When I have to list my favourite players I never think about technical ability for a second. To me a good guitarist has to do *something* with his instrument that 'just does it'. As such I can perfectly understand why people often say Kurt Cobain was a great guitarist. Nobody but guitarists care how hard something is to do, the rest of the world just wants music they like.
And tapping? Don't care about it. So all tap-meisters can typically forget ending up in my lists.
Very recently, Pete Townshend wrote of Hendrix:
He made the electric guitar beautiful. It had always been dangerous, it had always been able to evoke anger. If you go right back to the beginning of it, John Lee Hooker shoving a microphone into his guitar back in the 1940s, it made his guitar sound angry, impetuous, and dangerous. The guitar players who worked through the Fifties and with the early rock artists - James Burton, who worked with Ricky Nelson and the Everly Brothers, Steve Cropper with Booker T. -- these Nashville-influenced players had a steely, flick-knife sound, really kind of spiky compared to the beautiful sound of the six-string acoustic being played in the background. In those great early Elvis songs, you hear Elvis himself playing guitar on songs like "Hound Dog," and then you hear an electric guitar come in, and it's not a pleasant sound. Early blues players, too -- Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Albert King -- they did it to hurt your ears. Jimi made it beautiful and made it OK to make it beautiful.
If you're interested, you can read Townshend's entire 2003 essay on Jimi Hendrix. It's enlightening.
Well we all shine on--like the moon and the stars and the sun.
-- John Lennon
People who break ground are remembered for it, and if no new ground was ever broken I'd be hosting Gregorian Chant jam sessions instead of teaching guitar.
The fact that someone breaks ground doesn't mean they'll be remembered, or popular. Schoenberg and Ives broke new ground in classical music, but they're not on the programs nearly as much as other composers. We don't fault Hendrix for not tapping just as we don't fault Bach for his lack of saxophone concertos - it wasn't done at the time.
You have to judge the ability of an instrumentalist against the demands of the expected music. It's sort of pointless to say someone wasn't as good because he didn't do this new thing we do today - Paganini didn't play modern music, but violinists don't think less of him because he 'couldn't do' Stockhausen or Xenakis.
Improvisationally the same thing holds true. Jordan - and many others - use harmonic and melodic elements that weren't part of the trick bag of folks like Benny Goodman. That doesn't mean Jordan is a better improvisor than Goodman was - it means he has a greater tradition to draw from. Neither one established a new tradition (like Miles did), so 100 years from now they'll be footnotes; Miles will have a main entry, even if his music is no longer popular.
During Hendrix' lifetime, he wasn't the top act - that was Three Dog Night. He wasn't even supposed to be the headliner on the last day of Woodstock - he got that slot because Iron Butterfly backed out at the last minute. I don't think the music of the era had anything to do with it either - there was a tremendous breadth of musical styles widely available at the time, probably more so than today. Although I think a lot of his popularity has to do with post-mortem marketing, there's usually substance to the music of folks whose popularity increases with time (like Bach, for instance).
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
I never said tapping was hard. I said Jordan took it to another level, just as Hendrix took improv to another level.
You have to consider technical abilities as a part of rating any guitarist. If a guy can't play a single chord, is he a great guitarist? If a guy can play hundreds of chord but none cleanly, is he a great guitarist?
The technical aspects should never be under valued. They are the building blocks upon which everything else is built, IMHO.
If you have a musical thought/idea in your head but you lack the technical skills to express it, it won't come out....regardless of the abundance of stage presence you might possess.
When you've done all you can to practice...practice some more.
Nonsense. If you can't play a single chord but somehow, maybe even due to pure chance, manage to play something interesting then you'll be a good guitarist in my book. Same goes for all other forms of art. Technique is the road to a final piece, and frankly, I don't care how a piece of art came into existence. It is just there and the guy/girl who created it is to me a good artist.
Yes but even if by "pure chance," you had to develop some sort of technique. You had to do something to bring out and express your art.
Isn't that something, your technique?
When you've done all you can to practice...practice some more.
Yes, but that doesn't mean I have to judge someone's technique. I judge the final piece, and that's it. Ofcourse he'll need some skills, but I'm not going to think about that when making my lists.
I've heard new guitarists and non-guitarist come up with innovative and interesting riffs and sounds on a guitar without really having much of an idea of how "properly" to play the thing. Obviously they were working within the limits of their raw technical abilities, yet produced viable interesting and even very good music. There are plenty of technically skilled guitarists who cannot do that. I wouldn't call these technos anything but mediocre, as they are limited by their lack of mental innovation. Being a great technical copycat is not being a great guitarist.
Good technique helps some to express wonderful musical ideas -- if they actually have those wonderful ideas. But it is far more important to know and be able to work within one's own technical limits creatively than simply to have great technique with no original ideas.
No, technique should not be undervalued, but in the creation of good music, technical virtuosity is not even close to a prerequisite. I posit that given some reasonable, but not exceptional technical skills, a person with fantastic mental-emotional insight can be a great guitarist and musician, but fantastic technical skills coupled with reasonable, but not exceptional mental-emotional insight will be far less likely to yield a great guitarist and musician.
-=tension & release=-
What makes Hendrix's final piece so much different (or better of you prefer) than Jordan's, such that he is not listed with Hendrix?
When you've done all you can to practice...practice some more.
I was really caught by suprise by Prince. Did anyone else see him play when he and George Harrison were inducted into the R & R Hall of Fame? I think it was the 2004 induction ceremony on VH1.
A bunch of stars played "While my guitar gently weeps" at the close. Prince blew every one of them away.
Prince is an incredible musical talent in many dimensions, including as a guitar player. But his image makes it difficult for many to see that.
-=tension & release=-
Townshend seems to be talking more about Hendrix's stage antics and general personality more so than actual guitar playing in that essay. What I got from it (other than that Townshend comes off looking quite the dolt with his F bombs,etc) was that he was trying to convey what a good/cool person Hendrix was, not much in the way of guitar talk. I'm not trying to take anything away from Hendrix, but this wasn't much of a defense to his guitar skills.
Early blues players, too -- Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Albert King -- they did it to hurt your ears. Jimi made it beautiful and made it OK to make it beautiful.
What is he even talking about :? ???
What makes Hendrix's final piece so much different (or better of you prefer) than Jordan's, such that he is not listed with Hendrix?
Why do I like a ham sandwich better then peanutbutter? Why would I rather have a blue then a red theme when decorating a living room? Why do I prefer Coca Cola over Pepsi?
I think we call it 'personal taste'.
Arjen,
You've made my point!! People generally choose someone from their preferred style of music. It's a matter of taste. Exactly!!
Someone who prefers Hendrix's genre of music will, more often than not, choose him over Jordan. I would expect the converse to be true. That doesn't necessarily make either right. That's just their preference, and there's nothing wrong with that. Although, the more popular/mainstream genre and those who play it, generally receive more recognition.
When you've done all you can to practice...practice some more.
Yup, exactly. And I myself don't really mind. And if all music awards will go to rappers and hip-hoppers this year, then so be it. I like my stuff, and I think those who make my stuff are the best, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. I do recognize that their might be players with a better technique, but I just don't care. Just apreciate the stuff you apreciate, and respect those who like other stuff (yes, even rap, techno, trance, urban etc fans!).
