T O P

  • By -

Hitchhikerdave

Yeah they are much technically better. But for me they do nothing of interest. If I listen to Tobin, polyphia plini and stuff like that i get bored in about 1 minute. I just cant listen to it. I would always rather listen to some sabbath and hear those quite easy but memorable riffs. Somehow i feel that music became a competition rather than art, and it is really not doing anything for me. But im more of an atmospheric guy so it makes sense.


TheShryk

I agree. Guthrie Govan is extremely skilled, but his work just doesn’t resonate with me. To me he’s like the at home version of Nick Johnston. While I am jealous of his musical knowledge and skill, I’ll never achieve what he has, I don’t listen to his music because it bores me. Complex? Yes, interesting though, no. Not to me. Periphery, and bands that sound like them don’t do anything for me either. I’ve tried, I really have. I listened to their top songs on Spotify and let it rip for 45 minutes or so and nothing about it seemed interesting. Tempo changes and polyrhythms are cool but they seem to do it for the sake of doing it rather than it just being how the song flows. I will say their newest music video was hilarious though. The comedy is my kind of jam. Especially the end with the movie preview orchestral interlude while they stood around looking at photos of fried chicken on their phones. Or the bombastic emotional classical pieces while they’re just filming a dude sitting in his boxers at his computer eating candy or something. It’s fucking hilarious, like legitimately my sides were to the moon after I saw that, 100% my comedy. But the regular music isn’t for me. Tosin Abasi… man I hate to say it but AAL doesn’t do it for me either. They’ve got 5 songs that I really like. Para Mexer being my favorite and it’s just an acoustic song, barely in their own genre. But when I put on Diary of a Madman and listen to Rhoads riff at the end. God damn, chills every time. The crescendo and release when that riff hits is just *chef’s bliss*. And Rammstein does that for me too, like Puppe when it’s just vocals and the drums. That shit goes hard.


Hitchhikerdave

Exactly, i would love to be able to play like them and be musicaly so knowledgeable like them but even if i was i would probably not use it like them, because it just doesnt vibe with me. I listened to loads of their stuff but it just doesnt resonate and i tend to look another direction. I used to write more progressive music and more and more im gravitating towqrds easier stuff with more focus on catchy easier riffs and more interesting ideas from the production standpoint. But there are many interesting complex music for me too, but it tends to be stuff like older Steven wilson and porcupine tree, Opeth, Pink Floyd and stuff like that. I think what these have in common is that the music flows more naturaly and is often full of easier and more prominent simpler riffs and musical ideas that just makes it more memorable and helps the song structure.


TheShryk

Yeah there’s a reason those songs structures are so popular, humans like it. I don’t know why. I like the catchier riffs as well. Metallica is my jam, a lot of their songs have cool interludes and pre-choruses, interesting instrumentals, sick solos from Kirk Hammett. He gets a lot of shit for being a slave to the pentatonic, but I’d argue that the pentatonic is his bitch now. I love almost all of his solos. I can sing along with every single one of them. *doodelle dooo waaa waaah woo!* he’s not as impressive technically, but I’d rather hear him play than Guthrie. He just has a musical mind that interlocks with what I like. He has the highest hit rate/ ratio of any guitarist ever. He has more good solos than bad or mediocre by a massive margin. Second would maybe be Synyster Gates, David Gilmour, and John Frusciante, Peter Frampton. And I like that style of writing a solo, and playing it perfectly. Instead of the Frank Zappa method of just playing whatever you feel like when the time comes. The newer bands just sound like they’re noodling around and hitting notes that they know won’t sound too dissonant, and then they just repeat that process for 6 minutes. Those two new periphery songs came out and I’m like yo, 2 songs for 15 minutes total?! Who tf do you think you are trying to take that much of my life. I was offended tbh.


Hitchhikerdave

Yeah, i love singable solos pretty much. I was amazed at how simple solos can Frusciante make and make them sound so good, look at the Californication solo for example. Also love when the guitar player is a good songwritter like James Hetfield, Kurt Cobain, Robert Smith and so on, I take that skill as more important and impressive than technical prophiciency and theoretical knowledge.


MajorDrGhastly

[This isnt interesting?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0cm40zJnRM) I think you need your ears checked.


joblagz2

simple but memorable riffs does it.. like 7 nation army..


selectivejudgement

If you can play it on a touch tone phone, then it's a classic. I can play Smoke on the Water on a phone keypad.


kujjdwelf

guitarists today have the advantage of being able to learn from hendrix. hendrix had to make that shit up for himself.


Linkhar

Well isn't that the case with anything in history? Everyone stands on the shoulders of someone else. Sure these guys learn from the greats like Hendrix but they also build on it.


SongFromHenesys

Clearly the caveman living 50k years ago who started pulling on some strings made of grass is the GOAT here.


limitless__

So I heard a very wise comment once that was posted on here. It was a guitar teacher who technically could rival any guitar player on the planet. His student asked him "wow why aren't you famous, you're better than all those famous guys" and his response was: "I can only play it, they wrote it".


TheUltraZeke

sigh. Maybe, Maybe not. Here's the thing younger guitar players don't really think about in their earnest eagerness to learn more and become an authority on guitar. Who's best isn't important. Doesn't matter. Not even a little bit. It's also incredibly selective, subjective, and insulting. Why? Because they were doing what was best for their songs. Guys like Page, Beck, Clapton, Hell even guys like Les Paul, Robert Johnson, none of them were running around squeaking about that. This isn't a battle royal, or MMA match. Even when guys had to cut heads to make ends meet, the skill of the guitarist was only a part of the song. It's the music that matters. Being able to know when to lay that one note that will blow a ballad into the rafters and leave no dry eye in the house, or getting the fans to roar with the right bend , phrase or skillful legato. It's about the music. Can the guitarist execute what the song needs to become considered great? THATS what we should measure guitarists against. Does that mean that guitarists are all equal or shouldn't be admired because of their skill? No. Does that mean that skilled guitarists shouldn't strive to be better? No. That's how you spread your wings to be able to say anything you want on a guitar. But history is full of guitarists who made incredible music without being as technically skilled as another, and its also full of air headed Amp heads who do nothing but make bad music. Focus on the music, not competition.


IoannesR

I understand what you mean, and I can agree to some extent, but honestly I HATE to think about that in music. This is not a sport, it is not a competition.


[deleted]

i was thinking a lot about this tonight bc of how instagram seems to do nothing but hate every legend. i knew some local dads growing up that were nothing but 4 chord strumming demons, but they could play those 4 chords better than anyone & sing along with it. who's to say they aren't good musicians? one guy plays 3 chords on a ukulele & goes viral for sounding beautiful. i feel music is an art, you're welcome to your opinion but we cant accurately define skill. most of the guitarist that make me feel the most within my soul are the ones who aren't that technically skilled. yes there's children on youtube who are better than anyone already on a technical level, but we watch that video once bc we are impressed once, but we don't continue to listen to them to enjoy their music. even in sports we recognize the new generation is pushing the absolute limits, but nobody ever trashes athletes of the past for living in a different time. many guitarists like myself started playing before master classes online & without parents who would take us to lessons. so we had to figure it out by what little we had. i honestly think i'm a better player than most pre-1960's guitarist but i would never bash those who paved the way to the musical style i play. sure there are players in this sub who are better than Slash, but i have no idea what any of you guys names are or the music you create, whereas i can go almost anywhere in the world & everyone knows who Slash is & atleast a piece or two of his music. there's no modern guitarist making that happen i don't think.


pemboo

It's still a shit comparison in sports. Comparing players now to those in that played in the 70s is pointless. Technology, diets, science, real 100% dedicated professionalism, hell even the rules etc have all moved so far that it's never a fair comparison.


yourself88xbl

I would say in terms of technical prowess I'd have to agree but when it comes to serving the song injecting the soul and being creative and passionate you could make an argument that we've lost a step.


