« While in the Trader Joes Parking Lot | Home | Happy Groundhog Day »
Popmatters has a feature today that discusses who's going to be on top of every writers' Top 100 Best Bands...Ever!! list in 2025. Their theory is that these lists now are controlled by the iron fist of the Baby Boomers and that when Gen X/Y, etc. become the dominant generations with the editorial influence that the Beatles and the Stones will be brought down in the rankings. Personally, I disagree and I think that these bands (along with Dylan) are still at the top of the lists because they made great records. This is recognized by more than just the 50-60 year old demographic, and they'll continue to be at or near the top of these lists for quite a while.
Rather than call for a revolution of rankings, I'm interested to see which of these bands move up alongside Lennon, Jagger, and Zimmerman. I'd guesss that the gestation period of these rankings fall somewhere around 20-25 years, meaning that The Joshua Tree won't start to show up until sometime between, well, now and 2011 (I'm still waiting for the 2011-2016 window when Achtung Baby and Automatic For The People are "eligible"). In Rolling Stone's last top albums list (2003, I think) the newest record in the top 10 was The Clash's London Calling (1979). I think that Radiohead, U2, Nirvana and others (not DMB, pshaw), might start to infiltrate that hallowed list, but only at the expense of The Beatles' five albums in the top 10, and not at the expense of The Beatles as a whole. These albums are classics because they really are just that good, not because (although it's influenced by) the Boomers' youths.
Who else do you think might end up on Rolling Stone's list in their big 60th Anniversary issue in 2027?
Jerad posted this in Music | Comments (0)
www.flickr.com
|
