Frank Zappa over the lot of them followed closely by Duane Allman

Well, not meaning to be argumentative, but I actually kind of [idon't[/i agree with you. I think they may be more polished in a technical sense with speed clarity of notes, but I still consider Hendrix and Page better guitarists. For me, the core purposes of an instrument are to produce music (i.e. writing), convey feeling/emotion, and to inspire others. Technical ability is still important, but not as important as those. And it's not like Hendrix and Page lacked technical ability. They could rip up the fretboard as well as most at times, they just occasionally hit the odd rough note when they let themselves go for it and got absorbed in their performance. Other facets of their playing (e.g. phrasing and string bending) were outstanding and incredibly expressive. With Hendrix in particular, it should also be noted that he was typically playing both lead and quite intricate rhythm at the same time by himself, that takes real skill.

Whilst I can appreciate the skill of someone like Satriani, for me it's mostly just a bit cold and boring and I don't really feel anything, which is a bit of a failure for music IMO. It's the difference between having perfect spelling and grammar, and being a great writer. Just how I see it, I know plenty will disagree.

Agree with that 100%. I've a couple of friends who can play like Satriani or Vai - fast, slick and clean, but I find it all very soulless. No character, no passion, just speed. Being technically brilliant doesn't necessarily make you a musician to stir the soul.

While I can appreciate the skill involved in 'shredding', ultimately it all gets a bit dull. Steve Vai at Donington did my head in after about 10 minutes. Give me a little character, a few imperfections - players like Page, Hendrix, Gilmour, Slash, Townshend, Hammett, Blackmore and others.

In fact that's the starkest comparison - I'd sooner listen to Dave Gilmour than Joe Satriani, by some distance.

You're not wrong there mate ... I find Satriani quite comical, insomuch as he is a great guitar technician but has a lot less [sizemusical [/sizetalent.
It must frustrate the pants off him.

What a load of bollox, none of the above would have any relevance to the standard of Nirvana's music or Cobain's abilities and status as a writer musician and performer. I don't need to research. I just need my ears.

What a load of bollox, the guy was a fake and a phony, hismusic was specificaly aimed at young teenagers, Nirvana killed the Seattle scene with their mediocre music, i suggest you get your ears tested

I suggest you have a look outside the narrow musical sphere you inhabit. In the real world Nirvana are the only Seattle band that matters. They changed music in a way the others simply didn't.

I've said before, the metal snobbery towards Nirvana is quite odd. I think a lot in the metal scene simply resented their success.

Cobain and Nirvana were brilliant live on the Nevermind tour (I saw them along with about 200 others at Bradford Uni). Dave Grohl was, well, just the drummer. I can tell you for a fact that the gig I went to was before any Cobain hype because when they came on stage nobody recognised them at all. They looked like roadies.

If you haven't seen it, take a look at this video/DVD sometime. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991:_The_Year_Punk_Broke Filmed before the release of Nevermind, with Sonic Youth getting most of the airtime, but a fair bit of Nirvana too.

If you haven't seen it, take a look at this video/DVD sometime. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991:_The_Year_Punk_Broke Filmed before the release of Nevermind, with Sonic Youth getting most of the airtime, but a fair bit of Nirvana too.

You sound like the sort of person who is so far up their own that you probably hold a grudge against anyone who is not " pure".

Next you will be telling us Bob Dylan does not deserves praise because he sold out by going electric

Sorry if its slightly off message but Danny Jones[/size

, you have no idea how vast the vastness of my musical taste is, i suggest it is you that inhabit a narrow musical spere, ooh you saw them at Bradford uni, big whoopedy doo, i had the misfortune to see them in Seattle, Tad blew them away

if that is so then please explain why i own his entire back catalogue?

And there you go. Tad. FFS. And repeating some story of how Cobain acted in a studio. Were you there? Outside whatever 'wide' world of music you inhabit nobody cares about Tad, Soundgarden or anybody else from Seattle - including me and I used to have albums from those and many others of their ilk.

Like I said, the snobbery towards Nirvana is quite unfathomable. I can only put it down to the fact that they were successful. I have several mates who were big into the Indie scene and used to drop bands like a stone once more than a phone-booth full of people had heard of them. Music snobbery is as dull as any other kind.

All I go by nowadays is what music sounds like to me. I find the world of music far more interesting as a result.

So because a person has never liked a certain band through whatever reason then they are a music snob, wow, you state that "All I go by nowadays is what music sounds like to me. I find the world of music far more interesting as a result.", that is all i have ever done so how is that snobbery?

Yeh I'll do it at the same time as the hearing challenged Rock n roll Hall of Fame panel that inducted Cobain. The world will forever regret that YOU were not there to tell them the TROOF (which is known only to you) and stop that travesty. Although even if you had been, I doubt there'd have been enough time to drag you back out of your own arrse, you're that far up it.

How do you bear the burden of being the only person on the planet who knows the TROOF?