is jimmy page sloppy?

I don't think Page is sloppy so much as he has a loose style, he is not afraid to move away from what he did on a record in a live performance to explore the boundries. You might mention to your teacher that Page was the top session guitarist in London before joining the Yardbirds. You don't get to be the most sought after session musician by being sloppy.

Page is one of the guitarists who hasn't been so stellar live.

As Teleplayer noted, he was a top session guitarist - I've seen estimates that 60% of the records with lead guitar recorded in the UK between 1965-68 used Jimmy. One of the things I found so entrancing about Zep I was the precision in the guitar parts - rhythmically much more solid than just about anyone else in rock at the time.

That sort of thing is hard to pull off live with any consistency; I think that's one big factor in the 'sloppy' reputation. There are other big factors that contributed too - drugs, lack of personal care (there's one concert where Plant apologizes for the performance, saying the band only got 2 hours of sleep the night before). Living up to his studio work would be hard enough to do sober and rested.

I think both sides are right: he's a fine, and inventive guitarist. He's also very capable of a sloppy performance.

yea note, jimmy always liked his herion

It's a hard question to answer.

Up to the Yardbirds period, Page was as an exceptional guitarist as his reputation claimed.

But once he joined LZ, he did get sloppy. Sure, the produced records are amazing, but he earned a reputation for being a sloppy guitarist due in large part to his personal demons, particularly his drug habit.

It's not just that some of his live performances aren't as spot on as the record. It's that some of his live performances were of such low quality that even the stoned audience members knew they just got ripped off.

While I think Page's studio work is great stuff, I've always been amazed by how bad he can (could) be live -- and more amazed that few seem to notice it. When I consider the three famous Yardbirds' axemen, I keep coming back to Beck as my fave. He's proven consistently innovative, musicially moving, exciting, rocking, jazzing, just plain astounding through the years -- live and studio.

I have the a similar issue with Chuck Berry -- innovator, a classic, great performer, but sloppy guitaring. However, in Berry's case, the actual guitar playing doesn't seem so important.

In my opinion, most people (like that guitar teacher) don't remember or don't realize that when Pagey is spoken of - or others for that matter; Hendrix also comes to mind - they're thinking of one particular person at a particular time. And I'm not referring to career growth through the years; something a little subtler maybe, but something that gets over looked. It was mentioned above about Live vs Studio, but only in passing really. It seems obvious and I've seen a lot of threads that turned weird over arguments about a particular artist - all without mentioning the fact that, like with Page, you have to know 'which Page' you're talking about or referring to.

Anyone who's been onstage knows that there's this certain 'thing' that sometimes happens. You're you, but then you become 'another' you. Your Live you. It might not be all that different from your regular self, but sometimes (and I might say most times), there's a change. This is aside from the adrenaline rush and nerves and all that. If you perform a lot (or have) I think you'll know what I mean.

And it's the same (and moreso in fact) with these idol-type guys. Thing is, on most artist threads people either overlook it or forget it. A guy, like that guitar teacher, lumps the two Jimmy Pages together into one congruous entity, and it really isn't a true way of looking at it. It would be the same as comparing Jimmy Page the tennis player and Jimmy Page fixing dinner in his kitchen. They're the same guy, but the moment, the setting, everything contributes to focusing on only that one personality trait at that one given moment.

So...short version, for someone to say "Jimmy Page plays sloppy" for example, sorta shows that person's ignorance (not ignorant like stupid, but ignorance as in 'ignoring') of what it actually is to be a professional recording and live performance artist. There's a duality there that really can't be ignored if the person is to be discussed, but most people tend not to look at it.

Of course this was mentioned above, as as far as Pagey is concerned, it's a matter of public record by now, but even so there's a...subconscious tendancy to think "...well, it's because of the drugs (which is not untrued)," or... "Well, he was good when he was young, but when he got old he got sloppy."

That might hold true to a certain extent, but the duality concept also has to be remembered, just to keep things in the same ballpark so to speak.

Me? I actually never really liked Page; weird huh?

I LOVED Bonzo though!

