Negative Creep wrote:
With Texas Flood, the central focus is the intensity of the guitar playing. With Eliminator it's more about the songs themselves.
Assuming this argument is true, does it apply just to SRV vs Gibbons or does it apply to generally. If the latter is the case we can knock Van Halen
, Led Zeppelin II
and Black Sabbath
down the list you've created so far.
Personally I think distinguishing between guitar playing prominence and the song is a little silly. The guitar, afterall, is a musical instrument employed in the writing of songs. The guitar riffs and licks in the tracks on Eliminator
are essential to the quality of those songs, even if there is more going on besides.
boo boo wrote:
I think keeping studio and live albums seperate is the best idea.
You just can't compare an album of raw live guitar playing to an album with an emphasis on overdubs or other studio techniques. If you combined the two the live albums would have an unfair advantage.
I know a lot of guitar snobs hate overdubbing, but it's made some of the best albums ever possible. See: Siamese Dream, Houses of the Holy.
I have to agree that the two should be kept separate, not because I think live albums will be at a unfair advantage but because it would cause the list to be dominated by a handful of guitarists at the expense of the inclusion of some lesser, but nonetheless great, albums.
I really like overdubbing. While less is sometimes more, the use of multi-layered guitars contributes to shoegaze and post-rock being two of my favourite genres of music, as well as some of my favourite songs and albums outside of those genres.