Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Which is your favorite?One used off the shelf equipment, the other modified his own to achieve his sound.One died at his peak from substance abuse,the other supposedly beat his demons but is well past his peak.Who do you think is the better guitarist?

― thomas cullen, Sunday, 2 October 2005 00:14 (4 years ago) Permalink

Trio is playing a Hendrix movie right now in which he appears to suck.

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.

― Guitarzan, Sunday, 2 October 2005 00:35 (4 years ago) Permalink

"One used off the shelf equipment, the other modified his own to achieve his sound."

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.

― Earl Nash (earlnash), Sunday, 2 October 2005 01:49 (4 years ago) Permalink

and then burn them.

― AaronK (AaronK), Sunday, 2 October 2005 02:55 (4 years ago) Permalink

which achieved a helluva sound.

― blunt (blunt), Sunday, 2 October 2005 02:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

Jimmy Hendrix was part alien, I been to his grave outside Seattle and he talked to me through the future.

― Spilt Milk, Sunday, 2 October 2005 06:24 (4 years ago) Permalink

unintended hahaha from David Lee Roth's autobiography, one of many:

...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.

― m coleman (lovebug starski), Sunday, 2 October 2005 10:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

Eddie Van Halen hasn't beat his demons at all, according to all reports he's a depressed chronic alcoholic. Google up the accounts of his behavior at Dimebag Darrell's funeral....

― shookout (shookout), Sunday, 2 October 2005 13:00 (4 years ago) Permalink

Hendrix

― sovietpanda (sovietpanda), Sunday, 2 October 2005 23:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

there's also that sad/funny/pathetic story about eddie van halen backstage at a nirvana concert...

hendrix by several light years.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 3 October 2005 00:27 (4 years ago) Permalink

there's also that sad/funny/pathetic story about eddie van halen backstage at a nirvana concert...

Tell...

― Jimmy Mod wants you to tighten the strings on your corset (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 3 October 2005 03:32 (4 years ago) Permalink

from an interview with Pat Smear:

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.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 3 October 2005 03:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

(this story's been mentioned in a few other places too, most notably the charles cross cobain biography).

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:03 (4 years ago) Permalink

oh no, not a dark one?

― gear (gear), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:06 (4 years ago) Permalink

hendrix by several light years.

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

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:10 (4 years ago) Permalink

the distance between Eddie Van Halen and Nuno Bettencourt is a lot closer than the distance between EVH and Jimi.

― gear (gear), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:14 (4 years ago) Permalink

U2 = Hagar-era Van Halen, so maybe The Edge and Eddie are close, too. (see Poundcake, for starters, off VH's For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge album).

― Guitarzan, Monday, 3 October 2005 04:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

prince playing purple rain is the best guitar solo ever.

― retroman, Monday, 3 October 2005 10:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

Fascinating EVH story. What an asshole! One wonders what he might've said to Michael Jackson at the "Beat It" session. (MJ being still recognizable as a black man in those days.)

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.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:09 (4 years ago) Permalink

So, I feel pretty funny saying this, but I just listened to a bunch of Van Halen and all of a sudden I really like them. It's like a cross between The Cars and Jane's Addiction. More fun than Hendrix. I have tons of Hendrix bootlegs where he sounds amazing, but I never want to listen to them. I guess I don't really like the way he plays that much.

― Guitarzan, Monday, 3 October 2005 23:20 (4 years ago) Permalink

like a cross between The Cars and Jane's Addiction

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

What do you think of "Dreams"?

― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 00:05 (4 years ago) Permalink

(I'm not necessarily agreeing that EVH is better than Hendrix, to be clear.)

― Sundar (sundar), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 00:06 (4 years ago) Permalink

What do you think of "Dreams"?

I really don't like the Sammy Hagar stuff.

― Guitarzan, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 00:23 (4 years ago) Permalink

...But I do like quite a few songs of the David Lee Roth records (Yankee Rose, Knuckle Bones, Stand Up, Goin' Crazy, Tobacco Road, Just Like Paradise). If DLR sang for Hendrix maybe I'd like it better. Ha. But, seriously, I think of Roth as a big dork, but I can not deny that I felt happier than I've felt in years listening to that stuff again. I was shocked.

― Guitarzan, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 00:27 (4 years ago) Permalink

Fascinating EVH story. What an asshole! One wonders what he might've said to Michael Jackson at the "Beat It" session. (MJ being still recognizable as a black man in those days.)
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.

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

― retroman, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 00:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm, good question! He met Quincy Jones, anyways. On the special edition of Thriller with the spoken-word reminiscences, Q tells an amusing story about trying several times to contact EVH by phone to invite him to the sessions, only to have him hang up everytime, thinking it was a prank call. Eventually they connected, of course.

