Hackett? Really?

I'm not too keen on Hackett.

On the other hand, go, Robert, go, Robert, go, go, go ... .

I find Hackett's melodies to be too sparse for my taste.

 

No way - he has the most developed technical skills of any prog guitarist; his classical prowess is astonishing too. He gets my vote given that the best guitarist of all has gone.

 

Gilmour is also a wonderful player, but scores more on tone and melodic content than technical skill.

 

Fripp and Hendrix do nothing for me; Hendrix was a pioneer of the instrument but nothing he does really impresses me by modern standards. Fripp wouldn't get near my top 20 guitarists; I just can't see what people see in his playing at all.

I don't get it either.

See, why would you say something like that? He is not Hendrix.

In my opinion, Jimi is the least WHAT? ... I'll explain: he relies a lot on noise and lacks the skill of tying virtuosity with actual delicious and memorable melodies. 

But on the topic, I'm still with Gilmour.

Do you guys even listen to KC? Do you remember what 'The Night Watch', 'Great Deceiver', and 'Lament' sound like?

 

The Night Watch is almost a great song, almost ruined by a terrible piece of guitar playing. If that's your idea of good, I'd hate to hear bad.

 

Please post a link to something special by Fripp - I've never heard anything that impresses me at all.

There wouldn't be much of an argument that Jimi Hendrix is the most inventive electric guitarist in the history of the electric guitar. As a blues artist he has more in common with Eric Clapton, Muddy Waters, Jimi Page and Peter Green and very little in common with Hackett, Fripp or Gilmour and only makes it onto the PA Archives by virtue of the fact that he dabbled with psychedelic rock in the 60's. You've admitted his virtuosity skills but to tie that to not making 'delicious and memorable melodies' is frankly ridiculous. As good as Hackett, Fripp and Gilmour are, they would be embarrassed being put into a poll along side Hendrix (but no offence to you Gandalf). 

 

For "inventive", substitute "overrated" and you're there.

 

He was very good in his day, but his day came and went. Perhaps if he hadn't been drug and drink addicted and had lived, he might have progressed, but he didn't.

 

It's like people who claim Bradman was the greatest batsman ever. Looking at some of the bowling he had served up to him in the 30s, I'd have been happy to face it; indeed, I faced better in the Yorkshire League in the 80s. He MIGHT have been good enough to face Holding, Lillee, Steyn and the like, but we'll never know. He was by far the greatest batsman of his day, but comparing people from very different ages is always dubious.

 

Similarly, let's just say Hendrix was a pioneer and changed the way people played the electric guitar, but better technically than Hackett? No way.

I'm with friso and Evolver - i don't see the massive attraction to Hackett for best guitarist, let alone most technical. 

 

When someone like Paco Da Lucia describes someone's technique as "outstanding" (admittedly, he was talking about Hackett's classical playing on Metamorpheus), I really don't think you or I are qualified to argue, do you?

Yea, simply because i don't like his playing or find it technically satisfying.

 

Very much agree about Hendrix. The man has been dead for over 40 years, but guitarists still strive to emulate him, and are still deeply moved by his playing. And considering Hendrix only released three studio albums in his lifetime (that's right, only three, and each a classic), you would have to say that no other artist has so profoundly altered the musical landscape in so short a time.

 

God only knows what he would sound like outside the 1960's psychedelic rock and blues idiom that was still the mode of playing when he died at age 27. As far as the unknowledgeable assertion that Hendrix "relies a lot on noise and lacks the skill of tying virtuosity with actual delicious and memorable melodies", it is an opinion that, frankly, has no merit. 

I just can't remember a single lick from any solo of his ... except for a few from Axis. Maybe I should start a Jimi Hendrix appreciation thread? 

You know, I would, but I know that my most favorite songs and solos, KC stuff in particular, usually get kissed off by a gynormous number of people. If you begged for an answer, then: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKp5FVslG0" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKp5FVslG0

(3:38-4:18)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSIQ2Ej2Kc" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSIQ2Ej2Kc

(2:40-4:32)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rADM31VY5s" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rADM31VY5s

(1:48-onwards)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh4TgKvJYuw" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh4TgKvJYuw

(2:46-3:01)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REkbY-eEuus" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REkbY-eEuus

(6:28-7:50)

Sorry, that's the best I can do since lots of people diss SABB. Maybe my best isn't good enough after all.

I don't think he was buried in a lot of their songs. Are you saying that some of Jimi's solos were buried in the mix? You don't have to take me seriously. I fell asleep to the first Experience record only to be woken up by Joy Division's 'Day of the Lords."

How bout the first 3 songs on Lizard? 

First one is nice; the other two I wouldn't listen to unless I was playing WoW with the music in the background, believe it or not.

I mean, Robert's electric guitar work is not even featured in those. I am not exactly a fan of Lizard, but I do like the album mostly for tracks 1, 4, and 5. Hence my rating of four for the album. In fact, at one point in the past I gave it 4.5 in my head. How lame was I ?

Oh, man, we've had a thread on this before. Dogmatico-skeptically speaking, the questions of merit of opinion, the values of rock solos, and all that hulla-baloo, I personally hold as strictly subjective. I was shaky, and I knew it was not because of the weather outside; it's because I had this dreadful sense that I would get into this online brawl with another dude (for like the fourth time in my life?) over a matter that can potentially spoil friendly relationship. Let's just stick with our school of thought that PROG ROCK RULES and give a round of applause to Ro-obert, Ro-obert,  ... .

