Eric Clapton vs. Jimmy Page vs. Jeff Beck vs. Jimi Hendrix

[Litterick]

St Vincent is another. Others who have been acclaimed include Jack White; Dan Auerbach; John Mayer; Susan Tedeschi; Derek Trucks; Matt Schofield; Joanne Shaw Taylor. None are praised as rock gods; that age has passed.

[Shadow of the Sun]

So, someone mentioned Hendrix as a player who died before he matured as a musician. There's another electric guitarist who I feel passed too soon, which is Danny Gatton.

God that man could play.

[jbear]

This could easily turn into a sociology of music discussion. The era that spawned all of these guys (and so many others) is gone. Those cats didn't make music to become famous...they became famous cuz of their music. I also think that the way they learned about other players was a slower more deliberate process. You couldn't jump on the Web and hear everything on the planet at any given moment. No transcription software...it was just different. Different process...different product. I always find new jazz cats to groove on, but I can't remember the last time I heard a new rocker that made me want to seek out more. Anyway...I'm sure my grandpa bitched about similar s**t...glad I came up back in the day...and that there's such a huge catalog of awesome tunes in the Multiverse!

[Litterick]

The era of what they now call classic rock was very masculine. Most bands were entirely male, except for backing singers. Some all-female bands played, but hardly any mixed bands. The only woman who was respected as a guitarist was Bonnie Raitt. Female lead guitarists were almost unknown. Most audience members were men. It was not until punk emerged that women could often be found in bands or audiences. Things have changed for the better in that respect.

On the other hand, white rock musicians of the 70s were more in touch with black music, and black and white musicians played together. Rock music was heavily influenced by black music. That connexion was severed by the rise of punk and metal.

[Cunamara]

but I'm just not very much into hippy jamming anymore, I like tight arrangements and strong rhythm guitar.

No reason you can't have both:

[Hep To The Jive]

The era of what they now call classic rock was very masculine. Most bands were entirely male, except for backing singers. Some all-female bands played, but hardly any mixed bands. The only woman who was respected as a guitarist was Bonnie Raitt. Female lead guitarists were almost unknown. Most audience members were men. It was not until punk emerged that women could often be found in bands or audiences. Things have changed for the better in that respect.

On the other hand, white rock musicians of the 70s were more in touch with black music, and black and white musicians played together. Rock music was heavily influenced by black music. That connexion was severed by the rise of punk and metal.

Interesting angle to look at it... You can score a lot of points with this overview today. Me, I love it for what it was, don't care much to criticize for what it wasn't.

[Hep To The Jive]

No reason you can't have both:

Haha, dude, I think you should know by now, right? ... I'm the last person to listen to GD, I never thought they were anything but the lamest band of its time, nothing to do with rock or rock'n'roll. And btw, I still want my money back that I spend on buying their album for the first (and obviously last) time, back when I had so little to spare. Haha sorryyyy, but I'm not gonna lie!

[Litterick]

Interesting angle to look at it... You can score a lot of points with this overview today. Me, I love it for what it was, don't care much to criticize for what it wasn't.

And points mean prizes; not that I have scored any. I think rock music is better for having more women playing it; jazz as well.

[Cunamara]

Haha, dude, I think you should know by now, right? ... I'm the last person to listen to GD, I never thought they were anything but the lamest band of its time, nothing to do with rock or rock'n'roll. And btw, I still want my money back that I spend on buying their album for the first (and obviously last) time, back when I had so little to spare. Haha sorryyyy, but I'm not gonna lie!

Ah, well.

The May 1977 gigs were the Dead at the peak of their peaks. Give it a listen with an open mind, especially from about 8:00-14:30- you don't like this, you will probably never like the Dead. The Scarlet Begonias > Fire On The Mountain from this show is also remarkable. As for me, nothing else in music speaks to me like a good Grateful Dead jam.

[Hep To The Jive]

And points mean prizes; not that I have scored any. I think rock music is better for having more women playing it; jazz as well.

I'm not gonna argue that any music is better with diversity, gender diversity included. But how is it relevant to the subject of the thread again? I think to bring it up deserves more serious discussion and different thread, otherwise it's kinda a buzz kill tbh. Just IMHO.

[Litterick]

Context. These guitarists played in a musical and social environment, as do we all. These conditions are always worth exploring. Music does not happen in a vacuum (do we never ask why so many of the great jazz guitarists were Italian-Americans?). There is nothing wrong with asking why we value these four guitarists, who all emerged in London in the late 1960s and three of whom played in the same band, above all others. Only one of them is still making music; one has been dead for nearly fifty years and the other two seem to have retired; yet we still worship them.

One possible step towards an answer is to consider that the talent pool was limited because members of half the population would not be taken seriously as guitarists because of their sex, or would not learn to play guitar because of gender expectations. Changes in those expectations might also help explain why the rock god is such a rare creature these days.

[Litterick]

I might add that when Americans talk about the Grateful Dead, most of us in the rest of the anglosphere can only look on. The gigging and jamming is something we did not experience, so we only know the Dead by their albums, if it all. They don't enjoy the importance in our cultures that they have in yours. Context is all.

[Cunamara]

Indeed, context is necessary to understand the meaning of anything. The Dead are in some ways the most American of bands, some of which may not transfer well to other parts of the world (as is the case with Americans themselves, as well).

As for the Dead, just about anyone in the world can listen to some 13,457 concert recordings of them posted online at archive.org to hear what they were able to do. And the post-Jerry configurations such at The Other Ones, Phil & Friends, Ratdog, Dead & Company, etc. are available. I would recommend the recent Bob Weir and The Wolf Brothers trio shows (with Don Was on upright bass and Jay Lane on drums).

[Hep To The Jive]

As for the Dead, just about anyone in the world can listen to some 13,457 concert recordings of them .

You mean like voluntarily? Lol

[Litterick]

This study should be very interesting for anyone interested in the Dead, or in canonicity. It concludes, in part:

This article presented an analysis comparing the popularity of Grateful Dead songs as identified by both how many times they were played in concert and how many times they were listened to by members of the last.fm online music service. The results presented here indicate a strong, but not perfect, correlation between concert plays and fan listens. These results suggest that the music choices of its online community of listeners reflect very well the live concert tradition of the Grateful Dead phenomenon, even after their dissolution

I take that to mean that the Dead's relentless gigging and their extraordinarily close relationship with their fans created a canon of their songs unlike that of almost any other band; it was a closed loop that was not affected by the usual rock music opinion formers: DJs, magazines, TV shows, and peer groups. This may account for the bewilderment outsiders feel. The appeal of Clapton etc is more obvious, because we believe we all share it.

[Phil59]

This study should be very interesting for anyone interested in the Dead, or in canonicity. It concludes, in part:

This article presented an analysis comparing the popularity of Grateful Dead songs as identified by both how many times they were played in concert and how many times they were listened to by members of the last.fm online music service. The results presented here indicate a strong, but not perfect, correlation between concert plays and fan listens. These results suggest that the music choices of its online community of listeners reflect very well the live concert tradition of the Grateful Dead phenomenon, even after their dissolution

I take that to mean that the Dead's relentless gigging and their extraordinarily close relationship with their fans created a canon of their songs unlike that of almost any other band; it was a closed loop that was not affected by the usual rock music opinion formers: DJs, magazines, TV shows, and peer groups. This may account for the bewilderment outsiders feel. The appeal of Clapton etc is more obvious, because we believe we all share it.

"the bewilderment outsiders feel."

Indeed

[Cunamara]

Deadheads had their own influences within the scene- peer groups certainly, and there were subsets within the scene, the Greyheads for example who came into the scene post- "Touch of Grey." The Wharf Rats (12 Step group), the Jerry vs. Bobby song fans, the Phil Zone, the spinners, the tapers, the tourheads, Shakedown Street, trustafarians, etc. But those groups cheerfully gave each other the space to enjoy the show in their own way. Although there were also a few weird cultish religious groups looking to prey on stoned kids with money.

