4 ms·

It's essentially an impossible project anyway. I tend to agree with the older lists more simply because I don't like newer music and newer genres so much (part

It's essentially an impossible project anyway. I tend to agree with the older lists more simply because I don't like newer music and newer genres so much (particularly rap/pop/modern country). And the lack of representation of modern black artists in earlier lists is nothing compared to the overall lack of representation of non-western, non-English-language music in all of these lists generally. I'm preaching to the choir here but there's no sound methodology for remotely being able to quantify the "best" albums. About the best you could do is use some kind of Metacritic-like review score aggregator, but that will still heavily favor in biases existing at the time in who societally was even allowed to win recognition, e.g. Elvis will rank a lot higher than the black artists whose music he was ripping off. So it's always just going to come down to the editorial judgment of whatever team is compiling the list, and it seems like the team working on this at Rolling Stone now is likely younger and more diverse than the teams of years past, hence the forays into newer artists and genres.

actuator 6y ago
or they can just leave it upto the judgement of masses and just rank on album sales(probably streams now). You are right and that it is hard for any ranking like this to be objective. If I remove my bias for old albums and just look at two of the more accessible new entrants in the list, Taylor Swift's Red and Arctic Monkey's AM. AM was generally rated much better and even I would have personally rated it higher.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  There are lots of lists out there by total album sales, as that's a simple methodology, but personally I don't find those lists useful for discovering good music or guiding me towards music I may already know about but haven't listened to in depth. Pretty much everything in at least the top 100 I'll already know about (because it's literally the bestselling music of all time), and to the extent I'm not listening to it already, it's because I know it's not my cup of tea. E.g. I know Michael Jackson has gotta be in the top 3, if not #1, but I also already know exactly my opinion on his music. So best album lists, while of course not objective, are actually useful to me in a way that sales rankings aren't, so long as I find myself roughly in accordance with the editorial judgment of the list makers. And that is very much the case with the Rolling Stone lists, though not the recent list as much as the previous lists. Meanwhile, I wouldn't get much use out of a ranking of modern country / rap (either best-selling or "best") simply because I tend not to like those genres generally. Rock (particularly classic/hard/blues/prog/experimental) is my favorite genre, and Rolling Stone is more a rock music magazine than anything else, although based on the way these lists are going that seems to be less so over time.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  As far as that era of music goes, I would think Franz Ferdinand, Hot Fuss by the Killers, or Silent Alarm by Bloc Party would be more deserving than AM. Why does Arctic Monkey need to have two albums on this list? Edit: never mind, guess their debut was on the 2012 list and then removed in favor of AM on the latest list.
vr46 6y ago
I agree with pretty much all your points, and for me I use these lists to figure out what I have missed and what I ought to go listen to. Rolling Stone barely has any kind of grasp on the breadth of music. It’s part of an industry that seems to be surviving on reissues and super deluxe box sets and vinyl profit margins, it’s a cultural magazine but more a like dictionary that is way behind the language, or a driver fixated on the rear-view mirror.
rdiddly 6y ago
That was my immediate first thought - maybe by 2020 the founding Boomers who rose to editorial positions have retired.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Which is well and good! The previous published lists aren't going anywhere, and it's quite interesting to see how the rankings are evolving over time. That's giving us more data about changing tastes and Rolling Stone editorial judgment. It's strictly additive. Albums that rank highly on all 3 lists must really be damn good and stand the test of time even as tastes and society changes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

actuator 6y ago

or they can just leave it upto the judgement of masses and just rank on album sales(probably streams now). You are right and that it is hard for any ranking like this to be objective. If I remove my bias for old albums and just look at two of the more accessible new entrants in the list, Taylor Swift's Red and Arctic Monkey's AM. AM was generally rated much better and even I would have personally rated it higher.

CydeWeys 6y ago
There are lots of lists out there by total album sales, as that's a simple methodology, but personally I don't find those lists useful for discovering good music or guiding me towards music I may already know about but haven't listened to in depth. Pretty much everything in at least the top 100 I'll already know about (because it's literally the bestselling music of all time), and to the extent I'm not listening to it already, it's because I know it's not my cup of tea. E.g. I know Michael Jackson has gotta be in the top 3, if not #1, but I also already know exactly my opinion on his music. So best album lists, while of course not objective, are actually useful to me in a way that sales rankings aren't, so long as I find myself roughly in accordance with the editorial judgment of the list makers. And that is very much the case with the Rolling Stone lists, though not the recent list as much as the previous lists. Meanwhile, I wouldn't get much use out of a ranking of modern country / rap (either best-selling or "best") simply because I tend not to like those genres generally. Rock (particularly classic/hard/blues/prog/experimental) is my favorite genre, and Rolling Stone is more a rock music magazine than anything else, although based on the way these lists are going that seems to be less so over time.
Apocryphon 6y ago
As far as that era of music goes, I would think Franz Ferdinand, Hot Fuss by the Killers, or Silent Alarm by Bloc Party would be more deserving than AM. Why does Arctic Monkey need to have two albums on this list? Edit: never mind, guess their debut was on the 2012 list and then removed in favor of AM on the latest list.

vr46 6y ago

I agree with pretty much all your points, and for me I use these lists to figure out what I have missed and what I ought to go listen to. Rolling Stone barely has any kind of grasp on the breadth of music. It’s part of an industry that seems to be surviving on reissues and super deluxe box sets and vinyl profit margins, it’s a cultural magazine but more a like dictionary that is way behind the language, or a driver fixated on the rear-view mirror.

rdiddly 6y ago

That was my immediate first thought - maybe by 2020 the founding Boomers who rose to editorial positions have retired.

CydeWeys 6y ago
Which is well and good! The previous published lists aren't going anywhere, and it's quite interesting to see how the rankings are evolving over time. That's giving us more data about changing tastes and Rolling Stone editorial judgment. It's strictly additive. Albums that rank highly on all 3 lists must really be damn good and stand the test of time even as tastes and society changes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]