Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

However, I have enough Hendrix bootlegs to know he could play and sound amazing if amplified correctly.

Eddie didn't seem like he really did anything too spectacular. I always had a hard time figuring out what made him a virtuoso. He doesn't seem like a great songwriter or improvisor, his solos are short and to the point and it seems like he does hammer-ons with the occasional whammy bar push-in low warp sound.

So, Hendrix.

And then dozens of other guitarist.

And then, maybe, Eddie Van Halen.

I wouldn't put it such that Hendrix used off the shelf equipment. He used all sorts of stuff, some of which like the stuff Roger Mayer built for him was only commercially available later on. Jimi also liked to take apart and tinker with his guitars.

...Jimi Hendrix was a genius, in a sense...

Hendrix IS a genius, Eddie's a gifted technique wizzard w/no soul and Roth has always been a total douchebag.

hendrix by several light years.

Tell...

Pat: Can I tell you my Eddie Van Halen story? I actually met him. He was backstage at the final Nirvana concert at the Forum, which for me, was like,"Oh my God, I'm playing on the SAME stage as [Queen's] Brian May!" I was dying. Anyway, Eddie Van Halen comes backstage drunk out of his fucking mind, and he started begging Kurt to let him play with us. It was so disgusting. He was like, "I'm all washed up; you are what's happening now." It was horrible! He was a horrible racist pig!

Jeff: I heard he was running Mennen Speed Stick deodorant all over his face. Is that true?

Pat: Yeah [laughs]. Kurt had this deodorant, and he sniffed it or something like that, and it got on his face. It looked like he had cocaine under his nose.

Jennifer: I heard he was asking Kurt to let him come on stage and play "Eruption," but Kurt said, "no," and Eddie said, "C'mon, let me play the Mexican's guitar," referring to you.

Pat: I told Krist [Novoselic], I thought we should let him play with us. But he said no because we'd never get him off the stage. When I walked up to Eddie, he was talking to Krist. I just saw the back of his head so I didn't know who he was. And Krist goes, "Oh Eddie, you haven't met Pat. He's our new guitar player." Eddie turns around and sees me, but he doesn't say hello or anything. He just say's, "Oh no, not a dark one." At first I thought he was kidding. But he kept asking me, "What are you? Are you like a Raji or something? Are you Mexican?" Then he kept saying to Kurt," C'mon let me play the Mexican's guitar." I was horrified!

Jeff: Is he the El Duce of Metal?

Pat: [Laughs] Eddie Van Halen is the perfect example for me of not wanting to meet your heroes 'cause you'll be disappointed. I hear he's sober now. I blame that incident totally on the alcohol. I've done a lot of bad things when I was drunk, too.

Jeff: I don't think you're coming from a judgmental place at all.

Pat: I was just shocked. I was thinking, "God, Eddie Van Halen hates me.

Indeed, and the span of which containing many other guitarists.

Guitar-wise, I've always defended Eddie as more than just a one-trick pony (he's a four-or-five trick pony), but he's no Hendrix.

I never thought about VH that way but I can see it!

What do you think of "Dreams"?

I really don't like the Sammy Hagar stuff.

-- Myonga Von Bontee (scottyfield...), October 3rd, 2005.
did they meet ?

I think Smear's right - it probably was more alcohol-fuelled idiocy (à la Elvis Costello) than genuine racism on Van Halen's part. But, all the same, jeez...

He probably thought he was being sneaky by saying shit like that to convince Kurt and then he planned to take over a new generation when he got on stage by showing 'em up.

I feel comfortable saying this now that I own bought up almost every album of his in the past week or so. I did not realize he actually put so much feeling into his playing. Warning: do not do as I did and buy Sex & Religion or Flex-Able Leftovers first. These were the 2 I had previously sold back. Everything else is pretty unreal, especially Flexable, Passion & Warfare, Alien Love Secrets, Fire Garden, Real Illusions: Reflections and Alive In An Ultra World. Then: The Ultra Zone, Flexable Leftovers and Mystery Tracks Vol. 3. For the cheapskate, the double cd Anthology has a lot of good tracks on it, but you'd be better off grabbing these one at a time from the cutout bin like I did.

Is that somehow a bad thing, or an ignoble shortcut?

As for guitar, there's no Hendrix in Rock School. The kids playing guitar don't show any. The best you get is Frank Zappa, mostly because the dean is a Zappa superfan.

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer, a time ago:

Seattle found itself in a media frenzy last summer when billionaire Paul Allen presented his exuberant Experience Music Project (EMP) to the world. Allen's interactive museum--an ode to guitar great Jimi Hendrix--awed, inspired and had many people shaking their heads in bewilderment over its twisted metal exterior. Some compared the architecture to a squashed tin can, but crowds still came by the thousands to discover the music inside.

Daunted by press reports of waiting lines snaking around the block and back, at first I let EMP do its thing without me. Because I'm hearing impaired, the music world has gone by pretty much without my notice for the past several decades, although I admittedly rocked to Hendrix in person at the 1969 Newport Pop Festival.

...We found ourselves among those shaking their heads at the exterior design of EMP. World-renowned architect Frank Gehry, famous for his use of bold colors and atypical shapes, stayed in character when he molded EMP. Having more of a Bach personality than a Hendrix fetish, Gehry bought several electric guitars when he first came to Seattle and cut them into pieces to study their shapes, colors and textures. These elements were the beginnings of the structure that symbolizes the energy and fluidity of music--and possibly the electric guitars that Hendrix invariably smashed during each performance.

The first impression of the interior of EMP is one of high tech design and almost industrial space. With few visitors at this mid-morning hour, it felt almost cavernous and strangely quiet for a venue dedicated to high decibel rock and roll. After navigating the ticketing area and having our hands stamped concert-like, we entered the celestial, 85-foot high Sky Church that broadcasts to the heavens on the largest indoor video screen in the world. This dramatic reception/performance area is named for Hendrix's vision of a Sky Church where all kinds of people--regardless of age, background or interests--could come together to appreciate music.

====

Hendrix has a museum/tourist trap. Nothing like that in Pasadena for Eddie. He might have to die first.

And as for the fuckhead who said Hendrix is somehow less for using "destortion," get one clue moron. Both Hendrix and Eddie used plenty of destortion [sic]. The difference is Hendrix is distorting the power section of a tube amp by just turning the fucker all the way up, and Eddie is distorting the preamp section by carefully tweaking the amp with a bunch of kind of interesting techniques. Neither one is inherently better and neither is inherently bad. They are just completely different.

Eddie's a fantastic player of rock and pop. Hendrix is really a jazz player in the rock idiom.

Chuck Berry kicks both of their asses in many ways.

The real question is if Hendrix had lived to face his demons, would he be a total prick? Alternately, if Eddie had died at the peak of his career, would anybody be talking smack about him now?

So anyway, I am one of the biggest Van Halen fans you'll ever talk to, but I'm still gonna have to go with Hendrix.

EVH is the master! Cobain.. worm food.

obviously Cobain was depressed too? YA THINK?

I've heard this meme before and it's nonsense. Hendrix was a blues and R&B player. His playing comes directly out of that music -- and I don't mean this to be in any way denigrating. But there's hardly a lick of jazz in anything he plays.

As for EVH, well, unlike the kid in Rock School and the minions making after-school trips to guitar center, he actually COULD groove as well. And he could play a really memorable, catchy guitar solo, which is one of my ultimate measures of a guitarist. I'll take Hendrix over him, but I wouldn't want to live in a world without Hot for Teacher.

