100 greatest guitarists- Rolling stone

therevelator wrote: well its Rolling Stone magazine.... they've condemned some of the greatest bands of all time to bad reviews   this is a really bad list to say the least, i think the greatest guitarists ever can't be put on a list, it really depends on WHAT you're looking for, and most people are looking for completely different things.  This list is just some highly paid, stuck up music "professional's" opinion....

I wonder if I could use that last line when arguing with some of the elitists that populate these pages ...

schizoid_man77 wrote: debrewguy wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: Kurt cobain in number twelve?   I just puked.   I pretty much dont agree with any of the ones in the top fifteen, except SRV! Just remember that often a qualifier is the influence that they've had. Cobain will never match such overly successful (I can understand why) guitar guys like the beloved A Holdsworth. But let's face it, Kurt got more kids into playing a musical instrument that Good 'ol Al ever did. And some of both camps grow up to be great musicians. For another example, please read my previous post re : a certain John, Paul & George.   Or inspire kids to shoot themselves

Er, please replace the "shoot themselves" comment with a different kind of shooting that, say, certain jazz idols like Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane did for a good part of their career. Then dismiss their music because of their defects.

A B Negative wrote: rushfan4 wrote: What a joke!!!!!   It is a good thing that I don't give Rolling Stone any creditibility. Admittedly, I don't know anything from The Stooges, but aren't they a punk band, which in and of itself means that the instrument playing is rudimentary at best.    Don't knock the punk rock!

Thats not knocking it thats what punk was all about, remeber what Frank Zappa said about punk in Tinseltown Rebellion "...The band had to be more punk, so forget your chops and play real dumb or else you'll be sunk."


Edited by Cheesecakemouse - October 08 2007 at 03:04

Moogtron III wrote: Everyone knows that Kurt Cobain was a better guitar player than Jan Akkerman, sure   I guess Ivan is right. Let's say that it looks more like some sort of popularity / commercial index. Stock market, as Bill Bruford would say.

Everyone knows that Kurt Cobain was a better guitar player than Jan Akkerman, sure

"pretty much", eh schizoid?

hey, there's a picture of me in the add banner at the bottom of the page right now!

This list belongs in the "Bad Jokes" thread. 

Anybody noticed the following invitation at the bottom of that page:

jimidom wrote: This joke of a list is old; it dates back to 2003. I remember when it came out and thinking WTF, especially with regard to Jack White and Kurt Cobain's placement as well as the omission of guys like Allan Holdsworth and a whole slew of Steely Dan session masters like Elliott Randall, Denny Dias, Dean Parks, and Jay Graydon. However, I was pleased to see them give some love to Richard Thompson and Zoot Horn Rollo. You should keep in mind that Rolling Stone hasn't been a truly credible or viable entity in its coverage of contemporary music in decades. Therefore a list like this is nothing more than what it really is, a complete and utter joke. Now I hear that they want to induct acts like Madonna and the Beastie Boys into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame while passing over worthy acts like the Stooges, the Ventures, and Todd Rundgren.

As many here are members of a musical sub-sect - prog - we're surely going to notice certain players whose work we adore. These lists usually include the criteria of influence and or impact. So Jack White & Cobain do have their place. Not having seen the list, I'm assuming that a certain John, Paul & George are also found in tis' contents. None of these 3 were ever among the virtuosos of the instrument, but they certainly caused more than a few young music fans to pick up a guitar. And by trying to copy your idol, you also immerse yourself, in a way, in their idols & influences.
And while technical abilities are very nice to have, some "great" guitarists only shone on other people's work. A great solo is not within reach of most of us, but there are a lot of unrecorded guitar players out there who can & could outplay even some of our cherished pickers.
As for RS, well they stopped being relevant years ago. The R n R hall of fame is rapidly becoming a joke. They have Miles Davis in there. Great iconic musician, but he is jazz, not rock n roll. I can see Madonna & the Beastie Boys in there. But there are a ton of other acts that have been around longer & will undeservedly be excluded because they are just not "intellectually cool". Kiss, Genesis, the guy who wrote "Train kept a' Rolling", and a whole slew of 50s, 60s, & 70s acts that rock n roll fans (and I do include proggers in there) actually still remember, love & listen to.
But the selection committee is headed by RS' chief. And as RS has been for the longest time, he is simply an elitist, New York centered head up his butt hole sno(t)b.
Unfortunately it is not fan based or in any way remotely reflective of people's idea of what was & is great in Rock music.

P.S. Maybe we start a thread on bands listed on PA who would deserve inclusion. Of course, the sad part is that some obscure acts will get more than their fair share of mentions because the smaller the fanbase, the more rabid the adulation.

Do you still believe Rolling Stones mag?