Heavyweight Champs of Rock
stephenJ
champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
it for rock n roll:
1956-1963: elvis
1964-1970: the beatles
1971-1977: led zeppelin
1978-1984: van halen
1985-1987: metallica
1988-1991: guns 'n roses
1992-1994: nirvana
1995-1997: oasis
1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
albums have been released since then.
--
As a tourist, you become economically significant but
existentially loathsome, an insect on a dead thing.
- D. Foster Wallace
Raja, The Great
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> it for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
the 60s
> 1964-1970: the beatles
yes, but Beatles broke up in 1969 dummy
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
of course. But from 1970-80
> 1978-1984: van halen
Whats your infatuation with Van Halen, they are a fuck all band
> 1985-1987: metallica
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
GNR is an one album wonder. Rock Music died with Appetite For
Destruction
> 1992-1994: nirvana
If you wanna commit suicide, Nirvana is a good band. I will pass.
> 1995-1997: oasis
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww Oasis?
Dale Hicks
says...
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> it for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> 1978-1984: van halen
> 1985-1987: metallica
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> 1992-1994: nirvana
> 1995-1997: oasis
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
> albums have been released since then.
By your declarations, rock's been dead since 1995 then.
No love for the Foo Fighters or Tool?
--
Cranial Crusader dgh 1138 at bell south point net
Joe Ramirez
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> it for rock n roll:
God knows exactly what you mean by "heavyweight champ," but to give
the phrase some content, I would suggest at least the following
criteria:
1. Broad, rather than niche, audience appeal
2. Sustained artistic credibility
3. Recognized leadership in rock's evolution
So, applying these to your nominations, we get:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
Plausible
> 1964-1970: the beatles
Plausible
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
Plausible
> 1978-1984: van halen
No
> 1985-1987: metallica
No
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
No
> 1992-1994: nirvana
Plausible
> 1995-1997: oasis
No
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
> albums have been released since then.
The problem isn't the lack of "classic" albums, but rather the
continued splintering of rock subgenres and audiences alike into
segments too small to satisfy my criteria 1 and 3.
MoParMaN
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit
> heavyweight champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it
> was) ... this is it for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> 1978-1984: van halen
> 1985-1987: metallica
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> 1992-1994: nirvana
> 1995-1997: oasis
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic
> rock albums have been released since then.
Country is the new rock. The Beatles were famous with the kiddy rock
bunch. The real stars were Jim morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janice Joplin,
the Moody Blues, and Sam The Sham and Pheroph's.
--
--MoParMan--
---Scud Coordinates 32.61204 North 96.92989 West---
---Remove "Clothes" to Reply---
VROC-27911
08-Vulcan 1600 Nomad
http://www.vroc.org/view_profile.php?user_id=32113
The Henchman
"stephenJ" <sja...@pop.com> wrote in message
news:iYtxn.209633$wr5.2...@newsfe22.iad...
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is it
> for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> 1978-1984: van halen
> 1985-1987: metallica
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> 1992-1994: nirvana
> 1995-1997: oasis
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
> albums have been released since then.
Van Halen?? I dunno I'd replace that with AC/DC and I hate AC/DC but
I understand what they did for rock. what about the Eagles? They had
lyrics, soft rock, hard rock, and messages to boot. But if you want rock
and Roll AC/DC is rock and Roll.
I agree with Guns and Roses being in this list. They are the torch bearer
for the Hair band era. if you don't want hair band then nominate U2.
I'd replace Nirvana with Pearl Jam or maybe Smashing Pumpkins outh to get a
spot in there. Early Pearl Jam did rock out the tunes and they sued
Ticketmaster. All that rebellion shit RnR is supposed to be.
Okay you say rock died in 1998 but we have many one time wonders like
creed, linkin park, three days grace, finger eleven, Blur, bush.. Lots of
good rock no matter what people say but no standard bearer until Coldplay
come along. Maybe Red hot Chili Peppers? Dave Matthews Band?