But otherwise.....yawn.

Wrong. Eddie learned tapping by watching Ace Frehley from Kiss do it first. And it's about the only thing he ever learned.

Van Halen was "discovered" by Gene Simmons. Eddie and Alex recorded some demos with Gene and Paul when Gene was considering replacing Ace and Peter.

Eruption is not that amazing. Get one grip on reality.

Not if you've been in a Guitar Center on kiddie weekends or watched the movie Rock School. Now it's more along the lines of a reason to walk out the door, grit your teeth and suffer it, or reach for the bottle of aspirin.

So, Jimi wins, even though Van Halen in a way was more fun (thanks to his vocalist)

TECHNICAL ABILITY:
1.) Jimi Hendrix had better technical ability thanks to his enormous fingers which could extend some ridiculous amount of frets that few others can physically accomplish. It wasn't just reach: Jimi was technically gifted in physical mastery of the instrument.
2.) Having mastered control of the instrument, Jimi was also technically gifted in mastery of sound and invented or had designed a variety of stomp boxes and gadgets to technically master the sound he was after.

EMOTIONAL PLAYING ABILITY:
While this is totally subjective, it seems nonsensical to say that an better emotional player is not also a better technical player. Emotion is about technique and technique is technical. Besides, Hendrix was a better technical player, anyway. He may have sometimes played sloppily for a certain effect, but he could certainly play very clean and precisely WHILE singing. And he didn't just do a bunch of hammer-ons and divebombs.

So,
Van Halen

So, Van Halen.

So,
Van Halen

First of all, you're lying about being able to play "anything all of Jimi's stuff" unless of course, you have a 14" hand.

Secondly, if "technical ability" only = "shit, I can't play that!" then I guess Buckethead must be the greatest guitarist on earth. He has Jimi's fingerspan and he can EIGHT-FINGER tap, which even Eddie couldn't do.

Look at this poor wretch seahag fucker:

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060306/capt.camw12703061102.elton_john_oscar_party_camw127.jpg

the rest just looks sadly like boys fiddling. thrusting. needing me to look.

nah. its what you do with it.

Hendrix played bitchin sex jams,
Van Halen plays plastic cheese.

SOUL PATROL!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1947917209390029777&q=van+halen

Jimmy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4980626658551413306&q=jimmy+hendrix+national+anthem

While I personally disagree with the outcome (I love Hendrix and I rarely play Van Halen), I think this is the best answer in the entire thread. I've never understood this need to rate musicians as if they're competing in the Olympics, and comparing the likes of these two is definitely apples and oranges.

For the record, I don't really get into shredding, so I simply can't go with Eddie. If I did though, I woul definitely prefer listing to the likes of Satriani or Vai.

Innovation: Eddie Van Halen. His style of double hand tapping revolutionized the way the guitar would be played for decades to come. Artificial harmonics, volume swells, whammy screams, even the name "whammy" were all from Eddie. If you throw in the creation of the drop-d tuna, the inspiration for the Floyd Rose patent, and his line of hand-made guitars with the only tone nicknamed in the music industry ( "Brown Sound") this debate was never a debate to begin with.

Influence: Eddie Van Halen again. When Jimi emerged, no one was trying to play like him, look like him, or capture his sound. When Eddie emerged EVERY guitar player tried to play like him. In fact, during the club days, Eddie had to play his solos with his back to the crowd so people like Randy Rhoads, Jake E Lee and George Lynch would not learn his techniques. bettencourt, Rhoads, vai, satriani, Lynch, Beach, Malmsteen, DeMartini,Dweezil Zappa,Dimebag, Kirk Hammet, Zakk Wylde, etc. all tried to play Eddie's style. Some guitar players went further and tried to look like Eddie: Vito Bratta,Warren DeMartini,etc. Today? Green Day, Pantera, Smashmouth, Phish,Weezer, and Pearl Jam are just a handful of bands that have covered VH songs or site Eddie as their musical influence.

Technical: Eddie and not even close. In the words of Zakk Wylde: "Jimi Hendrix would have never been able to play Eruption or Spanish Fly."

Accolades: Yes, Rolling Stone chose Jimi as the greatest RNR guitar player of all time. They also chose Joan Jett over EVH and Randy Rhoads and left Vai and Malmsteen entirely off the list. Getting guitar advice from Rolling Stone is like getting plumbing advice from your dentist. They also had their website shut down after 4,000 plus angry e-mails from EVH supporters. Meanwhile Eddie Van Halen is the only guitar player to be elected in to the Hall of Fame in both Guitar World and Guitar Player. Eruption was listed as the second greatest solo of all time after Stairway. No one was voted best guitar player more than Edward.

Accolades: Blah, Blah, Blah . . .Jimi's emotion and songs were so great. They were so great they he had only one top ten single in his career, A COVER, no platinum albums until a decade after he died, and had him chased to the UK because no American label would sign him. Especially when you were booed opening up for The Monkees. By Van halen's third album, way before MTV started, they outsold Jimi's entire catalog to date. They are the ninth best selling band and the 19th best selling artists of all time.

Any questions?

Ah, so that's who's to blame

Yes, just one. Is your hair long in the back and short on top?

Your horrid image does unfix my hair.

....
Lenny Kravitz never existed

-- Roy Cox (thectbrennan...), May 30th, 2006."

Your arrogance and attitude is laughable. Perhaps if you attempted to enlighten with knowledge rather than condescend to a group of people with similar interests as your own, you might be taken a bit more seriously and not be the butt of mullet-head jokes.

The whole "-insert name here- couldn't play Eruption" argument always cracks me up too. I may be a novice at this point in my guitar experience, but I can tell you that I have no desire to ever learn to play Eruption, or anything like it. I'd rather just turn on some porn and jerk-off. :)

I apologize for the attitude that I'm now showing, but geez man, try to get off your high-horse before posting to a group of generally intelligent people.

Hendrix played his cock.

Yes, that's why we have so many veteran guitarists ruling Eddie as guitarist supreme based on sportsmanship and craftmanship. I'm surprised you haven't included the fact that he went from jeans to parachute pants and back to jeans again in your list of reasons why he is so inarguably great. Take your Zakk Wylde opinions and shove 'em up your ass. There are a million no-name mullet-headed dipshits who can squeal like Zakk or tap like Eddie. And before Eddie was custimizing chewy rectifier rectal "brown sounds," Jimi was customizing nameless stompboxes and geegaws to invent a sound that didn't even exist outside of heavy machinery and dangerous explosions.

http://pop.wizbangblog.com/images/2006/03/eddie-van-halen.jpg

Funniest irony ever.

...which would be fine if playing music was a track & field event, or a science project.

"When Jimi emerged, no one was trying to play like him, look like him, or capture his sound."

"Innovation: Eddie Van Halen. His style of double hand tapping revolutionized the way the guitar would be played for decades to come."

Pfft. Double hand tapping is only common in an extremely narrow slice of rock music - you could easily make the claim that Sonic Youth's tunings, or Kevin Shields' "wall of feedback" has influenced an equal number of guitarists. Who cares?

"If you throw in the creation of the drop-d tuna"

is this a reference to drop-d tuning? Eddie didn't invent that.

"the only tone nicknamed in the music industry ( "Brown Sound") this debate was never a debate to begin with."

Baloney - tons of guitarists have nicknames for their own individual peculiarities. That Eddie went so far as patent and market it is not all that impressive an artistic achievement.

