• The new Carpenters recording with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is now available. Use this link to order, and help us out at the same time. Thank you!

Carpenters NOT on the "Top 500 Albums"

ringves

Active Member
50 years on and some in the rock establishment are still withholding their endorsement of the C's. What a shame !

If you enjoy the C's music, no need to seek out confirmation of your good taste from RS or any other publication. And even if they were on the list, reading a list isn't nearly as satisfying as listening to the C's. Think I'll go grab one of the albums you mentioned and relax !
 

Portlander

Well-Known Member
I thought a couple of their albums previously made the Top 500 or maybe it was individual songs? If "greatest hits" albums were included, The Singles 69-73 would have to rank high on the list or Rolling Stones magazine is a total fraud in my opinion!
 

Song4uman

Well-Known Member
Several years ago I remember reading that the album close to you was that like number 194 or something out of the top 500 albums they must have reevaluated everything
 
Several years ago I remember reading that the album close to you was that like number 194 or something out of the top 500 albums they must have reevaluated everything
Yes they were #175 on the 2003 list. This new list has many newer bands and artists on it since 2003 so I guess they didn’t get enough votes this time around.
 

A&M Retro

Well-Known Member
I agree with Matthew. While Rolling Stone is rather 'dubious' in their selections, they might have done that intentionally to shed light on bands that don't normally get mentioned in these lists. Carpenters are actually more respected today in Rolling Stone than any other time in their history. But that still doesn't make up for the fact that they didn't do a tribute to Karen upon her passing. THAT was unforgivable. They did a one-line alert about it in the issue just as it was going to press and said there would be a full story the next month. Nothing materialized.
 
Rolling Stone has done a 2020 update of the 500 albums. I have not seen the list but a lot of artists have multiple albums and some have way too many on the list. Artists that have three or more are listed on Wikipedia.
 

Mike Blakesley

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
RS panders to their audience, although I'm not sure who that is anymore.... the magazine has always been political, but is getting more and more about left-wing politics and that has likely caused them to lose a lot of subscribers. On top of that, they switched from a bi-weekly to a monthly around the beginning of this year, which probably didn't help. I've been a subscriber since around 1973 but there is less and less that I care about in it, especially since I'm out of the music business now.

Back to the chart.... assuming their readers are people in their 30s on down (the ones who still actually read magazines),, it's not surprising that Carpenters have dropped off the list. They need to put newer acts on their to placate the younger readers, AND the voters are probably younger too and wouldn't vote for older albums as much as they used to.

As time goes on, the only acts from the '60s and '70s that are probably guaranteed to stay on the list are the ones who got tons of press and/or are still active today, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Springsteen, U2, etc. A middle group of artists that aren't doing much of anything now but were massively popular will stay on the list awhile.... outfits like Fleetwood Mac, Phil Collins, Guns'n'Roses, and so on. A lot of lesser rock bands will probably fade into obscurity every time this chart is updated, even though they sold a lot of LPs back in the day. Heard much about Uriah Heep lately? They sold TONS of albums.

It's hard to know where Carpenters would fit in that pantheon, because to a lot of people they were never considered "rock."
 
RS panders to their audience, although I'm not sure who that is anymore.... the magazine has always been political, but is getting more and more about left-wing politics and that has likely caused them to lose a lot of subscribers. On top of that, they switched from a bi-weekly to a monthly around the beginning of this year, which probably didn't help. I've been a subscriber since around 1973 but there is less and less that I care about in it, especially since I'm out of the music business now.

Back to the chart.... assuming their readers are people in their 30s on down (the ones who still actually read magazines),, it's not surprising that Carpenters have dropped off the list. They need to put newer acts on their to placate the younger readers, AND the voters are probably younger too and wouldn't vote for older albums as much as they used to.

As time goes on, the only acts from the '60s and '70s that are probably guaranteed to stay on the list are the ones who got tons of press and/or are still active today, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Springsteen, U2, etc. A middle group of artists that aren't doing much of anything now but were massively popular will stay on the list awhile.... outfits like Fleetwood Mac, Phil Collins, Guns'n'Roses, and so on. A lot of lesser rock bands will probably fade into obscurity every time this chart is updated, even though they sold a lot of LPs back in the day. Heard much about Uriah Heep lately? They sold TONS of albums.

It's hard to know where Carpenters would fit in that pantheon, because to a lot of people they were never considered "rock."
I looked at the new 500 list for Rolling Stone and it seems that they have gone very heavy to rap-hiphop which I do not like. I guess in ten years there will be a new listing.
 

Another Son

Well-Known Member
I looked at the new 500 list for Rolling Stone and it seems that they have gone very heavy to rap-hiphop which I do not like. I guess in ten years there will be a new listing.
It’s also natural that the ‘Top 500 Albums of All Time’ list is very culturally-biased. Seeing as Rolling Stone is an American magazine, they have the idea that the best albums ever are largely American, with quite a few British albums because of the so-called British Invasion(s), and only a smattering of records from other countries.

The culture of your country is very embedded in your experiences and a lot of your favourite albums are going to express a typical way of thinking or speaking for that country, or are going to explore situations or even locations of that place.

