Had to double-check the recent issue of Rolling Stone magazine featurting the TOP 250 guitarists wasn't a special April 1st issue. To me there were several omissions, most notably Bill, but others spring to mind. Was it the best guitarist or the most popular pole ? Also several wacky entries in it. Were the authors musicians or critics ? to me , it more like ill-advised critics ? And were they paid for certain entries to appear ? Has Rolling Stone got any relevance these days anyway in this area ? Wouldn't the list be more appropriate/authoritative coming from a guitar magazine rather than multimedia magazine with probably watered-down musical knowledge. The list is a total irrelevance.
top of page
bottom of page
Robert
I know this is off topic and I don't wish to pry - but we have the same surname. I am from the East Midlands and my username is now an anagram of my first name here. Chosen when I requested ideas.
I know the name isn't that rare - just curious where you are based.
Dave
The process is a sham, so the outcome is a bad joke, among other things. If I'm going to pay attention to RS's list of guitarists , I might as well renew mysubscription and ....nope, not happening 😁
The fact that somebody like MIssy Elliot got elected to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tells you just how far out of touch some of the mainstream music organisations are. Groups like Jethro Tull, Tool, Iron Maiden, Kate Bush have not been inducted. These are groups and musicians that made an impact and changed popular music. In the end, just like Rolling Stones' top guitarists list, it doesn't really matter in the real world.
Did Morris Hat Size Tepper make it???
Wonder how these musicians, critics and industry figures are selected.