Time Magazine All-Time 100 Songs

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Zootomic

Acrobat
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
479
Time magazine released today their list of the 100 all-time songs from 1923 (when Time was started) to the present as selected by their editors. 100 Greatest Popular Songs: TIME List of Best Music | Entertainment | 'Tightrope' | TIME.com

This list is unranked and includes most of the usual top artists: Dylan, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Aretha, The Supremes, Judy Garland, Springsteen, MJ, Madonna, Prince, Sinatra, Crosby, Ella, Hank Williams. Among newer artists they have included songs from Arcade Fire, Lil Wayne, Gaga, and Kanye.

Thoughts?
 
I would say that on such a list that includes, bafflingly, Lil Wayne, yes they should be on there, but I'm not going to start a riot about it or anything.
 
Despite how much we all love U2, it should come as no surprise that a lot of other people absolutely hate them, so it is what it is. Regardless, Time Magazine isn't exactly the definitive source for music journalism.
 
U2 don't need to be represented on every list.

Didn't say they did. Just said I'm surprised they didn't make this list. I think 'One' is better than at least a quarter of the songs that did.

But, that said, the reason I posted this in the 'general' forum is because I was intending it to be about the list itself and not specifically about U2.
 
Okay, I'm going back and editing out my comment in my original post about U2 not being included on the list because people apparently took that as the point of the post instead of being about the list in general.
 
Actually, surprised about a couple of the missing artists here.

No U2, Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra, or Jimi Hendrix. I believe. I scrolled through the list quickly so there are probably other big names I missed.
 
Yeah, if you're making a point to start all the way back to 1923, you can't fit some Frank Sinatra in there?

Lil Wayne .... but no Frank?
 
Side note, but I'm annoyed stand internet lists / articles that make you click through pictures for each and every item they list.
 
I have never understood the purpose of 'best of' rankings of songs, artists, bands, actors, schools, etc.

What's up with Time's 100 Influential People list too? What are they trying to sell with all this crap of rankings all the time?
 
Dfit00 said:
I have never understood the purpose of 'best of' rankings of songs, artists, bands, actors, schools, etc.

What's up with Time's 100 Influential People list too? What are they trying to sell with all this crap of rankings all the time?

Debate
 
Side note, but I'm annoyed stand internet lists / articles that make you click through pictures for each and every item they list.

Great way to push up click counts. :angry: Ruined Television Without Pity for me, because they started reducing it to one paragraph of recap per page.
 
u2popmofo said:
Side note, but I'm annoyed stand internet lists / articles that make you click through pictures for each and every item they list.

I concur. Annoys the crap out of me. Just a list would be fine.
 
Great way to push up click counts. :angry: Ruined Television Without Pity for me, because they started reducing it to one paragraph of recap per page.

Ugh, did they really? I stopped going there some time ago, but that sure doesn't make me sorry I did.
 
For all the country on that list, no Blues Eyes Crying In The Rain? No I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry? They overthought that one.

On the plus side...SEPTEMBER GURLS :love:
 
The list is such a huge mess. They tried to take on way too much. Sometimes the went for the obvious pick, sometimes the pretentious, but the most egrious error on the list, however, is definitely picking anything by Louis Armstrong that is not "Wonderful World."

They said they were trying to pick the most enduring, beautiful songs...well...uh...duh?
 
I love Janelle Monae and Tightrope is a baller song, but one of the all-time 100 English language pop songs? Nahhhhhhh.
 
Side note, but I'm annoyed stand internet lists / articles that make you click through pictures for each and every item they list.
It's the Bleacher Report syndrome. That website (which is the worst thing on the Internet) gets a ton of play on Google for any sports search, purely because of the slideshow system.
 
Ugh, did they really? I stopped going there some time ago, but that sure doesn't make me sorry I did.

Well to be fair I just checked and it's actually about 3 paragraphs, but when each "recap" is 10-20 pages you start thinking bad thoughts about the corporate tools running it.

Plus I got bored of the straight recap house style.
 
Back
Top Bottom