If one guitarist plays music with more speed and accuracy, and with more feeling...

[72-10]

than another guitarist, does that inherently make the first guitarist greater?

[kennethgriffen]

than another guitarist, does that inherently make the first guitarist greater?



depends on whether its a debate on technical skill/rhythm or actual music production


if i had a guitarist in my band that could pump out some amazing solo's/rifts that will help sell records then i don't care if he's more technically gifted or has more heart in his work and accuracy while mimicking something/taking orders

[72-10]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of music production to the actual playing of the instrument, and I would have included sounds better in my criteria, but I realize that might be a bit subjective

[iamgine]

Greatness is usually not about that.

For example, the inventor of guitar might not be able to play too good by today's standard, but he's certainly greater than say, a random college kid who can play better than him.

If you're talking about who's better in skill, then perhaps it would be correct.

[kennethgriffen]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of music production to the actual playing of the instrument, and I would have included sounds better in my criteria, but I realize that might be a bit subjective


the relevance is ... say you have a band and you wanna make millions/be famous. having a guy that can give you a legendary rift/solo is more important than having a guy who can just play the guitar better technically


if you already have a writer/composer whos a genius and can hold the guitarists hand then maybe the more technically gifted player is more valuable.


but if i'm a singer who can't write for a guitarist then i'd rather have a guy who can whip a best selling tune out of his ass but messes up from time to time and shows up late drunk as hell

[TheMan]

It depends on what do you mean by greater...

Neil Young has made some great music in his career, as a guitar player he isn't anything that will knock your socks off but he does have his own style. There are tons of technically better guitarists but few who are better songwriters/artists.

Put it this way, if I'm forming a band right now and I have a chance of recruiting either a 20 year old Neil Young or a 20 year old Steve Vai for my band...I'm going with the guy who can write memorable songs.

In the end, the guitar IMO is a tool for writing music and not just for showing off your chops.

[72-10]

those are some interesting deflections

and some good points about music as a whole

[kennethgriffen]

most technical guitarist = Buckethead

most creative guitarist = Jimmy Paige

most heart/soul = Jimmy Hendrix

most innovative = Chuck Berry

most popular = Eric Clapton

most mimicked = Eddie Van Halen/Randy Rhodes

most underrated = Steve Vai

most repetitive = Angus Young

most overrated = Slash




i don't think there is any way to say who is the best. its all personal preference. but going by majority opinion i'd have to say clapton

[72-10]

now you're just riffing:rolleyes:

[Prometheus]

These questions about music in a vacuum are useless, music is just not able to be atomized like that.

But for the sake of playing along... in general, I think most of us will value the guy who plays with feeling more than the robot.

[Smoke117]

most technical guitarist = Buckethead

most creative guitarist = Jimmy Paige

most heart/soul = Jimmy Hendrix

most innovative = Chuck Berry

most popular = Eric Clapton

most mimicked = Eddie Van Halen/Randy Rhodes

most underrated = Steve Vai

most repetitive = Angus Young

most overrated = Slash




i don't think there is any way to say who is the best. its all personal preference. but going by majority opinion i'd have to say clapton

Eric Clapton isn't close to be the most popular guitarist. Nobody gives a shit about Eddie Van Halen or Randy Rhoades and mimics them now. You're an idiot. Steve Vai also isn't overrated at all. He's a complete bore.

[Bimbo Coles]

SRV could play Hendrix better than Hendrix, but he was about as original on the guitar as I am. Zappa, on the other hand, is without equal in this department. Horses for courses, with a healthy dose of subjectivity thrown into the mix.

[kennethgriffen]

Eric Clapton isn't close to be the most popular guitarist. Nobody gives a shit about Eddie Van Halen or Randy Rhoades and mimics them now. You're an idiot. Steve Vai also isn't overrated at all. He's a complete bore.


well i guess hendrix could be considered the most popular. but clapton not close?


https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-guitarists-153675/eric-clapton-4-38244/



you're insane lol

[TheMan]

SRV could play Hendrix better than Hendrix, but he was about as original on the guitar as I am. Zappa, on the other hand, is without equal in this department. Horses for courses, with a healthy dose of subjectivity thrown into the mix.
:facepalm

[72-10]

Eric Clapton isn't close to be the most popular guitarist. Nobody gives a shit about Eddie Van Halen or Randy Rhoades and mimics them now. You're an idiot. Steve Vai also isn't overrated at all. He's a complete bore.

What r u on about? Clapton is almost as famous as Hendrix.:roll:

[72-10]

I don't like SRV's voice, so I'm not a big fan of his music.

[Overdrive]

You need a certain dose of technical prowess to potrait your intented music in a song. Some just need a little to do great songs while others could kill you with notes, but their songs are useless.


most technical guitarist = adgf

most creative guitarist = Zappa, Beck

most heart/soul = B.B. and Freddie King. No one else comes close.

most innovative = Van Halen, changed the game

most popular = Hendrix

most mimicked = Ritchie, any non pentatonic metal solo owes to this guy

most underrated = John Frusciante, not a fan, but he is good. Everybody knows Vai is a god.

most repetitive = Angus Young, true, but I love him

most overrated = Slash, also true

[72-10]

hwy didn't you pick a technical? Isn't Malmsteen considered one, along with any number of jazz cats?

[Overdrive]

hwy didn't you pick a technical? Isn't Malmsteen considered one, along with any number of jazz cats?

Technical is a stupid term for me. Is Yngwie more technical than Dave Gilmour? One guy plays fast, but really sloppy under a microscope. The other guys plays super clean notes, on point.

[Prometheus]

Technical is a stupid term for me. Is Yngwie more technical than Dave Gilmour? One guy plays fast, but really sloppy under a microscope. The other guys plays super clean notes, on point.

I love Gilmour's playing x1000000 over Yngwie's awful cringe-metal... but yes, Yngwie is far more technical and skillful, and no he is not sloppy at all.

[72-10]

Technical is a stupid term for me. Is Yngwie more technical than Dave Gilmour? One guy plays fast, but really sloppy under a microscope. The other guys plays super clean notes, on point.

Yeah, he is, isn't he? I haven't heard Yngwie's stuff, but everyone says he's one of them. I don't know what you mean by "under a microscope". Technical proficiency at an instrument is a fairly objective measure. It encompasses things like speed and accuracy. Gilmour plays with a lot of feel, and I love his phrasings, and I'd probably much rather listen to his guitar than someone who just speeds through stuff.

[Overdrive]

Yeah, he is, isn't he? I haven't heard Yngwie's stuff, but everyone says he's one of them. I don't know what you mean by "under a microscope". Technical proficiency at an instrument is a fairly objective measure. It encompasses things like speed and accuracy. Gilmour plays with a lot of feel, and I love his phrasings, and I'd probably much rather listen to his guitar than someone who just speeds through stuff.


I love Gilmour's playing x1000000 over Yngwie's awful cringe-metal... but yes, Yngwie is far more technical and skillful, and no he is not sloppy at all.

Under a microscope means that at 186 bpm-triplets there's much smaller margin for errors. Hitting notes 5% off beat will barely be noticed. At 72bpm?

Speed is about the only skill that always gets mentioned when it's about being technical, that's like talking about vertical for skillfull basketball players. Choice of notes and feel for rhythm are the best skills to have no matter the tempo imo.

[Bimbo Coles]

:facepalm
So... you're spinning the Double Trouble LPs, are you? Do you know why you aren't? It's because SRV has never come up with that indelible guitar line. Give him a song - like any Hendrix - he'll do more with it than the originator, but he's never come up with anything on his own... comparable to his talent. Does this make him a bad guitarist? I can't think of a better one (well, except Zappa), but he ain't creative.

And...


most technical guitarist = Allan Holdsworth

most creative guitarist = The Zap Man

most heart/soul = SRV

most innovative = Chuck Berry

most popular = who cares?

most mimicked = Wilko Johnson

most underrated = Craig Scanlon

most repetitive = Craig Scanlon (joke... for you in the know)

most overrated = the two Jims

It's somewhat germane to the thread, and it's a way to get some of their shit into your diet...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd38PiLqDA4

[FatComputerNerd]

Duane Allman >

Also, Randy Rhodes and David lee Roth (while both talented) were both Mick Ronson copycats.

