Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

:)

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.