PDA

View Full Version : Rolling Stone Strikes Again



Antman
06-12-2011, 12:49 PM
Just saw the special issue of their Greatest 100 Bands of All Time. Guess who is absent from this list?

Unchainme
06-12-2011, 12:56 PM
The Clash? Bruce Springsteen?

....

Seriously that rag has always hated CVH, (and Rush, Kiss and Aerosmith for that matter). Not a shock.

VAiN
06-12-2011, 01:06 PM
Grateful Dead? U2?

sadaist
06-12-2011, 01:18 PM
Just saw the special issue of their Greatest 100 Bands of All Time. Guess who is absent from this list?



Maybe VH is like Jesus Christ. You don't put Jesus in a list of the 100 greatest prophets.

;)

sadaist
06-12-2011, 01:19 PM
PS Antman...I thanked your post because you DID NOT include the link. Usually it's the opposite here. Links required. But in this instance I am glad you didn't include a link to that shit rag.

chefcraig
06-12-2011, 01:32 PM
Who cares? This "list" was created 7 years ago and is only being rehashed because it has been a slow week for music news. The same arguments get made every time Rolling Stone fobs one of these page-filling wastes of time on the public, so by now they should be greeted with a yawn of indifference. Ignore the damned thing, it wasn't worth getting worked up over the last time.

Unchainme
06-12-2011, 01:45 PM
Can we make our own list?

seriously.

I think this could be done. Of course there'd be some bias towards the mighty VH, but it would still be an interesting list to see. All of our musical tastes are pretty damn diverse, moreso than RS!

sadaist
06-12-2011, 02:47 PM
Can we make our own list?

seriously.

I think this could be done. Of course there'd be some bias towards the mighty VH, but it would still be an interesting list to see. All of our musical tastes are pretty damn diverse, moreso than RS!

No shit. I am still surprised at what many posters here enjoy. I for one really like Colin Hay. Some of the stuff Ford posts is way out there and I think Binnie craps thrash metal. The guitar heads listen to some pretty diverse characters too.

Yeah, fuck Rolling Stone magazine.

Unchainme
06-12-2011, 02:55 PM
No shit. I am still surprised at what many posters here enjoy. I for one really like Colin Hay. Some of the stuff Ford posts is way out there and I think Binnie craps thrash metal. The guitar heads listen to some pretty diverse characters too.

Yeah, fuck Rolling Stone magazine.

I've got Fleetwood Mac, NWA, Kanye West along with Motley Crue, Van Halen and the old stand bys.

seriously, I want to see if we can get this started. Don't know how the ballot would look, but somebody could work something out.

riggodrill44
06-12-2011, 03:07 PM
How the Classic Van Halen lineup could not make anyone's Top 10 Bands of all time list would show a lack of musical knowledge... or a bias. I backup this opinion with the following facts...

1. CVH sold 10s of millions of records.
2. Their tours were sold out everywhere they played. Out West, down South, up North, back East. Didn't matter. The people spoke with their dollars.
3. They heavily influenced music videos and how they are made. (My 14 year old daughter wanted to share with me a video by her favorite band, Escape the Fate. Good band, btw. It was a total ripoff of Hot for Teacher. Video was made in like 2008).
4. Eddie Van Halen is in the top 3 most significant rock guitarists of all time.
5. The infiltration of keyboards on heavy airplay songs on their last album changed how keyboards were used in a "rock" band.
6. David Lee Roth took the role of "front man" to a before unimagined place.

Music from the 6 pack still sounds fresh... 30 years later. That's why teenagers/young adults come up to me when I'm wearing my VHI logo t-shirt in public and give me the thumbs up. Think that would happen with an REM or Clash t-shirt? (Sorry if I offended any REM or Clash fans on this board. But... c'mon... those dudes put iced tea in Jack Daniels bottles!)

SunisinuS
06-12-2011, 03:23 PM
Rolling Stone only likes The Rolling Stones and the rotating shit punk band that is the FOTM. No surprises here, move along...nothing to see here.

