Jimi Hendrix

[DieselDaisy]

4 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Of course I do, but that has nothing to do with the ability to actually play the guitar, in isolation. I don't think that I can be much clearer in what I have stated.

So, when can I look forward to your video?

See I think it has everything to do with playing guitar. Some of my favourite guitarists are people like Steve Jones and Izzy Stradlin. The speedfreaks do not know the first thing about guitar; they know how to technically run around a fretboard at x miles per hour, but they do not know that a guitar is an instrument of feeling.

Your VHS is in the post, along with a poster of Freddie Flintoff and a flat cap.

[PappyTron]

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

See I think it has everything to do with playing guitar. Some of my favourite guitarists are people like Steve Jones and Izzy Stradlin. The speedfreaks do not know the first thing about guitar; they know how to technically run around a fretboard at x miles per hour, but they do not know that a guitar is an instrument of feeling.

I think that that is an extreme miscategorisation of guitarists who can play fast. Malmsteen can play fast but has feeling (though a very specific type), as does Buckethead, as does Govan, as did Lane, etc. Just because they can play lightning fast doesn't mean that they are simply wanking up and down the fretboard. You think that Nottingham Lace doesn't have feeling? Or Wonderful Slippery Thing? As I said in my previous posts, feeling is subjective, but the actual mechanics of guitar playing is something different and something that can be ranked.

I look forward to the cloth cap.

 

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

I think that that is an extreme miscategorisation of guitarists who can play fast. Malmsteen can play fast but has feeling (though a very specific type), as does Buckethead, as does Govan, as did Lane, etc. Just because they can play lightning fast doesn't mean that they are simply wanking up and down the fretboard. You think that Nottingham Lace doesn't have feeling? Or Wonderful Slippery Thing? As I said in my previous posts, feeling is subjective, but the actual mechanics of guitar playing is something different and something that can be ranked.

I look forward to the cloth cap.

 

The thing is, Hendrix could play incredibly fast, and had multiple tricks in his arsenal. There seems to be an assumption here that Jimi was some blues/punky purely emotive guy, which is rather true but is also supported by immense guitar skills. We are also comparing people from different eras. Similarly, this is how difficult it is to compare Tendulkar or Lara with Greg Chappell, as Chappell played on uncovered wickets and faced the Windies' pace quartet.

 

[PappyTron]

27 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

but is also supported by immense guitar skills.

Absolutely. However, there are guitarists that have even more immense skills, hence Hendrix not being the greatest guitar playing in history.

[Rovim]

7 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Absolutely. However, there are guitarists that have even more immense skills, hence Hendrix not being the greatest guitar playing in history.

But what did they do with all that ability, the more immense skills? it's like having a really big penis and not being able to do anything with it.

Like being able to talk really fast but you have nothing to say. And even those that do have talent like Bucket, is he better than Hendrix? it's apples to oranges, but I'd say that actually building an entire song and incorporating amazing guitar work in it is also a skill. And that all the shit you can do as a guitar player must be factored.

He's still the most innovative rock guitar player to this day, the shit that came after like tapping, sweep picking, more speed has been used to make music that is basically marginal in it's following compared to how many people Jimi reached with his music. It's not as good either to my ears.

The bottom line is making it sound interesting and with direction is an important goal. Jimi had all the chops you can possibly want imo and he did so many different things with the guitar that all that extra technique that came after he died seems almost useless in comparison.

It's a great thing that we have players like Bucket, but in the context of a song not many of these shred masters have what it takes to not noodle all over the place. It's in a different category what they do imo and it's just seem focusing on technique and many notes is their goal a lot of the times.

Jimi is the greatest because what he could express with his instrument and the emotion he could invoke from the listener. He wrote songs, not masturbation numbers. Shawn Lane was a great player technically, but after a minute I'm bored to tears. It's almost an insult to Jimi to compare him to these inferior players. They added nothing of value with all this technique you'd think they'd have something interesting to say. If you go too fast and you play too much all the time that's boring as fuck.

The whole point of music is to make people feel something, to say something musical. That applies to guitar players as well. Whoever does that best is the best. Doesn't matter how they do it, as long as they have enough technique to play exactly what they want to play.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Rovim

[Rovim]

Slash, Clapton, and BB King were never as good as John 5. The technique was simply not there. It's a shame, cause Layla could have been a good song with 8 finger tapping in the piano outro and some sweeps. BB King didn't even bend vibrato.

I feel they're considered the best for no good reason.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by Rovim

[moreblack]

You just reminded me how sweet B.B's vibrato used to be

Ironically Yngwie is another one of my favorite users of vibrato
 

Edited May 22, 2016 by moreblack

[DieselDaisy]

You are reducing music to a science, a mathematical equation. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Music, at its simplest form is an expression of the musicians soul. The TRUE goal is to put your soul on display, for everyone to see. That's what the TRUE greats mastered. 

