They've jumped the shark, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, The Beasties, but no Run DMC?Eminem ahead of Tupac, Curtis Mayfield, and Miles Davis?

if it doesn't look like this, I will be severely disappointed:

01 - Mclusky (now that they've broken up, not putting them at #1 is especially criminal)
02 - AC/DC
03 - Led Zeppelin
04 - Miles Davis
05 - The Beach Boys
06 - Radiohead
07 - The Beatles (they're going to put them in the top ten, no matter how hard I dream)

I saw Eminem on the ad for it and decided not to even look at it. That guy's the posterchild of brainless, image oriented, 'look at me LOOK AT ME I NEED ATTENTION' style rap. He found his media persona at a store. Such an incredible egomanic fake with such horrible music I can't believe so many critics rate him so high.

I don't know about AC/DC. I always found their music kind of obnoxious...

Eminem gets so much credit because he is obviously so talented, especially compared to all those other mainstream hip-hop hacks (alliteration). His lyrics/music don't always reflect that talent, which is too bad. I still think if he can ever mature a bit and forget his ex-wife and put the tabloids behind him, he has a great album in him. Should he be on the list? Regardless of the quality of his music, you can't deny his cultural influence (which seems to be what the list is based on).

Radiohead was all the way down at 73, but I am proud of them for making the list at all...they were one of only three artists whom I would consider "modern artists" to make the list and the highest one of those three, so that is pretty impressive.

Never been a big ACDC fan...

paxsoprano,
with all due respect, I think you're a product of the media's influence. They started propagating this "Eminem's the savior of rap" nonsense very early in his career, and more than a few bought into it, purely because he sounded a little different.

Well, Jay-Z has a different style too. So did Biggie. So do many of them. That doesn't make the Shady one better.

As far as their chronicling the more influential artists, they should therefore have called that list "The 100 most influential". Using the word, "greatest" is what got me going. Hell, even The Supremes are greater than Eminem, and their legacy will last longer.

Actually, I think Eminem *does* have a little bit of talent for putting together songs. He just doesn't put together remotely decent songs with them.

But he does get a lot of extra media attention -- more than he deserves (He's certainly less talented than Tupac or Run DMC, but then again much more talented than Puff Daddy), because he's white.

I think "greatest" implies "most influential." Otherwise, what is the point of having a list? It would just be someone's favorite bands...influence can be measured a little more quantitatively than greatness.

As for Eminem, I don't think he is the savior of anything...all I said was that he is a very talented person who, if he matures, is capable of putting out a truly great album. I defend his place on the list not because I think he is the greatest rapper ever, but because he has probably had the most influence of any rapper on society as a whole.

Also another thing that bothers me is when people list rappers according to their talent..."Jay-Z is better than Tupac who is better than Biggie who is better than Nas who is better than Run DMC who is better than Eminem who is better etc." Isn't that like saying "John Lennon is better than Paul McCartney who is better than Robert Plant who is better than Bob Dylan who is better than Mick Jagger..."? No one would ever make these comparisons; instead one should simply admit that they all have their different styles that suit the different types of music they write.

You can certainly rate guitarists according to their technical skill, or according to songwriting ability. So long as you specify what parameter you're actually rating. Just because there's going to be a lot of disagreement doesn't mean there's no point in discussing.

I will admit that there is a spark of intelligence in Eminem that isn't in any other hip hop that actually gets played. That doesn't mean his music is any good, it's just that he might have at least the slightest idea that what he's doing is shit and that he could be doing something better.

DoseOne's recent pitchfork interview included some reminiscing about the Scribble Jam that they were both competing in. Eminem's story could have been much different, perhaps. Maybe he could have moved to Oakland and been part of Anticon.

quote:

I will admit that there is a spark of intelligence in Eminem that isn't in any other hip hop that actually gets played.

While I agree that a lot of the content of almost all popular hip-hop (definitely including Em's work) is garbage, there are many artists with equally- or more- creative flows as his (Naturally, I'm assuming that's what you meant when you referred to the "intelligence" in Eminem).

Besides, this isn't purely about hip-hop. What is he doing ahead of Davis, Santana, Mayfield, etc?

By ranking Eminem ahead of Miles Davis and Santana, RS wasn't saying that Eminem is more talented or makes better music, simply that he has had a larger cultural impact.

Bobthespirit, doesn't it seem like a popular sport among rap aficionados involves ranking rap artists according to their skill? My only point is that this sort of ranking is misleading...Jimi Hendrix may be the greatest guitarist, but that obviously doesn't make his songs the best. When people say stuff like "Biggie is a better rapper than Eminem" it sounds like "Biggie's music is better than Eminem's" even though the two statements aren't necessarily synonymous.

