Page 1 of 6
#1
So basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm sick of hearing people say that guitarists like jimi hendrix, angus young, slash, kirk hammett, jimmy page, etc... are the greatest guitarists ever.

Now first of all yes I do aknowledge that without any of them music wouldn't have been the same, and they are pioneers. I also respect their legacies and respect what they have done. My argument is that whenever " top lists of guitarists " are made, so many really good guitarists are on there but the top ones are always classic rock guitarists, which I don't agree with.

I think a great guitarist should be really good "skill wise", not trapped in the penatonic scale like every classic rock player. Yes I know you shouldn't compare them with virtuosos or any newer guitarists but yet people still do. For example you shouldn't compare jimi hendrix to someone like jeff loomis, cuz they're differnet and imo jeff is is the better guitarist even though most won't admit it, and some will give you that crap " oh well he has no feeling in his playing... whatever.

Another good example of a good guitarist is Guthrie Govan, this guy can play it all but hardly gets noticed. Now not all new guitarists are good and maybe older music is better but when you compare them as guitarists, classic rock guitarists just don't cut it anymore, and I hate that people can't accept that.

EDIT: Yes i also agree that it isn't all about being able to play as fast as possible or anything like that. For example IMO people like yngwie malmsteen, buckethead or mab their music is crap. but these classic rock guitarists are overrated and are all basically trapped in a penatonic scale and all their solos sound alike.

I've now spaced it out so its easier to read lol

Yes. Paul gilbert is a great example and so are classical and jazz guitarists . They are some of the best guitar players out there, but even they don't get the attention they deserve. I listen to all types of music and hardly listen to metal so I'm not just basing my agrument off of metal players or anyone who plays fast.
Last edited by ibanez727 at Apr 12, 2011,
#3
Actually, the people most likely to make threads like that are n00bs (probably at guitar and the internet). So, they create threads under the impression that the "classic" guitarists were the only ones to ever gain any type of fame.

Q#m
e|--6--|
B|--5--|
G|--7--|
D|--7--|x2586
A|--5--|
E|-----|


Play until she breaks up with you.

The most brutal band to ever exist is...

You should go like them...even if you don't like them.


-Sloppyjoe24
#4
the classic rockers yes are the pioneers and such but there are many other guitarist who deserve the same recognition i have to agree with ibanez on that
#5
Agreed
GEAR:
Epiphone Les Paul Studio Deluxe
ESP LTD EX-360
Peavey VYPYR 30W

"There's nothing constant in the universe.
All ebb and flow, and every shape that's born,
bears in it's womb, the seeds of change".
#6
The same reason that when you talk about the best baseball players of all time you talk about mickey mantle and babe ruth when derek jeter and a rod are obviously better athletes. They are the players that little kids dreamed of being. Not too mention that the '60s are very romanticized era of history and these musicians were the voice of that era.
#7
Quote by FireHawk
because they are classic


sometimes I see us in a cymbal splash or in the sound of a car crash
#9
Because time has a habit of eliminating those who made it, but not all the way. In 20 years most of us will see the few good things that came out of this decade and forget about the rest of the garbage.
So why are they considered the best? because they survived time
#10
Because Jimi Hendrix made the guitar sound awesome and it sounded like the music was coming out of him while most of the guitarists with "skill" are just playing really fast and it sounds like ass.
#11
A lot of newb guitarists like yourself TS don't understand the difference between technical skill and regular playing skill.

Being able to sweep as fast and clean as Michael Angelo Batio doesn't make you a good guitarist no matter how many newbs just like you think so.

There's so much more to guitar playing than how fast you can play. It takes some a while to realize and even hear it, but I'd be more impressed to see someone play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star like Steve Vai than to see someone play Arpeggios From Hell as clean as possible.

I find a good developed sound and style much more advanced than hitting some notes really fast.

People look up to guitarists like Santana or Slash not for their technical level, but for their guitar playing as a whole.

It's something every noob guitarist like you needs to understand how to hear.
Last edited by TechnicolorType at Apr 12, 2011,
#12
Quote by TechnicolorType

Being able to sweep as fast and clean as Michael Angelo Batio doesn't make you a good guitarist no matter how many newbs like you think so.


This is proof that it doesn't get you girls either....
#13
I agree with you wholeheartedly, TS. Up until you suggest who should be considered good instead...

