Eddie Van Halen or Jimi Hendrix?

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."

When someone disagrees with or challenges someone who is malignantly narcissistic, their reaction may be extreme irritation, and Jimi's interpersonal relationships seemed to represent this idea. His habitually abusive behavior towards women showed Jimi had a very low tolerance for frustration, and when others, and particularly women disagreed with him, his response to this frustration was very often physical violence.

this isn't unknown stuff

wasn't known to me but fair enough. just seemed odd the way you swung in comparing the spirit and themes of Eddie's [lead singer's] lyrics with Jimi's personal shortcomings like it was a totally logical way to measure two guitarists against each other.

i was more going off of EVH's doofy grin (rather than DLR's lyrics) as an indication that he was a more fun loving dude in his 1976-1984 heydey than Jimi was in his. Of course it could be true that EVH was just as big of a woman hater.

we can only dream

The electric guitar had two eras. Before and after Hendrix. After Hendrix came, all the guitar gods of those days had to change. Without Hendrix, there would no Eddie Van Halen.

don't you talk about eddie's mom like that

eddie might have been the most influential american guitarist after hendrix. on hard rock and metal. for better or worse. he definitely changed things. but obviously he didn't help invent the stuff like hendrix did.

Eddie did change things, but Jimi was a whole new metamorphosis. Deservingly so, the Wiki says that Jimi "is widely considered to be the greatest electric guitarist in music history". To stay consistent, the Wiki can only say that about one person if they're going to do it at all.

To stay consistent, the Wiki can only say that about one person if they're going to do it at all.

are you accusing the Wiki of consistency

Nobody's perfect and I know the Wiki can't be consistent about all things, especially when things are changing all the time, but the Wiki can only say that about one person at a time. Mark my words, Jimi has his place forever and that won't ever change. It hasn't for over 40 years.

hi

a new form of music that was not only unique, but desirable and powerful

this makes jimi sound like john galt. "loved by many but known by few, he ruled the fields of woodstock with an indomitable will and a mind that surveyed the doings of lesser men like a god enthroned upon the clouds..."

anyway, it's hard for me to render a verdict. they're both hugely talented and influential musicians. then again, they're both dudes i respectfully appreciate more than outright love. i grew up with jimi's music, but never really bonded with it (one night spent tripping to are you experienced notwithstanding). sometimes the emotionalism hits me just right, and i think it's gorgeous. more often than not, though, it bores me, and i tune it out. i'm a little more personally fond of van halen, as they're suburban adolescence incarnate, and i was a suburban adolescent during their heyday. still, they belong more to my brother and certain of my friends than to me.

i guess it depends on my mood. if i wanted music to soundtrack idle contemplations on a sunny day, it'd be hendrix. if i wanted something to amp me up and/or drink to, then i'd pick van halen.

"but I will say that I reach for Van Halen records far more often than I do Hendrix. Just great songwriting."

i think hendrix's songwriting is kinda the genius part of his genius. i think he was a great composer. i mean not that he wasn't in his a league of his own as a guitarist, he was. okay, i guess he was just a genius. or let's just say he was very very gifted.

yeah people who talk about hendrix as some kind of one-dimensional instrumental genius/showman piss me off, guy was really the whole package

guy was really the whole package.

You're right, when Jimi played, he was "one" with his instrument. You can tell by his movements, including his facial expressions, that only one thing was happening.

It's easy to underrate Jimi because when we hear music today, and then we hear Jimi's music, he doesn't sound as unusual as he did when he was around because a lot of the music we hear today are copied or influenced from Jimi's music. The thing we need to take into consideration when judging a famous artist's music is the time period in which they were around. That is the same reason why the Beatles are so underrated by some people.

you're preaching to the choir. if there's one thing that everyone on ILX agrees about, it's that the beatles are criminally underrated.

i think we're missing an opportunity to ponder how amazing it would have been if david lee roth was the lead singer of the jimi hendrix experience

really great video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQW81FJYeJw

i like hendrix's method of comping, playing chords, coming up with fills and passing phrases. maybe this isn't an underrated part of his repertoire but it seems like it, still.

i don't have much of an opinion on EVH. i like the solo on 'beat it' a lot.

eddie i think an unheralded rhythm player, real light touch and unique style, plays a lot of fingerstyle for a "metal" guitarist