Rolling Stone Editors Pick 100 Greatest Guitarists

[kexodusc]

Without endorsing the list as a whole or giving it much credence, I always really liked it, because it had a lot of choices that would piss off the "technical chops" school of music appreciation, who I have always strongly disagreed with.

Whatever sadistic pleasure you derive from pissing off the technical chops crowd really shouldn't influence the absolute question of greatest guitarists.

Folks who think fancy fretwork speed and agility are what makes a great guitar player, for example, as opposed to contribution to the music.

Yeah, so? If the list was 100 greatest contributions to music, 100 greatest songwriters, or 100 most popular influences in music it'd be different. It's not.

I dare say we sub Cobain with another scruffy looking, sarcastic heroin addict into Nirvana, but keep Cobain singing and writing the music and the impact of the music and band is not diminished at all. Was it his guitar playing or song writing that made him great. Easy question to answer...take his song writing out of the equation and have him just play guitar for another band...how far does he go? I don't know, but I'm sure most people who pick up a guitar because of Nirvana learn pretty quick that he's not top 100 caliber. If this list is a popularity contest, fine, if it's a greatest guitarist list, it's flawed.

Great from my perspective that they omitted someone like Steve Vai. I know this is a somewhat inflammatory post. And I'm not trying to endorse the exact choices or order of the list -- lists like this are more valuable for the writing that accompanies the list in the actual article, which we're not seeing. Should be an enjoyable read, not some official ranking. But what can I say? The very choices that pissed the "musicianship" crowd off on this list are my favorite things about it.

Let's strip away the supporting casts and put Kim Thayil, Glen Buxton, and Steve Vai on stage and see what they can do? I know who I'd put money on to consistently get the biggest, most favorable reaction in front of any and every crowd.

Seriously, Kurt Cobain, and Johnny Ramone on the list of greatest guitar players is as absolutely ridiculous as having Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan in the list of 100 greatest singers. They made the list for reasons having nothing to do with the word guitar.

[shokhead]

I never put Cobain and great guitar player together,anywhere,anyway. I'm thinking a list of the 500 greatest wouldnt find him on it. Not sure why his name is even in a threat here,imo of course.

[nobody]

I really don't see how you can separate the guitar playing from the music. They are intertwined. Great guitar playing contributes to great music. If a guy can't make a great song or contribute to a great song, he's simply not a great guitar player in my book no matter how many notes he can play or how fast.

I'd comapre it to a guy who can do amazing things with a basketball on the playground but doesn't have the overall game to make the NBA. Or a soccer player that can juggle the ball for days on end but doesn't have the total game to make it as a pro. Fancy tricks are nice, but you have to have a complete package to provide anything of value on a high level.

A good musician makes good music is the bottom line.

Now, what you consider good music is all subjective. But valuing a guy who can play a whole crapload of notes but can't make a song you like doesn't make and sense to me.

[GMichael]

I really don't see how you can separate the guitar playing from the music. They are intertwined. Great guitar playing contributes to great music. If a guy can't make a great song or contribute to a great song, he's simply not a great guitar player in my book no matter how many notes he can play or how fast.

I'd comapre it to a guy who can do amazing things with a basketball on the playground but doesn't have the overall game to make the NBA. Or a soccer player that can juggle the ball for days on end but doesn't have the total game to make it as a pro. Fancy tricks are nice, but you have to have a complete package to provide anything of value on a high level.

A good musician makes good music is the bottom line.

Now, what you consider good music is all subjective. But valuing a guy who can play a whole crapload of notes but can't make a song you like doesn't make and sense to me.

I see your point. But it's kind of like saying that Dan Marino was never a good quarterback because his team never won the Superbowl. Or that Barry Sanders wasn't a great running back because his team sucked.

[nobody]

I don't know enough about football to make any real comments on those fellas specifically...wouldn't recognize either of 'em if they walked up to me on the street...even if they were wearing their jersey, frankly. I probably should leave the sports analogies to others...just kinda struck me.

[SlumpBuster]

I don't know, but I'm sure most people who pick up a guitar because of Nirvana learn pretty quick that he's not top 100 caliber.

