Rolling Stone top 100 Poll

[Flaming Friar Sr]

rolling stone top 100 of all times, reader's choices: top 10, 4 beatles, 2 u2

yeah. jt at 4

and

ab at 10

whats really surprising:

atyclb at 15
essential track: elevation

also:war at 49

uhm:uf at 53

i smell kevm: zooropa at 70
surprising essential track: wanderer

not bad indeed

 

[kariatari]

Also, The Unforgettable Fire came in at No. 53 and Zooropa eek slid in at No. 70.

 

[mmmBono]

I know!
I just got this issue in the mail yesterday!
I was soooo happy!
I just don't understand the Nirvana thing. They make the top of the lists everywhere....and I just don't see why
They are way over hyped. Waaaay over.

 

[jick]

That is a farce. How is the world can they rank Joshua Tree and All That You Can't Leave Behind and Achtung Baby ahead of POP?

POP is better than any Beatles album.

The Rolling Stone poll counters are on crack. That surely cannot reflect the fans sentiments. I am sure the fans aren't that blind and ignorant to rank those albums ahead of the geat almighty POP.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[MiniFly]

WEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes! This is great! U2 deserves every bit of recognition they get!

 

[wertsie]

I know!
I just got this issue in the mail yesterday!
I was soooo happy!
I just don't understand the Nirvana thing. They make the top of the lists everywhere....and I just don't see why
They are way over hyped. Waaaay over.

I like Nirvana. I haven't heard a Nirvana track yet that I dislike.

 

[wertsie]

That is a farce. How is the world can they rank Joshua Tree and All That You Can't Leave Behind and Achtung Baby ahead of POP?

POP is better than any Beatles album.

The Rolling Stone poll counters are on crack. That surely cannot reflect the fans sentiments. I am sure the fans aren't that blind and ignorant to rank those albums ahead of the geat almighty POP.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

Oh, well...Hard to please everybody, I guess. I would put AB and POP before ATYCLB and JT, but then, it's not "Jen's Top 100"

 

[STING2]

Interesting to see that U2 beat the Beatles on this poll in terms of the number of albums by each artist that made the top 100. 6 by U2 and 5 for the Beatles. U2 had more albums make this top 100 list than any other artist. I wonder how close the four remaining U2 albums, Boy, October, Rattle And Hum, and POP were to making the list. Clearly this is another sign that U2 dominates the music scene now!

 

[wertsie]

Interesting to see that U2 beat the Beatles on this poll in terms of the number of albums by each artist that made the top 100. 6 by U2 and 5 for the Beatles. U2 had more albums make this top 100 list than any other artist. I wonder how close the four remaining U2 albums, Boy, October, Rattle And Hum, and POP were to making the list. Clearly this is another sign that U2 dominates the music scene now!

'Tis a very, very good thing!

 

[mmmBono]

I like Nirvana. I haven't heard a Nirvana track yet that I dislike.

Oh...don't get me wrong. I like Nirvana...I have all of their albums...and they did alot for music...but I wouldn't place Nevermind ahead of the Joshua Tree.
It just doesn't make sense. Oh well. And yes. I haven't heard a Nirvana track I didn't like either. It's good stuff. But not GREAT stuff.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Kind of a weird list, but I guess it reflects the current readership. I mean, that's cool about U2 but overall a weird list.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

POP is better than any Beatles album.

hmmm....I love POP, but come on. I know it's your opinion but...

The Beatles laid the foundation for every group that followed them, including U2, as I'm sure they would agree. Also, the Beatles were incredibly prolific. Just to compare, look at this scenario....

U2 recorded POP between 1995-1997 I believe. They released HMTMKMKM & Passengers during this time, & toured the world in 1997.

The Beatles output between 1965-1967 was as follows...
Help (Album & Movie)
Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out (Single)
Rubber Soul
Paperback Writer/Rain (Single)
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper
Magical Mystery Tour (Album & Film)
They also toured the world in 1965-1966

It's really unfair to compare any band with the Beatles, but I have to say I was happily surprised to see so many of U2's albums on the Rolling Stone chart, even if the magazine is a corporate piece of shit now. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Seconds]

-How is the world can they rank Joshua Tree and All That You can't Leave Behind and Achtung Baby ahead of POP?

-POP is better than any Beatles album.

-The Rolling Stone poll counters are on crack.

