Talk:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time/Archive 1

Archive 1

Queen

Bohemian Rhapsody anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahah what a stupid arse fucking list. Bohemiam RHapsody isn't even in the top 10, it is 163.

And Stairway to Heaven is something ridiculous like 30.

I suspect these low rankings are due to both bands respective disdain for the music press, Zeppelin never giving an interview and Mercury often being cited as saying things along the lines of 'I don't give a fuck about that music press, let them try to make a record".

Haha

58.168.85.14 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently they were more interested in a very acute sense of lyrical quality and nothing at all for score composition. I don't really like Dylan or Like A Rolling Stone, and though I can understand why the ex-hippie-now-yuppie Rolling Stone community chose that song, the list should be named "Rolling Stone's Very Eclectic Sense Of Their Favorite 500 Songs". Nirvana, in the top 10? A screaming mess of personal whining in the top 10? For overall lyrical and compositional quality, I'd think that Another Brick In The Wall should take its place -- and still feeds the personal whining slot. And, I'm going to guess that theres there's nothing from Handel or Mozart on there. Yes, this page should be deleted, not on quality of the content but on quality of the TOPIC! 99.22.228.93 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

copyright protection?

Why does the list not appear on this wiki page for "Copyright reasons"? You can copyright a list of songs? They don't even have the list on the RollingStone.com website anymore. At least post an external link that shows the list. What a useless wikipage.

• Hey: the external list is posted and is a working link.
• I agree, this article is rather futile now. The rationale for not allowing the list here is that it wasn't a vote or survey, but an editorial, and therefore the intellectual property of Rolling Stone, so we can't just recreate it here. But without it, the whole article is pointless, maybe it should be deleted. Jdcooper 14:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed with Jdcooper. This should surely be deleted if we really can't post the list.
• But if the list is discussed and analysed, then the article has a point
  • Every "top whatever" list from every magazine ever could be discussed and analysed in an article. Why is this list any different? Jdcooper 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability, mainly. Other lists of this cultural significance should get their own wiki list, too. Snakemike (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Just to clarify, the list is very much copyright protected under most common law jurisdiction laws. You can't post the full list; it's an artistic creation of the Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaFlat (talk • contribs) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem pointless to have an article, with links from dozens of other pages, if it doesn't actually compile the list of what it purports to be about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.206.254 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this even Wikipedia Material

Besides the Fact that this list is just horrific , is it really relevent enough to warrent a wiki page. I mean seriously it's a list of songs by a magazine.

I can't stress how much I agree with you. The only reason this was put here is so fans of high scoring songs could add opinion to articles, not to mention the list is self serving. 72.152.135.105 (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

just for curiosity

rolling stone should stop this "the greatest something", they should stop, and then they should die in a painful and slow way. whatever, i think we need to keep clear this article is not to be taken seriously and it's here just as a curiosity or something and people shouldn't take too seriously if their favorite song is not here and they don't need to feel bad or outcasts and rejected and hang themselves or something. But it would be great if they explode the magazine HQ...and Mad's too. stupid brain washing media. no i'm not a frustrated; my favorite songs are here (nirvana) and i still think this is garbage.

---

While an impressive number of songs on this list have articles, there are still many redlinks and titles that link to something else that shares the song's name. It's common practice to have songs unlinked unless there are articles already existing. Should this page be altered along those lines? I've been disambiging links, which generally consists of adding "(song)" and piping, usually turning the link red, but if delinking would be better I'll do that instead (checking for articles that might not be readily apparent). -R. fiend 19:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for doing so much disambiguation work on this page. (Hope you don't mind being buttered up a bit before being politely disagreed with!) Anyways, in my opinion, we should leave the links in, and this is why: I believe that each of these 500 songs is deserving of their own article because of their cultural significance, whether or not they have one today. In that case, the page that it goes to right now (often the album) probably ought to be a disambiguation page instead of an album page. But people get very possessive when it comes to the pages for their favorite musicians, and in my opinion it is usually best to let those details be implemented by the people most knowledgable and passionate about the subject matter. We went through a similar cycle with List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. When I created that page on February 9th, only about half the albums had articles, but now almost all of them do, except for the greatest hits compilations. Similarly, I bet that if we leave the redlinks in on this page, within three months we'll have articles for practically every song, even if many of them are just stubs. Anyways, that's just my two cents, though. --Arcadian 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only part I really disagree with is that each and every song on this list ipso facto deserves (and will likely get) its own article. Rolling Stone certainly has clout, but I'm not sure that just because they put a song on a list it (particularly near the bottom) it's article worthy. It's pretty much been decided (silently perhaps) that all albums can get articles (beyond vanity releases and the like) but that does not stand for songs. At least not yet. We have quite a few pretty poor album articles, containing only artist, year, graphic, and track list, but even those are better than the song substubs floating around. While I don't mind encouraging the former, I am very hesitant to encourage the latter. I also sort of worry about a precedent that all songs mentioned in any list or text be linked. Right now that does not stand, and I think it advantageous. -R. fiend 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I think you and I are pretty close to a consensus. How does this sound? You could you delink the songs that you think are not article-worthy, and leave as redlinks the ones you feel are article-worthy but don't yet have an article. (If it would help, I'd be happy to write some stubs to replace redlinks.) By the way, while we're talking about this -- I think we need a template for songs similar to the one we have for albums. Do you know if one exists? I couldn't seem to see one on any of these pages (the ones that have tables do it using hardcoding, which is a bad precedent.) If not, would you be interested in helping me to design one? (I'm pretty experienced with creating templates, but for something this visible, it would be more likely to be supported by the community if it came from more than one person.) --Arcadian 20:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a template, but its awful. It does nothing but autowrite poor, awkward stubs that can't be impoved without deleting the template. Example:

{{Pop song 1|songname=Gittin' Bizzzeeee!|songwriter=Oral B|year=2003}}

That's it. Personally, I'd prefer nothing to that. I think song articles, even song stubs, need a semi-decent paragraph, or they're not worthwhile. I can help you write some articles, longhand, but it is sort of slow going, particularly for songs I don't know well. I also don't want to have to singlehandedly decide which are articleworthy and which aren't. I won't delink any yet; maybe we can get some other people's input first. -R. fiend 20:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. FYI, the template I want to create would be a very close clone of Template:Album infobox. So it wouldn't be to the exclusion of a paragraph, but rather a way to present the standardized information that all songs should have, so that the paragraph can focus upon notability, and not just be a recitation of facts. --Arcadian 21:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi guys. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs gonig on at the moment, where there is a template song infobox already there.

Regards Ianblair23 08:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical Skew

I removed the bit about alphabetical skew that implied that voters casted ballots from some alphabetical list of songs (every song in the universe?) They were not; they were written in. A brighter individual saw the forest for the trees and noted that The Beatles and The Beach Boys had 30 entries combined, but I removed that bit as well since it's now completely out of context.

