NationStates Jolt Archive

This should be a fun one.

Me and Gum Tree were walking along to Subway tonight, and we got talking about this subject: Who is the best frontman for a band? How do you say who is the best? It was an interesting and very thoughtful conversation, and so now there needs to be a conclusion on who the best frontman is.

I'll include band name and things that they pioneered/were famous for, and you decide whose concert you would most want to have gone to.

Well ok then ... although I must warn you, Lemmy Kilmister will pwn this whole topic.

Well ok then ... although I must warn you, Lemmy Kilmister will pwn this whole topic.


Never heard of him, what did he do?

Never heard of him, what did he do?

He's the frontman of Motorhead.
I voted for Morrison(Primarily because I'm a long time Doors fan.) If not him, I would go for Iggy, or Hendrix.

He's the frontman of Motorhead.
I voted for Morrison(Primarily because I'm a long time Doors fan.) If not those, I would go for Iggy, or Hendrix.


I couldn't add him if no one knew who he was. Not many people today like Buttrock. But yeah, I agreed with you as far as Morrison goes. He's a cultural sex icon for god's sakes!

He's a cultural sex icon for god's sakes!
I agree 100%.
And for the Lemmy thing, he was in the Damned and such for a stint, etc. I'm not a fan really, but that's just my musical tastes.

Never heard of him, what did he do?

:eek: :eek: SINNER!

Motorhead, man. Motorhead.

:eek: :eek: SINNER!

Motorhead, man. Motorhead.


Dude, I hate Buttrock.

But you should vote for one of the other options. They are more feasible. Unless you want to vote for Myrth.

Roger Daltrey didn't put the explosives in Keith Moon's set; Keith did that himself. In fact, he upped the charge right before the show without telling anyone.

Oh, and it wasn't dynamite.

Dude, I hate Buttrock.


Just because you hate something doesn't make it inadequate. You asked after great frontmen, not great-by-my-defintion-only frontmen.

Of your list, Iggy Pop. Lemmy's still a better frontman, though. :p

I also can't believe you left out David Bowie. tsk.

You Forgot Freddie! :mad:

Roger Daltrey didn't put the explosives in Keith Moon's set; Keith did that himself. In fact, he upped the charge right before the show without telling anyone.

Oh, and it wasn't dynamite.


Still was a great stunt. But anyhow, Roger was a great frontman, that's why he had to be put on the list.

Just because you hate something doesn't make it inadequate. You asked after great frontmen, not great-by-my-defintion-only frontmen.

Of your list, Iggy Pop. Lemmy's still a better frontman, though. :p

I also can't believe you left out David Bowie. tsk.


David Bowie was a soloist. And I didn't know who Lemmy was. I can't add him now.

You Forgot Freddie! :mad:


Shit! You're right! :headbang:

David Bowie was a soloist. And I didn't know who Lemmy was. I can't add him now.

David Bowie (Spiders from Mars, Tin Machine) had a band just like Jimi Hendrix (The Experience) did ... though, for both, they were pretty much just background noise.

Other greats not on list (but polls are limited):

Bruce Springsteen (E-Street)
Joey Ramone (The Ramones)
Scott Weiland (Stone Temple Pilots/Velvet Revolver)
Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden)
Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath)
Zack De La Rocha (Rage Against The Machine)
Rob Halford (Judas Priest)
Ian Gillan (Deep Purple)
Johnny Rotten (The Sex Pistols)
Paul Rodgers (Free/Bad Company)
Joe Strummer (The Clash)
Les Claypool (Primus)
Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd)
George Clinton (Parliament Funkadelic)
Peter Gabriel (Genesis)

So many great frontmen ... so little space.

So hard to pick just one, but I guess Iggy Pop of the collction presented.

Other greats not on list (but polls are limited):

Bruce Springsteen (E-Street)
Joey Ramone (The Ramones)
Scott Weiland (Stone Temple Pilots/Velvet Revolver)
Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden)
Ozzy Osbourne (Black Sabbath)
Zack De La Rocha (Rage Against The Machine)
Rob Halford (Judas Priest)
Ian Gillan (Deep Purple)
Johnny Rotten (The Sex Pistols)
Paul Rodgers (Free/Bad Company)
Joe Strummer (The Clash)
Les Claypool (Primus)
Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd)
George Clinton (Parliament Funkadelic)
Peter Gabriel (Genesis)

So many great frontmen ... so little space.


There we go, that's the stuff. But the funny bit is putting Rotten and Barrett on the same list (I assume you know that story, right?)

But no one's mentioned the most massively criminal ommissions: Where are Paul McCartney and John Lennon of the Beatles, Buddy Holly, or Elvis Presley? :eek:

Other notable ommissions:
Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons (Kiss)
Janis Joplin (Big Brother and the Holding Co.)
Bill Haley (Comets)
Bob Marley
Gregg Allman (Allman Brothers)
Geddy Lee (Rush)
Chuck Berry
James Brown
Ronnie Van Zant (Lynyrd Skynyrd)


(Stops before the list goes on forever...)

The question asked was who is the best frontman. So we're looking for singers of bands who actually front that band. It doesn't matter how high their musical input was/is, as long as they are the central focus of the band. More than just great singers they also have to be great performers. That should narrow the list considerably :)

OK, here's my Top Ten list (in terms of stage craft):
1) Freddie !!! (how could he not be on that list?)
2) Roger Daltrey (nearly every R&R singer modelled himself on him or 3 or 4)
3) Mick Jagger (although I hate the Stones he's a great performer)
4) Robert Plant (Hey, John, do a drum solo, I just spottet a great bird in Row3)
5) David Lee Roth (Van Halen) (Hey, Alex, do a drum solo ...)
6) Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden)
7) David Coverdale (Deep Purple / Whitesnake) (The ultimate walking R&R cliché)
8) Steven Tyler (Aerosmith)
9) Bryan Ferry (Roxy Music) (The stylish Gentlefrontman)
10) Michael Hutchence (INXS) (one of the greatest newer (80s/90s) frontmen)

Great solo frontmen (Top 5):
1) Robbie Williams (even if you don't like the music - that guy can perform, the only one who gets even close to Freddie!!)
2) David Bowie
3) Peter Gabriel (excellent performer in the true sense of the word)
4) Iggy Pop
5) Elton John

Still was a great stunt. But anyhow, Roger was a great frontman, that's why he had to be put on the list.
Yeah, he was. Daltrey is about a thousand times better than Robert Plant, which is probably why Robert Plant posed off him shamelessly.

As much as I love the Who, I had to vote Jagger. Jagger is the best rock 'n roll frontman, hands down.

Milli and or Vanilli.

Coupla things...someone already mention that it wasnt Daltrey, it was Moon.
Secondly, Morrison didnt strip naked, he merely (possibly even pantomimed) the showing of his penis to the audience.
He was arrested for that reason.

He kept his clothes on.


Also...the fact that you dont have Ozzy Ozbourne on this poll, illegitimizes it.

The fact that you didnt know anything about who Lemmy was...is laughable.

Out of the choices presented, Jagger.

thom yorke from radiohead. you dont get much more beautiful a performer as him.

Milli and or Vanilli.

And we have a winner!
NOT!

thom yorke from radiohead. you dont get much more beautiful a performer as him.


Are you serious?

The question was.."whose the greatest"..NOT "Whos your favorite".

You cant honestly think that anyone from frickin Radiohead is the most accomnplished, imitated, succsessful, and most talented, thereby qualifying him as the "Greatest of All Time".

Thats insane.

Of those listed .. Jagger

Stones aren't close to being my favorite band.. but a good band and Mick is a great frontman. If I was able to go back in time and see some of these on the list in their prime (well alive in this case and in prime) It would be Bon Scott, Morrison and Hendrix.

Are you serious?

The question was.."whose the greatest"..NOT "Whos your favorite".

You cant honestly think that anyone from frickin Radiohead is the most accomnplished, imitated, succsessful, and most talented, thereby qualifying him as the "Greatest of All Time".

