lzzoso Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I just came across the Rolling Stone magazine's Greatest 500 albums of all-time. Remember, this is from the magazine. If you want to check it out yourself search Google: Rolling Stone greatest 500 albums. Remember, Led Zeppelin and this so called "hip" magazine has always (and I believe to this day) had a rocky and sometimes "mistrust" of each other. Anyway, Led Zeppelin's first entry is "Led Zeppelin" at number 29. "Led Zeppelin IV" is number 66. "Led Zeppelin II" at number 75. I could only check out so much because some of the entries that came before any Led Zeppelin albums kinda made me not want to see what was to come next. Granted, some of these that came before any LZ albums are classics in their own right, some of them (in my opinion) were just plain wrong. I think that Led Zeppelin is probably the most influential rock and roll band of all-time (besides maybe Elvis and the Beatles). Nonetheless, check out their list and see what you think. I would like to read your feedback on what "they" had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I just came across the Rolling Stone magazine's Greatest 500 albums of all-time. Remember, this is from the magazine. If you want to check it out yourself search Google: Rolling Stone greatest 500 albums. Remember, Led Zeppelin and this so called "hip" magazine has always (and I believe to this day) had a rocky and sometimes "mistrust" of each other. Anyway, Led Zeppelin's first entry is "Led Zeppelin" at number 29. "Led Zeppelin IV" is number 66. "Led Zeppelin II" at number 75. I could only check out so much because some of the entries that came before any Led Zeppelin albums kinda made me not want to see what was to come next. Granted, some of these that came before any LZ albums are classics in their own right, some of them (in my opinion) were just plain wrong. I think that Led Zeppelin is probably the most influential rock and roll band of all-time (besides maybe Elvis and the Beatles). Nonetheless, check out their list and see what you think. I would like to read your feedback on what "they" had to say. Have never and will never have anything to do with Rolling Stone Magazine as they never gave Zeppelin the credit they deserved in the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zdr Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I feel good seeing that LZ is in the same boat as Pink Floyd (the underrated ones) They can keep the medals for their "darlings" Ok. Back to work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The list means nothing - it's their opinion as well as the fact they were never supporters of the band during their time so you've got some bias going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Masson Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 This list is actually old - from 2003. What can you say? When it comes to the precise ranking of the albums, very subjective preferences just are bound to play a great role. The list could have been worse, because after all, it contains a bunch of great, historical albums. As for Led Zeppelin more specifically, it's just the same old story, isn't it? Many people would rank them higher than they do on Rolling Stone, that's for sure. But they never liked the band back in the day, so when you see three of their albums in their all-time Top 100 it's really an admission that they were wrong at the time - again, again and a-fucking-gain. Only the boys aren't too prominently placed on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Page Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 How is Led Zep IV so far down the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mangani Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 How is Led Zep IV so far down the list? Coz it's Rolling Stone magazine. They don't know their arses from their elbows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackDog71 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Have never and will never have anything to do with Rolling Stone Magazine as they never gave Zeppelin the credit they deserved in the beginning. Right on! Although that's not the ONLY reason i stay away from the magazine. Being a propaganda machine is another big one. Also how all the Zeppelin articles since they trashed them back in the day are kind of a "we're sorry" kiss up tale. Zeppelin didn't need Rolling Stone. Neither do i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hang-man Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 The list means nothing - it's their opinion as well as the fact they were never supporters of the band during their time so you've got some bias going on. Hey-Up, I wouldn't "Wipe my Arse" on a copy of Rolling Stone Magazine, as they Never had a good thing to say about Led Zeppelin. They forget that if it wasn't for Led Zeppelin, who "Made the Mould" for future Bands, Rolling Stone Magazine would'nt have Fuck-All to write about, bunch of Fucking Tossers. Sorry Ladies, but People like that make my Blood boil. All the Best, Hang-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledhead73 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Basically if you aren't an original American band then Rolling Stone Mag has never and will never give a shit. They have a track record of being out of touch with a lot of the