Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

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?