Talk:Guitarist

message: Why is Rory not in the montage? I know it's down to preference and is debateable, but he was one of the blues guitarist greats, and is widely under-appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeC525 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rory Gallagher

message: I fail to see how a list of guitarists is useful to someone searching for information about guitarists and the roel of guitarists. Especially when a list is pointed to in the "See Also" section. This page should be moved to a seperate topic in order for information on the role of the guitarist (a quite detailed subject) to be set in its place. --The Pain 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Information

message: I realize that Fish isn't a particularly noteworthy case, but she's at least as notable as some of the others given, and as far as I can tell, is the only representative of the filk genre on the list. If others object, I will not challenge a redaction. -Schol-R-LEA 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leslie Fish

message: Am I the only one who doubts the validity of an all-encompassing list of "notable guitarists"? -leigh
This page is bad. It needs a fuller description of 'a guitarist' and that list definitely needs scrubbing or condensing. A short written 'History of famous guitarists' or something similar should be incorporated.
----
I agree too that this list is heavily skewed, as it does not include people who the famous guitarists on the list themselves mentioned in many interviews as their influence. I'm referring, for example, to:  Django Rheinhardt, Wes Montgomery.  77.127.212.198 (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity

message: Should he but put under both rock and blues? It's hard to pin his style down. Deltabeignet 23:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Clapton

message: The lead-guitarist of  The Shadows,  a group known in many countries (remember Apache, Wonderful Land, Atlantis, Theme from a Deer Hunter, etc. etc.), Hank B. Marvin, doesn't even appear in the list as well as there is no page on The Shads.
Shame on you, Englishmen!
A Belgian
(who's English is too poor to write the pages himself)
Thundercloud 11:28, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Shadows

message: Seriously, why does this page exist? We have Category:Guitarists. Would anyone object if I put all these names in the abovementioned category and then nominated this page for WP:VFD? Better idea: I'll turn it into a stub, because a worthwhile article could grow here about the history of guitarists and public perception of them. Right? I understand that then all the "red links" here would be lost, but if this is the only page that contains a link to a yet-unformed article, then it's probably not a terribly high priority, is it? -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:06, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
:categories are a newish addition to WP, this page predates them by some margin. I'd say leave it, since it's not doing any harm. WP is not paper - if an article is redundant then its existence won't bother anybody. On the other hand some may prefer to use this page rather than a category page, or it would facilitate a search on "guitarist", which helps the user. Really the page should be called List of guitarists - if anything should be done at all a simple move should suffice. Graham 22:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: One advantage of lists over categories is that lists suggest articles which need to be written. Hyacinth 04:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: We also have List of guitarists (Blues, Jazz, Rock, Metal) and List of bass guitarists (Blues, Jazz, Rock, Metal). Either all of these should be deleted/categorified, or we should turn this one into a disambiguation page and create list of guitarists (classical and folk) or some such article. --DDerby-(talk) 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that there's an effort to improve Guitar. The article Guitarist is different than the other two lists, and they'll be worked after Guitar is improved. +MATIA  ☎ 12:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this page exist? May I delete it? 

message: There is no possible justification of fairuse in this article.  It is a simple list of names.  It's not about the subject of the photo.  Album covers belong in articles about the album, not here.  Please use public domain or GFDL images only for this article.  --Rob 03:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please NO fairuse images in this article 

message: Why is there a picture of Jewel?  She's hardly notable as a guitarist; there's many guitarists in the acoustic/folk category that could better represent the genre(s) far better than Jewel. Dubc0724 12:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a free image of a more notable guitarist, please add it.  Clearly the page is better with the image, then without.   --Rob 18:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look around.  I'm sure we can come up with photos of far more accomplished guitarists than the two we have posted here currently. Dubc0724 17:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewel?

message: Okay, this article is ridiculous.  There is already List of guitarists and :Category:Guitarists.  I propose removing the laundry list of guitarists (and merging into List of guitarists if there are exclusive entries) and starting an article about guitarists.  Please chime in below and we can get to work. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content poll 

message: * --Aguerriero (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damn 

message: The silence is deafening....  Anyway, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the list of List of guitarists by genre for now.  Then we can work on making this an article about being a guitarist, not just a list. --Aguerriero (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving 

