David Gilmour > Jimi Hendrix

I love both of them. I'm a major fan of Psychedelic music so they're both pretty much a given. I believe that I like Gilmour more all-around because I can listen to his whole output and be impressed whereas with Jimi, I can't stand his more Bluesy output. I would of loved to see Jimi work with Miles though. I can't imagine what albums like Pangaea would be like if Hendrix and Cosey were on them. That would make me self-destruct.

I very much liked Hendrix when I started listening to 70's rock and I still like him(I would like to see what he could have done with Miles Davis) but I must admit David Gilmour moves me much more.2 great musicians anyway.

Ok I think I said it again and it absolutely doesn't add anything to the thread but I have to say it again, Gilmour >>>>>>>>>>>> Hendrix... outside of some great new techniques or whatever Hendrix created, I think he suffers from overratitis.... 

Easy Money wrote:   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.

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.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: 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.

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.

Petrovsk Mizinski wrote: 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 saidMalve,  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.

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.

Edited by Easy Money - January 03 2010 at 06:50

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.

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...


Edited by Malve87 - January 02 2010 at 16:57

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. 

Easy Money wrote: ^ One qoute? Miles went on about Jimi often.

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)