Thats insane.

erm, yes, i can.

jonny greenwood from radiohead is the most accomplished and innovative guitarist in the world, let alone everything else he plays.

no, they arent imitated, but this makes them far far greater in my opinion.

they are relatively sucessful, but i dont know what this has to do with being great.

they are without doubt the most talented band ever.



and surely who you consider to be the greatest is going to be your favourite? so as it is i see no problem with what i posted. thankyou.

erm, yes, i can.

jonny greenwood from radiohead is the most accomplished and innovative guitarist in the world, let alone everything else he plays.

no, they arent imitated, but this makes them far far greater in my opinion.

they are relatively sucessful, but i dont know what this has to do with being great.

they are without doubt the most talented band ever.



and surely who you consider to be the greatest is going to be your favourite? so as it is i see no problem with what i posted. thankyou.

Look, its as simple as this:

Greatness..is not the same as "your favorite band".

The greatest frontman of all time?
and you pick a guy who most people wouldnt know?

Great is being a household name.
Great is setting precedents and setting the standards by wich all others in your field are compared to.
Greatness comes from years of platinum records on the walls, and earning the moniker of "Rock and Roll Legend".

and no...the greatest of all time isnt always your favorite performer.

Mick Jagger is by far..the Greatest Rock and Roll frontman of all time...but he clearly isnt my favorite one.

Radiohead....pffft..please.

Look, its as simple as this:

Greatness..is not the same as "your favorite band".

The greatest frontman of all time?
and you pick a guy who most people wouldnt know?

Great is being a household name.
Great is setting precedents and setting the standards by wich all others in your field are compared to.
Greatness comes from years of platinum records on the walls, and earning the moniker of "Rock and Roll Legend".

and no...the greatest of all time isnt always your favorite performer.

Mick Jagger is by far..the Greatest Rock and Roll frontman of all time...but he clearly isnt my favorite one.

Radiohead....pffft..please.


i do not see why someone has to be hugely famous to be great.

of the three criteria you suggest, radiohead have achieved the second one, and i do not consider the other two to be critically important.

all the other frontmen that have been suggested, i dont not consider great, so i put my nomination forward. i know not many (any?) people will agree with it, but this still does not make it ok for you to rubbish it.

Daltrey is about a thousand times better than Robert Plant, which is probably why Robert Plant posed off him shamelessly.

Although I agree, Roger was a shamelessly fantastic frontman, Robert Plant is easily his equal, certainly not his inferior. Allow me to recite some chronography to you, if I may.


The Who formed in the early 60's, a good 5/6 years before Zeppelin
Zeppelin form in '67, under the name "The New Yardbirds". They become Led Zeppelin in '68 - the name was suggested by Keith Moon.
Roger and Robert adopt the curly golden hair, naked from waist up thing in the same year, 1968.


The only difference between Robert Plant and Roger Daltrey, post-1968 is the fact the Plant is technically a much better singer.

Both of them are equally god-like and legendary - the fact the the who pretty much sucked after 1972, a good 10 years into their career just pays homage to how great a band they were - most bands suck much sooner than that. Hell, Zeppelin only managed 5 years (1968-73) before they turned into prog-rock arseholes.

But the fact remains that The Who were a much better band, with much better material, BOFORE Daltrey became a long-hair rock god. They were a mod band, not a heavy rock band. Zeppelin THRIVED upon the long-hair rock god thing, the Who suffered from it.

In my opinion anyway.

From the list, either Plant, Daltrey or Jagger. It's just too tough to call.

i do not see why someone has to be hugely famous to be great.

of the three criteria you suggest, radiohead have achieved the second one, and i do not consider the other two to be critically important.

all the other frontmen that have been suggested, i dont not consider great, so i put my nomination forward. i know not many (any?) people will agree with it, but this still does not make it ok for you to rubbish it.


Your not following are you?

Its perfectly ok for you to like Radiohead.

But..when answering the question of "Who the greatest rock and roll frontman of all time" is....

You have to judge that on the person who became the bigger legend, make the biggest commotion about what he was doing....got the most reaction from the people over what he did...

Thats what makes a Frontman great....thats what makes you a Rock and Roll Icon...not personal preference.

Just becuase YOU like them..does not mean that history should regard them as "The Greatest of All Time"

No one ever said you shouldnt like them, or shouldnt listen to them..

But do you honestly think that te guy from Radiohead, has accomplished as much, had the same kind of impact, and had the same kind of success as Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones..who happen to be one of the greatest (In the same sense mentioned earlier) of all time?

Do you really think that guy compares?

Not even close.

Give him 30 years and we'll see what happens....

i do not see why someone has to be hugely famous to be great.

of the three criteria you suggest, radiohead have achieved the second one, and i do not consider the other two to be critically important.

all the other frontmen that have been suggested, i dont not consider great, so i put my nomination forward. i know not many (any?) people will agree with it, but this still does not make it ok for you to rubbish it.

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches, you cant be great if no-one knows you. (Besides, Radiohead suck!!!!) You dont have to be famous though.

A great frontman (and indeed a great band) is defined by how many people copied them. The vocal style of Robert Plant has been emulated (badly, in my opinion) by almost every heavy metal band since 1975. He is great.

The Smashy-Uppy thing the Jimi Hendrix (and Pete Townsend - The Who's Guitarist) started was copied by Punks. Almost all of them. Hence, Hedrix is great.

Someone like Syd Barret is not a great frontman. He is a fantastic, front man, and the Floyd were far superior with him than without, but no-one tried to emulate him. (Possibly because it was pretty much impossible, Syd was insane!)

Off that list I'd say Jim Morrison.

But I myself would say Ozzy Osbourne was a pretty damn good frontman during his days on Black Sabbath.

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches, you cant be great if no-one knows you. (Besides, Radiohead suck!!!!) You dont have to be famous though.

A great frontman (and indeed a great band) is defined by how many people copied them. The vocal style of Robert Plant has been emulated (badly, in my opinion) by almost every heavy metal band since 1975. He is great.

The Smashy-Uppy thing the Jimi Hendrix (and Pete Townsend - The Who's Guitarist) started was copied by Punks. Almost all of them. Hence, Hedrix is great.

Someone like Syd Barret is not a great frontman. He is a fantastic, front man, and the Floyd were far superior with him than without, but no-one tried to emulate him. (Possibly because it was pretty much impossible, Syd was insane!)


Thanks Duzz,
But as a matter of fact SEVERAL people tried to emulate Syd for a long time.
Including David Bowie, and the Guy from T-Rex, and Alice Cooper.
They are all HUGE Barrett fans, and will blatantly admit to, at one time or another, copying syd's look, ans style, if not his sound.

Your not following are you?

Its perfectly ok for you to like Radiohead.

But..when answering the question of "Who the greatest rock and roll frontman of all time" is....

You have to judge that on the person who became the bigger legend, make the biggest commotion about what he was doing....got the most reaction from the people over what he did...

Thats what makes a Frontman great....thats what makes you a Rock and Roll Icon...not personal preference.

Just becuase YOU like them..does not mean that history should regard them as "The Greatest of All Time"

No one ever said you shouldnt like them, or shouldnt listen to them..

But do you honestly think that te guy from Radiohead, has accomplished as much, had the same kind of impact, and had the same kind of success as Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones..who happen to be one of the greatest (In the same sense mentioned earlier) of all time?

Do you really think that guy compares?

Not even close.

Give him 30 years and we'll see what happens....

please stop insulting my intelligence.

i believe that radiohead are the most talented songwriters of the last twenty years, if not longer. i also put talent at the top of the list of criteria for greatness. i think you put 'making commotion' and 'getting a reaction' above talent, and i wholeheartedly disagree.

but at the same time, thom yorkes performance is equal to, or (imo) far superior to that of any of the frontmen that have been suggested.

yes, radiohead arent as famous, arent as rich as the stones, but they are at the very least equal in musical accomplishment.

