• The PRS Forum will be shut down for a large portion of the day on Wednseday Feb 28th while we perform some maintenance.

Guitarists everyone else loves, but you think, "meh."

Ok, is this thread about guys who "everyone else loves, but you think "meh?"(meaning you think they aren't that great). Or is this thread about guitarist that everyone else loves, but you just don't like them? Big difference. I see guys saying "this guy has skills, but not my style." I took the OP to ask guys that others think are great, but you don't. So saying Yngwie or Petrucci or DiMeola or etc. would not apply in that context because you aren't questioning their skills, you just don't like them.

If the OP intent was as it reads, then Clapton is one that I never thought was more than a "good" guitar player. Not great, nowhere close to many many others.
 
Personally I think Clapton and Malmsteen are two that I see get a lot of 'Love', but I find Clapton to be 'boring' and not particularly original and Malmsteen to often lack soul and doesn't allow the music to breathe as he plays far too many notes. Of course this is a bit of a generalisation and there are exceptions in their library where some of the music they have made is the exception to these but overall, I have never understood the appeal or why they are rated so high. Yngwie seems to be 'impressive' because of the amount of notes he can play per second or maybe the fact that he plays classical music on an an Electric - and to be honest, Steve Vai's Paganini 5th Caprice (in Crossroads movie) blew me away. Maybe is Yngwie's attitude too that puts me off but I still think a LOT of what he does is 'Meh'

I know this is personal opinion, and I am sure that others will think that Yngwie is great because of all the years practising to play that fast and 'generally' accurately too or Clapton is great for whatever reason but I can only speak for myself...
 
Part of the issue with Clapton, I think, is that he's been playing professionally for over 50 years and his recorded history is there for all to see, the good, the bad and the indifferent. If you go back and pick out Clapton's best music, it's almost always the songs/albums where he was "pushed" by other great players, i.e. - Jack and Ginger, or Duane, or Steve Winwood, or George, or BB, or <insert famous player here>. IMO he plays to the level of those he plays with, which sometimes leaves some of his solo albums feeling fairly lazy-again IMO.

So now that I've ragged on him, the best concert I've ever seen was Clapton just 2 days after SRV died. He came on stage and just wailed without saying anything to the crowd for 3 or 4 songs, letting his guitar talk for him and it was jaw dropping. Obviously that kind of intensity is impossible to continue over an entire tour or even an album, but it was incredible to witness "God" firsthand.
 
Part of the issue with Clapton, I think, is that he's been playing professionally for over 50 years and his recorded history is there for all to see, the good, the bad and the indifferent. If you go back and pick out Clapton's best music, it's almost always the songs/albums where he was "pushed" by other great players, i.e. - Jack and Ginger, or Duane, or Steve Winwood, or George, or BB, or <insert famous player here>. IMO he plays to the level of those he plays with, which sometimes leaves some of his solo albums feeling fairly lazy-again IMO.

So now that I've ragged on him, the best concert I've ever seen was Clapton just 2 days after SRV died. He came on stage and just wailed without saying anything to the crowd for 3 or 4 songs, letting his guitar talk for him and it was jaw dropping. Obviously that kind of intensity is impossible to continue over an entire tour or even an album, but it was incredible to witness "God" firsthand.

I'd agree. Seeing him live is a different story. SRV was great on record, but live, OMG, a completely different level. Clapton is that way, to an extent, too. Especially if you go back a couple of decades. Some great shows! This is part of the reason I continue to say that John Mayer is this era's EC. In that they are both capable of so much more than what their recorded output. Even way back in his Berklee days JM stated that he wanted to be the next SRV. I know, young kid, etc. But, he has the talent to do it, yet chooses not to. Clapton is the same way. He can blow with the best of them, but he doesn't. Wish he would!
 

Would you rather see me be dishonest and say that I feel directly inspired by his stuff? lol
It was what it was for its time, but that's not the topic for this thread as far as I'm concerned. I honestly don't feel anything in particular from his discography that was particularly moving for me.
 
Would you rather see me be dishonest and say that I feel directly inspired by his stuff? lol
It was what it was for its time, but that's not the topic for this thread as far as I'm concerned. I honestly don't feel anything in particular from his discography that was particularly moving for me.

I’m not suggesting that you not post your true feelings. I’m sure there are many that don’t agree with my opinions.

I would guess that we grew up in different generations. I remember the 60s and how Jimi revolutionized guitar playing.
 
I would guess that we grew up in different generations.

Your guess would be correct, though I was brought up on a fair amount of music from/near those previous generations for what it's worth. Like almost anything else, some of it I liked and some of it eh, not so much.
 
Would you rather see me be dishonest and say that I feel directly inspired by his stuff? lol
It was what it was for its time, but that's not the topic for this thread as far as I'm concerned. I honestly don't feel anything in particular from his discography that was particularly moving for me.

How many of the guitarists that inspire you though were inspired by Jimi? Even those that may cite other guitarists as more direct inspiration were probably inspired by Jimi - for example if you were to cite Joe Satriani as a big musical influence, he was influenced by Jimi so there is almost a family tree were Jimi sits at the top.