The Henchman
these last few years.
Raja, The Great
Good choices. At least you are being reasonable. Only a Van Halen
fanboy like Jaros will consider them as ruling rock at any time. AC/DC
clearly were the best of the late 70s and early 80s. One can consider
Rush too.
Dale Hicks
says...
Coldplay? DMB? We're talking rock here, aren't we?
Raja, The Great
1955 - 1959 - Elvis Presley and Chuck Berry BOTH
1960 - 1962 - CLOWN era
1963 - 1964 - Beatles
1965 - 1969 - Beatles and Rolling Stones BOTH
1967 - Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, Doors and Pink Floyd (one album
wonders... early Pink Floyd can be considered one-album wonder)
1969 - 70 - Led Zeppelin alone
1971 - Led Zeppelin, Who, Yes and Black Sabbath
1972 - Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Yes
1973 - 1977 Led Zeppelin, Yes and Pink Floyd
1979-80 - Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush and AC/DC
1981-82 - CLOWN era
1983-85 - Iron Maiden
1986 - Metallica and Slayer
1987 - Guns N Roses
--------------------------------------- End of Rock N Roll as we know
it -------------------------------------------
DanS.
4/14/2010 in writing
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is it for
> rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
Yes
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
Yes
> 1978-1984: van halen
Yes
> 1985-1987: metallica
No
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> 1992-1994: nirvana
No
> 1995-1997: oasis
No
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
> albums have been released since then.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
<<wise saying place-holder>>
Dale Hicks
DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net says...
I like Yes as much as the next guy, but they weren't around in the
fifties.
DanS.
4/14/2010 in writing
> stephenJ wrote:
>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit
>> heavyweight champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it
>> was) ... this is it for rock n roll:
>>
>> 1956-1963: elvis
>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>> 1978-1984: van halen
>> 1985-1987: metallica
>> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
>> 1992-1994: nirvana
>> 1995-1997: oasis
>>
>> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic
>> rock albums have been released since then.
>
> Country is the new rock. The Beatles were famous with the kiddy rock bunch.
> The real stars were Jim morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janice Joplin, the Moody
> Blues, and Sam The Sham and Pheroph's.
Like we were talking about w/ Pink Floyd, all Beatles stuff wasn't
great, but they had some exceptional stuff - they weren't all bubblegum
pop by any stretch of the imagination.
JGibson
> In article <hq62gt$5f...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net says...
Yes? As any reader of rec.music.misc circa 1992-1994 knows, Rush was
objectively proven to the best band.
Oh, how I miss that group and those ridiculous discussions.
stephenJ
> stephenJ added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
> 4/14/2010 in writing
>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit
>> heavyweight champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was)
>> ... this is it for rock n roll:
>>
>> 1956-1963: elvis
> Yes
>> 1964-1970: the beatles
> Yes
>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> Yes
>> 1978-1984: van halen
> Yes
>> 1985-1987: metallica
> No
yeah, that was debatable, and i'm probably wrong. van halen broke up and
there really was more of a void there between that and the rise of GnR.
Metallica made a couple great records, but were still basically a
smaller act c. 1986, not the dominant colossus that describes a "champ".
>> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> Yes
>> 1992-1994: nirvana
> No
>> 1995-1997: oasis
> No
Now these i can't agree with. nirvana and oasis dominated those time
frames, oasis in particular on a global level.
--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.
- Albert Einstein
stephenJ
> Whats your infatuation with Van Halen, they are a fuck all band
Anyone who doesn't appreciate the awesome glory of the mighty van halen
cannot be taken seriously on any musical topic.
>> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> GNR is an one album wonder. Rock Music died with Appetite For
> Destruction
Surely, AFD is the best album released since it was released. And it's
to your credit that you realize that. But, metallica's 'black album',
nirvana's 'nevermind', weezer's 'blue album', and oasis's 'definitely
maybe' and 'morning glory' are all classic albums, chock full of hits.
