"Rolling Stone" Is Gathering Moss

Congratulations, guys...for the 178th time.

Every three months or so, “Rolling Stone” magazine so graciously decides to remind us that the Beatles is the number one artist of all time.

News in the music world must be in one heinous dry spell, as the magazine once again rolls out a “Top 100 of All Time” list in its latest issue. It seems that the “Field & Stream” of the music world didn’t have any ideas for a legitimate cover story, so they decided to do the same list they’ve already done three times already this year.

“Rolling Stone” puts out these lists with such frequent regularity, that they soon become meaningless and annoying, rather than providing the intrigue, interest, and “water-cooler debates” that they should. In fact, this list is becoming trite and predictable. This same list over and over is quickly losing its appeal.

So how much stock should be held in “Rolling Stone’s Top 100 Artists Ever” list? The answer is none.

Why does “Rolling Stone” feel the need to put out the same list every few months? My theory is that there hasn’t been a strong, influential artist to leave an indomitable mark on the music world in quite some time. Hence, I believe the editors of the magazine feel it is their duty to remind us who the greatest artists ever are, as the majority of the artists featured are from an era when music seemed to have more impact and meaning. I think the magazine wants readers to realize that the earlier years of rock music were indeed its “glory days.” It’s like they’re trying too hard to get younger audiences to recognize and respect this era of music and the artists involved.

They’re wearing it out.

Another problem with the list, besides its frequency, is its placement. Most readers of “Rolling Stone” are fairly knowledgeable in rock music and its history. They don’t need to be reminded who these artists are and what impact they’ve had on a constant basis, as they’re already familiar with these artists. What I’m saying is that this list is being placed in the wrong magazine.

It should be placed in something like “Tiger Beat.” There, I’m sure the top 5 all time list is something like Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Hillary Duff, Lindsay Lohan, and Andy Gibb. It is readers of these types of publications that need to be reminded who the greats are. Maybe then the lists’ intent will be better fulfilled, and that is to make readers more familiar with the featured artists.

As I read through “Rolling Stone’s” latest list, there was nothing that stood out to me. No shocks. No surprises. It was just the same old list that they put out forty-two times a year. I believe that this list would be much better served if it were composed once every 15-20 years. This would give the music world time for something of impact to happen and may lead to some deviation in what has become a very standardized list. I would honestly rather see a 12-page article on 50 cent than being bombarded with another one of these damn lists. I’m just really sick of seeing them. They’re always the same.

So, “Rolling Stone” magazine, we get the fucking point already….the Beatles is the greatest artist of all time. But I’m sure you’ll be reminding us again in about two months.