So could someone explain to me why this is the NUMBER 1 SONG OF ALL TIME by multiple books and music magazines
Because it's a fantastic song desu
>>60717015
It's just chords and it's kind of boring imo
It's a good song but.. you know..
I'd honestly respect the opinion more if it were Iron Maiden or Queen or something
I know they have to pick a dadrock song but this one isn't even technical or anything. Just a few notes.
Dylan going electric was unbelievably massive, like beyond anything we can imagine an artist doing right now. It was a huge fuck you to his dedicated fan base.
It's the magnum opus of one of the most influential musicians of all time, featured pretty eclectic instrumentation, et cetera. Context is super important, the reason this song is so highly respected is Dylan's history
>>60717071
>I'd honestly respect the opinion more if it were Iron Maiden or Queen or something
Oh, I should've known this was bait. On the off chance you are being serious though, please kill yourself and your entire family.
>NUMBER 1 SONG OF ALL TIME by multiple books and music magazines
uhhhh the biggest music magazine is fucking named after this song...
>>60717219
All I'm saying is at least those bands have songs with some sort of substance that actually took time
Anyone with basic chord knowledge could have written like a rolling stone
And like I said THEYRE GONNA MAKE IT DAD ROCK ANYWAY so why the fuck not
If it was up to me the number one song of all time shouldn't even be allowed to be a rock song
>>60717235
Whatever grandpa
>>60717124
Plus, it was his biggest hit. Like it's weird to think of in context since most of Dylan's 60's (and a lot of his 70's) work is now just considered essential parts of pop culture but despite his huge following, most of his Top 40 hits were actually covers of his songs.
Like a Rolling Stone hit number two on the charts, the only other single of his to match that was Rainy Day Women #12 & 35 which is usually misinterpreted as being about drugs and the riff is just taken from a Gene Autry song in the style of Jimmie Rodgers.
Like a Rolling Stone shouldn't have been a hit but it was and it was directly a huge inspiration for many artists, it was seen as revolutionizing music at the time from artists ranging from Bruce Springsteen to Frank Zappa.
>>60717235
Nah, I'm pretty sure it, like the band is actually named after the Muddy Waters song.
For one thing, I believe the magazine was founded before 1965.
>>60717268
What would you want it to be? A folk song? That would be far too difficult since a lot of that stuff predates recorded material and then you'd have to pick a definitive version.
Classical, jazz and electronic music are not known for songs since they are usually instrumental. Rock is the only option left unless you want to go with pop.
>>60717071
>what are lyrics
It's a good song on its own, but baby boomers believe it's some chronicle of their lives, hence Rolling Stone's nomination in particular.
>>60717374
It was not, the first issue came out in '67 or '68.
>>60717374
Then Wenner stated in the first issue that the title of the magazine referred to the 1950 blues song, "Rollin' Stone", recorded by Muddy Waters, the rock and roll band The Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan's hit single "Like a Rolling Stone".
>>60717071
>kind of boring
...
>>60717000
>>60717071
How does it feel to be on your own?
So who else has lyrics from this song tattooed on them and where?
Neck for me (it's not even close to my only Dylan tattoo, not even the only one on my neck).
>>60717599
how does it feeeeel
>>60717494
There's a pretty large library of underground music and I think Jazz would be a better option because of how much more difficult it is to write
I think it would have been better if Rolling Stone gave more credit to more underground artist or forgotten music for their top 500 songs list rather than resort to best sellers
Instead of praising already heavilypraised songs they could have opened peoples eyes to other artist or new sounds that are unique and different which is what I think the key is
There are lots of bands like the beatles, theyre great, but they dont stand out much beside the fact that they were popular, doesn't mean theyre bad but whats the point of jumping straight to them in saying yeah they were the best. Why? Because everyone else seems to agree
>>60717599
with no direction home?
>>60717000
The same reason Dylan is fellated by critics everywhere. The Semitic proclivity to advance one's kind before other.
>>60717654
A song has lyrics, boy'o.
>>60717654
That's what you're buttblasted about? No, making a list of songs like that and calling it the greatest of all time is stupid, the list is about cultural impact as much as it is the songs on their own. What you want is a list of "Songs That Changed Music Forever (While No One Was Listening)" and those lists already exist, but there's no reason to have that list in Rolling Stone because it doesn't fit the audience at all.
I already explained why jazz doesn't have songs, unless you're talking about Sinatra.
And you say underground, you don't specify what that means, odds are you're talking about rock but you just think if it's obscure it can't be called rock.
>>60717768
>Songs that changed music forever while no one was listening
I guess this
I'm sure it's been brought up loads of times. Everytime I think about it I just think that instead of bringing up these same songs over and over and over we could be bringing new things to light
By underground I mean underrated, there are loads of albums /mu/ fawns over that "didn't get enough recognition" and I think those are the ones that should be brought to the light
This is where all of that "le wrong generation" crap comes from is the circle jerking of the same hendrix crap and demanding everyone know it was "the best"
New artist and old artist alike deserve spots in a list as popular as the rolling stones
Everything in there is from the same era and thats what doesnt make sense
All of the "greatest songs" werent made in the 50s-70s like almost everyone insist while there are still great artist out today that people from those times would like too but no one gives a shit about. They want to act like their music is dead while ignoring the new era
Or something
>>60717970
Well you're not going to read about underground and underrated bands if you're reading a magazine whose main area is popular music.
>>60717000
a hint: dude's real name is Robert Allen Zimerman
>>60717697
Like a complete unknown?
>>60718083
Maybe, but they should be inclined to
If someone likes music enough to read about it they should at least give some recommendations and help out the newcomers in getting their part of the deal
If you're a music magazine your priority should be keeping up with whats happening in the scene
>>60718241
Like a rolling stone?
>>60718321
*organ solo*
What's wrong with it, OP? Is there anything you dislike about it? It's just a solid 10/10 song. That's why it's so loved. It may not be your favorite, it may not change your life, but surely you can at least see why it's so respected. It's kind of the same thing with Citizen Kane. People who watch it today expect it to completely blow them away. It probably won't. It's just a movie, and there are so many movies that it probably won't be your favorite, but you have to admit that it's good, right?
>>60717071
WORLD STAR B8
>>60717071
>>60717268
>implying the amount of chords one uses is the only thing of value in a song
>implying Like A Rolling Stone's lyrical prowess isn't amazing and ridiculously ahead of its time for popular music
>implying its structure and length wasn't an entirely new convention for pop music
>implying it doesn't have one of the best arrangements that perfectly supports Dylan's words without being too overbearing
>implying Dylan himself doesn't give one of the most impassioned vocal performances to date with a voice that likely would have been ridiculed just years earlier and yet it becomes a massive hit
>imfuckingplying
>>60717268
This is legitimately the most pleb opinion I have ever read on this board. I hope to God this is just bait.
>>60718310
Well their priority as a magazine who writes about popular music is to give people who listen to popular music something to read about popular music.
You know this song has nothing to do with The Rolling Stones in any way, whatsoever.
Neither did The Temptations' song Papa Was a Rolling Stone?
Why even write a song about them if you're not going to talk about them? LAME!
>>>/https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/60720938/
>>/https://rbt.asia/mu/thread/60720938/
