Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,210 |
A couple of more names I can think of right off the top of my head that I believe should have made the list is Roy Buchanan and Brian Carroll (Buckethead).
Whenever I first read the list in my printed edition RS my first thought was "WTF?!?"
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
My introduction to Jeff Beck was on Roger Waters' solo album "Amused to Death". He does all the lead guitar on that album.
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 912 Likes: 4
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 912 Likes: 4 |
I know we could go on and on about this list and talk about the obvious omissions, but one player whose absence is a travesty is Steve Lukather. Although more widely known as the leader of the 80s/90's band Toto, this guy was probably the most prolific session player in the history of Pop/Rock(mostly during the 80s and 90s) probably having played on more hits then the rest of those on this list combined!
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420 |
Casey, I couldn't agree more about Clapton being rated far too high on the list.
Jason M80 v2 VP160 v3 QS8 v2 PB13 Ultra Denon 3808 Samsung 85" Q70
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
Yeah, when Clapton is rated higher than Mark Knopfler (and so many other people are rated above him), I gotta be pretty skeptical. And c'mon. Kurt Cobain was many things, but a great guitar player was not one of them.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596 Likes: 1
connoisseur
|
OP
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596 Likes: 1 |
I know we could go on and on about this list and talk about the obvious omissions, but one player whose absence is a travesty is Steve Lukather. Although more widely known as the leader of the 80s/90's band Toto, this guy was probably the most prolific session player in the history of Pop/Rock(mostly during the 80s and 90s) probably having played on more hits then the rest of those on this list combined! Right on! Everyone in Toto was a killer player. They were the most in-demand players of their day (Jeff Porcaro), but they used to complain to each other that there were no royalties and how were they gonna send their kids to college. So they formed Toto. Problem solved. They can still sell out any Euro venue.
Always call the place you live a house. When you're old, everyone else will call it a home.
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786 |
Out of the top 100 list that rolling stone provided I would say Eddie Van Halen as a combination of having the outright ability/talent/chops to play just about anything and being influential and revolutionizing how to play guitar. I think a lot depends on when you grew up and what type of music you like. I was never that impressed by Van Halen. To me, they were always an Arena Rock band. Clapton may not play fast and loud, but his talent is undeniable. I think he is also a musician's musician. He has played on a lot of tracks with a lot of different bands of his day without credit, including the famous Beatles Rooftop Session. His time with Cream pegs him as a founding member of the 'second stage' of rock, the first,or founding stage,being defined by the likes of Muddy Waters and Chuck Berry and Bo Diddly. While I was reading the wrong version of the list, I came upon an introduction by the guy who started the list. When He revisited it he felt that limiting it to 100 was not fair. It should have been more like 500 and in his mind Jimi Hendrix was # 1 and everyone else, #2. Heck, the way Neil Young plays, you gotta wonder why he made the list. He is, however, the grandfather of grunge rock and, if you have heard some of his early obscure stuff, he is also much more technically competent than his style of playing belies. Context is another thing to consider. Look at Hendrix. When compared to guitarists that came after him, what he did does not seem all that radical, but when you look at how the electric guitar was being used when he hit the scene, he really is in a league all by himself. I would, to some extent,argue the same for Clapton when he showed up with Cream.
Fred
------- Blujays1: Spending Fred's money one bottle at a time, no two... Oh crap!
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
I was shaking my head at the listing of Cobain as well. When the title is on "greatest guitar players" I try to break it down to just that rather than the sum of it's parts. If you take Cobain's music as its sum, its much, much, much greater than anything he did with his ability, influence and technique on guitar.
I also think that is why you don't see guys like Vai and Satriani on the list because they were not great songwriters or rather the sum of their music was not as great as their single ability of playing guitar.
Which is a shame. And to no surprise one of my favorite guitar albums of the early 90's, the guitarist was taught by Satriani. That's influence!
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596 Likes: 1
connoisseur
|
OP
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,596 Likes: 1 |
None of us is aware of the conditions of voting. Did they each get to vote for any # of players and make their own numbered list? Were they limited to 5, or 10? How did they do the tally? Some of the voters actually wrote a blurb on their fave. How'd that work?
It's just a list, compiled by individuals (experienced ones---good, bad, or ugly). The results are always as wonky as the people playing the game. It IS a game.
We could each make our own list (that'd be fun). If it were tallied simply by how many times an individual was named, making him #1, we'd get one result. If it were tallied by how many times he was NAMED #1, we'd get something completely different.
Does anyone know a PhD statistician (some odd peeps)? There exists dissertaion after dissertation on polling/voting/lists, etc. Some of it, if you are a muddler, can be very eye opening.
I could/would never arrange my favorite artists, musicians, writers, etc. in ANY order. It's a preposterous idea for "truth," but it's super interesting. See how important it was here to, say, fans of Tom Morello?
Everyone of us has his/her own list. This was simply smooshing 50 people's lists together.
Rather than all the pages and all the blurbs and pix, I think it would have been more interesitng to publish each of the voters top 10. That way you wouldn't hate the poll, but rather the participants, individually. It's always more productive to engage focused anger.
And I woudn't take Dave Edmunds off my list for nuthin!
BJ1: Thanks for taking the time to post the entire list!
Always call the place you live a house. When you're old, everyone else will call it a home.
|
|
|
Re: Top 100 Guitarists Redux, Again
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,236
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,236 |
There are a few girls on the list but what about poor Miss Wilson?
M3 and M80
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,477
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
920
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|