[Overdrive]

Duane Allman >

Also, Randy Rhodes and David lee Roth (while both talented) were both Mick Ronson copycats.

Pretty sure Rhoads was a fan, read it somewhere IIRC.

[FatComputerNerd]

Pretty sure Rhoads was a fan, read it somewhere IIRC.

He patterned his entire playing style and image after him.

Even down to the haircut!

[TheMan]

Yngwie Malmsteen isn't a jazz based guitarist as someone posted here, he's a neo classic guitarist.

https://youtu.be/D4OxW_0qqv8

[Pointguard]

Music is about what you hear and feel. The great ones can do that within a few notes without making speed and accuracy a thing of notice. If a player can get a mood quickly, make you think differently about the star spangled banner, or just be super innovative and has a catchy way of playing. BTW, isn't the Hendrix cord and inaccurate chord?

For me I just close my eyes and the player that makes me go hmmp is the one I want.

As far as ranking guitar playing Hendrix's distance in innovation, being mimicked and influence on the guitar as to the next most influential guitar player might be the biggest distance in all of musical playing instruments. Before Hendrix and after Hendrix makes a complete joke out of next comparable guy and his rivals. His impact on other players is more of a distance than Coltrane or Charlie Parker had on the Saxophones. Not only was Hendrix far superior with innovation of sound but was on another level of support vocals as well. How he used the intro, to the next solo, to the climax also was never done the way he did it in pop music.

[Prometheus]

Music is about what you hear and feel. The great ones can do that within a few notes without making speed and accuracy a thing of notice. If a player can get a mood quickly, make you think differently about the star spangled banner, or just be super innovative and has a catchy way of playing. BTW, isn't the Hendrix cord and inaccurate chord?

For me I just close my eyes and the player that makes me go hmmp is the one I want.

As far as ranking guitar playing Hendrix's distance in innovation, being mimicked and influence on the guitar as to the next most influential guitar player might be the biggest distance in all of musical playing instruments. Before Hendrix and after Hendrix makes a complete joke out of next comparable guy and his rivals. His impact on other players is more of a distance than Coltrane or Charlie Parker had on the Saxophones. Not only was Hendrix far superior with innovation of sound but was on another level of support vocals as well. How he used the intro, to the next solo, to the climax also was never done the way he did it in pop music.

It's just a 7 chord with a #9. Dissonant... not inaccurate.

Yeah I was gonna respond to others with a rant about how Hendrix would claim "most innovative" and "most mimicked" by leaps and bounds over anyone else, but I wasn't sure it was worth the effort.

[Overdrive]

Yngwie Malmsteen isn't a jazz based guitarist as someone posted here, he's a neo classic guitarist.

https://youtu.be/D4OxW_0qqv8

Nobody said that.

[Pointguard]

It's just a 7 chord with a #9. Dissonant... not inaccurate.

Yeah I was gonna respond to others with a rant about how Hendrix would claim "most innovative" and "most mimicked" by leaps and bounds over anyone else, but I wasn't sure it was worth the effort.
It weird but sometimes you wonder what people really know. I would love to hear a guitarist make a breakthrough like Hendrix.

Yeah, I'm sure the chord is the sound he wanted. But when you first hear it, it kind of throws you off, even though he set it up perfectly and then it sounds beautiful after you hear it several times.

[Prometheus]

It weird but sometimes you wonder what people really know. I would love to hear a guitarist make a breakthrough like Hendrix.

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting he didn't know what he was playing, like he just found it by exploring? He didn't invent the #9, he just liked it and used it a lot. Jimi knew how to play blues. It isn't rocket science, he definitely knew what he was playing.

That chord itself was no innovation... Hendrix's biggest contribution was his pioneering of the thumb-over style (and the way he utilized the drastic increase in freedom this mechanic bestows on the player).


Yeah, I'm sure the chord is the sound he wanted. But when you first hear it, it kind of throws you off, even though he set it up perfectly and then it sounds beautiful after you hear it several times.

You're describing dissonant harmony in general. Hendrix is due credit for a lot, but he didn't invent dissonance.

[Pointguard]

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting he didn't know what he was playing, like he just found it by exploring? He didn't invent the #9, he just liked it and used it a lot. Jimi knew how to play blues. It isn't rocket science, he definitely knew what he was playing.
I said I would love to hear another guitarist make a breakthrough like Hendrix overall. I wasn't talking about the chord at this point. That's why I separated the paragraph.


That chord itself was no innovation... Hendrix's biggest contribution was his pioneering of the thumb-over style (and the way he utilized the drastic increase in freedom this mechanic bestows on the player).

You're describing dissonant harmony in general. Hendrix is due credit for a lot, but he didn't invent dissonance.
Please show me where I said his innovation was in his dissonance??? Please show me where I talk about his technical playing??? I asked a question about the Hendrix chord and it can't be construed as anything other than a question. I never made a statement.

But I do have a question for you? Do you really believe that the thumb over style was a bigger contribution than his importation of a blues into rock???

[Overdrive]

But I do have a question for you? Do you really believe that the thumb over style was a bigger contribution than his importation of a blues into rock???

Cream existed, others did it aswell.

[Pointguard]

Cream existed, others did it aswell.
Chuck Berry kind of started Rock and Roll and he was a Blues Player that came out of a Blues label. He doesn't sound like Hendrix though. Cream used to do Blues classics. If you put something here I will put Hendrix on afterwards. You will see the difference in influence.

[Overdrive]

Chuck Berry kind of started Rock and Roll and he was a Blues Player that came out of a Blues label. He doesn't sound like Hendrix though. Cream used to do Blues classics. If you put something here I will put Hendrix on afterwards. You will see the difference in influence.

Berry made it famous, others were before who had Berry's sound down, but not as polished.

First of all Fresh Cream came out a year before Hendrix appeared in Monterey.

Honestly I don't need to see the difference. I know both bands very well and actually prefer Hendrix over Clapton, but:

-If Hendrix didn't exist his style would've have been there by Clapton albeit in a milder form.
-Hendrix was a bigger pop culture icon. He presented the counter culture way better than Bruce, Clapton and Baker. They had the music and looks down, but they lacked the charisma and intensity.
-Clapton used to heavily overdrive his Plexi. Creating an almost fuzzy tone. Hendrix used a pedal for that, but also incorporated the overdriven Plexi.
Nothing he really invented there.
-Clapton used the wah first. Tales of Brave Ulysses.
-His biggest sonic influence though was his "clean" tone, they way he played on "Hey Joe" for example. Many gitarrists tried to incorporate that later on. See Pearl Jam, John Frusciante.

Listen to "I Feel Free", it's not a blues classic. It incorporated the "woman tone" already. There's no Hendrix song from '66 you can raise me that will convince that had he not existed Cream wouldn't have taken his place as greatest 60s guitar influence.

Also, Jack Bruce was a god. Redding was ok for a guitarist turned bass player. Mitchell was good, but not Ginger Baker good.

[72-10]

It's just a 7 chord with a #9. Dissonant... not inaccurate.

Yeah I was gonna respond to others with a rant about how Hendrix would claim "most innovative" and "most mimicked" by leaps and bounds over anyone else, but I wasn't sure it was worth the effort.

Dissonance usually does not work well. It's amazing what one can get to work well on a guitar and not on other instruments.

Also, one can bend notes on the guitar, which is why accuracy isn't as important there.

[72-10]

Cream existed, others did it aswell.

Do you know what chord Cream nail at the beginning of I Feel Free?

