Best Guitarists Evah!!!

[Timcognito]

lets fill in some blanks,
John Williams
John Fahey
Leo Kottkey
Jack Rose
Sandy Bull
Larry Coryell
Clarence "Gatemouth" Brown
PeeWee Crayton
Elmore James
Magic Sam
Stanley Jordan

 

[Multicore]

A couple of guitarists I always enjoy are Marc Ribot and Noel Akchote, both of whom manage to be more musical, interesting and human than most of the fireworks merchants.

 

[Multicore]

Just looking at the guitarists posted in this thread, it is almost as if having prodigious chops is inversely proportional to actually being able to make interesting music.

No. It's that a musician who spends all their time competing to win the chops and dazzle game isn't spending it on being truthful.

 

[jjk]

Guthrie Govan. No contest. He can play any contemporary style better than the original, and he's a supremely fluid improviser.

Gotta agree about Guthrie Govan.
The work he did and the solos he invented while working with Steven Wilson were brilliant.
There is a video of Wilson recalling that he had to tell GG to play slower.
Thumbs up to @ahofer for this nomination.

 

[bluefuzz]

a musician who spends all their time competing to win the chops and dazzle game isn't spending it on being truthful.

Not sure an artist with great technical skill is necessarily untruthful – whatever that means in this context*. It is when the skill is not used appropriately in the service of the music, but becomes an end in itself, that I begin to lose interest. However, you may be right in emphasising the competition aspect as being problematic. The whole notion of a 'best guitarist' is really rather silly.

*) With regard to 'truth', we seem to prefer an artists technical ability to be some kind of true representation of their inner being, not something 'learnt' along the way. Nature rather than nurture. I am somewhat uncomfortable with such 'Romantic' notions of artistry but, especially with music, I find it difficult to ignore such impulses ... ;-)

 

[Multicore]

Not sure an artist with great technical skill is necessarily untruthful – whatever that means in this context*. It is when the skill is not used appropriately in the service of the music, but becomes an end in itself, that I begin to lose interest. However, you may be right in emphasising the competition aspect as being problematic. The whole notion of a 'best guitarist' is really rather silly.

*) With regard to 'truth', we seem to prefer an artists technical ability to be some kind of true representation of their inner being, not something 'learnt' along the way. Nature rather than nurture. I am somewhat uncomfortable with such 'Romantic' notions of artistry but, especially with music, I find it difficult to ignore such impulses ... ;-)

I find romanticism a big fat turn off. It's not a romantic notion of truth I have in mind. It is simply the use of musical language to say something truthful, that is, not to bullshit or lie. And ultimately whatever it is a musician says in an honest, open and truthful meaner will express something about the person, and maybe others, maybe ourselves. And by this means we learn, we change, we make progress in our absurd lives.

The point of music and all art that uses abstract languages is to say something that cannot be expressed in plain reasoned language. In Freudian terms, it is a way expressing primary process.

To play "in service of the music" is necessary but not sufficient because the music itself is in service of something else: communication among people. The composers, band leaders and soloists in particular bear the responsibility to say something that's worth our time and attention, otherwise shut up. Sometimes it becomes apparent that all the years of work the soloist put in to get where they are, specifically to play this to us, and all they are really saying is "look at me, aren't I amazing" then I may reply "yes, that's amazing, you're amazing" while maybe feeling a little sad and some pity for the needy exhibitionist.

And with luck you noticed that I quoted Marc Ribot right there .

B-Flat Ontology, by Marc Ribot's Ceramic Dog

from the album Hope

marcribot.bandcamp.com

 

[Multicore]

Two guitar heros of my teens I still loyally defend that haven't been mentioned yet afaict:

Robert Fripp.

Frank Zappa.

Ok, one more: Adrien Belew here with Laurie Anderson and finally here with Bowie.

 

[A Surfer]

I haven't read every page so if these three editions are repetition, so sorry.

Eddie Van Halen
Alex Lifeson
Rik Emmet (honourable mention)

 

[JonK99]

Richard Lloyd and the late Tom Verlaine of Television.

Verlaine's solo begins about 4:45. Pure magic. And not a showoff performance at all, it's all about the music and the emotion. RIP Tom.

 

[TonyJZX]

i only know obvious ones

jimmy page, eric clapton, ian moss

 

[Multicore]

Verlaine's solo begins about 4:45. Pure magic. And not a showoff performance at all, it's all about the music and the emotion. RIP Tom.

The whole of the song Marquee Moon is just a remarkable and wonderful thing. If you're interested in song-writing for rock group, it's the business! And how many new wake/punk sounding jam bands can you name? I love it.

So good it got bumped forwards 3 years to feature at #4 in my 80s pop music playlist that I made for a friend's children a few years back.

Tom's 80s pop music playlist. Sorry, the forum software fudges up youtube playlist links. You gotta click the link . It's sequenced to work like a radio show.

 

[bluefuzz]

I find romanticism a big fat turn off.

I know what you mean. But I don't think you can engage in any artistic endeavour without some element of romanticism. It's the Ying to reason and rationality's Yang.

In Freudian terms, it is a way expressing primary process.

Well, Freud was an industrial-grade bullshitter if ever there was one. And a romantic at heart ...

with luck you noticed that I quoted Marc Ribot

I didn't. I haven't listened to that album much yet. So much music, so little time! But I like it a lot.

Ribot is certainly as good a candidate for best guitarist evah as anyone. At least for the next hour or so.

 

[Plcamp]

I say Jimi Hendrix was the game-changer guitarist of his time.

But SRV was the best, the ultimate master of the art.

IMO.

 

[bluefuzz]

Two guitar heros of my teens I still loyally defend that haven't been mentioned yet afaict:

Robert Fripp.

Frank Zappa.

