Rolling Stones' 100 greatest guitarists list. WTF???

Cafe Society
1

They call it the list of the 100 greatest guitarists of all time.

A lot of guys on there are what you’d expect. But there are some real suprizes. As in “What the hell are they putting in the water over there???”

Joe Satriani? Not on the list.
Steve Morse? Not on the list.

Never mind that these 2 are among the best guitarists to have ever lived. So who, according to Rolling Stone, are better than these 2?

Gregg Ginn of Black Flag??? I’ve been listening to punk a long time. Ginn is neither an innovator nor a talented player.

Johnny Ramone of the Ramones??? I LOVE the Ramones, but a guy who plays nothing but bar chords???

Joan Jett? JOAN JETT???

I’m flabberghasted!

2

just had a look and indeed they seem to be working on ‘who’s cool’ rather than who is truly great.
who was polled for this do you know?

peter green at 38! no no no

3

Most of my complaints about that list reflect my taste rather than my judgment of the players’ skills–I would have put Santana (15) a bit higher, Knopfler (27) a little higher, and Gilmour (82?) a hell of a lot higher.

But what shocked me the most was John Fogerty at number 40. Hey, CCR got me through high school, and I loved his down-home style of playing, but the 40th greatest guitarist of all time? Sheesh. I remember reading, when CCR broke up, that Fogerty was taking guitar lessons to help his solo career along, because he realized that his playing was pretty weak.

4

A lot of the guitarists on the list are relaively obscure. At least I don’t know anything about them. So I can’t say for sure that they shouldn’t be included.

But Paul Kossoff of Free? He didn’t have that much of a career.

Henry Vestine of Canned Heat? Not a mover and shaker among guitar legends.

Jack White of the White Stripes? A band that has put out 4 albums and they’re ready to have him ranked No. 17?

Both guys from Sonic Youth???

5

Yeah, it’s pretty crazy. As for Jack White - he’s very talented, but 17 already is just a tad overzealous.

6

Frank Zappa beats John McLaughlin, Pete Townshend, and Dickey Betts? I don’t think so.

7

Joni Mitchell is on the list and Bonnie Raitt isn’t?

:confused:

8

WHAT?!?!?!?!
WHERE IS ACE FRELEY From KISS!?!?!?!?

so not cool to leave him out and but those F@#ks from Sonic youth

the only right number was Hendrix, the God of Guitar

9

No, his name is spelled ‘SATRIANI’.

:smiley:

10

Aww geee… I’ve been seeing these stupid polls for years now.

And you know something? THey all have the same goal - ship more units. The poll can be on anything…

Top 100 Albums of all time

Top 100 Bands of all time

Top 100 Songs of all time

Top 100 Singers of all time

Top 100 Songwriters of all time

Top 100 Accordion Players of all time

I think you’d be getting my drift here by this stage. Basically, in a nutshell, I’m as cynical as a human could possibly be towards Rock Magazines these days. They are all, without exception, so astonishingly cloned and plagiaristic and unoriginal and starved for new ideas.

The way I look at it is this - rock magazines, and music magazines in general really, well they’re basically fighting over a share of the market which is drastically shrinking due to the increasing usage of the web in place of the role that they used to play. 10 years ago I don’t think that these stupid polls were anywhere near as common as they are now, but nowadays they’re just everywhere. Almost any music magazine you open in a newsstand will have some sort of controversial poll in it - and often, the results will be controversial and silly - and people will get in all a tizzy about who filled the placings and a shitload of messageboards will light up like crazy and BINGO!

More units will get sold.

But it still doesn’t change the fact that rock magazines are fighting over some very small crumbs in reality. They fill a niche which is attached to a form of music which in itself is a sub genre of the overall entertainment industry.

And worst of all? Most of these rock magazine journalists actually believe that theier opinions are important.

Fuck 'em all, I say. And stick their polls where the sun don’t shine.

11

BB King No. 3?

He’s an all right blues stringer, but he was never an innovator really, and definitely not an overly talented guitar player.

12

And where is John Petrucci?

13

John Pewhosi???

14

Yeah IMHO he should be in the top 10.

15

Besides, I, Boo Boo Foo, should be at the top of that list! :smiley:

In the End, We’re All the Same.

16

There are any number of comments to make on this list:

  1. Boo Boo Foo is right - these lists are way too common, so I tend to read them, mentally register my many disagreements, then move on.

  2. I would be interested in understanding both their criteria and their voters/compilers. I assume criteria would include innovation, technique, popularity/influence, etc…

  3. If those criteria hold, I can easily see why Johnny Ramone is ranked highly - his style, all barre chords and downstrokes, was hugely influential and still is to this day. I am stunned, however, to see Eddie Van Halen at #70. In terms of innovation, technique and popularity/influence, Eddie was The MAN in the 80’s and gave rise to all of the hair metal that happened then. He may be less popular now, but his influence is still huge. I assumed he would be top 10. Same thing with Tommy Iommi - Black Sabbath has had a massive influence on music - it was one of the, if not the, first metal bands…you may not like his playing, but to put Ry Cooder at #8 and Iommi and Van Halen in the 70’s and 80’s seems way skewed…

  4. And staying on that same line - who was more influential, Duane Allman or Chuck Berry? Duane is/was a monster talent, but in the overall scheme of things, John Lennon said it best - “If Rock n’ Roll had another name, it might be ‘Chuck Berry’”. He is, along with Scotty Moore, Cliff Gallup and a couple of others, the originator of rock guitar - he HAS to be higher than Allman. Full Stop.

The comments could go on and on, but those are some that come to mind…

17

That’s just not true. B. B. changed the way the blues was played. If there was no B. B., there would be no Stevie Ray Vaughn, no Jimi Hendrix, etc. In fact, there is a faction who thinks B. B. ruined the blues by de-emphasizing the chunky, acoustic, Delta style and playing flashy, one-note-at-a-time solos like a jazz player. I am not among that faction, but I see their point–B.B.'s influence on the blues was so strong that for many years his imitators crowded out alternate styles.

18

And Devin Townsend not on the list…

19

Re: the meta-discussion about lists – who gives a shit? Does anybody think there’s any objective reaity here? They’re just a fun excuse for debate, a game to be played. Anybody who takes such a list seriously isn’t worthy of commenting on one. Just play and have fun with it.

I noticed the Rolling Stone’s list is waaaaay weak on the surf guitar crowd and kinda topheavy with relatively recent groups, probably out of consideration for their readership. Still, no Dick Dale? No listing for Nokie Edwards, the lead guitarist of the Ventures? I mean, “Telstar” was a mind-blower when it came out.

Also, no listing for Mike Pinera of Iron Butterfly? WTF indeed!

No listing for Randy California of Spirit?

And Joni Mitchell IS on the list? I love her music but wtf?

20

Folks like Eddie Van Halen and David Gilmour were probably ranked so low to keep it interesting. By which I mean: if they were really honest with the rankings, the top 30 or so would probably never change. You get a whole chunk of “yeah, but we all knew that already” 's. I’m not arguing right or wrong here, just saying that they probably mixed up all but the top 5 or so just so that people would keep reading on to the next listing.

In other words, outside of the top 5, the other rankings don’t actually have any meaning. It’s not the top 100, just the one hundred greatest, in no particular order.

And Satriani is cool, I guess, if you’re into hours of boring masturbation. :smiley: