Morrissey-solo
Archive

Smiths #21 in Spin's Top 50 Rock Bands of All Time (Feb. issue)

posted by davidt on Sunday January 13 2002, @12:00PM
Bryan Hayes was the first to write:

Here's the link for the story:
Beatles, Ramones -- Spin Magazine's Rock Greatest

This is the blurb about the Smiths:

The criteria for the 50 greatest were that "these groups had to have a roof-raising, history-changing sound, presence or hairstyle.'' In addition, "they also had to clearly influence today's music in undeniable ways'' and "had to be bands that we care about deeply.''

That might explain why acclaimed bands like U2 (13th greatest), The Grateful Dead (27th), The Who (39th), The Beach Boys (45th) and Pink Floyd (49th) are rated lower in the Top 50 than lesser known but arguably more influential groups like The Smiths (21st), Pavement (30th), Fugazi (31st) or New Order (41st).

The full list (via a comment on MetaFilter):


1. THE BEATLES
2. RAMONES
3. LED ZEPPELIN
4. BOB MARLEY & THE WAILERS
5. NIRVANA
6. PARLIAMENT/FUNKADELIC
7. THE CLASH
8. PUBLIC ENEMY
9. THE ROLLING STONES
10. BEASTIE BOYS
11. THE VELVET UNDERGROUND
12. SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE
13. U2
14. RUN-D.M.C.
15. RADIOHEAD
16. THE JIMI HENDRIX EXPERIENCE
17. SONIC YOUTH
18. AC/DC
19. THE STOOGES
20. METALLICA
21. THE SMITHS
22. PATTI SMITH GROUP
23. N.W.A.
24. KRAFTWERK
25. THE SEX PISTOLS
26. PEARL JAM
27. GRATEFUL DEAD
28. R.E.M.
29. BLACK SABBATH
30. PAVEMENT
31. FUGAZI
32. KISS
33. PRETENDERS
34. RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
35. FELA KUTI & AFRIKA 70/EGYPT 80
36. DAVID BOWIE AND THE SPIDERS FROM MARS
37. BLONDIE
38. BAD BRAINS
39. THE WHO
40. GRANDMASTER FLASH & THE FURIOUS FIVE
41. NEW ORDER
42. HUSKER DU
43. GUNS N' ROSES
44. OUTKAST
45. THE BEACH BOYS
46. MASSIVE ATTACK
47. LYNYRD SKYNYRD
48. KORN
49. PINK FLOYD
50. RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Smiths #21 in Spin's Top 50 Rock Bands of All Time (Feb. issue) | Top | 35 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • What do they have in common? Both are irrelevant and no one takes them seriously anymore.

    That said, I'm glad Smiths made the list anyway.
    Asleep -- Sunday January 13 2002, @07:49PM (#23016)
    (User #2464 Info)
    "Figures won't lie, but liars will figure."
  • To actually rank the bands 1-50 is of course absurd. But lists like this one are quite good music guides to newcomers who want to know some history. You can argue for hours about what bands are _the_ most important ones, but all bands mentioned in this list are milestones in music history and should be given a listen.
    Wheresmycupoftea -- Monday January 14 2002, @06:16AM (#23028)
    (User #2224 Info)
  • I'm glad the Stones were ranked way down at number 9. They have to be the most overrated band of all time. Still, some of the choices make you raise an eyebrow. Beastie Boys at number 10? Rage against the Machine at all?
    Anonymous -- Monday January 14 2002, @12:47PM (#23046)
    • Re:Hmmm! by green crooner (Score:1) Monday January 14 2002, @03:42PM
      • Re:Hmmm! by Asleep (Score:1) Monday January 14 2002, @04:03PM
        • Re:Hmmm! by green crooner (Score:1) Monday January 14 2002, @08:31PM
          • Re:Hmmm! by Asleep (Score:1) Tuesday January 15 2002, @06:33AM
            • Re:Hmmm! by Anonymous (Score:0) Tuesday January 15 2002, @03:49PM
    • Re:Hmmm! by Fabricio (Score:1) Thursday January 17 2002, @08:35PM
  • .... but at least oasis doesn't appear at a higher rank over the smiths... in fact, oasis isn't listed at all!

    good for them.
    state of emergency -- Monday January 14 2002, @05:00PM (#23057)
    (User #837 Info)
    "others conquered love, but i ran..."
  • Any mag that actually has a band like Korn in their list is a rather pathetic magazine. It's a ridiculous thing when the likes of U2 and Run DMC(LoL) can ever be listed above the likes of the Smiths and Velvet Underground. That list is easily one of the worst i've ever seen. As many of you know, there are at least 15 of those almost every year. The one I thought was totally absurd was the position where Massive Attack was placed. Far too low for any list. But then again, it's Spin and I'm surpriced that they even put them at all. It's seems like some of the lesser acts they put up just to be polically correct or whatever. I never even new that some of those were able to be classified as a rock band. Only a few years I I'm sure some of those listed wouldn't even be considered by anyone at Spin for such a list. A sign of the times?