This is an interesting point though. Is the overall "greatness" of a guitar player enhanced by his/her ability to get people to pick up a guitar? I think it is. I listened to all the noodlers through junior high and high school: Satch, Vai, Malmsteen, Eric Johnson, ect. I always wanted to learn to play, but only so many hours in a day, right? Plus, where do you begin when you can't mimic your guitar heros because they are playing so damn fast.

Well when I got to college, a buddy of mine started to teach me to play. He was totally Kiss Army and I was really into punk. The DIY ethos of punk ("Yes, you too can play!) got me moving. Frankly, it was Green Day's Dookie, specifically Basket Case, that got me to finally pick up a guitar.

But, Teen Spirit was the first thing he actually taught me. Then it was the collected works of Mick Mars (Motley Crue), CC Deville (Poison), culminating with Paul Stanley. I would play Stanley's rhythm part and he would play lead. Not one of those would end up on a greatest list. Conversely, we then started learning from my Naked Raygun, Social Distortion, and Green Day records.

Which leads me to my other point, is it really fair to compare Cobain to Hendrix or Gilmore? I don't think so. Cobain was trying to do something entirely different than those guys and should be compared to other punk or hard rock guitarists. It like Roger Ebert's philosophy regarding movie reviews, they should be judged within the perameters of what they set out to accomplish, Titanic doesn't get compared to 40-Year Old Virgin. "100 Greatest Guitar Players" is bogus already because there are no jazz or classical players on that list. Hell, Charo is better than half the cats on that list! To be meaningful, I think the list would need to be tailored so that your not comparing apples to oranges.

[nobody]

Cuchi-Cuchi

[kexodusc]

I really don't see how you can separate the guitar playing from the music. They are intertwined. Great guitar playing contributes to great music. If a guy can't make a great song or contribute to a great song, he's simply not a great guitar player in my book no matter how many notes he can play or how fast.

Creating the music and playing the music are very different things. Some are good at both aspects, some very good at one, very bad at the other, and then there's those who account for everything in between these extremes. It's extremely super easy to separate the playing from the music creating. I just did it. Every town has highly proficient, shredding guitar gurus. They don't all make it big - you need more than that obviously.

Vai, well, he's made and contributed to enough good music that appealed to a large enough crowd over the years to earn his accolades. Can't say it's my cup of tea, but a lot of people dig it. He's more creative with the instrument than Cobain. Though Cobain obviously can write music with more mainstream appeal. When it comes to playing guitar - could Vai play what Cobain did? Yes. Could Cobain play as well as Vai did? Please...

I dunno, I guess it's the criteria for the list - though when I look at many of the players on the list, they are technically good, can make great music, and more importantly, inspired others. Cobain may have inpired more people, but I attribute that to his writing abilities, not his playing.

Just for the sake of playing by your rules though, Cobain and Ramone should have been left off the list for better song-writer/guitar players too - Lennon, McCartney, Elvis, etc...

I'd comapre it to a guy who can do amazing things with a basketball on the playground but doesn't have the overall game to make the NBA. Or a soccer player that can juggle the ball for days on end but doesn't have the total game to make it as a pro. Fancy tricks are nice, but you have to have a complete package to provide anything of value on a high level.

How about a more accurate analogy - a point guard who can't play another position, but is damn good at point guard, and contributes to his team's success.

A good musician makes good music is the bottom line.

Lots of good musicians out there who aren't good songwriters.

Now, what you consider good music is all subjective. But valuing a guy who can play a whole crapload of notes but can't make a song you like doesn't make and sense to me.

Don't think anyone here has ever suggested otherwise.

I just can't help but feel if the list was singers/vocalists, the song writing aspect would be a non-issue - the voice is the instrument - nobody's going to tell me Bob Dylan is a better singer than Josh Groban - though I like the former and hate the latter...but that's because of other factors, not the singing...

[nobody]

A couple things...first, yeah, even if it was singers you'd get plenty of people supporting guys like Dylan with a non-traditional voice for their emotive qualities and such. Guys who just hit the notes and have no character to ther voice are a dime a dozen. Watch American Idol and they'll uncover a few dozen of those types every year. If music was all done by the numbers with a perfect angelic voice hitting all the notes and each instrument playing with presician and grace, I'd be bored silly. People who bring a different texture to the table deserve to have their contribution recognized as it is a significant part of rock music.

