It's different style ... Hendrix (like Pele in football) who (never learned any music notes) was born to "Rock" and he fused "blues style" into Rock world and "rock" it harder ... like a father of Rock (Bluesy) solo style of later generation. He was "well respected" for this- picked up a guitar at 14,15 yrs old, even played with his wrong hand ... and Gosh he could play the best notes/scales (that people seemed never heard before!! Yet, believe it or not he did not even know how those notes are spelling like LOL Van Halen (more like Maradona/ Ronaldo 96-98) was similar in a sense that he was not a very well musical academical guitarist at all - more like accident) but he made/brought heavy rock into a new whole world (his style and guitar voicing, licking, sounding) - He was one of a king to heavy rock/punk rock kinda soloist - Van Halen reused some old tricks (intentionally or not?) , and made them look like brand new as he invented them (for his trademark "brown sound" combined with his "trade mark" of symmetrical (one and half) scale ...
forgive Pipiolo ... for his ... "taste" but if one would watch Hendrix performing (guitar solo/riff) while he sings with a real LOUD Speakers and good amp = much better then just his sound from a CD ... or laptop audio
Not only was Hendrix an out of this world guitar player, he also had a fantastic voice for the kind of music he did.
to be honest, his voice was (just) better then ... Eric Clapton or David Gilmour and ... your James Hetfield it must be ... Justin Bieber LOL
Of those you mention IMO Mercury's voice/singing was superior. One of the very best ever frontmen, if not the best of all imho.
I love Gilmour's guitar playing. His vioce too. Pink Floyd used to be my favorite band. Dont listen to music that much anymore. My wife really doesnt care for music... Im so whipped...
I am a Floyd's fan When I was young my band used to play them cover ... as I can easily sing a la Gilmour's (or even better - so my band and some said) but my guitar only sound 66% of his
Shows your good taste, mate I got into playing guitar myself a bit when I was around 20. Was very limited at my best...
I agree ... in term of "pure vocal" - voice ranges, pitching and techniques Mercury was a bit better But Robert Plant became a "role model" for any singer of a band who want to be call a "front man" ... Meaning he did not only sing great, but also handle well the stage, posing a whole brand new style and communicate wit fans ... by talking, singing and even by his "special gesture" - not so maniac like Mick Jagger - haha
that? I disagree ... I do play guitar (good enough) to know Brian May never was regarded as better the then Page, but only few names Hendrix, Van Halen and some old Blues guiarists of the 30-40's
these are the most common names as "greatest guitarists of ALL TIME" - 1- Jimmi Hendrix (& Experience) 2- Eric Clapton (Cream) 3- Jimmi Page (LedZ) 4- Keith Richard (Rollin Stones) 5- Jeff Becks - 6- BB KIng - 7- Chuck Berry - 8- Van Halen - 9- Duane Allman - 10-Pete Townsend (the Who) Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitarists-20111123#ixzz313ZW4BgX
I don't like that list. In fact, any ranking of musicians makes little sense. I once read a basketball general manager say "I got into sports because unlike in anything else, in sports there is a clear winner at the end".
understandable just like you ( for no good reason) dislike Pele, Ronaldo ... somebody must have some weird taste right? LOL
The quote went over your head (typically). Music is not like sports, where there are clear "winners" and "losers". Not everyone has to place Led Zeppelin as the best band ever, and you can't force everyone to accept your tastes either. I repeat that such bands as The Police and Van Halen made better songs overall, but I am not forcing you to agree with me.
yes they are ALL SAME ... with two main things: 1- They draw the crowd and make them happy (instant legends, or era) 2- They leave something in history to last over generation (if they are legends) ========================================= For your INFO: - No one called Brazil82 of Zico/Socrates as "losers" in WC - No one called Cruijff, Eusebio, Puskas as "losers" in WC people call them: LEGEND (ok?)
Here he says the same 08:30 onwards. He also says how he was out for three months after the 1966WC injury...
Strange. I have that less than a month after the game against portugal in the 1966 WC he was playing...
I second that, Pele was on sideline for more then 5,6 weeks .. Pele came back by 21 Aug 1966, with Santos beating Benfica 4-0 (friendly tourney in New York w/o Eusebio) http://www.acervosantista.com.br/to...966-santos-4-x-0-benfica-torneio-de-new-york/
I got that he played one game before that, on August 17th against Juventus (SP). Game against Portugal for the WC was July 19th, so he played less than a month after the Morais "butchery". He missed a few Paulista games: - August 7 --- Santos 5 - Noroeste 1 - August 10 -- Santos 3 - Portuguesa Santista 3 - August 14 -- America 2 - Santos 5 - August 17 -- Santos 1 - Juventus 1 (thats Pelé's return game)
Do you know whether that was because of injury or whether some more players got some rest and vacation? It was very normal for that period to see players stop playing before/after an international tournament. I have here that goalkeeper Gylmar didn't play the first two matches either. Apparently he received some rest, but not sure for every player (other ones of the 1966WC squad returned to play for Santos immediately, like the unused 16 years old Edu). Zito was rested for the first three games as well. Lima on the other hand played all three games at the World Cup and played from the beginning (August 7; league restarted on 31 July btw but Santos was freed from playing).
I dont know that. I assume he needed the rest. Also those three first games could have probably been seen as easy ones, so no need to hurry things either.