SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 21 2009 12:50 am

FUCK ROLLING STONE.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 01:00 am

I dunno, I have a mixed opinion on Rolling Stone. I don't have a radio & I have dial-up, so reading Rolling Stone is basically my only source of finding new music. Granted, I've found some of my favorite bands through Rolling Stone (Crystal Castles, Silversun Pickups, Santogold, etc.) but the majority of the crap that RS tries to popularize is either folk twee drivel that I simply have no interest in or pretentious electro-rap side projects (note: N.E.R.D. = Fail.)

Posted: Jan 21 2009 01:02 am

N.E.R.D had the one good song.

And I just wanted to make it clear that my hatred of Rolling Stone will not stop me from doing an interview. I'll do an interview because need actual musicians on the cover once in a while (I'm looking at you Jonas Brothers).

I ain't no sellout.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 01:19 am

Hey, AC/DC was on the cover not too long ago, so there you go.
EDIT: ...meaning that AC/DC aren't sellouts.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 06:20 am

Rolling Stone is alright. But anytime they try to compile a list, it almost always garbage. And don't get me wrong. They covered most of the better guitarists in this list. But the order is bullshit. I just can't understand how they could leave Slash off the list. I can see how they could miss Chet Atkins, but in reality, he probablly belongs in the top ten.

Posted: Jan 21 2009 08:51 am

This list is really old. I remember we discussed this like 2 years ago and the pertinent question was asked: Who's dick did Jack White have to suck to be put as #17 on that list?

Posted: Jan 21 2009 04:56 pm

What? I thought I had that conversation at school with my buddies after I read it. haha

Posted: Jan 22 2009 12:48 pm

So many on the list are great songwriters (Cobain) or great musicians over all (Joni Mitchell) or very entertaining, but this should be about skill, technical ability, and only about the guitar. I mean no Petruchi, no Satrani, no Yngwie, no Criss Oliva, eddie so far down on the list, no Buckethead. It just sucks ass, like Rolling Stone has done for over a decade now. No Leifson for God Sakes. Fucking shitty ass popularity contest.

Posted: Jan 22 2009 04:28 pm

King wrote:

So many on the list are great songwriters (Cobain) or great musicians over all (Joni Mitchell) or very entertaining, but this should be about skill, technical ability, and only about the guitar. I mean no Petruchi, no Satrani, no Yngwie, no Criss Oliva, eddie so far down on the list, no Buckethead. It just sucks ass, like Rolling Stone has done for over a decade now. No Leifson for God Sakes. Fucking shitty ass popularity contest.

Well, it was called greatest and not best. So its hard to say what they think constitutes greatness. Impact, influence, popularity, legacy, and other things of the sort may have been important in their decision. This is why I don't have a problem with Buckethead not being on the list.

Posted: Jan 22 2009 05:38 pm

King wrote:

So many on the list are great songwriters (Cobain) or great musicians over all (Joni Mitchell) or very entertaining, but this should be about skill, technical ability, and only about the guitar. I mean no Petruchi, no Satrani, no Yngwie, no Criss Oliva, eddie so far down on the list, no Buckethead. It just sucks ass, like Rolling Stone has done for over a decade now. No Leifson for God Sakes. Fucking shitty ass popularity contest.

Oh holy damn, I didn't even notice the lack of Alex Lifeson. That is a fucking travesty, man.

Posted: Jan 22 2009 11:21 pm

If it's greatest in terms of impact and innovation, then there is absolutely no doubt that Eddie should be #1 with Hendrix right behind.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 03:19 am

Ross Rifle wrote:

If it's greatest in terms of impact and innovation, then there is absolutely no doubt that Eddie should be #1 with Hendrix right behind.

I'm not defending them because their list sucks, but I'm sure they considered much more than that. But regardless, Eddie should be a lot closer to the top, no matter what.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 04:55 am

Oh you can defend their list if you wanted, I don't care. My point here is that while I'll allow anyone to argue with me about Eddie's position as best guitarist ever, I will not, under any circumstances, allow someone to tell me he is not the most innovative guitarist TO EVER LIVE.
Just in case someone tries to fuck with me for fun, let us review:
* Tapping to the popular masses
* THE guitar style of the eighties
* Floyd Rose tremolo
* Customized guitars
* A lifelong quest to find his tone
* Synth pop/rock/metal
* He made rock and metal FUN, something it was severely lacking.
* The songs would be shitty pop tunes without his playing (this one's arguable)
* The ol' 'cigarette in the headstock' look
* Brought attention to indie guitar companies
* How about when guitar-based rock died with Hendrix is 1970, he not only brought it back to life, he shot it lightyears ahead of where it ever would've been, and the way guitars are looked at will never be the same because of him.

