Rolling Stone Magazine Makes Senseless Lists

Why the Rolling Stone Greatest (anything) of All Time lists are all bogus

First of all, it is futile to create a list of the Greatest “Guitarist” or “Artist” or “Album” or “Song” of all time. There simply is no fair or objective way to make that assessment. Music should not be measured quantitatively. To say that The Beatles are the greatest musical artists of all time is just as propesterous as saying that chicken is the best food. Sure, Beatles might have sold the most records in the world and they’re important for shaping the image of Rock and influencing countless artists. But if song popularity were the only measure, Mozart and Beethoven should be placed higher on that list. And if you consider the fact that Reggae is the most widespread and global musical genre in the world, Bob Marley should be much higher.

Who’s to say that the groove on Led Zeppelin’s When The Levee Breaks or Bob Marley’s Waiting In Vain or Pink Floyd’s Us & Them isn’t the best? I just don’t understand what sort of criteria these editors were considering. The worst list they made by far is the Greatest 500 Songs of All Time. How do you determine who is #1, #2, #3,…? How can you even place one song above another? It’s ridiculous! The same goes for the best albums. Music is an art; it is a form of expression. If a song captures a moment in time or it is effective in portraying an emotion that the audience responds to, that’s amazing. That’s all that matters. It’s about the fans, the audience, the listeners. They are the ones who enjoy the music because it speaks to them and makes them feel whatever emotion the artists are going through. You can’t tell someone whose favorite band is Pink Floyd that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. Why should they be? Because they made the most hits? Is it something you can count? It certainly shouldn’t be. All these lists succeed in doing is irritating people. In my opinion, it lowers the legitimacy of the magazine.

Guitarists
Most people would agree that Jimi Hendrix is one of the best guitarists simply because he only had 3 years to show his potential and because he was wildly original and innovative. He was one of the first rockstars to truly rock out. The 60s weren’t that heavy or acidic and his guitar style influenced future guitar soloists. He also had a wide and varied style that displayed virtuosity. But he wasn’t a good songwriter. In my opinion, the only reason he is considered the greatest by many people is because he could do things on guitar that no one else before or after could. The rest of the list is pointless to even consider. Robert Johnson was one of the first blues guitarists and so influenced lots of people, from Hendrix to Page and Clapton. But he only made one recording. So the question becomes, what’s a fair assessment of a body of work? Would you take Bob Dylan or Frank Zappa, who made tens of albums, over someone who only made one?

Even worse, this supposed “greatest” list doesn’t even mention Slash and places David Gilmour of Pink Floyd at number 82. In my previous article, I brought up the fact that David Gilmour wrote the Greatest Solo of All Time. I regret making that value judgement for the same reason I am writing this article. However, there is some truth to the consensus among bloggers and fans that the Comfortably Numb solo is one of the best in rock music. So how does a great guitarist who made one of the best rock solos and wrote and performed with Pink Floyd for their best years get shafted? Because Rolling Stone has no idea what they’re talking about. They instead placed Jack White of the White Stripes at #17.

I do agree with compiling a list of great musicians. I think its worthy and fun. But there’s no way to determine who is the best, let alone choose an order of 2nd best, 3rd best and so on. There are great artists who have been commercially and critically successful and there are artists who really suck and should choose a different profession. What’s worthwhile is a list of great artists who have made a contribution to the musical world and deserve some claim to fame. That list would be a fair one to read but it wouldn’t assume that one artist who writes in a particular style and genre has any reason to be compared to another. Unfortunately, Rolling Stone Magazine has been commenting on the musical world for the better part of the last half-century and so has established itself as a sort of “important” voice. They and their meaningless lists should be taken with a pinch of salt.