Like in the rolling stones list, no mustaine..or any megadeth for that matter..yet kirk hammet is there, and metallica got their start playin the **** that he made for awhile..first 2 cd's right? anyway..he could kick the *** of a lot, if not most of the other people on those lists..seems kinda unfair
2007-09-29 16:43:08 · 9 answers · asked by jared 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
I personally think Kirk Hammett is better. Anyway, the Rolling Stones list is kinda weird. Some guitarists are inappropriately ranked, even though most of them are admittedly good. Besides, Dave Mustaine is most well-known as the rhythm guitarist, singer, and frontman of Megadeth. Marty Friedman is regarded as the lead guitarist.
Dave Mustaine is 173 on digitaldreamdoor.com's list. Kirk Hammett is at 35. Marty Friedman is 32. James Hetfield is 200.
2007-09-29 17:08:13 · answer #1 · answered by Montag 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
thats a pretty good question. it has alot to do with commercial popularity unfortunantly. I bet most of those list also ommits john petrucci, alex skolnick, and definently andy laroque, and well if those guys are listed its at the bottom of the lists in the first place. I am definently in ageeance with the guy who answered first about rolling stone, those assholes probably put kurt no-brain near the top of the list thats why i wouldn't even waste my time hearing the radio friendly trendy opinions they display. Mustaine is a god count on that!
2007-09-29 17:47:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because a lot of people are to involved in popular music like "Fall Out Boy" They don't look at real talent.
Dave Mustaine is an amazing guitarist.
2007-09-29 19:15:02 · answer #3 · answered by RoVale 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude as long as you think Dave kicks major azz thats all that matters. I know i do. Trust me, Megadeths Metal during the 90's might of not been as good as it was during the 80's, but it was a hell of a lot better than the crap Metallica was putting out during that time. Dont get me wrong, I love Metallica, but the only thing that didnt suk during the 90's era was the Mercyful Fate cover they did, but thats it. Anyways, *** what other people say. If it matters to you thats wats important.
2007-09-29 18:00:38 · answer #4 · answered by Shuvaka 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First off, don't ever go by ANYTHING Rolling Stone tells you. That is a flawed publication that goes the extra distance to deceive the music listening public. Second, people who know metal readily acknowledge Mustaine's talent as well as his role as a pioneer of the genre.
2007-09-29 17:08:01 · answer #5 · answered by Rckets 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
rolling stone hasnt changed their top 100 aside from adding a few new acts to "stay w/ the times" since 1979. No one takes that seriously, hendrix will be #1 til the world ends, thats how it goes. Also, megadeath was allright, but in comparison to pantera, anthrax, hirax, stuff like that, not so much. But yes they should be in the top 50, somewhere.
2007-09-29 19:16:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because he has a bad attitude, and hates how successful Metallica is. Sorry Dave.
2007-09-29 22:06:46 · answer #7 · answered by Screamer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not by me my friend, check this out.
Scroll down to me and you'll find your boy Dave in the mix.
2007-09-29 18:38:42 · answer #8 · answered by TLB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because he suckss!!!
2007-09-29 18:44:46 · answer #9 · answered by This Sucks 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