-
Rolling Stone Editors Pick 100 Greatest Guitarists
When I read this I was shocked that a group of so called experts came up with this
BS. No Steve Vai, No Satch, Randy Rhodes not even in the top 50, Van Halen at
71, David Gilmore 82, Allman #2. The world has gone crazy. No wonder I dropped that
friggin rag 10 years ago. Here it is, sit before reading!
1 Jimi Hendricks
2 Duane Allman
3 B.B. King
4 Eric Clapton
5 Robert Johnson
6 Chuck Berry
7 Stevie Ray Vaughan
8 Ry Cooder
9 Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin
10 Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones
11Kirk Hammett of Metallica
12 Kurt Cobain of Nirvana
13 Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead
14 Jeff Beck
15 Carlos Santana
16 Johnny Ramone of the Ramones
17 Jack White of the White Stripes
18 John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers
19 Richard Thompson
20 James Burton
21 George Harrison
22 Mike Bloomfield
23 Warren Haynes
24 The Edge of U2
25 Freddy King
26 Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave
27 Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits
28 Stephen Stills
29 Ron Asheton of the Stooges
30 Buddy Guy
31 Dick Dale
32 John Cipollina of Quicksilver Messenger Service
33 & 34 Lee Ranaldo, Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth
35 John Fahey
36 Steve Cropper of Booker T. and the MG's
37 Bo Diddley
38 Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac
39 Brian May of Queen
40 John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival
41 Clarence White of the Byrds
42 Robert Fripp of King Crimson
43 Eddie Hazel of Funkadelic
44 Scotty Moore
45 Frank Zappa
46 Les Paul
47 T-Bone Walker
48 Joe Perry of Aerosmith
49 John McLaughlin
50 Pete Townshend
51 Paul Kossoff of Free
52 Lou Reed
53 Mickey Baker
54 Jorma Kaukonen of Jefferson Airplane
55 Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple
56 Tom Verlaine of Television
57 Roy Buchanan
58 Dickey Betts
59 & 60 Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'Brien of Radiohead
61 Ike Turner
62 Zoot Horn Rollo of the Magic Band
63 Danny Gatton
64 Mick Ronson
65 Hubert Sumlin
66 Vernon Reid of Living Colour
67 Link Wray
68 Jerry Miller of Moby Grape
69 Steve Howe of Yes
70 Eddie Van Halen
71 Lightnin' Hopkins
72 Joni Mitchell
73 Trey Anastasio of Phish
74 Johnny Winter
75 Adam Jones of Tool
76 Ali Farka Toure
77 Henry Vestine of Canned Heat
78 Robbie Robertson of the Band
79 Cliff Gallup of the Blue Caps (1997)
80 Robert Quine of the Voidoids
81 Derek Trucks
82 David Gilmour of Pink Floyd
83 Neil Young
84 Eddie Cochran
85 Randy Rhoads
86 Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath
87 Joan Jett
88 Dave Davies of the Kinks
89 D. Boon of the Minutemen
90 Glen Buxton of Alice Cooper
91 Robby Krieger of the Doors
92 & 93 Fred "Sonic" Smith, Wayne Kramer of the MC5
94 Bert Jansch
95 Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine
96 Angus Young of AC/DC
97 Robert Randolph
98 Leigh Stephens of Blue Cheer
99 Greg Ginn of Black Flag
100 Kim Thayil of Soundgarden
__________________
-
That was printed back in 2003, I would hope the team that put this list together has been fired long ago!
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ts_of_all_time
-
The Edge @ 24 ?
Jerry Garcia @ 13 ?!? Right above Jeff Beck ?!?!?
Rolling Stone should stick to doing what they do best...dressing up young teenage pop tarts in faux porn-star outfits and taking photographs of them.
-
What to you expect from Rolling Stone.
No Alex Lifeson too. Probably too math rock for Rolling Stone, along with Vai, Satch, Malmsteen. The really dumb thing about a list like that is how all the artists are from super well known mainstream bands and dominated by 60s and 70s artist. Moby Grape?!?! You gotta be kiddin' me.
It's like the greatest, by definition, must have been found by mainstream. If Jack White got a day job after the DeStijl record, he would still be a great guitarist, but certainly wouldn't be on the list.
I have to admit, I was shocked to see Eddie Hazel on the list.
-
I do not waste my time over magazines "Top Anything" lists. My choices seldom agree and like "opinions" they are very personalized and usually not worth much to others.
-
I just alwasy hate that Duane Eddy may just be my favorite guitar player and I don't think I've ever seen him on any of these lists.