>> 1995-1997: oasis
>
> Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww Oasis?
are you kidding? Between 94-97 they earned the Beatles comparisons.
Arguably no one else has released as many good songs, at least 25, in so
short a period of time, since the Beatles.
--
"if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands
of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form
they please".
- Thomas Jefferson
stephenJ
no, that's precisely the problem. a classic can come from any genre of
rock. revolver, nevermind, back in black, van halen I, and definitely
maybe are all classics and sound nothing alike.
there just hasn't been a classic record released since at least 1995.
J.C. Watts Enslin
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> it for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> 1978-1984: van halen
Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated. From
Eddies guitar to Roth's voice.... When I listen to that shit now, it
just sounds like schlock.
As someone mentioned, AC/DC's music has withstood the test of time
much better than Van Halen's. And I'd rather listen to the Police
than either one of them...
Jon
Jaybyrd
> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> it for rock n roll:
>
> 1956-1963: elvis
> 1964-1970: the beatles
> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> 1978-1984: van halen
> 1985-1987: metallica
> 1988-1991: guns 'n roses
> 1992-1994: nirvana
> 1995-1997: oasis
>
> 1998 - present: vacant, rock basically died around then. no classic rock
> albums have been released since then.
>
although I like a lot of those bands there's no punk there which I
consider part of rock and roll so I can't accept this list.
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
architecture.
--Tedward
DanS.
all human wisdom on 4/16/2010 in writing
> Writing about music is about as useful as dancing about
> architecture.
>
> --Tedward
This may be the wisest thing said on RSFC this week.
Jaybyrd
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy added the following to the totality of
> all human wisdom on 4/16/2010 in writing
>
> > Writing about music is about as useful as dancing about
> > architecture.
>
> > --Tedward
>
> This may be the wisest thing said on RSFC this week.
>
similar things could be said about college football
stephenJ
> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
>> it for rock n roll:
>>
>> 1956-1963: elvis
>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>> 1978-1984: van halen
>
>
> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
one else is even close.
--
the Roosevelt administration .. has used the war to justify
restrictions of Congressional power, and the assumption of
dictatorial procedures on the part of the President and his
appointees.
- Charles A. Lindbergh, 9/11/41
DanS.
4/16/2010 in writing
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
>>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
>>> it for rock n roll:
>>>
>>> 1956-1963: elvis
>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>>> 1978-1984: van halen
>>
>>
>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>
> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no one
> else is even close.
There're few albums comparable to Diver Down, VHI and VHII. Beyond
those, there is a lot of over-ratedness.
Raja, The Great
> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> > champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> > it for rock n roll:
>
> > 1956-1963: elvis
> > 1964-1970: the beatles
> > 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> > 1978-1984: van halen
>
> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated. From
> Eddies guitar to Roth's voice.... When I listen to that shit now, it
> just sounds like schlock.
I agree. Eddie Van Halen didnt invent crap. Alex Lifeson, Brian May
were all versed with "his" techniques even before Van Halen was
formed. David Lee Roth is beyond embarrassing. And worst of all Van
Halen could not write a memorable song if their lives dependent on it.
They were one trick ponies at best. All you need to hear from them is
Aint Talking About Love and you are done with them.
>
> As someone mentioned, AC/DC's music has withstood the test of time
AC/DC sold a hell out outside the US, unlike Van Halen.
Antonio Veranos
[<j26yn.88677$ao7....@newsfe21.iad>]
[Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:04:40 -0500]
: that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
: one else is even close.
Steve Vai has chunks of EVH in his voluminous stool.
--
Antonio Veranos
"I'm a man of my convictions. Call me wrong, call me right,
but I bring my better angels to every fight.
You may not like where I'm going, but you sure know where I stand.
Hate me if you want to. Love me if you can." -- Toby Keith
J.C. Watts Enslin
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> >> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> >> it for rock n roll:
>
> >> 1956-1963: elvis
> >> 1964-1970: the beatles
> >> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> >> 1978-1984: van halen
>
> > Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>
> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
> one else is even close.
