Rolling Stone Mags greatest guitarists ?

[Terry Wetzel]

The Dec. issue of Rolling Stone featured "The 100 Greatest Guitarists Of All Time"! Someone needs to define "Of All Time" for the magazine! A panel of 46 judges, all noted guitarists, supposedly decided the ranking from #1 to
#100. As anyone might have guessed, the No.! award went to Jimi Hendrix and No.2 to Eric Clapton. My own personal favorites, Les Paul, James Burton and Chet Atkins took the 18th, 19th and 21rst spots respectively with Mark Knophler at #44! Now I will agree that all of the guitarists in contention are in deed great guitarists. But are we talking greatest guitarist or most record sales ? I'm confused ! My own definition of "The Greatest Guitrist Of all Time" would be decided not on when they achieved popularity, how many records they have sold or what type of music they played but, how good they are on their instrument. I will admit that different styles enter in to the discussion. For instance, could Jimi Hendrix or Eric Clapton go toe to toe with Andre Segovia? Or for that matter Chet Atkins! Who out there honestly thinks that Chuck Berry should be rated at #6 ? Chuck Berry did create the style that defined R&R in it's infancy, sold a lot of records and certainly deserves recognition as an inovater but he certainly was not one of the 100 greatest guitarists of all time ! This contest reminds me of the record review segment of the old t.v. show, "Dick Clark's American Bandstand". For those of you who are old enough to remember, Dick would pick 3 kids from his audience and have them listen to a few seconds of a new record release. The kids, (all of whom were of course noted music experts) would rate the record from 1 to 10. Their comments went something like this. I like,(or don't) like it. You can, (or can't) dance to it. I give it a (pick a number! With that judgement from a kangaroo court of acne faced teens, many a potentially good record went to the trash can and was never heard again. Oh well. That's just the music business! And according to Rolling Stone Magazine, it hasn't changed!

[chrisdee]

Everybody has their favorite. I find that list very predictable but it's nice to se two of my favorite blues guitarists Stevie Ray Vaughan and Ry Cooder among the top 10.

Personally I would take Andrés Segovia, Django Reinhardt and Tommy Emmanuell over Hendrix and Clapton any day.
And for some strange reason they are not even on that list

[ejwells]

I haven't looked at the list, but if Link Wray, Dick Dale, Rick Miller, Junior Brown, and Unknown Hinson aren't on the list (which I'd expect they're not), then the list is tripe anyway.
Most "100 best" lists are tripe, so I'd expect no less from this one..

[Legion6789]

I guess it depends on how you define "greatest". Unlike height or weight, it's not a quantifiable metric.

If you're talking about pure technical ability, then Clapton and Hendrix would definitely not be at the top. But it's undeniable that they were musical innovators that influenced almost every guitarist alive today either directly or indirectly.

I will say this though, guitarists of earlier eras in some ways had it easier from an innovation perspective. All the tools that we take for granted now, were new for them. It was almost impossible not to be innovative when new sonic palettes were being created all around you. I mean, we take things like distortion, wah, fx, etc for granted, but those things were completely new at the time.

I've adapted this quote to apply to guitar "It used to be that a second rate guitarist could do first rate work. Now a first rate guitarist struggles to produce second rate work."

It's not like before where you only had the radio and whatever records your local shop carried and you could afford. There are way more musicians now and with the internet we are much more aware of what's out there. It also means we're all pulling from the same pool for inspiration (the internet).

I guess what I'm getting at is, before, because the music you could acquire was limited, it created these artificial boundaries that directed musical growth in certain ways. Now there are no boundaries.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, just different.

[zedhed]

I think it's impossible to define who the best guitarists are because it's a subjective choice. Each and everyone has their own personal opinion.

Some of my 'Best Guitarists' aren't even known in the main stream and they are IMHO as good (in technical play-ability) as any of the names listed.

Creating such a list is a great way to sell a magazine though, but otherwise a complete waste of time. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed the music of those great guitarists on the list.

Funnily enough, my own personal best list changes from day to day depending on what mood I'm in

[Terry Wetzel]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Everybody has their favorite. I find that list very predictable but it's nice to se two of my favorite blues guitarists Stevie Ray Vaughan and Ry Cooder among the top 10.

Personally I would take Andrés Segovia, Django Reinhardt and Tommy Emmanuell over Hendrix and Clapton any day.
And for some strange reason they are not even on that list

I agree 100%. My point was not to say that almost all of the guitarists that made the list were not deserving of the honor. Just that, if Rolling Stone had called the contest the "100 greatest rock guitarists", I probably would not have bothered to comment .

[Terry Wetzel]

I will agree to a point. However, guitarists before all the electronic marvels came along were limited to their own playing ability and technique. Their inspiration was from the heart and their own conception that instintively told them what to play and when and where to play it. I hope I'm expressing my thoughts clearly here. This is just my opinion but, before all the electronics, guitarists had to rely on basic equipment and sheer talent! You could pick each of them out by listening to their recorded music without ever seeing the record label or album cover. I'm just an aging musician but to my ear the modern gimmics tend to blur their individuality.

[zedhed]

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel

I'm just an aging musician but to my ear the modern gimmics tend to blur their individuality.

Personally I believe that the likes of Steve Vai, and a myriad of others who rely heavily on a processed tone use their 'Gimmicks' to enhance their individuality and by so doing cross the bounds of just being a great guitarist/musician to combine being a great entertainer. I think their inspiration also comes from the heart and "their own conception that instinctively tells them what to play and when and where to play it", still applies.

Of course that is not in the least bit taking anything away from those other great guitarists/entertainers who don't use a heavily processed tone.

[chrisdee]

Also missing from that list is Joe Satriani, Steve Vai and Paul Gilbert.
All three technical magicians.

[ddwhitney]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Also missing from that list is Joe Satriani, Steve Vai and Paul Gilbert.
All three technical magicians.

I was disappointed not to see those guys in the top 100.

I don't know what the criteria that was used but I think one of them might have been on how influential the guitarists were in mainstream radio. And how that influence through the radio created a new generation of influential guitarists.

The dearth of instrumentalists in the list to me at least makes me think that.