"When Jimi emerged, no one was trying to play like him, look like him, or capture his sound."

This is COMPLETELY WRONG. Read interviews of any of the Brits who saw Jimi play (Beck, Townsend, etc) and they were all blown away by Jimi and wanted to copy him. Back in the states once Jimi hit every single black guitarist copped his act - witness all the fuzz guitar all over Norman Whitfield's productions, Eddie Hazel, Black Merda, a host of "heavy" blues bands, etc.

"When Eddie emerged EVERY guitar player tried to play like him. In fact, during the club days, Eddie had to play his solos with his back to the crowd"

As has been pointed out, these two sentences kind of contradict one another.

"like Randy Rhoads, Jake E Lee and George Lynch would not learn his techniques. bettencourt, Rhoads, vai, satriani, Lynch, Beach, Malmsteen, DeMartini,Dweezil Zappa,Dimebag, Kirk Hammet, Zakk Wylde,"

With the ostensible exceptions of Randy Rhoads and Hammett, all of these people are horrible hacks who play some of the most boring music ever - music that appeals strictly to people who fetishize Musicians' Trading Post catalogs.

"Green Day, Pantera, Smashmouth, Phish,Weezer, and Pearl Jam are just a handful of bands that have covered VH songs or site Eddie as their musical influence."

Everybody covers everybody. Most common cover is the Beatles' "Yesterday". "Louie Louie" is probably after that. Who cares?

"Getting guitar advice from Rolling Stone is like getting plumbing advice from your dentist. They also had their website shut down after 4,000 plus angry e-mails from EVH supporters."

4,000 EVH fans can't be wrong, eh? The masses quake.

"Meanwhile Eddie Van Halen is the only guitar player to be elected in to the Hall of Fame in both Guitar World and Guitar Player."

The notion that Guitar World and Guitar Player are not just as deluded and tradition-bound as Rolling Stone is laughable.

"They were so great they he had only one top ten single in his career, A COVER, no platinum albums until a decade after he died.... By Van halen's third album, way before MTV started, they outsold Jimi's entire catalog to date."

Sales as an arbiter of artistic quality is an empty argument. Aesthetics are not economics, and mass appeal /= proof of creativity.

"Any questions?"

why do you fucking bother? (hell why do I bother...)

Steve Hackett to thread.

"After a several year hiatus, Bruce Bennett, of Bennett Music Labs, is back to building the Brown Sound distortion pedal. His aim was to capture the essence of Hendrix’s Foxy Lady sound and other classic tones of the era that were based around a touch of fuzz and a ton of power amp distortion."

I think that's my favourite comment in the entire thread (at least he was humble about his own skills, so I give him credit for that)! First, I don't think anyone has bad-mouthed Eruption. It is clearly quite a feat of speed playing, and it would be unwise for anyone to claim that it isn't a very difficult piece to play, or that Eddie isn't a highly skilled player.

But having admitted all of that, I'm still fully within my right to not like Eruption, and I think it's funny to imply that anyone who doesn't like it simply must not be a good guitar player, or has a poor taste in music. I just listened to it again, just because of how this thread has degenerated, and yes, it's quite amazing, but no, I don't like it. :)

The very first sentence of the original start of this thread is "Who is your favourite?", and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Unfortunately, as is always the case, it turned into a polemic argument rather than a lively debate. And I may be completely incorrect here (I just don't have the energy to go through the entire thread again), but it seems to me that it was some (note that I said "some", not "all" or even "most". Many of those who prefer EVH have made perfectly logical and valid points) of the EVH fans that started with the "Hendrix sucks" comments, and as someone above stated, Eddie himself would laugh his ass off at anyone who claims that Jimi Hendrix was a shitty guitar player.

I think I'm pretty safe to say that both Jimi and Eddie are two examples of fantastic guitar playing. So for me it comes down to what I like better, and in this case it's Hendrix. I can safely say that I'd be fucking ecstatic to have a fraction of either of their skills, but I also know that even if I was able to play Eruption as well as Eddie, I'd be jamming to Hendrix-like stuff way more often.

But I guess I'd still suck! ;)

ding ding ding OTFM

i like both EVH and Hendrix a whole bunch.

so low and loud that it literally emptied bowels)

How did Sunn0))) get here? Do they have false teeth, too?

-- George 'the Animal' Steele (georg...), June 1st, 2006.

i heard the brown sounds story in regards to the swans...i guess they used to put amps along both walls of small art galleries and make people poop their pants.

Pete Townshend to thread, come on.

This can't possibly be true, can it?

(my guess is probably not, unless their Hall of Fame's are limited to, like, 3 people apiece).

This can't possibly be true, can it?

Why not? Look at the public's taste. Anything good only gets its due respect generally 30 years too late, while most of the shit that was such a big deal 30 years earlier is finally seen as it really is: ridiculous, ironically fun and kitschy.

xpost

You really think so? The various guitar magazines don't really appear to have radically different aesthetics to me. Of course I haven't read them for ages.

The drop-d tuna device WAS invented by EVH. This is a contraption that is situated at your tremolo system that allows you to drop down to D without having to use your tuning heads. Most major guitar lines with tremolo systems are now trying to incorporate them in their designs.

Edward is the ONLY guitar player to have his tone named in the music industry. Eddie did not name his own tone, Quincy Jones named his tone during the "Beat It" sessions. Every guitar player tried to emulate that tone and it became known by the music industry as the "Brown Sound." If you can name one guitar player that has a musical moniker for their tone that is not self-designated, I would hope you would enlighten us all and share your information.

There is also zero contradiction about everyone going to the LA club scene to copy Eddie and then to find Eddie playing with his back to the crowd. He turned his back because he had something new and original that remained a magic trick to guitar players but also a novelty to music fans. After Eddie recorded "Eruption" and Warner Brothers released VHI, it was amazing to hear Randy Rhoads playing sound like Eddie's after listening to his previous Quiet Riot material which sounded nothing like it. Lynch,Satriani,DeMartini and many others changed their entire style after Eddie emerged. You should really read the book "Van Halen 101" by Abel Sanchez. There are direct quotes from guitar players from all of the guitar publications that blow the lid off of this. The techniques were released after 1978 and were transcribed and disected in every guitar publication so people could try to nail it. It is also quite scary to me as a guitar player to hear guys like Malmsteen, Vai and Satriani labeled as "Hacks." Malmsteen 's input of classical runs to rock guitar were groundbreaking. Vai has played for Zappa, David Lee Roth and Whitesnake. He is truly a technical wizard and a hired gun. Joe Satriani TAUGHT Steve Vai, Kirk Hammett,and Alex Scolnick before launching a platinum instrmental career.

I also want to comment about equating Guitar World and Guitar Player
with Rolling Stone. There is a HUGE difference between them. Guitar World and Guitar Player are written, transcribed, and edited by professional guitar technicians and studio players. Therefore, those two guitar publications are written by experts of the guitar. Rolling Stone is written and edited by opinionated 50-something writers who write about pop-culture. For instance, you can not rate the best guitar players one week and then have the Simpsons and the cast of Friends on the next two issues. It is a blanket entertainment publication like US Weekly and People. The credible music publications are Billboard, since it is based on facts, sales and ratings and RIAA.com which documents album sales, chart success and individual artist tallies. In fact,the only facts used in Rolling Stone use Billboard and RIAA as their sources. ( Look it up. ) The rest is all opinionated. So basically, this thread is no different than the material Rolling Stone compiles from a bunch of freelance writers sitting around a table. And YES . . .Eddie Van Halen is the only guitar player in history to be entered in both Guitar publications Hall of Fame. Write their editors and ask them.