message: Switched image back to a faceless generic shot to avoid crufter additions of their POV fan favourites. The article lists no specific artists so the image should remain just as neutral. 156.34.142.110 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone attempted to switch for their personal POV favorite guitarist. The article has been switched to the more proper "faceless" guitarist. 202.160.48.156 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Josh Homme is NOT my favorite guitarist.  But he is a guitarist.  Stop replacing this image with a pair of disembodied hands and a blurry guitar; it's a shitty, poorly composed image.  I'm not attached to the current picture, but if you're going to replace it, at least find a high quality image that focuses on a guitarist.  If you can do that, we'll all be happy.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Neutral "art" images can be found here any number of them could stand in for the already more than suitable "faceless" image. But if other editors want a face... then the face should be from a free use art image that avoids having an "editor favourite". 203.167.191.240 07:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cmt. The first Degas portrait is clear and good quality... and it has a face. 203.167.191.240 08:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 stubborn users don't constitute consensus (and of course nor does 1 stubborn fat man). And for pete's sake, I didn't insist it must have a "face"; I insisted that it focus on a person, not an instrument; this article is about people who play the guitar.  Moreover, please try to pick an aesthetically pleasing image.  If you insert that awful image one more time, I'm going to have a difficulty continuing to assume good faith.  Another image from commons is fine; but please pick a good one.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 10:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic switch 

message: I deleted the following from the article...
"Guitar One Magazine named Michael Angelo Batio the fastest guitar player of all time."
For the following reasons
1) It's not particularly relevant to purpose of the article.
2) Judgements of who is the "fastest" vary from publication to publication and rapidly become outdated.--RadioElectric (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody put it back. I removed it again for the same reasons, especially #2. Wikipedia should not be a random collection of ephemera. __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "fastest guitarist" 

message: I just took out a totally incoherent "paragraph" that amounted to "Thisguitarist rules.That one is thebest.Your deluded if you think the other one doesn't rock." Incoherent in that it didn't hang together at all, being just a collection of randomly added various unsourced opinions and vague assertions. Did I throw out any babies with that bathwater? __Just plain Bill (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing chronic quality problem

message: I would play for the angels.--Feeling Guitar 92 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I had a guitar... 

message: I apologise if some of the editors for this stub may be new to Wikipedia. I appreciate your well-intentioned efforts! However, I must point out- this is an encyclopedia. It is not a fan site. Not MySpace, or a You Tube contest to see whose favourite guitarists are the best, or whatever. If you are editing this, please, take this advice from someone who has been there- find several really experienced editors and discuss whatever outline for a new article you would like to see. If you do not have such an outline, stop, and reconsider. Do you want a factual article that lists reliable references for their lists of top guitarists? If so, photos come last, if at all. Placing a paragraph about guitars and art totally threw me-- what?! What IS this article about? Think about the multitude of genres of music that guitarists play. Do you really think you can cover them all here? I see rock, and jazz. And art (?!) And one of the photos I uploaded, with no explanation in the text about why it's here. Please. Take down the photographs (which are 1/2 of my area of interest on Wikipedia), and rethink the reliable lists of guitarists (the other half of my focus on Wikipedia) and how you expect this page to work. Be bold, but get some experienced advice.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocked at this stub 

message: You forgot the greatest guitarist of all time;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOptDDU3rOo&feature=related  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.13.93 (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Roy Buchanan? 

message: I have removed the montage of guitarists for the moment. It is totally unnecessary within the article and will only bring up arguments of why x guitarist is not in the montage (some of my favourite players were not there). There is already this quote within the article which is just as fitting to this problem:
"A 2009 book, The 100 Greatest Metal Guitarists, attempted to define the best players of the heavy metal field and caused much controversy in doing so." 
That montage is just as controversial as who is regarded as the top players is just as opinionated.
--Alowishus321 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montage of guitarists 

message: The biggest section on this article, Notable guitarists, is completely opinion based (opinions are still opinions even if they appear in published media) and inherently biased. Any mention of favoritism about a specific guitarist or even about a musical genre over another should be removed from this article including that Top guitarists montage. This article should be about the history of the profession, how it has evolved through time and space, and how society's perception of guitarists has evolved. Of course a few names should be incorporated but only in the context of historical significance, NOT to compare "best" guitarists. If it helps, this article should be like physicist. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the following image and section as it is biased and does not follow WP:POV -Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should not be about the "Best" and "Notable" guitarists 