Since almost nobody takes Rolling Stone seriously, I didn't take their list too seriously. I wasn't surprised by it, nor did it aggravate me: this is a mag that puts people like Lindsey Lohan on the cover. Rolling Stone publishes some good investigative journalism but has diddly-squat as far as music credibility.

Pitchfork, on the other hand, could be a credible music source if it wasn't trying so hard.

I don't know any rap aficionados. One of my friends think White Stripes are 'okay', and other than that, none of them think anything recorded in this millenium is worth crap.

It is true that a lot of people who rank things on any paramater are actually just ranking them according to their preference of the whole product. Like, the old 'Who would win in a fight, the Enterprise or the Millenium Falcon' debates. If you like Star Trek better, you say Enterprise. If you like Star Wars better, you say Millenium Falcon. But, it's still worth discussing which rapper is more talented for people who don't think like that, and are more analytical and open minded.

I think Rolling Stones just likes to say what they think the fewest people will disagree with. Buncha panderers, they've just got a few really talented writers on their staff.

I wonder how the list was compiled. You can't take their 'best 500 albums of all time' and such lists too seriously, because...well, first of all, they give votes to people like Britney Spears who think Madonna was the beginning of music and don't even write or sing their own music. But second of all, artists with a large amount of solid work split their own votes...like, everybody puts a Neil Young album in the top ten, but nobody puts the same one, so you see all his good ones straggling somewhere in the 200s and 300s.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
But, it's still worth discussing which rapper is more talented for people who don't think like that, and are more analytical and open minded.

I know less than squat about rap, but I'd guess the most talented rappers are probably some that most people have never heard of, much less that Rolling Stone would list. I think Dr. Dre, if only for the influence of his production, deserves a spot on the list. I like the lushness and the use of melody on Dre productions.

In terms of large-scale influence, isn't Vanilla Ice more influential than Eminem? He made a LOT of white boys want to be black when I was in high school....

Hehe..by the same token you could say New Kids On The Block were influential. They provided the substrate for every annoying boy band we're subjected to. They proved the formula worked.

A look at the voters only aids the "pandering" argument. How many of them voted for themselves?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5939213

It's worth noting that (for my own edification), of my five all-time favorite artists, only one, The Velvet Underground, made the list. Three deserving others — Talking Heads, Tom Waits, Pixies — are absent. I'd make the case for my other favorite, Elliott Smith, but The Beatles are already #1.

I guess I am in the minority when I say I like these Rolling Stone lists. Who wouldn't want to read Billie Armstrong on the Sex Pistols, or Dave Matthews on Radiohead? It is like seeing the peasant bow before the thrown. Even the album and song lists: I appreciate the exhaustive profiling of all that great music, and they can be a good guide for newbies wanting some great music to listen to. Of course nobody thinks that the "listing" is the last word (it is pointless to say Highway 61 Revisited is DEFINITELY better than Blonde on Blonde, or that Revolver is DEFINITELY better than Rubber Soul), but someone who picked up the issue and never heard of those albums might now be inspired to track down this great music that he wouldn't have otherwise heard of on MTV.

And no, I dont think Vanilla Ice has had the cultural impact of Eminem.

quote:

And no, I dont think Vanilla Ice has had the cultural impact of Eminem.

Similarly, I sincerely doubt Eminem had anything CLOSE to the cultural impact of Davis, Santana, or Mayfield.

The reason I can't take this garbage seriously the fact that, as Bobthespirit said, they try to be as agreeable as possible. Due to the fact that Michael's a possible molester with an ongoing case, they don't wanna offend the sensibilities of their readers by actually seperating the art from the man.

U2 ahead of Michael? Nirvana over Prince? Nirvana over Johnny Cash? Totally ludicrous.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: merqury,

Well, the Rolling Stone lists are fun to glance over, and think 'Hey, it's most of the great albums in the past 40 years!'

But there are so many questionable inclusions it rubs me the wrong way. Now, I can kinda see how No Doubt's breakthrough album, Tragic Kingdom, might make the 400s-region of the list. It is a pretty good album. But how Rock Steady, did? I have no clue whatsoever. It's just terrible. (And by the way, Return of Saturn is actually their best...not on the list. It just wasn't accessible to mainstream audiences. And when it didn't sell, Ms Gwen decided to stop acknowledging she was almost 30 and pander to MTV audiences.)

So Bobthespirit, the mystery is finally revealed...all your animosity toward Rolling Stone is rooted in their blasphemous misplacement of the esteemed No Doubt catalogue.