[nathanjizzle]

speed and accuracy aren't really good barometers of a great guitarist. but sure all great guitarists should be able to control their speed and accuracy. but its just not the primary indicator. Look at basketball. is the best player in the nba the fastest and accurate shooter? LeBron james is definitely not the fastest or the most accurate. neither is Gianis. But the feeling is important, but that's hard to gauge as everyone feels and reacts to music differently. There is a phrase for some form of music that is "in the pocket" which means whatever your playing is in sync to everything else, the other instruments and the people listening. great instrumentalists seem to always be " in the pocket". the instrument seems to be an extension of themselves.

[Pointguard]

Berry made it famous, others were before who had Berry's sound down, but not as polished.
Who are you talking about that preceded Berry in Rock and Roll. Sure there were Jazz and Blues guitarist before him.


First of all Fresh Cream came out a year before Hendrix appeared in Monterey.
Didn't they already meet on stage before Monterey? Clapton was considered God BEFORE they met but definitely wasn't God after Hendrix had asked to play with Cream onstage in England. And Hendrix was already playing with his teeth at this time. In England this story is told over and over again. So they are contemporaries. I'm pretty sure Hendrix had already done his gigs with Little Richard and Ike Turner by this time.



-If Hendrix didn't exist his style would've have been there by Clapton albeit in a milder form.
Yes but a lot of the guys mentioned here played more like Hendrix


-Clapton used to heavily overdrive his Plexi. Creating an almost fuzzy tone. Hendrix used a pedal for that, but also incorporated the overdriven Plexi.
Nothing he really invented there. -Clapton used the wah first. Tales of Brave Ulysses.

Hendrix used technology much harder, with more gusto, and with a much bigger presence. No examples needed.



Listen to "I Feel Free", it's not a blues classic. It incorporated the "woman tone" already. There's no Hendrix song from '66 you can raise me that will convince that had he not existed Cream wouldn't have taken his place as greatest 60s guitar influence.
Good example! Hendrix didn't have a Band at that time and I agree without Hendrix Clapton would be of the most influence. Hard to say if it goes hard Rock or not. The way Hendrix captured that time period is hard to rival - and I don't have Clapton doing that in such a big way. Woodstock has its place in history.


Also, Jack Bruce was a god. Redding was ok for a guitarist turned bass player. Mitchell was good, but not Ginger Baker good.
You know your stuff and its always a pleasure to have someone on these boards to exchange with.

[Prometheus]

Hendrix didn't import blues into rock... rock music grew straight out of the blues in the first place. That's a big dead end right there... like I can't imagine what you're even thinking when you say that.

[Prometheus]

Dissonance usually does not work well. It's amazing what one can get to work well on a guitar and not on other instruments.

Dissonance usually does not work well? Okay I guess we can't have any cadences then, so no chord progressions at all. Everything from now on will just be a vamp on a single major chord. If we play anything else, it will be dissonant.

I guess there's no chance we could play any blues or jazz, since those particular styles are built on dissonant harmony more than any others. No metal either I suppose.

[Pointguard]

Also, Jack Bruce was a god. Redding was ok for a guitarist turned bass player. Mitchell was good, but not Ginger Baker good.
Yeah Jack Bruce :rockon:
He influenced this guy whom is one of the greatest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnq3ZW6OyTI

[Prometheus]

I like how he started off with the moonlight sonata, wish he would have kept it going

[FatComputerNerd]

This topic is really subjective

Pickers like Tony Rice would blow most of you away but most of you've never heard of him, let alone listened to him.

Then there are people like Jack White who while not the best technically, play with such emotion that they take you to another place...

Then you have your guitarists like Roy Clark (RIP) who were on another level talent-wise.

Never mind people like Django Reinhard...


I'm just glad people like Derek Trucks are keeping the blues rock legacy alive, channeling Duane every time he plays.

[Overdrive]

Do you know what chord Cream nail at the beginning of I Feel Free?

No, I've got no perfect pitch and too late to grap a bass. Could be some E7, but that's not it, sounds different. There's something else there. I guess by the nature of the question it's an #9.


Who are you talking about that preceded Berry in Rock and Roll. Sure there were Jazz and Blues guitarist before him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck

I love Chuck Berry, he's the single most important figure in rock imo, I named my cat in his honor, but he is not the originator of his playstyle.



Didn't they already meet on stage before Monterey? Clapton was considered God BEFORE they met but definitely wasn't God after Hendrix had asked to play with Cream onstage in England. And Hendrix was already playing with his teeth at this time. In England this story is told over and over again. So they are contemporaries. I'm pretty sure Hendrix had already done his gigs with Little Richard and Ike Turner by this time.

Yes he did, but at the same time Clapton already toured with Cream material, played with the Yardbirds and left a mark in history on the Beano album.

Playing rhythm for Little Richard is like playing piano for Slayer. Hendrix himself found it useless.



Yes but a lot of the guys mentioned here played more like Hendrix

Hendrix used technology much harder, with more gusto, and with a much bigger presence. No examples needed.

Can you give examples? Not denying Hendrix had a more driven sound, but it's not like EC used a clean HRD at that time.



Good example! Hendrix didn't have a Band at that time and I agree without Hendrix Clapton would be of the most influence. Hard to say if it goes hard Rock or not. The way Hendrix captured that time period is hard to rival - and I don't have Clapton doing that in such a big way. Woodstock has its place in history.

Hardrock would've existed without Hendrix, it was already in the making by 67. Hendrix' Woodstock gig was an afterthought at the time. Monterey was more important.

Honestly I don't like to argue against Hendrix. I prefer him over Clapton by a landslide, but I don't think he was irreplaceable.




You know your stuff and its always a pleasure to have someone on these boards to exchange with.

Music discussions are pretty alright here. No trolling and I don't think it's bad to not agree.

[Prometheus]

I feel free opening chord is the #9. That's why he brought it up - he was proving that Hendrix didn't come up with it.

As an aside, I'd like to nominate the Lemon Song by Zeppelin as the best song ever to feature the "Hendrix chord". JPJ and Page are both so orgasmically good on that track

[Pointguard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck

I love Chuck Berry, he's the single most important figure in rock imo, I named my cat in his honor, but he is not the originator of his playstyle.

Great find!!! That's definitely Chuck Berry's style. Pop music is always hidden somewhere before we see it. This is very similar to Elvis copying big Mamma Thorton's style. You never hear of it Talk of secrets and untold stories. Elvis also loved and copied a Great Black woman Gospel guitarist that influenced Chuck Berry's guitar style. https://youtu.be/RuVzm86oB1Y?t=117 What's so wild about her is that you definitely hear Charlie Christian here. She even preceded him. And Charlie influenced the whole century of guitar players in all genres. But her image and genre will never allow people to accept her as a key blues or rock guitar player.



Yes he did, but at the same time Clapton already toured with Cream material, played with the Yardbirds and left a mark in history on the Beano album.

Playing rhythm for Little Richard is like playing piano for Slayer. Hendrix himself found it useless.
Does it matter if their arrival is within 2 years - which it was and Hendrix definitely impressed people with more impact. And youtube doesn't lack of people talking about how Hendrix got on stage that night.



Can you give examples? Not denying Hendrix had a more driven sound, but it's not like EC used a clean HRD at that time.
Hey Joe, Star Spangle Banner and Purple Haze are not more representative of the 60's feel than anything put out by EC??? Its a question. Cream put out better records and more meaningful records for sure. But not with a more lava lamp feel.



Hardrock would've existed without Hendrix, it was already in the making by 67. Hendrix' Woodstock gig was an afterthought at the time. Monterey was more important.
Woodstock is considered the apex of feel, liberation and the statement of the time. For Rockers its AW (after Woodstock) or AWOL - no other time signature. Rock would have existed but in a weaker presence.



Music discussions are pretty alright here. No trolling and I don't think it's bad to not agree.
Yes me too. Hendrix is far from my favorite musician but I respect the hell out of him. From my perspective, John Coltrane was the most impactful musician in the 60's.

[72-10]

Hendrix didn't import blues into rock... rock music grew straight out of the blues in the first place. That's a big dead end right there... like I can't imagine what you're even thinking when you say that.

