Rolling Stones Top 50 of all time

**Exhaust Port** · 04-01-2004

Good point Stilla. If the music guru's must claim that Nirvana was legendary (and made the list) then were are the Doors? Personally I felt that Nirvana's albums after Nevermind were declining in impact. I would only hold Nevermind as their crowning achievement but one album doesn't make them legends in the field. This is the same band that released Bleached (their first album). Ugh.

**El Chuxter** · 04-01-2004

Little Richard is way too high.

Johnny Cash is way too low.

And who is Muddy Watters? Is he any kin to Muddy Waters, or just knocking off on the name of someone who should've ranked higher.

I also am noticing a considerable lack of Aerosmith, Fleetwood Mac, and Eric Clapton.

**LusiferSam** · 04-01-2004

I saw list last night and was also wondering were Pink Floyd, C, N and S, and some others were. Elvis and Bob Dylan I think should have swapped places. Buddy Holly should have been Buddy Holly and the Crickets. But I was glad to see a number of early people on there like Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, and Bo Diddley (I need to get this stuff on CD some time). And I think a few like Bob Marley and The Velvet Underground ranked too high and the Beach Boys and Led Zeppelin ranked too low. Over all one of the better lists I've seen from Rolling Stone.

**Kidhuman** · 04-01-2004

Originally Posted by El Chuxter

Little Richard is way too high.

Johnny Cash is way too low.

And who is Muddy Watters? Is he any kin to Muddy Waters, or just knocking off on the name of someone who should've ranked higher.

I also am noticing a considerable lack of Aerosmith, Fleetwood Mac, and Eric Clapton.

I knew you were gonna ask where is Slowhand? He is a noteable left off.

**arctangent** · 04-02-2004

Originally Posted by Exhaust Port

Good point Stilla. If the music guru's must claim that Nirvana was legendary (and made the list) then were are the Doors? Personally I felt that Nirvana's albums after Nevermind were declining in impact.

don't you mean album? they did only release one studio album after nevermind.

Originally Posted by Exhaust Port

This is the same band that released Bleached (their first album). Ugh.

er, that'll be bleach. nevermind really only sold well because it had relatively catchy tunes. nirvana were in the right place at the right time.

**Kidhuman** · 04-02-2004

Originally Posted by Exhaust Port

Good point Stilla. If the music guru's must claim that Nirvana was legendary (and made the list) then were are the Doors? Personally I felt that Nirvana's albums after Nevermind were declining in impact. I would only hold Nevermind as their crowning achievement but one album doesn't make them legends in the field. This is the same band that released Bleached (their first album). Ugh.

The Doors are #41 on the list, way to low in my eyes. They did alot more for music than Nirvana, I can admit that. They played an important part in phsyedelic(sp?) rock. No band from the ninties deserves to be above 35 IMO.

**Exhaust Port** · 04-02-2004

Originally Posted by arctangent

don't you mean album? they did only release one studio album after nevermind.

I was including Incesticide as a post-Nevermind album. Albeit a b-sides collection it was still a release of "new" material.

Your right about the title correction, it's Bleach. I listened to a tape of it back in '91 and never bothered with it again. I guess the name was also forgettable.

**arctangent** · 04-02-2004

Originally Posted by Exhaust Port

I was including Incesticide as a post-Nevermind album. Albeit a b-sides collection it was still a release of "new" material.

sorry, i forgot about that one

Originally Posted by Exhaust Port

Your right about the title correction, it's Bleach. I listened to a tape of it back in '91 and never bothered with it again. I guess the name was also forgettable.

i don't own bleach but i have heard it and from what i recall the production does sound a bit muffled.

**Lowly Bantha Cleaner** · 04-05-2004

I have the issue at home and usually their lists are way off the mark, but I would agree with most of the people included on the list.

Let me say first, that the title of the list is called "The Immortals" meaning not necessairly the people/bands that are the greatest, but probably leaning towards more influential/ground-breaking/lasting. That is why I think you see a lot of deceased members/who departed way too early, on the list such as Buddy Holly, Otis Redding, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana, Jim Morrison of the Doors, Janis Joplin, Sam Cooke, Marvin Gaye and a few others. Their death has contributed to an aura of immortality around these people, that will take time to cease.

The only bone I have to pick is with the rankings. Why are number rankings important? The only thing they do is cause debate. If they just assembled the list of 50 without ranking then I think the list would have been more closer to perfection.

What I also like about this issue is the fact that other artists wrote their opinions on the immortals. For instance, Billy Joel wrote about Elton John, Smokey Robinson wrote about Marvin Gaye, Shirley Manson about Patti Smith and Little Richard was the only one to write about himself.