Good call. That really didn't make any sense. Hell, if you look at my record and CD collections you'll see about a quarter of the bands start with B or C, and I can assure you it has nothing to do with those sections being nearest the door when I walk into a record store. And I think the Beatles having so many songs has a bit more to do with their being one of the most popular and influential bands of all time rather than that their name starts with B. -R. fiend 16:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I also removed the bit about "(Cynics were quick to notice the link between the magazine's title and the top two songs.)" because Rolling Stone didn't even do the list themselves. I mean they compiled it, of course, but based on polls of outside individuals. And of course that "Cynics were quick to notice" bit was inserted by one user, speaking on behalf of all cynics I imagine.

Hmmmm. That one might be at least worth mentioning, if there's some evidence that some cynical commentators actually did mention it in some verifiable forum. An explanation that Rolling Stone didn't make the list, so it's highly unlikely they arranged it such, should follow. It does raise some questions; is it complete coincidence that the words "rolling stone" appeared in their #1 song, or did some of the voters rank it so high as a tribute to the magazine, or was there maybe some subconcious power of suggestion involved when approached by the magazine, and the words "rolling stone" were in the forefront of their minds? It's food for thought, particularly as it really isn't a song I would have expected to be #1 (and one can usually make a pretty good prediction of what will top these lists). Anyway, nothing should be included unless somethign can be referenced. -R. fiend 16:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's more than just The Beatles and The Beach Boys. Was Chuck Berry perhaps the most influential rocker of the '50s after Elvis because of his initials? Were The Clash the most commercially successful punk/new wave group because their name began with a "C"? I can't believe someone actually took the time to count how many entries started with certain letters of the alphabet, like looking for reasons to fault the list. The list can be faulted for its skew to the '60s and '70s, but don't blame them for the alphabet.

Regardless of whether the original writeup's claim (by yours truly) was correct or not, your logic is flawed. Saying that The Beatles and The Beach Boys have 30 entries combined (and implying that they deserve it) doesn't mean anything; it doesn't "prove" that there's no alphabetic bias. Even if we were to remove all entries by the said groups, along with those of Chuck Berry, the imbalance would still be striking.

The remark that "the list can be faulted for its skew to the '60s and '70s" is doubly odd. To use the same argument: were The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, The Clash, Bob Dylan great artists? If they were, then there's no '60s and '70s bias.

As far as I can tell, the sheer magnitude of skew displayed in the list cannot be written off as coincidence. Can you find such skew in Category:1960s music groups or Category:1970s music groups or Category:1980s music groups? I don't think so. That is because these lists are (more or less) random with respect to alphabet, while Rolling Stone's list is not. GregorB 01:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, did any of you consider that the skew isn't because of the bias of the greatest songs selectors, but rather the bias of bands to pick names that start with letters higher up in the alphabet, or one of how record stores, labels, and companies manufacture and produce music?

Creedence Clearwater Revival vs Tina Turner

This edit [1] doesn't seem right to me. Because I was unable to access the Rolling Stone article, I've changed it to the way it was before. Jogers 17:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, well spotted. Jdcooper 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I notice this page has been getting a fair share of vandalism recently, and I wanted to see what anyone thought about semi-protection. While it isn't standard practice with this amount, I think there are reasons why it wouldn't be a bad idea. First of all, vandalism in this page, if not caught right away, could go unnoticed for ever, nearly. When someone throws the word "BALLS!!!" into the middle of a paragraph in some article, it's easy to spot. If someone changes song #324 to one by one of their favorite bands, no one reading the list a couple weeks later is likely to say "That's not what #324 is supposed to be" (provided the new entry isn't completely out of place). We've been seeing some such vandalism, but so far usually near the top of the list, where it is easy to spot. Also, this being a complete list, there are precious few good edits than can be made to it. The entries aren't going to change (if they are changed, it's a problem), and there's hardly any prose to make improvements to. About the only good edits that are going to be made are likely to be dabbing entries, which is usually done by established users who will still be able to edit the article. any thoughts? -R. fiend 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is merit in using the new semi-protection feature on this article. Over the last month this list had to be reverted 5 times and in the last 3 days alone, it was reverted 6 times. Now whilst this is no where near the level of high profile articles like George W. Bush, this list is still being vandalised. Lets semi-protect the list for a few days and see what happens. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thirded, for the record. Jdcooper 01:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other (better) 500 greatest song lists?

If there are, I'd like to have a link to a list that isn't as biased and wrong as Rolling Stone's. Otherwise, what if someone wrote up a large criticism section written to point out many of the faults of this list (of course, finding references will be difficult)?

• Virtually every music magazine has at some stage or another produced a list like this, and none of them are anything other than the opinion of some music journalist(s), so they are all equally valuable or worthless, depending on which way you look at it. Jdcooper 12:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As worthless as these kinds of lists are, this guy has a point. Rolling Stones' is really wrong and most likely biased.76.69.170.79 (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[illiterate personal attack removed]

Blue Suede Shoes

I found it odd that the song "Blue Suede Shoes" was on the list twice, once by Carl Perkins (#95) and once by Elvis Presley (#423). The Carl Perkins version was more critically successful, making it to #2 on the Pop Charts while Elvis' only made it to #20, plus Perkins wrote the song and released it first. Wouldn't it have been more productive to mention Perkins' version and award Elvis' spot to a different song, since Elvis already has plenty songs on this list?

• Probably, but we didn't write the list! E-mail Rolling Stone about it? Jdcooper 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Number One?

Why doesn't the article mention which song finished at Number One? I'd have probably expected to see the top 10, but not having the number one is bonkers. --Dweller 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is "Like a Rolling Stone" by Bob Dylan. Personally, I could have slept better if I didn't know that one of Bob Dylan's songs was at the top of one of a "Greatest Music" thing.76.69.170.79 (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

links, cats

The article has neither categories nor an external link to the list it discusses. It could also wikilink to other similar articles. --Ben ^T/_C 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Like a rolling stone topped the list... it states this

Rolling Stone Entries Should Be Deleted

If Rolling Stone wants to be so greedy as to deny us posting the list because it is copyrighted, then such entries from Rolling Stone, in all fairness, should be considered advertisements and, therefore, deleted.

