well like i first said.
i dont see why ppl would pay lots of money for a guitar made of basswood.
if its a cheap guitar, well nothing much to say.
but for a guitar costing RM2000 or more and with a basswood body? of cos maybe construction is good.
but im sure other guitars with better woods will have good construction also, especially at around the same price.

You are way off here dude, Kirk is far from being my favourite guitarists. I give credit where it's due and he is good at what he does.

I see you prefer to measure how good a guitarist is based on technical ability and theory. Good for you.

I prefer to take a look at the whole package. Take Hendrix for example, he might not be the most technically gifted guitarists out there but one cannot deny the fact that his music touched many. (Hendrix ain't my favourite player either)

Same with Kirk and countless others guitarist you might not think is good according to your definition(Slash, Angus, ZW)

It is the mark they left that truly make them a great guitarist.

My favourite guitarist as of now are Alexi Laiho, hide, Takuro, Hisashi, Slash, Izzy, Paul Gilbert, Steve Vai, and I like them because of how their music has touched me emotionally.

It is good to be a bit more open minded about music. See less on who can play faster, or play more progression, or who can play the cleanest.

At the end of the day, music is about emotion and it is how the music touched you emotionally that counts.

I will try to give an objective views on different wood commonly used for guitar bodies.

Basswood- Back in the 80s, considered the wood for cheap guitars since it was commonly found on cheap imports. Also probably due to the fact that it's very light. Today, a wider acceptance for it though a small select few still believe that it is a bad tonewood. I will describe basswood as being warm balance, and very clear. It is not a wood that is overly dark or overly bright. Admittedly, not the prettiest wood around as it hardly has any grain.

Alder- Probably the most popular wood for guitars. The sound to me is more of a scooped nature with more emphasis on the bass and treble and slightly less on mids. Great for those sparkly clear bell like clean tones. Quite a heavy wood actually. Has very nice looking grain for clear finish.

Mahogany- Considered the wood for expensive guitars since you only find it on Gibsonback then. The tone is very warm with a lot of emphasis on Bass and mids. I like the tone a lot for distortion cause of the low end and sustain but I hate it for clean. Mahogany guitars that I had played or owned has neck pickup tone that are just too muddy for me. My idea of a great clean tone is the neck pickup of a strat.

Poplar- Also considered a bad wood since you find them mostly on MIM strat of the 90s. I had a 97 MIM strat for a few days and to me, it sounds a lot more warmer and darker than basswood. The weight is about the same as alder. For someone looking for a warmer strat sound, I honestly think poplar is not a bad choice.

I tend to agree with you but don't forget that it's your opinion, not a fact. We all have different definitions of a great guitarist.

Another thing, Hendrix is both a techinically proficient guitarist and an influencial one. Don't forget that back in the 60s not many guitarists can nail blues licks at that speed. His solos may seem a bit laid back but it's because he made it look easy. Put it this way, I doubt that the names you've listed above could nail the technique, phrasing and feel that Hendrix put into his music.

This post has been edited by led_zep_freak: Jul 18 2006, 08:58 PM

would you pay top $ for a good guitar or good wood?
would you buy a really crappy MIA strat or would you rather buy a cheap squire that sounds and plays great?

i guess it all comes down to -guitar collector vs guitarist

OH KAPOOSH!!!! we all know SRV owns them all

jk

Haha but without Hendrix, there won't be a SRV. I ordered the Montreux DVD from
Amazon, pretty good deal for an ori DVD set... can't wait to watch it. Anything by him is killer.

Like I said earlier, more power to everyone if they want to think (insert name of guitarist) suck or great. I just give credit where it's due, if you think that credit is undue, once again, more power to you. It is only natural that everyone has a different idea of how to measure a guitar player.

That said, Hendrix must have been like an alien back then cause there wasn't anyone like him but compared to today's player(Steve Vai, Paul Gilbert, Malmsteen) I dare say Hendrix got nothing on them.

But the way I look at it, we need to judge them within the proper context. Those names I mentioned, of course they will never nailed the Hendrix technique only for the simple fact that they ain't Hendrix. (Where did I say they will anyway?)

They were mentioned because of how they suprised me with their original and unique approach to their music.

hi guys...newbie here...just started my guitar...by my own...

hello...WELCOME to our guitar family....Umm.......u're an e. guitar player or acoustic?

Pls dun be hassle to ask everyone of us here.....we're always be there to help you to get one step closer.....Good Luck..

Aren't you contradicting yourself now?

