Top 5 Best Guitarists Ever

I see that you spent the past 24 hours boning up on basic grammar and punctuation. Not bad for someone with a PhD. Do most individuals with such highly regarded college degrees spend their time trolling on internet forums, ignoring the foundations of basic linguistics, and interrupting discussions and debates with useless, inarticulate drivel? Funny. I always had the impression that most of them actually amount to something.

PhD. That's cute.

Originally posted by jaden101
29 actually....might want to sort out your mental arithmetic...besides...i think i'm allowed to be lax on my grammer...what with having PhD after my name i think i've earned it.

Proving, once again, that our standards of education can always be higher.

nah..i think you might want to trot back to the starwars forums and play with the other 11 year olds.

Ironic, since you've been posting there yourself. Hell, you've been posting there in the past 24 hours.

"your argument = epic fail."

i don't have to make an argument when you're doing such a great job of detroying your own...and all the back tracking in the world isn't going to change that...and neither's trying to make points about grammar. it just proves how utterly devoid of merit your argument actually is.

Yeah, it's plain to see that you simply lack the capability to engage in an actual debate.

again...i'm 29...you might want to work on that a bit more. nice try though.

You understand what rounding is, don't you? I'm not referring to your physique, but in math.

Or are you a body builder, too?

wow...attacking age and grammar...as for you knowing if i'm a good debator...if you'd come out of the star wars forum more often and discuss the more mature subjects that occasionally pop up on the board you might learn something. i'm guessing you're simply not capable of it so i'll leave you to discuss darth vader with coolmovies.

Say, weren't you just in the middle of a Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate, lecturing others on the powers of Q? LOL.

"your argument = epic fail"

that certainly wouldn't be you then because from where i'm sitting, you're not only getting spanked by AC...you're spanking yourself as well.

way to go Sherlock.

Sitting?

Now there's something I'm sure you do quite well. Is that where your PhD comes from?

And I appreciate the fact that you believe you can read my thoughts and intent across the web. But you can't.

"your argument = epic fail"

Now you have a Star Trek vs. Star Wars argument to get back to. Why don't you go do that?

AC, PM me when you have the proof, okay? I appreciate it. Thanks for the debate.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Those songs aren't technically lauded and considered legendary by guitarist peers to the degree Eruption is.

-AC

Just to reiterate: I'm not making a bullshit claim that Neal Schon is as great, as innovative, or even as creative as EVH. But I think that he's technically prodigious enough to play anything EVH can and vice versa without difficulty.

Slay, are you a big guitar nut?

I'm not arguing that Schon couldn't play it.

I'm asking you again; give me a lists of pieces Schon has played, singular pieces, that have been as technically advanced/influential and critically (By peers) acclaimed in music, and for the guitar, as Eruption.

Go.

Originally posted by Slay
Beyond the Thunder is an album and HSAS and Soul SirkUS are bands. At least do your research if you insist on comparing Schon to Van Halen...

Oh! You got me! The thing is, I asked for songs, pieces had had done that came close to Eruption's legacy for technique and peer praise, precisely because I am not as well-versed in Schon's music outside of Journey. He hasn't given me that, he has given me other things that still don't match it.

-AC

That's such bullshit. Give me a band that has been more critically acclaimed or innovative than the Beatles. Guess that means the likes of Rush, Led Zeppelin, or others are subpar in comparison. You're asking me to provide proof that Schon is as innovative or as great as Eddie Van Halen, which was never my contention.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Oh! You got me! The thing is, I asked for songs, pieces had had done that came close to Eruption's legacy for technique and peer praise, precisely because I am not as well-versed in Schon's music outside of Journey. He hasn't given me that, he has given me other things that still don't match it.

-AC

No offense, and I'm not taking sides, but you've been using an amount of guesswork in saying that Van Halen is technically better.

Originally posted by Gideon
That's such bullshit. Give me a band that has been more critically acclaimed or innovative than the Beatles. Guess that means the likes of Rush, Led Zeppelin, or others are subpar in comparison. You're asking me to provide proof that Schon is as innovative or as great as Eddie Van Halen, which was never my contention.