But yeah, unfortunately most guitarists these days never outgrow the 'blue jeans, chucks, G'nR tee, leather jacket, bandana/stupid hat, squier starter pack' phase. Sad times.
Watching: Louie
Playing: Ground Zeroes, Fallout Shelter
Reading: Mark Danielewski - House of Leaves
Listening: Merrow

PSN/XBL/facebook/Steam : Latchem72
Origin/Twitter: JLatchem72
#14
Because, people have opinions.

Edit: And learn how to use paragraphs

(Sorry )
Last edited by DeadlySurfer at Apr 12, 2011,
#15
Great composers are timeless

1977 Burny FLG70
2004 EBMM JP6
2016 SE Holcolmb
#17
Because they were greats long ago.

Mark my words, 20 years from now, Petrucci will the on top.
No wait, he already is.

NVM, someone new now will be considered classic then. Like Loomis. Or Abbasi. O Bulb.


ANOTHER thing. Most such lists are created by polls.
Public polls.
Jimi Hendrix is infinitely more popular than say, Nevermore, even though Loomis is far and away the more technically skilled player. Samt cmoparison of Hammet and Malmsteen, or Mustaine and Petrucci.
Mainstream rockers will ALWAYS be on top.

EDIT:
Quote by TechnicolorType
A lot of newb guitarists like yourself TS don't understand the difference between technical skill and regular playing skill.

Being able to sweep as fast and clean as Michael Angelo Batio doesn't make you a good guitarist no matter how many newbs just like you think so.

There's so much more to guitar playing than how fast you can play. It takes some a while to realize and even hear it, but I'd be more impressed to see someone play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star like Steve Vai than to see someone play Arpeggios From Hell as clean as possible.

I find a good developed sound and style much more advanced than hitting some notes really fast.

People look up to guitarists like Santana or Slash not for their technical level, but for their guitar playing as a whole.

It's something every noob guitarist like you needs to understand how to hear.



Sadly, quite a lot of classic rockers play the same thing all the time.
Take Angus Young for instance. Very popular, very influential.
Yet all his stuff sounds almost exactly the same.
Last edited by GS LEAD 5 at Apr 12, 2011,
#19
What you know and your skill level matter as much as dirt if you can't use dynamics in your playing. Classic rock players like Jimi and Slash, know how to use dynamics in their playing to make their playing feel more complex than it actually is.

Most shredders of modern time don't use much dynamics because they can just play a shit load of notes in a matter of seconds, which to the majority of musicians, is annoying, and why they prefer the dynamics of the classic era players more.

Playing a song by feel is something that most people today don't understand, most metal players don't really understand it, and I've found that a lot of people who play softer music understand it a hell of a lot more.

Dynamics, the key to writing good songs.
#21
I hate when guitarists value technical prowess over actual songwriting ability. I'd rather listen to a song I think is good that isn't overly technical, yet still sounds amazing, over a shitty 12 minute song that utilizes multiple time and key signatures and every guitar technique.
2013 #5 Uger
2012 #7 Uger

Quote by jetfuel495
Jesus, Horsedick, you are my hero

Quote by JayT44
don't worry guys his girlfriend is black, she said it was okay for him to say that.



Stalk Me

Shitty Covers

Original Music

Lastfm
#22
Quote by TechnicolorType
A lot of newb guitarists like yourself TS don't understand the difference between technical skill and regular playing skill.

Being able to sweep as fast and clean as Michael Angelo Batio doesn't make you a good guitarist no matter how many newbs just like you think so.

There's so much more to guitar playing than how fast you can play. It takes some a while to realize and even hear it, but I'd be more impressed to see someone play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star like Steve Vai than to see someone play Arpeggios From Hell as clean as possible.

I find a good developed sound and style much more advanced than hitting some notes really fast.

People look up to guitarists like Santana or Slash not for their technical level, but for their guitar playing as a whole.

It's something every noob guitarist like you needs to understand how to hear.



Looks like you're mixing up your personal preference with skill. Yes, being able to play fast and clean makes you a good guitarist. Deal with it.
Check out my band Disturbed
#23
Quote by TechnicolorType
A lot of newb guitarists like yourself TS don't understand the difference between technical skill and regular playing skill.

Being able to sweep as fast and clean as Michael Angelo Batio doesn't make you a good guitarist no matter how many newbs just like you think so.

There's so much more to guitar playing than how fast you can play. It takes some a while to realize and even hear it, but I'd be more impressed to see someone play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star like Steve Vai than to see someone play Arpeggios From Hell as clean as possible.

I find a good developed sound and style much more advanced than hitting some notes really fast.

People look up to guitarists like Santana or Slash not for their technical level, but for their guitar playing as a whole.

It's something every noob guitarist like you needs to understand how to hear.


