EvilMinstrel

I do get sick of cheap people expecting something very nice for next to no money. No one has any appreciation for the value of good craftsmanship anymore. In the 60's if you didn't want to spring for a Les Paul, you bought a Kay and shut the hell up.

^ I like 1984 that being said, how long was hendrix's prime? any more than 3 or 4 years? yet almost everyone agrees he was the greatest rock player (fwiw i'd probably agree... or at least i wouldn't put ed ahead of him, equal at best). not sure that really accounts for much when you look at the "quality" of our charts To be fair, you're right to point out that their "prime" lasted about the same. Although, in that case it's because Hendrix died.... Unfortuantely, I would put more stock in the UK's charts than the US charts at this point in time, back then it's a toss up. Both suck now, but UK has the edge.

I was going to say exactly this. Why he is not your personal favorite has absolutely nothing to do with why he is or isn't the rest of the world's favorite. Usually when we are talking about greatest of "all time", we are more talking about the collective whole world's favorite and not evilminstrel from L.A.'s personal favorite. Otherwise the title would have been, is Rd your personal favorite, or something to that effect. I don't think the guy you're quoting was actually trying to teach me something, I can figure what my opinion is worth on my own, thanks. It's a discussion, it won't go far if people don't say something.... and I think at this point, whether or not he is the rest of the world's favorite is highly debatable; hence this thread. The question still stands though. It's a valid point, many in this thread are treating '77 to '84 as Ed's prime, when it seems painfully evident that from Diver Down onward was more of shocking drop in directional focus and quality than what should be considered part of an artist's prime. That's when things got derivative and less interesting.

I really don't get that people include '82-'84 as being part of Ed's prime. I can see that he was a fantastic player both solo-wise and as a rhythm player up to and including Fair Warning. Beyond that though it was mostly treading water, or slipping into pop rock mediocrity, though I concede that Women ANd Children First is still a great record. His soloing went downhill pretty fast once he started trying to sound like Holdsworth, which in my opinion was too lofty a goal for him. Granted they have similarities, but Ed's whole "floating solo" thing is really annoying to listen to. I'm not dismissing the notion that the guy had an impact, because he certainly did. However, it isn't nearly what people make it out to be. Good player, granted. Good hook writer, a major plus. Be all, end all? Not even close, but I don't think this was ever his intention anyway. Ed gets a big thumbs up from me as a player, but no way would he make my top 50. Just my 2 cents, reiterated again for the sake of keeping the thread going.

He's still alive! :poke: I know that. I just haven't seen him since I graduated from Pitt 3,000 years ago.

well, sure but i mean the superstrat basically exists because of EVH, so i guess you could call that one even if you're talking about both players' influence on the gear. I don't think so. He definitely helped Kramer and Charvel in that regard, though in the UK guys were already putting humbuckers in their strats. It's all over the place in the early NWOBHM genre. If anything, it would have happened but probably would have been more Fender driven. That said, I'm glad Eddie did have the effect that he did, I love superstrats. Floyds, not quite as much, but superstrats, awesome.

^ yeah but did white or cobain have the guitar players running round trying to figure out what they were doing? not going to question about the adulation of the masses- i don't like either but i'm not going to pretend they weren't popular, because obviously they were. but eddie had both the masses and the guitarists. that's not to say plenty of guitarists didn't also love kurt or jack, of course- obviously they did. But they weren't running round saying, "how the hell does he do THAT?!?!" (were they? ) Jack certainly has had an effect on all these people chasing vintage tone by way of boutique amps anyway. Obviously not the same thing at all, but virtuosity is also not all that big a deal in this day and age.

