David Gilmour > Jimi Hendrix
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=56547
Printed Date: April 26 2024 at 03:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: David Gilmour > Jimi Hendrix
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Subject: David Gilmour > Jimi Hendrix
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 19:30
|
In fact, by a long shot IMO. Discuss. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: OzzProg
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 19:59
|
Two distinct styles. I'm sure if Hendrix was around during the 70's, he would have innovated some new things, and came up with a new sound. The same goes for Gilmour, if he was not held back by Waters (as many claim he was, I included), he could have exploded into the best guitarist our world has yet to see. Its like comparing RIO to Symphonic prog, hard to do. However, at the end of the day, I prefer Gilmour's style over Hendrix's. -------------  |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 20:24
|
I've never really liked Hendrix (very overrated IMO), but I love Gilmour.
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 21:01
Two distinct styles, but it's hardly a stretch like trying to compare a classical guitarist to a funk guitarist, which mind you, can still be done. -------------
|
OzzProg wrote:Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 21:17
| I have all due respect for Gilmour, but please... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 22:07
|
It's not so much about who is the better guitarist, or vocalist for that matter, for me, it's about whose music engages me more. I like both, but I much prefer Hendrix. I find him to be musically more vibrant and/or immediate in a way. Gilmour is sometimes too polished to really connect with me; whereas, Hendrix has this grittier and more grounded (no matter how high he was) or real feel (even when "out' there), and "beautiful" stuff. I was listening to "Castles Made of Sand" earlier today; love that track. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: March 19 2009 at 22:12
|
Honestly if not for popular media's portrayal of Jimi Hendrix I never would have associated him with being a great guitar player or even a good composer. I don't find his playing all that interesting and I rarely listen to anything he's done. I just don't particularly enjoy him aside from a few listens here and there. Gilmour on the other hand just had a way of making it feel like his guitar lines were speaking directly to you independent of any intentions of the man playing them. His playing is a very intimate experience for the listener and that is truly amazing. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 04:41
But please........? I'd love to actually know why you feel the way you do. That short statement doesn't tell me a whole lot if I must be honest. -------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 04:58
|
Well I am not sure you can compare the two. Two totally different styles, One died in his 20's, the other pushing 65 and still improvising and searching new limits.
Another poster claims Waters held Gilmour back......no way on earth could anyone hold Gilmour back. As for Jimi, he was like a bullet train just passing through
Boths gifts to the world of BIG music ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 05:35
Of course you can compare the two. And no, they don't have totally different styles. I would interpret "totally different styles' as meaning perhaps as one guitarist plays funk and the other technical death metal music perhaps. But both are firmly rooted in the style of blues rock, both dabbled (to some extent or another) in psychadelic experimentation with their playing. Maybe Gilmour was held back. It's evident from watching various DVDs of Gilmour's playing and the fact that he teaches at the Academy of Contempory Music that he could probably play well beyond what he usually shows us, whereas I believe Hendrix was basically at his limit, in terms of pure technical skill on the guitar. The big question/s: Who do you prefer? Why do you prefer the one you choose as your first preference? -------------
|
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 06:10
^ I prefer neither and like each equally ,IMO, their very different styles, blues influences aside. You can compare them, I can't do that...sorry. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 06:29
Well, you can never know that, can you? Maybe Jimi would have lived to play with Miles or ELP and to develop his technical & songwriting skills beyond anyone else's, maybe not... We can't know.  Still I appreciate your words about Gilmour, which is usually not very highly regarded here on PA. |
Posted By: AlbertMond
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 07:32
|
I prefer Gilmour, personally. However, I think Hendrix was probably a better guitarist. ------------- Promotion so blatant that it's sad: 
|
Posted By: angelmk
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 09:18
Gilmour for me, i like Pink Floyd too much 
|
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 10:53
|
Strange comparison... cronological Hendrix was at his peak, when Gilmour is almost starting. When Gilmour have his peak Hendrix was very death.
do not understand what is the real reason to compare those...
-------------  |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 10:56
I prefer Gilmour because I prefer the music he plays. I prefer Gilmour's technique and style because I prefer that kind of controlled playing. I recognise that Hendrix was a great innivotive guitarist, he just didn't record very music much that I liked.
To me this is one of those questions that has no definitive answer - we cannot speculate on how Hendrix would have developed as a guitarist - he could have gone so many ways - he could have just as easily become dull and repetitive or he could have gone on to the next level but he could have also burned out like Peter Green.
