most under rated guitarist & most over rated guitarist.

took me a second...... anomaly
:D

I don't think you can say.

Which is better, a dog or an elephant? Both have many things in common, but you wouldn't confuse the two.

I don't think there is a meaningful conversation to be had without better defining the comparison.

Most under rated in my humble opinion is Junior Brown, this guy is just amazing :D :D you should check out "Guit-Steel Blues" or Stupid Blues"
He plays a double guitar that has a 6-string guitar and a steel guitar together and he can almost play them at the same time :shock:

As for over rated, ......I'll pass, no matter who i would pick, he or she would probally be able to play circles around me anyway :lol: :lol: --the dog

Junior Brown is unknown in many circles, but those who are familiar with him and can appreciate his particular genre (Honky-Tonk/Hillbilly/Hawaiian/Country) know the guy is a guitaring monster. Can't imagine anyone underrating him.

So my nominee for most under rated guitarist? Franklin Smoltz of Newport, Minnesota.

Man, that guy rocks!!
Or is Hendrix the anomole in this argument because he had a greater impact on his era than Jordan?

That's a very hard question to answer. Hendrix came along at a time when there were MANY big names creating whole new aspects to rock. Prior to Hendrix there had been the Stones, Who, Beatles, Yardbirds, Animals (both of which featured a certain Mr Eric Clapton) and many others. Hendrix, at the time, was "just" another of the groundbreakers. The fact is, that they were all pillars of a particular segment of rock, all of which still stand today - it is simply that Hendrix is very relevant to improvised guitar playing, far more so than the others - not that any of them were exactly unknown for their prowess with a guitar!

Hendrix, at the time, was "just" another of the groundbreakers. The fact is, that they were all pillars of a particular segment of rock, all of which still stand today

So you're saying because he was a groundbreaker, the impact of being such keeps him relevant today.

Maybe I'll ask it this way. In your opinion, from a technique perspective, would it be easier for Hendrix to cover Jordan? Or would it be easier for Jordan to cover Hendrix?

Hendrix, at the time, was "just" another of the groundbreakers. The fact is, that they were all pillars of a particular segment of rock, all of which still stand today

So you're saying because he was a groundbreaker, the impact of being such keeps him relevant today.

Maybe I'll ask it this way. In your opinion, from a technique perspective, would it be easier for Hendrix to cover Jordan? Or would it be easier for Jordan to cover Hendrix?

No, what I am saying is that he wasn't the only star in the sky - there were plenty of others. A number of those are still relevant today, because what they did was that little bit "special" - and different. It's difficult to compare Hendrix to the Beatles or the Stones to the Who, they were all individuals, but individuals in their own space.

It's very difficult to explain - if you weren't in England in the 60's, you will never be able to quite understand what it was like. There was so much going on, all of it new and innovative. No-one thought a great deal about this rock group playing at my home town university - at the time, that is. Today "The Who Live At Leeds" is one of rock's great classics.

To answer your question about Jordan and Hendrix. Jordan may have "covered" Hendrix, but Hendrix would have taken Jordan and made Hendrix out of it.

Good answer :) !! And I understand exactly what you're saying about that particular era, time and space, etc.

What I'm trying to get at is the technical abilities of the two. Most people will argue that the guitarist who they think is best is one who plays their favorite style of music. I emphasize most. If we, however, strip away all of the "noise" - the style of music, the era, the impact made/left, etc and just look at the skills, we have a less subjective comparison. Not completely so but closer.

Having said that, would you agree that there are more guitarists who can "shred" than there are who can "tap?"

tecnhical ability-Vai
improvisation-hendrix
songwriting-page,hendrix,chet atkins??
Best anything too broad. Even these categories can be brokendown many times.

I think Hendrix was a versatile guitarist, yes. He was a brilliant improvisor, and he's one of the few guitarists that my jazz friends (and I'm talking folks who play sax and whatnot, not guitar) listen to a lot - he really did some 'out there' things melodically.

But something else made Hendrix the musical phenomenon he's considered today.... a series of lawsuits.

We all know that being popular is more about being well marketed than making good music, right? Lots of folks with moderate to low talent crack the Billboard list every year because they're well promoted.

Well, record companies sign artists to deals that call for x number of albums to be released. And sometimes the record company doesn't get around to releasing those albums - so the artist is still on the hook to that company as far as release rights go. Jimi had signed a couple of contracts with companies that didn't release his music. No big deal, on to the next company. But he died young and reasonably popular... and those rights now had dollars attached.

Jimi recorded a lot of stuff he'd never intended to release, so now that he was dead lots of folks rushed to release albums with claims to the music that ranged from probably legitimate to positively ridiculous. Every company that releases a record promotes it... after all, they want to make money. So instead of having the 5 albums that Jimi released in his lifetime (one of which, Band of Gypsys, was released to settle a lawsuit), you had... drum roll....

more than 300 Hendrix albums.