I've never thought of Hendrix as being really steeped in the blues notwithstanding the fact that he played the chitlin' circuit down south as the leader of Jimmy James and the Blue Flames, and there's a posthumous album of his material called Blues. Hendrix was too much of a pioneering original to be deeply influenced by the genre as much as other ATG bands such as Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or any of Eric Clapton's material, especially his early material through Cream. I've always thought of Eric Clapton as the most blues influenced guitarist out of the frequently discussed lot of ATG rock guitarists. Led Zeppelin were certainly more influenced by the blues than Cream were, but Page's guitar work isn't as influenced by the blues as Clapton's guitar work. Hendrix seemed to veer clear of using blues chord progressions most of the time, and he certainly didn't do too many covers. If someone could explain to me how Axis: Bold as Love strongly qualifies as blues rock I'd be happy to hear.:confusedshrug: I'd have to say Hendrix is one of the most original musicians I've ever heard, kind of like Pink Floyd.

[72-10]

Dissonance usually does not work well? Okay I guess we can't have any cadences then, so no chord progressions at all. Everything from now on will just be a vamp on a single major chord. If we play anything else, it will be dissonant.

I guess there's no chance we could play any blues or jazz, since those particular styles are built on dissonant harmony more than any others. No metal either I suppose.

You took what I said out of context. Like I said/implied, it works fine on a guitar or bass guitar, but not much else.

[72-10]

Yeah, Mitchell was pretty great, really great at attacking the kit...

[Overdrive]

Great find!!! That's definitely Chuck Berry's style. Pop music is always hidden somewhere before we see it. This is very similar to Elvis copying big Mamma Thorton's style. You never hear of it Talk of secrets and untold stories. Elvis also loved and copied a Great Black woman Gospel guitarist that influenced Chuck Berry's guitar style. https://youtu.be/RuVzm86oB1Y?t=117 What's so wild about her is that you definitely hear Charlie Christian here. She even preceded him. And Charlie influenced the whole century of guitar players in all genres. But her image and genre will never allow people to accept her as a key blues or rock guitar player.

Yeah, black people generally didn't get alot of air time and mention on white radio and eventhough you can check anything out on youtube these days the history hasn't changed. It's still Bill Haley & Elvis for most people. Berry's biggest accomplishment was changing that for later generations. He opened the door.



Does it matter if their arrival is within 2 years - which it was and Hendrix definitely impressed people with more impact. And youtube doesn't lack of people talking about how Hendrix got on stage that night.

The story is well known, but as said the moment Hendrix walked on stage Clapton was already a name in rock history. Of course Hendrix was a wildfire while Clapton was a candle, but both still were fire nonetheless and without Hendrix Clapton would've been the guy.

If I want to show people, who don't have any clue about music of that era a song that represents it most I pick Voodoo Child(slight return).

What really helped Hendrix was dying young. By 1970 Clapton still did awesome guitarbased music(Layla and other assorted lovesongs), imagine him dying by then.



Hey Joe, Star Spangle Banner and Purple Haze are not more representative of the 60's feel than anything put out by EC??? Its a question. Cream put out better records and more meaningful records for sure. But not with a more lava lamp feel.



Hendrix used technology much harder, with more gusto, and with a much bigger presence. No examples needed.

Was talking about this. I'd like examples where Hendrix used technology much harder. He used the fuzz face, Clapton didn't, but in general he also used state of the art gear. Actually used some before Hendrix.



Woodstock is considered the apex of feel, liberation and the statement of the time. For Rockers its AW (after Woodstock) or AWOL - no other time signature. Rock would have existed but in a weaker presence.

Most rockers can't name 5 bands playing there. Hendrix played on the last day in the morning. Woodstock was important, but it would've been without Hendrix and it didn't push Hendrix that much either. Cocker's Beatles cover is the standout moment and became a hymn for that period.



Yes me too. Hendrix is far from my favorite musician but I respect the hell out of him. From my perspective, John Coltrane was the most impactful musician in the 60's.

I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.

[Pointguard]

The story is well known, but as said the moment Hendrix walked on stage Clapton was already a name in rock history. Of course Hendrix was a wildfire while Clapton was a candle, but both still were fire nonetheless and without Hendrix Clapton would've been the guy.

If I want to show people, who don't have any clue about music of that era a song that represents it most I pick Voodoo Child(slight return).

What really helped Hendrix was dying young. By 1970 Clapton still did awesome guitarbased music(Layla and other assorted lovesongs), imagine him dying by then.
I like probably four songs by Hendrix and that's it. If I liked more I probably could elaborate better on him. As I said earlier, its just hard to not see his influence in other guitarist and bands. I like more of Clapton's work because of his longevity and his clearer style is more appealing to me.

In many ways, it was just Hendrix's time. He played the guitar upside down and it didn't seem to hinder him any. In fact, it most likely lead to his theatrics which also defined the times. Or as you? said it helped him do technical innovations (use of thumb) that few could rival. His vocal limitations lead to him exploring technology in ways other haven't. And his expression thru technology was not really rivaled. Outside of John Coltrane, no single musician could handle chaos (Star Spangled Banner) like Hendrix either. He had already redefined a classic in a way nobody dreamed. And to be honest, he played fearlessly in a way that you could see he didn't have boundaries. He also had the definitive performance of the age and gave the direction of the music moreso than anybody. These traits would make a person great in most disciplines in life.

So him dying early definitely didn't over hype him because most of those qualities/traits aren't a part of other greats who played for 50 years.



Was talking about this. I'd like examples where Hendrix used technology much harder. He used the fuzz face, Clapton didn't, but in general he also used state of the art gear. Actually used some before Hendrix.

The wawa peddle in Voodoo child was novel at that time. The whammy bar in Star Spangle Banner. In general Hendrix was more intense, aggressive and hardcore than Clapton was and that was the direction guitar playing took.



Most rockers can't name 5 bands playing there. Hendrix played on the last day in the morning. Woodstock was important, but it would've been without Hendrix and it didn't push Hendrix that much either. Cocker's Beatles cover is the standout moment and became a hymn for that period.
They both did covers of popular songs at that time. Ask any guitarist which was the more spell binding performance. Cocker didn't even have a guitar for that performance. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/woodstock-performances/
And I definitely heard the guy in the number two spot (Carlos Santana) on that list say Hendrix was on a different level than any other guitarist after being there at Woodstock.





I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.
The Beattles were super impressive but were they influential enough to set up a bunch of copy cats bands? - the Monkeys don't count. Dylan was very unique, too unique to set up a new trend. But he did set up Simon and Garfunkle. But if you lived this time I would have to defer to you here.

[Pointguard]

I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.
Speaking of Dylan what Hendrix did with his song is crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY

Dylan change the way he sang his own song after hearing Hendrix do it. I'm not crazy about the song but the way Hendrix changed it was on time.

[Overdrive]

I like probably four songs by Hendrix and that's it. If I liked more I probably could elaborate better on him. As I said earlier, its just hard to not see his influence in other guitarist and bands. I like more of Clapton's work because of his longevity and his clearer style is more appealing to me.

In many ways, it was just Hendrix's time. He played the guitar upside down and it didn't seem to hinder him any. In fact, it most likely lead to his theatrics which also defined the times. Or as you? said it helped him do technical innovations (use of thumb) that few could rival. His vocal limitations lead to him exploring technology in ways other haven't. And his expression thru technology was not really rivaled. Outside of John Coltrane, no single musician could handle chaos (Star Spangled Banner) like Hendrix either. He had already redefined a classic in a way nobody dreamed. And to be honest, he played fearlessly in a way that you could see he didn't have boundaries. He also had the definitive performance of the age and gave the direction of the music moreso than anybody. These traits would make a person great in most disciplines in life.

As I said before I think Hendrix is the definite musician for that time, with Joplin and Morrison coming in as 2nd and 3rd. I just don't think he's unreplaceable. Everything about him fit. Some for the #2 and #3 places, most others lacked an aspect or two.



So him dying early definitely didn't over hype him because most of those qualities/traits aren't a part of other greats who played for 50 years.