• I would support the deletion of all these articles as covering non-notable features in magazines, or support a merge to the article about Rolling Stone magazine. Jdcooper 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Waste of bandwidth and server space Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this list is notable. Magazines make 'best of'-type lists all the time. I support deleting the article. MGlosenger 14:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll lose. The list was covered by the BBC. [2] In the great game of Wikipedia, a mention by the BBC equals instant immortality. The list made the newspapers here in England, a country where Rolling Stone and Cream have never been popular. You would have to argue that this list is less notable than Bloody GIR or Sad girl in snow or Diary of an Unborn Child (song), and you would lose. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. MGlosenger 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Practically every week a new "Best __ ever" musical list makes the newspapers in England, that does not make all of them notable. Or any of them, necessarily. Jdcooper 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support deletion based on the fact that the list really, really, really, really sucks. Alot. And so does "Rolling Stone". PyroGamer 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC):::::

i support deletion as well 203.92.15.144 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Those who wish to see the article deleted should open up an AFD on it. However, I doubt it will succeed. The difference between this list and the endless lists in British newspapers is that Rolling Stone is perhaps the premier popular music magazine in the US, so it carries a bit more weight than the others. And, of all the lists in Rolling Stone, this is one of the most notable, so I wouldn't really compare it to the Sun's list of top 50 songs about cheese or anything. -R. fiend (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint: even in the german wikipedia, where "severe rules of relevancy" apply, the corresponding article has survived an AFD. Reasons given are that it's one of the few best-off lists with reputation, and that for any song to be on this list is like a nomination and therefore also useful for explaining things in the song's articles. And note: this german article refers to the list of the american Rolling Stone, not to the german spin-off magazine. Of course anyone is free to open an AFD, but I also doubt it will succeed. --Cyfal (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time

I have not seen the list too but the review I read on wiki is enough to give me stomach discomfort!!! 23 songs for Beatles, NO NO NO this time Rolling monkeys went too far? and the list starts with Mr dylan ?, 11 for beach boys, BEACH BOYS????. Well, I'm not underestimate these legends but enough with hypocrisy and overhyping, beatles dont have 5 greatest of all time songs!!! and beach boys too!, and dylan having the greatest one!!! these mother*****s should be sued .

I can never forget their 100 greatest guitarests of all monkeys, it was horrible!, started with Hendrix, Oh my god!!! Rolling stones credibility is zero and their taste in music is zero and those who write in this magazine need lots of music appreication and histroy lessons.

I'm very keen to see this list , where can i find it ?

Thank you dear wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.183.40.161 (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Why are a majority of the songs on the list rock? Sure it's a popular genre but that doesn't mean every hit rock song ever made should be considered "the best song ever." I really think the Rolling Stone's list are incredibly biased and intefere with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Not even half the R&B songs that are widely considered as legendary made the list, instead they where replaced with songs made from mediocre pop trend bands such as The Beach Boys. Eatspie (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The above sounds like a lot of POV. Brian Wilson is considered a genius, much like Lennon/McCartney. Pet Sounds is routinely ranked as the greatest LP ever, along with Sgt. Peppers. I may disagree with some of the listings, but this is a listing by a major music publication. It's not for you to decide this list. It's already been decided. Get over it.

The Beach Boys, BTW, according to Billboard are ranked as the most successful U.S. band, just ahead of Chicago. --Don1962 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't also incredibly ironic that the #1 song on the list contains the name of the magazine?.... Aurora sword 12:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes...incredibly so. And the Rolling Stones also have the #2 song. Seems like there should be mention of that. What criteria do they rate these songs on? I mean, those are good songs, but are they really worty of #1 and #2? I wonder if that's a controversy...seems to me that Rolling Stone magazine is just self-promoting within the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.95.197.103 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

To be fair, that song isn't some generic random song. It's widely regarded as one of the best ever, so for it to be high on the list doesn't have a thing to do with it sharing the same name. I really, really don't understand the above comment. The Beatles DO have some of the best snogs of all time, as does Bob Dylan. I actually think Dylan is a bit UNDERrepresented on the list. But that's why these things cause so much controversy. It's all opinion and people think lists like this are trying to state fact. 24.115.145.242 04:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the beatles and the beach boys, how on Earth did "Hey ya!" by the Outkast make it onto the list not to mind reach 180??? 87.192.69.100 10:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I havent seen the list either, but im guessing there is not a The Doors song. What is wrong with people this days! The Doors were not only a great band, but Morrison's word made sense. I hope someone agress with me in this.

Actually, there are songs from the Doors. "Light My Fire" is included, at 35. I think. "The End" and a song from either "L.A Woman" or "Strange Days" was there, too. Rock Global 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think the list should be taken seriously at all. Stairway to Heaven isn't even in the top 10, let alone 1st. And it should be mostly rock, it is the only good singles-and-album-oriented genre in existance. Jazz and Blues and all that is just music, nothing to give a name.76.69.170.79 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the advice to reverse the list to get the real order? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.44.148 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

500 Greatest songs of which geographic area???

The bias towards American and British artists is not just an opinion, is a undisputed TRUTH. The fact that only one song not sung in English is included in the list is simply ridiculous, and makes the list ridiculous (as the list of the greatest albums). I am Italian, and I can think of at least 20 italian songs that could take the place of an equal number of (to me) insignificant songs included in the list. Of course, exactly the same critique can be made by people from Spain, France, Portugal, Germany, Greece, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, The Middle East, Northern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, China, Japan, Latin America... Apart from the US and the UK (and a few other English-speaking countries), not a single region in the World is represented in the list. To avoid being pathetic, they should call it "The 500 greatest Anglo-American songs of all time" and get rid of La Bamba... 213.156.52.125 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• That is not our concern, we are writing about what Rolling Stone wrote. I think it is important to include mention of the criticism, of which there was lots, but we have to write about what the critics wrote, not be critics ourselves. We are a tertiary source. If you can find a critical analysis of the Rolling Stone article then we can link it, but we cannot make up problems ourselves. Jdcooper 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • All right, I agree with you. I turned the "opinion" into a "statement", based on data (number of songs). Maybe we do not want to make this point at the biginning of the article, but I think we should anyway mention it. 213.156.52.125 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the magazine produced originally in English in America? Uhm... Am I the only one getting that because 99.9% of its readers and contributors are English speaking Americans, they're going to choose popular American and Britsh songs? 24.115.145.242 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, that's obviously a huge part of it. But the plain and simple fact is that English music is what sells around the world. Other than a few rare exceptions (La Bamba, Besame Mucho, Sukiyaki), non-English songs don't top the charts in the UK or the US. However, English songs topping the charts in Italy, France, and especially Japan is commonplace. Most non-English groups have a limited demographic, consisting mainly of the people in that particular country. English songs have a more worldwide draw, based solely on charts, and that's what this list really represents. You (213.156.52.125) may be able to name 20 Italian songs that could take the place of songs here, but I would bet most people outside of Italy couldn't name 5 Italian songs PERIOD. That's the difference. Crazydiamond1to9 05:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That last statement is a bit ridiculous. Any non-Italian European older than 30 would perfectly be able to mention many more than 5 Italian songs, as many were also hits in several countries of Europe. Anyway, I agree that the name of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is ridiculous too. They should have called it The 500 Greatest Songs in English of the 2nd part of the 20th Century. Period. But that's the title the magazine chose, so nothing to say about it. Yet I wonder whether an article about a list that cannot be listed should actually exist at all. --Purplefire (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• That second comment is more than a bit ridiculous. Have you surveyed all non-Italian Europeans over 30? Have you surveyed any? Or are you just making things up to try and prove your point ineffectively? Crazydiamond1to9 (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you stopped at non-Italian Europeans, why didn't you dared to talk all across the globe. I hate this list as I hate all other lists they publish, but such claims of people knowing some 30 Italian songs is superflous. Actually you should be happy that they left Italian music chaste, almost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.161 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am Italian also and don't believe any Italian music is worthy of any list like this.76.69.170.79 (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed line.

