Who is the best guitarist of all time??

Started by Nellinator25 pages

I'm would suggest that Clapton possesses the skill that if he decided to learn some new techniques and experiment he could pull it off. As it is, he limits himself to one style (which is exceptional at).

Originally posted by Nellinator
I just explained why and I also pointed out that emulate is so open ended that it doesn't bring any reasonable closure to what he actually meant. Second, I think Clatpton is underestimating himself.

I chose the word 'emulate'.

It was an interview a few years back, and they were discussing technique. The interviewer was basically fellating Clapton's ability, and embarrassing him. Then they discussed other guitarists.

He said, as close to wording as I can remember:

'Those guys like Vai and Malmsteen...I can't play like that'

Really?

'Yeah'

You mean the extravagance?

'No, I literally can't move my fingers as fast as those guys do'

That's what he actually meant- he can't play it. The wording made clear that he knew he could not. It wasn't speculation. He is an experienced, fairly old guitarist, so I'm sure he knows his own limits better than you or I.

I sort of figured you did.

I'd say speed doesn't mean he couldn't play the notation which is what I thought we were talking about. Basically all he said then is that he can't play it as well, not that he is unable to hit every note at a slower pace. I'd suggest that he'd be able to play almost anything (if not everything) by Malmsteen or Vai at a slower pace... it probably sound better.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I sort of figured you did.

I'd say speed doesn't mean he couldn't play the notation which is what I thought we were talking about. Basically all he said then is that he can't play it as well, not that he is unable to hit every note at a slower pace. I'd suggest that he'd be able to play almost anything (if not everything) by Malmsteen or Vai at a slower pace... it probably sound better.

Jesus, the audacity is actually sickening.

The man himself said it, what's stopping you accepting it, being wrong?

-AC

Originally posted by Nellinator
I sort of figured you did.

I'd say speed doesn't mean he couldn't play the notation which is what I thought we were talking about. Basically all he said then is that he can't play it as well, not that he is unable to hit every note at a slower pace. I'd suggest that he'd be able to play almost anything (if not everything) by Malmsteen or Vai at a slower pace... it probably sound better.

I could do that, though. That's not playing what they play, really.

I could also run the same marathon as champion runners. Just much, much slower.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Jesus, the audacity is actually sickening.

The man himself said it, what's stopping you accepting it, being wrong?

-AC

Because there is a strong possiblity that I am not.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I could do that, though. That's not playing what they play, really.

I could also run the same marathon as champion runners. Just much, much slower.

Exactly, however, I'm sure Clapton would be able to do it much better than 90% of the population. I'm not saying it's going to be exactly the same, but it should sound the same and be reasonalby close. That's what I've been arguing the entire time.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Because there is a strong possiblity that I am not.
Exactly, however, I'm sure Clapton would be able to do it much better than 90% of the population. I'm not saying it's going to be exactly the same, but it should sound the same and be reasonalby close. That's what I've been arguing the entire time.

So now it's just that good guitarists are better than bad ones?

Pretty much, oversimplified, but basically. Some people have limits in what they can play note for note, a lot don't.

Do you by any chance leave shops buying more than you intended to buy?

Isn't Clapton's legendary nickname "Slowhand"?

Originally posted by Gideon
Isn't Clapton's legendary nickname "Slowhand"?

Yep.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do you by any chance leave shops buying more than you intended to buy?
Never, usually less because I'm a miser, however, your point is not lost on me.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yep.

Then there you go. If Clapton says he's physically not capable, it should be a closed case. However, I will say as far as reputation and "legend" is concerned, he's miles ahead of Vai and Malmsteen.

Originally posted by Gideon
Isn't Clapton's legendary nickname "Slowhand"?
You know why right?

Originally posted by Gideon
Then there you go. If Clapton says he's physically not capable, it should be a closed case. However, I will say as far as reputation and "legend" is concerned, he's miles ahead of Vai and Malmsteen.

It is a closed case.

I agree with the second sentence, though it's not of great relevance to the point.

Chris Impellitteri. A better version of Malmsteen? This guy has really impressed me.

It depends upon what you mean by "best." As far as technical skill goes just about anyone can practice for long enough and be able to play really fast. So, I would say innovation on the guitar is the single best criterion.

With that said, I choose Hendrix.

But as I've said a couple of times, speed doesn't make the best guitarist. It's much easier to learn to play fast then dynamically and with good phrases.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Simply saying that no one could have what Hendrix had isn't proof. Guitarists admitting they can't play another guitarist's material doesn't mean they don't have the ability to, that's simply unfounded, what's to say that if they had homed their skills to the particular type of playing that it wouldn't be possible?

Stop the outrageous audacity, that's EXACTLY what it means. If Eric Clapton says something of his ability, his lack of ability to play Steve Vai stuff, then I will assume that's how it is. It's stupid to say "No, but he might...", no, he's telling you he isn't able to, as many guitarists will, because it's Steve Vai.

Go read the thread, and we'll continue it there. EDIT: Have.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Everyone has the ability to play at any level but it's not a linear thing, the human lifespan forbids anyone becoming a master of all.

That's a ridiculous proposal, and an impossible one.

To suggest anybody has the capacity to play anything ever is grossly uneducated. I strongly suggest you read the previous posts of this thread before continuing the debate.

-AC

Everything you are saying is simply unfounded, there is NO proof of people's capacity to learn, in a sense that it's more limited in some than others. Eric Clapton doesn't know a damn thing about his potential, no one knows about their potential, that's what scientific research is for.