Rolling Stone 500 Greatest Albums of All Time drops 3 Smiths albums

Rolling Stone has updated their 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list, and three of the Smiths albums previously listed have been dropped. Only The Queen is Dead remains, and, although it has moved up from its previous position to #113, it is shocking to see some of the albums that ranked better!



UPDATE Sep. 23:

Posted by sfchow:

Not sure if this been mentioned, but Morrissey did submit his list of albums to RS

(scroll down; right above Stuart Murdoch!)

I wonder if any of Morrissey's votes made it into the final 500...


Related item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gregor Samsa

I straighten up, and my position is one of hope.
There are more than two uncorroborated witnesses.
Key word here being uncorroborated. The 1993 case was a hoax, and in 05 he was proven innocent on all accounts. He was an easy target, though. Black, eccentric, ridiculously rich, weird habits, naive, Messiah complex - and he enjoyed the company of kids. It’s easy to make him out to be a monster. However, not one single shred of evidence has ever been found.
 
J

jaynemansfields

Guest
Key word here being uncorroborated. The 1993 case was a hoax, and in 05 he was proven innocent on all accounts. He was an easy target, though. Black, eccentric, ridiculously rich, weird habits, naive, Messiah complex - and he enjoyed the company of kids. It’s easy to make him out to be a monster. However, not one single shred of evidence has ever been found.

Not a mj fan by any means (even tho i think Bad is a great album) but i agree with you. I saw the doc about him on amazon and i honestly it kinda changed my mind. I don't think it is the right place to discuss this delicate issue tho.

Also, this list was obviously trying too hard to appeal to sjw's and young people. I love that they tried to be inclusive and they only two latino artists they put were Shakira and bad bunny. I bet those are the only latinos they know.
 
B

Bubbles the Chimp

Guest
Key word here being uncorroborated. The 1993 case was a hoax, and in 05 he was proven innocent on all accounts. He was an easy target, though. Black, eccentric, ridiculously rich, weird habits, naive, Messiah complex - and he enjoyed the company of kids. It’s easy to make him out to be a monster. However, not one single shred of evidence has ever been found.
Do you know what uncorroborated means? "not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information" but in fact there was evidence and information supporting the two claims and others. If you watch Leaving Neverland you'll see the families of the accusers back up their stories with details of how he methodically gained their trust.
Wacko Jacko paid out a lot of money in 1993 but it's also known that he paid off smaller amounts many times. It wasn't a hoax. You really need to look up some of the words you're using.
In 05 he was found not guilty which is not the same as "proven innocent." Courts don't find people innocent. They find them not guilty. But if you watched the documentary Living With Michael Jackson you could see his accuser and there was enough evidence presented just watching them interact.
Evidence has been presented. In the case you're calling a hoax the accuser gave testimony about the appearance of Michael Jackson's penis that was verified by a physical examination.
I'm sorry, he might have been a great entertainer but he was also a weirdo.
 

Gregor Samsa

I straighten up, and my position is one of hope.
Do you know what uncorroborated means? "not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information" but in fact there was evidence and information supporting the two claims and others. If you watch Leaving Neverland you'll see the families of the accusers back up their stories with details of how he methodically gained their trust.
Wacko Jacko paid out a lot of money in 1993 but it's also known that he paid off smaller amounts many times. It wasn't a hoax. You really need to look up some of the words you're using.
In 05 he was found not guilty which is not the same as "proven innocent." Courts don't find people innocent. They find them not guilty. But if you watched the documentary Living With Michael Jackson you could see his accuser and there was enough evidence presented just watching them interact.
Evidence has been presented. In the case you're calling a hoax the accuser gave testimony about the appearance of Michael Jackson's penis that was verified by a physical examination.
I'm sorry, he might have been a great entertainer but he was also a weirdo.
I love that you, just like so many other easily led people, base your entire viewpoint on this matter on this highly questionable and controversial film. And no there was no evidence. If there was, he wouldn’t be found not guilty. The examples you’re giving are very weak and far from enough to tie someone to a crime. How people interact is not evidence. Stories families cook up is not evidence. The penis thing is still not verified (https://www.google.se/amp/s/themich...ken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/amp/). And re the Chandler case: think about it, if it was your kid, would you drop the case if you were given x amount of dollars? I doubt it. Money would obviously not be the issue.
And yes. He may have been a weirdo, but I hardly believe he was a pedophile.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
I saw this on Twitter a few weeks ago, It's Marvin singing Grapevine with his vocal isolated.

bad cover version. the original by the california raisins was far superior.
 