message: Kirk Hammett, Kurt Cobain, Jack White and Keith Richards in the top 20. No Joe Satriani, Larry Carlton, Neal Schon, Steve Vai, Paco de lucia, Al di Meola? What a joke!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  FU#Text_2 is the policy I'm conforming to by removing non-free content (partial recreation of Top 10 list selected in a creative fashion). This was stated in the edit summary. I'm disappointed that an experienced editor chose to revert this without checking the policy in question or leaving an edit summary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I realise I've been abrupt. I tend towards the "eliminate on sight" mindset when it comes to copyright vio and was irritated that a change I made (clearly quoting policy in edit summary) was reverted without comment. I'll explain my rationale further.I think the policy regarding this is quite clear though: "partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner".I'd also like to direct everyone to the Attorney Feedback section of this discussion on non-free content, specifically "if you list the top 5 out of a top 20 or even top 100 list, it's less likely to be fair use because the top 5 is usually what the public is the most interested in. Whereas if you give #2, #6, and #18-20, even though you are giving up the same percentage, it is more likely to be considered fair use".I hope this explains my stance and my removal of the top 10 list from the article. I'll be keeping an eye on this talkpage so if you agree with me or think I'm plain wrong and the info should be reinserted then feel free to say so! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling Stone

message: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text_2 calls 'a complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner' unacceptable. Here is a diff. The Rolling Stone "top 10" list has stood in this article for a long time. (It has also been a troll/vandal magnet for a long time, but that is a side issue in this context.) I don't care if it stays or goes, but here is a place to comment on it. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  FU#Text_2 is the policy I'm conforming to by removing non-free content (partial recreation of Top 10 list selected in a creative fashion). This was stated in the edit summary. I'm disappointed that an experienced editor chose to revert this without checking the policy in question or leaving an edit summary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I realise I've been abrupt. I tend towards the "eliminate on sight" mindset when it comes to copyright vio and was irritated that a change I made (clearly quoting policy in edit summary) was reverted without comment. I'll explain my rationale further.I think the policy regarding this is quite clear though: "partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner".I'd also like to direct everyone to the Attorney Feedback section of this discussion on non-free content, specifically "if you list the top 5 out of a top 20 or even top 100 list, it's less likely to be fair use because the top 5 is usually what the public is the most interested in. Whereas if you give #2, #6, and #18-20, even though you are giving up the same percentage, it is more likely to be considered fair use".I hope this explains my stance and my removal of the top 10 list from the article. I'll be keeping an eye on this talkpage so if you agree with me or think I'm plain wrong and the info should be reinserted then feel free to say so! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free content

message: Lists like this are stupid; they give us no more useful information than a beauty contest.
Jimi Hendrix, the #1 greatest guitarist of all time?  Give me a break.  One of the most influential, certainly.  And he did contribute something unique (at the time) to the genre.  But his short career, limited stylistic explorations, and meager output (he only released four albums in his lifetime, with about 3-1/2 albums worth of original material among them), certainly don't place him anywhere near history's greatest masters of the instrument. 
Where is Paco?  Segovia?  Robert deVisee?  Carlos Montoya?  Django Reinhart?  Grant Green (who played all those Les Paul licks without speeding up the tape...)?  What of Julian Bream?  How about Kauhito Yamashita (who made the first complete guitar transcription of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" and recorded it solo)?  Where are any of the Romeros?  Carcassi, Guilanni, or Paganini (who together defined what we now think of as "guitar")?  Egberto Gismonti?  Charlie Christian?  Sonny Sharock?  Larry Coryell?  Derek Bailey?  John Fahey?  David Bromberg?  Adrian Legg?
Instead we get Lindsey Buckingham, Paul Simon, and Joni Mitchell(!!!)??  Mitchell and Bonnie Raitt, BTW, are the only two women who ever seem to appear on these lists.  What about Renata Tarragó?  Mary Ford?  Kaki King?  Mimi Fox?  
Instead of lists of The Greatest Guitarists of All Time these would be better called This Year's List of the Most Popular Guitarists the List Compiler Happens to Have Heard Of
Oy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Guitarist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130605091245/http://blogcritics.org:80/the-top-100-guitarists-according-to/ to http://blogcritics.org/the-top-100-guitarists-according-to/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the following is the proper hatnote system for this page according to Wikipedia:Hatnote:
First, we need to disambiguate similarly-titled article about the British magazine, which we do with  per WP:SIMILAR. Then, because the "Guitar player" redirects to "Guitarist", and it is not similar to the article title, and because it is an ambiguous term, we use  per WP:AMBIGTERM.
This is standard procedure. To name a few examples, the exact system of hatnotes I describe is used on Mathematics, Psychology (the second two hatnotes), and Duck (the first hatnote is , but the point is that the  is there and separate, as it should be here).
It's unclear why this procedural change requires consensus after a random IP address reverted the edit without a proper explanation. Thrakkx (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote