Rolling Stones Top 50 live acts

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...0130731?page=3

Of course they didn't include Bon Jovi. What's cool is the comment section. The majority of people are calling RS out for not including them.

Look, we all know the sets are vanilla and Jon doesn't sound nearly as good as he used to, but how the hell can they not include them? Even at their worst, they're better than 90% of other groups in a live setting.

RS is such a trash magazine.

Well they got number one right with Bruce & The E Street

Even Bon Jovi in their current shape should be in the top 20 at least. Some of the acts on there are just cringe worthy. Skrillex?!

Read that list yesterday, it's ridiculous. There's so many acts from various genres (even some I don't care for) who were left off even though they're known as putting on amazing live shows.

Sigur Ros should be much higher up that list.

RHCP should not be on it unless they're basing it on extended funk-bass wankery.

Muse yes.

Foo Fighters - far too hit or miss live to count imo

U2 - I've seen twice and both times have been chronicaly boring. At least in one of the shows Bono sang instead of preaching for most of it.

Radiohead - Really enjoyed but definitely not one of the best live bands I've ever seen.

Jay Z - No. Just no. I dig his stuff but as a live performer. No.

Springseen - Definitely. Of the countless big and small live shows I've seen, Hyde Park last year is my all time #1 and another 2 shows are in my top ten.

No Roger Waters is a joke as is no Nile Rodgers. Had the pleasure of seeing him last weekend and he was a monster. Well in my top 10.

BTW I wouldn't have Bon Jovi in the top 50 either.

If you're looking at stone cold huge bands then yeah but there's so many smaller, less known bands that bring so much more to a live environment.

Damien Rice manages to do more live with an acoustic guitar and some pedals than Jovi do with a full 20 truck touring set up.

When your live performances are not as good as in the studio, you can't claim to be one of the best live acts.

Prayer is a perfect example.

That's pure nonsense.

A great show is more than a "sold out" with a "giant buick" and Bobby playing pranks.

That is an outrageous statement. There are very few artists who can top the studio version of their songs. What defines a great live act is so much more than that - passion, delivery, crowd interaction, value for money etc etc.

For what its worth this article did get it bang on. Saw Springsteen 4 times on this tour and was blown away - easily the best live act on the planet right now (although its funny to note contributers to the votes included his manager and management company, Tom Morello, and other known Springsteen lovers).

I do however disagree with no mention to Bon Jovi (although not surprised at their absence given its RS). Whilst this tour has been far from their finest, dare I say no other act does pop rock anthems to stadium audiences as well as they do. Still put Hyde Park 2011 down as one of my favourite gigs ever and i know alot of very casual fans who ive taken over the last few tours who have left having enjoyed every minute. They have a catalogue of hits people know and cant help but jump, dance and sing to, one of the most charasmatic front men in the biz (when on his day) and a band of incredible talented, consistent players throw in decent stage designs and a near 3 hour set for value for money and what you have is a top 50 live act.

I've never been able to take Rolling Stone seriously, this doesn't help either. I mean I like Bruce Springsteen and all and he's a phenomenal live act, but you can't really deny RS have their collective mouths placed firmly on his ass.