populace. I mean they have never EVER written a bad word about Bob Dylan, even though he hasn't done anything relevant for years (just my opinion, but one I feel very strongly about). Look at any of their "lists" and you are bound to go WTF? at least 30 times. Just look at that crap list of the 100 Greatest Guitar Players. Jerry Garcia ahead of Jeff Beck? Haha, Johnny Ramone ahead of James Burton, The Edge ahead of Buddy Guy? Joan Jett is listed, yet Slash is nowhere to be found. And don't even get me started on the greatest songs list, I might die from over exposure to mediocrity and banality. Needless to say Rolling Stone continues to devolve into MTV The Magazine, only they don't keep you coming back with the playful hilarities of Mr. Knoxville and crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Basically if you aren't an original American band then Rolling Stone Mag has never and will never give a shit. They have a track record of being out of touch with a lot of the populace. I mean they have never EVER written a bad word about Bob Dylan, even though he hasn't done anything relevant for years (just my opinion, but one I feel very strongly about). Look at any of their "lists" and you are bound to go WTF? at least 30 times. Just look at that crap list of the 100 Greatest Guitar Players. Jerry Garcia ahead of Jeff Beck? Haha, Johnny Ramone ahead of James Burton, The Edge ahead of Buddy Guy? Joan Jett is listed, yet Slash is nowhere to be found. And don't even get me started on the greatest songs list, I might die from over exposure to mediocrity and banality. Needless to say Rolling Stone continues to devolve into MTV The Magazine, only they don't keep you coming back with the playful hilarities of Mr. Knoxville and crew. I'm no fan of Rolling Stone and generally I agree with your assessment of them. However, I have to disagree with you about Dylan - I think his last few albums have been amazing. It's not the same type of impact he had when he started but I don't think I'd say they aren't relevant. I would also say that Jerry Garcia's often very underrated as a guitar player. Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledhead73 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I may have been a bit harsh on Bob's recent output, but a forthcoming Christmas album? Isn't that supposed to be a sign of the Apocalypse? I do agree with you that Jerr-Bear is underrated as a guitar player outside of his loyal Deadheads, but still he's no Jeff Beck. Then again very few can even touch Beck in my book, hahaha. But Garcia's steel pedal work is actually quite brilliant, much better than his electric guitar work if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I may have been a bit harsh on Bob's recent output, but a forthcoming Christmas album? Isn't that supposed to be a sign of the Apocalypse? I do agree with you that Jerr-Bear is underrated as a guitar player outside of his loyal Deadheads, but still he's no Jeff Beck. Then again very few can even touch Beck in my book, hahaha. But Garcia's steel pedal work is actually quite brilliant, much better than his electric guitar work if you ask me. I don't know - depends on how Dylan handles the album really. I'm not a big fan of comparing artists - Jerry and Jeff's style is so different that I can't really say I favor one over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandu Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I thnk Rolling Stone readers see things differently than the editors. When asked to vote for the best album of 1969 last week, they voted Led Zeppelin I #1 and Led Zeppelin II #2. See link below: Rolling Stone Poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I thnk Rolling Stone readers see things differently than the editors. When asked to vote for the best album of 1969 last week, they voted Led Zeppelin I #1 and Led Zeppelin II #2. See link below: Rolling Stone Poll hello Dandu! I hope the writers feel like the idiots they are. Glad to see Zeppelin in 1t and 2nd place (but this is from the readers)...Majority of music critics are idiots..and I still will not contribute to this RAG!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israelzeppelin Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 personal taste does not show the people point of view like me my fav album is Led Zeppelin III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 hello Dandu! I hope the writers feel like the idiots they are. Glad to see Zeppelin in 1t and 2nd place (but this is from the readers)...Majority of music critics are idiots..and I still will not contribute to this RAG!!! I don't love Rolling Stone as I've stated but I don't think it's fair to say a majority of music critics are idiots. It's all down to personal taste what ends up on these lists. What would be number one for me wouldn't be for a lot of people - who's right? No one. I don't get too worked up over it because it really means nothing. Just my two pence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Jerry Garcia on a good night...untouchable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Basically if you aren't an original American band then Rolling Stone Mag has never and will never give a shit. They have a track record of being out of touch with a lot of the populace. I mean they have never EVER written a bad word about Bob Dylan, even though he