Yep, that's right. 300+ promotional budgets, 300+ advertising campaigns.

The lawsuits over who actually owned Jimi's stuff weren't finally settled until 1995 - that's 25 YEARS after he died! (And an awful lot of time for folks who didn't own it to make money, and to market the heck out of what a great guitarist he was).

He'd probably still be on the top 10 lists if all that hadn't happened - after all, he was a fine guitarist. But if the whole body of his work available was limited to the five original albums, I'm guessing he'd be several notches lower than the perennial #1 slot he gets.

Noteboat,

You're obviously familiar with Hendrix. How was his tapping technique?

You're probably familiar with Jordan as well. How is his improv ability?

That made me laugh, actually. I'm not aware of Hendrix ever deliberately tapping a note in a solo, but there's lots of Hendrix I haven't heard. Jordan's improv ability is pretty decent, but because of the style he's developed it's different from most players - so I don't hear anyone talking about Jordan as a master improviser.

(by the way, I tried to e-mail that we're talking about him... Stanley pops into Usenet groups every now and then... but his mailbox is full!)

Styles and techniques develop over time. If Jimi were around today, he'd be tapping - he copped techniques from other guitarists just like we all do. When I started teaching (late 70s) nobody tapped; now it's part of the bag of tricks everybody who's been playing for 3-4 years is expected to know.

You can't really fault Hendrix for not tapping anymore than you can fault Bach for not writing any saxophone solos. And you can't really improvise the same way when you're doing the contrapuntal stuff that Jordan's technique leads to... you won't see him bending a lot of notes either for the same reason.

I can't recall hearing Hendrix tap. (I am by no means an expert, I hardly know Hendrix's stuff) I think that was started in the late 70's, and became widely over used in the 80's. Van Halen is the grand master tapper of them all. He incorporates it into songs much better than any guitarist *I've heard. (*Note: I've heard)

I don't see how one's tapping ability has anything to do with being a good guitar player, or technical ability, or anything else. I don't know what I'm trying to say here. Basically, its impossible to say what makes a good guitar player. One can say what makes a bad guitar player, but I'm not so sure one can say what makes a good guitar player.

Am I wrong or is tapping actually a pretty old technique?

could be right. I am by no means an authority on the subject.haha.

You all are proving my point. Hendrix, more than likely, couldn't tap. It was something that hadn't necessarily evolved into what it has today. Yes, it could be considered passe' now, but so could improv. My point is this.....

If you take the two of them and look at what they are primarily known for (Hendrix - improv, Jordan - tapping), and compare those abilities, Jordan could do something that Hendrix couldn't. Jordan could also do, according to Noteboat, what Hendrix could do. Even if he couldn't do it as well as Hendrix (I'm not saying he could or couldn't), the fact is, if you compare those two abilities, Jordan has the advantage. You could certainly argue that Hendrix could do it if he tried. I'm sure he could, but the fact remains that he could not. If you're accepting Hendrix's improv abilities and considering him one of the best, why not Jordan's tapping. He took it to another level.

Now I'm not necessarily a fan of either, nor am I saying that they aren't/weren't great guitarists. My final point (and I'll drop this discussion) is this....if Hendrix is considered one the greatest guitarists of all time, even today, Jordan should be also. IMHO, I believe the reason Hendrix generally gets the nod is because the style of music that he played could be considered more mainstream or popular than Jordan's. Hendrix's era also played a big part in his popularity.

It's all a popularity contest. People generally vote for the guitarist who plays their favorite style of music. It's similar to comparing two athletes of different eras. Who's better....Michael Jordan or Bill Russell? People will vote/decide based on the "noise" that filters their conclusion. The final say goes to the person compiling the list or the person being asked the question. That doesn't necessarily make them right, but, it's what discussions are made of!! You'll notice, however, that when you discuss these things in a reasonable manner, everyone generally learns something....whether they want to admit it or not. At the very least, you get to hear another perspective.

The "persecution" rests :) .

Why in the world do you believe tapping is such a difficult thing, Qrious? Or for that matter so important. Hendrix could not have tapped? I have a suspicion that if informed of the possibilities of tapping, Hendrix probably could have done his own thing with it. But I have no proof other than a feeling, and the same goes for your contention that he probably could not have tapped. You are arguing "what if" scenarios for which we will never have answers -- at least from one of the parties.

Another thing -- you overrate the technique aspect of playing. Much of technique is developed motor skills. It's only half the story -- if that much. Guitar playing is a mind-body endeavor. The mind supplies the innovation and control to put the technique to work One without the other usually yields pretty bad and/or uninteresting results.

You want a good measure of a guitarist? Check with his/her peers. Hendrix's stage skills scared the crap out of his contemporaries such as Beck and Clapton. I've never seen anything close to such admiration for Jordan (and he is a wonderful player in his own style).