When I last checked, no one looked like Jimi. Mentioning Kravitz or perhaps Prince is a stretch. That is funny you think all of those Brit guitar players sounded like Jimi. When I listen to music, I can tell you immediately if it is Clapton, Page, Townshend, Beck, or Hendrix. Not one of them sound like the other nor do any of them do anything that is Jimi-esque. You are really grasping here and you are also minimizing the individual greatness of these other guitar players. There are legitimate arguments that would site Clapton and Page as more influential and innovative players than Hendrix in the UK as well. I have heard people mistakingly credit Jimi for the use of distortion. (It was invented a decade earlier by Link Wray and mastered by The Kinks.)Jimi is mistakingly given credit for fuzz and feedback, both of which had been used the moment the electric guitar was pioneered. ( Try Les Paul in the 1940's. he invented the first guitar effects, multi-track recording and the hollow body electric guitar. The first signs of fuzz and feedback were on early Les paul recordings)

Listen, if you like Jimi Hendirx more, you are entitled to your opinion. That is fine. By burying EVH's accomplishments with shallow opinion is insulting to those of us who actually do play and do know the history of the guitar. Again, read my first post and see if my facts are incorrect. If you are bearking this down on proven and documented innovation, influence, technique and accolades, then Jimi is not even close to Eddie. I will debate this up and down and left and right. Eddie Van halen is th emost important and most revolutionary guitar player in rock history. One out of every three things you either use or apply to the guitar and directly associated with Eddie.

My actual point here is if you like Jimi more, than that is fine. People who try to undermine Eddie's accomplishments in the process of praising Jimi are uninformed or foolish. Had Jimi lved longer, who knows what he may have done. The point is not would have or could have been done, but actually what has been accomplished by Eddie. If Jimi was so innovative and amazing, he would have came up with double hand tapping and artificial harmonics. He would have invented the Floyd Rose or Drop-D Tuna. He would have been the 19th best selling artist of all time. The point is, none of this happened. eddie came up with someting that no one was doing beofre him and everyone did after him. That is innovation and influence. If anything, I hope you like Hendrix but you learned and respected a lot more about Eddie.

Music simply cannot be judged like a sport, and thank the stars for that. As paraphrased above, Eddie himself said something along the lines of:

"Guitar playing is not a sport and it is not competition. There is no best. You like what you like and you play how you feel."

So I find it unbelievably ironic that you are bound and determined to dig your heels in behind this imaginary line that your own guitar-god-hero dismisses. If technical speed was the main determination to establish the intangible "best" in music, then I shudder to think about what today's music would be like.

Music is about pleasure, so to stretch the analogy, if you ask any woman if she prefers a speedy lover over one who takes his time and gives emphasis to certain "notes and rhythms", I'm willing to bet the farm that well over 90% would choose the latter. That's exactly how I feel about music.

Now if you have a wife or girlfriend, do this for me: Play Eruption, then play Little Wing. Then ask her which one gets her more in the mood. And if you honestly don't think that evoking emotional or even sexual responses out of song is a valid indication of the power of music, then there really is no further point in having any kind of discourse with you.

Your "evidence" really only supports that EVH is a better shredder and speed technician, and that is a very small percentage of both guitar players and fans of music in general. And as I said before, even though I'm not a fan of shredding, I feel that Satriani is a much better example of a guitar virtuoso who can not only shred with the best, but also appears to be much more versatile, and in my opinion soulful.

As for all of the responses by guys claiming that you have "schooled us", that is high praise indeed from people who before you showed up were famous for saying ridiculous things like "Hendrix Sux!". I've already mentioned it, but it is clear that some things need to be said many times before they sink in. Roy's evidence, in my opinion, does in fact support and conclude that EVH is more of a technical genius than Hendrix was. But that's where it ends. Claims that one influenced more subsequent guitarists are far from empirical, and such a conclusion is near impossible to make based upon the sheer number of fantastic guitar players in the world, all of whom would be laughing their asses off at this polemic thread.

Well yeah, by 1 degree of separation: I play a guitar and so does he.

Let's count the other similarities:
• My guitar has 6 strings... so does Eddie's!
• I use an amp or some sort of module that translates the signal from my guitar to more interesting and audible sound... so does Eddy!
• I use two hands: my left one is on the fretboard, my right hand hits the strings with a pick... so does Eddy (when he's not tapping the most boring shit ever)!
• That reminds me: in addition to a guitar with strings and an amp, I also use a pick... so does Eddy!
• I recently took apart a guitar and put it back together with new parts... I hear Eddy did shit like that with his Charvel neck and wax-dipped pickups. Wowee!
• Sometimes I play drunk or stoned... so does Eddy!

And I could go on to take minor issues with a vast number of your points (first distortion - ever heard "Rocket 88"?! double hand tapping - you list all the people you initially listed in your first post. Repeating the same half dozen people does not make your point. THERE ARE OTHER GUITAR PLAYERS fyi). But why should I bother? In a sense that would just be validating your approach - that the quality of music and a musician can be broken down into scientifically verifiable little categories that can then be quantified and ranked on a checklist. I could list a million guitarists that you in all likelihood have never heard of and never will because they do not fall into any of these little categories of yours, and do not run in the same circles of shitty multiplatinum metal studio musician hacks. (
Honestly go to the current "favorite guitar player" thread and tell me you even know who half of the people listed are...) But what would be the point? You probably would say it isn't "music" cuz they never sold a billion records or were on the cover of Guitar Player.

My actual point here is if you like Jimi more, than that is fine. People who try to undermine Eddie's accomplishments in the process of praising Jimi are uninformed or foolish.

it's mostly from the Grateful Dead, just amped up w/guitar mag chops (and boring playing and w/o jerry's great voice.)

As for his assertion that Van Halen has had a greater influence, lest we forget, Satriani one of the virtuoso guitarists that Roy cites (as do I) began focusing on his amazing career when he heard that Hendrix died. My guess is that both Satriani and Eddie himself have called Hendrix one of their main influences. Vai also notes that his early influences included Hendrix and Page. Kirk Hammet is another respected speed metal guitarist who cites Hendrix as one of his major influences. These are just a few that I've bothered to Google, and each of them falls into the shredder model. If I attempted to start a list of lead guitarists who are more into the blues-rock than shredding, I'm certain I could come up with a list as long as the day is long.

Malmsteen cites Hendrix as his inspiration too. It just seems to me that Roy was emphasizing EVH's accomplishments, and now you guys are gleefully attacking this guitar-center wanker strawman rather than replying to what he actually said.

I don't think it's arguable that EVH was a better technician than Hendrix. Beyond that it gets a lot more subjective. I've never been a huge fan of the music of either.

Influence: Eddie Van Halen again. When Jimi emerged, no one was trying to play like him, look like him, or capture his sound. When Eddie emerged EVERY guitar player tried to play like him

EVERY guitar player huh? Real empirical, and simply not true. In fact I'm certain that there are more guitar players in the world (professional or not) who would not claim EVH as an influence, and the same goes for Hendrix. You simply made an untrue statement.

Additionally, I've already stated that most of the people Roy cites as having been influenced by EVH have also named Hendrix, some going so far as to say the latter was their main influence. So much for that point.