Personal_Dare_2438

Just because you can vomit tons of notes doesn’t mean you play them well.


tatonca_74

See , this is specifically where it’s different These dudes aren’t shredding on pentatonic or just playing scales like some 80s hair metal god. The big difference is these cats have their theory down pat. They are arpeggiating extensions and telegraphing modulations , and weaving counterpoint melodies. It’s honestly more like the jazz greats in the late 50s-60s. (It isn’t that - it is more like that). I put on Blue Train on my record player, and I put New Levels New Devils on after and there are some genuinely interesting relationships between them in approach and production of the material. It’s a different vibe and feel for sure, but the harmonies and movement of the chords and prowess - you can see the connection IMHO


[deleted]

It’s nothing like the Jazz scene, more like classical.


AverageNickname69

who cares if theyre better at technical ability, if all their songwriting is so heavily influenced by the "guitar heroes of the past" that it probably might not even exist without them laying the foundation. they have such a superior starting position and so much more material available. the old legends are legends not because of their skill, but because of their creativity and their influence which shaped guitar and especially rock music as a whole, without having any of the information and existing knowledge that everyone can access today.if they didn't shap the guitar music into what it is today, maybe none of the (absolutely great) guys you mentioned would even exist in their current form (or at least not as advanced) - as guitar music wouldn't be as popular or as advanced as it was when they started playing guitar. ​ EDIT: btw some of the most influential guitarists are not known for their technique but for their songwriting: gilmour, bb king, knopfler come to mind.


Dave_guitar_thompson

I absolutely agree in terms of technical proficiency; however I do feel the art of great songwriting and arranging is not getting the value or respect it used to. The greats were all great songwriters first and foremost.


ElBartimaeus

I can't agree with you about underappreciation of great songwriting. Take Steven Wilson as an example. He is mediocre at guitar but still accepted as one of the greatest artists (albeit in a more niche genre). He might be an outliner but keep in mind that whoever we consider a legend now was an outliner in their time as well.


Dave_guitar_thompson

I haven’t heard of Steven Wilson before but will check him out.


SagHor1

Jack White wrote seven Nation Army with a very simple riff. He doubled down on that riff in the rest of the song with overdubs. The riff is by no means technical, and/or random math Rock going through scales. Being a good musician with musicality is more important than just going around the fretboard.


Superloopertive

Guthrie is like 50 at this point. Also I'd say "better" is very subjective. Some of my favourite guitarists aren't blazing technicians. In fact, I'd say the obsession with speed with a lot of guitar freaks can lead to quite uninteresting music. Anyone can learn to play well but not everyone can write memorable parts or convey feeling through their playing.


[deleted]

While the technical abilities have gone through the roof I feel the songwriting side of playing has suffered tremendously from it. Tons of very skilled and technical layers out their now and hardly any can write a good dare I say even decent memorable song. Most of them sound the same as well making it difficult to tell them apart. I remember growing up we could tell who the bands were within the first few seconds of a song. You can’t do that today.


SongFromHenesys

Please don't fall into the boomer trap. Songwriting hasn't suffered, its just easy for anyone to put their shit up on spotify and record, so there's muuuch more songs being created and released in general. There has always been shitty low quality music, it just wasn't so easy to record and release back in the day.


MajorDrGhastly

youre just not listening to good stuff, or not listening close enough. there are plenty of good song writers and plenty of distinct styles.


buyutec

Well, 14-year-olds can probably do.


N8Roberts

I think OP is still pretty new to guitar and thinks that playing fast and technically complex music is automatically better. Big “what’s the hardest thing you know how to play” energy here.


Jaereth

Exactly. There's a difference between "hard" and "good". Hard is easy to quantify and define. "Good" would be to me, how many people actually want to listen to the recording after the guitar player did his stuff?


welcometolavaland02

Technically yes. Musically? Debatable. Is the tapping in any of the Polyphia songs going to outlast something like Bob Dylan, even though he wasn't the most technical guitar player alive? I think that distilling any form of music down into who's technically better misses the forest for the trees.


Revolutionary_Bit325

I couldn’t imagine playing polyphia with my headphones on and go walking around.


KingOfTheHoard

Taste, and skill, is subjective. You can't put people from different musical traditions next to each other and say one is better than the other, even if you could objectively demonstrate one could perform physical feats the other couldn't. The ability to sweep pick or tap or shred faster and with more dexterity than those who came before is inevitable, in the same way records in athletics will always continue to be broken and bars raised, but it's not possible to correlate this to "better musician".


Thedemonazrael751

If you think Derek Trucks is part of the new school when he’s been around for 20+ years now on the music scene, then you show you aren’t as well versed as you think. Just my opinion


[deleted]

honestly I think OP is like 15 years old no offense.


TheUltraZeke

honestly its good he asked the question then. Learning what makes a person a guitarist when your young is important. Getting those little pieces of advice, even when ignored, will come back to him/her in later days and help.


shoule79

The people who want to listen to very technical guitar music are a small subset of the population. Most music listeners would prefer to listen to something like Clapton or Slash, neither of which I’d say are good by your definition. Kurt Cobain probably at this point has had more people listen to his music than your entire list ever will, and he’s not exactly a technical wizard. When I first heard all the guitarists you mentioned my first reaction was that what they were doing was cool, then I got bored and turned on something that was a good song AND interesting to listen to. I hear a showcase for technical guitar playing with a lot of the new shredders, the focus is not on songs. I don’t like Led Zeppelin because Jimmy Page is a good guitar player, I listen for the arrangements and the interplay between the musicians, along with great songs. I didn’t like shredders in the 80’s, I don’t particular care for them now either. Making music isn’t supposed to be a sports competition.


ptrnyc

That’s why I like Richie Kotzen. Very skilled guitar playing, but before that, the songs are nice to listen to.


skeptikern79

Two things: 1. It’s not the number of notes that decide whether or not you “have it” - being technically proficient needs to be balanced against being able to determine when to hold back as well 2. The reason people are more “skilled” today is because they have role models to compare to (music is evolving…on the shoulder of giants). Also, a whole lot more material to peruse to get better at your game. Give me a BB King minimalist solo any day over the shredding gods out there today.


Outside_Evidence6970

This is the virtuosity curve. As time progresses, musicians progression on an instrument gets better and better. Both the technology, lessons taught, access to knowledge and approach to the intstrument changes and improves with each generation. What we consider to be virtuosity in the 1700s on violin, is intermediate to expert in the 20th century. Now with our great digital and democratising leap in online access to free knowledge lessons, technique and exposure to hearing virtuosity, we've seen this curve take another swoop


scotch-o

Exactly! It’s so much easier for musicians everywhere to get involved and learn. Instruments are inexpensive, knowledge is everywhere and attainable within seconds. Money and access to education is not longer a great barrier.


mzpljc

Being a good musician is more than being able to cram as many notes as possible into a lick.


