A friend of mine shared with me a Top 50 list that was published by Guitar Player mag back in 2004. I vaguely remembered reading that list back then, and when my buddy shared the list with me again a couple of days ago, it reminded me of the Rolling Stone Top 100 guitarists list from a few years back.
I understand why a mag would publish a list, but you have to understand that those lists aren’t supposed to be definitive. It’s just one person or a group of people’s view of what they think is “best.” As with gear, the “top” whatever is a pretty subjective thing. One person’s top will most likely be different from someone else’s because we all have different tastes.
This leads me to the title of this entry. I think the mags publish these lists to piss people off. 🙂 To put it more kindly, I believe they post these lists simply to stir the pot and create a buzz. If you think about it, the thing that the lists ultimately do is attract visitors. Someone might see a list, then go to a forum and post, “Did you see this list? I can’t freakin’ believe what they say the top 100 is! What a crock!” Look at the Rolling Stone Top 100 list. Talk about flame bait! When that came out a few years ago, it caused a huge stir on the forums! Most people hated that list, and certainly didn’t agree with the rankings.
To tell the truth, I don’t really have a problem with “top” lists. But I know now not to get all worked up about them. They’re there simply to create a buzz. But go ahead: Get pissed off if you want. 🙂
Guitar Gear 
I love top five lists, so much so that I just started a blog about them at http://www.tiptopfive.wordpress.com but I completely agree that they are not definitive in any way. Just one person’s viewpoint and somehow valuable enough to include it in a publication (or in my case I just wanted to litter the Internet some more). I take them with a grain of salt and try not to be suckered into them.
It’s hard not to get suckered into them… I know I did when I first ran across that Top 100 by Rolling Stone back in 2007. Really pissed me off, but then I saw the genius of it. What a way to get link-backs to your site!
Interesting theory, there’s some merit to that. My theory about that Rolling Stone list was it was a lousy list because Rolling Stone is generally pretty ignorant about musicianship. Their reviews tend to focus on lyrics and general “sound”, and you can read entire articles about musicians and have no idea what instrument they play.
I’m still mad at the elitist compilers of the Rolling Stone Top 100 Guitarists list for excluding Eddie Van Halen. The man who should have been #1 didn’t make the list at all!
I was pretty pissed about that as well. But while Rolling Stone did probably generate a lot of traffic, I’m wondering what the long-term consequences have been for them. I used to respect the magazine a lot, but when I saw who was and who wasn’t on the list, they lost a lot of credibility in my book. The Rolling Stone brand, which at least to me represented a magazine that had its pulse on the rock and roll scene simply became just another pop culture “has been.”