I'm not trying to take anything away from technical genius' because they do have a very rare skill and talent. But somewhere along the way they traded "soul display" for technical display. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just different. But thats why they all struggle with creating music that really resonated with a lot of people, they instead just stay within there niche. Most people could care less about playing a million notes per second, or how technically skilled you are. But they DO resonate with music that touches there soul.

Since the argument of mathmatics has been brought up, let me run with that. Can music be broke down into mathematics? Sure I suppose it can, but once you do you remove all the soul from it. It might as well be EDM or computer based music at that point. Sure it might "sound good" but it lacks soul. Which that's the #1 problem with music today, it lacks soul (but that's a different topic all together). 

The best way I can break this down for everyone is like comparing a mathmatician to Rain Man (or people like him, the movie I'm talking). Who is better at math? Sure the mathematician can probably do advanced math that Rain Man cant, but Rain Man can do basic math like a mother fucker on a WHOLE different level. Something the mathematician could never dream of doing. But vice versa, the same is also true. Why? Because the mathematician went to school, learned from others, studied, etc. Which isn't a bad thing. But Rain Man just knows that shit, that's just him, he wasn't taught, that shit is in his SOUL. One isn't necessarily better or worse than the other, we just happen to live in an age where not many Rain Men exist. But back in Jimi's day, the opposite was true.

 

We need more Rain Men and less mathmaticians in music today. That's the real shame, they are becoming extinct.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Iron MikeyJ

[moreblack]

Even the pop music from Britney onwards has had a formulaic by the numbers approach designed to grab people. Nickleback has perfected the pop rock formula. It's not just the virtuosos using formulas to make music.

[classicrawker]

Could part of the difference of soul and feel be that the current shredder guitarists, that the Musicians Institute turns out like jelly beans, don't learn their craft by studying the old blues masters absorbing and blending their technics into their own playing style  like Hendrix, Clapton, Page, Allman, Richards, Winter and the other guitar legends did when they were learning?  I also think paying your dues and playing different styles of music help shape a players sound and style like Hendrix did playing the Chitlin circuit  back in the day..........

Edited May 22, 2016 by classicrawker

[PappyTron]

12 hours ago, Rovim said:

But what did they do with all that ability, the more immense skills? it's like having a really big penis and not being able to do anything with it.

Like being able to talk really fast but you have nothing to say. And even those that do have talent like Bucket, is he better than Hendrix? it's apples to oranges, but I'd say that actually building an entire song and incorporating amazing guitar work in it is also a skill. And that all the shit you can do as a guitar player must be factored.

He's still the most innovative rock guitar player to this day, the shit that came after like tapping, sweep picking, more speed has been used to make music that is basically marginal in it's following compared to how many people Jimi reached with his music. It's not as good either to my ears.

The bottom line is making it sound interesting and with direction is an important goal. Jimi had all the chops you can possibly want imo and he did so many different things with the guitar that all that extra technique that came after he died seems almost useless in comparison.

It's a great thing that we have players like Bucket, but in the context of a song not many of these shred masters have what it takes to not noodle all over the place. It's in a different category what they do imo and it's just seem focusing on technique and many notes is their goal a lot of the times.

Jimi is the greatest because what he could express with his instrument and the emotion he could invoke from the listener. He wrote songs, not masturbation numbers. Shawn Lane was a great player technically, but after a minute I'm bored to tears. It's almost an insult to Jimi to compare him to these inferior players. They added nothing of value with all this technique you'd think they'd have something interesting to say. If you go too fast and you play too much all the time that's boring as fuck.

The whole point of music is to make people feel something, to say something musical. That applies to guitar players as well. Whoever does that best is the best. Doesn't matter how they do it, as long as they have enough technique to play exactly what they want to play.

 

 

It's irrelevant what they do or do not do with that skill when the only question is "who is the more technically gifted at playing the guitar?".

That you call Shawn Lane an inferior guitarist to Jimi Hendrix is laughable. There is not a single song that Hendrix can play that Lane could not match, note for note, but there are plenty of guitar works that Lane could play that Hendrix couldn't match in his dreams.

Honestly the wankery over Hendrix in this thread is hilarious, and the complete inability of people to even understand the extremely clear distinction between having a personal favourite guitarist and guitarist A simply being more technically proficient than guitarist B is shocking. It's like the thread has been taken over by a bunch of Miser dudes.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

It's irrelevant what they do or do not do with that skill when the only question is "who is the more technically gifted at playing the guitar?".

That you call Shawn Lane an inferior guitarist to Jimi Hendrix is laughable. There is not a single song that Hendrix can play that Lane could not match, note for note, but there are plenty of guitar works that Lane could play that Hendrix couldn't match in his dreams.

