Another day, another list

Bob-Dubery

http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2010/06/50-greatest-guitarists-ever.html

NB! In alphabetical order.

AlanRatcliffe

Worse than most. Some great players, but a distinct lack of newer players aside from a very few obvious ones and leaning a bit too heavily to players of the '60s and '70s.

singemonkey

Johnny Marr. Sigh... ?

Were there like, no rockabilly players in there? Scotty Moore, Cliff Gallup, James Burton, Brian Setzer, The Reverend Horton Heat. Dagnab it. >☹

Chuck Berry kinda counts. But only kinda.

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Worse than most. Some great players, but a distinct lack of newer players aside from a very few obvious ones and leaning a bit too heavily to players of the '60s and '70s.

It's certainly not a case of old hippies sticking to what they know and thinking that Hendrix is untouchable and that the world has gone backwards since Alvin Lee soloed at Woodstock. With the exception of Uncle Joe Benson they're all under 50.

I also note that they've tried to make it not just a rock 'n roll list, but they're jazz or rock critics (or, in one case, players) so how do you rank the classical players? I know I'd put in Segovia and Bream because you have to - don't you? - but other than that...

Most frustratingly there's no justifications of the selections.

Am I not paying enough attention, or do Vai, Satch and Co tend not to make these sort of picked-by-experts lists?

AlanRatcliffe

X-rated Bob wrote: It's certainly not a case of old hippies sticking to what they know and thinking that Hendrix is untouchable and that the world has gone backwards since Alvin Lee soloed at Woodstock. With the exception of Uncle Joe Benson they're all under 50.

I dunno - seems to be centred around Woodstock era and a decade to either side with a few nods to players outside either limit (Charlie Christian, Yngwie). But the usual baffling omissions and equally baffling inclusions. I don't know why I bother looking at these lists...

so how do you rank the classical players? I know I'd put in Segovia and Bream because you have to - don't you? - but other than that...

Segovia, Bream and Sharon Isben - all fine players, but very obvious choices. It's like Guitar Player's readers polls - people vote for the few players they have heard of in the acoustic categories. I love Bream specifically, but technically John Williams is a far better player.

Am I not paying enough attention, or do Vai, Satch and Co tend not to make these sort of picked-by-experts lists?

Vai certainly should, probably Satch and there are other notable exclusions.

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote: It's certainly not a case of old hippies sticking to what they know and thinking that Hendrix is untouchable and that the world has gone backwards since Alvin Lee soloed at Woodstock. With the exception of Uncle Joe Benson they're all under 50.
I dunno - seems to be centred around Woodstock era and a decade to either side with a few nods to players outside either limit (Charlie Christian, Yngwie). But the usual baffling omissions and equally baffling inclusions. I don't know why I bother looking at these lists...

Sure. I don't dispute the point, and should have said that I didn't, just pointing out that it's not old hippies voting for whoever played at Woodstock. In too many fields the participants seem to conclude that their era was the peak and it's all downhill ever since. Cricket, motor racing, music....

Renesongs

I seen this site before listing other things. IMO I don't think that the listed is supposed to be 50 of the greatest, best or most influential. It is just of a list of 50 people the author(s) know play or played guitar. You know like that game we played as kids. where someone picks a letter of the alphabet and you have to think up a cigarette brand, a girls name, a boys name, a country, a car maker etc. beginning with that letter as quickly as possible.

Bob-Dubery

Well it does say "The 50 Greatest Guitarists Ever", and in big letters.

Renesongs

Oops did not notice that on this list :-[ All I can add is that LA Times Magazine is setting themselves up it be considered a bunch of dumb asses by the music world I thought that was Rolling Stone Magazine's Job ?