All the guitarists in the (UK) psychedelic scene in the late 60s fed off each other, they all influenced each other, and to some extent tried to out-do each other - Hendrix was a (reluctant) showman, Gilmour was never a showman - both pushed at the limits of what a guitar could do and what you could do with it, both on stage and, more importantly, in the studio - both saw the studio as an extension of the instrument rather than just a means of recording it. Both were influenced by Syd Barrett (Barrett is often not recognised as a guitarist because he was never a great guitarist, but listening to him play there is a level of control in his use of slide, feedback and wah-peddle that shows a degree of finesse he is not usually associated with) - I would go as far as to say that Hendrix's use of the wah-peddle to control feedback is something he pick-up from watching Barrett play the UFO club in 66/67 rather than the other way around. Gilmour had to "copy" Barrett's techniques to be able to play Barrett's music, but he soon improved and developed those techniques beyond anything that Barrett (or Hendrix) had done - "Saucerful of Secrets" and "Echoes" are Gilmour taking the guitar to almost avant garde levels - whereas Hendrix never strayed too far from his blues roots, even at his most "progressive" Hendrix would never have recorded anything as ground-breaking as those where at the time. After Hendrix's death all comparisons are moot - Gilmour settled into his signature style with is preferred effects (Electric Mistress, stacked Leslie Speakers etc), and honed them to his preferred level of perfection - and the Hendrix Estate muddied the Hendrix-waters by releasing sub-par cash-in recordings that Hendrix would have never released himself. ------------- What? |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 11:04
Gilmour would play one note every thirty seconds or so, while Hendrix cared enough to actually play his instrument 
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 11:12
|
Apples and Oranges like others have said. Hendrix could play the blues as well and do it quite well. Both have their style and both have their place in music history. We will never know how much further Jimi could have taken it. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 12:17
|
I think that Hendrix was far more innovative and groundbreaking than Gilmour, and surely equally inspired.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 12:23
|
Well, they were both innovators, Jimi undeniably brought in a visceral style that simply did not yet exist at the time. Gilmour has a catalog of slick, elegant playing that is perhaps at the polar opposite of Hendrix' rage and fury. In terms of choosing one over the other, there can be little argument other than personal preference.
Both are icons. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: sweetleaf
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 13:24
|
Personally I am a much bigger Gilmour fan, not saying he is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix.... lets just say I prefer what he created.... |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 21:11
Sorry, I should not have been quite so terse.
My opinion, in a nutshell:
Technical skill as a guitarist: Hendrix > Gilmour
Innovator in terms of introducing new musical vocabulary to rock: Hendrix > Gilmour
Innovator in terms of introducing new sonic vocabulary to rock: Hendrix > Gilmour
Studio wizardy: Hendrix = Gilmour, but Hendrix got there first
Songwriter: Hendrix = Gilmour
Interpreter of others' music: Hendrix > Gilmour
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 20 2009 at 21:16
this, especially in regards to Hendrix's live performances but, as a guitarist I would rather be Gilmour |
Posted By: claugroi
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 16:41
|
Gilmour all the way, a guitar master. And Hendrix is one of the most overrated guitarists. Never liked his style, and just like one song of his. ------------- Symphonic Prog Master |
Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 17:39
| I feel if Hendrix had lived he would have left the confining boundries of rock for the more fertile ground found in fusion. For any body to see this the Hendrix album you need to listen to is "Band of Gypsys". I think a lot of people make there Hendrix decisons based on his earlier things "Fire" Crosstown Traffic", etc. With BoG he left the playing with his teeth, playing behind his head schtick and concentrated on straight up guitar and the results tell the tale. Just listen to "Machine Gun" and you'll get my drift. He was on the doorstep of something really large and sadly we will not get hear it. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 18:22
|
Is this a joke?
I could agree if you said that Gilmour had more of a physical playing edge on Hendrix. But Hendrix was far more original, creative, and groundbreaking. That being said, I don't think Hendrix is the best ever, and I like Gilmour. But Hendrix is a much better musicican and it will always be remembered that way.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 21 2009 at 22:11
I know many people here at PA don't take me that seriously because of some of my posts, but I didn't realize people refuse to take me seriously at all and believe that my personal, serious opinions may in fact just be 'joking around'. No, it's not a joke, IMO David Gilmour is a far better guitarist, musician and song writer. Why is my personal opinion just a joke to you? I'm curious, tell me why. -------------
|
Posted By: Floydoid
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 13:00
|
I don't think that even DG would consider himself to be better than Hendrix... tho there's no real comparison as they are both entirely different styles of guitatists.
