Roy buchanan..My New Guitar hero

hey i juss was wonderin if u guys know of him....i juss came across his music from the lunchlady at my school...she knew i played guitar and lent me her cd collection of this guy....hes such a great player and im surprised i haven't heard of him until now....if know one knows of his music....look around for it..its good stuff

Personally I think he's kinda ****ty. I'm not into blues players though. For example, I think Eric Clapton is pretty ****ty compared to John Mclaughlin. Not that they are bad to listen to, but christ, Clapton has terrible technique.

~Incidents

[font=trebuchet ms]I find I can't listen to him for very long because his tone is too trebly for my ears. But I strongly recommend listening to "The Mesiah Will Come Again". It's the most heart-breaking instrumental I've ever heard.[/font]

:cool: In response to incidents...Clapton in your opinion may have ****ty technique but how many millions of dollars have you made outa your music and how many fans do you have Incidents???????

good point chass...

but eric clapton and jimi hendrix wouldn't compare to the guitarists we have today. They were big because they were the first of there time to do sick licks and stuff.. ya know?

I never got anything like that from my lunchlady, but if you like Roy you'll probably like Danny Gatton too, Danny Gatton is maybe more diverse than Roy and definitely better recorded, Roy's stuff is hit or miss, and I don't believe that he was really ever recorded well, as far as I know his real jazz stuff never made it on to a record, my favorite is his version of "Sweet Dreams"..........BTW have you ever heard his live version of "Hey Joe" it's a jaw-dropper

Technique is nothin without soul.

Originally Posted by: Chass:cool: In response to incidents...Clapton in your opinion may have ****ty technique but how many millions of dollars have you made outa your music and how many fans do you have Incidents???????

How is that a "good point"? That is so incredibly irrelevant. It's so pathetic that people use a person's fame as a way to argue their way. Look, Clapton's technique sucks. I never said he was a poor songwriter or anything like that, but face it, his technique really really sucks. Same with Hendrix. *Gasp*! Not Hendrix! Now that's not to say that I don't appreciate him as a social icon, but I'd like to hear anyone argue that Clapton and Hendrix had good technique. And the argument that they had "good technique" for their time is bull****, too. Ever heard of Django Reinhardt? Two fingers. Two fingers.

~Incidents


but eric clapton and jimi hendrix wouldn't compare to the guitarists we have today. They were big because they were the first of there time to do sick licks and stuff.. ya know?

hey, no reason to get mad bro, its just a forum, and jimi hendrix and eric clapton were just guitarists. I dont see why you gotta get so defensive. are they your close personal friends... no. No need for the anger man

john petrucci from dream theater, why dont you check him out incidents, he's pretty sick, youm might like him

I first heard of Buchanan about 30 yrs. ago in a PBS documentary called something like "The World's Best Unknown Guitar player". I was still a beginner guitar player and was astounded by his diversity. Thing is, I didn't catch his name; years later I read a Guitar Player article on him, and found out who he was. Saw him live probably 10 times. He had some problems with drinking, and one time I went to see him, he opened with a 40 min. jazzy solo of "Misty" and the crowd wanted to kill him, lol. But when he was on, he'd blow the roof off. He's the reason why I got a Tele. If memory serves me right, I believe he's the first guitarist recorded using artificial harmonics- metal-heads can thank him for that, I think. Anyway, he's in my top 5 of favorite guitarists. And yeah, "Messiah" is amazing; you should hear it live. Jeff Beck's "Cause We Ended as Lovers" was dedicated to Buchanan. That's some lunchlady you got there, lol

I'm not responding to pick a fight, Incidents, but I beg to differ. What could be considered sucky technique can also be viewed as a player's uniqueness. In what way do you mean their technique sucks?

As for today's players, they probably wouldn't be the players they are now w/out the influences of players like Hendrix & Clapton. Look at SRV (unless you think he sucks too); man, his Hendrix influence is all over the place. Clapton doesn't make it on my top 5 list, but I still like him. Far's as Hendrix is concerned, I think he took the guitar to a level so far above and beyond what was before him that his influence still resounds to this day (Hendrix isn't my fav player tho; just appreciate what he did.) Santana's my man. JMHO.

Originally Posted by: Jimmi431Technique is nothin without soul.

That says it all. That's why I love Santana, even tho he's getting redundant.

Originally Posted by: SilimtaoI'm not responding to pick a fight, Incidents, but I beg to differ. What could be considered sucky technique can also be viewed as a player's uniqueness. In what way do you mean their technique sucks?

As for today's players, they probably wouldn't be the players they are now w/out the influences of players like Hendrix & Clapton. Look at SRV (unless you think he sucks too); man, his Hendrix influence is all over the place. Clapton doesn't make it on my top 5 list, but I still like him. Far's as Hendrix is concerned, I think he took the guitar to a level so far above and beyond what was before him that his influence still resounds to this day (Hendrix isn't my fav player tho; just appreciate what he did.) Santana's my man. JMHO.

See I don't think Hendrix elevated the guitar in real musical terms. In social terms? Yes. But really now, how can you say Hendrix elevated the guitar like nobody before him when you look at what guys like Segovia and Reinhardt did?

~Incidents

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenHow is that a "good point"? That is so incredibly irrelevant. It's so pathetic that people use a person's fame as a way to argue their way. Look, Clapton's technique sucks. I never said he was a poor songwriter or anything like that, but face it, his technique really really sucks. Same with Hendrix. *Gasp*! Not Hendrix! Now that's not to say that I don't appreciate him as a social icon, but I'd like to hear anyone argue that Clapton and Hendrix had good technique. And the argument that they had "good technique" for their time is bull****, too. Ever heard of Django Reinhardt? Two fingers. Two fingers.

~Incidents


but eric clapton and jimi hendrix wouldn't compare to the guitarists we have today. They were big because they were the first of there time to do sick licks and stuff.. ya know?

Just a few minutes ago, I finished reading a very thorough biography on Frank Zappa -- a man who spent most of his life surrounding himself with the very best musicans he could get his hands on. From Rock, to Jazz, to R&B, to Classical, he found the best, he pushed them past their limits and brought them to ungodly levels of performance. He also likely created more inovative music than any other composer in the last century.

And in spite of all of this, in his whole life, the one man he left the stage to watch with the audience was Jimi Hendrix.

This may be just my opinion, but that single act speaks more than any amount of words any one of us here has to say.

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenSee I don't think Hendrix elevated the guitar in real musical terms. In social terms? Yes. But really now, how can you say Hendrix elevated the guitar like nobody before him when you look at what guys like Segovia and Reinhardt did?

~Incidents

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Different strokes for different folks. I definitely think Hendrix elevated guitar playing in a quantum leap. The little riffs in between chords, feedback, his unique sound- that's what set him apart from everyone else. Yeah, I really believe Hendrix elevated things in "real musical terms".I agree Reinhardt was amazing, no doubt about that, but do you honestly believe Reinhardt elevated guitar playing as much as Hendrix? How many times have you heard someone say, "whoa, that dude is as good as Reinhardt!" I saw Segovia live, and quite frankly, I wasn't impressed; well, I think he was in his 90's then.

But we were talking about technique- what about Hendrix' technique makes you think it sucks? Honestly, I'm confused by what you mean by that. Do you mean that he didn't play fast and clean, like...say, DiMeola or Mcglaughlin? 20 yrs. ago I could play every lick Dimeola and McLaughlin did...FASTER! But does that make me a good musician? I think I sucked as a musician, but I was a great TECHNICIAN.

Technique is just one part of the puzzle, if a person can express their musical vision and reach their intended audience, they have been successful, audiences don't come to see demonstrations of technique *, they come to hear music that somehow means something to them, Musicians can get so caught up in one aspect of playing that they neglect the other aspects, did Django have perfect technique? For his music and his limitations he had great technique, but he would have probably not been very successful as a chord melody player like Joe Pass. We have seen alot of great technical players in the last 20 years, and if you listen to their music for longer than 5 mins., it starts to all sound like elevator muzak, tehnique is a means to an end, but not the end in itself.

* ( Except for the few nerd musicans like ourselves who will also be in the audience )

Originally Posted by: pstringTechnique is just one part of the puzzle, if a person can express their musical vision and reach their intended audience, they have been successful, audiences don't come to see demonstrations of technique *, they come to hear music that somehow means something to them, Musicians can get so caught up in one aspect of playing that they neglect the other aspects, did Django have perfect technique? For his music and his limitations he had great technique, but he would have probably not been very successful as a chord melody player like Joe Pass. We have seen alot of great technical players in the last 20 years, and if you listen to their music for longer than 5 mins., it starts to all sound like elevator muzak, tehnique is a means to an end, but not the end in itself.

I respect this post more than any in this thread. However, the part about Django...If Django had 4 fingers and a thumb working instead of two being crippled, then we could have made a real comparison to Joe Pass. But since he was only really working with his thumb, index and middle fingers, it's hard to analyze that since Joe was working with all of his fingers. But I do respect your post and you. These are the kinds of discussions that I love.

~Incidents

Incidents, I'd still like to understand what you mean by Hendrix and Clapton having sucky technique. Put another way- what do you consider good technique?

Originally Posted by: SilimtaoIncidents, I'd still like to understand what you mean by Hendrix and Clapton having sucky technique. Put another way- what do you consider good technique?

If you don't know what I mean by Clapton and Hendrix having bad technique, then you most likely haven't been exposed to classical or jazz music. I'm not going to explain why 2 + 2 = 4.

~Incidents

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenIf you don't know what I mean by Clapton and Hendrix having bad technique, then you most likely haven't been exposed to classical or jazz music. I'm not going to explain why 2 + 2 = 4.

~Incidents

Dude, I was listening to Django, Pass, Charlie Christian (you know him?), and had private lessons with Lenny Breau before you were born . I started playing guitar about 35 yrs. ago. I started classical music lessons over *40* yrs. ago. If you remember, I responded to your post about music schools, and told you about my experiences at Berklee. I've run the gamut of all styles- excepting maybe hardcore metal/shredding. You made a statement, and I asked a valid question. Your response suggests there's some kind of objective measuring stick to "good technique". All I asked was YOUR interpretation of "bad" technique, more specifically as to how it applies to Hendrix and Clapton. It's become apparent you can't back up your statement with some type of explanation. :confused: