http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5937559?rnd=1118921532219&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.857
it's from aug 2003, so yeah it's kinda old, but kurt cobain is 12th, while eddie van halen himself is 70th...? joe satrani and steve vai don't even get an appearence and randy rhoads is 85th?
although i think no.3 should have probubly been a bit higher...
It's a ridiculous list, David Glimour 82? John McLaughlin only 49? B.B.King should be much further down and Joni Mitchel ffs, no way?! Bo Didley sucks the sweat of real guitarist's balls and Kurt Cobain should never be 12th. Other missing people IMO would be Dominic Miller, Paco de Lucia, Albert King, Al Dimeola.
Originally posted by Bowmannyeah-but this was from rolling stone-it's not an internet one.
No Rory Gallagher there.
Anyway, these lists and polls are all over the Web.
Examples:
http://www.philbrodieband.com/muso_solos_blues_guitarists.htm
and
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/09/111301.php
and what do you mean B.B. king should be lower? i mean-legend had it he defeated clapton and page with a single note! (a nice, not-very-shallow vibrato...apparently...)
Originally posted by geniusI never said either of these things. What's the matter with you?
yeah-but this was from rolling stone-it's not an internet one.
and what do you mean B.B. king should be lower? i mean-legend had it he defeated clapton and page with a single note! (a nice, not-very-shallow vibrato...apparently...)
Originally posted by Bowmannsomeone else said the second one, and the two pages you quoted weren't from magazines...
I never said either of these things. What's the matter with you?
also-i tend to click the "reply and quot" button as opposed to meerly the "reply" button. as you can see here...
As everyone knows, these polls are created to stir up controversy and sell Rolling Stone magazines. Mission part 1 accomplished, as evidenced by this thread. We'll see how many of us actually buy the magazine to frame it or urinate on it, but as someone wise once said, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".
These polls always end up as opinionated battles between shred heads, blues guys, songwriters and innovators. These different camps will never accept idols from the other camps as being superior to their own. Does this sound familiar?
"Joe Satriani can play the pants off B.B. King any day of the week with one had tied behind his back. He's a monster!!"
"B.B. King can make you cry with one note. Satriani is a wanker."
"Oh yeah? Well, Kurt Cobain wrote one of the greatest collection of songs ever! He defined the 90's in terms or guitar style."
"Yeah, but did he do anything different? He basically talked about being cheesed off at the world over rock chords. Same old, same old. Sonic Youth is where it's at! They pushed the boundaries of what sound and rock music could be!"
"Yeah, but Satriani could outplay Thurston Moore with one hand tied behind his back. He's a monster!!"
etc... (ad nauseum)
One nice thing about these polls is that they spark debate - unfortunately the debate is always stupid. So Rolling Stone gets the big "V" sign from me.
😕
Originally posted by geniusDude, B.B.King sucks. Sure he can play a mean vibrato, but his entire techinque revolves around doing this whilst playing in first and second position in E, Clapton is much better. Also King's style of play covers a fairly small amount of musical styles and I prefer a larger degree of adaptability in my guitarists.
and what do you mean B.B. king should be lower? i mean-legend had it he defeated clapton and page with a single note! (a nice, not-very-shallow vibrato...apparently...)
Originally posted by StarrmanDefine "sucks". And really, I don't think we can do that unless we can define what "great" is.
Dude, B.B.King sucks. Sure he can play a mean vibrato, but his entire techinque revolves around doing this whilst playing in first and second position in E, Clapton is much better. Also King's style of play covers a fairly small amount of musical styles and I prefer a larger degree of adaptability in my guitarists.
What is something that all "great" guitarists have in common? It's not technique, it's not success, it's not flexibility, it's not originality, it's not respect. I think the only thing that we could possibly say they have in common is that you get an emotional lift when you hear them do their thing. Now, not everyone gets the same emotional lift from listening to the same guitarist, but somewhere in there someone gets buzzed.
So I think if a guitarist sucks, you didn't get enough of that lift from hearing them (or get it often enough) to look to look forward to hearing them again. In that case, I'm going to say B.B. King does not suck.
Originally posted by PBE6Okay, I retract 'sucks', though now that he's lost all his teeh he's probably way better than anyone else. This aside, he just doesn't do it for me in my opinion there are better blues guitarists (Albert Collins for one) who don't tire me with endless use of vibrato. I secretly reckon it's Parkinson's...
Define "sucks". And really, I don't think we can do that unless we can define what "great" is.
What is something that all "great" guitarists have in common? It's not technique, it's not success, it's not flexibility, it's not originality, it's not respect. I think the only thing that we could possibly say they have in common is that you get an ...[text shortened]... to look forward to hearing them again. In that case, I'm going to say B.B. King does not suck.