Why Are Rolling Stone's Rankings So Bad? A Look at Their Most Controversial Lists

For decades, Rolling Stone has been considered one of the most influential voices in music journalism. Every time the magazine releases a new "Greatest of All Time" list, millions of fans click, debate, argue, and often become furious. Disagreement is expected whenever rankings are involved. No list will ever satisfy everyone.

But Rolling Stone's rankings don't merely generate ordinary disagreement. Many of them leave fans, musicians, and even fellow critics asking a far more troubling question:

Can these rankings really be trusted?

The problem isn't that Rolling Stone has opinions. Every publication has opinions. The problem is that many of its rankings appear inconsistent, contradict other respected expert rankings, differ dramatically from public opinion, and sometimes even contradict Rolling Stone's own earlier rankings.

Perhaps the biggest mystery is that these lists are often created by numerous "experts," contributors, editors, and staff members. One would expect a large panel of experienced music journalists to produce rankings that are relatively stable and broadly consistent with historical consensus. Instead, some of the results are genuinely baffling.

Take Rolling Stone's rankings of the greatest music videos ever made. Incredibly, Michael Jackson's "Thriller" failed to appear on two separate Rolling Stone greatest music video lists. This omission is astonishing considering that the music video is widely regarded as the most influential music video ever produced. MTV ranked Thriller the greatest music video of all time, and many reader comments on Rolling Stone's own lists questioned how such an obvious choice could be omitted altogether. Whether someone believes Thriller is first, second, or fifth is open to debate. Leaving it off entirely is another matter.

The magazine has also dramatically changed its own opinions in surprisingly short periods of time.

Whitney Houston, widely regarded as one of the greatest vocalists in popular music history, was once ranked 34th among Rolling Stone's greatest singers. Following widespread criticism, she later appeared 2nd on another list. Did Whitney Houston suddenly become a much better singer? Of course not. The singer remained exactly the same. Only the ranking changed. When a publication can move an artist from 34th to 2nd, readers naturally begin questioning the consistency of the methodology.

Jimmy Page presents another remarkable example. Rolling Stone initially ranked the legendary Led Zeppelin guitarist 9th among the greatest guitarists of all time. Just nine months later, after significant criticism, Page was suddenly ranked 3rd. Again, Jimmy Page did not become a better guitarist during those nine months. If such dramatic changes can occur so quickly, what confidence should readers have in any of the rankings?

Some individual placements are equally difficult to understand.

Michael Jackson, considered by many musicians, vocal coaches, and fans to be one of the greatest male singers in history, was ranked 86th among Rolling Stone's greatest singers. Freddie Mercury, whose extraordinary vocal range and live performances have made him one of the most celebrated rock vocalists ever, was ranked only 18th. Karen Carpenter, whose warm, flawless voice is often praised by professional singers and vocal experts, appeared at 123rd, while Barbra Streisand was placed 147th.

Then there are the omissions.

Frank Sinatra. Tom Jones. Celine Dion. Paul Rodgers. Nat King Cole. Jim Morrison.

Reasonable people can certainly disagree about where these legendary performers belong. But failing to include them at all inevitably raises questions about what criteria are actually being used.

Rolling Stone's rankings also appear to blur important distinctions. Is the magazine measuring vocal ability, songwriting, influence, originality, popularity, cultural significance, or commercial success? These are very different qualities. Bob Dylan is almost universally recognized as one of history's greatest songwriters. Ranking him among the greatest singers, however, is a much more controversial proposition. Great songwriting and great singing are not the same skill.

History also demonstrates that critics—even famous critics—can be spectacularly wrong.

Rolling Stone gave poor reviews to Led Zeppelin's first two albums, records that are now almost universally considered among the greatest rock albums ever recorded. That doesn't mean every current Rolling Stone ranking is wrong. It does remind us that expert opinion is still opinion, and history sometimes proves experts mistaken.

Another important observation is that Rolling Stone's rankings frequently differ not only from public opinion but also from other respected expert lists and major industry recognition. Whether one looks at MTV's rankings, Grammy Awards, Hall of Fame recognition, or other respected publications, Rolling Stone often stands alone with dramatically different conclusions. Being different is not necessarily a flaw. Being consistently different without clearly explaining why naturally invites skepticism.

Ultimately, the issue isn't whether Rolling Stone has the right to publish these rankings. Of course it does. The issue is whether readers should automatically accept them as authoritative simply because they appear in a famous magazine.

In my opinion, the answer is no.

Rankings should be transparent. Readers should understand who voted, what standards were applied, how disagreements were resolved, and why dramatic changes occur from one list to another. Without that transparency, rankings become little more than editorial opinions dressed up as objective conclusions.

Perhaps Rolling Stone's rankings should be viewed exactly as they are: interesting conversation starters rather than definitive answers.

After all, when a publication can omit Thriller from two greatest music video lists, move Whitney Houston from 34th to 2nd, move Jimmy Page from 9th to 3rd in nine months, rank Michael Jackson 86th as a singer, and leave artists like Frank Sinatra and Celine Dion completely off the list, readers are justified in asking one simple question:

Are these truly the greatest rankings of all time—or merely some of the most controversial?