Off that list I'd say Jim Morrison.

But I myself would say Ozzy Osbourne was a pretty damn good frontman during his days on Black Sabbath.

Amen to that, Brother.

Thanks Duzz,
But as a matter of fact SEVERAL people tried to emulate Syd for a long time.
Including David Bowie, and the Guy from T-Rex, and Alice Cooper.
They are all HUGE Barrett fans, and will blatantly admit to, at one time or another, copying syd's look, ans style, if not his sound.


Good lord, you're right. I guess Syd IS great, what was I thinking?!?

I agree with BackwoodsSquatches, you cant be great if no-one knows you. (Besides, Radiohead suck!!!!) You dont have to be famous though.

A great frontman (and indeed a great band) is defined by how many people copied them. The vocal style of Robert Plant has been emulated (badly, in my opinion) by almost every heavy metal band since 1975. He is great.

The Smashy-Uppy thing the Jimi Hendrix (and Pete Townsend - The Who's Guitarist) started was copied by Punks. Almost all of them. Hence, Hedrix is great.



ouch, man, very ouch. also this opening statement confused me, as in, 'you cannot be great if noone knows you...you dont have to be famous though'?

i would argue that the oppisite is also true, in that if noone can copy you for fear of being ridiculed as copycats, then this makes you equally as great as the bands with hundreds of clones. i.e. a one off.

i do not see why someone has to be hugely famous to be great.
of the three criteria you suggest, radiohead have achieved the second one, and i do not consider the other two to be critically important.
all the other frontmen that have been suggested, i dont not consider great, so i put my nomination forward. i know not many (any?) people will agree with it, but this still does not make it ok for you to rubbish it.
Tom Yorke is an awful frontman. He is much too introverted to be considered a great frontman. Radiohead concerts are great because of the music, but hardly because of Tom's show. This poll is, IMO, not about good or great music, but about showmanship of frontmen. And Tom sucks in this department. Jagger is great in this department, shame that the music sucks (in my opinion - if you like it, that's ok. Would be a shame if we all liked the same stuff)

Btw. anyone noticed that apart from Janice Joplin not a single women has been named so far. Are there any (again performers not just musicians, because then I could name quite a few)?

Tom Yorke is an awful frontman. He is much too introverted to be considered a great frontman. Radiohead concerts are great because of the music, but hardly because of Tom's show. This poll is, IMO, not about good or great music, but about showmanship of frontmen. And Tom sucks in this department. Jagger is great in this department, shame that the music sucks (in my opinion - if you like it, that's ok. Would be a shame if we all liked the same stuff)


i disagree, i think his introverted performance, as you rightly point out, is much more memorable and impressive than the other frontmen. but then again this is all personal opinion.

[EDIT] actually impressive is the wrong word, probably intriuging is better.

please stop insulting my intelligence.

i believe that radiohead are the most talented songwriters of the last twenty years, if not longer. i also put talent at the top of the list of criteria for greatness. i think you put 'making commotion' and 'getting a reaction' above talent, and i wholeheartedly disagree.

but at the same time, thom yorkes performance is equal to, or (imo) far superior to that of any of the frontmen that have been suggested.

yes, radiohead arent as famous, arent as rich as the stones, but they are at the very least equal in musical accomplishment.


Now Im starting to think you dont know what Greatness is.

If the question was "Who is the most talented" maybe this guy might make the list..I dont know, Im not a fan, but several people who's opinions I respect tell me hes good...

But the question was "Greatest of all time"..and I assure you...these guys wouldnt even make the list.

Its not about talent...if it were..Mick Jagger wouldnt make the list either.
The man really cant sing very well.
Its about his stage presence.
Legendary.

There have been hundreds of bands that were far superior to the Stones musical ability and proficiency with thier chosen instruments, but, never could acheive what the Stones did, becuase they didnt have a guy like Jagger parading around like an idiot, and driving thousands of fans wild, and caising such a commotion about it, people are still talking about it, 30 years after it happened.
That kind of notoriety, and myth, is what makes a performer great, how do you think that guys like Sid Viscious become legends?
From thier musical ability alone?
Hell no...

Radiohead hasnt done anything like that yet.

ouch, man, very ouch. also this opening statement confused me, as in, 'you cannot be great if noone knows you...you dont have to be famous though'?

i would argue that the oppisite is also true, in that if noone can copy you for fear of being ridiculed as copycats, then this makes you equally as great as the bands with hundreds of clones. i.e. a one off.

Sorry, it was not my intention to confuse. Allow me to clarrify.

"Famous" - is if you are a household name, such as Elvis Presley.
"Known" - is if you are popular among a small group or cult, such as The Velvet Underground were when they formed (before their 80's revival and quite widespread 'approval').

"the oppisite is also true"

This, in theory at least, is valid, but in practice, IF you are truly great, someone will copy you, it's pretty much a guarantee. You surely must see that, in a business such as the music business, there will be some that do not wish to be copycats, but most people just want to be famous and beon the telly and will not let something like that get in the way.

Now Im starting to think you dont know what Greatness is.

If the question was "Who is the most talented" maybe this guy might make the list..I dont know, Im not a fan, but several people who's opinions I respect tell me hes good...

But the question was "Greatest of all time"..and I assure you...these guys wouldnt even make the list.

Its not about talent...if it were..Mick Jagger wouldnt make the list either.
The man really cant sing very well.
Its about his stage presence.
Legendary.

There have been hundreds of bands that were far superior to the Stones musical ability and proficiency with thier chosen instruments, but, never could acheive what the Stones did, becuase they didnt have a guy like Jagger parading around like an idiot, and driving thousands of fans wild, and caising such a commotion about it, people are still talking about it, 30 years after it happened.
That kind of notoriety, and myth, is what makes a performer great, how do you think that guys like Sid Viscious become legends?
From thier musical ability alone?
Hell no...

Radiohead hasnt done anything like that yet.

you know what your definition (which i accept is the same as many peoples) of greatness is, i know mine. our definitions of greatness differ.

you would probably find that the sort of devotion etc i assume you get at stones gigs, you get at radiohead gigs. its just that the scale is bigger. and, the stones have been famous since the sixties, radiohead since the early nineties, so its not really comparable yet, but as you said, give them thirty years...

i find it hard to accept that talent is not a precursor for greatness. i think the two go hand in hand.

Sorry, it was not my intention to confuse. Allow me to clarrify.

"Famous" - is if you are a household name, such as Elvis Presley.
"Known" - is if you are popular among a small group or cult, such as The Velvet Underground were when they formed (before their 80's revival and quite widespread 'approval').

"the oppisite is also true"

This, in theory at least, is valid, but in practice, IF you are truly great, someone will copy you, it's pretty much a guarantee. You surely must see that, in a business such as the music business, there will be some that do not wish to be copycats, but most people just want to be famous and beon the telly and will not let something like that get in the way.


ok ive got you.

ok, but how about if your bands sound is so unique that anyone copying you would instantly be rubbished? this is part of what makes radiohead great. they are on their own in the music world, with no peers. their individuality is one of their defining features.

Let me put it like this...

Im a musician myself.
I sing, and play rythmn guitar.
Therefore, the kind of music I prefer to listen to, requires a great deal of talent from the musicians in the band.

Black Sabbath for instance..
No one can deny Toni Iommi's ability, since he happens to be one of the "Founding Fathers", if you will, of metal.

So then, and band can be great due to thier musical prowess, wich im certain, from your posts, is what draws you to Radiohead.
But, again, using Black Sabbath as an example, in terms of ability, not many people say that Ozzy was the most talented singer of all time,but many agree that he may be one of the greatest heavy metal singers of all time.
Why do you suppose they would say that?

ok ive got you.

ok, but how about if your bands sound is so unique that anyone copying you would instantly be rubbished? this is part of what makes radiohead great. they are on their own in the music world, with no peers. their individuality is one of their defining features.