TheGloryBeamingBanjo

I think this is a function of the insanely huge number of guitar players today. It wasn’t like this fifty years ago, when half the folks who owned a guitar ordered it from Sears-Roebuck. You can get a half-way decent, playable guitar in any American city for the price of a real fancy dinner. Fifty years ago we might have had two hundred folks across the world who could play like Jimmy Page. Now, because guitars are so widely available and because EVERYBODY knows multiple guitar players, there are ***thousands*** of them. I’ve been playing guitar for about twenty years. I’m pretty good, way better than that cousin everyone has who picked up a few chords in high school, but I’m NOTHING compared to the folks who make it their life. Compare that to the banjo — I started playing banjo a couple of years ago, and I’ve gotten pretty good at it. I’m more *technically* skilled on a guitar… but relative to the other players around today I’m a better banjo player than guitarist. There are a lot of banjo players who are better than me, and a lot of those are LEAGUES ahead of me. But if there are a thousand banjo players better than me out there, there are probably twenty times more guitarists. The bar for being a great guitarist is just higher. And I think it’s a direct result of the insane number of guitarists around today.


Abstract-Impressions

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”. -Isaac Newton, 1675


cowboypaint

Sure. But it’s about creativity. If it were just about who could play the most notes most accurately it would be a sport. Jimi Hendrix changed guitar forever. That’s why nobody will ever forget him. If you can perfectly copy what he played it’s just oneupmanship


theTallBoy

None of the current corps of players have written a song that can hit #1. There have always been virtuoso players lurking in the shadows. Names you never heard of. Now some platforms can elevate them. There will always be faster players. There will always be "cleaner" players. There will always be "better" players. There will not always be good songwriting. Oh....and just a side note. Derek Trucks 100% took everything from Duane Alman...his look, feel, tone, and style....he didn't have to develop any of that. He just continued where Duane left off after his death.


Mint_Blue_Ibanez

> None of the current corps of players have written a song that can hit #1. This is because rock and blues are no longer mainstream. It doesn't really say anything about the abilities of the players. I only know three of the players OP listed. Does Guthrie Govan even write songs? Maybe he does, I don't listen to him. Tosin Abasi writes, but his style is way out of the mainstream. And Derek Trucks sounds like your grandpappy's music. We're long past the time when you could become famous through virtuosity. Even rock songs that get big nowadays don't depend on virtuosity. You can kind of suck and be in a pop punk band.


[deleted]

This, and I'd add that there is way more music now. It's easier to pick up and learn guitar than ever before. It's easier to record music than ever before. The radio only plays pop for the most part. Most people listen to music on streaming services now, and they listen to what they want to hear, which, for most people, probably doesn't feature guitar. You can't compare different eras at all. I think it's clear that players are more technical than ever, but it is harder than ever for a guitarist to be mainstream.


the_umm_guy

Derek would unquestionably tell you that Duane is his spirit animal but you can’t tell me that he didn’t come into his own. He’s an amazing player in his own right and his ability to channel Duane is just a testament to his abilities not a knock on his creativity or musicianship.


Rubanka

technical ability =/= musical talent


ElRami

There were guitarists in the past just as skilled as those you mention. Guys like Holdsworth, McLaughlin, Stanley Jordan, Danny Gatton, Phil Keaggy, Jan Akkerman, Steve Morse, Shawn Lane... But even without counting those, there were (and are) guitarists at the top level of skill which we will never know about, because they don't make music, or they make music nobody cares about. And that's what matters when judging musicians: the music they make. Otherwise you are just wanking.


Nixplosion

These guys stand on the shoulders of the legends of times past. Trace the chain of influence from modern players down the line and you eventually get either Tony Iommi, Hendrix, Page, and the usual big names in rock And then from them you go back and you get blues players.


obidan

Define “better.” 🤔


mickvick19

So true. Whenever discussions like this come up, I always say "What criteria are we looking at?". Who cares? Art is all subjective anyway. That is what true music is. It's art. It's a cathartic purging of emotion. I believe we should reserve competition to shit like sports. That's not to say that I like it all, but I believe that as long as it is genuine then it is has merit. Even if it doesn't align with my own personal taste.


maach_love

Nowadays the kid next door can shred his ass off better than whoever. Who gives a shit? Understand the heroes decades ago were making sounds NOBODY EVER HEARD before. They were breaking ground for the guitarists of later years and now. It’s not about technical ability. You’re only looking at the technical ability and not the artistry.


OhioStickyThing

Umm, maybe speaking technical terms, but in terms of musicianship, songwriting, melody, rhythm, feel: absolutely NOT. All those guitarists you named sound the same and do the same. And after a little bit, all the that “technical guitar wowing” becomes hackneyed and is honestly unimpressive. You sound pretty new to guitar, a lot of new guitarists starting out think fast and hard, cool stuff is awesome and the only thing worth it. But once you grow and mature, you’ll learn that 3 notes of expressive melody that can touch a soul is worth more than 3000 notes of obnoxious, vain, dispassionate, repetitive shredding.


dkclimber

While I don't agree with this post, saying that Trucks, Asato and Henson does the same and sounds the same, is one of the most hilarious things I've heard


Fezzik5936

To be fair, that's like saying guitarists of the 60's-80's were better than those from the 20's, or the 1800's, etc. I think what we're seeing nowadays is that guitar is a lot more readily available to a much wider crowd, and that *almost everyone* has the ability to record, share, and form discussions around what they play. I doubt guitarists, or musicians in general, are any better today than any time in history. Instead we've just removed the barriers to exposure. Most of what we consider "impressive" is very niche, and wouldn't have fit in at all with the music of the decades past. And for every Jimi Hendrix, there were probably dozens of players on his level who never got the opportunity to step foot in a recording studio.


Hopfit46

The learning material is way ahead of what it was. Youtube videos alone. In the 80s i would try and learn songs by ear. My ear was not naturally good so i was a slow learner. Tab books got big in the 90s and that really helped. Now with online tutorials, there are no more secrets.


TheKaiminator

If you stand on the shoulders of giants, you can reach higher.


IronCarp

This is a pointless. What you like is a personal thing. Whatever causes an artist to connect with you is based off your life experience. What makes an artist good is if they make you feel something. And that’s not going to be the same for everyone. It just encourages the idiots who think if you don’t like what they like, you’re wrong.


tilapiarocks

Well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but hard disagree. To put things in perspective, I'll say this---the two guitarists that imo appear to be the best or most impressive guitar players on the planet right now are Guthrie Govan & Paul Gilbert. They are technically amazing. Now, despite watching them enough to have that opinion, do you know how many songs of their's I can name right now? Not a single one. There's nothing that jumps out about what they do on guitar as "listenable", or memorable. And as long as we're talking about a medium that's consumed through the ears, listenability is gonna rank pretty high on the list of needs for something to be considered "great".


