hendrix vs. van halen

Nowadays, nothing that Jimi did is so amazing... but at the time that he did it... It was genius.

Same thing goes for EVH. It was amazing then... But just about every shred head can play what EVH plays... it's nothing mind blowing.

Vai > Satriani > EVH

Stevie Ray > Jimi Hendrix > Eric Clapton

You'll notice that in each of these equations the guitarist to the far left is the one that is the most modern... the one on the far right is the oldest... That's the way it will always be. "The newest thing is the greatest thing"

Personal preference is the name of the game gentleman and opinions vary.

Originally Posted by: sixxstring54It is impossible to argue over who is better. Jimmi can't get better, obviously he is dead. Eddy is alive he can still practice and acheive higher standards for himself.

It is not a fair argument.

I kind of believe that Edward is the new Hendrix. He has changed the guitar for the better, just like Jimmi before him. They are both equal in this respect.

Peace

Sixx

You got tht right dood. Hendrix changed the face of rock guitar and eddie added the finger tapping element to rock.

Who's better, well to end an argument I AM, SO THERE. :D

Originally Posted by: aschlemanNowadays, nothing that Jimi did is so amazing... but at the time that he did it... It was genius.

Same thing goes for EVH. It was amazing then... But just about every shred head can play what EVH plays... it's nothing mind blowing.

Vai > Satriani > EVH

Stevie Ray > Jimi Hendrix > Eric Clapton

You'll notice that in each of these equations the guitarist to the far left is the one that is the most modern... the one on the far right is the oldest... That's the way it will always be. "The newest thing is the greatest thing"

Personal preference is the name of the game gentleman and opinions vary.

haha, before we know it we're gonna have a vai or satch war.

but in regards to hendrix or van halen,

i personally don't go near either of them. but i leave their recordings alone for different reasons.

with hendrix, i leave them alone and don't try to play them note for note, like those two guys way back on page 9 or something were fighting bout, because i realise that trying to replicate the things hendrix did wouldn't make me my own player, so to speak. not to mention that i don't have any chance of replicating the feedback and syncopated rhythmic sense hendrix brought to the table back then, so i don't try. with hendrix, i don't try to play his music the way he did because his style was so complex and hard to grasp rhythmic wise, and out of sheer respet for the man, may he RIP.

with Eddie, i never got into that much van halen really. i don't wanna start a war or anything here, first of all, but here's how i saw their material:
van halen would have a tune that hooked you straight away, roth or hagar, didn't matter, the riffs were always catchy, the music was groovin, it was an awesome tune to listen to, regardless of which one it was. but then the guitar solo came, and it all went out the window. take dreams for instance. great pop rock tune, and then the solo is filled with simply tricks, rather than melodies.
on the other hand, eddie pulled out some gems, like panama, or jump. those solos jmped out of nowhere and kept the song going, particularly on jump.
but to sum it up, eddie never appealed to me because he seemed to only focus on showing of the amazing things he COULD do with the guitar, in places where he shouldn't. he didn't put these innovative techniques to good use as much as he could have, in my opinion.

i've always been taught, and i firmly believe, that there is no such thing as a wrong note, your just playing it at the wrong time, and this is where it seperates the to for me.

hendrix did the "WRONG" things at all the RIGHT times, almost without fail.

Edddie did the "WRONG" things simply too many times on occasion.

i don't think this argument will ever be settled, seeing as this threads been going for years, but i think sometimes we look at these comparisons only through a technical point of view.

and all of you fellow guitar players out there i think will agree with me, its GREAT to have awesome technique, but playing guitar in a musical sense is about using these techniques in context with the song, which hendrix always managed to do, rather than use them in excess, like eddie did.

so i would have to say that i believe hendrix will always be the greatest rock innovative guitarist over eddie, simply due to his mastery of every aspect of the instrument, not just the tone and technique, but also the musicianship and beauty of the instrument itself.

personally though, as afinally, i believe django reinhardt owned all, haha.

cheers,

G----rant

I'm gonna have to agree with the last guy, and add that Eddie isn't even that technical, he wasn't even for the time he was famous. I'm not saying he sucks, he is a pretty damn good guitar player, but if you think he even gets close to the kind of technique that any shredder from even the eighties then you have to be deaf. I don't think it's all about technique I'm just saying, yeah maybe he is "technically" better than Hendrix but I would say that Hendrix is a much better player creatively and within the context of a song and I wouldn't use technical ability as an argument when your talking about Van Halen. He was pretty sloppy (at least early on I haven't heard anything recent of his) ecspecailly his tapping. Eddie just took a few techniques that very few ppl had heard before and used them in super excess, now he had the skill to play them fast and played and "dared" to play faster than pretty much anyone before him.

