All great players and all with fairly similar sensibilities ... I love all three You missed a guy that played with them that I think may have been better than all three: Tal Farlow
Byrd was a bit different as he loved playing the classical guitar...Kessel and Ellis were a bit more conventional jazz electric guitarists. Byrd never played in the Oscar Peterson Trio....I think Ellis lasted longest??
I believe you are correct... Ellis was great because he had almost a twang to his playing... I bet Denny Dias listened to a lot of Herb Ellis
Kessel apparently got the shits because Peterson liked playing so fucking fast it became unenjoyable. He had a point, Peterson was always trying to be Tatum fast.
Agree and the only guy that can make Tatum fast sound good is Tatum You know who absolutely detested Peterson's playing? Miles
Had no idea. I mean Peterson was a freak, but he was a show off too....he could be sublime but also overblown and bloated on the keys.
Exactly... he was a virtuoso but he didn't have many ideas, he's a guy to listen to as an exercise in jaw-dropping technique ... gimme a Duke Ellington who comparatively sounds like he has two broken hands but has so many ideas he can't possibly get them all out fast enough
It's like my argument with Mustard regarding Faggot Blackmore vs Jimmy Page One guy is an empty headed egotist whose guitar holds nothing but better technique and a whole series of practiced tricks and show-off devices... the other guy's guitar has IDEAS, songs, something to say, something to try, the sloppiness be damned Keith Richards has 1,000 songs in his 5 string Telecaster... Steve Vai still doesn't know what a song is after 40 plus years of playing
Yep that's true. Vai can play like no tomorrow with his tricks, speed and shreds, but his songs and compositions are all just absolute garbage.
No it isn't because then you fall into that obvious trap of people saying "oh of course Jimi Hendrix was the greatest guitar-player ever!!" Whereas people like me who actually know about these things correct them: "Well not exactly. Yes he was great. But he was also technically sloppy, his control of tone was less than perfect, and to be honest he died before he had a chance to register any significant artistic growth or create a big enough catalog so as to enable us to do a comparative analysis with other great guitarists. Essentially, he fired a few shots that hit the target, and then hid in the weeds by dying."
Richie Blackmore has had 50 years to "register" something and in that time has managed to "register" about 1/1000th of what Hendrix registered in 4 years, you trolling git
Not really. Even in 1967 pre-Deep Purple, he was being touted by Hendrix himself as the next great guitarist following Clapton, Beck and Page... You're the one trolling if you reduce yourself to denigrating Blackmore as a guitar player.
Fact is cdogg, whether you like it or not, Blackmore is a unique player and has his own style and sound. That is what counts. There are maybe less than hundred guitar players ever...which have that. You can recognize them after a few notes. Blackmore is one of them. Among many others off the top of my head are Hendrix, Carlos Santana, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Robin Trower, early Eric Clapton (although many try to sound like him), Jeff Beck, Steve Hackett, Mark Knopfler, B.B. King, Albert Collins, Steve Howe, Wes Montgomery, Eddie Van Halen, Slash, etc. Whether you personally like Ritchie Blackmore and/or his music is simply up to taste. Once certain players reach that category (unique sound/tone/style), it is pretty pointless to discuss who is technically the better player. There is no objective measurement and it does not make any sense in my opinion.
Wrong again. He was one of the fist 'Renaissance' style hard rock players. Always looking for classical-European influences in his playing. He also pioneered the use of a scalloped neck for guitar. He wasn't the tightest of players, but is very eclectic and has a decent finger-style approach to boot. His technique seemed to plateau in the late 70's, however. Certainly not overrated. Ability combined with vision excludes him from that judgment.
A musician's output matters... this is art, not sport Blackmore went for sport 99.9% of the time which is reflected in his catalog
You mean he was one of the first shredders (i.e. Guys who aren't good enough to cut it in classical music but know that most dingbat listeners aren't aware of that) which is the epitome of artless showing-off
No because that certainly wasn't his interest in the late-60s/early-70s...and I'm talking 1973 at most. I think where your criticism lies is that Blackmore has worked pretty much exclusively in the very unfashionable world of hard rock and heavy metal. Led Zeppelin were a bit more eclectic and are viewed a classic band/artist the way The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix and The Rolling Stones are, (hence the wider acclaim for Jimmy Page). Deep Purple are viewed as a classic 'hard rock' band and that's why Blackmore is not as deified. That may not be all that fair as Purple incorporated all sorts of classical and stylistic influences and even had a go at country on one song (tongue in cheek, but nevertheless great picking from Blackmore). However, their bread & butter was hard rock hence the lack of respect. In my opinion Purple could never have made an album as diverse or satisfying as Led Zeppelin's Untitled 4th album. That is not a knock on their musical skills as man for man they could absolutely all go toe-to-toe with Zeppelin and then some but they just did not have the vision. I think a lot of that is down to Blackmore actually who had a pretty rigid dogmatic approach of what electric music he was interested in playing in both Deep Purple and Rainbow. Hard rock basically, with some catchy pop elements added in the late 70's/early 80's. In his chosen genre, hard rock, Blackmore is quite simply the best in the business on the guitar. Imitators and new fangled shredders have come and gone but no one touches Blackmore on the guitar. However for the reasons above he will never get his due compared to people like Page or Clapton or Beck, even though as an electric guitarist he could take these guys on no problem. Deep Purple In Rock, Machine Head, Burn and Rainbow Rising are all great records but the first 4-5 Zeppelin albums are better and more varied. But then, I'm sure you know all that.
Nonsense... you're simply strawmanning my argument... the idea that I'm somehow in lock-step with the retarded old rock establishment that deifies Clapton (Clapton! I'm on record as one of his biggest haters) and Hendrix because Hard Rock/Heavy Metal is absolute crud is proper retarded and you know it's not even close to accurate...
God yes Weekend warrior blooze... the Zeus of the blues lawyers Excellent at his limited milieu but it was just that: limited
Im surprised that everybody thinks he was such a brilliant player when there are people like Buddy Guy, Albert Collins, Peter Green and Mick Taylor....Johnny Winter, (who is one of the best blues players in the world, is also very underrated. His vibrato is insane) Stevie Ray Vaughan was very intense. Maybe that's what caught everybody's attention. And then he died. As a player, he didn't do anything amazing.
He's underrated in the sense that he's forgotten because he died young but I never cared much for his playing to be honest... technically good but not a lot to say
His stuff with Billy Cobham, Alphonze Mouzon, early James Gang is blistering. With Deep Purple and beyond....well, "drugs are bad, mmmmkaayyyy" Funny story I read about Jeff Beck about being in Nashville to do a record... Jeff Beck Group (the 'orange album') from early 70s. While he was in the studio, some guy who was sweeping up asked him, "can I play your guitar for a minute?" The guy started playing and completely blew Beck away and left soon after that. And Beck was like "Thank God all these players stay in Nashville"