I removed the line "Artists such as Neil Young being on the list while pioneers such as Yngwie Malmsteen haven't created quite a stir." It's biased. I'm not going to start some fanboy discussion. But if someone wants to rephrase it, sure. Becouse it kind of says Malmsteen is a pioneer and Young isent. --Yardan 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased

This article kind of argues against the point. Rolling Stone is itself focused towards the classic rock era. Of course it doesn't include rap, because its a ROCK magazine (And besides, imo, rap will never make any songs that will continue to be listened to 100 years from now)

"For example, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Bag' (#72) by James Brown, a seminal, [8] Grammy winning (won in 1965 for Best R&B recording) sensation ranked among the 100 Most Important Recordings of the 20th Century by National Public Radio (NPR)[9][10] is ranked below The Eagles' 'Hotel California' (#49), a recording that has not received as much critical recognition"

Oh is that right? Go ask as many random people as you want, any age group. I guarantee 99% of them have heard or heard of Hotel California, and far less have heard (of) Papa's Got a Brand New Bag. - 72.141.0.76 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone should have entitled the list the top 500 rock recordings. Calling it the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is a misnomer because it eliminates recorded music from other genres from the 1920s to the present, including the genres that spawned rock, namely black music (i.e., blues and gospel brought to white artists by legends like Little Richard, Chuck Berry, etc., who grew up in the black church (churches Elvis freely said he visited to learn the black sound)). If Rolling Stone had simply created a more accurate title, we wouldn't need a 'Controversy' section for this page.

As for the quip about 'Papa's Got a Brand New Bag', if you asked that of a multi-cultural, multi-racial city like NY, LA, or London, you'd understand why James Brown's death was an historic event -- globally. The Eagles whole body of work -- not just 'Hotel California -- is good rockabilly, but does not have the breadth or influence of James Brown's sound. He was an innovator and a titan of popular culture. Meisner, Frey, Henley, Walsh, et al., are not in the same class. No offense intended, and none should be taken.Agriffinny 03:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Calling it the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is a misnomer because it eliminates recorded music from other genres from the 1920s to the present, including the genres that spawned rock, namely black music" For a list that neglects black music, there sure are a lot of songs by black artists. Crazydiamond1to9 06:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh yeah champ, if you consider the definition of black music is: music that someone who's black performs. Then, yes, literally all 500 songs can be considered black music. But, for some strange reason, if you consider black music to be music that was predominantly of african-american culture, history, and musical history, than there is a lack of such things as blues, jazz, and gospel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.59.31 (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• And yet there's a tremendous number of R&B songs, a branch of music that is predominantly of African-American culture... champ. Crazydiamond1to9 06:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Musical tastes are inherently subjective to personal tastes, I'm not sure whether that can be classified as bias.

207.164.21.130 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the idiots comment on rap music, its music get over it whether you like the genre or not.FusionElder (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Real Problem

While I agree that this list has several questionable placements, you can't deny that songs like "Satisfaction", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Respect", and "Johnny B. Goode" are Top 10 immortal rock recordings - no ifs, ands, or buts.

People keep attacking these lists but to tell you the truth, most are just incompetent and ingrained within the vast scope of rock music, which is black music birthed in America. You cannot judge a list in its entirety if you don't even have the credentials to do so. If you've never heard of "My Generation" but then whine that "Hotel California" should be ranked higher, its just comes to show you. If you believe Elvis "started rock and roll", I'll hold the door for you on your way out.

The controversy section in this article is a mess. Who gives a fly that most of these recordings are from the US and UK with only one non-English recording? Name another non-English rock song that should be placed in this list and give its credentials. America is the biggest market, the birthplace of rock n roll, and the UK plays a seminal part starting with its British invasion. It shouldn't surpise you that there are several Beatles and Dylan songs on here. The list is supposed to reflect the most innovative, groundbreaking, influential, etc., records on all fields of rock. More recent songs need to age well with time before they start being factored as "greatest" (however, there are exceptions like "Smells Like Teen Spirit"). Nearly 50 years have passed, and "Johnny B. Goode" is still an immortal rock recording. "Respect" is still an anthem for females, gays, and civil rights activists, and "Like a Rolling Stone" is Dylan's quintessential rock record.

Alternatively you could say that Johnny B Goode is the biggest cliche in a genre filled with cliches, Aretha Franklin has the musical subtlety of the seven-pound sledgehammer in my garage and Like A Rolling Stone is just Dylan having a hissy fit about Andy Warhol. Whatever you think about that, these lists are inherently subjective and therefore useless except as an insight into their compilers' prejudices. I'd happily support an AfD. BTLizard 12:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again. Everyone's list will be different. It says right in the title that this is Rolling Stone's. Controversy over. 207.164.21.130 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The left Ten

I counted all the Songs from the US, UK, Canada and Ireland The sum is 490. From where do the left 10 come from ?

Most likely from Australia (INXS? Men at Work? The Bee Gees?) or the Caribbean (Bob Marley?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.36.173 (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A more disturbing problem, if you add up the numbers for songs from each country, you get 501 (352+117+12+10+6+3+1.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.76.109 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because there aren't actually 3 songs from Australia (There are only 2, both AC/DC. Could someone please confirm this)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Opo42 21:42, 04 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opo42 (talk • contribs)

Confusing Grammar

This sentence makes no sense to me:

The list includes only one song not sung in English (La Bamba by Ritchie Valens), which is from the 20th century, and three from the 21st century.

Is is supposed to mean:

The list includes four songs not sung in English, including one from the 20th century ("La Bamba" by Ritchie Valens) and three from the 21st century.

???

--Skb8721 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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 [3]. 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 06:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Songs twice by different artists

"Three songs made it onto the list twice under different artists:" is what is shown on the as of this moment current revision of the list. Is there a reason why the three songs can't return to the as they appaeared here other than that they are from the list? They are no way showing the list in its entirety and it is information on the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time." {LeetAmerico (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}

The Rolling Stones - Track name

Should it be "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" or "Satisfaction " ?
--Badgernet (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Tracks with "Rolling Stone" in them

Is it a coincidence that the TOP 2 Tracks have "Rolling Stone" in them ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.130 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was very suspicious. MalwareSmarts (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the RS magazine has a fetish for rolling stones! So...oh, because their name is Rolling Stone magazine. Yeah. I'm an idiot. "Pity the fool". I hang my head in shame. Kodster (Talk) 01:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did see Papa Was a Rollin' Stone by the Temptations mentioned too, but perhaps got deleted ?

