sweet

better edit me best-of list eh

This list physically hurts my eyes reading it. I am glad that I am no longer subscribing to their magazine at least.

List is ugh.

I like U2, but I can't imagime that Songs of Innocence the best album of the year is. But it's rolling stone, so I shouldn't be surprised, I guess

Someone should remind Jann Wenner that the 80s ended a quarter century ago.

Don't mind 10 and 14, the other 48 wouldn't make my top 200

I guess catering to your readership is more important than journalistic integrity. Only reason U2 was number one is because a large portion of Rolling Stones readership fits the demographic U2 listeners fall under and they would rather make safe bets to push sure winners to the top then to take risks and truly explore and find the best music of 2014.

I'm a pretty hardcore U2 fan. And I liked Songs of Innocence. But even I wouldn't put as my top album of the year, not even Top 10.

anyone who's surprised by this is fucking stupid js

Is the rolling stone magazine that bad? I never actually followed it... I just know that atrocious "best guitarists of all time" list.

Rolling Stone are the only music reviewers who gave a 5/5 to both No Line on the Horizon and Songs of Innocence, so this isn't that surprising

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

I hope this site never falls.

why are there so much ancient artists on a 2014 list?

Stay off my lawn, young people!

Miranda Lambert? Who the fuck.

i thought run the jewels 2 was a decent album. but it's the only one on the list i've heard

i thought run the jewels 2 was a decent album. but it's the only one on the list i've heard

Yob shows up at 50 out of nowhere lol. run the jewels may be top 20 but thats about it.

Lol U2

"More like Trolling Stone, right?"

lmao

Lol I saw the "best guitarists" list, and yeah it was bad. Should have just renamed the list "most popular"..

I swear if you made one good album 40 years ago and haven't died of an overdose yet, anything you make will be gold to these publications.

I swear if you made one good album 40 years ago and haven't died of an overdose yet, anything you make will be gold to these publications.

s/o to YOB @ #50

But the real question is who actually cares?

But the real question is who actually cares?

The list itself doesn't seem that bad, but god damn the top 5 (except for St. V) are so obvious.

Young Thug made the list so its actually a good list.

Goddamn it Rolling Stone

Of course they'd pick U2, Springsteen -- so typical.

PS that U2 album blew turds

Of course they did, but who cares?

JWT sighting

awful list

Does the RS staff even like music?

I bet those were the only 50 albums any of them heard this year

I bet those were the only 50 albums any of them heard this year (2)

least st vincent made the cut i bet anne's so happy right now

Rolling Stone: proving that they're an even worse source of musical opinions than Pitchfork every year.

quite glad i stopped subscribing to this magazine about 4 years ago. worst music taste around. they literally change their ratings of certain albums sometimes to fit in. Example: Foo Fighters Echos Silence Patience and Grace they put at a 2.5... album won a grammy and they changed their review to a 3.5

charli xcx #6 niceeee

"Foo Fighters Echos Silence Patience and Grace they put at a 2.5... album won a grammy and they changed their review to a 3.5"

The spirit and ethic of what this magazine was supposed to represent is all but gone

"Foo Fighters Echos Silence Patience and Grace they put at a 2.5... album won a grammy and they changed their review to a 3.5"

lol. So flaky...

Interpol, Weezer, Against Me!, The War on Drugs, Spoon, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Foo...

the rest is ugh

The one thing that I do like from P4K's end of year lists is when they get actual musicians to list and talk about their favourite albums/songs/movies from the previous year.

I always find that much more interesting than the rather mundane critics' best of list.

Sharon Van Etten is higher up than Skrillex, so at least there's that.

sturgill simpson getting a spot would be really cool if any of this mattered because rolling stone are awful

are they shitting us?

Some should be higher, others eliminated

Not surprising, but I don't know why this music website has a news article about another website's list.

didn't these guys put tha carter 3 in the top 10 of the 2000s?

^no but they did put eminem, which is arguably worse

at least they put Kid A at number 1

also the list was laughable. Foo fighters, U2, and fucking Mac Demarco? what a joke

Well it did cross my mind but the moderators approved the article

they did put eminem, which is arguably worse



http://31.media.tumblr.com/ddf9746f54a3d3bb9c30b837df9bfbb5/tumblr_n67gk2PUGK1tuuk2go2_400.gif

Is Rolling Stone still relevant?

Irving must be the chief editor there now or something.

black keys in top 3 oh dear lord

That Skrillex ranking though
He's still making music?

"why are there so much ancient artists on a 2014 list?"

Rolling Stone's job is to make money, not to give honest objective opinions on music. They make money by selling magazine and subscriptions. Rolling Stone's top consumer group are people between 30 and 60 and cannot rely on Millennials, who primarily digest media on the web, to pick up their magazines. Therefore, Rolling Stone saturates their content with bands/artists long past their peak because those are the performers their targeted demographic are interested in.

Rolling Stone could make Swans "To Be Kind" album of the year, and make a definitive argument as to why, and they'll not only not sell magazines but probably lose readership. U2 is a band they know their fans are passionate about, putting them at #1 isn't about their record being the best, it's about pandering to their readership and giving up journalistic credibility for increased profit.

*A show I enjoy but is quite pretentious is Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom" which covers the news industry and does ask the question, in journalism, is it a company's moral obligation to sacrifice viewership and money to get the news done "right" or is it more important to maximize profits for shareholders. Rolling Stone is at the same conundrum. What's more important, integrity or money.

Rolling Stone has been completely irrelevant for years.

The Newsroom is amazing, agreed. Of course it pretentious though, but it's Aaron Sorkin, so duh.

well what did you expect

i didnt think they could get any less credible

but here we are

We live in a culture where people are spoon fed opinions and keeping people "happy" is more important then
being honest. As long as Joe the Plummer is stuck in the 80's/90's Rolling Stone will give him a buffet of
regurgitated music/bands/commentary with the occasional "shock value" cover piece to stir up controversy and
sucker in a few more extra sales.

the biggest joke on this entire list is that charli xcx is at no. 6 and not no. 1
just sayin.

No Swans, no credit.

who is letting this happen? can no one say "hey let's just not do this.. it doesn't make sense."

But..... it does make sense.

good fucking lord this band is terrible

'Interpol, Weezer, Against Me!, The War on Drugs, Spoon, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe Foo...

the rest is ugh'

smae.
but they gave pinkerton a shitty review and that's arguably their best album smdh

Pinkerton was unanimously given bad reviews upon it's initial release.

ive heard a total of 1 album on this

thank god

double post

I've heard three of these.

Wait, 4

7 here, could be worse

oh fo sho

U2 fucking sucks

I love how Yob is #50

it's like they thought well we need to be a little diverse, lets toss in a random metal album!!

"War, Joshua Tree and Achtung were classics. Is a shame that the band went donwhill after how to dismantle the atomic bomb"

joshua tree was fine but war and achtung were boring as fuck. Their new album? Pathetically horrible.

absolutely cringing at 17 y/o me defending eminem