My major point is that it is a popularity poll. Metallica is one of the most popular bands ever - therefore, of course more people are going to vote for Hammett and Hetfield as the best guitarists ever, even if they haven't heard many guitarists.
That is why you can't use that argument - some readers are ignorant compared to others whether it's due to lack of knowledge about what material Hammett writes, whether it's the number of guitarists they've heard, whether it's fanboyism etc....
Don't get me wrong that some of the readers would have voted impartially without fanboyism - but how can they make a fair judgement if they haven't heard many guitarists? It's almost a guarantee that every voter had heard Hammett, but has every voter heard Satriani, McLaughlin, Gilbert etc... clearly not.
Since Metallica is popular, Hammett is obviously going to get more votes than he would otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill
Maybe you didn't read my post properly, did I say you hated Metallica? No I just think you're boasting the same 'typical METALLICA SUX crap metal fans seem to constantly bring up' in regards to their musicianship.
|
So I love Metallica, but go around saying "Metallica sux!".
Sorry, it's not true - you're going to have to take my word for it. But before I'm convicted of this crime, just show me where I've said Metallica sucks.
Quote:
|
No, you're missing the point of what I say. I don't feel like getting into a non technical debate vs. technical debate. You take simplistic guitar lines vs. complex guitar lines, whos going to be considered the better guitarist?
|
I don't want to get into that debate either. But you are proving my point - people, more so guitarists will be biased towards complex guitar lines - hence people are going to be biased towards Hammett. He plays metal which involves complex lines.
Quote:
|
So if you took 4000 people who don't listen to music and ask them to judge an album, and 4000 musicians whos opinion is going to hold more ground? Its about who the people are listening, yes it was a bad comparison.
|
Of course 4000 musicians is going to hold more ground, but I never claimed otherwise...
Quote:
|
Yeah but are they talking about guitar playing or the actual music writing? While both are key parts in being a good guitarist, if its a top guitar player they're going to focus more on the former.
|
If it was guitar playing at stake here, then it would be almost factual. In other words, Hammett would be considered good for speed/technique etc, but he factually shouldn't be at the top. That would go to Petrucci/Malmsteen etc. if it wasn't accounting for songwriting.
Sadly enough, some people voting on that wouldn't have emphasized songwriting enough.
Quote:
|
How do you know that? They're subscribing to a guitar magazine, I think they'd be music fans.
|
Of course they're music fans. But it's just statistics. It is clear that the majority of people don't listen to a lot of music. While guitarists listen to more than the average person, the majority don't listen to a lot, or a wide range.
Most people are content to listen to their favourite bands over and over again, every day. Some people prefer to discover new music all the time, hence they hear a lot more than just their favourite bands. Sad but statistically true.
Quote:
|
Yeah, I know plenty of fanboys and most of them wouldn't say the guitarist of their favorite band is the best unless hes actually good.
|
Well fair enough, he might be good but either way, fanboys will blow it out of proportion.
Quote:
|
Once again, thats the publishers not the readers.
|
Sorry, you must have posted before I added in this bit to my last post, so anyway:
But don't you understand that the publishers pick a cover because it either satisfies existing customers or attracts new ones - they do it because it works. So either way, some of the people who voted in the best guitarist poll would have agreed with that Simple Plan part - thus their credibility is invalidated.
Publishers deliver what readers want to hear, so we can assume there is a decent, marketably feasible number of readers who agree with this, even if they didn't write it.
Quote:
|
Once again, read the post, arguing it like its fact.
|
No I'm not arguing it like it's fact. There are some factual statements and some opinionated statements when judging a drummer. Lars is sloppy live, that is factual. Lars sounds uninspired nowadays, that is opinion. Lars is factually not very technical. See what I'm getting at? Some parts are factual, some are opinion. I'm not arguing the opinion parts as fact, and I'm not arguing the overall opinion of Lars as fact. I don't need to follow every bit of opinion with 'IMO'.