Jimi #1
I suppose polls only reflect the electorate but there are some odd ones in here (many I’ve never even heard of ) but c’mon ! forty-five !!.
7 Responses to “Jimi #1”
You are reading Jimi #1 which was posted on Thursday, August 28th, 2003 at 12:04 pm by Guacamole. This entry is filed under Uncategorized.
Previously: forty years on
Next entry: Bubbles (again)
Previously: forty years on
Next entry: Bubbles (again)
Sponsored Links
Archives
- May 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
August 28th, 2003 at 12:14 pm »
Of course it’s just a matter of opinion, but I find some of that laughable. I mean Clapton at #4 ! presumably on the basis of Cream and one song from Derek and the Dominoes (featuring #2), cos he sure ain’t done anything half decent since.
#52 Lou Reed !!!
Still, pleased to see a personal favourite of mine at #57.
Only two women in there though.
August 28th, 2003 at 12:59 pm »
…just more crap from a tired commercial medium. The most telling thing about this list, and its target audience, is the fact they feel the need to identify the band with the guitarist.
Why not “George Harrison of the Beatles”?
Hey, no. 62. How did he get in there?
August 28th, 2003 at 1:56 pm »
These people are absolute morons. Oh, and who the fuck is Bod Diddley?
August 28th, 2003 at 2:03 pm »
You don’t know Bod !?
check him out – http://www.toonhound.com/bod.htm
;¬)
August 28th, 2003 at 2:25 pm »
“Mister number sixty-two, hit tht long lunar note and let it float……….”
(Hmmm, doesn’t quite have the right ring about it)
August 28th, 2003 at 4:29 pm »
I knew Bod, and you, sir, are no Bod.
August 29th, 2003 at 11:34 am »
You can’t really expect anything serious from Rolling Stone. This is more a popularity contest. There are more than a couple of names I’d replace with: Chet Atkins, Steve Vai, Leo Kottke, Michael Hedges, Mike Kenneally, and WARREN.