-
I only agree with 2 of the first 8.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody
I just alwasy hate that Duane Eddy may just be my favorite guitar player and I don't think I've ever seen him on any of these lists.
Too true. Favorites don't always match up with the establishments definition of "great." Some of my favorites are guitarists you won't ever see on a list like this and certainly aren't "guitar gods":
Mick Mars of Motley Creu
Downing and Tipton of Judas Priest
Phil Collin of Def Leppard
Emma Anderson of Lush
John Squire of Stone Roses
Robert Smith of The Cure
Tom Wisnieski (Sp?) of MxPx
Allison Robertson of the Donnas
Ben Weasel of Screeching Weasel/Riverdales
What are some other favorites of yours that other people would scoff at?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
Too true. Favorites don't always match up with the establishments definition of "great." Some of my favorites are guitarists you won't ever see on a list like this and certainly aren't "guitar gods":
Mick Mars of Motley Creu
Downing and Tipton of Judas Priest
Phil Collin of Def Leppard
Emma Anderson of Lush
John Squire of Stone Roses
Robert Smith of The Cure
Tom Wisnieski (Sp?) of MxPx
Allison Robertson of the Donnas
Ben Weasel of Screeching Weasel/Riverdales
What are some other favorites of yours that other people would scoff at?
George Lynch
Joe Satriani
Steve Vai
John Petrucci
And Move Edward To The Top 3, or #1 On My List!:5:
-
Is this Jimi Hendricks any relation to Jimi Hendrix?
-
Quote:
George Lynch
Joe Satriani
Steve Vai
John Petrucci
Good to see George Lynch get mentioned.
-
Steve Howe #69? For me one of two things jumps out at me for a guitarist to be truly great. Can they do something that is almost impossible for others to repeat? Or is their feel of music so fantastically exactly what you wanted to hear but didn't know it that it makes you smile? Steve Howe plays so many styles fantastically with great feel AND precision. I don't know who I would pick as #1, but surely Steve Howe is better than #69. Speaking of feel for music, where the heck is Billy Gibbons? Check out Brown Sugar by ZZ Top on One Foot In the Blues. Turn it WAY up. Thanks for the venting session.
-
Personally I disagree with having JImi Hendrix as the top guitarist. All the other guitarists actually wrote and played songs with riffs' bridges ect, not just one prolonged guitar solo. granted he had some serious skill, but by no way would i consider him better than BB king and Jimi Page, and Stevie Ray Vaughn.
And speaking of missing people, were on earth is Les Paul... granted he didn't have too many albums, but he revolutionized modern music by being the creator of the solid body guitar... Yes it was Les Paul not Fender!!!!
-
-
oh you better beleive it.. this_____ is on now!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
Personally I disagree with having JImi Hendrix as the top guitarist. All the other guitarists actually wrote and played songs with riffs' bridges ect, not just one prolonged guitar solo.
What? You're high. One of Jimi's biggest strengths was as a songwriter. Sure "the solo" is what he's famous for live, but if you listen to his studio output, you see he had some "mad skills" in the "pop sensibilities" department. Songs like "Dolly Dagger", "Fire", "Purple Haze", "Crosstown Traffic" and on and on and on...he could sing (admittedly, he was no Freddie Mercury), then throw a lick in, then go right back to singing, and then riffing on top of that the whole time.
#1.
Easily.
No doubt in my mind.
Far and away.
&c, &c
-
Granted I over simplified hendirx, but by now means can i deny the hendrix was an amazing guitarist. But I still have to say that jimi Page still deserves one of the top spots, just watching him play the gibson EDS 1275 (double neck) is truly an amazing site. And look at BB king, at the age of 81 he can still thrash his guitar like no other. Truly amazing a can't wait to see him live in April.
-
Cobain and Ramone? Might as well have Billy f'n Corgan and Kid Rock on the list.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
What? You're high. One of Jimi's biggest strengths was as a songwriter. Sure "the solo" is what he's famous for live, but if you listen to his studio output, you see he had some "mad skills" in the "pop sensibilities" department. Songs like "Dolly Dagger", "Fire", "Purple Haze", "Crosstown Traffic" and on and on and on...he could sing (admittedly, he was no Freddie Mercury), then throw a lick in, then go right back to singing, and then riffing on top of that the whole time.
#1.
Easily.
No doubt in my mind.
Far and away.
&c, &c
Some compare ELL with S Peppers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
But I still have to say that jimi Page still deserves one of the top spots...
