Best Guitarists

I tend to surround myself with other music lovers, many of whom share my preference for guitar-centered classic and alternative rock bands. The debate invariably surfaces among us about who the greatest guitarists of all time are, and the subject tends to bring some strong opinions to the table. I've had the argument so many times now that I think it's time to publish my definitive personal list for the five greatest guitarists who ever lived so that maybe I can stop repeating myself.

The criteria for making my list includes a combination of the following:

1. Technical skill

2. Quality of music (this is biased, but an unavoidable one. Hey, it's MY list)

3. Emotion (kind of subjective, but refer to reasoning above)

4. Influence on other musicians

5. Stage presence

And now, on to the list:

1. Jimi Hendrix (The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Gypsy Sun and Rainbows, Band of Gypsys, Curtis Knight and the Squires, solo)

The man is a legend, and for good reason. His technical skill was off the charts; he could play guitar with his teeth about as well as anyone could play guitar period (see video). He introduced or refined a number of techniques to the electric guitar that have become staples since his time, especially the effects of distortion and feedback. He is revered in the guitar world for his complete lack of fear in trying new things, and his courage lead to the development of amplifier and pedal techniques that are still heavily used today. The quality of his music was similarly incredible; Bob Dylan may have created "All Along the Watchtower," but Hendrix perfected it, and songs like "Voodoo Child," "Fire," "Purple Haze," and "Machine Gun" deserve every bit of popularity they have acquired. Some of Hendrix's solos are boiling over with emotion, especially the anti-war "Machine Gun." It seems cliche, but few guitarists become "one" with their guitars quite like Hendrix did. His expertise had huge ripple effects; his influence casts perhaps the widest net of anyone on this list, with influences in blues, hard rock, heavy metal, and funk. Bands such as The Who and Cream, among many others, have specifically referenced Hendrix as inspiration for their music. As far as stage presence is concerned, few in any genre of music approach him (Freddie Mercury and Robert Plant come to mind). His performance at Woodstock speaks for itself, and his "Live at Fillmore East" album remains in my opinion one of the best live albums ever recorded. Given my criterion for greatness in "guitaritry," Hendrix is an easy choice for number one, as he incredible in every category.

2. Eric Clapton (The Yardbirds, Cream, Derek and the Dominos, solo)

Often times the debate boils down to Hendrix and Clapton, and there is certainly an argument to be made for Slowhand being the best ever (or at least having the coolest nickname). His technical skill is strong, for proof of that just listen to "Layla" or "Crossroads" and prepare to be amazed by what he can do with a guitar. The quality of his music may be even stronger than Hendrix, the man has sold a gazillion albums for a reason, and what might be most impressive is his ability to churn out hits from multiple genres on one album. Clapton's strongest attribute is emotion; some of his songs are just dripping with feeling (watch him play "Tears in Heaven," a ballad about the death of his young son, and try to come up with an artist who injects more emotion into his music. Good luck.). As far as influence goes, the man is a blues legend, and he has effected psychedelic rock, blues-rock, and pop music in similar ways. When Clapton performs, even in collaboration with other bands or artists, his guitar nearly always dominates the stage, and some of his deeper blues songs can send shivers up your spine. Another plus for Clapton is how highly regarded he is among other rock legends; he has played with Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and The Allman Brothers Band, among others. It also shouldn't go unsaid that Clapton has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame three different times, once with The Yardbirds, once with Cream, and once as a solo performer.