If you were from New Zealand, for example, to you, there should be a lot of New Zealander albums on the list, (and NZ has some great artists). In fact, there’s probably only one NZ album on there - there might be a Crowded House album on there, if we’re lucky.

I’d assert that there’s a good swag of Australian albums that are as good as many of the ones that are on the Rolling Stone Top 500, but there are probably only three or four albums on the list that are Australian, if that, and those are probably by artists who strove for an American sound, rather than staying true to their roots.

If we take this idea further, obviously, someone from Japan would expect to see a lot of Japanese albums on there.

I guess, in reality, Rolling Stone doesn’t need to subtitle with ‘The Top 500 Albums Of All Time, (In Our Opinion)’.

Rolling Stone’s idea of the Top 500 albums of all time can be taken with a grain of salt for not only all the reasons suggested in posts by other members, but for this reason I’m giving.

However, the list is still interesting to look at and gives some good information and ideas for exploration. It can be taken for what it is - for their opinion - but if they really are asserting that these truly are the best albums ever, they need to not be so biased....in a whole lot of ways.
 

Geographer

Well-Known Member
It’s also natural that the ‘Top 500 Albums of All Time’ list is very culturally-biased. Seeing as Rolling Stone is an American magazine, they have the idea that the best albums ever are largely American, with quite a few British albums because of the so-called British Invasion(s), and only a smattering of records from other countries.

The culture of your country is very embedded in your experiences and a lot of your favourite albums are going to express a typical way of thinking or speaking for that country, or are going to explore situations or even locations of that place.

If you were from New Zealand, for example, to you, there should be a lot of New Zealander albums on the list, (and NZ has some great artists). In fact, there’s probably only one NZ album on there - there might be a Crowded House album on there, if we’re lucky.

I’d assert that there’s a good swag of Australian albums that are as good as many of the ones that are on the Rolling Stone Top 500, but there are probably only three or four albums on the list that are Australian, if that, and those are probably by artists who strove for an American sound, rather than staying true to their roots.

If we take this idea further, obviously, someone from Japan would expect to see a lot of Japanese albums on there.

I guess, in reality, Rolling Stone doesn’t need to subtitle with ‘The Top 500 Albums Of All Time, (In Our Opinion)’.

Rolling Stone’s idea of the Top 500 albums of all time can be taken with a grain of salt for not only all the reasons suggested in posts by other members, but for this reason I’m giving.

However, the list is still interesting to look at and gives some good information and ideas for exploration. It can be taken for what it is - for their opinion - but if they really are asserting that these truly are the best albums ever, they need to not be so biased.
I'm sure, over the last half-century, the staff and editors have turned over and gotten "younger," too. I doubt they don't really even consider many things south of 1980 relevant as, say, that which is "hip" and "trendy" today. In my humble opinion, the older the album, the more certain one can claim it's in the "top" as it has been around a while, tested, and widely accepted as a "classic." Many of the more recent "top" albums might have sold a lot of copies or are popular with a certain demographic...now...but wait 30 more years and see how they have worn before going on a list of "top" albums of "all time."
 

Another Son

Well-Known Member
I looked at the new 500 list for Rolling Stone and it seems that they have gone very heavy to rap-hiphop which I do not like. I guess in ten years there will be a new listing.
I guess it’s good that they at least have a few more black albums on their Top 500 now, (not that hip-hop and rap-influenced artists are necessarily black). I remember that the list they put out about 20 years ago had vary few black artists on it, yet there are so many soul and blues albums, and black albums of other styles, etc., that are definitely right up there with the best. Maybe RS is becoming just a bit more aware of its bias, if only in one small way.

By the way, I use the term ‘black’ most respectfully. Different terms to suggest race are different from country to country, so I hope this term is acceptable.
 

KarenFan2020

New Member
If I remember right, Close To You, was in the top 500. I looked through the list for 2
Of my faves, Tam mi Terrell and Carpenters. I knew it was a possibility that Tammi wouldn't be included as a solo artist, but one of her duet LP's with Marvin Gaye would be there and Carpenters should be there. I mean this year makes the 50th anniversary of the Close To You LP! There was quite a few Greatest Hits collections in there, The Singles 1969-1979 should have been in there but nooo! Not happy with their choices at all
 

Another Son

Well-Known Member
I think they choose a certain number of people from the music industry to submit their list of Top 10 favourite albums, or something like that, and just work out a Top 500 list from that on a points basis, so what appears on the chart depends who they ask and might be totally different each time.
 

Another Son

Well-Known Member
If I remember right, Close To You, was in the top 500. I looked through the list for 2
Of my faves, Tam mi Terrell and Carpenters. I knew it was a possibility that Tammi wouldn't be included as a solo artist, but one of her duet LP's with Marvin Gaye would be there and Carpenters should be there. I mean this year makes the 50th anniversary of the Close To You LP! There was quite a few Greatest Hits collections in there, The Singles 1969-1979 should have been in there but nooo! Not happy with their choices at all
Anything with Marvin Gaye on it was usually excellent. I think I’ve got most of his albums. A great singer, and once he started to write and produce his own stuff, he got even better.
 
Top Bottom