Thank you.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 07:30 am

Ross Rifle wrote:

the most innovative guitarist TO EVER LIVE.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 10:21 am

also I don't think I say Glenn Tipton or KK Downing, one of the first with the dual guitar leads, I mean come on.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 01:46 pm

King wrote:

also I don't think I say Glenn Tipton or KK Downing, one of the first with the dual guitar leads, I mean come on.

Don't forget Thin Lizzy, too, they were also one of the first.

Posted: Jan 23 2009 10:36 pm

FUCK ROLLING STONE.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

I would have to say that Rick Nielson from Cheap Trick was bringing back guitar innovation way before Eddie was. He may not be the most skilled, but Eddie isn't really known as THE most skilled guitarist of all time, but he is quite innovative and popular, and that's why I would never flat out disagree with Ross in a guitar conversation other than this.

Oh yeah, and Fuck Rolling Stone t-shirts should already be pressed by now. Amiright or amiright?

Posted: Jan 24 2009 12:19 am

joshwoodzell wrote:

I would have to say that Rick Nielson from Cheap Trick was bringing back guitar innovation way before Eddie was. He may not be the most skilled, but Eddie isn't really known as THE most skilled guitarist of all time, but he is quite innovative and popular, and that's why I would never flat out disagree with Ross in a guitar conversation other than this.

Oh yeah, and Fuck Rolling Stone t-shirts should already be pressed by now. Amiright or amiright?

You gotta make sure it says 'Rolling Stone Magazine' so you don't get jumped for people thinking you mean 'fuck the Stones'.

Posted: Jan 24 2009 12:29 am

Fuck the Stones.

Firstly, I'm a Beatles fan.

Secondly, when the Stones came to Charlottesville, it took me 3 hours to get home from work...and, at the time, I only lived about 5 miles from work.

Thirdly, I can never listen to "Beast of Burden" and not think, "I'll never drive a pink Suburban."

Fuck the Stones.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Hey I like the Beatles too but I don't HATE the Stones. I can find plenty of things to hate about both of them.

First off, I hate how Mick Jagger finds it necessary to dance like a jabberwocky while the rest of the band behaves like serious musicians. I hate the silly rivalry that affected them in the 80's, causing a brash of horrible solo albums, and Jaggers horrible Jet-Set attitude.

I hate how people give the Beatles credit for spawning the rebirth of rock and roll. They didn't. I despise their holier than thou attitude and the fact that every album after Revolver was basically John and Paul tripping balls and throwing their stupid acid influenced ideas around to the rest of the band, and the world, as if it's revolutionary. It wasn't, and 90% of it was trash. Other than that, I liked Abbey Road, Rubber Soul and 40% of The White Album.

Posted: Jan 24 2009 12:44 am

Are we not allowed to like the Beatles and the Stones?

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

No way, I like both. I was just pointing out things I disliked about both of them. I really do like The Beatles more though.

Posted: Jan 24 2009 12:51 am

You can like the Stones and the Beatles, but it's something like the quandary that Mia Wallace presents in Pulp Fiction:

"...there are only two kinds of people in the world, Beatles people and Elvis people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis and Elvis people can like the Beatles, but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice, tells you who you are."

Think what you will about the Beatles, but 90% is a large percent to consider crap. I like it all.

Posted: Jan 24 2009 12:53 am

joshwoodzell wrote:

No way, I like both. I was just pointing out things I disliked about both of them. I really do like The Beatles more though.

I meant Milhouse's first reason for not liking the Stones was that he was a Beatles fan. Why would that be a reason for not liking the Stones? I'm not saying he should like them. If he doesn't like 'em, he doesn't like 'em. It just sounds like he is only allowed to like one or the other.