Isn't it about time we had a scientific method of determining who is the mos!
Question: Okay this is a serious question so please, give it some thought before telling me a lot of stuff I don't want to know.
Most young men play the electric guitar at some point in their lives and this activity is usually related to "hero worship" for a particular guitar player, or style of playing. It's a normal part of growing up.
I do notice there is a game called "guitar hero" nowadays and this has got me to thinking. surely we now have the technology to compare - in a SCIENTIFIC manner- the relative skills of , say, SRV versus Jerry Garcia, Santana versus Satriani, etc etc.
This would eliminate any uncertainty from people' s minds for ever more. For instance I saw a video on Youtube called "Steve Vai versus Ry Cooder" which did seem strange to me as they play very different styles., Yet only one of them can be the most awesome, they can't BOTH be the most awesome surely?
Answers: Okay this is a serious question so please, give it some thought before telling me a lot of stuff I don't want to know.
Most young men play the electric guitar at some point in their lives and this activity is usually related to "hero worship" for a particular guitar player, or style of playing. It's a normal part of growing up.
I do notice there is a game called "guitar hero" nowadays and this has got me to thinking. surely we now have the technology to compare - in a SCIENTIFIC manner- the relative skills of , say, SRV versus Jerry Garcia, Santana versus Satriani, etc etc.
This would eliminate any uncertainty from people' s minds for ever more. For instance I saw a video on Youtube called "Steve Vai versus Ry Cooder" which did seem strange to me as they play very different styles., Yet only one of them can be the most awesome, they can't BOTH be the most awesome surely?
The problem lies in how to place objective criteria on subjective qualities.
Others here have said - "if I don't like it, it isn't great". Well, yes and no. Millions of people like Elvis, but Elvis was not the greatest singer ever to live. There is a difference between popular and talented. So there's a question right there - should popularity and mass appeal play a role in judging an artists relative greatness?
I am a guitarist, so I certainly know that we can't judge a guitarist solely on his technical skills or lack thereof - Yngwie Malmsteen can play many times more notes per minute than BB King... but I'd rather listen to BB King. Why? His music speaks to me, he puts more emotion into his music in a way that I can relate to.
I've thought a lot about art lately as I've been writing music and lyrics and songs, etc and trying to gear up and get my side project going.
It's struck me that art isn't really a tangible thing - it is merely a vehicle. Visual art is a vehicle comprised of an object, light, and your eyes. Without any one of those factors there is no visual art. I think it is similar with music... notes, rhythm, instruments, silence, and your ears. Without any one of those there is no music.
I guess what I"m saying is that some people seem to think of art as this singular object - "look at that piece of art!" Without audience involvement to get that vehicle going so the message can be delivered, there is no art.
Art is a vehicle intended to communicate. No communication, no art.
So, to tie this back in to the question, how can you grade different guitarists objectively, when an essential component of the musical experience is the audience? I engage the music with my ears, yes, but also my emotions, life experiences, memories, etc. The music's ability to resonate within me in these areas is what complements its ability to communicate with me and deliver its message.
So.... I dunno. You can set up a series of criteria based on tangible things (note accuracy, fluency in a style, versatility, notes per minute, etc) but when you ignore the intangible you ignore what makes an artist great - their audience.
My two cents.
Saul
It's a pity your theory has nothing whatever to do with music.
Andres Segovia was a far superior musician to anyone you have mentioned.
You are right however to associate this sort of guitar 'playing' with fantasy. The 'rock' player often uses the guitar neck as a phallus. It is a teenage boys game.
It is already difficult if you compare artists who create great works, paintings, novels, music ... The decision is very personal. If you will do it with science, try Rembrandt vs Kandinsky, what are the criteria?
If you will compare interprets like actors or musicians its the same. You can compare their technical abilities, but even that is subjective in a certain manner, you will compare the interpretation as well. For me Jimmy Hendrix was one of the best guitarists and I haven't found anybody yet who equals him in the Rock history.
Andre Segovia was the greatest classical guitarist.
And don't forget the Flamenco guitarists, there were great names too.
Somebody told me that is was scientifically proven that a music piece from Schoenberg was the greatest ever composed. It can't be the greatest, because its not my type of music - you see?
i have yet to hear a guitarist that is great at all music.there are great guitarists in each area ,but in all, no.
not really!