References everywhere

This page is referenced from all articles as though it was some authoritative list. But look, almost all of the songs are from the United States with clear second being Great Britain and other English speaking countries. So there is a clear bias. Don't other countries, such as Iraq, India and China make great songs? Why must it then be references on all of Wikipedia as being an authoritative source? 83.176.231.198 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What in the hell

about 1/3 of the links are actually in italian and are red linked. Whoever did this -- thanks for making us fix this crap --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

All red links have been removed, and all the songs have been correctly linked to the song, or at least most of them from what I can tell. A few other editors helped out, and I appreciate it, thanks. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"The list includes only one song not sung in English"

The Clash's "Should I Stay or Should I Go" is bilingual, containing lead vocals in English, and backing vocals in Spanish. 76.181.228.30 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Mike Jordan

For that matter, Beck's "Loser" also contains non-English lyrics. I think the assertion that "The list includes only one song not sung in English" is not literally accurate. 76.181.228.30 (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Mike again

• May I ask who cares??? English is the language of music. Case closed. 76.69.170.79 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Release Albums/Singles

The Rolling Stones List on their own website puts album information which shows semi-current albums, many compilations where you can find those songs today, if you buy that album.

The albums I am putting here are either the name of the original album or alternatively stating that it came out as a single.

I got most of my facts about which album from the songs own wikipedia articles. Using this list as an index makes editing of the list easier, since I can go to the song, check out the original album name and see if it is correct in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why just show the top 10?

I think that all 500 songs should be shown like they used to cause then you might as well just call the article the top 10 songs of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.9.118 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for particular vandalism

A user with the IP address: 118.131.123.146 continues to change the top songs to obscure songs of a no-name band titled "M.N.J (Doremi Record-Korea." This person switched Johnny B. Goode and Like a Rolling Stone, to "You" and "Lunar Eclipse" I would advise all to watch for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodknight (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lennon

...although it is argued that "Hey Jude" was more Paul McCartney's creation than Lennon's

I removed the above from the sentence that states Lennon was the only artist represented twice on the list. Not because it isn't true, McCartney did write the song, but the list clearly is about the artists who performed the songs, not who wrote them. So the above isn't really relevant as Lennon did perform as one of the Beatles (if the song in question was "Yesterday" that would be a different matter). Just as Elvis is said to have 11 songs on the list even though he didn't write any of them. Gr8white (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish songs

It says that there are 12 songs by Irish artists - 6 of them by U2, but having had a look I can only find Sinead O' Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U" and right at the end, Thin Lizzy's "Boys are Back in Town". Have I missed the other 4 and what are they?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Why is a list put out by a magazine the subject of its own wikipedia article? I saw that Cosmo had a list of top 100 Ways to Please Your Man, which had hundreds of inputs. Should this get its own article as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.139.253 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should. Write the article with links so I can give it to my g/f. Tank520 Feb 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tank520 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1950s?

How many songs from the 1950s does the list have?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.27.126 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'greatest [insert topic] list' epidemic

Personally I am looking forward to the '100 Greatest Lists' appearing in a mag some time soon. Here in the UK they overdo it. Seldom is there an issue of Q or Mojo etc without some list or other. Being a cynical chap I suspect these are just filler or a way to foist the same old elitist tripe on the foolsh people who buy these mags. I look at it the other way around - you get a free mag with a cover disc. Last point... why do MP3s and the net get such short shrift? I suspect these mags are biased in favour of their advertisers...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.144.210 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I'm with you on this one, buddy. I keep waiting for VH1 (an American TV channel that constantly produces shows about lists like this) to do the Top 20 Greatest VH1 Top 20 Countdowns. Topping off the list would of course be the Top 20 Greatest VH1 Top 20 Countdowns.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.69.160.1 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jokes?

I think someone had fun changing the titles of the songs in the Top 10. I noticed it but I didn't edit the page as I'm not good and I think I'd only mess the page up. [I'm sorry if my English isn't the best, I'm Italian ;)] Thanks, Giulia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.9.15.41 (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

22 Songs from the 1990s vs. 35 Songs in 1965 alone..

1965 has 35 entries in the list, one and a half times as many as the whole nineteen-nineties 22 entries, that pretty much says it all.. that the Rolling Stone Magazine is overstaffed with ageing Baby Boomers (to give them credit, they do include Sabotage from the Beastie Boys, but there is still a lot missing)

1965 is probably the greatest year in popular music. Dylan, The Stones, and The Beatles were in top form. That decision is completely justified. 24.0.60.105 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly you can't say that the 1990s had better songs than 1965 alone. The only one that may beat most of the songs of the 1965 in the 1990s was "Smells Like Teen Spirit". And the Beastie Boys and Sabotage are very bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.46.145 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whipping Post

"The longest song is "Whipping Post" (#383) of The Allman Brothers Band with a duration of 23:03."

What the heck? The original studio version of Whipping Post is nowhere near that long - just over five minutes, IIRC. Unless it's explicitly stated somewhere that the nomination was given to some extended live version (which I doubt), that's simply not true. I've therefore deleted it. Jah77 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed? The person must have be looking at the Live at the Philmore east version. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaFlat (talk • contribs) 02:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

statistics are wrong

352 songs by america 117 songs by britain 12 songs by the ireland 10 songs by canada 7 songs by jamaica 3 songs by australia 1 song by sweden this makes 502 not 500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.77.0 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but maybe there is a group or duet with members from more than one country and counts as such, but your right it's most probably wrong, could do with explanation, anyone know what's going on.Carlwev (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For instance, how about a band like CSN (Suite: Judy Blue Eyes), who has members from the US and UK. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

warning: updated list

... The magazine published an updated list in June 2010.

... therefore a WARNING - especially regarding ANY of those entries in the wikipedia mentioned at various rock-songs: they may already - or they even DO NOT - refer to this updated list!
... and this is currently even true for some parts - especially those regarding the statistics section - of the article this discussion belongs to ... ;-(
... !!! OH, WHAT A MESS !!! ...
... -> until everything is fine again (a few months/years from now) ... ;-) ...
... -> until everything get's screwed up again (a few years from now) ... ;-( ...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.132 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

11 new songs in 2010 update ?

