Why Rolling Stone's '500 Greatest Songs of All Time' list is a load of bullsh*t

In my usual, daily rummaging about on the internet, I recently came across a list with an ambitious title - 'Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time'.

 The 2010 version, which I looked at, can be found here -

http://www.last.fm/user/RadioKaKa/journal/2013/05/10/5tkd33_rolling_stone's_500_greatest_songs_of_all_time_(2010_edition)

Intrigued, I perused the list at length, even plugging a few of the more obscure songs into Youtube to have a listen. Within a short period of time however, I'd come to a firm conclusion.

Much of the list is just complete and utter bullsh*t.

I mean really, I struggle to find something on the list I have no issue with. So many great (not to mention wildly successful) bands are omitted that its just not funny. Even when it comes to the bands they have included, the list has a tendency to over-emphasize them, giving them even more spots then they deserve, and even those spots are often given to less popular and well, less-than-spectacular, songs.

The most common band on the list is, and I don't dispute this, the Beatles. But even here they seem to have gone a bit far. No fewer than 23 Beatles songs are on the list. Certainly songs like 'Hey Jude', 'Let It Be' and 'Come Together' deserve high spots, but about half the songs are not as well known. Not everything the Beatles did was so fantastic. I hadn't even heard of songs like 'Norwegian Wood' or 'I Saw Her Standing There', and after having a listen on Youtube, I'm not surprised, they're pretty ordinary, especially compared to some of the Beatles' later works.

Many tracks from less popular albums like 'A Hard Day's Night' and 'Help!' are included rather than songs from 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heats Club Band', a much more popular and seminal album. Frustratingly, Sgt. Pepper's later topped Rolling Stone's list of the '500 Greatest Albums of All Time', which begs the question, well then why weren't more songs from it included? Where the hell is 'Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds'? Overall I'd have put maybe ten or twelve Beatles songs on the list rather than 23, and definitely changed and re-ordered some of the remaining ones.

The list focuses heavily on earlier acts. To some extent this is understandable. I appreciate Rolling Stone giving extra points for originality and innovation, which earlier bands are going to have in spades. Still, they might have overdone it a bit. Almost 40% of the songs are from the 1960s, and another 26% from the '70s. Bizarrely, the '50s somehow get more songs included than the '80s. Seriously, aside perhaps from playing a few nostalgic Elvis tracks, who stills listens to music from the '50s? Did anyone even listen at the time? Weren't we too busy witch-hunting Commies?

After the Beatles, the next most common acts are The Rolling Stones (who would have thought?), Bob Dylan and Elvis Presley. Now of course these giants of music are deserving of high praise (I don't disagree for instance with the choice of #1 song - 'Like A Rolling Stone' by Bob Dylan) but such older acts are way more prominent than they should be. Now I'd like to make it clear that I'm not some punk kid who only thinks music was invented after the year 2000, nor however, am I a golden oldie who still listens to music from the '50s. Hell the Beatles are just about the only act from the '60s I still listen to.

My point is, there is an overall way of judging how successful some of these older artists were. Elvis of course was the second biggest act in the history of music in terms of album sales, after the Beatles. Bob Dylan however wasn't even close. The Beatles and Elvis come first and second respectively, but Bob Dylan is far from third. In fact, he tops out at number #46.

Seriously, he's behind Taylor Swift and the Backstreet Boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

NOT of course, that I'm saying Taylor Swift is anywhere near as talented as Bob Dylan, but the truth of the matter is that even in his day Bob Dylan was not one of the world's biggest acts. He's beaten by a number of others. Aside from 'Like A Rolling Stone' and 'The Times They Are a-Changin' I'm not sure how many of his 13 current positions on the list he really deserves. They may have sounded good at the time, but many of them sound very dated now. Sure we can have a few sentimental shouts outs to these pioneers of modern music, but ultimately the list is of the 500 'greatest' songs of all time. If they sound dated, that has to detract from their value somewhat, as many songs from the '50s and '60s now do.

Wikipedia's list includes every music act to ever sell more than 75 million albums. 91 acts are listed in total. Going down the list, Michael Jackson and Madonna place 3rd and 4th. But looking at Rolling Stone's list they receive only two spots and one spot respectively, I think you'd have to give both of them a few more. Rounding out the Top Five is Led Zeppelin, who receive a reasonable six spots (Stairway to Heaven, Whole Lotta Love, Kashmir etc, though I wonder what happened to the 'Immigrant Song'?

Going down the list, my spirits are not lifted. Yes a few spots are given to bands like Elton John, AC/DC and Queen, but most of the bands are simply not very interesting. You can't even use the excuse that the bands were successful in terms of sheer album sales, as a great number were no more than moderately successful. Included are 'The Clash' a punk band from the '60s that doesn't even make Wikipedia's list, nor does 'The Ronettes', a '60s girls group, or 'Prince and the Revolution' an obscure '80s band that was only active for a few years.

