Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

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