I also would like to add that Zappa was around at the same time as both these guys and is probably on the level with (and in my opinion more interesting) Hendrix. He didn't write music so that he could show off his guitar skills but he had them, look up some of his solo's they tend to be pretty long and are always really kickass, and he could play really fast. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I think the fact that he was interested in such weird and varied music makes many people over look him when talking about great players, also he is probably just as if not more influential as Hendrix, because he has influenced more than just other guitarist. It almost seems to be like a trendy thing to do now to mention Zappa as one of your influences, I hear him mentioned by famous modern musicians in pretty much every genre.

Originally Posted by: aschlemanNowadays, nothing that Jimi did is so amazing... but at the time that he did it... It was genius.

Same thing goes for EVH. It was amazing then... But just about every shred head can play what EVH plays... it's nothing mind blowing.

Vai > Satriani > EVH

Stevie Ray > Jimi Hendrix > Eric Clapton

You'll notice that in each of these equations the guitarist to the far left is the one that is the most modern... the one on the far right is the oldest... That's the way it will always be. "The newest thing is the greatest thing"

Personal preference is the name of the game gentleman and opinions vary.

I'm gonna continue that...

Dime>Vai>Satch>EVH

van halen was great
hendrix was great
i prefer hendrix as he is more of a songwriter as opposed to musician
learning van halen songs will teach u more but hendrix is also impossible to replicate
van halen technically better
hendrix attitude, soul, fresh sound wat more do u want

Originally Posted by: elklanderccI'm gonna continue that...

Dime>Vai>Satch>EVH

Man Dime was a good guitar player but he wasn't a patch on any one of those other guys. He brought a new sound and more aggression. Those guys are far more technically accomplised players and Vai and Satch in particular are masters of music theory at the very higest level. Dime mhimself admitted openly to knowing very little about what he played - that in itself made him a great guitarist, just not as good as the others on the list. EVH... his best solos are also leagues ahead of Dimes, no taking anything away from Dime - he was a cool guy and a great guita player.

My two cents...

Aschleman, this is just my opinion, but with the Vai > Satriani > Van Halen line, I personally would be more inclined to put Satch in the Hendrix line, in front of Stevie Ray. The way I see it, Satch and Hendrix play/played experimental and technically innovative stuff for the sake of musical exploration, where Vai and Van Halen play experimental and technically innovative stuff just for the sake of it. There's also the fact that Satch, like Hendrix, has more of a progressive blues-rock bent, where Vai, like Van Halen (and, for that matter, Ritchie Blackmore), is more influenced by classical music and contemporary pop and rock. But all that style-association stuff is subjective anyway...

On the Van Halen-Hendrix contest, I infinitely prefer Hendrix, not because he had more soul or crafted his songs more carefully, but simply because I love psychedelic bluesy stuff (and I HATE commercial eighties rock :p). Each to their own, and Jimi's style is more my thing than Eddie's - it's as simple as that.

On Dimebag, I don't think he was an inferior player to Satch and Vai at all, just in a different category. He was a hardcore metal guitarist; Satch and Vai are instrumental rock players. It's very hard to compare players across these categories. I've got to say, though, that I much prefer Dime's playing to Eddie's.

Phew! Sorry for the length..

Me>bits of sand.

:(

Originally Posted by: SuperhumanMan Dime was a good guitar player but he wasn't a patch on any one of those other guys. He brought a new sound and more aggression. Those guys are far more technically accomplised players and Vai and Satch in particular are masters of music theory at the very higest level. Dime mhimself admitted openly to knowing very little about what he played - that in itself made him a great guitarist, just not as good as the others on the list. EVH... his best solos are also leagues ahead of Dimes, no taking anything away from Dime - he was a cool guy and a great guita player.[/QUOTE]
I thought the >>>> things was like who inspired who. Hendrix inspired Halen, but Halen didn't sound like Hendrix and so on as the list goes.

[QUOTE=earthman buck]Me>bits of sand.

:(

Perhaps you don't practice enough?

Originally Posted by: Drew77.

I also would like to add that Zappa was around at the same time as both these guys and is probably on the level with (and in my opinion more interesting) Hendrix. He didn't write music so that he could show off his guitar skills but he had them, look up some of his solo's they tend to be pretty long and are always really kickass, and he could play really fast. Just wanted to throw that out there..

So can Prince........ and he plays a billion other instruments just as well... That doesn't make him more INFLUENCIAL than Jimi or Eddie


This thread is never going to end.

Originally Posted by: aschleman
This thread is never going to end.

Yup. Heck, if you're looking at inspirational guitarists, you have to go back to the blues players and the early jazz greats. Zep owes a majority of their stuff to the early blues guys as does Clapton and Richards and Lennon&Harrison and so on and so on....