Honestly the wankery over Hendrix in this thread is hilarious, and the complete inability of people to even understand the extremely clear distinction between having a personal favourite guitarist and guitarist A simply being more technically proficient than guitarist B is shocking. It's like the thread has been taken over by a bunch of Miser dudes.

You've shifted the goalposts from, ''who is the greatest guitarist of all time'', to, ''who is the most technically gifted of all time''.

[classicrawker]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You've shifted the goalposts from, ''who is the greatest guitarist of all time'', to, ''who is the most technically gifted of all time''.

If you are talking technically proficiency I think Pappy has very valid points...Hendirix most likely is not as technically proficient as say Joe Satriani..........If you are talking the greatest guitarist of all time I think there are elements other than strict technical proficiency such as feel and soul that others here are arguing....Satriani and other technical guitarists do not have the soul and feel in their music as Hendrix does IMHO.............

[PappyTron]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You've shifted the goalposts from, ''who is the greatest guitarist of all time'', to, ''who is the most technically gifted of all time''.

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot be the greatest guitarist of all time if you aren't even the best at playing the instrument, especially when the thread started off with people saying things like "Nobody can play a guitar better than Hendrix". I imagine that you might not know the difference given that you stated that with a couple of weeks practice you could play like any of the top speed guitarists. If I gave you a lifetime you couldn't play like Govan and neither could Hendrix.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that one cannot be the greatest guitarist of all time if you aren't even the best at playing the instrument, especially when the thread started off with people saying things like "Nobody can play a guitar better than Hendrix". I imagine that you might not know the difference given that you stated that with a couple of weeks practice you could play like any of the top speed guitarists. If I gave you a lifetime you couldn't play like Govan and neither could Hendrix.

Music is not a science. Most people are incorporating things such as songwriting, innovation and era into their assessment - and yes, technique. Even in classical music where everything is transcribed, the plethora and diversity of recordings by different conductors, of the same works, is an indicator of how this stuff is really not an exact science.

[PappyTron]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Music is not a science. Most people are incorporating things such as songwriting, innovation and era into their assessment - and yes, technique. Even in classical music where everything is transcribed, the plethora and diversity of recordings by different conductors, of the same works, is an indicator of how this stuff is really not an exact science.

None of which changes the fact that when people say "Nobody in history has been able to play the guitar at a better level than Hendrix" they are wrong. Hendrix has a great shout when it comes to discussing technical ability + composition + feel, but on the discussion of technical ability alone, which is the truest measure of ability as it it the one that can be most accurately measured, Hendrix is nowhere. If you prefer Hendrix to Buckethead then that is your choice, but when you say that Hendrix is better at playing the guitar, then that is wrong and indeed measurably wrong.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

None of which changes the fact that when people say "Nobody in history has been able to play the guitar at a better level than Hendrix" they are wrong. Hendrix has a great shout when it comes to discussing technical ability + composition + feel, but on the discussion of technical ability alone, which is the truest measure of ability as it it the one that can be most accurately measured, Hendrix is nowhere. If you prefer Hendrix to Buckethead then that is your choice, but when you say that Hendrix is better at playing the guitar, then that is wrong and indeed measurably wrong.

You have completely shifted the goal posts!! Now we see words like 'technical' added haha.

Alright, alright, let's analyses your statement there,

Quote

"Nobody in history has been able to play the guitar at a better level than Hendrix"

What people mean by 'better' includes songwriting and innovation.

You are confusing a subjective art with an objective science.

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

You have completely shifted the goal posts!! Now we see words like 'technical' added haha.

Alright, alright, let's analyses your statement there,

What people mean by 'better' includes songwriting and innovation.

You are confusing a subjective art with an objective science.

I was not aware that songwriting has anything to do with a person's ability to play the guitar. No goalposts have been shifted; I simply seek to clarify my post because quite frankly it seems as though nobody here can understand a really basic concept. I did not think that pointing out that dozens of guitarists can play the instrument better than Hendrix could possibly lead to so many people, for so many posts completely twist a factual statement to try and support their preconceived notions and obvious agenda.

Honestly, the thread is full of Misers.

[DieselDaisy]

All you got to do to play fast is sit down with a bunch of scales and exercises for a certain period of time and whiddle away. But to actually use your instrument as a lyrical extension of your soul, as Jimi certainly did, and do things no person hitherto had thought to do on the instrument, is far greater again.

[PappyTron]

14 hours ago, Rovim said:

Bucket, is he better than Hendrix?

Of course Buckethead is better at playing the guitar than Hendrix; he has a much greater musical knowledge, can play much more complex arrangements, can play much more complex techniques, can play far more genres at an extremely high level, is a much more accurate player and is much faster to boot. By every measure of playing the guitar Buckethead breezes past Hendrix with ease.