Yes, ok, I see logic in your madness - uniqueness is undeniably a desireable trait. But unique bands are not "great", if they were they would be emulated. It seems that we would have to agree to disagree on this subject, you obviously wont budge (even though you are obviously wrong :p )

But is imitation not the highest form of flattery?

Thom Yorke has such negative energy on stage, I don't even see how you could consider him a great frontman.

As for my nomination, Freddie Mercury. By far.

Let me put it like this...

Im a musician myself.
I sing, and play rythmn guitar.
Therefore, the kind of music I prefer to listen to, requires a great deal of talent from the musicians in the band.

Black Sabbath for instance..
No one can deny Toni Iommi's ability, since he happens to be one of the "Founding Fathers", if you will, of metal.

So then, and band can be great due to thier musical prowess, wich im certain, from your posts, is what draws you to Radiohead.
But, again, using Black Sabbath as an example, in terms of ability, not many people say that Ozzy was the most talented singer of all time,but many agree that he may be one of the greatest heavy metal singers of all time.
Why do you suppose they would say that?

Because he kicked unbelievable amounts of ass?

SAM MCPHEETERS!!

Born Against, Men's Recovery Project, Wrangler Brutes

Let me put it like this...

Im a musician myself.
I sing, and play rythmn guitar.
Therefore, the kind of music I prefer to listen to, requires a great deal of talent from the musicians in the band.

Black Sabbath for instance..
No one can deny Toni Iommi's ability, since he happens to be one of the "Founding Fathers", if you will, of metal.

So then, and band can be great due to thier musical prowess, wich im certain, from your posts, is what draws you to Radiohead.
But, again, using Black Sabbath as an example, in terms of ability, not many people say that Ozzy was the most talented singer of all time,but many agree that he may be one of the greatest heavy metal singers of all time.
Why do you suppose they would say that?

i also play guitar in a band. and your patronising tone is becoming intolerable.

i have not said that your criteria are wrong, i have said that i put talent above all else. so they would say OO is great for your reasons, i accept this. but all i want is for you to accept radiohead (or thom yorke) as a reasonable suggestion for an alternative greatest frontman. of course it would be almost impossible to decide on the greatest, as it is all opinion.

Yes, ok, I see logic in your madness - uniqueness is undeniably a desireable trait. But unique bands are not "great", if they were they would be emulated. It seems that we would have to agree to disagree on this subject, you obviously wont budge (even though you are obviously wrong :p )

But is imitation not the highest form of flattery?

likewise!

i also play guitar in a band. and your patronising tone is becoming intolerable.

i have not said that your criteria are wrong, i have said that i put talent above all else. so they would say OO is great for your reasons, i accept this. but all i want is for you to accept radiohead (or thom yorke) as a reasonable suggestion for an alternative greatest frontman. of course it would be almost impossible to decide on the greatest, as it is all opinion.

While it may not be possible to decide on a greatest, almost any respectable list will not include Thom Yorke, for the same reasons it will not include Maynard James Keenan or Chris Cornell or a hundred others.

Thom Yorke has such negative energy on stage, I don't even see how you could consider him a great frontman.

As for my nomination, Freddie Mercury. By far.


he is the total oppisite to most of the other suggestions, but still manages to ooze emotion. imo he does not need to jump around and shout to get his message across.

he is the total oppisite to most of the other suggestions, but still manages to ooze emotion. imo he does not need to jump around and shout to get his message across.

He oozes sadness and angst and apathy. He's unexciting to watch.

While it may not be possible to decide on a greatest, almost any respectable list will not include Thom Yorke, for the same reasons it will not include Maynard James Keenan or Chris Cornell or a hundred others.

i very much disagree, in fact i remember reading a feature in the NME (british music weekly) a few years ago that was discussing the ultimate super group. thom yorke was one of 5 nominees for lead singer, along with john lennon, mick jagger, liam gallagher etc.

He oozes sadness and angst and apathy. He's unexciting to watch.

yes, but this is the sort of thing i like in frontmen. so once again, it all comes down to opinion.

i also play guitar in a band. and your patronising tone is becoming intolerable.

i have not said that your criteria are wrong, i have said that i put talent above all else. so they would say OO is great for your reasons, i accept this. but all i want is for you to accept radiohead (or thom yorke) as a reasonable suggestion for an alternative greatest frontman. of course it would be almost impossible to decide on the greatest, as it is all opinion.


I think you perceived a patronizing tone, moreso than I was trying to project one.
I also now think you know nothing of true greatness.

Adios.

i very much disagree, in fact i remember reading a feature in the NME (british music weekly) a few years ago that was discussing the ultimate super group. thom yorke was one of 5 nominees for lead singer, along with john lennon, mick jagger, liam gallagher etc.

All Brits, I see. Immediately dismissed.

I think you perceived a patronizing tone, moreso than I was trying to project one.
I also now think you know nothing of true greatness.

Adios.

well if that isnt patronising i dont know what is.

All Brits, I see. Immediately dismissed.

freddy mercury was a brit!

yes, but this is the sort of thing i like in frontmen. so once again, it all comes down to opinion.

And what you like in frontmen is the opposite of what most objective critics look for in frontmen.

And what you like in frontmen is the opposite of what most objective critics look for in frontmen.

but that doesent make me 'wrong' does it? or does it?

freddy mercury was a brit!

What's your point? That list nominated LIAM GALAGHER over people like Jim Morrison, Steven Tyler, and Brian Wilson. It is a ridiculous list.

What's your point? That list nominated LIAM GALAGHER over people like Jim Morrison, Steven Tyler, and Brian Wilson. It is a ridiculous list.

...in your opinion.

for the record, there were others on the list, they may have been american, they may not have been. probably seeing the NMEs obsession with the strokes, probably one of them was julian casablancas.

but that doesent make me 'wrong' does it? or does it?

I would say you are not being objective in regards to your favorite band and are putting Thom Yorke up on a higher pedestal than he deserves. I doubt Thom Yorke would consider himself the greatest frontman of all time.

well if that isnt patronising i dont know what is.


Only the very last sentence, from my very last post, prior to this one, was meant to be patronizing.

Everything else...was not.

...in your opinion.

for the record, there were others on the list, they may have been american, they may not have been. probably seeing the NMEs obsession with the strokes, probably one of them was julian casablancas.

No, in the opinion of sane, rational music fans everywhere. No unbiased person would rate Liam Galagher higher than the greats mentioned in this thread. It's an absolutely ridiculous list, and it's not just my opinion. It's fact.

I would say you are not being objective in regards to your favorite band and are putting Thom Yorke up on a higher pedestal than he deserves. I doubt Thom Yorke would consider himself the greatest frontman of all time.

well yes, i am, but radiohead are one of my favourite bands partly because of thom yorke. you, in turn, are giving freddy mercury acclaim i would not give him. he must have been fun to watch if you like queen, but its not for me. just because my view is different it does not mean i should have to change it. i know thom yorke would not call himself the greatest frontman in the world, but then would anyone call themselves that?

No, in the opinion of sane, rational music fans everywhere. No unbiased person would rate Liam Galagher higher than the greats mentioned in this thread. It's an absolutely ridiculous list, and it's not just my opinion. It's fact.


Agreed.

When I rule the world, you will be spared.

well yes, i am, but radiohead are one of my favourite bands partly because of thom yorke. you, in turn, are giving freddy mercury acclaim i would not give him. he must have been fun to watch if you like queen, but its not for me. just because my view is different it does not mean i should have to change it. i know thom yorke would not call himself the greatest frontman in the world, but then would anyone call themselves that?


Only if they thought they truly deserved the title.

Jagger might.

