared on the list, while Achtung Baby by U2 may have been excluded. Time has shown that Achtung Baby is more respected and has had more staying power...and for good reason.

Concerning the older recordings by Black artists, this list cannot be accused of being racist. It is commonly accepted that about 12% of the population is Black. That would mean that 60 albums should be by Black artists, yet there are well over 100 albums by a diverse mix of Black artists, such as Muddy Waters, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Miles Davis, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson & the Miracles, Robert Johnson, and Dr. Dre, to name a few. There are also racial-mixed groups like Sly & the Family Stone, Love, and the Jimi Hendrix Experience who are well-represented. Additionally, there are albums by White artists that display definite Black influences, like Eminem, Dusty Springfield, Beastie Boys, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Please, do not say that the Rolling Stone list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is racist!!!63.237.92.162 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

but it is biased.... bob marley and the wailers have one album in the top 100? and it's legend? (Commercial crap...) And where are the rap albums? Rolling stone needs to get off its knees and take the bealtes', the rolling stones' and bob dylan's dicks out of their mouths. I mean Bob Dylan was great but its obviously biased/racist that he has so many albums in the top 100 without selling many albums..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.173.155 (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Floyd

Who forgot about Pink Floyd's albums? They have two in the top 100 (Dark Side and the Wall). Haven't checked the rest.

Pink Floyd has four albums on the list--#43, Dark Side of the Moon, #87, The Wall, #209, Wish You Were Here, and #347, Piper at the Gates of Dawn.63.237.92.162 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly they shouldve had more

Really, they were a great band, those were their four masterpieces. I thought Breakfast in America should've been 400-something, but really the only other PF album I'd consider putting on there is Animals The Person Who Is Strange 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the unsigned by previous message, as I had signed it... The Person Who Is Strange 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages

I'm sceptical about the "Artists with the highest percentage of their catalogue in the list" section. The numbers seem to include only original studio albums, but it is very inconsistent (the list explicitly discounts Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits and also leaves out Live Cream and Live Cream II, but it includes three compilations and a posthumous live album by The Smiths, as well as Live at Leeds by The Who). This is a flawed and arbitrary approach. I believe the list is fundamentally unworkable.

Rolling Stone's original top 500 includes several live albums, greatest hits compilations, and even some "various artists" compilations and a couple of soundtracks. Some of the compilations were clearly chosen not for their particular worth, but because Rolling Stone felt that the artist's legacy was more than the sum of his studio albums (e.g. The Otis Redding Anthology (147), John Lee Hooker's The Ultimate Collection (375)). Some of the compilations and live albums on Rolling Stone's list were released when the artist or band was active; some were released afterwards; some were released after the artist had died. Some of the compilations on Rolling Stone's list are famous, prestige products, whereas some are just anonymous parts of Rhino Records' back catalogue.

The only consistent way to create this list would be to include each and every release by the artist in question, which would result in e.g. Jimi Hendrix having a terrible strike ratio, because of all the cash-in records that were released between the date of his death and 2003. I could fix the list myself, but I would prefer to destroy it; it's a can of worms.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Punctured Bicycle 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also; I've been trying to, little by little, rework some of the artists counted on the list (I started with The Beatles & The Smiths), but it's really fruitless. ——Anthonylombardi 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest albums of all time" really should be true studio albums, and not compilations, i.e.- Greatest Hits or "live" albums. It takes a truly great band to come up with song after song on a new release that becomes a classic, rather than one or two every year or couple of years to compile into a greatest hits collection. For instance, The Eagles Greatest Hits is a great compilation, but the studio releases that all of the tracks come from could never be considered anywhere near as strong as most Beatles studio albums. 99.141.70.230 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change the name of the article

Like the first commenter I don't believe Rolling Stone has any credibility or relevance (at least not during the time I've been alive) to be referenced as an authority, especially on a topic which is ultimately subjective anyway. However, I think it is OK to have this as a wikipedia article as long as the name is changed to "Rolling Stone's Greatest 500 Albums of All Time" or something with Rolling Stone in the title which appropiately marginalizes and trivializes the list. (FreddieKing 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Absolutely agreed. That's a much less POV name.UberCryxic 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the article, per the above concerns.UberCryxic 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Top 10 all Beatles albums?


people are going to vandalize this list a lot huh...cause now its eagles in both the top spots

Yeah, this list is a vandalism magnet, but we try our best to catch vandalism as quickly as we can. Thanks for the heads up. The list has been fixed. -- Scorpion0422 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Problems with the list should only be mentioned when you have a reliable source offering criticism of the list. Do not add material regarding "self-evident" criticism that you personally feel is a problem with the list. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Music?

