Buckets of Rain

How about getting your own avatar?

Okay.

Highway 61 Revisited is the best album ever IMO.

That's my second favorite! (Well, probably tied with Blonde on Blonde.)

Mine would have to be "Blood On the Tracks." But I think "Planet Waves" is underrated.

Leonard Bernstein.

Ooh, nice choice.

Mine would be Leonard Cohen.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

......what???.....

My favorite so far has been Speakerboxxx/The Love Below.

Great album.

Hey man I didn't say anything about heroin or weight loss, all i said is that he looks coked out in the pictures. How did this turn into a big discussion? Honestly...

If you don't think Axl is doing coke you are in denial.

axl is as many of us now know bi-polar and probably manic-depressive and there are these things called MEDICATION that people take. i have two friends who are bi-polar and when they take their medication they look the same as axl, their eyes get watery and they lose energy. look at axl's eyes at RIR5 and you will see this, they look very glazed over. this is medication my friends. do you think beta and all the others who are constantly around him would be letting him do coke or heroin? i very much doubt it. she's like a mother figure to him, and i don't think my mother would sit there and support me if i were doing coke and heroin.

axl lost weight because after 2002 he took up kickboxing and went on a diet. it sounds like people are making assumptions based on the fact that he "looks" like he's on drugs - well yes, he is on drugs, PRESCRIPTION drugs. my friends said they often refuse to take their drugs because it makes them feel WORSE than before they take them.

keep in mind he probably has other conditions as well...and low blood sugar...? could he be diabetic?????/

MTV doesn't care about Axl anymore. He won't be at the VMA's.

Considering it was the highest-rated (i.e. most-watched) performance in MTV history (go look it up if you don't believe me), and MTV spokespeople said they were "thrilled" with the response, and it became one of their highest-selling performance videos (sold through the MTV website on VHS) after its air date, I seriously doubt that.

AXLS DISILLUSION FOR MOD!!!!!

I TOTALLY AGREE 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

The Rolling Stones had a sound entirely different from The Beatles, and no webpage can prove against it. The rest comes to opinion, like always. I really don't fucking like Led Zeppelin anymore so it's a sore spot for me. The way I see it we had The Stones, and then Sabbath. Those were the two major innovators in my mind (up to that point).

It does seem however, that you put a little too much stock in criticism, sales, and marketing. It doesn't really amount to shit in my mind. So keep on arguing it.

I don't like Led Zeppelin all that much anyway. I prefer The Rolling Stones.

It does seem however, that you put a little too much stock in criticism, sales, and marketing.

Only to elaborate the point that they were initially marketed as a counter-part to The Beatles: a "bad boy" version. So whether or not their sound eventually differed vastly from The Beatles, their early work is more pop oriented (such as their self-titled album) and they were cashing in on the Brit-pop movement begun by the Beatles. Even Mick and Keith would admit this. If The Beatles hadn't existed, Rolling Stones never would have had an impact in the US, because teenagers back then were fascinated with British bands BECAUSE of the Beatles.

I also prefer Stones to the Beatles in many regards. But when the Beatles had great songs they had great fucking songs. Come Together and While My Guitar Gently Weeps are both top favorites of mine.

Hahahaha!! The title and first post of this thread crack me up.

...No one will judge you Buckets. Its okay.

i am confident in my sexuality shia. i'm a big loving machine bred to please the women out there in a sensual and exciting manner!!! oh yeah

baaaaaad tracklist.

I agree, no Live Forever????

For me it's Sticky Fingers. Or Exile on Main Street.

::::::::::::.......oh........................ok.....then.....................

just...........:::::.... don't......type.......with........lots of periods....::.;:::...:::

All right then my dear fellow, I surely will oblige!

(........was that good 4 u/........??????)

NOW: back on topic..............................................................

mine would be Sonata No 2 Op 35 in b-flat minor - Finale, Presto from The Chopin Collection. Excellent album, highly recommended.

sixtus?

.......no..........

Were you around when The Rolling Stones emerged? They jumped on the Brit-pop sensation sparked by The Beatles. They were marketed by their label as a counter-part to The Beatles: one critic described them as "the bad Beatles." Tom Wolfe wrote in 1965 a summary that "The Beatles want to hold your hand, but The Stones want to burn your thumb". If they were not similar, they would never have been counter-marketed or compared in any way, shape or form. And Paul McCartney's quote still stands, unless you want to discredit a Beatle with decades of musical experience under his belt. This quote, by the way, was said before the Rolling Stones performed at the Superbowl this year.

That's bullshit, they were entirely different from The Beatles.

http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/Beatles.html

http://www.artistfacts.com/getArtistfacts....olling%20Stones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_stones

The Rolling Stones invented Hard Rock, they made it into a riff-based music.

http://www.scaruffi.com/history/cpt27.html

Do you know what longevity even means?

Yes. Do you?

The Rolling Stones have been going strong for over 40 years, throughout lineup changes and all.

