You’ve probably seen the “Best Guitarists” or “Best Drummer” or “Best Cowbell Player” lists that seem to circulate around music journalism. Traditionally, these lists seem to focus on the same 20 people who are mostly men, mostly white, and mostly from the classic rock or blues genres… sometimes jazz if they are getting WILD.
The most recent Rolling Stone list of the Top 100 Guitarists of all-time includes just two women (Joni Mitchell at 75 and Bonnie Raitt at 89), and this summer’s list from Guitar World includes a whopping 10 women (which is honestly a huge jump for a list like this) only two who were women of color. Unsurprisingly, these lists almost never include trans women.
The Rolling Stone list was created by a panel of 58 guitarists (including Melissa Ethridge, Marnie Stern, Susan Tedeschi, and Nancy Wilson, all white cisgender women) and Guitar World provided a list of 180 guitarists to its readers to vote on by category (Best Overall, Best Blues, Best Metal, etc.) with a few bones thrown in for editors who got to share their favorites. All of this ended in a total of 100 guitarists. (Here are a few lists for drums and synth, if you were curious.)
ANYWAY, these lists are generally bunk because:
1) they are focusing on competition in creative work, which is inherently subjective and essentially the opposite to the point of art;
2) they are, as above, usually highly biased in their creation;
3) the musicians featured are usually those who enjoy popularity or fame, which is often provided to only white male musicians.
However, these lists tell one version of history, which is then often shared in music media. They also try to impart the value of the creative work of musicians. As such, what they say is important.
In addition to the bunkness I mentioned above, there are two major issues with these lists. First of all, they don’t include the myriad rad women guitarists (of course, these lists are unsurprisingly binary). There are MANY, MANY folks who could be in the Guitar Hero category, but due to the fact that they aren’t in the “Cannon”, they aren’t included. You can see a few lists here, here, here, and here.
But, there is another argument to be made here that often gets ignored:
What if women don’t WANT to be Guitar or Drum or Synth or whatever Heros?
Of course, just like in all areas of life, many women do compete and want to do their best. But what if, due to socialization, shredding, in the traditional sense, isn’t their goal?
I will note first that socialization is inherently NOT something that someone is born with-- this is not about women being inherently different than men. But men and women are often socialized differently.
Women are socialized to be more relational, to be less focused on the individual, and to be fair, the sheer wankery, that might be involved in becoming a Guitar Hero. Many women simply want to write good songs and focus on self-expression, rather than focus on the performative nature of shredding.
I say all of this as someone who does actually like to play in a shred-adjacent manner (even though I don’t really know what I am doing). So, this is not a value judgement on shredding per se.
But, just because someone isn’t shredding in the traditional sense, does that mean that they aren’t a Guitar Hero? Or should we simply start valuing Guitar Heros less? Or perhaps we should put value on the type of collaborative and emotive playing that many women might be more interested in doing. Why don’t we value the amazing and beautiful work that can come out of a band or song-writing collaboration over a 3-minute shred-fest in the middle of a song that doesn’t really add anything?
It is unsurprising that this valuing of women’s guitar playing echos their value in most spaces. For example, women do the majority of housework and childcare, but aren’t compensated for it.
There’s also the issue of feminization of jobs, where the more women enter a particular field, the less workers in that profession get paid-- for example secretaries used to be men and got paid more and the job was valued more. The same goes for pediatricians or family medicine compared to other doctors; or professors of education versus engineering. Perhaps this is one thing male musicians are worried about?
Just this week, for the first time EVER, it was announced that 47 percent of Grammy nominees are women. Still, headlines say “WOMEN DOMINATE THE GRAMMY’S!” Forty-seven percent is not domination. It’s not even equality. And it’s just for one year. This is not about the Grammy’s. This is about the recognition of individual musicians’ value— in the “Cannon” and beyond.
It’s important to think about the types of music women choose to create, how they create it, and the value attributed to it. While there has been some change and greater attention to this, obviously a quick glance at most of these lists or even music magazines more generally, will show whose work is valued.
There’s no one right way to be a musician or create music. And just because someone makes music differently does not mean it shouldn’t be valued. Most research shows that diverse groups tend to come up with more creative solutions to problems, so if anything, those who are mixing it up might be actually adding more value, rather than doing the same old thing.
Let’s mix it up!