I think I understand what you are saying: when you improvise, there is this element of danger to mess up. Well, we all have our own ground on what's ideal, so the rest is semantics.

Speaking of Rodriguez-Lopez, Horizons, I think you might be onto something.

I concur with the latter part, but ... does length define what a solo is?

On the topic: Robert, Robert, ...

What would you call it, then?

Well, give us one without choosing  .

If a melodic line is not a solo because it's too long, what would you call it?

Sorry for bugging you again, but if it's not length, than what is it? 'Cause every time I hear someone improvising a "speech" on an instrument, no matter how long it is, I think it's a solo. If I understand you correctly, the answer to this question is beyond the scope of just one reply, right?

But from the list, Steve Hackett, though I think it's a shame Howe didn't make it.  Hackett, though, is one of the most tasteful guitar players I've ever heard (at least in his Genesis output)

Noted. I'll check him out.

Steve Hackett, Steve Howe, or Dave Bainbridge? 

Bainbridge. Sorry for the miscommunication.

But it would be MORE painful to discriminate Fripp, right?

Yeah, but then again, some people don't like dissonance. BTW, best ROCK track on the entire album.

Ro-obert, Ro-obert, ... .

I'm checking out Bainbridge ("Veil of Gossamer") and thinking "Maybe you are just tired of the mentioning of Fripp and Gilmour?" 

 

I have to disagree with you there, my friend.  Hendrix has the reputation for just ripping out insane jams, which he could do of course, but he also constructed many of his solos, leads, and other guitar parts very carefully to a degree not seen before.  Few have followed those footsteps.  It is that ability which has allowed him a place in the Archives as Proto-Prog, and not his overt psychedelia.

Well, then, tell me something: why is it every time I hear Purple Haze and stuff like that, I'm just staring at something all clueless about what I'm supposed hear? Is it because I have heard other people's stuff before I heard Jimi?

Digital software, a Yamaha keyboard, an acoustic guitar, an electric guitar, an ocarina, a whistle  ... but seriously, the first four ones. How come?

Thanks for the reference, Guldbamsen. I will give it as many listens as it needs, but so far it's a no-go. The technique is very impressive, no doubt. No one could beat him in such innovations. But as far as I can see, the guy doesn't take time on melody alone; I don't hear any hooks. It looks like his improvisational style is marked by the lack of repetition of musical ideas.

 

I think hearing other stuff beforehand is probably part of it.  Jimi is so much a part of our musical history, that what he did often fades to the background which others have built on.  It reminds me of a guy I talked to once after seeing the Woodstock movie at a midnight showing many moons ago.  This dude was real excited about Hendrix because he played behind his back and with his teeth just like Frank Marino of Mahogony Rush did.  I reminded him that Jimi did it first.  "Oh yeah," he said.  Our personal experience is often backwards to the sequence of everything else, and it is easy for us to take for granted that which was new before our time.  If that makes sense.  Here is my suggestion: don't listen so much to the solos, which do have an improvisational aspect to them, but rather listen to the lead guitar lines, such as the beginning of Purple Haze and other songs of his you might be familiar with or can access easily.  Such lines are primarilly melodic, although he often played them with a lot of flash and verve.  Also compare what he was doing to what others were doing at the time, especially on his first album, Are You Experienced?  Jimi was a product of his time, as all of us are, but he also effected the music of the time.  Try to listen with new ears, as if you were among the first to hear any of it.  That's a tall order, I know.  And it may be you simply do not care for his music no matter how many testimonials there are in his favor.

Thank you for your suggestion, Progosopher. I will try and focus on those guitar lines you've talked about, although I hate the idea of struggling for something whereas music is not supposed to do that. And I do agree with you on what you've said before that. There may be some historical importance behind his work. It's just that a lot of Fripp's work has got so much stuff that is either obscured or absent in Jimi's lines. 

By...here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKp5FVslG0#t=3m38s" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKp5FVslG0#t=3m38s

Different people have different criteria of ranking different guitarists (me personally, I don't pay attention to diversity as much as to power), so define "qualification". And we are all entitled to our own opinion because no one can stop the whole world from arguing, right? 

BTW, I've never seen Steve use that banjo picking technique Fripp heavily implemented  , ... although Steve has his own chops  .

 

Not impressed?

In all seriousness, I don't think I'd take him over any of these guys, necessarily.  But I think he's on that level, for the uber-melodic, emotional, and distinctive style of his playing.  Have you gotten to "The Everlasting Hills, Part 1" yet?  If that doesn't make a believer out of you, nothing else will.

 

Then you are with the minority on this lonely, little island known as Progarchives, friend. No melody? Really? Here's a few songs for your education:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, this is in 1967, 68 and 69. There is absolutely nothing comparable in that era to the ability, harmonics, soul and syncopation evinced herein. Not Fripp, Page or Clapton. I think perhaps Zappa and Beck came closest during that time. Even so, the gulf that separates them is wide.

Thanks for the videos, The Dark Elf, I will give them as many listens as they need. I've heard 4 of the 6 songs that you've presented several times, 'Burning ... ' I've heard only once, and 'Drifting' ... I've never heard that one. I guess it's that I like a guitar style that is deeply rooted in folk, not blues, and is repetitive to some extent. Seems like Jimi to rock is what the 3 B's are to classical music: he does not repeat a lot of his melodies. 

 

Well put.

 

 

I have JUST noticed what you did there  . A little HTML/SQL education.