And second, I do not for a second believe that those shredder types can play the sorts of music the guys you consider lesser guitar players play as well as those guys play them. Sometimes the rough edges help and sometimes they just don't have the feel to slow down and play differently. I've seen plenty of so-called virtuosos try their hand at just playing some straight ahead rock and fall flat on their face. And, I've seen guys start out playing with energy and drive and keep getting technically better in terms of more notes and a "cleaner" sound while their performance within the band suffers and the shows start to drag.

Besides, if all you care about is how complicated guys can play, just stop listening to rock and roll. It's just not a form where the more complicated is automatically better.

[Resident Loser]

...to the discussion? Lyrics (more or less) for Tasty by The Good Rats:

We had a flying guitar man
Maybe the fastest in the land
But he was going no where fast
Speed ain't nothing without class

He couldn't play tasty
Ta-a-asty
Ain't it time we mellowed out...

We had a man named crazy Ott
He overplayed his bass a lot
We had to kick him in the pants
His fingers moved like bodies dance

He couldn't play tasty
Ta-a-a-sty
Ain't it time we mellowed out...

We had a drummer named Joe
He played so fast we let him go
He ran away with all our songs
Now he's school where he belongs

He couldn't play tasty
Ta-a-a-sty
Ain't it time we mellowed out...

Basically...speed, technical proficiency (or pyrotechnics if you will) and a phalanx of effects pedals is what drives the demographic and ergo...SELLS...

Folks like Chet Atkins or Andres Segovia?

jimHJJ(...now dem boys is GOOD...)

[DariusNYC]

I feel less guilty about my flame-like earlier post because I see what a nice discussion it started. I don't have time to contribute intelligently to this discussion, but I had time to scan it and appreciate it nonetheless. Dusty Chalk was right that I just posted to start an argument. Not my greatest moment, but I do believe strongly what I said about liking the list for not focussing always on technically great (or even sometimes technically very good guitarists). In addition to not giving too great emphasis to guitarists that favor solos and the like. Other classic picks for me on this list that may be less inflammatory to mention than my initial highlighting of the Edge and Cobain would be Keith Richards and Neil Young (too low in my book given his contributions with Crazy Horse). Great to see the guitarists in Radiohead get a mention (although they are actually technically top notch, unlike someone like Cobain). Anyhow, I think a list like this has little value separate from the article that would presumably be interesting to read for someone learning more about rock music.

[DariusNYC]

I really do have to get back to work, but let me take a moment to say further that I first decided I thought Cobain was a great guitarist when I heard "Serve the Servants" off of In Utero at a loud volume -- breathaking guitar on that song. Since then I've come to appreciate Cobain's (in my subjective view!) awesome dirty and big guitar style in live recordings and even on the overly-slick-and-brittle-sounding Nevermind album.

[Dusty Chalk]

Jay -- you don't even listen. You just take my response as an excuse to get up on your soapbox about opinion vs. absolute values.

Of course I agree that it's all opinion, but just as it's Darius' every right to post his, it's my right to call him out on it. An anti-opinion is just as valid as an opinion, because it's just another opinion phrased contrarily.

And you keep taking the time to criticize the lists and seem to lump me in with them about speed and number of notes in a minimum of time -- I never said that and I don't agree with it (cf. my David Gilmour reference) -- Malmsteen would never be on my list. I completely understand that that criteria isn't a good one, but that doesn't render all or any other criteria meaningless. I mean, if I really wanted to piss people off, I'd put William Hung on the list -- he doesn't even play guitar. You'd have to agree that there are people who don't belong on the list -- William Hung, Christina Aguilera, Winston Churchill, Dubya, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky -- I hope you see my point. There are some criteria that many and most people are going to agree with, especially anyone with any care of rock'n'roll.

Darius is entitled to his opinion. However, using pure opinion like that makes it a different list. Just waving your hands and saying that it's all opinion doesn't mean that you can make the list from public opinion -- I don't trust public opinion for exactly the attitude that Darius represented. But there are still "better" and "worse" guitarists. Where does that leave us? It just means the list is unknowable, and will be different for everyone. But there will be some consensus, especially amongst people who don't have ulterior motives for placing certain guitarists above or below other guitarists.