Absolutely not, but Clapton becoming a heroin junk and doing snoozefest music let his career flatten out. Had he died after Layla, he would've been seen differently. Now he's the "Tears in heaven"-guy.



The wawa peddle in Voodoo child was novel at that time. The whammy bar in Star Spangle Banner. In general Hendrix was more intense, aggressive and hardcore than Clapton was and that was the direction guitar playing took.

As said Clapton used the wah first and pretty prominently, but sure Voodoo was the breakthrough song for it. Same for the whammy it was a surf rock thing, but Hendrix made it big. Which again leads me to the point that Hendrix was shining brightest, but wasn't solely responsible for bringing it to the mainstream.



They both did covers of popular songs at that time. Ask any guitarist which was the more spell binding performance. Cocker didn't even have a guitar for that performance. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/woodstock-performances/
And I definitely heard the guy in the number two spot (Carlos Santana) on that list say Hendrix was on a different level than any other guitarist after being there at Woodstock.

From a musical perspective, yes, but Hendrix had the shittiest spot on the gig and the movie is what helped him make it a cult performance. Him being a nobody, coming back from England and exploding in Monterey is the defining point in his career imo.



The Beattles were super impressive but were they influential enough to set up a bunch of copy cats bands? - the Monkeys don't count. Dylan was very unique, too unique to set up a new trend. But he did set up Simon and Garfunkle. But if you lived this time I would have to defer to you here.

Hendrix didn't spawn copycat bands either, but both heavily influenced aspects of music going forward.

Dylan brought the whole "guy with a guitar doing social cricism in a caf

[Prometheus]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

[Overdrive]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

Woodstock had two signature songs by him Monterey hadn't, but still overall Monterey > Woodstock.

[Pointguard]

As I said before I think Hendrix is the definite musician for that time, with Joplin and Morrison coming in as 2nd and 3rd. I just don't think he's unreplaceable. Everything about him fit. Some for the #2 and #3 places, most others lacked an aspect or two.
I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? The biggest thing about him dying young is what happens if he gets the band that clicks like Cream. The older he gets the more he gets that chance. Clapton was playing for Golden State in Cream. Joplin and Morrison - I wonder if they would have taken the leadership role to play that way. Its hard to be fearless and express yourself differently than others. Its a rare trait.



Absolutely not, but Clapton becoming a heroin junk and doing snoozefest music let his career flatten out. Had he died after Layla, he would've been seen differently. Now he's the "Tears in heaven"-guy.
I like his thoughtful, clean execution.



As said Clapton used the wah first and pretty prominently, but sure Voodoo was the breakthrough song for it. Same for the whammy it was a surf rock thing, but Hendrix made it big. Which again leads me to the point that Hendrix was shining brightest, but wasn't solely responsible for bringing it to the mainstream.
Some of Hendrix's stuff... he was the gifted one who could bring colors to music. Even to me when I don't like the song I respect that. He was that dude.



From a musical perspective, yes, but Hendrix had the shittiest spot on the gig and the movie is what helped him make it a cult performance. Him being a nobody, coming back from England and exploding in Monterey is the defining point in his career imo. I think it's the most impressive part of his career. He was amused at his effect on people at the Monterey concert and people were amused at an unknown with this mystic magic.

[quote]
Dylan brought the whole "guy with a guitar doing social cricism in a caf

[72-10]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

Yeah, it was a bit of a sloppy set, probably due to the LSD seeping into his skin from his headband. That was with Band of Gypsys if I recall correctly.

[72-10]

Woodstock had two signature songs by him Monterey hadn't, but still overall Monterey > Woodstock.

Despite that I think he got outshone by Otis Redding at Monterey.

[72-10]

Despite Clapton being more influenced by the blues than Page in his playing, Clapton is still clearly the better guitarist of the two. I wonder how much Page is punished by using heroin, also contributed to making his playing sloppier.

[Overdrive]

Despite that I think he got outshone by Otis Redding at Monterey.

Absolutely true. Otis was awesome and is often overlooked when it comes to 60s artists.

I've been loving you to long at Monterey is the GOAT soul tune.

[Prometheus]

Yeah, it was a bit of a sloppy set, probably due to the LSD seeping into his skin from his headband. That was with Band of Gypsys if I recall correctly.

Noooo I'm sure it would have been dope if Band of Gypsys had been ready in time.

It was this rag tag group he assembled called "Gypsy Sun and Rainbows". Mitch was still drumming (and you watch your tongue about him, he was awesome), and Billy Cox (who later played bass in Band of Gypsys) was the new bassist. They had several other names I can't recall.

A few bits from that show were outstanding - obviously the anthem was cool, but his versions of Voodo Chile and Villanova Junction stand out to me.

[Prometheus]

Clapton is still clearly the better guitarist of the two.

Not gonna turn this into another Zeppelin thread, but I can't have you running around here acting like this is a matter of fact and not just preference. I disagree strongly and prefer Page way more over Clapton.

[72-10]

Not gonna turn this into another Zeppelin thread, but I can't have you running around here acting like this is a matter of fact and not just preference. I disagree strongly and prefer Page way more over Clapton.
:roll:
Actually, this kind of is a fact. Clapton clearly has more technical skill with the instrument. He plays with more speed. He plays with more accuracy. He plays more fluidly. More feeling and better tone (you know, the Woman Tone) might be subjective, but the others aren't. His solos are better than Page's and there are more of them.

[Overdrive]

:roll:
Actually, this kind of is a fact. Clapton clearly has more technical skill with the instrument. He plays with more speed. He plays with more accuracy. He plays more fluidly. More feeling and better tone (you know, the Woman Tone) might be subjective, but the others aren't. His solos are better than Page's and there are more of them.

He's a technically better one trick pony.

[72-10]

He's a technically better one trick pony.

How's he a one trick pony? I'll love to hear this one. haha

[Overdrive]

How's he a one trick pony? I'll love to hear this one. haha

He got stuck being a blues fanboy ca 1974. Of course it's a hyperbole, but I don't think he did anything worthwhile and fresh after that.

It's just the same way you judged Page.

[Prometheus]

If I was into stating my opinions as facts like you seem to do, I would actually say Page is much better than Clapton. He experimented way more. Played more styles beyond blues. Played in a ton of open tunings. Wrote better riffs. Had a more unique sound.

Even though Clapton is the more blues-oriented of the two, I'll take Since I've Been Loving You over anything Clapton played since the day he came out his mama.

[72-10]

If I was into stating my opinions as facts like you seem to do, I would actually say Page is much better than Clapton. He experimented way more. Played more styles beyond blues. Played in a ton of open tunings. Wrote better riffs. Had a more unique sound.

Even though Clapton is the more blues-oriented of the two, I'll take Since I've Been Loving You over anything Clapton played since the day he came out his mama.

What you're stating has nothing to do with who is the technically better guitarist. There's no question it's Clapton. It's an objective measure, look at this faggid trying to deny what he knows is true, it's not even worth discussing once you've listened to both, Page can't hang with Clapton's speed for one thing, Clapton can practically hang wit Hendrix in speed. You can practically pick a solo at will by Clapton from before the mid-70s, and it's better than any solo Page has done in his life save for one.:rolleyes:

[Pointguard]

Absolutely true. Otis was awesome and is often overlooked when it comes to 60s artists.

I've been loving you to long at Monterey is the GOAT soul tune.

I always preferred Sam Cooke but its hard for instrumentalist to compete with vocalist.

[Overdrive]

What you're stating has nothing to do with who is the technically better guitarist. There's no question it's Clapton. It's an objective measure, look at this faggid trying to deny what he knows is true, it's not even worth discussing once you've listened to both, Page can't hang with Clapton's speed for one thing, Clapton can practically hang wit Hendrix in speed. You can practically pick a solo at will by Clapton from before the mid-70s, and it's better than any solo Page has done in his life save for one.:rolleyes:

And Page has done better riffs than Clapton did save for one. As I said before, when it comes to musicians somehow speed is the premiere argument. I don't even know where that comes from for Clapton. Dude's nickname is Slowhand.