Only 12 modern albums? Why do critics hate modern music? --72.66.18.142 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because modern albums have not reached a high cultural status like old albums have. Part of being a classic is standing the test of time. Just because some RnB singer won song of the year at the Grammys, does not mean they deserve to be praised a singer of the ages. BurningZeppelin 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences

Will anyone list the differences between the Book and the original list? It will be good to know, as I removed from one article a part which said that Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was on the list at 493. I would feel bad if it turned out to be on the revised edition. BurningZeppelin 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You would feel....."bad".....about a mistake regarding an album by......Wilco.....and how it's mentioned in a......greatest albums of all time list......by......Rolling Stone. Holy.......cow. And I thought I had problems...

I Could be mistaken, but I remember looking at the book at barnesandnoble and i'm most certain Chuck Berry's The great 28 is the same place on the list.

[edit] Add to list- artists with 4 albums on list

MIGHT HAVE FOUR ON LIST Pink Floyd confirmed (Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Wish You Were Here, Piper @ the Gates on Dawn) Simon and Garfunkel confirmed (Bridge over troubled water, bookends, greatest hits, parsley sage rosemary and thyme) See below for more

Madonna Miles Davis The Clash Janis Joplin Cream the Kinks (i'm sure they do, will check that out)

Feel free to edit this post, add more suggestions, confirm and list albums

Originally by The Person Who Is Strange 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Next ones I checked, please somebody re-check this for me Eagles- 2 (hotel Cali, Eagles

Kinks- 3 Village Green, Something Else, and Kink Kronikles (think I missed some)

Doors- 3 Doors, LA woman, Strange Days

The Band- 2 Music From Big Pink, The Band (unless you count work w/ Bob Dylan)

Elvis- 3 Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley, From Elvis in Memphis

Stevie Wonder (confirmed as 4, i think he might have more that I missed)- Talking Book, Innervisions, Songs in the Key of Life, Music of my Mind Billy Joel- 3 The Stranger, Turnstiles, 52nd Street

Clash- 3 Clash, London Calling, Sadinista

James Brown (confirmed) 4 Live at the Apollo, Star Time, Jungle Groove, Greatest Hits

Solo Paul Simon- 3 Graceland, There Goes Rhymin Simon, Paul Simon

Police- (confirmed) 4 Regatta de Blanc, Ghost in the Machine, Synchronicity, Outlandos D'Amour

Led Zeppelin- 6, for some reason not already on- Led Zep I, Led Zep II, Led Zep III, Led Zep IV, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti

Miles Davis- 3, i think i missed some- Kind of Blue, B*tches Brew, Sketches of Spain

[The] Jimi Hendrix [Experience]- 3 Are you experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, Electric Ladyland


The Person Who Is Strange 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Outkast only has doesnt have Aquemini on the list.

All three of Nick Drake's studio albums (Five Leaves Left [283], Bryter Layter [245], Pink Moon [320]), so make sure to include him if you add a "Artists with 3 in the list," though I find this noteworthy anyway (see "Nick Drake" heading on this page).

[edit] The "merger"

I've reverted the so-called "merger" of this article into Rolling Stone. This was not a merger but a deletion: no content from this article was actually added to the Rolling Stone article [1]. Not only was this misleading, but it left lots of broken links and double redirects.

Please note that I don't care whether this article survives or not, I'm just concerned that it was deleted without any substantial discussion. If anyone wants to delete this article again, please list it over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion so the community can decide, don't just unilaterally delete articles and pretend you're merging them. Sideshow Bob Roberts 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten Albums / Artists

If you check the list, you'll see that sometimes the Artist name is listed first, instead of the Album name Authrom 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Drake

I find it noteworthy that all three studio albums Nick Drake released during his life made this list-- all the other "albums" posthumously released have been either compilation albums or collections of home recordings and unreleased outtakes and such. I added something very similar to this sentence:

Although Nick Drake only has three albums on the list, it is worth noting that all three albums released during his life made the list.

But it was deleted. I find it noteworthy since he is the only artist to my knowledge on the list to have all their studio albums on the list, even if it is only three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.218.43 (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U2 has 5 albums in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.227.34 (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, but U2 has released a lot more than five studio albums. Nick Drake released three studio albums, 100 percent of which made the list, and I find that a fact worth mentioning in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.218.43 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic music?

"There are only 3 electronic albums on the list, Moby's "Play" & Massive Attack's "Blue Lines" & "Mezzanine". Making only 0.06% of the list electronic music albums." I find this to be very subjective - for example, I would consider Kraftwerk's entry to be electronic. (And Brian Eno's [if any]). This statement should be edited or deleted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.85.153 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

I clicked on a link for the 100 greatest albums of all time and it took me to the entry about Rolling Stone! (The Magazine!)

Then I clicked on a link to that page for the 500 greatest albums of all time and all I got was a top 10! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.87.171 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stats

Any statistics about this list, such as number of albums include, and 'batting average', were including in the Rolling Stone article. And therefore should be used as a reference for statistics used on this page, rather than users devising them themselves. 121.210.30.118 (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)