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...

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 01:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

I guess he must be pretty good if he can play that well drunk. I always think I can play, but I can't play shit drunk. I quickly realize it and give up before I annoy everyone in the place.

― Guitarzan, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 02:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm all washed up; you are what's happening now
the humAnity

― blunt (blunt), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 02:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

Eddie's one of the great players and I think he's even underrated in a weird way (he laid down the blueprint for about 20 years of guitar rock), but there's no denying he's Hendrix's eternal second banana. There's nothing in the VH catalog that even approaches what you hear on "Watchtower", "Machine Gun", "Castles Made of Sand" etc.

― Keith C (lync0), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 02:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

The question was a joke, no?

― Nigel (Nigel), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 15:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

I'm all washed up; you are what's happening now
the humAnity

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.

― Hmm Drunk People Do Strange Things, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 15:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

EVH rules and u all know it. He is WAY better than Hendrix. Hendrix is Over rated. I mean cmon what did HE write?purple haze.woodstock improvisation. EVH try 5150 eruption jump panama hot for teacher dreams ect ect ect. EVH ALL THE WAY!!!

― me, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 21:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

5150 eruption jump panama hot for teacher dreams
Is this a disguised sex ad ?

― blunt (blunt), Tuesday, 11 October 2005 22:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

Steve Vai is the king.

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.

― Guitarzan, Tuesday, 11 October 2005 23:24 (4 years ago) Permalink

I feel that Van Halen is underated and Hendrix is overated. If most people would realize how much destortion Hendrix uses to get his sound they would realize he is just another famous player. Eddie on the other hand, was great. He formed what rock guitar is today and everyone knows it. Anyone who doesn't think so has never really listened to VH. He is not only a spectacular guitarist but a fine pianist, and deserves to be the best

― guitar freak, Monday, 24 October 2005 19:14 (4 years ago) Permalink

Then, I am going to accuse you of never really listening to anybody else.

― Guitarzan, Monday, 24 October 2005 19:17 (4 years ago) Permalink

If most people would realize how much destortion Hendrix uses to get his sound

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

― joseph cotten (joseph cotten), Monday, 24 October 2005 19:20 (4 years ago) Permalink

Hendrix didn't even use that much "destortion." Certainly not on Electric Ladyland. Eddie had all kinds of effects on his guitar, though.

― Guitarzan, Monday, 24 October 2005 19:29 (4 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Van Halen...How can you play when your drunk? He does and it sounds great! I just dont get it...someone tell me please...HOW?

― Duffus Stein, Sunday, 4 December 2005 10:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

The documentary "Rock School" sheds some light on the bad and good of EVH. There's this wee kid in it who is put forward as a guitar savant and all he does is play EVHstyle wank. It's the kind of thing you can often hear many small kids playing relentlessly at Guitar Centers nationwide if you're stupid enough to go in on Saturdays when their parents take them to look over gear. He gets hauled out by the teacher to do his thing in front a Frank Zappa festival in Switzerland. Plays for thirty seconds, everyone applauds at the blazing fingers of the tyke who is almost smaller than his guitar. Then they drag him offstage and the band of elder teenagers gets back to playing an amazing version of Frank Zappa's "Inca Roads."
It's kind of a stagey joke.

Everytime the kid shows up in the documentary, it's to do the same thing. When he's had an operation to repair some bone problem in his leg and he has to play sitting down, he's like a machine with one programmed algorithm, to do Eddie Van Halen fleet fingers, to impress the rubes, all the better when he does it sitting in chair because he's a little frail and sick boy. When he tries to play the part of "You Really Got Me" that isn't "Eruption" or some Santana, any rock song with feel within the context of a band, he falls on his face. And that's a lot of the legacy of EVH. Not Eddie's fault, but that's the reality of it, this load of embarrassment that's tied to young kids who've linked ability on the instrument to finger calisthenics. And where did they get it? Well, that's what Eddie mostly sold or what people chose to take from him.

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.

― George the Animal Steele, Sunday, 4 December 2005 19:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

EVH in a wash.

― aa, Sunday, 4 December 2005 21:10 (3 years ago) Permalink

Oh, c'mon. Try harder. Jimi Hendrix wins by default with an argument as good as that.

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.

― George the Animal Steele, Sunday, 4 December 2005 21:32 (3 years ago) Permalink

Eddie Van Halen is and will be the very best guitar player in the world. No one and I mean NO ONE does it like ED. He is a genius. Jimi was great don't get me wrong but Jimi just didn't rock like ed. Everyone who appreciates rock n roll knows that Ediie Van Halen rocks the world of music....

