Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

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."