The Beatles are critically acclaimed for making good music, and anyone claiming they were innovative can be swiftly proven wrong.

We're dealing with acclaim and praise by people who are his peers, not because they think Eruption is a nice piece of music, but because it's one of the most influential instrumentals in rock music history, precisely because of the advanced technical skill involved, and how far ahead it was of others at the time. Schon was around at the time.

So please, name some singular pieces Schon has done, skill wise, that have come close to advancing guitar playing or guitar perception, peer-orientated, like Eruption did. I'm waiting.

Originally posted by Slay
What I'm saying is, if you actually had studied Schon's work to the point where you could honestly say ''I think EvH is technically better than Neil Schon'', you would've known that. But you don't.

No offense, and I'm not taking sides, but you've been using an amount of guesswork in saying that Van Halen is technically better.

Then where is my proof otherwise, from the man who could probably tell you Schon's shoe size?

He has no trouble crawling out from the Star Wars forum to tell us Schon's bio, but when I ask for examples to counter my own, he clams up, as he will do again in his reply.

-AC

You made the contention that EVH is better. It's your burden to prove. Asking me for pieces of innovation that is critically acclaimed is blatant misdirection.

Originally posted by Gideon
You made the contention that EVH is better. It's your burden to prove. Asking me for pieces of innovation that is critically acclaimed is blatant misdirection.

I have proven how he is better, with a certain piece of music and the reasons for its acclaim, its influence on the instrument and its subsequent legendary status in the eyes of peers as a result.

You are not understanding why this is proof, because you generally have problems understanding arguments. I have to explain, then repeat things to you.

Now you refuse to give proof, so I'll take that as you conceding your argument and leave you to your replies.

-AC

Your proof goes to the extent of "lol evh is better 'cuz i say so." That's not proof. As Slay has pointed out, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and your unfamiliarity with Schon's work doesn't lend you the credibility required to rule that Eddie Van Halen is better.

Next time you go toe-to-toe with someone, familiarize yourself with the burden of proof. You made the claim, it's your job to prove. Not mine. When you give me conclusive evidence of Eddie Van Halen's technical superiority, we'll talk.

Until then, I appreciate the (backhanded) concession. It reveals a surprising progression in your maturity.

Precisely, and you know more of Schon than I, and you can't provide anything that counters the proof I've provided, despite my request. Whether you like the proof I've given, I've given it. Yours stands at zero.

As such, your post is a statement of admission. Thanks for playing, it was fun and that. See you in a year, when someone creates another guitarist thread and you once again appear to buff Schon's pylon. Maybe then you'll have honed your skills, probably not, but don't stop believing.

-AC

More to say after all?

And here I thought you were going to leave me to my replies. Do you typically contradict yourself? Or is this case special: this is what? The third time you've had your ass kicked on the same subject?

Maybe you can't handle the stress at your age.

Originally posted by Gideon
More to say after all?

And here I thought you were going to leave me to my replies. Do you typically contradict yourself? Or is this case special: this is what? The third time you've had your ass kicked on the same subject?

Maybe you can't handle the stress at your age.

1) Leave you to your replies in the sense of topic, because you've lost that fight.

2) Ass kicked? All you do is ignore what I'm saying and argue against things I've never said, but hey, you're the one protesting too much for someone who's supposedly "right". I'm not the one crying and getting genuinely emotionally agitated by you. You are.

Although, you should be thanking me. You've had a longer conversation about Neal Schon over the past couple of days than you probably have had in what, a year? Just be thankful I consider you worthy of the time, honestly. If I were not dwelling in this music forum, you'd have no reason to come here.

That said, I'm curious just how much more you can deviate from the topic and onto me personally, as a way of saving your disgraced self before you scuttle back to the Star Wars forum. I command you to reply and entertain me, now. Do as you are told, or we may as well go our separate ways.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
1) Leave you to your replies in the sense of topic, because you've lost that fight.