 

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

All you got to do to play fast is sit down with a bunch of scales and exercises for a certain period of time and whiddle away. But to actually use your instrument as a lyrical extension of your soul, as Jimi certainly did, and do things no person hitherto had thought to do on the instrument, is far greater again.

And yet none of the great modern guitarists are know for their speed. What they are known for is their ability to play extremely complex arrangements at an extremely high speed, if needed.

[DieselDaisy]

41 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Of course Buckethead is better at playing the guitar than Hendrix; he has a much greater musical knowledge, can play much more complex arrangements, can play much more complex techniques, can play far more genres at an extremely high level, is a much more accurate player and is much faster to boot. By every measure of playing the guitar Buckethead breezes past Hendrix with ease.

 

And yet none of the great modern guitarists are know for their speed. What they are known for is their ability to play extremely complex arrangements at an extremely high speed, if needed.

What a bunch of cock and balls.

Hendrix had the greatest musical knowledge one could perceive. Jimi played the Chitlin' Circuit for people like the Isley Brothers, Little Richard and King Curtis. The knowledge he acquired here of American folk musics - blues, soul, rhythm n' blues, funk, rock n' roll - can not be underestimated. He then entered the Britain of the 'Swinging Sixties', the citadel of the Beatles - the knowledge he gained here was also a potent ingredient in the 'Hendrix sound'. Jimi had an immense musical education.

And regarding genres, Hendrix's music encompasses all of those aforementioned styles: blues ('Hear My Train', 'Red House'); Soul (Drifting); rock n' roll ('Highway Chile'), jazz ('South Saturn Delta'). Hendrix was actually inventing genres - how many genres has Buckethead invented? Songs like 'Fire', 'Foxy Lady' and 'Purple Haze' prefigure hard rock/heavy metal while 'Izabella', 'Dolly Dagger', etc. set antecedents for funk. Further, the three Experience albums are at least as important as Sgt Pepper in shaping psychedelia.

Edited May 22, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[PappyTron]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What a bunch of cock and balls.

Hendrix had the greatest musical knowledge one could perceive. Jimi played the Chitlin' Circuit for people like the Isley Brothers, Little Richard and King Curtis. The knowledge he acquired here of American folk musics - blues, soul, rhythm n' blues, funk, rock n' roll - can not be underestimated. He then entered the Britain of the 'Swinging Sixties', the citadel of the Beatles - the knowledge he gained here was also a potent ingredient in the 'Hendrix sound'. Jimi had an immense musical education.

And regarding genres, Hendrix's music encompasses all of those aforementioned styles: blues ('Hear My Train', 'Red House'); Soul (Drifting); rock n' roll ('Highway Chile'), jazz ('South Saturn Delta'). Hendrix was actually inventing genres - how many genres has Buckethead invented? Songs like 'Fire', 'Foxy Lady' and 'Purple Haze' prefigure hard rock/heavy metal while 'Izabella', 'Dolly Dagger', etc. set antecedents for funk. Further, the three Experience albums are at least as important as Sgt Pepper in shaping psychedelia.

What absolute guff. Buckethead can play folk, blues, soul, electric, flamenco, classical, jazz, avant-garde, you name it. Every one of his albums, near enough 300 of them, is a fusion of different genres, and all played to a mastery that Hendrix can't match. Hendrix didn't invent any genres of music. He may have played in their early gestation, due to being born at the right time, but invent? No.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, PappyTron said:

What absolute guff. Buckethead can play folk, blues, soul, electric, flamenco, classical, jazz, avant-garde, you name it. Every one of his albums, near enough 300 of them, is a fusion of different genres, and all played to a mastery that Hendrix can't match. Hendrix didn't invent any genres of music. He may have played in their early gestation, due to being born at the right time, but invent? No.

I cannot even debate with someone this stupid!

Just about every person who has picked up a guitar has been influenced by Jimi. Are You Experience? sent electric guitar to Mars and back. Hendrix actually had new equipment built for him! New studio techniques were specifically invented for him! You clearly do not know anything about Jimi Hendrix and his music.

[PappyTron]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I cannot even debate with someone this stupid!

Just about every person who has picked up a guitar has been influenced by Jimi. Are You Experience? sent electric guitar to Mars and back. Hendrix actually had new equipment built for him! New studio techniques were specifically invented for him! You clearly do not know anything about Jimi Hendrix and his music.

Influencing people who come along later is not the same as inventing a genre of music, you buffoon. Honestly, in every discussion that we have you make absolutely outlandish and ridiculous claims: Flintoff is one of the greatest cricketers of all-time; the north of England has all the castles; you can play guitar better than LA virtuosos with just three weeks practice. It's honestly quite sad how tightly you hold on to your ludicrous positions.

Nothing but a second rate cloth cap Miser.