Roger McGuinn at #95 on Rolling Stone's Greatest Guitarists

stsang · Post by **stsang** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:51 pm

Rolling Stone just issued their top 100 guitarists of all time. Roger McGuinn made #95, behind Peter Buck who's at #94, Mike Campbell at #79, Johnny Marr at #51, etc. Jimi Hendrix is #1 and George Harrison is at #11.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists ... n-19691231

Obviously, voting is very subjective. What do you think of this list?

janglebox · Post by **janglebox** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm

stsang wrote:Rolling Stone just issued their top 100 guitarists of all time. Roger McGuinn made #95, behind Peter Buck who's at #94, Mike Campbell at #79, Johnny Marr at #51, etc. Jimi Hendrix is #1 and George Harrison is at #11.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists ... n-19691231

Obviously, voting is very subjective. What do you think of this list?

David Fricke's a pretty decent writer for Rolling Stone, and no doubt a fan of these guitarists. But he sounds like a guy who really doesn't know much about playing guitar. Kurt Cobain at #12 and Richard Thompson at #19? The list itself is o.k., but the ranking is ridiculous, imo.

Roger McGuinn behind Peter Buck is just stupid.

beatbyrd · Post by **beatbyrd** » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:03 pm

janglebox wrote:
stsang wrote:Rolling Stone just issued their top 100 guitarists of all time. Roger McGuinn made #95, behind Peter Buck who's at #94, Mike Campbell at #79, Johnny Marr at #51, etc. Jimi Hendrix is #1 and George Harrison is at #11.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists ... n-19691231

Obviously, voting is very subjective. What do you think of this list?
David Fricke's a pretty decent writer for Rolling Stone, and no doubt a fan of these guitarists. But he sounds like a guy who really doesn't know much about playing guitar. Kurt Cobain at #12 and Richard Thompson at #19? The list itself is o.k., but the ranking is ridiculous, imo. Roger McGuinn behind Peter Buck is just stupid.

My feelings exactly, Steve. No mention of Chet Atkins, Doyle Dykes, Tommy Tedesco, Todd Rundgren, or Tommy Emmanuel, most of whom can/could play rings around a large portion of the list. Seriously, Bonnie Raitt and not Chet? C'mon...... and that's not even considering all the great jazz players..... Tom

beatbyrd · Post by **beatbyrd** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:24 am

beatbyrd wrote:My feelings exactly, Steve. No mention of Chet Atkins, Doyle Dykes, Tommy Tedesco, Todd Rundgren, or Tommy Emmanuel, most of whom can/could play rings around a large portion of the list. Seriously, Bonnie Raitt and not Chet? C'mon...... and that's not even considering all the great jazz players..... Tom

For those who may not have heard of Tommy Emmanuel, check this out....
http://youtu.be/6lbvSBNLLoo

kiramdear · Post by **kiramdear** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:40 am

The term "greatest" is a very subjective one and has to do with garnering acclaim and influencing others, more than possessing technical prowess. By that definition, RS may be right on with their list. They've been in a position to define acclaimed and influential musicians since 1967. For me, some but not all of the best guitarists who have achieved fame are on this list.

If you want a list of "best" guitarists, you're likely in for even more trouble.

Some of the best may not even be known outside of their immediate vicinity.

manta · Post by **manta** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:23 am

I'd say in their top 10, there are 5 great entertainers and 5 great guitarists and that's pretty much how the entire list seems to go. They do have an impressive list of people who have contributed to music in general and guitar playing in particluar. I'd re-do the order quite a bit myself but it's good read.

janglebox · Post by **janglebox** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:48 am

kiramdear wrote:The term "greatest" is a very subjective one and has to do with garnering acclaim and influencing others, more than possessing technical prowess. By that definition, RS may be right on with their list.

Kira, you're right in one sense, but even using the criteria of acclaim and influence, it's still a shaky list. The music-fan public is very different from the guitar-playing public. REM certainly has enjoyed enormous fame, but I doubt there are many serious guitarist who would claim that Peter Buck is a greater guitar player (or a greater influence) than Roger McGuinn. Or that Kurt Cobain, who is far better known, was a greater guitar player or musical influence than Richard Thompson. And on and on...

bvstudios · Post by **bvstudios** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:48 pm

Strangely, the all-round best guitarist I have encountered isn't famous/well known or even working any more....