Nonsense. You quite plainly said that you'd leave me to my replies; you gave it no qualification. That you're replying is testimony to both your hypocrisy and my unhealthy level of control over you. It induces a macabre sense of flattering. On the one hand, it makes me proud of my irresistibility. On the other, it is sort of uneasy having the clear sexual, obsessive attention of a twenty-something House-lite.

2) Ass kicked? All you do is ignore what I'm saying and argue against things I've never said, but hey, you're the one protesting too much for someone who's supposedly "right". I'm not the one crying and getting genuinely emotionally agitated by you. You are.

The only tears that have been shed from me are the ones that are the result of too much laughter. Come on, Alpha! Consult your House DVDs! He can do better. If you're worthy of being one of his many e-disciples, surely you can do the same. Or, better yet, why not actually take your overabundant time to provide some evidence of Van Halen's technical superiority.

Although, you should be thanking me.

I have, quite often. You provide an interesting sort of entertainment. It is fascinating to debate with those who delude themselves into thinking that they're actually good at it.

You've had a longer conversation about Neal Schon over the past couple of days than you probably have had in what, a year?

Nonsense. Neal Schon is the gravity which binds my universe. Try a week.

Just be thankful I consider you worthy of the time, honestly. If I were not dwelling in this music forum, you'd have no reason to come here.

Clearly I'm worthy of your time. You're seemingly obsessed with me, yearning for my attention. That's why (after repeated statements) you have refused to let this go. You crave my interaction with you.

That said, I'm curious just how much more you can deviate from the topic and onto me personally, as a way of saving your disgraced self before you scuttle back to the Star Wars forum. I command you to reply and entertain me, now. Do as you are told, or we may as well go our separate ways.

You personally? There's not much to discuss other than the attention you devote to me. It's not far removed from stalking.

Originally posted by Gideon
Nonsense. You quite plainly said that you'd leave me to my replies; you gave it no qualification. That you're replying is testimony to both your hypocrisy and my unhealthy level of control over you. It induces a macabre sense of flattering. On the one hand, it makes me proud of my irresistibility. On the other, it is sort of uneasy having the clear sexual, obsessive attention of a twenty-something House-lite.

And then I gave it qualification.

Is that what you do now, just say what I would say back to me? Imitation isn't flattery, influence is.

Glad to see you know your role, though. I tell you to jump, you say "How high?". I say "Post.", you say "Schon". Proving you can't do it without saying his name.

Originally posted by Gideon
The only tears that have been shed from me are the ones that are the result of too much laughter. Come on, Alpha! Consult your House DVDs! He can do better. If you're worthy of being one of his many e-disciples, surely you can do the same. Or, better yet, why not actually take your overabundant time to provide some evidence of Van Halen's technical superiority.

Well then, I'm just supremely proud I could make you cry tears of joy and sorrow together, then. I didn't intend to upset you, make your blood boil and once again hold a mirror up to the fact that you over-appreciate a guitarist that isn't as good as you would like him to be, but I guess that's just what happens, part o' life.

Just for the record, while we're playing this game, you do realise that repeating "You've given me no proof.", doesn't mean I haven't, right? Ok, good. You realise you are just saying it, right? Excellent.

Because I enjoy your comedy, I'll indulge you:

"You are confusing me saying; 'He doesn't have the ability to create or play something that is PRAISED AND LEGENDARY for being technical and advanced.', with 'He can't play anything that's advanced.'.

See, the two are different.

You can't show me anything Schon has done that has been praised by peers as much as Eruption has, for technique. Nothing Schon has done is as legendary for it.

If I'm wrong, prove it, but for the love of the thread, please stop saying I said things I didn't. I'm giving you an avenue with which to silence me and you're not taking it. "Prove to me Schon is inferior.", and my proof is in Eruption's reception and praise, not due to the fame, but WHY it's famous and what it's praised FOR.

Technique is praised, in Schon's case, but he is praised in the sense that there's a good chance he could play a lot of what you ask him to. YOUR main flaw is separating innovation from technical ability, because in Van Halen's case, they're the same. What was innovative about him was his OVERALL technical ability. Not the fact that he tapped, his OVERALL technical skill, and how he used it, e.g; Eruption.

