top of page
  • Facebook Social Icon
Search

Mini Reviews of Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums: 350-341

  • Daniel Woodiwiss
  • Mar 8
  • 5 min read

Updated: Mar 10



Back in September of 2020, Rolling Stone did something rather audacious and released out to the world a ranking of, in their estimation, the Top 500 albums ever made. By any musician, any band, anywhere.


It's a mammoth undertaking, of course, and one that is never going to be without controversy, dispute, and backlash. But Rolling Stone has to have known that by now, as this is actually their third go-round with this; the original "Greatest 500" was released to much furor in 2003, and then an updated list came in 2012. What sets this ranking apart is it's not just Rolling Stone contributors; this time, they sought input from some of the biggest artists and producers on the scene, to essentially make this ranking more of an aggregation of what are generally considered the greatest albums, than just a compilation ranking by the staff of one entertainment outlet, I suppose.


Anyways! I was always aware of this list, but at the outset of 2022, being ever the musichead, ever the listophile, I made a plan to complete what some might argue is just as audacious an undertaking: I want to listen to all 500, regardless of my familiarity (or lack thereof) with a particular album, regardless of my feelings towards its artist. I'm going to listen to all 500, in order. And I'm going to share my thoughts on them, but because there are literally hundreds of albums to get through, I pledge to keep said thoughts to a sentence or two.


I recognize this is going to take me ages. It's a marathon, not a sprint! In fact, as I imagined might be the case, there's already been a revision to the"500 Greatest Albums" before I even finished this edition. But regardless of whether you will take this epic journey with me, I hope you will check in on me from time-to-time, to gauge how I feel about what Rolling Stone deemed the 491st-best album of all time.


In case you need the link to reference the source material:



And in case you missed my previous entries, here were my rundowns on:

 

Here are my thoughts on numbers 350-341:


Rating: 9/10













This album may not include any of his biggest hits, but Stevie's just so good, man. Funk, soul, grooviness from start to finish. There are far worse ways to spend 45 minutes.




Rating: 6.5/10













Punk rock is never my preferred genre, so I found this a little tiring over the course of a full album. But this isn't weak, modern-day pop punk; this was kickass, and the guitarist(s) in particular blew me away at times. 




Rating: 8/10













This is definitely a mood album- pretty somber and one-note, tonally. But it was beautiful. It felt like an Americana response to the sad age-old folk tunes of Ireland.



Rating: 9/10













I was born after Wu-Tang's peak, and am still more of a general fan of Hip-Hop than I am a "Hip-Hop-head," so this was my first full in-depth listen to any member of Wu-Tang Clan's work. And boy, do I get the hype. GZA's solo debut is an hour of straight poetry delivered over consistently smooth, trippy beats. No individual track has lodged in my brain yet, but it's the kind of album you put on and listen to start to finish each time.



Rating: 8.5/10













As fun as it is to discover so much new music, it is always nice to come upon an album in this list that you know you love, as was the case with this one. At the turn of the decade, we at The Couch named this one of the best albums of the 2010s, and my little brother Gabriel said this about it, aptly: "Perfectly striking a balance between built-for-live-performance hits and slower, more brooding tracks, AM proves that some British rockers are still capable of capturing the musical magic so often thought to have been left behind in the 20th century."



Rating: 7.5/10













I didn't really grow up with Springsteen (my dad was more of a Bob and a Neil Young guy), so this was my first extended listen to Bruce in a long time. This album wasn't what I expected! Much more funk and swing. Didn't really impact me much, per se, but certainly a fun, energetic album to put on in the background. 




Rating: 8/10













Listening to this on the first sunny and mild day we've had here in D.C. in 2025 was a great choice. This is a total reggae vibe from beginning to end, even including a Jamaica-centered reimagined cover of John Denver's "Take Me Home, Country Roads."



Rating: 8/10














I'll say it every single time it's pertinent: I think it's bogus to include compilation albums in general, most of all greatest hits albums. But I will always assess it as its own listen, since Rolling Stone deems it its own entity. And this was a fun listen! Sly and the Family Stone don't mean nearly as much to me as I know they do to a lot of people, but plenty of familiar tunes in these 45 minutes, and a great sound throughout.




Rating: 8.5/10













Having any Beatles album as low as the 300s feels incredibly silly, especially a 'late Beatles' work, in the 2 or 3 year-span where the lads were consistently reimagining and reinventing the entire concept of what an album could be. That said, I could accept the argument that this is among the weakest in their discography, which is a bit like debating which of Michael Jordan's 6 Finals MVP performances was his least impressive-- it was recorded amongst the band falling apart, after all. And yet? It's still chock full of magic, from start ("Two Of Us") to end ("Get Back").



Rating: 7/10













Solid sound! 90s grunge rock isn't really my vibe, usually, but this falls on the more palatable end of the spectrum in terms of a listening experience. Good, high-energy stuff, if short on memorable individual tracks.


コメント

RECENT POSTS
bottom of page