GatewayRedbirds.com

Swirls wrote:I just don't see how someone who was only performing for 4-5 years could be considered the best ever.

Bring on the backlash.

Terrence Malick has made all of seven films, and is on every list of the greatest directors of all-time. (And was by the time he had made his fifth, at the very latest.) What's length got to do with it?

Also, Tom Verlaine, Kevin Shields and Thurston Moore smoke most of these guitarists mentioned.

The Third Man wrote:

Swirls wrote:I just don't see how someone who was only performing for 4-5 years could be considered the best ever.

Bring on the backlash.

Terrence Malick has made all of seven films, and is on every list of the greatest directors of all-time. (And was by the time he had made his fifth, at the very latest.) What's length got to do with it?

Also, Tom Verlaine, Kevin Shields and Thurston Moore smoke most of these guitarists mentioned.

Because he never had time to perfect and hone his craft.

Sure he was brilliant on it. Nobody will every deny that fact. But to say someone was the best ever when they only played for a few years compared to someone like Eric Clapton or Santana who have been amazeballs on guitar for 50 years?

One of the greatest? Sure. So like perhaps Top 10. But no way #1.

Swirls wrote:

The Third Man wrote:

Swirls wrote:I just don't see how someone who was only performing for 4-5 years could be considered the best ever.

Bring on the backlash.

Terrence Malick has made all of seven films, and is on every list of the greatest directors of all-time. (And was by the time he had made his fifth, at the very latest.) What's length got to do with it?

Also, Tom Verlaine, Kevin Shields and Thurston Moore smoke most of these guitarists mentioned.

Because he never had time to perfect and hone his craft.

Sure he was brilliant on it. Nobody will every deny that fact. But to say someone was the best ever when they only played for a few years compared to someone like Eric Clapton or Santana who have been amazeballs on guitar for 50 years?

One of the greatest? Sure. So like perhaps Top 10. But no way #1.

This reminds me of one sportswriter scolding another (can't remember either names) for comparing Mike Trout and his few years of playing time to Albert Pujols and his many years of playing time.

guest vocalist possibilities: the guy from creed or the guy from nickelback?

Swirls wrote:

The Third Man wrote:

Swirls wrote:I just don't see how someone who was only performing for 4-5 years could be considered the best ever.

Bring on the backlash.

Terrence Malick has made all of seven films, and is on every list of the greatest directors of all-time. (And was by the time he had made his fifth, at the very latest.) What's length got to do with it?

Also, Tom Verlaine, Kevin Shields and Thurston Moore smoke most of these guitarists mentioned.

Because he never had time to perfect and hone his craft.

Sure he was brilliant on it. Nobody will every deny that fact. But to say someone was the best ever when they only played for a few years compared to someone like Eric Clapton or Santana who have been amazeballs on guitar for 50 years?

One of the greatest? Sure. So like perhaps Top 10. But no way #1.

Nobody's using any music Clapton or Santana released after about 1980 to justify their placement on any of these lists.

Also, please never say "amazeballs" again.

The Third Man wrote:

Swirls wrote:
Also, Tom Verlaine, Kevin Shields and Thurston Moore smoke most of these guitarists mentioned.

Wait, seriously? How do you figure?

I can't say much for Verlaine, but the other two...

I'm not trying to be condescending, that's just a very bold claim.

Just the fact that I don't care at all for the bluesy stuff these days. Mostly trying to get a rise.

Zero mentions of Prince is criminal though.

Jocephus wrote:guest vocalist possibilities: the guy from creed or the guy from nickelback?

I vote Axl Rose or Aaron Neville.