I need to keep this short, so I'm not going to respond to some of your other points -- if there are key ones you'd like to see my answer to specifically, please feel free to point them out.

Darius -- please notice I didn't pick on your Cobain choice -- I actually do think he's quite a good guitarist. Great? Debatable. But he definitely knows the instrument quite well, which at least puts him in the running.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Well, in spite of yr opinion, there the Edge is. So if what you're saying is true relative to his actual playing, it would seem that the compilers of the list took Darius' criteria into consideration, no? That criteria didn't address non-players, now, did it?

But it sure brought out those who value form over substance, didn't it. Now go back & take another look at yr post. First you say the Edge is a good guitarist, then you say that it doesn't matter what planet you're from, he's NOT a good guitarist. So which is it?

And remember that term you used: "Quality." In a thread where someone has chosen to put down Dylan's vocals, there is irony in the ambiguity of the meaning of this term being, apparently, not remembered.

[nobody]

One thing I think bears noting is that these sorts of lists are usually done by committee, so each camp gets a few picks. In the end, we all end up with people on them we agree with and people we disagree with and a list with no real cohesion. But, we also end up with a few we each do like.

Reason being, we can discuss our individual schools of though all we want, but there's no concensus on this sort of thing and never will be. Each side has valid reasons for their ideas (however misguided those that disagree with me are) and in the end if you want to make an inclusive list you just agree to disagree and toss in a few for the different points of view and get on with it. Otherwise, you just make your own list with your own perspective. I'd venture that if you gathered any single person who had a hand in the creation of this list, their personal list would very different from the collective, finished product.

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, in spite of yr opinion, there the Edge is. So if what you're saying is true relative to his actual playing, it would seem that the compilers of the list took Darius' criteria into consideration, no? That criteria didn't address non-players, now, did it?

What criteria, "contribution to the music"? (shrugs) I guess. And yes, a vocalist contributes to the music, and is not a guitarist, so that, in itself, is inadequate criteria. I would need it expanded upon before I accepted it as an alternative to the actual stated criteria for being on the list, namely, being a great guitarist.

I'm not buying your reworking of the list for your own soapboxing.

Like I said, make your own list: Guitarists who have made great contributions to music. It's a different list. Johnny Ramone could well belong on that one.

Now go back & take another look at yr post. First you say the Edge is a good guitarist, then you say that it doesn't matter what planet you're from, he's NOT a good guitarist. So which is it?

I don't see where you got that I say the Edge is a good guitarist -- you go back and look at at least one of my posts, I explicitly say "he sucks". When I questioned his standing at 24, I thought that it didn't merit comment, but since you need everything explicitly spelled out, I'll comment on it here: "The Edge @ 24?!?!? Why so high? In fact, why is he on the list at all? He's not a great guitarist." There -- clear enough for you? Quit trying to twist my words -- you can shovel all you want, I'll shovel it right back.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I goofed, I think I saw a period where you were paraphrasing & I didn't catch it. Sorry.

But if you want to pick at this bone, I'm game. You'll have to provide me with a reason why you feel Johnny Ramone is a poor choice for this list. And you can base that on whatever you wish, including musicianship.

And I know that you play, so you'll understand certain things that others might not relative to certain factors involved. You may not be interested in reading about them, but I'll offer them up in response to anything you have to say about WHY you think he doesn't belong on the list, or why you think he's not a great guitar player.

Go for it.

[Dusty Chalk]

Because there are better.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Better? At what?

"Playing guitar?"

What aspect(s) of playing guitar? Just the ones you find important?

You're trying to make a case that this or that individual doesn't belong on a Greatest Guitarists list that excludes Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Merle Travis, and Charlie friggin' Christian, yet elicits complaints that it excludes Steve Vai.

Johnny Ramone at number 16, what an outrage. I wonder if you are equally perturbed at the placings of Robert Johnson, Kirk Hammett, and, say, Tom Morello, all of whom rate higher here than Les Paul at #46?

That speaks for itself. Now: better HOW?

[Dusty Chalk]

Just...better.