No, in the opinion of sane, rational music fans everywhere. No unbiased person would rate Liam Galagher higher than the greats mentioned in this thread. It's an absolutely ridiculous list, and it's not just my opinion. It's fact.

no, it is not fact, it is opinion. just because it is a lot of peoples opinions, doesent make it a fact. this point is unarguable.

i kno this has nothing to do with the argument going on but how about Kurt Cobain (Nirvana)....he was great

well yes, i am, but radiohead are one of my favourite bands partly because of thom yorke. you, in turn, are giving freddy mercury acclaim i would not give him. he must have been fun to watch if you like queen, but its not for me. just because my view is different it does not mean i should have to change it. i know thom yorke would not call himself the greatest frontman in the world, but then would anyone call themselves that?

A lot of them would, yes. Arrogance like that is one of the defining attributes of TRULY great frontmen.

And the acclaim I give Freddie Mercury is objective, because Queen is not my favorite band by a long shot. Whereas the acclaim you give Radiohead is dirtied by your own prejudices towards them. If you are unable to step back and view the music objectively, then you do not belong in a discussion like this.

i kno this has nothing to do with the argument going on but how about Kurt Cobain (Nirvana)....he was great


Sure he was.

He was great becuase he was the frontman in a band wich had a huge impact upon the music scene as a whole.

Like Mick Jagger, or Jim Morrison

Unlike....the guy from Radiohead.

i kno this has nothing to do with the argument going on but how about Kurt Cobain (Nirvana)....he was great

Nirvana was great more for the revolution in music that they caused, more than their own talent. Cobain was great, for sure, but he was no Daltrey or Morrison or Plant.

no, it is not fact, it is opinion. just because it is a lot of peoples opinions, doesent make it a fact. this point is unarguable.

It is fact. There are certain things about a musician that can trescend simple taste. No objective person would say that Oasis, and by extention Galagher, were better than Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath or The Doors or a hundred other bands. It just wouldn't happen.

A lot of them would, yes. Arrogance like that is one of the defining attributes of TRULY great frontmen.

And the acclaim I give Freddie Mercury is objective, because Queen is not my favorite band by a long shot. Whereas the acclaim you give Radiohead is dirtied by your own prejudices towards them. If you are unable to step back and view the music objectively, then you do not belong in a discussion like this.

i know why you consider all the other suggestions great, and i accept it (i have not disputed your (or anyone elses) opinions), but i think that thom yorke should be up there. to make you happy, i will also suggest matt bellamy from muse, who are not one of favourite bands, just for his stage presence.

i know why you consider all the other suggestions great, and i accept it (i have not disputed your (or anyone elses) opinions), but i think that thom yorke should be up there. to make you happy, i will also suggest matt bellamy from muse, who are not one of favourite bands, just for his stage presence.

Another example of a front man who should not be on the list. Matt Bellamy is a Thom Yorke wannabe.

It's real simple. The only reasons you can come up with for Thom Yorke being one of the greatest frontmen of all time end in "...which I like", which completely invalidates them. I could name a hundred frontmen that you've probably never heard of, that I think are better than Thom Yorke, and you'd disagree with each one of them, because your perceptions of a great frontman are eternally jaded by your tastes in music. You are incapable of being objective in any respect.

It is fact. There are certain things about a musician that can trescend simple taste. No objective person would say that Oasis, and by extention Galagher, were better than Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath or The Doors or a hundred other bands. It just wouldn't happen.

i believe they would. gallagher is one of the best frontmen (using your definitions) the UK music scene has ever produced. he has attitude, he has style, he has stage presence, he is successful, he has spawned (not very good) imitations. so, he is a great frontman. in my opinion.

i very much disagree, in fact i remember reading a feature in the NME (british music weekly) a few years ago that was discussing the ultimate super group. thom yorke was one of 5 nominees for lead singer, along with john lennon, mick jagger, liam gallagher etc.

Yes but the NME has become a kiss-ass, "we love everyone" crowdpleaser magazine. What it says should be taken at face value, not as gospel truth. (The fact that it still calls itself the New Music Express after the many decades it's been running just shows how dumb the editors and publishers have become.)

You're probably thinking, after that, that I'm some grumpy old man who thinks "the world isnt what it used to be". I assure you, I'm not, though these grumpy old men seem to have a good point in some areas (I'm 16, and I've been playing guitar since before I can remember).

You say there were 5 nominees - thom yorke, john lennon, mick jagger, liam gallagher - who was the fifth? Although Lennon and Jagger were ultimate supergroup material, appreciate that they are a populist choice, The Beatles and The Stones being among the biggest bands ever, and easily the most popular rock groups (most rock groups aiming to make your parents cry rather than dance). To be honest, Liam Gallagher (and the rest of Oasis) in my opinion are a criminally mediocre band. So, as far as I can tell, this group on nominations holds very little merit and cannot be used to back up a claim such as "Thom Yorke is the greatest frontman ever".

(By the way, regardless of what the NME says, the ultimate supergroup is Keith Moon on drums, Kim Gordon (Sonic Youth) on Bass *drool*, Jimi Hendrix on Guitar and Robert Plant on vocals.)

Another example of a front man who should not be on the list. Matt Bellamy is a Thom Yorke wannabe.


and also becuase most people have no idea of who he is.....

i believe they would. gallagher is one of the best frontmen (using your definitions) the UK music scene has ever produced. he has attitude, he has style, he has stage presence, he is successful, he has spawned (not very good) imitations. so, he is a great frontman. in my opinion.

To ruthlessly rip off a phrase from the fellow posting before me, Liam Galagher is criminally mediocre. His music is cookie-cutter, his voice is uninspiring, his lyric (which I think are mostly written by his brother) are trite and usually meaningless, his attitude and style are not his own, and he's only mildly successful.

You want me to say it? I'll say it. Your opinions are wrong. Continue to delude yourself into thinking everyone's opinions are equally valid.

Another example of a front man who should not be on the list. Matt Bellamy is a Thom Yorke wannabe.

It's real simple. The only reasons you can come up with for Thom Yorke being one of the greatest frontmen of all time end in "...which I like", which completely invalidates them. I could name a hundred frontmen that you've probably never heard of, that I think are better than Thom Yorke, and you'd disagree with each one of them, because your perceptions of a great frontman are eternally jaded by your tastes in music. You are incapable of being objective in any respect.

why thankyou. if you suggest someone who i realise is better than thom yorke i will tell you. but my the same notion, your inablility to recognise yorke as being even slightly great, surely means that you are being unobjective? that is, that you will not agree because you dont like him and his music.

and also becuase most people have no idea of who he is.....

He's the lead singer of Muse. If I had to describe Muse, I would say they play Radiohead's music with emo lyrics. It is painfully obvious listening to them that Mr. Bellamy wants to be Thom Yorke.

That being said, I kind of like their music. Good if you're in a real "fuck the world" kind of mood.

Where the hell is Freddy Mercury?

why thankyou. if you suggest someone who i realise is better than thom yorke i will tell you. but my the same notion, your inablility to recognise yorke as being even slightly great, surely means that you are being unobjective? that is, that you will not agree because you dont like him and his music.

I've not said Thom Yorke is not great. Quite the contrary. I think he's exceptional. But to include him in a discussion with greats like Jagger or Plant is just insulting. He's just not in the same league.

Where the hell is Freddy Mercury?

thank you....

Also where the hell is Alice Cooper and Glenn Danzig (Misfits)

Where the hell is Freddy Mercury?

Not on the list, unfortunately. :(

Yes but the NME has become a kiss-ass, "we love everyone" crowdpleaser magazine. What it says should be taken at face value, not as gospel truth. (The fact that it still calls itself the New Music Express after the many decades it's been running just shows how dumb the editors and publishers have become.)

You say there were 5 nominees - thom yorke, john lennon, mick jagger, liam gallagher - who was the fifth? Although Lennon and Jagger were ultimate supergroup material, appreciate that they are a populist choice, The Beatles and The Stones being among the biggest bands ever, and easily the most popular rock groups (most rock groups aiming to make your parents cry rather than dance). To be honest, Liam Gallagher (and the rest of Oasis) in my opinion are a criminally mediocre band. So, as far as I can tell, this group on nominations holds very little merit and cannot be used to back up a claim such as "Thom Yorke is the greatest frontman ever".