So... im assuming that there are only 11 new songs, correct? Someone who can confirm this should change the statistic numbers.. -- Yandri (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Math failure

"The list is almost entirely composed of North American and British artists. Of the 500 songs, 352 are from the United States and 117 from the United Kingdom; they are followed by Ireland with 12 entries, Canada with 10, Jamaica with 7 (most of them by Bob Marley or Jimmy Cliff), Australia with three (AC/DC with two) and a lone song from Sweden (by ABBA)."

352+117+12+10+7+3+1 = 502

Is this intentional?Centrisian (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There may be acts which count in 2 countries at once, for one example, if a song by The Band appears on the list, do they count as Canadian or American or both? 4 of the members are Canadian, and 1 is American. The American was lead vocalist on most of their best known songs, so how do you count it? Likewise, AC/DC isn't purely an Australian band, the Young brothers are Scottish born, and Brian Johnson is English. --Jayron32 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

CSNY has members from the US (Crosby and Stills), Canada (Young), and the UK (Nash). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the number of songs from the 1940s from 2 down to 1. Muddy Waters's "Rollin' Stone" was released in 1950 as per the Wiki article about it. Waters seems to have borrowed from Petway's "Catfish Blues," which was recorded in 1941, but they are two different songs, and Petway's song is not the song on the list. The only song from the 1940s is by Hank Williams, and it was recorded in 1949. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.241 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1940s Songs

Article table for 2010 updated list claims 2 1940s song, but then doesn't list the new 1940s song addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.146.32 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...

I'm not sure about the new list, but has anybody noticed that the old list is BIASED? Really... in second place is I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) by the ROLLING STONES? And in first place, Like a ROLLING STONE? I, personally, cannot believe they put Clocks so low on the list, but anyway... yeah, has anybody noticed this is biased? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sort of good that they made it like that, it just blatantly spells out "YES WE KNOW WERE BIASED, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT". Reasonable given I haven't seen a Top List of Anything that wasn't biased or incomplete somehow. I guess they avoid a lot of complaints by making the bias so obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.178.205 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

English question

is "The 15 Greatest Songs of The Beatles" equivalent to say "The 15 Greatest Songs from The Beatles" ? December 2010 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "from" just allows the phrase used in context where there may be other songs included such as this list.

No Creedence Clearwater Revival?

That omission alone constitutes an epic fail. Oh well; of all art critics, those who engage music are the most pretentious and unable to actually articulate what they think makes a composition great. The Grammies are a much bigger joke than, say, the Oscars. 174.27.252.189 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The 500 Greatest anglosaxonafroamerican Songs of 60's

why it is called all times and west white culture??? I see here only anglosaxonafroamerican songs from 1963-1967...and some of them I have heard for the first time in my long life...something is really wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.188.76 (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL, what a shameless list! you call it global music? i call that western music beginnin with 50s. EPIC FAIL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.105.123 (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Updated list

OK... so.. this is going from bad to worse. There are 26 new songs (all from the 2000s). Hence, the last decade suddenly got a bigger share. There are also about 20 songs that were removed (whoa...) from the middle of the list for some "reason". Finally, a lot of weird position exchanges between the songs from the 1st list. Conclusion: Shame on you, RS.... -- Yandri (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend two different entries, or a split entry, one for the RS 500 list from 2004 and a separate one for each update of the list. I suspect the inflation of entries from the last decade are not to be trusted as there has not been that much historically significant music. RS is probably being used a tool for record sales. What A Surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.110.241 (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotta be some Guns n' Roses. Especially Coma, 10:14. Ep.ic. Dave 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davesilvan (talk • contribs)

what the what?

The top 50 songs from the list were featured and now some idiot removed them to only show the top 10! What's up with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.253 (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and then rephrase your question. --Jayron32 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why were the 50 top songs removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.112.187 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Song Genres Misleading

Why are Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone" and Lennon's "Imagine" classified as Rock music? What is in the least bit rock about either of those songs? They are closer to Folk and Pop, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.109.109 (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I think the title of the article "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time" isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The way the title is laid out makes it sound like a definitive list, when it's merely the opinion of a magazine. Opertinicy (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The title of the article should be "Rolling Stone's "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", instead of its current title. Tøndemageren (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above proposed title. Jds7813 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The songs added to the updated list

There were previous copyright concerns about re-printing the entire list here, which lead to the history of the page being restarted. More can be found about the discussion here. Personally, I think we should be able to re-print the list, since Rolling Stone has made it available for free on their website, but that's beside the point.

Because of this, we can't re-print large portions of the list, and limited it to the top 10. Also, adding just a list of the songs added really adds nothing to the article because of a lack of context. The casual reader doesn't know how these added songs ranked, or which songs were replaced. Because of that, the list should be omitted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with a diff list, since it is a multiple derivative rather than a single derivative. Further, it enables the reader to find added benefit to any single 500 list he can find, without needing to find BOTH and do a comparison. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That really makes no sense. Most would be able to find little use in a list of only additions (due to the obvious reason: that they can't put the additions in any kind of context because the main list is missing). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Scorpion -- although not a full diff list, the additions list DOES offer a reader additional information to supplement the single external source normally available online. A reader normally does not have access to BOTH external sources, and wouldn't even know to look for it. The additions list at least gives the reader a meaningful representation of the relative degree of magnitude between the two lists, and offers him a reason for additional digging. As for copyright, I deal with this in the real world. The Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek text is fully copyrighted. You CANNOT publish it. However, you CAN take any other Greek text, such as Westcott and Hort, the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, or the Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament, and publish a complete diff list of that text from the Nestle-Aland with NO copyright infringement. While I understand your concern, in this matter it is not necessary.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone has gone and changed the list again

Something tells me that Insane Clown Posse isn't on Rolling Stone's top 500 list much less the top 10. Needless to say, the entire list has ben changed. While I appreciate their sense of humor, someone needs to go and fix that ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.225.154 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to lock article

This article is getting far too vandalized and no new info is arriving to warrant keeping the article open. Just lock it and be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.69.163.218 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Especially considering this is The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time as per a specific issue of Rolling Stone, ergo it's not going to change. -- Bonkalicious (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an identical article with a different ranking

I was redirected from "Rolling Stone`s 500 Greastet Songs of All Time" (which I believe should be the title of the article) to this article and Johnny B Goode by Chuck Berry appears as number one, while Like A Rolling Stone by Bob Dylan should be (this appears in the identical article I mentioned in the title of this section). How can there be two identical articles differing just in one spot of the list? They should erase the wrong article (Johnny B Goode number one) and lock the rigth one. Marcelo A. Colominas April 28th, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.126.178 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding a second article. Could you post a link to the full title of the second article you found at Wikipedia? --Jayron32 04:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah!

Not including "Volare" is a crime. :) -xwingsx- (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Complain to Rolling Stone Magazine. Its their list. --Jayron32 04:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Australia has three entries?

I would like to know who sourced the claim that there were three Australian songs in this list. I went to the Wayback Machine link and I looked (finding the two AC/DC entries) but no sign of the third entry. What is it? I have a feeling that it won't be Australian. 58.164.104.5 (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's everywhere !

