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
dweller's avatar
dweller
3,735 posts
 
Jack White before Johnny Winter?

Where's that air freshener...
deano
77 posts
 
ROLLING STONE RAG IS CRAP. LET'S END IT THERE.
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
Top 100 (or whatever number you choose) lists are intended for entertainment and controversy.

Take a deep breath and relax.

They're not important.
foster_9
1,638 posts
 
Agree with above. Who said Rolling Stone or their writer's opinion matters in the big picture? They're a few guys with their own opinions like the rest of us. That does not make them valid. And I agree with you about Steve Howe. As an old Yes fan, he is without a doubt great and I feel should rate much higher than #69 on anyone publication's list. That is ludicrous and ignorant. In my opinion Rolling Stone has zero credibility.
blindjim
3,092 posts
 
Those artists from 40 years ago, or 30, maybe even 20, very likely weren't in the minds of the 25-35 year old writer of the article. he/she probably Googled up a list and went from there.

I think it's true to these lists are about as important and viable as me deciding on what I want to drink with dinner.... last Sunday.

The "Top 100 fill in the blank" lists are so wacked they don't bare me wasting time perusing them. Vocalists, Groups, Albums, it don't matter... they're geared for controversy rather than accuracy. Most are just plain ridiculous wastes of time.

It's like saying what is the biggest/best selling movie of all time?

Unless only the number of tickets is tallied, and not the money spent, every new blockbuster production will claim that title as tickets get more and more pricey. Even counting the ticket numbers has quickly been skewed, as their are lots more poeple around now than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.

Lists are made just to p*** everybody off.... like 'shock jock radio' personalities.
More to discover