(By the way, regardless of what the NME says, the ultimate supergroup is Keith Moon on drums, Kim Gordon (Sonic Youth) on Bass *drool*, Jimi Hendrix on Guitar and Robert Plant on vocals.)

well i think the 'new' in 'new music express' is refering to new music, not that its a brand new magazine. also its quite a venerable rock journalism instituion, so it should not be dismissed entirely.

about the list, i am regurgitating this from memory, so i may have been wrong. i really cant remember the other nominee. there may have been two more, i dont know. i am sorry.

thank you....

Also where the hell is Alice Cooper and Glenn Danzig (Misfits)


If I were making a top ten of all time list, Cooper might be on it.
Certainly he would be in the top 15.

Also, Im love the Misfits..(Im wearing a Crimson Ghost shirt right now)..But sadly, I cant say I would put Glenn in that listing.

But I will say, that the Misfits have been wrongfully snubbed by critics for decades.

You want me to say it? I'll say it. Your opinions are wrong. Continue to delude yourself into thinking everyone's opinions are equally valid.

why are not everyones opinions equally valid? maybe you and everyone else who would suggest frontmen from the 60s and 70s are in the majority, but that does not make all others invalid.


I've not said Thom Yorke is not great. Quite the contrary. I think he's exceptional. But to include him in a discussion with greats like Jagger or Plant is just insulting. He's just not in the same league.

i think his exceptionality makes him great.

why are not everyones opinions equally valid? maybe you and everyone else who would suggest frontmen from the 60s and 70s are in the majority, but that does not make all others invalid.



i think his exceptionality makes him great.


Because the question was "Greatest OF ALL TIME".

Yorke may be exceptional, he may even be great..but greatest OF ALL TIME?

How can you possibly think that?

why are not everyones opinions equally valid? maybe you and everyone else who would suggest frontmen from the 60s and 70s are in the majority, but that does not make all others invalid.

Everyone's opinions would be invalid if all they did was submit their favorite band's leader and then refuse to acknowledge the merits of other submissions. Which, as far as I know, you are the only one to do. I know I was not arrogant enough to suggest my favorite frontman as greatest ever. No one else is suggesting their favorite band's singer and then saying they don't understand what's so great about more commonly recognized "greatest frontmen". Your opinion is deluded by your love of Radiohead.

Because the question was "Greatest OF ALL TIME".

Yorke may be exceptional, he may even be great..but greatest OF ALL TIME?

How can you possibly think that?

radiohead produced the 'best album ever' (according to a channel four poll) and the 'best album of the last twenty years' (according to another poll which i have forgotten, sorry). yorkes voice was a prominent part of this album, OK Computer. yes, you will probably be able to find polls showing the stones or whoever on top. as the frontman, chief songwriter and lyricist in radiohead, this makes him quite great. in my opinion the greatest of all time.

radiohead produced the 'best album ever' (according to a channel four poll) and the 'best album of the last twenty years' (according to another poll which i have forgotten, sorry). yorkes voice was a prominent part of this album, OK Computer. yes, you will probably be able to find polls showing the stones or whoever on top. as the frontman, chief songwriter and lyricist in radiohead, this makes him quite great. in my opinion the greatest of all time.


I agree with Sdaeriji, your opinion is deluded by your love of Radiohead.

Everyone's opinions would be invalid if all they did was submit their favorite band's leader and then refuse to acknowledge the merits of other submissions. Which, as far as I know, you are the only one to do. I know I was not arrogant enough to suggest my favorite frontman as greatest ever. No one else is suggesting their favorite band's singer and then saying they don't understand what's so great about more commonly recognized "greatest frontmen". Your opinion is deluded by your love of Radiohead.

look back, i have on numerous times accepted everyone elses nominations, and i realise why these frontmen have been suggested. i also said that part of the reason radiohead are my favourite band is because of thom yorke. i find him a fantastic frontman. i would put it to you that you have been accepting everyone elses arguments but mine. its true, i do not understand what is so great about the common nominations, but i have accepted them, even if you think i have not.

well i think the 'new' in 'new music express' is refering to new music, not that its a brand new magazine. also its quite a venerable rock journalism instituion, so it should not be dismissed entirely.

about the list, i am regurgitating this from memory, so i may have been wrong. i really cant remember the other nominee. there may have been two more, i dont know. i am sorry.

No, I'm not dismissing it entirely. I'm dissmissing it partially. The only reason it's got such a good reputation is that it used to be hard-hitting, cutting edge, rebellious, rude and clever journalism. It has changed now, into soft, pseudo-rebellious pap that reviews albums etc. how they think will sell the most copies of that issue rather than what the writers actually think. Therefore, I feel I am well within my rights to be dismissive. It has devolved from a rock journal to a popular music magazine. Bands that are heralded as genius by magazines akin to the NME, such as Athlete, or more to the point Radiohead, are not genius at all, nor are they inspired or inspiring, they are dull and soulless. Q.E.D.

No, I'm not dismissing it entirely. I'm dissmissing it partially. The only reason it's got such a good reputation is that it used to be hard-hitting, cutting edge, rebellious, rude and clever journalism. It has changed now, into soft, pseudo-rebellious pap that reviews albums etc. how they think will sell the most copies of that issue rather than what the writers actually think. Therefore, I feel I am well within my rights to be dismissive. It has devolved from a rock journal to a popular music magazine. Bands that are heralded as genius by magazines akin to the NME, such as Athlete, or more to the point Radiohead, are not genius at all, nor are they inspired or inspiring, they are dull and soulless. Q.E.D.

i agree with you to a point that the NME has become more popularised, but i think it still retains its edge. i also agree with you about athlete.

but i disagree that radiohead are not genius, inspired or inspiring, that they are dull and soulless. but then again im a deluded radiohead fan who doesnt know what hes talking about.

has Anybody mentioned the King yet?

look back, i have on numerous times accepted everyone elses nominations, and i realise why these frontmen have been suggested. i also said that part of the reason radiohead are my favourite band is because of thom yorke. i find him a fantastic frontman. i would put it to you that you have been accepting everyone elses arguments but mine. its true, i do not understand what is so great about the common nominations, but i have accepted them, even if you think i have not.

You've repeatedly said you do not understand what everyone else finds so great about other frontmen, while giving reasons for liking Thom Yorke that could easily be applied to the other names mentioned. You've made up your mind that Thom Yorke is the greatest singer ever, and you're refusing to even entertain other suggestions. I entertained your suggestion, and provided reasons why I disagree. Yet you continue to parrot his name and attack anyone who is disagreeing.

I give up. You're obviously ignorant of music. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have your favorite band and no one is going to be able to convince you that Thom Yorke is anything less than God himself. Have fun with your narrow horizons.

has Anybody mentioned the King yet?


Jerry Lawler?

*Rimshot*

Jerry Lawler?

*Rimshot*

Boo! Get off the stage!

You've repeatedly said you do not understand what everyone else finds so great about other frontmen, while giving reasons for liking Thom Yorke that could easily be applied to the other names mentioned. You've made up your mind that Thom Yorke is the greatest singer ever, and you're refusing to even entertain other suggestions. I entertained your suggestion, and provided reasons why I disagree. Yet you continue to parrot his name and attack anyone who is disagreeing.

I give up. You're obviously ignorant of music. You have no idea what you are talking about. You have your favorite band and no one is going to be able to convince you that Thom Yorke is anything less than God himself. Have fun with your narrow horizons.

i find that quite unbelievable. not to mention offensive.

i think maybe you should spend less time on this forum.

Boo! Get off the stage!


Maybe I should have said Viggo Mortensen?

He returned, didnt he?

i find that quite unbelievable. not to mention offensive.

i think maybe you should spend less time on this forum.

I don't care what you find unbelievable nor offensive. I find your suggestion of Thom Yorke as greatest frontman unbelievable and offensive.

