:smack: 
Santana was omitted in my post only because his inclusion on the list is self-evident. The other guitarists listed merely rebreathe the vapors of greatness exhaled by my man Carlos
Personally, I’m saying top 10. But I have friends who would tell you #2.
I would add Mark Knopfler to GargoyleWB’s list.
He’s great. He has kind of a minimalist thing going, which I really like. The bare bones sound was perfect for Bauhaus.
One of my favorite guitarists is Peter Buck from REM. I don’t know if he’d be considered great, but if you listen to their songs what I like about him is pretty clear. He has a folky, ringing, melodic sound. It’s easiest to hear on their earliest albums.
I added Daniel Ash because I’ve always been impressed by him, but was never quite sure how much of his chop-quality was studio/producer dependent. I’ve seen him live a couple of times, and the guy was transendentally tight, I couldn’t believe what he was able to pull off with such a simple minimalist setup. Truly great.
It’s a very subjective topic, at least on the musicianship and style side, if not the technical side. Someone else mentioned that great players are ones that you can pick from a lineup while blindfolded. I tend to agree with that. Edward (Van Halen) is a great one for this. It’s easy to pick out his playing even if you don’t recognize the song (or the vocalist).
I can’t say it always holds true though. There was a time that I thought Steve Vai’s playing was easy to pick out. It may be technically brilliant, but is it really great?
I have to say that it was probably Jeff Beck that got me to want to learn to play a guitar. After I heard more of his playing, I realized that although I liked some of his guitar work, I really didn’t like much of his music. I’ve always been more of a metal head.
Here’s a slight tangent. I’ve seen AC/DC in concert a few times. I won’t try to rate Angus’s guitar work* or AC/DC in general (insert your three chord song jokes here). It’s funny how Angus is out front grabbing the attention (doing his job), but what the crowd is getting into is mostly the power chords Malcolm is playing. This is probably another good example of how subjective this topic really is. I don’t think many people consider AC/DC songs to be an extreme technical challenge, but a lot of them have a really tasty rhythym track with some good blues soloing over the top.
*I will confess to being a little disappointed that Angus picks the intro to Thunderstruck (live anyway) instead of doing hammer ons and pull offs like in the video.
We could really keep adding people to that list all day, if we want to play that game. Frank Zappa, Richard Thompson, Robert Fripp…
What happened to the B.B. love-in??!? 
I just got here.
I saw him live with his band two days ago here in Santa Barbara as part of his 80th birthday world tour. Almost everyone considers him a legend, but I’ve certainly heard debate about his outright skill. But I’ll tell you one thing – at 80 fucking years old, some of his solos still made the hairs on my neck stand up. If you’ll tallying points, that’s got to be worth somehting. God damn that man can play.
There was one particularly poignant moment after the last verse to Key to the Highway where he almost whispered into the microphone, “Folks, I’m gonna be doin’ this until the day I die.” And I really don’t doubt it.
Okay - I have let this play out for a bit and will go ahead and chime in.
Since the question is focused on guitar leads/solos, then to me, commenting on Johnny Ramone or Malcolm Young - both brilliant rhythm guitar players to me - is not necessary.
Wee Bairn - as a long time guitarist, band member, etc., here is how I discern whether a solo has quality:
-
are the individual notes delivered with authority? There is a reason that there are so many references to BB King in this thread - when he picks a note, he does it technically correct and with commitment.
-
Is a story being told? Regardless of whether the player is a technical dweedly-dweedly shredder or a crusty old blues guy, does the lead start someplace, develop, increase in tension (such as with stops or a long sustained note) then release and finally come to a clean resolution? Some of the most famous leads, such as Keith Richards’ in Sympathy for the Devil (crude and raw), David Gilmour in Comfortably Numb (soaring, melodic and melancholy) or Joe Satriani in Surfing with the Alien (shredding at its best) all have this feature. If you can imagine someone taking a deep breath then delivering an impassioned statement - the emotion may be happy, sad, angry, aroused, etc., but the emotion is clear - and making a complete statement, THAT is a good guitar solo. That is my problem with the Yngwie Malmsteen’s of the world - all shred, no story. Nuno can tell a story when he puts his mind to it.