------------- 'We're going to need a bigger swear jar.' |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 15:22
|
I like Gilmour, but I find Hendrix to be a far more exciting and creative guitarist. |
Posted By: Nuke
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 15:50
|
No way, not even close. I love David Gilmore, but Jimi Hendrix is something else entirely. Since I grew up with Hendrix, I never realized how innovative he was, but after a couple of years of prog, jazz, and metal not listening to him, I listened to jimi hendrix again, and the difference was staggering. All of a sudden, he was this amazing guitarist with creativity and style like hardly anyone else ever had.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Seabury">   |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: March 23 2009 at 19:23
It's a joke because it's an absurd comment. But really, I wasn't speaking in an incredibley literal fashion
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 10:39
That's always an interesting debate. I just tend to think his technique would never have developed enough to be a true fusion player. One thing I particularly notice about the late 60s era players that were born in the 40s that were heavily grounded in blues rock, is that over the years they never really developed further technique. For example, Clapton still stayed with his 3 finger on the fretting hand style of pentatonic licks for the most part, Jimmy Page largely the same, no real pinky usage, Tony Iommi, another who largely stayed within the context of blues rock styled solos. They never really picked up techniques like alternate picking, 3 note per string legato lines, sweep picking etc, and to an extent, that lack of technique confined them to play within a bluesier style. Whereas, take Allan Holdsworth, born in the 40s as well, but unlike the aforementioned, he picked up on the advanced virtuoso techniques such as 3 note per string legato, right hand tapping, sweep picking, and very wide stretches allowing him to play crazy arpeggiated lines, as well as amazing chord shapes. Or John McLaughlin, born the same year as Holdsworth, 1942, but possessed some of the greatest alternate picking chops known to man kind, at the time and even now. To be able to play fusion effectively, I honestly think at the bare minimum, you need to be able to execute 3 note per string legato lines or alternate picked lines (but ideally you'd learn more than just one of those techniques) to be able to play the fast and fluid lines that fusion demands. Having that level of technique just allows you to go far beyond just playing blues rock licks and doing something else. There is a lot of arpeggiaton in fusion as well, and without sufficient chops, you can't pull that stuff off. Even if Hendrix were to play fusion, unless he dropped the drugs and was prepared to take a look into getting some serious technique down, he would not have been able to play fusion with anywhere near the fluidity of virtuoso Brett Garsed, Holdsworth or Shawn Lane. Sure, Hendrix is not a bad player by any means, but virtuoso he was not, and his technique was too limited in scope and just not clean enough for fusion. There is also the question of, had he lived, would he have dropped the drugs enough to maintain creativity and to perhaps enhance and clean up his playing technique, or would have have just become another has been that was once a shining star, but then would just another 'one of those drug f**ked guitar players" type of guys? EDIT: Apologies if you're not a musician and found some of my post impenetrable, but hopefully it was interesting to other guitar players:P -------------
|
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 10:52
I think it was an interesting coment whether you play guitar or not. Probably Jeff Beck was one of the few that innovated through the years from that generation of blues rock players.
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 11:03
| ^Jeff Beck is a damn good guitarist, but nowadays, he's doing whacky things....*cough* Who Else *cough* |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 11:03
|
^^Well, as to what Jeff Beck innovated after the late 60s era of blues rock, I honestly don't really know, not because I doubt what he may have done, but because I never really followed his career and hence wouldn't be able to say "from this album to that album, he was doing x thing he hadn't done before". Watching youtube videos of him in recent times, I was impressed by him not having just been stuck in a blues rock pentatonic lick rut, but his playing seems to have not been stagnant at all, he seems to really go out of his way to achieve a unique and varied sound at the gigs he plays, certainly by applying techniques not used or at least not common in the late 60s blues rock era. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 11:14
That's all very interesting and I agree with most of it ... but what does it have to do with Hendrix vs. Gilmour? AFAIK Gilmour never went beyond the blues based techniques either. From my point of view (I'm a guitarist too): What made Hendrix so special - apart from the "gimmicks" - was his way of fusing rhythm and lead in a way that was extraordinarily rich in terms of melody and harmony. Listen to Little Wing ... and remember that it was covered by a large number of guitarists, many also from the Jazz Fusion domain. I think that Gilmour is mostly remembered for his great solos ... he simply often managed to come up with nearly perfect solos that captured the essence of the songs with just as much technique as necessary. I *love* both guitarists, but Hendrix really changed the perception of the guitar as an instrument. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 11:32
Agree with Mike in this but on a certain level Hendrix change the perception of the guitar. maybe the mainstream level?? ------------- |
Posted By: Lost Follower
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 13:38
|
Gilmour is a very blues rock player but Hendrix broke every rule in the book then rewrote the book. Gilmour is a great 'funky' rhthym player though. His solos are uber predictable. But hen, most guitar solos are boring anyway. Gilmour would make my top 5. Actually, not my top 10. He'd have to fight damn hard to get past Phil Manzanera actually. ------------- ~Jump you f**ker jump~ |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 13:44
As Dave & Phill are bestest mates I cannot see them arguing one way or the other  ------------- What? |
Posted By: Lost Follower
Date Posted: March 24 2009 at 13:49
Absolutely. I like Dave Gilmour. He comes across as a really nice bloke, he looked after Syds interests for 30 years and he gave away £6m to Shelter when he sold his London house. top bloke. I have his last solo album and love some of the songs. I just wish he'd lay off the trademark Gilmour guitar histrionics or find a new style to show us. I know he said he felt a bit worried about asking Phil to play rhythm guitar of late, being he's such a great guitarist himself. But hey, Phil needs to pay the bills while Ferry is still messing about playing Dylan. ------------- ~Jump you f**ker jump~ |
Posted By: sinistas
Date Posted: March 25 2009 at 20:41
|
I thought there was a fair amount of departure shown on Gilmour's last solo album - stuff like "This Heaven", "Smile", or "Red Sky At Night" are branching out, at least in some way.
