Rolling Stones Latest Best Guitarist List

Manuel wrote: Epignosis wrote: These lists have very little to do with skill, tone, or compositional ability.  It's about personality and fame- nothing more. Well said. Normally, a band or artist is rated according to their commercial success, not their skills at their instruments, or quality of their music. I never care for this lists, and will not take/waste my time to read through them, since I dont really care what these people say.

And +1 !

Triceratopsoil wrote: cstack3 wrote: Goodsall f that rolling stone mag silly gtr poll. splash? ramone? perry? hollywood dicksukkers these creeps can't even Tune a gtr! Where's Trower? hmmmm Howe?????Where's Martino? DiMeaola? Summers? Metheny mmmkay? Burton?.....whatever! At least Tom Morello & Prince made it in there. Rolling Stone Fagazine shut the F*** UP ! ---- he isn't by any chance 11, is he?

cstack3 wrote: Goodsall f that rolling stone mag silly gtr poll. splash? ramone? perry? hollywood dicksukkers these creeps can't even Tune a gtr! Where's Trower? hmmmm Howe?????Where's Martino? DiMeaola? Summers? Metheny mmmkay? Burton?.....whatever! At least Tom Morello & Prince made it in there. Rolling Stone Fagazine shut the F*** UP ! ----

he isn't by any chance 11, is he?

Erm...Keith Richards would be in my top ten (for feel, texture, tone and the ability to enhance what is usually very simple harmonic territory plus his exploitation of open tuning)

Well, at least they acknowledged Frank Zappa as a talented guitarist (many seem to overlook his guitar skills for his composition, appearance etc.).  

Great comments all. I'll add a few more myself now that I'm calmer. First, I agree that RS could care less about prog, is all about selling magazine subscriptions, etc. I haven't read it in years either. What is interesting is that even though many of us don't care about the magazine and understand their motivation, we clearly care very much about our music and the fact that many talented guitarists were slighted, and also we care enough to post some kind of comments here! Even if we don't care in the big picture, it's nice to vent about the BS any way! 

Bruce Springsteen made the list....it was at that point I gave up looking at it 

zappaholic wrote: Rolling Stone, and Jann Wenner in particular, has never liked prog.  Ever.  Not one little bit.

Please, aren't we used after decades of the same sh*t?

Progosopher wrote: It makes me wonder what the criteria was, or even if there was any.  I'll wager that a lot of those on the list are there because they influenced the voters - and that is an impressive list.  I disagree with a lot of the rankings, but there are a number of great guitar players on there, and at least they got both Jimi Hendrix and Jeff Beck in the top five.  Some of the standings had to result from the multiple voters choosing them.  There are very few on the list that I regard as poor guitarists (Bruce Springsteen among them), and there were a few I did not know.  Oh well, we all have our own lists, do we not?

Well, ..one aspect comes to mind for me. They are not honest in the historical sense. They don't promote honesty regarding the different guitarists who came along on to a music scene of the past and changed or influenced people to write differently. The voters, that certain style of the journalist, and the profit from it all. The style in which artists are represented through the publications industry today is shameful and they practically hide important history about an innovative artist from thousands of viewers and place more importance on popular issues which 30 years ago before people became brainwashed ...we all would have found laughable. It runs deeper than just their somewhat moronic list's. It's what they are doing to people in the world who believe in it.  This seems to present guitar playing itself in some overblown contrived business concept that just stamps out everything having to do with the art of the instrument and it's players.