And there were magazines within the scene such as The Golden Road, Dupree's Diamond News, The Grateful Dead Almanac and some smaller zines. The WELL was a very early online community of Deadheads. Etc. Tape trading was the core of Dead evangalism for decades, curating the experience for the newbies, now it's all downloadable at a click.

Much like jazz, Grateful Dead music has its own set of tunes that function like standards. I get together with an upright bassist most weeks to play some jazz, but frequently we drift into Dead tunes- "Eyes Of The World," "He's Gone," "Stella Blue," "Scarlet Begonias," etc. Feels like playing jazz tunes.

I never experienced "the bewilderment of outsiders," felt like I was hanging out with 10,000 of my best friends from my first show (Madison 1979), until the late 80s and the shift in attitude that came in with the Greyheads. Last show was Minneapolis 1989. Saw the Alpine Valley runs every year. Never saw 'em on drugs, though (me, not them obviously), but I'm kind of out there anyway.

[princeplanet]

Ah, well.

The May 1977 gigs were the Dead at the peak of their peaks. Give it a listen with an open mind, especially from about 8:00-14:30- you don't like this, you will probably never like the Dead....

Meh. Peak of peaks eh? Must be coming off a pretty low base!

[princeplanet]

So, someone mentioned Hendrix as a player who died before he matured as a musician. There's another electric guitarist who I feel passed too soon, which is Danny Gatton.

God that man could play.

Too soon indeed, but I wouldn't say he hadn't matured style wise. Most players, if not all, will fail to reach the kinda development and maturity he achieved in his short life.

[zcostilla]

Why are we not mentioning enough of the obvious and plain history: these guys were fans of each other and fed off each other, ESPECIALLY Hendrix, Clapton, and Beck. Hendrix experimented and brought th8ngs to mainstream that hadn’t been done or popularized (like backward recorded solos). Clapton pushed the blues revival in a huge way. Beck’s innovations were discussed pretty well, and Page’s marriage of folk music and rock helped drive rock forward. But they all drew off each other. How many times did He drip cover Cream, The Beatles, and other contemporaries when inspired? Clapton did the, same (like “I Shot the Sheriff”.)

if they weren’t angling up to clam superiority over each other, I’m not going to vote one over the other.

[Ozymandias]

For me:

Clapton's fame is from being a pioneer. The world was somehow ready for a slightly modified version of urban blues electric guitar virtuosity, particularly from a hip young white guy who hung out with the Beatles and the Stones. He wasn't necessarily the best, but he was very, very good and he was the first.

Page: I think is more interesting as a composer/producer/band leader than as a guitarist. How highly you rate him depends how much of a Led Zep fan you are. I like them okay, but not a major fan. But generally speaking loud rock isn't my thing.

Beck: the geek virtuoso with a highly personal style. No one else can do what he can do, but for me his name isn't on enough genuinely good music for him to be one of the greats. Blow by Blow is a good album and there are bits and pieces elsewhere but "Cause We've Ended as Lovers" is the only track I think of as genuinely great. And a lot of that is down to Stevie.

Hendrix: the only one on this list who qualifies as genius IMO. Time hasn't been entirely kind to him. It's easy to forget how the culture at the time of his very brief ascendancy encouraged the kind of self-indulgence and lack of quality control that mars a lot of his output. And the rise of a generation of faster, more controlled rock virtuosi can make the claims of "greatest player of all time" look silly (even though they're not). But the best of the studio albums still amounts to a staggeringly inventive, original body of work, especially considering how long it took him to produce it.

[jameslovestal]

Hendrix: the only one on this list who qualifies as genius IMO. [/QUOTE]

Could you please supply one Hendrix recording that you believe demonstrates his ability as a guitar player and innovator?

Thanks

[zcostilla]

[QUOTE=Ozymandias;934356]
Hendrix: the only one on this list who qualifies as genius IMO. Time hasn't been entirely kind to him. It's easy to forget how the culture at the time of his very brief ascendancy encouraged the kind of self-indulgence and lack of quality control that mars a lot of his output. And the rise of a generation of faster, more controlled rock virtuosi can make the claims of "greatest player of all time" look silly (even though they're not). But the best of the studio albums still amounts to a staggeringly inventive, original body of work, especially considering how long it took him to produce it.[/QUOTE]

Could you please supply one Hendrix recording that you believe demonstrates his ability as a guitar player and innovator?

