Yes, 50's songs are almost always musically much inferior to the stuff that came with and after The Beatles.

In rock music perhaps. Though I don't like the term musically inferior at all. The complexity and the overall quality have little to do with each other. You seem to suggest that the songs you call musically inferior are also somewhat inferior in quality and less worthy of a place on this list.

Yeah, but how do you define "greatest"? The list is not turning into a most influential list at all. If it was Stairway and BoRhap would be much lower. The new list you made represented a good mix of the different criteria.

No.

Songs like: Shake, Rattle & Roll, Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On, Tutti Frutti...
can't compete in quality with post Beatles stuff.

Plus there are some timeless classics that are awfully low here, like:
Voodoo Child, Dust In The Wind, Sultans Of Swing, All Right Now, Hallowed Be Thy Name, Stand By Me, Billie Jean, You've Lost That Loving Feeling, One (U2), Hit The Road Jack, Love Hurts, Nothing Else Matters.

Not to mention that this list does NOT have We Are The Champions, Your Song, Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word, Livin' On A Prayer.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder.

Awfully low? This is the 300 greatest rocks songs of all time. Getting onto this list is a might fine achievement where ever you end up.

Look, I understand you have different criteria from the one I'd use, but that doesn't mean you're not doing a great job with it.
Maybe you'll allow me and Deany to create another thread where we'll make an unofficial list with our criteria...we could call it "most acclaimed rock songs"?

P. S. Yes, awfully low is a pretty strong word, I'm sorry. I've just never met anyone who wouldn't have Sultans Of Swing in his top 50 rock songs of all time.

I'd like this. And also, I don't have "Sultans of Swing" in my top 50 all-time. I used to, but then I gradually bumped it down until around the 170's.

Well that's nice, and I love that song too, but simple circumstancial evidence like that really isn't relevant for a list like this.

That one's here. Only seven non-rock songs in the Top 200.

But seriously, just make one. I don't think Brian or Rick will delete it, if you really work on it.

Actually most '50s songs can compete with pretty much all of the other songs you mentioned. Rock music in general is not all too challenging if you look at the way the music is constructed. Which again has nothing to do with its quality.

There are enough other lists of acclaimed songs already that another one would seem to be redundant. The one paul cited is a prime example. In the previous forum, we had threads like "Other Greatest Songs Lists" that would quote, for example, the upper part of the acclaimedmusc.net list, the Rolling Stone list, the VH1 list, and perhaps a couple other lists that are of something like that level of stature. If you want to make a thread like that, that's OK. If you think you may be including more than 3 or 4, you might want to quickly grab the first 2 or more posts in the thread so that you'll be sure you'll have enough room to post all the lists.

If you like what you suggested better than what I suggested, I wouldn't object to your posting the thread you proposed, I just wouldn't see much point to it.

How are you defining "quality"? As far as MY ears are concerned, something like "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On" or "Shake Rattle & Roll" are WAY better than a "Dust In The Wind" or "All Right Now". And while I know some people argue that musical complexity or vituosity is equivalent to "quality", there's nothing special about those songs in those terms, either. It sounds like you're just arguing from personal taste.

as much as i absolutely adore that song, here's one right here