Why is this ranking on every song page of Wikipedia when it is far from being objective ? All rankings are completely stupid... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.11.36 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Most music articles on Wikipedia contain some measure of critical (and thus subjective) opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to deal with objective material. Rankings are often suspicious. And this ranking appear on top of every page ! This should simply not be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.11.36 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Every album article also has a "reception" section listing numerous subjective views. Part of our duty is to document objectively the way things are critically received. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok but doesn't it lead to a bias that only one ranking is at the top of each article ? Shouldn't that ranking just be in the "reception" section ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.11.36 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that would also be an appropriate place for it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.11.36 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

2010 Update - Statistics

The article says that The list differs only slightly from the 2004 version, with all of the new additions being songs from the 2000's with the exceptions of "Juicy" by The Notorious B.I.G. and "Big Pimpin'" by Jay-Z, which were released in 1994 and 1999, respectively. However, the statistics indicate that there was one song from the 1940s in the original list whilst there are two in the updated list from 2010. This appears inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalambur (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been fixed. For some reason one song had been added to the 40s and one song deducted from the 50s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.76.114 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Length

The list is getting ridiculous. Do we really need to include 40 songs? I think we need a consensus on how many songs to include. I’m for only including the top 10. Anyone else? --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• 5% is 25, 10% is 50... but the most important are the top 10, methinks. Support Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Apparently, our lawyers say we're not allowed to include any portion of such lists. Have removed. Uniplex (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not even under fair use? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Hmmm... now that the list is gone, it strikes me that the Statistics section is Original Research. Anyone care to argue that it isn't? Provide a source for it? -- Mwanner | Talk 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't argue that it isn't. Also the update section. The whole article could probably become a redirect to a few sentences in the 500 Albums article. Uniplex (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are 23 songs of the Beatles, no 20

Here all the 23 Beatles'songs of the list of Rolling Stones Magazine:

8 Hey Jude

13 Yesterday

16 I Want To Hold Your Hand

20 Let It Be

23 In My Life

28 A Day In The Life

29 Help

64 She Loves You

76 Strawberry Fields Forever

83 Norwegian Wood (this Bird Has Flown)

136 While My Guitar Gently Weeps

138 Eleanor Rigby

140 I Saw Her Standing There

154 A Hard Day's Night

186 Please Please Me

205 Come Together Lyrics

278 Something

295 Can't buy me love

311 With A Little Help From My Friends

370 All you need is love

394 Ticket To Ride

456 Penny Lane

469 Rain

--Fgonmar (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title

The 500 greatest songs of all time for the aesthetically challenged perhaps. Shouldn't the title be in quotation marks or reworded something like "Rolling Stone Magazine's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time"? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just made the change. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It was just changed back by editor Tbhotch, presumably on the basis that this is the common name for the subject. Really! When people around the world refer to the ninth greatest song of all time it is assumed that they are talking not about, say, I Can't Get Started or The Toreador Song but, rather Smells Like Teen Spirit? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And I came here expecting to find the Hallelujah chorus from Handel's Messiah :-).

The Hallelujah chorus is not a song. Bitbut (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

173.79.44.156 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC) I expected to find a full list of the 500 songs, not just the top 20, and some recent additions. Nonso 007 10:55 7 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonso 007 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Hmmm...is it a surprise to anyone that the quantity of songs per decade essentially follows the baby-boomer demographic as they progress from teens, 20-somethings, 30-somethings, etc.? 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)justthefactsnow00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)14 April 2012

To be sure, the title of the original article in Rolling Stone reflects the bias of that magazine. This list, at best, is the 500 best American pop/rock recordings since the end of World War II, but to Rolling Stone that is the same as "best songs of all time." Wikipedia reports the article title without irony, something that Wikipedia does not do well. Paul (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know some (many) of the artists are not American, but they are playing in an American cultural sandbox and they are being evaluated by an American magazine. Paul (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Full list?

Shouldn't we have a full list of all 500 songs on the page? http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-500-greatest-songs-of-all-time-20110407

No, because of copyright. Elfast (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Name change

The name of this article should be changed, it's not like Rolling Stone magazine is the ultimate lord of music criticism and what it considers to be the 500 greatest albums ara actually that great, mostly because art is subjective and the titling can lead to misconceptions. —Gheiratina ^(Touch) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Who voted and how?

The article on the German Wikipedia ( de: Die 500 besten Songs aller Zeiten ) states that there was a jury of 172 people who voted for the songs they considered most influential (which doesn't have to be the same as great!). Some of these 172 people were famous musicians like Ozzy Osbourne, Art Garfunkel, and Elvis Costello. Definitely worth mentioning, I'd say. By the way, I also think that there should be something like an introductory phrase that says that the list was about pop/rock and mainly focused on the US-musicmarket (some genres were left out on purpose, e. g. classical music and jazz; some regions of the world were left out, e. g. Asia and Africa; it's all about the second half of the 20th century...). My idea for a second sentence: "172 people, including famous musicians like Art Garfunkel and Elvis Costello, formed a jury and voted for the songs they considered most influential. The list contains mostly pop/rock-songs from the second half of the 20th century, performed in English." (Sorry for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker, maybe someone else could add a sentence like mine?) -- 194.95.117.68 (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Focus

Rolling Stone lists get press, but not all get individual WP:N notability. I suggest moving instead to Rolling Stone lists of best albums, and including RS's 500, and the various International RS 100's. Basically, sticking to Rolling Stone lists. I mean the "500" article is rather freakishly short, by itself. Sticking with only Rolling Stone lists avoids the WP:COATRACK issues with non-Rolling Stone lists... --Lexein (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The RS 500 Albums along with Robert Dimery's 1001 Albums, are the two most notable lists in the field of music criticism. RS has done other lists, but not with the impact of the 500 Albums. The RS 500 Songs is probably the next most notable list, but that is slightly different as it deals with songs rather than albums, so a merger of this article with Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time might not be acceptable. The RS list - Rolling Stone's 100 greatest guitarists of all time got merged with Guitarist#Notable guitarists, and that feels about right. There is this article - Albums considered the greatest ever - which is probably closest to your intention. There is a question mark over that aricle though, and I can see why. There are a number of websites which attempt to do what that article has done, and they come up with different results. In this analysis Nirvana's Nevermind comes top. While this one has Pet Sounds as the top album. Clearly, the lists that are chosen, and the methodology in the weighing and point scoring, will impact on the final list - so the outcome is not objective.

I feel that there may be room for an article which can neutrally and objectively discuss all the lists - Hall of Fame, RS 500, 1001 Albums, etc, etc. But having such an overview article does not necessarily mean that we shouldn't have individual stand alone articles on the most notable lists. Same as we have an article on Newspapers as well as individual articles on types of newspaper: Sunday editions and individual newspapers: The Sunday Times.

