Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
DAVID GILMOUR!
Peter Buck of REM
Malcolm Young of AC/DC
Keith Richards
Pete Townshend
Tom Petty
Mike Campbell
...that's all off the top of my head. Although I know there are many more.
I'd opine that some of the above are actually fairly limited players who have learned to make effective use of what they can do. I'd exclude especially Campbell who I think is a really, really good player - but not one that will pay three notes when one will do.
In engineering there used to be a philiosophy of "elegance". Elegant solutions were/are solutiuons that solve the problem, that do all that is required but that have nothing extra. I believe that this is a valid way to look at music - that good parts (solos, drum parts, whatever) are those that do what is necessary for the song and the arrangement but don't spill over into the realms of indulgence or spotlight hogging or of leaving nothing else for anybody to play.
Richards at his best (IE not this century) was that kind of player. He is often viewed as the secondary player in the Stones (especially in the 70s when Mick Taylor was with them) but I think that what he did was to figure out what the song needed and deliver that - even if he didn't get a lot of solos. And hats off to him for that.
Gilmour is another who is a really, really good player but has the sense and taste to try and play something that serves the song (he also has a fantastic sense of dynamics).
Petty and Campbell play well as a combination.
That all said, I don't think there's anything wrong with chops per se, but for me really good players often know when NOT to play as when as to play, and they have good instincts as to how MUCH or how little to play.
