There was a time when Rolling Stone intentionally sought to be an antidote to the fluff of pop culture. It fought against war and the generally approved way to be. It went about it the right way with well-conceived articles and well-researched ideas.
Over the decades, things have changed. As MTV once did, Rolling Stone long eschewed anything that dealt with hip-hop. That wasn't right, and the decision-makers at the magazine knew it. The problem is that they have come full circle and now rock bands seem to get slighted.
Some long-time giants still get too much love. The first musical artist on the list below is an example of that. Not undeserving of admiration, but certainly undeserving of having an album ranked among the best records of the 21st century.
What Rolling Stone got wrong in its ranking of best albums of the 21st century
Bob Dylan's Love and Theft at number 19
I get that we live in an age where Bob Dylan is the greatest thing since 1960s Bob Dylan and we must worship at his throne. Still, not everything Dylan does is elite. This album is fine. It's not like he is going to make a bad album, but he also is not going to make anything close to his records from the 1970s and before. Just because he was great then does not mean he is better than everyone else forever.
The Killers' Hot Fuss at number 42
Once you get past Rolling Stones' love for Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, and all things hip-hop as RS has found a new love for over the last 10 years or so, we should then think what are the real records that should rank among the best of the century. My Chemical Romance's The Black Parade shows up, thankfully, at 113, but nothing was bigger and as influential as the Killers' 2004 debut. The first five tracks rank among the best five tracks on a debut album ever.
Bruce Springsteen's The Rising at number 60
We here at AudioPhix love the Boss and speak rarely any ill will of him. He is worthy of being an icon, and, unlike Dylan for the most part, Springsteen's greatness did not stop after the first two decades of his career. Still, The Rising is fine, but the follow-up Devils and Dust is much better. Sadly, Rolling Stone seems to try to make a point that 9/11, while horribly tragic, makes the music related to it more important than other albums by the same artist.
Arctic Monkey's AM at number 57
The problem here, like the Killers' ranking, is not that Arctic Monkeys rank at all, but that they do not rank high enough. Oddly, Rolling Stone seems to cherish actual rock bands less than they used to. Rock is not fully dead, nor will it ever be, but a lot of the reason is because of the sustained excellence of bands such as Alex Turner and his mates.
Heck, Rolling Stone even writes about "R U Mine?," that is owes an homage to Aaliyah while pointing out that "Arabella" is more like Black Sabbath. They seemed to have somewhat turned those around (yes, the chorus of the last song is heavier, but not the verses). Plus, Arctic Monkeys deserve to be ranked higher because they bring the essence of what rock and roll is all about: swagger.
The National's Boxer not showing up at all
To be fair, Rolling Stone does have a National album on the list, High Violet at 221, and that record is great, too. But nothing the band has done is more expansive, both emotionally and sonically, than the album that put them on the proverbial map. Boxer has the voluminous "Mistaken for Strangers" to the aching beauty of "Slow Show." This album does not deserve a ranking outside of the top 50 because few records match its brilliance.