-I am sure the fans aren't that blind and ignorant to rank those albums ahead of the geat almighty POP.

Relax Jick! We all know how much you adore and love POP. You need to be less aggressive with you comments and more accepting of other peoples opinions.

You know what's amazing? When you first came into these forums I thought you were actually a POP hater making sarcastic "I love POP, if you don't, your stupid" comments. Man, was I shocked when I figured out you were for real.



It's great to see so many U2 albums in that list.

 

[STING2]

How many shows did the Beatles actually play from 1965 to 1967 and how many of the band members were married with childern at that time? I also don't think the Beatles had just come off of a tour on the scale of ZOO TV in 1962-1963 playing 157 dates around the world. Another thing to consider is that the market today would not except so many U2 albums in a period of 3 years. But back in the 1960s, if you were hot, you were expected to put out product as often as possible. U2 records hundreds of songs for a single album but only 11 make the cut. The way the music business works today, you will not see more than one album per year by any artist period. The 60s were different.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

How many shows did the Beatles actually play from 1965 to 1967 and how many of the band members were married with childern at that time? I also don't think the Beatles had just come off of a tour on the scale of ZOO TV in 1962-1963 playing 157 dates around the world. Another thing to consider is that the market today would not except so many U2 albums in a period of 3 years. But back in the 1960s, if you were hot, you were expected to put out product as often as possible. U2 records hundreds of songs for a single album but only 11 make the cut. The way the music business works today, you will not see more than one album per year by any artist period. The 60s were different.

I understand your point about how times were different in the 60's. I was just emphesizing that the "POP is better than any Beatles album" quote as a bit far fetched. The Beatles recorded Rubber Soul, Revolver & Sgt. Pepper in the same time period, 3 albums that are regarded as classics today, and that are arguebly stronger works than POP.

As far as touring goes, in the early 60's, there were times that the Beatles played more than 157 shows in 1 year, and when they played early on in Hamburg they would play 8 hour sets! They also were all married by 1966, except Paul, and John & Ringo had families. But like you said, times were different. Still, does U2 really record "hundreds of songs for a single album"? I would be surprised if they recorded hundreds of songs in the 90's alone.

 

[Salome]

The Beatles laid the foundation for every group that followed them

The Beach Boys taught the beatles everything they knew

 

[jick]

hmmm....I love POP, but come on. I know it's your opinion but...

The Beatles laid the foundation for every group that followed them, including U2, as I'm sure they would agree. Also, the Beatles were incredibly prolific. Just to compare, look at this scenario....

Just because they laid the foundation doesn't mean their albums are good. The Beatles albums were good for their time but they are nothing today.

Do you follow basketball? George Mikan redefined the center position in the 1950's and his team won 4 championships. George Mikan "laid the foundation" on what his position was all about. Know what? Today, any benchwarming center in the NBA has more moves and skill than George Mikan had in the 1950's. It's called evolution. Just like I think Marily Monroe wouldn't even be considered sexy when put beside all these supermodels who now use scientific workout and diet methods to keep their figures.

In short, the Beatles were good in their time, but they don't stand a chance against U2. Noe of their albums come close to POP. Can you imagine Ringo on double tracked drums (a la Mofo), or using sampling (Playboy Mansion, Discotheque), or drum loops (Miami)? U2's POP album is much more musically sophisticated than the three-cord toting Beatles. No comparison whatsoever. So now you ask about songwriting? Well, Bono said it best - every poet is a thief. All lyrics are derivative anyway, and nothing is original anymore. They all come from somewhere. When you write a love song, it is a love song - even if you're U2 or Bon Jovi. You can't reinvent the wheel. This is my two cents.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[notiti]

Re: rolling stone top 100 of all times, reader's choices: top 10, 4 beatles, 2 u2

zooropa at 70
surprising essential track: wanderer

Thank god! Zooropa is so very underappreciated that it makes me want to weep. I am stoked about the Wanderer as the essential track. He's the man in black people...

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Interesting to see that U2 beat the Beatles on this poll in terms of the number of albums by each artist that made the top 100. 6 by U2 and 5 for the Beatles. U2 had more albums make this top 100 list than any other artist. I wonder how close the four remaining U2 albums, Boy, October, Rattle And Hum, and POP were to making the list. Clearly this is another sign that U2 dominates the music scene now!

