Rolling Stone Strikes Again

[Seshmeister]

Gaga is the most talented of your list.

[conmee]

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.

Icon©®™

[little_dreamer]

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]

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]

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]

Rolling Stone= bird cage liner

[VHscraps]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Damn Scraps, worthy post there.