And many, many critics and listeners have labeled them as "sell-outs" within the past twenty years or so. Longevity is not just a matter of how many years one can go without collapsing - it's a matter of quality. It doesn't matter if The Rolling Stones could go another twenty years - their albums haven't been up to par.

How could there be a Led Zeppelin without The Stones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin

Formed in 1968, Led Zeppelin were innovators who never lost their mainstream appeal. While the band are perhaps best known as pioneers of hard rock and heavy metal, their music also included disparate elements from an eclectic spectrum, including blues, rockabilly, soul, funk, Celtic, Indian, Arabic, and Latin music.

Very simple: Like I said they invented Hard Rock. Popularity? Fuck Popularity. I don't even care about that. The Rolling Stones didn't make bad records.

That may very well be your opinion, but it is not one shared by many. General critical and public reaction to their records throughout the 1980s and 1990s was dire.

Take a look at the section "Mixed emotions: 1981-1999" on Wikipedia. Or look up some album reviews of theirs from the archives. Not only did the album sales plummet, so did the critical praise.

A Bigger Bang has been their best-reviewed album in years - and would you even begin to compare it to any of their work from the '60s or '70s?

They're a good rock n' roll band that helped pave the way for future bands of their kind - but they didn't "invent" hard rock and certainly haven't stumbled along the way. Furthermore, the general public and critics alike would rank The Beatles higher on any given day - the Beatles are inarguably more influential - widely regarded as the most popular and influental band ever.

The Stones are a cool band and you're free to consider them YOUR favorite band, but please don't exaggerate how much of an impact they had.

That's bullshit, they were entirely different from The Beatles. The Rolling Stones invented Hard Rock, they made it into a riff-based music. Do you know what longevity even means? The Rolling Stones have been going strong for over 40 years, throughout lineup changes and all. How could there be a Led Zeppelin without The Stones? Like I said they invented Hard Rock. Popularity? Fuck Popularity. I don't even care about that. The Rolling Stones didn't make bad records.

The Rolling Stones are better than Led Zeppelin in terms of creativity, musicianship, songwriting, and on stage performance.

That is fact, and Buckets of Rain is wrong.

I do believe taste is subjective, my dear friend. And I do believe judging by the way history has been written, most music historians would disagree with you. And judging purely by their critical reaction, Led Zeppelin always garnered stronger reviews for their work whereas The Stones first got mixed reviews in the '60s, then got HORRIBLE reviews in the '80s and '90s. And I do believe Led Zeppelin was always acknowledged as a far more "creative" band than the Stones. And one need only do a bit of research on the Internet to realize this....

......by now we all know this is the closest we've ever been to a release for cd....but my question is.....are you letting your hopes up or remaining skeptical? until we get a firm release date?

personally i've been burned by gn'r so many times by now i take everything with a grain of salt...........but i am really "feeling it" this time, i have heard november is very possible, seems interesting.....what do you think?

are you letting this get you excited or keeping hold on yourself? do you think this will be the big year for GN'R? and finally, just HOW the hell did gilbert gottfried get famous in the first place??????

The Beatles were an overrated pop band. I don't know why everyone thinks they're so great.

They have ears.

Anyway, in terms of influence, longevity, and just about everything else, The Rolling Stones are greater than Led Zeppelin ever were.

Sorry, Stones are (well, "were") a great rock band for their time, but as Paul McCartney once said, they just copied everything the Beatles did, and did it a little bit after them. The only thing the Stones did differently was infuse a passion of blues into their music. But in terms of longevity, influence and popularity, Led Zeppelin outweigh them - and if you were to conduct a poll across the world Led Zeppelin would probably come out on top. Led Zeppelin were bigger during their time and they didn't make as many bad records as the Stones did.

The Stones should have stopped at the end of the 1970s.

ok...didnt want to say anything cos im huge axl fan.....but i read up on this and it seems that when you have facial surgery of some sorts and botox it can make your skin not tan as easily...so maybe thats the neck mark??? i have noticed his face is very "pale" compared to how he used to look, i thought it was just because he was a redhead and redheads usually dont tan well, but who knows???

oh well he still looks GREAT!!! cant wait for us tour........

theres a great fanmade video for THE BLUES on youtube...and one for better.......but its kinda corny...........

Larger Image (1280x960)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g2/amandarlc/axl.jpg

this proves once and for all to the naysayers that he didnt have plastic surgery or anything, he looks so cool there. i'm not gay but if i had to go gay i'd want that. theres a video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H00pFVf1yXQ...php%3Ft%3D16963

FAG

Dude u better get urself checked out, u have fucking issues!

I BELIEVE CALLING SOMEONE A FAG IS HATEFUL AND MEAN-SPIRITED! WATCH YOUR MOUTH. IT'S NOT NICE AND I'M SURE IT'S NOT PERMITTED ON THIS OR ANY OTHER FORUM THAT ISN'T RUN BY BIG FAT REDNECKS LIKE "URSELF."

P.S. I'm not gay.

No. and i would kill myself if that ever happened.