I always preferred Sam Cooke but its hard for instrumentalist to compete with vocalist.

They're almost equals. I just like Otis' voice more.

[Kblaze8855]

I like probably four songs by Hendrix and that's it.


Little wing, voodoo chile, hear my train a coming, his version of all along the watchtower, and Hey Joe....

How many of those are on your list?

[Prometheus]

Little wing, voodoo chile, hear my train a coming, his version of all along the watchtower, and Hey Joe....

How many of those are on your list?

I'm wondering where's red house, castles made of sand, bold as love, machine gun, the burning of the midnight lamp, message of love, up from the skies, wait until tomorrow, who knows, and power to love. Trippy trying to imagine disliking any of them.

[72-10]

And Page has done better riffs than Clapton did save for one. As I said before, when it comes to musicians somehow speed is the premiere argument. I don't even know where that comes from for Clapton. Dude's nickname is Slowhand.



They're almost equals. I just like Otis' voice more.

Two riffs. That's TWO riffs, Sunshine AND Layla.

Hendrix was good at fading out on songs.:cry:

[Overdrive]

Two riffs. That's TWO riffs, Sunshine AND Layla.

Hendrix was good at fading out on songs.:cry:

Sunshine is Jack Bruce's.

[72-10]

Sunshine is Jack Bruce's.

:( Ah yes, that's right, Clapton copied Bruce's bass line, kind of like Black Dog.

[Overdrive]

It's alright. You may light a candle at the Jimmy Page shrine now.

[72-10]

Page is a better riff writer than Clapton, in fact Page's best riffs are a bit better than Iommi's, and they're more famous, but there's only a few such riffs, and Iommi wrote so many more riffs, and wrote so many more riffs into each song, that I'd have to say Page is the second greatest riff writer of all time, almost equal to Iommi there.

It's pretty easy to call the top four riff writers of all time IMO:

1. Tony Iommi
2. Jimmy Page
3. Angus Young
4. Keith Richards

Iommi and Page are almost 1-A and 1-B.

[Overdrive]

Page is a better riff writer than Clapton, in fact Page's best riffs are a bit better than Iommi's, and they're more famous, but there's only a few such riffs, and Iommi wrote so many more riffs, and wrote so many more riffs into each song, that I'd have to say Page is the second greatest riff writer of all time, almost equal to Iommi there.

It's pretty easy to call the top four riff writers of all time IMO:

1. Tony Iommi
2. Jimmy Page
3. Angus Young
4. Keith Richards

Iommi and Page are almost 1-A and 1-B.

Don't know if you're serious anymore.

[72-10]

Don't know if you're serious anymore.

I do not know what you mean.

[Overdrive]

I do not know what you mean.

You suddenly give Page credit and Malcolm wrote the riffs.

You're too knowledgeable to make such a mistake.

[Prometheus]

Page is a better riff writer than Clapton, in fact Page's best riffs are a bit better than Iommi's, and they're more famous, but there's only a few such riffs, and Iommi wrote so many more riffs, and wrote so many more riffs into each song, that I'd have to say Page is the second greatest riff writer of all time, almost equal to Iommi there.

It's pretty easy to call the top four riff writers of all time IMO:

1. Tony Iommi
2. Jimmy Page
3. Angus Young
4. Keith Richards

Iommi and Page are almost 1-A and 1-B.

I finally realized everything you have said about Zeppelin makes sense if you just act like all of their songs were like Whole Lotta Love. You're so off base it's crazy :lol most of Zeppelin's songs are just one delicious riff after another

[FatComputerNerd]

You people are aware that Clapton brought in Duane Allman for the Slide Guitar on Layla right?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfbJ5clkI1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLINqjptuAo

Funny how so many consider that Claptons' masterpiece yet he brought in Duane to do the hard parts :lol

Nevermind what Clapton said in his own words here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5B1Vfdk7W8


Clapton also said Duane was the best guitarist he had ever played with.

This is by no means a diss on clapton who is also an all-time great. Just making sure Duane gets his well-deserved recognition.

[72-10]

I do not know what you mean by "suddenly give Page credit". I do not hate Page or anything like that, it's just that Clapton is clearly the better and also greater guitarist due to concrete criteria that could be presented. And it's not like Page isn't a top five rock guitarist; it's just that Clapton is better and greater.

I did not know that Malcolm wrote the riffs for AC/DC; I thought Angus did the bulk of that work.

As for Zeppelin's songs, that's not true - most of them rely on one riff repeated throughout the song. I listened to Over the Hills and Far Away; it sounds like four riffs or maybe three to me; I think you're counting single, non-recurring arpeggiated lines near the middle of the song as riffs to beef your argument, which makes no sense.

[TheMan]

Page is a better riff writer than Clapton, in fact Page's best riffs are a bit better than Iommi's, and they're more famous, but there's only a few such riffs, and Iommi wrote so many more riffs, and wrote so many more riffs into each song, that I'd have to say Page is the second greatest riff writer of all time, almost equal to Iommi there.

It's pretty easy to call the top four riff writers of all time IMO:

1. Tony Iommi
2. Jimmy Page
3. Angus Young
4. Keith Richards

Iommi and Page are almost 1-A and 1-B.
While I agree with your top three riff writers (except Malcolm actually wrote the riffs) but how can you omit Hetfield and Mustaine when it comes to heavy rock???

[FatComputerNerd]

Why does it need to be a competition?

They are/were all great

[FatComputerNerd]

This dude is the best right now anyhow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLQTbmUYI4A

[Overdrive]

I do not know what you mean by "suddenly give Page credit". I do not hate Page or anything like that, it's just that Clapton is clearly the better and also greater guitarist due to concrete criteria that could be presented. And it's not like Page isn't a top five rock guitarist; it's just that Clapton is better and greater.

I did not know that Malcolm wrote the riffs for AC/DC; I thought Angus did the bulk of that work.

As for Zeppelin's songs, that's not true - most of them rely on one riff repeated throughout the song. I listened to Over the Hills and Far Away; it sounds like four riffs or maybe three to me; I think you're counting single, non-recurring arpeggiated lines near the middle of the song as riffs to beef your argument, which makes no sense.

It seemed like you despise Page, but maybe it was just you and Prometheus being caught up in the argument. No objection to Clapton being the better guitar player. I just think, as I said in the other topic, he dropped his creativity during the 70s and that some criterias aren't accurate. I don't see a speed advantage for Clapton. I think Clapton has some distinct advantages over Page, for example choice of notes. Page just butchered solos live throughout Zep's career. Clapton had consistency in tone - not that he used the same tone, but there's never been an song or album were his guitar sounds like shit, I think Clapton is way more knowledgable about equipment than Page. For me it seems that Page used to experiement with different equip alot to get a different tone, but not always turned out positive.



This dude is the best right now anyhow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLQTbmUYI4A

From that circle of players I prefer Warren Haynes, but Trucks is really nice.


While I agree with your top three riff writers (except Malcolm actually wrote the riffs) but how can you omit Hetfield and Mustaine when it comes to heavy rock???

I think it's hard to gauge. As Nerd said, it's weird to have a competition among musicians. There's no definite answer and any of those guys wrote iconic riffs.

[Prometheus]

Eh. I never contested the point about speed for a reason. Clapton had the ability to stay in the pocket at pretty zesty clips while crushing pentatonics smooth as butter. Page couldn't really play fast without flying wayy out of pocket. Kinda gave him a unique rhythmic signiature, but it's still a valid point of technicality.

[72-10]

While I agree with your top three riff writers (except Malcolm actually wrote the riffs) but how can you omit Hetfield and Mustaine when it comes to heavy rock???

Are you talking about the five spot? You named metal bands... Metallica doesn't have sufficiently good riffs to be top five all time probably.

I don't listen to Megadeth and probably will not care to.

[72-10]

Eh. I never contested the point about speed for a reason. Clapton had the ability to stay in the pocket at pretty zesty clips while crushing pentatonics smooth as butter. Page couldn't really play fast without flying wayy out of pocket. Kinda gave him a unique rhythmic signiature, but it's still a valid point of technicality.

It's probably about some nuanced difference in their fingers.

Also, Clapton just has such a signature sound, a unique tone.

As for some more concrete criteria (but which I purposely did not include for the sake of the argument, and btw, no one has really answered the thread title's general question), in addition to the woman tone, Clapton pioneered the wah-wah use, and also, The Fool for a guitar wins him bonus points if you ask me, I mean these are artists we're talking about, not to get all arty-farty.

[Prometheus]

You know I keep thinking about this conversation and I just need to bring back something that was said - you claimed that if I knew anything about music theory, I would recognize in obvious fashion that Zeppelin was lacking in harmony compared to the other bands we were discussing. You felt so strongly about this that you essentially called me dumb for thinking otherwise.

I just want to use the Rolling Stones for the sake of constraint. I am going to declare in no uncertain terms that Zeppelin played with far more harmonic complexity than the Stones. It's clear-cut, in fact - the Stones wrote almost exclusively in very basic chord progressions using basic chords.

If you disagree - name me a single Rolling Stones song as harmonically advanced as:

The Song Remains the Same
The Rain Song
Ten Years Gone
Achilles Last Stand

That's four examples that I challenge you to match. And I'm not saying it's Charlie Parker or Debussy level complexity. Just beyond anything the Stones did.

I'm only not letting this go because I think you're being very dishonest, and pretending to know much more than you do. I don't appreciate when people act like I'm clueless when I know wtf I'm on about.

[Prometheus]

It's probably about some nuanced difference in their fingers.

Also, Clapton just has such a signature sound, a unique tone.

As for some more concrete criteria (but which I purposely did not include for the sake of the argument, and btw, no one has really answered the thread title's general question), in addition to the woman tone, Clapton pioneered the wah-wah use, and also, The Fool for a guitar wins him bonus points if you ask me, I mean these are artists we're talking about, not to get all arty-farty.

No, it doesn't. There is no objective measure of what makes a guitar player great. In some cases, it might seem more natural to call the more technical player "greater". But it depends on what you value, and it depends on a lot of other things as well. Eddie Van Halen could play way more challenging parts than Hendrix, but imo Hendrix is greater because he sounds better. But I think Neil Young also plays with more feeling than EVH, but to me, the difference in skill this time trumps the other thing. So it's all relative and personal.

[72-10]

Does anyone have one of those giant 12-string Rickenbackers?

[Pointguard]

Little wing, voodoo chile, hear my train a coming, his version of all along the watchtower, and Hey Joe....

How many of those are on your list?
That's good. That's real good.

[Overdrive]

Are you talking about the five spot? You named metal bands... Metallica doesn't have sufficiently good riffs to be top five all time probably.

I don't listen to Megadeth and probably will not care to.

How does Metallica not have enough good riffs? They basically riffed through their first 4 albums and some are just as iconic as Sabbath' or Zeppelin's.


It's probably about some nuanced difference in their fingers.

Also, Clapton just has such a signature sound, a unique tone.

As for some more concrete criteria (but which I purposely did not include for the sake of the argument, and btw, no one has really answered the thread title's general question), in addition to the woman tone, Clapton pioneered the wah-wah use, and also, The Fool for a guitar wins him bonus points if you ask me, I mean these are artists we're talking about, not to get all arty-farty.


I think I answered it already:


You need a certain dose of technical prowess to potrait your intented music in a song. Some just need a little to do great songs while others could kill you with notes, but their songs are useless.

I think that's why all of the mentioned guys, the guys we argue about are masters. Nobody hits their ceiling to create their songs.


You know I keep thinking about this conversation and I just need to bring back something that was said - you claimed that if I knew anything about music theory, I would recognize in obvious fashion that Zeppelin was lacking in harmony compared to the other bands we were discussing. You felt so strongly about this that you essentially called me dumb for thinking otherwise.

I just want to use the Rolling Stones for the sake of constraint. I am going to declare in no uncertain terms that Zeppelin played with far more harmonic complexity than the Stones. It's clear-cut, in fact - the Stones wrote almost exclusively in very basic chord progressions using basic chords.

If you disagree - name me a single Rolling Stones song as harmonically advanced as:

The Song Remains the Same
The Rain Song
Ten Years Gone
Achilles Last Stand

That's four examples that I challenge you to match. And I'm not saying it's Charlie Parker or Debussy level complexity. Just beyond anything the Stones did.

I'm only not letting this go because I think you're being very dishonest, and pretending to know much more than you do. I don't appreciate when people act like I'm clueless when I know wtf I'm on about.

I don't think the Stones are on Zeppelin's level of instrumentalship(imo writing is a part of musicianship), but the use of "fancy" sus4 and slash chords doesn't make a song that's basically still a 1-5-4 song that much more complex. You lay down the bass with roots and nothing really happens.

The difference lies within the melody you can apply and the biggest advantage LZ had over the Stones was Page being rhythm and lead personified. He was in full control of gracenotes and melodies. Richards just isn't a lead guy. He wrote chords and riffs for songs not for melodies. I think if they had Taylor throughout their whole existence there would be way more diversified harmonic content.

What makes "The rain song" awesome is the mellotron.


Does anyone have one of those giant 12-string Rickenbackers?

No, but I'm GASing for a 4003.

[Prometheus]

I was also referring to key changes and unusual resolutions - in the Song Remains the same, for example, there's a section which goes C, F#7, Fmaj7, G. I don't think The Stones have used such an unusual progression even once in all of their songs.

And in general, yes I think it is more harmonically advanced to solo over sus chords, 7 chords, and weird ones esp. like maj7b5 than it is to solo over E-D-A-E.

[Overdrive]

I was also referring to key changes and unusual resolutions - in the Song Remains the same, for example, there's a section which goes C, F#7, Fmaj7, G. I don't think The Stones have used such an unusual progression even once in all of their songs.

And in general, yes I think it is more harmonically advanced to solo over sus chords, 7 chords, and weird ones esp. like maj7b5 than it is to solo over E-D-A-E.

TBH to listen to all my Stones stuff would take me more than a day without pause, but as said before Keith wasn't doing alot of fancy stuff, so you might be right, but, a BIG but, the key changes are minimal in TSRTS, more like borrowed chords.

Just had a look at it and it's mostly in g maj/c lydian. He doesn't play any two chords of a different key successively. I wouldn't call it key change if he throws in an odd chord here and there.

The 1-5-4 was more in reference to the rain song.

I think it depends on the soloist. You can do the same solo over a E-D-A-E you can do over a E7-D5-Asus4-E7 if you don't stop at the wrong notes. Doing an E7 over an Emaj7 won't work. So if you have a certain solo in mind of course doing more concrete chords will give the solo more flavour. If you don't you'd rather keep it as open as possible.

Don't get me wrong. I love Led Zeppelin. I just don't like those musical supremacy discussions. I think most of those 60s/70s legendary rock bands are in the same ballpark talentwise.

[Prometheus]

Don't get me wrong. I love Led Zeppelin. I just don't like those musical supremacy discussions. I think most of those 60s/70s legendary rock bands are in the same ballpark talentwise.

Exactly... this whole time I have been arguing against LZ's "inferiority" - not for their superiority.

Although, let's be honest, if those two bands were each asked, in 1974, to do a whole set covering each others' material, I think we all know which group would have more trouble.

[Prometheus]

Just had a look at it and it's mostly in g maj/c lydian. He doesn't play any two chords of a different key successively. I wouldn't call it key change if he throws in an odd chord here and there.

Maybe you know something I don't... It seems to me quite a bit of the song is in A, parts are in D, and there are progressions which are difficult to fit into any key like D-Fmaj7-Dm...

But if you're being honest, isn't it clearly more advanced as a composition than anything you can think of by the Stones? The typical stones song has 3-6 chords, all triads. They have 6+ minute ballads where the progression doesn't change once. And they're f*cking great songs.

