nöyd said:
Ron Jeremy said::lol:
And the funny thing is they still do better shows and play better guitar.
FunkyMonk said:who said Van Halen is the greatest band in the world, as you proclaim them to be?
The Peppers are easily on of the greatest bands ever and are the only ones, thank john frusciante, who are still going hard from way back in the early 80's. Listen mate. f**k YOU. i'm over you childish sh*t, dogspoof, lame insults and what not.
Ron Jeremy said:Never proclaimed or said they were the greatest band spoofman, What i've said and proclaimed aswell is that fruit loop guy you keep wanking over is actually f**king sh*t! he's compared to John Mayer:lol: :lol:
What a insult to John Mayer
Inspirational
Ron Jeremy said:All i said was that Michael and his sister were better guitarist then that John guy.
And yes JT can sing well, most boy bands can. But there style is what looses me.
And yes JT can sing well, most boy bands can. But there style is what looses me.
carcharias said:no he is right.
JF is a great singer.
He has done a lot vocal training...and can sing very high in key.
He shytes all over AK (Not that it would be too hard to do that ).
now Ron
I hope you mean "loses" other wise that comment could sound very gay.
FunkyMonk said:John has one of the best vocal harmonics ive heard, and he is an awesome musical entity within himself without the chilis. John Frusciante has released 11 solo albums and 6 albums with the red hots. As well as that he made numerous guest appearances. What has Eddie done without the rest of the Van Haliens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frusciante_discography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Van_Halen#Solo_work
Ron Jeremy said:Rubbish, talent is obvious. So just say someone can play only 3 chords on the guitar, yet another can improvise a 8 minute lead break eg Comfortably Numb (live)....if i believe that that person who can only play 3 chords on guitar is more talented, he is?
Talent is as obvious as a dog sh*t on a tennis court, this is why i cannot understand the rationale of many who deem certain music or tastes to be talented when clearly it's as simplistic as all sh*t.
Scenario, who has a better voice:
a) Paul Stanley OR
b) Gene Simmons?
a, why? because Pauls vocal range isn't one dimensional, it has variety so he can basically change his style yet still remain in Key, at the same time he can hit the low notes and hold and then change and hit the high notes and sustain, Gene Simmons can't so A is the winner.
Simple as that
Kiwi said:Sorry it took so long to reply, but been busy......
First off, you started by comparing what would be deemed a beginner to an expert, it'd be like comparing someone who started their first art class 20 minutes ago to Picasso. It's a stupid comparison.
The Stanley/Simmons one has no merit as well. You are comparing levels of talent again as well. Are you saying Gene Simmons has no talent?
And seeing as you are calling singing a talent, love or hate people like Aguilera, Pink ect, they can sing and sing very well.
Ron Jeremy said:Kiwi, what I was saying i sthat talent is obvious as you can hear & see it.
An example, we all know that Paul Stanley can sing just by hearing him, where as Gene has talent in his own right, but it's obvious not to the extent of Paul Stanley, his vocal range is limited.
And yes Pink is a great singer, so is Nelly Furtado who i've recently takin a likeing to her;-)