Yeah, he should be in the top 10, no doubt. But my reasons for admiring him are entirely different from yours -- he took the guitar places. He was a path-forger.
Listen to, for example, "The Rain Song" -- practically cinematic in its evocation of various different aspects of rain -- drizzle, downpour, sheets, you name it. Masterful.
Gilmour belongs in the top 10 as well -- known to make a grown man cry with a single note. The compilers of that list must not like rock'n'roll very much. They're those people in the back of the auditorium with drinks in their hands too busy talking to each other to listen to the concert going on full-tilt on the stage.
-
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. Folks who think fancy fretwork speed and agility are what makes a great guitar player, for example, as opposed to contribution to the music. Great to see Cobain so high on the list, and The Edge. Dead on. 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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DariusNYC
Great to see Cobain so high on the list, and The Edge. Dead on. Great from my perspective that they omitted someone like Steve Vai.
And you -- high. Higher than high. The Edge? Easily the most over-rated guitarist ever anywhere. He sucks. All his riffs are variations on "Pinball Wizard". Cobain may be an excellent songwriter -- you've had this discussion before, albeit with someone else -- but that doesn't make him a great guitarist, and he's good enough, but hardly the cream of the crop. This is a list of greatest guitarists, not "people you like" or "people that can write a great song" or "people whom I admire greatly and just also happen to be guitarists", they are being judged based on one thing -- their ability to play a guitar. Admittedly, you can't rip that out of context, but you're going to the other extreme -- you're placing context above all. It's not more important than the ability to play the guitar, it's just context.
You guys who hate Vai probably haven't really listened to him, you picture some wanking fool a la Malmsteem, but Vai can actually do a lot of different things. He's actually quite silly.
-
I'm not sure why Darius is 'high' for having an opinion that differs with yrs. Especially considering how consistent you've been for quite some time when it comes to absolutes in <i>subjective</i> discussions like this one. Vai aside, choices like Cobain & a couple of others in the 'top 20' that would seem somewhat out of place considering what many who choose to compile these lists tend to weigh when it comes to <i>ability</i>, are choices I'm glad to see there. Not because they're 'great guitarists' <i>if</i> you're using reasonably common criteria for such an evaluation, but because they did things with the axe that tend to diminish the importance of factors like speed, agility, etc. I think that to be great, a guitarist has to play sloppy at times. I also think that a guitarist that cannot play lead well can be great, because rhythm is generally more important to me; but a guitarist that rarely does anything but play lead can never be great.
That, and I often think ideas far more interesting can be expressed with fewer notes, not more.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
I'm not sure why Darius is 'high' for having an opinion that differs with yrs.
Because he's wrong. Plain and simple.
Seriously -- all of that is fine, but Darius' opinion isn't that The Edge (for example -- I'm going to pick the easy one) is actually a good guitarist, but that having him on the list pisses (people like) me off. That's not an opinion of actual merit, as far as these types of lists go -- it's just an argument starter.
And I don't care what criteria you use, or even what planet your from -- The Edge is not a good guitarist. Every riff he plays has that "Pinball Wizard" rhythm to it -- they're just different chords in a different order. It's not a matter of expressing something with fewer notes or fewer chords -- there's nothing wrong with that. David Gilmour can make a grown man cry with a single well-played emotive note. I'm all about that. But he does it well. The Edge makes me cry for entirely different reasons, and that's not his talent.
You can't just let anyone on to a list that says "greatest guitarists" -- there has to be some actual quality to the player's playing for him to make it onto this list. You're welcome to your opinions, but please at least give me someone who is actually a great guitarist, not your idols. Your idols don't belong on every list. You want to put people like Joey Ramone and The Edge and whomever else on a list, make it a list that's meaningful, like "styles that meant a lot to me when I grew up, so I can't let go of them now that I'm an adult".
-
You have to be what I would generously describe as creative to interpret Darius' post to mean that his only interest in having that player on the list is to anger 'musicianship' types, when he qualifies that quite clearly prior to mentioning that player with his comment on contribution to the music.
If you were to then call him on not being a U2 fan, then you'd have a point. But unless you can find something in the archives that resembles a putdown of that band, then why would you not give him the benefit of the doubt that he thinks highly of the band, and, as the guitarist in that band, he would therefore rate that player highly <i>based on the criteria which he explicitly states</i>?
>And I don't care what criteria you use, or even what planet your from -- The Edge is not a good guitarist.
To YOU.
>Every riff he plays has that "Pinball Wizard" rhythm to it -- they're just different chords in a different order.