If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
ignored. Back in 2003, Rolling Stone did their 100 Greatest
Guitarists issue...he was rated #70. IMO, that was generous.
Jon
Raja, The Great
Steve Howe totally owns Eddie Van Halen. I bet Steve Jaros has no idea
who Steve Howe is.
>
> Jon
Whisper
> no, that's precisely the problem. a classic can come from any genre of
> rock. revolver, nevermind, back in black, van halen I, and definitely
> maybe are all classics and sound nothing alike.
>
> there just hasn't been a classic record released since at least 1995.
>
er, the Fame Monster..?
Whisper
> On Apr 16, 6:04 pm, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ<sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
>>>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
>>>> it for rock n roll:
>>
>>>> 1956-1963: elvis
>>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>>>> 1978-1984: van halen
>>
>>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>>
>> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
>> one else is even close.
>
>
>
> If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
> then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
> ignored.
Don't do that to him. He already has that status in rst.
Joe Ramirez
Jaros is talking about rock. Whether or not he's right, Lady Gaga is
not rock. However, if you want to bring her into it, the album to
mention would be "The Fame" (1st album), not "The Fame Monster" (2nd
album).
stephenJ
> On Apr 16, 6:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
>>>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
>>>> it for rock n roll:
>>>> 1956-1963: elvis
>>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>>>> 1978-1984: van halen
>>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
>> one else is even close.
>
> If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
> then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
> ignored.
EVH is obviously #1. Hendrix and Page are the only ones who could
conceivably be ranked ahead of him, and only using the most generous
criteria in their favor. Failure to acknowledge this proves your rock 'n
roll irrelevancy.
Raja, The Great
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
> >>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> >>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit heavyweight
> >>>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
> >>>> it for rock n roll:
> >>>> 1956-1963: elvis
> >>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
> >>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
> >>>> 1978-1984: van halen
> >>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
> >> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
> >> one else is even close.
>
> > If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
> > then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
> > ignored.
>
> EVH is obviously #1. Hendrix and Page are the only ones who could
> conceivably be ranked ahead of him, and only using the most generous
> criteria in their favor. Failure to acknowledge this proves your rock 'n
> roll irrelevancy.
Troll statement. Can you explain why EVH is "obviously" #1?
Antonio Veranos
[<Kjjyn.155851$0N3....@newsfe09.iad>]
[Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:10:42 -0500]
: > If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
: > then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
: > ignored.
:
: EVH is obviously #1. Hendrix and Page are the only ones who could
: conceivably be ranked ahead of him, and only using the most generous
: criteria in their favor. Failure to acknowledge this proves your rock 'n
: roll irrelevancy.
Oh, goody... there hasn't been a Jarosian 'I'm right and the entire rest of the
world is wrong (and stupid, because they disagree with me).' thread in a while.
*grabbing popcorn*
Raja, The Great
> [sjar...@pop.com | stephenJ]
> [<Kjjyn.155851$0N3.84...@newsfe09.iad>]
> [Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:10:42 -0500]
>
> : > If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
> : > then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
> : > ignored.
> :
> : EVH is obviously #1. Hendrix and Page are the only ones who could
> : conceivably be ranked ahead of him, and only using the most generous
> : criteria in their favor. Failure to acknowledge this proves your rock 'n
> : roll irrelevancy.
>
> Oh, goody... there hasn't been a Jarosian 'I'm right and the entire rest of the
> world is wrong (and stupid, because they disagree with me).' thread in a while.
>
> *grabbing popcorn*
Didn't know that Jaros is considered a tool in other newsgroups as
well ;-)
Raja, The Great
over the years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_of_the_Beast_(album)
It was widely panned by mainstream media upon its release, including
Rolling Stone, who claimed that it "blusters along aimlessly, proving
again that bad music is hell." It was also panned by social
conservatives, especially in America. Due to its title, Iron Maiden
was called a "Satanic band" in the US. Their Beast on the Road tour
was marred by boycotts and protests
stephenJ
well, e.g., there are more memorable riffs and solos on VH1 than in the
entire Yes catalog.