[Overdrive]

Maybe you know something I don't... It seems to me quite a bit of the song is in A, parts are in D, and there are progressions which are difficult to fit into any key like D-Fmaj7-Dm...

But if you're being honest, isn't it clearly more advanced as a composition than anything you can think of by the Stones? The typical stones song has 3-6 chords, all triads. They have 6+ minute ballads where the progression doesn't change once. And they're f*cking great songs.

I took the chords and broke them down to see which notes they contain.
Of course you could look at it that it starts out in D on the tonic, but it makes more sense if it starts out on the II of c lydian or the dominant of G major. Still as you said there are parts that don't fit like F#7 Fmaj7 G progression which basically is a 10 tone scale. That's why I said borrowed chords.

Yeah, they'd struggle, but they also didn't have to explore too much individually. They've been together since '62 and did their own thing. Page and Jones were studio guys. They came across different types of music so they amassed alot of knowledge about different genres Richards et al didn't.

Page and Jones' experience helped to diversify their catalogue.

I don't mean Richards would be on Page's level if he was the studio guy. I honestly don't know how good he would've been if he wasn't "stuck" with the Stones from early on.

PS.: I'm pretty sure Darryl Jones would be a killer substitude for JPJ.

[Smoke117]

Mark Knopfler shits on all the fools brought up in here. He displays the best mix of technical proficiency, melody, and emotive ability.

[72-10]

You know I keep thinking about this conversation and I just need to bring back something that was said - you claimed that if I knew anything about music theory, I would recognize in obvious fashion that Zeppelin was lacking in harmony compared to the other bands we were discussing. You felt so strongly about this that you essentially called me dumb for thinking otherwise.

I just want to use the Rolling Stones for the sake of constraint. I am going to declare in no uncertain terms that Zeppelin played with far more harmonic complexity than the Stones. It's clear-cut, in fact - the Stones wrote almost exclusively in very basic chord progressions using basic chords.

If you disagree - name me a single Rolling Stones song as harmonically advanced as:

The Song Remains the Same
The Rain Song
Ten Years Gone
Achilles Last Stand

That's four examples that I challenge you to match. And I'm not saying it's Charlie Parker or Debussy level complexity. Just beyond anything the Stones did.

I'm only not letting this go because I think you're being very dishonest, and pretending to know much more than you do. I don't appreciate when people act like I'm clueless when I know wtf I'm on about.

Sorry to not answer your question sooner - I did not feel like addressing a large post atm. Vocal harmony, dude. That is mostly what I meant. The Stones have sung together on many songs. Ruby Tuesday, for example. Zeppelin did once or twice in their whole career, and they weren't real classics.

I'd have to think more through the Stones' extensive catalogue to come up with some good answers for instrumental harmony, but Jumpin' Jack Flash, Tumbling Dice, Loving Cup, Brown Sugar and You Can't Always Get What You Want for starters.

[72-10]

Maybe you know something I don't... It seems to me quite a bit of the song is in A, parts are in D, and there are progressions which are difficult to fit into any key like D-Fmaj7-Dm...

But if you're being honest, isn't it clearly more advanced as a composition than anything you can think of by the Stones? The typical stones song has 3-6 chords, all triads. They have 6+ minute ballads where the progression doesn't change once. And they're f*cking great songs.

I think we've struck upon part of the crux of the matter. I think I generally prefer music that is less open more often than not, and Zeppelin's music is more open than the Stones' music, particularly after the first two albums.

Wait, how'd this become a band discussion?

[72-10]

Overdrive, Metallica might be fifth, they do have a lot of great riffs such as Battery, Sanatarium, The Unforgiven, the list goes on, you're right, but I'm not sure I buy that they're better at it than, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, Hendrix, or Clapton. Riffs like Changes, Power of Soul, and SWLABR are completely brilliant.

And all of those ATG bands are pretty amazing. I prefer them to solo artists.

[Overdrive]

Overdrive, Metallica might be fifth, they do have a lot of great riffs such as Battery, Sanatarium, The Unforgiven, the list goes on, you're right, but I'm not sure I buy that they're better at it than, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, Hendrix, or Clapton. Riffs like Changes, Power of Soul, and SWLABR are completely brilliant.

And all of those ATG bands are pretty amazing. I prefer them to solo artists.

I really don't like ranking artists. I would tell you who isn't first, but never who is.


Mark Knopfler shits on all the fools brought up in here. He displays the best mix of technical proficiency, melody, and emotive ability.

I love him. One of my favs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG__SwkV3wg

[Prometheus]

Sorry to not answer your question sooner - I did not feel like addressing a large post atm. Vocal harmony, dude. That is mostly what I meant. The Stones have sung together on many songs. Ruby Tuesday, for example. Zeppelin did once or twice in their whole career, and they weren't real classics.

I'd have to think more through the Stones' extensive catalogue to come up with some good answers for instrumental harmony, but Jumpin' Jack Flash, Tumbling Dice, Loving Cup, Brown Sugar and You Can't Always Get What You Want for starters.

Each of those songs is made out of like 3-5 basic triads. All of tumblin dice is I-V-IV in a single key. It would be difficult to find music that is harmonically simpler... maybe Nirvana.

A good example of instrumental harmony by one of the "big five" would be "Nobody Home" and "The Trial" by Pink Floyd. But Bob Ezrin helped write those... turns out rock musicians aren't usually all that sophisticated in composition.

[Prometheus]

Also yeah if you meant vocal harmony then you're right.

[72-10]

Mark Knopfler shits on all the fools brought up in here. He displays the best mix of technical proficiency, melody, and emotive ability.

I've heard Dire Straits' debut, and although he is clearly great at the instrument, and I'd still have to say Sultans of Swing is a bit of an outlier, I have to disagree wholeheartedly based on that and what I've heard on radio (mostly Brothers in Arms). Thanks for bringing up another guitarist, though.

Knopfler's approach reminds me a lot of Gilmour's.

[72-10]

Each of those songs is made out of like 3-5 basic triads. All of tumblin dice is I-V-IV in a single key. It would be difficult to find music that is harmonically simpler... maybe Nirvana.

A good example of instrumental harmony by one of the "big five" would be "Nobody Home" and "The Trial" by Pink Floyd. But Bob Ezrin helped write those... turns out rock musicians aren't usually all that sophisticated in composition.

You don't think Brown Sugar and You Can't Always Get What You Want are harmonically perfect? If so, I'd have to wonder if you're tone deaf.

By the way, for the purposes of list making, it wouldn't matter if a session musician were to help write or compose something, it would still be credited to the recording artist in the sense of a list… you seem to think more along the lines of ensembles.

Now, nobody was better at employing a little help than the Stones.

[Smoke117]

I've heard Dire Straits' debut, and although he is clearly great at the instrument, and I'd still have to say Sultans of Swing is a bit of an outlier, I have to disagree wholeheartedly based on that and what I've heard on radio (mostly Brothers in Arms). Thanks for bringing up another guitarist, though.

Knopfler's approach reminds me a lot of Gilmour's.

lol. You haven't heard shit then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5XQqaSwbM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxaSLYmfVFc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O78v_GhEtgk

[Prometheus]

You don't think Brown Sugar and You Can't Always Get What You Want are harmonically perfect? If so, I'd have to wonder if you're tone deaf.

I love both of those songs. I never said anything about them not being... "perfect". I just said they are exceedingly simple. I never said that was a bad thing. Some of my favorite songs are very simple.

If I didn't like simple music, I would only listen to jazz and 19th-20th century classical music. I wouldn't even talk about rock.

This all came from you claiming LZ was "lacking in harmony". I only meant to point out that they actually composed harmonies more complex than anything done by the Stones. I've been very consistent this whole time about insisting that DOES NOT make them "better".

Beast of Burden has been in my small handful of absolute favorite songs for my entire adult life, and iirc that is basically the same four chords from start to finish. Sometimes four chords is all you need.

[Overdrive]

Knopfler's approach reminds me a lot of Gilmour's.

How?