Innovation: Eddie Van Halen... Artificial harmonics, volume swells, whammy screams, even the name "whammy" were all from Eddie. If you throw in the creation of the drop-d tuna, the inspiration for the Floyd Rose patent, and his line of hand-made guitars with the only tone nicknamed in the music industry ( "Brown Sound") this debate was never a debate to begin with.

Eddie perfected hand-tapping. Jimi (in many people's opinions) basically introduced the concept of the lead guitar player as we now now it. Which one is more significant to you?

OK, so EVH made innovations in gear. What the hell does that have to do with his skill as a guitar player. One of the first and biggest changes in the electric guitar industry was the Fender Broadcaster/Telecaster and later Stratocaster, and, correct me if I'm wrong, Leo Fender did not play guitar. Furthermore, many of the skilled guitar players that I know are of the opinion that wammy bars and other gear are bells and whistles that a truly skilled practitioner doesn't need. Please don't take that statement as me trying to say that EVH or anyone that does use these things are not great; I'm simply telling you what I've been told by a good number of skilled guitar players.

As for technical skill, I've already given my opinion that I concede this point, and agree that EVH has technical skills that Jimi didn't reach in his short life. But here's another analogy for ya.. I've been involved in judo for more than half of my 39 years, and I've seen many a perfectionist technician get his ass handed to him in a tournament or in the street by guys with less skills. Similarly I've seen tough, meathead streetfighters get manhandled by judoka with both technical skill and fighting spirit. Again, I feel that it takes a combination of technical skills on the guitar AND musical spirit to make it as one of my favourites.

Any questions?

Yes, why do you feel the need to be so condescending?

There really are no other salient points made in his first post than those I've covered, so I really fail to see how anyone saw Roy's post as so conclusive.

Here are some of the fallacies I see in Roy's post, and what I see as support for each of my claims:

Appeal to Authority: As a guitar historian and a veteran player myself... 'nuff said

The Horse Laugh/Ridicule: Especially when you were booed opening up for The Monkees. If the musical opinion of the fanbase of the first boy-band in history is an indication of Jimi's lack of skill, we're all in real trouble. This is a great one since it's also a Begging the Question because we don't know how Eddie would have been met by the same crowd, and a False Dillema fallacy, since it seems to state that Jimi couldn't have been very good because that group of people booed him.

Testability: When Eddie emerged EVERY guitar player tried to play like him. Show me what metric or test was used to draw this conclusion.

I could go on, but this is a drastic departure from the thread topic. :)

Anyway, I won't bother engaging you guys as I don't particularly care about this subject. It's just annoying to read poor arguments. And yes, "he got booed opening for the Monkees" is a very stupid argument.

Roy's entire argument hinges on his alleged greater experience and knowledge than the rest of us. He believes that since he is a "veteran guitar player and historian" that his points are conclusive. Since I feel many of us have been successful at underminging most of his points, I think it is fair to say that his appeal to his own authority made him feel that his subsequent fallacious arguments could not be challenged by a bunch on non-guitar-playing fanboys.

No it doesn't. He didn't say "I'm a veteran guitarist and I think Eddie is better, therefore he is." He said "I'm a veteran guitar player. I think Eddie is better. Here's why," and then he went on to make arguments about influence, innovation, technical ability, and accolades. If you disagree with him on those points, then make that argument. It's not an appeal to authority fallacy.

Since I believe his subsequent arguments to be fallacious, they all fall back on his original information that he has placed himself on a higher platform than the rest of us. How many veteran guitar players are there on this board, and how many of them feel the need to cite that as corrobaration for their opinions?

Also, as I said, if any of his premises were valid, his self-professed skill-level would not be necessary to add weight to his conclusions.

Comments like these, on the other hand, are a straw man fallacy:

all you Guitar Center/Guitar Player magazine reading fanboys are tiresome and full of shit - knowledgeable only about an extremely limited slice of the rock n roll landscape, yet proud to endlessly reheash the same half-assed, poorly thought-out "facts" over and over. Enjoy yr wanking!

all of these people are horrible hacks who play some of the most boring music ever - music that appeals strictly to people who fetishize Musicians' Trading Post catalogs.

These are people who, like yourself, base their criteria on a checklist of items that the rest of the population does not care about. Its an elitist and pedantic circle of self-congratulating technicians that is stuck repeating the same mantras and celebrating the same lineage in perpetuity.

:)

dunno how true that is, but by all accounts, eddie and his manager(s) are rampant douchbags.

http://rockcritics.com/interview/musician-letter.jpg

I may not have been trying to, but I was attempting to? Whatever dude. You misinterpreted my comment. The point was that whether or not he's a guitar player is clearly relevant to the argument, but he did not make an argument that depended on him being a veteran guitar player in order for it to be true.

haha Steve all those quotes are from ME

I realize that. And whether or not he's said anything to dissuade you is rather beside the point, isn't it? I'm just saying that assuming that he is equivalent to some pre-existing caricature you've got in mind isn't a very productive way to argue, and I feel like I've been seeing it a lot around here.

He gives no indication that he has any musical knowledge whatsoever beyond the hidebound canon of techie mags.

So? I don't think he was trying to make an argument outside of that realm. He was saying "By these criteria, I think EVH is better," and then you immediately jump on him because you think that set of criteria is emblematic of a certain type of person with whom you disagree. Can't we just stick to agreeing or disagreeing with things that people actually say?

-- Cody P. (putdog14...), May 25th, 2006.

(Sorry this thread needs a dose of the not-booooring)

I don't think this is true at all when it comes to music, or any of the arts for that matter. I'm not sure what the most objective framework actually IS (maybe there isn't one at all), but breaking things down into the nuts and bolts of what is most physically difficult to play really gets away from what makes music interesting to most of us in the first place. I mean, see all of gear's (sarcastic) posts about who types faster or drives better...

Look, if Roy had not gotten on his high horse and acted like such a know-it-all, if he had stated his premises as opinions instead of fact, and if he hadn't been so arrogant in his choice of words (again I use his "Any Questions" comment as an example.. The only thing he could have said that would have pissed me off more would have been "Here endith the lesson"!), I wouldn't have had a problem with him. None of these actions make him a poster-boy for constructing a valid and sound argument, and I'm very surprised that you seem to be using him as such an example.

Damn. Somebody stop me.

Gear and Mo bring up some good points here. Can anybody possibly answer the question "Who's a better painter, Picaso or Rembrandt?" with any hope of having a sound conclusion?

Classic!

I don't think this is true at all when it comes to music, or any of the arts for that matter. I'm not sure what the most objective framework actually IS (maybe there isn't one at all), but breaking things down into the nuts and bolts of what is most physically difficult to play really gets away from what makes music interesting to most of us in the first place. I mean, see all of gear's (sarcastic) posts about who types faster or drives better...

I don't really follow, Mo. What's a more objective comparison for two instrumentalists than technical ability? Even by istself, "technical ability" encompasses many things.

And what do you mean this gets away from what makes music interesting in the first place? I mean, I realize you're saying you don't listen to music for its technicality, and I don't either; but what does that have to do with anything? Presumably you're interested in whether EVH or Jimi is a better guitarist or you wouldn't be in this thread.

But isn't it interesting how Steve picked on everyone else's comments, but felt that all of Roy's were salient?