3. Jimmy Page (The Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin, Page and Plant, The Black Crowes)

(note: that's a young Eric Clapton who joins Page in the middle, he's the one with the cigarette)

Stairway to Heaven, anybody? Yeah, Jimmy Page could shred with the best of them. His technical skill is rivaled only by Hendrix; he made the double-necked guitar famous (which is very difficult to play), sometimes played with a violin bow, and was one of the first to use the "tapping" technique, which is one of my favorite guitar effects. I don't have to say much for the quality of his music, the guy was in Led Zeppelin for cryin' out loud. He certainly had emotion in his music, maybe not to the level of Clapton or Hendrix, but it's certainly there to be heard. His influence on other musicians is off the charts. This Wikipedia entry probably does his influence the most justice:

"Allmusic states that "just about every rock guitarist from the late '60s/early '70s to the present day has been influenced by Page's work with Led Zeppelin".^[1] For example, his sped up, downstroke guitar riff in "Communication Breakdown" is cited as guitarist Johnny Ramone's inspiration for his punk-defining, strictly downstroke guitar strumming, while Page's landmark guitar solo from the song "Heartbreaker" has been credited by Eddie Van Halen as the inspiration for his two-hand tapping technique after he saw Led Zeppelin perform in 1971. Page's solo in the famous epic "Stairway to Heaven" has been voted by readers of various guitar magazines, including Guitar World and Total Guitar, as the greatest guitar solo of all time, and he was named 'Guitarist of the Year' five years straight during the 1970s by Creem magazine."

As far as stage presence goes, Robert Plant may have been the face of Led Zeppelin, but Page was its heart and soul, and his solos are legendary. Basically, Jimmy Page is just the man.

4. Eddie Van Halen (Van Halen)

I consider that video above to be one of the greatest solo guitar performances ever, even though parts of it are repetitive and annoying. The finger tapping technique he uses in "Eruption" (above) and "316" is to me one of the coolest sounds anyone has produced from a guitar ever. While he didn't discover the finger tapping effect, he ran the farthest with it, and it is the reason I give him high marks for technichal skill as a guitarist. If you doubt his abilities, just take a gander at the above video around 4:50, 7:10 (!!), and 9:50. Quality of music is O.K., as a band Van Halen was able to put out some pretty good stuff (Panama, Hot for Teacher, You Really Got Me), but would probably be ranked 5/5 of the major bands on this list. Van Halen isn't known for emotional music, but I would contend his connection with his guitar during a solo is one of the more emotional things you're going to see on a stage, especially if you appreciate musical ability. Van Halen popularlized the finger-tapping technique, which is probably the longest reach of his influence, but he was also a model for an entire generation of rock artists. Wiki:

"Edward Van Halen's approach to the guitar involves several distinctive components. His innovative use of two-handed tapping, natural and artificial harmonics, vibrato, and tremolo picking, combined with his rhythmic sensibility and melodic approach, have influenced an entire generation of guitarists...Though rarely discussed, one of the most distinctive aspects of Van Halen's sound was Eddie Van Halen's tuning of the guitar. Before Van Halen, most distorted, metal-oriented rock consciously avoided the use of the major third interval in guitar chords, creating instead the signature power chord of the genre."

Van Halen has incredible stage presence, with the ability to silence crowds during his awesome solos. He is often overlooked because Van Halen was only an above average band, so he was unable to produce some of the singles that have made the guys above him on this list rock icons. Behind the band's relative mediocrity, however, lies an incredbily gifted guitarist.

5. David Gilmour (Pink Floyd)

Speaking of great guitar solos, how about David Gilmour in "Comfortably Numb" and "Another Brick in the Wall pt. 2"? Few will call Gilmour's guitar skill prowess into question. Like Clapton, Gilmour's roots are in the blues, and he has a wide range of skills. He even played bass on some Pink Floyd songs. Gilmour gets four stars for his quality of music, as Pink Floyd produced some incredible records and still sells millions of copies of their albums. With Gilmour at guitar, Floyd's music can be mesmerizing; sometimes their six minute tracks seem to go by instantly because you're so into the song. Floyd's music is also teeming with emotion, largely because of Gilmour's guitar, as this is the criteria where his blues background comes into play. Great blues artists have the ability to convey feeling and meaning, and Gilmour is no exception. In the influence category, they could teach classes on Pink Floyd alone as far as setting a standard for a genre, Gilmour himself even has two "tribute guitars" designed after him. Finally, Gilmour was very good at showcasing his talents on stage. His solos are electrifying, and he makes them look almost effortless.

