Eddie Van Halen named "Greatest guitarist of all time" by Guitar World

[ComfortablyNumb]

Any particular songs that showcase their amazing virtuosity?

Look up the bands they play in.

 

[Vehicle]

Look up the bands they play in.

I'm sorry, but you're the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is yours.

And just throwing out a bunch of names doesn't prove anything.

Fact is, you can't prove these claims, because, like these 'greatest' lists, it's subjective, and only people's opinions. There are no concrete criteria to go by.

So when you say all these guitarists are technically better, that is your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

However, a person's opinion doesn't make it another person's fact.

 

[Khor1255]

I was just wondering if there were some examples from sings you might like to point me to. For all I know you have a valid point and I am in the dark.
I haven't followed much of what passes for metal these days so I am truly at a loss here.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I'm sorry, but you're the one making the claims, so the burden of proof is yours.

And just throwing out a bunch of names doesn't prove anything.

Fact is, you can't prove these claims, because, like these 'greatest' lists, it's subjective, and only people's opinions. There are no concrete criteria to go by.

So when you say all these guitarists are technically better, that is your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it.

However, a person's opinion doesn't make it another person's fact.

No when I say they are technically better it is a fact not an opinion, especially with players like gilbert and petrucci. If I said what they wrote is better than it would be an opinion.
Anyone who tries to deny that the way guitar playing has evolved over the years does not make a guitarist more technically sound than players of the past is talking out of their ass.


There is no burden of proof. They asked I said look it up.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

I was just wondering if there were some examples from sings you might like to point me to. For all I know you have a valid point and I am in the dark.
I haven't followed much of what passes for metal these days so I am truly at a loss here.

here are a few.

 

[Vehicle]

No when I say they are technically better it is a fact not an opinion, especially with players like gilbert and petrucci. If I said what they wrote is better than it would be an opinion.
Anyone who tries to deny that the way guitar playing has evolved over the years does not make a guitarist more technically sound than players of the past is talking out of their ass.


There is no burden of proof. They asked I said look it up.

They asked you to prove it, and you didn't.

That's not an opinion.

That's a fact.

That's also all you're gonna hear out of me about it.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

They asked you to prove it, and you didn't.

That's not an opinion.

That's a fact.

That's also all you're gonna hear out of me about it.

"I was just wondering if there were some examples from sings you might like to point me to. For all I know you have a valid point and I am in the dark.
I haven't followed much of what passes for metal these days so I am truly at a loss here."

never asked for proof

 

[runtfan]

No when I say they are technically better it is a fact not an opinion, especially with players like gilbert and petrucci. If I said what they wrote is better than it would be an opinion.
Anyone who tries to deny that the way guitar playing has evolved over the years does not make a guitarist more technically sound than players of the past is talking out of their ass.

If by "technically sound" you mean playing insanely fast, there might be a case to be made. I'm not sure it has anything to do with anything out side of shredder circles though. A definition of "technically sound" is probably in order. Yes, lead guitarists who choose to pursue that particular path have, overall, advanced in that particular aspect of lead guitar playing in the last 30-35 years or so. I don't think it's advanced guitar playing in general much though. It's not very special anymore to play like EVH/Malmsteen/Satriani ( or whoever) because players have been trying to do it for a couple of generations now and have been getting better and better at it. I know gobs of guitarists that can do a credible EVH or Randy Rhoads solo but wouldn't have any more clue what to do with an acoustic guitar than an electron microscope...musical ignoramuses. That's not to discount the shredders that also happen to be really good guitarists, but a blisteringly fast solo does not a good guitarist make. I've heard lots of guys that can play pretty much a note for note rendition of, say "Crazy Train" but finding guys that can do a note for note rendition of, say "Fire and Rain"? If a guitarist doesn't take the time to learn the basics, his million-miles-per-hour solos are just him swinging his dick around (most likely with a whammy bar attached to it)...feet of clay.

 

[Jake T]

OK, the problem I have with this list is that it is suppose to be the "Greatest guitarist of all time". Not the greatest rock guitarist or the fastest shredder of all time. How many of the guitarists on this list can duplicate this performance? I'm guessing zero.



Also, where are all the great jazz guitarists? Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Larry Carlton, Lee Ritenour, George Benson are all missing from the list.

 

[ComfortablyNumb]

If by "technically sound" you mean playing insanely fast, there might be a case to be made. I'm not sure it has anything to do with anything out side of shredder circles though. A definition of "technically sound" is probably in order. Yes, lead guitarists who choose to pursue that particular path have, overall, advanced in that particular aspect of lead guitar playing in the last 30-35 years or so. I don't think it's advanced guitar playing in general much though. It's not very special anymore to play like EVH/Malmsteen/Satriani ( or whoever) because players have been trying to do it for a couple of generations now and have been getting better and better at it. I know gobs of guitarists that can do a credible EVH or Randy Rhoads solo but wouldn't have any more clue what to do with an acoustic guitar than an electron microscope...musical ignoramuses. That's not to discount the shredders that also happen to be really good guitarists, but a blisteringly fast solo does not a good guitarist make. I've heard lots of guys that can play pretty much a note for note rendition of, say "Crazy Train" but finding guys that can do a note for note rendition of, say "Fire and Rain"? If a guitarist doesn't take the time to learn the basics, his million-miles-per-hour solos are just him swinging his dick around (most likely with a whammy bar attached to it)...feet of clay.

This guy right here is probably better than most on the list, but he's not on there.





Now you have a guy like Paul Gilbert here who is a much more technically sound than Dimebag yet he is 23 while Dimebag is 9 on the list.




Also I never said playing a million miles an hour makes solo makes someone a good guitarist. James Hetfield is a better all around guitarist than Kirk Hammet.
You could easily play a million a mile an hour solo and sound like complete and utter shit.
But I will say most likely than not if they are able to play fast they pretty much have grasped the basics.

Like I said before lists like this are complete shit.