hasn't done anything relevant for years (just my opinion, but one I feel very strongly about). Look at any of their "lists" and you are bound to go WTF? at least 30 times. Just look at that crap list of the 100 Greatest Guitar Players. Jerry Garcia ahead of Jeff Beck? Haha, Johnny Ramone ahead of James Burton, The Edge ahead of Buddy Guy? Joan Jett is listed, yet Slash is nowhere to be found. And don't even get me started on the greatest songs list, I might die from over exposure to mediocrity and banality. Needless to say Rolling Stone continues to devolve into MTV The Magazine, only they don't keep you coming back with the playful hilarities of Mr. Knoxville and crew. What the hell does "relevant" mean?? I hear this word all the time and it drives me insane. Dylan's last three albums have been brilliant, just in MY opinion, but I have no idea whether that makes them "relevant." Relevant to what????? They're just damn good music, to me. (Oh, and whatever Dylan does in the future, you can bet he's not going to do it the conventional way.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Jerry Garcia on a good night...untouchable! :yesnod: Ever see him with the Jerry Garcia band - fantastic show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 :yesnod: Ever see him with the Jerry Garcia band - fantastic show. At The Wiltern, more than once. And with "Dawg" David Grisman as well! Fantastic!!! Russian Lullaby, I Shall Be Released, Thrill is Gone, The Night They Drove Ol' Dixie Down....AWESOME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Masson Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 About that list - look at it this way: would you ever have guessed from reading their reviews of LZ's albums back in the day that they were talking about a band that 30 years later deserved to have three albums in their all-time top 100 list? That in itself really amounts to them admitting they were completely wrong at the time. That's how I see it. EVEN Rolling Stone has to admit now that Led Zeppelin was one of the best bands in rock's 50 or so years history. Yeah, they're not prominently placed on the list, but does it really matter? The really subjective part of musical taste is decisive there, and it would be also if I were to compile a list. A good thing too, because you can't develop taste at all except by involving yourself, immersing yourself, thinking that the music matters, and that what you think about it matters - if only to yourself. And that's your subjective powers at work, isn't it? After all, you could have been doing something else. Picking your nose, whatever. As for the RS's tendency to prefer American music over British, that should not be surprising. It's how they hear the music, it's about what sounds right, important, original, tasteful, and so on and so on,- to their ears, formed in the US. If you prefer the British mags like I do, you quickly realize that they have a tendency to write endlessly about Zep, Purple, Sabbath, Queen, etc. and by comparison there isn't a lot on the Allmans, Skynyrd, The Band, the Dead, etc. Not really a problem either. The whole context just looks different when looked at from different vantage points, that's all. My taste was formed very much by British rock in the late 70's. It has never stopped me from listening to others, and really appreciating them too - but still, I often notice that it was indeed formative for my own taste in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theycallmethehunter Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 That list is so fucked up, its pretty much the same five artists over and over again, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan..Not that i truly have a problem about that, but really? That magazine is so biased. I just cant stand them, especially all their political articals, it just gets under my skin :/ I just think any list coming from that magazine pisses me off one way or another...Oops, i only looked through the first one hundred :/ mornings do not reat me kindly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 That list is so fucked up, its pretty much the same five artists over and over again, The Beatles, The Stones, Dylan..Not that i truly have a problem about that, but really? That magazine is so biased. I just cant stand them, especially all their political articals, it just gets under my skin :/ I just think any list coming from that magazine pisses me off one way or another...Oops, i only looked through the first one hundred :/ mornings do not reat me kindly.. I can't imagine any top 500 list without the Beatles, Stones and Dylan showing up somewhere. It may seem repetitious but there's no denying the impact those artists had on music - not putting them in would be a bit strange to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie1971 Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 What would you expect from the snot-nosed elitists at Rolling Stone magazine? They have always been a bunch of arrogant bastards who consider themselves final arbiters of what is hip, relevant, and artistically meritous. Not to mention in recent years they have advocated an agenda so left wing it would make Mao blush. It will be a great day when this shrinking magazine (literally and figuratively) is finally put out of its misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.