Rolling Stone top 100 songwriters

[757690]

Without a hook, you can produce all you want...

I didn't make my point very well.

A lot of "pop" songs are quality songs, that are over produced to appeal to the masses. I heard many pop songs that I hated, rearranged by other artists, that sounded great. The most surprising one, was when Travis covered "Baby, Hit Me One More Time." It sounded completely different, and I loved it.

[marcshoe]

I scrolled through the top ten and didn't see Stephan Jenkins. I have no further use for this magazine.

Okay, step back from that ledge my friend. . . .

[Caveat Emperor]

Chuck Berry has 28 songwriting credits to his name.

That seems awfully low.

Agreed.

If you're going to do guys with ~2 dozen songs to their name, there's no reason Sixto Rodriguez isn't on this list.

[bucksfan2]

This list is wrong!

No Eddie Vedder, no Dave Grohl, no Zac Brown, no Brian Fallon.

These list all kind of take the same template, Beatles are the greatest, throw in a few old time favorites, throw in a couple of pioneers of Rap, Pop, etc. It creates clicks and discussion, but other than that I find it blah. Oh and I would rather listen to Taylor Swift than the Beatles, there I said it.

[marcshoe]

If you're going to do guys with ~2 dozen songs to their name, there's no reason Sixto Rodriguez isn't on this list.

Eh, he had one good year with the Brewers, and that's it.

Seriously, Chuck Berry's songwriting went way beyond the numbers. He took the blues template to the masses and influenced everybody after. And that's not even considering 'My Ding-a-ling'.

This list is wrong!

No Eddie Vedder, no Dave Grohl, no Zac Brown, no Brian Fallon.

These list all kind of take the same template, Beatles are the greatest, throw in a few old time favorites, throw in a couple of pioneers of Rap, Pop, etc. It creates clicks and discussion, but other than that I find it blah. Oh and I would rather listen to Taylor Swift than the Beatles, there I said it.

Just addressing Fallon for a minute, I love THE Gaslight Anthem, but Rolling Stone didn't seem to be going that direction at all, for whatever reason. Shoot, I would have loved to have seen Neil Finn acknowledged.

RS seems to want to appeal to radio listeners while at the same time acting as if they're slumming.

[*BaseClogger*]

I see a bunch of contemporary picks in the back 50 to distract me from the fact that everybody in the top 50 were most active when my parents were in high school...

[Dom Heffner]

This list is wrong!

No Eddie Vedder, no Dave Grohl, no Zac Brown, no Brian Fallon.

These list all kind of take the same template, Beatles are the greatest, throw in a few old time favorites, throw in a couple of pioneers of Rap, Pop, etc. It creates clicks and discussion, but other than that I find it blah. Oh and I would rather listen to Taylor Swift than the Beatles, there I said it.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

You probably enjoy her more because her words in 2015 are going to relate to you more than they would with words and music from the 1960s.

It sounds better to your ear.

I rarely listen to the Beatles, not really a fan, I can look at their entire catalog and see their place in history. If I'm going back that far for personal listening, I'm popping in The Who or the Stones.

[bucksfan2]

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

You probably enjoy her more because her words in 2015 are going to relate to you more than they would with words and music from the 1960s.

It sounds better to your ear.

I rarely listen to the Beatles, not really a fan, I can look at their entire catalog and see their place in history. If I'm going back that far for personal listening, I'm popping in The Who or the Stones.

I have always kinda liked her stuff. Her country stuff at the start was good and then got a little better as she aged. Then when she transitioned from country to pop her stuff got better, albeit a little poppier. My wife downloaded here 1989 album and listens to it non stop with my 3 year old. It doesn't matter if she is at home or in the car, there are probably 3 different albums those two listen to. My daughter can sing to almost all the songs by now and it has grown on me. Its not my favorite, but it sure beats the Frozen Soundtrack, and a lot of other junk that is on the radio.

I understand the love for the Beatles, I actually like their songs more when someone does a great remake of the song. I just have no contextual relationship with most of their songs. I hear a Pearl Jam song and it takes me back to a certain point of my life. I hear a Green Day song and I can place it with a memory. Heck I heard a snip bit of an Eve 6 song today it it took me back to my senior year in high school. A lot of those older bands have quality music, but as you said, they have no relationship to me.

As for Brian Fallon, I am a pretty big Gaslight Anthem fan. I find them to be a talented band that really hasn't had much mainstream success. I have seen them a couple of times in concert and while it was great fun, I don't find Fallon to be a charismatic front man, often a must for a band to take off.

My buddy contends that the music you like goes back to your coming of age period, often high school. I tend to agree, while my tastes have changed, a little lighter more twang, I still get the biggest kick when I hear a song I loved in high school.

[Rojo]

I actually don't know any Taylor Swift songs. Should I have?

[westofyou]

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

You probably enjoy her more because her words in 2015 are going to relate to you more than they would with words and music from the 1960s.

It sounds better to your ear.

I rarely listen to the Beatles, not really a fan, I can look at their entire catalog and see their place in history. If I'm going back that far for personal listening, I'm popping in The Who or the Stones.

I can listen to the Beatles everyday, anything from their catalog, Stones I focus on Let it Bleed to Some Girls, the Who I focus on Odds and Sods to Face Dances, problem with the Stones and Who is too much to choose from and a lot of crap IMO

These days I listen to the Kinks more than the Stones or The Who.

[KronoRed]

I actually don't know any Taylor Swift songs. Should I have?

Nope.

[Dom Heffner]

I actually don't know any Taylor Swift songs. Should I have?

I think whether or not you should listen to her depends on why you like music.

I love music. All kinds. I'll go from Metallica to Loretta Lynn.

From what I know of you? You can live without her.

I'd rank 1989 as one of the better pop albums of the past 20 years. But it's pop, and while I put it on equal footing with other genres, many don't.

[Larry Schuler]

At this point in history, The Beatles songs, especially the early ones, feel more like campfire sing-a-long songs or commercial jingles than rock and roll music. The Rolling Stones and Kinks had more darkness and non-psych rough edges that make their music still interesting today. All in my opinion, of course.

[Dom Heffner]

At this point in history, The Beatles songs, especially the early ones, feel more like campfire sing-a-long songs or commercial jingles than rock and roll music. The Rolling Stones and Kinks had more darkness and non-psych rough edges that make their music still interesting today. All in my opinion, of course.

I second this, but I still recognize their talent. I like Zeppelin as the best band ever, but I probably lose that argument to history.

The Beatles are pretty impressive, just not into them, if that makes sense.

[marcshoe]

The Beatles were among my first radio memories, when I was very small. I was only five, but I remember hearing "Lucy" played when it was first released. I grew up listening to ''Rubber Soul", Johnny Cash's "Bitter Tears" and Roy Orbison's "Greatest Hits" played repeatedly. When I was a teen, the Beatlesque ELO became my favorite group, and I began listening to Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. When I was 19 I heard the White Album all the way through, and my concept of music changed.

So yeah, I have an emotional attachment to John, Paul, George, and Ringo.