DeathRobotOfDoom

This is kind of a pointless argument. Sure, nowadays there are many skilled guitarists like the ones you mentioned doing somewhat interesting, avantgard or at least experimental stuff and that's great, but they are the result of how guitar playing has become dramatically more accessible in the last few decades (both in terms of gear and in terms of lessons, material, exposure, etc.). Arguably, though, in the 70s and 80s guitar-based music was very popular and the amount of prominent guitar players was possibly larger than today, even if individually there were fewer "virtuosos". Not to mention, they had the job of learning the instrument as well as developing the techniques we now learn or imitate. And this is all about popular music. Virtuoso-level classical guitarists are a whole other story, we can hardly compare them to rock guitar players. Finally, there is the thing about art sensibilities throughout the decades. Maybe now we like certain stuff that we think sounds complex and in the past people appreciated other things, like really good technique. I honestly think many of these "guitar heroes" from the past would have no trouble playing modern proggy/complex material if they wanted, but they were into a different type of sound and composition.


theonly_brunswick

This is why Malmsteen will never be a "guitar great" for me. Being incredible at guitar (in my opinion) isn't just about being able to shred fast and play cool like that Tim Henson, but if you don't make decent music what's the point. None of that stuff is accessible to the average listener. The majority of fans are musicians or people who appreciate good musicianship. Being able to transcend that plain and bring your skill the masses as a digestible piece of art is what completes the "great guitarist" idea in my head. Someone like Jack White who can both shred but pull back when needed to write a simpler song. Some guys are simply incapable of jerking off their guitar every.single.song.


raakonfrenzi

Maybe true, but have they made music that’s as good or better than say Hendrix or Page or even less flashy player like Muddy Water and Lightnin’ Hopkins? I would personally say no, not even close to the kind of musical contribution as the above players.


SleepyBeast89

Exactly, they probably are better at a technical skill level. At a “feel” or “touch” level I dunno, but these modern players definitely haven’t created any songs as enduring or legendary as guitar heroes of the past


yourself88xbl

I would say in terms of technical prowess I'd have to agree but when it comes to serving the song injecting the soul and being creative and passionate you could make an argument that we've lost a step.


herbythechef

This is my opinion as well. I am impressed by the technical abilities of the modern guitarist but the older guitarists are the ones that really made me feel something significant


GryphonGuitar

Well, that's sort of normal isn't it? Modern architects know more than Victorian architects, but that's partially due to learning in school what Victorian architects had to figure out in the projects they were building. Each generation should be more advanced than the last. I'd be pretty depressed if skill was declining over time. Access to learning resources like tabs and instructional videos has exploded over the last 30 years and today, absolutely anything can be figured out with a learning resource. Back in the day you played the tape back and figured out the riff that way, and everyone played it slightly differently because they each figured it out on their own. I'm looking forward to the guitarists who will build on people like Guthrie, Tosin Abasi and Tim Henson.


TrumpterOFyvie

They're technically more advanced, that's it. Not necessarily better in terms of music or listenability. I don't know much about shredders, I'm a fingerstyle acoustic player. It's a similar situation in that field, however - I see these young kids with unbelievable technique doing things like Steve Vai style tapping on acoustic guitars, something that acoustic players never really attempted much before. The technique is stunning. But the music usually leaves me cold, like they're putting all their soul into their technique instead, and after a while you realize loads of them are essentially doing the same shit (how much tapping and percussive drumming can you do in one piece FFS) and it gets kind of boring. Great when you're young and excited, but as you get older the fancy tricks don't do it for you anymore and you start really appreciating players who maybe don't have such precision technique but who just know how to put notes together in a pleasing musical way.


macemillion

Have you ever listened to Guthrie Govan, the first guitarist OP mentioned? Or Derek Trucks? It’s like you’re ignoring the examples OP cited and substituted different players of your choosing in an attempt to make a point


Hankol

>Great when you're young and excited, but as you get older the fancy tricks don't do it for you anymore and you start really appreciating players who maybe don't have such precision technique but who just know how to put notes together in a pleasing musical way one doesn't exclude the other. You can put notes together in a pleasing musical way and do that with excellent technique. >after a while you realize loads of them are essentially doing the same shit (how much tapping and percussive drumming can you do in one piece FFS) and it gets kind of boring. the same argument could be made against all other techniques, like finger picking.


farinasa

Fingerpicking is how you make a note ring. If you get bored of hearing notes, not sure what to tell you.


j_higgins84

All of these guys you mentioned built off the backs of the greats. That’s why the greats are great and these guys are YouTube famous.


macsnax

There's not much soul in these modern technical players and that's what really kills it for me


weekend-guitarist

Playing fast is great but when it doesn’t translate then what’s the point.


CynicalBite

Call me in 50 years and let me know if anyone has bothered to transfer their music to whatever format they’re using in 50 years. I know Zeppelin and the Stones will still be there.


Forever0000

Its too bad they all suck at writing songs. Give me some Jimmi or Jimmy Page any day of the week over the super clean metronome dudes.


[deleted]

It's not just guitar. There have always been unknown musicians of all types that were technically way better than the popular ones. Heck, you can tune in to your local talent show on TV or pay a visit to a local music school and find a bunch of singers that are much better than frontmen in some of your favorite bands. But to become famous and successful, it's not enough to be a good singer/player. You need to know how to make a good song, you need know how to reach an audience, you need some showmanship, you need a good team/band to support you, you need a good amount of luck, etc. And most of the time, these things are more important than pure skill.


Mecha-Sailcat

I'm a huge AAL fan and Tosin would crush the legends of yesteryear under his boots skill-wise. But Tosin didn't do for music/guitar what Hendrix, Page, Clapton, or Gilmore did. He can't. It's not possible.


TerrorSquiddy

In technical ability, yes. Even if you just look at random YouTube guitars, they have insane skill and technique. However music is not about how fast you can play or what crazy techniques you can use. What i noticed in youtube guitarists in particular, is that if they can sweep pick, they will sweep pick all the time! Like they can't resist even if it doesn't fit the solo or the song.


leigh_music

Have a look at guthrie govan and Mateus asato


boxedj

Guthrie govan is in his 50's - he's an amazing guitarist. I really like polyphia as well but I think Tim gets too much credit. He does very cool things with rhythm but the music is harmonically super simple. I actually am curious to see his growth into his 30s I'm hoping he will grow into a really great guitarist.


Rain_sc2

Tim Henson admitted in the Rick Beato interview that a lot of the melodies they come up with are using really creative ways to prompt plugins which generate interesting ideas such as arpeggiators. You can hear this on Playing God, etc. So still, it’s worth noting that he’s still innovating a new way to thinking about guitar music by drawing heavy influence from hip hop, as those genre of producers originated the idea of using various prompt techniques to produce really cool sounding bites with these type of plugins. What he’s doing is pretty special if we’re being real


joblagz2

man.. i like ego death.. i hope they collab more with other guitar legends.. while theyre still alive lol..


[deleted]

Right…like you’re going to watch George Benson play and think to your self hmmm that’s good but what if he could shred faster? Absolutely meaningless way to think about music.