― Ric Hamilton, Thursday, 8 December 2005 13:04 (3 years ago) Permalink

That's really sad, Ric. I'm sad for you.

― Guitarzan, Thursday, 8 December 2005 14:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

Some of the one and two line testimonials to Eddie Van Halen on this thread are coincidentally fine recommendations of Hendrix. Hey, Eddie was responsible for the meteoric rise and agonizing fall of Kramer guitars. Fickle fandom for a guitarist's style never put Fender out of business.

― George the Animal Steele, Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm still getting over the assertion that Hendrix used off the shelf equipment. Do your fucking research, for fuck's sake. Not that what equipment one uses has anything to do with whether or not one is a great player. Tell me that any of Hendrix's Fuzz Faces were stock and you'd be a liar. Shit, part of why he sounds the way he does is cause his guitars are strung upside-down and he plays the vibrato bar on a Strat with his elbow while it's sticking up instead of down.

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.

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm a massive fan of both these guys, but I have to give the edge to Hendrix. Eddie is a great technician, but I get the impression that his style is largely based on Hendrix's "Star Spangled Banner" Woodstock solo (feedback, howling harmonics, heavy signal processing). Though Eddie never cites Hendrix as an influence, he obviously picked up on Jimi's style. What's more, Hendrix's songs are timeless. Tunes like "Little Wing," "Castles Made of Sand," "Machine Gun" and "Manic Depression" (among others ) are truly poetic songs that use the guitar to make timeless socio-political statements. With all due respect, EVH just writes party-hearty heavy rock. It's very good stuff, but it's not transcendent.

― b. bruce, Saturday, 10 December 2005 12:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

Eddie may have said "I'm all washed up; you are what's happening now."
but Cobain is the one that is dead!

EVH is the master! Cobain.. worm food.

obviously Cobain was depressed too? YA THINK?

― sheri j, Sunday, 11 December 2005 06:35 (3 years ago) Permalink

Hendrix is really a jazz player in the rock idiom.

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.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Sunday, 11 December 2005 06:51 (3 years ago) Permalink

Eddy's paradox is that he does rock, while his legacy kids -- the Rock School savant by example -- don't. Of course, they get delivered as rocking, certainly in the movie. But you look who it's for and the overawed are rubes, parents and a motley assortment of dolts out to see a freak show. I liken Eddy fascination in many as a variety of the American fascination with huge elaborate and dangerous weapons and militaria. There's an engineering poetry in the B-2 bomber, much like there's a poetry of engineering in EVH's guitar calisthenics.

― George the Animal Steele, Sunday, 11 December 2005 18:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 191 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

"What's a more objective comparison for two instrumentalists than technical ability?"

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).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

Who's more "important" is not based on technical ability.

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:55 (3 years ago) Permalink

you seem to be doing some dodging and weaving for no particular reason than to make this thread as boring as possible. Please tell me you have some ulterior motive.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm such a pedantic SOB sometimes, and now's one of them :)

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

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 20:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

Roy uses the assertion that "EVH had more technical ability than Hendrix" as IRREFUTABLE PROOF that EVH was better than Hendrix. Ergo my "technical ability isn't what makes music good" tack. Is this really that hard for you to follow? Honestly, I'm getting highly suspicious of yr obsession with semantics here.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:00 (3 years ago) Permalink

I was gonna say exactly the same thing Mo; glad you beat me to it.

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

Mo you anti-semantic bastard!

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!

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

Roy uses the assertion that "EVH had more technical ability than Hendrix" as IRREFUTABLE PROOF that EVH was better than Hendrix.

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

Mo, I think we need to give up dude. Whataya think?

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

dood I am not following you at all. "And what makes a guitarist better than another guitarist is not the same as what makes music good." Good music /= good musician? wtf? "He talked about technique, innovation, accolades, and influence" - yeah in a totally clumsy and dishonest way, where the conventional definitions of those terms (with the possible exception of technique) do not apply. For ex. the only accolades he considers are (surprise) music magazine polls. The only influences he cites are the same 12 dudes that always get cited in (surprise) Guitar World/Guitar Player. The innovations he describes are largely inconsequential to the vast majority of guitar-based music being made. etc etc

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

and as shorty says, yr giving Roy a pass (when he's made arguably the most aggressive AND sloppiest argument on the thread) while meticulously parsing my phrases begs the question what yr agenda is here.