I feel that RS 500 could be expanded with information on who compiled the list, and with critical responses to the list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Well, then, perhaps a List of Rolling Stone lists, leaving the 500 as standalone. I see the deleted international Rolling Stone lists as an unnecessary loss. They are smaller, and certainly less important in the United States, but not in their respective market countries. I get the impression that their lists of all sizes get press every time they are released, so there should be no problem finding RS to support their individual inclusion in a supposed Rolling Stone lists article (or list). Given my experiences with other lists, I fear that a too-generic article about 'greatest' music lists from multiple sources would be considered indiscriminate, hence my interest here in just Rolling Stone lists. An overarching List of Rock Lists is already a book, which apparently lacks sufficient notability for an article, even though I see it over there on my bookshelf - heh. --Lexein (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all

To be fair and really exact, this should be "Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time ... in the English Spoken World". (I suppose this people may know there's a lot of awesome, fantastic songs in other languages, right?) MachoCarioca (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Most common word in lyrics?

The article claims that the most common word in the songs' lyrics is "love" with over 1000 instances, but that is certainly incorrect. The word "the" is surely more common; it is undoubtedly used much more than twice per song on average, giving it well over 1000 instances. I see that the cited source doesn't address this issue; in fact, it seems as though the person who did the analysis didn't even look for the word "the". Some sort of clarification should be made, or the statistic should just be removed. 74.71.94.218 (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Original and Updated lists are separate.

We should treat the sections for the original list and updated list as separate entities. I'm saying this cause it bugs me that in the statistics section, it mentions that U2 have 8 songs on the list despite only having 6 in the first list, while having 2 added in the updated one. It just bothers me for some reason. Scarabola (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of songs in 2000s decade updated list.

The statistics box for the 2010 updated list states that 26 songs in the list are from the 2000s decade. The following songs are from that decade:

1. Crazy - Gnarls Barkley
2. 99 Problems - Jay Z
3. Crazy in Love - Beyonce
4. Juicy - The Notorious B.I.G.
5. Paper Planes - MIA
6. Seven Nation Army - White Stripes
7. Maps - Yeah Yeah Yeahs
8. Rehab - Amy Winehouse
9. Beautiful Day - U2
10. Time To Pretend - MGMT
11. In da Club - 50 Cent
12. Get Ur Freak On - Missy Elliot
13. Last Nite - The Strokes
14. Mississippi - Bob Dylan
15. Since U Been Gone - Kelly Clarkson
16. Jesus Walks - Kanye West
17. Cry Me a River - Justin Timberlake
18. Umbrella - Rihanna
19. Clocks - Coldplay
20. Ignition - R. Kelly
21. Take Me Out - Franz Ferdinand
22. One More Time - Daft Punk
23. The Rising - Bruce Springsteen
24. Moment of Surrender - U2
25. American Idiot - Green Day
26. Big Pimpin' - Jay Z

As you can see, there are 26. Scarabola (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in the counting?

"The list is almost entirely composed of North American and British artists and is very strictly post mid-twentieth century. Of the 500 songs, 352 are from the United States and 117 from the United Kingdom; they are followed by Ireland with 12 entries (U2 with 8), Canada with 10, Jamaica with 7 (most of them by Bob Marley or Jimmy Cliff), Australia with three (AC/DC with two) and a lone song from Sweden (by ABBA)".
But 352+117+12+10+7+3+1 makes 502... And at least one French song is not mentioned : [4]. Elfast (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I just came to this section for the same reason, but the statistics now read:

"... Of the 500 songs, 352 are from the United States and 119 from the United Kingdom; they are followed by Ireland with 12 entries (of which 8 were composed by U2), Canada with 10 (a majority of them by Neil Young), Jamaica with 7 (most of them by Bob Marley, Jimmy Cliff, and Toots & the Maytals), Australia with two (AC/DC) and a lone song from Sweden (ABBA)."

It appears the UK has gained 2 and Australia has lost 1. Which now totals up to 503 songs. And it still doesn't mention a French song, whichever one that might be. Gcronau (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Errors in Nation of Origin lists

Errors exist in the lists in relation to breakdown by nation. Some of this confusion can be explained by the existence of two lists – the original 2004 list & the updated 2010 list (which saw 26 songs dropped and 26 new songs added). I’ll try to clarify some of the errors I can find:

• Rihanna (Barbados) & also Daft Punk (France) are new entries on the 2010 list.
• Australia has two or four songs (same on both lists) depending upon whether you count Bee Gees as Australian or British (Bee Gees – two songs; AC/DC - two songs)
• Ireland (still trying to figure this one out) - U2 has 6 on original 2006 list + 2 new entries on new list (Moment of Surrender + Beautiful Day) which gives them 8 in 2010.

Ireland (2006): 6 (U2) + 1 (Sinead O’Connor) + 1 (Thin Lizzy) = 8 (in 2010 Thin Lizzy drops out, but U2 gains 2, so 2010 total is U2 (8) + 1 (Sinead O’Connor) = 9. The article states that Ireland has 12 songs. Perhaps they are counting Van Morrison (3 entries) & Them (1 entry) as Ireland (actually Northern Ireland) [unless there are some other Irish artists there I don’t know about]. --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Why

Why has it been reduced from top 20 to 10. There isn't really any point. ScotlandLaddie04 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The tally is still wrong

The nation-of-origin breakdown in the first paragraph in the "Statistics" section now adds up to 507: 351 (US) + 120 (UK) + 13 (Canada) + 12 (Ireland) + 7 (Jamaica) + 2 (Australia) + 1 (Sweden) + 1 (France). Rontrigger (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RS 500 Front Cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Amusing but dumb

Too bad that Wikipedia articles like this can't be more explicit about the obvious and absolute conceptual foolishness of such things as "500 greatest songs of all time...." Badiacrushed (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's right, because the inherent subjectivity of "greatest" in reference to art (or any other endeavor without quantifiable physical measurements) is obvious to only about 99% of the readers here...  :-) KevinBTheobald (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add playlist on Spotify

Addition to External Links:

"500 Greatest Songs of All Time" by Rolling Stone magazine on Spotify (updated version of the list)

Link: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7EAqBCOVkDZcbccjxZmgjp?si=NSZL7SedRA2bHL5a1nSDlA Hebhansen (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: If this were the official playlist published by Rolling Stone, maybe, but I don't think promoting a user-created list is appropriate. (Besides which, according to the stats on that list there's 502 songs on there?) ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Why can't we write all 500 songs? Rolling Stone's website is inconvenient for people who want to see them all.

The list is copyrighted. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RS 500 Front Cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Creators of these lists are men with hearing disability

80% of the noise they list as the best is just a pile of trash 86.38.75.174 (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)