That is not a valid dismissal of an opinion that one might hold relative to the ability of this player, as it does not speak to the criteria Darius established, which is based less on the playing as an individual piece of the music, and more on its contribution to the music as a whole. Besides, you could use that argument to disqualify EVERY guitarist on the list whose playing is largely based on I-IV-V structures. There are a lot of them.
>You can't just let anyone on to a list that says "greatest guitarists"
Who's 'just anyone'? That could be someone who elicits a response in a listener that leads that listener to think of that player as 'great' even if to you it's 'just anyone.'
>there has to be some actual quality to the player's playing for him to make it onto this list.
I am seriously having difficulty believing you are posting this stuff. Are you going to define 'quality?' I hope you're teaching QUALITY to yr students, Pirsig.
WRONG answer.
>You're welcome to your opinions, but please at least give me someone who is actually a great guitarist, not your idols.
But I can provide you with a response if you'd like me to defend a player on that list that I like, versus one that isn't, that I don't--and vice versa (a pointless exercise, would you not agree?). Mind you, I never studied theory, but after nearly 3 decades of playing I can at least point to figures & licks <i>or the lack thereof</i> in certain strategic measures and/or passages to register a compliment--or a putdown. And that goes for discussions about placement, pro and con. Of course, it's hardly worth the bother. And in spite of anything & everything, you've never given me any reason to feel that this is something you don't comprehend. So this is all a little puzzling.
>Your idols don't belong on every list.
It's funny, try as I might to not care about lists, I find myself drawn into this nonsense because I spend time in places like this where people do. But all in all the whole list thing is mostly ridiculous. Darius' take on it is refreshing, and if you don't understand why, then go dig up a list from some mag like Guitar Player or something like that. Some site like, I don't know, Metal Sludge? Those are the sorts of lists that have been hammered out & foisted on us for a long time, and in a way that strongly suggested that it's a goddamn rule & we all must obey or something. Since, I hope, most of us are over that nonsense, it's strange to see this taken so seriously, but whatever. Nevertheless, I can understand you not necessarily agreeing with Darius' take, but as someone who's spent enough time on boards knocking this stuff around, I would not have figured you for one who would actually challenge what he said.
>You want to put people like Joey Ramone and The Edge and whomever else on a list, make it a list that's meaningful, like "styles that meant a lot to me when I grew up, so I can't let go of them now that I'm an adult".
Well, firstly, Joey Ramone was not a guitarist, but as for the guy who was, you brought him up, not me. I don't care about the Edge or U2 any more than I care about this list. But...Johnny Ramone's guitar work is not something I feel necessary to let go of, in terms of appreciating, now that I'm an adult. I'll tell you straight up, I consider that to be great playing, playing that requires GREAT skill, even though leads & solos are generally not involved. Skills like timing, memory, and discipline. Not the ability to play a million notes a second, or to evoke classical music, or to be a great improviser, or to recycle Chuck Berry licks, re-work ideas Hendrix came up with that are beyond the capability of most players anyway, or half-baked Ace Frehley runs that were, seemingly, inside jokes of hard rock slacker ineptitude. Not that I think Ace was inept, but many seem to, perhaps because he pretended to be as 'good' as someone they thought was better for some reason.
That's about as defensive as I care to appear. There is so much simple-sounding music that is dismissed by 'serious' rock musicians based on what they think they hear...that they would never consider trying to play since it sounds like kids' stuff to them...and on the rare occasions they actually do attempt it, they typically find it's far more difficult than they thought, in ways they did not discern...which comes back to how one chooses to view music, specifically rock music, the playing of it, and the contest culture it's spawned over the decades. Thanks to Playboy (taking a nod from Downbeat & the like), and nurtured by Rolling Stone and, later, publications that aim at being geared towards 'musicians,' yet don't complain about the non-playing fans who flock to them due to the pedestals they construct for their musical heroes of choice.
I have never seen a list that is comprised solely of MY idols, and, quite frankly, I don't want to. That would be boring. It's years of seeing lists that are typically the exact opposite that lead me to understand where Darius is coming from, and to agree...if not necessarily on the Edge.
This shouldn't be this difficult to understand.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by DariusNYC
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
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.
-
<img src="http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/May-31-Fri-2002/photos/charo.jpg">
Cuchi-Cuchi
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...
Quote:
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.
Quote:
A good musician makes good music is the bottom line.
Lots of good musicians out there who aren't good songwriters.
Quote:
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...
-
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.
-
My contribution...
...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...)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
|