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.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

(but yes I'm giving up as soon as we break out the wine here at work. hooray for fridays)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:14 (3 years ago) Permalink

haha - sorry read back a little and I see that you don't like either! yet you can't let this thread go. I'm perplexed.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:16 (3 years ago) Permalink

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:23 (3 years ago) Permalink

there is no way that ship was a predator ship

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

http://www.answers.com/topic/eddie-van-halen

Answers.com vs. Guitar World FITE

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 2 June 2006 21:44 (3 years ago) Permalink

Good music /= good musician? wtf?

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:00 (3 years ago) Permalink

Fwiw, I DON'T think Eddie Van Halen was "clearly the better technician."

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

Ok. Do you play the guitar? I really don't think Hendrix's legacy comes from his astounding technique. EVH's, on the other hand, does to a large extent. I think that's part of why a lot of people here probably prefer Hendrix. But I don't think there's much of a contest, technically. I don't really care to get into comparing specific recorded examples, though.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:23 (3 years ago) Permalink

I probably should've said "impeccable technique." Some of things he did may have astounded people, but I don't think it was ever mostly about his chops, per se.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I do play guitar. EVH had particular things that he practiced and developed to a great extent and so did Hendrix. 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. That doesn't mean that the things Hendrix developed in his own playing were not as interesting, technically speaking.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 2 June 2006 22:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

Good points Tim.

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

EVH had particular things that he practiced and developed to a great extent and so did Hendrix.

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

And I don't think that it's all that controversial to say that Hendrix isn't best-known for being a great technician, or that many other guitarists are/have been better technicians.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Well, now you're introducing *precision* into the equation. I think Hendrix was precise in different ways - in his expressiveness. This comes from a lot of practice and, yes, it is part of one's "technique."

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.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:23 (3 years ago) Permalink

Well, now you're introducing *precision* into the equation.

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:30 (3 years ago) Permalink

"...it's not so important to play so many notes, but to really mean the notes that you actually do play... Sometimes the hardest thing to learn is what notes to leave out, and what spaces to put in..."

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).

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

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 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.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

Woah... Steve accusing someone else of twisting everything around! I'm taking several giant steps back cuz I sense the thin ice under him is finally about to break!

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 ;)

― shorty (shorty), Friday, 2 June 2006 23:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

I don't mean to be glib, but I think the dictionary definition of expressiveness works fine:

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!

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

"and explain how you judge it"

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

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:20 (3 years ago) Permalink

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

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:32 (3 years ago) Permalink

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

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.

― shorty (shorty), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

Uh, it was a quote that completely corroborates the point that Tim is clearly making to everyone but you Steve.

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 00:43 (3 years ago) Permalink

Nobody is denying that appraisals of expressivity are subjective. Someone may listen to MLK's "I have a dream" speech and say, "No, it was not very expressive."

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.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yes, dynamics are mostly a function of attack, which is a technical consideration. I didn't say that accuracy was only about getting the notes in their place. Since dynamics are typically notated as a part of a composition, I think it's implicit that dynamics are part of what I was talking about when I said "executing a piece of music accurately." Tone is another technical factor.

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

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:16 (3 years ago) Permalink

It was far from an irrelevant quote.

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.

;)

― shorty (shorty), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

shorty, I just don't think you're talking about technique the way that instrumentalists mean it.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

But it is what Tim meant. I think! Tim?

― shorty (shorty), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

>Since dynamics are typically notated as a part of a composition, I think it's implicit that dynamics are part of what I was talking about when I said "executing a piece of music accurately."<

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

x-post

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:26 (3 years ago) Permalink

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.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

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

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

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

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.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

That is, I think technical proficiency and expressive ability are recognizable in isolation, and each is respectable in its own way. Of course the ideal is for a musician to possess both, but I think that musicians with largely one skill or the other can still do worthwhile things.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

Now we're coming to some common ground I think.

― shorty (shorty), Saturday, 3 June 2006 01:52 (3 years ago) Permalink

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.

― sleeve (sleeve), Saturday, 3 June 2006 05:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Once again I am compelled to state that I disagree entirely with your entire concept of what music is. Jesus fucking christ. "Ideal"?

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

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 3 June 2006 11:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

My impression was that Jimi Hendrix was, indeed, often sloppy live, and, even worse, badly out of tune. He also reverted to 12/16-bar blues stylings (as was the wont of the times, and coming from a soul background) in the absence of his own material. The more of his own, deeply original, material he had to work with, the better he played. And he knew exactly what he wanted to sound like in the studio, manifesting it wonderfully.

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.

― matt riedl (veal), Saturday, 3 June 2006 16:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

On the contrary, I think you have written one of the most articulate, rational responses in the thread.

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.

― shorty (shorty), Saturday, 3 June 2006 19:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.