Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.3.206.254 (talk) at 02:02, 6 April 2008 (→‎copyright protection?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1950s?

How many songs from the 1950s does the list have?

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)[reply]
  • 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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

[illiterate personal attack removed]

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...

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.

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

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)[reply]
Waste of bandwidth and server space Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I disagree. MGlosenger 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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):::::[reply]
i support deletion as well 203.92.15.144 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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).[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No Oasis!!!!!!!!!!

How can this list be complete without Oasis???

Example:

Live Forever Wonderwall Don't Look Back in Anger Ciggarets and Alcohol

Bobo6balde66 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." If you want to discuss this, go to an internet forum. {LeetAmerico (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)}[reply]

The Rolling Stones - Track name

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolling_Stone%27s_500_Greatest_Songs_of_All_Time&oldid=203651781"