Top 500 Albums of All Time
by Rolling Stone (2003)

From Goliath 08/27/2021 16:18 | #272928

Considerably better than Rolling Stone's latest effort, 23 in common with my top 100. As usual, random compilations ruin the list, got to get Elvis, Chuck Berry etc in there it seems, great singles artists, but could only produce mediocre albums, so should not be here. Works as a greatest artist list maybe. So no, not 'complete and utter garbage' but not the great list you would expect from a publication which thinks it knows all about music either.

4 beatles dans le top 10? C'est pas un peu trop ?

Good music but save choices. I listened to all the albums on the chart and it helped me to appreciate some well known artist (Beatles and Bob Dylan) and to discover some new stuff. One thing that I don't understand is that there are so many compilations on this chart.

Dark Side of the Moon 43, too low. Wheres "In the court of the crimson King" Rolling Stone magazine?

Quibble all you want about the make-up, but this is an accurate reflection of the Rolling Stone list. Just a shame that it is capped at 100 entries.

From makerofbuckets 03/07/2015 03:43 | #136298

Over 10 compilations? Really?

Great reflection of the readership of RS magazine in the early 00s. We're mostly middle-aged now (some older). This list is OUR list, and the 20-somethings and 30-somethings who have time out from their studies or MacJobs to write crap about classic rock and R&B based lists should go back to their dorms or apts and listen to Radiohead till their ears bleed.

From tgarritsen 12/17/2013 02:16 | #97830

Misses albums past 2003 ofcourse, so not as great as their more uptodate list.

From junodog4 05/14/2013 19:50 | #76127

Too much 60s and 70s, too many 'safe' choices. However, most of what is on here are massive classics. Further, who gives a crap what is 'heard on the radio'. That doesn't define quality, and regardless, most of this would be heard on classic rock radio.

80% of the chart coming from the 60s and 70s come on.