Excerpt from the Star Tribune-Minneapolis http://www.startribune.co...22111.html

ROLLING OVER LOCALS

Rolling Stone's new list of the top 500 albums of all time, which hits stands today, is mostly ho-hum. However, there are some interesting showings by the Minnesota acts you'd expect to make the list (besides Bob Dylan).

Prince was arguably dissed in the poll, as "Purple Rain" only came in at No. 72 and "Sign O' the Times" is at No. 93 ("1999" and "Dirty Mind" also made the list, at 163 and 204 respectively). The Replacements show up twice, but "Tim" (136) surprisingly made it higher than the more widely praised "Let It Be" (239). Personally, I'll concur there, but I'm not sure about Hüsker Dü's one appearance at No. 495. It's for "New Day Rising" and not "Zen Arcade."

Dont be too let down...Do these magz really get a broad range of music buyers input...I dont think so, though I could be wrong...

It's quite possibly "Rolling Stones" top 500...but here's the ? Where would U place Purple Rain?

and out of curiousity what are the top 5?

I read this list earlier, it's on Rolling Stone's website and I must say it's possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read. 3 of the top 5 albums are by the Beatles, which should give you an idea of how pathetic the ratings are. I think that the whole idea behind the list was to convince the aging baby boomers that I'm sure make up most of their subscription list that what they listened to when they were young really is the best music ever made, instead of just the most popular music made while the largest generation of humans ever born at one time was growing up. Screw the damn Beatles. The Rolling Stones brought sex and drugs back to what was in danger of becoming whitebread teenybopper music forever, Bob Dylan brought a lyrical sensibility that elevated it to an art form, and the Beatles rode the wave by aping both of them. I mean, "I wanna hold your hand"??? Give me "I want to fuck the taste out of your mouth" any day.

megamann said:

The Rolling Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles didn't do first, sorry. As for the Beatles doing nothing but "aping" Dylan, well, maybe they found his artistry liberating, but so what? All that meant is they created better music. And what is wrong with having three albums in the top ten? They were that influential, sorry. I don't know how Prince managed to get three albums in anyway, seeing that Santana, Sly, George, and Joni all influenced the culture, and Prince rode the wave by aping all of them.

megamann said:

The Rolling Stones didn't do anything that the Beatles didn't do first, sorry. As for the Beatles doing nothing but "aping" Dylan, well, maybe they found his artistry liberating, but so what? All that meant is they created better music. And what is wrong with having three albums in the top ten? They were that influential, sorry. I don't know how Prince managed to get three albums in anyway, seeing that Santana, Sly, George, and Joni all influenced the culture, and Prince rode the wave by aping all of them.[/quote]

I'm sorry my friend but you are wrong. The Stones - "Don't play with me, cause you're playing with fire." The Beatles "I wanna hold your hand." The Stones - "I see a red door and I want it painted black, no colors anymore I want them to turn black." The Beatles - "Good day sunshine, good day sunshine." The Stones - "Have you seen your Mother, baby, Standing in the Shadow?" The Beatles - "lovely rita meta maid blahblahblahblah...". The Stones - "We all need...someone...we can cream on..." The Beatles - "I want to live in an Octopus's garden by the sea."

The Stones were willing to tread a path that the Beatles for the most point avoided; while the Beatles said that all you need is love and when there's times of trouble mother mary comes to me speaking words of wisdom let it be, the Stones were willing to delve into the darker corners of the human experience and challenge the perceptions of their overly sunny and optomistic peers. Also, I don't think a band of Santana, Sly, George and Joni could come up with any of the shit Prince does. He's one of a kind, blazing a path that bounces off his influences instead of going through them.

Every time I read about or hear someone say that the Beatles are the most talented as well as most influential band, I break out with an itchy rash. Please stop.

Purple Rain is in the top 50 on music alone.Factor in the album's influence on the 80's it then shoots up into the top 20.

These top "lists" are like assholes... everyone has one.

PR should be in the top 10 I believe. Though my musical taste has changed since then (Linkin Park, Tool, Eminem - btw.. Eminem is the ONLY "rapper" that has any distinction these days), that album (PR) is still great to listen to. BTW I am 37 years old. Too bad Prince has not been able or willing (maybe) to release a great commercial album in the last 8 or 9 years. I bought "One night Alone", as I have bought EVERY other album by Prince, just hoping that one of them would catch on with the masses - showing my friends that I defend him to that, "yeah he is still a musical genius" but again just us diehard fans (do you buy into this "fam" thing?) buy them. At 45 he seems kind of lost, doing the Jehovah’s (hope I spelled that right) witness thing - going door to door, as I have heard in the gossip columns - isn’t going to get him any new fans, lord knows I try to get rid of those folks as fast as I can (granted If I am dumb enough to open the door in the first place). I just wish he would get back to his music, in the pure wonderful way that he did 10+ years ago, not worrying about offending someone or God by writing about sex or anything else. (The Christ?, cum on..). If there is a God, then Prince needs to realize that he gave him a gift to say what he really thinks or feels and to not try too hard to figure out which so called religion God speaks for. I believe that if you give life your all and are good to people and work hard, using you’re "God" given talents (like music, and saying what you really feel, including sex etc.) then it’s ok. I was a much bigger fan and supporter when his music was not so "clean". I am willing to bet that most of you folks who read this were too. As Prince said, "Why is age more than a number, when it comes to love" so should he say, "why do I want to alienate my devoted fans the older I get" Why? Dunno, but I WILL continue to listen, buy and support no matter what my friends say. -- Just hoping that old spirit and sense of daring comes back...
1958 - Good year? Michael Jackson & Madonna are the same age as Prince... Jackson is just an Asshole who has little talent except dancing, who completely lost touch with life and if the allegations are true is the sickest kind of criminal. Madonna seems to get it, she keep evolving her music (though not a big fan here, but there are some gems), BUT I respect her, she has grown up, but still knows how to keep her fans happy. Her music has changed as has Prince's, but she still manages to be compelling, intriguing and hip enough to keep her fan base, as well as a whole new generation of fans. And no, I don't want to see Prince kiss Clay Aiken.. he he

Anyway, Enuf ranting, PR is great as are all of his works until the Gold Experience.

Since then he has released his work haphazardly with no promotion, and that is a pity.

Sincerely, Wishing Prince would "come into the light" "There is peace and serenity in the light"

-Tangina, "Poltergeist"

and who is rolling stone again anyways?

RonStaton said:

The Rolling Stone list is so predictable - they know their audience. I personally think that other music journals, particularly in the UK, are more objective. Anyway, who voted for this list? There are no doubt some great album in the list but Prince should at least be in the top 50. My fav Sign o times. Love is God.

If the list was made on purely musical ground I think Parade and Lovesexy should be in there, but it seems to be about the albums that broke Prince commercially - DirtyMind, PR and Sott. They are great albums, but I think real msic lovers can see that Parade and lovesexy have a far more rich texture of production and song writing than Dirtymind.

I think you're all a bunch of morons. Music was never meant to be ranked in magazines unless there is some credible basis for it (i.e they polled 500 musicians). If they did that then shut up already damn! People have a right to rank what they like better. It's all subjective. Furthermore Megamann should start an 'I hate the Beatles' cult and leave the org alone. This is not the forum for hating a particular group or type of music.

What a stupid discussion... Stones, Beatles, Prince. All influential. So is Britney Spears, and everybody else who has sold lots of records, as all people famous will attract copy artist, and while these try to imitate sometimes something new comes out - and music evolves...

The Stones lyrics - well you could call them liberating, but what is so special in this. If there is a direct line from the Stones to Prince singing "I would to fuck the taste out of your mouth" I am not so sure if the world is better of for that... Wow, how daring - wow, how vulgar

the beatles were innovators and truely great songwriters as well as fine musicians. the stones just studied the old african american bluesmen of the generation prior and then stole their chops and sold it to white sub-urban american and british kids. keith richards!? i can play all of his stuff note for note and i do not consider myself to be a great guitarist. the beatles deserve the 3 spots! purple rain should have been in the top 40.

I dont intend to look at this list as it is probably an insult to people who love real music.Purple Rain,Sign 'o' the times,and the rainbow children would make my top 20 easily.I respect class such as hendrix,david bowie,and the stones and i hate talentless rubbish like elvis.And i think being the original boy-band like the beatles are was probably the beginning of the end for real music.now its non-stop boy-band rubbish and even though the beatles had some good tunes they started the whole boy-band rubbish and thats unforgivable.