You don't like live Hendrix Josh, we get it.

Mostly, when he extended his solos to 10+ minutes, he often lost direction and structure and resorted to 'making sounds'. I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, but it sure ain't more impressive than Clapton, who could bring the listener to orgasm with a 10 minute solo.



So you've surveyed every guitar enthusiast on the planet?



Preference.



But he shouldn't get extra points because he died early. It's like Jeff Buckley on the vocalists list...we just don't know what would've happened, had he lived.

When did I say that?

You can't call me out for preference and then write what you just did. Clapton "bringing the listener to orgasm" is much more subjective than me saying "Hendrix drives the solo in Machine Gun well."

I'm not gonna keep going back and forth like this cause its pretty pointless. You basically said Clapton could overtake Hendrix because you don't like Hendrix's solos as much.

And to clarify, he shouldn't get extra points for dying early, but I don't think its fair to say someone has x amount of great live albums when this guitarist only has y amount, if the second guitarist didn't live very long.

Fair, but him 'driving the solo well' is also subjective. And for the record, there are MANY people that are affected the same way by Clapton's playing.



No, I said it because he has more control over his improv, he's much more subtle. I just think that's a more effective display of improvisation. I even said that Jimi would beat him in reputation, though not by much.



Agreed. But still, it is what it is.

Machine Gun is one of the most universely praised live guitar performances.

I can't believe we are even having this debate. Clapton could never have pulled off something like that.

You're playing a guessing game here. Clapton's style was different, less flashy. Saying that "artist x could never pull off [insert song] like artist y" is kinda dumb.

Equally, you can't talk about Hendrix being unclean and uncontrolled because that's his style (although I can't really think of many examples where he sounds actually sloppy.) As you've agreed, we can only separate them on reputation, which Hendrix wins.

It doesn't matter if you think subtlety is more impressive than flashiness, you still don't really have a point, because you're still saying Clapton is better because you prefer his style. Hendrix (again, usually) had every ounce of control Clapton had, but given that Hendrix was playing more difficult or "flashier" stuff, Hendrix's control would then be more impressive.

Again, we really have to figure out the criteria before having this discussion. "Improv" could mean a number of things and we should be specific or else people would just end up arguing preferences...
Control and precision should be in there, what else? What about "influence in a live setting" or something, though that would probably only apply to a handful on this list.

Fair enough, I'd be happy with either one above the other, tbh.

Ok, that was part 2 of my post. Both points I made still hold true though.

Okay....criteria.

Improv, reputation as a live player, consistency/longevity.

Fair enough?

No, again wtf does "improv" mean? And I do think showmanship or something like it should be there.

Should longevity really be a criterion?

Improv means improvisation...making up licks as you go along.

It's ALWAYS been a criteria, I don't see why it shouldn't be. Stage presence is cool I guess, though I don't think it's all that important.
Why shouldn't longevity be part of it? Because it would penalize Hendrix and Allman?
Actually that's not a bad idead. Maybe 'consistency' instead?