------------- http://www.dreadedsilence.com/ - Dreaded Silence - Boston Progressive / Melodic Metal |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 06:29
Technical Skill as a guitarist, and you say Hendrix is better. You're kidding right? Sorry, but sloppy and good technique are mutually exclusive. Some aspects technique means being able to play cleanly, with good intonation and control. Gilmour had this down very well. Hendrix did not. There are first hand accounts from people that went to his gigs, and even recordings where he wasn't able to play in tune, wasn't able to play without hideous slop and couldn't even play in time at certain points. Allan Holdsworth has good technique. Mikael Akerfeldt has good technique. Steve Hackett has good technique. David Gilmour has good technique. What links these 4 guys is their ability to play in time consistently, play in tune consistently and not having particularly noticeable amounts of extraneous string noise as they play. When they fluff up, they make honest mistakes as all humans do, which is a severe contrast to just being downright sloppy like Hendrix and Page were. I've heard recordings of Hendrix where you can just hear heaps of extraneous string noise and hardly even any of the notes he was trying to hit. That is shockingly poor technique. Whether someone has good or poor technique is not entirely subjective, their are defined rules as to whether one has good or bad technique. My father is (well, not anymore since he quit playing) a classical guitarist and I have given lessons in the past and am about to start giving actual paid lessons relatively soon. To be able to play classical guitar or to teach guitar effectively, there are certain concrete rules (yes, concrete rules, not subjective opinions) which need to be understood in order to have good technique. Gilmour's playing comes under the defined boundaries of what constitutes good technique, even if he is no virtuoso. -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 07:01
|
^ Interpretation of others' music is also open to question - there are very few examples of Gilmour playing other peoples' music, (other than Barrett's in the Floyd early days and no one can deny he improved on all of those pieces), let alone interpretation (his interpretation of Bizet's Je Crois Entendre Encore was pretty fair and not something I could imagine Hendrix doing) - neither Glimour or Floyd were into "covers" as such. He was in Bryan Ferry's backing band at Live Aid and at an open-air concert at Petworth House, but playing Phil Manz's guitar parts doesn't count as interpretation.
The well known examples of Hendrix interpreting others' music are All Along The Watch Tower and Johnnie B Goode - the first is a classic, but far from great, and the second is plain dreadful to my ears. Oh, and Star Spangled Banner - not so much an interpretation as a political comment on the Vietnam War.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 07:18
|
^ Johnny B Goode is alway awful, as a veteran cheezy music pro hack I truly hate playing that awful song, it get's my special ultra-disonant chord 'replacement' theory whenever I have to play it. Usually by the time a song like that is requested everyone is too drunk to notice, care or they think I'm funny, ha ha. If anyone wants to read some long-winded drivel about Hendrix you can check my intro/bio on our new Hendrix page. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 08:44
Excellent point too. I love Jimi's All Along The Watch Tower too (it's practically cliche to say you like it, but hey, it worked, and it's a fine piece of music), but indeed, I have a Hendrix CD lying around with a rendition of Johnny B Goode, and that was not to my liking (I think it was a live version of it). It just sounded kinda half assed really and not totally genuine and done for the sake of doing a cover version. I'm not a big fan of the original song, mind you, but at least it's listenable unlike the turd that is the Hendrix rendition I have heard. -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 09:17
|
^ I'm no Chuck Berry fan, but nobody plays his songs right except that ugly guy in the Stones. Berry actually uses real nice inventive sparse RnB chords, while your typical local bar band tramples all over that. Some of Hendrix's covers were satirical as in Wild Thing, that is either a stab at The Troggs or crappy garage bands in general. Listen to the sarcastic vocal delivery and I love that Strangers in the Night guitar solo, brilliant! |
Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 09:52
|
Gilmour and Hendrix are both great guitarists but I listen to Gilmour much more often than Hendrix. ------------- "The disgusting stink of a too-loud electric guitar.... Now, that's my idea of a good time." |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 10:06
|
I love these stories about Hendrix playing out of tune as if he was some hack who just messed about, got some interesting sounds and was very lucky. The guy earned a living as a session musician for many years and was certainly in demand in the mid 60's. If he couldnt really play then he wouldnt have lasted 5 minutes! Then there's the stories about all the top guitarists standing open-mouthed in awe when they saw him in concert, including Eric Clapton, they would hardly give props to someone who played out of tune. Hendrix was the Picasso of the electric guitar and his style transcended blues or pop or even psychedelia. He is unique and if he'd survived I'm damn sure he'd have been a giant of the jazz-fusion scene, as some have mentioned. Gilmour? Wonderful guitarist and the right man for Pink Floyd when they needed to move to the next level, but better than Hendrix? He'd be the first to laugh at this I reckon. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 10:47
Really, I don't think anyone is accusing Hendrix of ALWAYS having poor intonation and/or being sloppy with other areas of guitar technique, because he wasn't always obviously. The point is more, in order to have what is considered good technique, you need to be consistent all the time. Consistency of good technique is what makes people like Allan Holdsworth or Chopin the viruosos they were/are. For someone like Holdsworth, a bad playing day would be a few minor mistakes and even then you almost wouldn't notice the mistakes anyway unless you were a guitarist like myself. Hendrix was lacking in consistency. He had great nights from what I hear, where he was on the ball and played tight, but other times he wasn't quite on the boat and his playing was all over the place David Gilmour, on the other hand, has a reputation for his precise, controlled playing. -------------
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 01:39
We all know that Chuck stole that sound from Marty McFly when he went back in time to play at his mom and dad's prom to get them together. Doesn't anybody remember Back to the Future? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 01:58
"Hey, Chuck? Chuck! It's Marvin. You're cousin, Marvin Berry?! Y'know that new sound you're lookin' for? Well listen to this!!!"
