Does Rolling Stone Magazine have something against Pink Floyd?

Question

In the list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. the first Pink Floyd to show up was Comfortably Numb, #314, AFTER Madonna, Blondie and Beck

The list of 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, Dark Side of the Moon is # 43, AFTER Nirvana and U2

List of 100 Greatest Guitarist of all time: David Gilmour is #82, AFTER Kurt Cobain and Jack White.

The Immortals list: Pink Floyd isn't even in it. But Guns N' Roses and Beastie Boys are

Anyone else see a trend?

Sadly, it's not choosen by voters....

The thing that annoys me the most is the Immortals List, it's suppose to be the list of most influential artist. Even if you don't like Floyd, you have to admit they had such an impact of rock and progressive.

The thing that annoys me the most is the Immortals List, it's suppose to be the list of most influential artist. Even if you don't like Floyd, you have to admit they had such an impact of rock and progressive.

William: Pink Floyd stopped being psychedelic after Syd Barrett left... they havn't been psychedelic for a really long time... and they are progressive.... and what did they do for progressive? They were the first progressive band to really hit it mainstream, and that opened doors for other prog bands.

Answer 1

52 year old geezer here.

I read Rolling Stone for about ten years starting in the late 1960s. Their pattern has always been to worship Bob Dylan and The Beatles. Other bands, when still bubbling under, get effusive praise. As soon as any band made the big time, Rolling Stone turned on them.

They had a hate campaign going against Grand Funk Railroad. They turned on Led Zeppelin, Eagles and I can't remember who else. I guess they're now just an expensive version of Tiger Beat, based on the bands now mentioned. I'm not an Eagles fan but I stuck up for them because it was Rolling Stone's moré to attack any success.

I stopped reading it when I tired of the new layout. I liked the old foldover tabloid.

And remember, everything is subjective. Who cares if a bunch of journalism school grads who have never been in the trenches of real reporting want to make snide choices? I wager they'd rate Kenny G a better soprano saxophonist than John Coltrane, so their opinions don't mean a thing to me.

If this is of any solace, a poll taken a year ago had Gilmour's solo on "Comfortably Numb" rated as the second best behind Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Chile". I don't know who was polled, but the list was impressive, based on the impact of the solos, not just technical whiz kids.

Answer 2

I'd say yes

Comfortably Numb is after Madonna????

The Beastie Boys are considered immortal??? And Pink Floyd isn't????

Rolling Stone (magazine) and the "Rock n Roll" (whats up with all the hip hop?) Hall of fame are effed up (Why isn't Rush in?)

And what about those "top lists"
Jimi Hendrix is 1 (of course) and Eric Clapton is 4 (not too bad, still in top 5)
But Jimmy Page is barely in the top 10 (9)
Brian May is all the way at 39
Pete Townshend is 50
Eddie Van Halen is all the way at 70!?!
Angus Young is 96???

I think they should fix that...

Answer 3

There do indeed seem to be certain artists they like to pick on and will dismiss their latest releases, no matter what. This magazine has been doing it for years. I can remember how much they jumped on Grand Funk Railroad and Van Halen but fawned all over Elvis Costello and Jackson Browne. At one time I did read this magazine but stopped because the articles had become pretentious and dull. I guess things haven't changed.

Answer 4

Their guitarist list is a JOKE. A huge joke. Kurt Cobain at #12? And Jimmy Page at #9? Don't get me started on that......

And I don't really think Rolling Stones mag. knows good music when they hear it. They used to diss Zeppelin, but now they act like they actually like them. Posers. I have no respect for that magazine anymore.

Answer 5

Ha, check the producers. Whoever sponsors Rolling Stone probably doesn't sponsor Pink Floyd, but does sponsor Nirvana, U2, GNR, etc. It's all about the money for them.

Answer 6

I think Frank Zappa said it best when he was asked by Rolling Stone if they could put his face on the cover and he said:

"No, why the f*ck should I let them use my face to sell their stupid magazine"

It is a magazine all about FADS. Hell, Panic! At The Disco were on the cover not long ago...if that doesn't want to make you vomit blood violently then nothing will!

The fact they have chosen to shun one of THE most prolific and influential bands of all time for the likes of The f*cking Beastie Boys, Nirvana (apparently blowing your head off with a shot gun is a good career move) and lame @ss Guns & Roses shows what utter twatish morons they really are. I stopped buying it about 10 years ago

Answer 7

It's too bad Pink Floyd didn't score higher. I'm glad Kurt and Jack made it as some of our greatest guitarists at least. I see a trend everywhere, only ear candy wins at the awards, on the top lists etc. Real talent isn't appreciated as much as real fakeness now a days.

Answer 8

rolling stone magazine couldn't make a decent list about music i tried look at there 100 greatest guitar players issue its a joke i think eddie van halen was 86th or something

Answer 9

Well, it depends on if this was based on 'people's choice', facts (did they look at record sales?) or just one mans opinion.

The thing with Pink Floyd is they were, and still are, controversial. The thing with all controversial bands is that ALOT of people don't like them, for unknown reasons really, I guess they just don't like people questioning 'the way things are', but the people who like them are, like, die hard fans!

Personally, I like them! It's something my dad and I both like and I guess he actually first showed it from me!

Answer 10

Rolling Stone Magazine has been crap for the last few years, might as well call Rap Crap Magazine because they sure as hell don't represent Rock any more IMO.