Well, I'll put it to you this way, I started really paying attention not only who the badass guitarists were, but also who the entire world as a collective thought the badass guitarists were. And I can tell you from about 1980 to 1990, Eddie Van Halen was more noticed, more talked about by fans, music lovers, guitarists, musicians, and the media than all other guitar players on Earth put together at the time, and that included the likes of page Hendrix and Clapton. Those guys definitely has their impact, but by the time the world started noticing Eddie, it was already mostly over for those other guys. People like what they like. You don't have to like Eddies playing or appreciate his music, but to deny the impact and influence he had over the rock listening and playing world is just silly. He has influenced more people than any group of twenty musicians that came after him put together. The world has not seen anything like it since. The only real Iconic guitarist, who MAY be close to a household name isn't even close to having the influence and impact Eddie had in those days and that is slash. Slash is more known outside of people who pay attention to rock, more for his image than his music. It was different with Eddie. His name was thrown around on an almost momentarily bases by masses in those days. Remember the question is who is the greatest rock guitarist. Mention.img people like Stanly Jordan and trying to compare them with Eddie is outside the scope of this topic. Greatest rock guitarist of all time? Yes I'd say quite so. I saw the way the world went nuts for that guy like I've never seen them go nuts for a single musician since. I can't name ONE musician that has become as big of a household name, or as talked about, or as copied, or as revered as Eddie was in his day. Once again, we are talking about rock guitarists. We are not talking about Lady Gaga, or Jlo or Andre Botticelli, etc. Eddie so completely dominated back then, the world is likely to never see the same impact again in history. Ever. Eddie Van Halen. Greatest Rock Guitarist of all time. Everything you posted about the adulation of the masses could been said about Jack White between 99-2009, or Kurt Cobain between about 92-2000 regardless of his death. I post only because I disagree on principle. I can't deny that between 78-81 he was definitely worthy of the praise, but Uli Roth was still better and more innovative at the time, for one. So were a myriad of others. Ed would probably be more revered now if he'd overdosed in '84.

I hope that means that you looked at the post scolfax quoted again and realized that you are coming off like a dolt. Michael Hedges is in your top 50 ROCK guitarists? that guy played (or plays, is he dead or something?) new agey sleepy time music. I thought it was cool 15 or 20 years ago, but only as a novelty. Rock guitarist. ROCK. Re-read the thread title. That said, I think clapner sucks too. I have no idea why people fall on the ground for that lightweight. I like american music played by americans, not the british verion of american music (except the stones, or course. The stones RULE!). So, scratching Michale Hedges off of your top 50 rock guitarists, who is left? Where does Joe Negri rank? One of my favorite guitar teachers. I miss that guy.

This forum really boggles my mind weekly! To answer the question is Vanhalen the greatest hard rock guitarist of all time the answer is no. I could never put a single player in that spot due to a ton of reasons. As someone who bridges the gap between Hendrix and Eddie I would say he is the second most innovative guitarist in rock history.All lead players were measured against Hendrix who everyone thought had taken the electric guitar as far as it was going to go. So I always tell it that Hendrix wrote the first Testament of hard rock. Then in 78 when VH-1 came out Eddie knocked the whole guitar community on its ass with a whole new bag of sonic bombast that sent a million guys heading for the woodshed, and Ed wrote the second Testament. I see that there are a lot of players on this board that were born after Vanhalen came out, so they will never understand the whole jaw dropping what the {censored} is he doing or what is that moment. Neither Hendrix or Eddie even were the first to do any of the techniques that they are noted for, but it was everything they put together to make there style so unique which makes them legends. I don't want to even go into the whole tapping thing, as there were players who did it before him. But none of them even came close with the speed and fluency to make it sound like nothing ever heard before-not even close. There is not a week that goes by here that some all time great player is not ripped to shreds, no matter who they are. Nice to see a lot of love for Page on this thread as it is usually how sloppy he was live lol. Well to be honest I think a lot of Pages problem with being sloppy live was because he wore his ax below his balls to the point he could not even bar an F chord and would have to use his thumb. There are just way to many great players to ever pinpoint one as the best. I doubt Danny Gatton could play like Yngwie and Yngwie like Gatton, or Eddie like Albert Lee and Lee like Eddie. So just like boxing style makes fights! The one thing that they all have in common is that they are in that 1% of un human talent. It is not so hard to copy some players styles as not every great player was amazingly fast including Hendrix. The whole thing is coming up with a style that is original and having a great sense of note selection. The one player that still blows my mind is Jeff Beck as the guy continues to grow as a player and is playing the best guitar of his life in his mid 60's. I also am not one to knock other players and it is all about the music and song. But keeping it real Jack White does not belong in the same category as the players named in this thread. There is nothing Jack White has ever played that I could not pull off when I was 14. I don't mean to disrespect the guy as an artist, but guitar playing is a whole different ball game. It was like when that {censored} rag Rolling Stone did there first list of 100 greatest Rock Guitarist and Randy Rhoades was #85 and Vanhalen #70 while Jack White was #17 and Kurt Cobain #12. Glad I read that in the bathroom as I did not need toilet paper. Well thank God you've come along to straighten us all out. Aside from the first and second testement crap, this is a pretty good post though.

fair point, but I will rebut by pointing out that he has also seemingly forgotten the language That actually made me laugh out loud.

Good lord people. We got people comparing Jimi to Eddy to Santana to Dave Gilmore!?... what the hell is the point of any of those comparisons? You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Each guitar player stated would not even have an opinion about it, he would just thank the guy next to him for creating a style that has encouraged millions of players and essentially broadened the world's horizon to new musical feelings. Compared to Jimi!?!.... ugh the time warp is making me sick. Ed thanks Jimi and if Jimi could have saw how fast and mean Ed ripped he would {censored} himself. You think Jimi was ready for any of what we see now?? Wait 25 years more years... Shame? You pose a stupid question, you get a lot of nonsense back as a result. Welcome to the internet, new guy!

except for maybe "oh, yeah!"... "we love you" Ozzy forgot the lyrics Um, that's funny. But, as it will be a studio album I sort of doubt that will happen, they'll be fresh in his mind because Geezer will have just written them.

I predict A Different Kind Of Truth debuts at #4 or higher on the Billboard 200. Then we can continue to talk about relevancy. Ha, bring it! I'd rather wait until the following week, when it drops like a rock out of the top 40. ...Just kidding. This album will sell, it's one of the most anticipated albums of the year. Will it be any good? I doubt it, but the hope is still there. Will I buy it? I doubt it, but you never know. One thing I am sure of; in years to come when people talk about the 2012 reunion album, it won't be Van Halen's, it will be Black Sabbaths.

Here is the problem with everyone not "getting" Eddie Van Halen. Van Halen music was designed to be played LOUD! Go put mean street on, or unchained, or eruption/you really got me,, or hot for teacher, or running with the devil, or Ice Cream Man, or beautiful girls , or Panama, or Jamies cryin, etc, on, and turn it up LOUD! And THEN tell me Eddie is not the greatest of all time. I dare you. Can't do it, can you? Huh, huh, can you? I didn't think so! I have done that. He is not the greatest.

(a) steel panther- yep, sure, though i think satchel was in a VH tribute band before SP, so how much of a parody it actually is, I don't know. As i said, to get that good at playing involves effort, and pretty much means you have to like it. It's entirely possible (maybe even probable) that they want to play that music and get paid for it, and they figured that the only way to manage that was to set themselves up as an obvious parody band. At very least, it's a parody from a place of liking that music, if that makes sense. i'm not sure you can say the darkness is a parody as such. they were always pretty ambiguous on that front. hedging their bets to get as many fans as possible, I guess. (b) in my defence, I'm not exactly a gigantic white stripes fan. Really don't like them, to tell the truth. But in the singles i've heard by them, they don't sound too much like led zep. At very least, led zep is way better IMO (i do like led zep, a lot). I'd give him 'till 84, probably. And regarding clapton... i only really like his cream days. that's not to say I don't like several of his later songs too (layla, say), but they're more one-offs. I'd say his consistently good period (and again, i'm not the most well-listened clapton fan, I don't have all his albums or anything like that, so this is "in my opinion and as far as i'm aware") was cream. And maybe the bluesbreakers. So what's that, 5 years at most? that's similar to what you're giving eddie i agree- however it might and probably will affect how much influence they have on later bands. Two things; 1) You're ignoring the fact that Clapton started in a group called The Yardbirds, and 2) Parody doesn't mean dislike, or degrade, it just means parody.... and yes, before the band was called Steel Panther they were called Metal Skool, and before that some where in Atomic Punks.