I didn't feel like all of Roy's points were good, and I'm not trying to hold him up as a posterboy for making good arguments. I think there was an element of truth in what he was saying, but he did a poor job presenting his position. But I felt like he was being ganged up on and attacked out of proportion to what he actually said, seemingly because he was assumed to fit a pre-conceived stereotype of an opponent.

Who's more "important" is not based on technical ability. Who's more enjoyable to listen to is not based on technical ability. Who's more popular is not based on technical ability. In some cases, you could even argue that who's more creative with the instrument (ie, develops heretofore latent possibilities) is not based on technical ability.

"Even by istself, "technical ability" encompasses many things."

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm referring mainly to the mechanical skill required to play a wide variety of notes and phrases with dexterity and clarity.

"And what do you mean this gets away from what makes music interesting in the first place?"

its like gear alludes to - whatever is the most complicated or fastest or hardest to play is not necessarily all that interesting to listen to for the majority of music listeners. This point is kinda self-evident when you consider what the most popular forms of music are (ie, they aren't the ones with the most notes played as quiclkly as possible in the most complex arrangement possible).

Well, who's more "important" is totally vague as well, but that's not what we're talking about here. This thread asks two questions:

Which is your favorite? Who do you think is the better guitarist?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm referring mainly to the mechanical skill required to play a wide variety of notes and phrases with dexterity and clarity.

Well I think that's a very poor definition of what technical ability means for a guitarist.

its like gear alludes to - whatever is the most complicated or fastest or hardest to play is not necessarily all that interesting to listen to for the majority of music listeners.

Yes, I thought I made it clear that I understand and agree with that. I just don't see what bearing that point has on this argument. If someone says "EVH had more technical ability than Hendrix," saying "technical ability isn't what makes music good" doesn't prove them wrong; it's a non-sequitur.

To be fair Steve, the threadstarter question asked both of the following:

Which is your favorite? and Who do you think is the better guitarist?

So not every participant in the thread was necessarily interested in the latter. Note also that it states who do you *think*, not state as fact who is better

LMAO! I got that from the season finale of House last week and wondered when I'd be able to use it! Such a Hawkeye Pierce-like quip!

No, he doesn't. He talked about technique, innovation, accolades, and influence. And what makes a guitarist better than another guitarist is not the same as what makes music good. So it doesn't make sense to respond that technical ability isn't what interests people in music.

I'm not arguing semantics, you're just being sloppy.

why don't we back up and let you tell us who you think is better and why, hmmmmmmmm...? instead of all this armchair quarterbacking bullshit you seem so fond of.

Answers.com vs. Guitar World FITE

Yes. Is that really that bizarre to you? It seems to me that we're talking about them instrumentalists, not as composers. I can think someone is an excellent guitarist but still not enjoy his music.

I think they're both important players in the history of rock guitar. I think EVH is clearly the better technician. I think Jimi probably had a more significant influence. I'm not sure who was more innovative, but I think that category is of secondary importance.

And I don't think either were great songwriters, but again I don't think that's at issue here.

Ok, sure, but I think that EVH's particular things were more technically demanding.

But it seems to me that Edward is said to be "clearly a better technician" merely because the things he worked on a lot happned to involve speed.

You say that like it's totally abritrary. Technical ability isn't all about speed, but fast, rhythmically complex passages are understood as being more demanding on the player.

That doesn't mean that the things Hendrix developed in his own playing were not as interesting, technically speaking.

But they were interesting more for their bold creativity and unique style than they were for their technical precision.

Edward was the more athletic player, sure. But one thing: let's not let complexity be considered the be-all-and-end-all of things that are "demanding on the player." Expressiveness and creativity are also demanding - not just conceptually, but in the moment when one is playing.

No, I think it's assumed that precision is a standard measure of technical ability. Maybe we're not thinking of the same definition of "technical ability," but I think that there's a reasonably well-defined standard idea of what that means for the guitar, and slightly less well-defined standard of what it means for an instrumentalist in general, and precision is certainly a part of it.

I don't see how a guitar player can be "precise in his expressiveness," though.

But one thing: let's not let complexity be considered the be-all-and-end-all of things that are "demanding on the player." Expressiveness and creativity are also demanding - not just conceptually, but in the moment when one is playing.

No, I'm talking about technical demands. I don't see why if we agree that we're dealing with technique as it's own issue, you have to keep twist everything around so that it isn't about technique at all anymore. Creativity can't be demanding on a player. We aren't talking about composition or innovation. A difficult passage of music is demanding on a player.

Warren Haynes -Electric Blues and Slide Guitar Hot Licks video

Just an example I feel is appropriate to Tim's last statement (and *many* others since the beginning of this thread).

"I think it's assumed that precision is a standard measure of technical ability"

Sure, and, as I said, I think Hendrix WAS precise. And I don't discount his precision because there were fewer notes per square inch.

Oh shit my last two posts can be accused of my own appeal to authority and an ad hominem personal attack. I better put on my pointy Vulcan ears and prepare for the coming retaliation.

Sorry, now I'm just being an ass. I probably shouldn't debate after having a glass of wine ;)

Gee, that's the first time I've ever heard something like that...

Again, this isn't about who makes better music, it's about who's better at playing the guitar.

Expressiveness IS a part of technique. If you can play a passage faster than I can, but you play it with no expressiveness, does that mean you get to be called "a better techinician" than me anyway?

I don't know Tim, I guess you'd have to define what you mean by "expressiveness" and explain how you judge it.

I think Hendrix WAS precise.

I don't think he was, relatively speaking. In fact, he was known for sloppiness. Obviously most people don't think it overshadows the rest of his strengths (and neither do I), but that doesn't change the fact that chops are not the primary reason for his legacy.

Vivid, effective, or persuasive communication in speech or artistic performance

"In fact, he was known for sloppiness."

By whom? Who are some experts that have said that he was sloppy? Hendrix was only "sloppy" sometimes in getting to the point of rock and roll itself, which is sometimes about sloppiness. You could say the same thing about Eddie Van Halen!

On a case-by-case basis, certainly. : )

I think that's mostly subjective and doesn't really fall under the umbrella of technique. Of course, there are expressive techniques, like vibrato, etc. But I don't think EVH was lacking in these departments, and I think you're just saying that you feel a stronger affinity with Hendrix's playing, and so you feel it's more expressive.

By whom? Who are some experts that have said that he was sloppy?

So you're asking me to make an appeal to authority now? I'm sure there are experts who have called Hendrix sloppy, though I don't have any citations off the top of my head. But I don't need to appeal to experts - the fact is plain if you watch some of his live performances. And as you rightly point out, sloppiness isn't always a bad thing - that doesn't change the fact that Hendrix was sometimes sloppy, and we're talking about technicality.

You seem really unwilling to admit that Van Halen could be superior in any department. I'm not saying he was necessarily the better overall guitarist, I'm just saying his chops were better developed.

Uh, it was a quote that completely corroborates the point that Tim is clearly making to everyone but you Steve. I didn't just pull the quote out of my ass, it was an appropriate opinion that supports Tim's point that Expressiveness IS a part of technique, and that it is difficult to learn.

No, it was an irrelevant quote. Do you not understand what is meant by "technical ability?" It's about executing a piece of music accurately. It's not about whether or not the listener is moved, or whether or not the player can come up with a good composition. I don't get why you guys can't just acknowledge that Hendrix was great for reasons other than his chops.

