Talk:Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Clash[edit]

The Clash had at least 2 of their albums in the top 100 they should be included in the "most mentioned" artists section on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Utter Load of Crap[edit]

Boy if this discussion doesn't prove Wiki can at times be an utter load of crap, I don't know what will. People can't spell, they make assertions they cannot in any way cite, they push personal opinions as corroborated fact, and so forth. OMG what a mess.

Back in the 60's, Rolling Stone Magazine was relevant. Since about 1980, they, and especially this list, have lost any relevance. Being controversial just for the sake of starting an argument is childish. There are so many great bands and albums ignored here and so many trivial artists included that it is almost a waste of time to whine about it.

Erased that mini-article criticising the list...

I have one question... I remember "Dookie" by Green Day being on the list (somewhere around 190-ish?), but it's not here? Am I mistaken in my memory, or is it intentionally left off, or just an innocent mistake? Thanks.

It's at #193, both on Rolling Stone's site, and on this list. --Arcadian 15:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't a Green Day album have been released after 1970? this is not acknowledged in the intro! Monkeyduck 17:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone altered an information on the top 10 and I just fixed it. It read that "Kerplunk!" by Green Day was the best album!

...and with quadrophenia at like 260 something, that should tell you everything. Paradoxically, I'd like to actually add a complaint that the list is too British. For a country of what, 60-70 mil, the Brits are way out of proportion compared to the Germans, Americans, Australians, and pretty much everyone else. Yeah, they were the home of some of the best, but for goodness sakes, how can you say America is overrepresented in comparison when there's 5 times the population!
It's got nothing to do with population, it's to do with how good an album (apparently) is. Just because theres 5 times as many people living in a country dosen't mean there are five times as many good albums recorded there. 03:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia has 20mil :| BurningZeppelin 01:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird Explanation[edit]

Anyone else having trouble understanding this explanation: "This list only contains artists who had at least 3 albums on the list and include the ones only at time of publication"

While I understand the criticism that this list is very British/American biased, I do not understand how Kraftwerk is the only non British/American album on the list? What about the Buena Vista Social Club? 15:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess cause the list was getting really crowded with artists with 1/1 or 1/2 albums. That'll teach The Sex Pistols to only release one album...J.T. 01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic Björk with her album Post is not mentioned as a foreign artist on the list either. LarssonmickeEN (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issue[edit]

Hi. I came to know this page through the translated page on Japanese Wikipedia which is recently created.

I have a question regarding the copyright status of this list.

I see U.S. courts have several cases dealing with copyrightability of works such as this list. For example, Eckes v. Card Prices Update (736 F.2d 859) was in part about the copyrightability of a list of premium v. non-premium baseball cards. And the Court's opinion says the following:

We have no doubt that appellants exercised selection, creativity and judgment in choosing among the 18,000 or so different baseball cards in order to determine which were the 5,000 premium cards. Accordingly, we believe that the Guide merits protection under the copyright laws.

I am not familiar with how this list was compiled. And if it was simply a result of a poll or sales figures, it might be okay. It would not be a product of creative activity. But if a group of experts got together and created this list, then this list could quite possibly be their copyright (or the Roling Stone's).

I checked their list on the web, but I could not find any information regarding the selection process. What I did find, though, was that their web page displays some ads. That seems to make this page a bit harder than otherwise to defend as a fair use. This page seems to undermine their page's commercial value if people can access a free version hosted here (or elsewhere by wikipedia mirrors).

Hope someone could respond. Thanks. Tomos 04:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but this is a blatant copyvio as far as I am concerned. A list such as telephone numbers may not be copyrightable in the US, but a list of the 'best' albums compiled by experts surely is. The Rolling Stone site says ©, and they make money off advertising as you say. I've added a copyvio template. --kingboyk 23:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The introduction doesn't seem to be a blatant copyright violation? I am totally unable to find that text on the webpage You gave. feydey 02:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, indeed. I've never done a copyvio template before so I assumed I would have to blank out the entire article. If you wish to restore the introduction go right ahead. --kingboyk 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think what should be done is anything salvageable or new content should go to List_of_Rolling_Stone's_500_Greatest_Albums_of_All_Time/Temp, until the matter is resolved. Sorry, as I said I'm new to this. --kingboyk 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and rediculous that Pink Floyd's "Dark side of the moon", the greatest album of all time to many, failed place anywhere near the top on this list.

  1. 45 is very good actually. Think of how many millions (?) of albums have been released. The Person Who Is Strange 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Person Who Is Strange (talkcontribs)

What about the book?![edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Rolling Stone Magazine published a book with a slightly different order last year?

I've noticed the listings on the website are different than the ones in the book (which I have) and I've been editing numbers based on the book, not knowing this until now. Maybe any reference to this list should reference both the book and the website, or at least which specify which it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What copyright Infringement?[edit]

Are you guys serious?! You cannot copyright a list of album titles! The list was NOT compiled by experts anyhow, in the sense that it was a poll conducted and including votes from not just experts, but artists, producers etc. alike! What's the problem here?

Guys, hold up here. Are you seriously saying that this list a copyright infringement? C'mon, what kind of precedent are you setting? So what about these lists then:
and then of course what about the other lists in the Rolling Stone series:
There are many more examples of these kinds of lists and none of these are a copyright infringement. Could somebody please show me where this is breaching copyright, if not kindly remove the tag and restore the list.
Commons-emblem-copyright.svg This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.
-- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As I see the problem is that RS paid people to make desicions what albums are the best, so they have the copyright on the list. The list is not arbitrary, or compiled alphabetically or by sales figures. Also the other possible copyvios do not mean this list is in public domain. P.S. Top 100 Selling Albums of the 1970s is a list with no creative input, so it's not under copyright. feydey 00:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That was my point entirely. Indeed I'd imagine that it doesn't even matter if they paid people. They compiled the list with expert input, it's a subjective list not a factual one, therefore to my non-lawyer eyes it's copyright. It was my duty to tag it as such since the Wikimedia foundation is short of money as is without getting sued as well! Now at least we can have a proper discussion about it and hopefully a lawyer will speak up too. --kingboyk 05:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I am under the opinion that US copyright laws are extremely idiotic and need to be rethought by the government. In Australia, there is no such thing as 'applying for copyright' or someone asking "is that copyrighted?" Once you have made something, it is yours and there is no need to register for copyright, you are the legal owner and have full copyright.

