Time magazine says Johnny Ramone goes to 11! (1 Viewer)

nervas

more crickets than friends
Time magazine puts Johnny Ramone @ number 11! I like that, a lot! But Slash at number 2? That one puzzles me to no end? Actually Yngwie @ 9 is also surprising? Mods, if this should be in the "Greatest Guitarists of Today and Yesterday" thread, please move. Thanks....and in the words of Dee Dee Ramone... 1 2 3 4!

Here's the link to the TIME story, with pics.
  1. Jimi Hendrix
  2. Slash
  3. B.B. King
  4. Keith Richards
  5. Eric Clapton
  6. Jimmy Page
  7. Chuck Berry
  8. Les Paul
  9. Yngwie Malmsteen
  10. Prince
  11. Johnny Ramone
 
Well, that's going to piss off Purple Stickpin...

But really, TIME magazine ranking guitarists? What was it, a slow news week?
 
I'm still confused on Slash? Would anyone here really rank him even in the top 10? I'm a fan, but never thought he was making anyones list... Funny, they say the story was released to kind of loosely coincide with the "It Might Get Loud" film release, but neither Jack White, or The Edge are on the list. Also throwing Keith in the list for his monster riffs and Johnny in for what he did to punk....to me, means they should have ousted Yngwie, Prince and Slash in favor of Ron Ashton!
 
Slash in the top 100 maybe (maybe). But nothing special there. He's just one of a million like him. But I wouldn't put half those guys in the top 10.

But then you could have 10,000 people make 10,000 top 10 guitarist lists and they would all be different.
 
...but neither Jack White, or The Edge are on the list.

Well, for starters, "The Edge" doesn't belong on the list. I think we've already established that. :D

Slash is probably a little (or a lot) high on the list, but this is pretty much just a generic list of interchangeable name-brand guitarists. Kind of what you'd expect from TIME magazine. They could have just as easily included Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads, or the guitarist from any of the bands that Billville likes to listen to.
 
Well, if you get into your time machine and go back to the mid 1970's, Van Halen actually had a revolutionary sound and style. He pretty much single-handedly spawned that ugly and utterly worthless 80's Sunset Strip avalanche of crap bands. So he belongs on some list for something. Maybe a list Satan keeps.

But when I dropped the needle on that first Van Halen album in 1978 it absolutely made me go, "What the fuck?" and anyone that can do that is all right in my book. I was well into punk by then, but it was still a big and surprising sound. I guess he can't be held completely responsible for the horror he created.
 
They could have just as easily included Eddie Van Halen, Randy Rhoads, or the guitarist from any of the bands that Billville likes to listen to.


I know ... and they didn't even consult me. But hey, at least they didn't have Bob Dylan on there. I guess we'll have to wait for Rolling Stone's list for that--in fact they'll probably knock Jimi down to number two just so they can give him the #1 spot.
 
Let's get real. Dylan is a songwriter and performer. Or as he would say "I like to think of myself as more of a song and dance man." I don't see anyone espousing his guitar playing. His guitar playing abilities are akin to my painting abilities. Only difference is, no one has seen my paintings (thank god for that).
 
unfortunately i've seen his paintings and they're on par with my guitar playing abilities...
 
It's funny how many things I can come up with about Dylan that strike me as "not very good at all:" guitar playing, harmonica playing, voice quality, paintings...and yet he's still, to me, one of the absolute greatest musicians ever. As a songwriter, I'm not sure anyone could ever do it better.
 
well, that's the magic of GREAT pop music as opposed to music or other art forms that require any amount of sophisticated technique.
whenever i try to hack my way through a beatles or dylan or whoever's song on guitar i'm always blown away by how simple the tunes are.
 
It's funny how many things I can come up with about Dylan that strike me as "not very good at all:" guitar playing, harmonica playing, voice quality, paintings...and yet he's still, to me, one of the absolute greatest musicians ever.
That's because he's punk rock, yo.
 
Let's see... Hendrix is right, then I'm gonna put Fripp, Marc Ribot, Bob Quine, Scotty Moore, let's keep Johnny-throw Link Wray there. Richard and Berry keep-add Thunders...that seems about right.
 
So after listening to Led Zeppelin III and IV yesterday, I think whoever was responsible for this list ought to be shot. Simply on putting SLASH above Jimmy Page! Criminal, CRIMINAL I tell ya!
 
It's funny how many things I can come up with about Dylan that strike me as "not very good at all:" guitar playing, harmonica playing, voice quality, paintings...and yet he's still, to me, one of the absolute greatest musicians ever. As a songwriter, I'm not sure anyone could ever do it better.

Yeah , that`s absolutly right . Dylan is a famous songwriter .
Music or guitarplayer etc. are always a matter of taste .
I agree with mjp . 10,000 lists and all different .
 
By the way if anyone is interested, Hollywood Forever Cemetary is hosting the 5th annual Johnny Ramone tribute. Been to a couple, they're always fun!

Here's the info JOHNNY RAMONE!
 
Prince plays guitar surprisingly well. I stayed to see him at Coacella in 08 a a novelty. His work amazed me.

The thing about Slash is his "talking" guitar gimmic...a gimmic made popular by another guitarist who worked with Diamond Dave by the name of Steve Vai.

Eddie did invent the Hmmmer-on...a metal staple tobe sure. He deserves respect for that alone.

I love Johnny Ramone but #11...really?
 
Eddie did invent the Hmmmer-on...a metal staple tobe sure. He deserves respect for that alone.
Jesus, don't tell Rick Derringer. The poor bastard would have a hard time explaining how he did it on records years before anyone had heard of Van Halen...
 
What is this, the House of Representatives?


You're right anyway, it wasn't Derringer. People have been doing hammer-ons since you had to rock a lute because guitars hadn't been invented yet.

But the two fisted thing you're talking about - yeah, sadly, you can hear it pre-Van Halen. Eddie Van Halen didn't do anything new technique-wise. What was new - to me - was his sound and his kitchen sink style approach to lead guitar ("Hey, it these two-handed hammer-ons are cool, imagine how cool it will be to do that, some muted arpeggio stuff, then helicopter my pick on one string like a lunatic, whammy bar some dropping bomb sounds, then...").

It was a different sound, for sure. If they hadn't been such frat boy douchebags, I daresay they were almost punk rock. There was a lot of humor and chaos in their early live shows, but none of that ever came through on recordings. And once they achieved fame and came into money, they took the express train straight to cliche-ville.
 
Well, I did say almost.

Though it's kind of punk rock the way they keep firing the singer and hiring him back.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top