But I never aspired to play like Page or sound like him or even write like him. I had other heros back then and somehow he just wasn't one of them. Still, I think it's a little fairer to the guy - and other artists as mentioned - to consider each facet of their talent as separate issues.

Best :)

i find that there are certain things people like to say to take other people's heroes down a notch. they hear these things said and then will repeat them in an effort to sound cooler or better than they are. there is usually no thought or opinion behind these statements, though. "jimi (or jimmy) was sloppy, vai/satch/malmsteen/evh has no soul, you have to be on drugs to like dylan, yoko broke up the beatles, ringo couldn't play, etc."
it's also a big reason why people love or hate bubblegum pop.

Yep.

Never heard that one about Dylan though :)

even live i never really found page to be sloppy. i was watching the 2 disc zepp dvd and it's excellent. maybe it's just that he keeps things interesting, always changing the songs around and making it a little different each time and that catches my attention more than how he is playing. but nevertheless, page is an excellent guitarist, excellent producer, and was quite the snazzy dresser in the 70's

For an aspiring rock guitarist, Jimmy Page is as good an icon as any.

Ask your teacher what he would think if you said your favorite is the guy from Green Day or some other mediocre (to use a kind term) pop/punk outfit.

And ask him how his technique would be after two bowls of hash and a liter of Jack Daniels. :wink:

i just want to mention that after two bowls of hash, i am one supreme badass on the guitar. i will admit that i can't play drunk, though.

i find that there are certain things people like to say to take other people's heroes down a notch. they hear these things said and then will repeat them in an effort to sound cooler or better than they are. there is usually no thought or opinion behind these statements, though. "jimi (or jimmy) was sloppy, vai/satch/malmsteen/evh has no soul, you have to be on drugs to like dylan, yoko broke up the beatles, ringo couldn't play, etc."
it's also a big reason why people love or hate bubblegum pop.

Could be -- but my comments come from watching Page's (taped) live performances. I was very dissapointed at the difference between what was laid down in the studio and Page's level of performance live. I'm comparing Page in one situation to Page in another. Excessive drugs and alcohol? Well could be, but I certainly cannot say for sure, because I have no personal evidence. I think citing that rumor easily could fall under your heresay theory of idol trashing.

Not sure if you are referring to my mention of Beck. But I did so only because I've always found the Page/Beck/Claption Yardbirds thing interesting. Despite my higher level of admiration for Beck, I've got to admit he has not delivered nearly as many accessible, killer tunes as either Clapton or Page. All three are excellent musicians with different strengths. Rock is better for having each one of them.

The comments people make about Page being a "loose" player may be valid, but I'm not referring to that. I think of Hendrix as a loose and free-spirited player -- in a good way. Nothing wrong there for me.

As a point of clarity, I'm in no way saying Page isn't a worthy guitar idol. Page is an exceptional musician, has a discography that everyone envies, and is a good guy to learn your licks from.

Everybody's human, and every potential idol has their flaws. Heck even clean cut guys like Chet Atkins have their problems, both personal and professional, that you can point to as a reason not to idolize them -- and maybe there's some value in remembering that no person really is ever worthy of the adoration most fans show.

I was only responding to the question of "Is Page a sloppy guitarist." And in my mind it's not an easy question to answer. As was mentioned above, the same person in different situations behave differently. Page during the Yardbirds is not Page doing an LZ recording session and is not Page during a huge heroin binge on stage live.

Page never pulled the Grace Slick excess of actually falling over drunk on stage while insulting the audience. But he did come close a few times. He also left a legacy of some of the finest guitar playing of the era.

For me (again personally), the thing to remember is "Live is Live, and Studio is Studio."

It happens to a lot of us non-idol people; most of us in fact.

Like to me, still not being a big Page fan, I like the arrangments, the instrumentation and thought that went into the studio albums. Same with Hendrix really - compare the Woodstock Star Spangled Banner with the studio version on Rainbow Bridge.

REAL different.

But still, leaving the drug/personal problem issue aside, or, taking it out of the equation really - because it just heightens or lessens a tendancy - Live, in my opinion should still always be considered as a completely different animal than Studio.

