I recall seeing that video in another thread here....good musicians but not my cup of tea. I'll pass on them.

I'll take a big swig of that tea, thank you very much 

They really did their homework too, this is no generic list.

I was glad to see El Dorado there though.

Ok, I don't get - how exactly does the top 10 of the RS list "chicken out?" 

With the exception of Moving Pictures, Future Days and LLDoB (on the RS list), and Godbluff (on the PA list) the RS list pretty closely matches the PA list. I assume you are not arguing that the inclusion of something like Future Days to the RS list constitutes chickening out. Are you simply disagreeing with the order of the listing? If so, do you really believe there is any significance to be attached to something listed on one list as number 2 and the same thing on another list as number 8? 

If chickening out means more albums like CAN in the top 10 then i'm glad they chickened out. I love CAN but it seems out of place. Of course this is just my opinion as I rank about five CAN albums over Future Days, it's just not one of my favourites from them. I expect to see Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Tull, Rush and so on there. You guys know I love my left of centre albums but I will always rank the big boys of the golden era the highest.

They're here but only under Prog Related.

 

 

 

Young woman listening to Ke$ha thinks "What the hell is Prog?" and then listens to Beyoncé.

 

This list is only relevant to those who know Prog.

 

Once again, RS drops the ball by not informing it's young readers as to what type of rock music Prog actually is, it's history and why it should be listened to.

 

Rolling Stone: Still keeping the young masses ignorant. 

 

 

I'm actually good with this list, never a list will be perfect for all, and some titles will be missed.

 

http://infinitycs.bandcamp.com/track/whipping-with-the-moonlight-plug-genesis-x-o-t-genasis" rel="nofollow - http://infinitycs.bandcamp.com/track/whipping-with-the-moonlight-plug-genesis-x-o-t-genasis  (name your price)

 

 

 

I think you are being a bit unfair...imho it's great they even did such a list.

 

Besides....how many 'young people' even read Stone on or offline..?

I consider my son in law (age32) a typical young music buyer and he doesn't read Stone........so is this list meant for them or for us...prog heads..?

 

I'd say probably not, since RS choose Future Days, and the multitude - and it is a multitude - of EDM and hip hop artists who sample Can are almost always sampling Ege Bamyasi, including the time Kanye did it. And most of the remainder would have to be trance artists sampling Soon Over Babaluma's "Chain Reaction".

There is a PA top 100, is there not? Perusing the first 50 on the PA list, I find it far more indicative of the best of prog than the Rolling Stone's mélange of various artists (some very dubious, to be sure). Minus out the several Miles Davis and Mahavishnu albums (which never were prog rock and are still not in my view), and the PA list is fairly indicative of a well-rounded 50. Why, Micky, even your Italian bakers make the grade.

edit:  of course they also had to put American influences on RENAISSANCE ahead of their British influences.  Only in RS

So, when there is a general consensus among "prog fans" that an album is great - like in the PA Top 100, for instance, where 2500 to 3500 prog reviewers, the self-same people who are posting in this discussion, give an album a high rating - then an album is not great but merely popular?

 

From another perspective, the albums in the PA Top 100, generally speaking, haven't received their acclaim because of their influence, innovation and impact on the genre because "prog fans" (again, the prog reviewers engaged in this discussion) rated them highly because they were merely popular and not influential, innovative and impactful?

 

You are simply defying logic.

I am pleasantly surprised that they didn't force Radiohead onto the list. 

This was probably not authored by any actual Rolling Stone employee. Likely some freelance writer. 

That's like listing Starcastle's s/t instead of The Yes Album, or Satanic Majesties instead of Sgt. Peppers. 

 

Fabulous album, i'd have put wolf city in top 50 too.

 

OK list from an organ that used to employ organs like Lester Bangs

 

And if young people don't read Rolling Stone, then why do they have covers such as these?

 

 Look at the above. Is this an issue geared toward an older generation or a fan of Prog? 

 

Sorry Doc, but if Prog is a marginalized music form, then it's this this type of denial by the Prog community that makes it so.

 

(And I can't find an suitable emitcom to convey my disgust to accompany this post.)

This is good!

 

Be very afraid.

Dissing RS isn't helping anyone discover prog music but their online piece just might help someone find a prog band or two.

 

ps:  navel gazing...? Seriously....? has to be one of the silliest things I have heard yet here at PA.

 

 

I want to know who is the most hated girl on the internet now. Damn these seductive front covers of magazines,.

In other discussions I've mostly heard people comment on the high number and ranking of Rush albums.

Am I right in what I've heard that this is coming from an issue with Rush on the cover--and it's the first time Rush has ever been on the cover of RS? 

This was in reference to my mention of the "primary" Renaissance influences being two American west coast bands by RS, ahead of the more likely fellow Brits, and to Ashes are Burning having been rated 1 star by the RS record guide back in their first edition (1978).  Re Renaissance, their ratings were all over the map in the guide, with Prologue the only one to get 4 stars and the Ashes and Novella getting 1 star.  Their reason was that Ashes was totally dominated by Annie's voice, which wasn't particularly the case.  Also, that''s not a bad thing in the opinion of many, even if it's true.  It was your typical give a British band a lower rating than an American band doing inferior music would get, just because they are British.  If that was the case for Renaissance, it was even more the case for Camel, whose "Snow Goose" got 0 stars!  In their total dismissal of 3 classic mid 70s prog albums, they mentioned that if you like the idea of an album based on a children's book, you are welcome to this low rent Moody Blues.  

Speaking of the Moody Blues, they actually fared well in the first edition of the book, with all albums getting 3 or 4 stars, but in the next edition, someone got hold of that and said that no band had so consistently parlayed nonsense as the Moodys, and most albums got 1 or 2 stars.  Yeah like the Moodys had the monopoly on that.  I also remember the entry for Barclay James Harvest (all single star ratings) saying that it was absolutely numbing British rock, of no discerible genre and even less importance.  The most important word in this entry as far as RS was concerned was "British".  If BJH were an American band I am sure they would have garnered a mix of 2, 3, and 4 stars, the point being that they would not have had their entire body of work summarily dismissed, with no attempt to understand their significance outside of a narrow Ameri-centric view.