quote:

---

Saint Sway wrote:
this months Mojo magazine has a list of the 100 greatest Rock Icons.

Keef was #4
Mick was #17

Lennon was #1. Elvis was #2. Cobain was #5 (what a joke)

I forget the rest. I just thumbed thru it on the newstand.

nice showing for Keith. But I would of put Jagger at #1. He is without a doubt the biggest rock icon of all time

---

quote:

---

jb wrote:
I won't say it Gazza....but I'm sure you know my sentiments...

---

quote:

---

Gazza wrote:


LOL

If Mick had been shot when he was 40, and Lennon was still playing and touring in his 60's, 30 plus years past his best, then Mick would possibly have been in the top two or three - and Lennon wouldnt.

Dying young helps give anyone iconic status. Hence the popularity of Cobain. There's been no one else in the last 20 years who you could say that about. Personally, I cant see what the fuss is about but to people under a certain age, he's THE modern day music icon.

Elvis when he was alive was (with the possible exception of Muhammad Ali) the most internationally recognised face in the world. At the height of their popularity, the Beatles would have been much the same.

Like it or not, you could never make that argument about the Stones at any time in their career.

And Josh, if that poll was held in America and you are under the impression that the top two would be any different, you're deluding no one but yourself mate. I'm actually amazed that Keith polled so highly.

---

quote:

---

Fiji Joe wrote:
Indeed how, why is Lennon tops...man he ain't even close...I guess if you're going to call that bubble gum pop they were doing rock music...did any of the Monkees make the list?

---

quote:

---

glencar wrote:
Gee, I bet Pete Tork now wishes he had taken that bullet.

---

quote:

---

glencar wrote:
Scared? He dumped her for 1 1/2 years to be with a hot young thang.

---

quote:

---

jb wrote:
Everyone knows the Beatles were overrated, but they are thrown down out throats by the pop loving media for decades..they sucked big time imo.....Macca is a dick, ringo a no talent shit, George an average guitarist and Lennon , a scared house husband controlled by Yoko....

---

quote:

---

jb wrote:
no..but i liked rick sutcliff....

---

quote:

---

jb wrote:
3 more to 500!!!

---

quote:

---

Fiji Joe wrote:
"Everyone knows the Beatles were overrated, but they are thrown down out throats by the pop loving media for decades.."

You know JB...I see some very distinct parallels between your above statement and the Jewish, Hitler led holocaust vs the Russian, Stalin led holocaust...I mean in one instance you're talking 20 million lives and in the other 6 million lives...but I'll be damned if I know why the lesser instance is contanstly thown down our throats to the exclusion of the larger instance...

I would think the answer to both those inconsistencies is the same...which has the most potential for profit?...Jews and the Beatles...sorta like ebony and ivory

---

quote:

---

Fiji Joe wrote:
Yes JB...but my russian descended friends do not have a habit of reminding me, on a daily basis, of the trials of their people...and they, do not have a large presence in the American media...it's all about the money and positional gain that can be made from illicting feelings of guilt regarding the fate of the european jews in WWII...it's sickening...it's the Jesse Jackson shakedown principle taken to a much more sophisticated level...and I think you know that

So, as I said, the Beatles, Lennon, the illogical pimping of what really is no more significant than any other, there are parallels

---

quote:

---

jb wrote:
I think the last time I looked, Rupert Murdock controlled the media, Mel Gibson controlled the box office, and the Arabs controlled the Oil..so much for Jewish influence..

---