David Gilmour > Jimi Hendrix

HughesJB4 wrote: jammun wrote: I have all due respect for Gilmour, but please... 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.

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.

Is this a joke?

Edited by himtroy - March 21 2009 at 18:24

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.

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.

Edited by Nuke - March 23 2009 at 15:52

dwill123 wrote: 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.

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




Edited by HughesJB4 - March 24 2009 at 10:41

^Jeff Beck is a damn good guitarist, but nowadays, he's doing whacky things....*cough* Who Else *cough*

HughesJB4 wrote: dwill123 wrote: 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. 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

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.

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.

Dean wrote: Lost Follower wrote: He'd have to fight damn hard to get past Phil Manzanera actually. As Dave & Phill are bestest mates I cannot see them arguing one way or the other

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.