--
I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
had left the building.
- Bob Dylan
stephenJ
no one with a brain takes rolling stone seriously when it comes to
"best" lists.
--
.. the profiteers are a consequence not
a cause of rising prices.
- JM Keynes
Raja, The Great
Yes made songs, EVH wrote solos and riffs... big fucking difference.
Raja, The Great
> Raja, The Great wrote:
> > On a related noted... how clueless Rolling Stone magazine has been
> > over the years...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_of_the_Beast_(album)
>
> > It was widely panned by mainstream media upon its release, including
> > Rolling Stone, who claimed that it "blusters along aimlessly, proving
> > again that bad music is hell." It was also panned by social
> > conservatives, especially in America. Due to its title, Iron Maiden
> > was called a "Satanic band" in the US. Their Beast on the Road tour
> > was marred by boycotts and protests
>
> no one with a brain takes rolling stone seriously when it comes to
> "best" lists.
If you awere a real hard rock/heavy metal fan you would like bands
like AC/DC, Maiden, Metallica, Rush, Slayer, Megadeth etc, not the
pussy spandex wearing Van Halen. I bet you like Motley Cure, Kiss,
Poison, Whitesnake etc too.
stephenJ
are you kidding? VH's songs were in the classic tradition of the stones,
beatles, and elvis: blow in and grab the listener by the throat with an
instantly memorable opening riff, clobber you with big hooks, guitars,
and melodies for 2-3 minutes, then blow out way before the listener gets
bored.
Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
punk - which was mostly for the bad.
--
There are so many posts in government service that
it is frightening just to think about them.
- F. Dostoyevsky
stephenJ
> On Apr 17, 1:18 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> Raja, The Great wrote:
>>> On a related noted... how clueless Rolling Stone magazine has been
>>> over the years...
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_of_the_Beast_(album)
>>> It was widely panned by mainstream media upon its release, including
>>> Rolling Stone, who claimed that it "blusters along aimlessly, proving
>>> again that bad music is hell." It was also panned by social
>>> conservatives, especially in America. Due to its title, Iron Maiden
>>> was called a "Satanic band" in the US. Their Beast on the Road tour
>>> was marred by boycotts and protests
>> no one with a brain takes rolling stone seriously when it comes to
>> "best" lists.
>
> If you awere a real hard rock/heavy metal fan you would like bands
> like AC/DC, Maiden, Metallica, Rush, Slayer, Megadeth
I saw all those bands in concert, except for pansy-ass Rush, before you
were born.
--
"The partisan differences that emerged in 1972 were not caused by any
sudden
increase in the religious and cultural traditionalism of the
Republican activists but instead by the pervasive secularism and
cultural liberalism of the Democratic supporters of George McGovern."
- Georffrey Layman
Chris Bellomy
> are you kidding? VH's songs were in the classic tradition of the stones,
> beatles, and elvis: blow in and grab the listener by the throat with an
> instantly memorable opening riff, clobber you with big hooks, guitars,
> and melodies for 2-3 minutes, then blow out way before the listener gets
> bored.
>
> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
I don't like Van Halen. Never have. I kinda like Yes, and
used to love them back in the day.
But Jaros is right here, except for the "mostly for the
bad" part. VH gave rock a big kick to the nuts right when
it needed it. They really did.
What he's not right about is Eddie being a master of
the guitar. There are probably 100 guitarists one could
drop into those early VH records that would have made
better use of the songs than he did. Eddie is *the*
reason why, in the end, I don't like that band. His
guitar work was off-the-charts awful. Innovative, sure;
but still, awful.
cb
stephenJ
if eddie was so terrible, why did a modern-day duke ellington and
perfectionist like quincy jones ask him to play on the michael jackson
record? eddie was a musical idiot all right - an idiot savant.
