NME is celebrating it's 60th birthday and has a new "of their lifetime" songs list in their new issue.http://acclaimedmusic.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=378&p=4558#p4558
NME (and other UK critics) usually have a less conservative taste than US critics, so it's not a big surprise that their list includes quite a lot of recent songs. But anyway I counted the number of songs by decade and it looks like this:
'50s: 0 (!)
This is what I fear with a focus on newer songs. While I'm open-minded enough to see that there is still art being created that will hold up for decades and decades, I do think that it needs to stand up for a minimum of 10 years for consideration (stuff from 2010s? Really?) and I think it would be dangerous to jettison everything pre-60s, particularly because the sound of the wild-new hybrid that is rock 'n' roll being invented largely comes from the doo-wop and rockabilly acts of roughly 1953-1957.
For that matter, unless it specifically says "All-time ROCK songs" I think there would need to be representation of more stuff dating back through the 40s, 30s, etc. back to the dawn of recorded sound. I think it's hard to make a strong case that a song just written this year is more "important" than a well-done version of a Cole Porter standard that continues to be recognized for its quality lyrically and musically by succeeding generations who weren't "there" when it was created. I'd also like to see more respect for country music and other genres outside male pop/rock, I.e. blues, reggae, country, girl groups etc. And while I am probably older than many here, at 41 I don't think it's me being a "fogie", I.e. calcified in my listening tastes and convinced nothing of worth has been created since my teen/college years.
Having said all that, yes it's good to see more 80s tunes, I think a critical bias against electronically generated music unfairly places much of the best music of the decade out of consideration when these all-time lists are generated.