But expressivity is not just things like vibrato - it is everything about the dynamics of every note played and how these factors relate to what is being "expressed" in a given moment. You say that technical ability is about "executing a piece of music accurately." Is accuracy only about getting the notes in their place, though? I think a player can be accurate or inaccurate in dynamic executions as well. I believe that there are nuances in dynamic executions and that, yes, these things have to be executed ACCURATELY.

"You seem really unwilling to admit that Van Halen could be superior in any department."

I have said that I believe he was the more athletic performer.

Anyway, I still say that EVH's chops were plainly better-developed. Let's just agree to disagree at this point.

Gotta bring judo in as an analogy again. I had one sensei that would try to teach 10 complex ground techniques in a 1.5 hour lesson. All of these techniques sure were impressive to watch in demonstration, but a) he taught too many in one session, and b) each technique was too complex to be effective against a struggling opponent of equal skill and strength. This instructor had some small measure of success back in his competitive days, but was pretty limited to local matches.

On the other hand I had another instructor who taught one main grappling technique, then simply added modifications to that core maneuvre. The techniques generally weren't as flashy, but they were damned effective, and one move transitioned smoothly into the next. This gentleman competed in the olympics.

Both were quite technical, but one could definitely argue that the former's technique was more complex. Similarly, just because Jimi's technique may not have been as complex as Eddie's, it's still technique that is hard to master all the same. What Tim, Mo, myself, et al are trying to say is that just because Jimi may not have been able to play Eruption like Eddie, Eddie can't play Little Wing like Jimi. One technique is mathematical, one is emotional. Both take a great deal of practice and determination.

So yes! I think we agree that on the mathematical side (or as Tim is saying, the athletic side) of technique, Eddie wins, but as we've been saying all along, Jimi wins on the emotive side. But it's still technique.

;)

Given that we were not talking about music executed by people reading scores, I did not take this as being implicit.

x-post

Alright, fair enough. As a composer, I take it as a given that dynamics are one of the fixed elements in a musical composition. Of course, they don't have to be if it's any kind of indeterminate composition, but that's sort of beside the point.

By the way, Steve, I have seen some footage of Hendrix live where I thought his playing was maybe kind of sloppy, too. I don't find his playing on the records to be sloppy, however.

Well, yeah! I was never trying to imply that he sounded particularly sloppy on record. But his live playing tended to have higher peaks, too, didn't it?

Steve, what is the difference between how you think instrumentalists conceive of "technique" and what shorty was talking about?

I think technique is used to refer to mechanical skills. "Expression" is technique inasmuch as it involves the techniques of dynamic playing, different types of articulation, expressive techniques like vibrato and glissandi, etc. But generally instrumental technique specifically does not refer to artistic or expressive merit; the composer tends to have the primary role in that regard, and the player's emotive aspects are not what is usually referred to as a player's chops.

I think that most people would say that technical proficiency is not as important as expressive ability, and I would agree. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize and/or respect technical proficiency when I see it, or that I can't separate the two factors.

Once again I am compelled to state that I disagree entirely with your entire concept of what music is. Jesus fucking christ. "Ideal"? Who are you to decree what the apex of music is? "Of course?" Not for me, thanks. I'll be over here listening to my Zoviet France records. Ooh, here's a vaguely relevant quote from the This Heat box that just came out:

Hayward: I remember thinking we could radicalize the whole audience, that people would eventually want improvisation rather than panel games.

Bullen: This was 1976 and the New Wave hand't quite happened yet...

H: White Riot. I remember we read the words and thought yes, it's about time...

B: We did relate to that.

H: ...and then we heard it; I remember thinking, this is Johnny B. Goode!

B: "No more Rolling Stones" and they sound just like the Rolling Stones - only not as good...

H: No Charlie Watts...

B: Very disappointing.

By the way, I far prefer Hendrix to Eddie for his sense of melody, and I think his songwriting is vastly superior as well. I still own & play Van Halen albums, but it just isn't the same.

I think you either don't get what I'm saying or are just being an ass.

Van Halen, on the other hand, is always in tune (modern guitar technology explains a lot of that) and has fleet-fingered technique, some of which evolved from Hendrix. He has, however, not come up with as many actual memorable songs (memorable to me!). That's partially a result of strapping himself to some of the worst, most trivial & juvenile lyricists I can think of. Hendrix had a knack for writing the vaguest of melodies - some of which he didn't even sing - that somehow become defined in the listener's mind later. That's not my clearest writing ever, sorry.

They were both fine guitarists when allowed to just take their time and create finished versions of what they wanted to hear. They were also (often in live settings) tedious, bombastic, long-winded, self-aggrandizing noisemakers of the lowest order. It really does come down to the songwriting they attached themselves to. Just one guy's opinion.

You are clear, you show how it is not a black and white issue, and your opinion doesn't judge anyone else's.

Very cool.

omfg at this thread, how did I miss this all this time. lol at Steve Goldberg getting pwned by like 5 people...

Eddie can't compare to Jimi. When Jimi brought his music to the mainstream music scene starting in London, England in 1966, he was like an explosion of a new form of music that was not only unique, but desirable and powerful. Nobody has ever heard anything like it and they were all blown away. He sidetracked the way music was progressing at that time and took it in another direction. This is the reason why it's so hard to imagine how music would sound today without Jimi. His impact on music makes him the only person who has ever pulled a Beatle.

Special thanks to Linda Keith who saw what a talent Jimi was and did something about it. She started Jimi on his way to taking the guitar as far as it can go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX0V9UlwuLM&feature=related

the only person who has ever pulled a Beatle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2qIDhdLMHg&feature=youtu.be

But when Eddie brought his music to the people it was about fun and the devil and kinks covers and being the awesome,

wheras jimi was on some hippie and beating women shit

Hendrix was the Chris Brown of his day

It's super cliché to say that Hendrix is overrated, so I won't say that, but I will say that I reach for Van Halen records far more often than I do Hendrix. Just great songwriting.

Also, guy above who said that Steve Vai is a really emotional player is totally mental – dude is pure technicality, maybe you could get emotion from it if you're a robot…

wtf keyes

Like Eric Burdon of the Animals said, "I love Jimi, but one second, he's singin' about the underdog, and the next second, he's out in the alley beatin' the s**t out of some poor chic."

When someone disagrees with or challenges someone who is malignantly narcissistic, their reaction may be extreme irritation, and Jimi's interpersonal relationships seemed to represent this idea. His habitually abusive behavior towards women showed Jimi had a very low tolerance for frustration, and when others, and particularly women disagreed with him, his response to this frustration was very often physical violence.

this isn't unknown stuff

wasn't known to me but fair enough. just seemed odd the way you swung in comparing the spirit and themes of Eddie's [lead singer's] lyrics with Jimi's personal shortcomings like it was a totally logical way to measure two guitarists against each other.

i was more going off of EVH's doofy grin (rather than DLR's lyrics) as an indication that he was a more fun loving dude in his 1976-1984 heydey than Jimi was in his. Of course it could be true that EVH was just as big of a woman hater.

we can only dream

The electric guitar had two eras. Before and after Hendrix. After Hendrix came, all the guitar gods of those days had to change. Without Hendrix, there would no Eddie Van Halen.

don't you talk about eddie's mom like that

eddie might have been the most influential american guitarist after hendrix. on hard rock and metal. for better or worse. he definitely changed things. but obviously he didn't help invent the stuff like hendrix did.

Eddie did change things, but Jimi was a whole new metamorphosis. Deservingly so, the Wiki says that Jimi "is widely considered to be the greatest electric guitarist in music history". To stay consistent, the Wiki can only say that about one person if they're going to do it at all.