-
Does it sound fresh? Someone like Angus Young delivers notes with authority and does tell a story with many solos, but has a very limited palate. Jeff Beck plays simple, single-note stuff, but delivers them in combinations no one else every dreamed of.
-
Does it fit the song? Is the guitarist honoring the feel, sound and emotional content of the song, or just cutting loose to strut their stuff? Simple punk leads often work perfectly with the songs - think the single note lead lick Johnny Ramone does in I Wanna Be Sedated - and I would rather hear that all day vs. needless dweedling…
I am sure I have other criteria, but those are the ones that come to mind. Phrasing - picking your notes and when to play them…and not play them - is obviously critical, but to me that is a subset of delivering your notes with authority and making a complete statement. Lots of jam-band players have great phrasing, but many just noodle directionlessly to my ears…
And to comment on Stevie Ray Vaughn - listen to Pride and Joy. Perfectly authoritative delivery, every lead tells a complete story, his technique at the time sounded very fresh as far as blues was concerned and his work fit the song perfectly. He was amazing…
Stevie Ray Vaughan[ was simply amazing. Among the best.
In the ‘emotion’ category, I’d have to put in a good word for Slash. Great guitarist.
Any Michael Hedges fans?
Sure - he was amazing. But I don’t think of him within the context of this question, because he mostly played acoustic guitar, often individually. I assume this thread is more focused on standard electric lead guitar playing - very open to being wrong here…
As a guitar player, I can appreciate and admire technically difficult solos, although I don’t usually enjoy listening to them much. What I enjoy, in addition to the emotion or feel mentioned by others, is melody. Two examples from the period when I started playing lead (when I formed many of my lasting opinions about such things) are the solos in Sunshine of Your Love by Cream, and Little Wing, by Jimi Hendrix. These solos are not technically difficult to play, but they are melodies which, to me, are pleasing and memorable. The notes also have been chosen to recognize and accentuate the underlying chord changes, something that musicians instantly notice and appreciate, but which also sounds cool to the untrained music-lover.
Glenn Tillbrook and Mark Knopfler are great at this sort of solo, and they’ve been mentioned above. I would add Nils Lofgren, in his solo work.
Another guitar player chiming in. It’s all about the song and the feel. I love guitarists who play as if every note serves the tune–not their ego, not their place in the “guitar god” hierarchy. Now, I realize that technique can expand the possibilities available to a given guitarist. But it can hinder the process as well.
I’ll give you an example. I have always held that George Harrison was the absolutely perfect guitarist for the Beatles, which is saying a lot. Now, while I believe he’s an underrated guitarist, I also recognize that he was not the virtuoso some others are (e.g., his friend Eric). That being said, George was a real “composer” of guitar solos–literally.
He would often listen to John or Paul play the chords, then he’d go off to construct a solo that could be melodic, deliberately discordant (in spots), a cool series of arpeggios, or whatever he felt “fit” that song. As a result, his solos (that is, after the first couple of albums worth of Chuck Berry variations) became vital parts of the song. They were not interchangeable in the way, say, Clapton’s often seem (i.e., lift the solo from song A and put it on song B, and it would probably work just fine).
I believe a “virtuoso” in the Beatles would have unfavorably affected the dynamic. Even if unintentional, some songs would have become vehicles to display the guitar playing, instead of what they were–pop masterpieces where every note served the song and nothing else, period.
A lot of the guitarists mentioned in this thread I would concede as technically brilliant, while simultaneously saying I don’t care for their playing. Pyrotechnics don’t do it for me. If a solo seems to me to have a primary objective of showing off what this guy can do, it turns me off. More often than not it will just have a sterile, bloodless feel, at least to me. Give me a sloppy, passionate guitarist, or a simple but melodic soloist, over the masturbatory fireworks some of these guys produce.
And speaking of Carlos, my wife and I were listening to him once, and after a particularly tasty guitar run, she asked me if I could play it. I said I could, though there are certainly things that Carlos can play that I can’t. But even where Carlos and I can play the same notes, there are two major differences–his notes would “feel” different, and I could play for the next thousand years and I’d never have come up with that run on my own. That’s what defines Carlos as a great; his solos serve the songs, the feel of the song, and his tremendous imagination.
