100 greatest guitarists- Rolling stone

^  I know, I know.  That is another thread discussion, which I avoided because of my complete lack of knowledge of punk.  And I am not knocking punk per se, I am just commenting on the premise that punk was based upon more simplistic playing in comparison to the "pretentious" playing of the 70's prog bands.

^ Not to mention all of the great prog bands that we love on this site who aren't even nominated for the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame.

Have you ever been hit in the head by a rolling stone? 

Do you still believe Rolling Stones mag?

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.

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

This list belongs in the "Bad Jokes" thread. 

"pretty much", eh schizoid?

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

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

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.