The Great 7 bands

Those smilies.......

Current Standings have Van Halen at 42.31%, Beatles--30.77%, Doors--19.23%, The Who--7.69%, Rolling Stones, Led Zep, and Pink Floyd all tied with zero. What does this mean? Eddie rocks, but Roth is the proverbial turd in the punch bowl...

John's exact quote, in it's entirety, went as thus...

"The Beatles at this point are more famous than Jesus, and that's just a shame. What does that say about the world today? "

The point he was trying to make was that society puts more stock in pop culture than basic religious values. His commentary was aimed at the public, not himself or The Beatles. As usual, and has been the case for 40 years now, he is still being quoted out of context, by misinformed individuals, looking to prop up their own misguided agendas.

Anyone who would wear those riduculous jump-suits deserves a good kicking I reckon

That's Dave Lee Roth btw - not John Lennon!!

Which One's Pink, good to see you back.

I voted for the Beatles cause they are way overrated. Maybe they are better than Van Halen, (who can tell when it comes to shitty rock stars) but they get a lot of undue recognition.

"So what happened? Did you mess up and say your bigger than Jesus like the Beatles did?"

"Did we ever! That was the name of our second album."

Rolling Stones, nothing more than a pop band. mick jagger is the most overrated singer ever.

Me thinks some folks takes this way tooooo seroius......It's only rock and roll.....but I like it.

Not Now John - Bless your heart, you said what I meant at the very beginning...that the Beatles are not awful but they are really over-rated. They sell a ton of records-hence the recognition. And regardless of what John Lennon tried to say about his band-he is still not as great as people give him credit.

Also notice that no one yet has named as worse guitar player who is as popular as George Harrison-hence he is over-rated. Look at the 7 bands I started with (by the way they are not my choice-Van Halen is a very average band) -all 6 other guitar players are so much better than Harrison...Gilmour, Page, Townsend, Van Halen...no question...as for Krieger-he is light years away from Harrison-just listen to albums like Morrison Hotel and L.A. Woman. Keith Richards beats on him too...so thats my final take on the matter..

Also...I really do not think that harrison could play the My Guitar Gently Weeps solo-thats why he go ol' Eric to do it.

I think George could have played that solo easily. Just because he got a freind to play on a song of his doesen't mean he's a bad guitar player, not at all.

Addtionally, Paul was a better lead player than George. Listen to The End and you get all three guitarist's styles in three passes. But George was still good enough, in my opinion, to do the solo on While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

How about our own Syd Barrett? Granted, he's not as widely known as Harrison, but one of the Guitar mag's in their "100 greatest guitar players of all time" polls had Syd listed 33rd or so. Now everyone agrees with the influence Syd has had, but please, he was no great guitar player, in the context of all-time greats.
And I'm not sticking up for George exactly, cause I think all of his solo stuff is drivel. (and he stole 'My Sweet Lord', which he needn't have since it sucked; esp. when the Motown broads did it [he's so Fine]). But I think Harrison was probably a good player, and I will concede--maybe a tad overrated. (which always happens in the press right after a death)

You know, he's got a point.

Everyone on this site is constantly arguing about the merits of the solo Floyd's, but take a look at the solo Beatles. Nothing but crap. Of course, that's my opinion, and God knows I'm extremely bias toward the Floyds, so take it thru a filter. Just a thought.

Yeah, I agree with you somewhat there, too. There are a couple good songs, like Lennon's Imagine and Harrison's My Sweet Lord (which is still catchy, whether or not he ripped it off). But Paul went into ballads (ugghh) and Ringo just kinda disappeared.

OK... I've sat by idly and tried not to get too involved here, not good for my blood pressure. I am a HUGE Beatles fan, have been since 1966. IMO George is one of the greats. Like our man Dave his gift, if you will, is not what he plays but what he chooses not to play.

Any jackass can shred (E VH) with a little practice and enough tequila. As I stated earlier, Eddie is a consumate technician, but has no soul. As those of us who play know so well, that 6 stringed beast that hangs at our waist is probably the single most expressive instrument ever consieved. Eddie is just a waste of amps. He could do so much more.

Now the question placed before us "Who is worse that George but as famous" is an unfair question. We may as well ask what mountain is easier to climb, but just as tall as Everest? Nothing is as tall, dipstick. George's fame is hard to equate. I will grant you that there are better players than George ( Nobody has mentioned Stevie Ray yet, so I will) but none so famous.

I will throw one out thre though (Good call on Syd, Stratman)... How about Bob Dylan?

As far as I know, Dylan was never regarded as a guitar player by trade, as was Harrison. He plays guitar, but that isn't what they stick by his name in the liner notes.