VH1's list of the 100 versus rolling stones. who got it right

Im like you there had to be some bias going on. the list is good and hard to argue with in who should be there but it is the order I guess.

 

Well VH1 had no direction.

I saw the program they had on TV, they were letting any music artist vote on the list.
Idiots like T.I. and 50 Cent were putting in votes.
They showed 50 Cents ballot. I'm pretty sure he had Dr.Dre at 2 and Eminem at 5, lol. So you can see why that list sucked.



I can tell that Rolling Stone was going mainly by influence and impact of the time.

For instance Muddy Waters was one of most innovative and influential artist, but there's no way he should be #17 on the list. Ahead of people like Prince....

A better example is Janis Joplin. I'm sorry but home girl only had 1 half finished solo album and she hardly wrote songs yet she's 46 on this list. They have her better ranked then Tupac. That's laughable and I'm not even a Tupac fan.


She's an icon though which is why they have her.

It's known among the community that RollingStone is extremely biased to older music. I don't respect their opinion at all.
If you want good lists check out a publication like "NME"(British Rolling Stone). They aren't at all biased according to time period. If a new album came out today that they thought was better then a iconic album from the 60's they'll say it.

For instance the top 20 of the Rolling Stone top albums list is dominated by stuff from the 60's and 70's that don't belong.

Where as the top 20 from NME gives respect to albums from the 90s and 00s.

 

My thing is though, NME isn't biased towards new music. The only factor they use for judging music is how good it is.


I think I've made it clear I have a huge boner for Radiohead and Arcade Fire but I'll give you my unbiased opinion. Now remember these are facts....



OK Computer is the most critically acclaimed album of all time. No album has been on the top of more "best ever" list then it has. Yet on Rolling Stones list it only ranks at 162.

In 10 years Kid A has gone on to become one of the most acclaimed albums ever. Pitchfork, Times Magazine, and even Rolling Stone itself named it the best album of the decade. Yet on Rolling Stones top 500 albums list they ranked it all the way up at 428.

They take albums viewed as some of the best ever, and hardly give them credit because they're not iconic yet. They have the mentality that new artist and albums can't be better then the originals from the 50's and 60's which is silly.

Only on a Rolling Stone list can you find a random Little Richard album ahead of "Funeral" by Arcade Fire. Or some extremely random Phil Spector album ahead of "Illmatic" by Nas.

So you can see why they leave alot of critics and fans scratching their heads.

 

true that, t the only worse one was the best rapper list, and they had eminem third.