Rolling Stone names Hendrix top guitarist, sparks debate over Mitchell inclusion

Hendrix leads, but Rolling Stone's list ignites a war

If there is one consensus that withstands any guitar discussion, it is Jimi Hendrix as number one. He revolutionized the instrument, turned it into a mass hero, and, as noted in the debate, even he acknowledged others were better: Rory Gallagher, Terry Kath, or Robert Fripp. From second place onward, Rolling Stone's list of the fifteen best guitarists becomes a minefield. The inclusion of Joni Mitchell and Sister Rosetta Tharpe triggered the controversy, with accusations of "quota" filling and rewriting history.

The list that offends: absences weigh more than presences

The list has a fundamental problem beyond personal taste: what is missing. Eric Clapton, Ritchie Blackmore, Robert Fripp, Frank Zappa, Rory Gallagher, David Gilmour, Peter Green, and Michael Schenker do not appear. Neither does Steve Vai, whose technical and creative capacity is cited, nor Yngwie Malmsteen, who in the eighties was virtually a guitar god. The most repeated complaint is that this is a popularity list disguised as a canon, where the void left by absentees is filled by names that cannot withstand comparison.

One argument recurs: if B.B. King's blues qualifies, then jazz, flamenco, and classical should too. And there the list collapses. Wes Montgomery, Pat Metheny, Larry Carlton, Allan Holdsworth, or Paco de Lucía are among the names missed when the scope widens. The lingering question is what criteria apply: influence, technique, creativity, or simply sales?

Joni Mitchell and Sister Rosetta Tharpe: the quota debate

Joni Mitchell's presence raises the most eyebrows. Critics argue Mitchell herself would be embarrassed to be included, noting that guitarists who played in her band—Larry Carlton, Pat Metheny, Michael Landau—would deserve a spot on such a list. Sister Rosetta Tharpe generates less rejection due to her historical merit, but questions remain about whether she stands at the level of other absent names.

Accusations of being "proge" and rewriting history loom over this part of the debate. Conversely, some defend that a list without women is incomplete, arguing the issue is not their presence, but the absence of those who truly belong. Monnette Sudler, with her psychedelic jazz style, or Emily Remler and Jennifer Batten are mentioned as alternatives with stronger guitar credentials.

Those who should be there: from Rory Gallagher to Steve Vai

Rory Gallagher is the name most frequently cited regarding unjust omissions. It is recalled that the Rolling Stones offered him Mick Taylor's position, which he declined: being second to Richards was not his dream. Brian May is also championed, having layered guitars in the seventies using an analog seven-track system without tech expertise, something still difficult today despite computer assistance.

Steve Vai appears with a curious argument: he may not be the best at anything specific, but he is the second-best at everything. His creative capacity, it is said, will place him among great composers when music history for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is written. Then there are names each faction supports: Mark Knopfler, Ritchie Blackmore, Santana, Pat Metheny, Mike Oldfield, Martin Barre, Angus Young, Jimmy Page, or Rudolf Schenker.

The trap of lists: influence or technique?

A current view holds that "best" lists are a rigged exercise. They would always favor those currently rising—Tim Henson, Guthrie Govan, the Mancuso brothers—because technique advances. What can be done is a list of the most influential, where old glories have their place. The discussion then shifts to defining legend: Is Slash a legend to everyone? Is Michael Hedges, whom many high-level Spanish professional guitarists did not know?

Peter Green's case is paradigmatic. He is claimed as "the king of Albatross," an example of wonder without needing estimulante ilegal. And there lies the key: estimulante ilegal impresses, but it is not the same as creating something enduring. Rolling Stone's list rewards one thing, while fans demand another.

---

In the end, the list works as intended: a conversation generator. Fifteen names that anger fifteen different communities. And a question no one fully answers: best according to what criteria, and for whom?