2. music
  3. 1251761987

Rolling Stone top 100 Guitarists - Howe/Van Halen

OK, I just listened to The Yes Album for about the millionth time and I have one question; how on earth did the dudes at Rolling Stone put Steve Howe at number 69 on their list? I realize they tend to be a holier than thou (or smarter-than-thou) bunch, but come on. Didn't this guy win like every guitar award from musician magazines in the 70's? I was shocked as I read through the list and saw the names ahead of him. I just assumed he would be in the top 10 for unbelievable technical skill alone. The guy is simply amazing. I don't want to start a debate on some of the extremely questionable picks, especially in the top 10, but this guy is one of the all time greats.

To me it's like forgetting about Stan Musial because he played in St Louis instead of NY, LA or Chicago. Still one of the all time greats.

That brings me to the most amazing slight on that list: Eddie Van Halen at 70??? Didn't he basically invent speed metal? His tapping technic along with the rest of his unbelievable arsenal should put him in the top 10 if not the top 5, I mean come on. Because they didn't like Van Halen's pop/Rock they shun him down to 70?? I'm not a huge Van Halen fan but I think they had 2 great albums (Van Halen, 1984) and his playing on those alone should get him in the top 10.

I kept thinking that with the exceptions, IMO, of Jimmy Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn and Kirk Hammett no one else could play all the music of all the other guitarists as well as VH could. George Harrison, Keith Richards, Eric Clapton or The Edge getting through 'Eruption', 'Ain't Talkin' Bout Love' or 'Hot for Teacher'? I don't think so. I can't think of anything Van Halen couldn't play extremely well, both artistically and technically.

Most the "Greatest" lists are BS, but this instance seemed really egregious to me.
macdadtexas
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Other than the obligatory Jimi at #1, such a list is never going to seem right to everyone. The author must consider innovation, technique, influence, personal taste (and probably fame) in determining the order. How do you prioritize these factors? Probably differently than the author.

Steve Vai has great technique, but some find his arpeggio heavy lead style cold and uninvolving. Clapton is famous, influential, and has beautiful tone, but limited technique. Danny Gatton (#68 IIRC) was a technical monster before his injury and merely much better than (virtually) everyone else afterward, but he's obscure. How do you rank these guys?

I am studying guitar and play a little. I think I have a pretty fair insight into what I can't play and why. This colors my take on the list and illustrates the phenomenon that I'm describing. Go4vinyl (a much more experienced player than I am) laments Peter Green's low ranking. I'll point ou that Lindsey Buckingham isn't even on the list. I recently heard Buckingham nail Green's signature solo at a Fleetwood Mac concert. I suspect he can replicate it in his sleep. I also flat out 100% guarantee you that Green couldn't return the favor. Buckingham's technique combines very fine blues ability (IMO roughly on a par with Green's) with an utterly unique rythmic capability. His hybrid strumming/picking/fingerpicking style floors me every time.

Bottom line: YMMV.

BTW, did Django make the list?
martykl
3,578 posts
 
Sorry,

I accidentally dropped my penultimate paragraph:

This is no shot at Green, who I've admired for decades. However, he was famous for acknowledging his own technical limitations and thanking his fans for looking beyond them and just "enjoying the show". Notwithstanding the difference in their technical ability, it should be noted that Peter Green invented the solo in "Oh Well," while LB merely played it. If you love the particular "voice" evinced here, you may not be impressed by "Come" or "I'm so Afraid", Buckingham's signature solos.

Therefore, I understand why Go4 prefers Green's material, even though I prefer LB.

YMMV
tfkaudio
591 posts
 
If you look at another Rolling Stone list - the best albums of all time, you'll find all "Prog Rock" conspicuously absent. No King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, etc. It seems obvious that they don't like prog at Rolling Stone. Thus the Steve Howe ranking.

Cheers.
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,290 posts
 
TFk,

Yes, RS has always had a clear and major anti progressive rock bias as does the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

This narrow mindedness in particular drives me crazy and is why I pay little attention to anything the mainstream media these days promotes. Its all about money and not artistic merit at all, just like much of modern American culture.

Very sad indeed!
macdadtexas OP
1,794 posts
 
Classical1,

I love the Rolling Stones, one of my personal favorites, and I have seen them live many times. Richards is a great guitarist, and a great songwriter. EVH is not in the same league as a songwriter. That said, this is not a list of songwriters, but musicians. Stevie Ray Vaughn as an example really didnt' write any truly timeless, great music, but is legend for his playing. EVH, is similar to SRV, that was my point. As a guitarist, come one Keith's not in the same league, much more limited.

John Lennon wrote better songs than almost anyone else ever, but he's not on the list, that my point.

Also, I hadn't noticed Lindsey Buckingham and Steve Vai not on the list at all, that is criminal.
More to discover