Well, you should learn what you're talking about before you do. Anything you create is automatically copyright to you. The reason you apply for copyright protection is because, contrary to popular belief, there aren't many original ideas. People will come up with similar things all the time; and even if they didn't, they can always claim they did. And you can't always prove that you came up with the content first, unless of course, you notified the copyright office ahead of time.
That said, the list is copyrighted to rolling stones. The question is whether you can use it, and yeah, you can use it under 'fair use.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about US law, but if you are concerned about this article, link to the god dam original location. It's not hard.

--BigglesTheGreat 06:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

RS's list would be copyrighted, but it would be fair use to use an excerpt of the list--in USA Today's write-up, they give the list's top 10, which seems about right. Nareek 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

And then once you have ten, people are going to want to expand to twenty. Don't, please. This article is not a list, it's an article about a list, and the list itself is easily available via an external link. The article needs to encourage people to add substantive content. Mentioning where albums ranked should be limited to places where it's a natural part of the discussion, as is already beginning to be done. --Michael Snow 01:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit like saying that an article about Hamlet should include no quotes from Hamlet, because it's an article about a play, not a play--and because if you quote anything from it, people are going to want to quote the whole thing. Surely we can keep that slope from getting too slippery. There is no legal reason why we shouldn't provide readers with an excerpt, and there's nothing unencyclopedic about it either--just as there was nothing un-newspaperlike in USA Today doing the same thing. Nareek 04:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You should note that I did not say we "should include no quotes" from the list. In fact, I recommended quoting the list in places where it's appropriate for the discussion. But there needs to be an editorial reason to quote it, otherwise people should just go to the external link where they can get it from the horse's mouth. "Just because I can" and "Well, I feel like copying part of the list" are not appropriate justifications. Wikipedia policy strongly favors free content, so if you want to claim fair use in order to add non-free content, you better have a good argument for it.
Naturally, the precise order of some of the top albums might be a place where critics would focus a lot of their attention. So incorporate some of that discussion into the article and this will take care of itself. --Michael Snow 06:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The justification is that I think you would give readers a much better idea of what the subject of the article is like by providing a brief excerpt than by not providing an excerpt. But let's see what other folks have to say. Nareek 07:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of the top 10 only with a link to the other 490 is appropriate. It gives some context about why there's controversy about US/UK and generational bias without quoting the whole thing and causing copyright concerns.GBrady (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten?[edit]

The part at the bottom about the top 10 seems wrong. There is no Sly and the Family stone on the top ten?

The top ten are Beatles, Beach Boys, Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Clash, Stones

Isn't that six? Mechanic1c (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


  • If there is no list (and I accept there can be no list, even though i think that is ridiculous) should this article be deleted? It is not particularly interesting to have an article saying "Music magazine X made a top 500 songs list...", since it is not a particularly revolutionary thing for a music magazine to do. There is only so much "substantive information" that can ever be added, none of it interesting or encyclopaedic. We don't need an article about every article ever printed in Rolling Stone, which is essentially what this is. Nothing unique or special about it, compared to either other Rolling Stone articles or other music magazine top X lists. Why do we need it? Jdcooper 16:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The list is helpful as an NPOV way of establishing that various rock albums are taken seriously. Having an article about the list rather than linking to it from the albums directly allows us to contextualize it a bit. Nareek 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it NPOV to have an article about Rolling Stone's list, and ignore the other similar lists that have been made by other music magazines. That asserts a POV emphasis on Rolling Stone's list as more valuable. Maybe we could rewrite this to remove the Rolling Stone bias and talk about greatest album lists in general, and their importance to the music industry and individual artists? Jdcooper 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should remain, although it would benefit from some rewriting. Rolling Stone is one of the most famous and credible sources on rock music, and this list represents a huge moment in the magazine's life, where its essence is captured, summarized, and presented to the world. I think a case could be made that this event is worth noting on wikipedia, and the argument that it justifies a wikipedia entry for every rolling stone article (or every magazine "best of" list) is a bit far-fetched.

My biggest problem with this article is the extent to which it tries to present the list as opinionated, limited in genre, and non-definitive. These aspects are implicit in the nature of the list; it is a rock and roll journal, and hence the list should emphasize rock acts; it deals with "best" albums, meaning it is inherently opinionated; and, as a collection of opinions, it is obviously not "definitive". Why the author thought it was necessary to make these points explicit is beyond me, but it weakens the article. Gyllstromk 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