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 02:06
 love this movie....------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 02:59
|
actually Hendrix was a stickler for being in tune (no small trick with the way he played, BTW), much of his stuff would've sounded completely wrong had he been out |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 03:05
| ^ Yeah, but come on, his fingers were always flat on the strings. He played sloppy, it isn;t putting him down as a songwriter, or even as a musician. It's just how it is. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 03:12
| "he played sloppy" is like saying Charles Bukowski had a rough writing style..it misses the point, doesn't it? Besides, Hendrix didn't play sloppy, at least no more than Keith Emerson flubbed notes left and right and Robert Plant's voice failed on a regular basis |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 05:21
|
Another thing to look at is solo style. Some people play it safe and stick with what they know won't fail, Rick Wakeman for instance. While others are more apt to take crazy chances and try to pull off things that they may or may not be able to reach, Miles and Jimi for instance. Chick Corea and Jon McLaughlin were risk takers in their youth, but became more conservative later. Listen to live Mahavishnu when McLaughlin is young and his solos always have a few glorious train wrecks. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 05:43
Again, no one is accusing him of always being out of tune, but come on, there are enough live performances of him that are proof enough he was off as a result of his playing or because his guitar couldn't keep. Fact is, he didn't have the high quality locking tremolo systems that we have been taking for granted since the 80s that ensure guys like Satch of Vai never go out of tune from their intense whammy bar usage, or even locking tuners and stuff like that. As a reference point, I had a 2 point non locking system on my recent 6 string I used to play, and this was a high end guitar mind you. Top of the line American made locking tuners, 2 point knife edge tremolo, very very well made and also the design of the headstock and tuners eliminated string trees which further aid tuning stability, and no matter how much set up time I put into the thing, no matter how much pencil graphite I put into the saddles, within about half an hour of serious whammy bar abuse I would have to retune at least one of the strings. Now imagine you have a vintage 6 screw trem like the one Hendrix, (which is inherently less stable than a 2 point knife edge modern tremolo like the one I have) with no locking tuners. There is only so much it can take before every string is going to to bind in the nut and/or bridge saddles. Hendrix had more than his fair share of tuning stability problems because of the inherent weaknesses in the tremolo design. Spend as much time setting up and maintaining a 6 screw trem as you like, but it's not fail proof and there is a point where it just doesn't hold in tune anymore. EVH himself used 6 screw trems before he went to locking systems, and even then, he had to spend ages working on getting the set up as absolutely perfect as possible to make sure it stayed in tune, because you have to remember at the time the Van Halen debut was released, there was no such thing as being able to buy a Floyd Rose and putting it into your guitar. In the end, he switched to Floyd Rose systems because 6 screws vintage designs couldn't keep up with the abuse he gave it. Of course, Gilmour uses the same trem (since there was only one opion available at the time, unlike today where Fender offer 6 screw, 2 point knife edge and Floyd Rose locking systems), but it seems clear to me he abused the tremolo a lot less and hence, didn't run into the same tuning stability problems Hendrix did. -------------
|
Posted By: mr.cub
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:24
It's times like these I am glad I chose the drums. You seem incredibly knowledgable about guitar and all the intricacies of the instrument I never imagined existed. For that I give you extreme props. Also, your defense of Gilmour is equally well defended, and your knowledge of guitar certainly helps you in this case. I would hate to see you break down Pete Townsend
 As for me, well I enjoy both Gilmour and Hendrix, but they are not exactly favorites of mine; I do not listen to Pink Floyd and The Experience as much as I once did. But when I did listen to them with much frequency, there was something about Pink Floyd's music that attracted me more. Hendrix was groudbreaking, but I never understood the exact adulation the man gets to this day; I simply saw him as a very good guitarist, but thought Jerry Garcia was much better.
With Gilmour, I do agree with other comments that he could seem mechanical at times...I would say I like Gilmour and Hendrix equally and feel they are both adept at what they do. Apologies for my inability to delve any further -------------  |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:39
| As a non-guitarist, I have to keep the scope of discussion limited to my personal enjoyment. Well...Hendrix is kickass, bigtime, but for some reason I have always associated him with riffs...like Purple Haze or Voodoo Child, didn't ever dig his solos particularly, they were great but they didn't blow me away. Gilmour at his best is sublime and leaves an everlasting impression. I listen to at least one Steve Hackett track either solo or with Genesis one way or the other at least once every week but I haven't heard AC DC in more than a year. I know what my answer is though I love both Gilmour and Hendrix (or both Hackett and Young for that matter). |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:39
|
^Well I do spend heaps of time on guitar forums and play guitar 2-5 hours a day, that explains it partly, that and not exactly having much of a social life ( I tend to just work, spend time on internet forums, play guitar and occasionally go to a party on the odd weekend, but otherwise I don't enjoy socializing much anymore........ before I joined PA in 2007 all I did was drink, go to parties/take substances that I cannot elaborate on within the boundaries of PA rules, did this stuff 3-5 days a week, and after a while socializing that much and being off my nut so often really burnt me out, so I became pretty reclusive, heh). But trust me, compared to a serious guitar luthier, my knowledge of guitars is actually pretty limited, a fair bit of what I know is actually because I ask luthiers questions about guitars, as well as chat to professional level guys that gig and endorse stuff since they know their stuff. -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:44
Regarding his "off- nights," you do know he was a heavy drug-user don't you? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:49
|
also was forced to perform several hundred shows a year.... by the people holding his leash....