Except when there's live-recording of course. But then that's mostly a snapshot of a band on a particular night, and an attempt to capture the whole mood of audience/band interaction. Sometimes it's a good night, sometimes not. In the studio you get to go back again and again until you get what you want. When you're live, you have to, by right, not be so concerned about perfection. You can be, but that I think is a problem with lots of players; they assume that playing a song onstage will be similar (or the same) as when they were laying down the studio tracks. Then lots of times they either get disappointed, or frustrated because it didn't come off the same.

And this is because the original assumption (that Live and Studio should be the same) is wrong. When you're live onstage, just let it be live and forget about it. It's not the songs or the notes or the jumping around that matters; it's the feeling, the interaction between audience and band; that particular, indescribable energy and synergy that goes on.

It's extremely easy for people, not us particularly but just generally, to analyze a particular performance and then pass judgement on it - which is fine - it's part of developing a sense of discernment.

BUT people generally have the tendancy to take the thing being analyzed out of context and then comparing it to another thing, but one that's in a different context; Live version of a song vs the Studio version.

It's a neat exercise but in the end it really doesn't prove anything and there's really nothing learned of any value (except if you then add into the negative influence the artist had at the time or the life-changing happening or whatever). Still, you get no real, usuable information from such mental exercises simply beause the things being compare were not viewed on an even table so to speak.

Live is live; I can't think of any simpler way to put it really. Maybe it's too inside of a joke (between my wife and myself) for many people to get, but it's...a Live thing :)

Like lots of you, you've played live and know how it is. Those who haven't will find out one day and know that maybe there really is a difference (and not the obvious ones) between your stuido version and how the thing sounds (and feels) when you're onstage. Sometimes it's better, sometimes worse; depends on the song, depends on whether or not it's a good night or a bad one.

Like the Page On Drugs thing: Look at it objectively; what does an aspiring guitarist learn from listening to Page On Drugs? Nothing musically useful. It's normally "Well, don't be on drugs and play." Or "This is what happens when you play guitar while riding a pony."

Ah...that's not musical. That's not about music and has now become a discussion on lifestyle. And so now, without most people knowing it's now a comparison of Page in the Studio and Page On Drugs; even further away from making an objective judgement on the music itself.

See where this is going? If a discussion is to be made, both sides must at least agree on a common ground on which to start it or base it. Apples and Oranges is the cliche, but even that's not a good one if you think about it: they're both fruit, so some discussion can be started on it. On the other hand some of these threads about Idol vs Idol start off sounding like a discussion of musical talent/worth/dedication/etc, but quickly bring in things which actually change the playing field so to speak.

Again, not particularly fair to the person being discussed, you know?

For me, laying tracks is fun because there's so much that can be done and redone and reworked and whatnot. Playing live, I don't even think about those things (and I'm not exactly on drugs lol). When it's time to be onstage, I'm still me, but I'm a different me; like when I'm at home, lounging around, I'm a certain way. I have a certain perception of the closeness of the walls and whatnot. The security, the familiarity of things. When I get up, get dressed and head out for work, the moment I go through the front door, I'm a 'public' version of me. I think you all have felt that slight little tremor of a change that goes through you. Slightly more aware, looking out for things.

And being onstage is like taking the pubic thing one step further.

So it's different. I don't worry about what happens onstage; I mostly worry about when I'm tracking things or writing. Live is live. Recorded is recorded. One has a bigger percentage of non-control; the other is a bigger percentage of control. That's just how it is, and so when I hear about such-and-such giving a bad live performance, I sorta already know the things that could've gone wrong and I'm much less apt to judge the performance at all. It's like "Yah, man, it was live."

BUT if there's the same sort of sloppiness or seemingly rushed-writing or arranging, I'm more apt to pick it apart. You just get that silent sort of understanding between you and other musicians because you've both been there, and both know that sh*t happens. You try to minimize that as much as possible (aside from substance abuse, etc), but still...sh*t happens man.

:)

Sorry, this looks like a hijack. I think I'll start a new thread about Sh*t Happens :wink: