Rolling Stone is an American magazine devoted to music and popular culture. It was founded in San Francisco in 1967. In 2003, Rolling Stone published an article describing what it considered to be the top 500 music albums of all time. In 2012, this list was updated and released in book form.
(Official website: www.rollingstone.com)
There are 100 comments for this chart from BestEverAlbums.com members and Top 500 Albums of All Time has an average rating of 69 out of 100 (from 231 votes). Please log in or register to leave a comment or assign a rating.
View the complete list of 26,000 charts on BestEverAlbums.com from The Charts page.
Don't agree with this chart? Create your own from the My Charts page!
Top 500 Albums of All Time composition
Top 500 Albums of All Time similar chartsTop 500 Albums of All Time by Rolling Stone (2005)
Top 500 Albums of All Time by Rolling Stone (2003)
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by P H Dias (2012)
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by album guru joe (2013)
The Top 100 Albums by VH1 (2001)
Top 500 Albums of All Time similarity to your chart(s)
Top 500 Albums of All Time ratings
av = trimmed mean average rating an item has currently received.
n = number of ratings an item has currently received.
m = minimum number of ratings required for an item to appear in a 'top-rated' chart (currently 10).
AV = the site mean average rating.
Showing latest 5 ratings for this chart. | Show all 231 ratings for this chart.
Related links: top charts.
Top 500 Albums of All Time favourites
Showing all 9 members who have added this chart as a favourite
Top 500 Albums of All Time comments
Showing latest 10 comments | Show all 100 comments | Most Helpful First | Newest First
(Only showing comments with -2 votes or higher. You can alter this threshold from your profile page. Manage Profile)
It's not a bad lists, but I feel like their shouldn't be so many compilation albums as they aren't actual albums; they're just a collection of songs taken from the artist's previous albums. There's also a few weird choices when it comes to the placement of these albums, like putting Led Zeppelin's debut album before Led Zeppelin 2 & 4. There's also a surprising lack of albums by David Bowie & there's very little diversity in terms of genre. Something else I've noticed is that there's very few albums on this list that weren't released in the years between the 60's and 70's. While that's understandable as the 60's & 70's were easily the best years for music, there's only about 15 albums from the 80's, 90's, & 2000's, and a lot of those are compilation albums.
Too much sentiment and not enough sense. The Marvin Gaye album is there because he's black and from the 60's. It's a wildly inconsistent album, too repetitive and thin to be so highly vaunted. Exile on Main Street is also far too inconsistent, but it's by the Stones, and they feel they have to have something by the Stones in the top ten. (Don't get me wrong, I have a soft spot for both those albums and Exile is still high on my personal list). But criticisms aside, Rolling Stone (and this list) still deserves respect for its leadership -- and perhaps, for recognizing better than many other sources, those who have gone before and paved the way. But yes, paved the way for newer music that does indeed stand on the shoulders of these giants.
Very disappointed that Rolling Stone would consider compilation albums in the list of great albums.
It's a geat reference to start up a music collection but it's also a list you will enventually outgrow and find lacking in substance.
There is a mistake : # 11 should be the Sun Sessions, not Sunshine by Elvis Presley
I've been using it for a while as a guide to what music to look into next. I feel like it is missing some great prog like King Crimson and Genesis and I don't like that they used compilation albums. Creating a list that will make everyone happy is nearly impossible, but this is good as a reference.
They seem to define greatness in terms of influence. While that's one way to look at it, it leaves out a lot of great lesser known or newer albums, and makes it look as if music died in 1979.
Rolling Stone has always severely overrated a number of artists, especially from the classic rock period. I see their list as rather myopic and I agree with very little on on it.
That said, I don't have a problem with the heavy weighting on the classic rock time period as that was truly the high water mark for popular music. '67 - '75 may never be equaled.
Where they fall down the worst is in their slighting of progressive rock. They are grossly deficient in their lack of appreciation for the likes of Yes, ELP, King Crimson, Rush, Kansas, early Genesis, etc. It seems the only prog they see fit to praise is Floyd.
Compilation albums shouldn't be allowed, and considering a fair few of these albums are U.S. only releases it makes it almost obsolete in my opinion. Some great albums though, but come on, sly and the family stone's greatest hits is not better than stand!
May as well just call it "Greatest Albums 1960-1979." There really is no point in calling this an all-time list.
Showing latest 10 comments | Show all 100 comments
Your feedback for Top 500 Albums of All TimeLet us know what you think of this chart by adding a comment or assigning a rating below!