• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

A VENT

Lonesomedave

Lonesomedave

May 13, 2011
783
30
Nashville, Cats
#1
Hey guys, never posted in this forum before, but have posted many times in basses, amps etc. I am just PO'ed and this seemed like the appropriate place.

I have just got through reading excerpts from the Rolling Stone fishwrapper on the "100 Greatest Guitarists of all time" now leaving out for a minute that they don't include any of the great classical guitarists or that many blue grass musicians are so good it's just scary, I am willing to accept that they are biased towards electric guitar players....or even that they meant this list to just be electric guitar players....I have not seen the whole list.

predictably, Jimi Hendrix was number 1. no problem with that, although he would probably not be my personal choice.

here is my vent.... (and bear in mind i have not seen the whole list, and don't really care to, since this kind of crap is so subjective anyway)...

apparently Mahavishnu John McLaughlin was 49th & Curt Cobain was something like 26th... don't hold me to that, but their relative positions are as I've laid out.

Could any sane person who knows or cares anything about electric guitar playing say that John McLaughlin is not so far a better guitarist than Curt Cobain, that Cobain is (or rather, was) not even worthy to carry his equipment? It's silly to the point of ridiculousness even for the morons at Rolling Stone.

My 14 year old son said it best "Well, John Mcglaughlin MIGHT not be number 1, but he would sure be pretty high"... this from a 14 year old kid! (I had to explain to him who curt cobain was... and he just laughed)

to which i add "Duh!" how can Rolling Stone even pretend to have credibility. And they expect us to buy their dippy politics when this is what they have to say about music? supposedly their thing?

vent over.

/s/ Dave
 
#5
Lonesomedave said:
Hey guys, never posted in this forum before, but have posted many times in basses, amps etc. I am just PO'ed and this seemed like the appropriate place.

I have just got through reading excerpts from the Rolling Stone fishwrapper on the "100 Greatest Guitarists of all time" now leaving out for a minute that they don't include any of the great classical guitarists or that many blue grass musicians are so good it's just scary, I am willing to accept that they are biased towards electric guitar players....or even that they meant this list to just be electric guitar players....I have not seen the whole list.

predictably, Jimi Hendrix was number 1. no problem with that, although he would probably not be my personal choice.

here is my vent.... (and bear in mind i have not seen the whole list, and don't really care to, since this kind of crap is so subjective anyway)...

apparently Mahavishnu John McLaughlin was 49th & Curt Cobain was something like 26th... don't hold me to that, but their relative positions are as I've laid out.

Could any sane person who knows or cares anything about electric guitar playing say that John McLaughlin is not so far a better guitarist than Curt Cobain, that Cobain is (or rather, was) not even worthy to carry his equipment? It's silly to the point of ridiculousness even for the morons at Rolling Stone.

My 14 year old son said it best "Well, John Mcglaughlin MIGHT not be number 1, but he would sure be pretty high"... this from a 14 year old kid! (I had to explain to him who curt cobain was... and he just laughed)

to which i add "Duh!" how can Rolling Stone even pretend to have credibility. And they expect us to buy their dippy politics when this is what they have to say about music? supposedly their thing?

vent over.

/s/ Dave
Click to expand...

First off, I really don't care about what Rolling Stone has to say. They're a bit of a dinosaur that'll probably gone within a couple of decades.

That said, let me play devil's advocate: If the guy next door to you is the world's most brilliant and technically advanced guitarist in the world, but he doesn't write any songs that people like, then what does it matter how good he is?

Writing songs, guitar lines and getting a vibe or sound that really connects with people is a real talent that doesn't necessarily have to be technically brilliant at all.

I love John McLaughlin, own a number of his CDs, and have seen him play several times. At the same time, he is certainly an acquired taste.

IMHO, Rolling Stone's list is terrible, and has all sorts of other issues, too, as I recall when I read over it. It's a bs popularity contest that amounts to a fart in the wind. For example, Johnny Ramone was #16.

I do like that Richard Thompson was #19, though. I think that guy's absolutely phenomenal, and doesn't get the audience or respect that he deserves.
 
#6
WilliamSandoval said:
Rolling Stone is written by a bunch of guitards. What do you expect? Have you read the best bass players list? That's a horrible list!
Click to expand...

Even guitards have better taste then that list! I think this list was written by a bunch of writers. You know what they say... "Those who cant, teach. Those who can't teach, write." I think it's true in this case.
 
#7
ubersheist,


point made and I think i agree... but having said that, this list was about one thing and one thing only... who is (or are) the greatest guitar players.

not the greatest songwriters etc.

and BTW, nothing against Curt Cobain. Nirvana was a great group, and I love listening to them.

but having said that, on pure technical ability, John McLaughlin is right up there at the very top, with people like Wes Montgomery or Django Reinhardt, or Al DiMeola... that's just a fact, and to try to say different is, I think, naive if it comes from a member of the public... But from a publication like Rolling Stone, who knows or should know better, it is the height of ignorant stupidity, or worse, outright lies for the purpose of pandering to to a very stupid public.

/s/ Dave
 
#8
Ubersheist said:
Even guitards have better taste then that list! I think this list was written by a bunch of writers. You know what they say... "Those who cant, teach. Those who can't teach, write." I think it's true in this case.
Click to expand...

Going for offending both teachers and writers over some Rolling Stone BS? :scowl:

I realize you were joking, but really RS hasn't been relevant in almost 20 years. If the best they can do is keep rehashing "100 Greatest" lists, who even cares what they have to say? I sure don't.
 
#9
PurpleDrank said:
Going for offending both teachers and writers over some Rolling Stone BS? :scowl:

I realize you were joking, but really RS hasn't been relevant in almost 20 years. If the best they can do is keep rehashing "100 Greatest" lists, who even cares what they have to say? I sure don't.
Click to expand...

Just to be fair, I teach guitar and bass, too. I insulted myself with my own comments!
 
#10
Rolling Stone is trash. They cater to a certain demographic and write to those people.

I haven't even looked at one of those magazines in 15 years and I'm very happy about that.

Any time someone has posted Rolling Stone's lists of greatest... anything... it's always the same predictable, boring, thing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back