Honorable mentions: Allen Collins (Lynyrd Skynyrd), Duane Allman (Allman Brothers Band), Slash (Guns N' Roses), Brian May (Queen), Neal Schon (Journey), Kirk Hammett (Metallica), Les Claypool (Primus), Buckethead, Don Felder/Joe Walsh (Eagles), Tom Morello (Rage Against the Machine), Jeff Beck (The Yardbirds), Frank Zappa, Angus Young (AC/DC), Kim Thayil (Soundgarden)

Quantam of Solace

The night I saw Quantam of Solace, the latest installment of the James Bond series, two of the three people I was with were pushing us to see Transporter 3 instead.  I had heard the bad reviews from friends and other critics alike, but my thought process was:  "It's Bond, how bad can it be?  The last one was great, I'm sure this one will be fine."  Then I saw the movie.

We should have seen Transporter 3.

My criticism of Casino Royale had been its lack of familiarity with the rest of the Bond franchise; the departure from the traditional looking Bond, the conspicuous absence of reoccurring characters like "Q" and Moneypenny, and the shrunken role of gadgets (especially in regard to Bond's car).  Casino Royale was able to overcome those defencencies with a strong plot, a good performance by Daniel Craig as Bond, and some exciting action scenes.  The 2006 film gave some interesting background on the Bond character, from his beginnings as the raw and newly promoted 00 to the superagent Commander Bond.  Quantam of Solace, however, offered no reprisal to the disappointing turn away from traditional Bond.  Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the movie were its action scenes; they moved so fast and used so many cuts that it was difficult to process what was going on.  The action scenes reminded me of The Bourne Ultimatum, which won an Academy Award for its film editing.  The difference between the two is that while Ultimatum was fast paced, and modern, Quantam's action scenes were frantic and unwatchable.  

The plot also left much to be desired.  Like the action, it was far too difficult to follow to be enjoyed.  The villain was lame, especially by Bond standards (seriously: Goldfinger, Dr. No, Mayday, Jaws...Dominic Greene?).  One of the few bright spots of the film was the Bond girl Camille, played by the stunngingly beautiful Olga Kurylenko, but her performance and beauty were wasted.  There wasn't even a love scene between her and Bond, which is quite a feat for a series that has made its name on the chemistry of Bond and his leading ladies.  There was next to zero effort to flush out Kurylenko's character with background or history; indeed, the deepest look we get into Camille is the depths of her cleavage.  This is another area where Quantam fell far short of Casino Royale, where the Vesper Lynd character had depth and substance.

As a huge fan of the series overall, I am usually easily entertained by Bond movies.  They don't have to do much to hold my attention.  Even some of the Pierce Brosnan clinkers like Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day I enjoyed.  This was the first Bond movie I have ever seen (and I've seen them all) where I was ready to walk out halfway through.

Vacation

I'm on my annual trip to Duck, North Carolina with a close friend, and will not return until August 9th.  I am planning a post shortly after my return with my opinion on the Brett Favre fiasco, a subject which I am beginning to build a strong opinion on.

Anyone who hasn't visited this stretch of the Outer Banks should give it a try one summer.  This is my third year in the Duck/Corolla area, and it is truly a great place to take a relaxing vacation with family and friends.

Fad or Revolution? Looking Back on Ron Paul's Bid for the Presidency

While Congressman Paul's presidential campaign had been winding down for some time, he officially called it quits on June 12, 2008, contributing the remainder of his campaign finances to a new lobbying group called "Campaign for Liberty."  This was Paul's second serious run at the presidency, with his first ending in relative obscurity as a Libertarian candidate in 1988.  As a self-identifying Libertarian I supported Dr. Paul during the primary process, an effort which proved to be difficult to maintain commitment to as the campaign failed to pick up meaningful momentum, receiving oblique and somewhat patronizing coverage by the mainstream media.  Most of Dr. Paul's press revolved around his fundraising success, which was indeed noteworthy considering his lack of relative support in the polls and delegate counts.  Despite his status as a cult hero among independent conservatives and Libertarians, Paul revealed himself in the campaign to have a handful of glaring faults that contributed to his inability to get a foothold in the primary process. Unfortunately he did not possess the necessary social and aesthetic qualities to glaze over these shortcomings (ala Barack Obama).

