Rolling Stone got it wrong?

[Luckynumber3]

Read this article on Yahoo, thought it was interesting: (All red text spots are my notes).

Rolling Stone

Its too long to post here, so here are the highlights:

First off, this is rolling stone's top 10:

1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Eric Clapton
3. Jimmy Page
4. Keith Richards
5. Jeff Beck
6. B.B. King
7. Chuck Berry
8. Eddie Van Halen
9. Duane Allman
10. Pete Townshend

The article makes alot of complaints. First off, the list of too low:

Too Low
• Frank Zappa. Jimi is the best, but Zappa is our favorite. He might not have the commercial appeal of the Top 10 guitarists on the Rolling Stone list because of his sardonic, humorous lyrics and complex arrangements, but no one could pump out beautiful, transcendental solos like Zappa, who consistently turned his six-string into a one-man symphony.

{[[[[[Insert youtube Zappa vids here]]]]]]}

Number 22 is way, way too low for Zappa, but it's an improvement over the despicable Number 45 placement he received on the 2003 list.

• Prince. The most underrated guitarist of all time. Prince is amazing at pretty much everything he does, so people often forget that he can absolutely wail when someone puts a (weirdly shaped) guitar in his hands. After being completely overlooked on the 2003 Rolling Stone list, Prince lands at Number 33 this time around, but even that is too low for one of the best alive right now. "The Kid is in rare form tonight."

• Bruce Springsteen. The Boss? At Number 96? Sure, Steven Van Zandt and Nils Lofgren carry a lot of the E Street weight, but if it wasn't for Bruce, all those classic riffs never would have been heard.

Seriously? Bruce Springsteen?

Then theres the "people who were ranked too high."

Too High
• Eddie Van Halen. Despite not releasing an album since 1998, EVH jumped from Number 70 on the 2003 list to Number Eight on this new 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. Why the leap? Did Van Halen's talents suddenly multiply exponentially enough to propel him past 61 guitarists? Nah. It's probably no coincidence that Van Halen's rise comes when his namesake band is on the verge of releasing a new album, and that a certain magazine might be trying to get into his good graces by giving him better real estate on the list. (EVH adorns one of the four different RS covers to make the 100 Guitarists list, along with Hendrix, Jimmy Page, and Eric Clapton. Speaking of Clapton&#8230

Wtf?

• Eric Clapton. There's no denying Clapton is an amazing guitarist. "Clapton is God" used to be graffiti in the streets of London before Banksy came around. Technically, he's a marvel. However, his overall influence on future generations is lacking. We've never met anyone who picked up a guitar because they loved "I Shot the Sheriff." He's like the Tim Duncan of guitarists: Smart, consistent, always gets the job done, wins MVPs and championships, and is among the greatest ever. But kids don't want the Duncan jerseys, they want the Kevin Durant and Blake Griffin jerseys, just like young rockers aspire to be Keith Richards, not Eric Clapton. The Cream/Blind Faith guitarist should definitely be in the Top 10, but not ahead of Jimmy Page (Number Three) and Richards (Four).

• James Burton. Number 19 on the Rolling Stone list, the innovator of the "chicken pickin'" style, a co-writer of "Susie Q"… but who? No doubt Burton had a major impact for future generations, but to put him ahead of legendary guitarists -- like Jerry Garcia (Number 46, down from Number 13 in 2003), George Harrison (Number 21), and Kurt Cobain (Number 73) — is extremely generous.

Finally, there is the "Just Right" list (apparently, they only agree that 2 of 100 guitarrists are placed right where they deserve to be placed...)

Just Right:
• Neil Young. After placing Number 83 on the 2003 list, Young climbs to Number 17 on the new list. "If I was ever going to teach a master class to young guitarists, the first thing I would play them is the first minute of Neil Young's original 'Down by the River' solo. It's one note, but it's so melodic, and it just snarls with attitude and anger," Phish's Trey Anastasio says of Young in Rolling Stone. He's right; no one could put more feeling into one single note than Neil.

• David Gilmour. Another of The Amp's favorites, the Pink Floyd guitarist finally gets his due at Number 14 after a cruel Number 82 ranking in 2003. "Comfortably Numb" alone is worth a spot in the Top 50.



So, did Yahoo get it right, or are the dumb? (I think I know the answer for some of their selections.)

 

[Rich]

Meh... Rolling Stone has given bad reviews to what are now considered to be classic albums for over 40 years now. Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Ledheadforlife]

Obviously they're going on influence and not technical skill, since that's the case I think that list is pretty solid.

 

[kevin65]

Well, apparently Rory Gallagher didn't appear at all in the top 100. Rory was an amazing blues player and made a major contribution to music. So, who were the crack-heads that compiled the list?

 

[lunchbox]

Tony Iommi has been more influential to modern rock than most of those on that list. He might even surpass Hendrix as far as influence goes.

 

[st.bede]

who f'in knows... it is just so whimsical to even think about who is "best"... not to be a sophist but that notion only functions in an extremely subjective way...

we could ask question like: who plays the fastest, who has made the most money, who plays the longest gig, who has written the most music but, none of those really matter either.

All in all, in my limited thoughts, what matters most is the musician that you are feeling inspired by and what you are able to learn musically from them. That will be different for everyone (individual vision is a contributing factor in art, at this moment and, in my mind that is good) and will most likely change through out a musicians development.

If I still liked EC in the same way, I did twenty years ago, it would most likely mean my musicality has not increased much... or at the very least my musical ear has not deepened.

 

[KP]

Only thing I see wrong with that list is that Page is rated way too high. Trade places with Prince and it would be more correct.

 

[st.bede]

Tony Iommi has been more influential to modern rock than most of those on that list. He might even surpass Hendrix as far as influence goes.

Influence is an interesting idea to think about but still is too subjective to establish an hierarchy of good, better, best guitar playing. However that does not take away such an accomplishment. We could be saying the same thing, which is: rolling stone could never have achieved a list that would be somehow objective.

 

[lunchbox]

Influence is an interesting idea to think about but still is too subjective to establish an hierarchy of good, better, best guitar playing. However that does not take away such an accomplishment. We could be saying the same thing, which is: rolling stone could never have achieved a list that would be somehow objective.

True. I can only speak for myself, but when I look to influences for ideas, I have never listened to Clapton, Hendrix, Page, Beck, Zappa, etc. but I have said "what would Tony do?".

Also, I'm 41 and I don't own one single album by Zep, Cream, Jeff Beck, Hendrix, etc., but I own and listen to on a regular basis every Sabbath album from the Ozzy years. I also play modern style rock.

 

[Electric_Sunshine]

Clapton and Page are my favourite guitarists (next to Ian Haug and Darren Middleton).

Most of my lead playing has been influenced by Clapton and Page, so it's sort of messy with lots of gain (Page), but still nice and bluesy (Clapton), however with fiddly dynamics (Ian and Darren).

That's all.

 

[sammyblp]

Where the FVCK is ALEX LIFESON??!

 

[Skintaster]

These kinds of lists are always completely subjective, and "Rolling Stone"famously always seems to get them wrong.

For instance, while I'm not a huge personal fan of Eddie Van Halen, it's silly for Rolling Stone to try to diminish his importance. More players have tried to learn his chops than many many other famous guitarists, and his "importance" and influence to rock music can't be underestimated.

I agree that most of the albums he's released over the last 25 years have been largely forgettable, but you could say that about many of the classic bands, and classic players. Most of them, in fact.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

RS has always had their heads up their asses about music. They are the hipster version of the Grammy Committee ... and just as in touch with rock and roll.

 

[FrankieOliver]

Thumpalumpacus Johnson is right!

 

[Electric_Sunshine]

Pajama Blues by Electric_Sunshine

Do I make the list?

 

[rxbandit]

It astonishes me how these pointless and meaningless lists get people upset

 

[Olds442]

RS is pure stupid in it's most common form, the written word.

 

[Luckynumber3]

who f'in knows... it is just so whimsical to even think about who is "best"... not to be a sophist but that notion only functions in an extremely subjective way...

we could ask question like: who plays the fastest, who has made the most money, who plays the longest gig, who has written the most music but, none of those really matter either.

All in all, in my limited thoughts, what matters most is the musician that you are feeling inspired by and what you are able to learn musically from them. That will be different for everyone (individual vision is a contributing factor in art, at this moment and, in my mind that is good) and will most likely change through out a musicians development.

If I still liked EC in the same way, I did twenty years ago, it would most likely mean my musicality has not increased much... or at the very least my musical ear has not deepened.

Influence is an interesting idea to think about but still is too subjective to establish an hierarchy of good, better, best guitar playing. However that does not take away such an accomplishment. We could be saying the same thing, which is: rolling stone could never have achieved a list that would be somehow objective.

This is true- ive always wondered how they can rate the best as they don't give you any sort of method as to how or why they are rating it.

Only thing I see wrong with that list is that Page is rated way too high. Trade places with Prince and it would be more correct.

Don't say that, or the Zeppelin gods will eat you! (And I am a massive page fan, although im not as creepy as some of the other ones.)

Where the FVCK is ALEX LIFESON??!

Number 98- that was what made me . Imo he should be much higher on that list than he is.

These kinds of lists are always completely subjective, and "Rolling Stone"famously always seems to get them wrong.

For instance, while I'm not a huge personal fan of Eddie Van Halen, it's silly for Rolling Stone to try to diminish his importance. More players have tried to learn his chops than many many other famous guitarists, and his "importance" and influence to rock music can't be underestimated.

I agree that most of the albums he's released over the last 25 years have been largely forgettable, but you could say that about many of the classic bands, and classic players. Most of them, in fact.

Agreed, as even though im not the largest Van Halen fan, the guy had more skills than most of the guitarists on the list, and probably changed the history of guitar playing more than most of them on the list.

RS has always had their heads up their asses about music. They are the hipster version of the Grammy Committee ... and just as in touch with rock and roll.

It astonishes me how these pointless and meaningless lists get people upset

I wouldn't agree with a bunch of the listings, but I laughed when I saw that there was an article saying that rolling stone screwed up big time, then saw that they thought Bruce Springsteen should be at the top.

And yeah, to make a real list, it would have to be 100s of people and it would be hard to rank who was the best, so it would be more like
"x hundred greatest guitarists of all time."

 

[WolfeMacleod]

Clapton and Page are my favourite guitarists (next to Ian Haug and Darren Middleton).

Most of my lead playing has been influenced by Clapton and Page, so it's sort of messy with lots of gain (Page).....

That's an odd statement, being that Page was always trying to get cleaner and cleaner. He played loud, but not with a lot of gain.

 

[moff40]

Is this the same poll where Terry Kath is placed around 55th place? I mean it's great that he's even in there, given that he was never a household name, but the guy who Jimi himself said was the better guitarist should rank somewhere higher, no? And guys like Steve Lukather and Neal Schon are around the same ranking, maybe lower, IIRC...

But, it really doesn't matter. These lists, like the old ones in Guitar Player years ago, at one time put Ace Frehley at #1. It's about popularity at the time, not about "best" (whatever that is). Rolling Stone as a whole hasn't been relevant in 30 years.