To stay consistent, the Wiki can only say that about one person if they're going to do it at all.

are you accusing the Wiki of consistency

Nobody's perfect and I know the Wiki can't be consistent about all things, especially when things are changing all the time, but the Wiki can only say that about one person at a time. Mark my words, Jimi has his place forever and that won't ever change. It hasn't for over 40 years.

hi

a new form of music that was not only unique, but desirable and powerful

this makes jimi sound like john galt. "loved by many but known by few, he ruled the fields of woodstock with an indomitable will and a mind that surveyed the doings of lesser men like a god enthroned upon the clouds..."

anyway, it's hard for me to render a verdict. they're both hugely talented and influential musicians. then again, they're both dudes i respectfully appreciate more than outright love. i grew up with jimi's music, but never really bonded with it (one night spent tripping to are you experienced notwithstanding). sometimes the emotionalism hits me just right, and i think it's gorgeous. more often than not, though, it bores me, and i tune it out. i'm a little more personally fond of van halen, as they're suburban adolescence incarnate, and i was a suburban adolescent during their heyday. still, they belong more to my brother and certain of my friends than to me.

i guess it depends on my mood. if i wanted music to soundtrack idle contemplations on a sunny day, it'd be hendrix. if i wanted something to amp me up and/or drink to, then i'd pick van halen.

"but I will say that I reach for Van Halen records far more often than I do Hendrix. Just great songwriting."

i think hendrix's songwriting is kinda the genius part of his genius. i think he was a great composer. i mean not that he wasn't in his a league of his own as a guitarist, he was. okay, i guess he was just a genius. or let's just say he was very very gifted.

yeah people who talk about hendrix as some kind of one-dimensional instrumental genius/showman piss me off, guy was really the whole package

guy was really the whole package.

You're right, when Jimi played, he was "one" with his instrument. You can tell by his movements, including his facial expressions, that only one thing was happening.

It's easy to underrate Jimi because when we hear music today, and then we hear Jimi's music, he doesn't sound as unusual as he did when he was around because a lot of the music we hear today are copied or influenced from Jimi's music. The thing we need to take into consideration when judging a famous artist's music is the time period in which they were around. That is the same reason why the Beatles are so underrated by some people.

you're preaching to the choir. if there's one thing that everyone on ILX agrees about, it's that the beatles are criminally underrated.

i think we're missing an opportunity to ponder how amazing it would have been if david lee roth was the lead singer of the jimi hendrix experience

really great video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQW81FJYeJw

i like hendrix's method of comping, playing chords, coming up with fills and passing phrases. maybe this isn't an underrated part of his repertoire but it seems like it, still.

i don't have much of an opinion on EVH. i like the solo on 'beat it' a lot.

eddie i think an unheralded rhythm player, real light touch and unique style, plays a lot of fingerstyle for a "metal" guitarist

yeah i guess that's true too. he does a lot of country-derived stuff.

i mean this is cool shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqywc7fnqE

The Beatles are grossly underrated and they have changed music more then anybody. Actually, they seem to have changed everything. Jimi is definitely in good company.

http://afterride.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/haruki-murakami-the-wind-up-bird-chronicle.jpg

grossly underrated by who? martians?

pizza also grossly underrated iirc

if there is one thing i have learned on the internet though EVERYONE is underrated. every single person who ever made a record. forever.

i take it back. i thought you were talking about the bootles.

You're right, every recording artist has been underrated. That includes people like the Dave Clark Five, and Donny and Marie Osmond. I like your high standards.

is this where I post Crazy Horses youtubes

yes please

Altgeir Wongro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMM3MgS4yxc&feature=related

^ UNDERRATED

like the bootles

"You're right, every recording artist has been underrated. That includes people like the Dave Clark Five"

TOTALLY! i've gone on and on about how underrated they are. so sad. one of the greatest bands ever.

i mean people know who they are and they were big in their day but nobody listens to them. and they really should. so great.

re: david lee roth as leader of jimi's band, we have the technology to make that happen now...

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj242/donaldparsley/Dave_Clark_Five_1966.jpg

all this machinery making modern web posts can still be open-hearted

Pretty good video of the Osmonds. I've never seen him so rocking and a rolling. Roll over John Smith.

correction: Joseph Smith

often mistaken for his grandad, john smith is rolling over in his grave!

Mike Smith too!

Joseph E Smith and Your Seven Grannies on Bongos

Sounds like something the underrated Vivian Stanshall announced on that underrated track "The Intro And The Outro"

Listening to some of Eddie's best stuff, I didn't hear anything at all new from where Hendrix left off. Eddie had his own guitar licks of course just like different guitarists have their own solos also, but Eddie certainly didn't take the guitar any further than Hendrix. Compared to wild, but smooth Jimi, Eddie looks like he was trying too hard.

WILD BUT SMOOTH ALTON WONG!

I'm only recounting to you what I saw in the youtube which is just my opinion.

i kid, alton. we're all family here.

I can tell, and that's good.

"eddie might have been the most influential american guitarist after hendrix. on hard rock and metal. for better or worse."

Yup. Rapidly played sequences of single notes which, were they slowed down, would be revealed as basically uninteresting--thanks, Eddie!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSZei5O2DbI

still interesting

Not a big EVH fan myself, but don't think Alton is making his case very well.

Actually, I like this slowed down version of Eruption better. In contrast to the regular version, this one is at least something different.

It's super cliché to say that Hendrix is overrated, so I won't say that

it's not "super cliché" so much as it is "completely fucking stupid."

i like slowed down eddie. sounds awesome. i do think he's very entertaining on his own. or was. plus, he was kind enough to include a bathroom break for half the crowd!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6jy3L0B70&feature=related

they wore it well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppLk2bPNTkc&feature=relmfu

Eddie Van Halen had some good guitar solos in the late 70's and 80's like all great lead guitarists have, but it wasn't anything new, just different like there are many different songs. Jimi Hendrix, when he was around in the late 60's came out with something totally original and powerful. This was out of this world and it changed the face of the earth as far as popular music was concern. As I said before it hard to imagine how music would sound today without Jimi. Eddie's in denial about the fact that if there was no Jimi, there would be no
Eddie. Well, there still would be a Eddie Van Halen, but he might have been just tuning guitars or something for a living. Jimi Hendrix played everything that was possible, so no one could ever take it any further.

Hendrix might be the better player or better at crafting unique sounds, but Eddie was miles better as a song writer there's easily seven Van Halen albums I would listen to over Jimi's stuff.

Who's a better songwriter is a matter of personal taste. They were both excellent at it. Paul McCartney is something else.

I've never seen Jimi live, only on film and audio sound. A couple of my friends who have seen Jimi live said that when they saw Jimi playing, no one ever went to the restroom, even during break if there was one.

Only 3,000 people went to the bathroom during a Jimi Hendrix show, but every one of them avoided a UTI.

The Beatles are grossly underrated and they have changed music more then anybody. Actually, they seem to have changed everything.

Worst post itt imo.

Hahaha the Beatles, one of those great 60s psych pop bands that never really got their due

Thank God for those Nuggets comps or I'd have never heard 'Hey Jude'.

That's a troll post if I ever saw one.

Eight years ago tho. I have no idea how The Beatles fit into ILM Discourse at the time.

great revive

ffs

That pair of posts b4 the revive is pretty gr8

the Van Halen Rising book was great