And Hendrix got nothing on them? Ask Vai, Gilbert and Malmsteem themselves and they will disagree with you wholeheartedly...
Maybe except for Malmsteen but that's just his ego talking. (No offence to Malmsteen fans. )

Please listen more Hendrix stuff before you make another Hendrix comment. You mentioned that being open-minded is good, so I'm gonna throw it back to you. And next time you listen to Hendrix, pay attention to how he constructs his solos, listen to his phrasing, listen to how he places his blues licks at the right time, listen to how laid back his playing his yet he could stay in time, listen to his feel, listen to his blend of rock, funk, and jazz chords/licks, listen to how he blends those influence and make something that's truly his.
And that's only his technical side. If you wanna be more open-minded, check out his song-writing & showmanship.

I'm just pointing out that Hendrix is a technically profecient guitarist, no need to be defensive.

EDIT :
Welcome!!!!

This post has been edited by led_zep_freak: Jul 18 2006, 09:40 PM

hehe...talking of Hendrix...i still can't forget about the 'stupid' act by him...licking the string by his tongue...when my friend heard that...he did try to licking the string....he said it could be pain on tongue....lol...anybody try to lick the string like Hendrix?

This post has been edited by Criptonox89: Jul 18 2006, 09:44 PM

acoustic...suppose to learn e. guitar but currently hooked up with keyboard so need more time so learn some basic on acoustic 1st then switch to e.guitar...is it good to do this???

u can start straightaway with electric also cause u can play an electric the same way u play an accoustic but of course they won't sound or feel the same. an accoustic will always sound best as an accoustic and an electric as an electric.

EDIT: accoustic i mean folk guitar, not classical.

This post has been edited by MetalZone: Jul 18 2006, 09:51 PM

yes....u're supposed to do this....if u're enough good in acoustic....u'll get with electic guitar easily....the base are very important such as fingering/penthathonic......Pratice makes perfect....for sure u must have intrest....

lol...i have lots of interest on musical instrument...still practising hard to improve...

i understand where you are but to be truly great, you need to be great. emotion alone doesnt make one great. like you said its a combination of all things, these days we pass of great with ease..........one popular band and we name him great. i dont refer angus and all as not good, but to be great needs more then that.

if you set great guitarists on the matter on emotion and how it touched people only to be great. then kurt cobain, tom delounge and co would no doubt be great. their music after all touched many, i have to say including me. so would you put them in the guitarist hall of fame for playing power chords? avrils music touched many IMO more then vai, now would you consider her to stand higher then vai? or should simple plan be a better band then the masterful pink floyd or the poetic king crimson?

no, emotion itself doesnt count...we need to look at others.

music is about emotion, i second that. but now, flemenco, jazz, fusion and classical music do have those traids they dont play for mere speed. it would be shallow for one to claim such, after all emotion depends on the person listening and tastes. i like paco's work as much as i enjoy mustaine's. some one else likes yngwie but i think he's a wanker......but since emotion can be a matter of opinion we can only measure a guitarist by their measurable traids, speed and complex hold of theory would be few of them. sure emotion plays a role, but thats highly debatable as emotion differs from people to people....i see jazz with emotion you might not, jazz might touch me, metal might not.

so now looking at paco, mclaughlin who has the ability to wank well, with complex theories that most jazz followers would claim to be full of emotion and claim that metal is pure noise

to

kirk who cant wank well, no complex hold of theory that metal followers would claim to be full of emotion but jazz followers would call noise.

which would be the greater?

to led_zep_freak, at the time hendrix was alive...mclaughlin was shredding.

hide hide hide hide hide hide hide hide hide hide hide !!!!!!!!!!!
and i agree with you.... its the mark n memory they left in you that makes them an awesome guitarist! not just technical ability

I have maintained since the beginning that we should judge a player as a whole package. So which way am I contradicting myself? Do point it out.

For the record, I listen to lots of Hendrix, probably not as much as you but enough to be able to tell that he was revolutionary during his time and I totally respect the fact that he is considered one of the greatest guitarist ever.

But I think I understand what went wrong. When I made the remark that Hendrix got nothing on those players, you must have thought I was insulting Hendrix. I assure you I was not. I was merely pointing out the fact that if we were to compare today's players with Hendrix, lots of them are better than Hendrix both on the technical and theory aspect (Steve Vai, Paul Gilbert, Satriani, Eric Johnson)

But I did said we shouldn't only judge on technical ability, so Hendrix is great, Steve Vai is great too. Different context for different guitarists.

I will admit that when I mentioned that Hendrix is not the most technically amazing guitarist around, I was judging that based on today's guitarists. I guess you got me there. Though they will be some that will say that Clapton is the better guitarist.

I am not defensive, I was merely clarifying cause you sure did make it sound like I was trying to compare Hendrix to the guitarists that I mentioned when I did not.

Peace dude, this is a forum and I always love intense discussions. My tone might sound rude or what not but these are text. Text do not convey tone or emotion. I guess anything argumentative will automatically sound defensive.

which is why micheal angelo doesn't have a very large fanbase.