Do you think music tends to have a bias towards the 60's and 70's?

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

Well, get ready for another one of my rants.

Where do I start? Oh, yes Rolling Stone. As you may or may not know, Rolling Stone made a list of the 500 "greatest" albums of time. And if there's one obvious thing that I noticed about it, it's that 80% of the albums on there where either from the 60's or the 70's. Rolling Stone has this baby boomer bias that pisses me off. I spent about an hour studying the list, and this is what I noticed. All the albums in the top 10 were either from the 60's or 70's, and of all the albums in the top 20, Nevermind(ranked #17) was the ONLY album to be released after 1990. If you scroll down the list you won't see another album released after 1990 until you hit U2's Achtung Bay (ranked #63). If you go a bit further, you FINALLY get an album from the 00's. That album is Kid A, and it might also be the only electronic album on that list as well. There are some albums that I thought were ranked way too low. For example, The Stones Roses' selftitled is ranked at #498. That rustles my jimmies quite a bit. I mean, it's such a perfect album and it was ahead of it's time. To make things worse, they ranked Lil Waynes' Tha Carter III and #437. I can't take these guys seriusly, they also ranked In Utero at #435 which also rustles my jimmies. That, and 13 Songs by Fugazi isn't even on this list. There are only three metal albums on here and they are; Metallica's Master of Pupets, Metallica's Selftitled AKA The Black Album and Rage Against the Machine's Selftitled. I don't think I can take these guys seriously...

 

Sadly, this bias exists out of Rolling Stone too. It exists among young people, my age. I've already spent countless hours of my life ranting and bitching about them, so I'm not going to go too deep into that.

 

Long story short, I believe that albums like London Calling and Rubber Soul are equally as good as albums like Nevermind and Kid A.

 

So what do you think? 

 

EDIT: People are focusing way too much on the Rolling Stone list. I just used it as an example. That's NOT the main point here. My point is how I think it's dumb how someone can rank an album higher than another just for being from a certain era.

Edited June 13, 2013 by AtDawnTheySquee

[Orablanco Account 3,707]

Never really cared for Rolling Stones Magazine myself.

 

Just remember that it's all opinion, and opinion is very much formed by the time and place. Remember that to the baby boomer generation, the music heard in the 60's and 70's was unlike anything heard before. There has never been such a burst of musical innovation before or since.

 

While there arguably has been better album's since, to the writers who made that list, those are the most important albums ever made.

Edited June 13, 2013 by CITRUS KING46

[DJRainbowDash 724]

I agree specifically about Rolling Stone doing that, but that's how Rolling Stone is. I mean I guess a majority of those albums were very influential and all, but there is definitely bias there.

 

Then again, this is the case for Pitchfork, NME, Q Magazine, etc. Pitchfork only focuses on more indie music and lesser known bands, and won't rank commercial artists well most of the time,  while NME stay towards alternative music.

 

Meanwhile Q magazine did a similar best album ever ranking, and their top 10 had 3 Radiohead albums and 2 Oasis albums, showing their massive 90s bias. 

 

Point being is that tastes are different, and every generation will have conflicting thoughts on the best albums ever due to the period of time they grew up in. 

[Dzastur 1,719]

Not to derail discussion of the actual music (which I really get into, BTW), but I think these lists are designed to be controversial - especially as part of online publications. The more controversial they are, the more they make the rounds via social media and other venues. People hear about the controversy, go look at the list (where every selection is "conveniently" on one page, sharing space with an advertisement) and it equates to $$.

 

Sorry - continue!

[Dusty Soul 2,611]

Honestly Rolling Stone magazine is a joke.  I don't take them seriously after viewing their top 100 guitarists list, which had Kurt Cobain listed higher then Alex Lifeson.  Now alot of albums in the 60s and 70's were extremely influential.  it all comes down to opinions.

[Soundgarden 2,758]

Good god, I hate that magazine. Saying that they are biased towards the 70's and the 60's is an understatement. They completely ignore the thought that high quality and influencal albums have been created in the last two decades.

 

It seems they only list old albums that were popular at the time and sold well. All they're doing is dwelling in nostalgia and ignorance, they have no knowledge and are narrow minded. This magazine's only purpose is too further idiotize 13 year old kids and making them believe that quality music is dead.

 

Sadly, stuff like Rolling Stones is the main reason we have to deal with these god forsaken purists

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

 

 

Good god, I hate that magazine. Saying that they are biased towards the 70's and the 60's is an understatement.

I know right? And they compleatly left out Opeth :<

 

They completely ignore the thought that high quality and influencal albums have been created in the last two decades.

Bacuse they're stupid 60 year old bastards D:<

 

 

It seems they only list old albums that were popular at the time and sold well. All they're doing is dwelling in nostalgia and ignorance, they have no knowledge and are narrow minded. This magazine's only purpose is too further idiotize 13 year old kids and making them believe that quality music is dead.

So it's old people corupting the minds of young (and stupid) people D:

 

 

Sadly, stuff like Rolling Stones is the main reason we have to deal with these god forsaken purists

We must exterminate them.