+5000
Ibanez JEM7VWH
ESP/LTD Viper VB-300 (Baritone)
Peavey 6505
Mesa Standard 4X12
Boss TU-3
Maxon OD808
ISP Decimator G-String
POD XT (Bean)
Line 6 FBV Longboard
#24
Quote by theunforgivn
Because time has a habit of eliminating those who made it, but not all the way. In 20 years most of us will see the few good things that came out of this decade and forget about the rest of the garbage.
So why are they considered the best? because they survived time

nailed it
My sig? Nice.
#25
Quote by ethan_hanus
What you know and your skill level matter as much as dirt if you can't use dynamics in your playing. Classic rock players like Jimi and Slash, know how to use dynamics in their playing to make their playing feel more complex than it actually is.

Most shredders of modern time don't use much dynamics because they can just play a shit load of notes in a matter of seconds, which to the majority of musicians, is annoying, and why they prefer the dynamics of the classic era players more.

Playing a song by feel is something that most people today don't understand, most metal players don't really understand it, and I've found that a lot of people who play softer music understand it a hell of a lot more.

Dynamics, the key to writing good songs.


Dynamics do not matter in genres like metal, because it is simply not a part of the sound.
Jazz players usually use sterile clean tones with little or no break up. Does that mean that jazz is annoying?
Dynamics matter in genres that need dynamics. So your point is a moot point.
In metal, you find variation and complexity not in dynamics, but in the very texture of the song.
Take a song like Dream Theater's "This Dying Soul".
Its a massive epic, sprawling across many different sounds and styles- it's got only two tones. A badass distorted tone and a squeaky clean no break up tone. Thats it.
That migh be an extreme example though.
Take a song like In Flame's "Bullet Ride". Lovely harmonized soloing, no excess shredding or showing off. Try listening to Lamb of God's "Walk With Me In Hell". It has a haunting main riff which by itself sounds shit, but with the grinding rhythm guitars, sounds epic.
#26
Quote by StewieSwan
Looks like you're mixing up your personal preference with skill. Yes, being able to play fast and clean makes you a good guitarist. Deal with it.



OH SNAP!!


You better run foo, and hope she don't kill you.


EDIT: ^ You don't understand dynamics very well do you? Just for the lolz, Metallica actually makes great use of dynamics in some of their songs.
Last edited by ethan_hanus at Apr 12, 2011,
#27
I agree. Classic Rock Guitarists are overrated. Sure they wrote some amazing stuff and their licks and playing are damn good. But yes, It's about time we move onto this generation of guitarists.

However, You also have to remember, too: Classic Rock Guitarists aren't all about "Watch me play F# Locrian 5 times down the neck at 250 bpm 32nd notes uber clean".

It was about your individual voice on the guitar and what each player brought to the table to do with it. That's why so many guitarists now a-days get blown off is because everyone's so fixated on how fast they can play and how clean. I admit, technicality & speed are an important attribute to playing guitar but if you don't have your own voice on guitar yet, you sound like any other joe blow playing the same riff. Composition comes in a lot on guitar too.


Also: Jeff Loomis is a great guitar player, yes. But to say he was better than Hendrix is an overstatement because they were completely different players and completely different styles.
Last edited by Majin Gaara at Apr 12, 2011,
#28
Quote by Horsedick.MPEG
I hate when guitarists value technical prowess over actual songwriting ability. I'd rather listen to a song I think is good that isn't overly technical, yet still sounds amazing, over a shitty 12 minute song that utilizes multiple time and key signatures and every guitar technique.


You mean you prefer a different type of song as compared to someone else.
Big deal. Doesnt mean the person you like is a better player.
#29
Quote by GS LEAD 5
Sadly, quite a lot of classic rockers play the same thing all the time.
Take Angus Young for instance. Very popular, very influential.
Yet all his stuff sounds almost exactly the same.
Yeah, I'm not saying all the ones he listed were super fabulous, but plenty of players that aren't amazing when it comes to playing fast are still great players.

You mentioned Petrucci - even Petrucci is a great example. He can play fast without a problem, but it's his regular playing that really shines. He has a very good developed sound and mixes it with fast playing here and there. He's wrote some beautiful melodic lines that really just sing. Plenty of beginner guitarists could play his slower stuff, but it wouldn't sound anything like him because their style wouldn't be developed like his.

Having both a good style like that while being able to play well on a fast technical level are both good on their own, but when combining them together you get the best results.

Quote by StewieSwan
Looks like you're mixing up your personal preference with skill. Yes, being able to play fast and clean makes you a good guitarist. Deal with it.
sorry, nope. having the sound of an amateur means you're an amateur.
So many fast players will have this undeveloped whiny unstable amateur sound to their playing.