It is not enough to point out things wrong with the list. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, and they are all full of shit. We must include RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES to back up these criticisms or they cannot stay. This would presumably be articles criticising the list from other reputable music magazines, online or otherwise, and not just miscellaneous blogs or someone's livejournal. Please help sort this problem out, its a major problem with the article at the moment. Jdcooper 17:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Most if not all of the criticisms can be reframed as factual observations--if you remove the word "too" from them, you're halfway there. Nareek 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but then if they aren't criticisms at all and just factual observations then how do we decide which factual observations are interesting, and which omitted bands are worthy of mentions? Jdcooper 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As Gamaliel said in his edit summary, "the section is called "criticism", not "facts about the list". what is needed is not verification or citation of these facts, but that there was criticism of the list on the basis of these facts)". This is the reason, for example, that the statistics at the bottom of the article do not need citations, because their validity can be seen just by looking at the list. How is it an obvious fact that "the list is too America-centric"? That is the individual opinion of whoever first put that sentence in the article. Someone else might think it is not America-centric enough? The fact that it is in the "criticism" section, and not "arbitrary-selected facts about the list" is crucial here. What's more, i have had a look around, I can't find any sources to back up any of these criticisms (which is annoying, because i know i have read some), if these can't be found in a couple of days the section shouldn't really stay, the tags have been up for quite a while now. Jdcooper 17:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I think that much of the section could be reframed as facts about the list rather than criticisms. I haven't had much WP time lately, otherwise I would have done it. Nareek 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Facts about the list" would be inherently POV, technically there are infinite "facts about the list", so the exact nature of the facts included could not help but show the bias of the person adding them, and to identify some facts as more important would also probably count as original research. A criticism section is completely fine, there was a lot of criticism (as there naturally would be for a high-profile subjective feature such as this), and very useful, but it just needs to be sourced. Jdcooper 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is much improved since the last time I looked at it. I just want to note for the record that WP is all about selecting which facts out of the infinite number of facts out there are significant. If that's OR, than all of WP is OR. Nareek 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It is better now because we took the original research out. Selecting which facts are significant is the job of community consensus, but for something to be a fact it must be sourced, with the "criticism" section wasn't. WP is sourced, and is therefore not OR. OR is POV presented as significant fact. Jdcooper 17:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Nareek, have you ever thought that maybe 60's and 70's music was better rather than it being a bias? The Person Who Is Strange 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Biases inherent in the list are certainly noteworthy, regardless of whether or not anyone else has criticized the list on this basis. It is true that too much exploration of this would represent be original research, but a statement or two that list was biased to Western culture and 60's and 70's musical styles is a very interesting fact that should be included in this article. andrewlargemanjones —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Applying academic standards of art criticism to a Rolling Stone list is somewhat difficult as few music scholars would consider popular music to be worthy of critical attention. That having been said, however, in any art history class that you might take, whether it be the Humanities of Western Civilization or the Humanities of Asia, etc., you will see that history judges the high points of civilization and identifies them as golden ages of a culture's artistic and intellectual acheivement. Many music critics have stated that the 60's were a golden age of musical achievement in the genre of rock music, and that it has been in decline ever since. History is going to judge the music based on its artisitic merit. What many call great music might be great in some other context. It might be great party music. It might be great dance music; but it is not great art. The post WWII economic boom gave us a generation that was largely able to obtain a college education. Art was important to the sixties generation, whether painting, poetry, or music. While much of the music was loud and rebellious, the subsequent movements emphasized loudness, then dance, then rebelliousness, among other themes that were crosscurrents. It should also be noted that the list is in the context of the music industry covered by the magazine - the US rock album market. Thus it does not slight Beethoven or other world artists functioning in different genres by not including them in the list. jkolak 3/11/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground[edit]

While I wish Squeeze had never been made as much as the next person, it was, and I reckon it counts as a Velvet Underground album, as per the Velvet Underground article, so the 4/5 figure is correct. Jdcooper 00:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was asked to state my opinion. You can't just pick which albums you want to count. 'Squeeze' was released in 1973 and is an official studio album and is not on the list, so 4/5 is correct. J.T. 17:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, The Who are listed with Keith Moon and without, could it be changed to 4/4 (with Lou Reed) in a similar way? Kingcobweb 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, Good Idea

It says that the Velvet Underground is the only ones with all there studio albums on the list. What about Nick Drake? ALL three of his albums made the cut.-- (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Modern Lovers[edit]

Do The Modern Lovers count as having a one hundred percent ratio? I know Jonathan Richman kept using the band name on subsequent albums, but with no original members besides him. It was credited as "Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers." On and on wikipedia, they count their debut studio album as their only one. 14:24, 29, June 2006

You may recall that Wikipedia only considered those artists with at least three albums; therefore, The Modern Lovers, with only one album as you say, would not be considered. 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that if an artist continues with the band name, then the album is that bands album regardless of the members of the band contributing (it was not counted that way for any of the other artists.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeGuy11112 (talkcontribs) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


In the percentage list, they have 5/8; however, I'm pretty sure they have 9 albums (which makes 5/9, .5555(REPEATBARPLZ), or 55.555(REPEATBARPLZ)%. Is Coda not being counted or something? Sykil 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true, technically correct. It was after John had passed, but it was with full approval of all band members, it consisted of new material, and all studio recordings. So though the four members released 8 studio albums, the three released one (largely led by Pagey, no doubt). The material in "Coda" was near entirely, or entirely, recorded with John Bonham, and were tracks that were just not used in an album. Therefore the four did not sign off on it, but the three did. However, the three (Page, Plant, and Jones) *were Led Zeppelin* at the time, and therefore it is proper to speak of nine studio albums, not eight; I agree. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC))


For Eminem, does the 8 Mile Soundtrack count as an album? Otherwise, his percentage would be 3/3. J.T. 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it would. There's only 2 songs on it that are his, or something like that. Cine 10:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a single artist composes the entire soundtrack, I don't see it as being that artist's album. It would merit inclusion under a "other releases" section of a discography but we don't typically consider SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER to be a Bee Gees album, for example, even though there are several Bee Gees songs on it.GBrady (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stones[edit]

The Stones have released 25 albums of original music in the U.S. and 23 in the UK so which should count for this article?

25 should be used as the list is American and does refer to American versions of albums (Loberttp (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Guns N' Roses[edit]

In the "Artists with the most albums in the list" list, it says that GN'R has "5 with 2 in the top ten", which either is a huge mistake, or I have misunderstood something. They have no albums in the top 10. --Pueben 06:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Smiths[edit]

Their self-titled debut, Meat Is Murder, The Queen Is Dead, Strangeways Here We Come are the studio albums -- Hatful of Hollow, The World Won't Listen, Louder Than Bombs are non-greatest hits compilations. This would make their representation at the most 4/6 (if you don't want to count TWWL, since it's been mostly substituted in most markets by LTB), & not 4/5. If you wanted to count Rank, it would be 4/8. This needs to be fixed, though I'm not sure who should verify this, so I'll wait. Anthonylombardi 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, apart from MIM, TQID and the self titled, what other albums made the list? Strangeways doesn't have it on its page, neither do the others. And if it is Strangeways, I think the list should be 4/4.
MIM, TQID, LTB, & the self-titeld debut are each on there -- SHWC isn't, neither is TWWL or HOH, so it should be 4/7; if you count Rank, then it's 4/8. Since there are plenty of other live albums included (i.e. Nirvana's Unplugged in New York), I am going to take the liberty of changing it to 4/8 & 50% right now. If anyone would like to change it, please reply here & let me know what's going on. Anthonylombardi 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Listing[edit]

I know this is the wrong place to post it, but this is the most appropriate place I can think of. #344 is listed as being the album "Berlin" by Lou Reed. But if you check the website, #344 is "Piece of My Heart" by Big Brother and the Holding Company. In fact, no Lou Reed solo album is anywhere on that list (mistakenly, IM-not-so-HO). So, uh... how do you change that?

"Piece of My Heart" by Big Brother & the Holding Company is #344 on the song list, not the album list. Lou Reed has two albums on the list--#194, Transformer and, yes, #344, Berlin. 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


The list itself isn't copyrighted at all. What is copyrighted though is the book. It's a massive book and each album has a little article written about it and also why it was picked for that position. It is these essays on the albums that are copyrighted. But even them we would be able to "quote" on this page, just like any other book. The list cannot be copyrighted for use here any more than a list of songs on the back of an album can be copyrighted for use here. And almost every album page on wikipedia has a list of songs taken from the back of the album. JayKeaton 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


The List is not the work of God, it's a composite of 273 people's lists. I think the most important piece of information of all is missing here: WHO WERE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE LIST? 273 people were deemed important enough to have their top 500 made part of the project, and I think we should include an at-least partial list of who they were, particularly the most well-known of them and the ones who are affiliated with the magazine.


someone should add: "First Albums".

The Beatles' American Albums[edit]

Since The Beatles have an American release included on the list, I think all of their pre-Sgt. Pepper's American releases should be factored into their album percentage — since they were the same albums with differing tracklistings. If Meet the Beatles is included, then obviously the differing American releases (again, before Sgt. Pepper's) should most definitely be factored in as they were eligible for consideration. If there are no objections within a week, I will take the liberty upon myself to fix this. ——Anthonylombardi 10:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I'm going to do is only calculate the official, currently pressed British albums into their percentage, & note that the American counterpart for With the Beatles is not included in the final outcome -- similar to what is done for Simon and Garfunkel, where their Greatest Hits album is not calculated nor used in their final percentage. Therefore, excluding Meet the Beatles!, The Beatles inclusion on the list is 10/12, for a rough percentage of 83%; this just looks much neater, & it's a much more accurate portrait of their inclusion on the list. ——Anthonylombardi 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of the Beatles, does anyone know why Magical Mystery Tour isn't on the list? (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown by Gender[edit]

What is the point of this section? Few groups in music history have been dominantly female, let alone the bands who made albums Rolling Stone considers to be "the best." The only reason I can think for its inclusion would be to say Rolling Stone is sexist (???) which is obviously NPOV. A more relevant breakdown would be male-fronted groups and female-fronted groups. I'm deleting it, feel free to revert.

List Biases[edit]

Noted in the article is the fact that there is only one non-english album in the list, # 253's Trans-Europe Express by Kraftwerk.

There are also comments that the list omits many newer recordings as well as older recordings by Black artists. There is something to be said for a recording that lasts many years and still retains its critical respect. An album enjoying current popularity may not be as well respected twenty years from now, but only time will tell. If this list had been compiled back in the early 90's, Girl You Know It's True by Milli Vanilli, which was very popular at the time, may have appeared on the list, while Achtung Baby by U2 may have been excluded. Time has shown that Achtung Baby is more respected and has had more staying power...and for good reason.

Concerning the older recordings by Black artists, this list cannot be accused of being racist. It is commonly accepted that about 12% of the population is Black. That would mean that 60 albums should be by Black artists, yet there are well over 100 albums by a diverse mix of Black artists, such as Muddy Waters, Bob Marley & the Wailers, Miles Davis, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson & the Miracles, Robert Johnson, and Dr. Dre, to name a few. There are also racial-mixed groups like Sly & the Family Stone, Love, and the Jimi Hendrix Experience who are well-represented. Additionally, there are albums by White artists that display definite Black influences, like Eminem, Dusty Springfield, Beastie Boys, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Please, do not say that the Rolling Stone list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time is racist!!! 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

but it is biased.... bob marley and the wailers have one album in the top 100? and it's legend? (Commercial crap...) And where are the rap albums? Rolling stone needs to get off its knees and take the bealtes', the rolling stones' and bob dylan's dicks out of their mouths. I mean Bob Dylan was great but its obviously biased/racist that he has so many albums in the top 100 without selling many albums..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Much as I respect and enjoy Bob Marley, and would prefer for 'greatest hits' type albums not to be included, I'm not sure any of Marley's other albums are consistant enough to belong in the top 100. As for Dylan, why would sales equal quality? Dylan influenced the whole concept of social commentary in popular music, he made it possible for artists to change their style and retain their public appreciation, and he is one of the most prolific songwriters of all time, covered in virtually every form of music you could name.

The relative lack of modern albums of any form explains the relative lack of rap music. However, please remember that rap albums are rarely considered to be as consistantly strong as the classic rock albums. The high prevalance of guest stars and the use of samples (especially on singles) creates a less unified artistic vision throughout an album.--MartinUK (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can we stop with this "biased" crap? It's really annoying that people think they can peg somebody for being biased/racist. If you think about it, it's really easy to call somebody biased or racist, and it's pretty damn hard to make a list of five hundred albums that can't be called biased. There's tons of black/r&b (not the same thing, those of you who feel the need to call me out for being racist) music in this list, and it's good music. So stop beating Rollingstone up about it. All things considered, they did a good job on the list. And all things considered, we're overreacting like crazy. By the way, Bob Marley had a lot of hits, but he didn't really make any albums that were thoroughly good. His hits are scattered throughout his albums, and Rollingstone, feeling the need to give Bob Marley some credit for his contribution to music, put on Legend, which more or less had all of his hits on it.

Pink Floyd[edit]

Who forgot about Pink Floyd's albums? They have two in the top 100 (Dark Side and the Wall). Haven't checked the rest.

Pink Floyd has four albums on the list--#43, Dark Side of the Moon, #87, The Wall, #209, Wish You Were Here, and #347, Piper at the Gates of Dawn. 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly they shouldve had more

Really, they were a great band, those were their four masterpieces. I thought Breakfast in America should've been 400-something, but really the only other PF album I'd consider putting on there is Animals The Person Who Is Strange 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the unsigned by previous message, as I had signed it... The Person Who Is Strange 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm sceptical about the "Artists with the highest percentage of their catalogue in the list" section. The numbers seem to include only original studio albums, but it is very inconsistent (the list explicitly discounts Simon and Garfunkel's Greatest Hits and also leaves out Live Cream and Live Cream II, but it includes three compilations and a posthumous live album by The Smiths, as well as Live at Leeds by The Who). This is a flawed and arbitrary approach. I believe the list is fundamentally unworkable.

Rolling Stone's original top 500 includes several live albums, greatest hits compilations, and even some "various artists" compilations and a couple of soundtracks. Some of the compilations were clearly chosen not for their particular worth, but because Rolling Stone felt that the artist's legacy was more than the sum of his studio albums (e.g. The Otis Redding Anthology (147), John Lee Hooker's The Ultimate Collection (375)). Some of the compilations and live albums on Rolling Stone's list were released when the artist or band was active; some were released afterwards; some were released after the artist had died. Some of the compilations on Rolling Stone's list are famous, prestige products, whereas some are just anonymous parts of Rhino Records' back catalogue.

The only consistent way to create this list would be to include each and every release by the artist in question, which would result in e.g. Jimi Hendrix having a terrible strike ratio, because of all the cash-in records that were released between the date of his death and 2003. I could fix the list myself, but I would prefer to destroy it; it's a can of worms.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Punctured Bicycle 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree also; I've been trying to, little by little, rework some of the artists counted on the list (I started with The Beatles & The Smiths), but it's really fruitless. ——Anthonylombardi 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Greatest albums of all time" really should be true studio albums, and not compilations, i.e.- Greatest Hits or "live" albums. It takes a truly great band to come up with song after song on a new release that becomes a classic, rather than one or two every year or couple of years to compile into a greatest hits collection. For instance, The Eagles Greatest Hits is a great compilation, but the studio releases that all of the tracks come from could never be considered anywhere near as strong as most Beatles studio albums. (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, percentages should be worked out from studio albums only. I'd agree that Greatest Hits albums should ususally be overlooked, as they are fundamentally not the same artistic creation as a standard studio album. The only exception could be for artists who were active in an era before studio albums had really taken hold. Redding and Hooker are good examples of that.--MartinUK (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Live albums should be on the list. They are not compilations and are a much greater demonstration of talent than studio albums because there are no takes. You do the song once, and you either screw up or you don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Change the name of the article[edit]

Like the first commenter I don't believe Rolling Stone has any credibility or relevance (at least not during the time I've been alive) to be referenced as an authority, especially on a topic which is ultimately subjective anyway. However, I think it is OK to have this as a wikipedia article as long as the name is changed to "Rolling Stone's Greatest 500 Albums of All Time" or something with Rolling Stone in the title which appropiately marginalizes and trivializes the list. (FreddieKing 22:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Absolutely agreed. That's a much less POV name.UberCryxic 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the article, per the above concerns.UberCryxic 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Top 10 all Beatles albums?

people are going to vandalize this list a lot huh...cause now its eagles in both the top spots

Yeah, this list is a vandalism magnet, but we try our best to catch vandalism as quickly as we can. Thanks for the heads up. The list has been fixed. -- Scorpion0422 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone put AC/DC at the top of the top 10 list in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Problems with the list should only be mentioned when you have a reliable source offering criticism of the list. Do not add material regarding "self-evident" criticism that you personally feel is a problem with the list. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern Music?[edit]