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 18:50
sure but there's more going on to keeping in relatively good tune than one's gear-- Eddie said he had to "tweak" his bar after use (to re-tension the strings) among other things.. Hendrix can often be seen tuning in mid-song with either hand and would do other things to maintain intonation and knew immediately when he was out, drug-induced haze or not. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 19:49
I don't see your point. I never said those tother guys were any better than Jimi . . .
Besides, I love his music, so why do tyou feel like you have to defend him? I'm not attacking him, even. I'm just saying that he wasn't a very 'neat' player. To say otherwise makes me feel like you're simply trying to argue, when as far as myself (and plenty of others here) are concerned, it's pretty obvious that Hendrix was all over the place when he played.
I'm not saying he sucked as a musician or a songwriter, nor am I saying I think his playing style was a bad thing, all I'm saying is that he played sloppy. Everyone has their own style, and that's okay. It reflects absolutely nothing about their character or their capability musically. And I am sorry if you felt like I was somehow saying Hendrix was 'less than' anyone else; I certanly was not.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 19:52
|
of course I'm just trying to argue, and your clarification is appreciated |
Posted By: ghost_of_morphy
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 20:49
|
Anybody who suggests that the moderately talented Gilmour is even equivalent to the sublime and groundbreaking Hendrix should be shot.
Not to disparage Gilmour, mind you. The guy plays well and is also innovative in a moderate way. But Hendrix was (and still would be, if he weren't so incessently copied) a giant. ------------- 
|
Posted By: AlbertMond
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 21:12
Lolwut? ------------- Promotion so blatant that it's sad:
|
Posted By: crimson87
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 21:23
Actually Marty Mc Fly invented sweep picking way back in 1955 , talk about a guitar god.
|
Posted By: Statutory-Mike
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 21:48
|
I'm going to agree with Harry 100%, David Gilmour by a long shot. I honestly don't see what anyone see's in Hendrix. ------------- 
|
Posted By: AlbertMond
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 22:25
Not to mention tapping. The guy was waaaaay ahead of his time. ------------- Promotion so blatant that it's sad:
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 02:19
Maybe you should ask David Gilmour. He used to cover Hendrix songs before he joined Pink Floyd ... BTW: If you don't get what's special about Hendrix ... take a look at the time line. Hendrix really changed the way the electric guitar was used in a band context. He influenced virtually every other guitarist of his time and beyond, including Gilmour. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 02:22
No problem.
 And, aren't we all?
 |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 10:01
Yes, exactly. And that whole 'good' vs 'bad' technique argument is moot anyway. If you play good music, you have good technique, simple as that. It's like when Certified says Gentle Giant were much better technicians than Dream Theater, I completely agree with him. FWIW, Hendrix was one of the first, if not the first guitarist to wow Miles Davis. They never got a chance to record together due to Hendrix's death, but Davis went on to include the guitar as a permanent feature in his bands since then. I'm yet to hear any musician of Davis's stature lavish praise on Gilmour.
|
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 10:30
No, of course, as someone who has been listening to him for a few years, I wouldn't know that *sarcasm* So what if he was a drug user? You think that excuses someone from a bad performance? I really wouldn't want to pay to go to a gig, only to have the artist sound like turd because he is off his nut on drugs/alcohol/has been awake for 72 hours straight or whatever. Why is it any more acceptable for Hendrix to have turned up on stage totally fried, yet if Steve Wilson were to come on stage totally hammered, forget half the lyrics, play out of key for half the time, people would positively pissed off their spent that money on a crap performance? Sorry, but being drunk/on drugs is not an excuse for a bad performance. A good excuse might be because of equipment malfunction beyond the artist's control or something pretty reasonable like that. It is within someone's control as to whether they get on stage blazed or not, so there is no excuse. And no, addiction is not an excuse either, go to rehab and get yourself sorted out before you continue gigging. You wanna stay on top of your game? Practice and retain a reasonable level of self control in regards to drug or alcohol use. Jimi wasn't always on top of his game unfortunately. -------------
|
Posted By: Negoba
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 10:44
|
Both played in a pentatonic-based style, used lots of bends, fused blues with psychedelia, it's not an unreasonable comparison.
Both had incredible touch, both could be expressive and truly seem like they were channelling something deep or otherworldly.
"All along the Watchtower" is psychedelic rock guitar at its apex. Considering how many imitators have failed to match that work (Page came closest) I rank Hendrix up among the inciendary stars of rock. The guy invented rock guitar as we know it.
Having a guitar teacher who basically used those guys solos as my textbook, I would say that Gilmour's are much easier to understand, though reproducing his touch is remarkably elusive. Of course, he spent years developing it, and claims that much of his early Floyd work was just mucking around.
I actually prefer listening to Gilmour now, as the compositions are more complete and I just connect more with the music.