> Innovative, sure;
> but still, awful.
that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
--
"the purpose of the Russian campaign is to reduce the Slavic
population by 30 million".
- Heinrich Himmler, 1941
Antonio Veranos
[<svnyn.63891$iu2....@newsfe15.iad>]
[Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:56:15 -0500]
: that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
: masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
: another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
For anyone arguing about EVH's taste, just consider that he married Valerie
Bertinelli... discussion over.
Joe Ramirez
> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
Punk was mostly for the good. The mid-1970s punk revolution was to
rock what Impressionism was to painting: a decisively liberating
development that not only was richly rewarding in itself, but also
opened to the door to a long sequence of further artistic evolution
that would not have occurred but for that first bold step.
Punk led to new wave, postpunk, hardcore, indie, alternative, grunge,
and subgenres of each. (Punk even had significant influence on the
1980s evolution of one of your preferred genres, metal.) Most of the
great rock music since 1976 or so has come from musicians who, in one
way or another, can trace their musical descent back to punk.
Chris Bellomy
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> stephenJ wrote, On 4/17/10 1:42 PM:
>>
>>> are you kidding? VH's songs were in the classic tradition of the stones,
>>> beatles, and elvis: blow in and grab the listener by the throat with an
>>> instantly memorable opening riff, clobber you with big hooks, guitars,
>>> and melodies for 2-3 minutes, then blow out way before the listener gets
>>> bored.
>>>
>>> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
>>> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
>>
>> I don't like Van Halen. Never have. I kinda like Yes, and
>> used to love them back in the day.
>>
>> But Jaros is right here, except for the "mostly for the
>> bad" part. VH gave rock a big kick to the nuts right when
>> it needed it. They really did.
>
>> What he's not right about is Eddie being a master of
>> the guitar. There are probably 100 guitarists one could
>> drop into those early VH records that would have made
>> better use of the songs than he did. Eddie is *the*
>> reason why, in the end, I don't like that band. His
>> guitar work was off-the-charts awful.
>
> if eddie was so terrible, why did a modern-day duke ellington and
> perfectionist like quincy jones ask him to play on the michael jackson
> record?
Lordy, I think you need to dial back the Ellington
comparisons. Geez.
As for the answer: $$$$.
>> Innovative, sure;
>> but still, awful.
>
> that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
> masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
> another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
If that were true, the Minutemen's version of "Ain't
Talkin' 'Bout Love" so much more successful than theirs?
cb
Chris Bellomy
> [sja...@pop.com | stephenJ]
> [<svnyn.63891$iu2....@newsfe15.iad>]
> [Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:56:15 -0500]
>
> : that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
> : masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
> : another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
>
> For anyone arguing about EVH's taste, just consider that he married Valerie
> Bertinelli... discussion over.
For anyone arguing about Valerie Bertinelli's taste,
just consider that she married Eddie Van Halen...
discussion over.
cb
stephenJ
are you kidding?
> As for the answer: $$$$.
>
>>> Innovative, sure;
>>> but still, awful.
>>
>> that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
>> masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
>> another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
>
> If that were true, the Minutemen's version of "Ain't
> Talkin' 'Bout Love" so much more successful than theirs?
the whose? van halen's is untouchable.
--
Not to believe in the Devil is a French idea, a frivolous idea.
- F. Dostoyevsky
stephenJ
> On Apr 17, 2:42 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
>> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
>
> Punk was mostly for the good. The mid-1970s punk revolution was to
> rock what Impressionism was to painting: a decisively liberating
> development that not only was richly rewarding in itself, but also
> opened to the door to a long sequence of further artistic evolution
> that would not have occurred but for that first bold step.
>
> Punk led to new wave, postpunk, hardcore, indie, alternative, grunge,
> and subgenres of each.