Only 12 modern albums? Why do critics hate modern music? -- 23:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because modern albums have not reached a high cultural status like old albums have. Part of being a classic is standing the test of time. Just because some RnB singer won song of the year at the Grammys, does not mean they deserve to be praised a singer of the ages. BurningZeppelin 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think your racist, why? Because you specifically called out on R&B music liek its crap (and the fact the Orginal poster didn,'t mention it), when it saved music many times, way more than the Beatles or Zeppelin. Hey its & not n please get an education in music before you come critize an wjole genre of music.Saimaroimaru (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of getting an education, you need to get an education in both typing & grammer. I think the original poster made a good point. R&B is a good example to use because there are up and coming R&B singers that have not yet stood the test of time and there are also many great R&B singers who have stood the test of time (some of which can be found on Rolling Stone's list!). Adammanifold (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you are looking for a fight, why? Because you specifically referred to a two-year-old message in a completely out-of-context way, and assumed an off-the-cuff criticism of one ([purely hypothetical) song to be an attack on a whole genre, if not a whole race. The assertion that R'n'B somehow 'saved music' is strange and unsourced.--MartinUK (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"Because modern albums have not reached a high cultural status like old albums have" - Nonsense. If that were so then why is there so little prior to the 60's and 70's? (no doubt about the time when most the judges of this were all getting laid for the first time). Most of the best music ever written was written before the 60's, and had no guitars and wasn't moulded around the album format (mostly due to the technology). Moreover, "culturally significant" is very different to "best", although you could argue that like-with-like comparisons aren't possible without cultural context. As for race, clearly this list is western-centric and should be conceeded as such lest it be the musical equivalent of the World Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Will anyone list the differences between the Book and the original list? It will be good to know, as I removed from one article a part which said that Wilco's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot was on the list at 493. I would feel bad if it turned out to be on the revised edition. BurningZeppelin 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You would feel....."bad".....about a mistake regarding an album by......Wilco.....and how it's mentioned in a......greatest albums of all time Stone. Holy.......cow. And I thought I had problems...

I Could be mistaken, but I remember looking at the book at barnesandnoble and i'm most certain Chuck Berry's The great 28 is the same place on the list.

Add to list- artists with 4 albums on list[edit]

MIGHT HAVE FOUR ON LIST Pink Floyd confirmed (Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Wish You Were Here, Piper @ the Gates on Dawn) Simon and Garfunkel confirmed (Bridge over troubled water, bookends, greatest hits, parsley sage rosemary and thyme) See below for more

Madonna Miles Davis The Clash Janis Joplin Cream the Kinks (i'm sure they do, will check that out)

Feel free to edit this post, add more suggestions, confirm and list albums

Originally by The Person Who Is Strange 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Next ones I checked, please somebody re-check this for me Eagles- 2 (hotel Cali, Eagles

Kinks- 3 Village Green, Something Else, and Kink Kronikles (think I missed some)

Doors- 3 Doors, LA woman, Strange Days

The Band- 2 Music From Big Pink, The Band (unless you count work w/ Bob Dylan)

Elvis- 3 Sun Sessions, Elvis Presley, From Elvis in Memphis

Stevie Wonder (confirmed as 4, i think he might have more that I missed)- Talking Book, Innervisions, Songs in the Key of Life, Music of my Mind Billy Joel- 3 The Stranger, Turnstiles, 52nd Street

Clash- 3 Clash, London Calling, Sadinista

James Brown (confirmed) 4 Live at the Apollo, Star Time, Jungle Groove, Greatest Hits

Solo Paul Simon- 3 Graceland, There Goes Rhymin Simon, Paul Simon

Police- (confirmed) 4 Regatta de Blanc, Ghost in the Machine, Synchronicity, Outlandos D'Amour

Led Zeppelin- 6, for some reason not already on- Led Zep I, Led Zep II, Led Zep III, Led Zep IV, Houses of the Holy, Physical Graffiti

Miles Davis- 3, i think i missed some- Kind of Blue, B*tches Brew, Sketches of Spain

[The] Jimi Hendrix [Experience]- 3 Are you experienced, Axis: Bold as Love, Electric Ladyland

The Person Who Is Strange 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Outkast only has doesnt have Aquemini on the list.

All three of Nick Drake's studio albums (Five Leaves Left [283], Bryter Layter [245], Pink Moon [320]), so make sure to include him if you add a "Artists with 3 in the list," though I find this noteworthy anyway (see "Nick Drake" heading on this page).

The "merger"[edit]

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 [1]. 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 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Top Ten Albums / Artists[edit]

If you check the list, you'll see that sometimes the Artist name is listed first, instead of the Album name Authrom 18:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake[edit]

I find it noteworthy that all three studio albums Nick Drake released during his life made this list-- all the other "albums" posthumously released have been either compilation albums or collections of home recordings and unreleased outtakes and such. I added something very similar to this sentence:

Although Nick Drake only has three albums on the list, it is worth noting that all three albums released during his life made the list.

But it was deleted. I find it noteworthy since he is the only artist to my knowledge on the list to have all their studio albums on the list, even if it is only three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

U2 has 5 albums in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay, but U2 has released a lot more than five studio albums. Nick Drake released three studio albums, 100 percent of which made the list, and I find that a fact worth mentioning in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Electronic music?[edit]

"There are only 3 electronic albums on the list, Moby's "Play" & Massive Attack's "Blue Lines" & "Mezzanine". Making only 0.06% of the list electronic music albums." I find this to be very subjective - for example, I would consider Kraftwerk's entry to be electronic. (And Brian Eno's [if any]). This statement should be edited or deleted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell?[edit]

I clicked on a link for the 100 greatest albums of all time and it took me to the entry about Rolling Stone! (The Magazine!)

Then I clicked on a link to that page for the 500 greatest albums of all time and all I got was a top 10! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Any statistics about this list, such as number of albums include, and 'batting average', were including in the Rolling Stone article. And therefore should be used as a reference for statistics used on this page, rather than users devising them themselves. (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Buena vista and Kraftwerk are not alone[edit]

Albums like Post(#373) with Björk, a Icelandic singer, and Definitive Collection(#180) with Abba, a Swedish band, are just two examples. They have also some other foreign albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bjork's album on the list, Post, was recorded in the Bahamas; which is an English-speaking country Stratman07 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Eric Clapton[edit]

By my count, Eric Clapton has eight albums on the list, but they don't fit neatly into the "x of his y studio albums" since they are not all solo albums. See numbers 101, 112, 115, 195, 203, 325, 353, and 409. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO Cream produced different and BTW much better music than anything Eric Clapton did before or after that. Also, other members of the Cream do deserve a respect by having the band being mentioned separately. -- xrgtn (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He also played on The Beatles' White Album - the guitar solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps Stratman07 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I'm very surprised that Eminem (with his 3 studio albums) is mentioned on the page, while the Cream isn't (with their positions 101, 112 and 203). -- xrgtn (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Criticism[edit]

Do not add material regarding "self-evident" criticism that you personally feel is a problem with the list.