FORD
06-12-2011, 05:15 PM
Nothing wrong with the Rolling Stones or punk bands. Or the Rolling Stones trying to be a punk band, for that matter.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Hrt2xCgDA

SunisinuS
06-12-2011, 06:24 PM
Nothing wrong with the Rolling Stones or punk bands. Or the Rolling Stones trying to be a punk band, for that matter.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Hrt2xCgDA

I knew you would say that. I agree. But you love the rolling stones more than I could ever. I love "Ain't talking about love" as it sticks it in the stones face. Let any one of their many axe-slingers cover a single Van Halen Riff...and you will see Keith...sucking in his own dentures.

I am sorry I am a Rocker: Not a punk.

BITEYOASS
06-13-2011, 12:25 AM
Let me guess, RS ranked Bob Dylan as it's No. 1 band. The music critics who work for that rag would give an album with nothing but Bob Dylan's fart noises five stars if they could.

GreenBayLA
06-13-2011, 05:17 AM
Yes but I remember Eddie scoring quite high on the Rolling Stone top 100 greatest guitar players; 70th! :fufu: Getting beat out by real innovators like #16 Johnny Ramone of the Ramones or #23 Warren Haynes who is no doubt a good player but can the average fan name one song or hum one riff he wrote? No. Rolling Stone is like SNL, living off their past.

Seshmeister
06-13-2011, 08:02 AM
Who cares? This "list" was created 7 years ago and is only being rehashed because it has been a slow week for music news. The same arguments get made every time Rolling Stone fobs one of these page-filling wastes of time on the public, so by now they should be greeted with a yawn of indifference. Ignore the damned thing, it wasn't worth getting worked up over the last time.

To be honest 7 years ago I don't think they deserved to be on the list.

Eddie lying on the stage drunk out his mind with Hagar singing Up for Breakfast to empty arenas?

I wouldn't have voted for them.

sadaist
06-13-2011, 08:29 AM
To be honest 7 years ago I don't think they deserved to be on the list.

Eddie lying on the stage drunk out his mind with Hagar singing Up for Breakfast to empty arenas?

I wouldn't have voted for them.


That was indeed a heartbreaking tour to watch. But you have to base it on their full career span. Without Appetite do you think GnR would stand a chance on any list anywhere? Look at all the fucking bullshit they have pulled since one great album made Axls ego larger than Godzilla...and the paying fans were just citizens of Tokyo. RAWR!

chefcraig
06-13-2011, 08:37 AM
To be honest 7 years ago I don't think they deserved to be on the list.

Eddie lying on the stage drunk out his mind with Hagar singing Up for Breakfast to empty arenas?

I wouldn't have voted for them.

To a certain percent, I'd agree, yet this would discount the Roth years. The Beatles were number one on the list, yet broke up in 1970. Say the same for Led Zeppelin (#14), a band that stopped working two decades before. Hell, Elvis, Hendrix, Ray Charles, Bob Marley and Buddy Holly made the top 15, despite being somewhat dead at the time. This would imply VH was being punished for outliving their legacy. In other words, being deceased and legendary trumps being alive and irrelevant.

Seshmeister
06-13-2011, 10:34 AM
They took a flame thrower to their legacy for 20 years.

How many bands on the list made it embarrassing to say you liked them or made you have to always qualify it?

'I like early Van Halen'.

It's tiresome particularly when they were reaching such new lows of shit 7 years ago

How many people say 'I like Gary Glitter but only the early years'?

chefcraig
06-13-2011, 10:55 AM
The thing is, in the preamble (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231) to the list, RS mentions who created it. It's quite revealing.

In 2004 — 50 years after Elvis Presley walked into Sun Studios and cut "That's All Right" — Rolling Stone celebrated rock & roll's first half-century in grand style, assembling a panel of 55 top musicians, writers and industry executives (everyone from Keith Richards to ?uestlove of the Roots) and asking them to pick the most influential artists of the rock & roll era. The resulting list of 100 artists, published in two issues of Rolling Stone in 2004 and 2005, and updated in 2011, is a broad survey of rock history, spanning Sixties heroes (the Beatles) and modern insurgents (Eminem), and touching on early pioneers (Chuck Berry) and the bluesmen who made it all possible (Howlin' Wolf).