I do not need to spend less time on this forum. What I need are less people fronting ridiculous opinions and then getting all uppity when I tell them I disagree.

The poll is missing Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden. The man with the booming voice, powerful and large vocal range who runs around all over the stage while singing. The guy rocks! :D

I don't care what you find unbelievable nor offensive. I find your suggestion of Thom Yorke as greatest frontman unbelievable and offensive.

I do not need to spend less time on this forum. What I need are less people fronting ridiculous opinions and then getting all uppity when I tell them I disagree.

but that is precisely what you did to me, not what i did to you. i did not once get uppity. i did get exasperated though.

but that is precisely what you did to me, not what i did to you. i did not once get uppity. i did get exasperated though.

Do not mince words. Uppity, exasperated, whatever.

Do not mince words. Uppity, exasperated, whatever.

i have always taken uppity as meaning indignant or 'holier than thou', and exasperated as getting tired in the face of unrelating pressure.

I voted Jim Morrison simply becoz he is possibly one of the coolest people 2 ever live. But my first choice isnt in dat poll, i havnt read all da pages but has ne1 metioned Phill Lynott from Thin Lizzy, he is my favourite frontman. Maybe its because he was one of the first black Irishmen but he was unbelievably good.

David St. Hubbins

David St. Hubbins
Sorry I have to disagree! We are talking frontman here! Pleeeeease! If this Band has a frontman at all, it definitely is Tufnel! See what happened when he left!

Oh Please! David was the REAL creative genius/frontman!

Where's David Gilmour? Myrth gets my vote on this one.

The Smashy-Uppy thing the Jimi Hendrix (and Pete Townsend - The Who's Guitarist) started was copied by Punks. Almost all of them. Hence, Hedrix is great.


Jimmy Hendrix (The Jimmy Hendrix Experience) First ever destruction of an instrument on stage

Dear, oh, dear: kids, it was Townshend who started off the whole smashing instruments on stage malarky, not Hendrix, in fact the first time that Hendrix did that schtick was at the Monterey Pop Festival in '67, whereas The Who had been at it since before they actually had a record deal.

Bon Scott: gone these 25 years, never forgotten.

Where's David Gilmour? Myrth gets my vote on this one.
Again I would say: Brilliant musician, awful frontman. Have you actually ever seen him live? He's got the stage presence of a loaf of bread. Even Roger Waters is more animated. And it is still painful to watch him (great concert, though, as can be seen on the live DVD!)

Oh Please! David was the REAL creative genius/frontman!
Yup, you're right!

At least for the time when Nigel had left!

SAM MCPHEETERS!!

Born Against, Men's Recovery Project, Wrangler Brutes

Meh, I prefer Rorschach myself, just by a touch.

Dear, oh, dear: kids, it was Townshend who started off the whole smashing instruments on stage malarky, not Hendrix, in fact the first time that Hendrix did that schtick was at the Monterey Pop Festival in '67, whereas The Who had been at it since before they actually had a record deal.

Can you really say it was Townshend, though? Other than Entwisle, they all just annihilated the stage.

Bon Scott: gone these 25 years, never forgotten.

I first read that as "Bono" and started to get angry. :D

Again I would say: Brilliant musician, awful frontman. Have you actually ever seen him live? He's got the stage presence of a loaf of bread. Even Roger Waters is more animated. And it is still painful to watch him (great concert, though, as can be seen on the live DVD!)

...yeah, okay, perhaps I'm rating his talent as a frontman a bit highly.

I first read that as "Bono" and started to get angry. :D
Wrong celt! :D

...yeah, okay, perhaps I'm rating his talent as a frontman a bit highly.
Perhaps that's another thread - top musicians (including masters of their instruments and songwriters)

Can you really say it was Townshend, though?


That is what popular wisdom tells us.

Yup, you're right!

At least for the time when Nigel had left!
That's just crap! "Jazz Odyssey" would have been a great success... but then Nigel had to come crawling back and ruin that. You obviously don't know anything about music. Talk to the... ...glove... I can't be bothered arguing this with you.


(*well of course I can... I just have seen other people using that argument too*)

Edit: Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse about that huge typo if I weren't under such heavy sedation.

That is what popular wisdom tells us.

But why? I didn't realize it was his idea alone.

He's the lead singer of Muse. If I had to describe Muse, I would say they play Radiohead's music with emo lyrics. It is painfully obvious listening to them that Mr. Bellamy wants to be Thom Yorke.

That being said, I kind of like their music. Good if you're in a real "fuck the world" kind of mood.

I seriously doubt he wants to be Thom Yorke, IMHO the differ so much its not true to compare them, having seen both live, Thom Yorke just tries to see how much he can curl up in a ball whilst attempting to sing, where as Bellamy is a showman, playing the crowd, really trying to get things going, and the shows they put on are amazing in terms of lights etc (although radio head do that too).

But bellamy is not a thom yorke wannabe.

But why? I didn't realize it was his idea alone.The lore would have it that Pete accidently stuck his guitar through a low ceiling in the midst of some showpony move, seperating neck from guitar... and proceeded to trash it completely, to the amusement of the audience... at least I think that's how it went. Mind you, IIRC, he didn't always trash good gear, preferring at least at some stage to build Schecter copies of his fave teles and strats to trash instead.

I seriously doubt he wants to be Thom Yorke, IMHO the differ so much its not true to compare them, having seen both live, Thom Yorke just tries to see how much he can curl up in a ball whilst attempting to sing, where as Bellamy is a showman, playing the crowd, really trying to get things going, and the shows they put on are amazing in terms of lights etc (although radio head do that too).

But bellamy is not a thom yorke wannabe.

Aye. I've seen them both live as well. Bellamy is much more energetic on stage than Yorke. I was referring to their singing styles, which I find to be almost identical.

The lore would have it that Pete accidently stuck his guitar through a low ceiling in the midst of some showpony move, seperating neck from guitar... and proceeded to trash it completely, to the amusement of the audience... at least I think that's how it went. Mind you, IIRC, he didn't always trash good gear, preferring at least at some stage to build Schecter copies of his fave teles and strats to trash instead.

Ah. I was unaware. Thank you.

I would go with Jimi Hendrix, It doesn't even matter what they did, he was the greatest guitarist ever! In my opinion.

Ah. I was unaware. Thank you.Very welcome. I've fallen out of touch with the music scene a bit since I got married, had kids and resigned from the human race, but I still remember some of the better stories (the one referred to in the poll regarding blowing up Keith Moon was a ripper BTW!)

Aye. I've seen them both live as well. Bellamy is much more energetic on stage than Yorke. I was referring to their singing styles, which I find to be almost identical.

In terms of the attempted operatics of both, i'll have to agree. I prefer bellamey, sure thom yorke appeals to some, but still, in terms of front men, bellamy beats yorke hands down by merely getting the crowd going.

neither are in line for the greatest though...


Freddie Mercury, 1985, Live Aid.

Even if you don't like Queen.

In terms of the attempted operatics of both, i'll have to agree. I prefer bellamey, sure thom yorke appeals to some, but still, in terms of front men, bellamy beats yorke hands down by merely getting the crowd going.

That's the reason why I was so antagonistic about the mention of Yorke. He doesn't motivate the crowd much at all. I've been to Radiohead shows. Most sit in their seats and sing along, while he rolls around all angsty. They're great musicians, but as far as performers, they're crap. In my opinion.

neither are in line for the greatest though...


Freddie Mercury, 1985, Live Aid.

Even if you don't like Queen.

That's what I said. :D

That's the reason why I was so antagonistic about the mention of Yorke. He doesn't motivate the crowd much at all. I've been to Radiohead shows. Most sit in their seats and sing along, while he rolls around all angsty. They're great musicians, but as far as performers, they're crap. In my opinion.

In which case, i agree :)

Very welcome. I've fallen out of touch with the music scene a bit since I got married, had kids and resigned from the human race, but I still remember some of the better stories (the one referred to in the poll regarding blowing up Keith Moon was a ripper BTW!)

