[sauropod]

the problem with rating rock guitarists is that there is no objective standard, and none of us would be willing to accept a poll. that leaves pistols, or maybe swords. but i'm too old for that, so the younguns will have to settle it.

Perhaps, but those of us that actually play the instrument may have a leg up in that regard.

Going through the exercise of learning and playing the guitar changes how you listen.

It changed me.

[mrsmel]

>>Perhaps, but those of us that actually play the instrument may have a leg up in that regard.

Going through the exercise of learning and playing the guitar changes how you listen.

It changed me.


I wholeheartedly believe that-I don't play,but when I decided to go beyond the obvious,I began to read what other guitarists thought about the matter,and realised that I knew absolutely nothing about what truly made a great guitar player. Even now,I don't believe I'll ever fully "get it",because I can read and listen until I die,but you really need to play to understand,I think.

[drhogan]

i can't argue with you on that point--it makes a lot of sense.
i think i once heard that clapton rated Hendrix as the best when he first heard hendrix play.

but, i would bet that if we got a bunch of professional guitar players to rate the top players, there would still be the same disagreements over Hendrix vs. clapton vs. page vs. beck, etc.
subjective tastes have a lot to do with it. and a lot of music sounds very different when you hear it live vs. on a recording. i think there are a lot of variables that affect musical ratings.