B

Bubbles the Chimp

Guest
I love that you, just like so many other easily led people, base your entire viewpoint on this matter on this highly questionable and controversial film. And no there was no evidence. If there was, he wouldn’t be found not guilty. The examples you’re giving are very weak and far from enough to tie someone to a crime. How people interact is not evidence. Stories families cook up is not evidence. The penis thing is still not verified (https://www.google.se/amp/s/themich...ken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/amp/). And re the Chandler case: think about it, if it was your kid, would you drop the case if you were given x amount of dollars? I doubt it. Money would obviously not be the issue.
And yes. He may have been a weirdo, but I hardly believe he was a pedophile.
There is more than one film. I listed two. One of them was made with the cooperation of Jackson.
You say that there can't be evidence or he would be found guilty. as if OJ Simpson didn't exist.
I see your source is one of those Jackson fansites.
Did they ever explain this?
Whether I would drop the case for money or not there are many, many people who would. That's not an argument.
You can say LaToya is lying in the video here or that she is lying now. What is her motivation?
If you want to say that no court of law has proven him guilty, that is true. But to say that the allegations didn't hurt his career and that Rolling Stone shouldn't mention them is downright wacko.
bonus "evidence" go to 38 seconds in.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
Do you know what uncorroborated means? "not confirmed or supported by other evidence or information" but in fact there was evidence and information supporting the two claims and others. If you watch Leaving Neverland you'll see the families of the accusers back up their stories with details of how he methodically gained their trust.
Wacko Jacko paid out a lot of money in 1993 but it's also known that he paid off smaller amounts many times. It wasn't a hoax. You really need to look up some of the words you're using.
In 05 he was found not guilty which is not the same as "proven innocent." Courts don't find people innocent. They find them not guilty. But if you watched the documentary Living With Michael Jackson you could see his accuser and there was enough evidence presented just watching them interact.
Evidence has been presented. In the case you're calling a hoax the accuser gave testimony about the appearance of Michael Jackson's penis that was verified by a physical examination.
I'm sorry, he might have been a great entertainer but he was also a weirdo.
the first time michael was taken to court was after he had had a falling out with the dad of the kid who later claimed to have been molested. before taking michael to court, the father was recorded on tape saying "if this goes through i win big. there's no way i can lose". is that really what you would be saying if your child had just been molested?

this family that took him to court in 05 were known scam artists. one of the things they wanted when they took michael to court was to gain a movie deal for their child. if your child has just been molested, is getting a movie deal for him really going to be your concern? also, not only did the court find michael not guilty, the jurors also said that they doubted the childs claims and sensed that he was acting. but it's the same as what douglas murray has said about racism: once the accusation is out there, even if you did nothing wrong, you cant disprove it.

but i think the fact that michael jackson had had thousands of children over to his neverland ranch and the only people to come forward with accusations were highly suspect (lets not forget that child molestors cant help themselves around children, so if one had access to hundreds of children you better believe there would have been hundreds of accusers coming out of the woodwork), goes a long way to disprove the accusations. i think also the fact that he befriended poster child for AIDS ryan white (child molestors do NOT purposely select children with aids to prey upon) and bought him a car and went to his funeral and wrote 'gone too soon' for him and called up his mother on mothers days every year after his death also pretty much debunks any accusations.
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
Key word here being uncorroborated. The 1993 case was a hoax, and in 05 he was proven innocent on all accounts. He was an easy target, though. Black, eccentric, ridiculously rich, weird habits, naive, Messiah complex - and he enjoyed the company of kids. It’s easy to make him out to be a monster. However, not one single shred of evidence has ever been found.
In the late 80s and early 90s I was too dogmatic in my tastes: Jackson was a brilliant artist but I was minded to switch the radio off when he was played.

