31. "But who said this was about rock-music?" In response to In response to 15 Thu Nov-14-13 11:07 PM by Jakob Hellberg
>do you think that the albums on this list aren't worth >hearing? >if a person is interested in getting into rock music, >how are the beatles and the stones and the clash NOT legit >starting points? > Exchange the fucking Clash with the Ramones (who was on the list) and I agree. However, the list didn't state rock -music and in fact did a decent job at putting "non-rock" representatives on it. So basically, people expect these kind of lists to give a decent idea of "rock" and its classics? Well, it did I guess but why do people expect that? It did not state "rock" and yet, that's where people expect it to deliver?
Nah, there's a Rolling Stone-list indoctrination going on here; and NEVER forget that Rolling Stone is the fakest, most revisionist magazine in the crowd-am I the only one old enough to remember they gave "Nevermind" a 3/5 while british mags like NME and Melody Maker put it on top (or top 3) of the lists the same year (note:I'm not a fan of that record but that's not the issue)? Actually, Spin was kind of like that too; wait for the brits to give *US* music props before it gets a cosign, meanwhile:hug the limeys! US mainstream rock-press was some bullshit, like embarassing in retrospect... > >most ppl that like rock usually have some use for those >bands. > > > > >i know it's cliche to say songs in the key of life is stevie's >best album, but if somebody has heard stevie's hits and wants >to dig deeper, >is there any reason why they SHOULDN'T start at SITKOL? > >it IS a great album.