These "my dad can beat up your dad" threads always go nowhere, but sometimes fun anyway, right? Jimi was a better player than Jimmy, but he didn't make it long. Jimmy's real strength was in his producing, not that this takes away from his playing. I love his playing, but after he broke his finger and chased the dragon for too long he was really never the same. Jeff Beck is a better player than Jimmy Page, and he'd tell you so. Many people are... but few of them played with a better band, wrote/produced better songs, or had near the success that Page/Zep had. Jimmy has it all... great player, great band, great songs, longevity... maybe this makes him better. I wouldn't argue against that. But if you just call the two on their playing, Hendrix was a better player in my opinion. But that's what is wrong with these threads, isn't it? It often comes down to opinion. Making a good case doesn't make you right necessarily. Without an "obstacle course" test where players remove their artistic style from the equation, who can say? and such a test would remove was is often the most important factor in making such a decision. Hillel rocks, but can't say I care as much for the band or the songs... good, but not on legendary levels. Zappa is the king in my book, but Vai is a better player than he was, even though he has become what I saw described on youtube as a full fledged guitar poofter these days. Lifeson has always had style AND technique, Howe is made of win... and there are countless less popular but equally talented players that just won't make the cut due to the tangent intangibles... again... opinions. How about Ry Cooder? See what I mean? How about Chet Atkins? Hell, Jerry Reed was a master and few seem to even know it. Of course, this doesn't pertain to the OP, mostly to the other posts that inject the tangent considerations. The poll doesn't lie... most people know that Jimi was a better player... doesn't mean you'd rather hear a Hendrix Album than a Zep Album though. Maybe, maybe not, ya know?
I don't believe you can compare Jimmy to Jimi. Jimmy was a cook, while Jimi was a Chef. Jimi knew guitar inside and out. Jimmy knew how to play.
Fatty, is your response from a guitarist, musician or listener? I ask because calling Hendrix and/or Page overrated, plus the whole craptitude scale response just seems over the top. Maybe its just an age thing. Maybe just situational...I mean, talent versus time. By that I mean, and as an example, talent = Chet Atkins vs. time = Beatles when they first hit the airwaves. Maybe they didn't have talent that you're looking for, but they moved the guitar/music industry. More importantly, they moved the listeners back then. (Okay, okay, maybe purple haze helped move me)
I only know how to eat and not much about cooking. But if they ask me if I could eat a cracker after being HUNGRY, I'd say: "G*d D*mn! That cracker was great! That was DELICIOUS! What you put on that cracker!!?!?"
Fatty, you're a hell of a guy, but that post is just stupid! I saw Hendrix live 4 times and Page, with Led Zep, more times than I can remember, and you don't put "overrated" in a sentence about either guy. And for the record, Jimi was easily better than Page, who is amazing.
Well, they both -could- be considered overrated in some sense, due to so many people thinking they are both the greatest players of all time... but the "craptitude" comment is over the line and just misguided.
