Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
In November 2003, Rolling Stone magazine ranked the greatest albums of all time and extended its list out to a whopping 500. Here are the top 20:
- Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles
- Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys
- Revolver, The Beatles
- Highway 61 Revisited, Bob Dylan
- Rubber Soul, The Beatles
- What’s Going On, Marvin Gaye
- Exile on Main Street, The Rolling Stones
- London Calling, The Clash
- Blonde on Blonde, Bob Dylan
- The Beatles (”The White Album”), The Beatles
- The Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley
- Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
- Velvet Underground and Nico, The Velvet Underground
- Abbey Road, The Beatles
- Are You Experienced?, The Jimi Hendrix Experience
- Blood on the Tracks, Bob Dylan
- Nevermind, Nirvana
- Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
- Astral Weeks, Van Morrison
- Thriller, Michael Jackson
The list is pretty widely criticized by readers, and I think a few of the common complaints are founded. One is that the list is very heavily American. Though the top 20 is pretty balanced between British and American bands, there is a steady dropoff on British rock as the list goes on.
Pink Floyd, and most anything progressive, is given the shaft on the list while punk seems to reign supreme. I’m not a big fan of most prog rock, and not very educated on the genre, so I’m not going to stick up for it too much.
Odd is the treatment of jazz on the list. There are only a few albums on the list. A bit Miles, a bit Coltrane, but not much beyond that. Jazz is a segment of music as deep as rock and roll is, so it might’ve been more appropriate to either cut out jazz albums or devote more of the list to it.
Another thing I want to talk briefly about is Beatles albums. I believe that Revolver would have been the number one on the list if it had been made a few years later. Revolver is now a little bit more “in style” while people are slightly more down on Sgt. Pepper’s.
In my mind, though Rubber Soul tops them both. There is no album whose musical achievments I respect more than Rubber Soul.
I’d also like to say that The White Album is WAY too high up on the list. It’s too unfocused and gimmicky, even though it’s got some real stunners on there. For all the Beatles love on the list, Help! is far too low (#332). The album is significantly more enjoyable overall, in my opinion, The White Album (#10), Please Please Me (#39), and Let It Be (#86). With essentially every other Beatles album on the list, it’s a complete joke that Magical Mystery Tour isn’t honored.
I have my nitpicks with the list, but nothing overall to keep me from recommending it. Nobody’s ever going to completely agree on what the best albums are, but Rolling Stone proposes a pretty good choices.
The best part about the list? It’s got little articles about each one of the albums. You could be reading this for days and not get through everything. It’s very anecdotal and informative, a good read. I’ve been working on it for months and still haven’t gotten all the way to the end.
Perhaps the best way to view the list, then, is not an authoritative ranking of the best albums, but an overview of 500 great albums, replete with intersting stories and solid writing. Take a look.
Related posts:Best Of
Cracked.com’s 9 Most Unnecessary Greatest Hits Albums
100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time - RollingStone.com
By RSS
I’ve gone through this list several times over. I agree that you certainly shouldn’t take it as an authoritative ranking, because there’s no way anyone can rank music that’s going to really mean anyone for someone else. But when using it as a way to learn about respected and thus possibly good music, it’s great. The Top 500 songs and Top 100 artists lists are worth a look too.
One criticism of RS lists is obvious–they tilt towards well-known, “big” albums and less so towards ones that flew in under the radar. Thus, don’t be expecting to see Fugazi on there, sadly. But, seeing as my favorite band is U2, who don’t really know how to fly under the radar (and who have one of the highest percentages of albums on the list to total albums released of any artist), I guess I can’t complain too much.
Having experience with music criticism beforehand makes me feel that most of the criticisms of the list are entirely justified.
Those who really know their music history will know that most of the bands heavily praised in mainstream publications are not actually very important. I often see little special about music heavily praised by Rolling Stone and similar publications myself and take views that criticise them as a challenge that often I have no hope of refuting. All in all, I would say that if you look hard you will find better lists in almost every respect.
[...] should be ranked in lists at all. My answer: no. Literature is a far broader medium than rock and roll or video games or cinema or American sports or… just about anything else covered on this [...]
I AM a “prog rock” and 99% of the truly great prog rock bands are British, so theres the main reason it isn’t included from the off.
The selection of stuff on this list is more ridiculous than the singles list, which wasn’t great to start with.
It IS an American mag, so therefore quite understandable there is such a bias. Even allowing for that, the list is way over the top.
A dreadful choice.
I AM a “prog rock” fan - and 99% of the truly great prog rock bands are British, so theres the main reason it isn’t included from the off.
The selection of stuff on this list is more ridiculous than the singles list, which wasn’t great to start with.
It IS an American mag, so therefore quite understandable there is such a bias. Even allowing for that, the list is way over the top.
A dreadful choice.