Eric Clapton vs. Jimmy Hendrix

[turnipmonster]

please, clapton didn't write any book. what can you find in clapton's playing that isn't in buddy guy's or albert king's? in my opinion, not much. hendrix redefined the instrument.

--turnipmonster

[Hermlord]

In terms of being a vituoso guitar player, meaning the ability to produce desired sounds on the guitar without being hindered by technical constraints, it's Jimi, and there's absolutely no conceivable argument otherwise. None. If you ask 1000 well-trained guitarists/musicians, I would be amazed if you got less than 999 agreements.

Now, in terms of musical or songwriting ability, obviously that's much more a matter of taste. I love Clapton, but Hendrix was just on his own plane.

Incidentally, I think Steve Vai might be the most virtuosic guitarist that ever lived, and yes I am including classical guitarists in that. I also think he is better musically than most people give him credit for.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
you're just overlooking that hendrix sounded great on a slow blues, "red house" being a prime example. clapton is a great player and I love his earlier stuff for his melodic sense and great time feel at any tempo. but hendrix had it all, the sound, the concept, and he was a genius rhythm guitarist (clapton is not). jimi's sonic palette was huge, clapton's tone has remained fairly constant.

jimi was a true original and changed the way people think about the guitar. I don't think even a clapton fan would say this about clapton.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Touché

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]

and yes I am including classical guitarists in that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate arguments like this, but do you know about yamashita?

[razor]

Jimi

[twang]

[ QUOTE ]
but hendrix had it all, the sound, the concept, and he was a genius rhythm guitarist (clapton is not).

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget that he died young. That always works wonders for getting a solid genius status. As for the rythm-melody thing, I think that's Hendrix's most important contribution to rock guitar. Of course, he was an absolutely amazing lead player too.

[ QUOTE ]
jimi was a true original and changed the way people think about the guitar. I don't think even a clapton fan would say this about clapton.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, it's pretty much impossible to listen to the radio for more than ten minutes without hearing a couple of Clapton licks. His lead playing has had a HUGE impact on rock guitar. All meat-and-potatoes leads we hear everywhere would probably not be there without Clapton and that's a huge contribution IMHO. I agree that Jimi pushed things a lot more though.

/twang

[twang]

[ QUOTE ]
please, clapton didn't write any book. what can you find in clapton's playing that isn't in buddy guy's or albert king's? in my opinion, not much. hendrix redefined the instrument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jimi and Clapton are both souped up bluesplayers. Sure, Jimi pushed things a lot more, but to be honest, his more experimental stuff haven't had such a huge impact on music as him ripping through old blues licks and playing some of the meanest rythm guitar ever. Both built their careers on the shoulders of Kings and Guys and Wolfs and that's how rock guitar became rock guitar. I just can't imagine what would have happened if Jimi and Clapton wouldn't have been there to popularize the blues.

/twang

[Pocket Trips]

cross town traffic

[istewart]

NT is right on this one. Clapton would tell you the same thing and I believe has, more than once.

Clapton should be mentioned in the same breath as Hendrix, but Hendrix is clearly better.

Also, "Tears in Heaven" is possibly the gayest song ever, that doesn't help his case.

[ucfryan]

They're both awesome.