Over the past 15 years, basically since Ian Brown’s Billie Jean cover, I’ve been listening and enjoying Jackson more and more.

Any record collection without some representation for Michael Jackson speaks more of limitations than musical insight. And Rock with You is surely a contender for the greatest ever pop record.
 
B

Bubbles the Chimp

Guest
the first time michael was taken to court was after he had had a falling out with the dad of the kid who later claimed to have been molested. before taking michael to court, the father was recorded on tape saying "if this goes through i win big. there's no way i can lose". is that really what you would be saying if your child had just been molested?

this family that took him to court in 05 were known scam artists. one of the things they wanted when they took michael to court was to gain a movie deal for their child. if your child has just been molested, is getting a movie deal for him really going to be your concern? also, not only did the court find michael not guilty, the jurors also said that they doubted the childs claims and sensed that he was acting. but it's the same as what douglas murray has said about racism: once the accusation is out there, even if you did nothing wrong, you cant disprove it.

but i think the fact that michael jackson had had thousands of children over to his neverland ranch and the only people to come forward with accusations were highly suspect (lets not forget that child molestors cant help themselves around children, so if one had access to hundreds of children you better believe there would have been hundreds of accusers coming out of the woodwork), goes a long way to disprove the accusations. i think also the fact that he befriended poster child for AIDS ryan white (child molestors do NOT purposely select children with aids to prey upon) and bought him a car and went to his funeral and wrote 'gone too soon' for him and called up his mother on mothers days every year after his death also pretty much debunks any accusations.
 
J

jaynemansfields

Guest
I don't understand why there's more than one Madonna album on that list? Rolling Stone always overhype their white faves
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
Oh yes Michael Jackson and the underprivileged. Of course he was preying on them. That's what pedophiles DO!! It fits a pattern. He couldn't possibly have been trying to help them and inject some joy into their lives .

Yes he was friends with the underprivileged. You wanna know who else he was friends with? Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, and oh wait..... baron von thurn und taxis. Poor underprivileged baron von thurn und taxis who mj took on one of his European tours, was only the richest kid in europe and from one if the most powerful aristocratic families in the world . Mj probably bought his mother's silence with a tennis bracelet. That seems very likely.

As for Michael giving people gifts, everyone knew he was generous to a fault. He once said that he couldn't wear jewellery because if someone complimented him on a piece of jewellery he would have to give it to that person. Sad when people read bad intentions into generosity .

As for Jordan chandler correctly describing mjs genitalia. ... he didn't. He claimed that mj had been circumcised but the autopsy revealed that he had not been. Not only thst but seeing a man's penis is not proof that you've been molested. I cannot tell you how many grown up penises and muffs I saw as a child when we would go to the hotsprings. Does that mean I too have been molested?
 
B

Bubbles the Chimp

Guest
@rifke you make too many assumptions to bother with each individually but "he didn't molest everyone" does not equate to "he didn't molest anyone."
Why did he hire Anthony Pellicano?
And why after supposedly being extorted for over twenty million dollars would he continue to have sleepovers with little boys?
I did start to wonder if he was set up but the Leaving Neverland documentary put that to rest forever.
@Gregor Samsa wrote " “the horrific revelations about him that have surfaced in recent years.“ The ramblings of two uncorroborated witnesses isn’t the same as the truth or “revelations”. The fact that media and people are pissing all over his legacy is just sad. "
I think Rolling Stone spoke carefully and didn't make a specific allegation. I believe that horrific revelations is a fair way to describe his relationship with those boys even if you choose to disbelieve anything that they can't prove. One of them has the "wedding ring" Jacko gave him and they found the people that were there when he and the boy bought the ring.
I think that qualifies as a horrific revelation.
It definitely corroborates the story the boy told.

I understand that you will never believe the stories but it shouldn't be shocking to you when other people do.
 

rifke

ladies bear (inquire within)
@rifke you make too many assumptions to bother with each individually but "he didn't molest everyone" does not equate to "he didn't molest anyone"
Yeah, it does. Like I said, child molesters can't help themselves around children. As a child molester you wouldn't have some little boy friends that you just hang out with and have good clean fun with and others that you molest. That is so absurd . And if you're saying that you believe that then you're basically saying that you believe that it's possible for a grown adult to have little boys for friends without molesting them. And not molesting some of them can very much mean not molesting all of them.
 
B

Bubbles the Chimp

Guest
Yeah, it does. Like I said, child molesters can't help themselves around children. As a child molester you wouldn't have some little boy friends that you just hang out with and have good clean fun with and others that you molest. That is so absurd . And if you're saying that you believe that then you're basically saying that you believe that it's possible for a grown adult to have little boys for friends without molesting them. And not molesting some of them can very much mean not molesting all of them.
Wow. The first part here where you're basing it on your own authority on the subject in sentence two, is pretty ridiculous. "Like I said," except that's just not true.
If it were then every child molester would molest every child they come into contact with. That's not true.

When your best friends are Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minnelli, a chimpanzee, and a series of young boys that are usually befriended about age 8 and dropped about age 12 that is a little more than strange, but it's not illegal.
You're right to be suspicious of the parents. Do you know what all of those children had in common? Every one of the boys that accused Michael Jackson openly had parents who thought that they or their children had something to gain by allowing Jackson access to their children.
The first one wanted to be a screenwriter so he allowed Jackson to move in to his son's room and live there for a month and then take the boy on tour around the world. Did he know what was happening? He should have had a pretty good idea. But even if he didn't know for certain any parent that would do that should be looked at with great suspicion.
The boys in the Leaving Neverland documentary had parents who thought Jackson could help their careers. One of the mothers left her husband and moved to Los Angeles where Jackson kept her busy and separated from her son not seeing him for weeks at a time.
The boy with cancer had a mother who had used the children to help her shoplift and was also happy to abandon her children with Jackson for weeks at a time while he again kept her busy, living in a separate house on his estate and going days without seeing her sons.
Yes, the parents are all part of the problem. There are others who received cash, gifts, had their homes paid off, and were generally financially rewarded and when they go from struggling to being driven around on shopping sprees and staying in nice hotels a lot of people do not want to know what's really going on.

I believe that it's possible for a predator to pick out victims who are the most vulnerable and that is what Jackson did, it seems, repeatedly, over decades with the help of a stream of people that were mesmerized by being in his presence and trying to take advantage of the opportunity they saw in him showing interest in their sons.
And I believe that most of the things that are said about all of these parents are true and are exactly why Jackson picked them.
 
S

Sassy Coif

Guest
Andy Rourke cares he wants to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Probably Mike Joyce does too.
The music from that era is underrepresented. Depeche Mode and New Order should be there, too. REM and Talking Heads are there but both were massively more popular and American and the voters know them because they made videos that were popular on MTV.
They want people that will make viewers tune in and bands that will reunite for a performance. I don't think it's about Morrissey's politics. It's about the fact that they are not going to play and that every year that passes fewer people in the home viewing audience will know who they are.
But someday they will be faced with a choice between The Smiths and Lil Pump and someone will cast the deciding vote.
 

terrancestamp

Active Member
Looks like Rolling Stone (that ancient of establishments) has put The Smiths "The Queen Is Dead" as 113 this time around. Not really buying into the list when Fiona Apple is 108?? 106 is Hole (WTF!). How can I take this list seriously. Hole should not even be in the top 500.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That list is Rolling Stones' Black Lives Matter list. I'm not disparaging BLM. I just think that music shouldn't be judged by the colour of your skin. Rolling Stone have literally switched on the news at some point this year and adjusted their list accordingly to fit in with the current climate.

Jean-Michel Basquiat never painted anything anywhere near the greatness of a Pollock or a Patrick Heron, Albert Irvin, Matisse. If Rolling Stone compiled a list of the greatest artists of all time, they'd adjust their list due to inclusiveness.

They shouldn't do that. Be inclusive, yes, obviously, but don't compile a list and adjust it due to the current climate.

Marvin Gaye - What's Going On was released in 1971. Rolling Stone have now decided, after 49 years, that it should be the Number 1 album of all time.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom