I read a nugget review in Rolling Stone and am now re-pumped. (Forgive me people, its a free subscription that just won't stop from when I filled out a survey 3 years ago. Actually, some of the articles are suprisingly good... )
And for Rolling Stone, when they put Jack White and Kurt Cobain in the top 15 greatest/most influential guitarists of all time I just about drove to the RS headquarters and slapped every single writer.
Although I'm pretty liberal - their politics are so whiny and accusatory - the hand wringing and worry - that its sometimes embarrassing to be agreeing with them...
Musically, well, I guess as I'm getting older I just don't care that shit anymore - Lil' Wayne? - who give a fuck?
But I have to say, in each issue there is usually one stand-out article. In the last few months they had one about a teacher and student sex relationship that was very informative, one about a town who'd had a mall shooter kill like 5 people a few years back and how, even though its been forgotten on a national level, the town's social psyche is still scarred, and in the most recent issue, one about some porn starlet that was as fucked up as it was fascinating.
Makes me glad I get it, even though I don't pay for it.
As for Cobain, if the list includes "influential" then yes, he'd make my list too. The guy was a good song writer, with tunes that are instantly recognizable within two seconds. Think of how many people past and present were influenced by the dude.
As for Jack White, not the biggest Stripes fan in the world, and I flat out don't like the Racountours, and The Dead Weather is even worse, but that guy is a beast. Absolutely amazing to watch. You could argue about WHERE on the list he belongs I guess, but he definately belongs on there somewhere.
You see dante if they said influential musicians I'd agree Cobain almost single handedly created a genre, but he was barely a guitarist. Song writer yeah, musician yeah, not guitarist. Jack White tunes his guitar to hell and makes weird sounds... I wouldn't mind him being on the top one hundred but to break the top 15 with 4,000 years (that's how old the friggin guitar is, alot older than i thought) of blues, jazz, rock, punk, classical etc. come on now. I think he's hugely over rated and just because people know his name now doesn't mean they will know it 10 or 20 years from now. The weird thing is I'm actually a fan of his music (not a huge one) but I can stomach it.
O and I just re-read the article the list is actually 'Greatest Guitarists'
This message has been edited by thatturkishguy on May 7, 2009 12:23 PM This message has been edited by thatturkishguy on May 7, 2009 9:54 AM
I hadn't read the article prior, and only included the word influential because you did in your original post.
Also, now that I have, lets split hairs, White was #17
And we'll just have to disagree on him. I don't think he has made a career out of tuning his guitar to make weird sounds. Not saying he never has, but I think it comprises the minority. I think he is a wonderful, technical player. Ball and Biscuit is one of the most impressive guitar pieces I've heard in years. I'm looking foward to that recent documentary with him/Page/Edge in it.
Regardless of placement, I do think he belongs there. You're kind of making it sound like he's one of the biggest embarassments to hold the instrument. It's not like they put Chad Kroger or Billy Joe Armstrong there.
I agree we can put him on the list I knew I'd see him on there before I started reading the article but 17?!?
First off I think I should explain what I think of when picking the 'Greatest' of anything:
1)Originality
2)Influence
3)Longevity
4)Continued metamorphosis (I really didn't want to use this term but I couldn't think of a better one)
5)Resume (ie. Artists that they have worked with)
that's basically it, while I'll give him credit for being original and having a decent resume, I think he's lacking in the other three categories. I mean the guy has only been on the scene for a couple years he hasn't had enough time to really influence anybody's playing. Maybe when the young kids playing guitar today grow up to have there own bands and list him as their inspiration I'll reconsider, but as of now I don't think he's had near as much of an impact as say Santana who is only two steps ahead of him.
O that and he's all pasty and what not i mean come on casper get a tan for cryin out loud.
I know I'm in jeopardy of sounding like some crazed Whtie Stripes fan boi, I'm not I swear! I don't even have all their albums!
Anyway, as you said, influence is kind of a moot point right now. That can only come with hindsight. As for being on the scene a couple years, the first Stripes album came out in 1999, so he has a decade under his belt, and being in three bands at the moment, I don't think the guy is going anywhere anytime soon.
I don't know why I'm so hard up for him. The Dead Weather that I heard was unlistenable, and I bought the first Racountours album based on my Stripes fandom, which can now be found on the side of I-35 headed towards Austin, TX.
