Greatest Guitarist ever

[Raoul]

I can only say this...consider the lack of technology and gadjits that Jimi had. Then listen to what he could do. I'm just saying

[Smith]

Although not mentioned or usually thought of in this regard I'll throw out The Edge. His uniqueness and simplicity are timeless, different and not easily copied. He makes a guitar literally sing. I know he can play conventionally with just about anyone, but few can do what he does with a guitar.

[gregintenn]

Although not mentioned or usually thought of in this regard I'll throw out The Edge. His uniqueness and simplicity are timeless, different and not easily copied. He makes a guitar literally sing. I know he can play conventionally with just about anyone, but few can do what he does with a guitar.

The Edge.......the wrestler??!!??!??

[Smith]

The Edge.......the wrestler??!!??!??

U2 guitarist.

[Guest jackdm3]

The Edge.......the wrestler??!!??!??

(But in a respectful way!)

[Glenn]

For those that liked Hendrix, did you ever hear Roy Buchanan?

Check it out.

Glenn

[Bubbatn]

Oh Yeah.....No one mentioned this "guy".....

[Glenn]

Had forgotten about Buddy. Great blues

Glenn

[Daniel]

You guys should watch "It Might Get Loud."

It is a doc of Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White. They talk to each individually and also the three together discussing guitar and playing a little.

[willis68]

Jack White, is one of the best as well, that guy is amazing I got a chance to watch him live

[peejman]

Wow, so many to choose from...

Innovators... Les Paul, Tony Rice, Django, DiMeola

Rock pioneers... Iommi, Page, Hendrix...

Uber Technicians... Vai, Satriani, Petrucci...

Soaring Soloists... David Gilmour, Dime, Petrucci, Angus Young, ...

Riff masters... Hetfield, Iommi, Malcom Young, ...

Blues masters... BB, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, SRV, ...

and many, many more...

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Jmmy Herring is a freak. I saw him for the 1st time about 20 years ago at the New Daisy in Memphis. I like the song above but this Morse tune he does is evil. And he was a "student" at this time, OMG................

Thanks Tempest

I don't know much about Herring except youtube clips. A couple years ago was googling some old friends from Atlanta and saw some clips with Herring.

That "On the Pipe" video looks maybe the same old session as the chicken-pickin video I posted. From the youtube comments, didn't know if he was a student or teacher at GIT. I'm not especially partial to clean chicken-pickin, but it is easier to judge "comparative performer quality" on that kind of music, because it is easy to notice obvious clinkers. On an "outside" rock or jazz solo, how the heck can you tell if some of the weird notes were accidents or intentional?

There are youtube clips of Herring playing great on many musical styles.

Here is my favorite Herring clip of the ones I've seen. The bassist Ricky Keller was an old high school bud who passed a few years ago.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I can only say this...consider the lack of technology and gadjits that Jimi had. Then listen to what he could do. I'm just saying

Hi Raoul

There were not as many gadgets available back then, but Jimi had every one available, and even had some custom-made.

Many guitarists are equipment junkies, but it is surprising how conservative many guitarists are at least on some items. Leo Fender designed the Jaguar geetars in the 1960's to be technically superior replacements to Telecasters and Stratocasters. The Jaguar wasn't a bad axe, but Jaguars are not very common nowadays and Teles/Strats/clones are ubiquitous.

Tube amps are still the thang with most guitarists.

Hendrix favorites such as the tube/tape echoplex and the germanium transistor fuzz face stompbox still sell and are highly prized among at least some modern guitarists. Some of the most popular modern digital signal processing boxes are popular because they try to "perfectly emulate" old gadgets that are no longer available, or expensive, or temperamental.

Dunno how many modern stars worship early guitar gods, but there are zillions of non-famous guitarists who have such a man-crush on Hendrix that they must have exactly the same kind of equipment he used, to try to get that sound. But Hendrix' sound was in his fingers and mind, not the equipment. A friend who has a man-crush on Eric Johnson, tells me that Johnson has a man-crush on old equipment and carries multiple old flakey tube echoplexes around with his rig.

Guitarists can get fixated on gadgets. Dicky Betts for years would use a particular model of ancient crappy Shure transistor mic preamp to boost his guitar into the Marshall amps. When they were doing some sessions in Chattanooga about 1978 the roadies forgot to load the crappy Shure preamp on the truck, and they had to search all around town to find one of those un-remarkable obsolete Shure mic preamp before the sessions could begin. Dicky didn't want to mess with success. Betts is a great guy and fine player. Back when Duane was alive, I'd patiently wait thru Betts solos until Duane would take over again. But lately I've been listening back to the old stuff, and decided maybe Betts was the brains of the outfit all along.

