HollywoodBQ said:

---

Once Clapton spoke up, he effectively got cancelled.

And God Bless him for saying something.

My musician friends were too afraid to say anything.

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

100% subjective and therefore meaningless

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

100% subjective and therefore meaningless

---

Not so fast. Very few things are objectively, uncontestably true.

You might argue between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi being the best ever, but (although subjective) it's obvious that I'm not anywhere as good.

So you can't immediately dismiss subjective choice as irrelevant.

And Stevie is better.

---

IIIHorn said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

He is the greatest rock guitarist of all time.

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

Esteban du Plantier said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

100% subjective and therefore meaningless

---

Not so fast. Very few things are objectively, uncontestably true.

You might argue between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi being the best ever, but (although subjective) it's obvious that I'm not anywhere as good.

So you can't immediately dismiss subjective choice as irrelevant.

And Stevie is better.

---

However, it's well documented that Stevie thought Jimi was better. So are you saying that you know more than SRV?

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

There's subjectivity to it, sure, but it's not 100%. No one is claming random dumbass who plays backup for Taylor Swift as the best ever.

---

Quote:

---

However, it's well documented that Stevie thought Jimi was better.

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Bull****

I'm not remotely a rock fan, but even I know Clapton is one of the best of all time.

Rolling Stone is just being a whiny ***** , like all leftists are.

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Billy Corgan was on Rogan last year talking about some of the all time greats and he said something to the effect of "I do this for a living and the stuff they do blows my mind to this day."

The point is, there are clear tiers, and you can rearrange all time greats, but there will still be almost universal recognition on the pool you are pulling from.

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Bull****

I'm not remotely a rock fan, but even I know Clapton is one of the best of all time.

Rolling Stone is just being a whiny ***** , like all leftists are.

---

Easy there, Cowboy. I think you're missing the point. Apparently, Rolling Stone dropped Clapton from the Top Five to #35. The contention here is they did it because of politics. Ok. Let's say they did.

First, my point is ranking artists is impossible because it's…well…art.

Second, even if Rolling Stone's ranking wasn't completely meaningless (which it is), #35 firmly ensconces Eric Clapton in the "greatest to ever pick up the instrument" class.

Third, if you're not remotely a rock fan, how would you know what a great rock guitar player sounds like?

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Bull****

I'm not remotely a rock fan, but even I know Clapton is one of the best of all time.

Rolling Stone is just being a whiny ***** , like all leftists are.

---

Easy there, Cowboy. I think you're missing the point. Apparently, Rolling Stone dropped Clapton from the Top Five to #35. The contention here is they did it because of politics. Ok. Let's say they did.

First, my point is ranking artists is impossible because it's…well…art.

Second, even if Rolling Stone's ranking wasn't completely meaningless (which it is), #35 firmly ensconces Eric Clapton in the "greatest to ever pick up the instrument" class.

Third, if you're not remotely a rock fan, how would you know what a great rock guitar player sounds like?

---

you are the one missing the point - Rolling Stone had always had him as a top 10 guitarist and for a long time he was top 5 - no one is arguing if he should be there or at 35. They dropped him for no other reason than he has a dissenting opinion on the Covid vaccine. That may be one of the dumbest reasons on the planet to change a ranking that this same rag has always had as a top 10 guy. And puts all of those rankings in question if they are going to use a guys politics to rank his guitar playing.

---

inconvenient truth said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Nice obfuscation. There's a whole helluva lot of difference between the subjectivity of comparing one guitarist's talent against another vs down marking a world renowned guitarist because he dare speak against the dogma of the church of branch covidian. But I'm not surprised that's beyond your ability to grasp.

---

HollywoodBQ said:

---

Once Clapton spoke up, he effectively got cancelled.

And God Bless him for saying something.

My musician friends were too afraid to say anything.

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

He said the vaccine injured him so Rolling Stone drops him 25 spots on the list of greatest guitarists. All violence doesn't just come from leftist guns.

---

doubledog said:

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

He said the vaccine injured him so Rolling Stone drops him 25 spots on the list of greatest guitarists. All violence doesn't just come from leftist guns.

---

I think age had something to do with the drop, still an all time great.

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Bulldog73 said:

---

He said the vaccine injured him so Rolling Stone drops him 25 spots on the list of greatest guitarists. All violence doesn't just come from leftist guns.

---

I think age had something to do with the drop, still an all time great.

---

If the list is of greatest players of all time, you judge on the height of the career, not after diminished by age or disability….or death

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

You mean this Rolling Stone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

This is my shocked face that such a rag would demote one of the most brilliant guitarist of all time because he refused to buy into leftist propaganda.

---

Here's the thing though, and there's really no way to get around it. How do you (or Rolling Stone) determine who the best guitar players are?

If you really think about it critically, it's an absolutely impossible exercise. Any ranking of artists is 100% subjective and therefore meaningless. If Rolling Stone ranks Clapton #35, Guitar Player ranks him #2, and Musician ranks him #12…who gives a rip?

But if someone ranks Clapton higher than Frank Zappa just because of politics, they're just as wrong as Rolling Stone.

---

Bull****

I'm not remotely a rock fan, but even I know Clapton is one of the best of all time.

Rolling Stone is just being a whiny ***** , like all leftists are.

---

Easy there, Cowboy. I think you're missing the point. Apparently, Rolling Stone dropped Clapton from the Top Five to #35. The contention here is they did it because of politics. Ok. Let's say they did.

First, my point is ranking artists is impossible because it's…well…art.

Second, even if Rolling Stone's ranking wasn't completely meaningless (which it is), #35 firmly ensconces Eric Clapton in the "greatest to ever pick up the instrument" class.

Third, if you're not remotely a rock fan, how would you know what a great rock guitar player sounds like?

---

you are the one missing the point - Rolling Stone had always had him as a top 10 guitarist and for a long time he was top 5 - no one is arguing if he should be there or at 35. They dropped him for no other reason than he has a dissenting opinion on the Covid vaccine. That may be one of the dumbest reasons on the planet to change a ranking that this same rag has always had as a top 10 guy. And puts all of those rankings in question if they are going to use a guys politics to rank his guitar playing.

---

Dude, I'm agreeing with you, albeit not in a way that makes you happy.

Your contention is that Rolling Stone is a political rag that's making an example out of Eric Clapton for being anti-vaccine.

My contention is that ranking artists is silly, any ranking of art is silly, and if you spend any time worrying about a completely subjective ranking of one artist over another, you're wasting your time.

Now, if you want to start a ranking of publications that rank art by their political leanings, be my guest. You know, something like, "Rolling Stone sucks! But New Music Express is awesome 'cuz politics!" That would be perfectly logical.

---