If there are 10,000 guitarists in the world (and there are probably more), only 1% belong on the "Top 100 Greatest Guitarists" list. It's an exclusive list. You're asking me to defend my opinion, and I'm going to do the same thing you do when I bring up a good point -- ignore it. Of course it's my opinion, of course it's based on the criteria I find important. It's an opinion. Deal with it.

Don't get me wrong -- not being included on a greatest guitarists list doesn't make him a bad player -- he could still be in the top 10%. Do you know who I think is worse? All the Beatles (any of them that played guitar, that is). Angus Young. It's not that I am outraged at his placing at 16, it's that I'm outraged that some that are lower (17 on up) are not placed higher. They're better. John Frusciante is better; Brian May is better; Peter Green is better; Robert Fripp is better; Steve Howe, Eddie Van Halen -- they're all better. Andy Summers is better. Adrian Belew is better. Some are better in some ways, some are better in others. The only thing that matters is that they're better.

Heck, sometimes they're incomparable. How on earth could one compare say, David Gilmour with say, Rodrigo Y Gabriela (all three of whom are better than Johnny Ramone)? You can't. So you have to make an executive decision. It's hard. But sometimes, it's easy. You can't really compare the Edge with Jimmy Page, but Page is clearly better. It's not a difficult thing to state. You can't really explain it, but you can still decide.

You're trying to paint me into a corner, and I'm not playing. I will walk on the paint. You want to villainize me for picking on your idol -- I did it to piss you off (hey, there's a familiar sentiment), there are plenty of others there that I would (a) rearrange, and (b) knock off the list completely, in favour of others more qualified.

Hey, feel free to explain what interpretation of "contribution to music" would merit inclusion on a "greatest guitarists" list. See, you ignored that one.

[MindGoneHaywire]

All of these guys you're naming, that you're claiming are better? If they are or were better, then perhaps you can make a case that they're better at what they did.

I don't see you making a case that they are or were better at what HE did.

[Dusty Chalk]

I already told you -- I don't take orders from you. Just as you don't take orders from me.

[MindGoneHaywire]

You were the one who complained about Darius' post, not me. If you put forth a complaint as logically flawed as 'just better,' you shouldn't be surprised if someone calls you on it.

You & the OP both had a problem with the exclusion of Vai. Do you also share the stated chagrin of the OP that Duane Allman is ranked #2?

Do you believe that Frusciante, May, Green, Fripp. Howe, Summers, et al, are or were better at what Johnny Ramone did, than Johnny Ramone was?

Just asking.

[shokhead]

What is a great guitarists? Really nobody knows except them. To me you would have to either poll the players and they havent seen or heard them all. We havent. Cant be done because so many are dead. So really its a imo list. I'll bet 50 bucks that at least another 50 thats not on the list and not on this thread are as good as 75 on the list. So as someone said somewhere,these lists are for people to argue over. Its worked,dont ya think? BTW,EVH is way over rated. LMAO

[Dusty Chalk]

You were the one who complained about Darius' post, not me. If you put forth a complaint as logically flawed as 'just better,' you shouldn't be surprised if someone calls you on it.

And Darius' post was not logically flawed?

Using the reasoning, "you started it", I can simply retort, "no, Darius started it".

You & the OP both had a problem with the exclusion of Vai. Do you also share the stated chagrin of the OP that Duane Allman is ranked #2?

I said I had problems with the whole list, yet you're only picking on part of my statement -- the part about your hero. Yet you never explained how "contribution to music" might be reinterpreted to mean "great guitarist" -- who needs calling out?

Do you believe that Frusciante, May, Green, Fripp. Howe, Summers, et al, are or were better at what Johnny Ramone did, than Johnny Ramone was?

You're trying to lure me into that particular argument again, and I'll just go back to my response: it depends what you mean -- if what you mean is "play guitar greatly", then yes, I believe they do. And I believe that nothing else matters. I'm not saying you're delusional for believing otherwise, but I think you would be delusional if you deliberately preferred not great guitarists just simply because they pissed people like me off. If Darius meant anything other than that with his earlier post, I have yet to see you make anything of it. Even he said that's what he meant by that, yet you continue to defend windmills.