• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Rolling Stone's list of 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time

gblews

gblews

Vice Admiral
Admiral
I love RS's lists. They can be the subject of endless debate about who was left out, where artists are ranked, who shouldn't be there. Although I didn't read the selection process for this list, if it is like their 100 Greatest Singers list, it is probably pretty objective. The RS staff didn't make the selections.

There were about 3 head scratchers for me. The omission of Tupac Shakur and inclusion of Biggie, and inclusion of Taylor Swift at #97. I just believe that Tupac was by far the better writer between him and Biggie. The inclusion of Taylor Swift caused my eyebrows to elevate. Lists like this should be about two things, quality and/or longevity. IMO, Taylor doesn't fit under ether premise. But, not a hater so whatever.

The histories of these great artists should be mandatory reading for music fans, especially those born from 1970 on.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-songwriters#timbaland-and-missy-elliott
 
John and Paul got an appropriate amount of love, I'm pleased....No shame in coming in third and second to Dylan, particularly as they were split up.

The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list is the inspiration and backbone of the much more vast chronological playlists that I've been working on. If it's on the Rolling Stone list, it automatically gets on.
 
If you take into consideration that it is a list made for baby boomers nostalgic for the music they remember from period between 1965 and 1979, it's a perfectly fine list.

Just if you expect it to be a complete, inclusive list, that gives equitable page space to artists of all periods, of all levels of popularity, originating from all countries as opposed to just the United States and United Kingdom, you shouldn't be reading Rolling Stone.
 
Not a bad list. But Hank Williams "died at 29 years old in a car wreck on New Year's Day 1953"? I have to wonder when writers don't even know basic facts on the people they're writing about.
 
It's full of acts I wouldn't have included, and there's a fair few glaring omissions.

Trying to put aside personal preference and be somewhat objective, Gershwin, Berlin, Porter, Page and Plant, Tony Iommi, Roger Waters, Neil Finn, Gouldman and Stewart, Difford and Tillbrook...
 
Rolling Stone lists are specific to the type of music that the magazine covers--e.g., Rock 'n' Roll-era. Gershwin, Berlin, and Porter aren't in their ballpark.
 
If I were going to make a list of eyebrow-raising omissions:

Non-US people:
Fela Kuti (Belongs in top ten)
Serge Gainsbourg
Jacques Brel

People from the 60s-80s that weren't as well known:
Townes Van Zandt (Belongs in top ten)
Kate Bush
Tim Buckley
Roy Harper
Laura Nyro

Indie rock people:
The National
Arcade Fire

Also I'm shocked to see no Public Enemy members. I thought they were #1 on Rolling Stones' "Rap acts to gush about to cover our butts because our fans don't really like rap" list.
 
Interesting.

Bono and The Edge deserve to be higher on the list.

And no Roger Waters?

:shrug:
 
It must be written by Rolling Stone hacks, because if it weren't, Freddie Mercury or Queen as a unit would be on the list somewhere.

I mean, come on.
 
The Old Mixer said:
John and Paul got an appropriate amount of love, I'm pleased....No shame in coming in third and second to Dylan, particularly as they were split up.
.
Click to expand...
You know, I was actually thinking that perhaps the writing team of "Lennon/McCartney: also deserved a spot of it's own. That team was responsible for some pretty memorable songs in the Beatles early days -- I Want to Hold Your Hand, I Saw Her Standing There, She Loves You. But putting Len/McCart at #4 and John and Paul at 2 and 3 might have been a bit much.

JirinPanthosa said:
If you take into consideration that it is a list made for baby boomers nostalgic for the music they remember from period between 1965 and 1979, it's a perfectly fine list.
Click to expand...
It simply is a fact that the birth of the rock era and birth of the baby boom generation coincide. That would be from 1945 - 1960(?), I believe. If you're creating an "all time" greatest list, it stands to reason that you would start looking from the beginning of the era.

Just if you expect it to be a complete, inclusive list, that gives equitable page space to artists of all periods, of all levels of popularity, originating from all countries as opposed to just the United States and United Kingdom, you shouldn't be reading Rolling Stone.
Click to expand...
Rock and Roll was born in the US, and the first country outside of North America to fully embrace the music was England. so it stands to reason that a list like this would be dominated by Yanks and Brits. But I agree that there are surely some great songwriters outside the US and England.