Getting to the bottom of the list of 500 songs, what had previously been disappointing becomes truly cringe-worthy. Justin Timberlake even gets a song (seriously, Justin f*cking Timberlake!) along with acts such as Kelly Clarkson, Kanye West and The Pixies.

However, there is a flipside to all this bullsh*t. There are plenty of songs at the bottom I have no problems kicking off the list.

So, lets being shall we?

The single greatest flaw in the list, the most stupidly insulting part of this whole farce, and the first thing I checked when I came across it, and was horrified to discover, is the almost complete absence of progressive Rock. There's no Genesis, no Jethro Tull, no King Crimson or Emerson, Lake and Palmer, no Gentle Giant. The only saving grace is the inclusion of three songs by Pink Floyd, but this is such a pitiful number out of 500 that it simply has to be corrected.

First off, we need to add some Genesis.

In its own right, Genesis is one of the top 25 most successful music acts of all time (way ahead of our old friend Bob Dylan, and active only a few years later than him) selling an estimated 130 million albums. Including the albums sold by its constituent members when they later went off on their solo careers, this number more than doubles. Phil Collins, a former Genesis member, himself sold 150 million more albums (far more than Paul McCartney, by comparison, when he went off on his own solo career). Other members like Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett also had successful solo careers. If you combine these figures, and plug the total into the list of the most successful bands of all time (and I don't see why you shouldn't) Genesis and its individual members come out as at least the 6th most successful music group in history. It actually puts them ahead of Pink Floyd. To totally omit Genesis, or any of its constituent members, from a list of the 500 best songs of all time is just insulting.

So lets get cracking -

Land of Confusion (1986) by Geneis is a terrific song with an even more terrifying music video and, even more impressively, is actually about an interesting topic, in this case the Cold War -

I would then follow this up with 'Old Medley' (1993), a compilation of several of Genesis' earlier songs (its total length is over 19 minutes, but this isn't quite the longest on Rolling Stone's list. I do give them credit for including a number of longer songs, rather than sticking to the 3-4 minute tracks so common mostly because they can fit between radio add breaks) -

There are a number of other fantastic Genesis songs I'd like to insert into the list (pretty much the entirety of the album 'The Way We Walk: Volume Two' for instance) but lets not be greedy. 

Moving on to Phil Collins, who could forget this? - 

In The Air Tonight (1980)

Peter Gabriel too I would consider worthy of at least one song, and even that's being stingy. There are a number of possible options - 'Solsbury Hill', 'Red Rain', 'Come talk to Me', 'Here Comes the Flood', 'Kiss That Frog' or 'Big Time' just to name a few. In the end though I think this is the best choice - 

Sledgehammer (1986)

When it comes to Emerson, Lake and Palmer, its not hard to choose -

Fanfare For the Common Man (1977 - though based on a piece written in 1942)

Jethro Tull, again, has an obvious choice - 

Skating Away (on the Thin Ice of the New Day) (1974)

 

Steering away from the progressive rock genre, one should consider the works of Mike Oldfield, probably one of the most talented musicians of the 20th century. In his albums he typically plays every single instrument, recording them separately and then combining them all together into each track. There are a number of possible options, 'Sentinel' was a track made famous by its use in the film 'The Exorcist'. 'Far Above the Clouds' is another option. But in the end my preference would be 'The Bell' from the album 'Tubular Bells II' -

The Bell (1992)

Didn't recognize the voice of the 'Master of Ceremonies' from that track who introduces each instrument? Go look it up, I implore you.

Another grossly overlooked act in Rolling Stone's list is Billy Joel, an absolute legend of music and the 18th best selling music artist of all time. He receives only one song, 'Piano Man', which was his earliest hit. A number of other songs should be included. My first choice would be this - 

We Didn't Start the Fire (1989)

Other songs that could be included are 'Goodnight Saigon', 'Uptown Girl', 'River of Dreams', 'Leningrad' and 'Downeaster Alexa', among others. Billy Joel really is deserving of at least four or five spots on the list.

Anyway, those are just some of the more egregious problems I have with Rolling Stone's list. A number of other famous songs seem to be missing in action. What about 'Wonderwall' by Oasis? Or 'Summer of '69' by Bryan Adams? Bon Jovi is one of the top 40 acts of all time, and I think deserving of at least one song. 'Livin on a Prayer' or 'It's My Life' are both viable options. Several classic songs by '80s band 'Frankie Goes to Hollywood' could be included, such as 'Relax' or 'Two Tribes'. Honestly, if I was to bother doing a full review of Rolling Stone's list, I don't think more than half the songs on it would remain at the end. 

So to conclude, that is a brief summary of why Rolling Stone's list of the '500 Greatest Songs of All Time' is a load of bullsh*t.