Jump to content

Rolling Stone 200 Best Singers of All Time doesn’t include Madonna anywhere - Is this what it’s come to?


Alibaba
 Share

Recommended Posts

'In all cases, what mattered most to us was originality, influence, the depth of an artist’s catalog, and the breadth of their musical legacy.' Yeah, sure, because current teen idols are more influencing than Ella Fitzgerald, Madonna or Céline Dion, Ofra Haza is overall a worse singer than Taylor Swift and Rihanna, who in the last 6 years has been busier in selling underwear than making music, deserves to be picked up and placed above Leonard Cohen, who published his final album one week before dying. Tsk, it's a list made by fools for fools.

Unfortunately, I'm shocked but not surprised. It's been years Rolling Stone tries desperately to stay relevant by publishing shitty articles and lists like this and sucking up to trendy singers and their fan armies. The more their stuff sucks and is questionable, the more people will talk about it, giving them the visibility they crave so badly. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ayham said:

To this point I believe Madonna will get the real appreciation when she pass away… unfortunately it’s the reality… I don’t think MJ or Prince will be in the list if they were still alive lol.

That's the way it goes. Prince's most recent work before his death was widely panned by critics. David Bowie's last album got bad reviews, one journalist at The Guardian even went back to change their original review after his death. Now all their work is celebrated MORE than ever, like everything they ever touched turned to gold. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Troubadour said:

This is the same rolling stone magazine that ranked Fine Line by Harry Styles among the 500 greatest albums of all time and people wonder why they have zero credibility anymore.

But at the same time they have to make it look fresh, they'll do another list next year and Harry will have dropped off entirely. They can't keep releasing the same list with Fleetwood Mac's Rumours or wherever's meant to the No.1 GREATEST........ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, luluthecat said:

But at the same time they have to make it look fresh, they'll do another list next year and Harry will have dropped off entirely. They can't keep releasing the same list with Fleetwood Mac's Rumours or wherever's meant to the No.1 GREATEST........ 

It’s a list of the 500 greatest albums of ALL time. If they had credibility it wouldn’t change that dramatically in a number of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tscott said:

Not that I disagree with you, because I agree Rolling Stone isn't the publication it used to be.  Though, there were 27 people contributing to this article.  You can't tell me not one of those persons couldn't think of including Madonna?  Especially when they have included a number of artists who they have compared to Madonna and included artists who were clearly influenced by Madonna.  All the iconic artists from the 80s that were dominating the music market, who were bigger than life, all were included, but Madonna wasn't? Click bait or not, it's just a bit strange!

Of course they thought of her at some point. I reiterate - they just want clicks. Lists are an easy way to do that - excluding famous artists from said lists so people get upset gets them even more clicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2023 at 3:18 AM, luluthecat said:

 David Bowie's last album got bad reviews, one journalist at The Guardian even went back to change their original review after his death.

That is a lie, Blackstar received a majority of very positive reviews even before Bowies death was announced, including one from Pitchfork which you can go read right now. No need to try and rewrite history in order to make your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Troubadour said:

That is a lie, Blackstar received a majority of very positive reviews even before Bowies death was announced, including one from Pitchfork which you can go read right now. No need to try and rewrite history in order to make your point.

True, I just saw the original low rated Guardian review, thought it was ridiculous of the critic to go back a re-write it  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use