    PS. Where the *f* are The Monkeys?
    Golden Lights -- Monday January 14 2002, @05:34PM (#23061)
    (User #100 Info)
    "There were 2 many of us.We had access 2>2 many of 2 much money...2>much equipment and little by little we went in
    • Spin used to be a magazine of some integrity. That changed in the mid-late 90's, when they started targeting a more "urban" demographic. Or at least that's how it played out. Any Spin list these days is practically an homage to phony egalitarianism--i.e.--representatives from every deade, specious inclusions of "edgy" artists, bands included because they fill a certain quota. MTV went the same way, and now it's unwatchable--a mediocre monster pandering to dropouts.

      Look at Spin's list--how many of those artists truly belong, and how many are there to assuage a perverse sense of inclusion?

      Numbers 12, 23, 31, 35, 42, 47 and 48 come to mind...

      And how can Guided By Voices, Blur and Talking Heads! not be on the list?

      American magazines rarely get it right...
      green crooner -- Monday January 14 2002, @07:46PM (#23068)
      (User #27 Info)
      "I'm chilled to the bone, and I'm going home--alone"
      • Integrity! by 18th pale descendant (Score:1) Tuesday January 15 2002, @09:58AM
  • oh how i laughed, RUN D.M.C. in a poll of great rock bands............

    the stones at no.9 when the beatles get no.1...
    call me cynical but if mick had died in the seventies the stones would be at no.1 or 2.

    mind u this is an american list, (hence the unknown in the u.k. 'bad brains)...
    inlovewiththepast -- Tuesday January 15 2002, @02:01AM (#23078)
    (User #1028 Info)
    truth rest your head there is more than a life at stake here..she may well sell sanctuary but she'll also sell your soul
  • It's quite a coincidence that Metallica should be the band that edges out the Smiths from the Top 20, considering Lars Ulrich's comments that "The Smiths weren't an important band". How great if it had been the other way round :)
    Joemoz -- Tuesday January 15 2002, @02:55AM (#23080)
    (User #1342 Info)
  • Pretty solid list in content, I think, though personally I'd put them in a different order. But the criteria for inclusion are a bit confusing. I mean, influence can't be too big a factor in their equations, otherwise U2 (much as I love them) wouldn't be thirteenth. And New Order - especially if you're including Joy Division in there - would be 35 or so places higher. And Kraftwerk, Bowie and the Beach Boys would be much higher. So why the preamble about influence and "history-changing" sounds? But hey. The whole point of such lists is to give sad gits like myself something to argue about. At least the Smiths are in there somewhere...

    Oh...and the Mode and Roxy Music, surely? Somewhere?
    Boy With The Thorn -- Tuesday January 15 2002, @09:31AM (#23094)
    (User #1359 Info | http://www.kraftwerk.com/)
    Reliably devious and truculent.
  • My...

    Their very first album wasn't horrible, unlistenable angst-for-money formulaic TRIPE like the next three, which got progressively more ridiculous with each release. That's the nicest thing I can say about them...ugh. enough

    Spin's lists are usually at least fifty percent bullsh*t anyway. I'm not exactly surprised...I get the feeling they're just trying to make it 'diverse' while actual musical content/relevance to their poll comes second...it means nothing.

    They really like the Smiths, though. At least they got something right...if you look, every issue contains at least one Morrissey/Smiths reference in their article titles or little captions for photos. Obviously they respect them, to sprinkle them so liberally all over their magazine all the time...makes me think their place on the list might have not been completely arbitrary.

    Did anyone see their list of the 50 most essential punk bands? What a riot....!!
    18th pale descendant <[email protected]> -- Tuesday January 15 2002, @09:54AM (#23095)
    (User #3874 Info)
    a little cloak-and-dagger
  • Now *that* is the question... where the hell is Depeche Mode on the list?
    This Charming Girl -- Friday January 18 2002, @08:14PM (#23302)
    (User #2756 Info)
    blah.
  • Ha Ha kOrN influential?? Oh and Radiohead are simply s**t and do i smell the nasty tint of racism in the slating of Run DMC in contributions erm they popuralised rap the most important musical force of the 1990s oh and Oasis should have been there as they changed British musik 4eva 4 better or worse but this is American so hey ho Lets Go (uterrly rit on the Ramones though!)
    Anonymous -- Monday January 21 2002, @06:26AM (#23382)
  • Korn: A carbon copy of nine inch nails, who certainly inspired many others (all crap)

    And where the hell is Bauhaus!?! Seem to fit all of the criteria, and spawned the whole goth thing...

    Kraftwerk, New Order, Depeche Mode should all be higher or at least included given electronica's widespread appeal these days.

    Another US mag fucks up again...
    Anonymous -- Friday January 25 2002, @10:19AM (#23550)

[ home | terms of service ]