Is Stephen Stills One of the Best Guitarists Ever?

Stills is good...damn good. But I wouldn't call him one of the best.

 

He's one of the best all-rounders of all time, for sure. A very tasteful player.

 

Which is incredible considering he is damn near deaf.

 

What is this based on? Innovation? Technique? Unique style? Tone? Versatility?

As a fan, I'm completely biased. I think guys like Hendrix, Clapton, and Page are great classic rock-era guitarists. However, I think the only Stills doesn't have on those guys (with the exception of Clapton) is innovation. Stills wasn't what I consider an "innovative" electric guitarist. Although his playing is easily identifiable due to his style, technique, and tone. I think he became a less distinctive player as he grew older, even though Stills, himself, seems to view it exactly the opposite way.

His acoustic playing was innovative in rock music, however. I think any acoustic guitarist worth his salt should pass through the Stills library and become acquainted.

 

- - /will have to agree; well said. So many factors, and diversity is huge - limit the showboat, gotta agree! Let the whole picture, the entire work, speak for itself. Big factor in my opinion is to keep moving on. More musicans get their praise from playing the same piece over and over throughout the years, ugh - want to be good/stay good? Change it up, move forward, create new music. Of course we love ethe original turn you took, and now it's the 500th time you've played it - you better be good, ya think? Play the new piece, we will wait the solo - with baited breath, and our expectations are sky-high... we know a great guitarist won't let us down...it's what makes him great. /E.

 

agree 100%... and agree with those of us who would break this down into categories, because it has to be done in order to do justice. That list has many players who didn't seem to be as diverse or creative in the sense that GROWTH meant reaching out to new material, playing it well and mastering the art of building a repertoire of mastered-music that remained open to more.

 

Yes, he is, and I say this only because I saw him a number of times in 2003 and the man was on fire, basically channeling Jimi, playing ridiculous runs on a Strat.

This was not your "singer-songwriter" Stephen Stills, this was the guy who jammed with Hendrix all grown-up and good.

 

Got it, and also remember...awesome moments, and very thankful for 'em!

 

Stephen Stills is one of my musical heroes and really defies comparison.
In fact I don't believe in these comparisons about who is better than who... it is what it is and in Stills case it's just damn great music!
The man has major chops as evidenced by these acoustic cover tunes he does.
Check this out... I'm sure most of you have seen it but greatness is always worth multiple listens!

 

Listen to the solo to "Sit Down, I Think I Love you". He does, in fewer notes than Clapton or Hendrix, what the rest of us can't do. YES-he has melody, flow and feeling over most of us. He may not be a nice guy, but Graham Nash probably has the right idea about Stills.

 

I separate the person from the artist. Often they are two completely different things.
I prefer not to know too much about an artist's personal life or personality off stage.
This wasn't always the case but I learned over the years to appreciate the artist and what they create rather than focus on their human faults.
Because we all got those!

 

I think he's just perfect at what he does. Yeah, he's not lumped in with the best of 'em but in the long run who needs that anyway? Being a great musician doesn't necessarily imply having amazing technical chops, you know. If you're able to use what little you have to better advantage and put your personality behind it, you're the real deal.
Guitar god? Never liked that expression.

 

I can sit and listen to Stephen Stills playing acoustic all day...I reckon when it's all written down his acoustic work is what he will be remembered for most. His prowess on electric guitar and bass is just a bonus.

 

I was thinking this recently when listening to Buffalo Springfield Again last week, in mono. Lots of tasty guitar work by Stills.

 

Something that differentiates Stills from most rock guitarists is that he clearly went through a Chet Atkins-phase. Adding that country flavor to both his electric and acoustic playing gives Stills the "country blues" style that is unique to me. Check out his playing on this Supersession track:



It's one of my favorite Stills lead guitar breaks. It was done just a few months after Buffalo Springfield ended, and it's clear how much he had grown as a player. This style was a huge part of his playing pretty much until he discovered the wah wah pedal in 1973. Then it was all wah for a few years.

He hardly ever plays in the country blues style these days - only in the solo to "Teach Your Children" when played live.

 

"Carry On" 1970, "Go Back Home" 1970, "Jet Set" 1971 all had wah...

 

He used it, but it became his main thing starting in 1973, and the tone and style was different than before. He had his own style with the wah wah pedal though. I've never known what motivated him to go so wah-heavy. The 1974 solo and CSNY tours were wah extravaganzas for Stills.

 

Pure speculation, but I always reckoned it was his Hendrix obsession (for lack of a better term). Also agree with the other posters that wah wah became a fixture of Stills' electric guitar sound circa 1969 or so. He's still wont to bust it out today, but I notice that Stephen has grown even more fond of the whammy bar on his various Stratocasters of late.

Watched the CSN 2012 performance on PBS earlier tonight. Yep, Stills can still play that guitar- they even did "Suite Judy Blue Eyes" and it was one of the best versions I've ever heard. I swear Stephen threw in some quotes from "The End" (The Doors) and "Within You Without You"...pure genius. And not only did he kick **** on the ol' Martin but he pretty much nailed his vocals too! Pretty good show. I've heard some recent audience tapes but actually seeing them in action on the concert film made me appreciate all the more what these guys can still do today.

 

I got you now. And I don't understand the replies that say "no way" etc. Stills is such a badass guitarist, up there with Robbie Robertson and Ry Cooder for minimalist perfection.

 

Hendrix was a groundbreaking guitar player. But Clapton - really?

 

I think Stephen is wildly under-rated as a guitarist. The last time I saw him was with
David and Graham and every little run or fill he played was memorable. And there
aren't too many guitar players I can say that about. It isn't just about 5-minute solos.

 

Better acoustic player in my book, that's where he reall shines. He's a better all around musician than Hendrix imo

 

I do not care for his acoustic sound these last 25 years (whatever pickup and effect he's piping through) , but he's always been in my top 3 acoustic players

 

I seem to remember Neil Young saying a number of times in his last book that Stephen is an exceptional and underrated guitarist.

 

Bloomfield playing on that album I find redundant and too busy, too many notes. Stills knows where to play in a song