Duane played real fluid and smooth, and Betts solos were bright and angular, occasionally annoyingly so. But after Duane died, Betts started playing both styles right away. Am pretty sure Betts was staying on the bright/angular style as intentional counterpoint to Duane's sound and style, as long as Duane was up on stage too.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Lester Weevils

[DaveTN]

Hendricks didn’t need gadgets and technology; he had drugs.

It’s what made him play the way he did and it’s what took his life.

I’m just saying….

[Raoul]

Hi Raoul

There were not as many gadgets available back then, but Jimi had every one available, and even had some custom-made.

Many guitarists are equipment junkies, but it is surprising how conservative many guitarists are at least on some items. Leo Fender designed the Jaguar geetars in the 1960's to be technically superior replacements to Telecasters and Stratocasters. The Jaguar wasn't a bad axe, but Jaguars are not very common nowadays and Teles/Strats/clones are ubiquitous.

Tube amps are still the thang with most guitarists.

Hendrix favorites such as the tube/tape echoplex and the germanium transistor fuzz face stompbox still sell and are highly prized among at least some modern guitarists. Some of the most popular modern digital signal processing boxes are popular because they try to "perfectly emulate" old gadgets that are no longer available, or expensive, or temperamental.

Dunno how many modern stars worship early guitar gods, but there are zillions of non-famous guitarists who have such a man-crush on Hendrix that they must have exactly the same kind of equipment he used, to try to get that sound. But Hendrix' sound was in his fingers and mind, not the equipment. A friend who has a man-crush on Eric Johnson, tells me that Johnson has a man-crush on old equipment and carries multiple old flakey tube echoplexes around with his rig.

Guitarists can get fixated on gadgets. Dicky Betts for years would use a particular model of ancient crappy Shure transistor mic preamp to boost his guitar into the Marshall amps. When they were doing some sessions in Chattanooga about 1978 the roadies forgot to load the crappy Shure preamp on the truck, and they had to search all around town to find one of those un-remarkable obsolete Shure mic preamp before the sessions could begin. Dicky didn't want to mess with success. Betts is a great guy and fine player. Back when Duane was alive, I'd patiently wait thru Betts solos until Duane would take over again. But lately I've been listening back to the old stuff, and decided maybe Betts was the brains of the outfit all along.

Duane played real fluid and smooth, and Betts solos were bright and angular, occasionally annoyingly so. But after Duane died, Betts started playing both styles right away. Am pretty sure Betts was staying on the bright/angular style as intentional counterpoint to Duane's sound and style, as long as Duane was up on stage too.

Good post LW. I agree with your analysis of Dickie totally. Thanks for the other info also.

I have to admit that I'm an equal opportunity listener. I am a complete music junkie and I have never had the opportunity to learn to play anything. I'm working on that. I feel the need to play music in front of a crowd before I move on to the next plain of existence.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Good post LW. I agree with your analysis of Dickie totally. Thanks for the other info also.

I have to admit that I'm an equal opportunity listener. I am a complete music junkie and I have never had the opportunity to learn to play anything. I'm working on that. I feel the need to play music in front of a crowd before I move on to the next plain of existence.

Hi Raoul

Are you going for guitar or some other instrument?

The 'best guitarist' thread tends toward speed and accuracy, though there are so many other factors.

For instance, such as Mark Knopfler, Merle Travis, Norman Blake, Steve Cropper are consummate guitarists who don't often shred blinding fast.

Keb Mo is a fine guitarist but not a shredder. A long favorite Taj Mahal, plays very sparsely but it is perfect in context. Some players excel at the melodic, good touch, or just always doing the perfect thing in a rhythm section.

There was a perceptual study of infants of various ages. Cameras would record the infant's attention in the crib at different ages. Black'n'white pictures of geometric patterns of varying complexity would be left in visible range of the crib. At any particular age of development, the infant would ignore the abstract images if they were too complex or too simple. For each age of development, there was an optimum level of complexity which would hold the infant's attention the longest.

I think it is the same with music. The typical listener will not be engaged by music that is either too simple or too complex. A guitar solo (or any instrumental solo) which is a fast continuous blur of notes-- It ceases to be perceived as a melody and is perceived as a sonic texture. On the other hand, a complex evolving tone from a well-programmed synthesizer patch can also be engaging as a sonic texture, and it is so much easier to hold down one key, compared to the sweat of playing all those sixteenth notes.