Really? when I was growing up in the 70s we had 3 TV stations: CBS, NBC and ABC, (ok, 4 with PBS if you were a nerd or Sesame Street fan). Each one got "about" 1/3 of the viewership. Now there are a bazillion stations. It has nothing to do with holding interest, it has to do with an audience having other viable options available. In terms of musical interest around 1970, you would look for your inspiration from Clapton, Beck, Hendrix, Page, Keef, Townshend, and a *handful* of others (please don't shoot me if I left 3 or 4 off the list) By the late 70s hundreds and hundreds of bands came and went, some stayed on the scene. This was when Eddie had only arrived along with countless other 2nd / 3rd generation influences after the 60s wave I don't disagree with any of that, but it has nothing to do with what I said.

That is not fair at aface value. You've got to consider their eras. When Clapton was at his peak there were a fraction of the number of mainstream bands then there were at VHs peak. And in the late 60s the whole guitar god thing was brand new. There were a few dozen guitar heros (sorry) by the time Ed came along and the novelty of a guitar virtuoso was not a new concept Irrelevant. What was going on around of them has no influence on their abilities to be interesting, or to lose focus.

yes i can read. "beyond their prime" is not the same as "being current". when they were in their prime they were no more (or little more) current than van halen was/is. So i don't see the point in bringing them up. If they're the two most recent hendrix-influenced players you can think of then hendrix has no more influence than van halen has. You said van halen didn't influence any modern players, and then proceeded to name two non-modern players to try to claim that hendrix had more of an influence. which is being intellectually dishonest, frankly. yes, ok, so the white stripes and black keys are a bit more current, but i don't hear much page in the white stripes (not familiar with the black keys, maybe they're different). Plus certainly the white stripes are no newer than either the darkness or steel panther, and they both have plenty of van halenisms going on. Ok, so maybe they're parody bands/maybe not, but they still sell records. And I'm not sure how much of a parody those types of bands can really be, when it takes a fair bit of effort to play like that. If you really disliked it you just wouldn't bother, kind of thing. Not gonna knock your points at all, but those are both obvious parody bands. C'mon, man. Also, if you can't hear Page's influence on the White Stripes, who have done Zeppelin covers and obvious homages to Zeppelin than I'm not sure you should be pointing out the influences of artists on other artists.

to be fair, clapton probably has influenced a lot of people. anyone who started off awesome and then went boring was probably influenced by him. This makes perfect sense considering Eddie always said he was one of his main influences. Clapton was interesting for a longer period of time though. Almost a decade even. EVH gets 77- to about 1982. Clapton wins that one.

No. For one thing he communicates NOTHING with his music. In fact, how could he? But anyway, sorry Dave, I like you and all, but no. No. This is a good point. His solos really aren't communicative. They don't bring any emotion to the table. They are pretty much just gonzo wankfests. His rhythm is much more important than his soloing though, and his rhythm is incredibly tasty.

Not even remotely. He put out about 4 records of good material, then his solo work went down the {censored}ter when he tried to sound like Allan Holdsworth but couldn't. I would say he is somewhere floating around the top 50, but that's a bout it.

These new MIC Charvels are just starting to hit eBay. Probably the only way to try one is to buy it... The headstock sucks.

Unfortunately, I live in Hollywood where the GC boxes are pillaged by 10 am every morning. Too many broke musicians in LA trying to sell instruments. You pretty much have to buy the boxes out here.