The essays on these top 100 artists are by their peers: singers, producers and musicians. In these fan testimonials, indie rockers pay tribute to world-beating rappers (Vampire Weekend's Ezra Koenig on Jay-Z), young pop stars honor stylistic godmothers (Britney Spears on Madonna) and Billy Joel admits that Elton John "kicks my ass on piano." Rock & roll is now a music with a rich past. But at its best, it is still the sound of forward motion. As you read this book, remember: This is what we have to live up to.


So the list was compiled not by fans exactly, but by people who work within the industry itself. Considering the continuous back-biting, petty jealousies, outright corruption and substance abuse inhabiting this world, is it any surprise how things turned out? By and large it seems to be built entirely on envy or ignorance, and at times displays an overwhelming influence of both at the same time.

Van Halen fans should not be all that upset for being left out, as Queen, Creedence, Fleetwood Mac, B.B. King, Pink Floyd, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Tom Waits...fuck, even Frank Sinatra for that matter, all failed to make the cut as well. And how in hell is the entire spectrum of jazz covered by only including Miles Davis and Louis Jordan? Seriously, Louis Jordan?

Matt White
06-13-2011, 11:16 AM
Rolling Stone is run by Old Hippies & young Emo fans................

They've NEVER been the experts on "Rock 'n' Roll".......all "Show" & no "Go"..............

It's ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT....minus the old bearded movie critic

chefcraig
06-13-2011, 01:16 PM
They took a flame thrower to their legacy for 20 years.

How many bands on the list made it embarrassing to say you liked them or made you have to always qualify it?

'I like early Van Halen'.

It's tiresome particularly when they were reaching such new lows of shit 7 years ago

How many people say 'I like Gary Glitter but only the early years'?

More and more, this really points out what a disservice it was not changing the band's name when Hagar joined up. OK, I can see Eddie's "Fuck you, it's my name..." point, but it also brings into relief some indignant petulance on his part, reasoning that he was entirely responsible for the group's success. VH may or may have not have gotten by with his whiz-bang guitar playing alone, but David Lee Roth's presence surely put them over the top. And more truthfully, people most likely wouldn't have ever heard of Roth without Eddie Van Halen, as neither's success was mutually exclusive.

Renaming the band would have eliminated the absurd notion that half the group's catalog would be dismissed depending upon who just happened to be holding the microphone at a particular time. And the attempt at bringing in Gary Cherone completely put the final nail in the coffin, proving Ed simply wasn't up to the challenge of carrying things. So a decade goes by and what happens? Yup, yet another identity crisis, this time in the mind-numbingly goofy form of of nicknaming the "band" VHIV.

Christ, I hope these guys come up with a decent new album. By doing so, it will not quite dispel the certifiably absurd goings on of the past twenty years, but it would help. At this point, you have to wonder if things could possibly get any worse, legacy-wise.

binnie
06-13-2011, 01:35 PM
That's the sa truth of it, Chef.

I think management has a lot to do with it - look at Motley Crue before 'The Dirt': the word's 'washed up' spring to mind. A little bit of heritage and BANG they're cool again. For CVH, it would be a case of opening the vaults an letting the world remember how good they were.

rocking ron
06-13-2011, 02:54 PM
I like the Rolling Stones a lot, strange enough from begin 80's till now!!! Most "Stones" fans like the older stuff.

By the way, did you people know that they've NEVER played the (hit) single EMOTIONAL RESQUE from same named album LIVE during any concert !!!!!

I have some boots ( cd/dvd ) of this great band and also discussed this issue with some fans but nobody knows for sure.....:confused11:!!!!


And about those music lists, yes indeed, let's make our own top 10 of favourite bands , I mean a list without VH & DLR but our other fave's, must be interesting to see of anyone what they like!!!

I'm gonne make my top 10 right now and will post this later!!!:brainiac::

FORD
06-13-2011, 03:15 PM
I'd guess that the reason they never played "Emotional Rescue" live, is that Mick hates to use the falsetto voice on stage. Other songs with that style of singing, like "Fool to Cry" or "Worried About You" have been played live, but not very often.

And of course Mick's funniest falsetto never made it to the record at all........


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_z-tdwwGU

rocking ron
06-13-2011, 05:26 PM
Funny song indeed :happy0065:!!