Even the early cowboy sound sort of begat the sounds of early rock and roll, country and rockabilly, which, of course, served to inspire punk...

The supposed King of Rock and Roll, Elvis, openly did blues and 'race' music.

Chet Atkins was so good that almost every guitarist out there credits him and Chuck Berry for their sound. It's funny but so few invent anything but actually put their own spin on something that's already been done and take it to the next level. Which, in a sense, brings us right back to Jimi or EVH. They were different guitar players with different skills but I think that Eddie heard Jimi and thought "Oh yeah..." and then spun off in his own direction.

All in all, I prefer Jimi because I think he was more 'musical' if that makes any sense. Eddie is a faster player than Jimi, but Jimi could make you ache when you heard what he played.

Originally Posted by: hunter60Chet Atkins was so good that almost every guitarist out there credits him and Chuck Berry for their sound..

I recall a documentary about a tribute concert for Chuck Berry... Keith Richards was being interviewed and said how most of Chucks riffs and chops are based off of his piano players chops and riffs.... That's why most of Chucks tunes are written in keys that are most commonly associated with piano music instead of standard guitar rock or blues. So everyone has their own inspirations... It's a neveer ending cycle...

I'm like a lot of people because I prefer Jimi and his 3 piece style of blues/psychadaelia... When the Experience was in the pocket they were as good as any band out there. Mitchell, Redding, and Jimi were three dudes that could get down.

Along with that. I've never liked nor listened to anything that Van Halen has ever played. I respect it for what it is... and I respect him as a guitarist but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Originally Posted by: aschleman
I'm like a lot of people because I prefer Jimi and his 3 piece style of blues/psychadaelia... When the Experience was in the pocket they were as good as any band out there. Mitchell, Redding, and Jimi were three dudes that could get down.

Along with that. I've never liked nor listened to anything that Van Halen has ever played. I respect it for what it is... and I respect him as a guitarist but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I couldn't agree with you more. Like you, I respect EVH for what he did but I am not a big fan. I thought they kinda shot their, well you know, with their first album. I don't think I've actually played it in 10 years. But I have Hendrix cranking at least once a week or so.

The question is easy: Eddie Van Halen is better than Jimi Hendrix as a guitar player. Whichever way you want to spin it, in terms of guitar prowess, be it soulful playing or virtuoso lines--EVH has got Hendrix beat.

If you want to argue over intangible willy nillies like 'who had the most 'it' onstage' or whatever then I can't help you. That's subjective.

Guitar prowess, however, is far easier.

Check out How Do I know When It's Love by VH to hear some soulful playing.

Ain't Talkin Bout Love
Little Dreamer
Feel Your Love Tonight

All examples of soulful playing, even the last one which is a goofy song has a masterful solo that perfectly conveys the song's feel.

Just because Jimi played blues and bent notes all the time doesn't really make him the most soulful guy around. If anything, I think Jimi could have been so much more than what he was in terms of lead playing. His rhythm playing is what really changed Rock music.

Eddie just wins--he has the entire package, whereas Hendrix had the soul but little else beyond that. Eddie has soul and can be funky (check out Outta Love Again on VH II for proof) when he wants to be, and he also can hang in terms of technique--even though he isn't the best.

This doesn't piss on Jimi Hendrix. It's just a fact, Eddie came out after Hendrix and was just a better guitar player. Maybe people like Jimi better--which is why he is always at the top of polls, but that doesn't change the fact that one is a more accomplished guitarist.

Even in terms of influence Eddie and Jimi are at the very least, equal. But influence isn't the same as 'guitar playing.' Chuck Berry had a huge influence, but that doesn't make him a particularly great guitar player.

Oh, and aschleman, how can you hate everything Van Halen has ever done if you haven't listened to it?

Maybe it's just the wording, but sometimes I find people just diss other players because they have their current heroes and won't have that perfect image shattered.

I think a lot of artists' words have really turned people off to virtuoso playing. They hear a lot of guitar players who are not capable of playing at extreme speeds, and so what they do is diss those who can. So all they do is associate fast playing with soulessness--when it's just not true. And their fans regurgitate this drivel and never really listen to these guitarists with a truly open ear.

So. Just wondering if that's the case here.

What i love about van halen is that no matter what he sounds like van halen. No one can sound like him.
Ya, he had a few dud solo's, but meh.
He had a full awareness of his tone, and how to use it. I really prefer him to Hendrix. I could care less who inspired who, I don't think that should even be part of the argument.

PlatonicShred, I certainly agree that people dismiss newer musicians because they are so attached to their current or older heroes, but I think that the association of shred with soullessness is not at all unjustified. While there are many shred pioneers out there who have soulful, tasteful playing styles and good, earthy appeal, there are countless others who are all about exhibiting technique for the sake of it - while this can sometimes be good listening, it's little wonder that the average listener doesn't give players like this a chance with people like Michael Angelo Batio around.