Finally, neither of those guys were looking to be the "Best guitarist," but were trying to create transformative music. They both succeeded. Django Reinhart could kick both of them technically decades before. Chet Atkins could kick both of them technically at the time of their performances and he was an old coot. Who cares? I'd rather listen to Pink Floyd because that's just where my tastes lie. ------------- You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:08
"If you play good music, you have good technique, simple as that" That is ridiculous, sorry. I think the Clash made good music, but good technique they did not have. I love the old Metallica records, yet Kirk Hammett is one of the sloppiest guitarists of any guitarist who came from the 80s thrash metal scene. My sister likes the Sex Pistols, to her it's good music, but the fact is they couldn't play for sh*t. -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:15
It's only rock 'n' roll...many, many artists have and continue to go on stage whilst heavily under the influence. The morality of it is incidental to that fact. These were different times and most of the audience were in similar states of chemically-induced mental dysfunction. |
Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:21
"If you play bad music, you have a bad tecnique, simple as that"
"If you play good music, you have a bad technique, simple as that"
"If you play bad music, you have a good technique, simple as that"
Well the prisoner's dillema applies to this and also the whole sentences are a fallacy ------------- |
Posted By: Lost Follower
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:41
Oh dear. Taxi for PM.  ------------- ~Jump you f**ker jump~ |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:55
It may be good music to your sister, but is it good music in the first place? Anyway, if you make good music, that means you've got good technique, I stand by it. If your house can withstand an earthquake, it's well built, even if it is built of something most people would never use for one reason or another, or built using weird technologies.
BTW, Nick Cave can't sing for sh*t either.... sing Tuvan throat singing, that is. But who cares. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:56
I'd like to read that quote from Miles. He played with McLaughlin who is no slouch in his own right. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 11:59
| ^ One qoute? Miles went on about Jimi often. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 13:17
From what I have seen so far it appears Miles influenced Jimi as well so will we have another thread on Miles > David Gilmour?  |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 13:18
Oh yes.
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 13:36
| I am afraid that far too many people here (and elsewhere) mistake their opinions (or personal tastes) for fact... Though Gilmour is undoubtedly very good at what he does, Hendrix influenced whole generations of guitarists. Without him, there would be no Heavy Prog subgenre, for instance. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 13:54
|
and he influenced them by being one HELL of a great guitarist... sorry... those great guitarists of that age (and later) didn't worship him because of the reported size of his equipment.
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 17:44
| I like both, but Hendrix is my favorite. He was incredible and had so much potential that we'll never hear now. I feel his playing surpassed the sound spectrum. It was and still is magical. |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: April 14 2009 at 05:54
Not Miles quotes directly, this is from my Complete in a Silent Way Sessions booklet: About the tracks Mademoiselle Mabry and Frelon Brun. Originally on Filles de Kilimanjaro (1968): ... Ms. Mabry further educated Mils about artists like Sly and the Family Sone and Jimi Hendrix... ... This tribute to Betty also pays homage to "The Wind Cries Mary" ... ...Mademoiselle Mabry an Frelon Brun are watershed tracks. They exemplify the assimilation and inspiration of Jimi Hendrix and James Brown in that the rhytmic emphasis emphasis has shifted from a traditional jazz feel to that of rock and soul... (Miles was together and deep in love with the younger soulsinger Betty Mabry during this period) ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 15 2009 at 15:28
| I know of one guitarist Miles enjoyed pre-Hendrix: Charlie Christian. Of course Christian played like a horn player since those were the people he listened to. So that seems only natural. |
Posted By: progvortex
Date Posted: April 15 2009 at 19:07
|
I choose Gilmour. From a technical standpoint, Hendrix is probably the winner, but I will base my opinion off of something more important: which guitarist is more engaging. Gilmour's versatility is what really makes Floyd's music compelling. His playing can be straightforward and aggressive, reminiscent of great blues players like BB King (for example, Money) but it can also be mellow and behind the beat, more in the direction of guitarists like Jimmy Page on No Quarter (for example, Shine On You Crazy Diamond). Hendrix's playing was always just good old-fashioned rock and roll. It appeals to my gut, but never to my emotions. He lacked the elegance and the versatility that make Pink Floyd a better band, in my opinion, than The Experience.
------------- Life is like a beanstalk... isn't it? |
Posted By: jimidom
Date Posted: April 24 2009 at 16:04
|
Hmmm.... Both are phenomenal musicians. From a guitar standpoint, Gilmour is one of the elite guitarists of all-time, but Hendrix is a arguably in a league of his own.
What I love about Gilmour is the total control he commands over his musical palette and his ability to effortlessly communicate passion and raw emotion with but a few notes and select tones and sounds. As a listener you can really feel the blues of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" and "Comfortably Numb" and the raw power he conveys on "In the Flesh". Add to that the delicate moments in songs like "Fat Old Sun", "Wish You Were Here", and Gilmour is in rare company indeed.
However, whereas Gilmour communicated passion and raw emotion, Hendrix performed visceral exorcisms. I remember hearing Lenny Kravitz speak in interview of how he often needed to take a nap after listening to "Machine Gun", and I can totally relate. When you hear Hendrix hit some of the notes he hit on the live version from the Fillmoore East performance on New Year's Eve '69, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's as if Hendrix managed to collect and bottle up all of the strife of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement, and he just let it all pour out in a stream of sonic tears. I heard Miles Davis himself loved "Machine Gun" as well. Furthermore, Hendrix had his own delicate moments like "Castles Made of Sand" and the acoustic version of "Hear My Train a Comin'" ------------- "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - HST |
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: January 02 2010 at 16:56
|
Oh well....not very clear comparison....but If Gilmour is surely one of the greatest guitar player on the world, it's also true that Hendrix was probably the most influential of all times. There's no better one in the end....not to me...it would be like comparing two great writers...is it better Poe or Baudelaire? No point in doing that... ------------- ] 
|
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: January 02 2010 at 23:35
|
How is this still in question? Technical skill as a guitarist: Hendrix > Gilmour
Sloppiness aside (which is questionable, anyway), where's the argument? Does anyone think Gilmour could've played that solo on Come On?
Innovator in terms of introducing new musical vocabulary to rock: Hendrix > Gilmour
I've mentioned this before, there are articles in the guitar mags that parse the "Hendrix" chords, which had in fact not been heard before in rock. Haven't seen those articles w/r/t Gilmour.
Innovator in terms of introducing new sonic vocabulary to rock: Hendrix > Gilmour
Close one here, but Hendrix was there first.
Studio wizardy: Hendrix = Gilmour, but Hendrix got there first I said it already.
Songwriter: Hendrix = Gilmour Admittedly, subjective.
Interpreter of others' music: Hendrix > Gilmour This I suppose can get interesting, if others' music = Roger Waters, but regardless of the slant Hendrix wins.
I simply don't understand how Hendrix can possibly come up short in these sorts of comparisons.
------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 01:05
|
Sorry, but you'd have to be deaf not to be able to hear the sloppiness
in something like this. Lots of out of tune bends, terrible muting technique at various points and plenty of notes that are entirely wrong altogether. That is basically the definition of sloppy guitar playing bro, it's not under question, he WAS a sloppy guitarist in the live environment. And this was hardly the only terrible performance by Jimi either. And anyway, if it bothered you that much jammun, you could have just ignored the fact that someone bumped my thread basically almost 9 months later to repeat things everyone else said Malve, you say "No point in doing this" yet you unnecessarily bump my thread from the dead to restate the opinions of everything else that was already said and bring nothing new to the thread. It is cases that like that people are better off just leaving the thread alone rather than bumping it for the sake of seeing their name in a thread. |
Posted By: jammun
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 01:21
|
Sorry, I just saw the thread bumped. I found that worthy of a response. I do not think it necessary to post, nor comment, with regard to ANY musician at Woodstock. It doesn't matter if it's Hendrix or Sly or Santana or Joe Cocker or please lord forgive them Ten Years After. I'd say none were exactly at the top of their game during those 3 days. Lawdy Miss Clawdy, my name is probably associated with many a suspect thread.
No harm meant, and none taken. ------------- Can you tell me where we're headin'? Lincoln County Road or Armageddon. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 06:44
A lot of us find that post-80s 'perfect technique' style of guitar playing to be kind of BORING  I'll take Hendrix over a zillion Satriani wannabes any day of the week. The slop is there because he is trying to play things he's never rehearsed, I like it when a soloist tries to take chances. Although if you are talking Woodstock, the slop is probably there because he hasn't bathed, slept or had a proper meal in days. Hendrix was the last one to perform at Woodstock, I doubt he was 'fresh as a daisy' at this point. |
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 07:17
|
Initial poll Hendrix/Gilmour is a bit not correct in it's idea. I like Pink Floyd very much, and I like just some Hendrix works, but anyone can confirm, than to compare Hendrix (as guitarist ) with Gilmour (as guitarist) is a kind of joke.
Hendrix, with all his pros and cons, was great guitar innovator of it's era. Gilmolur was (and is) very average ( or let say - average and slow) blues-rock guitarist. Yes, his participating was important when Pink Floyd invented their great sound, but as guitarist, or even more - as solo guitarist he is far down from Hendrix, no comparance at all ( just listen Gilmour solo albums, any of them).
|
Posted By: Malve87
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 17:26
Well I live in a free world, and in a free world I can say whatever I want, even answering to this useless thread. regards. ------------- ]
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 03 2010 at 17:28
|
I like Gilmour more. And that is why I like Gimour more. Just my opinion, but really, I prefer Latimer. |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: January 04 2010 at 02:43
I don't buy that and neither would many other guitarists either. There are plenty of great guitarists who have improvised things unrehearsed and haven't sounded like sloppy garbage in the process. Wes Montgomery, Allan Holdsworth and Guthrie Govan, while very different playing styles, all successfully improvise with great technique and all VERY daring soloists, far more out there with their note vocabulary than Jimi was ever capable Technique is hardly to do with speed anyway and more to do with actual accuracy. Plenty of guys could play faster than say David Gilmour and Mikael Akerfeldt from Opeth, but a lot of guys lack the ability to bend notes in tune and do perfectly in tune vibrato with a consistent speed like they can. Gilmour firmly falls into the camp of "perfect technique" whether you like it or not, not because he plays fast, but because he is clean and accurate. And those singing bends and vibrato of Joe Satriani, Gilmour, Akerfeldt and Guthrie Govan keep me coming back for more on a much more consistent basis than Jimi's frequent outings. Look, I like Jimi and he had some great studio performances, but some of his live performances are so bad I cannot sit them at all. I don't have that problem with any of the other aforementioned players. |