neo o
it's coming to me...
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 3,294
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
They were just THAT good.mcdickpants 2.5 said:wait why do you have the beatles AND lennon and mccartney?
They were just THAT good.mcdickpants 2.5 said:wait why do you have the beatles AND lennon and mccartney?
Metallica aren't that bad, but they haven't redefined music in any way shape or form. To begin with, they were just another Bay Area thrash group (though one of the best by far) and now they are just another nu-metal/rock group.mcdickpants 2.5 said:he's right
metallica suck it
no way are they the best musicians of all time
don't even get me started on metallica. they are JUST the ones that i think should deserve the title, simply because metallica kicked ass and changed the sound of metal forever. The kind of blues and heavymetal coined up into one. Kirk Hammett is also the disciple of Joe Satriani that's why i like a lot of his solos and song structure from Kill'em All to Black.mcdickpants 2.5 said:he's right
metallica suck it
no way are they the best musicians of all time
those bands you mentioned have changed the rock sound today and are responsible for a lot of shitty bands like Jet and The Hives etc.AsyLum said:they never changed the sound of metal ever...
Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, The Who, The Beatles, Queen, Def Leppard, and basically that whole 70's movement changed metal.
Metallica are good, but not revolutionary.
you have to agree there- how can you appreciate pete townsend after what he was accussed of doing (guilty or not) anyway??Auto Wah said:what did THE WHO do anyway?? all they did was smashing their guitar accidentally in a show then start the whole smashing their gear after each show thing. Plus Pete Townsend is a pedophile
thats fucking stupidAuto Wah said:Plus Pete Townsend is a pedophile
awesome, and by your nick i can tell you probably have awesome taste in flims too.victor..cleaner said:yeah i'm kinda interested in this whole idea of rating musicians....
back in late 1999, rolling stone mag, published a huge special all about the decade of music that was the 90's. then when it came to naming their 'artist of the decade' they said that kurt cobain ( someone who was only alive for 4 years of the decade) was worthy of the title...
i reckon that because music is so diverse, constantly evolving, that the only people that can be said to be the greatest musicians are those who made a significant contribution. which would rule out some of your favourite artists who are simply here because you like them. that also rules me out in judging who is worthy for such a list.
i reckon that so far mcdickpants 2.5 has the right idea, go along with his example
your other option is to post a '10 fav muso'c thread'
sarcasm, right?thejosiekiller said:you have to agree there- how can you appreciate pete townsend after what he was accussed of doing (guilty or not) anyway??
mcdickpants 2.5 said:thats fucking stupid
you're going to discredit the who's contribution to music because one of their members may or may not have been a pedophile?
well since its pretty much been proven that he was researching for a book.Auto Wah said:When you like a band they are like your heroes, everything they do is cool to you. A fucking pedophile is NOT COOL. Unless to you of course.
dude he's got like tones of that kiddie porn in his computer, and when asked why, he said it was for art purpose. Lamest excuse ever!!! that's what RollingStone Magazine told me anyway.Mojoman said:well since its pretty much been proven that he was researching for a book.
do you really think if he was guilty, he wouldnt be in jail, and able to travel to australia?
this was from the first albums threadAuto Wah said:You're a genius that's what you are!!Lundy said:Michael Jackson - Dangerous. I only bought it because I liked the cover.