The optimum complexity is a sum of timbre, rhythm, harmonic complexity, melodic complexity. If one aspect of the music is 'busy', then another aspect of the music must be simplified or the sum total of complexity rises to the point that the "average listener" will lose interest. Perhaps one out of ten listeners would be very engaged with a complex piece of music. Great for that one listener, but on the other hand if you are playing a bar gig and 9 out of 10 customers walk out, then you probably won't get many repeat bookings!

It isn't a coincidence that rhythmically complex music usually has simplified chord progression and melody. Or that complex melodies usually have relatively simple chord progression, or that complex chord progressions typically have relatively simple melodies. If you do a busy funk rhythm with Errol Garner chords and blinding fast complex melodies, it will chase off most listeners. Some listeners will really dig it, but most will not. Ferinstance, Hard Bop or Frank Zappa.

It is possible to play pretty tasty stuff that people will like, that is relatively simple. There will always be musicians who can do something better than you will ever be able to do, so the key is to reach at least the minimum level of complexity and do it well enough to get the job done.

[trblmkr13]

Any Billy Gibbons fans out there?

[Guest jackdm3]

I think it is the same with music. The typical listener will not be engaged by music that is either too simple or too complex. A guitar solo (or any instrumental solo) which is a fast continuous blur of notes-- It ceases to be perceived as a melody and is perceived as a sonic texture. On the other hand, a complex evolving tone from a well-programmed synthesizer patch can also be engaging as a sonic texture, and it is so much easier to hold down one key, compared to the sweat of playing all those sixteenth notes.

The optimum complexity is a sum of timbre, rhythm, harmonic complexity, melodic complexity. If one aspect of the music is 'busy', then another aspect of the music must be simplified or the sum total of complexity rises to the point that the "average listener" will lose interest. Perhaps one out of ten listeners would be very engaged with a complex piece of music. Great for that one listener, but on the other hand if you are playing a bar gig and 9 out of 10 customers walk out, then you probably won't get many repeat bookings!

[sigmtnman]

Lester Flatt

[Glenn]

Hi Raoul

Are you going for guitar or some other instrument?

The 'best guitarist' thread tends toward speed and accuracy, though there are so many other factors.

For instance, such as Mark Knopfler, Merle Travis, Norman Blake, Steve Cropper are consummate guitarists who don't often shred blinding fast.

Keb Mo is a fine guitarist but not a shredder. A long favorite Taj Mahal, plays very sparsely but it is perfect in context. Some players excel at the melodic, good touch, or just always doing the perfect thing in a rhythm section.

There was a perceptual study of infants of various ages. Cameras would record the infant's attention in the crib at different ages. Black'n'white pictures of geometric patterns of varying complexity would be left in visible range of the crib. At any particular age of development, the infant would ignore the abstract images if they were too complex or too simple. For each age of development, there was an optimum level of complexity which would hold the infant's attention the longest.

I think it is the same with music. The typical listener will not be engaged by music that is either too simple or too complex. A guitar solo (or any instrumental solo) which is a fast continuous blur of notes-- It ceases to be perceived as a melody and is perceived as a sonic texture. On the other hand, a complex evolving tone from a well-programmed synthesizer patch can also be engaging as a sonic texture, and it is so much easier to hold down one key, compared to the sweat of playing all those sixteenth notes.

The optimum complexity is a sum of timbre, rhythm, harmonic complexity, melodic complexity. If one aspect of the music is 'busy', then another aspect of the music must be simplified or the sum total of complexity rises to the point that the "average listener" will lose interest. Perhaps one out of ten listeners would be very engaged with a complex piece of music. Great for that one listener, but on the other hand if you are playing a bar gig and 9 out of 10 customers walk out, then you probably won't get many repeat bookings!

It isn't a coincidence that rhythmically complex music usually has simplified chord progression and melody. Or that complex melodies usually have relatively simple chord progression, or that complex chord progressions typically have relatively simple melodies. If you do a busy funk rhythm with Errol Garner chords and blinding fast complex melodies, it will chase off most listeners. Some listeners will really dig it, but most will not. Ferinstance, Hard Bop or Frank Zappa.

It is possible to play pretty tasty stuff that people will like, that is relatively simple. There will always be musicians who can do something better than you will ever be able to do, so the key is to reach at least the minimum level of complexity and do it well enough to get the job done.

The Bluesman Hound Dog Taylor once said "When I die they will say 'He couldn't play s__t but he sure made it sound good'." And he did make it sound good.

Glenn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEfdK-0cPqk

Edited September 29, 2010 by Glenn
add video