But then, The Beatles had 4 albums in the top 6. So U2 may have more albums in the top 100, The Beatles' albums chart higher (#1, #3, #5 & #6 is pretty impressive if you ask me).
In the end, however, I don't give too much weight to these lists. They're nice, they're fun, but they're not essential.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

Just because they laid the foundation doesn't mean their albums are good. The Beatles albums were good for their time but they are nothing today.

OK. That's why the Beatles had a #1 album 1995, 2 #1 albums in 1996 (all 3 2CD sets), and one of the biggest selling albums of all time in 2000. I guess your right, they're nothing today.

[/B][/QUOTE]

In short, the Beatles were good in their time, but they don't stand a chance against U2. Noe of their albums come close to POP. Can you imagine Ringo on double tracked drums (a la Mofo), or using sampling (Playboy Mansion, Discotheque), or drum loops (Miami)? U2's POP album is much more musically sophisticated than the three-cord toting Beatles.
[/B][/QUOTE]

This statement is just ridiculous & doesn't even deserve a reply.

 

[david]

Just because they laid the foundation doesn't mean their albums are good. The Beatles albums were good for their time but they are nothing today.

Do you follow basketball? George Mikan redefined the center position in the 1950's and his team won 4 championships. George Mikan "laid the foundation" on what his position was all about. Know what? Today, any benchwarming center in the NBA has more moves and skill than George Mikan had in the 1950's. It's called evolution. Just like I think Marily Monroe wouldn't even be considered sexy when put beside all these supermodels who now use scientific workout and diet methods to keep their figures.

In short, the Beatles were good in their time, but they don't stand a chance against U2. Noe of their albums come close to POP. Can you imagine Ringo on double tracked drums (a la Mofo), or using sampling (Playboy Mansion, Discotheque), or drum loops (Miami)? U2's POP album is much more musically sophisticated than the three-cord toting Beatles. No comparison whatsoever. So now you ask about songwriting? Well, Bono said it best - every poet is a thief. All lyrics are derivative anyway, and nothing is original anymore. They all come from somewhere. When you write a love song, it is a love song - even if you're U2 or Bon Jovi. You can't reinvent the wheel. This is my two cents.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

jesus christ, do you ever stop and listen to yourself?

that's fine, whatever, you have an opinion, but your opinion is just that: your opinion.

beatles music is still relevent today, as much as it was back then. but hey, that's just my opinion.

that's why you hear the beatles in every single artist that has come after them.

 

[walkon11]

Great to see U2 with so many entries...no matter what albums they place, nice to see our favorite band score in the hearts of so many people...

I feel the reason why Nirvana was high up was as much musical talent as musical influence...they spawned a musical revolution of sorts, as well as brought to light a entire new genre (grunge)...w/out them, there's no Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and bands down to this day still copy the influential style of one, Kurt Cobain (The Vines, anyone?)...

The Beatles are an obvious choice...not only did they spurn a British invasion which gave us the Rolling Stones and other big bands, but their musical evolution was amazing. They went from a cover-singing, pop band to an exciting, experimental band which had more than 25 number one hits. Their albums not only showcased their "hits", but were also deep and very good (Revolver and Rubber Soul are two great albums...and that's at the beginning of their evolution.).



BTW...George Mikan was voted one of the NBA's 50 best players EVER...and Marilyn Monroe is still dead sexy.

 

[david]

Great to see U2 with so many entries...no matter what albums they place, nice to see our favorite band score in the hearts of so many people...

I feel the reason why Nirvana was high up was as much musical talent as musical influence...they spawned a musical revolution of sorts, as well as brought to light a entire new genre (grunge)...w/out them, there's no Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and bands down to this day still copy the influential style of one, Kurt Cobain (The Vines, anyone?)...

The Beatles are an obvious choice...not only did they spurn a British invasion which gave us the Rolling Stones and other big bands, but their musical evolution was amazing. They went from a cover-singing, pop band to an exciting, experimental band which had more than 25 number one hits. Their albums not only showcased their "hits", but were also deep and very good (Revolver and Rubber Soul are two great albums...and that's at the beginning of their evolution.).



BTW...George Mikan was voted one of the NBA's 50 best players EVER...and Marilyn Monroe is still dead sexy.

Soundgarden came before Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Actually, Nirvana signed to Sub Pop because Soundgarden were the first band signed to Sub Pop.

Or maybe you just mean Pearl Jam and Soundgarden wouldn't have been popular if Nirvana didn't bust down the doors for them.

 

[walkon11]

Or maybe you just mean Pearl Jam and Soundgarden wouldn't have been popular if Nirvana didn't bust down the doors for them.

Thats exactly what I meant...sorry I wasn't clear enough.

 

[STING2]

Hawkmoon,

U2 recorded over 100 songs for ATYCLB alone! The Edge says they have tons of stuff recorded but not used. Some might never ever be put on an album or be used as B-side material. There are great songs at soundchecks and especially from some Rattle And Hum outakes that I have. For some reason the band has never used these songs, and most of them we have never even heard a small clip of.

 

[Salome]

that's why you hear the beatles in every single artist that has come after them.

maybe you should have your cd player fixed
that's not how Aphex Twin is supposed to sound

 

[david]

maybe you should have your cd player fixed
that's not how Aphex Twin is supposed to sound

i meant rock n roll bands.

 

[kariatari]

In short, the Beatles were good in their time, but they don't stand a chance against U2. Noe of their albums come close to POP. Can you imagine Ringo on double tracked drums (a la Mofo), or using sampling (Playboy Mansion, Discotheque), or drum loops (Miami)? U2's POP album is much more musically sophisticated than the three-cord toting Beatles. No comparison whatsoever.

Has it ever occured to you that the Beatles pretty much made possible the technology that was used in recording Pop? (It's called Sgt. Pepper's. Check it out.) If the Beatles had the access to the technology that exists today, there's no telling what they could have become.

And now a change of subject (kind of)...

It really surprised me that 6 U2 albums made the Readers 100. But then again, the survey was conducted online, and once word got out about the survey being online at Rollingstone.com, every U2 site (that I visit, anyway) publicized it. Then, every U2 fan and their dog probably got online and voted for quite a few (or all 10) U2 albums. This kind of think probably also happened within other online fan communities, too. Hence, I don't think the results reflect the average reader.

 

[jick]

Has it ever occured to you that the Beatles pretty much made possible the technology that was used in recording Pop? (It's called Sgt. Pepper's. Check it out.) If the Beatles had the access to the technology that exists today, there's no telling what they could have become.

And now a change of subject (kind of)...

It really surprised me that 6 U2 albums made the Readers 100. But then again, the survey was conducted online, and once word got out about the survey being online at Rollingstone.com, every U2 site (that I visit, anyway) publicized it. Then, every U2 fan and their dog probably got online and voted for quite a few (or all 10) U2 albums. This kind of think probably also happened within other online fan communities, too. Hence, I don't think the results reflect the average reader.

Yes it occured to me. So what if the Beatles helped refine the wheel? They didn't invent the wheel, and POP was a better wheel than any Beatles album. Kinda like in car racing now, sure some tire manufacturers made it possible for the rest to use a certain groove patterns for wet weather conditions, but the new wet weather tires are much better versions than the ones in the 60's. You can't reinvent the wheel, the Beatles did not invent the wheel ...and as time goes by the wheel just keep getting refined by newer artists.

Also, you are underestimating all other fans of other bands. They have their own fansites too and they also know how to use the internet. Actually fans of otehr teenybop bands who are kids have more time on their hands than the more mature U2 fans ...yet U2 still came out on top with the most albums. It's just a shame POP wasn't there when it was better than anything the Beatles ever wrote.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[david]

Yes it occured to me. So what if the Beatles helped refine the wheel? They didn't invent the wheel, and POP was a better wheel than any Beatles album. Kinda like in car racing now, sure some tire manufacturers made it possible for the rest to use a certain groove patterns for wet weather conditions, but the new wet weather tires are much better versions than the ones in the 60's. You can't reinvent the wheel, the Beatles did not invent the wheel ...and as time goes by the wheel just keep getting refined by newer artists.

Also, you are underestimating all other fans of other bands. They have their own fansites too and they also know how to use the internet. Actually fans of otehr teenybop bands who are kids have more time on their hands than the more mature U2 fans ...yet U2 still came out on top with the most albums. It's just a shame POP wasn't there when it was better than anything the Beatles ever wrote.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

If Howie B and Flood were around in the 60's maybe The Beatles would have made an album that is supposedly as great as "POP" is. But they weren't, instead The Beatles had Sir George Martin. Sgt Peppers is better than POP anyway, hell, if POP was so freaking great, why did U2 totally remix the songs for the Best Of CD instead of just putting the originals on it?