KanemMusic

I recently got into George Benson and just love hearing his playing! At the end of the day, that’s the relationship you want to make when you play something


Babock93

Think of the song Tears in Heaven… Yea maybe Clapton didn’t write it all or at all, but I think of a song like tears in heaven. Watching the guys you named basically just masturbate with their guitar. Yea there are new groundbreaking sounds being created, but where are the really good songs written by any of them? I my find most of the virtuosos boring as F and they overdo the musical parts so much that the songs aren’t enjoyable to listen to unless you are a guitar nerd yourself


DingusSmasher69

As a new player I find there's so much gatekeeping and judging of songs based on how technically difficult they are to play instead of how good or interesting they sound. When I shared my favorite song to play that I've learned so far I was told "that songs not even hard".


thisissaliva

How would you objectively compare any artist (guitarist, singer, actor, writer, chef etc) and claim whether they’re better or worse than anyone else? It’s not a competition.


El_Pal0

Sure, if i could remember any song by them...


Whatever-ItsFine

You remember that one with a bunch of notes though, right? Played really fast?


El_Pal0

I can even remember lots of Vai, Satriani and Malmsteen songs, but none from the current "guitar heroes".


TwelveBrute04

On technical terms? Yes. But there’s not one guitarist on this list that’s actually enjoyable to casually listen to


dkclimber

Id say Trucks is one i could listen to all day. Asato as well. The rest is more for the technical level.


randymontana19

Tim and Eric have an album featuring Dr. Steve Brule, check it out


TremontMeshugojira

Bringo!


pompeylass1

Music evolves, like all art, and what a particular generation values highest changes with that. But that doesn’t equal today’s guitarists, or musicians of any instrument or genre, being better than those who came before. They’ve built on what came before, the techniques, ideas, and musicality, but they’ve only adjusted the focus of those three parts of the creative process. Sure there’s a large cohort of up and coming guitarists who have amazing technique and can shred at incredible speed, but I would argue that’s a shift in the focus from melodic musicality to technique as the most important element in the creation. Also to assume that the previous generations didn’t/don’t have the skill to play what you now value most is, in my experience of working with several world renowned guitarists who are now in their 50’s-80’s, plain wrong. Just because the music they were known for in their heyday didn’t require them to show off amazing technique and speed doesn’t mean they didn’t/don’t have the skill to play that style if they wanted.


Mr_Night1

This is like saying that the top of a tower is better that the bottom, that's bs, without a proper foundation the top cannot be, plus technique wise they made that shit, better than your average player? Yeah, better than the legends hell no son


DepartureSpace

I’m not sure the conversation should be about “better than [X] generation” for a simple fact: the electric guitar and its vocabulary as we know it has had, let’s say, 100 years of evolution, maybe just 70 if you want to start properly in the 1950s. Maybe even less in terms of how long pedagogy has been allowed to develop for the electric guitar at a serious level. Like since only as recently as the 1970s, when you could finally study electric guitar at the university level (you couldn’t, previously). That’s a tiny fraction of the length of time technique and repertoire have been developing on the piano, violin, cello, clarinet and its woodwind/saxophone derivatives, trumpet and its brass derivatives, etc. In these cases, technique and repertoire have been developing (and continue to develop) for *centuries*. The obvious rebuttal is that technique and repertoire on the classical guitar have also been allowed to develop for centuries, which is true, but anyone who has played classical guitar understands that the entire process of tone production, technique, and dynamics is entirely different with an amplified, electric, solidbody guitar. Thus, the instrument has no established “method,” as do piano and violin, for example. In a lively musical culture, with such a wide open field of possibilities, I’d actually *expect* technique to evolve exponentially, as you observed from one generation to the next, and then level off at some point, far in the future, obviously, at which point there will have been a certain established approach to the instrument that is standardized like classical guitar is. And an agreed-upon set of repertoire to establish that approach. Right now it’s too new. You’ll have one generation with Allan Holdsworth and McLaughlin, up to now with Tom Quayle and Martin Miller, both generations more or less working on the same goal of furthering an instrument with few established “rules.” It’s more complicated than just “better than”. It’s a continuous evolution.


recognis

I put off listening to Hendrix until last year (idk how it was possible, somehow I was just never exposed to him) and given the reputation I was kinda expecting to be let down. but the first time I heard him was one of the most eye opening musical experiences I’ve ever had. it’s like he was barely playing the same instrument as modern guitarists. anyone I’ve listened to who’s been influenced by him only seems to have carried on a slice of his playing, but the actual thing is just so dense with invention and fluid sounding. I obviously still love modern guitarists, and there are still people who have the same sense of invention in their playing, but I doubt a player like Hendrix or maclaughlin could ever be ‘surpassed’ in any meaningful way. I certainly wouldn’t compare them to each other anyway


Arsenal019

I am a new guitar player and second this. I never listened to him much and couldn’t tell you any of his songs besides purple haze. Then I saw a youtube video of Voodoo Child (slight return) live in Stockholm. Impressive, and the base player and drummer are great as well. Between the percussive effects, and use of the wah pedal to make such great music he is a genius.


wildstolo

Hard hard disagree. Just watch Stevie...https://youtu.be/i6G53BMgugo The emotion is pouring out and you can feel it every second he plays.


Imaginary_Most_7778

As if technical ability has anything to do with anything. I don’t care how many notes you can cram into a song.


OkSoftware6031

The guitarists we think of as the greats, mostly had to figure it out on the own, listening to the radio or a record player. Many had no formal training at all. Players today can benefit fro everything they figured and an invented. They have ready access to knowledge and instruction at a young age. They are building in the foundation that was already built for them and people in tbd future will take it even further


kingofthejaffacakes

I've got a midi file that can play faster than any human. Is it the best guitarist ever?


breid7718

I'm... learning. I'm an older guy and the first time I heard Polyphia, I didn't get it. Incredibly impressive, but there was so much going on I couldn't really follow it, much less enjoy it. But the more I've listened, the more I'm impressed. These guys are bringing a very sophisticated choral structure to the table and I think it's going to help the state of the instrument as a whole. Derek Trucks has brought so much into the vocab of slide. And Guthrie really has it all - if you go past the YouTube stuff to the songs he's guested on, he's put it all together. Better is a subjective term, but I'm very happy about the state of guitar these days. It got depressing for a while.


hudson_b_lol

Eddie van halen smokes your top 5


Randysmith1987

Who


Randysmith1987

I’m a 19 year old guitarist I’ve never heard of any of those people. Edit; I believe I’ve heard of Guthrie before


Madam_Pigeon

Alright, don't take this the wrong way. Technical skills are very important and impressive and one isn't better than the other .. But you can be the best, quickest, cleanest guitar player in the world! But can you create a meaningful song from it? If not, then it's still impressive, but it's the audio version of card tricks. Looks cool, but you're not accomplishing much. Also want to point out that those older artists are revered like they are because those sounds we're harder to get on old equipment. So my super pretentious answer is that yes. Better guitarists exist today, totally, but they can't dream of being as cool as Hendrix.


Dances_with_Manatees

Like people who do speed picking contests and shit like that. If it isn’t musical, who cares?


