Buckethead vs. Jimi Hendrix

blastingas10 · 11-12-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

The problem with this comparison is that they come from drastically different eras. Buckethead has a world of technology/technique that was developed through the 70s, and 80s that Hendrix didn't really.

Futhermore, Buckethead, more technical or no, existed in an era with digital recording, and clean sounding amps. In the 60s, that clarity was pretty much impossible, and Hendrix played better of his limitations. Where as Buckethead really didn't have as many due to his time.

Not to mention, also, Buckethead is a vast imitator who collects, and assembles things, where as Hendrix was more of an inventor.

I agree. Hendrix definitely was an innovator. He was more innovative and creative in his time than Buckethead is in his time. But how is Buckethead an imitator?

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 11-12-2011, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I agree. Hendrix definitely was an innovator. He was more innovative and creative in his time than Buckethead is in his time. But how is Buckethead an imitator?

I'm not saying he's a complete copycat. I'm saying, his style derives from taking things, and collaging them together. Which involves assembling pieces, and imitating them.

His compositional style comes entirely from collecting pieces together, and iconoclastically throwing them together. IE. each piece of every song he does is a chameleon act.

Which isn't a bad thing at all, I'm just saying.

Hendrix's process was significantly more organic, and more on adapting his sound under an envelope of specific goals rather than referencing to the vast library of music created before him.

Buckethead makes a very fine respectful nod to his past, but Hendrix moved things into the future.

blastingas10 · 11-12-2011, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I'm not saying he's a complete copycat. I'm saying, his style derives from taking things, and collaging them together. Which involves assembling pieces, and imitating them.

His compositional style comes entirely from collecting pieces together, and iconoclastically throwing them together. IE. each piece of every song he does is a chameleon act.

Which isn't a bad thing at all, I'm just saying.

Hendrix's process was significantly more organic, and more on adapting his sound under an envelope of specific goals rather than referencing to the vast library of music created before him.

Buckethead makes a very fine respectful nod to his past, but Hendrix moved things into the future.

I see what you're saying. I'm somewhat surprised to hear you speak of Hendrix in a positive manner. For some reason I wouldn't have picture you being a Hendrix fan.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 11-12-2011, 10:18 PM

Why wouldn't I be a Hendrix fan? During his time, he was considered a radical, and an experimenter. He'd intermix complex compositions with extremely theoretically irreverent solos. He was a ton notch producer, and a creative force that let nobody tell him what to do.

If anything, Hendrix is right up my alley. I'm for liberal musicians, and the man's technique was far from conservative. He even lived homeless for a large portion of his life to pursue his art. He even played with his teeth.

TockTockTock · 11-12-2011, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

He even played with his teeth.

He could also play through the use of his telekinesis...

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 11-12-2011, 10:33 PM

My I add:

blastingas10 · 11-13-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Why wouldn't I be a Hendrix fan? During his time, he was considered a radical, and an experimenter. He'd intermix complex compositions with extremely theoretically irreverent solos. He was a ton notch producer, and a creative force that let nobody tell him what to do.

If anything, Hendrix is right up my alley. I'm for liberal musicians, and the man's technique was far from conservative. He even lived homeless for a large portion of his life to pursue his art. He even played with his teeth.

I just figured that you'd be one of those guys who thinks that he's overrated. But it's cool that you're not. Hendrix was great. Finally, something we can agree on.

I just saw Buckethead last month, I know, I already stated this. It was a great show, but the only thing I didn't like was that he was just shredding and riffing around, not putting much into it. Although it was entertaining, it wasn't very sincere or emotional. But there were a few times when he did get emotional and it was awesome. He can't match the creativity, originality or the emotion of Hendrix.

This is a little off topic, but who do you guys think is the best out of Vai, Buckethead and Satriani?

I say Buckethead.

Guybrush · 11-13-2011, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

I'm not saying he's a complete copycat. I'm saying, his style derives from taking things, and collaging them together. Which involves assembling pieces, and imitating them.

His compositional style comes entirely from collecting pieces together, and iconoclastically throwing them together. IE. each piece of every song he does is a chameleon act.

Which isn't a bad thing at all, I'm just saying.

Hendrix's process was significantly more organic, and more on adapting his sound under an envelope of specific goals rather than referencing to the vast library of music created before him.

Buckethead makes a very fine respectful nod to his past, but Hendrix moved things into the future.

I agree with this. Buckethead said himself in an interview that he studies the style of other guitarists until he can copy them, something he's undoubtedly done with Jimi Hendrix and several others.

He still does have his very unique sounding albums, but if you want to say which is the original and which is the copycat, then of course it's Hendrix and Buckethead in that order.

Love both by the way!