Nothing made me cringe more during Dr. Paul's public appearances than when he would, with admirable vigor, proclaim the United States' complicity in the threat it faces abroad from Islam.  This was a position that obviously did not endear him to the mainstream of the Republican Party, as it was that very part of his party he was indicting in the Iraq fiasco.  He blamed the FOXNews crowd and its constituents as troublemakers in a conflict he insisted the United States had no role while downplaying the significance of Islam as a catalyst, even going so far as to lay the blame for Islamic terrorism at the doorstep of the U.S. for its overreaching foreign policy.  Paul's inability to articulate a coherent foreign policy, other than asserting that the Iraq war and just about every war previous since WWII has been "unconstitutional," was clearly a weakness in his campaign.  His naivety on the subject of Islamic terrorism seemed to amount to nothing more than a stubborn refusal to recognize that there are people out there with some pretty ridiculous ideas about the world who mean to do us harm.  While Paul was right to recognize that Iraq was a war of choice with a questionable beginning, he fails to notice that had Bush not chosen to invade we still would be facing a determined enemy of Muslim maniacs.  Even if Bush and the neocons are guilty of exploiting the threat, there is no denying the presence of a considerable foreign danger.

While Paul's positions on terrorism served to keep him safely tucked into the fray of the Republican Party, his weaknesses as a politician kept him from being taken seriously by a general audience as well.  Dr. Paul is a well below average TV debater;  even his fellow debaters on the stage seemed to be befuddled by his questions and answers.  Unlike the insufferable media darlings Clinton, Obama, and McCain, the Congressman is no social butterfly, and makes no sacrifices of his principles to score cheap points with the media (Obama: see campaign finance et al., McCain: see ethanol et al.).  

But I am not so foolish as to think that if Dr. Paul was indeed a gifted politician and orator that he would be a contender in any primary or general election.  It is of course the content of Paul's message that is his roadblock to prominence, a message that seems to travel further and further from influence as the party and the country continue to move to the left. 

His classic Republican positions on spending, social programs, immigration, and foreign policy fall more or less on deaf ears as the party continues to be ruled by "movement" conservatives.  While McCain and Obama will bicker endlessly until November about who is more an agent of change, Dr. Paul will retreat again into the shadows of a fading ideological camp of the Republican Party.  While he has likely made his last foray into national politics, this old style Republican hopes that Paul's name appears on the ballot, so that me and others like me may (quietly) voice our opposition to the direction of the party.  And as we stubbornly refuse to fall in line with the mainstream, we will wait patiently for the next articulate voice of the true conservative message.

UI is Under Construction...

The blog is undergoing yet another facelift, hopefully the last one as I settle on a permanent look for the outlet of my thoughts.  The bird's eye view of Oriole Park at Camden Yards may seem strange as a title picture, but it will seem less unusual as I expand the scope of the blog beyond political jibjab (not that I need an excuse to feature the most beautiful stadium in baseball in my title section).  UI will soon begin to include book, music, and movie reviews, and some of my many opinions on professional sports.  I'm hoping this expansion in topics will result in more frequent posting by me, since I should be motivated to write more often as more of my interests will fall under the purview of the blog.

I've been grateful to those few who have read my writing, and fewer still, to those who have taken the time to make comments and offer criticism.  I hope the introduction of new topics to the blog will encourage more opinions to be heard in the comments section.  Thanks to those who have emailed me in support  of the blog; I would probably do it anyway if no one read it but it is nice to know that my thoughts are being absorbed by at least some people.  As always, I welcome comments, questions, and suggestions as to the new style of Unbridled Inquiry.  Thanks.

Matt J.