I'm sorry, but the Rolling Stone Greatest 500 Albums list is a load of crap. You can call my opinion subjective if you want, but I hold a master's degree in librarianship, a master's degree in music history, and a bachelor's degree in music. I interviewed for a job with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame so there must be people in the world who feel my knowledge is worthy.

However, It doesn't take an expert in rock and roll to realize how many albums on this list do not belong and know there are glaring omissions. The list stinks of "youthful" naivete (which I would expect from 20-something editors at Rolling Stone). Some examples: The Beatles may be the most influential act in the history of rock 'n' roll, but only two or three of their albums merit listing (The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road) not their entire catalog. No Yes. No Rush. No Moody Blues. No Stevie Ray Vaughn. No Styx (not even Grand Illusion). No UFO (or Scorpions). C'mon have they even heard of the Shenkars? And there are three R.E.M. albums and three U2 albums. Both of those bands are heavily over-rated bands compared to the monsters who came before in hard rock / metal (some of which I name above). They include ZZ Top's Eliminator and Tres Hombres, but they don't list Fandango! ZZ Top was a platinum act long before those albums. Also Boston's self-titled debut album should be on this list, the electronics alone that Tom Scholtz built for the band were so groundbreaking, the sound was like nothing before or after as a result. My dog could have put together a better list of 500 Greatest albums of all time by lifting his leg on my album collection.

Personally, I think the Wiki page should state that the list is of questionable value / content. --Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhilll) (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I've realized that in the moment when it came out that Blind Melon's second album soup is not part of the list at all. This missing totally disqualifies that list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You've jus listed a batch of opinions there. And I'm sure if you randomly picked 100 journalists who have never worked for Rolling Stone, few would rate Styx or UFO anywhere near REM or Revolver.--MartinUK (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

London Calling[edit]

Was released in 1979 in the UK, and 1980 in the US. It is not an 80s album, thus the top 10 only includes 60s and 70s albums.--MartinUK (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the way Rolling Stone does is is by the year the album is released in the US. For example, Sigur Rós's album Ágætis byrjun was on the Rolling Stone list for the greatest albums of the 2000's, even though its first release was in 1999. --MostlyWithMusic (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2015(UTC)


This list is biase. Why? They forgot two important albums, Meet The Supremes and Supremes A Go Go. Meet The Supremes is important because Meet the Beatles format or what ever was copied from thsi album or just was influenced from it. With The BEatles hogging all the space on this list that is important. Suppremes A Go Go because it is the first album by a all girl group to hit #1, very significant I might add seeing all the important girl groups that came after.Lets not forget Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes who were the most covered Philly Soul group in history.Saimaroimaru (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that the title Meet The Supremes influenced the title of the Beatles' famous record, its appearance and endurance in the music world was not very noteworthy. The quality of the Beatles album stood the test of time, and contained multiple memorable hits and covers. I agree on the topic of The Supremes A Go Go, although it strikes me as a particularly silly name. Also, the fact that the list did not include certain albums does not make it biased. There are some phenomenal artists on the list, and many more that were not. The simple idea is: you cannot fit every great album there ever was on one list. People tend to notice that some albums aren't on the list. How about the 500 that are. And almost of them, however overrated, are good albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about the list[edit]

This isn't really the place for it. Yes, we're all aware that there are problems with the selections on the list. So? Complaining here won't help. What you can do, however, is help to improve the article by finding criticism of the list from reliable sources like established music critics. Gamaliel (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

neil young[edit]

Hi there, by my count Neil Young also has five albums on the list: Harvest, After The Goldrush, Rust Never Sleeps, Everybody Knows this is Nowhere and Tonight's The Night. Ok so some were crazy horse some not, but that's verging on semantics! Anyway, surely he should make the list of "artists with most albums on the list"? And I won't start on why On The Beach isn't in there ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Neil Young isn't cited is because it is "by my count", which is WP:OR. Find a valid source that determined that fact and then you can include it in the section with the cite to the source. -- J. Wong (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


please please please can anybody tell me why bohemian rhapsody, we are the champions and we will rock you are in the lastest places???...its an embarrage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Because none of those are albums...? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the fuck are the critics?[edit]

I understand that not everybody could include their opinion about the list in this article, but come on, there MUST be a Criticism section, with specialized critics included (not what anybody could think). And everybody knows that this list had received a lot of critics. --A. Dupin (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Someone has replaced the number one album with something random.

Previous greatest-albums list?[edit]

Didn't Rolling Stone publish a similar "Greatest Albums" list back in the 1980s? I think it was for either the 20th or 25th anniversary issue. What was the exact name of that list, and how does it compare with this latest one (other than including newer albums, of course)? - dcljr (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It was "The Best Albums of the last twenty years" published in 1987. Sgt. Pepper's was at the top of that one too. -- J. Wong (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that was one of the complaints in the forward to Kill Your Idols that there was a lack of consistency between the "best of the last 20 year (1987-1967)" and "500 greatest". Although there were some albums that were in the top 10 on both lists, some weren't. Here's the top 10 from Kill Your Idols for comparison: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Never Mind the Bollocks ... Here's the Sex Pistols, Exile on Main St., Plastic Ono Band, Are You Experienced?, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars, Astral Weeks, Born to Run, "The White Album", and What's Going On. -- J. Wong (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Worth mentioning in this article? - dcljr (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The list.[edit]

The answer to my question is probably glaringly obvious, but how come there are only 20 albums shown? Yeah, I know that some might think that it's way too big or hard to manage, but are there any other reasons? (This is just a minor problem I have. Sorry.)