Relayer1 said:
Trying to put aside personal preference and be somewhat objective, Gershwin, Berlin, Porter, Page and Plant, Tony Iommi, Roger Waters, Neil Finn, Gouldman and Stewart, Difford and Tillbrook...
Click to expand...
I'm a bit surprised about Roger Waters myself.

But as much of a fan as I was of Difford and Tillbrook songs, they may have been a bit too derivative of Lennon McCartney to stand out.

JirinPanthosa said:
If I were going to make a list of eyebrow-raising omissions:

Non-US people:
People from the 60s-80s that weren't as well known:
Kate Bush
Laura Nyro
Click to expand...
Kate Bush, who I think is a great writer, may not have stood out enough from "a" Bjork, perhaps.

Now, Laura Nyro (who was American), I think, is a glaring omission. She was one of the most unique musical minds in the rock era and it showed in her songs. Nyro, IMO, distinguished herself from both Joni Mitchell AND Carole King, who were both included on the list.
 
It makes sense to start around the Beatles era but when Rolling Stone makes a list it seems like they start and end with that era, and then just add in some token representations of other phases of popular music so people don't complain too much.

It's true since rock is most popular in the US and is most exported if it happens to be recorded in the English language, but listen to Zombie and then tell me Fela Kuti is not an incredible songwriter.

This is a list intended to be full of people their core demographic recognizes and agrees with, it's not meant to be a fair, inclusive list. A fair inclusive list would include people like Serge Gainsbourg who are brilliant lyricists but do not record in English, it'd include less well known artists with niche appeal who the average reader may not have heard of such as Colin Meloy or Neutral Milk Notel, and it'd include more people from farther outside the pop/rock sphere.

Rolling Stone put a lot of great songwriters on their lists, just they picked almost exclusively from a single bucket.
 
gblews said:
You know, I was actually thinking that perhaps the writing team of "Lennon/McCartney: also deserved a spot of it's own. That team was responsible for some pretty memorable songs in the Beatles early days -- I Want to Hold Your Hand, I Saw Her Standing There, She Loves You. But putting Len/McCart at #4 and John and Paul at 2 and 3 might have been a bit much.
Click to expand...

I think they split them up because they each had a substantial body of solo work, and who did what on their Beatles songs is generally pretty well-known and -documented, with only a few points of controversy.
 
Where are Richard Carpenter and John Bettis? Richard Carpenter got a brief mention under Hal David and Burt Bacarach, but where was he for song writer? Richard Carpenter and John Bettis wrote Goodbye To Love and then Richard had Tony Peluso do a fuzz guitar solo on the ballad and essentially created, and has been credited as having created the Adult Contemporary format, because the song starts off as an Easy Listening ballad, but then ends with a Heavy Rocker.
 
Rolling Stone used to be cool but is just an abortion of a magazine now.

It's embarrassing how far it's fallen.
 
JirinPanthosa said:
It makes sense to start around the Beatles era but when Rolling Stone makes a list it seems like they start and end with that era, and then just add in some token representations of other phases of popular music so people don't complain too much.
Click to expand...
But if you're going to call your list "Greatest __ of the Rock Era", how much sense would it make to start in the 1960's? The music was born in the late 40's, early 50's and grew up in the 1950's and 60' and continues to grow. Starting in the 1960's would be like telling your child's life story and starting when they were teenagers.

If you ignored the early years of rock, you would be
ignoring artists who created the foundation upon which artists like the Beatles, and everyone else, stood, and continue to stand (including Fela Kuti).

I don't think any of the selections are "token". I believe that whoever made the selections believed their chosen ones are the best, although we all agree that there were some crazy exclusions.

I would replace James Taylor, Taylor Swift, and Timbaland/Missy Elliot, right now with Tupac, Laura Nyro, and (and as G-Man pointed out), Warren Zevon.
 
I'm thrilled that Paul Simon is in the top ten.

I'm also surprised Roger Waters didn't make the list (and Taylor Swift DID?!). I'm less surprised David Gilmour wasn't listed either but he definitely should've been included.

TayLaLaLa said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Taylor_Swift

Yep Taylor doesn't deserve to be on there. :lol:
Click to expand...
If we're going to drag in arbitrary means of gauging the quality of songwriting, then I have to point out how Dark Side of the Moon was on Billboards album chart for 741 consecutive weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top