Schon hasn't ever done that, has he? Proof.

Eruption is one of the most influential rock music instrumentals ever, because it changed the way millions and millions of people played the guitar, or thought about playing it. When has Schon ever done that? Learning it, or being able to play it, doesn't make you as skilled.".

If you can't get around your head exactly why that is proof, then I really feel you are a lost cause. Weirdly, I don't feel different to a doctor right now, I'm fighting to save a patient but try as I might, he's just laying there in a Schon-induced impact coma, unresponsive to sense and reason.

Originally posted by Gideon
I have, quite often. You provide an interesting sort of entertainment. It is fascinating to debate with those who delude themselves into thinking that they're actually good at it.

Nonsense. Neal Schon is the gravity which binds my universe. Try a week.

Clearly I'm worthy of your time. You're seemingly obsessed with me, yearning for my attention. That's why (after repeated statements) you have refused to let this go. You crave my interaction with you.

So what is it this time? An ironic attempt at trying to use the way I "am" against me, or are you genuinely not capable of keeping up with me, so you have to attach yourself to my underbelly by replying mockingly as I would/have?

Is this another one of those "No, Jaden, actually. I wasn't being a hypocrite. I was just acting as he does.". Despite that obviously and factually not being the case?

Good though.

Originally posted by Gideon
You personally? There's not much to discuss other than the attention you devote to me. It's not far removed from stalking.

I'm not in the Star Wars forum debating with you. You only show up here because you know I'm the only person who will indulge your desire to speak of Neal Schon.

And maybe that makes me the bigger fool, but I suppose we're not all perfect. I indulge you too often, you like Journey and Neal Schon. All of us are inherently flawed, somehow.

Let's test. You can think what you want of my debate, I will know what I know of yours, and we can leave this as it is. If you truly desire to continue this with me, if it's what you need, you'll reply (Then if I reply, you'll say "Oh look, you can't stop replying.", been there and done that). If you genuinely don't need to reply to me, you and I can both just walk away and no longer reply to one another, can't we?

Either way, this is my last off topic reply in the thread. The rest is coming to your inbox.

-AC

I love it. This is truly the never ending story. We know you'll be back, Alpha. The same predictability you credit to me is made manifest in you. This is what you call a stalemate (unlike the argument, which was a decisive Gideon victory).

You haven't the means to prove that Eddie Van Halen is a superior and more technically gifted guitarist. All you've proven is that Neal Schon is not as innovative, well known, or "great." I never made that contention.

Either way, this is my last off topic reply in the thread. The rest is coming to your inbox.

You'll be back for more. You have an infatuation with me that surpasses an emo girl's love for Stephanie Meyer books. I'm your brand of heroin, indeed.

Originally posted by Gideon
As far as opinions go, everyone's welcome to theirs. But while I can't speak for AC, I've always been the type of person that, if you offer an opinion, be prepared to justify it.

Angus Young is a well known guitarist with a penchant for creating catchy guitar riffs; my problem with him and AC/DC is that the riffs and solos are contrived, repeating. Nothing new or original. There is no truly stellar musicianship within AC/DC. Brian Johnson isn't anything approaching an accomplished singer and Angus Young is not as technically gifted as people would have him believe. I get it that they come up with catchy rhythms, but given the level of hype they receive, you'd think there'd be more to their constitution.

For the record, Black Ice was terrible. And as far as Rolling Stone goes, that magazine is a joke. A complete and utter joke. In their recent pole of the greatest and most gifted singers, Bob Dylan was in the top ten. Mercury, Perry, Gillan, some of the vocal greats weren't. It's a broken instrument that appeals to the ignorant and foolish.

I'm not bashing you or anything, just disagreeing.

You want me to justify it, he does guitar solos, and can shred while running around, and can do guitar solos and shred while laying on the floor whil spinning around in circles.