And the video-clip, looks like JustLikeParadise footage and Mr Roth :hitch: is climbing that mountain ( same outfit !!! )

I like also Mick's solo stuff!!!!! I,ve seen them 5 times playing live and they'll still rocks !!! :theband:

Seshmeister
06-13-2011, 05:57 PM
That's the sa truth of it, Chef.

I think management has a lot to do with it

You only have to look at wonderful campaign of the publicity genius Ed married - embracing the modern tools of building a grass roots buzz on multiple internet social media platforms towards their dates in Australia.

Well at least she has done astrological charts of all the band members...

chefcraig
06-13-2011, 06:07 PM
Well at least she has done astrological charts of all the band members...

""If I've told them once, I've told them a thousand times...Van Halen first and puppet show last!"

Hardrock69
06-13-2011, 10:59 PM
That's about the way it goes. What do you wanna bet that if they sign any kind of distribution deal with one of the major labels, there will be huge fights over publicity and marketing....in that the major labels will want to publicize the shit out of it, but the sistaz will shoot that notion down in flames....:umm:

Golden AWe
06-14-2011, 10:25 AM
I'm guessing Sonny and Cher, The Jackson 5 and Coldplay along with Lady Gaga's turd implants made the list.

Seshmeister
06-14-2011, 11:17 AM
Gaga is the most talented of your list.

conmee
06-15-2011, 06:12 AM
Brethren and Sistren,

The Rolling Fucking Stones forever changed my life in the fall of 1980, whilst listening to She's So Cold, I heard "She's so goddam cold!" as part of the lyrics and I was shocked and thrilled at the same time. From that time forward I had my doubts about God who would make a woman so damn cold (Sesh by algebra and logarithmic functions disproved all higher powers last holiday). I also listened to Gimme Shelter tonight and still get chills when that gal's voice breaks up 2/3 the way through...

Wait... what's this thread about again? Heading back to the Muff Thread...

That is all.

Iconę«™

little_dreamer
06-17-2011, 09:52 PM
Classic Rock magazine ran a list of the 100 Greatest Singer/Songwriters of all time and featured Kate Bush, of all people. Roth and Van Halen were also missing from that list.

adena dodds
08-01-2011, 11:24 AM
It's all Sammy Hagars fault. I'll bet all the bands on the list never broke up or replaced the original lead singer, I'd be very surprised. I guarantee Journey isn't on that list either. To see Steve Perry get back with Journey would be the reunion of all reunions....Like the second comming of Christ I swear! Before Dave it was Steve Perry and no one, I say no one can ever have a voice like his in rock and roll. And there will never will be another voice like his in rock and roll.....His was that of Heaven and all the choirs of angles......

ian_hitmanhart
10-23-2011, 12:53 PM
Van Halen don't have a place on the Rolling Stone top 100 bands list. Van Halen are the antithesis of the type of journalists that write for that shit magazine. They are all frustrated musicians, who's idea of charisma is Chris Martin and Bono. I'm glad they don't give VH any credit. If it was 1979, then thats fair enough. But what influence does Rolling Stone have in 2011? Terrible magazine.

Diamondjimi
10-23-2011, 01:21 PM
Rolling Stone= bird cage liner :shiznit:

VHscraps
10-23-2011, 04:58 PM
You gotta remember that Rolling Stone magazine operates under the tyranny of Cool - i.e., they are always trying to be on the side of what they think is cool, has street cred - and all the rest of that bollocks.

But what you gotta also remember dudes is that despite Eddie's 'gear-whoring' (I personally don't care if he sells guitars and amps, etc., but I know some do), VH actually have more street cred than most of those bands who are continually inflating their own self-worth via hagiographic documentaries, extended re-release editions of their classic albums with accompanying texts to the effect of their momentous impact on culture.

Van Halen are rock and roll - or at least they were until Hagar ruined it. I agree with Seshmeister that if anything lends further to the possibility that declaring a likeness for VH is uncool, it is the thought that you'd be misunderstood as saying you like Hagar.

What I find interesting about 'cool' and 'street cred' is how many of those artists are well-oiled commercial machines. VH, by contrast, have never really milked the fans like some kind of 'corporate' rock band. That's why we are all here complaining about the vaults needing to be opened - please, VH sisters, we implore, exploit us with all your outtakes and second-rate helpings.

But, no, the truth is that VH actually stand pretty much alone in having some integrity, if you want to look at it like that (and I do). Milking the fans is what REM, U2, etc., and most other bands do. The thing is, Van Halen never courted the critics. They laughed in their faces. The critics didn't know how to take a band whose success they had no influence over - and then there's Roth, a guy that was probably smarter than any of the rock critics, or - indeed - any ten Michael Stipes, which is to say po-faced 'intellectual' rock types, who just come off as ... well, precious and kinda fake.

I have a 1984 copy of Rolling Stone, with the Van Halen on Tour piece. It's a great piece, but of course, it has the usual tone of how vulgar they are, and so on. But it provides a useful contrast. On the cover is Bob Dylan, who is the feature of some big fawning interview profile. The interviewer asks him lots of 'heavy' political stuff - cos, y'know, you need to be spouting that to have cred, man, especially back then in 84.

Now, I'm a big fan of Dylan, as it happens, and love lots of his stuff, but when you looked at his interview next to Roth's interview - it is Dylan that comes off as the monosyllabic numpty (scottish for 'idiot'), and Diamond Dave the intellectual. Dylan is probably just being his usual awkward self, but Dave is just being himself period. He isn't even trying to be smart - that's where someone like Michael Stipe just looks like a self-important twat. I have liked my fair share of REM, don't get me wrong, but Stipe is just a poseur. Dave is pure jive, REAL, and smart as fuck and un-pin-downable. He's better read, more knowledgeable about music, broader in his tastes and his life experience.

The music journo typically likes bands who confirm his 'cool' leanings - the right kind of influences. The other thing is that those lists are probably done by writers nominating their top ten bands / artists, or maybe even their top five. Then it is compiled from that.

Listen, man, was ABBA on that list? I bet not - right? But, hey, you can't tell me that they didn't write some of the finest pop music ever. But they ain't COOL ...

It's all fashion-motivated anyway. Back in Zeppelin's heyday they never got a good notice from Rolling Stone, but I bet they are high on the list now. There'll be lots of stuff on the list from the 90s, I bet, but pretty soon everyone is going to see that for the turd of a decade that it was.

One day, they will all bow down before the awesome power of albums like Women and Children First, which is more 'street' than any punk album of that era in my view.

Remember, dudes - Van Halen was the only act aside from the Sex Pistols to snub the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. I'd say that was cool.

Satan
10-23-2011, 07:56 PM
Can't fucking stand ABBA.Never could. But I wouldn't deny them a place on the list, because they were huge at the time, like it or not. Kinda like the Bee Gees in the late 70's. You can say disco was total shit, but you can't deny how much of that shit they sold.

ThatArtGuy
10-23-2011, 10:20 PM
Just saw the special issue of their Greatest 100 Bands of All Time. Guess who is absent from this list?

The Guess Who weren't on there either?

Terry
10-24-2011, 11:13 PM
Rolling Stone just missed the boat when it came to Van Halen.

The mag only began providing decent coverage and reviews after Hagar joined, and gave Roth a cover and interview in 1985 when he was just plain too big in the entertainment industry to ignore. The most the mag could offer in way of priase when Roth was in the band was that Eddie was a spectacular guitarist, but he was being held back by a buffoon frontman.

Not a big shock, though. The mag has always demonstrated a slant and bias in line with their trippy hippy dippy late 1960's mentality, along with a love of many New York bands. CVH weren't really representative of those molds. That's why whenever Lou Reed or Mick Jagger so much as fart, Wenner masturbates himself raw proclaiming how brilliant they are (and at their best they were, but truth be told both of them have put out a fair amount of shit as well).

mohican
10-25-2011, 02:44 AM
It's all Sammy Hagars fault. I'll bet all the bands on the list never broke up or replaced the original lead singer, I'd be very surprised.

I always believe that had Dave never left, VH would certainly be the most successful American rock band and would get the same level of respect as the Stones and Led Zep. As such, vh has been diluted and polluted by hagar and vh3.

twonabomber
10-25-2011, 04:47 AM
there's two things i'm tired of hearing about here.

Rolling Stone magazine

and

Melodicrock

we all know they are both full of worthless shit.

Hardrock69
10-28-2011, 06:30 AM
Damn Scraps, worthy post there.