Also, how did the talk page here become so... dumb? Bad grammar, no signatures, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.liu064 (talkcontribs) 00:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

click the edit link on the main article and read the hidden comments at the top. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. And I just realized that I contradicted my first comment by not leaving a signature. Oops. Alex.liu064 (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Section "Artists with the most albums on the list"[edit]

What do the numbers in paratheses mean? The last one on each line. I can make no sense of it; should probably be explained in the article. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This was present at one time: "(Numbers in parentheses represent actual number of studio albums by the artist while the other represents the number published by artist as the list was being decided. Actual number is subject to change without update.)" It was removed without comment on 29 December 2010. -- J. Wong (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Publication versus Cover Date[edit]

I know the distinction between the two (just go read this Cover date) so I don't have a problem with "published November 2003", but should the image have the cover date since that would be the date on the image (if it was large enough to read, that is)?

-- J. Wong (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean; best just remove it from here. Uniplex (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


Per WP:NFC—“A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner”—the top 10 albums section is a copyright violation. Has permission been granted? If not, according to WP:COPYVIO, the section should be blanked/removed. Uniplex (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, with no defense forthcoming, I've added a copyvio notice for now. Uniplex (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about these things but couldn't you just remove the top ten list instead of adding the notice? --CutOffTies (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure if you saw, but there has been extensive talk about the copyright above. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much experience of copyvios either, but according to the guideline, the notice should be added, which draws attention to allow a fix (perhaps gaining permission) to be made. I saw the discussions above but it seems folk were making their own judgement rather than referring to NFC—maybe it hadn't been written (in this area) then. Uniplex (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the guideline, shouldn't this apply?
If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. {{subst:cclean|url=insert URL or description of source here (optional)}} has been created for this. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored. If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement or removing the problem text is not an option because it would render the article unreadable, check the page history; if an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version. --CutOffTies (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, it also says this:
If the criteria for speedy deletion do not apply, you should blank the article or the appropriate section with the {subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here} template, and list the page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems; see instructions. This will give interested contributors a week to verify permission for the text or propose a rewrite. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement and no usable rewrite is proposed, it may be deleted by any administrator or reduced to a non-infringing stub.
which perhaps gives the problem wider visibility: it's now listed at WP:Copyright problems/2011 September 28. Uniplex (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've (unhappily) removed the list. I used to consider this our poster child of how to properly manage list articles, but, truly, it is out of keeping with the advice given us by the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney. This advice postdates previous conversation which reflected consensus among contributors prior to the legal opinion. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Based on the attorney's advice, would including just the #1 on a list like this be considered a violation? Personally I think that the name of the #1 choice is no more creative than just the title of a creative work, and mentioning #1 on the list is no different from mentioning the list on the #1's article (which is explicitly allowed). If he does think that including only #1 is a violation, then what about cases where #1 is mentioned, but clearly used in context? For example, in the "Reception" section of this article, DeRogatis criticizes Sgt. Pepper for having been selected as #1. -- King of ♠ 21:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I've only just noticed your note here! It should not be a problem to include #1, and if we are able to critically discuss some of the selection in context, all the better. The more transformative our use, the more we ought to be able to describe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kill Your Idols Criticism[edit]

Following the publicity surrounding the list, rock critic Jim DeRogatis, a former Rolling Stone editor, published Kill Your Idols: A New Generation of Rock Writers Reconsiders the Classics (ISBN 1-56980-276-9) in 2004. This featured a number of younger critics arguing against the magazine's high evaluation of various "classic" albums, including DeRogatis taking on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which had been Rolling Stone's top choice.

The book Kill Your Idols and the essays in it were not specifically generated as an answer to Rolling Stone 's list. Work on it had started before publication of the list in the magazine, in fact, DeRogatis had conceived the idea during his tenure at the magazine in 1995. DeRogatis, himself, in the forward does criticize the list by, for example, pointing out the inconsistencies between the list and the prior publication of "The 100 Best Albums of the Last Twenty Years", but also emphasizes that his arguments are against having a rock canon at all, which of course is what the list represents.

I believe that the publication of Kill Your Idols coming so soon after the publication of the Rolling Stone list took advantage of of the latter's publicity in its own, marketing it as a response to the list. In any case, I've edited the statements to clarify that the critics were not arguing specifically against the magazine's evaluation of the albums.

-- J. Wong (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

no short lsit of the 10 best?[edit]

In the german wiki the leading 10 album where mentioned - is this allowed? Can the list (complete?) listed here also (just if the source is unavaible) -- (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Under fair use, of course we can list the top 10. apparently the copyright police have forgotten about fair use, in their zeal to make sure that no copyrighted material appears on Wikipedia. guess what? lots of copyrighted material appears on wikipedia, and always will. we can have copyrighted material here, under fair use. the top 10 is assuredly fair use. the whole list, being a creative work, and not just a tabulation of sales, cannot be reproduced here. And, anyone listing stats such as numbers of albums by certain artists, where there is ANY judgement being used about whether, say, an album by half of a group counts as a release by the group, is doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
This article should include the list or at least a significant portion of the list (yes, I've read all the comments about copyright nonsense above). Wikipedia is too paranoid about copyright or maybe it's the USA which is paranoid. It is high time that Wikimedia moved their servers and offices out of the USA to a country with more friendly copyright laws, with a better academic prestige, with fewer pro-business and more pro-consumer legislation.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 01:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Elvis Costello[edit]

Elvis Costello has 4 albums on the list (This Year's Model, Imperial Bedroom, My Aim Is True, and Armed Forces) yet he is not listed under artists with the most albums.So What1 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)