Not to mention the what it would have done to the ego dynamic in the band. Good post, even if I think Harrison’s solos were sometimes lacking.
The “Sunshine of Your Love” solo is a bit of a cheat there, since it begins as a quote of an already familiar melody (“Blue Moon”).
Absolutely.
So I disagree with the notion that a great guitarist is one you can pick out with a blindfold on. It could be a mark of a great guitarist, but there are guys who get overlooked who are fantastic guitarists, because their egos take a back seat. I already mentioned Glenn Tillbrook, because I think he’s a wonderful example. Or Danny Gatton. Even John Lennon (I prefer his playing to Harrison’s).
Same with the “one note” thing. One note for two bars can be fine, if it’s the right note for the whole two bars. “Anarchy in the UK” is one note for the whole solo, and it’s perfect.
Charlie Patton was amazing too - not because he was the most melodically inventive, but because he could sound like he was playing two guitar parts at once, each in a different rhythym.
So I guess my point is there’s no clean rule for what makes a great guitarist. You have to approach the question on the guitarist’s terms - what are they trying to achieve, and is it the right thing for the music they’re playing.
Cool responses! Can someone give examples of a “bad” solo- i.e. one that does not fit with the rest of the song?
this is harder than it sounds - I tend to blank out solos that I find poorly executed. The first that comes to mind - trying to think of one that is famous and easy to bring to mind - serves both “good” and “bad” - Freebird by Lynyrd Skynyrd. When the song goes to the rave up section where the solo starts, there is an obvious, distinctive, melodic lead lick that really works. Beyond, oh, the first minute or so of the lead part with the overall guitar duel? Pointless noodling - lots of fun riffing, but certainly not serving anything song-wise…
Granted, that is meant to just be an explosion of sound. Add to that the fact that it is burned into our collective consciousness as a classic and I suppose I may ruffle a few feathers with this one - sorry…
All Day and All of the Night by the Kinks has a lead in it that is pretty horrendous, but that is more of a technical thing than a tasteful, melodic issue - the lead just sucks.
Oh - I have one!! I may catch hell for this, but Alive by Pearl Jam. Mike McCready - at least back then with their first album - just stinks as a guitarist. His leads are simple noodling with the occasional stab at a big note. Think of what David Gilmour might’ve done over the canvas of that song…it could’ve been transcendent and instead its a crappy little doinky lead on top of a powerful song…
As for George Harrison, when he does his descending arpeggios in She Loves You (“She loves you and you know that can’t be bad” BLING BLING BLING “She Loves you and you know you should be glad!”) it is exactly what Stratocaster says - perfect and tasteful. But a number of his other single-line leads are simply bad - poorly phrased, etc. I will have to go back and check for specifics, but for some reason I am thinking Can’t Buy Me Love or I Feel Fine. By the time he gets to Something off of Abbey Road - that is some tasteful single-note phrasing…doesn’t change the truth about the chemistry of the band and that a true gunslinger would not’ve fit with the Fabs either, but his lead playing is sub-par at best in many songs…
Lennon was a great rhythm guitar, an undervalued category for sure. If you put a gun to my head, I’ll allow he was probably the single greatest talent in the band (on other days I’ll pick Paul). But he wasn’t a great soloist. I believe I recall an interview where he himself said that he learned just enough guitar to be able to play in a band, and nothing more.
Mick Ronson’s solo in David Bowie’s “You Shook Me Cold” is supposed to be pretty bad. I don’t remember it though.
Of course, Mick Ronson was an otherwise brilliant guitarist. Who knows where David Bowie would be if it weren’t for him.
I’ll be interested in your examples. I bet I can even guess some. In early Beatles, the raw, “live” sound did produce some awkward leads, though to me they have an innocent appeal, again perfect in their own way, in the context of those songs.
But there are probably guitar runs on every Beatles album you could point to that were competent at best, leads that a virtuoso could mimic to more skillful levels. But that, again, is part of what made Harrison perfect for the band. Though he was capable of fine leads, he was NOT a virtuoso; consequently, he relied on imagination and a feel for what best “fit” the song. From Rubber Soul on, I think the Beatles guitar work is some of the best I’ve ever heard, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned. It’s just cool. 