Thanks

While I don’t agree he’s the only genius on the list, there is PLENTY of proof for his innovation: Backwards recorded guitar solos in Are You Experienced and Castles Made of Sand, phasing in Axis: Bold As Love (although Eddy Kramer probably deserves more credit for that). The sheer experimentation of Third Stone From the Sun with the slowed voices. After all, the Are You Experienced album was released a week or so before the Beatles released Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.

As to the definition of genius, I don’t believe you have to be an innovator to be genius. Hendrix was a genius because he could hear something one time and play it back on his guitar near verbatim. He could record with the intention of flipping the tape to replay it backwards and know exactly which measure he was in on the frontside as to how it would correspond when backwards. That’s genius.

[Doctor Jeff]

For me:

Clapton's fame is from being a pioneer. The world was somehow ready for a slightly modified version of urban blues electric guitar virtuosity, particularly from a hip young white guy who hung out with the Beatles and the Stones. He wasn't necessarily the best, but he was very, very good and he was the first.

Page: I think is more interesting as a composer/producer/band leader than as a guitarist. How highly you rate him depends how much of a Led Zep fan you are. I like them okay, but not a major fan. But generally speaking loud rock isn't my thing.

Beck: the geek virtuoso with a highly personal style. No one else can do what he can do, but for me his name isn't on enough genuinely good music for him to be one of the greats. Blow by Blow is a good album and there are bits and pieces elsewhere but "Cause We've Ended as Lovers" is the only track I think of as genuinely great. And a lot of that is down to Stevie.

Hendrix: the only one on this list who qualifies as genius IMO. Time hasn't been entirely kind to him. It's easy to forget how the culture at the time of his very brief ascendancy encouraged the kind of self-indulgence and lack of quality control that mars a lot of his output. And the rise of a generation of faster, more controlled rock virtuosi can make the claims of "greatest player of all time" look silly (even though they're not). But the best of the studio albums still amounts to a staggeringly inventive, original body of work, especially considering how long it took him to produce it.

I pretty much agree with all of the above. Interesting that 3 of these artists came out of the Yardbirds but had their biggest successes after leaving. And Hendrix had to go to England to get his career going. There was really a hunger in England for American blues filtered through the middle-class (white) British sensibility and style.

They all had rather different approaches to their interpretation of the blues...Crossroads is different from Zepp’s You Shook Me, which is different from Beck’s You Shook Me, which is different from Hendrix’ Red House. All were Delta blues, but different sounds.

I also agree with Hendrix’ genius. That word is thrown around a lot, but it implies someone who changes the paradigm and has a strong degree of self-awareness. (Steve Jobs, for instance). Others had played RnB and danced and shimmied and played guitar behind their backs and used wah and tremolo, but no one had brought such a loud, transgressive style to a mass audience before. I watch those videos like Monterey or Miami and just think how new it was to those people. This wasn’t the Mamas and Papas or Gerry and the Pacemakers. This was a pure shamanic energy.

And yes I just realized that could be said of Elvis (among others) as well. And he was a genius too. But his vocals and sound post-Sun Records were pretty conventional, not boundary-pushing like Hendrix.

As far as raw talent, let’s not forget he played the Sgt Pepper’s album in its entirety in concert the day after it came out. Even the Beatles couldn’t have done that.

Final comment: Electric Ladyland is just one of the best produced and engineered albums of all time, especially for an album made in the 60’s. I listen to it almost as obsessively as I listen to Kind of Blue, and I learn something new each time I hear it.

[lammie200]

...Interesting that 3 of these artists came out of the Yardbirds but had their biggest successes after leaving...

You made a lot of good points. I am not surprised about the above. Besides having these three in the band at one time or another, I don’t think the Yardbirds could have had much lasting value. Relf was kinda lacking decent vocal abilities IMHO. Whether Page, Beck or Clapton cared I don’t know, but I can’t see Relf ever evolving into a real frontman. Again just my opinion.