For me, Eddie van Halen does not fall into the "tasteless wanker" category, but nor does he quite fit into the "tasteful innovator" group. He certainly revolutionised guitar technique, but I don't think he had many cogent musical ideas to express with his techniques. In my opinion, it was people like Steve Morse, Joe Satriani and Randy Rhoads who did that.

Originally Posted by: jiujitsu_jesus
He certainly revolutionised guitar technique, but I don't think he had many cogent musical ideas to express with his techniques. In my opinion, it was people like Steve Morse, Joe Satriani and Randy Rhoads who did that.

I closely associate EVH to Kurt Cobain....... Why? Well you see, many many many people out there that are uneducated in the late 80's and early 90's music scene seem to think that Nirvana and Kurt Cobain "invented" the grunge music scene... Which is entirely false... It just so happened that Nirvana was the only band at the time that was creating something commercial enough for MTV to latch on and spoon feed to the general public... sky rocketing Nirvana and launching a myth that they were the first.... the were the first to SELL OUT.... not the first to create...

Van Halen is in the same category.... Joe Satriani and Randy Rhoads were doing their thing at the same time... Van Halen just so happened to be more commercially ready... therefore getting all the airplay and being labeled "the first shred guitarist"...

Jimi Hendrix wasn't the first to do what he was doing either... and I'd never claim that... However he was the first that was combining blues and psychadaelia ... I've seen many many many documentaries on Jimi and they've all mentioned that while he wasn't the first one to play electric music... he was the first one to play very very loudly... He was quoted saying that he wanted the guy in the back of the 200,000 spectator festival to feel like he's in the front row... I think he blazed a lot of ground in more ways than just music.... but also showmanship...

I look at that as a lot of other reasons why Hendrix was more to music than Eddie Van Halen...

That and Jimi played a Strat...

Have you seen EVH live in concert? The guy is every bit a showman as Jimi Hendrix was. And he is more consistent than Jimi ever was--as Jimi was too splashed a third of the time to give a good performance. ((it's a fact, read up on it)) Not to say that EVH was never drunk or anything during a performance--but he always gave a pretty good one. Hendrix did not.

You say Jimi blended blues and psychedelia. EVH blended rock and virtuoso jazz/classical lines--what's your point? Hell, eruption's tapping part is taken straight from Vivaldi. I would think that blues and psychedelia are easier to combine than virtuoso stylings and rock. Not only that, but EVH also took the whammy bar to insane extremes. Sure, Jimi divebombed every now and again, but Eddie is the one who really made it happen in terms of whammy effects. And he also helped design the Floyd Rose.

Again, Jimi also wasn't the first to play very loudly either. A lot of his contemporaries were experimenting with similar things. The same thing you used to dismiss Van Halen can be applied to Hendrix---he was more commercial ready and bombastic than others who were equally talented than he was.

EVH also played a strat, it was just a modified one. Jimi didn't have the same impact upon guitar design and whatnot that Eddie did, either.

And another thing, EVH had plenty of musical ideas he expressed with his new techniques:

Check out Women in Love for a beautiful application of his tapped harmonics. Check out Cathedral for his experiments with the volume knob.
Check out Take your Whiskey Home for some nice bluesy acoustic guitar riffing.
Check out Spanish Fly for the VH style coming through nice and clear on acoustic.
Check out the cover of You're No Good for amazing applications of the whammy bar to make the guitar almost talk at points.
And lastly Check out Running with the Devil to realize that EVH was the FIRST guy to bring the loud, distorted, major third into hard rock---he did it by slightly detuning the g string to prevent the unpleasant buzzing sound. ((try tuning your guitar as normal, then kicking up the gain and volume, now play G major on the top four strings---it will sound like dog crap, guarenteed))
Check out Unchained for nothing short of amazing rhythm guitar while he is singing no less.


Long story, short? EVH covered a ton of ground with his new techniques and redefined electric guitar while doing so. These claims that he didn't 'say' or 'do' anything with his technique are just false--I'm sorry, they are. Jimi Hendrix brought the 7#9 chord to rock, was a really funky rhythm player and was insanely bombastic.

And also, there's nothing wrong with being 'commercial' as it were. That's actually very important, to me at least. It takes skill to digest the minutes of an underground style of music and keep true to the original style while making it accessible. If it was so easy to 'sell out' and 'go commercial' in bringing grunge to the masses---all those other bands besides Nirvana would have done it.

Most of the time, the underground stuff is not that good. For example, the Chemical Brothers techno versus most other techno.