Angus Young is a well known guitarist, and a great guitarist. His riffs are great, and I know it may not seem like he can make something new, but I have heard different riffs. Don't bring Bryan Johnson into this conversation. He is an accomplished AC/DC singer, just like Bon Scott. Who cares if he isn't as gifted as others, but he kicks fvcking ass.

I know Rolling Stone is a joke. Angus Young diserves to be in the top 10, or even the top 5. But still, Jimi Hendrix is still the greatest to most people out there.

Angus Young isn't actually that skilled, though.

If he's your favourite, fine. He's the favourite of many.

-AC

Originally posted by Wil Deidara
You want me to justify it, he does guitar solos, and can shred while running around, and can do guitar solos and shred while laying on the floor whil spinning around in circles.

You've accurately detailed the habits and mannerisms of most accomplished frontmen. That's not a sign of technical prowess or high level playing skills; that's a sign of an entertaining stage figure. Mick Jagger is an enormously gifted and charismatic stage persona who captures and enthralls the hordes of Rolling Stones lunatic-fans. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that he's a dreadful singer without exception.

Angus Young is a well known guitarist, and a great guitarist.

He's definitely well known.

His riffs are great, and I know it may not seem like he can make something new, but I have heard different riffs.

You misunderstand, I was exaggerating. AC/DC songs feature different riffs, but generally by only a couple of notes. They seem carbon copied and contrived, offering little substance to the song itself. They're good fun, but there's nothing there. A truly great composition may have both, but it will have substance. Meat. Or (as in Alpha's case), at least a great deal of fat.

Don't bring Bryan Johnson into this conversation. He is an accomplished AC/DC singer, just like Bon Scott. Who cares if he isn't as gifted as others, but he kicks fvcking ass.

"An accomplished AC/DC singer" doesn't mean a lot. Johnson's voice is unique (I always think of a jagged shard of glass) and it has survived the test of time. But he isn't some vocal virtuoso capable of extreme range, remarkable power, or peerless control. Those are the hallmarks of a great vocalist. Johnson isn't.

I know Rolling Stone is a joke. Angus Young diserves to be in the top 10, or even the top 5. But still, Jimi Hendrix is still the greatest to most people out there.

Young is as well known as any guitarist and famous for his antics. That said, while he is obviously a talented musician, no one I know (other than you) considers him to be a truly great well of musicianship.

Originally posted by Gideon
You've accurately detailed the habits and mannerisms of most accomplished frontmen. That's not a sign of technical prowess or high level playing skills; that's a sign of an entertaining stage figure. Mick Jagger is an enormously gifted and charismatic stage persona who captures and enthralls the hordes of Rolling Stones lunatic-fans. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that he's a dreadful singer without exception.

He's definitely well known.

You misunderstand, I was exaggerating. AC/DC songs feature different riffs, but generally by only a couple of notes. They seem carbon copied and contrived, offering little substance to the song itself. They're good fun, but there's nothing there. A truly great composition may have both, but it will have substance. Meat. Or (as in Alpha's case), at least a great deal of fat.

"An accomplished AC/DC singer" doesn't mean a lot. Johnson's voice is unique (I always think of a jagged shard of glass) and it has survived the test of time. But he isn't some vocal virtuoso capable of extreme range, remarkable power, or peerless control. Those are the hallmarks of a great vocalist. Johnson isn't.

Young is as well known as any guitarist and famous for his antics. That said, while he is obviously a talented musician, no one I know (other than you) considers him to be a truly great well of musicianship.

He RUNS AS FAST AS HE CAN across the stage, JUMPS IN THE AIR, and JUMPS DOWN ON THE GROUND AND SPINS IN CIRCLES, and shreds while doing all of this, and can shred awesome, and you are saying that that isn't impressive.

He's well known, and is great, easily.

Generally by a couple notes. Something is wrong with you. All of there songs have different notes, and shit. I don't know what you are talking about. You are just trying to make them sound worse than they really are.

Well neither Bryan or Bon are accomplished singers around the world, but Angus Young is known everywhere around the world. That is why people by AC/DC records, to hear AY's guitar solos.

Know one you know, you must not know many people, because I know lots of people who say Angus Young is one of the greatest of all time.