I agree about Fripp (I think I mentioned him on page 2) but Zappa leaves me cold. He has chops but I can't get over the peurile 'humour' and pretty much everything else about his music.

I was also about to mention Belew. Perhaps the only one of Zappa's 'stunt guitarists' to do anything worthwhile. I saw King Crimson a couple of decades ago with both Belew and Fripp on top form. Great fun, and loud!

 

[bluefuzz]

But SRV was the best, the ultimate master of the art.

I'd have to disagree on that one. I saw SRV live in '86 and it was certainly a thrill to see Voodoo Chile and Little Wing done well in a live situation. Almost as good as the real thing. But SRV was at best a good pastiche of Hendrix and Albert King and a decent enough session player (e.g. Bowie's Let's Dance). But there was little else of substance there, IMO, and his backing band was positively lumpen compared to The Experience ...

 

[ryanosaur]

It almost seems like there are dueling definitions in play... and both are appropriate in their own ways. There is technical skill or virtuoso talent. Then there is musicality.

There are of course musicians who excel in both categories. However, being technically excellent does not always equate to great musicality... or having the best sense of musicality does not guarantee technical proficiency to any great extent.

I know I will almost always favor a listening session with the more musical sensibility on display as opposed to the note-jockey who can play Flight Of The Bumblebee on the Tuba.
Certainly, it pretty cool to do that; have that ability. But not to the extent that it, in and of itself, transports me to another level. (This is why I really hated music school and the Legit repertoire that we were all expected to learn and be able to perform! While the Creston Sonata for Alto is a great piece of music, I've never found myself moved by it. On the other hand, I pulled out the Hindemeth Sonata, also a great piece of music and much more musical rather than just being a display of technical proficiency.)

In many instances, as a Jazzer in part of my Saxophone upbringing, this has been one of my bones with BeBop. Those musicians were, without a doubt, amazing. Yet in many instances I find myself listening to notes (well executed to be certain) without a great sense of story being told from a musicality standpoint. As BeBop transitioned into other forms/styles of Jazz you started to get more musicality mixed in with the technique. Improv was a story or a conversation and the best performers move you.

2¢

 

[FlyingFreak]

It almost seems like there are dueling definitions in play... and both are appropriate in their own ways. There is technical skill or virtuoso talent. Then there is musicality.

There are of course musicians who excel in both categories. However, being technically excellent does not always equate to great musicality... or having the best sense of musicality does not guarantee technical proficiency to any great extent.

That's clear. I regularly try to listen to people with great technical talent able to make real complex intricate sounds. I rarely last a whole album and my brain just forget what it sounded like almost right after it stops playing. Some younger jazzmen come to mind. Great capacity ... to give me a headache.

On the other hand the simple power chords from Smells like Teen Spririts never left my head. Curt Cobain isnt on my list of best guitar players but dude had something going on.

 

[Rottmannash]

Maybe not for everyone but Slash has put down some unforgettable riffs and solos.

 

[Multicore]

Well, Freud was an industrial-grade bullshitter if ever there was one.

You could say the same of Plato, Newton, Descartes, and Marx. And yet all 5 changed Western thought more than you or I are likely to.

My point is that the unconscious sometimes has things that need to be expressed and art can sometimes help. This is at the core of my understanding of why art is important.

 

[Multicore]

It almost seems like there are dueling definitions in play... and both are appropriate in their own ways. There is technical skill or virtuoso talent. Then there is musicality.

There are of course musicians who excel in both categories. However, being technically excellent does not always equate to great musicality... or having the best sense of musicality does not guarantee technical proficiency to any great extent.

I know I will almost always favor a listening session with the more musical sensibility on display as opposed to the note-jockey who can play Flight Of The Bumblebee on the Tuba.
Certainly, it pretty cool to do that; have that ability. But not to the extent that it, in and of itself, transports me to another level. (This is why I really hated music school and the Legit repertoire that we were all expected to learn and be able to perform! While the Creston Sonata for Alto is a great piece of music, I've never found myself moved by it. On the other hand, I pulled out the Hindemeth Sonata, also a great piece of music and much more musical rather than just being a display of technical proficiency.)

In many instances, as a Jazzer in part of my Saxophone upbringing, this has been one of my bones with BeBop. Those musicians were, without a doubt, amazing. Yet in many instances I find myself listening to notes (well executed to be certain) without a great sense of story being told from a musicality standpoint. As BeBop transitioned into other forms/styles of Jazz you started to get more musicality mixed in with the technique. Improv was a story or a conversation and the best performers move you.

2¢

I have no argument with technical skill or virtuoso talent. I love it. I see no incompatibility between music and advanced skills. On the contrary.

At the same time there exists a competitive side to human nature, and when we combine this with the commercialization of what were until recently scare music chennels, we can get some pretty silly results. John McLaughlin is an interesting example. A prodigious instrumental and musical talent. He always had superb control and facility on guitar. There are also many examples when he made wonderful creative and expressive music as well as sensitivity in a conversational group setting. And yet it's clear that he found greater rewards in terms, I guess, of bookings, pay, critical and audience adulation from performing rather unmusical but extraordinarily athletic scales and arpeggios. I love John McLaughlin but I try not to listen to quite a lot of his recordings.

It's pretty simple. There's a demand for fireworks wizards and rewards for the greatest so the system of incentives is in place. Some unmusical results ensue.

And don't think I'm against wizards or fireworks in music. I love it all. Sometimes a bit of razzle-dazzle is just what you need to get the audience excited. Watch how the high-velocity roller-skating stunt fiddler gets the dancers ready here...

The best way to cope with the silliness that can result from commercially competitive virtuoso guitarists is not to shy away from virtuosos but to laugh. Here I think StSanders can be a good guide...