Back in the 80's, I was the bassist in a series of graffitti rock bands on the West Coast and also in a tribute band which covered off a variety of genres from the fifties through to <shudder> Disco (Yes, we even played "Dancing Queen").

John was the lead guitar in all these combos, generally playing one of just three axes on stage- a red ES335, a sunburst Strat or a Gibby accoustic. In one night, he often emulated (very well) Brian May, Scotty Moore, Brian Setzer, Duane Eddy, George Harrison, Dick Dale, and Clapton, among others. Other times, that accoustic Gib rang out like Marty Robbins or Andre Segovia. Give him a week with almost any song and he'd have the sound and style of the original down pat. A true jazz player at heart (Though he seldom showed that side in public, his rendition of Tony Mottola's "Autumn Leaves" was almost better than the original), his one weak point came when called on to "become" McGuinn or Harrison on their Rics, and that was only because he had a "thing" against 12strings in general. He could do the chops, and used the 335 through a chorus and compressor setup, but the sound itself was off.

I've met some pretty well-known guitarists over the years; most all have developed their own sound/style. Not many have the chameleon-like ability to fall in to the phrasing, fingering and picking style of the others. It served John well for a lotta years- put his kids through college and paid for at least one house.

Then one day out of the blue, he decided to hang it all up and retired. As far as I know, he has not played in public in over two decades. John gets my vote as the best all-round guitarist I've encountered.

8mileshigher · Post by **8mileshigher** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:07 am

I found that the list of "voters" who contributed to the listing was an impressive who's who. Not just the R.S. editors and writers.

But I agree with the observation of others on this thread, who question the subjective "ranking" numer selection of those named

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:43 am

I am as big a fan of Jimi as any musician who is happy to acknowledge his impact on me with respect to playing guitar with style, passion and vision..............but does he deserve to be #1? I think not.

It's almost as if those who selected him never saw him live with all his flaws. To be succinct, his live performances were legendary for being both over indulgent and poorly played efforts. I saw him live a couple of times and that was also my impression of him as a guitarist.

Don't get me wrong he had moments of pure magic........but they were few and far between his indulgences. His studio work speaks for itself of course.

RS did not start off on the right foot as far as I am concerned and the lack of credibility of their ranking system only gets worse as you go through the list.

“I've been imitated so well I've heard people copy my mistakes.” ― Jimi Hendrix

JakeK · Post by **JakeK** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:32 pm

As with all lists, this is simply a matter of opinions based on popularity of the artist(s). To me, there is no definitive list. That too, is an opinion.

Folkie · Post by **Folkie** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:48 pm

The Rolling Stone editors are famous for stating their opinions like fact. I was a huge R.E.M. fan back in 1987, when RS plastered a photo of the band on the cover with the caption "America's Best Rock and Roll Band," and I was still offended by the title. The RS guitarists list is terribly distorted, to be sure. I wouldn't slight Hendrix, though. He will always be number one on my list, no matter who comes along with more refined technique.

lennon211 · Post by **lennon211** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:11 pm

kiramdear wrote:The term "greatest" is a very subjective one and has to do with garnering acclaim and influencing others, more than possessing technical prowess. By that definition, RS may be right on with their list. They've been in a position to define acclaimed and influential musicians since 1967. For me, some but not all of the best guitarists who have achieved fame are on this list.

If you want a list of "best" guitarists, you're likely in for even more trouble. Some of the best may not even be known outside of their immediate vicinity.

I found this list to be much better than the one that they published back in 2004 or so. This one was much more balanced and wasn't based as much around what was popular at that moment. Still, any list like this is going to be a target for complaints as to who is left off.

vynesmusic · Post by **vynesmusic** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:10 pm

Amen, Tom......it's like asking to identify the Beatles' best album......thanks for mentioning Tedesco and Rundgren.....jeez....what about Robin Trower.....Joe Walsh...Clarence White...Bunky Nudefinger?....ok.....he's not that good....

r-gordon-7 · Post by **r-gordon-7** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:59 pm

stsang wrote: Roger McGuinn made #95, behind Peter Buck who's at #94, Mike Campbell at #79

Roger behind Peter Buck & Mike Campbell... Not to knock either Peter Buck or Mike Campbell, but clearly that's not only the wrong position for Roger (he deserves to be much, much higher up on the list), that's even more clearly the wrong order among these three... I think it's fair to say that but for Roger, neither Buck nor Campbell would've grown up having the inspiration to do what they do and to sound as they do - something Roger did first and better, then and now.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum