Enough of the sarcasm !!

Is it only me that thinks that 90% of Radiohead's music just sounds like a dirge. I just find it terribly depressing.

OK, I stop with the sarcasm.

I was just trying to answer this:




If you don´t include the great rock guitarists of the 90´s and the 00´s in the top of the list, then we must accept that Sampson is right and guitar driven rock is dead and has been for at least 22 years.

Also, by not recognizing the greatness of the 90´s and 00´s guitarists, what you are doing is diminishing the importance of classic rock guitarists. You are turning their influence into negative influence. Also, you are killing their guitar style.

This is how I see it: you can either say that Fripp guitar style was great but has been dead for decades and therefore he is not a great guitarists, or you can say that his guitar style is alive and his influence is present on other great guitarists like Omar Rodriguez-Lopez.

I think you may be slightly over-estimating the impact of this website.

I don´t know. There are many people out there that uses DDD´s list to find new music. I know because I was one of them (I bought my Buckethead cd´s after visiting DDD).

Also, at the end, what is the intention of this list? To be judgmental or to help young guitar aficionados to discover new guitarists and music?

they're one and the same thing, and please don't pretend like they aren't... your taste just happens to be different... big deal... so what if we tried to include everyone's tastes? it's impossible. every placement, possibly after #1, on this list is a compromise between everyone here.

How exactly did you come up with this theory? So because the list doesn't have the more recent guitarists like Jack White, Kurt Cobain, Radiohead, etc. near the top, guitar driven rock is 'dead'? Because the list doesn't give these guitarists the credit that you so honestly seem to believe they deserve, guitar driven rock has 'died'? These guys are not near the top because they aren't anywhere near as influential, innovative and respected, in guitar terms, as the guitarists that ARE near the top. That doesn't say anything about the state of guitar-driven rock itself. And because the more recent guitarists aren't as high as you'd like them to be, that somehow negates the influence of classic rock guitarists and kills their guitar styles?

indeed. maybe 10 years from now we'll have better perspective, and maybe we'll put radiohead at #1, and cobain #2, and jack white at #3. i think the list is fine for now. and artists like radiohead and cobain and jack white are extremely popular and i doubt they need ddd to help them be discovered by people (though there are others who do, and for some reason echoes doesn't seem to bother with those).

Fine. I have been here for 1 year and I don´t mind staying for 9 more.

Why is Guthrie Govan in the top 100? I don´t remember when he was moved up.

either yngtchie will have a giant heart attack upon seeing that, or it will gradually eat away at him and decrease his lifespan by several years


guthrie was moved into the top 100 about a year ago, if i remember correctly (though i'd thought he belonged there for at least 2 or 3 years)

I wouldn't be surprised if you did stay for that long trying to convince people that the list is wrong because your favourite guitarists are lower than the 'shredder's.

Ah yes, I was initially vary about moving him that high, but more listens, including actually meeting the guy and watching him play, had me convinced that he would indeed be a fine example of the modern rock virtuoso who came to prominence in the last 10-15 years.

As for the placements on the list, it is indeed a lot of compromising, a case of it being downright impossible to please everyone. I'm not totally happy about all the positions, but I think we've gotten as close to perfection as we can if the criteria is to be used as the main guideline. I see people complaining about certain players being too high or too low, or certain players not being in the top 100, and I can totally see their points. However, it is impossible to include everyone's favourites in the top 100 without removing a lot of players whose inclusion is almost mandatory. If one person is to be moved into the top 100, another will have to be moved out of it. Putting that much emphasis on the importance of being one of the top 100 on the list is kinda missing the point. Even if one person is #65 while another is #165, it doesn't mean that person is THAT much more important than the other. It just means that we have so many different players who all deserve good positions on the list, that we always end up having to 'sacrifice' someone so that someone else can get a deserved position.

Some people here are very quick at noticing flaws and pointing out numbers that may not make much sense when viewed in isolation. However, these people rarely have solutions that can work if the current criteria is to be used, and so their solutions often involves huge changes based on personal preference, and rarely do these changes reflect the criteria. It's easy to point out mistakes, but actually constructing a list that works, a list that covers many bases without being overly biased, that's the difficult part. I know ours isn't perfect, but with all of the strange placements you can find on the list, I try to view them in the context of the rest of the list, rather than picking them out as examples to strengthen your argument without looking at the big picture.

It's damn well close to it, best list of the greatest rock guitarists I've ever seen. Just sticking it out there.

Well, thanks, on behalf of all the people who've helped rebuild it from the ruins of the old list some 5 years back. One thing that's changed greatly, and for the better, is the idea that so-and-so must occupy a certain positions, be that high or low. Take James Hetfield, for example. When I first started discussing the list, I had absolutely no idea that he'd eventually make his way from a miserable #200 up to the much more appropriate #70/71, which he shares with Hammett. It was that way until someone started asking questions and making good arguments for him being much higher. And they were right. I don't even remember who it was who started pushing for Hetfield to be higher, but it was the right move, no doubt.

This applies to lots and lots of others as well. It takes a good, logical argument to sway our opinions, how we think about the list. I'm grateful for all the people who have offered their views over the years, and helped to influence the list and turn it from the fairly awful one that we originally had, into one that makes much more sense.

It is indeed a great list. I just want to make it better.