POLL- The WEAKEST LINK: Rolling Stone Magazine's Top 10 Guitarist- ROUND 1

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

dankind said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I picked Allman because of his time on earth.

I would have picked Townsend though then Richards.

KR wrote memorable riffs?  He admittedly stole everything from blues records!

Rhoads and Hendrix had short tenures on this mortal coil. Both are still in my top 3. And when I listen to them, they're easily number 1 at that moment.

Nothing stops me in my tracks and demands all of my attention like Frusciante, though. I basically just fucking space out like the "Desperado" weirdo on Seinfeld when I play Frusciante.

RE: Keith, you know Jimmy Page's nickname among his cohort, yes? Difference being that he will never own up to it.

Yeah but show me something KR has done that exceeds bar-band level?  Dude doesn't shred.  Page shreds.
And then there's songs like Over the Hills and Far Away and The Rain Song...there's no plagiarism there lol

Meh, who cares about shredding.  Vai and Malmsteen shred but that shit is boring.  KR is friggin' awesome.  The licks he wrote are so great.  If you think Tumbling Dice, Salt of the Earth, Torn and Frayed, Loving Cup, etc. are bar band, you've lost your damn mind or never have dug into the catalog. 

Mike McCready cares about shredding lol

It certainly isn't everything, but you aren't top ten material if you can't.  

mickeyrat said:

so being its tied, do all three get the boot?

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

These "Who is the best..." polls are always fun and interesting and I'm a sucker for them.  But today, I ran across this perspective that is well worth at least considering.  It's in a book that I'm reading that is easily one of the best music related books I've yet to come across called Ascension; John Coltrane and His Quest by Eric Nisenson.  It's basically a biography of John Coltrane. but Nisenson covers a lot of ground regarding jazz in general in this most excellent, captivating book.  In the second chapter (pages 21-22), the author talks about the emergence in the 1950's of two great tenor saxophonists, John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins.  He says,

"The difficulty is that he [Rollins] was constantly compared with Coltrane, and in the late Fifties jazz fans and critics loved to argue over which one was "better", as if there were some way of objectively determining the relative quality of two men who were clearly both great artists and virtuosos of their instrument.  Both men were musical geniuses with very different but equally valid artistic agendas.  Here is an aspect of the jazz scene that I truly find regrettable, this spirit of competitiveness engendered by the jazz polls and by too many fans and critics.  This most American music could not help adopting certain less fortunate traits of its native land, such as the extreme competitiveness so endemic to the American way of life.  In art, competition, though perhaps unavoidable, is basically irrelevant.  Both Coltrane and Rollins were ultimate masters of their instruments and the art of improvisation, and the style of each man was so deeply personal that comparisons are fruitless."

When I read these words, I really had to pause and think about all these "Who is the best..." polls.  It became even more provocative when I read on:

"Nevertheless, the competition, engendered by the jazz press and continued in every bar or hangout where jazz fans gathered, became intense enough to force Sonny Rollins into a retirement that lasted about two years.  What was worse, it put a crimp in the friendship between the two men."

It's just human nature.  We love the competition, the strife.  It's good old-fashioned fun.  

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

These "Who is the best..." polls are always fun and interesting and I'm a sucker for them.  But today, I ran across this perspective that is well worth at least considering.  It's in a book that I'm reading that is easily one of the best music related books I've yet to come across called Ascension; John Coltrane and His Quest by Eric Nisenson.  It's basically a biography of John Coltrane. but Nisenson covers a lot of ground regarding jazz in general in this most excellent, captivating book.  In the second chapter (pages 21-22), the author talks about the emergence in the 1950's of two great tenor saxophonists, John Coltrane and Sonny Rollins.  He says,

"The difficulty is that he [Rollins] was constantly compared with Coltrane, and in the late Fifties jazz fans and critics loved to argue over which one was "better", as if there were some way of objectively determining the relative quality of two men who were clearly both great artists and virtuosos of their instrument.  Both men were musical geniuses with very different but equally valid artistic agendas.  Here is an aspect of the jazz scene that I truly find regrettable, this spirit of competitiveness engendered by the jazz polls and by too many fans and critics.  This most American music could not help adopting certain less fortunate traits of its native land, such as the extreme competitiveness so endemic to the American way of life.  In art, competition, though perhaps unavoidable, is basically irrelevant.  Both Coltrane and Rollins were ultimate masters of their instruments and the art of improvisation, and the style of each man was so deeply personal that comparisons are fruitless."

When I read these words, I really had to pause and think about all these "Who is the best..." polls.  It became even more provocative when I read on:

"Nevertheless, the competition, engendered by the jazz press and continued in every bar or hangout where jazz fans gathered, became intense enough to force Sonny Rollins into a retirement that lasted about two years.  What was worse, it put a crimp in the friendship between the two men."

It's just human nature.  We love the competition, the strife.  It's good old-fashioned fun.  

That's an easy answer and I'm not accusing you of doing this, but it's one that could be used as a cop out.  It's human nature to love sugar and salt and saturated fats.  How good is it for us to eat nothing but sugar, salt and saturated fats?  It's human nature to engage in war.  Is that a reasonable excuse to exterminate millions of human lives? 

Yes, competition is human nature, but are we not of such high intelligence that we cannot rise above some of our more base instincts when it comes to something as creative as music?  Do we excuse bullying because "it is human nature"?  Do we shrug off high murder rates in some places in the world because it's human nature to act violently in densely populated areas?  Is there not a higher road in some of our human endeavors? 

Yes, I know a poll set out to determine who is "the greatest guitar player" may not be as important as some other  things, but  I think the point Nisenson brought up is at least worth considering. It is for me at any rate, especially because to me how we view and respond to music, especially at it's finest or most impassioned, is worthy of serious consideration.

MedozK said:

Need a couple more votes, or 4 will be removed in Round 1.

MedozK said:

Need a couple more votes, or 4 will be removed in Round 1.

tempo_n_groove said:

Poncier said:

MedozK said:

Need a couple more votes, or 4 will be removed in Round 1.

Just eliminate the 4, the 2 that survive would likely lose next round anyway. Speeds up the process so we can get to drummers and bassists sooner.

The bassist one should be a laugh.