Hackett or Petrucci?

Hackett, duh!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Hackett, more trascendental, skilled, complete and versatile.   IMO no contest.   Iván

Totally agree... the perfect description...

Petrucci is good in his own stuff. Nothing against him. But I really think Hackett is one of the most trascendental musicians of the last decades. Inffluential when he was on Genesis and very inffluential in his solo career...

I think their styles are totally different, John Petrucci in fact is far more technical than Hackett, but in compositions, Petrucci has also more elements to come with. Still, Stevie is a great guitar player.

Hackett,I listen all his work in Genesis,GTR ,and like solist ,he is better than Petrucci

Hahaha... I love these polls..

Petrucci is just a Guitarist, Hackett is a musician.

Personal preference is the winner here.

Hackett in Genesis was not that good mainly because he didn't have many spots as the band was keyboard driven. But man, check his solo stuff. The classical songs are fantastic.

Petrucci is all about speed. When he comes to do something different, he does weak arrangements for the DT ballads. Ok, he is quite good in the album with Rudess, but he is not near doing something that is really "kick ass".

So Hackett wins by a mile.

It's not a question of who is better - after all no-one can say one way or the other - it's all opinion. Unless you get the two to take some sort of test !
The things is...........why on earth would you want to?
What does it matter? If you like them both then enjoy them both. If you only like one then it becomes a mud slinging process against the other.

I'll begin this post by saying that DT is not among my listening list, although I have heard some of their stuff (mostly Images & Words & A Change Of Seasons. Fine guitar player, Mikey is; but once more it comes down to feel, to talent & not just technique. Hackett was an "ensemble " player. And so he doesn't "stand" out as much. But his contribution (as regularly noted on these pages) was important to the Genesis sound. Another consideration is the level of technique among guitar players in his time. As some have noted, Steve Vai can outplay Jimmy Page, but poll your average music fan & Page's "memorable" tunes outnumber Vai's by a wide margin. I usually use Yingwie Malmsteen as an example, as he is generally considered technically better than his hero Blackmore, but you don't a have folks crying out for any of his compositions compared to Ritchie's songbook (Smoke on the Water, Burn, Child IN Time etc ...). And the final nail in the argument's coffin - folklore has it that Hackett "invented" tapping. Yes, big revelation, it was not Eddie Van Halen, but Mr Steve that was the first to do it, on record anyway, you can check out Supper's Ready for the proof ....

Edited by pantacruelgruel - January 19 2007 at 00:32

When Petrucci reaches HAckett's age and years of playing, then we can compare. For now, I'd have to go with Hackett even though the best solos and best moments for me are by Petrucci, but just the experience makes Hackett probably more versatile.

Of course, it would be good if everybody takes a lookn at Petrucci playing with Rudess acoustic...then call him what you want.

I'm being a complete farce. As much as I want to say Hackett is better, I really can't. They're on the same level.

    Technically Petrucci is better, but hands down Hackett is miles ahead of Petrucci for me! Hackett knows how to make meaningful music, that you feel.