I know that Jimi has been super-ceded and by that, I mean that people have gone on from where Jimi left off and taken music beyond that point now but you also have to remember that Jimi died young and was therefore not able to continue advancing. Despite that though, he was probably the most influential guitarist of all time.

I can understand that you may not necessarily appreciate his music and see his influence because modern guitarists who were inspired by him, learned to play Jimi's music and because they lived, take it beyond where Jimi stopped but even at the core of these guitarists, there is 'Jimi'. I wasn't alive when Jimi was - he died a few years before I was born and didn't start discovering my own taste in music until the very late 70's, early 80's. I really discovered Jimi by looking at the guitarists that inspired my heroes. John Petrucci, often cited as one of the greats, was inspired by artists that were inspired by Jimi so a lot of roads lead to Jimi. Point is, even if you can't appreciate his music today, then you can appreciate the fact that he was still a very inspirational musician.
 
I’m not suggesting that you not post your true feelings. I’m sure there are many that don’t agree with my opinions.

I would guess that we grew up in different generations. I remember the 60s and how Jimi revolutionized guitar playing.

I grew up then too and always loved hearing Jimi. Despite his influence as an artist I dont think he revolutionised guitar playing. Everyone (well... 98%) was playing pentatonic then. Jimi included.
 
I grew up then too and always loved hearing Jimi. Despite his influence as an artist I dont think he revolutionised guitar playing. Everyone (well... 98%) was playing pentatonic then. Jimi included.

Well, so did Chuck Berry, and Eddie, and and and....... I don't think just because he played pentatonic prevents him from greatly influencing a vast number of players down the line. What we may have "herya, is a failya to communicate." (ie. semantics). "Revolutionized" may be the wrong word, but he certainly introduced a style emulated by many.

I remember thinking the first time I heard Purple Haze thinking who and wtf is that? :eek:...............:D:D
 
How many of the guitarists that inspire you though were inspired by Jimi?

Tough call. To be fair, there's quite a few for me that were either long gone before Jimi was a thing, or were involved a style pretty separate from his. i.e- Augustin Barrios Mangore

I can understand that you may not necessarily appreciate his music and see his influence because modern guitarists who were inspired by him, learned to play Jimi's music
Point is, even if you can't appreciate his music today, then you can appreciate the fact that he was still a very inspirational musician.

Like I said earlier, I understand Hendrix had his thing that was what it was for its time. I understand that influenced others even those alive now, so no there's no need to try beating that like a dead horse. But I'm still not obligated to appreciate it or revere it (for a lack of better words) directly.
I would count in a way- when it involves learning, that includes both what to do and what not to do, and I feel like I took more of the latter when it comes to his work. When picking apart others' stuff to incorporate on your own, you may find some things that you like and some not so much, and that's fine.
 
There are plenty of guitarists that I can appreciate from one or more points of view, such as song-writing, or technical playing, or revolutionary stylings, that do not inspire me to emulate them (from a learning a technique or style), or even listen to them as background music.

But I won't list them, because what's the point? I haven't seen a guitarist named here that I wouldn't at least stop and listen to if they were playing in a local bar as I walked by - not likely of course, because they are "famous enough" to be the subjects of this thread, and in some cases deceased. They would also be someone I would probably stop to watch or listen to while flipping TV channels. Sure, I might not buy their CD or a concert ticket, or I might have their CD and it never gets played.

And stuff goes through phases. I will use one example from this thread: Clapton. I have ebbed and flowed in how much I listen to him, and there was a time where I just didn't see the sparkle. And other times where I listen and say to myself, dang, that's some mighty fine playing! I have a few of his CDs, but not a lot. Anyway, just an example, not really trying to focus on him.
 
Jimi was only "playing pentatonic"?? Not sure he even knew what "pentatonic" was...

Why Hendrix is "revolutionary" is the WAY he played, his unheard of at the time use of controlled distortion. I don't listen to him all that much either, but from a historical point of view there is no one more "revolutionary" in rock guitar.

Totally fine to say "meh" to Hendrix, but you have to acknowledge his influence, as Mozzi pointed out so nicely above.
 
I remember thinking the first time I heard Purple Haze thinking who and wtf is that? :eek:...............:D:D

I sure I did too.
And later after I worked it I thought, ok... so now how do I get all that gain?

As for the general feeling about Clapton I have to say that I always felt that he was overrated, certainly during the Cream days. But I hadn't heard the Beano Album then. I didnt hear it until about 2005 or so. I did have more respect for him after that. And I'm sure that if I had heard it back in the day, it would have changed my opinion about him.

What has to be acknowledged is that a lot of the time its a question of who did it first. Those artists are remembered. After Clapton showed what could be done, everybody was overdriving amps. I remember it clearly. Gain and higher volume spread like a virus. Inside a year or so it was ubiquitous. Even bands that had never used that sound before were playing gain infused riffs & licks.
 
Back
Top