Now I'm not denying the fact that he could be something down the line, but as of right now I don't think he cracks the top 50.
and that's why I don't like Rolling Stones Magazine. (that's what we were talking about originally right... haha)
another magazine I don't like too much but stomach because of the insanely hot women they have is Maxim. I think Maxim photographers deserve a medal but their writing staff had to be recruited from the local high school or something.
Read the RS article cause I got a free subscripton after visiting the R&R Hall of Fame in Cleveland. Used to think it was a cool music magazine years ago, now I was pissed cause most of their sh!t is on pushing left-wing politics. For example, the cover with Obama as an engraved currency-style picture, before he'd even assumed office or done ANYTHING except run for president. Don't they usually put pics of dead presidents who have actually DONE something to deserve it on our money? A tad premature, I thought.
Anyway, the article was 85% crap- ask any real musician- with a few direct hits only because if you're gonna do a hundred of anything, the shotgun approach assures that you'll hit a few valid points.
Getting back to Star Trek- remember Star Trek?- just saw it and liked it a lot. And didn't Spock play a Vulcan harp in the old series? The one with the Space Hippies? Who were smokin' Intergalactic Weed and reading Warpdrive Stone magazine on the way to some Love-in, or pop festival?
You have an amazing talent with words, Todd. I always enjoy your reviews, and this one was killer. If there is some way that your reviews could get published more widely (Google?) I would totally try for it. They're incredibly refreshing, and I agree with them almost all the time.
Thanks
This message has been edited by Refflection on May 9, 2009 10:26 PM
Saw it. Pretty okay. But I hate sci-fi and Star Trek.
Felt like it was much shorter than its run time of a little over 2 hours. Was happy Nimoy's part was relevant and not a forced cameo. The special effects were no more impressive than any recent blockbuster, which people seem to be gushing over. I guess effects in things like Die Hard 4, MI3 or hell even Transformers are more impressive to me, because really every other scene in this is just a CG animated movie.
Eric Bana, criminally underused. When he was there, he was AWESOME. But, SPOILER
For such a badass, imposing physical force, I was really let down that there was no final physical confrontation with him between he and Kirk/Spock. He just goes away, and disappears into a black hole. Way lame.
OT,
As usual, great review. When Sulu said his combat speacialty was fencing I laughed out loud (Naked Time episode). No one around me got the joke. WTF?
very good!! I loved the way the re-introduced the characters.... and action... holy shit, bout time... OT's right, since Khan, I've been waiting for some Akeshon...
There is something familar, but WAY different with this TREK... JJ did it good
This is suppoesedly the 11th Star Trek movie(though I can really only remember about six others and some of those I'd like to forget) and the third time the have used time travel as a plot point in the movie. In this one it makes a bit of sense since it starts a whole new timeline so there can be less continuity between this franchise and the original franchise.
But enough with the time travel already. I don't want to see Borg and Capt Kirk duking it out. And let's have a bit more continuity and fewer plot conveniences next time. Things like, dropping Kirk on a random planet and have him bump into Spock Prime, who has been living in a cave with no source of food or water for 20 something years. Scotty is maroon on the same planet, yet is in sight of Vulcan with some kind of radio device. Things like Spock goes to rescue the most important people on Vulcan and his mom just happens to be in the cave with the Vulcan elders. Nero and the crew of the Enterprize seem to be on buddy buddy basis even though names are not really dropped. Must of learned names from Capt Pike. Awfully handy that Sulu has that folding sword, dontcha think? But it was a cool fight non-the less. And if Spock Prime used the red goo to make the black hole that put them back in time, why was there enough left over to destroy about a million planets? How did Nero even know what the red goo was?
As for irksome continuities between this and the original series, Spock serves 11 years with Pike before Kirk takes over command, and the Romulans were an unknown threat until the totally awesome "Balance of Terror" episode. I did like that Spock was the programmer of the Kobayashi Maru scenerio though.
Another issue is that unlike great movies, we really don't empathise much with Nero. Remember Wrath of Khan? Now there was a cool bad guy. Couldn't Nero just say, "Hey there's going to be a supernova in about 200 years and it's going to kill my wife, let's be prepared, OK?"
![[linked image]](http://www.jacobgrier.com/Images/spockbrow.gif)