IOW's, mostly for the bad. And we can thank Yes, the original
inspiration for punk. Kind of like the Monarchy was the inspiration for
the Great Terror.
--
Even if U.S. atom bombs were dropped on China and blasted
a hole in the earth or blew it to pieces, this might be
a big thing for the solar system, but it would still be
an insignificant matter as far as the universe as a whole
is concerned.
- Mao Tse Tung, 1958
Raja, The Great
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 2:42 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
> >> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
>
> > Punk was mostly for the good. The mid-1970s punk revolution was to
> > rock what Impressionism was to painting: a decisively liberating
> > development that not only was richly rewarding in itself, but also
> > opened to the door to a long sequence of further artistic evolution
> > that would not have occurred but for that first bold step.
>
> > Punk led to new wave, postpunk, hardcore, indie, alternative, grunge,
> > and subgenres of each.
>
> IOW's, mostly for the bad. And we can thank Yes, the original
> inspiration for punk. Kind of like the Monarchy was the inspiration for
> the Great Terror.
Yes are infinitely more talented than Van Halen
Steve Howe >>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie Van Halen
Chris Squire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michael Anthony
Jon Anderson>>>>> David Lee Roth
Bill
Bruford>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alex Van Halen
Rick Wakeman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eddie
Van Halen
stephenJ
> On Apr 17, 3:22 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2:42 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes's "songs" were so turgid that they necessitated the existence of
>>>> punk - which was mostly for the bad.
>>> Punk was mostly for the good. The mid-1970s punk revolution was to
>>> rock what Impressionism was to painting: a decisively liberating
>>> development that not only was richly rewarding in itself, but also
>>> opened to the door to a long sequence of further artistic evolution
>>> that would not have occurred but for that first bold step.
>>> Punk led to new wave, postpunk, hardcore, indie, alternative, grunge,
>>> and subgenres of each.
>> IOW's, mostly for the bad. And we can thank Yes, the original
>> inspiration for punk. Kind of like the Monarchy was the inspiration for
>> the Great Terror.
>
> Yes are infinitely more talented than Van Halen
there are as many, no more, good songs on VH1 as in the entire yes 1970s
catalog.
Eric Ramon
aren't you known as Raja the Wanker in the Beatles newgroup?
Whisper
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 6:04 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>>>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit
>>>>> heavyweight
>>>>> champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it was) ... this is
>>>>> it for rock n roll:
>>>>> 1956-1963: elvis
>>>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>>>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>>>>> 1978-1984: van halen
>>>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>>> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever, no
>>> one else is even close.
>
>>
>> If you think that Eddie Van Halen is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
>> then your opinion about anything related to the subject is going to be
>> ignored.
>
> EVH is obviously #1. Hendrix and Page are the only ones who could
> conceivably be ranked ahead of him, and only using the most generous
> criteria in their favor. Failure to acknowledge this proves your rock 'n
> roll irrelevancy.
>
>
EVH = Agassi. Not surprised you like him. Is it the long hair? How do
you like vintage Bon jovi?
Whisper
Imo Police's worst song is better than VH's best.
stephenJ
opinions are like assholes ...
stephenJ
on every newsgroup.
DanS.
4/17/2010 in writing
> Punk was mostly for the good. The mid-1970s punk revolution was to
> rock what Impressionism was to painting: a decisively liberating
> development that not only was richly rewarding in itself, but also
> opened to the door to a long sequence of further artistic evolution
> that would not have occurred but for that first bold step.
Like no longer doing Punk.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
<<wise saying place-holder>>
The BorgMan
news:j26yn.88677$ao7....@newsfe21.iad:
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 8:27 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> You know, kind of like we can trace the lineage of the legit
>>> heavyweight champ all the way back to jack johnson (or whoever it
>>> was) ... this is it for rock n roll:
>>>
>>> 1956-1963: elvis
>>> 1964-1970: the beatles
>>> 1971-1977: led zeppelin
>>> 1978-1984: van halen
>>
>>
>> Yuck. Everything about Van Halen is completely overrated.
>
> that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
> no one else is even close.
You really have to limit your definition of "rock" to claim that...
I mean - EVH better than Hendrix? Not in a million years.
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
news:MPG.26330a373...@news-europe.giganews.com:
> [sja...@pop.com | stephenJ]
> [<j26yn.88677$ao7....@newsfe21.iad>]
> [Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:04:40 -0500]
>
>: that is beyond preposterous. EVH is the greatest rock guitarist ever,
>: no one else is even close.
>
> Steve Vai has chunks of EVH in his voluminous stool.
>
Steve Vai may the most technically gifter guitar player in the world. He
may also be the most boring.
See: Yngwie Malmsteen.
--
Aaron
The BorgMan
> that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
> masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those songs
> another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
>
There are a hundred guys who could have played and written those guitar
parts.
There aren't a hundred guys who could have written those songs.
EVH gets way more credit than he should as a guitarist, and less than he
should as a songwriter.
--
Aaron
The Ghost of Edward M. Kennedy
>> : that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
>> : masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those
>> songs
>> : another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have existed.
>>
>> For anyone arguing about EVH's taste, just consider that he married
>> Valerie
>> Bertinelli... discussion over.
>
> For anyone arguing about Valerie Bertinelli's taste,
> just consider that she married Eddie Van Halen...
> discussion over.
I bet Valerie Bertinelli tastes good.
--Tedward
Michael Press
The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
I prefer Jimi Hendryx's blues to his rock and roll.
John Lee Hooker has this to say.
You could tell he'd listened to me and a lot of other
blues singers, but everything he did sounded like Jimi
Hendrix. He's a genius. He was a monster. That Red
House, that'll make you grab your're mother and choke
her! Man, that's really hard, that tears you apart. He
could get down, he could mash it, yeah. Lord! He had so
many blues. I did Red House as a tribute to him, it's
my favorite. He could play the hard blues. Anybody can
put the clothes on, but everyone can't produce it. It's
got to come from the soul. He ws the greatest guitar
player that was ever born. I can't say enough about
him. He could play deep blues
--
Michael Press
stephenJ
i'm not sure why you'd say he gets too much credit as a guitarist. So
what if others can ape what he plays? That's true for just about any
musician. He was incredibly influential.
The BorgMan
news:Llgzn.67556$iu2....@newsfe15.iad:
> The BorgMan wrote:
>> stephenJ <sja...@pop.com> wrote in
>> news:svnyn.63891$iu2....@newsfe15.iad:
>>
>>> that largely misses the point: as steve vai once said, eddie was a
>>> masterful pop-rock songwriter. you couldn't just 'drop in'to those
>>> songs another guitarist because without evh the songs wouldn't have
>>> existed.
>>>
>>
>> There are a hundred guys who could have played and written those
>> guitar parts.
>>
>> There aren't a hundred guys who could have written those songs.
>>
>> EVH gets way more credit than he should as a guitarist, and less than
>> he should as a songwriter.
>
> i'm not sure why you'd say he gets too much credit as a guitarist.
Because he isn't that great of a guitarist.
> So
> what if others can ape what he plays? That's true for just about any
> musician. He was incredibly influential.
Yes, and that's a bad thing.
In general what he has "influencesd" has been a wart on the ass of music.
--
Aaron
Raja, The Great
> In article <Xns9D5F69C812E21082...@130.133.4.11>,
> The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote in
I always found Hendrix a bit one dimensional - stuck to the blues,
psychedelic stuff he was doing. But then he died very young to get a
chance play other stuff. Compare that to Jimmy Page, Steve Howe etc
who could play any type of guitar - blues, country, classical, folk,
psychedelic, you name it. Of course EVH is not even in the same ball
park. He is a neo classical wanker just like Steve Vai or Joe
Satriani. The only difference was EVH was in a band who wrote non-
instrumental songs.