Usually when some magazine features a "Greatest Albums Ever" list, the Stones have a couple in the top 10 or at least top 20. However, on Rate Your Music, the rankings are :
55. Sticky Fingers
65.Let It Bleed
81.Exile on Main Street
84.Beggars Banquet
462.The Brussels Affair (Live 1973)
567.Aftermath
627.'Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!'
1746.Some Girls
2006.Between the Buttons
3201.Out of Our Heads

Goats Head Soup, for instance, is not even in the top 5000! It is actually ranked number 262 in 1973!

How is this possible ? I realize that some groups have really dedicated fans (Beatles, Pink Floyd, Radiohead) and that some albums for some reason have a cult status that is way beyond the actual quality of the music (Velvet Underground and Nico, for instance. It is good, but no. 4?). But there is more going on here. There seems to be a lot of people who genuinely dislike, even hate, the Stones. I think most of the people who vote on RYM are actually quite interested and well informed about music, so the apparent hostility towards the Stones really puzzles me. Has anyone got any thoughts about this ?

Just had a look at their Top 100. Oh no, not Radiohead AGAIN! (I do quite enjoy some of their music, but I really don't get why this damn album tops every chart. Please don't try to explain - I just don't get it, right?)

Maybe it's just that the kind of obsessive personality who needs to Rate Their Music and arrange it all in Top 1000 lists is less likely to be a fan of gloriously undisciplined music like the Stones?

That RYM-thing is built on us that makes a rank on albums there...we can all go there and rank for example 'Out of our Heads' as i 5 and it will soon begin to climb....

2 1 2 0

Quote
Green Lady
Maybe it's just that the kind of obsessive personality who needs to Rate Their
Music and arrange it all in Top 1000 lists is less likely to be a fan of
gloriously undisciplined music like the Stones?

I think that's part of the answer.

Also, intentionally or not, the Stones are currently allowing their legacy
to just wither...

When Mick said "I think by the end of 2012 people will be quite sick of
the Rolling Stones", everybody assumed that he meant people would be sick
of the Stones because of how much they would be doing...

But what he actually meant was, people will be sick of the Stones because of
how little they would be doing.

I know how good most of the Stones albums are. The fact that some self-selecting does reflect my personal musical taste does not bother me one jot. It's only the insecure and terminally hip that need constant reinforcement of their own tastes.

Yes it is cool with people who never fails his band, no matter what everyone else thinks about it...I know for example a person that follows 'Pretty Things' every tour they makes, and even know every band-member personally, and I'm always telling him how sloppy their music is compared to Stones...

2 1 2 0

Quote
Father Ted
I know how good most of the Stones albums are. The fact that some self-selecting does reflect my personal musical taste does not bother me one jot. It's only the insecure and terminally hip that need constant reinforcement of their own tastes.

The rankings don't really bother me. But I'm confident enough about my own knowledge of music to say they're plainly wrong. (No, I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion of what this means.) And I wonder why.

I do know other music that is highly underrated, for instance Elton John's second album "Elton John", so I don't think this is a "blind fan" thing.

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
Father Ted
I know how good most of the Stones albums are. The fact that some self-selecting does reflect my personal musical taste does not bother me one jot. It's only the insecure and terminally hip that need constant reinforcement of their own tastes.

The rankings don't really bother me. But I'm confident enough about my own knowledge of music to say they're plainly wrong. (No, I don't want to go into a lengthy discussion of what this means.) And I wonder why.

I do know other music that is highly underrated, for instance Elton John's second album "Elton John", so I don't think this is a "blind fan" thing.

It may sound contrived, but it's true, the only list that matters is your own list.

Just because the Stones don't 'measure up' on this particular internet listing doesn't mean anything. ALSO, there is quite a lot of incredible music out there, so the Stones do have a lot of competition.

I love seeing how well Brussels has done, comparatively speaking.

Hey, I just looked up the website...it shows Rolling stones as number 4, overall:

[rateyourmusic.com]

What page were you looking at?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-04-11 17:57 by treaclefingers.

Quote
treaclefingers
ALSO, there is quite a lot of incredible music out there, so the Stones do have a lot of competition.

Quite right. I'll always have a soft spot for The Stones as I grew up with them. But I did keep growing - kind of away from them. It doesn't suprise me that their albums are ranked that low - they're not an 'album band' - they never have been. Also, to bring up competition is a HUGE factor. It's hard for a lot of "fanboys" to get, but the Stones aren't the end-all-be-all of music. And their legacy is hugely tainted to the point where the sheer amount of suckage is actually greater than their amount of awesomeness.
Plus, let's face it, as much as we love them, there's nothing really that The Stones can be considered "best at" - artistically/musically speaking. 'They're now viewed by the younger generations as the McDonald's of Rock, cash cows on THE SAME LEVEL as KISS. Think about that one.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
treaclefingers

What page were you looking at?

The "Top albums from all time" page:

http;//rateyourmusic.com/customchart

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
treaclefingers
ALSO, there is quite a lot of incredible music out there, so the Stones do have a lot of competition.

Quite right. I'll always have a soft spot for The Stones as I grew up with them. But I did keep growing - kind of away from them. It doesn't suprise me that their albums are ranked that low - they're not an 'album band' - they never have been. Also, to bring up competition is a HUGE factor. It's hard for a lot of "fanboys" to get, but the Stones aren't the end-all-be-all of music. And their legacy is hugely tainted to the point where the sheer amount of suckage is actually greater than their amount of awesomeness.
Plus, let's face it, as much as we love them, there's nothing really that The Stones can be considered "best at" - artistically/musically speaking. 'They're now viewed by the younger generations as the McDonald's of Rock, cash cows on THE SAME LEVEL as KISS. Think about that one.

OK. Let me just say that I strongly disagree with your statements that they are not an album band and that there is nothing they can be considered "best at". I'm not saying the Stones are the end-all-be-all of music (I actually have 87 of the top 100 CDs, including 29 of the top 30), but I'm saying they deserve a much higher ranking. I was really asking why so many apparently well informed people seem so lacking in will to investigate the Stones music more thoroughly.

I just checked this list. It appears to be a moving target. I mean I just saw Exile posted at #79.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about lists like this. Example: I follow a lot of films and I've never seen a top 100 that reflects my taste (though some of my picks do make it onto the lists).

I guess the bigger issue here is WHO is doing the ratings? Until I checked this thread, I'd never heard of RYM...not that that means much. Plus, I see there are several jazz albums on the top 100. I love jazz but I wouldn't house it w/ rock & roll.
Screw the lists. The Stones are AMAZING. I've never been into popularity contests!!
Cheers.

Quote
memphiscats
I just checked this list. It appears to be a moving target. I mean I just saw Exile posted at #79.

Yes, of course, people are constantly voting.

Quote
memphiscats
Frankly, I don't give a shit about lists like this. Example: I follow a lot of films and I've never seen a top 100 that reflects my taste (though some of my picks do make it onto the lists).

No, everyone should have their own opinion. However, Rate Your Music is a very good place to be informed about interesting new music and the people who vote and comment there often know what they're talking about. I find it quite useful.

Couldn't give a toss to be honest The Stones, IMO, haven't released anything near worthy since 81's Tattoo You - and even that rates a million miles below such as 80's classics as The Queen Is Dead, The Stone Roses, Appetite For Destruction, etc.

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
memphiscats
I just checked this list. It appears to be a moving target. I mean I just saw Exile posted at #79.

Yes, of course, people are constantly voting.

Quote
memphiscats
Frankly, I don't give a shit about lists like this. Example: I follow a lot of films and I've never seen a top 100 that reflects my taste (though some of my picks do make it onto the lists).

No, everyone should have their own opinion. However, Rate Your Music is a very good place to be informed about interesting new music and the people who vote and comment there often know what they're talking about. I find it quite useful.

Fair enough but if the list isn't static and and the site is used to tag new music, then the whole Stones topic is kind of a moot point - don't you think?

Quote
Green Lady
Just had a look at their Top 100. Oh no, not Radiohead AGAIN! (I do quite enjoy some of their music, but I really don't get why this damn album tops every chart. Please don't try to explain - I just don't get it, right?)

Maybe it's just that the kind of obsessive personality who needs to Rate Their Music and arrange it all in Top 1000 lists is less likely to be a fan of gloriously undisciplined music like the Stones?

awesome theory, Green Lady!

-swiss

Usually you see at least four or five in the top hundred or so. Exile (much to my chagrin) is almost always the top Stones album. Should be Sticky imo. Some lists are more logical than others. Rolling Stone magazines list had around nine Stones albums in the top 500.

"Beatlemania" accounts for a lot of the problems on these lists. The Beatles rode a wave of popularity unseen before or since in music. No one can convince me that Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers are any better than Exile and Sticky.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Quote
FrankM
Usually you see at least four or five in the top hundred or so. Exile (much to my chagrin) is almost always the top Stones album. Should be Sticky imo. Some lists are more logical than others. Rolling Stone magazines list had around nine Stones albums in the top 500.

"Beatlemania" accounts for a lot of the problems on these lists. The Beatles rode a wave of popularity unseen before or since in music. No one can convince me that Abbey Road and Sgt. Peppers are any better than Exile and Sticky.

I agree...they're not even my favourite Beatles albums. But history is written and we're not going to change it, so who cares, really?

less likely to be a fan of gloriously undisciplined music like the Stones?

....Now ain't that the truth .... take a bow Green Lady you nailed it



ROCKMAN

I looked at it (and voted - why not, it's fun) and Let It Bleed is higher than EOMS, as was Sticky Fingers I believe.

I was really asking why so many apparently well informed people seem so lacking in will to investigate the Stones music more thoroughly.


I really agree with the above statement. Even classic rock radio format discount the Stones. I had to discover the Stones on my own. Radio only plays the hits. Some of this is firmly on the Stones as well. they only play the hits with a couple of album tracks sprinkled in their sets. When was the last time anyone heard Stray Cat Blues on the radio??

Also the folks who really 'dominate' and thrive at RYM are into a different kind of music than Stones. Green Lady summed it up best.

ive always found the majority of stones music to be seriously underrated.

sadly a portion of their more well known songs are seriously overrated and its maybe these songs which give folk the wrong impression of the stones true standard.

how between the buttons can be classed at position 5000 is a joke.

ive always felt that with many stones albums/songs that if another band/artist had made it, it would be considered a classic.

with many bands, they make a lukewarm album which becomes considered a classic and the bands best music.

i also think the stones never marketed themeselves properly when it came to releasing singles, and often their best music on the album was not suitable for release while the released song was average.

people listen to satisfaction and think it is the best song the stones made cos thats what the media have us believe yet it isnt and not even close to the best in my opinion.

Quote
walkingthedog
I was really asking why so many apparently well informed people seem so lacking in will to investigate the Stones music more thoroughly.

I would suggest that it's because their legacy has been so tainted by the band that the average person doesn't care about them as much anymore. They've been SUCH a commercial-only venture now (especially in the last 25 years when they've had NOTHING artistically to say) and are viewed by many as deserving as much credibility as KISS.

The only people left in the world that still remember or care about the years when they were culturally relevant are the older fans and the band themselves. Let's face it, they've become cash-cow cartoon characters, not artists.
I'll say it again... not unlike KISS.

[thepowergoats.com]