You can play as fast as you want but when you sound like that then you aren't a good guitarist no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.

Fast playing can sound great and be impressive but when the person sounds like rubbish then it doesn't cover it up.
Last edited by TechnicolorType at Apr 12, 2011,
#30
All I got out of OP was inconsistency with use of "Quotation Marks" and proper capitalization.
I have more fun than normal people are allowed to have.

Quote by Kensai

Happy RUTAS everybody
#31
Quote by TechnicolorType
Yeah, I'm not saying all the ones he listed were super fabulous, but plenty of players that aren't amazing when it comes to playing fast are still great players.

You mentioned Petrucci - even Petrucci is a great example. He can play fast without a problem, but it's his regular playing that really shines. He has a very good developed sound and mixes it with fast playing here and there. He's wrote some beautiful melodic lines that really just sing. Plenty of beginner guitarists could play his slower stuff, but it wouldn't sound anything like him because their style wouldn't be developed like his.

Having both a good style like that while being able to play well on a fast technical level are both good on their own, but when combining them together you get the best results.

Yeah well, I did say he was a bit of an extreme example......the other extreme would be Malmsteen.
A lot of mindless shredding.
Mind he DOES write an epic song once in a while. Far beyond The SUn was fabulous, and the main riff to Black Star is just so freaking creepy....
#32
Quote by StewieSwan
Looks like you're mixing up your personal preference with skill. Yes, being able to play fast and clean makes you a good guitarist. Deal with it.

malmsteen is a good guitarist but theres so much more to playing than playing fast. sweep picking is cool but after two songs its boring.
My sig? Nice.
#34
Because I'm too lazy to make the picture, I'll make a transcript of it.

*trolldude falls into frame* shred > classic rock

*dude falls out of frame*

*crowd starts fighting*
Hey look, a stoner/doom album.

GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

E-father of TheSPillow/Sam
E-brothers with Entity0009
#35
Quote by TechnicolorType
Yeah, I'm not saying all the ones he listed were super fabulous, but plenty of players that aren't amazing when it comes to playing fast are still great players.

You mentioned Petrucci - even Petrucci is a great example. He can play fast without a problem, but it's his regular playing that really shines. He has a very good developed sound and mixes it with fast playing here and there. He's wrote some beautiful melodic lines that really just sing. Plenty of beginner guitarists could play his slower stuff, but it wouldn't sound anything like him because their style wouldn't be developed like his.

Having both a good style like that while being able to play well on a fast technical level are both good on their own, but when combining them together you get the best results.

sorry, nope. having the sound of an amateur means you're an amateur.
So many fast players will have this undeveloped whiny unstable amateur sound to their playing.

You can play as fast as you want but when you sound like that then you aren't a good guitarist no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.


Oh, another thing you might wanna point out Technicolor is that n00b guitarists don't fathom the concept yet that real-uber good tone and vibrato's ultimately come from the player's fingers after years and years of practice. Not some Line 6 Spider 3 amp with the gain at 14.
#36
I would also like to add that you can't just compare guitar players. Everyone is unique, music is an art form, an expression, something that is personal to everyone and you cannot compare them.
In my honest opinion, I don't agree with these lists, not because of the guitar players in them, but for the list being made and comparisons being drawn.
#37
Being a techniquely good guitarist doesnt mean s*** unless people actually want to hear you, and that it sounds good. IMO sweep picking and shredding is very generic and boring, compared to Stevie Ray Vaughan or John Frusciante.
#38
Cause they play the right notes. Not the wrong ones fast.

*FLAMESHIELD UP*
I'm selling an ernie ball wah pedal. Buy my ernie ball wah pedal.
...
Wah pedal.

Quote by 23dannybhoy23
That's got to be my all time favourite online death threat

Quote by smokeysteve22


My chest hurts after that.
#39
Quote by sloppyjoe24
Actually, the people most likely to make threads like that are n00bs (probably at guitar and the internet). So, they create threads under the impression that the "classic" guitarists were the only ones to ever gain any type of fame.


This. It's like whenever I mention that I'm doing English at university, within 3 or 4 more utterances they'll bring up Shakespeare...
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#40
Quote by BurningTurkey
malmsteen is a good guitarist but theres so much more to playing than playing fast. sweep picking is cool but after two songs its boring.


Depends on the sweeper involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFlMNRIJuEc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-QBj8DZRaE

Two very very different and unconventional songs with heavy sweeping.