What makes for a great guitarist, or great musician on any instrument?
First and foremost, it’s musicality. In Pop (in the large sense of the term) music, I put the song (it’s chords, their "progression", the melody, harmony, counter-point, arrangement, etc., and lyrics) first, the singing second, the ensemble accompaniment third, and the individual musicianship last (though that collectively impacts, in fact determines, the third). IMO it is the job of every musician to serve first the song, second the singer, and the ensemble of which he is a member third. There is an old axiom amongst seasoned musicians: "Make the other players sound good". That requires selflessness and humility, somewhat of a rare trait amongst guitarists ;-).
The problem posed by "playing for the song" is.....what song?! Many Rock guitarists are the main point of interest in a recording, the songs themselves being merely the vehicle the singer and musicians require to "show their stuff", the level of songwriting quality in the music being generally so low (imo). The problem posed by "make the other players sound good" is.....to play in such a manner requires the others players to also be playing in that manner. It only works if they do.
There is a well-known case of a moment in time when one of the two biggest and most celebrated guitarists in the world (the other being Jimi Hendrix) was faced with the above quandary, and had a musical epiphany. He had just heard a music in which the musicians DID put the song first, DID put the singer second, and DID play in such a manner as to make the other musicians (AND song, AND singer) sound good. He had his entire musical rug pulled out from under him, and had to completely rethink how he made music. He was currently playing music that: 1- Had songs whose main purpose, function in fact, was to give the musicians a platform upon which to play their instruments; 2- Was being played by each musician in such a way as to make each of them individually sound good, the opposite of the axiom above. The guitarist was Eric Clapton, and the music he had just heard was that of The Band, and their new debut album, Music From Big Pink. You can listen to Eric talk about it on You Tube (Eric: "Music had been going in the wrong direction for a long time, and now someone had gone and done it right".).
The Band were the "anti-Cream", their opposite in every way. The members of Cream played as to each make himself the center of attention---each man for himself. Jack Bruce’s bass playing was often fighting for your attention against Eric Clapton’s guitar playing, not complimenting it. Ginger Baker was not laying down a deep pocket and groove in support of the music or Eric and Jack, he was over-playing to a ridiculous degree. He obviously did not subscribe to Duke Ellington’s view of musicianship: "What you don’t play is as important as what you do". Ginger left no space unfilled. The members of The Band, in contrast, played not only for the sake of the song, but left "holes" in their playing, holes to be filled by the other players. Ensemble playing of the highest order, unheard of in a self-contained Rock Group or Band. A level of musicianship only available from the best session musician’s in Muscle Shoals, Memphis, Nashville, Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York.
Now, there are a lot of assumptions in the above, and not all of them necessarily apply to Rock (or any other) music in general, or to guitarists specifically. But consider this: Don’t the "best" songwriters usually have musicians who play in the manner I have described up above? The "better" the songwriter, the more he usually wants from his players musicality, playing that enhances the song itself. When John Hiatt was given his choice of any guitarist in the world to play on his Bring The Family album, he chose, not Neal Schon, but Ry Cooder. When The Stones went in to record after the death of Brian Jones, they brought in, not Neal Schon, but.....Ry Cooder.
Yes, Ry Cooder is my idea of a great guitarist! There are others, but Neal Schon is not one of them. Again, that is just a matter of taste. I find Neal’s guitar playing very common, both numerically and pejoratively. No offense! His playing brings me back to Hendrix. I loved Jimi’s first two albums (I had yet to have the same epiphany as Clapton), and saw he and The Experience live twice. He is probably the most revered Rock guitarist of all time, yet I now don’t like his playing. Why? Beside his God-awful tone (imo!), the answer lies above: For me, it’s all about the song; everything flows from it. Many guitarists are faced with playing music in which the song itself is, as I have already claimed, a mere afterthought, at best. One such guitarist was Hendrix. C’mon, does anyone listen to him for the songs themselves? No, it’s for his guitar playing. But guitar playing is of interest to me only in how it contributes to the music (again, the song) itself, and Jimi’s songs are sure not much to write home about. If the music itself is not interesting, it’s just guitar playing. Guitar playing in isolation from music is not of interest to me. As they say, ymmv!