Sadly, I am too young to have ever seen any of the greats live. :(

Sadly, I am too young to have ever seen any of the greats live. :(

Same, i wish page and plant would tour with the other guy (name has gone, i know it but its gone!!! :( ) would be great.

That's just crap! "Jazz Odyssey" would have been a great success... but then Nigel had to come crawling back and ruin that. You obviously don't know anything about music. Talk to the... ...glove... I can't be bothered arguing this with you.

(*well of course I can... I just have seen other people using that argument too*)

Edit: Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse about that huge typo if I weren't under such heavy sedation.
Shows you what you know! "Jazz Odyssey" was written by Derek Smalls. You remember him? The "lukewarm water between the fire and ice of Nigel and David"? Now there's an underrated musician.

Anyway, being under sedation is no excuse for not recognizing the mastermind behind Spinal Tap!

Same, i wish page and plant would tour with the other guy (name has gone, i know it but its gone!!! :( ) would be great.

You mean John Paul Jones? I don't know. I can't imagine Led Zeppelin without John Bonham crashing on the set.

Sadly, I am too young to have ever seen any of the greats live. :(
Me too, but I managed to catch a few of them in their later years... wish that I could've seen some of them in their heyday...

One of our Antipodean rockers, Billy Thorpe, was a frontman of note... he and the Aztecs prided themselves on being the most ridiculously loud band in Oz (even attempting to blow Deep Purple offstage at a local music festival). He was regularly dragged offstage by the wallopers for obscene language, and tells a story of a gig where he and his band noticed the local police standing by the stage, just waiting for him to drop the magic word... so they launch into a reactionary little ditty they called "You can't go 'round sayin' "f@#k" onstage... and are promptly carted off. The copper that's collared Thorpie tells him that the senior sargeant was standing there waiting for it, and told this young constable:"Venables, if that f&%kin' c@#t says "f@$k" just once, drag his f%&kin' a@^e down to the station and f*$kin' lock him up!"

Saw them a number of times through the 90's, and even in their mid/late fifties, they were THE loudest and hardest-rockin' band I've ever seen.

Shows you what you know! "Jazz Odyssey" was written by Derek Smalls. You remember him? The "lukewarm water between the fire and ice of Nigel and David"? Now there's an underrated musician.

Anyway, being under sedation is no excuse for not recognizing the mastermind behind Spinal Tap!
Ah-ha! That shows how - - shows what - - I mean that shows something! We were talking about great frontmen. "Space Odyssey" would have been a great success with David on the front without Nigel cosntantly dragging him down to his level. And it doesn't matter who friggin' wrote it. So there!

Edit: And yeah! Derek was an ace. It's a pity you said it first though!

Ah-ha! That shows how - - shows what - - I mean that shows something! We were talking about great frontmen. "Space Odyssey" would have been a great success with David on the front without Nigel cosntantly dragging him down to his level. And it doesn't matter who friggin' wrote it. So there!So, ARE we gonna play "Stonehenge" tonight?

You mean John Paul Jones? I don't know. I can't imagine Led Zeppelin without John Bonham crashing on the set.

True, but there are some damned good drummers out there, who, although they couldn't replace Bonham, could certainly come close.

Yeah I meant JPJ...

So, ARE we gonna play "Stonehenge" tonight?

Only if we bring the midgets :D

Ah-ha! That shows how - - shows what - - I mean that shows something! We were talking about great frontmen. "Space Odyssey" would have been a great success with David on the front without Nigel cosntantly dragging him down to his level. And it doesn't matter who friggin' wrote it. So there!

Edit: And yeah! Derek was an ace. It's a pity you said it first though!

I stand corrected - we were talking about frontmen. And although we differ in our appreciation of St.Hubbins and Tufnel, it is great that we agree on the pivotal role of Smalls.

And no, "we're not doing friggin Stone'enge tonight"!

True, but there are some damned good drummers out there, who, although they couldn't replace Bonham, could certainly come close.

Yeah I meant JPJ...
Isn't Bonham's son a drummer as well?

And what about the phenomenon of the disappearing bass players? Plant and Page getting back together, where was Jones? Queen going on tour without Deacon? I mean, what's that about?

He may be lesser-known outside of Canada, but Gord Downie still gets my vote.

Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols...you need him.
Anyway, I voted for Plant. Have you ever seen Led Zep concerts on video, or in reality? They are sooo amazing. Not to mention Plant is one of the great rock singers ever.

Isn't Bonham's son a drummer as well?

And what about the phenomenon of the disappearing bass players? Plant and Page getting back together, where was Jones? Queen going on tour without Deacon? I mean, what's that about?
Yeah. It was rumoured (last before live8) that Led would re-group with Jason on the drums. Laughable really.

Dissappearing bassists? Spontaneous human combustion..?

Isn't Bonham's son a drummer as well?

And what about the phenomenon of the disappearing bass players? Plant and Page getting back together, where was Jones? Queen going on tour without Deacon? I mean, what's that about?

Secret Bass Player Conspiracy tm

You mean John Paul Jones? I don't know. I can't imagine Led Zeppelin without John Bonham crashing on the set.


I agree. Also they are just too old. Plant hasnt aged well. His voice isnt nearly as good as it used to be and he has JOWELS. Eventhough you wish bands didnt break up, it is all for the better good because it is painful to see them when theyre old.

John "Rotten" Lydon.

I simply cannot believe so many posts were devoted to arguing the merits of Radiohead. Jumpin' jiminy.

I think next time this sort of thing comes up, "great" should be defined by the OP.

I mean ... sure, some folks may disagree with my list and even my assertations about Lemmy (clearly biased as I think Motorhead is the greatest metal band of all time), but as a musician and music teacher, I stand by it. :p

Didnt read ALL the pages but has

Dave Gahan - Depeche Mode, been mentioned? :cool:

Oh, Bob Mould's good, too.

http://photos8.flickr.com/7829898_dec32419aa.jpg

I'd have to say Diamond Dave - for raw charisma, huge personality and sheer energy onstage...

http://www.concertshots.com/May%20Images/cs-DavidLeeRoth3a-Atlanta5302.JPG

Eventhough you wish bands didnt break up, it is all for the better good because it is painful to see them when theyre old.

Ageism is kewl.

John "Rotten" Lydon.

great minds think alike or not so great depends on how you look at things i guess

Dave Gahan - Depeche Mode

how the hell did i forget him enjoy the silence is the most well written song of all time

has Anybody mentioned the King yet?

Yep: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9283840&postcount=18

Along with the criminal ommission of Paul McCartney and John Lennon of the Beatles.

Joe Elliot!!

Iggy.

All the way.

No contest.

Thankyou.

But..
http://www.scallen.com/images/090701.jpg
Props to Guy Picciotto from the almighy FVGAZI! You know all these post-punkers who dip and dive and sling their axes all over in fit-like spasmodics? Guess who they're emulating?

I have to go for Bruce Dickinson from Iron Maiden. He's just so over the top and runs all over the stage. He never stands still. He's a fencer, so maybe that explains it.

Also id like 2 add Zac DeLaRossa from Rage Against The Machine to the list, but still Phill Lynott is top!

Freddy Mercury.

Syd Barrett or Ozzy Osbourne. If you're looking for stunt-type things, Ozzy bit the head off of a fucking bat.

http://www.scallen.com/images/090701.jpg
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/FONT]! You know all these post-punkers who dip and dive and sling their axes all over in fit-like spasmodics? Guess who they're emulating?

Wilko Johnson from Dr Feelgood?

http://www.buscamusica.org/ezine/noticias/030513wilco.jpg

Dipping? Check.
Diving? Check.
Sling his axe all over in fit-like spasmodics? Check.
Was doing it a good ten years before Guy Picciotto? Check.

Jerry Lawler?

*Rimshot*
No, Mr Obsbourne.