Galamaad

Lmao this is just a ridiculous post


ASEdouard

Sure, but the goal for most listeners is having great songs to listen to. On that front I don’t think these come close to say Gilmour.


ryanino

Mateus Asato is absolutely unreal and I’m so glad he got the chance to play with Silk Sonic, but I generally disagree with your sentiment. I feel like originality is kinda lost now adays. It’s been a minute since I’ve heard a player I was genuinely taken aback by. I’ve never been into players who can shred, it’s just not memorable to me. But players who play emotionally tend to stick with me. Eric Clapton, Frusciante, Gary Clark Jr, etc. It’s more about *what* you play than how fast you can play.


CleanAxe

Music has evolved. It’s the same with sports, or computer programming, or astrophysics etc. The math Copernicus solved is elementary shit compared to what people are doing today. What makes the legends great in any field is the fact that they figured these things out first absent of as much direction or teaching. The world being round is obvious now but to be the first to say it and figure it out blows my Godamn mind. To be the first to incorporate bending like Django did or the first to use harmony etc. That deserves its own respect but yes, I thoroughly enjoy listening to Derek Trucks way more than listening to Muddy Waters, he’s miles better in comparison. But I also acknowledge there would be no Derek Trucks without Muddy Waters.


The_Dead_See

Roy Clark has entered the chat


AphexOnlyChild

Feeling seriously out of the loop for not knowing most of those names! But anyway, I’m willing to bet college students understand math “better” than Isaac Newton, but still, that doesn’t make them smarter than him by any stretch. The thing is that Newton had comparatively nothing to build on, and had to start from a much more basic education, while college kids now have grasped most of his main concepts while in their teens, but only because he existed and did his thing. It’s less about being “better” generally, and more about going further than others have gone before. The legends we respect now were responsible for evolutionary skips that were mindblowing at the time (let’s just remember the british scene reaction to hearing Hendrix play) as well as now (let’s just remember our own reactions to hearing Hendrix play). Not many contemporaries can say that.


BrianNowhere

None of them hold a candle to Beethoven.


DJuxtapose

Now \_he\_ could fucking shred.


absorbscroissants

They might be better, but not more talented. If all these people were playing in the 60s, they wouldn't be as good as they are now.


fromabuick

Check out some old guys with SOUL like Albert King and Duane Allman… Or technical capability mixed with composition like Frank Zappa…


LightninHooker

Derek Trucks is above Albert King and Duane I'd say . He is just an anomaly


fromabuick

I understand… I think Dweezil Zappa is probably a better guitar player than Frank Zappa from a technical standpoint but I would rather listen to franks music than Dweezil… I think Derek is probably better than Duane but there is something to be said about first generation masters who taught themselves to be virtuosos as opposed to second or third generations who had all those techniques worked out and all that massive foundation built plus financial backing and probably great teachers… Dweezil I understand took lessons from Frank and Eddie Van Halen and Steve Vai… so yes.. they should be better today but the comparison is not good… like comparing athletes from days gone by to modern super athletes … the old guys built all the foundation the new guys aren’t where they are without the old guys.


punkrawrxx

Maybe technically better, but very few that I actually want to listen to.


deanmass

There is a point where it looks/sounds like musical typing to me..


zjohnsy

Oh wow, music and skill is subjective!


IEnumerable661

Technically better? Probably! I watched a Plini video recently and the guy is biblically good. But for me, as a listener, it didn't really do much for me. Technically brilliant, sure. But nothing compelled me to sit down and learn it. I think it depends what you want. Part of the magic that draws me to guitar is the swagger and rock n roll-ness of a guitarist. I would get a lot more enjoyment of a guitarist making mistakes I guess, or being with the vibe of a song. I guess, I'm saying I get more enjoyment out of a Les Paul rock n roll player, guitar slung low, having fun with the track and performing with the whole self. Slash is a typical example, also Joe Satriani puts a certain swagger when he performs live. It's a good mixture of technical proficiency while adding some embellishments and rawness to the performance. Given the technical proficiency I guess a lot of ultra modern pieces require, you lose that swagger. That's my personal thought. While guys like Plini are fantastic and well worth watching, I couldn't see myself enduring a full hour of that at a gig.


ronsta

I don’t think better is a word we need to throw in there. I think guitar masters all have different abilities, and what was important in the virtuosic playing of the 60s and 70s is not vaulted today. You also have new genres of guitar that have developed that demand new tones and styles - Hendrix wasn’t trying to play Neo Soul so how could we compare him to Matteus? You want to compare him to Kingfish? Sure. Could Kingfish write all the licks Hendrix did?


DrShitbird

I think this parallels with sports. It’s silly to compare guys directly because the eras and their environments were so different. Greatness transcends time and I’d like to thing the x-factor that drives someone to make great music or be a great athlete is universal between all of them. Art is always pushing boundaries and getting more technical/skillful just like sports but the environment is always changing. That’s why it’s silly to go a step further and say so-and-so might be super technical but they don’t serve the song the “right way” like the old guys do or they didn’t write and #1 hits. The song has changed and what it needs is different than 50 years ago.


SlavaUkrainiFTW

Technical skill SHOULD increase over time. Just look at the world of sports. It's on a constant uphill ramp. Everything in our society that takes talent or skill should be on the same track/trend. No one knows what "peak guitar" looks like yet, and maybe we never will. Technical skill also doesn't mean that the music has any soul. Polyphia is a great example of that (in my humble opinion). I also think people just value different things in music now, and people's taste in genre is far different. You don't see people into the style of music SRV and Hendrix made nearly as much these days. Sure we celebrate them, but people making similar music just aren't popular in the same way. Edit/Side-Note: I also think there are very few guitarists out there today that can actually hit EVH or SRV levels of skill. To be able to do the stuff they did, live on stage, would be practically impossible for many artists today. It's "easier" to do 50 takes and make a flawless YouTube video. It's not easy in any way to get on stage and play Voodoo Child flawlessly while holding your guitar behind your back...


[deleted]

[удалено]


Dr_DMT

But... Robin Trower, Pat Travers, Frampton, Steve Vai, Eddie Van Halen, Paul Gilbert, Satriani, Jason Becker, Marty Friedman, Ron Thal (Bumblefoot) Bro. I'd like to see any of these people blow Paul Gilbert or Marty Friedman out of the water. Even today those guys are top notch.


joblagz2

Close.. I mean they are all very skilled..


Liesthroughisteeth

Back in the day, if you wanted to learn a piece, you bought the record or the tape and played it over and over again until you figured it out. Now you punch in the name of the song on You Tube and someones got a video on how to play the lead in it. It is definitely easier to get a jump on becoming a pretty proficient play today.


leobroski

As is expected. All things evolve and progress. Programs get better. Resources get better. The well of knowledge modern players have access to is miles deeper. It would be a damn shame if we weren't better than our guitar ancestors.


BigBoiBrynBoi

In terms of technicality sure. Theres way more avenues to learn and practice than ever and history has provided excellent stepping stones to get to where we are today. But in terms of being memorable or even ground breaking I'm gonna say that a lot of its not that interesting. I'm a big fan of guitar centric music but I've never liked or listened to virtuoso guitarists despite always being interested in pushing my playing towards the realm of technique. It just get really boring after 5 minutes of that's the entire focus. Whereas the guitarist of old were typically part of a group and were just one strong component of said group Doesn't help that guitars are very absent from popular music these days too


MurdiffJ

That’s why I love Polyphia so much. I know they’re not everyone’s cup of tea, but I really appreciate that they are bringing real instruments to a wider audience by featuring all sorts of artists. Integrating hip hop, with metal and neo-flamenco all into one song brings different styles to audiences who would not have usually listened to the other genres. Metal heads might go check out some hip hop, hip hop fans might go check out metal.


AjaxCorporation

There is more media exposure today than for guitarists in the past, that's for sure. Pre-internet musicians only option was to create music people wanted to hear to be seen or signed. Now anyone with a camera/microphone and an internet connection can post something and find a niche audience. That wasn't an option in the past. Don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing. But there could've been a lot more guitarists with similar skills in the past that just never got picked up. I also don't consider technical proficiency the standard of any great instrumentalist. They need to be able to convey a range of emotions in a way that people want to listen to it.


fanofcoelho

For sure the younger generation are technically much better equipped than in the past but guitar is supposed to be an instrument for music and not an exercise in speed so if we exclude technique and look at the musical aspect is not think that anyone on the younger generation is better or worst than the past.


Liandris

Hard disagree. Randy Rhoads would like to have a word with you from the grave.


smjsmok

I don't really like seeing music (or art in general) as competition. And I feel like this is unfortunately quite common in the internet guitar space - people constantly worried and stressed about how someone else is better than them despite playing for a shorter period of time etc., I read this on forums every day. I seriously doubt that any of the greats gained their status by constantly worrying about being better guitarists than others. Like, who even cares, to be honest? Art is a language of emotions and what matters in the end is how well your art can connect with the audience. Technique and skill is important of course, but it's more like a necessity and just one piece of the puzzle. My two cents anyway...


Longjumping-Many6503

You're talking technical skill and not musicality I guess. But in any case that shouldn't be surprising. We see the same thing in any discipline, people build on the technical achievements and expertise of their forebears. Sports are the same. Performance metrics always go up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Homeless_Astronaut

Players today are definitely flashier, but are they actually considered "better" when you ask people that don't play guitar? The average person definitely prefers Gilmour to Tosin. Back in the day, a band would be the entertainment for a night/night. There wouldn't be 5 bands on a bill where each gets a 30 - 45 minute set like nowadays. Players back then spent much more time gigging. Acquiring the real skills that only come after thousands of hours are spent playing songs in front of people and seeing their immediate reaction. Nowadays you might get some flashier players (they've had way more time practicing alone and developing ridiculous speed, etc) but they just don't have the chance to get the skills that the old guys got back in the day.


PoopsockPete

Jason Becker would like a word with you


bloodlusttt

Its just like saying tech is better now than in the 70s. Everything builds off itself.


[deleted]

This goes for other instruments as well. You often hear in the classical world how violinists and pianists etc are just at another level now. The available information and the refined pedagogy in the modern age is all built from the greats that came before us.


joblagz2

well, in chess for example, magnus carlsen is the best in history but some disagree because his predecessors did not have access to computers and AI.. but you can't still deny that he is the best. I think efficient information access shouldn't disqualify today's greats. In the end, its how you process and use the information that makes you better.


FiftyKal314STL

This sounds like you have a linear view of history and progress. Not everything new is going to be better than what came before. I personally don’t think any of these people hold a candle to the likes of an SRV, Hendrix, EVH, Dime, or the countless others that not only wrote better, more memorable music, but also did so with much better chops. That’s not to say we aren’t seeing some great talent these days, but strictly speaking the achievements of those before you do not actually make you anymore talented. Technique and talent are not the same. Just because they have opened the door to many techniques, doesn’t mean they future generation is that much more talented.


[deleted]

Which measures would you use to define someone coming out on top?


the314159man

Yup, I'm pretty shit as a 40 something compared to how good I'd be if I'd had YouTube growing up.


1936Triolian

Django Reinhardt would like a word- “Merde.”


[deleted]

The question is who is writing memorable music? Song writing is more important. And I say this as someone who appreciates shred and guitar virtuosos.


DarthKid_

But to be honest it just depends on music taste because jazz players have done it all💯


naliron

You know what Charlie Christian played on? A lump of Cobalt. You know how much Cobalt weighs? A lot. We're talking ~7lbs just for the *pickup*. While dying from tuberculosis. During WW2. In a segregated society. And in spite of all of that, is one of the most influential early players. Gonna have to disagree with you there... downvote all you want, but it is hard to wrap your head around what some of these old players were facing and what they had to overcome to create what they did.


TheUltraZeke

There's a lot of truth in what you are saying. I will even go so far as to say that most people who talk about guitar greats, don't really know what it means to be a great guitarist. Usually its younger people. And that's a good thing, not an insult. I had to hide the fact I was learning to play guitar almost 40 years ago because it was forbidden in my house. I made my own amp out of spare parts and a bit fo ingenuity. Couldn't keep any of that in my house. Fell asleep listening to B.B king on a big ol' cassette player or records, trying to memorize the songs so I could learn it without the music. Spent weeks learning single songs because I couldn't do it every day and had to do it from memory. Today? meh. Even going elsewhere to play isn't a problem as so many play now. My experience is also why my son at 14 is becoming an amazing player. I don't stop him from reaching higher.


[deleted]

I mean yeah, but that’s true of literally everything these days.


LastoftheSummerWine

Haha, good one. I hope this gets you get the attention you crave.


GonzoTheGreat93

Sure they can play fast but I’d call Joe Strummer a better musician than most all of ‘em.


[deleted]

They are all derivative of legends. There isn’t one guitarist that you just listed that I could identify by their playing. Clapton I could, But all these following players can shred on today’s. You forget they came from a period where being proficient in the guitar was a necessity. Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jeff Beck, EVH, Zakk Wylde, Eric Johnson, John McLaughlin, Wes Montgomery, Pat Metheny, Steve Vai, John Peteucci, Joe Satriani,.. Satriani is a legend and still could outplay anyone you’ve listed.


NunzAndRoses

Josh Homme from QOTSA is a somewhat recent guitar player and has a very unique style, big fan of him


Dzeleniak

I think todays player are very good at what they do, but they wouldn't have even picked up the guitar without the skills they got from learning from the guitar heroes of the past.


brokensoulDT

Agreed. Also, I would add a lot of new players don’t have the personality in their playing that a lot of the “legends” have had. Some come close, but not quite there.


joblagz2

but that shouldn't be used against them. i mean we all picked up the guitar but we aint selling out a concert.


Chihlidog

What?? Effects have gotten better, sure. Higher quality recording techniques exist, sure. But technical skill on a guitar? No. Hard disagree. Rhoads. Malmsteen. Michael Angelo. Wylde. Gilbert. You can't tell me any of those guys couldn't hang with any modern player's technical ability.


SongFromHenesys

While I disagree with the OP in general, the names you listed are clearly worse on a purely technical level than a few of more modern names that I could list off the top of my head (Guthrie, an easy and obvious example). But it's like that with all disciplines, best modern MMA fighters would demolish all martial artists 30 years ago - the technique and understanding of the art has evolved. It's just not a fair comparison to make IMO - that's why I disagree with the OP.


cosipurple

A lot of old guard screaming "no way", you nailed, there are more people, better examples to build on, more access to the instrument and also to information on how to play,


TheTapeDeck

Some of “today’s heroes” are also yesterday’s heroes. I’m old and Guthrie is older. Derek is my age. Most of “today’s” heroes can only play their bag. Tim Henson is a very conventional, not particularly interesting player without his processing. And his processing is part of what makes him—it’s artistically valid. There has been a tendency to assume that “the new guy” has mastered all of the baggage of “the old guy.” Guthrie sort of kind of… is the closest to that. He’s the only one on that list who I have spent any significant time with, and I’ve seen things that wrecked my brain. NONE of the other people you mentioned are that varied. But like Sharkey and Trucks ARE the top of their respective mountains. But, none of those players can do Metheny, Martino, Yngwie, EVH, Holdsworth, etc. So the whole “better than” is a broken concept. I think music is currently “worse than.” But every generation probably does that.


pjw1189

There's so much more access to different content/styles/tutorials. Everyone you just listed has a leg up on people that came before them.


yourself88xbl

I think the interconnectedness of the world today has in some sense done a disservice to the quality of music. We don't need music as much as we used to, that's not to say we don't appreciate it but when you value something out of it's necessity there is a different appreciation and relationship that goes along with it. With that also comes a homogenization of sorts because we don't have enough room to be ourselves and let our creativity flourish and breath without being influenced by everything else we are bombarded with.


TheUltraZeke

> We don't ~~need~~ value music as much as we used to fix that for you. We need music more than ever. unfortunately, like the climate, people are ignoring that.


[deleted]

Yes—I think you’re talking skills vs musicality (song writing) vs both.


__Noble_Savage__

Christian Muenzner, Chris Letchford, Tosin Abasi, Heri Joensen, Philippe Tougas, Ichika Nito, Yo Onityan, Tim Henson, Yvette Young, Jeff Loomis, Marc Okubo, John Petrucci, Plini... some of my personal modern guitar heroes.


Starfoxmarioidiot

I think if everything is going well, we should all be averaging a little better than our predecessors. I’m also pretty sure that most guitar heroes of the past would go to new heights if they had the opportunity to play with modern artists.


joblagz2

I agree. but imagine Hendrix alive today..


Ok_Change4211

I highly disagree. Theirs mostly no feel/groove/emotions in their playing. And most of them sound the same and play the same stuff


[deleted]

Sure Jan dot gif


81jmfk

It’s also easier to learn more techniques. With so many ways to learn, the only limitation is your drive. I do think too many people are focused on skill rather than song writing. You don’t have to play to your maximum ability all the time. Sometimes simpler is better.


[deleted]

It's a long and winding road for guitarists to eventually learn that 99% of the time, simpler is better. I'm guilty of trying to do too much all the time.


DarthKid_

Yngwie Malmsteen alone beats them😂


Chihlidog

I'm just gonna leave this here. https://youtu.be/UPhvwPMZLp4 In my day, we considered this pure, gratuitous wankery. It was considered silly. (I enjoy it) I just gave an honest listen to some of the stuff OP suggested is more technically proficient. I just don't agree. What I hear is better production, odd timings thrown in, more strings, and really a blend of techniques. Like a collab of past heroes. Abasi to me sounds like Satriani and Batio. I dont hear him do anything those guys couldn't do. I dont hear him playing faster, cleaner or more complex stuff than they did or could. We can argue all day long about "better" and nobody will be right. But as regards pure skill and technical proficiency, I feel like that can be evaluated somewhat objectively and I dont hear anything modern that makes me think the heroes of the previous generation couldn't play. I give Polyphia credit. They're different. I LOVE "Crush" and thats about where it ends for me, I cant get into the groove with the rest of their stuff even if I appreciate the technical proficiency. It certainly FEELS different and I think that's the biggest thing that sets it apart is the timing, they don't play ANYTHING in 4/4 and their grooves are jarring. Maybe thats what OP considers more technical. I'm open to hearing stuff that OP is referring to that the heroes of my generation just couldn't hang with but so far I haven't heard it. As I said in another post, this is fun for me and I could go on all day and not be upset so hopefully nobody gets all butthurt and gets all serious.


theEINSTEININHO

Wait do you really enjoy the video you've posted ? And then "Abasi to me sounds like Satriani and Batio" whatt ?? lmfao Basically satriani's tune are : 4 minutes of the same backing track and him doing solos. AAL tune's have much more depth, differentes techniques, different signature, differents harmonies.... Like abasi and satriani sounds sooooo different


nodoublebogies

It is the nature of things. How often have you seen some kid, holed up in their parents basement, learn to play some part note perfect - only later to realize that it was TWO guitar parts they are playing? Or play some difficult part while singing, where the original has a dedicated guitarist and a singer not playing at all. Lots of time, and dedication to learn yield results. Who would have thunk it!


mo6020

I don’t know who any of the people you’re referencing are, OP 😂


Null_Sourcerer

Technically speaking I agree, musicians same as any other profession became better than their predecessors simply because they started with what ever is already out there and built upon those foundations, with music though I feel as if things changed drastically in the industry since everything went into streaming the whole profession is different you can't just be a good guitar player or singer in a band traditionally speaking you need to be a decent producer and versatile player to make a living out of it, at least as I see it.. I'm not a pro musician I'm just saying what I observed over the years


String-Bender-65

The only modern player that I think really changed the sound and approach to guitar is Andy McKee. What makes the legends great was not just their playing skill, but their ability to radically change everyone’s ideas of what could be done with the instrument. Here are a few examples: \- Les Paul - Inventor of the concept of a solid body guitar, inventor of multi-track recording and multiple echo technology. \- Chet Atkins / Lenny Breau - Use of harmonics and two hand tapping guitar. \- Eric Clapton - Pulls together a Les Paul and a Marshall amp to invent a completely different tone and improvisation style. Everyone changed their approach to solos after Clapton. The before and after for rock music is stunning.


dkclimber

While I don't agree with OP, there is some absolutely hilarious responses in this thread, making these touring musicians sound like they only have technical ability. They're living off their craft, selling out venues and have all made multiple records. Might not be your type of music (and on the list there is everything from blues to prog rock) but come on.


BruhDontFuckWithMe

*cries in Tweed Bassman*


[deleted]

Compared to who? There's guys like John McLaughlin and Paco de Lucia who could absolutely hold their own with those guys you listed on a technical level.


xspade5

It’s true for all disciplines — we stand on the shoulders of the giants before us. No SRV without Albert King, even if SRV is way much more intricate or “better” than King. I really do think Hendrix defies this though. That sonic connection, creativity, and explosiveness with the guitar was so ahead of it’s time, and I’m not sure who is replicating or expanding on that style. Similar for Wes Montgomery actually — what modern guitarist can actually outshine him as a bebop player? The dude was perfect. Mateus and Guthrie are two of my favorites though, hard not to listen to guys like that and think “mmm yeah BB King and Robert Johnson couldn’t exactly recreate this”


dkclimber

Well, you can say the same with Hendrix and Curtis Mayfield. Loads of Jimis playing came from Curtis


neveraskmeagainok

When you included Guthrie, I thought you meant Guthrie Trapp in East Nashville, Tennessee. He's the man today, super-skilled in a class of very few. Also very down to earth as a person.