From The Age - The Top 20 songs from Rolling Stone Magazine’s 500 Greatest Songs of All Time:
[ol]
[li]Like a Rolling Stone, Bob Dylan[/li][li](I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction, The Rolling Stones[/li][li]Imagine, John Lennon[/li][li]What’s Going On, Marvin Gaye[/li][li]Respect, Aretha Franklin[/li][li]Good Vibrations, The Beach Boys[/li][li]Johnny B Goode, Chuck Berry[/li][li]Hey Jude, The Beatles[/li][li]Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana[/li][li]What’d I Say, Ray Charles[/li][li]My Generation, The Who[/li][li]A Change is Gonna Come, Sam Cooke[/li][li]Yesterday, The Beatles[/li][li]Blowin’ in the Wind, Bob Dylan[/li][li]London Calling, The Clash[/li][li]I Want to Hold Your Hand, The Beatles[/li][li]Purple Haze, The Jimi Hendrix Experience[/li][li]Maybellene, Chuck Berry[/li][li]Hound Dog, Elvis Presley[/li][li]Let It Be, The Beatles[/ol][/li]Just because Rolling Stone magazine was founded in the late 60’s is no reason why their List of The Top 500 Songs Of All-Time (Updated for 2004) has to be stuck in that decade as well, does it?
Why not? Those songs have stood the test of time.
Who would you add? Brittney Spears? :rolleyes:
Exactly. Who could possibly take the list seriously if the top 20 were all from the 2000s? For that matter, how can the words “cutting edge” and “of all time” co-exist in the same sentence?
Well, you have to admit, seeing as the most recent song on that list was 1991’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” I’d say there’s something not quite right. It essentially discounts anything made in the last 14 years, including much of the hip-hop movement, and the formation of what currently exists as the modern alternative movement.
I’m not sure I’d dump anything off the Top 20, but I might question the inclusion of two Chuck Berry songs.
This list reads like the list of someone who’s afraid to piss anybody off – it just feels really “safe.”
Exactly! Which is as it should be. 
You know what? I adore Shakespeare. I absolutely love the guy. He’s a freakin’ genius, and it shows again and again in his writing. Even when he’s bad, he’s normally (not always, but normally) pretty damn good. But I still have to question anyone who says, without qualification, that Shakespeare is the best writer of the English language. I mean, come on, it’s been 400 years. If you can’t think of anyone who you think is at least as good as Shakespeare, then it seems to me that you’re just not looking.
It’s even worse when you mention Brittney Spears, because it’s beyond any doubt that you’re not looking.
What about REM? Radiohead? The Flaming Lips? The Pixies? The Counting Crows? Now, I can understand why the list is as heavy with those older songs as it is, but their choices are nevertheless questionable. Pointing out that the reviewers haven’t even tried to compare the quality songs they grew up with and the quality songs of more recent years is a valid criticism. They choose good songs, sure, but it’s clear that they are more swayed by their own sentimentality than they are by the quality of the music.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the longer a song has been around, the more people will be familiar with it; and the more people are familiar with a song, the more of them will nominate/vote for it for a “greatest” list.
Come on now! I’m not a huge fan of hip hop, but it seems to me that something from that genre should be honored. The face of hip hop as it currently exists wouldn’t been anything like it is, if it weren’t for Tupac Shakur.
Actually, I’m surprised that wanton sentimentality for a dead “hero” of the movement didn’t spur Rolling Stone into including him in the Top 20. He was at least as important to his genre as Nirvana was to theirs, and they made #9.
So you are for Affirmative Action in music? We should honor something from hip-hop just because?
Just because a genre exists doesn’t make it great. The **Test Of Time ** is essential, which is why there isn’t anything recent on the list. If today’s music is to aspire to greatness, it is going to have to wait 20 years or so for that judgement.
I’d like to nominate:
Fear The Kittens - Liabach (German Industrial)
Humpty Dance - Digital Underground (Hip-Hop)
Ironman - Opium Jukebox (Indian Bhangra)
Katsumiya Tobacco City - Guitar Wolf (Japanese Post-Punk).
The last time Rolling Stone indulged in this nonsense, the first two songs were the same, and I Want to Hold Your Hand was #3. I don’t think Imagine really rates that spot, myself.
I can’t get the link to work, but from the OP, it looks like we’re dealing with the (supposed) top rock/R&B songs, which might rule out hip-hop, depending on how you define your genres.
On the other hand, if it really is the best songs of all time, period, why no Bach or Handel, Schubert or Schumann, Gershwin or Berlin or Porter?
I know these type of lists are all subjective, but I call BS.
Maybe because every song there is sooooooo overplayed, but I’m sick to death of all of them. Not that it matters, but by my calculation, 16 of those 20 songs wouldn’t even make my own personal Top 5,000 - even when using unbiased artistic criteria.
But I’m not talking about specific songs / tracks, I’m referring to the generational skew. 80% of the Songs on Rolling Stones ‘Top’ 20 are almost 40 years old (That’s not one, but 2 Generations!) :
11 From 1965-1969
2 From 1970-1974
5 From 1955-1959
1 From Late 70’s
1 From 90’s
That’s real cutting edge. I forsee a time in the not too distant future that Rolling Stone will replace Reader’s Digest in the rec rooms of nursing homes across the country.
I don’t think any list of music, films, paintings, or other artistic endeavours can really be “The Top 200 ___ Of All Time” without adding one important caveat:
“According To Our Target Audience.”
So, Rolling Stone created a list designed to appeal to their target demographic. Similarly, a magazine devoted to hip-hop/rap would likely have more of that genre in their Top 200 Of All Time. No doubt, there is some publication that would have Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys in their Top 200 Of All Time.
I well remember the annual Top 100 Of All Time Countdown that was featured on a radio station I used to listen to. According to it, “Stairway to Heaven” was the Best Song Of All Time. Well, it wasn’t necessarily the best of all time, of course; just the one that appealed to that station’s demographic the most.
There are at least 100 songs on the list I would replace with something recorded since 1990. Some suggested additions:
All I Wanna Do–Sheryl Crow
Miss Misery–Elliot Smith
Come a Long Way–Michelle Shocked
I Try–Macy Gray
Don’t Know Why–Norah Jones
Beautiful–Christina Aguilera
Living La Vida Loca–Ricky Martin
How Can I Live–Trisha Yearwood
Constant Craving–kd lang
He Thinks He’ll Keep Her–Mary Chapin-Carpenter
Step Inside This House–Lyle Lovett
Return of Lola–Candy Dulfer
Walking on Broken Glass–Annie Lennox
Criminal–Fiona Apple
Thank You–Alanis Morrisette
The Crying Game–Boy George
Better Man–Pearl Jam
All of these stand up to most of the songs on the list and should be considered.
Actually, the greatest song of all time is Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen, by Mozart/Schikaneder. Also, I think Ain’t Misbehaving, Everybody Eats When They Come to My House, Minnie the Moocher
and St James Infirmary Blues should all be contenders for the top 100. Personally, I don’t think this list is old school enough. 
(Ducks and runs for cover)
I’m outraged about Rolling Stone’s oversight of “Sumer Is Icumen In”.
How long will it take **Roland Orzabal ** to find this thread and telling us all how *Tears for Fears * should have a place *at least * in the Top 5?
JohnBckWLD, your second link is to a classic rock list, not the Rolling Stone one. Does anyone have a link to the entire list?